Racist Logos - Indians vs. Fighting Irish

[wadesworld]

Some more background on the original logo from Wikipedia:

In 1947, Cleveland Indians owner Bill Veeck hired the J.F. Novak Company, designers of the patches worn by Clevelands police and firefighters, to create a new logo for his team. Seventeen-year-old draftsman Walter Goldbach, an employee of the Novak Company, was asked to perform the job.[3][4] Tasked with creating a mascot that "would convey a spirit of pure joy and unbridled enthusiasm", he created a smiling Indian face with yellow skin and a prominent nose.[4] Goldbach has said that he had difficulty "figuring out how to make an Indian look like a cartoon",[4][5] and that he was probably influenced by the cartoon style that was popular at the time.[6]

Joy and enthusiasm.  Struggled to make it look like a cartoon.  Doesn't sound like some racist, demeaning drawing to me.

[GGGG]

Joy and enthusiasm.  Struggled to make it look like a cartoon.  Doesn't sound like some racist, demeaning drawing to me.

I guess I'm not sure why you are deciding to die on this hill but...

...I never said the intent behind the drawing had anything to do with it.  In fact there are all sorts of racist images that had their roots in cartoons meant to be fun.  That doesn't make it right today.

[Lennys Tap]

I guess I'm not sure why you are deciding to die on this hill but...

...I never said the intent behind the drawing had anything to do with it.  In fact there are all sorts of racist images that had their roots in cartoons meant to be fun.  That doesn't make it right today.

Context. Amos and Andy, Willie Wampum, Chief Wahoo weren't conceived with any racist intent. And in their "day" they ranged from hilarious to silly. Those days are long gone. Recognize it. There are things that are OK in popular culture today that won't be a generation or two from now. And hopefully today's young people (then old like me) will recognize it. It's one way progress is made.

[GGGG]

Context. Amos and Andy, Willie Wampum, Chief Wahoo weren't conceived with any racist intent. And in their "day" they ranged from hilarious to silly. Those days are long gone. Recognize it. There are things that are OK in popular culture today that won't be a generation or two from now. And hopefully today's young people (then old like me) will recognize it. It's one way progress is made.

Exactly.  You can find horribly racist Bugs Bunny cartoons all over Youtube.  You wouldn't put those on television today for good reason.  Chief Wahoo is of that era.

[Coleman]

Kinda confused Wades why it is so important to you to prove that this hideous logo is not racist....

Are you that ignorant or that bored? Neither is good

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume its the latter. I appreciate a good argumentative challenge as much as the next guy, but this one is a bit too much of a stretch.

[wadesworld]

Kinda confused Wades why it is so important to you to prove that this hideous logo is not racist....

Are you that ignorant or that bored? Neither is good

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume its the latter. I appreciate a good argumentative challenge as much as the next guy, but this one is a bit too much of a stretch.

Because when someone throws around the racism card I don't just blindly buy into it.  It might be offensive.  It is not racist.

[Babybluejeansfan]

Here is the logo that preceded the current Chief Wahoo.

Technically true, but preceded for only one year and almost 40 years before the current logo.

This is the list of logos http://sportsteamhistory.com/cleveland-indians-logo-history

I guess I'm not sure why you are deciding to die on this hill but...

...I never said the intent behind the drawing had anything to do with it.  In fact there are all sorts of racist images that had their roots in cartoons meant to be fun.  That doesn't make it right today.

The great news is that you don't need to carry that cross.  Native American people have weighed in, and more than 70% are fine with current Native American imagery in sports.   Let us embrace their wisdom and concentrate on meaningful issues impacting the world. 

So if people all stood for the national anthem, you'd be fine with removing all offensive imagery from sports teams?

Interesting stance

I would be fine if people were respectful.  It is respectful to stand for a national anthem.  Native Americans in the majority don't find this imagery offensive. I choose to also be respectful of their wishes and those results.

[GGGG]

The great news is that you don't need to carry that cross.  Native American people have weighed in, and more than 70% are fine with current Native American imagery in sports.   Let us embrace their wisdom and concentrate on meaningful issues impacting the world. 

You have been treading out this poll for years now.  Here is why it is irrelevant to me.

1. The poll you cite has had numerous critics on how the data was collected.  I don't know enough to know how legitimate it is however.

2. Even if it is legitimate, 30% is a significant number.  Plenty to be concerned about.

3. Racist imagery offends more than just the target of the imagery.  It offends me that we live in a society that allows that crap.

[GGGG]

Because when someone throws around the racism card I don't just blindly buy into it.  It might be offensive.  It is not racist.

I have already showed you, through the very definition of the word, why it is racist.  You are simply now at the point where you are being obstinate about it.  And that's fine I guess.

[brewcity77]

The great news is that you don't need to carry that cross.  Native American people have weighed in, and more than 70% are fine with current Native American imagery in sports.   Let us embrace their wisdom and concentrate on meaningful issues impacting the world.

So 30% aren't statistically significant? Sorry, but that's just completely ridiculous.

[tower912]

The MLB commissioner is going to meet with the owner of the Cleveland baseball team after the season and discuss the logo.   

[muwarrior69]

The MLB commissioner is going to meet with the owner of the Cleveland baseball team after the season and discuss the logo.

I heard they are going to switch to a picture of Gandhi.

[Coleman]

3. Racist imagery offends more than just the target of the imagery.  It offends me that we live in a society that allows that crap.

This is actually a good point. I'm of European ancestry, but I don't want to raise my kids in a society where these kinds of logos are acceptable.

[muwarrior69]

You have been treading out this poll for years now.  Here is why it is irrelevant to me.

1. The poll you cite has had numerous critics on how the data was collected.  I don't know enough to know how legitimate it is however.

2. Even if it is legitimate, 30% is a significant number.  Plenty to be concerned about.

3. Racist imagery offends more than just the target of the imagery.  It offends me that we live in a society that allows that crap.

Like the Piss Christ: artist received tax dollars and initially was well received.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

or this: going for 2.5 million
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/01/chris-ofili-elephant-dung_n_7470692.html

[wadesworld]

I have already showed you, through the very definition of the word, why it is racist.  You are simply now at the point where you are being obstinate about it.  And that's fine I guess.

It is not racist.  You showed me that if you dig deep enough you can find a way to find words within the definition that have words in their definition that can twist their way back to some of the words in the definition of racism.  If you look at the actual definition of the word racism (a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. OR a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. OR hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.) there is nothing that is racist about the logo.

Nothing about the logo determines cultural or individual achievement or that one race is superior (or inferior) to another or has the right to dominate or be dominated, nothing that is a policy or system of government fostering such a doctrine, and nothing that is hateful or intolerant of other races.

Now, if you think that by taking words out of those definitions and finding different words in the definitions of those words and somehow tying them back to the word racism means that the logo then fits the definition of racism then sure, the logo is racist.  But I could find a way to do that with every word and every image in the world then.

[GGGG]

Like the Piss Christ: artist received tax dollars and initially was well received.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

or this: going for 2.5 million
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/01/chris-ofili-elephant-dung_n_7470692.html

You have every right to be offended by both.  Not sure why you decided to bring those up, but whatever...

[GGGG]

It is not racist.  You showed me that if you dig deep enough you can find a way to find words within the definition that have words in their definition that can twist their way back to some of the words in the definition of racism.  If you look at the actual definition of the word racism (a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. OR a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. OR hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.) there is nothing that is racist about the logo.

Nothing about the logo determines cultural or individual achievement or that one race is superior (or inferior) to another or has the right to dominate or be dominated, nothing that is a policy or system of government fostering such a doctrine, and nothing that is hateful or intolerant of other races.

Now, if you think that by taking words out of those definitions and finding different words in the definitions of those words and somehow tying them back to the word racism means that the logo then fits the definition of racism then sure, the logo is racist.  But I could find a way to do that with every word and every image in the world then.

Have you ever used a dictionary before?  Many words are complex and have multiple definitions.  I'm not really twisting logic here.

[Pakuni]

Like the Piss Christ: artist received tax dollars and initially was well received.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

or this: going for 2.5 million
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/01/chris-ofili-elephant-dung_n_7470692.html

I agree 100 percent that professional (or amateur) sports teams should use neither the Piss Christ or images created with elephant dung as their mascots/logos.
Glad we finally could find some common ground in this debate.

[wadesworld]

Have you ever used a dictionary before?  Many words are complex and have multiple definitions.  I'm not really twisting logic here.

There is nothing complex about any of the number of definitions for the term racism.  There is no need to twist and turn to find a way to make the logo fit the term.  It simply doesn't.  But again, if we want to twist and turn until we find a way, we can do it with anything, so sure.  Very racist logo I guess.

[muwarrior69]

You have every right to be offended by both.  Not sure why you decided to bring those up, but whatever...

Because the media will highlight the Redskins and Chief Wahoo as offensive and racist yet give praise to this "art"; one paid for by the tax payer.

[tower912]

You are moving goalposts and changing narratives.    Finding Cleveland's logo offensive does not equate to a defense of taxpayer dollars subsidizing 'Piss Christ'.     Quit pretending it does.   

[GGGG]

Because the media will highlight the Redskins and Chief Wahoo as offensive and racist yet give praise to this "art"; one paid for by the tax payer.

WOW THE MEDIA CAN BE HYPOCRITICAL!???!!! 

THIS IS EARTH SHATTERING NEWS!!!!!

[GGGG]

There is nothing complex about any of the number of definitions for the term racism. 

Correct.  I have already shown that. 

You are the one who is sticking by the "racial superiority" definition as its only definition.

[Pakuni]

Because the media will highlight the Redskins and Chief Wahoo as offensive and racist yet give praise to this "art"; one paid for by the tax payer.

Yeah .... I mean, there was virtually no media coverage of the outrage spurred by "Piss Christ" and National Endowment funding.

The irony here is that one of the native imagery defenders here is using a poll conducted by the Washington Post to support his position.
More evidence of media bias!

[muwarrior69]

You are moving goalposts and changing narratives.    Finding Cleveland's logo offensive does not equate to a defense of taxpayer dollars subsidizing 'Piss Christ'.     Quit pretending it does.

...but the media finds the "Piss Christ" acceptable and the "Black Modonna" is valued in the millions so who is pretending.