Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, Indians and Redskins???

by Clay028 on Apr 10, 2007 7:11 PM EDT

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=law/070410&sportCat=mlb

Time to dump Braves, Indians and Redskins

Major League Baseball is making a rather large deal out of the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's debut in the major leagues (a dubious bit of self-congratulation -- MLB is commemorating the day it stopped doing something wrong), including holding a "Civil Rights Game" right before the season started. As many people have commented elsewhere, baseball screwed that one up too by including in that game one of the two major league teams that employ offensive stereotypes of Native Americans in their names and logos.

Wouldn't the right way to celebrate the anniversary of the end of baseball's discriminatory era be to have both of these clubs -- Cleveland and Atlanta -- change their names and logos to something that isn't offensive to the first residents of our continent?

[editor's note, by Ryan]: Go ahead and discuss this, but PLEASE keep it civil.

Tweet Comment 55 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Frankly, I hate Keith Law. Period.

by Clay028 on Apr 10, 2007 7:11 PM EDT reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

They should've dropped Chief Wahoo at the Civil Rights game.

by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Apr 10, 2007 8:03 PM EDT reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Yeah; I agree.

Railing against the sacrifice bunt since 2000.

by jdudas on Apr 10, 2007 9:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

I agree, that would have been a wonderful moment to pick. I think they will pick a different moment, a decade or more from now.

We've had this talk before. Last time, somebody tried to claim that Wahoo perpetuates the stereotype of the "drunk fool injun." There are two problems with this. One, there is no indication that Wahoo is drunk. Two, there is no traditional stereotype of Native Americans being foolish. Both concepts were figments of that person's imagination.

Wahoo is not a racial cariacature, but merely a cartoon character with an ethnic identity. Wahoo's most obvious characteristic is a bright, gregarious smile. Stereotypes of Native Americans are well documented, and there is nothing about "happy" or "gregarious" in there. Mainly there's "savage" or "stoic" -- Chief Wahoo is neither of these.

That said, that distinction is a fine one and not at all evident at first glance. The casual observer is never going to give Wahoo the benefit of the doubt; the organization that promotes that icon will always be presumed by many to be promoting racial stereotyping. And for that reason, the Indians will, over a period of several years, eventually phase the character out.

by Jay on Apr 10, 2007 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Hi Jay,

Well said. I agree that it will probably be done away with before too long. If the Tribe relocates the next decade as I suspect, that will probably be the death of Wahoo. :)

IndianInkSlinger

by sdtribefan on Apr 10, 2007 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Not sure if you're kidding, but I'd put the odds of the Indians moving in the next ten years at well below 5%. There are at least four markets that have more trouble supporting their team than Cleveland does, and there are no available markets (without a current team) that could support a team better. Cleveland is going through a particularly bad time economically right now relative to the rest of the country, but it will improve.

by Jay on Apr 10, 2007 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Not kidding in the least. I see lots of little things that add up to Dolan hedging his bets on Ohio. I have no idea what causes your optimism but if STO flops, which is a serious possibility, there is absolutely no reason to keep the team in Cleveland. Lousy attendance, declining economy, stupid and dishonest political atmosphere, no real fan loyalty like the succesful franchises. Dolan is giving it his best shot in my opinion. If you think there are four franchises that are worse off and have better futures, send me some of that stuff you are smoking. At least Las Vegas will be easier for me to see games. You really want to know how bad it is! They had more people attending the game in Milwaukee than they ever would have had in Cleveland. I wish I was wrong but if you are willing to back up your feelings with the 20-1 odds you espouse, put me down for $10K. :)

IndianInkSlinger

by sdtribefan on Apr 11, 2007 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Drop the price of field-level seats at the Jake to $10 and see what happens. For a family of four, it was probably cheaper than a night at the movies -- where they don't serve beer. I used to live in Milwaukee. Great city, good sports fans, but I put not stock in its being a better baseball town than Cleveland, especially since Clevelanders go to watch the game instead of the hibachi.

by fleerdon on Apr 11, 2007 7:54 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Wow, I don't even know where to start. Let's just pass it back to you. Which of these franchises have better outlooks: Florida, Tampa Bay, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Oakland? You need at least 3.

by dgcambridge on Apr 11, 2007 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

The Indians' fan loyalty, as measured by attendance, is better than all but a handful of teams. You could argue Indians fans are second only to the Cardinals.

In every major-league stadium, ticket sales trail on-field performance by almost a year. Measured against that prism, you can see how good the Indians fans are.

Lots of teams have made the playoffs a few years in a row. Only the Indians fans responded with more than five years of consecutive sellouts.

Others have already listed the franchises that are worse off. There is nowhere for Dolan to move the team to -- not to mention, MLB would never let him. Unlike the NFL, MLB has the power to prevent teams from moving.

We are not the Expos. Wake up.

by Jay on Apr 11, 2007 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Dear Jay,

You need to do more than wake up. You need to get a clue. We are not the Expos now but the economic indicators are there for that to become a stong possiblility.

Your analogy to the sellouts is not only without merit but contradicts your point. You ignore the Indian baseball history for an abberation. Got a newsflash boyo! The sellouts are history. Fans turn out for good and bad seasons. Except for the short time where there was a new stadium and no football, Cleveland has largely ignored the Tribe.

You guys just want to argue so you have substituted hyperbole for rational thought. I haven't got the time or inclination to give you guys a lesson in economics which you probably wouldn't understand to figure out why the franchises mentioned are better off than Cleveland. You will be happier if you stay in your fantasy world.

You guys love your baseball and your Indians, just as I do. I may be the only one in the entire forum that has actually seen the Tribe win a World Series. But when you get to economics and business forecasting, you are on my turf. :)

IndianInkSlinger

by sdtribefan on Apr 12, 2007 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Sorry to intrude, but this is total b.s. I think you lack perspective, which is astonishing considering how old you are. You haven't yet made a point where other people have--who's the one in fantasy land again?

Las Vegas ain't getting a team. Doesn't really have a market like NE Ohio, and I doubt that it ever will. What evidence is there that this place can support any professional team? They don't even have an NHL franchise yet! There's only so much water in Lake Mead, and an entertainment economy is built upon fragile foundations.

You should know this.

by homelytourist on Apr 12, 2007 2:12 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

I imagine it is b.s. to an uninformed mind. My mind is both educated and informed on the subject. Your argument about northern Ohio versus Las Vegas ignores so many factors that it is unsupportable and quite wrong. Saying it does not make it true! :)

IndianInkSlinger

by sdtribefan on Apr 12, 2007 6:37 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

this is a baseball blog and I have a job, so I'm going to ignore many factors.

Hey, you brought up Las Vegas. What makes you think a team could be hosted there? Name one legitimate factor.

Mexico City is the only place I can imagine an expansion or relocation will take place in, and it's a longshot.

by homelytourist on Apr 12, 2007 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

by homelytourist on Apr 12, 2007 2:19 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

What is going on? You keep talking as if you've built an argument based on concrete factors, but all I can find is where you said:

Lousy attendance, declining economy, stupid and dishonest political atmosphere, no real fan loyalty like the succesful franchises.

Those are just broad generalizations. Not to mention that you've haven't done any comparisons to other cities. As for attendance and loyalty, I hope you're not basing it on the 70s and 80s, where the Indians built up an almost unprecedented history of losing baseball.

It seems that the answer to my early question is that all of those franchises are better off, but evidently for reasons so obvious that you can't even bear to point us to them. I promise not to challenge your title as king economist. It's not my area, but throw us a bone.

I've liked what you've written elsewhere, so I'm confused. "stupid and dishonest political atmosphere"? That just sounds like negative muttering.

by dgcambridge on Apr 12, 2007 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

OK, I will post a blog on the subject later today or tomorrow. I will even explain in brief terms what qualifies me to make this assessment. I will answer questions that I consider relevant. I will not argue. Everyone has to understand that I do not want this to happen. I would much rather talk about baseball nad prospects and sincerely regret making an off hand remark in this thread that got Jay wound up. :)

IndianInkSlinger

by sdtribefan on Apr 12, 2007 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Got me wound up? Hardly. I thought you probably were joking. Deliberately, I mean.

I'm looking forward to the parts of your article where you explain (a) why the union will cooperate with contraction of several teams, and (b) why other baseball markets are better equipped to sustain a baseball team than Cleveland.

by Jay on Apr 12, 2007 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Others have made the counter-argument well enough. I will only say in my defense: I mention the sellouts while still recognizing fully that they were an aberration. It almost certainly won't happen again.

I would submit to you, however, that only a handful of smaller market teams could have produced that aberration, and that ultimately is my real point. The 90's Braves had a run of success superior to the Indians in every way, but they did not put together a comparable attendance over that time. The Twins have not, and even the big-market White Sox have not.

Even with every proviso you can throw at it, the sellout streak demonstrates that there is unusually strong and "sticky" support for the Cleveland Indians in their market. Good things have happened for other teams in one decade or another, but only one team owns that sellout streak. Until the Red Sox break it, of course.

by Jay on Apr 12, 2007 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

One more thing: It's not sufficient to claim expertise; it is sufficient to demonstrate expertise. You haven't come close to that standard. Starting with no comparative analysis, and in fact no actual analysis of any kind. So you can drop the "turf" talk.

by Jay on Apr 12, 2007 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

I haven't got the time or inclination to give you guys a lesson in economics which you probably wouldn't understand to figure out why the franchises mentioned are better off than Cleveland.

Any time a person, including "experts" (either designated so by themselves or by others), uses the "I can't/won't explain these complicated things that you couldn't possibly understand" line, they immediately lose every shred of credibility with me. Why assume that we're all stupid, or at least stupid in comparison with you? If you actually have some deeper understanding of baseball economics than the rest of us, then show us by explaining, with supporting facts. The rest of us are required to use supporting facts to convince others, why aren't you?

Sorry to everyone else for the non-baseball content.

by jds16 on Apr 12, 2007 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

I'll go a step further. I find it common that when people use this terminology, i.e., "I can't/won't explain these complicated things that you couldn't possibly understand", it often hides an inability to truly explain the content that they are holding to at all. Not saying that you're doing this, but I've seen graduate students and chemistry professors do it far too many times.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Apr 12, 2007 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

I agree with jds & Erik, There are quite a few intelligent folks poking around here, I'm fairly sure we'll understand.

by JK in CBus on Apr 12, 2007 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

"Wahoo is not a racial cariacature, but merely a cartoon character with an ethnic identity."

Um... dude... his skin is redder than the Washington Redskin's -- It's crayon red!

by JulioBernazard on Apr 11, 2007 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Yeah, but you could go either way with that.

by Jay on Apr 11, 2007 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Huh? That it somehow goes "past" the stereotype of red skin and into safety by being so exaggeratedly stereotypical as to be unrealistic?

I would say that the only thing WORSE than using people as mascots would be using CARTOONS of people as mascots.

by JulioBernazard on Apr 12, 2007 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Indians

Ridiculous.

Wait 'til next year... or something like that

by Brad D on Apr 10, 2007 8:06 PM EDT reply actions

My thoughts!

Hello everyone,

The reason the Indians were included in that game was because they were the first ML team to have an African-American manager, not to mention they were the first American League team to have an African-American player. MLB wanted them to be part of the first annual Civil Rights Game, which the Indians gladly accepted.

As for the logos and such, no offense, but I don't see why they're making such a big deal out of the logos for the Indians and Braves - they don't even look like Native Americans (or Indians.) The Redskins logo looks moreso.

Even so, from what I can tell being at Indians' games, people aren't thinking about Native Americans (I know I'm not) when they are going to sporting events that involve teams with these logos. And, if I recall correctly, the Indians name was given in honor of a baseball player who was Native American, so I'm really at a loss why they think it's degrading to them. Just because Chief Wahoo looks like a cartoon character doesn't mean that we think of Native Americans as cartoons or lesser than people of other nationalities.

Just my 2 cents; no offense to anyone.

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on Apr 10, 2007 8:25 PM EDT reply actions

Re: My thoughts!

"As for the logos and such, no offense, but I don't see why they're making such a big deal out of the logos for the Indians and Braves - they don't even look like Native Americans (or Indians.) The Redskins logo looks moreso."

Well, I think this is actually sort of the point, and makes it seem more like they are fantasies of Indian people rather than real Indians. Anyway, I think that the problem with Redskins is more the name than the logo: Redskins is a slur, whereas Indians, I think, is fine. So while I would like to see the Chief Wahoo go away, I don't have any problems with the name Indians.

Railing against the sacrifice bunt since 2000.

by jdudas on Apr 10, 2007 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: My thoughts!

Hi indiansfan,

Yeah, I agree it is not important to me or most Indians' fans that I know but it is important to some people who may not be Indians' fans and find the caricature offensive. As for that naming the franchise in honor of an American Indian, Louis Sockalexis, that makes a real good story but most historians find that factually deficient. :)

IndianInkSlinger

by sdtribefan on Apr 10, 2007 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Personally, I won't buy or wear any merch with Chief
Wahoo on it, because I do think it's a racist caricature. I'm not sure how I feel about the name "Indians" for the team; I'm always a big fan of erring on the side of caution in these situations, but I can see the arguments against changing the name, too.

by AngG on Apr 10, 2007 8:33 PM EDT reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

I think it's ridiculous. I could see the Chief being offensive to some closed-minded folks with no sense of humor. I have two good native American friends who are big Indians fans and see no problem with the Chief. Personally, I think the stereotypes promoted by the sausage races in Milwaukee are more racist.

Come on Dorn, get in front of the damn ball! Don't give me this "ole" bulls**t!

by Turkmenbashi on Apr 10, 2007 8:41 PM EDT reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Not to mention the fact that the uproar the Indians would get about removing the Chief -- including all the unlicensed merch sales -- would almost certainly BECOME racist, whereas now the team can exert control over the logo and its use. It may one day become an alternate logo, like the Brewers' old "mb," but the team doesn't want to deal with the backlash from removing it. Rightfully so.

by fleerdon on Apr 11, 2007 7:58 AM EDT up reply actions

Re:

Why stop with the Indians, Braves and Redskins. Let's get rid of the Yankees, Rangers, Patriots 76ers, 49ers, Cavaliers, etc.... They all refer to someone. And somehow, somewhere, someone could probably find some reason why those nicknames are a problem. Got to love political correctness. It automatically designates Indian is a bad word. I agree with the comment about closed-mind folks not understanding the Chief Wahoo caricature. I find it hard to believe someone sat there, dreaming up the caricature with a thought to include something degrading to someone else.

by JK in CBus on Apr 10, 2007 9:18 PM EDT reply actions

Re:

Do you really mean to suggest that all groups of people who can be referred to by a name would be offended by the use of the name? Surely you can see a distinction between, say Yankees (positive connotation for those of us north of the Mason-Dixon line) and Redskins. Now, whether Indians is offensive is a matter for the referred-to group(s) of people to decide on, not me (since I'm so white I'm pink).

Also, it doesn't make nearly as much difference whether you meant to degrade someone as it does that you actually did. If I accidentally hurt my wife's feelings, it really doesn't matter much that I didn't mean to. What matters is that I did.

Regarding the Indians name, I don't have strong feelings in either direction. But I avoid the Wahoo logo, because the fact that we're even discussing it is a con and the only pro I can identify for the logo is that it's the logo we've had for a long time. And "that's the way we've always done it" isn't a very strong argument to me.

We haven't seen political correctness until IBS sufferers start complaining about "Browns".

by jds16 on Apr 11, 2007 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions

Re:

I can see what you're saying, but to those that grew up in the South, "Yankee" doesn't necessarily carry a positive connotation. I think that JK's point that any of those team nicknames could lead to some group of people getting offended is pretty much right on.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Apr 11, 2007 6:57 AM EDT up reply actions

Re:

But would someone who could be appropriately labeled as a Yankee be offended by being called one? Would athletically gifted people be offended by the Athletics? Is Prince Charles upset about the Royals?

My point was that it's an absurd caricature of humankind to say that any of those groups could or would be offended by the team names, and that the poster I replied to was going to an irrational extreme. One can defend the choice of the name Indians without having to resort to blaming the bogeyman of political correctness or making irrational generalizations.

by jds16 on Apr 11, 2007 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions

Re:

My point is not to hate and not to spend ones life looking to make others look bad or paint something as bad. Pretty much anything can be spun into a problem. That is happening here.

AS AN EXAMPLE ONLY: Some folks have no problem railing for legislated ethnic morality and every problem with legislated religious morality.

I think all morality is good. I am not crazy about the Indian logo, but I also think it was done in the sense of being a fun, catchy logo, and not a detriment to a people. My humble little opinion.

Am I still being irrational?

by JK in CBus on Apr 12, 2007 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Re:

What I meant to portray as irrational is the slippery-slope argument that any team name that refers to some sort of collection of people (as you listed some) could be considered offensive. Maybe irrational was too strong of a word, but I do think it's far-fetched for a complaint about 49ers, Cavaliers, Yankees, etc to receive serious consideration any time in the forseeable future.

The rest of your statements make sense to me, but I respectfully disagree - lack of intent doesn't excuse one from taking responsibility for causing hurt or offense. I'd like to think that the logo was created good-naturedly (and have no idea one way or the other), but benign intentions alone aren't sufficient cause to keep the Wahoo logo.

by jds16 on Apr 12, 2007 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

It's obvious that as far as racial integration goes, the Cleveland Indians were the vanguard (Larry Doby, Satchel Paige, Frank Robinson). It's really interesting that the New York Yankees (1955) and Boston Red Sox (1959) took so long before they hired their first black baseball player.

Given those facts, who better to represent an American League team in a Civil Rights Game?

Moreover, I think there are two things to examine when having this debate: (1) the name Indians and (2) the Wahoo logo.

I think the Wahoo logo should be phased out of use, and I think the script "I" is indicative of that trend.

by Cory Snyder on Apr 10, 2007 9:28 PM EDT reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Frankly, the jury is still out as to whether Ketih Law knows baseball stats any better than a half-dozen folks who hang out here. But he is generally acknowledged as an expert in that field.

He is no kind of expert on this subject, and he fails in this article to make a single point that is new, insightful or astute. I don't have the slightest interest in what he thinks about this subject.

And he shows his lack of eptitude by confusing several key issues. Newsflash to Keith Law: "Indian" is not an epithet. Until just a few years ago, it was the widely accepted way to refer to Native Americans. If "Indian" is an epithet, so is "black."

Furthermore, he would be on the first flight out if either the Indians or Braves offered him a Special Assistant job. Or, for that matter, if his "New York Negroes" did.

by Jay on Apr 10, 2007 9:37 PM EDT reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Yeah; the problems come with the logo not the name. Most Indians refer to themselves as just that: Indians. There is, of course, a point to be made about the ways that the term "Indian" lumps together a whole bunch of people who otherwise have almost nothing in common except being the victims of American colonialism. But the terms "Native Americans" or "American Indians" have the same problem, so I tend to think that "Indian," while imperfect, is as good as any other way of naming.

Railing against the sacrifice bunt since 2000.

by jdudas on Apr 10, 2007 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Well, except for the fact that it is literally incorrect; they and their ancestors are not from India.

As for lumping people together, it's certainly no different than calling someone (or something) African, or for that matter American.

by Jay on Apr 10, 2007 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Yes, Jay; that's exactly my point about the importance of naming. I don't really want to get into this any more deeply here, so I'll refer you to "The Conquest of America" by Tzvetan Todorov.

Railing against the sacrifice bunt since 2000.

by jdudas on Apr 11, 2007 7:22 AM EDT up reply actions

Whats with all the hate...

I thought they were renaming them the Cleveland Barnstormers as a result of the last week's events...

by Brick. on Apr 10, 2007 10:45 PM EDT reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate

Lets go back to Spiders (even though they were an awful team).

by JulioBernazard on Apr 11, 2007 10:54 AM EDT reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate

How about taking a que from the Naps who were simply named after the teams best player at the time Nap Lajoie (i think i spelled that right) and call the team the Cleveland Gradys or the Cleveland Pronks.

by Brick. on Apr 11, 2007 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate

Nah, lost become the Cleveland Jhonnys ....

Wasn't Nap the 2nd baseman? Then we could be the Cleveland Barfs ...

by talonk on Apr 11, 2007 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate

Gho, Jhonnies, Gho!

Unofficial Andy Marte and Joe Borowski Apologist. My fantasy team - Swindon SpecOps 27.

by woodsmeister on Apr 12, 2007 9:02 AM EDT up reply actions

The Cleveland Snowbirds!

Hello everyone,

The "Cleveland Barfs"?! LOL! :-)

How about the "Cleveland Snowbirds"? Seems appropriate after all the snow we've had the past week.

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on Apr 12, 2007 12:43 AM EDT reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

I think from a purely business perspective, it would make sense to go ahead and change the name. Not even getting into the actual argument, the fact that the controversy surrounds the team should be a reason to change the name. I think it's only inevitable that at some point, there will be a name change. I would think that it would be better to do it now and appear that they are doing it on their own and not bowing to outside pressures.

In terms of a name change, they could either do a complete name change like some of those mentioned above (Cleveland Sliders?), or they could change the name to a specific tribe. It seems like some of the other teams that have been able to avoid some controversy have used specific tribal names, preferably with the blessing of those tribes (ie Florida Seminoles or Fighting Illini).

One option would be to try and get the blessing of a tribe that is/was native to Ohio. For example using Iroquois would allow them to keep the script "I" and could lessen the marketing impacts. On the other hand, the publicity generated from the team changing their name would probably be sufficient to offset the marketing impacts.

by Nat on Apr 12, 2007 9:54 AM EDT reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

Not even getting into the actual argument, the fact that the controversy surrounds the team should be a reason to change the name.

The name is infintely less of a controversy than the logo, at least in my perspective. There's nothing pejorative, let alone racist, about the name.

by Ryan on Apr 12, 2007 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions

Re: Whats with all the hate towards the Braves, In

If they change the name now or twenty years from now, it will still be perceived as to bowing to outside pressures. Especially with the amount of talk about it over the last 15 years.

by talonk on Apr 12, 2007 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions