Cleveland Indians to drop "Indians" from team name after 105 years

mrussel1

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

F Me In The Brain said:

mrussel1 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Wait....I see the commonality here -- both are tone deaf!

https://www.indianz.com/News/2006/05/18/william_mary_to.asp

But, but, but....FLORIDA STATE!

2006.. The NCAA said the school's "Tribe" nickname was acceptable. But the use of feathers on the logo was not, the NCAA said.

what a winning argument.  Drop the mic there buddy.

Thanks buddy. 

Others have made great arguments throughout this thread which you ignore, I do not need to repeat them.  You are going to continue seeing things the way you see them.  That is OK, buddy. 

Have a great day, buddy!

Tribe to me is a small group of people.  Isn't the word Roman in it's etymology?  Any wordsworths here?

An excellent point..  Middle English: from Old French tribu or Latin tribus (singular and plural); perhaps related to tri- ‘three’ and referring to the three divisions of the early people of Rome.

Sort of like the Triumvirate of Augustus, Antony and Ledipus

as I stated before, I think the fact that we're going from Indian -> Tribe is the real issue here. In North America, it is a word associated with Native Americans. To say otherwise, I think, would be disingenuous. 

I don't think there's any hiding of the fact that it's about staying connected to the team.  And when I think of the word, for me it's first my baseball club and then it's about tribalism or tribal politics, which is much more on my mind these days than NAs.  What people like me want is to continue to use the name that we affectionately use for our fans and our team, a word that is neither racist or exclusive to NAs.  If you watch a local broadcast (of which I watch, probably 161 a year), you will notice that the word Tribe is used far more than Indians.  I will say that whatever is the new name, fans will continue to use Tribe for years to come, until we die out and our children die out. 

I get all that, but this is where we can't connect. Tribe IS used as a racist term towards aboriginals. And sure, going back 400 years, the word isn't exclusive to aboriginals, but the association is undeniable. 

I'm certain you're right that people will continue to use the term. I'm sure that's why True North decided to call the returning Winnipeg NHL team the Jets. They knew people had a massive attachment to the name. But had the original name been something unacceptable in today's climate, I would hope they would have move on. 

Can a Jew use it, considering the Twelve Tribes of Israel is a cornerstone of their history?  That's a rhetorical question, but the point is that I don't see the word as racist.  But again, I don't think the Dolan family is going to go with Tribe.  

of course Jews can use it. but they can't while chopping their hands in the air and wearing a ceremonial head dress. that's the difference. 

No one is advocating for either of those things.  And they don't happen at Tribe games at all.  That's Noles, Braves and I think Chiefs.  

mrussel1

Okay I'm going to meet a few members of my tribe and play some golf.  It's 45 and sunny...

Merkin Baller

Beasties were the shit. 

Any other opinion is wrong. 

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

F Me In The Brain said:

mrussel1 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Wait....I see the commonality here -- both are tone deaf!

https://www.indianz.com/News/2006/05/18/william_mary_to.asp

But, but, but....FLORIDA STATE!

2006.. The NCAA said the school's "Tribe" nickname was acceptable. But the use of feathers on the logo was not, the NCAA said.

what a winning argument.  Drop the mic there buddy.

Thanks buddy. 

Others have made great arguments throughout this thread which you ignore, I do not need to repeat them.  You are going to continue seeing things the way you see them.  That is OK, buddy. 

Have a great day, buddy!

Tribe to me is a small group of people.  Isn't the word Roman in it's etymology?  Any wordsworths here?

An excellent point..  Middle English: from Old French tribu or Latin tribus (singular and plural); perhaps related to tri- ‘three’ and referring to the three divisions of the early people of Rome.

Sort of like the Triumvirate of Augustus, Antony and Ledipus

as I stated before, I think the fact that we're going from Indian -> Tribe is the real issue here. In North America, it is a word associated with Native Americans. To say otherwise, I think, would be disingenuous. 

I don't think there's any hiding of the fact that it's about staying connected to the team.  And when I think of the word, for me it's first my baseball club and then it's about tribalism or tribal politics, which is much more on my mind these days than NAs.  What people like me want is to continue to use the name that we affectionately use for our fans and our team, a word that is neither racist or exclusive to NAs.  If you watch a local broadcast (of which I watch, probably 161 a year), you will notice that the word Tribe is used far more than Indians.  I will say that whatever is the new name, fans will continue to use Tribe for years to come, until we die out and our children die out. 

I get all that, but this is where we can't connect. Tribe IS used as a racist term towards aboriginals. And sure, going back 400 years, the word isn't exclusive to aboriginals, but the association is undeniable. 

I'm certain you're right that people will continue to use the term. I'm sure that's why True North decided to call the returning Winnipeg NHL team the Jets. They knew people had a massive attachment to the name. But had the original name been something unacceptable in today's climate, I would hope they would have move on. 

Can a Jew use it, considering the Twelve Tribes of Israel is a cornerstone of their history?  That's a rhetorical question, but the point is that I don't see the word as racist.  But again, I don't think the Dolan family is going to go with Tribe.  

of course Jews can use it. but they can't while chopping their hands in the air and wearing a ceremonial head dress. that's the difference. 

No one is advocating for either of those things.  And they don't happen at Tribe games at all.  That's Noles, Braves and I think Chiefs.  

the action is irrelevant. my point is you can use it as long as it's not cultural appropriation. it wouldn't be in the Jewish context, unless they were using it in an aboriginal context. 

HughFreakingDillon

Merkin Baller said:

Beasties were the shit. 

Any other opinion is wrong. 

I don't like the beastie boys. 

But I've been proven wrong a couple times already and it's still only 11am. LOL

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

"Tribe" might not be offensive if the team wasn't already connected to a native american culturally insensitive name. to me that sounds like "Indians Light". 

and let's be honest, when anyone says the word "tribe", literally zero people get a picture of a group of white people in their head. 

I don't think that's true at all. A tribe is a word that yes, is Native American in nature, but is used in all sorts of contexts of a group of people with a common set of beliefs, or whatever.  Just like the Strangest Tribe.  To say that literally zero think of white people is kind of silly.  When I say Tribe, I think about Cleveland baseball fans, my fellow fans.  I don't think about Native Americans or anything else.  

That could be true, but to me, when I hear a white person use the word "tribe", the concept of cultural appropriation pops into  my head.  My step daughter, wonderful, bright, marvelous person that she is, occasionally uses the word "tribe" to describe her circle of friends and every time she does I think it sounds awkward at best.  For one thing, her "tribe", a great bunch of people though they may be, do not fit the definition of tribe...

"a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader"

...because they are an eclectic group that does not fit that definition.  

There is a modern usage of the term "tribe" with it's own contemporary definition, but that word, used that way, must honestly and unarguably be described as an example of cultural appropriation.  It then becomes an issue how how one feels about cultural appropriation.  Personal, I don't dig it.

So when a white kid wears Air Jordan's and a flat cap,  is that wrong? It's cultural appropriation by the very definition.  What about when you break dance or play some jazz on your sax. Where's the line between respect and damage?

Other than traditional costume, I don't think there is a well defined cultural affiliation with clothing.  I will say, at best it looks a bit embarrassing and silly when a rocker like Dee Dee Ramone dresses like a rapper. 

Mixed race jazz bands go back a long way and few black jazz musicians today or in the past have had strong objections to white musicians playing jazz.  On the other hand, some will strongly object to white jazz musicians being given better opportunity or recognition for the music.  For example, in the early 70's I took a jazz appreciation class at San Francisco state under the tutelage of black recording jazz artist John Handy.  John told us that in many circles, big band jazz was often attributed to white bands like the Glenn Miller Orchestra or Tommy Dorsey's band, etc.  Handy did not object to these bands playing jazz music, but he did object to the fact that they were given credit for creating music that was originally created by and better written and performed  black jazz bands-  orchestras led by the likes of Duke Ellington and Count Basie.  Those white bands were also paid better and given better accommodations. Handy and most other black performers argued rightly that racism was an obvious component in how the music was received and rewarded, but there was no mention of cultural appropriation in white bands playing jazz.  And some of the greatest jazz musicians have had integrated jazz band from Louis Armstrong to Charlie Parker hiring Red Rodney (and having to claim Rodney was an albino black in order to play in some clubs) to Mile Davis working with white musicians.

So of course cultural appropriation is not a factor in jazz.  But racism certainly has been.

What you just described is cultural appropriation, isn't it?  Just because it went deep into racism doesn't mean it wasn't appropriation. 

Well, but not really, but only because Jazz, though primarily black music, is also American music.  An though it was formed by African Americans, as truly American music, it makes sense that it would become inclusive of other cultures while being acknowledged as having originally been created by African Americans.  And again, it was mainly black jazz musicians who made the move to have integrated bands and their intentional inclusion of white musicians into the music removes it from cultural appropriation.  You won't find Native Americans encouraging whites to join in on Ghost Dancing. 

And I would say traditional music from specific places and times- like, say- Lakota Native American Ghost dance chanting-  is really the only music that could be culturally appropriated.  Jazz and blues have been more evolutionary and broadly inclusive in nature.

I'm making the point that cultural app is totally common in our country,  from music,  to dress to language.  We used to call it a melting pot of cultures but now it seems to be a negative thing. 

I'm good with the idea of incorporating ideas in music, dress or whatever as long as it is approved of by all concerned.  But if something specific to a group or culture is appropriated without consent of that culture or group, I would say that is an egregious act of cultural theft, aka cultural appropriation.

Brian - so I'm not trying to pick you apart, but what does that mean?  The whole culture has to unanimously agree?  Does there have to a vote?  Surely some Black people were uncomfortable with the success of the Beastie Boys.  Should I ditch the records, should they be removed from the HOF, should their records come off the shelf?  The bar you set is unachievable.  How does a culture provide consent?

Pick away,  ¡No problemo!*

Not the whole culture, but the majority.

No vote needed- they speak for themselves.

Black and Beasties? I don't know enough about rap or hip-hop to speak on that subject.

Unreachable?  I don't think so.  Just listen to what the people have to say.

*Analyze that one!  Is my use of Spanish a form of cultural appropriation?  I don't know for sure.  We have a lot of Hispanic people in our neck of the woods and  I've heard Spanish spoken around me all my life.  When I order tacos from Santa Maria Taqueria, I inevitably use some Spanish without really thinking about it.  Am I part Hispanic?  Nope!  Has any Hispanic person ever asked me to not use Spanish?  Nope!

What if one did, would you stop using it forever?  

¿Estas loco en la cabeza?  ¡No me tomes el pelo!  Eso no pasaría.

Je parle Francais, pas de Espanol.

Sehr gut!

Hobbes

mrussel1

Terrible.  Cartoonish.  Hate it

OnWis97

OK...So I am a sports logos/uniforms nerd...

All things considered, I think it's OK. There was literally nothing they could do that wasn't going to be jarring to most fans. When I think about my Minnesota teams, a name change would be jarring to me (even if it was the Wild).  No matter how good the name and identity, calling the Twins anything else would take some serious getting used to. Therefore, I think it makes sense that:

• The colors and general identity are reminiscent of the current team. That continuity is important.
• Guardians has a similar cadence to the old name.

My two cents:

• Name: OK. Like I said, the cadence works (Drop "In," add "Guar," keep "dians"). 
• Colors: They had no choice, in my opinion. It's not their problem that so many teams have similar colors. They needed to keep the continuity. And it looks fine. Don't worry about it; I'm sure they'll be wearing a Nike "city" jersey 50 times a year (maybe inspired by the Cuyahoga River fire).
• Wordmarks: OK. I actually think they should have gone for more continuity with a smoother wordmark, particularly the "Guardians" one. But it makes the "Cleveland" mark less boring, I suppose.
• Cap: Nice.  The current "C" hat has been begging for white from day 1. The contrast on their hats messed with my eyes. Glad they fixed that problem.
• "G" Logo: The only truly awful part of this. The 3D aspect of the logo implies that on the other side, there's a backwards-facing G. It's just bad.

I'm glad they sidestepped potential "expansionesque" landmines of "kewl" new colors; they're a 120-year old team.  Overall they did about as well as they could, minus the winged logo.

I think if they had dug their heels in on Chief Wahoo so much and for so long, they could have maybe kept the name.

So this took about a year. Why is the Washington Football Team still not doing anything? (Probably Dan Snyder is waiting for Trump to get reinstated and "political correctness" to go away).

mrussel1

I agree with everything you say, but I hate the name.  It feels too much like a Disney thing... like the Mighty Ducks.  

Hobbes

mrussel1 said:

I agree with everything you say, but I hate the name.  It feels too much like a Disney thing... like the Mighty Ducks.  

Or Marvel. Guardians is great? Guardians is good? Guardians is Groot!

MayDay10

OnWis97 said:

OK...So I am a sports logos/uniforms nerd...

All things considered, I think it's OK. There was literally nothing they could do that wasn't going to be jarring to most fans. When I think about my Minnesota teams, a name change would be jarring to me (even if it was the Wild).  No matter how good the name and identity, calling the Twins anything else would take some serious getting used to. Therefore, I think it makes sense that:

• The colors and general identity are reminiscent of the current team. That continuity is important.
• Guardians has a similar cadence to the old name.

My two cents:

• Name: OK. Like I said, the cadence works (Drop "In," add "Guar," keep "dians"). 
• Colors: They had no choice, in my opinion. It's not their problem that so many teams have similar colors. They needed to keep the continuity. And it looks fine. Don't worry about it; I'm sure they'll be wearing a Nike "city" jersey 50 times a year (maybe inspired by the Cuyahoga River fire).
• Wordmarks: OK. I actually think they should have gone for more continuity with a smoother wordmark, particularly the "Guardians" one. But it makes the "Cleveland" mark less boring, I suppose.
• Cap: Nice.  The current "C" hat has been begging for white from day 1. The contrast on their hats messed with my eyes. Glad they fixed that problem.
• "G" Logo: The only truly awful part of this. The 3D aspect of the logo implies that on the other side, there's a backwards-facing G. It's just bad.

I'm glad they sidestepped potential "expansionesque" landmines of "kewl" new colors; they're a 120-year old team.  Overall they did about as well as they could, minus the winged logo.

I think if they had dug their heels in on Chief Wahoo so much and for so long, they could have maybe kept the name.

So this took about a year. Why is the Washington Football Team still not doing anything? (Probably Dan Snyder is waiting for Trump to get reinstated and "political correctness" to go away).

I wonder what the point of that flying G logo is?  Most MLB teams go by their letter-mark, which would be the C (which IMO is a large improvement over the current Block-C).

Maybe it will be used as a sleeve patch or a logo on some sort of alternate-hat, or on the breast of a pin-striped Sunday vest jersey or something?  MLB isn't really too much into secondary logos.  

Hopefully they can somehow blend the guardians moniker in with some of their retro-uniforms so they can still dabble in that.

Kat

Just want to say that I love the new name for Cleveland. Other cities in need of a new name for a sports team are going to be very unhappy they didn't choose Guardians first. Good job, Cleveland.

Halifax2TheMax

Should have been the Rockers. Baseball bat as a turntable arm logo, or a bat smashing records, drum kit with bats for drumsticks, something. Guardians? Guardians of what, exactly? Me no like.

Cleveland Rockers.

MayDay10

Halifax2TheMax said:

Should have been the Rockers. Baseball bat as a turntable arm logo, or a bat smashing records, drum kit with bats for drumsticks, something. Guardians? Guardians of what, exactly? Me no like.

Cleveland Rockers.

it comes from these 



I honestly would have hated the Rockers.  I would never be able to not think of the Roller Games team

All we would need are the T-Birds and Bad Attitude and we would be all set

cincybearcat

As usual, Cleveland disappoints. Truly awful name.

mrussel1

cincybearcat said:

As usual, Cleveland disappoints. Truly awful name.

Whatever, Bungles.  Clowns is a way better name.  

mrussel1

MayDay10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Should have been the Rockers. Baseball bat as a turntable arm logo, or a bat smashing records, drum kit with bats for drumsticks, something. Guardians? Guardians of what, exactly? Me no like.

Cleveland Rockers.

it comes from these 



I honestly would have hated the Rockers.  I would never be able to not think of the Roller Games team

All we would need are the T-Birds and Bad Attitude and we would be all set

That's the Hope Memorial Bridge, crossing the burning Cuyahoga.  Everyone takes the interstates into the city so I don't know why they would key off this.  Dead Man's Curve on I-90 is more famous.  Connecting the name to THAT would have been more interesting. 

MayDay10

I dont think the density of vehicular traffic over the bridge matters.  Lots of people wanted to name it after the R&RHOF and nobody drives through that to go to games.

Its likely a huge motivation for the name change is the general continuity between Indians and Guardians.  

mrussel1

MayDay10 said:

I dont think the density of vehicular traffic over the bridge matters.  Lots of people wanted to name it after the R&RHOF and nobody drives through that to go to games.

Its likely a huge motivation for the name change is the general continuity between Indians and Guardians.  

I"m saying no one drives that road so frankly no one even sees those things.  It's pretty obscure honestly.  When I saw the name, no way did I think about this bridge.  Never occurred to me until you showed me the picture.  Cleveland has used the "Home of Rock and Roll" as its calling card for decades.  WMMS for years was voted the best rock station in the nation and that was their calling card.  So the connectino between rock and Cleveland is way more clear than "guardians".  That being said, Rockers was a bad name too.