Letters to the Editor
-
Nice going, KK
Fifteen pages of letters so far and it will go higher.
Surely you had to know the acrimony this subject causes.
But it may serve one purpose if not others: There has not been one letter written in support of the Cleveland mascot that makes the case for its continued use. The ignorance of those who try to defend it is nothing but racism. The fact that they don't see it that way makes it all the worse for them. They keep digging themselves in deeper and exposing their prejudice and ignorance with every new twist while trying to defend the indefensible.
Like Bill O'Rielly's ignorant remarks about going to a black-owned restaurant in Harlem, the defenders of Chief Wahoo don't even comprehend that what they are saying is racist. They just don't get it. O'Rielly doesn't get it either.
O'Rielly just couldn't shut up after it was pointed out to him, explained to him, dozens of times, that his remarks were insulting and demeaning to everyone, of every race.
Now these bigots here who defend a racial stereotype as being OK for one reason or another, like O'Rielly, do not know when to quit digging themselves in deeper.
-
Of course it's racist.
And I'm disgusted so many people say 'it's just a cartoon!' Did you ever see some of our World War II propaganda depicting the evil Yellow Menace Japanese? Just a cartoon my ass.
I think we should be sensitive and respectful to Native Americans. But most of what I'm reading here--by and large--is a bunch of non-Native Americans expressing how Chief Wahoo offends THEIR sensibilities.
How wonderful, that you, through the magic of the Internet, can see exactly how many of us offended by Chief Wahoo are Native American. Where can I learn to do that?
-
Some replies
Long thread, lots of replies.
First of all, I just want to say that I never knew Clevelanders were as sensitive as bicycle racing fans. For the record, not that it matters: I don't hate Cleveland. I have no particular opinion about Cleveland. I've never really spent any time there. I'm sure it's nice.
Also Ohio. It seems to me that, for a person who lives so far from Ohio, I've known in my lifetime a disproportionate number of people who are from Ohio, including a longtime musical collaborator and, at least at the time I met her -- she's not a native but was living there -- my wife. Ohio's aces with me, from what I know about it.
I do always root against Ohio State. Is that it?
Anyway, speaking as a person who has no stake in Cleveland one way or the other, I'd say that out here in the rest of the country the whole "the river caught fire" line of ridicule of the city has been extinct for at least 15 years. It might be time to adjust the self-image too, Clevelanders.
PrinceMyshkin If, every time the Indians claw their way into first place in their division and step onto the national stage, Chief Wahoo makes intelligent people like King Kaufman think the people of Cleveland are more racist than those who live in Chicago, or Boston, or Los Angeles, or [name a tiny town somewhere in the heartland], then that is the best reason for killing him.
I don't think the people of Cleveland are more racist than anywhere else. I have no idea about that and didn't say it. The baseball team's logo is racist, that's all. That doesn't reflect on the average Clevelander's racism any more than the fact that the Indians are about to win the American League means people in Cleveland are better baseball players than those who live in Chicago or Boston etc.
People in Cleveland who like the logo, I'm guessing, mostly like it because it's what the logo's always been, not because they're racists who love racist logos.
captcrisis Odd that nobody is asking: what do actual Indians think of this?
This is of course not even close to being true.
To have an Indian mascot banned because it offends white people, but not Indians, would be elitist, as well as bizarre.
I suppose that's true, though it's totally irrelevant to the current conversation.
ThresherK The Indians are named after a real indian, the Penobscot (Maine) Louis Sockalexis, so it seems that's more of a reason than many other teams. (I can't belive we're five pages in and nobody has mentioned this yet.)
Well, I mentioned it in the column, in reference to Cleveland native, lifelong Indians fan and excellent baseball writer Joe Posnanski writing that the idea that the Indians are named after Sockalexis is a complete cock and bull story. Also, the Penobscots have formally requested in a letter to the Indians that the club discontinue the use of Chief Wahoo. They didn't even get the courtesy of a reply. Of course, it's only been seven years.
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=141437&ac=PHnws
Keppy It is like if you make Wahoo go away and the Indians change the team name, all is right with the world. You'll be able to sleep at night because you fixed a real injustice and never even had to see or care about real Native Americans to do it. I'm really hoping my assumption makes an ass out of me. (Really I am)
I think you have good reason to be hopeful.
A Gig Old Geek One year they can be the Braves, the next, the Crackers.
I kind of like that idea.
(more in next post)
-
Some more replies
tbrandel And isn't intent the core of racism?
No.
This is the Indians company line too: There's no intent to demean, therefore it can't be demeaning.
This is just simply wrong.
A previous poster noted that 80% of Native Americans don't have a problem with Indian-themed mascots in sports. Taking for granted that that statistic is accurate (who knows if it is), then isn't it our own guilt that's driving this movement to eliminate Indian-themed mascots rather than the genuine outrage of Native Americans themselves?
No. As sansho1 pointed out, 20 percent is a lot of people. If 20 percent of Irish people were offended by "Fighting Irish," as opposed to just the occasional person who's not offended at all by it but just thinks he's making a clever rhetorical point, then there would be a legitimate argument to discontinue the use of the name and the accompanying imagery.
What percent of the general public do you think would find it offensive to see explicit hardcore pornography on TV? I'm not talking about people who think, "Ah, no, I don't like that." I'm talking people who are offended by it, who consider it an insult. You think it's 20? I don't. If it is, I bet it's not much more than that. I don't know if that number's accurate either -- it's been suggested elsewhere in this thread that the correct figure is 81 percent -- but 20 percent's a lot. Twenty percent finding something offensive means it's offensive.
It's just been my experience that the fans of teams with Indian-themed mascots are cheering for their team, not trying to hold Native Americans down.
I don't think that's in dispute
And often times it actually raises awareness and breeds respect for Native American culture.
Oftentimes? Such as when? And if a dehumanizing, demeaning caricature really can do that for respect, think what it can do for disrespect. This breeds respect and awareness thing, I think, is a bogus fig leaf. It can always be used to cover for any racist imagery. Hey, this pickaninny mascot we have just breeds awareness and respect for black people.
Mikes Pace misty fog turns into clear shot of King in front of his computer. Voiceover::: Nothing was on last night. I watched Ken Burns's 'The War' and it was amazing. Really amazing. Didn't watch any sports, don't have jack to talk about. Shoot, it's not Friday, I'm not excited about the NFL this week, the BCS thing is a mess - but what can I argue about it? Nothing. Nothing I can stand by in a few weeks. Did I finish off the turkey breast? Preview a playoff game? Nah, I'm excited to watch it, but not excited enough to preview it. Basketball? Of course not. Hockey? ibid. hmm. This is tough. I wish my column were called 'Sports When I Feel Like It'
Uncanny. Except the part about turkey.
Mike_in_NM If you are sincere about your concern for Native Americans, there are far more useful and needed things you can do besides writing an angry column or letter in Salon.com. Otherwise, you are just a hypocrite.
So you're only allowed to express an opinion on a subject if you're willing to roll up your sleeves and become an activist about it? I don't think falling short of that ideal makes me or any of the letter writers in this thread a hypocrite. Agreed that many issues facing Indians are more important than a sports team logo. But I write a sports column. The issues (sports team logos, Native Americans) intersect at this topic, so I'm writing about Native Americans this time out. That doesn't make me a hypocrite any more than my having written about gays in sports and not immediately quit my job to become a gay-rights activist makes me a hypocrite. There are bigger issues for gays than gays in sports.
bwunderlick The argument against Chief Wahoo is its a racist characature that diminishes the humanity of Native Americans and their diverse culture and history (which includes genocide). It is not, "oh, let's force people to be pc because it is so much fun!" Its an actual reading of a symbol that has meaning.
It's a little wordy to become an aphorism, but something I wrote earlier this year about the Chief Illiniwek argument was widely quoted around the Interweb:
"Politically correct is what some people call you if they don't like it when you ask them to have some respect for other people."