Oy, Braves. Just...oy.

Until the professional football team in the nation's capitol changes its name everybody else is going to be way, way behind the leaders in the field of insensitivity to Native Americans.

Eh, still not as bad as the Tomahawk chop. Or the Redskins.

edit: to be clear, that's topping a very low bar.

I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember that "screaming savage" design ever being used after the Braves' first year in Atlanta.

I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember that "screaming savage" design ever being used after the Braves' first year in Atlanta.

I am sure I have at least one set of baseball cards that uses that logo for the Braves players.

EDIT: 1989 Donruss it looks like.

#2 and #3 are right. Redskins are by far, by far, by far the worst offenders. But it's football, so nobody cares.

Actually, I think this is an opportunity to examine deeper. What is it about the image that's offensive? That it depicts a person of a certain ethnic background? That it depicts them in a certain way? That the person pictured has their particular history as a part of this country?

I'm Irish, which of course is not a big deal, but I think we can make a worthy comparison. Notre Dame? Awesome. Celtics? Neutral. St. Patrick's Day drunks? Offensive. I don't think we need to automatically assume that this image is offensive. I don't think that any usage or depiction of a Native American is racist. I'd like to know what those affected by it think, rather than to conclusions.

I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember that "screaming savage" design ever being used after the Braves' first year in Atlanta.

I am sure I have at least one set of baseball cards that uses that logo for the Braves players.
EDIT: 1989 Donruss it looks like.


I was gonna say, I'm not as old as Andy, but I sure remember it. Might be an NL/AL thing, familiarity-wise.

Note: I never, ever, thought he was screaming, always laughing.

#2 and #3 are right. Redskins are by far, by far, by far the worst offenders. But it's football, so nobody cares.

Actually, I think this is an opportunity to examine deeper. What is it about the image that's offensive? That it depicts a person of a certain ethnic background? That it depicts them in a certain way? That the person pictured has their particular history as a part of this country?

In the case of the Redskins, it's solely the name, and not the specific logo. The logo itself is dignified and unremarkable beyond its ethnic origin. The last time the Redskins ever used any sort of a cartoon Indian was on the cover of their 1954 programs, which were in the same style as they were in 1940. The next year the same artist switched gears and came up with covers like these, and AFAICR there's never been any reversion to the childlike cartoon version.

From the comments

A Brave and/or an Indian is a warrior...ready to do battle at any given time

What, Indians weren't braves? Indians were not fierce competitors? Guess who invented lacrosse.

I don't think anything the Indians did could be represented in a negative way (except the "fire water" deal). They were not cowards, they made the most of what the land gave them and they never polluted.

Annnnnnd this is exactly why the images are harmful. They help propogate ignorance.

It was the embossed team logo on tickets well into the 80s.

I've seen this logo on merchandise at Turner Field all last year. But now that it's on a hat, it's an outrage.

Actually, I think this is an opportunity to examine deeper. What is it about the image that's offensive? That it depicts a person of a certain ethnic background? That it depicts them in a certain way? That the person pictured has their particular history as a part of this country?

FWIW -

The hockey Chicago Blackhawks are an interesting comparison -- now, the 'Blackhawks' are not a tribe, rather - Chief Black Hawk was a Sauk chieftan who battled earlier Illinois settlers. The origin of the team name was that an early team owner commanded an Illinois-based "Blackhawk" division in WWI or WWII (I forget).

Obviously, you can find a range of opinions from Native Americans on the appropriateness of the logo/name, however -- FWIW, there have been a ton of local stories asking for those opinions whenever the Hawks are in the news, or, whenever the issue of such other similarly textured team names make the news.

However -

- The organization itself says that they get "very few" complaints

- The fellow who led the charge to have the Illinois 'Fighting Illini' get rid of 'Chief Illiniwek' doesn't consider the 'Blackhawks' or the logo nearly as offensive (he'd prefer it change, but says it's done 'respectfully' and isn't interested in starting a similar movement based on it).

- You can find some NA heritage organizations who say it's fine; others who oppose it (but all of them generally consider it "least offensive")

Why?

- There is no 'mascot' associated with the Hawks... no one dances around in costume, etc... "Tommy Hawk" is a hawk with the signature four feathers
- There is no "tomahawk chop' or other associated fan actions based on the name or logo that it is basically a caricature of the NA culture
- The Hawks themselves are respectful about the logo -- the 'Black Hawk' logo is relatively based on the chief himself. In addition, there are certain traditions that are observed -- for example, the logo on the floor of the locker room is not stepped on by players, etc

Ultimately - I would expect the Blackhawk logo and name to go, too... but it's usually at the very tail end of all such debates because it's probably done as inoffensively/uncaricaturely as such a thing can be done.

#9 - fair, but do we want to make our decisions based on the lowest common denominator? The answer to this could be yes.

The next year the same artist switched gears and came up with covers like these

Looks a hell of lot like Wes Studi in Last of the Mohicans, don't it?

I'd like to know what those affected by it think, rather than to conclusions.

FWIW, Paul Lukas did a survey of Native American readers to get their opinions. He only got 11 responses, and they vary from "I have no problem, whatsoever, with the use of Native American logos" to "I have never liked the use of Native American imagery in sports. I see it as disrespectful."

Where is this author getting "screaming savage" from? The term is the most offensive part.

That is why this is a great site and I hope that it never goes mainstream. #8, #12 and #15 are such well-researched posts.

Some UniWatch responses... a lot of calling out of Redskins in particular:

#1 "What is completely unacceptable is the use of iconography that reinforces the ‘Myth of the Redman,’ instead of the actual people of this land. ... it’s hard to see that representation as anything more noble than the black-faced performers they replaced in Vaudeville shows."

#2 "I am of Cherokee descent and by and large have no misgivings regarding the use of Native American namesakes or imagery in sports — with the exception of the Redskins... I like the Braves — it is a strong, honorable term, and the team’s tomahawk logo looks great, no different than a sword being used for a team called the Knights.

#3 "The teams that have been given permission to use tribal names are fantastic, and keep the Native American culture alive. But the ones that are broad, out-dated stereotypes need to be erased."

#4 "For most pro teams, like the Indians and Braves, I don’t have an issue so much with their name as I do with their stereotypical mascots. Chief Noc-a-homa and Chief Wahoo both cross the line and are more of a caricature of Native Americans than a tribute."

Having grown up in the greater DC area I've come to the opinion that the local professional football club, if they're serious that the team name isn't meant to be a racial slur, should change their logo to a small roasted potato (possibly drizzled with olive oil, sea salt, black pepper and parsley).

That said, a stadium full of (mostly) white (mostly) southerners doing the tomahawk chop and associated chant strikes me as much more offensive on several levels. So, in that light, why bother worrying about Chief Noc-a-Homa?

So, in that light, why bother worrying about Chief Noc-a-Homa?

Because if we don't, Frink's robot will kill Homer!

Noc-A-Homa

"Chief Noc-a-homa and Chief Wahoo both cross the line and are more of a caricature of Native Americans than a tribute."

This makes a lot of sense to me, and is a big part of why I reacted negatively to the logo, as I do to the tomahawk chop. And DC calling it's team the "Redskins" is like if Notre Dame called their team the "Fighting Micks." Of course, this is the same city that called their NBA team the "Bullets" from 1974 until 1997.

That said, a stadium full of (mostly) white (mostly) southerners doing the tomahawk chop and associated chant strikes me as much more offensive on several levels.

Offensive?

The only black faces are on the bandstand.

Of course, this is the same city that called their NBA team the "Bullets" from 1974 until 1997.

Bullets don't discriminate.

White people taking offense at racial an ethnic stereotyping seems overcompensation for a guilty conscience.

By treaty, something like a third of the United States is occupied territory. Let's give it back.

That said, a stadium full of (mostly) white (mostly) southerners doing the tomahawk chop and associated chant strikes me as much more offensive on several levels.

Would it be less offensive had they stayed in Milwaukee or Boston?

I'm sure it was during the glory days of Atlanta's playoff streak. The fans were engaged in a tomahawk during a rally. Only it was interrupted for a cavalry "Charge!" from the PA system. Now which side of that conflict was their team supposed to represent?

Offensive?

The only black faces are on the bandstand.

Canal, I'll take the analogy even further and say, "Of course not! House of Pain and Vanilla Ice are white, you don't hear them complaining."


I'd never seen that before, and was ready to be impressed that Fallon had worked out a 10 minute routine...two five minute routines is pretty impressive though.

Would it less offensive if they stayed in Milwaukee or Boston?

Everything is less offensive in Milwaukee. As for Boston, Scott Brown's campaign staff seem to have mastered the tomahawk chop already. Plus, the image of Bill Simmons doing the chop would allow me to consolidate two of my dislikes, which is nice.

White people taking offense at racial an ethnic stereotyping seems overcompensation for a guilty conscience.

I think there's a pretty big difference between taking personal offense and simply recognizing/attempting to understand or appreciate someone with a direct line to the purported offense, then supporting a change to remove that offense, if for no other reason than there are almost certainly things or situations to which I might genuinely take offense (which might be shared by a wholly different slice of people and considered silly by a different slice of others)... and I'd prefer to have the same done for me.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the latter...

Canal, I'll take the analogy even further and say, "Of course not! House of Pain and Vanilla Ice are white, you don't hear them complaining."

House of Pain purport to be Irish, which hardly qualifies as white.

Obviously all these sports teams should get real native mascots as so not to promote offensive stereotypes. I know these gentlemen would leap at the chance.

People sure do love getting offended on behalf of other people.

#31, that link was funny. British "scientists" justifying their subjugation of the Irish, I assume?

I do think we should rename DC's team, the Macacas, to honor the fact that the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

#32, it is the ability of humans to empathize with other people that makes us our best. This is why Christianity followed in Judaism's footsteps by enshrining the golden rule as the pinnacle of understanding one's religious (and human) obligation. Trust me, just because you aren't hearing from Native Americans does not mean they are fine with being treated institutionally as caricatures.

Obligatory

Would it be less offensive had they stayed in Milwaukee or Boston?

When did the Redskins play in Milwaukee? :-)

From Wikipedia:

The team originated as the Boston Braves, based in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1932. At the time the team played in Braves Field, the home field of the Boston Braves baseball team. The following year the club moved to Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox, whereupon owners changed the team's name to the Boston Redskins. The Redskins relocated to Washington, D.C. in 1937. 

So, since the Presidential Races and such are all caricatures as well, is that offensive too? To Presidents? To Caucasian Males?

How about the Sausage Races? Who's thinking of the poor pigs we're disrespecting?!

Just curious/playing Devil's Advocate. Seems like there is room for discussion and recognizing that applying these concepts to EVERYTHING relevant might show that it isn't done in some disrespectful fashion.....it's just another way to sell tickets....a marketing gimmick.

White people with lots of time on your hands are offended by this stuff. The rest of us think you need to get a life. Or at least a new hobby. Being offended on behalf of other people is such a first world problem.

Being offended on behalf of other people is such a first world problem.

What about being offended about being offended on behalf of other people?

The rest of us think you need to get a life.

Anyone who posts here telling someone to get a life seriously needs to look in the mirror.

#32, it is the ability of humans to empathize with other people that makes us our best. This is why Christianity followed in Judaism's footsteps by enshrining the golden rule as the pinnacle of understanding one's religious (and human) obligation. Trust me, just because you aren't hearing from Native Americans does not mean they are fine with being treated institutionally as caricatures.

It kind of breaks down in subjective fields like giving offense, though, as evidenced by the most awesome team mascot ever.

I'd never seen 34. That's outstanding.

#39-Really? I learn a lot from this site. It's a rare place on the internet with actual smart people. That civil war generals thread from a while back was awesome.

I'd never seen that before, and was ready to be impressed that Fallon had worked out a 10 minute routine...two five minute routines is pretty impressive though.

A lot of fun. Fallon impresses me, and I've always liked Timberlake, who from all reports is very down to earth. But it's the Roots make that tribute work.

That civil war generals thread from a while back was awesome.

Link?

I'm on my phone, I'll never find it. I believe the article that spawned it was comparing the Royals GM to McClelland (sp?) if that helps. Around the time of the Shields trade.

Being offended on behalf of other people is such a first world problem.

So if somebody white casually uses the word N*gg*r to refer to black people, other white people are not allowed to be offended?

If somebody rails against the Kikes running hollywood, gentiles need not mind it?

If somebody says the problem is that the damn spics refuse to learn English, anglos can take the day off?

If somebody tells racist jokes, we are obliged to put up with it, because we are not the ones being denigrated?

I believe the article that spawned it was comparing the Royals GM to McClelland (sp?) if that helps. Around the time of the Shields trade.

That found it for me, thanks.

You're still wrong, but thanks.

Aaaaand ... never mind!

I like the hat.

I'm pretty sure I've never seen this logo before. As such it seems like the Braves are introducing a brand new logo for a new generation, a logo that seems to be, at best, a surprising and questionable choice.