Indians pull Chief Wahoo from life support

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,651
where I was last at
Divisive and hotly debated, the Chief Wahoo logo is being removed from the Cleveland Indians' uniform next year.

The polarizing mascot is coming off the team's jersey sleeves and caps starting in the 2019 season, a move that will end Chief Wahoo's presence on the field but may not completely silence those who deem it racist.

The Associated Press was informed of the decision before an official announcement was planned for Monday by Major League Baseball.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/apnewsbreak-indians-removing-chief-wahoo-logo-uniforms-52686021
 

BlackJack

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2007
3,456
Why wait until next year? If they hold the position that it's inappropriate why will they have it on their uniforms for another year? I get the notion that they want to move slowly and deliberately but this smacks of trying to placate people who don't want to see the logo go away instead of just doing what they think is right.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,275
Why wait until next year? If they hold the position that it's inappropriate why will they have it on their uniforms for another year? I get the notion that they want to move slowly and deliberately but this smacks of trying to placate people who don't want to see the logo go away instead of just doing what they think is right.

According to a Cleveland paper, getting rid of the logo was a condition on getting the 2019 ASG

https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2018/01/29/cleveland-indians-will-remove-chief-wahoo-from-uniforms-for-2019-season
 
Last edited:

timlinin8th

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2009
1,521
It may also be a bit late to change this year's approved uniform, but that is pretty related to inventory.
Eh, teams have knocked out uniform changes on the fly plenty of times. The Red Sox got the red “Boston” on the front of the jerseys in the wake of the Marathon Bombings quick enough, pretty sure tearing Wahoo off a jersey is equally simple.

Even if it was an inventory issue, they could have just sold old Wahoo stuff as overstock at a discount. No, they’re doing it because every asshole who supports Wahoo is going to get in their final merch order now.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
Eh, teams have knocked out uniform changes on the fly plenty of times. The Red Sox got the red “Boston” on the front of the jerseys in the wake of the Marathon Bombings quick enough, pretty sure tearing Wahoo off a jersey is equally simple.

Even if it was an inventory issue, they could have just sold old Wahoo stuff as overstock at a discount. No, they’re doing it because every asshole who supports Wahoo is going to get in their final merch order now.
Or it's just very simply an inventory issue.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
It may also be a bit late to change this year's approved uniform, but that is pretty related to inventory.
But if it's that important, are we saying that MLB couldn't give the okay?


Or it's just very simply an inventory issue.
On which side? That they can't produce enough to wear? I don't buy that. They can sew a patch over it on their sleeves and wear different caps.

Apparently this issue is important, but it's not *that* important.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
Or it's just very simply an inventory issue.
The outrage is silly. I have no problem with the organization being deliberate about this. Besides inventory, perhaps they just want to take careful steps in designing their next logo. I don't know, maybe they want to engage the fans in the process. Who knows? We are talking about their brand here. Cant we just celebrate the decision?
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,482
But if it's that important, are we saying that MLB couldn't give the okay?




On which side? That they can't produce enough to wear? I don't buy that. They can sew a patch over it on their sleeves and wear different caps.

Apparently this issue is important, but it's not *that* important.
The MLB is pushing for the change, so you would think they would fast track a change if they could. But it could be in the contracts with the uniform manufacturers, not just for the players but also the jerseys for sale to fans. Again, this is speculation and whatever way you slice it, it will come down to money in the end. The only thing anyone would lose is cash. I think it's way past the time this should have been done, now the NFL just has to do something about the Redskins.
 

Was (Not Wasdin)

family crest has godzilla
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2007
3,721
The Short Bus
Interesting that they have to keep selling it to keep trademark. Any lawyers no if that’s true?
Kind of. I'm not a trademark lawyer, but the general concept is that trademark rights arise through use in commerce, not through a registration with the PTO. I think the concept is call "abandonment"-if you have a mark (such as certain words or a logo) but stop using it actively in trade or business, after a certain period of time you lose the protection and anyone else can use it.
 

timlinin8th

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2009
1,521
Or it's just very simply an inventory issue.
Funny, teams don’t have inventory issues when it comes to selling things like “2017 AL East Champs” gear. They just stop producing it, and mark it down like 50% for sale on their website til the shit’s gone.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Funny, teams don’t have inventory issues when it comes to selling things like “2017 AL East Champs” gear. They just stop producing it, and mark it down like 50% for sale on their website til the shit’s gone.
I think the point is they are no longer going to sell it either. A Jersey sure you can just rip a patch off of it, but other stuff? They can’t change the logo for the pr accolades and then keep it on their website. Giving it a year not only allows them to unload but also makes it a collectors item for people that don’t care about it being offensive, so it increases demand.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
Funny, teams don’t have inventory issues when it comes to selling things like “2017 AL East Champs” gear. They just stop producing it, and mark it down like 50% for sale on their website til the shit’s gone.
Because they don't produce or sell a lot of it since demand is small and exists during a very small, specific window. As opposed to making shirts, jerseys, hats, socks, and other such merchandise that all bear the Chief Wahoo logo.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
Because they don't produce or sell a lot of it since demand is small and exists during a very small, specific window. As opposed to making shirts, jerseys, hats, socks, and other such merchandise that all bear the Chief Wahoo logo.
They don’t need all that for the uniforms though. If this is really important, they could make it happen.
 

TheYaz67

Member
SoSH Member
May 21, 2004
4,712
Justia Omnibus
Are the Indians and the Braves doing a name change as well?
Doesn't seem like it is in the same category as the offensive caricature, which is why folks rightly had a problem with Wahoo - there is nothing inherently wrong with their names/those words are not on their own considered derogatory to some members of that group - I don't know, is anyone agitating for the Indians to change their name to the "Cleveland Native Americans"?
 

Doc Zero

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2007
12,435
Doesn't seem like it is in the same category as the offensive caricature, which is why folks rightly had a problem with Wahoo - there is nothing inherently wrong with their names/those words are not on their own considered derogatory to some members of that group - I don't know, is anyone agitating for the Indians to change their name to the "Cleveland Native Americans"?
Cleveland Spiders would rule so hard
 

MuzzyField

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Interesting that they have to keep selling it to keep trademark. Any lawyers no if that’s true?
Not a lawyer, but I think Was (Not Wasdin) is correct.
North Dakota does something like this to keep the Fighting Sioux trademark. Hockey fans in particular love the old mascot/logo. By producing a limited run occasionally, and keeping the trademark active UND can maintain the trademark, fight the bootleg merchandise market, and prevent it from being legal for anyone to use in the future.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
Wonder how that face painted fan from that famous picture is taking it; the one who ended up face to face with actual indigenous people while dressed like a stereotype en route to the game.
 

Doc Zero

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2007
12,435
Wonder how that face painted fan from that famous picture is taking it; the one who ended up face to face with actual indigenous people while dressed like a stereotype en route to the game.
Ambassador to India appointee, IIRC.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,482
Wonder how that face painted fan from that famous picture is taking it; the one who ended up face to face with actual indigenous people while dressed like a stereotype en route to the game.
I'm sure these people were just celebrating their native heritage.

 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,479
Rogers Park
Are the Indians and the Braves doing a name change as well?
They probably should, but many people forget (or don't even know!) that the Golden State Warriors used to be a Native American mascot team. The rebrand of the iconography can really change how it's received.



Now, their name is more neutral than "Braves" or "Indians" or certainly the crude nickname sported by the Washington, D.C. football organization. Getting rid of the icon is a big step, though, towards.

Maybe future iconography, following the GSW lead, could be more oriented towards Cleveland itself. Cleveland does have a recognizable skyline.

Cleveland Spiders would rule so hard
I've been on this tip since I lived in NE Ohio almost 20 years ago. And in the current Cleveland sports scene, naming a *very good* team after the legendary worst major league team ever is kind of a power move.

Go Spiders!
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,482
Goodell said no changed to Redskins coming
They have no time really. They have to make the catch rules more convoluted, and figure out some way to make another token change in their concussion handling. Oh, and figure out a way to make it look like they care about social issues.
 

Kun Aguero

New Member
I am Native American. I really don't understand the outrage from people who AREN"T Native American over this logo. Nothing infuriates me more than someone being offended on behalf of someone else. It's ridiculous. Whether or not a logo or image should or shouldn't be used should be entirely and exclusively on the people it supposedly insults. The context of things is far too often overlooked in the name of being PC. Dressing like an Indian to support the Indians is just not racist to me. The Patriots have their militia. Cowboys in Dallas. To me it's no different. It is done to support, not to offend. If I dressed like the above images, is that racist? I AM Native American after all. Now I would agree that it probably just shouldn't be done at all. It's just a moral and responsible thing to do. But it doesn't automatically make one a racist if they do it, unless it is done SPECIFICALLY to insult or offend. And nobody knows anyone elses motives or thoughts.

TBH, I find the "tomahawk chop" to be FAR more offensive than Chief Wahoo.

Redskins is probably the most offensive name in the sports world. I can't see how anyone can even begin to defend this or that this name should not be removed immediately.
 

amlothi

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2007
802
I am Native American. I really don't understand the outrage from people who AREN"T Native American over this logo. Nothing infuriates me more than someone being offended on behalf of someone else. It's ridiculous.
So as an adult who was never molested as a child, I can't be outraged when someone is molesting children? I should let the children fight their own battle?

As a white person, I cannot be offended if I hear my boss say they won't hire a person with dark skin? I should just let that go because it doesn't affect me?

As a man, I shouldn't be outraged when women are sexually harassed? I should just let them deal with it alone?

Just trying to figure out what the rules are. I don't want to be ridiculous.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
So as an adult who was never molested as a child, I can't be outraged when someone is molesting children? I should let the children fight their own battle?

As a white person, I cannot be offended if I hear my boss say they won't hire a person with dark skin? I should just let that go because it doesn't affect me?

As a man, I shouldn't be outraged when women are sexually harassed? I should just let them deal with it alone?

Just trying to figure out what the rules are. I don't want to be ridiculous.
Those are all crimes, ranging from awful to the utterly despicable. Cultural appropriation can be offensive and it's sometimes in poor taste, but it's not literally illegal.
 

Kun Aguero

New Member
So as an adult who was never molested as a child, I can't be outraged when someone is molesting children? I should let the children fight their own battle?

As a white person, I cannot be offended if I hear my boss say they won't hire a person with dark skin? I should just let that go because it doesn't affect me?

As a man, I shouldn't be outraged when women are sexually harassed? I should just let them deal with it alone?

Just trying to figure out what the rules are. I don't want to be ridiculous.
"The context of things is far too often overlooked in the name of being PC."

Too late. You are ridiculous. I stated quite clearly what the "rule" was. Thanks for proving my point. In literally EVERY example you just posted, the motives are CLEAR. You were so quick to be outraged by what I said you overlooked (or just conveniently ignored) the CONTEXT of something. Is a native american dressed as a native american offensive to you? You don't know the MOTIVE of the person in those photos. That's what I said.

Plus they are ALL crimes, as johnmd stated. So there's that, too.

I have to watch my grandfather tonight fucking a man.

I have to watch my grandfather tonight, fucking a man.

HUGE difference in those two sentences huh? Notice how just a comma totally changed things. Same thing with MOTIVES.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
so is the debate now whether chief wahoo is offensive or not? if any of the native american mascots are offensive? do we really need to do this?
 

Kun Aguero

New Member
so is the debate now whether chief wahoo is offensive or not? if any of the native american mascots are offensive? do we really need to do this?
Kind of been the point of the whole debate all along.

Are you Native American? I simply stated MY personal feelings on Chief Wahoo. Being, you know, Native American kind of gives me that right, doesn't it? YOU don't "really need to do" anything. Just ignore the entire thread if you think I am not entitled, or others are not entitled, to their opinions.
 
Last edited:

keninten

New Member
Nov 24, 2005
588
Tennessee
Kind of been the point of the whole debate all along.

Are you Native American? I simply stated MY personal feelings on Chief Wahoo. Being, you know, Native American kind of gives me that right, doesn't it? YOU don't "really need to do" anything. Just ignore the entire thread if you think I am not entitled, or others are not entitled, to their opinions.
I`m part Native American it never has offended me except that people now think I`m overly sensitive because of all this crap. I think of Chief Wahoo as nothing more than a caricature. Similar to what you see people drawing at fairs and amusement parks. The Chief`s grin is like what you would expect of a Jimmy Carter caricature. I hate to see politics on this board but this is an issue now. Just hope everyone can listen to each other than get upset and start the name calling like most internet sites.
 

hbk72777

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,945
Well, hunger has been cured by this action

Now if only the Redskins would change their name, we'd finally have world peace
 

hbk72777

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,945
Also find it hysterical that nobody bitches about how the biggest video game character of all time is an Italian plumber with a stereotypical accent, look and job.

You don't see me throwing hissy fits over it

But hey, as long as it's fun ,right?
 

amlothi

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2007
802
Kind of been the point of the whole debate all along.

Are you Native American? I simply stated MY personal feelings on Chief Wahoo. Being, you know, Native American kind of gives me that right, doesn't it? YOU don't "really need to do" anything. Just ignore the entire thread if you think I am not entitled, or others are not entitled, to their opinions.
For the record, I don't find Chief Wahoo offensive either - we agree there. However, I'm bothered by the implication in some of your posts that certain people's opinions are less valuable or should not be voiced. I think everyone should be equally entitled to their opinion. Do you think the opinions of native americans are the only ones that are important here?

In my previous post, I purposely used extreme examples. You seemed to be relying on an argument that only members of the affected group can have a real or informed opinion on something. That's a slippery slope and the way you demonstrate that is by taking the logic to it's extreme. It seems you now agree that this logic doesn't hold in all cases, so I'm confused why you continue to say things like the quoted.

Finally, I'll point out that not all of the examples I used were always crimes in the history of this country. Those actions have been criminalized because people in positions of power decided they should be illegal. People in positions of power, mind you, who were not members of the affected group. It was because those people had an opinion and were willing to act on it that things changed. For the better.

We should be encouraging people outside of the minority target group to engage on these types of issues.
 

Kun Aguero

New Member
For the record, I don't find Chief Wahoo offensive either - we agree there. However, I'm bothered by the implication in some of your posts that certain people's opinions are less valuable or should not be voiced. I think everyone should be equally entitled to their opinion. Do you think the opinions of native americans are the only ones that are important here?
In my previous post, I purposely used extreme examples. You seemed to be relying on an argument that only members of the affected group can have a real or informed opinion on something. That's a slippery slope and the way you demonstrate that is by taking the logic to it's extreme. It seems you now agree that this logic doesn't hold in all cases, so I'm confused why you continue to say things like the quoted.

I never said anyone elses opinions should not be voiced. The quote you posted of mine states the exact opposite, actually. Again, CONTEXT is everything. A point you simply cannot, or more than likely, refuse to grasp. The motives in your examples are crystal clear. If someones motives are racist, and it's clear that's why they are doing it, then any and all have a right to be offended. If it is NOT clear, then only the group it targets should say whether or not they find it offensive.





Finally, I'll point out that not all of the examples I used were always crimes in the history of this country. Those actions have been criminalized because people in positions of power decided they should be illegal. People in positions of power, mind you, who were not members of the affected group. It was because those people had an opinion and were willing to act on it that things changed. For the better.

We should be encouraging people outside of the minority target group to engage on these types of issues.
When using or displaying a logo, or dressing up becomes as despicable and heinous as child molestation, or becomes illegal, let me know. Then your examples MIGHT be relevant.

Again, their MOTIVE in those examples are crystal fucking clear. The motive for someone dressing up isn't. Dressing as a Native American is blatant racism just like refusing to hire minorities? Really? What if the person dressed up IS Native American. What then pray tell?
 

yeahlunchbox

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 21, 2008
764
I am Native American. I really don't understand the outrage from people who AREN"T Native American over this logo. Nothing infuriates me more than someone being offended on behalf of someone else. It's ridiculous. Whether or not a logo or image should or shouldn't be used should be entirely and exclusively on the people it supposedly insults. The context of things is far too often overlooked in the name of being PC. Dressing like an Indian to support the Indians is just not racist to me. The Patriots have their militia. Cowboys in Dallas. To me it's no different. It is done to support, not to offend. If I dressed like the above images, is that racist? I AM Native American after all. Now I would agree that it probably just shouldn't be done at all. It's just a moral and responsible thing to do. But it doesn't automatically make one a racist if they do it, unless it is done SPECIFICALLY to insult or offend. And nobody knows anyone elses motives or thoughts.

TBH, I find the "tomahawk chop" to be FAR more offensive than Chief Wahoo.

Redskins is probably the most offensive name in the sports world. I can't see how anyone can even begin to defend this or that this name should not be removed immediately.
Why do you feel Redskins is more offensive than Chief Wahoo? Isn't Chief Wahoo essentially that nickname in mascot form?
 

amlothi

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2007
802
I never said anyone elses opinions should not be voiced. The quote you posted of mine states the exact opposite, actually. Again, CONTEXT is everything. A point you simply cannot, or more than likely, refuse to grasp.
Here's the quote I'm reacting negatively to:

Are you Native American? I simply stated MY personal feelings on Chief Wahoo. Being, you know, Native American kind of gives me that right, doesn't it?
Please point me to where you stated that others' opinions are welcome, as I only see you defending your own right to post your opinion. Please explain why asking another poster whether they are Native American is relevant if you aren't planning to value/devalue their opinion based on the answer.

This could have simply said "I'm just stating my personal feelings as someone who happens to be Native American. I understand that others may disagree." However, you chose not to word it that way. Rather than shouting "CONTEXT" and blaming other posters, please explain what you meant.
 

Kun Aguero

New Member
Why do you feel Redskins is more offensive than Chief Wahoo? Isn't Chief Wahoo essentially that nickname in mascot form?
Do you find "Fighting Irish" mascot offensive? What about if his name was "Mick"? "Redskin" is a derogatory term. "Chief Wahoo" isn't. It's all about the context. I don't think Clevelands motives were racist when they came up with the logo and the name. Kind of hard to say the same thing about "redskins". It may have been ok back then. But it just isn't now. I don't know why they refuse to change it and fight so hard against it. Don't get me wrong. I would be fine with neither one being around. But I think Redskins needs to go much quicker than Chief Wahoo. Maybe eliminating Wahoo will light a fire under the Snyders asses. But I highly doubt it.
 

yeahlunchbox

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 21, 2008
764
I completely agree with you on Washington. I'm just not sure how Chief Wahoo is less offensive, because to me it's the exact same thing, just in visual form instead of verbal/written
 

Kun Aguero

New Member
Here's the quote I'm reacting negatively to:



Please point me to where you stated that others' opinions are welcome, as I only see you defending your own right to post your opinion. Please explain why asking another poster whether they are Native American is relevant if you aren't planning to value/devalue their opinion based on the answer.

This could have simply said "I'm just stating my personal feelings as someone who happens to be Native American. I understand that others may disagree." However, you chose not to word it that way. Rather than shouting "CONTEXT" and blaming other posters, please explain what you meant.
Right AFTER the part where you conveniently cut it off in your quote. " Just ignore the entire thread if you think I am not entitled, or others are not entitled, to their opinions.". Now did I specifically SAY other opinions are welcome? No. But if you use that logic, I never said they weren't either.

Explain why someone who isn't Native American would be offended by this logo. Why? I have no issue with someone stating that they want the logo gone because it MAY be offensive. But I DO have an issue with people saying it IS offensive, or being offended on BEHALF of someone else, or saying that I should be offended . Why?? How does it affect you in ANY way??

But my post, that seemed to offend YOU so much, was directed at someone who asked why we are debating if it is offensive. NOT whether it should be gone. Stating "it is offensive to Native Americans and should be removed" is OK with you? How do you know if it is or isn't unless Native Americans speak out? Stating it "MIGHT be offensive and should be removed" is different, isn't it? CONTEXT.

I have answered all your questions. Now answer all mine. If someone deliberately drives onto the sidewalk and kills a child, and if a tire accidentally blows out and I go on the sidewalk and kill a child, we both should be charged EXACTLY the same? Doesn't the MOTIVE behind it make a big difference? I stated VERY clearly, and again, something you conveniently ignored because of your "outrage" over my post, that the motive and/or context behind something is very important. And when that motive or the context isn't immediately clear AND indisputable, the person or persons it is directed at should have the most voice on the matter. Or do you disagree with that?