Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, July 04, 2020

Cleveland Indians look into changing name amid pressure

They’ve been known as the Cleveland Indians since 1915. Those days could be over.

Amid new pressure sparked by a national movement to correct racial wrongdoings, the Indians said Friday night they will review their long-debated nickname which has been in place for 105 years.

“We are committed to making a positive impact in our community and embrace our responsibility to advance social justice and equality,” the team said in a statement that came just hours after the NFL’s Washington Redskins announced a similar move. “Our organization fully recognizes our team name is among the most visible ways in which we connect with the community.”

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: July 04, 2020 at 09:27 AM | 203 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cleveland indians

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. The Duke Posted: July 04, 2020 at 10:01 AM (#5960969)
Babylon Bee says Redskins are changing their names to Lizard People to better reflect the DC community
   2. Adam Starblind Posted: July 04, 2020 at 10:11 AM (#5960972)
I heard they’re going to honor the deep state and swamp and bureaucrats by naming the team the Washington Middle Class Jobs.
   3. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: July 04, 2020 at 10:21 AM (#5960976)
Washington Senators; first in war, first in peace, last in the NFC East. It’s right there.
   4. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: July 04, 2020 at 10:25 AM (#5960978)
According to CGP Grey’s research, among the people the labels refer to, more prefer to be call Indians than Native Americans. Is there any indication that Indians don’t want a baseball team named after them?
   5. SoSH U at work Posted: July 04, 2020 at 10:36 AM (#5960983)
Is there any indication that Indians don’t want a baseball team named after them?


Just as with anything else, some do, some don't.

There's obviously been more attention directed at the Redskins, for obvious reasons. And, historically speaking, Wahoo seemed to be a bigger bone of contention than the name itself.

   6. The Duke Posted: July 04, 2020 at 10:43 AM (#5960984)
Maybe they should just call them the Ravens. I bet the fans would love it
   7. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: July 04, 2020 at 10:55 AM (#5960985)
The Cleveland Spiders are looking for redemption. They could even use Spiderman bases without it being too weird.

But maybe to placate the people who would be offended by this move, call them the Cleveland Americans. Doesn't work quite as well as the Washington Nationals, but unless they change leagues it's okay. Heck, back in the day the Indians got called this. (As opposed to the Spiders, which was a totally different team.)
   8. SoSH U at work Posted: July 04, 2020 at 11:06 AM (#5960986)
But maybe to placate the people who would be offended by this move, call them the Cleveland Americans. Doesn't work quite as well as the Washington Nationals, but unless they change leagues it's okay. Heck, back in the day the Indians got called this. (As opposed to the Spiders, which was a totally different team.)


The Red Sox were the Americans. The Indians were the Blues, Bronchos and Naps before becoming the Tribe.

I'd love to see a return of the Naps.
   9. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: July 04, 2020 at 11:12 AM (#5960987)

Cleveland Americans

It wasn't an official nickname, but it is something that they were called. The "City League+s" construction got used for lots of teams.
   10. SoSH U at work Posted: July 04, 2020 at 11:16 AM (#5960990)

It wasn't an official nickname,


But it was the official name for the Red Sox.

   11. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: July 04, 2020 at 12:02 PM (#5960994)
The Cleveland Trumps.

Fight me.
   12. Jeff Francoeur's OPS Posted: July 04, 2020 at 12:07 PM (#5960995)
Who really cares, but 99% of this is meant to appease woke white suburbanites.

From 2016: 9 of 10 Native Americans aren't offended by Redskins name
   13. Ron J Posted: July 04, 2020 at 12:31 PM (#5960999)
#12 Sure. But that still leaves a fair number who are in fact offended.

Now I get that you can't please everybody. I think the way the Edmonton Eskimos are handling their naming issue is the sensible way. They're actually talking with the relevant communities.
   14. John DiFool2 Posted: July 04, 2020 at 12:32 PM (#5961000)
Have to LOL at one of the suggested new NFL names: Monuments. Recalls the infamous Monty Python vs. the Philosophers soccer match...
   15. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: July 04, 2020 at 12:32 PM (#5961001)

Just as with anything else, some do, some don't.


I don't know if mant see "Indians" as inherently problematic, I think its that it inspire white fans to dress up in headdresses and to do tomahawk chops that is more of an issue, IMO. That goes for the Chiefs and Braves as well.
   16. SoSH U at work Posted: July 04, 2020 at 12:39 PM (#5961002)


I don't know if many see "Indians" as inherently problematic,

It's definitely less so than Redskins, for sure.
   17. Mayor Blomberg Posted: July 04, 2020 at 12:54 PM (#5961008)
one of the suggested new NFL names: Monuments.


Properly phallic.
   18. Tin Angel Posted: July 04, 2020 at 01:10 PM (#5961010)
   19. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: July 04, 2020 at 02:32 PM (#5961018)
As is obvious from my handle, I think this is the right move.
   20. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Fred Posted: July 04, 2020 at 02:39 PM (#5961019)
Wahoo!
   21. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 04, 2020 at 02:49 PM (#5961022)
This is dumb. Redskins I can see, as it was used as a slur. Indians is not a slur. Naming your team after a group of people is an honor to them, not an insult.
   22. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: July 04, 2020 at 03:21 PM (#5961026)
Anybody who looks at the older version of Chief Wahoo, or the more recent version, would conclude that "Indians" was pretty obviously not meant as an honor to Native Americans. On the Wikipedia page about the issue, it includes a photo of Omar Vizquel wearing the Chief Wahoo hat. In 2020, it is uncomfortable, in my opinion, to see that as the logo of a team. Cleveland should change the name in time for the 2021 season...
   23. Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb Posted: July 04, 2020 at 03:30 PM (#5961029)
   24. Mayor Blomberg Posted: July 04, 2020 at 03:34 PM (#5961030)
Naming your team after a group of people


Naming after which group of people? Were there some bands in North America who thought they were in South Asia?

How about the Cleveland Erielhonan and Thanks for the Land?
   25. frannyzoo Posted: July 04, 2020 at 03:56 PM (#5961033)
Naming your team after a group of people is an honor to them, not an insult.


It's understandable that some folks, including some folks crazy enough about sports to spend way too much time at BBTF, might think such an "honor" might somehow make up for centuries of treating people as inferior beings. They might not understand that such shallow "honor" might be perceived as mockery. Here's a recreation of a guy talking around July 4th a few years back to explain.
   26. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 04, 2020 at 04:21 PM (#5961037)
Naming after which group of people? Were there some bands in North America who thought they were in South Asia?

The American Indians who live here now, and call themselves American Indians.

It's understandable that some folks, including some folks crazy enough about sports to spend way too much time at BBTF, might think such an "honor" might somehow make up for centuries of treating people as inferior beings. They might not understand that such shallow "honor" might be perceived as mockery.

It doesn't make up for anything, it doesn't have to. All anybody alive today owes anyone is to treat other people alive today with respect and fairness. I'm not expecting an apology from the Russian Gov't for the half of my Mother's family they killed, or the land they took.

It's silly to change the name that has been used for 100+ years when it's not viewed as offensive my most actual Indians.
   27. Mayor Blomberg Posted: July 04, 2020 at 04:36 PM (#5961038)

frnnyzoo, thought you might have this in mind
   28. Jay Seaver Posted: July 04, 2020 at 04:55 PM (#5961041)
Naming your team after a group of people is an honor to them, not an insult.


It can be meant that way in all sincerity while also not living up to those intentions, or being perceived that way universally. If Cleveland were awarded a new MLB franchise today, they probably wouldn't consider a name like "Indians" for a number of reasons - it doesn't reflect the makeup of the team or the fanbase, and in appropriating the identity of some other group, it allows outsiders to define them rather than letting them defining themselves - and just because those were not considerations when the team was named a hundred years ago does not mean it should be exempt from considering them today.

Is this the most important issue facing indigenous people in 21st-Century America? Hardly. It arguably won't make a whole lot of difference in anybody's day-to-day life. It is still a good thing to do, and there's no right or wrong order for doing good things, especially if doing so helps people examine how they think about peoples' identities as they take up more concrete issues.
   29. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: July 04, 2020 at 05:11 PM (#5961043)
Would Celtics and Vikings be problematic names? And if not, but Indians is, does that mean white ethnic groups are the only ones that get to have teams named after them?
   30. Der-K's emotional investment is way up Posted: July 04, 2020 at 05:17 PM (#5961044)
   31. Mayor Blomberg Posted: July 04, 2020 at 05:17 PM (#5961046)
Depends on what the Celts and Norse think. Certainly there were more Irish and Norse in Boston and MSP than Indians in Cleveland.

What about the Munich Jews as honor for a people and a tribute for wrong deeds done? We good with that?
   32. winnipegwhip Posted: July 04, 2020 at 07:09 PM (#5961054)
Cleveland Dead Modells
   33. Howie Menckel Posted: July 04, 2020 at 07:39 PM (#5961056)
If Cleveland were awarded a new MLB franchise today, they probably wouldn't consider a name like "Indians" for a number of reasons - it doesn't reflect the makeup of the team or the fanbase, and in appropriating the identity of some other group, it allows outsiders to define them rather than letting them defining themselves - and just because those were not considerations when the team was named a hundred years ago does not mean it should be exempt from considering them today.


this is a fine opening argument for having Notre Dame change its nickname.

all of my grandparents came here from Ireland.

a core identity of the Irish and of Irish-Americans is as a feisty underdog.

if, in 2020, you looked at all of the university athletic programs and searched for the WORST match, Notre Dame would be very close to the top (and 10 years ago, quite possibly No. 1).

their football program is so big that it transcends conferences. it is the only school with its own national television contract. it annually gets invited to bowl games it has no business playing in, raking in hundreds of thousands of extra dollars (which it shares with no one) due to its, well, privilege.

the offense I take at "Fighting Irish" of course is not on the level of native Americans and "Redskins."

but I still can, and do, take offense.

that is dismissed because, "well, it was an appropriate nickname 100 years ago, so too bad."

et tu, Cleveland Indians erasers?
   34. KronicFatigue Posted: July 04, 2020 at 07:40 PM (#5961058)
Team names and mascots are usually chosen both to reflect the area of the team and also some element of strength, power, agility, etc. Vikings are perceived as strong, but there's no modern history attached to them. No discrimination, etc.

Compare that to Native Americans / Indians, who, at best were perceived as warriors, but at worst were perceived as savages. By "honoring" their strength, you're glamorizing a stereotype that has had a negative connotation to them. The team name wasn't selected to honor their environmentally sound lifestyle, strong community bonds, etc. It was their "savagery" that's being acknowledged, and it was that savagery that justified the atrocities that their people endured.
   35. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 04, 2020 at 07:49 PM (#5961060)
The Cleveland Trumps.

Fight me.


If you want to go with a presidential nickname, why not the Cleveland Grovers? It gives you a built-in comeback narrative, as well as cross-promotional options with the Muppets.
   36. vortex of dissipation Posted: July 04, 2020 at 07:58 PM (#5961063)
Yes, I know thay're not going to use the name of a team that went 20-134, but I really like Spiders as a team nickname.
   37. Mayor Blomberg Posted: July 04, 2020 at 08:06 PM (#5961066)
the offense I take at "Fighting Irish"


Pro Tip:

The change you see all around you didn't happen because someone was offended.
It happened because someone who was offended did something. Something beyond ######## on a fairly obscure website.

But start the petition and I'm happy to sign. The mascot needs to die.
   38. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 04, 2020 at 08:22 PM (#5961068)
Compare that to Native Americans / Indians, who, at best were perceived as warriors, but at worst were perceived as savages. By "honoring" their strength, you're glamorizing a stereotype that has had a negative connotation to them. The team name wasn't selected to honor their environmentally sound lifestyle, strong community bonds, etc. It was their "savagery" that's being acknowledged, and it was that savagery that justified the atrocities that their people endured.

Ummm, that's most team mascots named after people. Vikings, Spartans, Buccaneers, Pirates, Rangers, Trojans, Raiders. They're being emulated for their fighting qualities. Even the Ottawa Senators mascot is a Roman Centurion, not a politician in a toga.

The atrocities the American Indians endured, and dished out, were the exact same ones seen everywhere nomadic and semi-nomadic people faced off against settled farming people. The nomads raided the farmers (looting, raping, murdering, and kidnapping) and the farmers did the exact same thing. The farmers pretty much always won because their lifestyle could support a much larger population.

Let's not fall for the "noble savage" BS. The American Indians (North, Central, and South) were every bit as rapacious and cruel as the English, French, and Spanish settlers who fought them. They were terrorizing each other long before Europeans came. Hell the Aztecs flat out deserved to have their civilization wipe off the face of the earth; to their neighbors they seemed like the Nazis did to us in the 1940s.

The issue with the treatment of the Indians extends solely to the period when they were already settled and part of the U.S. That has often been shameful, and should be remedied.

Changing a sports team name is insulting pandering at best. It's not even American Indians who are calling for it. It's the "I hate everything about my own culture" brigades.
   39. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 04, 2020 at 08:38 PM (#5961074)
The Indians have here a great opportunity that the Washington Nationals passed up. Cleveland could take the name Buckeyes, which calls back to the Negro Leagues champions of the 1940s, and which is, of course, closely associated with Ohio. The Nats could have called themselves the Grays in homage to Cum Posey’s dynasty of the 1930s and 1940s, but didn’t. Especially in the time of BLM, giving an appreciative nod to the Negro Leagues would be cool and, perhaps, demonstrate the team’s stated interest in social justice and equity.
   40. Mayor Blomberg Posted: July 04, 2020 at 08:43 PM (#5961075)
I like the idea, Doc, but would tOSU allow it?
   41. Mayor Blomberg Posted: July 04, 2020 at 08:43 PM (#5961076)
So I ask again, Snapper. Munich Jews, yes or no?
   42. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 04, 2020 at 08:46 PM (#5961078)
I dunno. But it sure would be cool. #ThingsThatShouldHappen
   43. John Northey Posted: July 04, 2020 at 09:11 PM (#5961085)
WEll past time for the team's name to change. Lets bring back the Cleveland Spiders.
   44. Ron J Posted: July 04, 2020 at 09:12 PM (#5961086)
#41 Tottenham Hotspurs unofficial nickname is Yids. It's the preferred nickname of the fan base even if you're more likely to see Spurs elsewhere.
   45. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 04, 2020 at 09:15 PM (#5961088)
So I ask again, Snapper. Munich Jews, yes or no?

In Germany, to adopt that post-WW2 that would be a bit problematic, unless the name predated WW2. But, if there had been a "Brooklyn Jews" team in American sports, or elsewhere in Europe, I'd see no reason that should be changed today. Is the self-identification of Tottenham Hotspur fans (Jewish and non-Jewish) as the "Yids" and the "Yid army" problematic?
   46. Egregious Hidden Genitals (CoB). Posted: July 04, 2020 at 09:22 PM (#5961089)
Is the self-identification of Tottenham Hotspur fans (Jewish and non-Jewish) as the "Yids" and the "Yid army" problematic?

To the club itself and a significant portion of the fanbase?
Yes and as an actual Spurs fan, I disagree with Ron in #44.
   47. Mayor Blomberg Posted: July 04, 2020 at 09:28 PM (#5961090)
In Germany, to adopt that post-WW2 that would be a bit problematic, unless the name predated WW2.


Cleveland Indians are a pre-Columbian name, you say? 1915 was a lot closer to the "Indian Wars" than WWII is to now.
   48. SoSH U at work Posted: July 04, 2020 at 10:04 PM (#5961092)
the offense I take at "Fighting Irish"


is yours alone among this country's Irish Catholic population.

ND is the favored school for Irish Catholics* across the U.S. The Fighting Irish reflect an us in the way the Cleveland Indians never have. That's a significant difference that you routinely gloss over.

By the way, is your only objection to the nickname the fact that Notre Dame is too good and too popular to be called Irish? I think you might find it difficult to get that particular bandwagon populated.

* Myself excluded. My dad never forgave Ara for playing for the tie.

   49. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 04, 2020 at 10:39 PM (#5961093)
Cleveland Indians are a pre-Columbian name, you say? 1915 was a lot closer to the "Indian Wars" than WWII is to now.

Yes, and the Holocaust is a lot different than the Indian Wars. You can count on one hand events as bad as the Holocaust in history: Mongol conquests, Soviet collectivization/Gulag, Mao's Great leap forward, Pol Pot's genocide. That's about it. You can't count the number of events like the Indian Wars that happened in a single century of the last 3000 years, because there are too many of them.

   50. Mayor Blomberg Posted: July 04, 2020 at 10:43 PM (#5961095)
That's good. Snapper. Now, tell me: is that attitude also part of your explanation of how the name honors the people?
Or do you want to stop digging?

Middle Passage? 250 years of chattel slavery, not on the list either? Good god, man.
   51. Ron J Posted: July 04, 2020 at 10:45 PM (#5961096)
#46 I guess things have turned in (semi) recent years. Jewish groups have been pretty vocal about it (since it's pretty explicitly a term of abuse).

   52. always extremely 57i66135, but never enough Posted: July 04, 2020 at 10:54 PM (#5961098)
Yes, and the Holocaust is a lot different than the Indian Wars. You can count on one hand events as bad as the Holocaust in history: Mongol conquests, Soviet collectivization/Gulag, Mao's Great leap forward, Pol Pot's genocide. That's about it. You can't count the number of events like the Indian Wars that happened in a single century of the last 3000 years, because there are too many of them.

finally, a topic emerges where conservatives feel like they can credibly claim intellectual high ground: genocide.
Would Celtics and Vikings be problematic names? And if not, but Indians is, does that mean white ethnic groups are the only ones that get to have teams named after them?

celtic: not a slur.
viking: not a slut.
washington nfl team: slur.
indian: not a slur.
canuck: slur.
chief wahoo: #######.
caucasians: well...
That's good. Snapper. Now, tell me: is that attitude also part of your explanation of how the name honors the people?

you can honor them, but only after you slaughter so many of them that there aren't enough left to cause problems.
   53. Egregious Hidden Genitals (CoB). Posted: July 04, 2020 at 10:55 PM (#5961099)
@Ron J.

I should temper my remarks somewhat. It's pretty clear the club would like it to stop, but haven't gone so far as to ban the use of the term when used by Spurs fans to describe themselves.

The fan base is likewise split; suffice to say, it's on the way out, it's just a matter of timing.

I will say that at least here in the US, I've only heard the term used by supporters of opposing teams, usually Arsenal fans.
   54. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 04, 2020 at 10:56 PM (#5961101)
Middle Passage? 250 years of chattel slavery, not on the list either? Good god, man.

Slavery was bog standard human behavior for 9,800 of the 10,000 years of recorded human history. Everyone of us is descended from someone who was enslaved at one point or another. There are likely dozens, if not hundreds of generations of slaves in each of our own histories. Europe was subjected to 600 years of depredations by slavers, Islamic, Viking (anachronistic name) and others. from 600 to 1200 AD. Half my family are Slavs. Hmmm, wonder why that sounds familiar?

   55. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 04, 2020 at 10:59 PM (#5961102)
I never thought normalizing slavery was going to be a hill someone was going to die on here.
   56. always extremely 57i66135, but never enough Posted: July 04, 2020 at 11:00 PM (#5961103)
I never thought normalizing slavery was going to be a hill someone was going to die on here.
but some of my best friends are slaves.
   57. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 04, 2020 at 11:01 PM (#5961104)
celtic: not a slur.
viking: not a slut.
washington nfl team: slur.
canuck: slur.
indian: not a slur.
chief wahoo: #######.


Despite your typical assholishness, I agree with you 100%. Redskins is problematic, and should be changed. Chief Wahoo is, and should be, gone. Indians is not a problem.

finally, a topic emerges where conservatives feel like they can credibly claim intellectual high ground: genocide.

We can claim intellectual high ground because the woke tribe is batshit crazy. Lets have a hundred black men die in two months due to depolicing in order to protests the deaths of two black men, one of whom was murdered (and the cop who did it should get life) and the other who deserved to get shot.

I mean the CHAZ/CHOP people killed more black men in the last two months than the cops they were protesting, including a 16 y.o. and a 14 y.o. Does that make any ####### sense?
   58. always extremely 57i66135, but never enough Posted: July 04, 2020 at 11:04 PM (#5961105)
Despite your typical assholishness, I agree with you 100%. Redskins is problematic, and should be changed. Chief Wahoo is, and should be, gone. Indians is not a problem.
okay, i feel like i have to amend my previous list:

indian: slur.
south asian: not a slur.
   59. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 04, 2020 at 11:04 PM (#5961106)
I never thought normalizing slavery was going to be a hill someone was going to die on here.

Normalizing? It was normal until 1800. I'm not saying it wasn't awful, everywhere. I'm just saying it wasn't as bad as gassing and shooting 12 million people.

That seems uncontroversial. Throughout human history millions of people had the choice between fighting to the death/committing suicide and surrendering and becoming slaves. The vast majority chose to become slaves. During the Holocaust, those prisoners who could do slave labor instead of being immediately killed invariably chose to do it.
   60. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 04, 2020 at 11:06 PM (#5961107)
okay, i feel like i have to amend my previous list:

indian: slur.
south asian: not a slur.


If you just want to be contrary, go for it. But the majority of American Indians choose to be called Indians. It's not a slur to them. Also, I doubt people in India think Indian is a slur. The Pakistanis probably do.
   61. always extremely 57i66135, but never enough Posted: July 04, 2020 at 11:26 PM (#5961108)
We can claim intellectual high ground because the woke tribe is batshit crazy. Lets have a hundred black men die in two months due to depolicing in order to protests the deaths of two black men, one of whom was murdered (and the cop who did it should get life) and the other who deserved to get shot.

I mean the CHAZ/CHOP people killed more black men in the last two months than the cops they were protesting, including a 16 y.o. and a 14 y.o. Does that make any ####### sense?
the childrens' hospital of philadelphia? i feel like i would have heard of that if it was true.

If you just want to be contrary, go for it. But the majority of American Indians choose to be called Indians. It's not a slur to them.

define "prefer".

is it a slur to call "mitt romney" a "christian"? probably not. is that his preferred religious designation? #### no.


noone is an "american indian". they're from tribes; the sioux, the navajo, the cherokee, choctaw,...and you can just ####### google as many others as you'd like to know. so is it a slur to call them "indian"? you know what, i think you've done the impossible: you've changed someone's mind on the internet. so now, yeah, i think the term "indian" crosses the line into slur. it's an artificial term that's used to dehumanize the people it's applied to.
   62. Howie Menckel Posted: July 04, 2020 at 11:46 PM (#5961109)
"the offense I take at "Fighting Irish"

"is yours alone among this country's Irish Catholic population.

ND is the favored school for Irish Catholics* across the U.S. The Fighting Irish reflect an us in the way the Cleveland Indians never have. That's a significant difference that you routinely gloss over.

By the way, is your only objection to the nickname the fact that Notre Dame is too good and too popular to be called Irish? I think you might find it difficult to get that particular bandwagon populated."

.................

- sorry, but The Fighting Irish sports teams and how they run their billion-dollar empire do not reflect the Irish nor Irish-American cultures. but yes, nonetheless by tradition they are popular among those groups anyway. so tradition rules, game over? that doesn't seem too popular a take this year.

- my objection - as I suspect/hope you already understand in spite of your comment - has nothing to do with ND being "too good and too popular." if Notre Dame's sports teams succeeded in spite of being at a disadvantage in a league with much larger schools who had all sorts of edges, I suspect they would be extremely popular. and I would revel in the underdog not only succeeding, but gaining new supporters, based on their determination.

- the idea that the modern monolith of the Notre Dame athletic program has even 1 percent of an "Irish culture" vibe to it is just bizarre. if you read Michael Lewis's brilliant book "Boomerang" - the sequel to "The Big Short" - that surely would end any confusion for you about ND's behemoth athletics reflecting primal Irish cultural sentiments.
   63. Dr. Vaux Posted: July 04, 2020 at 11:57 PM (#5961111)
snapper, you probably know that if you were a university professor, you'd most likely be fired for each one of your posts in this thread by itself, let alone all of them taken together. I don't remotely endorse that state of affairs, of course. (Well, I shouldn't say of course, necessarily; I suppose that most academics find the situation hunky-dory, since that's how it got that way in the first place.) I'd be circulating a petition to get you reinstated, but it wouldn't work.
   64. SoSH U at work Posted: July 05, 2020 at 12:09 AM (#5961115)
- sorry, but The Fighting Irish sports teams and how they run their billion-dollar empire do not reflect the Irish nor Irish-American cultures. but yes, nonetheless by tradition they are popular among those groups anyway. so tradition rules, game over? that doesn't seem too popular a take this year.

- my objection - as I suspect/hope you already understand in spite of your comment - has nothing to do with ND being "too good and too popular." if Notre Dame's sports teams succeeded in spite of being at a disadvantage in a league with much larger schools who had all sorts of edges, I suspect they would be extremely popular. and I would revel in the underdog not only succeeding, but gaining new supporters, based on their determination.

- the idea that the modern monolith of the Notre Dame athletic program has even 1 percent of an "Irish culture" vibe to it is just bizarre. if you read Michael Lewis's brilliant book "Boomerang" - the sequel to "The Big Short" - that surely would end any confusion for you about ND's behemoth athletics reflecting primal Irish cultural sentiments.


Just curious: Have you ever met any other Irish Catholics (or just Irish folks) who share this take of yours?
   65. always extremely 57i66135, but never enough Posted: July 05, 2020 at 12:12 AM (#5961116)
- sorry, but The Fighting Irish sports teams and how they run their billion-dollar empire do not reflect the Irish nor Irish-American cultures. but yes, nonetheless by tradition they are popular among those groups anyway. so tradition rules, game over? that doesn't seem too popular a take this year.
"for us, by us".

the washington and cleveland racial slurs are not fubu.

notre dame is most undoubtedly fubu. for now, anyway.


that context matters.
   66. jmp Posted: July 05, 2020 at 01:14 AM (#5961119)
noone is an "american indian". they're from tribes; the sioux, the navajo, the cherokee, choctaw,...and you can just ####### google as many others as you'd like to know. so is it a slur to call them "indian"? you know what, i think you've done the impossible: you've changed someone's mind on the internet. so now, yeah, i think the term "indian" crosses the line into slur. it's an artificial term that's used to dehumanize the people it's applied to.


naming is tough. When I went to school in South Dakota in the early 90's, I learned that Sioux was not the preferred term, and local natives preferred Dakota or Lakota, depending on their heritage.

While looking that up, I learned that Cherokee is a name given to that people by a neighboring tribe, not the name that was used to self identify.
   67. Mayor Blomberg Posted: July 05, 2020 at 01:26 AM (#5961120)
naming is tough.


What's tougher, of course, is overcoming centuries of disregard despite the continued actual presence of them as wouldn't vanish. Not that I can pretend to know any of that history. I'm an educational product of that erasure.
   68. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: July 05, 2020 at 01:43 AM (#5961122)
south asian: not a slur.


So then the baseball team in Cleveland should change their name to the Cleveland South Asians! We have a winner.

   69. bookbook Posted: July 05, 2020 at 02:14 AM (#5961126)
The slavery of most times and most people’s has more closely resembled indentured servitude than the chattel slavery of the Atlantic slave trade and the United States,

It has always been wrong and completely unacceptable, but there are meaningful differences.

I’m sure the Munich Jews would have some interesting nicknames. Since y’all brought up that Brooklyn Jews might not be offensive, it’s ironic that Mel Gibson suggested “oven Dodgers” as a leading contender. (I think even with the Brooklyn team, you’re underestimating the amount of discrimination is in our society that makes going there so problematic. The Indian team name should be changed.)
   70. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 05, 2020 at 03:00 AM (#5961128)
The slavery of most times and most people’s has more closely resembled indentured servitude than the chattel slavery of the Atlantic slave trade and the United States,
I was going to say something similar. Slavery is a moral evil, we all agree, but there's something unique to the race-based slavery that was so prevalent from the 16th rough 18th centuries that set it apart from the centuries of servitude that came beforehand.

The near-genocide of indigenous populations is just an extension of the logic that justified race-based slavery, so there's always been a weird sort of paternalism that went with the naming of sports teams after native American tribes. "They put up a tough fight when we wiped them out, so let's honor the fighting spirit of these people we didn't respect then and don't respect now by making them our mascot, and maybe draw them up as a hilarious cartoon or give them a fun name like Knockahoma or something. Hey, no disrespect!" The truth is that those teams and fan bases really didn't intend any disrespect, because they never respected those tribes as being fully human to begin with.
   71. gef, talking mongoose & vexatious litigant Posted: July 05, 2020 at 09:32 AM (#5961139)
noone is an "american indian".


The Herman's Hermits singer? He seems extremely white to me, along with not being American.
   72. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: July 05, 2020 at 10:15 AM (#5961142)
Mascot names generally fall into three categories:

Some type of animal or bird that is considered cool/fierce or occasionally, cute (Detroit Tigers, Minnesota Timberwolves, Philadelphia Eagles, Pittsburgh Penguins).
Strongmen figures (Golden State Warriors, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, New York Giants).
Something, some group, sometimes including animals or birds, unique to/identified with the area in question (Baltimore Orioles, San Francisco 49ers, Texas Rangers).

The Original 16 baseball franchises often have some quirky origin nickname stories, related to team history (Naps, Cubs) or colors of unis (Reds).

So mascot names are not generally chosen to show "respect" for a group of people, and naming your team after a group of people that were part of an indigenous population that was warred against/conquered is problematic in and of itself. Looking at the Indians nickname in particular, even if Indians is "not a slur" it is identified with Wahoo and with the other stuff that bothers people, which is mostly people dressing up in red face paint and faux head dresses, banging on drums, etc (the Tomahawk Chop with the Braves is the ofc the better-known example of this type of thing). Most of the people who have always been doing this probably are not thinking of it in terms of mocking Native Americans; they probably see it as a fun thing like the "Hook 'em Horns" gesture at the University of Texas. But part of the national conversation about racial representation issues is moving past pure intent and obvious bigotry to more subtle manifestations, arguably especially ones that have long traditions. Since the Cleveland baseball team has been called the Indians for 105 years, changing the name would certainly upset many Cleveland fans and other people, but it should probably be done.

Also, the Holocaust and Stalinism really don't have much if anything to do with this discussion. Better just to say that you don't think the Indians should change their name because people are used to it and you don't see it as a blatant slur and leave it there IMO.

   73. PreservedFish Posted: July 05, 2020 at 10:28 AM (#5961144)
I am really puzzled by Howie's idea that the ND mascot should be changed because the team is no longer an underdog. Should they change to the Goliaths or something? Actually his whole thing is puzzling.
   74. always extremely 57i66135, but never enough Posted: July 05, 2020 at 12:02 PM (#5961152)
I am really puzzled by Howie's idea that the ND mascot should be changed because the team is no longer an underdog. Should they change to the Goliaths or something? Actually his whole thing is puzzling.
his core belief is that both sides are the same, which under current circumstances requires a level of cognitive dissonance that borders on psychopathy.
   75. Adam Starblind Posted: July 05, 2020 at 12:23 PM (#5961155)
Normalizing? It was normal until 1800. I'm not saying it wasn't awful, everywhere. I'm just saying it wasn't as bad as gassing and shooting 12 million people.


You seem unaware of this, but millions of deaths are directly attributable to slavery--the middle passage, various forms of abuse, plantation executions. Perhaps murder was not the objective, as it was for Hitler, but I can't see how that matters.

I say this as a Jewish person whose family lost certain members in the Holocaust. Never in a million years would I get into a debate with somebody and argue that the Holocaust was a more significant evil in history.
   76. Tom Nawrocki Posted: July 05, 2020 at 12:32 PM (#5961156)
I am really puzzled by Howie's idea that the ND mascot should be changed because the team is no longer an underdog. Should they change to the Goliaths or something? Actually his whole thing is puzzling.


I'm still trying to figure out how a college football team could accurately represent Irish-American culture. I guess it would be a team where most of the players go on to become Boston cops.
   77. KronicFatigue Posted: July 05, 2020 at 12:42 PM (#5961159)
I mean the CHAZ/CHOP people killed more black men in the last two months than the cops they were protesting, including a 16 y.o. and a 14 y.o. Does that make any ####### sense?


The protests are about systemic racism that has been around for longer than the two months you're measuring, and progress (or lack there of) will be measured beyond the two months you're measuring.

We saw an uptick in the number of Americans killed by Nazis after we entered the war too.
   78. always extremely 57i66135, but never enough Posted: July 05, 2020 at 12:53 PM (#5961160)
We saw an uptick in the number of Americans killed by Nazis after we entered the war too.
don't blame snapper; he voted for lindbergh.
   79. winnipegwhip Posted: July 05, 2020 at 12:59 PM (#5961161)
don't blame snapper; he voted for lindbergh.


I don't think Lindbergh ran for anything. Since we are going to use revisionism at least it wasn't a vote for a Democrat who was okay with putting a Klansman on the Supreme Court.
   80. KronicFatigue Posted: July 05, 2020 at 01:09 PM (#5961162)
I'm guessing #78 was referencing "The Plot Against America", which would make sense, since it's what I thought of when I wrote my comment.
   81. winnipegwhip Posted: July 05, 2020 at 01:16 PM (#5961163)
We saw an uptick in the number of Americans killed by Nazis after we entered the war too.


As a Canadian, I have to say thank you to all Americans for finally getting off the couch in both wars and coming in for the big victory.

= with all this hatred might as well get some people pissed off at us Canucks.
   82. Mayor Blomberg Posted: July 05, 2020 at 01:23 PM (#5961164)
at least it wasn't a vote for a Democrat who was okay with putting a Klansman on the Supreme Court.


Which, of course, FDR did not.
   83. winnipegwhip Posted: July 05, 2020 at 01:37 PM (#5961167)
Hugo Black

Must suck when a Canuck knows more about American history than you Mr. Mayor
   84. Howie Menckel Posted: July 05, 2020 at 01:43 PM (#5961170)
I'm fascinated by the idea that the Irish alone should be represented by a university nickname, complete with a leprechaun mascot.

is there any amount of caricature they could come up with that would make anyone take pause? I already see a "Boston cop" reference (my Dad got a call from FDNY before NYPD when he returned home from WW II B-17 bombardier duty, so that's why he doesn't quite live up to the ethnic joke posted here. oh well).

sorry, I'm not swelling up with pride when I see the stupid mascot. I guess we're all equal - but some groups are less equal than others.
   85. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 05, 2020 at 01:52 PM (#5961171)
The slavery of most times and most people’s has more closely resembled indentured servitude than the chattel slavery of the Atlantic slave trade and the United States,

It has always been wrong and completely unacceptable, but there are meaningful differences.


Sometimes, but chattel slavery was very common as well. The Romans enslaved entire tribes into forced labor on the Latifundi and in the mines of Spain, the latter which was a slow motion death sentence. The captured women were taken as house slaves which implied sex slavery.

Later on the word slave comes from Slav for a reason. Slavers raided Slav lands to provide slaves, primarily to the Byzantine and Islamic world. Fair Northern European women were particularly sough as sex slaves in the Islamic world.

Slavery is and has always been an awful, awful thing, but it's a sin that permeates every society, and culture that has ever existed.

Genocide is a very unique, almost exclusively modern phenomenon. It's extremely hard to find examples before the Armenian genocide. The Mongols are really the only ones that fit, in terms of completely slaughtering entire provinces. Most other conquerors wanted to exploit conquered people, not eliminate them, largely because they were really valuable as slaves, or as tax paying subjects.
   86. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 05, 2020 at 01:53 PM (#5961172)
noone is an "american indian". they're from tribes; the sioux, the navajo, the cherokee, choctaw,...and you can just ####### google as many others as you'd like to know. so is it a slur to call them "indian"? you know what, i think you've done the impossible: you've changed someone's mind on the internet. so now, yeah, i think the term "indian" crosses the line into slur. it's an artificial term that's used to dehumanize the people it's applied to.

No one is white or black or asian either.
   87. Jay Z Posted: July 05, 2020 at 01:53 PM (#5961173)
Black hand't been a Klansman for over a decade when he was nominated. He did give many anti-Catholic speeches, but later hired a Catholic secretary. There was a 1965 case where he ruled against the Klan.

Are people never allowed to renounce prior views, or are they stained for eternity?
   88. SoSH U at work Posted: July 05, 2020 at 01:55 PM (#5961174)
I'm fascinated by the idea that the Irish alone should be represented by a university nickname.


No one's advanced that idea. Does anyone have a problem with Yeshiva being the Maccabees?

Could you answer the question I asked in 64?

   89. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 05, 2020 at 01:56 PM (#5961175)
You seem unaware of this, but millions of deaths are directly attributable to slavery--the middle passage, various forms of abuse, plantation executions. Perhaps murder was not the objective, as it was for Hitler, but I can't see how that matters.

I say this as a Jewish person whose family lost certain members in the Holocaust. Never in a million years would I get into a debate with somebody and argue that the Holocaust was a more significant evil in history.


Yes but the uniqueness of the evil is the effort to expunge a type people from the face of the earth, without even an instrumental purpose to the killing. That's the bizarre twisted nature of the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, Stalin's collectivization terror famines, Mao's Great Leap forward, and Pol Pot's ruralization. They decided they hated these various classes of people so much that they were going to liquidate them even though it caused harm to their own states.
   90. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: July 05, 2020 at 02:01 PM (#5961176)
Are people never allowed to renounce prior views, or are they stained for eternity?


You are likely aware of this, but whip wasn't making a serious point and has no interest in the arc of Hugo Black's public career. "BITD The Democrats were Klansmen!" is just a gotcha used by righties and righty-sympathizers in the current on-line culture and race meme wars here in the USA. It is kind of weird IMO to see a Canadian guy doing it so he can smacktalk a guy he presumes to be an American about knowledge of US history, but that is sort of appropos for BTF.
   91. Mayor Blomberg Posted: July 05, 2020 at 02:05 PM (#5961177)
without even an instrumental purpose to the killing.


Well they did extract low cost labor and take land and property (so that's slavery and Indian removal ticked)
   92. Mayor Blomberg Posted: July 05, 2020 at 02:07 PM (#5961179)
rr: so whip's a troll? thanks.Good to know, and on ignore.
   93. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: July 05, 2020 at 02:10 PM (#5961180)
92--

Don't know if he is a troll, but the move he made there is a very common one. You see it much more with Robert Byrd than with Hugo Black, for obvious reasons, but the it's the same basic ploy.
   94. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 05, 2020 at 02:22 PM (#5961182)
noone is an "american indian".
Elizabeth Warren wishes you’d spoken up earlier.
   95. Mayor Blomberg Posted: July 05, 2020 at 02:25 PM (#5961183)
Yeah, I've seen it with Truman, too. Certainly trollish behavior, so done.
   96. Tom Nawrocki Posted: July 05, 2020 at 02:28 PM (#5961184)
is there any amount of caricature they could come up with that would make anyone take pause? I already see a "Boston cop" reference


Sorry, I should have gone with "Chicago saloonkeeper."

I'm of Irish descent myself, and I'm much more offended by the notion that someone would consider Irish-Americans a put-upon minority than I am by Notre Dame's leprechaun. When you're part of the dominant culture, you should learn to take these things in stride.
   97. always extremely 57i66135, but never enough Posted: July 05, 2020 at 02:33 PM (#5961185)
No one is white or black or asian either.
the cleveland blacks.
   98. Mayor Blomberg Posted: July 05, 2020 at 02:48 PM (#5961187)
Notre Dame's leprechaun. When you're part of the dominant culture, you should learn to take these things in stride.


On a scale of injustices it doesn't register, but I'd be happy to see him put to clover.

I'm also sufficiently impressed with Snapper's performance to think he might rise to 40th
   99. Stevey Posted: July 05, 2020 at 02:59 PM (#5961188)
Naming your team after a group of people is an honor to them, not an insult.


Snapper's argument is so absurd that he couldn't even get the first line right.

When the team was named, this image was put in the paper that organized the process to rename the team

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/dPQy0KLvTH1WGWRpHROHz8HVLKQ=/media/img/posts/2014/02/oldpd01/original.jpg

With the line "We'll have the Indians on the warpath all the time, eager for scalps to dangle at their belts."


There wasn't even a hint of an attempt to honor people by naming the team the Indians. It was solely about the idea that "Indians" were something less-than-human that should be feared. The baseball team can confirm this by never even offering a response to indigenous groups who speak up about the nickname.


   100. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: July 05, 2020 at 03:07 PM (#5961189)
99

Good find. Thanks.
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Page rendered in 0.7014 seconds
48 querie(s) executed