OT: Indians to cease use of Chief Wahoo logo

[C Court]

Talks about the issues with the poll, but also makes this fairly important point about the poll results being far less important than this:

Our young people have a rate of suicide 2.5 times higher than average. According to the American Psychological Association, which has called for the ending of the practice of mascotting, Native youth suffer measurably lower self-esteem after exposure to a Native American mascot. It also found that Native respondents who claim to be okay with Native mascots actually experience a greater drop in self-esteem.

I'm betting the Irish don't experience a similar drop in self esteem or significantly higher suicide rates because Notre Dame's mascot is a leprechaun. You can actually be selective' You don't need to all lives matter this.

That statement is very disingenuous, because nowhere in the research does it demonstrate a direct link between a native suicide rate that is 2.5 times the national average and a native person's exposure to mascots.

Just because you put 'suicide' and 'mascots' in the same paragraph, doesn't mean there is a factual, measurable link.

If you want, we can go through the same exercise for Irish people and the verifiable fact that their culture is afflicted by excessive alcohol consumption. Add mention of 'mascots' and you can infer a link (that's not there).

World Health Organisation revealed that Ireland has the second highest rate of binge drinking in the world. The global status report on alcohol and health found 39 per cent of all Irish people aged 15 and over had engaged in binge drinking, or “heavy episode drinking” in the last month. WHO has called for the end of the practice of mascotting. Irish symbols like the Celtics and Notre Dame leprechauns are used as mascots. Many Irish people engage in binge drinking after exposure to an Irish mascot.

As to the Washington Post Poll, you can always debate methodology and weighting. Maybe the 90% finding is too high. An earlier poll had the number at 78%. But the general point still stands, that the evidence continues to show that the majority of Native Americans are not offended by team names like Chiefs, Indians, Braves, Blackhawks and Eskimos.

Why change team names that some deem as offensive, when the majority of the so-called offended people, are not actually offended?

[Fairview4Life]

...I posted some links to some APA which also contain internal links to some papers in the very next post. It isn't just including words in the same paragraph.

[C Court]

Except the words in the paragraph were very misleading, because there were no supporting statements within the links that I could find that showed a link between mascots, then self esteem issues, then higher suicide rates.

They made a correct statement that suicide rates are 2.5X higher than the national average. The research found that natives who were exposed to mascots experienced lower self-esteem. Sure. But the reasearch did not establish a direct link between suicide rates and mascot-driven self esteem issues.

They inferred a link, because people with lower self esteem have higher suicide rates. But the research did not find that exposure to mascots led to lower self-esteem, which then led to more suicides. If they did in fact discover a direct link - mascots lead to native suicide - then we have a massive story.

[Black Watch]

It's just the white bourgeoisie who are offended.

[Raptors Realtor]

It's just the white bourgeoisie who are offended.

Guys c'mon, let's get real... Just because you or someone you know who is native isn't offended, doesn't mean that natives in general aren't offended... I have a friend from university who now works for the government in Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, and she is deep rooted in the native culture & community, and she & others alike were/are very offended by pro sports depiction of their race/ancestry...

Here are some articles about protests held by natives regarding some "offensive" pro sports names & mascots:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/cleveland-indians-native-americans-rally-logo-161025193242211.html

https://www.voanews.com/a/native-americans-applaud-removal-of-offensive-sports-mascot/4230122.html

[C Court]

It's just the white bourgeoisie who are offended.

Guys c'mon, let's get real... Just because you or someone you know who is native isn't offended, doesn't mean that natives in general aren't offended

Except there is no data to support the notion that "natives in general are offended".

If your statement is true, then that empirical data would rightly used as a justification to ban team names like Indians, Eskimos, Braves and Blackhawks. But I don't see anyone pointing to hard data to suggest that a majority of aboriginals are offended.

You knowing someone in the Northern Affairs Dept who is offended, is no more or less valid than my Sioux daughter and her native/Metis friends being NOT offended. Both are anecdotal.

We live in a society where majority opinion rules, even though we can be tolerant of dissenting views. Just because you protest or because some people are offended, doesn't mean that we need to always capitulate to a minority opinion.

A vocal group of white Americans 'want their country back'. They are offended by what they view an erosion of white traditions and values that existed throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Should we listen to them too? They're protesting and they are offended.

A vocal group are opposed to abortion. Abortion really offends them. Its morally disgusting and abhorrent. Should we ban abortion because they are protesting and offended?

Various religious groups (all faiths) believe that their religious beliefs should drive and guide government policy. They protest and are offended by governments who pass laws not bound by their religious beliefs. Should we remove the separation of church and state because vocal religious groups are offended?

Look, I'm very liberal and I'm a big supporter of native rights. But just because some people are offended, doesn't mean we all need to be.

[Raptors Realtor]

It's just the white bourgeoisie who are offended.

Guys c'mon, let's get real... Just because you or someone you know who is native isn't offended, doesn't mean that natives in general aren't offended

Except there is no data to support the notion that "natives in general are offended".

If your statement is true, then that empirical data would rightly used as a justification to ban team names like Indians, Eskimos, Braves and Blackhawks. But I don't see anyone pointing to hard data to suggest that a majority of aboriginals are offended.

You knowing someone in the Northern Affairs Dept who is offended, is no more or less valid than my Sioux daughter and her native/Metis friends being NOT offended. Both are anecdotal.

We live in a society where majority opinion rules, even though we can be tolerant of dissenting views. Just because you protest or because some people are offended, doesn't mean that we need to always capitulate to a minority opinion.

A vocal group of white Americans 'want their country back'. They are offended by what they view an erosion of white traditions and values that existed throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Should we listen to them too? They're protesting and they are offended.

A vocal group are opposed to abortion. Abortion really offends them. Its morally disgusting and abhorrent. Should we ban abortion because they are protesting and offended?

Various religious groups (all faiths) believe that their religious beliefs should drive and guide government policy. They protest and are offended by governments who pass laws not bound by their religious beliefs. Should we remove the separation of church and state because vocal religious groups are offended?

Look, I'm very liberal and I'm a big supporter of native rights. But just because some people are offended, doesn't mean we all need to be.

I'll preface this by saying that I'm very liberal as well. You're right, there is no data to support that natives in general are offended, however there is no data to support that natives in general 'aren't' offended, so we're just spinning our wheels. I'm sure MLB & the Cleveland organization have done their due diligence, and this isn't just an off the cuff decision.

I don't know your daughter & her native friends (obviously), so the following is just a general statement: some people are more informed, involved, aware & educated on their culture, ancestry, religion, politics, profession, etc then others, so therefore, yes, I think those that have a deeper interest, understanding & knowledge on a topic, should have more credibility and their opinions hold more weight, then ones who aren't (as) informed.

[-MetA4-]

The word Indians sounds racist to call an indigenous person. It was fine in the old Wild West days, but it’s out dated and sounds offensive. They need a whole rebrand. Do it top to bottom.

Are you kidding me?

The word "Indian" is a perfectly fine descriptor. "Progressive" lunacy has no end, there is always something that needs to be stifled. Stop falling into the trap. Similarly, there was nothing wrong with using "blacks" as a descriptor decades ago, now you have to abide by these ever changing verbal abortions (person of colour? is that what we're on now, or is that now too offensive as well?) to replace terms that no sane person should care about.

The data is right: the vast majority of Natives really don't care about the names of these sports teams, and as mentioned, you can probably find as many who are PROUD to wear "Indians" or "Braves" nomenclature as there are those who are outraged. You don't see how there can be a certain level of pride in being able to say that there is a sports franchise which directly identifies with your culture? This logo in question (Chief Wahoo) was indeed questionable from a caricature standpoint so I have no problem with its removal, but to state that somehow even the name "Indians" is racist is absurd.

The guy in this thread who validates "Canucks" or "Yankees" because apparently those groups haven't been oppressed enough for it to be a problem shows the toxic nature of this whole movement. It is either right or it is wrong; setting up ad-hoc parameters to justify the use of potentially offensive names is ****. The Japanese haven't been historically oppressed (in fact, they've done their fair share of oppressing), so what now? Are you permitted to refer to them as "Japs"? Maybe start a sports franchise with the name (the Seattle Japs)?

Nothing shows the double standard of this more than the green-lighting of Irish culture as "appropriate" from a marketing standpoint. If you think that the cut-off sits at how much oppression a culture has endured, I suggest you read a little about the sunshine and rainbows history of the Irish people. The wheels should start turning in your mind, at which point you should be able to see the obvious anti-white racist undertones that exists in these activist movements. Throwing an arrowhead on a logo is "racist" because Natives have been oppressed; meanwhile throwing around four-leaf clovers or leprechauns is a-ok despite the fact that the Irish have endured centuries of oppression, even after they emigrated to America wherein they took a spot just slightly above the blacks on the social hierarchy. Most people don't know that the KKK had as much hatred for people of Irish or Italian descent as they did for blacks; they were seen as deplorable, but again, white people can't be victims, not even those who legitimately WERE victims.

[Black Watch]

Guys c'mon, let's get real... Just because you or someone you know who is native isn't offended, doesn't mean that natives in general aren't offended

Except there is no data to support the notion that "natives in general are offended".

You're right, there is no data to support that natives in general are offended, however there is no data to support that natives in general 'aren't' offended, so we're just spinning our wheels.

/Thread

[ATLTimekeeper]

Nothing shows the double standard of this more than the green-lighting of Irish culture as "appropriate" from a marketing standpoint. If you think that the cut-off sits at how much oppression a culture has endured, I suggest you read a little about the sunshine and rainbows history of the Irish people. The wheels should start turning in your mind, at which point you should be able to see the obvious anti-white racist undertones that exists in these activist movements. Throwing an arrowhead on a logo is "racist" because Natives have been oppressed; meanwhile throwing around four-leaf clovers or leprechauns is a-ok despite the fact that the Irish have endured centuries of oppression, even after they emigrated to America wherein they took a spot just slightly above the blacks on the social hierarchy. Most people don't know that the KKK had as much hatred for people of Irish or Italian descent as they did for blacks; they were seen as deplorable, but again, white people can't be victims, not even those who legitimately WERE victims.

I'm not sure it's a fair connection made here. The Irish culture in American sports represents the success of Irish-Americans as they rose from agrarian labour into middle class America. A team like the Boston Celtics was named to capitalize on the large Irish-American demographic in the area. There's a similar connection with the sporting teams of Catholic Universities.

[Hero_Panda]

Even though I have nothing to offer this thread with its discussion, I have to give kudos to both parties on keeping this a very civil discussion. It's definitely educational for someone like me.

Looking forward to read more from both sides of the argument.

[chargerxthirty]

I kinda liked the Chief Wahoo logo. It was really unique. But if people of aboriginal descent found it offensive, then for sure the right move is to get rid of it.

We didn't find it offensive. Glad someone finally asked.

[chargerxthirty]

Social liberalism has reached peak insanity. There are a couple sane people in here who obviously understand that these names and logos are not offensive and never were. As an Indian, thank goodness for these people.

The end goal that you all purport to strive to reach by eliminating these "racism issues" actually perpetuate these issues for reasons which have already been mentioned here so I won't waste anyones time saying the same stuff.


Point is, so many uninformed people socially grandstand without a damn clue about the reality of the situations they are commenting on. As long as they can feel good about themselves because they're saying something that exists in the echo chamber they live inside.

[Rapcity_11]

Hmmmm, let’s see….if the choices are:

1. A logo/name that offends at least SOME Indigenous people
2. A logo/name that offends nobody

Yeah, real tough choice there.

Trying to frame this as some sort of liberal insanity is just comical.

[The Duke]

If your going to change one, then there are 2-4 more in each sport that should be changed.

We should all go to the City Initial in Block caps, with a ball background.....

[Boogie!]

Insanely racist?

Explain.

Wow! Nice troll move!

Why is blackface racist? It's almost as if turning people into mascots and jokes for your own drunken amusement based entirely on their skin colour/ethnic background is the definition of racist. You don't see the Florida Honkey dancing on the sidelines. But I'm guessing your problem is you clearly don't even seem to understand the term racist, which suggests a person feels one culture is superior to another, and making a dancing, cartoon character that mocks the entire culture is absolutely putting one culture to be in an inferior position. But that's all your trolling will get from me. Cheers, dude.

Thanks for the shout-out

And also thanks for showing your white guilt so clearly by virtue signalling on a sabermetric-minded baseball message board.

I am an Indian. I was born in an Indian culture, grew up with Indian art and Indian words and Indian people all around me. I've travelled with Indian activists. I studied Indian history in school. I've never once heard anybody complain about the baseball team in Cleveland.

What are you, by the way? What gives you the right to just assume I'm a racist? Oh, of course, you must be white and bourgeois. I get it now. You're displaying your virtue to your peers—nice move. That should really advance race relations. Let's just compete with our own socioeconomic class on who's more enlightened! You know, instead of actually making the big sacrifices necessary for improving race relations and curbing inequality.

Let's be clear: mascots and jokes are not the same thing. Mascots only became clowns a few decades ago. The team name isn't to say that mandatory feathers are inserted in the caps of every ballplayer in some sort of mockery of Indians. How would that instill morale in the team or fear in the opponents? No. It's to draw some respect before a competition by associating with the competitors Americans once battled (hard, and for 400 years) for land. It's reverence.

And believing some cultures to be superior and others interior—which I do not, as it would interfere with my wanderlust—does not make you a racist. If it did, then everybody outside the white bourgeoisie would be a racist.

i'm confused... you're an indian? as in, from india? because i didn't think aboriginals called themselves indian...