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

erebus

Canadians must go

horrible, horrible people 
Trudeau supports the team
Team colours are the same as the Liberals

*wink*

mrussel1

Les Habiens = proselytizing Cristianity on First Nation's people.   

brianlux

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

So, did anyone else look into why they were called the “Indians” to begin with?  

Look into this guy;
Louis Sockalexis (an actual native-American) that used to play for the Cleveland “Spiders”. 

The name change to “Indians” was actually to honor this gentleman.  I get that “Indian” is an undesirable term for native-Americans, but this guy’s legacy is getting somewhat whitewashed with this change.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Sockalexis

“A lthough Sockalexis had a brief career, he faced many obstacles during his time in professional baseball. It was reported that fans of the opposing teams often shouted racial slurs toward him due to his Penobscot heritage. Additionally, fans imitated war whoops and war dances in his presence.[2]Later, when sports journalists attributed his rapid decline to alcoholism, they identified the disease as the inherent "Indian weakness".[2]

The name change of the Cleveland Naps to the Indians in 1915 is attributed to a desire to honor Sockalexis.[11] The new name was chosen by sportswriters in honor of the nickname given while Sockalexis played for the Cleveland Spiders.[12]”

So the name change to “Indians” was actually an anti-racism statement during that time period…I get why people don’t like the name, but I bet not many took the time to see why they were called “Indians” in the first place.

because it doesn't matter. the name change is taking effect today as a result of today's cultural changes/sensitivities. 

Which I do find weird because I had Native American friends in Arizona that called themselves Indians and saw nothing wrong with it.  I met an actor who was in a bunch of movies.  He said to me one day "I had to go to acting school to learn how to be an Indian.  Imagine that?  Me learning to be an Indian?"  He always got a chuckle with that one.

A few years back, I read several books about "The Indian Movement" (part of the sub-title of one of the best in the batch I read, a book by two Native Americans, Paul Chaat Smith and Robert Allen Warrior, called Like a Hurricane), a major movement in the 60's and 70's.  Those books led me to become curious as to what term or name is best suited to this broad group of people.

 

I went on line and pulled up a number of contemporary Native American web sites and looked for the answer.  There was no single consensus.  It really depends on who who ask.  Some things I found:

"Indian works for me because we took the name back".

"American Indian is fine by me."

"Don't call me American Indian.  America is a name given by white settlers and I'm not from India."

"We are Indigenous peoples."

"Call us by our tribe name.  We are many people and each tribe is a distinct group."

If you think about it, that latter choice makes the most sense.  And if you meet an "Indian", you can always just respectfully ask how they prefer to be referred to.  As a white dude, if I'm referring to indigenous people as a whole, I generally say, "indigenous people".  If I were Canadian, it would be much more simple- I like how they say "First Nations People".  Makes sense.

g under p

Just watch within the next 5 years the Guardians will win a world series after many years NOT having done so.

Peace

Merkin Baller

erebus said:

Canadians must go

horrible, horrible people 
Trudeau supports the team
Team colours are the same as the Liberals

*wink*

Toilet seat insignia. 

  

F Me In The Brain

Worst fans in sports...they honestly think the officiating is all rigged to be anti-Canada.

Merkin Baller

gimmesometruth27 said:

This is nothing compared to how upset they got over Mr. Potato Head & a couple of Dr Seuss books no one ever heard of. 

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

I guess if we compare "Redskins" and "Indians" (and Chief Wahoo being the problem) to "Chiefs" and "Blackhawks" we can clearly see a difference.

I personally don't have an issue with Chiefs or Blackhawks.  Seems pretty respectful to me.  

it's still cultural appropriation no matter how you slice it. 

it is....I honestly don't know where to draw the line.  

JeBurkhardt

The nickname at the high school my wife teaches at is the Indians. They have replaced the imagery of a person with a headdress to a letter with an arrow and feathers. The Principal and teachers believe the name will be eventually changed due pressure from the State to replace problematic nicknames. The State can't force them to change it, but they can potentially do things like stipulate that teams with problematic nicknames can be excluded from post season tournaments, which are run by the State athletic association. It has been talked about, but nothing has been proposed from we can tell.

mrussel1

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

I guess if we compare "Redskins" and "Indians" (and Chief Wahoo being the problem) to "Chiefs" and "Blackhawks" we can clearly see a difference.

I personally don't have an issue with Chiefs or Blackhawks.  Seems pretty respectful to me.  

it's still cultural appropriation no matter how you slice it. 

it is....I honestly don't know where to draw the line.  

So did Elvis,  the Beastie Boys,  Living Color and a million examples.  I think cultural appropriation accusations is Woke gone wild.  I'm not talking about the Washington Redskins, I'm talking about a girl in college being accused of it for wearing hoop earrings kind of garbage.  Should cultural blending be outlawed? 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4357420/amp/White-LA-students-told-t-wear-hooped-earrings.html

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

Les Habiens = proselytizing Cristianity on First Nation's people.   

it's funny, I recently asked my Dad about the history of them being nicknamed Les Habitants, and he didn't know, which isn't surprising, since he also knew nothing about residential schools. 

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

I guess if we compare "Redskins" and "Indians" (and Chief Wahoo being the problem) to "Chiefs" and "Blackhawks" we can clearly see a difference.

I personally don't have an issue with Chiefs or Blackhawks.  Seems pretty respectful to me.  

it's still cultural appropriation no matter how you slice it. 

it is....I honestly don't know where to draw the line.  

So did Elvis,  the Beastie Boys,  Living Color and a million examples.  I think cultural appropriation accusations is Woke gone wild.  I'm not talking about the Washington Redskins, I'm talking about a girl in college being accused of it for wearing hoop earrings kind of garbage.  Should cultural blending be outlawed? 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4357420/amp/White-LA-students-told-t-wear-hooped-earrings.html

I think appropriation is different from influence. with music, I go with the latter. I personally agree with you about the hoop earrings and such, but I can also understand if a black person gets triggered by it. there's no black and white rule book. 

OnWis97

I don't dispute that it's cultural appropriation, but as Russel points out, is that, in and of itself, bad? It can be. It can be disrespectful.  But it's not wrong in itself to take cues from elsewhere. Lines in fashion, music, and other cultural areas can (and sometimes should) be blurred. It gets tricky because I see some people doing some really cringeworthy things that, while probably not badly intended maliciously, might come off as disrespectful.

Sometimes it feels like that's where we are with teams. Was the name "Indians" meant to be disrespectful? Probably not. Maybe even so with R******s (as crazy as that seems), but they still come off that way and fans still react to it that way (see the tomahawk chop). Is Chief Wahoo "cultural appropriation?" Who cares? It was flat out disrespectful even if that's not how we saw it when it was designed in the 1940s. Calling that logo "cultural appropriation" is like calling the n-word "slang" (i.e., it's true but such an under-sell).

As for the names, it gets trickier. The very idea of naming yourself after a group of people that you are not is kind of odd. Then again, you could assign that to the Packers, Oilers, Brewers,* Cowboys, etc., but it comes off differently when it's a group that's been traditionally marginalized/bullied/shit on in this country. I don't care what the intentions were, a critical mass of fan behavior in response to these names has been pretty abhorrent.

These lines are difficult to draw, though. But in the long run, I suspect most fans of the team(s) will adjust. I think that's pretty much what's happened to college teams (Marquette, Miami OH, Syracuse), though the jury's still out at North Dakota...that fanbase is still pretty upset.

*In fairness, those of us old enough to remember Gorman Thomas may suspect that he was, in fact, a Brewer in his spare time.

hedonist

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

I guess if we compare "Redskins" and "Indians" (and Chief Wahoo being the problem) to "Chiefs" and "Blackhawks" we can clearly see a difference.

I personally don't have an issue with Chiefs or Blackhawks.  Seems pretty respectful to me.  

it's still cultural appropriation no matter how you slice it. 

it is....I honestly don't know where to draw the line.  

So did Elvis,  the Beastie Boys,  Living Color and a million examples.  I think cultural appropriation accusations is Woke gone wild.  I'm not talking about the Washington Redskins, I'm talking about a girl in college being accused of it for wearing hoop earrings kind of garbage.  Should cultural blending be outlawed? 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4357420/amp/White-LA-students-told-t-wear-hooped-earrings.html

I think appropriation is different from influence. with music, I go with the latter. I personally agree with you about the hoop earrings and such, but I can also understand if a black person gets triggered by it. there's no black and white rule book. 

Triggered by someone else wearing hoop earrings?!

Something sets someone off, I won’t discount it. I do, though, have a problem when one person’s offense means everyone should then be offended.  And act accordingly. 

Not playing that game.

Just live and let fucking live! People seem to be concerned about perception over reality moreso these days. 

HughFreakingDillon

hedonist said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

I guess if we compare "Redskins" and "Indians" (and Chief Wahoo being the problem) to "Chiefs" and "Blackhawks" we can clearly see a difference.

I personally don't have an issue with Chiefs or Blackhawks.  Seems pretty respectful to me.  

it's still cultural appropriation no matter how you slice it. 

it is....I honestly don't know where to draw the line.  

So did Elvis,  the Beastie Boys,  Living Color and a million examples.  I think cultural appropriation accusations is Woke gone wild.  I'm not talking about the Washington Redskins, I'm talking about a girl in college being accused of it for wearing hoop earrings kind of garbage.  Should cultural blending be outlawed? 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4357420/amp/White-LA-students-told-t-wear-hooped-earrings.html

I think appropriation is different from influence. with music, I go with the latter. I personally agree with you about the hoop earrings and such, but I can also understand if a black person gets triggered by it. there's no black and white rule book. 

Triggered by someone else wearing hoop earrings?!

Something sets someone off, I won’t discount it. I do, though, have a problem when one person’s offense means everyone should then be offended.  And act accordingly. 

Not playing that game.

Just live and let fucking live! People seem to be concerned about perception over reality moreso these days. 

not specifically only hoop earrings, that was just the one example that mrussell mentioned. there are any number of things that can cause people to get offended. 

I live by the old "just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right" mantra. but I will listen and learn where applicable. 

mcgruff10

I was in a curriculum meeting last week and we were sharing ideas with each other. I told my colleagues that I had my students create an Ugly sweater for the holidays that had inventions/contributions from an early river civilization in it. Kids voted on the best ugly sweater and that kid won a small prize.  They absolutely loved the assignment.  

 My supervisor informed me that you aren’t supposed to use the name Ugly sweater anymore because of the negative connotations.  To me this has gone way too far, what is the end game?

HughFreakingDillon

mcgruff10 said:

I was in a curriculum meeting last week and we were sharing ideas with each other. I told my colleagues that I had my students create an Ugly sweater for the holidays that had inventions/contributions from an early river civilization in it. Kids voted on the best ugly sweater and that kid won a small prize.  They absolutely loved the assignment.  

 My supervisor informed me that you aren’t supposed to use the name Ugly sweater anymore because of the negative connotations.  To me this has gone way too far, what is the end game?

preposterous. 

F Me In The Brain

mcgruff10 said:

I was in a curriculum meeting last week and we were sharing ideas with each other. I told my colleagues that I had my students create an Ugly sweater for the holidays that had inventions/contributions from an early river civilization in it. Kids voted on the best ugly sweater and that kid won a small prize.  They absolutely loved the assignment.  

 My supervisor informed me that you aren’t supposed to use the name Ugly sweater anymore because of the negative connotations.  To me this has gone way too far, what is the end game?

What did your super say when you asked them that question?

I relayed something sort of dangerous (I guess) that I saw our 7 year old do to my wife, this morning.

Her reaction "oh my gosh, that is dangerous we cannot have him doing that"

Me "I am glad to see him do something sort-of dangerous.  The idea that a son of mine grows up to be a scared and caged little wuss is horrifying to me!"

I am for a lot of the changes we are making -- including the Indians -- but I do also agree that many of these changes are taken so far that our kids are going to be afraid to express any normal or rational feeling.

Like -- darn, that sweater is u-g-l-y!

mcgruff10

My supervisor just kind of shrugged his shoulders.  he was more looking out for me than telling me what to do so I m guessing it is coming from higher up.  I said I ll call it “sweater that has the most room for improvement.”

mrussel1

mcgruff10 said:

My supervisor just kind of shrugged his shoulders.  he was more looking out for me than telling me what to do so I m guessing it is coming from higher up.  I said I ll call it “sweater that has the most room for improvement.”

Ugly sweaters aren't perfect in their inherent ugliness?  I think you are a disgrace.