menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic
Topic: "Cleveland Guardians"
Page: 2 of 2
mail
JSF
11/1/2021 4:19 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
But I don't think its intention is one of racism, and think that for the average Braves fan the tradition of the chop probably outweighs the historical insensitivity.
They've only been doing it since the 90s, and Natives have been protesting since it started.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
11/1/2021 6:31 PM
JSF wrote:expand_more
But I don't think its intention is one of racism, and think that for the average Braves fan the tradition of the chop probably outweighs the historical insensitivity.
They've only been doing it since the 90s, and Natives have been protesting since it started.
I still think intent matters. Most people are doing it out of tradition; should they recognize by now that this tradition doesn't warrant hurting others? Yep, probably. But I think that makes them insensitive and a bit obtuse, not racist. They just lack frame of reference.
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
11/1/2021 8:29 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I didn't care about the chop either until it was announced that Cleveland would do away with the nickname. I think its unfair and the MLB should've pressured every team with a Native American theme to rebrand, not pick and choose which teams they felt were "truly racist"

To your second point, I couldn't agree more. When I worked for an MLB team, I fielded a ton of calls with fans outraged because they caught wind of a donation to a political party that the owner of the team made. Every call the pissed off fans would say "I come to games to get away from politics"

Now that same side that was pissed off then, are heard chanting Let's Go Brandon and FJB at every sporting event. Total hypocrisy.
To what extent did MLB pressure Cleveland? I didn't follow the story all that closely, though for what it's worth Braves definitely carries a more positive connotation than Indians, and the Chief Wahoo logo and it's variations over the years is pretty hard to justify. I think there are plenty of shades of gray in this discussion.
I tried to find an example in writing but everything I read in the 5 minutes of research just cited "recent mounting pressure from the MLB" as the main driver of the name change. I believe the All-Star game had a lot of influence, almost like a bribe from the commissioner.

I agree, though, about Chief Wahoo. Can't defend the stereotyping found within his character. However, the team stopped wearing the logo and selling the merchandise after the 2018 season. Which begs the question, if you remove the racist logo of the team, does that shed a more positive light on the nickname? "Indians" seems pretty neutral on its own.

The way I see it is this...The Indians using the block C as their main logo and keeping the nickname isn't as racist as an entire stadium doing the chop and waiving foam fingers in the shape of a hatchet just because "Braves" is viewed more as a positive dedication to Native Americans. I can see both sides of it, just my personal opinion, but like you said, a LOT of gray area.
mail
JSF
11/1/2021 11:22 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
But I don't think its intention is one of racism, and think that for the average Braves fan the tradition of the chop probably outweighs the historical insensitivity.
They've only been doing it since the 90s, and Natives have been protesting since it started.
I still think intent matters. Most people are doing it out of tradition; should they recognize by now that this tradition doesn't warrant hurting others? Yep, probably. But I think that makes them insensitive and a bit obtuse, not racist. They just lack frame of reference.
This assumes racism requires intent. A lot of Cleveland and Washington fans didn't they there was any racism in their team name or logo.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
11/2/2021 7:53 AM
JSF wrote:expand_more
But I don't think its intention is one of racism, and think that for the average Braves fan the tradition of the chop probably outweighs the historical insensitivity.
They've only been doing it since the 90s, and Natives have been protesting since it started.
I still think intent matters. Most people are doing it out of tradition; should they recognize by now that this tradition doesn't warrant hurting others? Yep, probably. But I think that makes them insensitive and a bit obtuse, not racist. They just lack frame of reference.
This assumes racism requires intent. A lot of Cleveland and Washington fans didn't they there was any racism in their team name or logo.
I can see that. But I'm really just trying to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic racism.
mail
person
Recovering Journalist
11/2/2021 5:09 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I still think intent matters. Most people are doing it out of tradition; should they recognize by now that this tradition doesn't warrant hurting others? Yep, probably. But I think that makes them insensitive and a bit obtuse, not racist. They just lack frame of reference.
Why should you be the one who's allowed to adjudicate on behalf of a minority? Shouldn't you just take them at their word? They find the name, the logo and the chant to be rooted in racism. https://nativenewsonline.net/currents/ncai-calls-out-mlb-...

In not too many years, the vast majority of the nation will look back and wince at things like Chief Wahoo and a bunch of white southerners pantomiming "savages" with foam tomahawks. Many of us are already wincing.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
11/2/2021 7:21 PM
Recovering Journalist wrote:expand_more
I still think intent matters. Most people are doing it out of tradition; should they recognize by now that this tradition doesn't warrant hurting others? Yep, probably. But I think that makes them insensitive and a bit obtuse, not racist. They just lack frame of reference.
Why should you be the one who's allowed to adjudicate on behalf of a minority? Shouldn't you just take them at their word? They find the name, the logo and the chant to be rooted in racism. https://nativenewsonline.net/currents/ncai-calls-out-mlb-...

In not too many years, the vast majority of the nation will look back and wince at things like Chief Wahoo and a bunch of white southerners pantomiming "savages" with foam tomahawks. Many of us are already wincing.
If you follow the thread, you'll see that I'm making a distinction between intrinsic racism -- in which fans are make the gesture because they're racist against Native Americans, and extrinsic racism, in which they're participating in a racist tradition, but don't themselves feel any bias towards Native Americans.

Both are racism. I think they're different though, and it's a distinction that's relevant to the national conversation about such things.
Last Edited: 11/2/2021 7:30:17 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Kevin Finnegan
11/3/2021 9:01 AM
Is it racist or racially insensitive? Looking at the definition of racist, I can't see how this shows superiority of one race over another. It's not a policy or doctrine that is serving to provide a social or economic advantage for one group or another either. Maybe it could be seen as racial intolerance, but it doesn't seem to have a basis in a refusal to tolerate another group.

It just seems like the term 'racist', which is a loaded word, is being used too frequently for things that truly would fall under the definition of racial insensitivity.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
11/3/2021 12:42 PM
Kevin Finnegan wrote:expand_more
Is it racist or racially insensitive? Looking at the definition of racist, I can't see how this shows superiority of one race over another. It's not a policy or doctrine that is serving to provide a social or economic advantage for one group or another either. Maybe it could be seen as racial intolerance, but it doesn't seem to have a basis in a refusal to tolerate another group.

It just seems like the term 'racist', which is a loaded word, is being used too frequently for things that truly would fall under the definition of racial insensitivity.
I'm obviously contributing to this in this thread, but it is pretty ridiculous that the only place there's any room for empathy and consideration in this conversation is in discussions about how to refer to the group responsible for the racial insensitivity.

The very same people who insist that doing away with the 'chop' is over-sensitivity and wokeness run amok are very quick to police the language others use to describe their behavior. Whether this is 'racism' or 'racicially insensitive' is really just about degrees of difference. What's missing from all of this is a cogent support of why it's okay that this continues at all.

So yeah, I'm trying to split hairs here, but the obvious conclusion is that there's not really a good reason for this to continue. Anybody think otherwise?
mail
person
MonroeClassmate
11/4/2021 8:52 AM
I don't know if these name changes are all that bad.

I mean, my favorite team changed its name to the Ravens and I have celebrated two Super Bowls since then. I don't think I would have even come close to that rooting for the old one. Thanks Ozzie.
mail
person
Pataskala
11/6/2021 6:34 PM
MonroeClassmate wrote:expand_more
I don't know if these name changes are all that bad.

I mean, my favorite team changed its name to the Ravens and I have celebrated two Super Bowls since then. I don't think I would have even come close to that rooting for the old one. Thanks Ozzie.
Weren't they forced to change the name? As I recall, part of the deal was that there would be a new Browns franchise a couple years later that would retain all rights to the name and all the statistical records for the old franchise.
mail
person
rpbobcat
11/8/2021 6:43 AM
Pataskala wrote:expand_more
I don't know if these name changes are all that bad.

I mean, my favorite team changed its name to the Ravens and I have celebrated two Super Bowls since then. I don't think I would have even come close to that rooting for the old one. Thanks Ozzie.
Weren't they forced to change the name? As I recall, part of the deal was that there would be a new Browns franchise a couple years later that would retain all rights to the name and all the statistical records for the old franchise.
You are 100% correct.

When the owner decided to move the franchise, the league promised
Cleveland, I believe the next expansion team.

They also required that the team name, colors, etc. stay with Cleveland.
mail
greencat
11/11/2021 11:34 PM
While I'm against "Indian" sports names and actually am proud of Fiami for making the change, people need to remember that the "Braves" were in Boston and then Milwaukee before they were in Atlanta. While there is plenty to dislike about the state of Georgia... remember that sports name for that particular franchise started well north of the Mason-Dixon line.
Showing Messages: 26 - 38 of 38
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)