Is Chief Wahoo a Racist Caricature?

[jonathan180iq]

I do not enjoy sports and simply do not care. Nobody looks at that logo and thinks to themselves,"I ****ing hate Injuns!"
It is simply irrelevant at the end of the day the same way I heavily enjoy black face as a black man. It is hilarious and I wish to see more of it but people are cowards not counting that black society in America is littered with racism but oh well.

I've been a Braves fan since I was a little boy. And to be completely honest, I didn't realize until WAY too long into my childhood that the Atlanta Braves had anything to do with Native Americans...

I know that sounds ridiculous. But it is what it is.
We have tomahawks on our jerseys, do a war chant when something good happens, and our mascot used to be Chief Noc-a-Homa... All that, and it meant nothing to me because the focus was the game, and the camaraderie; not the mascot, and certainly not any form of racism.

*Before my time, the imagery which hearkens to the teams Native roots was much more prominent - but that was in the 60s and early 70s.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Appropriate for what purpose?

I downloaded it, because I plan to photoshop a cap on his head that reads "Make America Great Again". I can annoy someone I know with that image.
Tom

Appropriate as a symbol, or a mascot.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Do you guys think the Ultimate Warrior an inappropriate character?

What about the Golden State Warriors?

 

[columbus]

Do you guys think the Ultimate Warrior an inappropriate character?

He looks like a gay Batman or something.
Hasn't that already been done enough?
Tom[/QUOTE]

 

[jonathan180iq]

He looks like a gay Batman or something.
Hasn't that already been done enough?
Tom

[/QUOTE]
Hahaha.
He's no longer a wrestler and I don't even know if he's still alive, to be completely honest.

What I'm trying to do is find a line between what is deemed tasteful vs. distasteful in this particular setting... Which Mascot, caricature, or logo is deemed more or less offensive than the other? Why are those delineations what they are? When does the logic for offense over one cease to exist over another... etc, etc, etc.

Are the Golden State Warriors modern basketball jerseys less offensive than Cleveland's Chief Wahoo just because Golden State removed the Native American logo and imagery? Does the history of the team's iconography mean nothing at all so long as the cartoon is gone?

I see parallels between these conversations and those that take place elsewhere in the forums between rabble rousers and devout Muslims over imagery depicting the Prophet Muhammad...

Offense, Censorship, and Sensitivity are all facets of a delicate scale which balance the homogeny of our societies. I want to know where people draw lines, and why they draw them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hahaha.
He's no longer a wrestler and I don't even know if he's still alive, to be completely honest.

What I'm trying to do is find a line between what is deemed tasteful vs. distasteful in this particular setting... Which Mascot, caricature, or logo is deemed more or less offensive than the other? Why are those delineations what they are? When does the logic for offense over one cease to exist over another... etc, etc, etc.

Are the Golden State Warriors modern basketball jerseys less offensive than Cleveland's Chief Wahoo just because Golden State removed the Native American logo and imagery? Does the history of the team's iconography mean nothing at all so long as the cartoon is gone?

I see parallels between these conversations and those that take place elsewhere in the forums between rabble rousers and devout Muslims over imagery depicting the Prophet Muhammad...

Offense, Censorship, and Sensitivity are all facets of a delicate scale which balance the homogeny of our societies. I want to know where people draw lines, and why they draw them.

Ultimately, no mascot will have any ethnicity or race because
someone somewhere will feel either insulted or excluded.
So they'll all become animals or something generic.
Our local high schools are....
The Pioneers
The Eagles
The River Rats
Note that even this last one was controversial, but the students overwhelmingly demanded it.

 

[columbus]

What I'm trying to do is find a line between what is deemed tasteful vs. distasteful in this particular setting.

Well, I must give you credit for chutzpah.
The big problem I see with the mascots is that they're so tied to tradition. Modern people who don't share the bigotry of past generations don't even see the offront. They see the symbol of the team they're rooting for now, in the modern world, just like their dad and grandpa did.

It's like still loving your great grandma and ignoring her casual racism, because she's going to take it to the grave soon anyway and she can't hurt anyone in the meantime. She's in a wheelchair for heaven's sake.

The very fact that people can get so upset about this sort of issue is solid evidence that the racism of the past has been pretty well extinguished. It's like the firemen putting out the last hotspots in a big fire. The job is pretty well done when a smoldering ember gets the attention.
Tom

 

[jonathan180iq]

Ultimately, no mascot will have any ethnicity or race because
someone somewhere will feel either insulted or excluded.
So they'll all become animals or something generic.
Our local high schools are....
The Pioneers
The Eagles
The River Rats
Note that even this last one was controversial, but the students overwhelmingly demanded it.

We have a local Middle School whose mascot is the Pioneer, as well. And it got me thinking... If one of our reasons for offense at certain images is based on stereotypical features, then pigeonholing a whole class of historical citizenry to a fictionalized image of an exploring, often low-income, coon-skinned capped, buffoon should be met with similar outrage, right?

I mean, who are we to assume what all Pioneers looked like? Who are we to assume their drives, ambitions, clothing choices, value systems?

 

[Revoltingest]

We have a local Middle School whose mascot is the Pioneer, as well. And it got me thinking... If one of our reasons for offense at certain images is based on stereotypical features, then pigeonholing a whole class of historical citizenry to a fictionalized image of an exploring, often low-income, coon-skinned capped, buffoon should be met with similar outrage, right?

I mean, who are we to assume what all Pioneers looked like? Who are we to assume their drives, ambitions, clothing choices, value systems?

A cisgendered white male who wears fur?
Oh, the horror....Im triggered!
Must....find....safe....space....

The Pioneer mascot is a conestoga wagon instead of a human.
My town is way ahead of the curve in political correctness.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Well, I must give you credit for chutzpah.
The big problem I see with the mascots is that they're so tied to tradition. Modern people who don't share the bigotry of past generations don't even see the offront. They see the symbol of the team they're rooting for now, in the modern world, just like their dad and grandpa did.

It's like still loving your great grandma and ignoring her casual racism, because she's going to take it to the grave soon anyway and she can't hurt anyone in the meantime. She's in a wheelchair for heaven's sake.

The very fact that people can get so upset about this sort of issue is solid evidence that the racism of the past has been pretty well extinguished. It's like the firemen putting out the last hotspots in a big fire. The job is pretty well done when a smoldering ember gets the attention.
Tom

I agree with most of this; even old Grandma and her passive use of the "N" word...

Blatantly purposeful negative depictions have no real place as official logos, or in casual society, really. I completely agree with that. But I just, honestly, don't see most of these logos as being negative depictions, like, at all. They aren't being made of. They aren't being used in a derogatory manner. They aren't demeaning really, in any way. They are just mascots; an image hoping to invoke one of the positive qualities attributed to said icons...

I really want to hear some opposing thoughts on this.

 

[columbus]

ee with most of this; even old Grandma and her passive use of the "N" word.

It's not just that it was passive.
Sometimes it's quite pointed. There's black folks and then there is n!**ers. Like there's white folks and then there's white trash.

It's not the same thing, and it's not a passive use of the terms. It's not even a racial judgement, it's judgement about behavior that is rooted in old words.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

I agree with most of this; even old Grandma and her passive use of the "N" word...

Blatantly purposeful negative depictions have no real place as official logos, or in casual society, really. I completely agree with that. But I just, honestly, don't see most of these logos as being negative depictions, like, at all. They aren't being made of. They aren't being used in a derogatory manner. They aren't demeaning really, in any way. They are just mascots; an image hoping to invoke one of the positive qualities attributed to said icons...

I really want to hear some opposing thoughts on this.

You mean that you are surprised that this rabid left full of trigger sensitive, entitled, millenials that you keep hearing about on YouTube and in right wing media isn't really as prevalent as you were led to believe?

I think the majority of people are like: it is a sports mascot. If some people find it offensive then maybe we should change it, but it really is not that big of deal. And if it really not a big deal, then there should be little problem changing it if enough people are truly offended.