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

stuckinline said:

I'm from the Cleveland area, and I like the new name! 
The bridge is well known in Cleveland and often photographed. 
https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/73

I'm from there too and it never occurred to me until I got the email from Dolan. Most people would take 71 from the west and 90 from the east,  I would think.  The team will need to reinforce this over and over nationally.  It's hard to escape the Galaxy as your next thought.  Too culturally ingrained. 

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. 

Obviously…

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

because "we" have been calling them that for hundreds of years. so that's what they identified with. There is still a gang in Winnipeg that uses the term "indian" in their title. Indian Posse. we still called it Indian Affairs in Canada until very recently. 

There is still the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) in the United States…
https://www.bia.gov/bia

The Sockalexis angle has been disputed.  He had a short career with the Cleveland Spiders, which is not the same franchise as today's Indians and tomorrow's Guardians. It's a defunct National League team (i.e., he never played for the franchise but he did play in Cleveland). The Sockalexis angle started to pick up some steam when the name and /or logo fell out of favor with some people.  The below link is interesting and inconclusive. 

"As a child, I believed the Cleveland Indians were named for a great player named Sockalexis. As a grown man, I believed the Cleveland Indians were not named for a underachieving player named Sockalexis. Now I believe that the truth is somewhere in the silence between the notes."


https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2014/03/18/the-cleveland-indians-louis-sockalexis-and-the-name/

Gern Blansten said:

Meltdown99 said:

Yet the Kansas City Chiefs refuse to change their name.

And the Blackhawks....

Yup

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.  

I think R******s is by far the worst. As for the other names, I'm not a fan of those names and I never will be.  Does that mean they need to change? I don't know. But it's not just the names; it's also the imagery. The imagery tends to be dripping in stereotype picked up from 1970s cartoons; weaponry, in particular, along with very insulting caracatures.* Most of those caricatures are gone now (though Chief Wahoo has only been gone for a few years). And I think they can be legitimately impactful in how we see Native people, as cartoons or novelties. Now we're left with the following imagery:

• Totally bland identities like the Indians had for the last couple of years.
• "Respectful" renderings like the Blackhawks and the R******s helmet of recent past.
  
• Benign unrelated images, such as the Golden State Warriors using the Golden Gate Bridge
• Weapons.

That bottom bullet is a no-go for me.  No question. The rest of it gets a little nuanced.  So the Warriors, rooted in the standard Native American imagery (see bottom link below), are now using no such imagery. Does this make it OK? Good question...the other piece of this is that Warriors doesn't have to mean Native Americans. The minor league Peoria Chiefs went to a "fire chief" logo after having used cartoon Native imagery. Is this OK? I suppose so, but it's all very nuanced. Is the Blackhawks logo respectful? I don't know; there seems to be some respectful intent but then again, in the 1930s, nobody thought the R******s name was out-of-bounds and maybe the intent, relative to the context of the time was at least less awful.

One thing I do believe, though is that spears, arrowheads, tomahawks, etc. push the "savage" stereotype. If I happened to cheer for any such teams, I would have to be very choosy when I made hat/shirt purchases. I really like the KC Chiefs colors, but I would not wear that arrowhead. And even if I liked the Blackhawks, I would not wear that logo; right or wrong, I'd just be uncomfortable.


*
https://content.sportslogos.net/logos/7/168/full/6378.gif
https://content.sportslogos.net/logos/7/162/thumbs/ek8fh77bg4ik3b31ekmxv8jwb.gif
https://content.sportslogos.net/logos/6/249/thumbs/5509.gif