Letters to the Editor
-
The irony in all of this
is that whether you call the native (meaning migrated here like the white man but sooner than he did) people of the North American, Native Americans or Indians. It is all the same. A white man thought he landed elsewhere so they got called Indians. Then another white man gets his name on the continent (Amerigo Vespucci) so they're native 'Americans'.
As a Indians fan, I would never want the name changed. I'd miss Chief Wahoo too if he went. I get why people are offended, but I hardly think that fans painted like Wahoo are racist.
You know the deadliest thing that Europeans unleashed on the native cultures... small pox and other diseases. Only after those had wiped everyone out where the Europeans so easily able to conquer the joint.
While we are at it, lets get rid of the 'Fighting Irish' too and Lucky Charms cereal.
Come on people, the mascot isn't creating racists and has only one value and meaning today: It represents a baseball team. Just like fighting irish represent a college, and spartans roam the land endlessly.
-
Is this really that complicated?
I couldn't agree more about the Wahoo logo. It's patently ridiculous, and as Posnanski said, it's not the worst thing in the world, but eliminating it's an easy fix to make and it's well past time for it to go.
Why is it so hard for so many to see why it's problematic to use team names or mascots that represent stereotypes of race or ethnicity? Good names--Bears, Eagles, Catamounts. Boilermakers. Sun Devils. Buckeyes, Rockies, Aquasox. Bad names--Redskins, Midgets, Polacks, Frogs (if your mascot has a striped shirt and a beret).
If you want to borrow the iconography of a cultural group, don't name your team after an entire people. As long as your imagery is attentively chosen, you're safe with Braves, Warriors, Raiders, Centurions, Zouaves, Pirates, Samurai, Knights and the like.
-
Quick Addition
want to tackle a real racist issue: tell the National Park Service to have more signs about the Tribes that fought Custer around Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument. I was recently in Montana and the "Custer took a pee here" amount of signs is ridiculous.
-
Why have losers as mascots?
Yes, it is inappropriate to have Native Americans as a sports team mascot. After all, sports is about winning and Native Americans are among history's ultimate losers.
-
Black Hawks
Are the Chicago Black Hawks getting a pass here because the reference is to an individual and the picture is reasonable, or is the NHL too minor league to bother with?
-
Indians beat Yankees 4 games to 1!
Nothing else matters!
Lord love the Indians and their fans.
Wahoo!
-
Not so fast KIng
I don't think that King Kaufman arguement of tying the mascots and fans acting as cartoonish cariatures with the team names that he personally doesn't idealogically approves of works.They are seperate issues.The outrageous Hollywood caricatures(isn't that where most people build biased views from movie,books and music)that fans use to cheer on their team are not helpful to anyone and should be put to rest.Just llke movies that portray Italians and Latinos as gangsters or comic opera buffoons could be put to rest but we know that stereotype is a big seller.See the success of Sopranoes but the failure of Cane.
Teams names though are picked to connote strength or prowess.It is an interesting stat that a poll done of Native Americans find that around 80% have no trouble with the team names.I know that King Kaufman probably reads more than he travels or doesn't travel far from upper middle class enclaves that the pro sport world has become but having grown up in a city with a sizeable Native American population you see a number of Chiefs,Blackhawks,Indians and Redskins jackets,t-shirts and ballcaps.Maybe the reason being is that in every other aspect of this city's life and politics your heritage is marginalized to the extreme.Here is a team where something is named after you for reasons of prowess and ability and some of those teams are winners.I guess the problem like always for Native Americans is their 80% is small potatoes next to the more numerous white liberals of North America who decide politcal agendas.
-
concur!
I'm a lifelong Clevelander and I completely agree about Chief Wahoo.
Sadly, I think this sort of attention makes Wahoo rather less likely to go away than more. People who would have barely noticed a logo change normally will get all worked up if they think a logo change is a response to pressure from without. It doesn't make much sense, but that's people for you.
-
Lighten up, the names come out of respect
King: I was born and raised on the Rez in South Dakota. I know some Indians, went to school with them, played sports with them, our HS mascot was Warriors. I am sure no one believes that any thing other than respect was meant in choosing that mascot name.
I also don't think anything but respect was meant in naming national level teams after Indians in the past. There is a movement to rename Indian to Native American, but as pointed out by one writer, that's not accurate either. Naming them Indians by Columbus in the first instance was not meant to denigrate. My family heritage is Scandinavian, and I am proud that a team is named Vikings. I think that name was chosed for the same reason as Braves, Chiefs, Warriors, etc. (Redskins is another issue; I would not call a Lakota [used to be known as Sioux] or any other Indian a Redskin to his face).
As for caricatures, its done all the time, even making mice and ducks look human. The entertainment world does it often, as pointed out by another writer. So, the extension from Indians to Chief Wahoo I maintain was also not done to denigrate.
My experience is similar to the one Prince Myskin had, referring to humor among the Indians that I know. They can take a joke and dish them out. They have a talent for understated humor as keen as any Englishman. They mostly would see us wasichies as a bit up tight about something they don't see as a problem.
I am much more concerned about drugs in sports than team names...HighPlainsJoker