The reddish color of the "savage" might make it a little offensive, but other than that, I don't really see the reason for the uproar. The fact of the matter is that over time some Native Americans have looked like that figure on the cap, unlike the Indians' Chief Wahoo, which is a complete caricature.

And the Braves aren't the ones calling it a "screaming savage," are they?

Not sure who named it 'screaming savage' actually.

The only reason to revive “the screaming savage” is because people would buy it.

This is true. That's why they have been selling merchandise with logo on it for years. It hasn't been revived, just put on a hat. But hey, now lets get outraged.

I don't know if Brown was directly responding to the Braves beat writer's article on the subject, but, ouch.

Not sure who named it 'screaming savage' actually.

Was it called that before? Every google result is from the past week.

I just RTFA and I am sorry I did. What terrible writing.

Comparing the treatment of the Irish in America with that of — say — the Cherokee nation, does a disservice to any reasonable discussion.

While surely the Cherokee have been more oppressed across the course of American history, pretending the Irish don't count as a historical discriminated against group is much more of a disservice to a reasonable discussion.

While surely the Cherokee have been more oppressed across the course of American history, pretending the Irish don't count as a historical discriminated against group is much more of a disservice to a reasonable discussion.

I have stated multiple times that the "screaming savage" image is a direct analog to the angry leprechaun. I have heard many times in response "it's not the same, because of the American genocide of the American Indian," to which I reply "tell that to Cromwell."

DA has a great point, in that this logo has been on apparel in the Braves store for years and years. It's just that they haven't worn it on an on-field uni in a while.

I have stated multiple times that the "screaming savage" image is a direct analog to the angry leprechaun. I have heard many times in response "it's not the same, because of the American genocide of the American Indian," to which I reply "tell that to Cromwell."

I don't think the logo is that bad, but a major difference is that a significant percentage of the people who go to Notre Dame are actually of Irish descent. Self-caricature is generally less offensive than caricature by an outside party.

Politically correct douch-bags win again! Yay! What a society we have crafted! Whitey has saved those poor India..I mean Native Americans from being insulted by something they don't give a #### about. Don't we all feel good about ourselves.

Politically correct douch-bags win again! Yay! What a society we have crafted! Whitey has saved those poor India..I mean Native Americans from being insulted by something they don't give a #### about. Don't we all feel good about ourselves.

Well you clearly don't.

The comment section for the article is an absolute horror show. The comments there make #10 here seem almost reasonable and coherent in comparison.

Well you clearly don't.

Nope, not at all. This isn't progress folks, it's just white folks with not enough things on their plate.

I am just one person (duh), but I find that cap/logo pretty offensive. My daughter is Native American (adopted) and I would have a hard time convincing her that this was intended (when it was first drawn decades ago) as anything other than mocking and ridiculing of Native Americans. My daughter would actually care about it, by the way, with no help from me.

I doubt that the current Braves intend any such thing, but ... why do it? I would like to think that someone stood up in a meeting and said, "You know, this is 2013. Why not do better?"

I don't think the logo is that bad, but a major difference is that a significant percentage of the people who go to Notre Dame are actually of Irish descent. Self-caricature is generally less offensive than caricature by an outside party.

Absolutely. The correct rebuttal is that the Fighting Irish mascot has significant connections to the actual Irish community, like how the Seminole tribe actively participates in the Seminole football program. Saying "psshaw, like the Irish were ever seriously persecuted" is just ignorant.

I'll say, though, the Braves Indian Head logo is not a caricature. I don't get why people call it that. It's a fairly realistic drawing. If there is a significant portion of the Native American community that it offends*, then I will certainly defer to them on the level of offense, but it's not some ludicrous exaggeration of a historical Native American. Personally, I think it is bizarre that many people look at a fairly realistic drawing of a Native American laughing (or, at a minimum doing something joyful), and then think to themselves "this is an image of an angry/violent/war-mongering savage," but to each his own.

*Though, I don't get the impression this actually the case. I don't claim to have comprehensive knowledge of the topic, but the studies I'm aware of seem to show that a sizable majority of N.A.s don't give a hoot about this kind of stuff, so I find it pretty hard to get my own dander up about it.

I spent some post graduate years at a school with a mascot that is offensive to some of Native American descent. As a white male of European ancestry, the mascot was not offensive to me, nor did I particularly feel ashamed while watching the mascot dance at halftime. I think a lot of the arguments against the mascot were a little far-fetched if not outright ridiculous. But there's a pretty simple calculus. If you can do something that offends only 2% of the public, and something that offends 0% percent of the public, it's a pretty easy choice. Why pick the fight just to pick the fight? Sorry, but if your argument in favor of this logo is that "being PC sucks" and "I wouldn't find this offensive if I were Native American", then you're really not worthy of the debate.

I would have a hard time convincing her that this was intended (when it was first drawn decades ago) as anything other than mocking and ridiculing of Native Americans.

I don't get this. I can understand if the image is just inherently offensive; i.e, I can understand if the very idea of appropriating the Native American identity is always offensive to someone. But I don't fully grasp how anything in this specific image is ridiculous or a mockery. It's a drawing of a joyful guy with a mohawk and a feather. This could be drawing of an extra from the Last of the Mohicans (maybe that was offensive, too?).

I also don't fully get the idea that a team would say "let's mock and demean this thing... and then choose it for our identity," but then again, this happened....

If you can do something that offends only 2% of the public, and something that offends 0% percent of the public, it's a pretty easy choice. Why pick the fight just to pick the fight?

I don't think this is the right (or complete, at least) calculus, though. Many people identify pretty strongly with sports teams, and thus with the images that accompany them. These images become, in a very real sense, a part of their own identities. Clearly, this level of identity isn't the same as ethnic heritage, but all the same, when people are told that what they consider to be a positive part of their identity is actually a very bad thing, it can feel like a personal attack. Now, you may not find that to be an important (or relevant on a relative scale) element of the equation, but it is very real phenomenon, and to leave it out and say that there will be 0% offense is oversimplification.

Many people identify pretty strongly with sports teams, and thus with the images that accompany them.

Teams change those images all the time. I think I count about ten in baseball that haven't changed their primary logo, and that's being generous to the Dodgers and Giants. If your loyalty to a particular sports franchise is tied to the use of a particular image, well, that's pretty moronic. There are a few teams in MLB with histories tied to fairly distinct images. The Braves are not one of them. The others don't have images that are inherently racist. And of course, as pointed out, the Braves seem to have gotten along just fine without this logo for quite a while.

Absolutely. The correct rebuttal is that the Fighting Irish mascot has significant connections to the actual Irish community, like how the Seminole tribe actively participates in the Seminole football program. Saying "psshaw, like the Irish were ever seriously persecuted" is just ignorant.

This is so ####### obvious, it stuns me it's so often dragged out as an example. It's really easily summed as we vs. them. Some mascots/team names reflect the local area or its population in some ways, while others are about some unrelated entity. Notre Dame is the school Irish Catholics most strongly identify with (except for my dad, who never forgave Ara). There is no similar connection to the Braves or Redskins (but, as you note, there are some examples at the college and high school levels).

Well, no question Cleveland's logo is the most disgusting in MLB and this one is 'better' but that is like how a beating is better than having an arm chopped off - neither is good and you don't encourage either. These logos should be in a special exhibit in the HOF to let people understand how views have changed over the years and it should be a room that people leave shaking their heads wondering how teams could've possibly thought these were good ideas. Heck, why not have a Sambo team logo - oh yeah, you'd have a riot in about 3 seconds even if you switched to this image which appears less offensive but still is.

Don't forget the context too - naming teams after a group of people is just a dumb move unless the team can be seen to represent those people. How many Native American's have played for Atlanta or Cleveland? There are stories the team name for Cleveland came due to one player but that is very unlikely (he was hardly of Babe Ruth stature). If a team is composed of 90% of one group then it can make sense but even then I'd hesitate. National teams are one thing, as they clearly represent a nation but the 'Atlanta Braves' hardly represent Native Americans. Using animal mascots or generic names like 'Red Sox' works. Yankees is pushing it, but they are trying to be 'America's team' one could say.

The day Cleveland and Atlanta rename their teams and get rid of their old logos (outside of historical exhibits) is going to be a good day for baseball.

Teams change those images all the time. I think I count about ten in baseball that haven't changed their primary logo, and that's being generous to the Dodgers and Giants. If your loyalty to a particular sports franchise is tied to the use of a particular image, well, that's pretty moronic. There are a few teams in MLB with histories tied to fairly distinct images. The Braves are not one of them. The others don't have images that are inherently racist. And of course, as pointed out, the Braves seem to have gotten along just fine without this logo for quite a while.

This... well, I don't think you read what I wrote very closely. People very plainly have personal associations with sports teams, and the visual imagery associated with them are a part of those associations. I don't see how this is debatable. I did not say:

"loyalty to a particular sports franchise is tied to the use of a particular image"

That has nothing to do with what I said. I'm not claiming the Braves will lose fans if they change their logo. I am saying people who identity with the image feel personally attacked when the image is attacked.

This part: "There are a few teams in MLB with histories tied to fairly distinct images. The Braves are not one of them."

is just wrong. This was the primary logo for decades, pre-dating the move to Atlanta, and it is much beloved by many (though certainly not all) fans.

This was the primary logo for decades, pre-dating the move to Atlanta

Maybe they should have gotten over it 25 or so years ago when the Braves stopped using that logo.

I am saying people who identity with the image feel personally attacked when the image is attacked.

Then those people probably need to get over themselves. I mean, good christ, the Braves weren't even named to represent anything having to do with the heritage of Atlanta (as an aside, not being a fan of the Confederacy, the Atlanta Flames was arguably the most awesome name ever). If the Braves had used a different logo when they moved to Atlanta, do you really think their fanbase would be any different? They're already carpetbaggers. I'm not really in love with the idea of FSU being the Seminoles, or Illinois being the Illini, but at least there's a local connection beyond some generic "Indian", making it even more of caricature.

Again, the Braves have an opportunity to do something that offends no one, or do something that certainly offends some segment of the population, regardless of how small that percentage may be. The decision should be fairly simple.

is just wrong. This was the primary logo for decades, pre-dating the move to Atlanta, and it is much beloved by many (though certainly not all) fans.

This is simply a complete misread of my point. If the Yankees changed their logo, there would be an outcry. If the Cardinals changed their logo, there would be an outcry. The Angels, Brewers, Mariners, Padres, etc. have changed their primary logo numerous times with no particular issues. The Braves have not put this logo on any player apparel for decades, and it is in no way representative of their "golden" years.

Maybe they should have gotten over it 25 or so years ago when the Braves stopped using that logo.

Then those people probably need to get over themselves

This is very helpful, thank you for the insight.

I think Atlanta should go back to the old Crackers name. Then the Braves fans can have an insulting stereotype as their mascot and the Native Americans can be treated like human beings. Everybody wins!

Notre Dame is the school Irish Catholics most strongly identify with (except for my dad, who never forgave Ara). There is no similar connection to the Braves or Redskins (but, as you note, there are some examples at the college and high school levels).

The Boston Redskins (which became the Washington Redskins) were originally named that in honor of their coach at the time, who was Native American.

Of course this is only partially true, because they were named the Braves previously, and the name change was also to distinguish them from the baseball team and to mark the move from Braves Field to Fenway Park.

But there was a connection to an actual Native American when that name was chosen.

The Boston Redskins (which became the Washington Redskins) were originally named that in honor of their coach at the time, who was Native American.

Well, to be holistic, it's not as if "Redskin" wasn't a particularly popular mascot/logo/name prior to that, and long afterwards. While I don't doubt it was sincerely to recognize the coach, I do doubt that was at all the sole consideration.

I think Atlanta should go back to the old Crackers name. Then the Braves fans can have an insulting stereotype as their mascot and the Native Americans can be treated like human beings. Everybody wins!

The Atlanta Crackers and the Washington Rednecks. I couldn't think of a pair of more lovable team names.

-------------------------------------------

The Boston Redskins (which became the Washington Redskins) were originally named that in honor of their coach at the time, who was Native American.

Well, to be holistic, it's not as if "Redskin" wasn't a particularly popular mascot/logo/name prior to that, and long afterwards. While I don't doubt it was sincerely to recognize the coach, I do doubt that was at all the sole consideration.

The only "sincere" things about George Preston Marshall were his racism, his love of money, and his love of Broadway night life and Hollywood actresses. Hiring Lone Star Dietz was nothing but a marketing gimmick, and Marshall fired him after two years of second place finishes.

I've lived in the South for nearly my entire life, and have never heard that image referred to as "screaming" or "savage" until last week. I always thought it was a laughing Native American, or maybe a better drawn Chief Wahoo.

The only "sincere" things about George Preston Marshall were his racism, his love of money, and his love of Broadway night life and Hollywood actresses.

I've always been very disappointed that someone like Louise Brooks, who is one of my very favorite actresses, had a long-term relationship with the man. It seems like a major character flaw on her part that she'd stay with him despite his nature, and in a relationship that she described as abusive. She comes across as such an intelligent woman in her writings, and I can't conceive that she didn't see his flaws...

If anyone wants to see a "savage" Braves logo, check out the one for the 1971-74 Boston Braves minor league hockey team

The only "sincere" things about George Preston Marshall were his racism, his love of money, and his love of Broadway night life and Hollywood actresses.

I've always been very disappointed that someone like Louise Brooks, who is one of my very favorite actresses, had a long-term relationship with the man. It seems like a major character flaw on her part that she'd stay with him despite his nature, and in a relationship that she described as abusive. She comes across as such an intelligent woman in her writings, and I can't conceive that she didn't see his flaws...

I only learned about Brooks's relationship with "George" about a year or so ago when I read her "Lulu In Hollywood" book, in which she has some references to Marshall in one or two of the chapters. The only explanation I can think of was that they were both party loving hedonists, and at the time they were together she was often broke. AFAICT their affair was pretty much over by the time that Marshall got involved in the NFL, and it's likely that the whole race issue never had much chance to be explored between them.

This is so ####### obvious, it stuns me it's so often dragged out as an example. It's really easily summed as we vs. them. Some mascots/team names reflect the local area or its population in some ways, while others are about some unrelated entity. Notre Dame is the school Irish Catholics most strongly identify with (except for my dad, who never forgave Ara). There is no similar connection to the Braves or Redskins (but, as you note, there are some examples at the college and high school levels).

The Braves have friendly relations with the Cherokee nation, actually. And if the Arapahoe or Navajo want to provide Atlanta with a LF with power, we'd gladly take them. The distinction you're drawing is between colleges, which are affiliated with communities other than their fanbases, and professional teams.

I think Atlanta should go back to the old Crackers name. Then the Braves fans can have an insulting stereotype as their mascot and the Native Americans can be treated like human beings. Everybody wins!

Oh, yeah. I'm sure a team from the deep south adopting a name descended from an epithet slaves used for plantation foremen in charge of distributing punishment lashes - "whip-crackers" - would go over very, very well.

The Braves have friendly relations with the Cherokee nation, actually.

Really? Even with the horrific Chop?

I can't imagine a team called (I dunno) the Ming Dynasty (to take something not offensive) and singing something like this music as a rally cry (and that's not as bad as the chop) being embraced by the respective community, but I suppose it's possible.

The Boston Redskins (which became the Washington Redskins) were originally named that in honor of their coach at the time, who was Native American.

If the Indians had been named the Niggers in "honor" of beloved ex-star Nig Cuppy, would that make it OK?

Oh, yeah. I'm sure a team from the deep south adopting a name descended from an epithet slaves used for plantation foremen in charge of distributing punishment lashes - "whip-crackers" - would go over very, very well.

I thought that etymology was a myth?

I think Atlanta should go back to the old Crackers name. Then the Braves fans can have an insulting stereotype as their mascot and the Native Americans can be treated like human beings. Everybody wins!

Oh, yeah. I'm sure a team from the deep south adopting a name descended from an epithet slaves used for plantation foremen in charge of distributing punishment lashes - "whip-crackers" - would go over very, very well.

Funny how in the 65 year existence of the Atlanta Crackers minor league team, nobody ever complained about the insult. But maybe the poor ignorant fools thought the name just referred to Saltines or Uneeda Biscuits.

Oh, yeah. I'm sure a team from the deep south adopting a name descended from an epithet slaves used for plantation foremen in charge of distributing punishment lashes - "whip-crackers" - would go over very, very well.

I thought that etymology was a myth?

It's whatever you want it to be, but the guy who wrote a book on early Atlanta baseball never could determine the true origin with any certainty. OTOH by mid-century "Crackers" was a ubiquitous epithet directed by blacks (and some white northerners) against the entire class of poor southern whites in general, and especially the rural version.

Funny how in the 65 year existence of the Atlanta Crackers minor league team, nobody ever complained about the insult.

There was not a concerted push back about the racial undertones of the nickname of the Atlanta minor league baseball team that existed from 1901-1965?

Shocking.

I thought that etymology was a myth?

I'm more than open to hearing evidence to this argument.

Well, Wikipedia has the version I heard (cowboys) but also mentions the slavery link and states there is no definitive answer.

There was not a concerted push back about the racial undertones of the nickname of the Atlanta minor league baseball team that existed from 1901-1965?

Shocking.

Except that the fan base of that team was largely made up of the element that was supposedly being insulted. If they'd actually been offended by the name and made it known, you can bet that it would have been changed, but the fact that they didn't complain makes it pretty clear that they took the name with a combination of humor and pride.

Not that they'd look upon such a name with equal equanimity today, but that's because whereas "Crackers" used to be on the top of the racial equation**, they now seem to think that they're on the bottom. People who are sure of their relative position in society are much less likely to care about things like nicknames.

**Not that they weren't usually dirt poor, but they wielded considerable electoral power on the state and local levels, and they always knew that there was one caste below them.

The only "sincere" things about George Preston Marshall were his racism, his love of money, and his love of Broadway night life and Hollywood actresses.

3 out of 4 ain't bad.
I'm Irish-american and don't care for the little guy with his dukes up on the Celtics logo, or the old "Irish Spring" soap commercials. My opinion is just one data point, but I think team names like Braves, Chiefs and Seminoles have positive connotations and are good. "Indians" is neutral and Redskins is bad.

The more general point about the "Crackers" nickname is that it originated in an era when team names had largely local and / or geographic connections. The cutesy-poo minor league nicknames of today couldn't remotely compare to the team names of the dead ball era for originality and variety, and names that might result in lawsuits today were accepted then as a matter of course.

The only "sincere" things about George Preston Marshall were his racism, his love of money, and his love of Broadway night life and Hollywood actresses.

3 out of 4 ain't bad.
I'm Irish-american and don't care for the little guy with his dukes up on the Celtics logo, or the old "Irish Spring" soap commercials. My opinion is just one data point, but I think team names like Braves, Chiefs and Seminoles have positive connotations and are good. "Indians" is neutral and Redskins is bad.

In this case I was referring to Marshall's racism in keeping his team lily white until he was forced (at gunpoint!) to integrate in 1962. I wasn't referring to his choice of a nickname for his team.

Except that the fan base of that team was largely made up of the element that was supposedly being insulted.

Just so we're clear, who do you think I think would be offended by a change from "Braves" to "Crackers?"

The cutesy-poo minor league nicknames of today couldn't remotely compare to the team names of the dead ball era for originality and variety, and names that might result in lawsuits today were accepted then as a matter of course.

Like the Shenandoah Hungarian Rioters, for example.

I don't mind the logo, particularly, but certainly understand why some aren't enamored with letting another culture's stylized representation of them stand as acceptable, regardless of intent. What's weird is that an ordinarily well-run business would invite this kind of criticism over something as trivial as batting caps.

edit - and what's really weird is that some columnists/supporters claim to not understand how any offense is taken - you can argue that the offense taken is misguided or trivial or thin-skinned I suppose, but to claim that you don't "understand" how someone could see this as jacked up is just obtuse at this point.

I'm not really in love with the idea of FSU being the Seminoles

Well I'm pretty certain that the Seminole Nation sure as hell is. You do understand that they're fully on-board, and in fact make money off of licensing and whatnot?