New Cleveland baseball logo

[Questdog]

"Spiders" would be offensive to the arachnophobes.......

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by Questdog

"Spiders" would be offensive to the arachnophobes.......

No kidding!! I'd seriously be creeped out by that team lol!

[rpriske]

Originally Posted by Questdog

"Spiders" would be offensive to the arachnophobes.......

I assume you are kidding. That is not an equivalent analogy.

[Dutch Alexander]

Originally Posted by MrBojangles

Here's an idea (EDIT: referring to below "Caucasians" picture, not sure how to include it with the quote)

This would probably be considered offensive by a lot of people for different reasons. There would be complaints that this logo excludes non-whites and therefor it is racist!

I view the Indians logo as just a silly caraciture. Is it meant to be offensive? No, I don't think so. It's a traditional logo from less sensitive times. Today we live in a time of extreme political correctness. Yes, in the past native americans were treated horribly and were slaughtered by the thousands. With this in the back of peoples minds when they see a carricature of an "indian" they have a knee-jerk reaction: Ooh, this is racist! This has become an automatic reflex were people are even afraid if they do not react this way they might be considered racist. Oh, the horror!

If the Cleveland baseball team called themselves Indian Killers with a logo showing native American women and children being trampled by horses and being shot in the back by soldiers riding those horses, well that might be a little bit racist. But a silly caricature? What about the below logo of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. Is this also racist? Does this portray all Irish as being leprechauns with a hot temper?

I don't see a major difference between the two logo's. They are both carricatures. I do see a major difference in the way people react to both logo's. An interesting sociological question why this is so. You could even turn this around and argue that people who react very different to both logo's are being racist. Both logo's reflect a certain group of people but subconsiously people apparently do not view these groups as being equal. The poor "indians" can't stand up for themselves and need to be protected? People feel responsible for the terrible way the native Americans were treated by their ancestors and therefor native americans can only be portrait in a positive way? A carricature of an Irishman is allowed but a carricature of an "indian" is not done?

If someone were to make a carricature about my own "race" and heritage, would I be offended? No chance. If people did their best to offend me, at best I would find it mildy ammusing, at worst sleep-inducingly boring.

Is the Indians logo a silly caricature? Yes it is, very silly indeed.
Is the Indians logo insensitive? Perhaps, but not more than the ND logo.
Is the Indians logo meant to degrade native Americans? I do not think this was the intention of the designer. People need to stop being so damn sensitive. These days anything that can be perceived as racist even in the slightest is automatically considered to be racist and if you do not agree you are a racist. This needs to stop.
Should the Indians change their logo? I don't care, they can change it if they want to. I'm not really fan of the logo anyway.
Do the Indians NEED to change the logo because it is racist? No, they do not NEED to change it. Calling this racism in my minds degrades the term racism and is offensive to victims of real racism.

Oh, by the way. Irish need not to reply.

[P*Funk]

My thought is why not reach out to the Indian tribes who have historical claims and heritage in the Cleveland area and try to create some kind of consensus with them so that rather than the name being potentially insulting, mocking, and offensive it becomes something that's celebrating and empowering to the identity of the Native Americans who feel vexed by losing their identity and seeing the rest of the country use it for a caricature.

It would be the smartest way in my view to appeal to both the traditionalists who want no change and the ardent progressives who demand total unilateral change.

Then again that would be a sensible compromise so it'll never happen.

[ThatSeventiesGuy]

Originally Posted by P*Funk

My thought is why not reach out to the Indian tribes who have historical claims and heritage in the Cleveland area and try to create some kind of consensus with them so that rather than the name being potentially insulting, mocking, and offensive it becomes something that's celebrating and empowering to the identity of the Native Americans who feel vexed by losing their identity and seeing the rest of the country use it for a caricature.

It would be the smartest way in my view to appeal to both the traditionalists who want no change and the ardent progressives who demand total unilateral change.

Then again that would be a sensible compromise so it'll never happen.

This. Exactly what the Indianapolis Indians AAA team did. "You could look it up", as Yogi would say.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by P*Funk

My thought is why not reach out to the Indian tribes who have historical claims and heritage in the Cleveland area and try to create some kind of consensus with them so that rather than the name being potentially insulting, mocking, and offensive it becomes something that's celebrating and empowering to the identity of the Native Americans who feel vexed by losing their identity and seeing the rest of the country use it for a caricature.

It would be the smartest way in my view to appeal to both the traditionalists who want no change and the ardent progressives who demand total unilateral change.

Then again that would be a sensible compromise so it'll never happen.

Originally Posted by ThatSeventiesGuy

This. Exactly what the Indianapolis Indians AAA team did. "You could look it up", as Yogi would say.

My opinion one more time, and then I will cease and desist. It's not the name. It's the logo. The name "Indians" goes fine with any of these logos without any disparagement whatsoever.

On the other hand, the name "Redskins" cannot be salvaged by any logo, not even the respectful one on the right which happens to be their logo.

[NoOne]

if you aren't a part of the group that is being alienated you can't really attest to its offensiveness. while the irish parallel sort of applies, the irish haven't faced that sort or racism for a few generations now.

on the other hand, i don't see what the fuss is over a whimsical team mascot. there are warriors, knights, cavaliers, bandits, etc etc... some of the schools in the south have names that glorify their failed attempt at seccession or something about it. all sorts of good, neutral and terrible things are used. mascots aren't choosen because they represent weakness, either. no one is making a joke out of themselves then going out and trying to compete.

bottom line, i think the root of concern related to team mascots is far better served focusing it's eye somewhere more useful or more impactful.

I think history shows that in many instances a little communication goes a long way. like another's example above, CMU worked with the local tribe and learned that they had no care about using chippewas as the name but did not like the indain head on the helmet... so they changed it... easy as pie... everyone is happy with virtually no effort whatsoever.

[rjl518]

ifeel that if you change the CLE Indians to something else...then all other native american nicknames will be changed as well...

Central Michigan Chippewas
Florida State Seminoles
Chicago Blackhawks
Kansas City Chiefs
Atlanta Braves
Illinois Fighting Illini
Utah Utes
just saying...might as well

[DJP53916]

Cleveland has been called the Indians for about 100 years. They have had their logo for about 70 years now. Since most teams do change up their logos after extended periods of time, it stands to reason that at some point, the logo will probably be changed sometime in the future as well. It has already been deemphasized, and now that boring looking "Block C" is the primary logo.

If Larry and Paul Dolan decide for whatever reason they want to make a change to either or both of the name and logo, they will. If they want to keep it as is, they will. SInce they are the men who write the checks, it is their decision to make.

I really don't want to mix my politics with my sports, so I will refrain from doing so as much as possible. Baseball is my diversion from politics. All I will say about this is that the people who speak the loudest against such a name or logo do not have any real consistency with their outrage in such matters, generally speaking. There isn't a single group of people in the history of the world that hasn't had to face discrimination, bigotry, or outright racism against them by somebody at some point. Not one. Most team nicknames and logos were initially used at a time when such an image or name wasn't considered "offensive" by their time period's standards, so I highly doubt they were used in an intentionally disparaging manner. I'm sure that they are exceptions to the rule, but I don't want to get into those exceptions, because I don't have the benefit of context of the time period when those names, images, etc. were created, and without that context, those names and/or images sure look more intentionally disparaging; even with context, it's likely they still are, but that's another discussion for another time.

Long story short, if someone wants to be offended by something, they will be offended. If someone wants to be offensive about something, they will be offensive. If the Dolans think they will make more money making a change to both or either the name or logo, then they are likely to make a change. If they value the history of both or either more than anything else, it is not likely to change. If enough of the employees of the organization, and enough of the fan base of the team make enough waves over this (one way or another), I'm sure it would have some impact on the decision, whether they are kept or changed.

[Sweed]

I've avoided this thread for so long and should know better....

Look nobody names a team to degrade themselves and then goes out to play. Names project strength, power, pride etc. A lot of people say Indians is ok, it's just the logo. Well guess what? A lot want the name to go too. Who's right? Who decides?

As Dutch pointed out the logo is a caricature. If they want to remove it fine. If they don't that's fine too. Save the racist comments for things that are racist and stop devaluing the word. I thought the "Caucasians" shirt in Dutch's post was hilarious, though the dollar sign above his head was offensive Amazing change the skin and hair color and there is no resemblance to an Indian


A caricature of a Viking? Ok.

Irish? Sure.

Bandit? Of course

Bandito? NO WAY!

Warrior? Only if they have a Euro (Greek, Roman, Viking etc.) shield, helmet and weapon. Feathered headdress and tomahawk? NO!

Spartans and Trojans along with they're silly caricature mascots are good to go!

Buccaneer or Pirate? Of course as long as they are Caucasian. There were no pirates of color, right? Or is it racist that the logos only show Caucasians? So, offended because not included or offended if included?

Padres? Anyone want to take this one on?

Tomahawk chop? No! Viking war horn blowing and swinging around a large sword? Sure, they're my ancestors (along with the Irish) and we're all barbarians. But wait we're really not. I'm offended!

Back when Drew Carey hosted "Who's Line Is It Anyway" an almost weekly feature was the panel making up an "Irish drinking song". Not a word of protest, just laughing at the Irish's expense. Oh my! Doesn't matter, we're all drunks anyway, right?

City and state names? Should they be changed? If not, why not?

This is a caricature of "my people" I guess I should be offended...

[eriqjaffe]

Originally Posted by rjl518

ifeel that if you change the CLE Indians to something else...then all other native american nicknames will be changed as well...

Florida State Seminoles

Florida State actually has the OK from the Seminole nation to use the name.

[BigRed75]

Originally Posted by Sweed

This is a caricature of "my people" I guess I should be offended...

You should probably be more offended about their play the past six weeks...

[The Game]

Originally Posted by rjl518

ifeel that if you change the CLE Indians to something else...then all other native american nicknames will be changed as well...

Central Michigan Chippewas
Florida State Seminoles
Chicago Blackhawks
Kansas City Chiefs
Atlanta Braves
Illinois Fighting Illini
Utah Utes
just saying...might as well

Many of those are tribes and not a white mans name for native americans.Illinois no longer uses the Chief Illiniwek logo nor the mascot. i'm not against the Hawks switching their alt logo.

[jokerhusky1129]

Originally Posted by NoOne

I think history shows that in many instances a little communication goes a long way. like another's example above, CMU worked with the local tribe and learned that they had no care about using chippewas as the name but did not like the indain head on the helmet... so they changed it... easy as pie... everyone is happy with virtually no effort whatsoever.

I went to CMU...and people still want the name to be changed. Not even the tribe, but just people that want to stir up trouble. Also...I'll never forget when they found out one of the NCAA Football games, there was a cut scene with a fan in an Indian head. It was on the front page of the school newspaper...all over a video game cut scene.

[Caporegime]

I say, it's time we paid tribute to Cleaver-Wielding-Americans and all they've contributed to the forward progress of our great nation.

[Leo_The_Lip]

From Uni Watch: