Cleveland Indians ready to discuss changing team name

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Yes I think it may largely be due to the word "colored" with an ed at the end. Water fountains, bathrooms, seating areas, etc... were once designated "Coloreds" or "No coloreds allowed"
Yeah, I can see that. That's helpful. Again, not that I *need* to understand. I will respect it regardless.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Yeah, questions are good, conversations are good, other people's POV are good. Just like in other walks of life, there are generational, regional and cultural differences in our membership and the exchange of thoughts or ideas allows us to look at things differently than we might have otherwise.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Yeah, questions are good, conversations are good, other people's POV are good. Just like in other walks of life, there are generational, regional and cultural differences in our membership and the exchange of thoughts or ideas allows us to look at things differently than we might have otherwise.
Agreed. I will just say that I've always thought it was simple courtesy to call people what they wish to be called. Even if it doesn't make sense to me.

But I *do* like understanding things better, for sure.
 

NJ_Sox_Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 2, 2006
10,736
NJ
I`m not a Braves fan but go to Braves games. I love doing the "Tomahawk Chop" and I`m native american. We always have taken it as a cool thing. Chief Wahoo has a picture up in my bar. It`s just too bad people are now noticing us again for political gain.
This is where my annoyance on the name changes comes in. I do not believe for a second it has anything to do with anything other than politics and people in politics looking to capitalize on the current cancel culture in this country. While I understand the disdain for the name Redskins, I just do not see the same issue with names like Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Warriors, Seminoles, etc. With Redskins, certainly no one would accept a name like Brownskins, Yellowskins, etc. so it makes sense to move on from that name. Although personally I liked the logo, I understand why people wanted to have Chief Wahoo removed. But to change every name of a team where someone may potentially be offended when the team names have nothing to do with racism I just cannot get behind. Nobody at a Chiefs game is doing the Tomahawk Chop out of hate or racism.

Side note, while I am against Cleveland being forced to change their name, I do think if they go back to the Spiders that would be awesome.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,892
Austin, TX
Posnanski weighs in:

And, yes, I do know that when the change comes, a number of people will be furious and will rebel hard because they will feel cheated somehow, will feel that it is so deeply unfair that a nickname that they have connected with all their lives — a name they cannot see any harm in at all — will be put into the obsolete pile.

“It’s just a sports nickname!” they will shout. “It doesn’t mean anything! Nobody should be offended by a sports nickname!”

My greatest wish is that at least some of them will repeat those words to themselves until they see what should have been so obvious all along.
https://joeposnanski.substack.com/p/changing-of-a-name
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,877
Boston, MA
I was literally just posting that when you did. I actually like the Rockers as the team name. The merchandizing and in game music possibilities are endless.
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
6,095
This is where my annoyance on the name changes comes in. I do not believe for a second it has anything to do with anything other than politics and people in politics looking to capitalize on the current cancel culture in this country. While I understand the disdain for the name Redskins, I just do not see the same issue with names like Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Warriors, Seminoles, etc. With Redskins, certainly no one would accept a name like Brownskins, Yellowskins, etc. so it makes sense to move on from that name. Although personally I liked the logo, I understand why people wanted to have Chief Wahoo removed. But to change every name of a team where someone may potentially be offended when the team names have nothing to do with racism I just cannot get behind. Nobody at a Chiefs game is doing the Tomahawk Chop out of hate or racism.

Side note, while I am against Cleveland being forced to change their name, I do think if they go back to the Spiders that would be awesome.
The issue that I take with this kind of attitude is that it displays a fundamental lack of understanding about what is truly problematic with these team names.

It's not so much that the names are explicitly racist in a vacuum (though some would argue that they clearly are, especially Redskins), but more so that it's another in a long line of things white people have stolen from Native Americans, in order to appropriate and use for their own purposes, with little to no regard for the people or communities from which they were taken.

When my high school changed our team name and logo 25 years ago, that was the crux of the passionate argument made by two Native Americans teachers. White people have already stolen their land, their wealth, and their dignity. It would be nice if businesses didn't steal their likenesses for the sake of monetary profit on top of all of that.
 

donutogre

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,193
Philadelphia
This is where my annoyance on the name changes comes in. I do not believe for a second it has anything to do with anything other than politics and people in politics looking to capitalize on the current cancel culture in this country. While I understand the disdain for the name Redskins, I just do not see the same issue with names like Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Warriors, Seminoles, etc. With Redskins, certainly no one would accept a name like Brownskins, Yellowskins, etc. so it makes sense to move on from that name. Although personally I liked the logo, I understand why people wanted to have Chief Wahoo removed. But to change every name of a team where someone may potentially be offended when the team names have nothing to do with racism I just cannot get behind. Nobody at a Chiefs game is doing the Tomahawk Chop out of hate or racism.

Side note, while I am against Cleveland being forced to change their name, I do think if they go back to the Spiders that would be awesome.
Why do you get to decide that these names have nothing to do with racism? I understand that the name Indians isn't as blatantly racist as, say, Chief Wahoo, but it's a pretty absurd position for you to take and assume that no one finds the name Indians offensive or racist.

It also doesn't matter if people aren't doing the tomahawk chop out of hate or racism. By that standard, we should be able to do blackface, or have Chief Wahoo as a team logo, or dress up in caricatured Native American garb. "I didn't mean to offend anyway!"

At the end of the day, is this really a hill that people need to die on? Can we not accept the fact that there are lots of ugly connotations around some of these things (as @Soxy mentions) and try to minimize that sort of stuff going forward? I don't understand why we need to cling to these ultimately meaningless things so strongly.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I was literally just posting that when you did. I actually like the Rockers as the team name. The merchandizing and in game music possibilities are endless.
You gotta help me see this. What's your logo going to be? A guitar? The letter R? The letter C? They already have that. An intertwined C and R? We already have one of those. In game music possibilities are already endless aren't they?
 
Last edited:

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,494
I'm ready to move on from Indians but Rockers might be the worst candidate I've seen yet. Aside from being a seriously lame attempt to sound cool, it immediately tees up the John Rocker jokes.
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
36,684
where the darn libs live
This is so pathetic that the cancel culture movement is doing this. They already dropped Chief Wahoo logo. I'd be pretty pissed if I was an Indians fan or any fan of the Chiefs, Braves, Blackhawks because these liberal cancel culture assholes will be out for them next.
People who get really agitated about 'cancel culture' are primarily just pissed that they now have to hear everyone's opinions about stuff they like.
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
36,684
where the darn libs live
Seriously, though: it should be the Spiders.

They’d be crazy not to grab onto the authentic history of having been the team to lose the most games in a season. It’s not a great distinction, but it happened like 120 years ago, and it’s more interesting than anything, say, the Blue Jays have ever done.

Plus, think of the cool Halloween tie-ins you could have in years when the Spiders made the postseason!
Winning back to back World Series titles isn't interesting? Including a Series-winning walkoff homer?
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,478
Rogers Park
Winning back to back World Series titles isn't interesting? Including a Series-winning walkoff homer?
I watched those Series and enjoyed them. I was a Fred McGriff fan as a child, for whatever reason — I think I had a baseball card? (My favorite Sox player in those years: Mike Greenwell).

But despite those achievements, I think it's fair to say that the Blue Jays are a solid candidate for the least interesting big-league team: the most generic team, the team that's just a team. That doesn't mean that interesting players haven't passed through, or that the team hasn't been good. Sometimes they're good, sometimes they're bad, usually they're decent: their .495 winning percentage for the life of the franchise seems almost exactly perfect. They might be more interesting if they were worse.

Basically, their personality is that they're the one from Canada, but they're not even the interesting team from Canada: the Expos are more interesting than the Blue Jays, and they don't even exist anymore.

I can tell you something really interesting about almost every other franchise, something that would illuminate some aspect of the history of the sport as a whole. So could you.
  • The A's, say, are scrappy. They have been remarkably successful despite low budgets due to their innovative approaches to building rosters and in-game tactics. Someone made a movie about it.
  • The Yankees are evil, literally emblematic of a society in which too many privileges accrue to wealth.
  • The Twins have been burdened by their long-time institutional opposition to the strikeout — weird, right?
  • The Royals play a different strategy in response to their unique home park.
  • The Rockies play a different strategy in response to their unique home park.
  • The Cardinals are weirdly snobby about their fans.
  • The Angels haven't moved their franchise, but still can't decide where they are located.
  • The Cubs play in a beautiful old park and are romanticized by a large fanbase across their home region, and are the underdogs to a rival that has had more success historically.
  • The Red Sox play in a beautiful old park and are romanticized by a large fanbase across their home region, and are the underdogs to a rival that has had more success historically.
  • The Giants play in a beautiful new park and are romanticized by a large fanbase across their home region, and are the underdogs to a rival that has had more success historically.
  • The Mariners are weird.
  • The Reds are the oldest team.
  • The Marlins are emblematic of all of the terrible trends in sports ownership and management.
This isn't in any particular order. I could keep going, through the Astros (who recently became much more interesting), the Mets, Dodgers, Phillies, Pirates, Braves, White Sox, Rays, Orioles. The teams that it would be hardest to come up with something interesting about are the candidates for the most generic team.
  • The Brewers are a team, I guess. They used to be in the AL?
  • The most interesting thing about the Rangers had been that the summer weather in Arlington is so horrible that they chew up pitchers, but now they have an eye-rollingly ugly covered stadium, so that won't be an issue. Maybe they're more interesting now because of how horrible their park is.
  • The Padres have had plenty of interesting players — from Gwynn to Dock Ellis — but the most interesting things about the team is its ballpark and their mostly terrible history of uniforms.
  • The Nationals are pretty anonymous, I guess.
  • And I really think the Blue Jays are at the top of this list.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,540
South Boston
This isn't in any particular order. I could keep going, through the Astros (who recently became much more interesting), the Mets, Dodgers, Phillies, Pirates, Braves, White Sox, Rays, Orioles. The teams that it would be hardest to come up with something interesting about are the candidates for the most generic team.
  • The Brewers are a team, I guess. They used to be in the AL?
  • The most interesting thing about the Rangers had been that the summer weather in Arlington is so horrible that they chew up pitchers, but now they have an eye-rollingly ugly covered stadium, so that won't be an issue. Maybe they're more interesting now because of how horrible their park is.
  • The Padres have had plenty of interesting players — from Gwynn to Dock Ellis — but the most interesting things about the team is its ballpark and their mostly terrible history of uniforms.
  • The Nationals are pretty anonymous, I guess.
  • And I really think the Blue Jays are at the top of this list.
I like this exercise and agree with a lot of your list...but the Blue Jay's do not belong on the generic list. 2nd Canadian team...only current Canadian team. A mini-dynasty in our lifetimes, the Sky Dome, the record attendance, a sweet logo and at times great uniform.

The White Sox belong on that list. Extreme 2nd fiddle in their own city, easily least popular of the cities' 5 major sports teams, play in an area that has a very violent reputation, have had relatively little success the last 50 years.

How the Rays are not on that list is also inexplicable.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
If for nothing else than the Sky Dome and what it meant to new ballparks, they're hardly boring, even if you seemingly want to overlook the World Series wins, Joe Carter, big time trade acquisitions (Rickey, Cone, Alomar, etc) and stealing Clemens. Plus, Hard Rock Cafe.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,482
  • The Padres have had plenty of interesting players — from Gwynn to Dock Ellis — but the most interesting things about the team is its ballpark and their mostly terrible history of uniforms.
I lived in San Diego for two years. When you step away from the field that stadium is just a mall food court. With less ambience. The field is fine if a bit gimmicky and fake. But everything in San Diego felt like it was 5 years old and designed to look like something instead of just being something. What I'm saying is that it's a completely fine representation of the franchise.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,078
How many other ballparks could you regularly watch people having sex AND a ballgame? Point Jays.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,478
Rogers Park
I like this exercise and agree with a lot of your list...but the Blue Jay's do not belong on the generic list. 2nd Canadian team...only current Canadian team. A mini-dynasty in our lifetimes, the Sky Dome, the record attendance, a sweet logo and at times great uniform.

The White Sox belong on that list. Extreme 2nd fiddle in their own city, easily least popular of the cities' 5 major sports teams, play in an area that has a very violent reputation, have had relatively little success the last 50 years.

How the Rays are not on that list is also inexplicable.
The White Sox are an original AL team who were the focus of a legendary cheating scandal. That’s not generic, at least by my standards. You are of course free to adopt your own.

Armour Square is not really a dangerous area, but if it were that would make the White Sox *less generic,* not more.

And the Rays are definitely not generic. They’re totally bizarre! They play in an abomination of a ballpark, they changed their name to remove the word “Devil“ all of four years before signing a rapist relief pitcher who was available because he was a bad person.

Generic doesn’t mean bad, it means unremarkable.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,478
Rogers Park
If for nothing else than the Sky Dome and what it meant to new ballparks, they're hardly boring, even if you seemingly want to overlook the World Series wins, Joe Carter, big time trade acquisitions (Rickey, Cone, Alomar, etc) and stealing Clemens. Plus, Hard Rock Cafe.
Are any of these things unusual or distinctive? The SkyDome was what, the fifth domed stadium in MLB? Was it the first that opened? I don’t remember.

Someone wins the World Series every year. The Jays were by my count the thirteenth team to win consecutive WS titles.

Joe Carter seems pretty unremarkable as a fan favorite slugger who played for a bunch of teams, but made a mark with one. Good player, but he benefited from playing an era when you could get MVP votes with a sub-.300 OBP.

Maybe another way to put this would be that Adam Lind is ninth on the Jays‘ top HR hitter list. Boston’s is Jimmy Foxx. NY’s is Derek Jeter. Even the Mariners, who came in with Toronto, have a much more interesting list.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
My understanding, from the few Native Americans who are my friends, is that the term Indian is not considered offensive. And perhaps it is even a point of pride, in that white Europeans were so ignorant of where they had arrived.

I mean, they thought they were in India. Jokes on them.

Apologies if this is not accurate. I've never had a deliberately specific conversation about this.
I’ve been told by American Indian activists that they favor “Indian” over “Native American” because the latter is purely a change to make white people feel better about all the bullshit they’ve put American Indians through. “So,” the thinking goes, “that’s what you called us when you were wiping us out and sticking us on shitty land, now you own it.” Most refer to themselves in terms of their tribe (Lakota, Odjibwe, Blackfeet), so it’s not really as relevant, anyway.

But regardless, what we call a particular race or ethnicity is beside the point in this case, even if the name itself isn’t offensive. The issue is appropriating the name of a group America has essentially destroyed for the purposes of entertainment.

Not to Godwin the thread, but it really isn’t a far off analogy to imagine a Düsseldorf soccer team naming itself The Jews. Sure, “Jew” isn’t in and of itself offensive; it’s the context that makes it wrong as a matter of principle. And removing an offensive logo doesn’t solve the issue.

And unlike Braves, Chiefs, hell even Vikings, the name isn’t based on the particular actions or occupations of the parties referenced. It’s a name based on their race. It’s the difference between “Caucasians” and “Knights”.
 
Last edited:

The Talented Allen Ripley

holden
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2003
12,723
MetroWest, MA
I'm full-blooded Scottish (albeit Scottish-American, was born here to a Scottish-American father and a Scottish mother). We are not an oppressed people (except by those damn English), and I've never felt any negative repercussions to being Scottish. Most people assume I'm Irish given my name and complexion, which in Boston tends to be a feature, not a bug.

I got married in full highland gear, clan-appropriate tartan, etc. It meant a lot to me to do that. For me, for my father, for my mother, for her family. I keep that outfit under tight wraps and have worn it on very special occasions since then. A couple of years ago, a friend of my sister's husband was taking a guy's trip to Scotland (golf, whisky, beer), and he asked me if he could wear my kilt over there, and I was fucking horrified. I think he thought of it as a Scottish frat boy's uniform. I was offended. Legit offended. The heritage, the significance, the expense, none of these things lended themselves to him blithely borrowing it for a drunken junket by some non-Scot, wearing my family's tartan no less. A costume, as it were. I hemmed and hawed and weaseled my way out of giving an answer, which was enough to never bring the question up again.

This is what we call appropriation. And this was my brother-in-law's friend, who is generally a good guy.

Now picture this writ large across a sporting landscape, with a team name, logo, mascot, fan apparel, crowd rituals, etc. You might think you're paying homage to Native American culture, but you're not.
 
Last edited:

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,078
I’d ask anyone that says it’s to honor NA culture, what else do they do to honor NA culture.
 

keninten

New Member
Nov 24, 2005
588
Tennessee
I’d ask anyone that says it’s to honor NA culture, what else do they do to honor NA culture.
It`s sports and fun. If I meet someone down here in the south that is a Red Sox fan we have a common bond immediately. That is somewhat similar to naming a team after Indians to me.
I’ve been told by American Indian activists that they favor “Indian” over “Native American” because the latter is purely a change to make white people feel better about all the bullshit they’ve put American Indians through. “So,” the thinking goes, “that’s what you called us when you were wiping us out and sticking us on shitty land, now you own it.” Most refer to themselves in terms of their tribe (Lakota, Odjibwe, Blackfeet), so it’s not really as relevant, anyway.

But regardless, what we call a particular race or ethnicity is beside the point in this case, even if the name itself isn’t offensive. The issue is appropriating the name of a group America has essentially destroyed for the purposes of entertainment.

Not to Godwin the thread, but it really isn’t a far off analogy to imagine a Düsseldorf soccer team naming itself The Jews. Sure, “Jew” isn’t in and of itself offensive; it’s the context that makes it wrong as a matter of principle. And removing an offensive logo doesn’t solve the issue.

And unlike Braves, Chiefs, hell even Vikings, the name isn’t based on the particular actions or occupations of the parties referenced. It’s a name based on their race. It’s the difference between “Caucasians” and “Knights”.
This is where I have a problem, but I`m not offended. You saying we were destroyed, awful things happened to both settlers and Indians. We are still here as a race (if you want to group us).
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,675
Maine
Are any of these things unusual or distinctive? The SkyDome was what, the fifth domed stadium in MLB? Was it the first that opened? I don’t remember.
It was the first with a working retractable roof (Olympic Stadium in Montreal had one, but it didn't work). That led to retractable roofs on a bunch of new stadiums since...Houston (x2), Phoenix (x2), Miami (x2), Arlington (x2), Seattle, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Indianapolis, New York (x2).
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,754
Pittsburgh, PA
It`s sports and fun. If I meet someone down here in the south that is a Red Sox fan we have a common bond immediately. That is somewhat similar to naming a team after Indians to me.
How would that be any different if the team were named the Cleveland Jabberwockys?
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,405
This parallel Blue Jays discussion might be revealing how old we all are, because if you’re in your late-30s/early-40s, I can imagine that you have some pretty clear memories of those back-to-back WS championships. They might be the first World Series winners you can recall at all - certainly two of the first I can recall. And they were memorable teams! If you’re talking post-2000, then they have not done much of interest, although I’d argue the Jose Bautista bat flip as the most iconic baseball image of the past decade. (Not sure what number two on that list is.) Does that make them interesting? I’d still say Texas and San Diego are less interesting personally.

ETA: also I think Skydome is now the 7th oldest home park in MLB? Someone check my work on that one.
 
Last edited:

barbed wire Bob

crippled by fear
SoSH Member
This parallel Blue Jays discussion might be revealing how old we all are, because if you’re in your late-30s/early-40s, I can imagine that you have some pretty clear memories of those back-to-back WS championships. They might be the first World Series winners you can recall at all - certainly two of the first I can recall. And they were memorable teams! If you’re talking post-2000, then they have not done much of interest, although I’d argue the Jose Bautista bat flip as the most iconic baseball image of the past decade. (Not sure what number two on that list is.) Does that make them interesting? I’d still say Texas and San Diego are less interesting personally.

ETA: also I think Skydome is now the 7th oldest home park in MLB? Someone check my work on that one.
I think you are correct.
https://ballparkdigest.com/2017/03/31/mlb-ballparks-from-oldest-to-newest/
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
36,684
where the darn libs live
Are any of these things unusual or distinctive? The SkyDome was what, the fifth domed stadium in MLB? Was it the first that opened? I don’t remember.

Someone wins the World Series every year. The Jays were by my count the thirteenth team to win consecutive WS titles.

Joe Carter seems pretty unremarkable as a fan favorite slugger who played for a bunch of teams, but made a mark with one. Good player, but he benefited from playing an era when you could get MVP votes with a sub-.300 OBP.

Maybe another way to put this would be that Adam Lind is ninth on the Jays‘ top HR hitter list. Boston’s is Jimmy Foxx. NY’s is Derek Jeter. Even the Mariners, who came in with Toronto, have a much more interesting list.
That's a pretty wild stat!!
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
It`s sports and fun. If I meet someone down here in the south that is a Red Sox fan we have a common bond immediately. That is somewhat similar to naming a team after Indians to me.
This is where I have a problem, but I`m not offended. You saying we were destroyed, awful things happened to both settlers and Indians. We are still here as a race (if you want to group us).
I said "essentially destroyed." Your point is well taken, and I should have instead said "nearly destroyed."

That being said, I stand by my overall point; that using the fundamentally racist term of a people that white colonists and their progeny nearly extinguished in a centuries-long campaign of aggression and deception as the name of a sports team is in bad taste.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,540
South Boston
Rewatched Major League tonight. Awesome movie...but it's pretty, pretty, pretty bad when it comes to how bad they treat the Indian nickname and the culture around it.