Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



New Blog: UW Dawg Pound launches! Bar-right-arrows



Return of the Cleveland Blues?

Welcome to our Guests

This is Jay, one of your hosts.  I’d like to welcome anyone who may be visiting here, linked from Rob Neyer’s blog on ESPN. Who knows, maybe you’ll like it here and stick around, be a part of our community.

This is a community of Cleveland Indians fans. We’re interested in everyone’s opinions, and we love having guests. But we do expect guests to be good guests. There is no trolling permitted on this site – as you’ll see if you register. So if you’re thinking about registering just to leave one obnoxious remark here, don’t bother. It will be deleted within minutes, possibly seconds.

This particular thread involves a sensitive subject. Feel free to jump in, but we expect you to show the same courtesy and judgment you’d have when visiting someone’s home for the first time. This a fairly thoughtful community. As long as you express yourself respectfully, you’ll get along fine.

Below this box is the original article that brought you here ... enjoy!

Don't mean to be misleading with the title... there are no such plans in the works. It's just that recently I've been thinking about the Tribe's Chief Wahoo conundrum quite a bit. I think it was ignited by my roommate's brother trading in his birthday present (a Nationals cap) for a Yankees cap. I asked him "why not a Tribe cap?" and in short, he responded that he didn't agree with Chief Wahoo (he is of Native American ancestry). He isn't vehemently anti-Cleveland, just wouldn't feel comfortable about wearing the Chief.

So I was hoping we could have a discussion about something without sparking a rash of vitriol. What could we call the Indians if we dropped the Chief (and therefore, logically, the entire name)?

For most people, the issue with getting rid of the Chief is tradition. It is our team's identity. Our city's identity. What would happen if New York got rid of the crooked "NY" or Detroit the old English "D"? Just wouldn't seem right, would it? So for me the challenge would be to find an identity with some sort of tradition. I think we can all agree that the worst possible thing would be to rename the team something "modern" and inevitably cheesy (cough, RAYS, cough) and deck ourselves out in spiffy new duds that look like they were designed by 15 year-old extreme sports fans strung out on Red Bull (cough, "D-Backs," cough).

So where does that leave us?

  • Spiders? No thanks, I'll avoid the constant reminders of the worst team ever as well as the heightened possibility of cheesy marketing.
  • Broncos? Never seen one in Cleveland.
  • Forest Cities? Um... Nothing strikes fear into the heart of opponents like trees.
  • Naps? Just no.
  • Blues? Bingo! I feel like there are tons of benefits to this choice, namely:
    1. It's traditional in that the team actually used to exist, but it really is neutral in terms of the memories it evokes. There's no stigma like "worst team ever" and no history of dominance that would lead to unreasonable expectations or seem arrogant.
    2. It's simple and elegant. Caps could be adorned with a simple "CB" or separate "C" and "B" caps for different occasions.
    3. It plays in perfectly to the Cleveland/Cinci intrastate rivalry. Reds vs. Blues? tell me that's not a great marketing opportunity!
  • So what do you guys think? Again, I'd prefer if this thread didn' t turn into a dumping ground for Chief Wahoo gripes and that we just discuss the Blues idea.

    Poll
    What would you prefer if the Indians changed names?
    • Blues
    • Broncos
    • Forest Cities
    • Naps
    • Spiders
    • Other

      164 votes | Results

    6 recs | Comment 230 comments

    Story-email Email Printer Print

    Comments

    Display:

    I kinda like this.....I had always sort of leaned towards Spiders as a potential replacement, but wasn't too enthusiastic. I could see this as an option.

    by Nat on Apr 9, 2008 11:59 AM EDT   0 recs

    I've always liked the Spiders idea, but the "worst team ever" stigma is really hard to get around.

    by zempf on Apr 9, 2008 12:02 PM EDT   0 recs

    I think the Chief is on the way out (5 years or less) but they'll ultimately stay with "Indians" as the nickname, which scares me because I really dislike the script "I" hat.

    I've always been partial to Spiders as well, but you make some good points, particularly the Cleveland/Cincinnati dichotomy and the C/B logo possibilities.

    Personally, I think "Forest Cities" would be great, but I understand that it would be fairly ridiculous long term. Also, Broncos (or Bronchos, I think) should be right out. I don't understand why you dismiss Naps off the bat. We could have a hammock in centerfield and one lucky fan per game gets to go out and watch from there or something.

    Il faut d'abord durer.

    by CU Adam on Apr 9, 2008 12:04 PM EDT   0 recs

    No one is currently using Rockers. ; )

    by emd2k3 on Apr 9, 2008 12:08 PM EDT   0 recs

    and to think the team was named IN HONOR OF an american indian.

    while the logo may be offensive and outdated, a transition to the script "I" resolves the problem. changing the name defeats the purpose of honoring the man for which the team was named.

    by xrickx on Apr 9, 2008 12:10 PM EDT   0 recs

    You do know the story about them being named in honor of Sockalexis is bull, right?

    Burn on, big river, burn on...

    by Turkmenbashi on Apr 9, 2008 12:19 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    It's one of those many occassions where people choose to print the legend instead of the truth.

    by emd2k3 on Apr 9, 2008 12:24 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    To me, Chief Wahoo and the Indians name are two very separate issues. I'd have less problem moving away from Chief Wahoo caps... I really don't want to be called anything other than the Indians though.

    The Cleveland Blues? I guess, but it doesn't really do much for me. Tradition? eh, it was the current frachise's name for 1 season and it was a former National League team that was in Cleveland for a few years in the late 1800's. I guess the Blues/Browns thing is kinda neat, as is the Blues vs. Reds. But what are we a state of colors? Are we really sad? There isn't really a tradition of blues music in Cleveland, is there?

    Unless someone can come up with a decent name relating to a big lake, a crooked river, Rock N Roll, etc. than I guess I'd prefer the Forest Citys. It has a real connection to the city, it is the official nickname of the city, I believe.

    In the end, I agree with Adam, above- the Chief might go, but the name won't/shouldn't. I hope the block C hat on this year's new Alternate unis or maybe the crooked C hat from the 70's catches on, because I also don't like the script I.

    by DaytonDogg on Apr 9, 2008 12:12 PM EDT   0 recs

    Am okay with the Blues, but I think that actually fits better with New Orleans or Chicago, towns that embrace the Jazz and Blues scene.

    Something alluding to Rock N Roll would be cool. And no not the Rockers .... association with an WNBA team would be easy pickings for opposing fans.

    While the Naps is cool because Lajoie, the connotation of Naps would also be bad I think. Maybe something about Feller would be more appropriate?

    I have no problem with the Script I myself, but I may be in the minority there. But I do believe the Chief logo is on its way out. I don't think they will rename the team though.

    by talonk on Apr 9, 2008 12:14 PM EDT   0 recs

    Maybe the Cleveland Cuyahogas? Nah, too many would just recall that river fire I guess.

    by talonk on Apr 9, 2008 12:16 PM EDT   0 recs

    I like the script I, for what it's worth.

    Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

    by Gradyforpresident on Apr 9, 2008 12:17 PM EDT   0 recs

    My wish is that they stick with Indians and ditch the Wahoo (even though I have fond memories of the one that adorned Municipal Stadium) -- make him a small sleeve patch if nothing else.

    I also would like a hybrid retro uni ... button-up, off white with the crooked C and the greek/caveman typeface on the front.

    by emd2k3 on Apr 9, 2008 12:23 PM EDT   0 recs

    I'm not especially for the chief logo (it does seem a little cartoonish, when you dissasociate yourself from it's emotional connotations), and I don't think anyone would miss it too much. No matter what happens, it's gonna be a weird transition, just like the Jake to the Pro, or whatever the current name meme is these days...

    I really like the script I logo, just to add fuel to the fire. I bought it over the wahoo hat, only because I like the alternate logo more.

    by thevicar on Apr 9, 2008 12:25 PM EDT   0 recs

    I like the Spiders. Worst team in history or not, I don't care. It is at least something. I get annoyed by teams like the Reds, Red Sox, White Sox, etc. They aren't anything. I want the team to be named something. Plus, I'm entirely okay ditching interleague and the "rivalry' with the Reds, which is severely contrived. Making it the Reds v. Blues only makes it sound like a gang war and nothing more.

    The Spiders name has some history to it, although not necessarily positive, and would continue to allow for a hat/logo that was more than a letter or two. Some of those logos are nice. The Yanks, Cards, Cubs are symbolic hats. Outside those few teams, its simply teams playing it safe with the logo. They aren't logos, they are simply letters. With the Spiders, you could at least steal it from the U. of Richmond and have something that is passable.

    Plus, I really don't understand the love for the crooked C. It has nothing to do with the team and looks really bad, IMO. Plus, if we're worried about the tie to bad teams, that wasn't exactly a shining beacon in Indians history.

    by Fundamentals on Apr 9, 2008 12:27 PM EDT   0 recs

    It looks cool. That's good enough for me. It's great to preserve history, but I see no reason why, if you've got something good, you can't start fresh (70's fresh, in this case).

    by Voltaire on Apr 9, 2008 12:53 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    That logo is exactly the type of "mid-90's" schlockiness I'd like to avoid.

    Burn on, big river, burn on...

    by Turkmenbashi on Apr 9, 2008 12:54 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    What about going waaaay back and calling them the Infants? They could still use the script i hats.

    by mpstable on Apr 9, 2008 12:46 PM EDT   0 recs

    I would not miss Chief Wahoo at all, and AFAIC, the sooner the Chief goes, the better. Indians as the team name can stay or go, but let's get rid of the Chief first and then discuss the team name. One step at a time.

    Free Andy Marte!

    Pronk Needs You

    by woodsmeister on Apr 9, 2008 12:49 PM EDT   0 recs

    I cannot for the life of me remember where I read this (maybe the DiaTribe?) but we can keep the Indians name and drop Wahoo AND preserve tradition. Make the primary logo not the current script I, but an I formed by the feather from Wahoo's cap. Something like this (very rough idea):

    The I could stand alone as the primary logo with some additional attention.

    Can anyone link me to the original source of this?

    by Voltaire on Apr 9, 2008 12:56 PM EDT   0 recs

    Don't want to take credit, but I know I mentioned this once or twice in a thread last year. I think Chuck and Jhon also said something about it.

    Burn on, big river, burn on...

    by Turkmenbashi on Apr 9, 2008 1:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    Someone else had the idea, but my memory just isn't kicking in. If done the right way it could be very nice.

    I haven't used the internets in a couple days, so I have some catching up to do before I can research this.

    by jhon on Apr 9, 2008 1:44 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    I'm almost positive I suggested it and someone else photoshopped it. probably Chester.

    Burn on, big river, burn on...

    by Turkmenbashi on Apr 9, 2008 1:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    I actually think that looks a bit corny myself.

    Besides the feather probably is not a pc thing to identify with the Native Indian people either, but maybe I'm wrong.

    by talonk on Apr 9, 2008 1:41 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    When I made that I just grabbed a random Indians script. Obviously a profession graphic designer could come up with something far, far nicer looking. I was just trying to do a quick-and-dirty visual of the idea.

    by Voltaire on Apr 9, 2008 2:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    I know it wasn't professionally done, but I really dont think using a feather as the "I" really would look all that great, no matter what form it is in. Just my personal preference I guess.

    by talonk on Apr 9, 2008 2:28 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    Also, I just don't see how we could drop Wahoo and keep "Indians." If you think Wahoo is offensive, chances are the label "Indian" is offensive or, at best, inaccurate. Especially when considering that many of the other teams are named after animals... not races of people. The implication is subtle, but it's there, I think.

    Burn on, big river, burn on...

    by Turkmenbashi on Apr 9, 2008 1:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    I think there is a pretty clear difference. I could come up with a list of teams named after races of people, but I will start with Notre Dame.

    by Roger Dorn on Apr 9, 2008 1:57 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    Notre Dame is my favorite wrench to throw into this discussion. I think there is a difference between being offended by Wahoo and being offended by "Indians," but I'm certainly not going to tell anyone they shouldn't be offended by the name or pretend like it's an honor (like a lot of people in Illinois pretend Chief Illiniwek is). "Indians" is certainly less offensive than Redskins, which is atrocious in my opinion.

    Il faut d'abord durer.

    by CU Adam on Apr 9, 2008 3:35 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    I don't find the comparison to Notre Dame to be an accurate one. While I'm not sure on the exact origins of the nickname, I am pretty sure it had something to do with the fact that a lot of the kids were in fact Irish.

    by ClarkM on Apr 9, 2008 4:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    Honestly, I am not really too concerned with how either name was originated, the name "Indians" in itself is not offensive in my opinion. My argument the whole time has been ditch the logo, keep the name.

    by Roger Dorn on Apr 9, 2008 6:27 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    I think you are way off here turk. I was a big defender of both the Chief and the name for a long time, until I actually befriended someone with Native American ancestry and very active in their community. I would wear Indians stuff all the time and over drinks one night she brought up how offended she was about Chief Wahoo. I brought up the whole "the name Indians is supposed to be a tribute to a Native American player" thing (I know this is mostly crap, but like Roger said, who cares how it got started 100 years ago), and she stopped me. She said the name in and of itself is not offensive at all to her, just the stereotypical logo with the big nose, goofy grin and cartoonish bright red face. I still won't wear my team hat or any shirt with Chief Wahoo when I think I'm going to see her, but I do wear some of my gear that just says "Indians"

    Regardless of its origin if the nickname remained the Indians and the organization was able to do something with a Native American group of some sort, I think it could become a real positive. Of course, to even start that discussion the logo has to change... and I'm up for anything besides the script I.

    by DaytonDogg on Apr 9, 2008 8:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    I appreciate the discussion and my comments aren't directed at it specifically but I have to say, I think PC movement to change the name from the Indians is pretty dumb. I'm a minority if and if there were a sports team called the African American's i wouldn't be bothered in the least.

    If the team REALLY wants to show its sensitive/cares about the plight of Native Americans then they would increase their efforts to help raise native americans out of poverty.

    I'm not trying to get too political here, per ground rules, but I just wanted to go on the record and state my opinion.

    by world dictator on Apr 9, 2008 12:59 PM EDT   0 recs

    I have to agree, I don't see any problem with leaving the team name as the Indians after the removal of Chief Wahoo as the logo, regardless of what the history of naming the team in the first place was.

    by Roger Dorn on Apr 9, 2008 1:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    Same here. Leave the name. Get ride of Wahoo's face.

    by crazymoloh on Apr 9, 2008 1:27 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    I agree with that. There are a lot of times there is some Indians gear that I want to buy, only to stop because ti has the Wahoo logo on it. It just looks goofy.

    by cclemens31 on Apr 9, 2008 1:48 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    If the team REALLY wants to show its sensitive/cares about the plight of Native Americans then they would increase their efforts to help raise native americans out of poverty.

    I think this is a great point, and it's also what Florida State did to sidestep the problem, formed an alliance with the actual Seminoles. I don't know that any Native American group will really want to ally themselves with the Indians, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be a focus of the team's charitable activities.

    if there were a sports team called the African American's i wouldn't be bothered in the least.

    This is a great idea! In fact, why don't we call the team the Cleveland Blacks?

    You know, just like the Cleveland Blues, except it's the Cleveland Blacks!

    I think this really solves the problem.

    by Jay on Apr 9, 2008 9:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    Does this mean we're getting BP back? No? Too soon?

    by supermarioelia on Apr 9, 2008 10:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    If you thought the uproar over "Progressive Park" was bad, I can't imagine how many people would go apepoop over changing the actual nickname of the team.

    You know Selig? Ombudsman.

    by rolub on Apr 9, 2008 1:09 PM EDT   0 recs

    Very true, but that's why I advocate something traditional rather than new. But still, I probably am operation behind so baseball-elitist colored glasses. Common fans will flip.

    Burn on, big river, burn on...

    by Turkmenbashi on Apr 9, 2008 1:38 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    I guess I'm in the minority too. I like the cheif. I'm getting used to the script I, but I'd like the cheif to stay. I could muster some psuedo-argument that the cheif is rebellious in its own way and liken that to the old days of rock and roll, but in reality, I think it is familiar to me. That is why I would miss it. Honestly, since I don't live in Cleveland, if they changed the name, it wouldn't nor could it be my team anymore. That would be devastating to my fond memories.

    by 94neverout on Apr 9, 2008 1:16 PM EDT   0 recs

    Really? It's still "Cleveland." If the Ravens had stayed the Browns, would you root for them? I'm rooting for the city that I grew up in and love, even though I don't live there anymore. I'm not rooting for the nickname or the logo on the hat, whatever I might think of either.

    Il faut d'abord durer.

    by CU Adam on Apr 9, 2008 3:36 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    I'm a minority. I have never lived in Cleveland, but I have been a fan... well, actually years before I was born.

    It's a long story and no, I don't believe in reincarnation. ;-)

    by 94neverout on Apr 9, 2008 3:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    I'm somewhere in between. I definitely don't want to change the name of the franchise (don't hear them Irish complaining), but I can't stand the red-faced Chief Wahoo logo. Its no different from other ridiculous racial caricatures (tiny-eyed east asian characters or huge lipped black characters). It never used to bother me as a kid, but somewhere along the line I started to feel a little ridiculous wearing anything with Chief Wahoo's face on it. Haven't worn an Indians hat or jersey since. I'm starting to get into the script 'I' hats and definitely love the old school jerseys the Indians wore on opening day.

    by crazymoloh on Apr 9, 2008 1:25 PM EDT   0 recs

    I completely relate to that kind of transition. That's exactly the point for me: why must my beloved team -run by wonderful and intelligent men and women - choose to use such a silly caricature as its public symbol when some/many fans are ashamed to wear said logo?

    by macasson on Apr 9, 2008 1:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    Its no different from other ridiculous racial caricatures (tiny-eyed east asian characters or huge lipped black characters).

    This is often stated and totally, totally wrong.

    Chief Wahoo is not a racial cariacature like the others you cite -- not one single common stereotype of Native Americans is portrayed. Per this site: the wise elder, the aggressive drunk, the Indian princess, the loyal sidekick; nature lovers; primitive, violent and deceptive; or passive and full of childlike obedience.

    In stark constrast, Chief Wahoo is ... excited? Joyous? Cute? You tell me.

    While silly and arguably demeaning, Chief Wahoo is not a racial cariacature and does not depict racial stereotypes. It is a cartoon character clearly meant to be understood a member of a particular ethnic group, and you may find that in and of itself objectionable, but that's all that it is.

    It's vital to any serious discussion that everyone acknowledges that difference.

    by Jay on Apr 9, 2008 9:57 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    Now that you bring this up, I wonder what the specific issue with the actual logo is. The way the skin colour is protrayed? The nose? The general idea of putting our nickname in picture-form? I'm interested to hear where you guys feel the issue lies.

    by supermarioelia on Apr 9, 2008 10:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    I think it is simply the use of an ethnic basis for a cartoon character. You look at Slider, or the Phillie Phanatic, they make the characters non-human now to avoid any possible inference. It's funny, we have so much "post-racial" humor now, meta-racism, Dave Chappelle and Sarah Silverman and Harold & Kumar, but it's nowhere near the mainstream yet.

    Also! There is absolutely no denying that the warrior/savage stereotype is the entire basis for the common custom of naming American sports teams for Native American groups, and that can't ever be overcome completely. Even if you accept the argument that the Indians were named (indirectly) to honor Sockalexis -- and I do, by the way -- it's pretty clear that the name "Indians" was only in consideration because of the stereotype.

    by Jay on Apr 9, 2008 10:27 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    And this also explains why every Olympic logo always baffles everyone. They're avoiding every possible resemblance to anything human.

    by supermarioelia on Apr 9, 2008 10:35 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    It's unhelpful even if it's true, of course, given that Sockalexis was an alcoholic.

    by fleerdon on Apr 9, 2008 10:49 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    This is an excellent, excellent point. You're always good for one of these profound posts when it comes to topics like these, Jay.

    Burn on, big river, burn on...

    by Turkmenbashi on Apr 9, 2008 10:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    Chief Wahoo is not a racial cariacature like the others you cite -- not one single common stereotype of Native Americans is portrayed.

    Because, you know, Chief Wahoo isn't a red face or dressed like a primitive warrior. Not at all.

    p.s: The caricatures I referenced weren't behavioral or character caricatures, simply those based on exaggerations of appearance (tiny eyes, big lips).

    by crazymoloh on Apr 9, 2008 11:05 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    First, cartoon characters are not known for having accurate skin tones.

    Second, I see nothing indicating a "warrior" in Chief Wahoo.

    Third, the only thing suggestive of "primitive" is the simplified traditional headdress.

    What you've really said here is that any cartoon depicting a Native American in traditional dress, you see as suggesting a primitive warrior. Frankly, that's not on the cartoon, that's on you. Other than the skin, Chief Wahoo's most obvious trait is a huge, wide grin, and that has nothing to do with a racial stereotype. If anything, Chief Wahoo is a (probably intentional) departure from the "primitive warrior" mascot often used for teams with names like "Indians."

    by Jay on Apr 10, 2008 12:02 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    Jay, you're writing as if it's a random cartoon image that happens to be in Native American dress. What? Have you never seen old comics and show portrayals of Natives - or even just old versions of Chief Wahoo. There are plenty of characteristics that are consistently carried through.

    You can start with the red skin, an obvious racial exaggeration, and using Homer Simpson as a comparison is meaningless. The red skin takes a particular feature of the race, often mocked, and exaggerates it. Same with the nose. And the stupid grin.

    I get that you can see no primative warrior in it, but that only holds if you just dropped on the planet. But crazymoloh, like the rest of us, recognizes a character he's seen all his life: the big grin - whooping - war loving - native idiot.

    That's where your argument fails, because you can find variations of Chief Wahoo in comics, cartoons, stories, mascots etc - always with these characteristics. You can't ignore that context. He's not, you know, the Akron Aero guy. That has no context. He's a continuation from a time when the picture was part of his portrayal as a clown - a simple-minded warrior buffoon. His big grin is no more simply joy than his big nose is random. I get that you have one list that you've managed to somewhat distinguish, but you're ignorning a lot of other work on the subject - the consistent themes in these portrayals.

    And look, maybe as time goes by, some of those links are lessening. Maybe he's probably just baseball to some now. But he is absolutely a creation based on racial stereotypes, and there are not gone yet.

    by dgcambridge on Apr 10, 2008 1:05 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    I'm sorry, but you're simply mistaken.

    If you think all "Indian" images are a "warrior buffoon" with a "big stupid grin," it can only be because 99% of the "Indian" images you've seen in your life have, in fact, been Chief Wahoo.

    Chief Wahoo is simply not reflective of Native American stereotypes. The only way to say otherwise is by defining Native American stereotypes as "everything that's like Chief Wahoo." Which is exactly what you've done.

    by Jay on Apr 10, 2008 1:54 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    American Indian stereotype=Red Skin. Chief Wahoo=Red Skin.

    by ClarkM on Apr 10, 2008 9:18 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    I'll admit the one thing that does make me a bit uncomfortable about the logo is the red skin. There's just a racial connotation there that I think we can do best to avoid. I sometimes wonder what Wahoo would look like using the colour of the old logo. Any photoshop experts here?

    But the rest of the logo, the nose, the headdress, the smile....oh while I'm on the smile, I don't see it as a big stupid grin in the least. He's always just been a happy guy to me. Granted the old logo was definitely a forced smile that reeked of something beyond genuine happiness, but Wahoo's smile...maybe I'm in the minority but that aspect of the logo doesn't really bother me.

    I think I've wandered into picking nits however, since it's not the individual details that seem to bother people but the overall idea of having a cartoon version of a current American race. And we can play the Fighting Irish card all we want, most people just won't see it as being the same.

    by supermarioelia on Apr 10, 2008 10:36 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    Chief Wahoo is simply not reflective of Native American stereotypes. Let's not make that your signature.

    Let's break it down, with numbers! You're the best, and we love you, but it's fun to poke at you when you're off base.

    1. I don't think all Native American images are like that, but there's certainly a subset there. He's not unique: you see the nose and skin obviously everywhere in those old images. The grin is not as popular as the stern frown, but there are images I've seen that are remarkably similar to CW. Shall I find some?

    2. I'll try to restate what I said earlier. It sounds like you sat down with a picture of Wahoo and your list of attributes, and tried to see if any of the attributes were necessarily there. Just you at your desk, with no thought of history. And it's not like he's drawn holding a big bag of money or strapped with a bomb. So there's no way to get from big nose and red skin, when looked at in vacuum, to any characteristics. I'm not totally down with your benign description of the grin (see mario below), but I'm not a freaking psychologist and you've got your fact-declarin' hat on so whatever.

    3. But here's the thing. If you're right on #2, so what? What does that mean? How is it relevant today? We have decades and decades of these images, sharing the same racial exaggerations as CW, being used to portay these character stereotypes. This isn't just Native Americans are drawn red and Native Americans are called primitive and violent. It was big nosed red cartoon characters used in said portrayal of violence. Don't accuse me or crazy of making up the associations. As I said before, these stereotypes and images are linked, because of the way there were used. We're getting farther from the context. My daughter doesn't know it, but I think we do.

    4. Should we bring up the obvious blackface comparison? Blackface isn't offensive simply because you're changing the color of your skin, or pointing out that some people have darker skin. It's offensive because of its repeated use in terrible stereotyping. That's why it's been associated with those stereotypes. Silverman's bit is entirely based on acknowledging that history, and mocking and possibly moving past it. And the Robert Downey Jr. part may reveal that we're moving past the association. The trouble with Wahoo in particular is that he arrived well before any irony can placed with him, so it's even harder to say there's any break with his past.

    by dgcambridge on Apr 10, 2008 11:12 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    Dave, I know you think you're doing God's own work here, and I'm just blinding myself to the truth or something ... but wrong is wrong.

    As I told Turk, do your own homework. It isn't my list of attributes, it's easily documented and discovered. The huge grin is killer ... the stereotypes include war-like, hostile, savage – and stoic. Stoic, Dave. Not hugely grinning, the opposite of hugely grinning. You will in fact have to look hard to dig up many images of huge grins, and you will find that they are outnumbered by savage or stoic images by more than 20 to 1. You are the one just sitting there speculating, I'm telling you the actual history of the ethnic stereotype, easily discovered if you would only look.

    But it's worse than that. What you are actually doing is (a) reading offensive inferences into the image that objectively are not there, and (b) defining "white" facial features as the only ones that are "normal" and therefore "non-offensive." It happens that I have a nose that you would consider "normal" – it's an exceptionally boring nose, in fact, lacking any character ethnic or otherwise – but plenty of my friends and relatives have noses that look like CW's, representing the common traits of several ethnic groups, including my own.

    Dave, those people's noses are normal, one, and CW's nose in particular is not particularly exaggerated. I have seen a lot of really offensive cartoons featuring the exaggerated nose, and CW's nose is nowhere near that magnitude. His nose is not exceptional in size – the eyes and mouth are exaggerated, the nose is not – and relative to any cartoon, it's only exceptional in shape from a narrowly "white" viewpoint. Should a cartoon character understood to be Irish not have red hair?

    As for the history of the image and its inferences, here again, you are the one making assumptions based on what you are inclined to believe. The original CW image here, more of an outrageous caricature and less of a cartoon character, was used for only five years, where the current version has been in continuous use for almost 60 years. The only way the "old version" could be more prevalent in anyone's mind is if they died more than 50 years ago.

    You see primitivism, savagery, buffoonery, etc. I submit to you that they aren't in the CW image, they're in your head. You have made an assumption that CW, being an ethnic cartoon character, must be intended to convey every worst possible inference about Native Americans. You know what I see? A kid-friendly cartoon character that replaced a briefly-used caricature, and a character who shares no significant traits with any ethnic stereotype, with simple cartoon references to traditional ethnic dress.

    Now again, none of this means that Chief Wahoo is okay. You can still say, we just shouldn't have any kind of ethnic inference representing the team, and I won't argue. You could also say, the fact that CW is more prevalent than other Indian images means that CW has become a faux stereotype, a de facto stereotype, that the kids now think that "Indians" are like that – happy? – because CW is the only Indian image they have. I think that's a bit of stretch, but it least it's a solid point.

    But claiming that CW portrays stereotypes of Native Americans? It just isn't true.

    by Jay on Apr 10, 2008 1:54 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    Jay --

    There are some really incredible, nuanced arguments here. I'm finding it really difficult to argue against you. I'm curious what you think about Chief Noc-A-Homa. He exhibits none of the above stereotypes and is also grinning widly. Is he offensive?

    Also, this image interests me. It supports your argument that none of CW's features is inherently an Indian stereotype. But imagine if one of those other logos was used. Do you think there wouldn't be a massive uproar?

    To quote my roommate: "Indians don't have a Jesse Jackson or a Jewish Anti-Defamation League or an Italian-Americans Anti-Defamation League. Well, i mean they do, but it's not of enough size or influence to be of any account, and that's why it's 2008 and we're still having this argument in 2008."

    Burn on, big river, burn on...

    by Turkmenbashi on Apr 10, 2008 2:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    I love the example of Chief Noc-A-Homa, because it's ambiguous. Is he grinning, or is he shouting? Is he letting out a joyful shout? Is he grinning for those who are looking for grinning and not others? Am I seeing things that aren't there? Are you?

    And the answer: Chief Noc-A-Homa was known as the "screaming Indian." Look it up.

    The Auth cartoon makes a good point, basically the same one I made above, and similar to your roommate's.

    Your roommate is right.

    by Jay on Apr 10, 2008 2:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    I did read the wiki page on Chief NAH. I know hes a creaming Indian, but as you point out, it's ambiguous. People will see what they want to see in it, which is kind of my point.

    Also, I' keep forgetting that you've actually met my roommate. He was at the game with us in DC.

    Burn on, big river, burn on...

    by Turkmenbashi on Apr 10, 2008 2:54 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

    Dave, and everyone else, I'm ducking out of this at this point. I've made my argument as well as I can, and I'm content to let you post your response and leave it at that. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

    by Jay on Apr 10, 2008 2:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs