Chief Wahoo Discussion

[shoes22]

But secondly, if someone says "this is a racist caricature that we should stop using," and another says "I find this depiction offensive;" what is the valid opposition position that can state "I'm offended at you taking offense to my racial caricature.."

How does that work, rationally? Who are these people who get worked up over wanting to be able to use a racial caricature as a sports mascot in 2016?

I think we're both tired of talking about this and we both know where each other stands, so I'll just be brief in my comments.

If someone says to me that they're offended by it, I would say "I'm sorry you feel that way, but I only view and support this image symbolically as a face that represents my baseball team, not an image that's attempting to characterize an entire race of people."

Once that position has been clarified, what else can be said?

 

[gourimoko]

Because I think its a shot at the intellect of someone who doesn't mind the logo, and views it as a logo for a sports team, and not an actual representation of an actual Native American...which is exactly what shoes is saying he views it as...a sports logo and only a sports logo.

It's a sports logo that is a racial caricature. Why can't both of these things be true at the same time?

That's why shoes continues to argue with you on your stance. He is saying he, as well as anyone else who looks at the logo with the current moral compass of a human being in 2016, only views it as a logo, and not an accurate portrayal of a group of people.

But that's a strawman, because no one is arguing it is an accurate portrayal of a group of people.

But you keep detracting that portion of his argument in favor of continuing down the path that the logo only brings up racist feelings, which is obviously false as shoes is showing.

How is it obviously false if myself, @kosis, and @David. all acknowledge we see it as a racist symbol?

Do are opinions not count in what you've argued here as obvious?

The situation is more broad than "its racist" or "its tradition"...that's the entire point I'm trying to make. Arguing on behalf of removing or keeping the logo for one of those 2 reasons in the quotes is why this discussion is still going on, and no real progress is being made on either side.

I disagree. I don't see the nuance in this that you do.

I'm all for removing the Chief, I think I've made that point clear with you enough.

You have.

But I'd also like to think that the current version of myself is smart enough, and not a giant asshole, to the point where as long as I see Chief while it is around, I will associate it with the Cleveland Indians baseball team, and the baseball team alone.

Not sure what you're trying to say?

That is a legit stance people are taking, one that completely differs from the I want to keep it "because of tradition" argument that is the exact opposite of the "remove it because its racist" argument.

Ahh.. yes, indeed. I've always called this "the lazy" argument. Lazy in the sense that it accepts the status quo for what it is, rather than looking for one that is more acceptable. Lazy should not be read here as "sloth," but instead, not acting unless forced to (from a more logical/comp.sci. standpoint).

As long as its only viewed as that, which it still is, the argument will keep moving in circles.

Until someone is forced to act; hence the litigation.

..I mean, just read this thread from beginning to now...its literally the same shit just a month later, and still nothing has changed.

I agree... that's why I stated my case and moved on.

However, saying that two sides are intransigent does not mean they are ethically or rationally equivalent. I don't think there is a rational argument opposing the "it's racist!" side here. Your angle is quite different. Although, I don't really even understand the @shoes22 angle, which is, I think, different than what you've said -- or at least, I'm interpreting these different arguments as being sufficiently discrete as to warrant a different response.

 

[BimboColesHair]

It's a sports logo that is a racial caricature. Why can't both of these things be true at the same time?

They should be...that's the main point I'm saying. People have the right to view it as a racial caricature, and people have the right view it as just a sports logo of a team they like...what I don't agree with is calling out someone for the latter, which is what you are doing with shoes. You seem to think he lacks the ability to view it as that while overlooking the racist aspects of the logo.

How is it obviously false if myself, @kosis, and @David. all acknowledge we see it as a racist symbol?

Do are opinions not count in what you've argued here as obvious?

Because we literally have a poster saying he doesn't view the logo as pertaining to a race? That's shoes entire argument for wanting to keep the logo. Am I supposed to only agree with you 3, and disagree with shoes stance because it doesn't fall in line with the majority?

I disagree. I don't see the nuance in this that you do.

Once again...we literally have a poster saying people should be smart enough to distinguish the difference between a sports logo, and an actual portrayal of a person. That completely differs from the "its racist" vs "its tradition" argument which is pretty much all that is said in here. Thats why I even bothered to respond, because shoes support for the logo is something completely different than what I have seen to this point in response to this topic.

Not sure what you're trying to say?

That I'm not an asshole who looks at Chief Wahoo and thinks "hey, that's a Native American", which I'd like to think is a trait many people share when they look at the logo.



I'd be an ass to say the logo isn't racist, but I'd be a bigger ass if I felt people didn't have the intellectual capabilities to associate Chief Wahoo with baseball and baseball alone, while not sharing the belief that the logo is an actual Native American. Why I can't argue against shoes, because he falls in line with the latter.

 

[gourimoko]

You say this:

That I'm not an asshole who looks at Chief Wahoo and thinks "hey, that's a Native American", which I'd like to think is a trait many people share when they look at the logo.

Which baffles me.

But then say this:

I'd be an ass to say the logo isn't racist,

What?

Then this:

but I'd also be a bigger ass if I felt people didn't have the intellectual capabilities to associate Chief Wahoo with baseball and baseball alone.

Who cannot disassociate Chief Wahoo from "baseball?" Who are these people you're referring to, specifically?

Why I can't argue against shoes, because he falls in line with the latter.

I disagree. @shoes22 has said numerous times the logo isn't racist.

To be clear, I'm not calling anyone an "ass" here, I'm just saying that there is a side of this argument that is irrational.

 

[gourimoko]

Once that position has been clarified, what else can be said?

Nothing.

But people likely me will just move on and ask that the logo be changed with or without the support of people who think otherwise.

I'm not arguing you should change your opinion; I'd just say that it's not reasonable to argue that the Cleveland Indians' logo of Chief Wahoo is not a racial caricature.

I have no idea why this is even a thing; let's just change the logo. Everyone's happy.

With that said @shoes22 , you're one of the smartest posters on this site - that goes for @BimboColesHair as well (and for @David. and @kosis too). I respect you guys' opinions, even if I can't really get behind them.

 

[shoes22]

I disagree. @shoes22 has said numerous times the logo isn't racist.

Not true. I only speak for myself. I said *I* personally don't view it as racist, because I have disassociated that image from the racial context entirely. Obviously other people don't do that or have a different opinion about it.

 

[Randolphkeys]

There's a lot going into this debate, but I keep coming back to the fact our national consciousness is shifting.

There was a time, as recently as when your uncles and aunts were kids, when psychology was a new pioneering study. At this time, supporting civil rights was not only unpopular, but could become a threat to your livelihood.

At that time, you could drink Funny Face Kool Aid:

In my lifetime, these radical ideas that racism does harm became mainstream. Moving past racial assumptions became an increasing expectation as a just society. We can chose to change with the times or get left behind, like that guy who can't use the Xerox machine or open his email in your office.

Sure Chief Wahoo isn't intentionally racist... but he was created during a time when racial caricatures were common, and we as a society have moved past that form of comedy because of the toxic environment it creates.

 

[BimboColesHair]

You say this:



Which baffles me.

But then say this:


What?

Then this:

Who cannot disassociate Chief Wahoo from "baseball?" Who are these people you're referring to, specifically?

I disagree. @shoes22 has said numerous times the logo isn't racist.

To be clear, I'm not calling anyone an "ass" here, I'm just saying that there is a side of this argument that is irrational.

Gouri...I'm a human...you seem to think I have a 1-track mind where I can only grasp certain aspects of a complex problem. Once again, I'd like to think I'm smarter than that.

When I look at the logo, I associate it with baseball, and baseball alone. But I also am aware enough to see the racist aspects of the logo that leads people down the direction that it isn't a sports logo, and is what you have called it in here, a racist caricature. I think I've made that clear.

And, just to be even clearer; I hold no "traditional" feelings towards hanging onto the Chief, am willing to see it go away, can understand why people want it to stay, can understand why people view it as racist and want it gone, can understand why people don't give a shit, can understand why people say "get over yourselves, its just a logo"...

This is my problem...you seem to think people can only be on one side of the coin here. Can people be for keeping the logo, while admitting it is racist, and willing to compromise on the topic?

I know you are big into politics, which literally is one side vs the other with rigid boundaries, but I think that mindset ruins conversations like this, as we are seeing.

As for shoes not personally admitting its racist on look alone...not gonna lie, I must have missed that. That I can't agree with, or argue for.

 

[bornjoke]

Can people be for keeping the logo, while admitting it is racist, and willing to compromise on the topic?

Just curious, how could someone be for keeping the logo and for compromising?

 

[BimboColesHair]

There's a lot going into this debate, but I keep coming back to the fact our national consciousness is shifting.

There was a time, as recently as when your uncles and aunts were kids, when psychology was a new pioneering study. At this time, supporting civil rights was not only unpopular, but could become a threat to your livelihood.

At that time, you could drink Funny Face Kool Aid:

In my lifetime, these radical ideas that racism does harm became mainstream. Moving past racial assumptions became an increasing expectation as a just society. We can chose to change with the times or get left behind, like that guy who can't use the Xerox machine or open his email in your office.

Sure Chief Wahoo isn't intentionally racist... but he was created during a time when racial caricatures were common, and we as a society have moved past that form of comedy because of the toxic environment it creates.

That last paragraph is perfect, Keys.

Right on the noggin. It also shows why you still have people arguing for and against it, even though its clear as day that it should go.

 

[macbdog]

There's a lot going into this debate, but I keep coming back to the fact our national consciousness is shifting.

There was a time, as recently as when your uncles and aunts were kids, when psychology was a new pioneering study. At this time, supporting civil rights was not only unpopular, but could become a threat to your livelihood.

At that time, you could drink Funny Face Kool Aid:

In my lifetime, these radical ideas that racism does harm became mainstream. Moving past racial assumptions became an increasing expectation as a just society. We can chose to change with the times or get left behind, like that guy who can't use the Xerox machine or open his email in your office.

Sure Chief Wahoo isn't intentionally racist... but he was created during a time when racial caricatures were common, and we as a society have moved past that form of comedy because of the toxic environment it creates.

Totally agree, although 'Injun Cherry' and 'Chinese Orange' would have made much more sense.

 

[Chris]

Can this terrible false-equivalency argument about the Fighting Irish disappear already?

1. It's a leprechaun, and the Irish themselves have chosen to use the leprechaun. Not a depiction of the person.

2. The Irish actually have a STAKE in Notre Dame. The Irish have chosen to bring that logo to the forefront.

3. The Irish weren't slaughtered en masse, only to become a caricature for a sports team.

4. If Irish people have a problem with it, by all means change it. After all they remain a large segment of the population and have the ability to do so.

The Redskins? Absolutely needs to go away. Really shocked people even reference that abomination as a counter argument.

I didn't know the misfortunes suffered by a certain group had any bearing on this. I thought this was just all about who is offended by it.

So, you didn't actually answer the question too much. Noles? Braves? Is this just a case by case basis, or what?

For the record I'm far from a traditionalist and if they want to get rid of Chief Wahoo, that's fine...replacing him with the awful and generic Block C is a travesty, though.

 

[BimboColesHair]

Just curious, how could someone be for keeping the logo and for compromising?

I've always felt one of the worst aspects of the Wahoo logo is that they chose red as the skin color. That's the biggest no no to me on the topic, because I view the term or idea of "redskins" as the worst possible derogatory term to call a Native.

You can keep "Chief Wahoo" and do something like what the Chicago Blackhawks did a few years back, which I mentioned in here the last time this discussion was raging. Get with a group of Native representatives, and come up with a tasteful logo that isn't a caricature, that isn't portraying a Native as redskinned, and that isn't blatantly racist.

I'm honestly shocked that hasn't happened yet.

 

[Chris]

I've always felt one of the worst aspects of the Wahoo logo is that they chose red as the skin color. That's the biggest no no to me on the topic, because I view the term or idea of "redskins" as the worst possible derogatory term to call a Native.

You can keep "Chief Wahoo" and do something like what the Chicago Blackhawks did a few years back, which I mentioned in here the last time this discussion was raging. Get with a group of Native representatives, and come up with a tasteful logo that isn't a caricature, that isn't portraying a Native as redskinned, and that isn't blatantly racist.

I'm honestly shocked that hasn't happened yet.

Forgot about the blackhawks.

 

[shoes22]

Just curious, how could someone be for keeping the logo and for compromising?

By keeping it exactly as it is now? Not the official logo for broadcast purposes, but still associated with the team so people like myself who view the image as nothing more than a baseball symbol can still proudly wear it without it being outdated and a relic?