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

OnWis97 said:

I wonder how many people decried this name change as PC in 1980.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/28pu30/high_school_in_pekin_illinois_actually_used/

OnWis97 said:

bbiggs said:

MayDay10 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

As the most die hard Indians fan that you'll meet (except of course John Adams who lugs the drum into every game), I'm okay with the name changing at this point.  I don't like the Spiders, the Naps, or any of the old names.  I'd go with the Tribe. That would create continuity and the reality is, no fan is ever going to stop saying "Hey, when's the Tribe on tonight?".  They are the Tribe and they play at the Jake.  It's that simple.  
As an aside, the College of William and Mary changed their name a number of years ago to the Tribe, for the same reason.  Works fine down here. 

I feel like teams that make this change are going to make a far bigger departure from native names than this. "Tribe" isn't much better than "Indians."  I see some people suggest Washington Warriors and while that's not as grotesque as their previous name, it seems like the smart move it to just move totally away from that and make sure not to be going through this same thing in ten years.

I agree with this.  "Tribe" still opens the door to all sorts of Native American characterization and such.  If they are doing such a major move as renaming a 120 year old sports team, they are going to make sure they are well out of the crosshairs.

Would Native Americans take offense to the word "tribe" under any circumstances?  I'm thinking through this and don't see how it could be perceived as offensive or characterizing.  I think it is factual that Native Americans were often times part of tribes that they took great pride in being a part of.  It would seem more of a badge of honor than a negative connotation.  I'm the furthest thing from an expert on Native American history, but much of this we learned at a very young age.  I'm just missing the potential negative fallout from a move like that.

I can't speak for how much offense anyone would take.  But I think part of the problem is that the history of Native American naming of teams is full not only of bad names but bad imagery; all the stuff that was portrayed in cartoons, etc, feathers, weaponry, caricatures. It's difficult for me to articulate this, but it really makes it seem like Native Americans were a bit of a novelty to white America; almost "semi-human." It can be racist even if it's not hate.

People sometimes called the Indians the "Tribe" already ("Go Tribe!") and even that seemed a little gross to me. These names was never meant to "honor" anyone as much as they were to "mascotize" them. A move like this would be seen by some almost as a willful defiance of "PC culture" at worst or clinging to something not worth clinging to, at best. Meanwhile, in Atlanta they're playing drums and making a tomahawk motion with their arms* and Cleveland would be clinging to their "heritage." "Tribe" would probably have to come with some other meaning of the word (kind of like the Warriors did about 20 years ago with that robo-dude logo.The Peoria Chiefs went from native imageryl to a dalmatian firefighter (i.e., "Fire Chief"), which was probably an OK solution for a minor league team but would seem really odd in the big leagues (and we'd be hearing about how "PC" it is until we die). I think "the Tribe" would have the same problem they have today, which is almost no imagery to use.

And "badge of honor" is a really tough sell because, again, the history is difficult to overcome.  I think the upgrade in "honor" from Indians to Tribe is negligible.

As I see it, the team had the following choices:

• Continue to be the Indians and have almost no imagery.
• Continue to be the Indians and make a very large-scale outreach effort to work with Ohio tribes (or some other group) on imagery.
• Make a clean break. If they're not going to keep the name, I just don't see the concept of being "native" as worth fighting for.
  

(As an aside, MLB doesn't have any singular names and this would seem a little 1990s NBA/NHL expansion for a league built on tradition.)

OnWis97 said:

bbiggs said:

MayDay10 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

As the most die hard Indians fan that you'll meet (except of course John Adams who lugs the drum into every game), I'm okay with the name changing at this point.  I don't like the Spiders, the Naps, or any of the old names.  I'd go with the Tribe. That would create continuity and the reality is, no fan is ever going to stop saying "Hey, when's the Tribe on tonight?".  They are the Tribe and they play at the Jake.  It's that simple.  
As an aside, the College of William and Mary changed their name a number of years ago to the Tribe, for the same reason.  Works fine down here. 

I feel like teams that make this change are going to make a far bigger departure from native names than this. "Tribe" isn't much better than "Indians."  I see some people suggest Washington Warriors and while that's not as grotesque as their previous name, it seems like the smart move it to just move totally away from that and make sure not to be going through this same thing in ten years.

I agree with this.  "Tribe" still opens the door to all sorts of Native American characterization and such.  If they are doing such a major move as renaming a 120 year old sports team, they are going to make sure they are well out of the crosshairs.

Would Native Americans take offense to the word "tribe" under any circumstances?  I'm thinking through this and don't see how it could be perceived as offensive or characterizing.  I think it is factual that Native Americans were often times part of tribes that they took great pride in being a part of.  It would seem more of a badge of honor than a negative connotation.  I'm the furthest thing from an expert on Native American history, but much of this we learned at a very young age.  I'm just missing the potential negative fallout from a move like that.

I can't speak for how much offense anyone would take.  But I think part of the problem is that the history of Native American naming of teams is full not only of bad names but bad imagery; all the stuff that was portrayed in cartoons, etc, feathers, weaponry, caricatures. It's difficult for me to articulate this, but it really makes it seem like Native Americans were a bit of a novelty to white America; almost "semi-human." It can be racist even if it's not hate.

People sometimes called the Indians the "Tribe" already ("Go Tribe!") and even that seemed a little gross to me. These names was never meant to "honor" anyone as much as they were to "mascotize" them. A move like this would be seen by some almost as a willful defiance of "PC culture" at worst or clinging to something not worth clinging to, at best. Meanwhile, in Atlanta they're playing drums and making a tomahawk motion with their arms* and Cleveland would be clinging to their "heritage." "Tribe" would probably have to come with some other meaning of the word (kind of like the Warriors did about 20 years ago with that robo-dude logo.The Peoria Chiefs went from native imageryl to a dalmatian firefighter (i.e., "Fire Chief"), which was probably an OK solution for a minor league team but would seem really odd in the big leagues (and we'd be hearing about how "PC" it is until we die). I think "the Tribe" would have the same problem they have today, which is almost no imagery to use.

And "badge of honor" is a really tough sell because, again, the history is difficult to overcome.  I think the upgrade in "honor" from Indians to Tribe is negligible.

As I see it, the team had the following choices:

• Continue to be the Indians and have almost no imagery.
• Continue to be the Indians and make a very large-scale outreach effort to work with Ohio tribes (or some other group) on imagery.
• Make a clean break. If they're not going to keep the name, I just don't see the concept of being "native" as worth fighting for.
  

(As an aside, MLB doesn't have any singular names and this would seem a little 1990s NBA/NHL expansion for a league built on tradition.)

erebus said:

Cleveland Clan then?

HughFreakingDillon 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?

basketball shoes are for black people only? news to me. 

paying homage via the arts is not the same as caricaturizing a whole group of people based on racist tropes.