Skip to content

Scenes from Spring Training: My annual Chief Wahoo observation

Mar 8, 2012, 12:30 PM EDT

IMG_2255

That block C is on the wall outside of the front door of the Indians’ complex here in Goodyear.  Note: it’s not a Chief Wahoo.

Indeed, you have to look pretty hard to find a Chief Wahoo around here. There’s a picture of the 1995 ALCS celebration in the lobby, and there are Wahoos on those caps.  Fans who show up here for games wear the Chief.  But there is a conspicuous absence of Chief Wahoo on team property, on team employees’ clothes and that sort of thing.

The best explanation I’ve heard for that is that here in the southwest there is a much larger Indian population than there is back in Ohio and that not putting up a big racist, comically-exaggerated red-faced logo of an Indian is simply a matter of common courtesy.

My own theory — which I liked better a couple of years ago than I do now — was that the team itself was making a conscious effort to downplay Chief Wahoo, and that they were starting a slow effort of phasing him out here at the spring training complex. I like it as a theory less now because it doesn’t seem to, you know, be happening.

I know I talk about this once a year whether I need to or not — and I know it’s going to lead to the same get-us-nowhere arguments in the comments — but even after all of these years I can’t get over the fact that a Major League team still uses a blatant racist caricature as an official logo. And that so many fans tolerate it.

source:

  1. nelsonsaint - Mar 8, 2012 at 12:38 PM

    I don’t think that there will ever be progress on this issue until something happens regarding the name of the football team in our nation’s capital.

    And yes, I am referring to D.C. United.

    • El Bravo - Mar 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM

      Seriously, there is NOTHING united in D.C…..

    • evanhartford - Mar 8, 2012 at 2:41 PM

      Craig,

      The caricature might be stereotypical, but its not necessarily racist.

      Dictionary.com
      “Racism”
      a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
      2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
      3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

      I’m so sick and tired of the PC police. If you’re offended by the Indians, don’t watch their games, don’t buy their merchandise and don’t root for them. The hilarious part about this BS is that most native americans are stereotyped in a pretty romanticized type of way. In reality, a lot of Native American tribes were fairly brutal towards one another. I’d think more people would be offended if they were portrayed more accurately. Maybe during the 7-inning stretch they should re-enact a native american war party sacking an enemy tribe. I’m sure the kids would love it…

      • mercyflush - Mar 8, 2012 at 3:04 PM

        wow. that last paragraph was terrible. one of the worst I’ve read on these boards.

      • evanhartford - Mar 8, 2012 at 3:36 PM

        mercyflush, you must not browse these boards often.

      • nightman13 - Mar 8, 2012 at 4:07 PM

        Where do you get your facts from? That might be one of the most factually inaccurate things I have ever heard in my life.

      • hammyofdoom - Mar 8, 2012 at 4:22 PM

        Yep, incredibly factually incorrect. Before European influence in the Americas, most of the “wars” fought between native tribes were ritualized little skirmishes that did little more other than to take a prisoner or two or help a batch of boys become “men”. Sure there was violence, but thats like saying the Padres should show a bunch of monks throwing natives to conquistadors to be cast into slavery. And have you SEEN any movies involving native americans? Even the “proud savage” stereotype tends to show a bunch of noble natives while a white man comes of as smarter than them, and even THEN there’s still an “evil” tribe who’s only way of life seems to be rape and murder. Essentially everything you said was factually incorrect

      • yahmule - Mar 14, 2012 at 2:29 AM

        Why don’t you expand your research beyond Dictionary.com to some actual history books?

  2. majmayhem - Mar 8, 2012 at 12:40 PM

    Why aren’t there ever positive stereotypes?

    • Jeremy Fox - Mar 8, 2012 at 12:57 PM

      Good question. Aren’t there a few? What about the stereotype that Japanese kids are all really studious and hardworking? Or that Canadians are all modest and polite?

      • paperlions - Mar 8, 2012 at 1:24 PM

        …or that St. Louis baseball fans are knowledgeable and polite.

      • cur68 - Mar 8, 2012 at 1:36 PM

        So let me see…I’m a Canadian with some varying amount South East Asian, a varying amount of North African (the numbers of those 2 vary depending on which relative I ask), and 1/5 Caucasian (verified). Based on positive racial stereotyping, I’m polite, modest, studious, hardworking, with big man-parts, exceptional athletic ability, and about 1/5 enfranchised….I’m also living in an igloo with my dog team, working for 4 bucks a day making iPads, my second job is telemarketing, unable to get into school without affirmative action laws, and incredibly condescending about racial issues.

        Did I miss anything there?

      • rooney24 - Mar 8, 2012 at 1:46 PM

        cur68, how can you be 1/5 of anything? I would think ancestry would be base 2 numbering (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, etc.) or some portion therein (3/8, 5/16, etc.)

      • cur68 - Mar 8, 2012 at 1:51 PM

        Ah, see I can get away with that: due to part of my racial stereotyping I’m not real good at math & stuff. It only manifests when I’m talking about my heritage…such as its.

      • APBA Guy - Mar 8, 2012 at 2:02 PM

        Or that Gators are all Old?

    • sdelmonte - Mar 8, 2012 at 1:31 PM

      There are plenty of seemingly positive stereotypes about Jews. And every last one of them has been turned into a negative.

      • Utley's Hair - Mar 8, 2012 at 4:29 PM

        For some reason, I usually hesitate to use the term Jew. I have no idea why, though.

  3. Lukehart80 - Mar 8, 2012 at 12:43 PM

    As an Indians fan, I find Chief Wahoo fairly embarrassing, even as I also have a big soft spot for him. There’s an emotional part of me that would be bummed out if they changed the team’s name, but there’s a logical part of me that wouldn’t object.

    Craig, your post doesn’t make clear what you consider to be “tolerating” the situation. My Indians hat has the block C on it, I’ve made an actice decision not to walk around with Chief Wahoo on my forehead. That said, I’m not going to boycott the team I’ve cheered for since I was six years old. You may be too busy, but I’d be interested to know what you think Indians fans are to do.

    • Joe - Mar 8, 2012 at 3:21 PM

      I’m not Craig, but I think you should simply continue being a fan as you always have been, with one change: any time you would say “Indians,” simply replace it with “Spiders.” Doing this, and asking others to join you, will make anyone you’re talking to pause and consider the name, raising awareness of the problem.

      I want this blog to do this, too–Craig, any reference to the team from Cleveland should either be “Cleveland” or “Spiders.”

    • davidpom50 - Mar 13, 2012 at 12:04 PM

      Lukehart, it sounds to me like you’re doing it right. If all Indians fans stopped buying Chief Wahoo merchandise, I think he’d disappear pretty quickly.

  4. koufaxmitzvah - Mar 8, 2012 at 12:43 PM

    We have destroyed everything we’ve been given, and tucked away those who were here before us. When I hear folks talking about our Western, liberal values in terms of other parts of the world, I shake my head and wonder, why should I listen to you when you can’t identify these same issues that are happening here?

  5. nightman13 - Mar 8, 2012 at 12:47 PM

    Not to mention that the NFL team in our nation’s capitol uses a rascister (I know that’s not a word) moniker and nobody seems to care either.

    I think it’s overly sensitive to get rid of the name Indians, but the logo should be more respectful.

    There is a hightened sensativity to offending African Americans because of their poor treatment in the past in this country, but in comparison to how the native Americans were treated slavery pales in comparison.

    Native Americans were enslaved as well as slaughtered (sometimes after being lulled into a false sense of security by signing a “peace treaty”) and forced off their land.

    Obviously both cultures received horrific treatment and my intent isn’t to minimize slavery, but there is an alarming lack of sensitivity and knowledge of how atrocious the native Americans were treated.

    There should be a little more respect headed their way as well.

    • Joe - Mar 8, 2012 at 3:24 PM

      “I think it’s overly sensitive to get rid of the name Indians”

      Why is it your perspective that matters? Shouldn’t it be the people who are actually targeted by racism who should be able to say whether or not a name is racist?

      • nightman13 - Mar 8, 2012 at 4:16 PM

        There is no inherent disrespect in the word Indian, just the caricature of Chief Wahoo.

        My perspective is enhanced by the fact that I live in Milwaukee and we went through a similar thing with the Marquette Warriors. Local Native American tribes felt that the name Warriors was not an issue, and many actually appreciated the gesture. They however found the mascot Willie Wampum to be offensive. The university over reacted and renamed the teams the Golden Eagles.

        I am Italian and I don’t find teams called the Gladiators racially offensive. However, Mario and Luigi are walking a fine line…

  6. majmayhem - Mar 8, 2012 at 12:49 PM

    I think it would be funny if Cleveland changed their mascot and went with a traditional Indian theme. Maybe something with tigers or elephants and perhaps progressive field could take on a Taj Mahal flavor. (Or would that be insulting to Donald Trump?)

    • Utley's Hair - Mar 8, 2012 at 2:30 PM

      I would like to hear more on the insulting Donald Trump angle.

  7. shaggylocks - Mar 8, 2012 at 1:26 PM

    Noam Chomsky has an apt metaphor that puts Native American mascots into grim perspective:

    Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of “The Rabbi.” Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and beard. The University itself collectively call themselves “The Fighting Jews”, and the school’s band is called “The Marching Jews.” The student newspaper is called “The Daily Jew.” All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago, the University’s Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to “retire” the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to “Save the Rabbi!”

    This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time, the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: “Rabbi, Rabbi, Rabbi, Rabbi” gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting “Racist Rabbi!” and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.

    It goes on in this vein, but I think this snippet is enough to illuminate the absurdity of Native America mascots in American sports.

    • shaggylocks - Mar 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM

      I believe he wrote this in reference to the University of Illinois’ mascot Chief Illiniwek, but I might be wrong.

      • Hands Four - Mar 8, 2012 at 2:34 PM

        Huh – hadn’t seen this before. The description fits the U. of Illinois, if rather overblown – “feeding frenzy”? And there’s certainly more than a tiny minority there that opposes the Chief. (or opposed, since he’s essentially been retired.)

    • ezthinking - Mar 8, 2012 at 3:34 PM

      So no Irish, Yankees, Braves, Warriors, Vikings, and on and on and on. I ridiculous example which on serves to disprove him point.

      • Utley's Hair - Mar 8, 2012 at 3:51 PM

        What’s derogatory about Irish or Vikings? Yankees and Warriors aren’t the best, but I don’t see anything wrong with using them, either. Indian is a geographic misnomer used to spread and pepetuate fear and hatred against a people who were taken advantage of and abused.

      • shaggylocks - Mar 8, 2012 at 4:29 PM

        It looks like you’re about to mount one of my favorite absurd defenses of racist mascots, which I like to call the “what next, outlaw the Angels because it might offend Satanists?” defense. Yeah, it’s really not as slippery a slope as you might think.

      • ezthinking - Mar 8, 2012 at 6:15 PM

        Shaggy, I’m pointing out how ridiculous the whole idea is; especially any objection to the name ‘Indians.’

  8. Pierre Cruzatte - Mar 8, 2012 at 1:38 PM

    I had a (private and nonadversarial) conversation with Paul Dolan about it, not all that long ago. He was of course very circumspect about the whole thing, but said that he considers the ultimate barometer to be the Washington Redskins logo. Whether or not you believe they’re comparable (I think each has some aspects that are more deplorable than the other), the club won’t be serious about formally ditching Wahoo until the national pressure is high enough to get the Redskins moving. (Also, Craig, the generally increased emphasis on other logos, even in Cleveland, is deliberate–but not necessarily as a soft phase-out.)

    Another good takeaway factoid: when the American Indian protestors come out for major events (playoff games and the like), the club actually allows some designated representatives access to storage space at the ballpark so they don’t have to cart away all their signage every night.

  9. sportsdrenched.com - Mar 8, 2012 at 1:40 PM

    I’ve noticed on graphic box scores that the Indians have a block C, instead of Chief Wahoo.

  10. Tribe&Browns&Cavs - Mar 8, 2012 at 1:50 PM

    They’ve mostly phased out the Wahoo using the block C and script I, which is good. People should only be caricaturized if they pay for it at a theme park.

    As stated above, though, I don’t see a full name change happening until the Redskins do something. I’m not typically a PC type but their name makes me cringe.

    • nightman13 - Mar 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM

      It blows my mind that it hasn’t been changed. It is an ethnic slur!

      • cltjump - Mar 8, 2012 at 2:50 PM

        An ethnic slur? No. An ethnic slur is featherhead or something of the sort. “Cracker” for a white man. The N-word for a black. “Kike” for a Jew. Indian for an Indian?

      • nightman13 - Mar 8, 2012 at 2:54 PM

        Redskins is an ethnic slur, not Indian.

  11. brianbosworthisstonecold - Mar 8, 2012 at 2:13 PM

    Why not have the San Francisco Asians?
    How about the New York African-Americans or better yet, the New Mexico Mexicans!
    Indians are from india so Cleveland should change its name to the Cleveland Hindus. Does that sound right or PC? I’ve got an idea! Leave ethnic backgrounds out of it!

  12. Francisco (FC) - Mar 8, 2012 at 2:16 PM

    The Craig Blimp floated above the Indian’s spring training complex. It now sported the nice logo on its tail. The massive view screen lit up on its side and the man himself was visible puffing bubbles from his pipe at a prodigious rate.

    “Indians’ fans, lend me your ears”, Craig began. “How long are you going keep that caricature of a logo on your baseball team? It’s racist and quite frankly very ugly. Do baseball a favor and pressure your team into ditching any merchandise with that absurd figure. Chief Wahoo has outlived his usefulness. Oh, While you’re at it, get rid of all that pink apparel too. It’s offensive to female baseball fans, especially the shirts with such clever phrases as ‘Talent Scout’. Seriously, Mary McDonnell doesn’t approve. That will be all.”

    Craig cut the connection as he settled in his high chair at the ST outpost. “That’s telling them, right Miggy?”. He turned to his side table where a Miguel Cabrera bobble-head righteously wore a tag proclaiming SI, MOTHERF÷$&ER.

    “Damn right, mother- [bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep]

    • Utley's Hair - Mar 8, 2012 at 2:33 PM

      Do they allow him to wear his bathrobe into the complex? Or on the street for that matter?

      • cur68 - Mar 8, 2012 at 2:46 PM

        Not on windy or sunny days, I bet. NO ONE wants the Marlin Monroe effect from Craig and no one wants to be blinded by his pasty shanks gleaming in the sun.

      • Utley's Hair - Mar 8, 2012 at 3:22 PM

        Gotta say it…

        Marlin Monroe? So mant ways to go with that one…so little time and space on these here interwebs…

      • Utley's Hair - Mar 8, 2012 at 3:26 PM

        Aw, hell…damn snarky typoed response—many, not mant, obviously. Don’t want the grammar police comin’ round, do we?

      • cur68 - Mar 8, 2012 at 5:32 PM

        Y’know, “Marlin Monroe”? The body model for that fish they’ll be spinning round the outfield on that carnival show display in their field? Well known model. Does work for Mike Carp, Kevin Bass, and Steve Trout when they can’t be bothered with showing up for stuff.

  13. navel gazing - Mar 8, 2012 at 2:21 PM

    I want a blogger logo that’s equally offensive. I see a cartoonish fat, balding guy with glasses (easy Craig, you’re skinny, it’s not you!), wearing a robe (or just plaid boxers & t shirt) and with 3 days stubble/ goatee in Mom’s basement.

    Interwebs, make this happen.

  14. brianbosworthisstonecold - Mar 8, 2012 at 2:23 PM

    shaggylocks | Mar 8, 2012, 10:26 AM PST
    Noam Chomsky has an apt metaphor that puts Native American mascots into grim perspective:

    Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of “The Rabbi.” Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and beard. The University itself collectively call themselves “The Fighting Jews”, and the school’s band is called “The Marching Jews.” The student newspaper is called “The Daily Jew.” All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago, the University’s Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to “retire” the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to “Save the Rabbi!”

    This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time, the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: “Rabbi, Rabbi, Rabbi, Rabbi” gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting “Racist Rabbi!” and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.

    It goes on in this vein, but I think this snippet is enough to illuminate the absurdity of Native America mascots in American sports.

    ——————–

    So true.

    • mercyflush - Mar 8, 2012 at 2:53 PM

      I actually dont see a problem with *some* Native American-related team names or mascots, as long as they aren’t parodies.

      The Braves, e.g., or the Warriors, or even like the Seminoles, they connote something different. To me they’re no different than Vikings or Spartans or whatever.

      Chief Wahoo is terrible and should go. The Redskins is a joke – what if we called a team “The Blackskins” and had a solemn looking African with a traditional spear and shield as the mascot? I’m guessing that would not fly.

      • Joe - Mar 8, 2012 at 3:31 PM

        Vikings, Cowboys, Fighting Irish: For those mascots, the people creating the image are the people whose heritage is being put on display. The same is largely true for the Florida State Seminoles, where the tribe is very active in managing the symbolism used.

        Most American sports teams with Native American names are cooptations of other peoples’ cultural identities, and they reflect the racism and stereotypes of colonialism. The Braves, Chiefs, and Indians fit this model. These are problematic and should be changed.

      • Utley's Hair - Mar 8, 2012 at 4:07 PM

        The Fighting Irish is honoring the Irish Brigade in the Civil War, so no derogatory reference there.

      • slavetothetrafficlight - Mar 12, 2012 at 10:22 PM

        If I interpreted him correctly, Craig’s outrage wasn’t about the name (which is still very much in use in Goodyear) but the caricature.

        How can anyone be offended by Chief Wahoo while not also calling for the phasing out of the Braves’ tomahawk? One of the big side stories of the 1991 World Series was hundreds of real Native Americans protesting outside the Metrodome, which they did not do when the Indians came to town 2-3 times a year.

  15. brianbosworthisstonecold - Mar 8, 2012 at 2:46 PM

    evanhartford

    You’re right, it’s not racist, it’s just complete ignorance, kinda like you.

    • evanhartford - Mar 8, 2012 at 2:53 PM

      Brianbosworthisstonecold, I’m afraid my ignorance must have rubbed off on you. Next time, hit the “reply” button when you want to respond to a specific thread.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Mar 8, 2012 at 3:14 PM

        Since you want to talk about ignorance, you could also ignore the comment that wasn’t part of your original thread rather than make an issue out of it. Funny. You don’t like the issue of name Indians used for a baseball team, and blame this on the PC Police. You, however, take umbrage for someone making a comment out of thread (easy to do here, as one can think they’ve clicked the reply button when in fact they didn’t, and still post a comment).

        Did I do this correctly? I’m following this thread, right? You should have no problems with anything I wrote? Are the Ignorance Police gonna come and get me?

      • evanhartford - Mar 8, 2012 at 3:33 PM

        koufaxmitzvah, I would have ignored it if not for the personal attack. I also thought it was hilariously hypocritical for someone to accuse me of being ignorant while displaying blatant ignorance!

        And while we’re on the topic of offensive names, I’d argue that “koufaxmitzvah” is more offensive than Chief Wahoo.

  16. ezthinking - Mar 8, 2012 at 3:23 PM

    Living here in South Dakota where we have 7 Indian reservations I find it quite humorous that this issue often comes up with zero input by actual Indians. The reservation schools have mascots such as the Redmen, Lady Redmen, Thorpes, Indians, Sioux, Warriors, Braves, Chiefs, Chieftains and Arrows. All have Indian mascots. None of the towns or schools want their mascots to change. The Standing Rock reservation, which extends from South Dakota to North Dakota, is involved in trying to help the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux keep its nickname and mascot.

    Chief Wahoo mascot contains no derogatory representations of Indians. Just ask some Indians instead of assuming what is best for them.

    • bisonaudit - Mar 8, 2012 at 5:46 PM

      You’ve got the bit about Standing Rock and UND wrong.

      Standing Rock is not assisting UND in keeping their mascot in anyway. The leadership at Standing Rock has been consistently opposted to the Fighing Sioux nickname. The University doesn’t even want to keep it, at the moment they’re being compelled to by state law. There’s a whole sub-plot there about a pissing match between the state legislature and the board of higher education…

      Anyway, you’re totally incorrect about Standing Rock’s position on the UND Fighting Sioux.

      • ezthinking - Mar 8, 2012 at 6:08 PM

        Check the news, there are about a dozen articles on the new council as well as individual petitions to support the name. Additionally, a lawsuit was filed with tribal support against the NCAA on this topic.

      • ezthinking - Mar 8, 2012 at 6:12 PM

        Here’s just one link for you

        http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7349992/two-petitions-begin-keep-north-dakota-fighting-sioux-nickname

      • Francisco (FC) - Mar 8, 2012 at 9:36 PM

        Dude, your own link says Standing Rock hasn’t voted yet and that their leaders are opposed to the name. However it does say Spirit Lake does support the nickname.

  17. Joe - Mar 8, 2012 at 3:33 PM

    Craig, thanks for posting this. I wish you and the other HBT staff would go further–refuse to use the racist names–but having this discussion is useful.

    • ezthinking - Mar 8, 2012 at 3:35 PM

      There is nothing racist about the word Indian.

      • 18thstreet - Mar 13, 2012 at 11:31 AM

        I’ve disagreed with a lot of Ez’s comments, but I agree with this one. “Indian” is not a racist name. Within the federal government, we have a Bureau of Indian Affairs and an Indian Health Service. I don’t believe anyone objects.

        It’s the mascot.

  18. Joe - Mar 8, 2012 at 6:23 PM

    I agree that there’s nothing inherently racist about the word “Indian.”

    There is something racist about white people taking a name of a brutally colonized group and using it as a brand name with no input or deference to the people they took it from. It’s a statement of ownership: “we are free to appropriate your identity and cultural tradition for our own use.”

    • Joe - Mar 8, 2012 at 6:24 PM

      This was meant to be a reply to ezthinking, directly above. Apologies.

    • ezthinking - Mar 8, 2012 at 7:14 PM

      Then ask real Indians, don’t assume because of some article/Hollywood/PC monger. Check out the movie “Reel Injun” sometime on Netflix. It’s well done on what Hollywood has done to the perception of Indians.

      Too many folks worry about what’s happening in Africa or South America and not whats happening here in the US of A. Lots of good can be done right here.

  19. brianbosworthisstonecold - Mar 8, 2012 at 9:21 PM

    Joe
    There is something racist about white people taking a name of a brutally colonized group and using it as a brand name with no input or deference to the people they took it from. It’s a statement of ownership: “we are free to appropriate your identity and cultural tradition for our own use.”

    It’s called assimilation and the government did it back when they put the Indigenous people’s onto Reservations/Prison Camps. They took our Given Tribal name, made that the last name and then added a Peter, Paul and Mary names, (or whatever), as the first part of the name.

    I.e. Crazy Horse= James Crazyhorse

  20. brianbosworthisstonecold - Mar 8, 2012 at 9:24 PM

    Take away the customs, beliefs and language from a culture and you can assimilate them into The Conquering Culture. Been done all over the world and not just here in the New World throughout history.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Patience finally paying off for Royals fans
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (3271)
  2. D. Ortiz (2401)
  3. C. Kershaw (2400)
  4. G. Stanton (2381)
  5. J. Hamilton (2308)
  1. N. Arenado (2251)
  2. A. Rizzo (2195)
  3. M. Trout (2148)
  4. A. Pujols (1937)
  5. H. Ryu (1859)