Sep 26, 2012, 4:39 PM EDT
I have a go at Chief Wahoo every six months or so. It’s just what I do. But I’ll grant that it gets old arguing that Chief Wahoo should go away simply because he’s offensive.
Why? Because it never solves anything. Despite the fact that it is 100% rationally undeniable that Chief Wahoo is offensive, there will always be people who come back with all kinds of complicated, contrived nonsense to say he isn’t because if they don’t their childhood will be ruined or something. I dunno. Ask them. It’s hard to hear their arguments what with all of that mouth-breathing.
Anyway, today Paul Lukas tries to sidestep the basic offensiveness argument — about not just Wahoo, but over native American iconography in general — with this tack:
I see this as more of an intellectual property issue. Basically, for those of us who aren’t Native American (which basically means the vast majority of the people who reading this), I don’t think we have the right to use images of headdresses, tomahawks, tribe names, and so on. It’s not a question of whether such symbols are offensive, or whether they perpetuate outdated stereotypes; it’s that they don’t belong to us. If a non-Jewish group used a menorah or a Star of David in its marketing, wouldn’t that raise a few eyebrows? Ditto for a non-military group using a Purple Heart. And if those examples don’t pass the smell test, neither does a sports team using Native American iconography.
I guess I can see where he’s coming from, but I submit that there are all manner of businesses in this country that use some sort of naming or iconography that doesn’t really belong to them. There are thousands of little shops, campgrounds, restaurants, you name it, that use some sort of name or iconography from some sort of ethnic group or singularly respected group of any kind, despite having no connection to them at all. People exploit Memorial Day for mattress sales, for cryin’ out loud.
I’m not saying Lukas is wrong here. He makes a good argument, but I still think the best argument is that these things are just offensive.
Oh, and finally: before you wade into the comments with your “what about the Fighting Irish!” idiocy, read ALL of Lukas’ column. There he deals with the usual counter-arguments and dispatches them pretty deftly.
- The World Series ratings are low. So what? 60
- John Hart to be named Braves President of Baseball Operations 3
- No, Ned Yost didn’t “out-manage” Bruce Bochy. His players played better 69
- At least Hunter Strickland entertained us last night 35
- Royals even up World Series with 7-2 Game 2 victory 38
- Craig Kimbrel wins Trevor Hoffman Award; Greg Holland gets Mariano Rivera Award 9
- World Series, Game 2: Giants vs. Royals lineups 10
- HBT Daily: Are the Royals doomed, doomed, doomed? 11
- So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got? (129)
- Erroneous Narrative Alert: no, the Giants are not a “gritty,” anti-stats organization (122)
- Pedro Martinez has some opinions about who the new “face of baseball” is (112)
- PANTY RAID! Homeland Security agents confiscate unlicensed Kansas City Royals underwear (109)
- The Royals asked a fan in Marlins gear to change his shirt last night. He refused. (86)