Cleveland Indians are getting rid of Chief Wahoo

[alnorth]

http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2018/01/29/...forms-in-2019/

Fans will still be able to buy merchandise with the Chief Wahoo logo in the team store and in the Cleveland area, but thats it. The logo will not appear on uniforms, on signage in the stadium, or on anything from MLB.

edit: This will start in the 2019 season. Its apparently too late for them to remove the logo in the 2018 season for some reason.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by R8RFAN

Chiefs are next, Let's help rename them

The Conquerors.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Spott

Take your stupid political shit to the DC where it belongs. Nobody gives a **** about politics here.

Yeah, because there's no politics behind this action.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Sannyasi

I don't have a strong opinion either way but I do think its ironic that the real effect of this is that popular depictions of American Indians are going to disappear.

Yeah, let's hope the benefits Indian nation gets are the next thing to be pulled. As a people they were conquered a long time ago, we've hooked them up for long enough, so it might be time to use actions like this to let that part of history, well, fade away.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Al Bundy

White males aren't offended, so it can't be offensive.

We won, they need to embrace that.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by BWillie

The trick is not being offended by players kneeling for the National Anthem, and also not being offended at a cartoon mascot.

This is the interesting juxtaposition for me.

'People who are offended by taking a knee are reeruned because they refuse to understand that taking a knee when the military presents the flag for the anthem has nothing to do with the military, anthem or flag.'

'People who aren't offended by mascots are reeruned because, even if you argue that the purpose is to celebrate, not denigrate, the right to offense resides exclusively with the offended.'

Where is the right to respect for offense absolute, and when is it subject to scrutiny or consensus?

[GloryDayz]

So Indian nation lasted from some time after the land bridge happened, until they got their asses kicked and gave up in the late 19th century?

Welp, it was a good run...

[-King-]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

IT'S PC RUN AMOK!
Now, excuse me while I cry about a couple players kneeling during the national anthem.

/CP morons

Posted via Mobile Device

[GloryDayz]

How do you say "Russia" in Injun? And is Vodka firewater?

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

Meh. Freedom of speech...

Ya, it worked both ways. The Native Americans used it to voice their displeasure and the MLB agreed.

[007]

Originally Posted by R8RFAN

Chiefs are next, Let's help rename them

Kansas City One and Dones

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by 007

Kansas City One and Dones

Kansas City Cucks!

It has a nice ring to it.

[wazu]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

Kansas City Cucks!

It has a nice ring to it.

We could still do the national anthem thing with this.

[chiefforlife]

Perfect solution, replace Chief Wahoo with Elizabeth Warren as the mascot.
Liberals will cheer!!

[penchief]

The loser in all of this is the reasonable middle ground. People want to jump all over something like this so they can vent about their political agenda or personal bias without thinking objectively.

Native Americans have the right to be offended by a racist image that projects negatively on their culture or heritage. Many of those things are offensive and dishonest representations that do a disservice to the truth. And those of us who have never walked in their shoes are in no position to mock their offense to something they view as degrading. In this regard, I completely understand how the name Redskins and the image of Chief Wahoo are highly offensive to Native Americans.

That said, it is also reasonable to defend names such as Braves and Chiefs, or images such as tomahawks and arrowheads, as positive projections deferential to Native American Culture. After all, every one of us share in the history of this country regardless of our cultural heritage. And as Americans we all have the right to celebrate the history of this country. But we don't have the right to systemically degrade entire races of people because we believe it is our birthright.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by penchief

The loser in all of this is the reasonable middle ground. People want to jump all over something like this so they can vent about their political agenda or personal bias without thinking objectively.

Native Americans have the right to be offended by a racist image that projects negatively on their culture or heritage. Many of those things are offensive and dishonest representations that do a disservice to the truth. And those of us who have never walked in their shoes are in no position to mock their offense to something they view as degrading. In this regard, I completely understand how the name Redskins and the image of Chief Wahoo are highly offensive to Native Americans.

That said, it is also reasonable to defend names such as Braves and Chiefs, or images such as tomahawks and arrowheads, as positive projections deferential to Native American Culture. After all, every one of us share in the history of this country regardless of our cultural heritage. And as Americans we all have the right to celebrate the history of this country. But we don't have the right to systemically degrade entire races of people because we believe it is our birthright.

Tough shit. Should have fought harder.