Racist Logos - Indians vs. Fighting Irish

[jesmu84]

Why not use this same logical approach to the national anthem?  It's real simple. Just be respectful.

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

Interesting stance

[Pakuni]

Why not use this same logical approach to the national anthem?  It's real simple. Just be respectful.

Isn't peaceful disrespect the whole point of civil disobedience?
I've never heard of an effective protest movement that insisted on ensuring that no one ever feels disrespected. I don't think Gandhi, MLK or Cesar Chavez worried much about offending people.*

* = No, I'm not comparing NFL players to these people. Just pointing out that "offending" others is a necessary component of effective protest.

[Lennys Tap]

If I were really whom you claim, I would have a vigorous defense of the Indians Chief Wahoo.   Every just relax.

I don't ever recall you vigorously defending Chief Wahoo - you were in love with the racial slur "redskin".

[rocket surgeon]

It's not about personalizing. It's about you having a very skewed notion toward an entire generation. An extremely hypocritical viewpoint

there you go again-you don't even know what my "notion" is, but it's "skewed"? 

"skewed" according to who?  hey, millennials have worked hard for their reputations, let's not bust it up in one little post.  both my son's are millennials as defined by the period they've grown up in, but that's where it ends. the hyper-generalized reputations they have forged for themselves is there, real and would take a few pages of discussion  to reveal and analyze.  they are a complicated bunch and i would say MANY of them have a "skewed" vision.  hell, anyone who disagrees with me has a "skewed" vision for that matter. 

ones "skewed" vision is another's reality, eyn'a? 

[jesmu84]

there you go again-you don't even know what my "notion" is, but it's "skewed"? 

"skewed" according to who?  hey, millennials have worked hard for their reputations, let's not bust it up in one little post.  both my son's are millennials as defined by the period they've grown up in, but that's where it ends. the hyper-generalized reputations they have forged for themselves is there, real and would take a few pages of discussion  to reveal and analyze.  they are a complicated bunch and i would say MANY of them have a "skewed" vision.  hell, anyone who disagrees with me has a "skewed" vision for that matter. 

ones "skewed" vision is another's reality, eyn'a?

Again, you used millennial because of the over-generalized negative reputation that so many older generations falsely use. You clearly believe it. It's sad

The most delicious hypocrisy though is that you guys are responsible for the development of the millennials. Don't get mad at us, get mad at yourself

[GGGG]

The same things that are being said about millennials were said about GenXers 20+ years ago.  (And probably the same things that were being said about Boomers by the WWII generation before that.)  Millennials will be just fine.  They'll find their way like everyone else did.

[Spotcheck Billy]

The same things that are being said about millennials were said about GenXers 20+ years ago.  (And probably the same things that were being said about Boomers by the WWII generation before that.)  Millennials will be just fine.  They'll find their way like everyone else did.

How can anyone be so sure about that?

[GGGG]

How can anyone be so sure about that?

Because dozens of generations have before them. 

[GGGG]

http://deadspin.com/rob-manfred-hints-at-meeting-with-indians-ownership-to-1788235022?rev=1477494243467&utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

"At the end of the interview, Mike Golic asked the Commissioner about the Indians’ use of Chief Wahoo throughout the postseason—the team has, by decision of its players, worn its second alternate dark blue Wahoo uniform during every postseason game.

Manfred hinted to Golic that he has plans to speak with team ownership about the use of the logo during the offseason:

'Well, I understand that particular logo is offensive to some people, and I understand why. On the other side of the coin, you have a lot of fans that have history and are invested in the symbols of the Indians. I think that after the World Series, at an appropriate point in time, Mr. [Larry] Dolan and I have agreed we’ll have a conversation about what should happen with that particular logo going forward.'"

[wadesworld]

http://deadspin.com/rob-manfred-hints-at-meeting-with-indians-ownership-to-1788235022?rev=1477494243467&utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

"At the end of the interview, Mike Golic asked the Commissioner about the Indians’ use of Chief Wahoo throughout the postseason—the team has, by decision of its players, worn its second alternate dark blue Wahoo uniform during every postseason game.

Manfred hinted to Golic that he has plans to speak with team ownership about the use of the logo during the offseason:

'Well, I understand that particular logo is offensive to some people, and I understand why. On the other side of the coin, you have a lot of fans that have history and are invested in the symbols of the Indians. I think that after the World Series, at an appropriate point in time, Mr. [Larry] Dolan and I have agreed we’ll have a conversation about what should happen with that particular logo going forward.'"

That's great.  If it offends some people have at a discussion and come to some sort of conclusion.

Again, the discussion started with the statement that the Indians logo is "the most racist logo in sports."  The logo is not racist unless we are redefining the term "racist/racism."

If people want to debate whether the logo is offensive have at it.  I'm not passionate about that one way or the other.  I just don't think that anything that is "offensive" is "racist."

[GGGG]

That's great.  If it offends some people have at a discussion and come to some sort of conclusion.

Again, the discussion started with the statement that the Indians logo is "the most racist logo in sports."  The logo is not racist unless we are redefining the term "racist/racism."

That's not true.  According to Merriam-Webster:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

racism:

1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2a :  a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b :  a political or social system founded on racism

3 :  racial prejudice or discrimination


I highlighted the third one because that is why I am using the term.

So let's look up "prejudice."

1. injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially detriment to one's legal rights or claims

2 a (1) :  preconceived judgment or opinion (2) :  an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b. an instance of such judgment or opinion

c. an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics


"Discrimination"

1 a :  the act of discriminating
b :  the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

2 :  the quality or power of finely distinguishing

3a :  the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b :  prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>


Therefore saying the Indians' logo is "racist" is perfectly accurate.

[wadesworld]

That's not true.  According to Merriam-Webster:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

racism:

1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2a :  a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b :  a political or social system founded on racism

3 :  racial prejudice or discrimination


I highlighted the third one because that is why I am using the term.

So let's look up "prejudice."

1. injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially detriment to one's legal rights or claims

2 a (1) :  preconceived judgment or opinion (2) :  an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b. an instance of such judgment or opinion

c. an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics


"Discrimination"

1 a :  the act of discriminating
b :  the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

2 :  the quality or power of finely distinguishing

3a :  the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b :  prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>


Therefore saying the Indians' logo is "racist" is perfectly accurate.

What hostility gets directed at Indians based on this logo?  What discrimination has gone on based on this logo?  I haven't heard of any, but could be wrong.

[GGGG]

One could very easily state that an inaccurate depiction of a race in a drawing is a hostile act.  One of the definitions of "hostile" is "having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature <a hostile workplace>"

You yourself called it "offensive."

If it is "offensive," it can be called "hostile."   Since it is irrationally hostile to a group of people, it is prejudicial.  Since it is prejudice based on race, it is racism.

[wadesworld]

One could very easily state that an inaccurate depiction of a race in a drawing is a hostile act.  One of the definitions of "hostile" is "having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature <a hostile workplace>"

You yourself called it "offensive."

If it is "offensive," it can be called "hostile."   Since it is irrationally hostile to a group of people, it is prejudicial.  Since it is prejudice based on race, it is racism.

So any logo or nickname that any individual finds possibly offensive is hostile and therefore racist?  Got it.  Fair enough.  I'd say sports teams should probably just play it safe and go simply by their city's/school's names.  No more nicknames or logos.

[GGGG]

So any logo or nickname that any individual finds possibly offensive is hostile and therefore racist?

Nope.  Didn't say that.  Nice try though.

[Babybluejeans]

Why feel bad? He got what he deserved.

I should have said I felt sad. Sad that he needs this place so desperately.

[wadesworld]

Nope.  Didn't say that.  Nice try though.

I just think when you have to twist and turn to make something fit it's hard for me to buy it.  I look at the definition of the actual word (racist) and if that thing (the logo, in this case) doesn't fit that definition, I don't consider it racist.  When you have to go, "Well, in the definition of racism you have this word, which could mean this definition that doesn't fit, but this definition does have this other word in it, and this other word's definition is related to the logo, so therefore we can circle all the way back and say this logo is, in fact, racist."  Sure, when you twist and turn and keep trying, you'll find what you are looking for, as is most often the case with anything.  But I could take quite a few logos and find a way to find different words that somehow relate back to words within the definition of the word "racism."  That doesn't make that logo racist.

If the logo intentionally depicted offensive stereotypes about the Indian race I would wholeheartedly agree it's racist.  If the logo was intentionally poking fun at a traditional Indian head piece then that makes it pretty racist.  If the Indian logo is throwing back a 40 oz then yup, racist.

To me, the logo does none of those things.  There are no offensive stereotypes, it's not an attempt to demean the Indian race, it's not a way to show other races are better than the Indian race.  it's simply a sports logo, nothing more, nothing less.  If people look at the logo and think, "Hey, the logo has red skin, a head piece, and split hair suggesting a pony tail.  That's an Indian!  I'm so much better than that depiction because I'm (whatever race they may be)!" then I would suggest the racism comes from the individual viewing that, not from the logo.

[GGGG]

Dude, the logo has cartoonish red skin.  Don't you understand that depicting a an entire race in such a manner is by nature prejudicial?

Read about "Little Black Sambo" and the caricatures of black people in the illustrations. 




Or about how people have depicted Jews. 




Chinese




Chief Wahoo is the exact same damn thing!  But because it is associated with sports it is somehow different?

[wadesworld]

Dude, the logo has cartoonish red skin.  Don't you understand that depicting a an entire race in such a manner is by nature prejudicial?

Read about "Little Black Sambo" and the caricatures of black people in the illustrations. 




Or about how people have depicted Jews. 




Chinese




Chief Wahoo is the exact same damn thing!  But because it is associated with sports it is somehow different?

Those would be the same as an Indian drawn drinking a 40 oz beer.  Last I checked Chief Wahoo doesn't have that.

So again, if someone is asked to draw a Hispanic person, an Indian, an African American, and a Caucasian they are racist if they participate in that activity, because they are generalizing an entire race of people down to a single drawn image?  If someone draws a sombrero on a stick figure for the Hispanic person, a(n inaccurate) head piece on a stick figure for the Indian, a stick figure with a black face for an African American, and a stick figure for the Caucasian person they're being racist?

There's nothing demeaning about any of those.  Stereotypical?  Yup.  But differentiating people without concluding that one is better or worse than another is not racism.

[GGGG]

Those would be the same as an Indian drawn drinking a 40 oz beer.  Last I checked Chief Wahoo doesn't have that.

So again, if someone is asked to draw a Hispanic person, an Indian, an African American, and a Caucasian they are racist if they participate in that activity, because they are generalizing an entire race of people down to a single drawn image?  If someone draws a sombrero on a stick figure for the Hispanic person, a(n inaccurate) head piece on a stick figure for the Indian, a stick figure with a black face for an African American, and a stick figure for the Caucasian person they're being racist?

There's nothing demeaning about any of those.  Stereotypical?  Yup.  But differentiating people without concluding that one is better or worse than another is not racism.

I never said that someone who draws such a logo is racist.  I said the logo itself, if it includes racial or ethnic stereotypes, is racist.

I have no idea who initially drew up Chief Wahoo.  I have no idea what his or her belief system was.  They were likely very much a person of their times when we didn't pay attention to those things.  We have made progress in a number of ways on that front.  You don't see the above depictions of blacks, Jews or chinese any longer.  This is just another one that needs to go away.

[Benny B]

If I were really whom you claim, I would have a vigorous defense of the Indians Chief Wahoo.   Every just relax.

True.  Because only you would know.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Thanks for the background Sultan.  That added context helps me understand how the Indians' logo is viewed as racist.  I still have a hard time parting from my first impression of it being just a silly cartoon.  But that impression was formed when I was an 8 year old boy, just starting to get into sports.  I lacked the knowledge and life experiences to see it as racist.

I appreciate this discussion.  It has educated me a great deal.  It has also prompted me to do more research on the logo.  I'm starting to agree more and more with Sultan on this topic.

Another note: This version of the logo isn't the original.  There was a different Indian face logo from 1946-1950.  I'll post it when I'm on a real computer and not on my phone.

[GGGG]

Thank you.

I just don't understand in this day and age we can be so cavalier about images and nicknames.  We are talking about sports.  High school, college, pro...whatever.  It's just a bunch of people playing a game.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Here is the logo that preceded the current Chief Wahoo.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

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]