Joe
Lv 4
Joe asked in SportsBaseball · 9 years ago

Is Chief Wahoo (Indians logo) racist?

So over the past few days i've been having a debate with some guy on YouTube who says that the Indians owners deserve to burn in hell because they use a racist name like Indians and a stereotypical logo like Chief Wahoo.

I agree that Chief Wahoo is a stupid logo and they could find a better one. But the name Indians has historical significance and most Native Americans refer to themselves as American Indians so i don't see how it is racist.

BQ- Would you consider the Braves tomahawk chop to be stereotypical, even though it's endorsed by the Seminole tribe?

Opinions on these matter.

16 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    My great grandmother was a full blood Navajo. We also have Cherokee blood in the family. I used to live in Tahlequah, OK, which is the capitol of the Cherokee Nation. I lived in Missoula, Montana, the area around and in which has the majority of 6 different tribes. I can safely say this.

    American Indians prefer to be called American Indians. Native American is a PC invention by whites and it is cloying and untrue. We are NOT priestly hippies in commune with nature. We're just folks, like you. No one asked US if we like Native American.

    No one asked US if we like ANY of the national sports teams with Indian type names. We would like to be asked once in a while. The Seminoles in Florida said 'go with it' and did the Redmen in Tahlequah. Chief Illiniwek at the University of Illinois made any grown up Indian want to puke. "Redskin" is the N work for indians, so imagine how many Indians are big fans. It would be like the Chicago team being call the Little Black Sambos instead of the Cubs.

    As for Cleveland. Get rid of the cartoon. It would insult ANY race to be represented that way. Indians, Braves, Blackhawks, go for it.

    But mostly, who would it kill dead to ask? How about polling the enormous indian population of 40,000? Would it mean you are less white if you asked?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Fozzy
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    I don't think the name itself is racist, but I agree that the logo is a bit on the racist side simply because it sort of reflects a stereotype of Native Americans. And I think you do have to consider that it is considered to be "politically incorrect" to call a native American "Indian". I think the bottom line is whether or not Native Americans themselves find it to be racist, and I don't know of anyone of Native American descent who finds the term "Indian" itself to be a racist slur. Maybe the fine gentleman on line should instead channel his anger towards the Redskins instead. Or better yet, perhaps he should find a Native American charity to work with. Better to help people who need help than to spend energy defending them over something as silly as this. Help them with real problems, such as the fact that Native Americans have a high rate of alcoholism and drug abuse as well as a severe educational gap.

    As far as the tomahawk chop goes, I'd disagree that it was endorsed by the Seminole tribe. It was endorsed by them when used by Florida State whose name is the Seminoles (and who work closely with Seminole leaders to ensure authenticity in all that they do).

    For the gentleman who thinks the Blackhawk head is racist, I'll fill you in a bit. Blackhawk was an actual person, and although the name actually originated from the name of an Army division in the First World War, it has since morphed into a tribute to Chief Blackhawk of the Fox tribe here in Illinois (you may have heard of the Blackhawk Wars). I am a descendant of Blackhawk, and see no problem at all with that logo. (I also have no problem with someone telling me that I am part Indian, either)

    Edit - I notice I was referring to Fungo as "the gentleman". I'd bet he all ready knows all that Blackhawk stuff. Proof that great minds don't always think alike!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    They are named the Indians in honor of Louis Sockalexis who played for Cleveland in 1897 to 1899. Sockalexis was the first native American in the majors. The Indians were known as the Naps (after their star player Napoleon Lajoie). When Lajoie went to the Athletics after the 1914 season the Naps decided to change their name to the Indians to honor Sockalexis who died at the age of 42 in 1913.

    The logo maybe considered racist by some but it's been around for over 50 years. I agree with you that the name "Indians" is no way racist and the recent politically correctness to change it is BS. Now if somebody has a problem with the Washington REDSKINS then I can see that.

    BQ: I don't have a problem with the Braves tomahawk chop (even though it originated at FSU, Deion Sanders brought it to Atlanta).

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    Of course it's racist. Could you imagine someone having a mascot based on the stereotypes of any other race? It would be like having a team based on immigrants from Ireland and using a leprechaun as its mascot and maybe even putting his dukes up because Irish people like to fight a lot. Could you imagine what kind of outrage there would be of they did that?

    Oh wait....

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    I really don't think their logo is racist.

    If a team started using a logo like that now, then I would consider it to be offensive. But seeing as the Indians have been using that logo for ages, it has kinda become ingrained with team history. It's too late to change it now- they should have changed it a long time ago if at all.

    As for the Braves chant, if Natives themselves don't find it offensive, then I don't see why a bunch of hypersensitive white people should either.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Fungo
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    No. But only if you don't consider your avatar and the Blackhawks logo also not being racist.

    @Fozzy: I know the Blackhawks logo is NOT racist - like the Indians logo is not. Commented to point out irony of this question coming from a Y!A member using the logo from an Original Six NHL team.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    I can see how it's racist. The name 'Indians' isn't, though (and clearly, no one deserves to 'burn in hell' for this...).

    I also have no problems with the tomahawk chop.

    Source(s): Machine-gun cat is right- Sports franchises should ASK.
    • Login to reply the answers
  • gee i don't know. tell me if this would be a good mascot for the Browns?

    http://www.freakingnews.com/Black-Chief-Wahoo-Pics...

    anyone who thinks that logo is an honor needs their head examined.

    Source(s): mohawk
    • Login to reply the answers
  • Dale M
    Lv 5
    9 years ago

    You wouldn't see any pro expansion team ever use a name or symbol that would denote any race or stereotype these days. The Indians were named when PCers didn't exist. Where's the public outcry against the White Sox? It's obviously denoting skin colour.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • .
    Lv 5
    9 years ago

    Anybody who says it's "racist" is ignorant. Anybody who says it's "offensive" has a point. It kind of portrays Native Americans in a negative way, fromt heir own point of view. But there's really nothing "racist" about it. If you think it's racist please go look up the term in the dictionary.

    BQ- No, that's what they used.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.