I still don't know what was so offensive about it. The guy was LAUGHING (gloating, perhaps), not screaming.

It wasn't even a caricature, like Cleveland's logo. It was/is an accurate portrait of what an indian brave that had just kicked your ass might well look like.

I still don't know what was so offensive about it. It was/is an accurate statue of what a black jockey holding a lantern might well look like.

Well, we're off to a pretty good start here.

The thing that I always come back to on this is that the entire controversy is so...shallow.

The Braves have sold merchandise with that logo on it since the 1960s.

If you go into the Braves' stores at Turner Field or CNN Center, you can buy hats, shirts and jackets with that image on them today, just as you could last year, and the years before that.

The only thing the Braves were going to do was to have the players wear the cap with the logo/image on it, during BP.

Now they're not going to wear them during BP.

That is all.

Even aside from the image being offensive, which I'm not qualified to say, it's just a hideous thing to look at.

I had no idea the Braves had used it on anything in the past 30 years. I guess the fans who buy that merchandise don't travel much.

Well, thousands of Indians will rest easy knowing that.

The Braves have sold merchandise with that logo on it since the 1960s.

I think there are valid reasons to not be offended by it (Eso is right that it's not particularly caricature-esque IMO) but just because they've been doing it for a long time isn't proof that it's right. I think the Washington football name should be changed and the fact that they've had it for 75 years or whatever doesn't make that right in my opinion.

It was/is an accurate portrait of what an indian brave that had just kicked your ass might well look like.

In the minds of the culture that had just waged a successful ethnic cleansing/mostly successful genocide against them anyway.

//and I say this as as Braves fan who cherishes the history of the image - but to say that one doesn't understand what's offensive about it at this stage? Really.

To the victor go the hats.

A much more appropriate logo would be a hayseed doing the dumb-ass "tomahawk chop" while throwing his beer bottle out onto the field.

Well, thousands of Indians will rest easy knowing that.

Hundreds of thousands of them have been resting in peace for centuries now.

Someone somewhere on the internet decided that this image was called the "Screaming Savage" (or "Screaming Indian") which is obviously offensive, and somehow that name stuck to the image. It's insanely weird to me that people decided to run with that like it was the official moniker since I can't find reference to the name before 2012.

Hundreds of thousands of them have been resting in peace for centuries now.

So have the people who put them there.

In the minds of the culture that had just waged a successful ethnic cleansing/mostly successful genocide against them anyway.

Genocide is an inappropriate term here. The vast bulk of the loss of NA Indian population occurred well before colonization started in earnest, and was caused by disease.

Up to 80-90% of the NA Indian population died in the late-16th, early 17th centuries. The European colonists arrived into a largely depopulated landscape.

Was there ethnic cleansing? Definitely. Genocide? No.

This thread is not going well. Let's address my aesthetic concerns again. This is the ugliest logo of any sort in baseball, since the Blue Jays got rid of their roided-up bird-man-monster. Get it off the hats because it makes you look like a ridiculous organization.

Well, thousands of Indians will rest easy knowing that.

In their wigwams, snuggled comfortably with squaw and pappose, a plume of picturesque smoke twisting from It's apex.

Hundreds of thousands of them have been resting in peace for centuries now.

Well yeah, them and everyone else.

[A long-hidden Crystal Pepsi to McCoy]

I can't find reference to the name before 2012.

When the topic came up at Braves Journal, many earlier references were found, including Furman Bisher writing in 1991 during Atlanta's WS run. It's been in use for some time.

PC-ism exists because people are too stupid for nuance.

Change the team name to the Bravos, earn some goodwill, and clean up on new merchandise sales for a few years.

This just in: people continue to be offended by utter nonsense, because contemplating important stuff is just too hard. Film at eleven.

I still don't know what was so offensive about it. The guy was LAUGHING (gloating, perhaps), not screaming.

It wasn't even a caricature, like Cleveland's logo. It was/is an accurate portrait of what an indian brave that had just kicked your ass might well look like.

I don't see what Indians have to do with Barves. What is a Barve anyway?

18 - PCism exists because people have a right to exert some control over their identity.

You have a right to expect me to address you as Drew, not Dror or D-mac or Druid, and a right to expect some input before I decide to launch a marketing campaign based on your name or heritage.

I've never understood what's to get worked up about with what seems to me to be little more than an effort to encode the rules of common courtesy I was taught in elementary school. We ask people how they want to be identified, and if we're using a peoples' likeness in a multi-billion dollar business, we make some effort to do due diligence that those people find the representation respectful.

This just in: people continue to be offended by utter nonsense, because contemplating important stuff is just too hard. Film at eleven.

What important things shall we discuss? Clearly you have some deep messages to relate.

I don't see what Indians have to do with Barves. What is a Barve anyway?

.jpg]I think this is a barve.

This just in: people continue to be offended by utter nonsense,

as we see in response to the weekly Murray Chass blog.

Was there ethnic cleansing? Definitely. Genocide? No.

Not to derail, but there are any number of scholarly resources that disagree with you. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is far from a universally held one.

just because they've been doing it for a long time isn't proof that it's right.

It's not that it's "right." It's that it is stupid. This wasn't an issue until it was on a BP cap and now it's no longer an issue because it's not going to be on a BP cap even though the Braves have sold and will continue to sell merchandise with this logo on it, and nobody in the media cares or realizes this. The logo didn't go away, it just went out of the spotlight.

To the victor go the hats.

I laughed.

The logo didn't go away, it just went out of the spotlight.

That's right. It shouldn't be in the spotlight. Braves fans with a knowledge of Braves history understand whatever "nuance" there is in this hideous and seemingly offensive logo. Don't make it part of the official uniform, even the most minor part of the official uniform, because tons of other people become aware of it and it will be misinterpreted. End of story.

from the link in #25:




In 2003, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez urged Latin Americans to not celebrate the Columbus Day holiday. Chavez blamed Christopher Columbus for leading the way in the mass genocide of the Native Americans by the Spanish.[38]




In his book American Holocaust, David Stannard argues that the destruction of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, in a "string of genocide campaigns" by Europeans and their descendants, was the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world.[22] Stannard's argument has been supported by Ward Churchill, who has said "it was precisely malice, not nature, that did the deed."[36] Stannard's claim of 100 million deaths has been challenged because he does not cite any demographic evidence to support this number, and because he makes no distinction between death from violence and death from disease. Noble David Cook, Latin Americanist and history professor at Florida International University, considers books such as Stannard's–a number of which were released around the year 1992 to coincide with the 500th anniversary of the Columbus voyage to America–to be an unproductive return to Black Legend-type explanations for depopulation. According to Noble David Cook, "There were too few Spaniards to have killed the millions who were reported to have died in the first century after Old and New World contact."[37]

It's not that it's "right." It's that it is stupid. This wasn't an issue until it was on a BP cap and now it's no longer an issue because it's not going to be on a BP cap even though the Braves have sold and will continue to sell merchandise with this logo on it, and nobody in the media cares or realizes this. The logo didn't go away, it just went out of the spotlight.

That seems like a good outcome to me. In fact, I'd love to see the Redskins do the same thing.

It's an ugly hat but I'm sure people would wear it since it looks kind of like a retro Hanna Barbera cartoon drawing.

I don't think there's anything inherently offensive about the name "Braves," but the tomahawk chop seems a bit much.

What I really don't get is why it's ok for the Indians to have a Native American Sambo on their caps.

Isn't there some evidence that many tribes were wiped out by disease before the Europeans had a chance to enlsave/conquer/kill them? My point of reference on this is the book 1491 and I don't know how that book is looked upon in the circles of serious historicism.

Not to derail, but there are any number of scholarly resources that disagree with you. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is far from a universally held one.

It really is beyond dispute that the vast majority of American Indians died from disease, not violence.

That disease was coming even if it was only 1000 Peace Corps volunteers that actually came to the Americas. Many NA tribes suffered the mass die-off from disease before they even contacted Europeans, as it spread through inter-Indian trade.

In his book American Holocaust, David Stannard argues that the destruction of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, in a "string of genocide campaigns" by Europeans and their descendants, was the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world.[22] Stannard's argument has been supported by Ward Churchill, who has said "it was precisely malice, not nature, that did the deed."[36] Stannard's claim of 100 million deaths has been challenged because he does not cite any demographic evidence to support this number, and because he makes no distinction between death from violence and death from disease. Noble David Cook, Latin Americanist and history professor at Florida International University, considers books such as Stannard's–a number of which were released around the year 1992 to coincide with the 500th anniversary of the Columbus voyage to America–to be an unproductive return to Black Legend-type explanations for depopulation. According to Noble David Cook, "There were too few Spaniards to have killed the millions who were reported to have died in the first century after Old and New World contact."[37]

Thanks for the quote.

Yes, the Spanish actually wanted the Meso-American Indians alive to work for them. The last thing they wanted to do was exterminate the labor source for their Haciendas.

In South America, the Conquistadors largely married noble Incan women, and created a hybrid culture. Again, no organized attempts to kill the natives, as can be seen by looking at the racial composition of South America today.

Isn't there some evidence that many tribes were wiped out by disease before the Europeans had a chance to enlsave/conquer/kill them? My point of reference on this is the book 1491 and I don't know how that book is looked upon in the circles of serious historicism.

Yes.

The best scholarship I've seen is that 70-80% of North American Indians had died before the Pilgrims landed.

Plymouth itself was an abandoned Indian village where everyone had died. The whole coastal region was largely depopulated. That's why tiny bands of settler had such an easy time claiming huge tracts of land.

Conflating how they died with whether or not there was an attempt to kill them off is hardly an argument in and of itself.

I'm pretty sure Snapper's right. The major pre-Columbian civilizations were well into a downswing prior to the European colonization of the Americas. That's not to say colonization was all rosy and just moving in and renovating an abandoned neighborhood, but it's not the "Europeans wiped out 100 million native Americans" genocide that some folks want to sell either.

What I really don't get is why it's ok for the Indians to have a Native American Sambo on their caps.

I'd rather see more Sambos as mascots. Make it fun. Leering leprechauns, joyful Jews with yarmulkes and pais, Angelfood McSpade in a baseball cap, go nuts, have fun with it. Ethnic identity doesn't have to be shameful, it can be joyous and ebullient.

Conflating how they died with whether or not there was an attempt to kill them off is hardly an argument in and of itself.

In N America, most of them died before anyone who could attempt to kill them even arrived.

Right! The policies of organized genocide weren't in the 16th and 17th centuries, they were throughout the 19th century with the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, Dawes Act, etc.

In N America, most of them died before anyone who could attempt to kill them even arrived.

This is a separate issue, though. It doesn't make what happened to the peoples who survived the plagues any less horrifying because there were fewer of them to be conquered, nor does it make the conquerors less culpable. In fact, the mass die offs from disease is probably what made the conquest of America by Europe possible.

I wonder how many people are even aware of the depopulation. My impression is most people tend to view pre-columbian north america as a sparsely populated eden because that's just the way things were, and have no idea that massive numbers of native americans lived there only a few years before Columbus's arrival.

18 - PCism exists because people have a right to exert some control over their identity.

OK, but the PC-ism of today is OMG YOU SAID "BLACK" INCORRECTLY THIS IS WAR BLOOD WE WANT YOUR BLOOD AND YOUR MONEY. It's several orders of magnitude beyond "exerting some control".

Right! The policies of organized genocide weren't in the 16th and 17th centuries, they were throughout the 19th century with the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, Dawes Act, etc.

Like I said, ethnic cleansing, not genocide.

This is a separate issue, though. It doesn't make what happened to the peoples who survived the plagues any less horrifying because there were fewer of them to be conquered, nor does it make the conquerors less culpable. In fact, the mass die offs from disease is probably what made the conquest of America by Europe possible.

Right, but no one tried to exterminate the people who were left. They mixed trade with pushing them off their lands. There were massacres and dispossessions, but there was never any systematic effort to eliminate populations.

In Latin America, where the Europeans gained rapid control over large populations, the desire was exactly the opposite of genocide. There were very, very few European colonists. The Conquistadors and their descendants had zero interest in eliminating the natives; they wanted them as a labor force.

Again, not saying they didn't mistreat the Indians, but there was no attempt at, nor desire for, extermination.

There were genocidal moments in early American history. The Pequot War was pretty clearly a genocidal war. King Philip’s War turned into a genocidal war, but that's understandable as it started with the Indians attempting to exterminate the white settlers. The one well-documented "smallpox blankets" incident was during Pontiac's War, and that's a pretty clear attempt at a local genocide. There may have been another effort in the 1830s. If true, that's another shot at genocidal germ warfare

Most Indian wars weren't genocidal. Early on the Spaniards had some genocidal impulses, but they were generally restrained by the Jesuits (this is an oversimplification, but it works here). In America, Indian wars were generally land grabs, with massacres intended as a show of terrorism. Not nice, but not genocidal, with some local exceptions.

FWIW, the logo is clearly a stereotype. The only Indians who regularly wore mohawks were the Pawnee who lived in Kansas and Nebraska. I'm not going to make a ruling on whether it is offensive or not, but, unless the artist thought he was depicting a Pawnee, the image is by definition a stereotype.

To the victor go the hats.


To the losers, the small pox infected blankets.

Change the team name to the Bravos,

You could have Pavarotti be the mascot.

Most Indian wars weren't genocidal. Early on the Spaniards had some genocidal impulses, but they were generally restrained by the Jesuits (this is an oversimplification, but it works here). In America, Indian wars were generally land grabs, with massacres intended as a show of terrorism. Not nice, but not genocidal, with some local exceptions.

Although not large scale or particularly organized there were also a large number of attempts at local exterminations in California in the early/mid 1800's.

Although not large scale or particularly organized there were also a large number of attempts at local exterminations in California in the early/mid 1800's.

Sure. But local massacres were a feature of war from time immemorial. Go read up on Timurlane if you want to see some massacring.

Genocide is a fairly unique, largely 20th century, phenomenon.

Well, thousands of Indians will rest easy knowing that.

I won't pretend to know what's in the mind of people who find things like that image offensive, but that's not really up to me. 15 years ago I probably would said "screw those thin skinned people who find this offensive". But the reality is if you're faced with a decision between something that offends 1% of the population and something that offends zero percent of the population, it's a pretty easy decision.

But the reality is if you're faced with a decision between something that offends 1% of the population and something that offends zero percent of the population, it's a pretty easy decision.

Sure -- you shouldn't settle for anything less than 3 percent at the very minimum, surely.