I would be pissed if there was a team called the dumb Pollack's or the drunken Irish. Just because you have been doing something for years doesn't make it right.

Another politically correct holier-than-thou lefty. Grow up out there.

HI D.C: - the idea is that we write thoughtful, interesting, and possibly even funny responses, not shallow attacks on the writer personally.

Perhaps you are the one who needs to show a little maturity here; just because someone has different views to you doesn't make them less valuable than your own good self...

Excellent arguement. Our culture has become numb to how racist these "mascots" are. Can you think of any other group of people that are so widely used in this way -- everthing from sports teams to fast moving vehicles. But Native people aren't animals, or objects, or relics from some romantic past. They are real, diverse and individual people and cultures. They have survived a genoicde in THIS country. As a society we have come far, but until people stop trying to rationalize the "tradition" of Indian mascots, we are perpetuating cultural genocide and appropriation for profit.

Tell me something, JB, were you born in America? If so, then you are a native American, no matter what your racial or ethnic origin may be.

"Our culture has become numb to how racist these "mascots" are."

Bullshit! They are a testament to their fierce fighting spirit. Should we instead honor their ability to drink vast amounts of bad whiskey instead? Of course not. Their ability to fight was their best feature. They taught us how to fight wars by not marching in formation but by hiding behind trees and other natural objects. That was very significant and important in the development of modern warfare tactics.

It seems like you've watched Dances With Wolves too often.

Again-grow up.

gypsyman, this is one of your best articles yet -- as well as one of the best I have read this week.

I never really considered the negative impact of positive stereotypes before.

I used to be one of those people who would say, "lighten up, it's only a mascot," but, now that I think about it, you're right, if it's only a mascot, then it should be no big deal to change it.

ms. Toigo:

"if it's only a mascot, then it should be no big deal to change it."

And you said before you weren't in favor of political correctness?

I LOVE catching you libs in contradictions!

I never said that I was not in favor of political correctness, only that I despise the way that some of the more cumbersome terminology mangles the language.

I have always tried my best to be politically correct, I'd just rather call it tact.

I did not come in here looking for a fight -- or even conversation, really.

I like reading gypsyman's articles and I thought this one was particularly good (because it made me think), so I left him a compliment to that effect.

Oh, and I'm not a liberal (or even a Democrat), I am a non-partisan libertarian capitalist.

"I LOVE catching you libs in contradictions!"

You mean like how you are for the redistribution of wealth, Markist the Sad?

If I recall, the term 'Yankee' was once a derogatory word for 'American.'

How about Cowboys? Dodgers? Pirates?

Matthew, the term 'Yankee' is still a derogatory term; where I'm from, it means, "Anyone NOT from Texas."

====

BTW: Nice article, gypsyman.

"I am a non-partisan libertarian capitalist."

Sorry, Ms. Toigo, but you are lying about the non-partisan part. Why do so many of you bloggers lie and distort your motivations and true selves? Your record of articles show a high degree of partisanship. You bash Christian leaders, President Bush, and you support a pothead drug dealer like Marc Emery.

tell me the truth, when have you ever ripped a bona fide left winger with the same fervor you have with Robertson or Bush?

This genteel affectation is one big phony act in my estimation. I see right through you and I'm not afraid to say it.

"You mean like how you are for the redistribution of wealth,"

Good thing you're a English teaching loser, because you would have failed poli sci.

I never said I taught English. I said that it was obvious your comrade Grnade's parents werewn't English teachers.

Are your comprehension skills are really that terrible or have you lost your short-tern memory from all the pot you smoked at the worker's party meeting you just attended.

"have you ever ripped a bona fide left winger with the same fervor you have with Robertson or Bush?"

I did not "rip" Reverend Robertson (I reported other peoples' criticisms of him) and I have not criticized Mr. Bush even once since he was re-elected (have you seen his approval ratings? I don't know about you, but I don't like to kick a man when he is down).

And I have ripped plenty of "left-wingers" for trashing our Second Amendment and other rationalizations of socialist authoritarianism.

Margaret, eventually little Markie will get tired of nipping at the adults' ankles, and crawl off to his crib. Right now, he's a bit cranky.

Actually, I think there is a team called the "fighting Irish" (Notre Dame?) after the rather notorious reputation the 19th-c Irish had of engaging in brawls at the drop of a hat, or enjoying a good fight - a rep. that some of them are proud of even today. And a team called the Vikings - I believe the logo is a berserker in a horned helmet. I may be recalling these incorrectly.

I guess if a team wanted a name that really reflected being win-at-all-costs contenders, they could call themselves the Litiginous Lawyers, or the Playing Pols - but that might be too lowdown & dirty for most.

I personally think the 'Kansas City Cheifs' sounds better than the 'Kansas City Fat Unemployed Drunks With No Car Insurance And 8 Kids'.

How about "Kansas City Crackers"? As long as we're talking about "racist" mascots...

Someone has already proposed changing the Washington Redskins to the Washington Rednecks. LOL - I LIKE it! Ditto KCCs: has a real swing to it!

Sounds good. I bet the crackers would probably laugh and not get too bothered. Some races don't have to fish around trying to place blame on stupid monikers to explain their failings. And Cheif was the opposite of derogatory. Actually it had to be turned into a deragatory term so there would be something fresh to blame for a culture that can't pull itself together.

And give them crackers some college money and casinos while we're at it.

Yes Nancy, there are the Fighting Irish and Vikings. These are two names also given to high school mascots as well.

Let us not forget the Nebraska Cornhuskers, the Louisiana-Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns and the University of Mississippi Rebels. "Oh noes, they're people and they're mascots!"

Note: The San Diego State Aztecs are not on NCAA's "hostile and abusive" list. I guess you can't be abusive to a dead tribe of First Nations.

Lewisville, Texas has "The Fighting Farmers".

Seriously. It was once a community of tough-ass farm boys -- now, thanks to suburban sprawl, there's not a kid on the campus who knows what dirt is for

I was supposed to go to a high school where the mascot was a "Rebel" -- carrying a Confederate battle flag. Again, I'm serious!

(Shows how long ago that was.)

They were later changed to the "Raiders".

There was an old Negro League team named the Atlanta Black Crackers.

I swear to god. Here's proof.

Also: University of Idaho are the Vandals, an ancient European tribe. Remind me to tell all the Ostrogoths they're being hostilely abused!

"have you lost your short-tern memory from all the pot you smoked at the worker's party meeting you just attended."

I've never taken illegal drugs. If it were up to me, anyone that does illegal drugs would be jailed for life with other criminal scum.

Mark of the SS sez...
*I've never taken illegal drugs. If it were up to me, anyone that does illegal drugs would be jailed for life with other criminal scum.*

like Rush Limbaugh and Ayn Rand?

i'm just sayin'

Excelsior!

The words of Mark the Insane

"Alcohol and psychedelic drugs are as comparable as a cap pistol to a howitzer. I know, having tried both in quanities sufficent to make an accurate judgement."

Feel free to turn yourself into the authorities, hypocrite.

that's not hypocrisy..that an outright Lie

so, which is it Mark of the SS?

now i begion to ponder if infamous AG and M of the Ss are not the same person?...

nah, couldn't be

Excelsior!

I know a high-school whose team is called the "Beetdiggers." Won a lot of basketball games when I was in high school, too.

When the school's mascot was chosen, the area was a hotbed of sugar-beet farming. Lots of "Scandahoovians" too, hence the crowd of very tall guys to fill the BBall ranks.

bah..and my HS were the Admirals...no fun there

that being said..for all of me, i don't get the uproar over team mascots...i have yet to see one that is blatantly and intentionally offensive...

and they ARE just folks in silly costumes, after all...however...

your mileage may vary

Excelsior!

Admirals advocate war. That's so hostile and abusive.

Call me when you start stackin' up prisoners in a pyramid.

will do, Matthew

and Admirals don't advocate War, they wage it...they also don't tend to take prisoners, letting them drown is much more efficient..

Excelsior!

True -- at my college, all teams were called "Orediggers," which (as you can imagine) spawned all sorts of lewd puns and jokes...

Not a patch on the hearty "Pawnees" of my high-school days, who regularly vowed to "scalp the Beetdiggers."

Central Michigan University -- the Chippewas -- are in the same boat as FSU. The local Chippewa tribe has endorsed the use of the mascot, as many of the tribal leaders have CMU degrees. Plus, their logo is the "C." And their sports suck and have sucked ever since the day Dan Majerle graduated. They have been hostilely abused by the other MAC teams.

gypsyman, excellent post, i totally agree with you on every damn thing you say here.

the stuff thats "harmless, bit a fun, whats wrong?" can be the MOST harmful. the stuff that gets to linger on there after the REALLY OBVIOUS BAD SHIT gets sorted.

excellent stuff.

And I suppose since the Utah Utes is hostile and abusive, we should also change the name of the state from Utah to something else? I mean we don't want Native Americans to be associated with a state of white people, right? People would get the wrong impression of them!

>>Have you ever heard of "white" males being defined in that manner. Can you name any specific trait that they are assigned in the same manner as described above? Not in our society<<

Yes, actually. In specific, the several prominent sports teams named after the Irish and emphasizing their combativeness, most notably the "Fighting Irish" of Notre Dame. Also the even larger number of teams named the "Rebels" or something equivalent, characterizing all southerners as rebellious supporters of the confederacy.

Team mascots are by their nature stereotypical. But the truth is that the stereotypes, be they of native americans or of other ethnic or cultural groups are largely positive or at the very least viewed positively by the people who support the teams. If you support the 'Fighting Illini', you do it because you LIKE the idea of brave, combative indians as representative of your sports team. Theose indians have a victorious spirit which you admire. Most native americans who aren't politicized, partisan sell-outs, recognize this fact and consider having a team named after their tribe the compliment which it is.

Dave

A list of white mascots in Division I:

Alabama-Birmingham Blazers
Army Black Knights/Cadets
Central Florida Golden Knights
East Carolina Pirates
Hawaii Warriors
Idaho Vandals
Louisiana-Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns
Michigan State Spartans
Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders
Mississippi Rebels
Navy Midshipmen
Nebraska Cornhuskers
Nevada-Las Vegas Rebels
New Mexico State Aggies
Notre Dame Fighting Irish
Oklahoma Sooners
Oklahoma State Cowboys
Purdue Boilermakers
Rutgers Scarlet Knights
San Jose State Spartans
Southern California Trojans
Tennessee Volunteers
Texas A&M Aggies
Texas Tech Red Raiders
Texas-El Paso Miners
Troy Trojans
Utah State Aggies
Vanderbilt Commodores
Virginia Cavaliers
Wake Forest Demon Deacons
Wyoming Cowboys

But the truth is that the stereotypes, be they of native americans or of other ethnic or cultural groups are largely positive or at the very least viewed positively by the people who support the teams

Yeah, like the Cleveland Indians. Red Sambo is REALLY a positive stereotype.

Of course, the point isn't that what the people who support the teams like or don't like. It's what the people being steretyped like or don't like that matters.

"It's what the people being steretyped like or don't like that matters."

It's what the majority deems appropriate that matters.

No, it's not.

This country doesn't work by "what the majority deems appropriate" in most cases, and for good reason.

I used to believe that all of this uproar over team names was a tempest in a teacup, but I've come to see over time that they perpetuate painful stereotypes and keep open a wound that will never heal.

A study of history will reveal that the stereotypes of American Indians are hurtful primarily because they are inaccurate -- whether treasured or not.

After all, if I choose to memorialize General Patton as a hippie peacenik, am I honoring him? If I create an image of Ghandi as a warrior with an AK-47, am I honoring him? It doesn't matter if I respect Ghandi as a warrior or not -- it's simply not right, and it is an insult to his family and to those who treasure his legacy of non-violent resistance.

Team names change constantly as teams move, and losing long-standing team names because we have decided to declare that we choose not to be hurtful to a group of people who are insulted by it seems a lot better reason than just because a new owner moved the team.

Bravo to Gypsyman for an excellent post.

"After all, if I choose to memorialize General Patton as a hippie peacenik, am I honoring him? If I create an image of Ghandi as a warrior with an AK-47, am I honoring him?"

Honoring them in your way, fine, but it would be inaccurate. American Indians were fierce and brave primitives who killed each other and worshipped non-existent spirits. Their biggest contribution to the world was revolutionizing modern warfare. Once white men learned to adopt "Indian style" fighting, warafare was never the same again. It helped us defeat the British during the Revolutionary War.

We honor what made them great but cowardly white liberals wracked with guilt can't face reality so they invent an idealized form of reality that makes no judgments and places everything and everybody on the same moral plane.

American Indians were fierce and brave primitives who killed each other and worshipped non-existent spirits.

American Indians were many disparate people groups, many of whom lived peacefully with each other and with European settlers until they were attacked by Europeans or, in some cases, tricked into believing that they had been attacked by other tribes.

Your view of American Indians appears to have been shaped almost entirely by the same sorts of stereotypes and selective readings of pseudo-history that caused these team names and mascots to be popular in the first place. American Indians were not all (and in fact mostly not) fierce, and were certainly not primitives. The Europeans settlers often dishonored themselves in warfare, not the least by engaging in warfare after having participated in ceremonies understood by the natives to be building a lasting peace treaty.

My point was underscored by your comment, so thanks. Many American Indians were as peaceful as Gandhi, and yet now the image most people think of is that of "fierce and brave primitives," an image as dishonoring to those people as an AK-47 wielding Ghandi would be to many others.

Read some history books! Not school textbooks, either, since those are more political documents than anything else.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo was gradually phased out. Their primary logo is the Cursive I.

www.indians.com

(Coincidentally, this team will win the Wild Card in the AL.)

Absolutely.

I know people are sick of this issue, particularly the covertly bigoted people who passionately embrace disgusting figures like the Wacky Wigwammer (those humans are distinct from fans of teams like the Illini, the Seminoles, or the Utes, which I see in the same class as the Fighting Irish or the Vikings; they intend to confer honor with their team names -- although Mr. Winn makes a terrific point regarding inaccurate presentations and I would add that the co-opting of Native American religious symbols strikes me as being wrong). Fact is, the matter remains in the forefront because people are hurt by painfully stereotypical caricatures running around. What is worthy about that grinning Red Sambo?

For the record, my high school mascot continues to be the Franklin Indians (no, I don't and didn't approve); my college mascots remain the University of Maryland Terrapins and the Towson University Tigers.

Do we want the wounds to heal? Then the hurtful mascots must go away. Now, if you don't give a shit about how others feel, well, that says something about you.

If we get rid of college mascots that are offensive, then I ask we rename all states, cities and rivers which use First Nation tribes and phrases.

Make it more American. I think we could all benefit from turning the Mississippi River into the Starbucks River. Don't swim at night or you'll never get to sleep!

Personally, Mr. Sussman, I'm part Powhatan and don't have a problem with names like Illini and such (though others indeed do and their feelings matter), but what is your opinion about the mascots that depict Native Americans as clowns?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo was gradually phased out. Their primary logo is the Cursive I.

The Cursive I in the upper left corner of their home page is balanced by the Red Sambo in the upper right. And then Red Sambo appears below that, right next to the photo of one of the Indians' players.

If we get rid of college mascots that are offensive, then I ask we rename all states, cities and rivers which use First Nation tribes and phrases.

See, the big difference -- and I can't believe I have to explain this -- is that those names are the names given to many of those places by the Native Americans in those regions. They're not playing on stereotypes, they're just the names that have been there for, oh, 10,000 years or so. The colonial Americans just kept the existing names and put them on maps. There's nothing abusive, derogatory, or stereotypical about them.

"American Indians were many disparate people groups, many of whom lived peacefully with each other..."

You've watched revisionist garbage like Dances With Wolves too many times

"and selective readings of pseudo-history"

which should be replaced by the pseudo-history of Howard Zinn?

"Many American Indians were as peaceful as Gandhi,"

Again, you've watched Dances With Wolves too many times that you actually believe it.

Suss, you've got it backwards. Consider Mount McKinley, now commonly known as Mount Denali. It was "named" in 1896 by a European in "honor" of a politician (not yet President) who never ventured anywhere near Alaska. Why? Apparently because that guy favored the gold standard, as did McKinley.

So though the Russians had named the mountain Bulshaia Gora in the late 1700s, and the nearby Indians called it "Denali," and despite the fact that even other white Americans had "discovered" the mountain by then and referred to it by its Indian-given name, this guy "named" it Mt McKinley.

So is it more dishonoring to reject names out of hand because they are Indian, or to use the names for places that they have borne for hundreds of years before Europeans ever saw them?

Clearly, Mt Denali is a preferable name.

Then how about this:

In Toledo, Ottawa Hills (the ritzy white district) has a street that runs through it named Indian Road.

Should it be re-named?

Mr. MTSAS, perhaps you have seen too many old-school westerns. Sure there were some violent indigenous Americans, but many individuals and tribes indeed were peaceful.

And what does Howard Zinn have to do with this thread? Ohhhh, that's meant to be a slam against those who disagree with you. Gotcha.

A historian encountering that question would ask more questions:

Why was it named that?

What name did it have before that, if any?

Who chose the name?

What is the history of Indians in that area?

And so on. The name in itself isn't necessarily offensive, any more than "Mount McKinley" is. But the "how" and the "why" might be a big deal -- or not.

Still, this is a different issue from that of mascots and derogatory sports team names.

First Nations people have clown traditions, too, Nat: there are the Koshares, & in a slightly different category, the immortal Will Rogers, humorist & stand-up comic before his time. If Amerinds have been to date portrayed as somber, no-nonsense characters without humor, perhaps it's because most of the situations being addressed were pretty humorless, too, but like most people, each First Nation actually had a considerable body of humor in their cultures.

Mark, I've never read a Zinn book in my life, and I hated Dances with Wolves.

Labels like "revisionist" reveal an appalling ignorance of how history works.

When something is false, it needs to be revised. When something is true, it does not. There are therefore good revisions and bad revisions. The point isn't whether a not a history is revisionist, the point is whether or not it is true.

That Indian tribes varied widely is true. Period. You'd be hard-pressed to find any historian who would even suggest otherwise.

Dismissal of a wide range of people groups as fierce primitives is nonsensical and the epitome of racism. What unites them, after all, but their skin color? Many of them had no communication with each other, and they shared no geographical borders.

"Labels like "revisionist" reveal an appalling ignorance of how history works."

No, it reveals an an apalling interest in changing everything of the past for the sake of a few malcontents in the present.

"When something is false, it needs to be revised. When something is true, it does not."

There is nothing false about American history of any consequence that requires revison. History should reveal that the land of nations belongs to the nation that can conquuer and best defend it. The Indians couldn't defend their land because of our superior technology and they lost. End of story. Why that requires any change in history just doesn't make sense.

There is nothing false about American history of any consequence that requires revison. History should reveal that the land of nations belongs to the nation that can conquuer and best defend it.

Does this include Israel, which needed an international body to recreate it?

Comments like that last also reveal an appalling ignorance of how history works. Not least because those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it!

In fact, history should be primarily responsible for provide a true and accurate picture of what happened. That comes in two parts: facts and analysis.

What you're providing is an example of analysis, but based on a false collection of "facts."

Er, meaning #61, not #62. :-)

The origin behind the naming of the Cleveland Indians is open for skepticism. Some say it was in honor of Louis Sockalexis, the first Native American to play the game professionally. Others say that was a cop out. The team was named that in 1915. Previously it had been the Cleveland Naps, named after their manager and Hall of Famer Nap Lajoie. It does have sort of a weird ring to it unless you like the idea of calling them the "PowerNaps."

Cleveland is located in Cuyahoga County in Ohio.

And when you're a sports fan you're not really thinking about Native Americans when you're watching the game. Only a non-sports fan looking at it coldly sees something there. Everyone else is watching the game and uniting as a city.

Mr. Sussman, that's kind of a broad pronouncement, don't you think? Plenty of sports fans have social consciences, and we don't turn them off during baseball games.

Suss, my point wasn't to "rule" on the street you mentioned, it was to describe the process by which it would be reasonable to make those decisions. Based on what you've outlined, it sounds like the street was as likely to be named in honor of the former residents of the area as anything else.

I do know what you mean about sports fans watching the games, and I have no desire to see every team adopt a crappy name like "Jazz" or "Stars" (my hockey team). I do, however, think that it isn't too much to ask for team names to avoid perpetuating stereotypes that were clearly developed in order to justify European-American appropriation of tribal property.

The time for such justification is long past. Nobody is asking for the land back (or at least, they're not going to get it), so there is no need to perpetuate this clearly-false view of history. Instead, we would all be better served by understanding how it is we came into control of the land. Sometimes by fair trading, sometimes by rightful conquest, and sometimes by treacherous dealing.

When is conquest of humans and their property ever rightful?

Just a rhetorical question that came to mind...

If by social conscience you mean "display respect for the other team," well ... depends on how much you've had to drink and how badly they're beating you. But we know better than to heckle players based on race.

Sports is an escape. It shouldn't be a social talking point, and to those who love sports, it's not. The real debate is whether or not Bob Wickman can close the big one.

The only case I can really see is phasing out Chief Wahoo, and like I pointed out, it's evident he's not as everpresent as he used to be. He's a red-faced Indian, but to the fans and citizens who grew up loving the team and idolizing the players, it's an icon embedded in their brains forever. You can take it off the market, but it won't go away unless you possess intimate knowledge of "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" technology.

And it's that latter element that these groups are trying to at least prevent in the future, which they'll have to wait for me and every other Indian fan to die before that happens.

"Forever" is a funny term to use when referring to the existence a mascot that far antecedes the setting of this country. I doubt the mascot has been embedded in the brains of the fans for more than 200 years. :-)

But in the context of the modern fan?

(Although I currently have a mental image of Ben Franklin doin' the Tomahawk Chop that you simply must see.)

"If by social conscience you mean 'display respect for the other team,' well ... depends on how much you've had to drink and how badly they're beating you. But we know better than to heckle players based on race.

Sports is an escape. It shouldn't be a social talking point, and to those who love sports, it's not. The real debate is whether or not Bob Wickman can close the big one."

There you go with that broad brush again. I LOVE sports. I do not imbibe at sporting contests. I worry about my teams and how they are doing. AND social justice matters at the same time -- and btw, I hear idiot fans heckle people for havibng overabundant (ITO) melanin more frequently than you might imagine.

In short, speak for yourself, Mr. Sussman. Regardless of your presumptions, many people who love sports at least as much as you do not check our principles and beliefs at the admission gate.

But what good is it to worry about global issues and pressing topics when you're immersed, as a spectator, in a game?

He's a red-faced Indian, but to the fans and citizens who grew up loving the team and idolizing the players, it's an icon embedded in their brains forever.

Does anyone really care about people who *idolize* baseball players and who associate these idols with a derogatory caricature of a group of people who have absolutely nothing to do with the baseball players or their team?

Really, could anyone's opinion matter less than theirs?

Apparently, those of people offended by stereotypes and bigotry and people who believe in social justice...


Mr. Sussman, you have the ability to tune out the world's horrors, even if a game thrusts one or more of them into your face? You must be The Man. Sorry, I'm not built that way.

Don't make it about racism. It's not racist to like the team with that logo. Sports fans aren't inherently racist. Cleveland Indians fans aren't inherently racists. Atlanta Braves fans aren't inherently racist.

It's about sports. Sports are about memories. Granted, the Indians don't have many good memories since they haven't won the WS since '48, but they did capture two pennants in the '90s. Many of my friends have fond memories of Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, Omar Vizquel, Sandy Alomar Jr., Kenny Lofton, Charles Nagy, Dave Burba, Jose Mesa and Albert Belle. OK, not Albert Belle.

But these fans have fond, fond memories of their hometown team. For an outsider to come in and say "How can you sleep at night?" and belittle their memories, well that's just sad. That's not the point of sports.

When I wrote about a post the Little League WS, I was talking about the good feeling you get when you watch little kids play the sport at the purest level. It takes you back to when you were a kid playing at that age. Likewise, a kid watching the Indians win the pennant gives the kid a dream to maybe one day wear that uniform and that logo, hitting the home run in the bottom of the ninth in Game 7.

Or, you know, you can call the kid a bigot. Your call.

I never called you or any Indians fan in particular a bigot. Nice try.

As for bringing "race" into the conversation, that was you, Mr. Sussman, when you wrote this patently untrue statement: "...we know better than to heckle players based on race." You, sir, may know this, but lots of fans don't, and some few, I wager, like the Cleveland Indians.

In a post where gypsyman discussed Native Americans being pissed about mascots, I brought race into this?

And another thing: Lots of people pine for the "good old days," conveniently forgetting the FACT that the good old days were not good for millions. They will remember those old days as they want, of course, however anyone else feels about it. But like it or not, times change, and sometimes for the better.

1995 World Series = apples
Trail of Tears = oranges

I know you haven't called anyone a bigot, but I'm just sayin'. That's the perception this "movement" is giving off. It's demonizing the love for our sports teams.

And the Indian logo is diffferent from the mascot. The mascot's name is Slider, named after the pitch that, when Randy Johnson throws it inside to right-handed batters, is considered hostile and abusive.

Mr. Sussman, I was referring to the comments. You are correct about the post, of course. That being said, you said, "Don't make it about racism." Based on the post and the complaints over the years from those hurt by the use of mascots (some of which could be deemed to be "racist" -- Red Sambo being a prime example, however entrenched he is in your wonderful memories and however beloved he is by some Cleveland fans), whether or not you like it, this situation IS about "racism." Unlike you, many people will not excuse or ignore it for the purpose of sport or fun or cute Little Leaguers.

BHW: "Yeah, like the Cleveland Indians. Red Sambo is REALLY a positive stereotype."

This is a classic demonstration of the willful ignorance that drives this entire debate. First off, you assume that read skin and a warlike demanor are negative stereotypes, when they may not be to many perfectly reasonable people. Second, you are clearly trying to draw a comparison to Little Black Sambo - presumably because you're igorant of the actual content of the children's book and assume that it is somehow racist. But the truth is that not only is Little Black Sambo not a negative book about black people - Sambo is portrayed very positively in the book - but it's not even about African Americans, as the character is clearly Hindi and the setting is obviously India, not Africa.

Dave

Dave, you've stepped in an interesting issue now, since Little Black Sambo was relatively recently updated to reflect an Indian environment because, as you say, the setting and characters are clearly Hindi Indians.

However, when it was first published, it was illustrated to reflect a stereotypically negative view of black people. Recent editions, include one in which the characters were renamed so that Sambo became "Babaji," are illustrated to make the original intention of the story clear.

Nevertheless, Sambo is a denigrating racist term, partially as a result of the racist illustrations for that story!

Suss, I'm not saying that most sports fans who root for their teams are racist or are intentionally being hurtful to people offended by the team names and mascots. What I am saying is that the fond memories of modern sports fans should be weighed against the history of insult that these stereotypes perpetuate, and that the sports fans will get used to a new mascot and/or team name.

Heck, the value of the old memorabilia would only go up!

When the Big Unit throws his slider, it *is* hostile and abusive -- when he tosses it toward Orioles and Mets batters.

But let's make a differentiation here: You love your team. That's great. I loved my high school teams. Doesn't mean I approved of their name and mascot. You're not a bigot if you love your team, whatever its mascot. No one is saying you are. But what about the management of a team that chooses to continue being represented by something that offends people? The management may or may not in fact be "racist," but the ongoing use of a symbol such as Red Sambo, however limited, combined with an arrogant insistence that there is something wrong with those who voice their objection to that grinning, tomato-colored clown... well, some people may draw certain conclusions from that, and those conclusions appear to me to have justification.

The original Sambo was presented as an east Indian with a look which was a clear caricature of a Bengali. Subsequently different art was done which made his ethnicity much more ambiguous, though the text was still clearly about a person in India. Then quite recently the story has been redone to inject even more unambiguous indicators of east Indian origin.

But the real point is that in NO version of the story is Sambo actually a negative stereotype. He's a brave, clever and very positive character. It is solely because he looks like a stereotype, however inaccurate that perception might be, that people object to him - and that objection is unreasonable. Plus, there are no tigers in Africa.

Dave

It should be noted that this is the first time I have ever heard Chief Wahoo refered to as Red Sambo.

Dave -- the text has always suggested India, because that's where the author lived. The names and illustrations, however, were originally printed as stereotypical "darkie." Sambo was not at the time an Indian name, but one already used denigratingly about black people. The illustrations were not of Indian people, or even of real black people, but of "blackface" people with white lines around their mouths.

Some suggest the author was deliberately insulting black people at every opportunity, even in drawing interaction between mother and child in this book as distant while her other stories involving white people were drawn as loving and intimate. I'm not sure it was deliberate as much as it was simply the stereotyped understanding the author had.

In many ways this is similar to the discussion over American Indian team names and mascots. Is it intentional? I don't think so. But it is the result of the understanding of people who know primarily the stereotyped impressions they have more than they do the history or thoughts of those more directly affected.

Looking back over this page to see what I might have missed earlier, I realized that something bugged me about Suss's list of "white" team names.

Since when are pirates white? Pirate have included everyone from Norsemen to Arabs to various other ehtnic groups along the way.

Cowboys were all white? Only if you believe Hollywood's depiction!

Hawaii Warriors are white? Somehow I doubt that they were referring to white warriors when they named the team, but I admit I'm unfamiliar with the history of the team.

Trojans are Greek, which have at various times been on the "inside" and "outside" of "approved races," depending on who was doing the tallying.

Miners were all white? In some areas, sure, but not in others.

With the "rebels," of course, you're opening up a whole new can of worms that should be saved for another post. Suffice it to say that they were definitely all-white.

I understand your intention, Suss, but with very few -- if any -- exceptions, your list doesn't begin to compare to "Redskins" or other disputed team names.

The Sambo controversy has swirled in Japan too. This June 2005 story was originally printed in the LA Times.

>>Dave -- the text has always suggested India, because that's where the author lived. The names and illustrations, however, were originally printed as stereotypical "darkie." Sambo was not at the time an Indian name, but one already used denigratingly about black people. The illustrations were not of Indian people, or even of real black people, but of "blackface" people with white lines around their mouths.<<

The original illustrations certainly do not look like blackface. They lack the characteristic white lip area and kinky hair. The clothing and general appearance of the original character looks distinctly east indian, especially the wavy hair. See the illustration at Wikipedia. The black-face look was characteristic of later editions.

>>Some suggest the author was deliberately insulting black people at every opportunity, even in drawing interaction between mother and child in this book as distant while her other stories involving white people were drawn as loving and intimate. I'm not sure it was deliberate as much as it was simply the stereotyped understanding the author had.<<

Her son has definitively stated that this was not the case and that the characters are intended to represent east indians.

Dave

Well, again I find myself having to agree with Mr. Nalle, God it hurts so bad,(kidding)As a kid I remember my very British grandparents on my father's side having little black sambo books. They must have been from some transition period, becuase they were a confusing mixture of southern black caricatures set in the jungles of India.

Now either the author had no idea about geography, and was one of those typical "white man's burden" folk that the "Empire" produceced(in this case woman)who just figured all the savages lived in the same place, or as the Indian independance movement gained power in the 20th century the publishers changed the characters to be more suitable for the mood of the commonwealth, I don't know. Either one would explain the change.

But I always associated the books with India, because of where I saw them,very British house, and it was only latter that I found out they were also being used to depict blacks.

I've never seen depections of the characters with wavy hair as Dave described, but that really lends credence to that theory...although it does nothing to allieviate it the whole negative sterotype thing from its shoulders.
Ask an Indian nationalist what he or she thinks about those characters.

This is a classic demonstration of the willful ignorance that drives this entire debate.

Yes, begin with the personal attack. Always helpful.

First off, you assume that read skin and a warlike demanor are negative stereotypes, when they may not be to many perfectly reasonable people.

You're the one making assumptions. Have you looked at the Indians'logo? You call that a warlike demeanor? I see a big-toothed, big-lipped, smiling caricature with [literally] red skin. To whom is that a perfectly reasonable depiction of a warrior?

Second, you are clearly trying to draw a comparison to Little Black Sambo - presumably because you're igorant of the actual content of the children's book and assume that it is somehow racist.

It looks like Phillip has already done a good job of explaining the situation with the children's book. But I'll respond anyway.

For one, I'm not the first one to call the Indians' caricature "Red Sambo." That name was been used by many people before me.

For another, you again presume incorrectly. I *do* know the history of the book, generally speaking. You'll note that I never said anything about the book, though.

But now that you've brought it up, the text of Little Black Sambo has a positive message about the boy, but the illustrations that accompanied it -- the book was written by a white woman -- are caricatures of dark-skinned people. The Indians' logo mimics the same stereotypical, exaggerated features used in the Little Black Sambo book.

But the truth is that not only is Little Black Sambo not a negative book about black people - Sambo is portrayed very positively in the book - but it's not even about African Americans, as the character is clearly Hindi and the setting is obviously India, not Africa.

Did I mention African-Americans? Nope. Keep making those assumptions.

That said, again, the text of the book may be positive, but the *illustrations* in it were not. They were typical stereotyped depictions of dark-skinned people, created, not coincidentally, by a light-skinned person.

It is solely because he looks like a stereotype, however inaccurate that perception might be, that people object to him - and that objection is unreasonable.

Dave, that's ridiculous. It's not at all inaccurate to say that the author of the story used stereotyped drawings. It's, shall I say, willfully ignorant to suggest she didn't.

And what some people on this thread object to is the specific Native American image that the Cleveland Indians have chosen for their team, which follows in the long tradition of other similar depictions of darker-skinned people, not just African-Americans.

I'm honestly laughing: the baseball team's image is seen by some supposedly educated people as being positive. There's nothing you can do but laugh.

>>This is a classic demonstration of the willful ignorance that drives this entire debate.

Yes, begin with the personal attack. Always helpful.<<

No, BHW. The insult and the attack is that people would take a harmful thing like this and attempt to capitalize it to advance a political agenda which isn't supported by the majority of the people they claim to represent and does nothing to advance their cause or do anything but debase society as a whole and in fact, cheapen the debate on REAL issues of racism. If this is the worst offense they can find against native Americans then who is going to take the entire issue of the rights of ethnic minorities seriously.

>>You're the one making assumptions. Have you looked at the Indians'logo? You call that a warlike demeanor? I see a big-toothed, big-lipped, smiling caricature with [literally] red skin. To whom is that a perfectly reasonable depiction of a warrior?<<

Give me a break. It's a caricature. People cheer FOR the character and for the team it represents. They don't laugh at it.

>>It looks like Phillip has already done a good job of explaining the situation with the children's book. But I'll respond anyway.<<

Except that he's engaging in revisionism which doesn't fit the actual facts.

>>But now that you've brought it up, the text of Little Black Sambo has a positive message about the boy, but the illustrations that accompanied it -- the book was written by a white woman -- are caricatures of dark-skinned people. The Indians' logo mimics the same stereotypical, exaggerated features used in the Little Black Sambo book.<<

Being dark skinned does not make you a caricature of a negro. Compare the illustration I linked to with actual racial caricatures from the same period. They are radically different - similar in nothing except the color of the skin.

>>That said, again, the text of the book may be positive, but the *illustrations* in it were not. They were typical stereotyped depictions of dark-skinned people, created, not coincidentally, by a light-skinned person. <<

Again, you're wrong. They do NOT match typical stereotypes of black skinned people of the period, and the author lived in India and was quite familiar with the people she was depicting.

>>It is solely because he looks like a stereotype, however inaccurate that perception might be, that people object to him - and that objection is unreasonable.

Dave, that's ridiculous. It's not at all inaccurate to say that the author of the story used stereotyped drawings. It's, shall I say, willfully ignorant to suggest she didn't. <<

They're only stereotypes in the eye of the beholder. Any visual depiction can be called a stereotype especially if it's relatively simplistic - like in a children's book. The point is that there's nothing negative about the images. They don't show the character degraded, acting bestial or subhuman, all they show is that he has black skin. That's not enough to make him a negative racial stereotype.

>>And what some people on this thread object to is the specific Native American image that the Cleveland Indians have chosen for their team, which follows in the long tradition of other similar depictions of darker-skinned people, not just African-Americans. <<

I'll give you that the Cleveland Indians mascot is closer to a negative racial stereotype in appearance than Sambo is. It's debatable how negative it really is - again, mostly in the eye of the beholder.

>>I'm honestly laughing: the baseball team's image is seen by some supposedly educated people as being positive. There's nothing you can do but laugh.<<

The whole issue is worth a good laugh, though I feel more saddened than amused by people who take something so trivial so seriously and in doing so ignore genuine issues of racism where their efforts could be directed instead. It's a typical example of opportunists cashing in on attacking a prominent symbol instead of going after less flashy and obvious but far more real and deserving targets.

Dave

"American Indians were fierce and brave primitives who killed each other and worshipped non-existent spirits."

Hey Mark, that's simplistic, even for you.

The next time you go to the other side to determine positively which spirits exist and which one don't, could you stay there?

Gypsyman (#93), it wasn't a transition period you witnessed. The original drawings -- by the author -- were of stereotypical blackface characters set in India. The author lived in India, and so knew she wasn't depicting locals -- eastern or otherwise.

Again, the images in the original DO NOT resemble stereotypical depictions of africans or african americans of that same period. The look is completely and radically different to the point where the two could never be confused. And, in fact, there are several ethnic groups in India who are as dark black as most Africans and look substantially like the Sambo image I posted a link to earlier.

Dave

The link you provided is invalid. A link to a valid Wikipedia page reveals some of the disagreement between us -- the blackface illustrations originated with the first US edition of the book. The original British edition featured instead "a golliwog, a European version sometimes viewed as an iconic, racist 'darky' stereotypes, which could be taken as a stereotype of either Indian or African people."

For one, I'm not the first one to call the Indians' caricature "Red Sambo." That name was been used by many people before me.

The people who refer to it as that term are probably those who do not like the logo and probably are not sports fans.

I've never heard that phrase on ESPN (maybe "Outside the Lines"). I've never heard that phrase at the ballpark. I've never seen it in a media program.

Google for "Red Sambo" â€" 221 hits
Google for "Chief Wahoo" â€" 14700 hits

Is the anti-logo crowd is kicking around the racier term? If they're worried about the message the logo sends and they're not even using the proper term, then that says a lot.

Curse the Internet for thinking the em-dash is hostile and abusive.

Suss, those who don't like the logo are automatically not sports fans? I think we've seen demonstration on this page that this is certainly not the case!

I personally find "Chief Wahoo" a term likely to offend in itself, and the fact that you don't think so says a lot.

Okay, I used your language on purpose. I don't think it says much of anything other than that you're used to it, which is undoubtedly why some use an alternate designation: to draw you attention to it.

It does say a lot about me. It says "I gave up on trying to be PC a long time ago because you'll never please everyone."

This 'Sambo' thing is interesting in it's history. Altho the original was set in India, written by a Scottish author living there, the original illos were of an obviously Dravidian Indian type character. Racism against (asian) Indians by Europeans was about the same as that by Americans against blacks: just a quick read thru Kipling's "Kim" brings up several rather startling references to Indians as "niggers" by the whites there in the late colonial period (e.g. scene where Kim is 'captured' & guarded by the drummer boy; Kim getting brothel women to dye him darker - "but not too dark, I would not appear as a hubshi [nigger]...", etc.). Obviously in translating to America, this was automatically interpreted to refer to the character then as negroid, not dravidian, and the change was made. As a kid, I had the Little Golden Book version of LBS, and have to admit, I always thought the kid of the text was clever & pretty gutsy, but the illos were really racist. Not that any of this has anything to do with First Nations team names in sports.

I thought "Wahoo" was a derogatory term for a redneck. Maybe I'm thinking of "yahoo", altho I thought that was a derogatory term for anybody considered to be stupid & bestial, from the Gulliver book.

The people who refer to it as that term are probably those who do not like the logo

Yes, that's correct. By using that term, people are telling you what they think of the logo.

and probably are not sports fans.

Or not.

Go Giants!

[As in NY football.]

It's like protesting the Chef Boyardee corporate logo by referring to it as the "Jolly Wop."

Not all Italian chefs wear that funny hat! It's so hostile and abusive!

Ya, that's it.

Yah, the last time I ate a can of Chef Boyardee it was pretty abusive, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was actually hostile....

That was only because you opened it, Nancy.

Dave

Back to Chief Wahoo, what I want to know is the connection between this mascot and the late Chief Wahoo McDaniel, famous pro football player and professional wrestler who was a Chickasaw indian?

BTW, Wahoo is a Dakota word and means 'Burning Bush'.

Dave

Chef Boyardee was a real person, believe it or not.

I have no idea if he wore a funny hat or was hostile and abusive, though.

Lets get rid of Barbie while we are at it. A six foot tall 120 blond might find it offensive.

question "What type of gun did the Indians call "The see smoke now, die later gun"?

Wow, I very much agree with you. Stereotypes are harmful no matter there connotation.