Native American Mascots

Changing this will nothing mean nothing in the long run. Many Native Americans will not see a change in their lives, if the team was re-branded. Considering the economic conditions on most reservations, a sports team thousands of miles away can call themselves whatever for entertainment. Unless the team actively mocks the culture, then no harm intended. Anyone who wants to be offended will create their own offense.

Acting offended over this is ignorant in my mind. Understanding the controversy of black-face was because black caricatures were used in comedy -- they were mocked for who they are, and the culture they embraced. Voices were exaggerated, mannerisms became more distinctive, all while black music was being played. In this scenario, this reinforces prejudices and perceptions of African Americans.

Cleveland Indians aren't actively reinforcing the prejudices and perceptions of Native Americans. They don't engage in Pow-wows, they don't encourage fans to do a Tomahawk Chops, their food offerings aren't themed after Native Americas, nor is their stadium the Jake is decorated with tipis. Instead of parading around a human dressed up in a full Native American gear, some big fuzzy pink parrot called Slider walks around and greets fans. I can't specify an action the Cleveland Indians do to cause offense, besides their branding of the organization. There is not the mocking intent, as found in some minstrel vaudeville, or in other sports clubs. ->>Without intent, I cannot see offense. To me, it is rather disappointing to see a gross misunderstanding how/why black-face was offensive, by blanketing all sports with Native American mascots as unacceptable. <<--

So is brand name the offense? There's other brands with Native American influence: Jeep Cherokee, Pontiac, Dodge Dakota, Apache Helicopters, Ford Thunderbird, MH-47 Chinook, Black Hawk Helicopters, nearly all of which are more tightly formed associations of Native Americans with Warrior- War-like predisposition. Heavy attack helicopters, Muscle Cars, that is more aggressive (even helping imperialistic, war causes), than a Cleveland team that struggles to win baseball games. Those brands, should be the target of Native American groups if they wish to break that association.

Is it the caricature of the logo then? Notre Dame has a logo with the caricature of an Irish man - short- aggressive -with full leprechaun dress. No one really calls that caricature demeaning to the Irish-American perception. Okay, what about an example with an oppressed people. San Diego State Aztecs. The Aztecs were likewise, an exterminated civilization, but there does not seem much opposition from present Mexican Americans on the school program's caricatures: Ahem! Just anything that's not as egregious as fronting around some whiteboy red-faced, fully costumed, appearing enraged~appealing to the savage nature and all while to make the sport more appealing!

I don't see how Chief Wahoo was caricatured to be a savage. We see nothing more than the smile on his face, his feather behind him, and a splash of red to color the whole image. Besides the association of Native Americans and the derogatory term "red skin" the color is reminiscent of other duo-tone sports logos depicting humans. Notably the old Cleveland Cavaliers (red/yellow musketeer), and the old Pittsburgh Steelers (yellow/black worker). There are logos in the past where Indians are depicted white, noticeably, the old Kansas Chiefs (60's), and that is more offensive in outdated caricatures than the red skin of Chief Wahoo.