Social stereotypes and race issues in contemporary America
I'm going to wade into territory that I would probably be better off staying out of but since I don't know when to keep my mouth shut here goes nothing. The whole issue of team mascots being given pseudo Native American nicknames has always left a taste in my mouth - and not a good one. Now that the NCAA has finally gotten around to doing something about it, everybody is in an uproar over it.…
Article comments
76 - Matthew T. Sussman
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.
77 - Natalie Davis
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.
78 - Matthew T. Sussman
In a post where gypsyman discussed Native Americans being pissed about mascots, I brought race into this?
79 - Natalie Davis
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.
80 - Matthew T. Sussman
1995 World Series = apples
Trail of Tears = oranges
81 - Matthew T. Sussman
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.
82 - Natalie Davis
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.
83 - Dave Nalle
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
84 - Phillip Winn
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!
85 - Phillip Winn
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!
86 - Natalie Davis
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.
87 - Dave Nalle
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
88 - Matthew T. Sussman
It should be noted that this is the first time I have ever heard Chief Wahoo refered to as Red Sambo.
89 - Phillip Winn
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.
90 - Phillip Winn
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.
91 - Natalie Davis
The Sambo controversy has swirled in Japan too. This June 2005 story was originally printed in the LA Times.
92 - Dave Nalle
>>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
93 - gypsyman
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.
94 - bhw
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.
95 - Dave Nalle
>>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
96 - Liberal
"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?
97 - Phillip Winn
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.
98 - Dave Nalle
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
99 - Phillip Winn
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."
100 - Matthew T. Sussman
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" — 221 hits
Google for "Chief Wahoo" — 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.
101 - Matthew T. Sussman
Curse the Internet for thinking the em-dash is hostile and abusive.
102 - Phillip Winn
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.
103 - Matthew T. Sussman
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."
104 - Nancy
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.
105 - Nancy
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.
106 - bhw
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.]
107 - Matthew T. Sussman
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!
108 - bhw
Ya, that's it.
109 - Nancy
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....
110 - Dave Nalle
That was only because you opened it, Nancy.
Dave
111 - Dave Nalle
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
112 - Anon
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.
113 - jbelanger
Lets get rid of Barbie while we are at it. A six foot tall 120 blond might find it offensive.
114 - kenposr
question "What type of gun did the Indians call "The see smoke now, die later gun"?
115 - Austin K
Wow, I very much agree with you. Stereotypes are harmful no matter there connotation.
116 - Seo
try these and see what you think, from an old Sports Illustrated: "Washigton Caucasians" "New Orleans Jews" so then what about "Cleveland Indians"?