Cleveland Indians will remove Chief Wahoo logo from their uniforms

[StLucieBengal]

(01-30-2018, 01:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually I think protests from the gay community got rid of this logo.

The gays should want Bucco Bruce back. Bring him and Pat Patriot back as the pro gay logos

[StLucieBengal]

(01-29-2018, 06:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I understand the reasoning for this change, but I will point out that likely not a single person pushing for this change has ever brought up:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/26555/espn-host-notre-dame-fighting-irish-mascot-paul-bois

Espn is now calling for it

[Benton]

(01-29-2018, 03:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/22255143/cleveland-indians-removing-chief-wahoo-logo-uniforms


A move that should have happened a long time ago. There's a lot of debate over names, but what argument does someone make over such a ridiculous caricature like Chief Wahoo?

Good, longer overdue.

(01-29-2018, 07:26 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Or maybe you can just make any absurd unrealistic character you want, and nobody will care, so long as it's of a Caucasian person.












"Oddly" enough, none of those have been decried as racist. As I said, I understand them getting rid of the Indians logo, I am just laughing at the hypocrisy. Also if you think the only protesters for the Indians were Native Americans, you're wrong. It's also the usual suspects of college kids with too much time on their hands, and middle aged white folk with the same.

With the exception the Celtics, those probably aren't the best comparisons as they're drawn to convey toughness, courage. It's a far cry from a caricature with a penis nose.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2018, 02:04 AM)Benton Wrote: Good, longer overdue.



With the exception the Celtics, those probably aren't the best comparisons as they're drawn to convey toughness, courage. It's a far cry from a caricature with a penis nose.

But it's funny!  For the children!  

[*Nately120*]

(01-31-2018, 02:04 AM)Benton Wrote: Good, longer overdue.



With the exception the Celtics, those probably aren't the best comparisons as they're drawn to convey toughness, courage. It's a far cry from a caricature with a penis nose.

Yeah, I'm with you on this one.  You can't really toss every mascot with a human into the same pile because most of them aren't drawn as stereotypically as the Indians logo.  The Fighting Irish and Celtics ones I don't see changing because one could argue that they are leprechauns, not human, plus this is a country where we "celebrate" St. Patrick's Day by getting drunk and starting fights.  Our misappropriation of Irish heritage for the sake of commercialism goes well beyond some goofy mascots.

In order to satiate the poor white people crowd, I will say that you don't see the Black Sambo or racist Chinaman characters or accents or jokes anymore, but you still have snooty French and pizza pie it's a me Mario style Italian stereotypes.  But who am I to complain?  I'm Irish and Italian and I went to a Catholic school, played soccer, like the Boston Celtics, I play the mandolin, put anchovies on my pizza, and own more than 1 record by Dion.

What about those Canadian teams that are named after slang for people/Canadians and use non-people logos?  The Nordiques, Canadians, and Cannucks come to mind.  I guess that's because they'd be making fun of their consumer base if their logos were unflattering images.  Side note, if I were Dan Snyder I'd change the name of the Redskins to the Rednecks and order my team to stand for the anthem and just take all that would-be XFL interest right now.

[WeezyBengal]

(01-29-2018, 08:00 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Why aren’t we upset about all of these gross caricatures of pirates, vikings, gladiators, and leprechauns!?!?!!?!????!!?!?

Shit’s weak.

Because white people aren't minorities in this country. 

If you went to an African country which is predominantly black would you have an issue with them using a goofy caricature of a white person's face that exaggerates stereotypical white facial features as a team logo? I kinda would... 

[*Nately120*]

(01-31-2018, 11:27 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Because white people aren't minorities in this country. 

If you went to an African country which is predominantly black would you have an issue with them using a goofy caricature of a white person's face that exaggerates stereotypical white facial features as a team logo? I kinda would... 

That's a good point, but you're also leaving out the aspect that the Native Americans were here before we were.  So it would be more like if another culture completely takes over the USA and THEN starts making fun of his heritage and ethnicity as a means to promote their chosen sport.

The French take over and their league of 32 rugby teams exist and one is called the Trenton Trumpanzees has a caricature of...well, you get where this is going.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(01-31-2018, 11:27 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Because white people aren't minorities in this country. 

If you went to an African country which is predominantly black would you have an issue with them using a goofy caricature of a white person's face that exaggerates stereotypical white facial features as a team logo? I kinda would... 

I was being kinda facetious. Really, just having some fun at the expense of others in this thread who think that those comparisons are legit. I guess that can be easily lost on a message board, but I just assume that everyone knows my stance on things like this by now.

For what it's worth though, I don't think I'd be personally offended by this happening in an African country. People who look like me haven't been treated as lesser human beings for centuries though. I imagine if that were not the case, I may be offended by caricatures meant to degrade me. 

It's just another form of oppression....make them look like fools enough, and eventually people start to buy it.

[WeezyBengal]

(01-31-2018, 11:32 AM)Nately120 Wrote: That's a good point, but you're also leaving out the aspect that the Native Americans were here before we were.  So it would be more like if another culture completely takes over the USA and THEN starts making fun of his heritage and ethnicity as a means to promote their chosen sport.

The French take over and their league of 32 rugby teams exist and one is called the Trenton Trumpanzees has a caricature of...well, you get where this is going.

My point is that even though they were first here, they are still minorities. 

I think most of us agree that the logo is pretty racist, but we disagree when it comes to other logos and if they are racist or not. Its hard to look at each logo individually and draw a standard to decide if its racist or not. 

All in all, im glad they are getting rid of the logo. 

[*Nately120*]

(01-31-2018, 12:41 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: My point is that even though they were first here, they are still minorities. 

I think most of us agree that the logo is pretty racist, but we disagree when it comes to other logos and if they are racist or not. Its hard to look at each logo individually and draw a standard to decide if its racist or not. 

All in all, im glad they are getting rid of the logo. 

When I look at the name Redskins or the Indians logo (and the Cheifs, now that I think of it) I see one thing most of all...redness.  So red.  Let's not call this the PC movement so much as the "geez, let's try a wee bit of subtlety for a change" movement. The Boston Celtics can be green, the fighting Irish can be blue and gold, Vikings can be purple and gold, Steelers can be black and gold, Raiders can be black and silver, Canadian Hockey teams named after Canadians aren't all white, Bears can be blue, Eagles can be green so on and so forth.

Team named after a Native/tribe/rank...make it red. RED RED RED. Their skin is red, make it red. It's so on the nose. I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, but to act like there isn't some sort of underlying theme of simple labeling is just delusional.

[Millhouse]

I always though that logo looked goofy to begin with, something a minor league team would use.

Personally I dont care, but if it makes a few people feel better, then oh well.

[*Nately120*]

(01-31-2018, 01:03 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I always though that logo looked goofy to begin with, something a minor league team would use.

Personally I dont care, but if it makes a few people feel better, then oh well.

Yeah, to each his own, as long as you try to be consistent.  I've noticed people like to tell other people to "just ignore" things don't offend them, but when something offends them they don't feel the need to just ignore it, because they're totally having it "shoved down their throats."

I recall having a discussion with a coworker a few years back where he stated that people should just ignore the Redskins name/logo or get over it, but at the same time was really upset that he had to raise his impressionable daughter in a world where the gay agenda is allowed to be forced upon us. Simply put, the only things that are offensive and can't be simply ignored are the things that offend me...because you are offended by stupid stuff and the things that offend me are legit threats and should be treated as such.

People are full o' baloney.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-31-2018, 12:53 PM)Nately120 Wrote: When I look at the name Redskins or the Indians logo (and the Cheifs, now that I think of it) I see one thing most of all...redness.  So red.  Let's not call this the PC movement so much as the "geez, let's try a wee bit of subtlety for a change" movement. The Boston Celtics can be green, the fighting Irish can be blue and gold, Vikings can be purple and gold, Steelers can be black and gold, Raiders can be black and silver, Canadian Hockey teams named after Canadians aren't all white, Bears can be blue, Eagles can be green so on and so forth.

Team named after a Native/tribe/rank...make it red. RED RED RED. Their skin is red, make it red. It's so on the nose. I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, but to act like there isn't some sort of underlying theme of simple labeling is just delusional.

Chief Wahoo is Red because the Cleveland Indians are red and blue. They made him Red for marketing. The original chief wahoo was normal skin tone for an Indian. Add that with him being a Cartoon caricature to appeal to kids then it’s quite easy to see it’s not made to be offensive.

[*Nately120*]

(01-31-2018, 01:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Chief Wahoo is Red because the Cleveland Indians are red and blue.   They made him Red for marketing.   The original chief wahoo was normal skin tone for an Indian.   Add that with him being a Cartoon caricature to appeal to kids then it’s quite easy to see it’s not made to be offensive.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-31-2018, 01:34 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yeah, to each his own, as long as you try to be consistent.  I've noticed people like to tell other people to "just ignore" things don't offend them, but when something offends them they don't feel the need to just ignore it, because they're totally having it "shoved down their throats."

I recall having a discussion with a coworker a few years back where he stated that people should just ignore the Redskins name/logo or get over it, but at the same time was really upset that he had to raise his impressionable daughter in a world where the gay agenda is allowed to be forced upon us. Simply put, the only things that are offensive and can't be simply ignored are the things that offend me...because you are offended by stupid stuff and the things that offend me are legit threats and should be treated as such.

People are full o' baloney.

Excellent point. I agree totally which is why people should keep their private business to themselves. Including their beliefs on the sports logs and names. No one is forced to root for a team. And no one is forced to wear a logo.

Just found out my neighbor was gay. Had no idea and that is exactly how it should be. Only found out because my wife inadvertently saw Something when she was gardening and thankfully he put up an additional privacy hedge to take care of the issue.

[*Nately120*]

(01-31-2018, 01:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Excellent point.   I agree totally which is why people should keep their private business to themselves.   Including their beliefs on the sports logs and names.  No one is forced to root for a team.   And no one is forced to wear a logo.    

Just found out my neighbor was gay.   Had no idea and that is exactly how it should be.   Only found out because my wife inadvertently saw Something when she was gardening and thankfully he put up an additional  privacy hedge to take care of the issue.

Oh come, this is total crap.  I bet he had an idea that you were straight.  Did you hide that from him?  This is what I mean about the false-equivalency of being offended or keeping stuff to yourself.  The same guy who thinks gays should just keep it to themselves posts a pic of him and his wife and kid together on his facebook page.  Woah dude, quit shoving your heterosexuality down my throat!

Anyways, this is a long side rant that isn't about sports logos, but let me say you just really illustrated my point about how unfair and biased people are about personal views on things.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-31-2018, 01:49 PM)Nately120 Wrote:

I personally don’t find any of that offensive. But I don’t get fired up over cartoon logos, as they are typically not good logos in general imo. And by good I mean aesthetically pleasing.

As what you posted. I like the headdress one’s. I would use the 1946/1951 as an alternate logo for children. As i am sure they were designed. I do think we should consider the era for logos. There was a time where cartoon caricature logos were popular. And quite frankly ther isn’t a lot of options for Indians.

[*Nately120*]

(01-31-2018, 02:03 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I personally don’t find any of that offensive. 

Personally, I'm not offended by things you find offensive.  See how much power that line of thinking has over your perspective? Anywho, I'm getting a little wound up so I have to ignore this thread for a while!

[StLucieBengal]

(01-31-2018, 01:58 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Oh come, this is total crap.  I bet he had an idea that you were straight.  Did you hide that from him?  This is what I mean about the false-equivalency of being offended or keeping stuff to yourself.  The same guy who thinks gays should just keep it to themselves posts a pic of him and his wife and kid together on his facebook page.  Woah dude, quit shoving your heterosexuality down my throat!

Anyways, this is a long side rant that isn't about sports logos, but let me say you just really illustrated my point about how unfair and biased people are about personal views on things.

Being The normal isn’t unfair. When your abnormal your drawing attention to yourself. Sorry if my wife and children were shoving it in his face lol. He has his friends come over. They all work together So there is nothing to be biased about. We run our business together so it’s not a big deal. It’s more of an issue for my wife but that’s a cultural deal more than anything.

And yes his is an off topic rant that.we can continue another time. Nice chat

[StLucieBengal]

(01-31-2018, 02:06 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Personally, I'm not offended by things you find offensive.  See how much power that line of thinking has over your perspective? Anywho, I'm getting a little wound up so I have to ignore this thread for a while!

This is the beauty of how all this works. We can respect each other’s right to their own opinions and walk away if we get upset.