a question For Cleveland Indians fans

koolkobe · Post #1 » by **koolkobe** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:08 pm

how do you guys feel about the team's name for the Cleveland Indians
im a new member and im doing a report on Native Americans and the Stereotypes of Sport Mascots. and I wanted the reaction of the fans on this topic. Is the name of this team offensive? Or is it just a team name in honor of the tribes that used to settle here. What's your opinion, i would like to know. I hope i dont get flamed or anybody else get flamed. this topic is kind of touchy. DISCUSS

Post #2 » by **B Mac** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:27 pm

The team was named in honor of a very popular player who was on the team that just so happened to be an American Indian. If they named the team in honor of an Indian and the player who had the team named after him was an American Indian and accepted I dont see at all how it can be offensive. My grandpa was born and grew up in Ireland and moved here before my Dad was born, making me awfully Irish myself. Should I be offeded by Notre Dame's mascot because it implies that Irish men just like to fight? People just need to chill out about all this stuff. If thats your biggest issue in life, then you are pretty well off.

Amon_Ones88 · Post #3 » by **Amon_Ones88** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:38 pm

B Mac I like your arguement about the tribe, but your second point is not valid. The reason they are the fighting Irish is not because they are drinker who like to fight. The mascot is a fighting Irishman symbolizing how the Irish used to box in order to "fight" to survive in America. It is a double-ontoundra meaning they fought to survive and the literally were boxers and fought for money. It has nothing to do with being a drunk fighter.

Roger Murdock · Post #4 » by **Roger Murdock** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:02 pm

The player on the indians wasn't popular. In fact he wasnt well liked an was often booed. The reason we are called the indians is because the braves won the world series the year before after changing their name to the braves, and we followed suit.

the name isnt racist in my opinion, but the logo sure as hell is. Redskins is much much worse though, and is very offensive in my opinion.
Schools named after indian tribes and whatnot don't bother me because they aren't negatively depicting a culture.

Post #5 » by **B Mac** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:37 am

Amon_Ones88 wrote:B Mac I like your arguement about the tribe, but your second point is not valid. The reason they are the fighting Irish is not because they are drinker who like to fight. The mascot is a fighting Irishman symbolizing how the Irish used to box in order to "fight" to survive in America. It is a double-ontoundra meaning they fought to survive and the literally were boxers and fought for money. It has nothing to do with being a drunk fighter.

While I certaintly didnt know the history behind the Fighting Irish nickname (thanks for the info) I still dont really think it goes against my point. I could still stretch the mascot into being something degrading against people with Irish backgrounds as people who are looking to fight. I never mentioned being drunk at all in my argument though. My point is, its a silly thing to worry about. Get over it.

Amon_Ones88 · Post #6 » by **Amon_Ones88** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:19 pm

While I certaintly didnt know the history behind the Fighting Irish nickname (thanks for the info) I still dont really think it goes against my point. I could still stretch the mascot into being something degrading against people with Irish backgrounds as people who are looking to fight. I never mentioned being drunk at all in my argument though. My point is, its a silly thing to worry about. Get over it.

True it is silly, and the drunk was just an implication. Sorry I meant no offense and am Irish myself for the record. The Mascot issue i will agree is silly. The Indians is not racist. If you think that is racist go to the NFL and yell at the REDSKINS that is directly pushed towards a stereotype of Native Americans. These are sports teams that have been named for years, before EVERYTHING was considered offensive. You can't even say mailman or paperboy any more without someone raising a stink. So no it is not racist.

koolkobe · Post #7 » by **koolkobe** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:17 pm

ok thanks guys

i agree with the point that the team being named the indians is not racist and it's a honor thing

i also agree with the point that the picture is very offensive

im glad you guys replied, cuz i couldn't get anything from the football and baseball forums on realgm

kiwibrindle · Post #8 » by **kiwibrindle** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:06 am

Indians?

Who are they?

I remember we had a baseball team in Cleveland once that was ours with an owner who cared a little, but I can't remember anything about them at all except there was this one time when all they needed was one guy to get them over the top and all they did was get a 41 year old Ken Loften instead. In the end they lost to Boston when they should have ended their 40 + year world series drought. But instead some a-holes saved a few million.

I have not watched a game or listened since. Are they still around?

My money is now mine and their money is theirs.

As for the name of the team I wouldn't worry to much either way. If they can find a way to make a buck or too they will by renaming, moving, or something else in their own best interest not in the fans interest. Its a business all about the dollars. Nothing else.

Good thing the Cavs have an owner who has a love of his team like his fans do.