Skip to content

MLB and the Braves need to trash that new batting practice cap now

Jan 3, 2013, 9:26 AM EDT

Braves BP caps

UPDATE:  It seems that the Braves may, possibly, be considering a change.

9:26 AM: Inspired by their atrotious new batting practice caps, Ryan Hill has a take on the Atlanta Braves and their regrettable use of American Indian iconography and how one reconciles being a Braves fan with the existence of that garbage.

My short answer is basically the same as his: it’s horrible and I hate it, but I’m here for the baseball, not to buy in to some cult of fandom which requires me to approve of these things. Nevertheless, if that bp cap is a harbinger of things to come and Liberty Media is making a conscious effort to reemphasize the screaming Indian and other such things, I’m going to have to question my level support for the team.

Hill’s larger point, which applies to not just the Braves, but the Indians, Redskins and any other team which chooses to portray Indians as savages and caricatures, is spot-on:

The more that American Indians and First Nations people are seen as cartoons and caricatures of the past, the less they are likely to be seen as people that exist today, who continue to make contributions to human culture, and who continue to be denied many of the basic rights and respect afforded to others … There was a time when professional baseball moved ahead of society, defying Jim Crow and racially integrating the sport. Today, even with all the formal tributes to its Civil Rights legacy, baseball lags behind by condoning American Indian mascots.

I’ll acknowledge that getting rid of Chief Wahoo will be hard because it’s been around for a long time and is still actively being used by the Indians. There is no excuse for the Braves and the screaming Indian, however. He has been dead for some time and there is no reason why the Braves and Major League Baseball can’t put a stop to that new cap before a single one is sold. It’s the right thing to do and I’d hope they’d know it.

249 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. soobster - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:35 AM

    What’s the big deal?

    - Redskins

    • kirkvanhouten - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:56 AM

      I still love that a DC sports team changed it’s name because it was offensive….and it was NOT the Redskins.

      Take that Native Americans. We care more about offending bullets than you (in all fairness, they were giving bullets everywhere an even worse name…which takes a special kind of awful to accomplish).

  2. natslady - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:35 AM

    Don’t put it up there, Craig, where I have to look at it first thing on the site. Let people link to it. I have enough with that here in the DMV.

    • natslady - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:35 AM

      Not sure why I got so many down thumbs. Hey, fellow-liberals, I thought you didn’t like looking at the screaming Indian? I’m a big fan of RG3, he’s outstanding as a player and apparently as a person. But whenever I watch him play I have to hear that racist name. I’m sorry, but it really tempers my enjoyment.

      • approvenothing - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:14 PM

        Want a tip on how to get rid of the picture and save everyone some trouble? Click that big, red box on the top right of you’re screen! Now please quit crying about something that is so easily ignored.

  3. albertmn - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:36 AM

    But, they will make money if they sell some, so they will likely sell some. Anyone that thinks MLB cares about anything else more than money needs to check their reality. MLB will only kill it if they think the backlash will cost more money than they would make off of the caps.

    • historiophiliac - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:55 AM

      Welcome to the backlash.

  4. Jackson - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:37 AM

    I own an old school Braves shirt with the Screaming Indian logo front and center on it. I may just wear it today and see what I can stir up.

    • yahmule - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:23 AM

      What a courageous stand.

  5. pellypell - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:39 AM

    heya heyaya, I have a few reservations about this hat too. Somebody should sioux MLB.

    Ok, all jokes aside, if someone gave me this hat, I would use it as teepee and then flush it.

    • manute - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:54 AM

      A-maize-ing!

  6. raysfan1 - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:43 AM

    The Chief Wahoo thing comes up periodically, and I’ve posted this opinion before as a result–
    I am part Native American. I’ve never felt insulted or diminished by anyone’s team name, although others whom I respect do. I especially applaud Florida State and the University of Central Michigan for working directly with the tribes for which they are named and making their use of Native American imagery a positive thing. I am also aware that both the Braves and the Washington Redskins football team originated in Boston and I believe their team names actually refer to the Boston Tea Party. However, all that said, Chief Wahoo is lame and needs to go away the same as the African American charicatures; I though the screaming Indian already had–it’s lame too and needs to not come back.

  7. jpack1974 - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:48 AM

    Really?!?!?! With every problem in the country, this is what people get upset about? Geeze. Stop crying. If it offends you, then cheer for the Phillies. Wow, to much PC. It is a hat. If the hat is bad, then maybe Hollywood should stop making movies and TV shows about Indians. Come on. The more they are seen as cartoons, the more they will not be seen as real? How idiotic. This is absurd!

    • skids003 - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:54 AM

      Hey, it’s what liberals do.

      • nategearhart - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:56 AM

        “Hey, it’s what liberals do.”
        Dirty liberals and their not liking bigotry….

      • kirkvanhouten - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:59 AM

        I hereby propose we rename the Astros the “Houston Meth-Addicted Rednecks”. Probably with a logo of some white guy punching his wife in the eye or something. I’m sure you’ll support this change since you don’t want to come off as a complete hypocrite or anything.

      • jpack1974 - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:08 AM

        Im perfectly ok with “Houston Meth-Addicted Rednecks”. Again, it is the USA. If I didn’t like that name, I would be free to not buy their items, or support their team. Better yet, I could root against them. If the owner liked that name, he sure payed a lot of money for the team. He should be able to name them what he likes. The Braves do not have a We Hate the Idian logo. So stop making it out to be that way.

      • The Common Man - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:36 AM

        If Native Americans had the same market share as whites, maybe MLB would pay attention if they chose not to buy a specific item or items with a specific logo on them. But they don’t, which is one of the reasons that “if you don’t like it, you don’t have to buy it” arguments are bullshit.

        And we aren’t talking about what a team is named, we’re talking about a racist logo.

      • jpack1974 - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:04 AM

        First, I have plenty of “native American” in my blood, and I am ok with being called an indian. Second, what is racist about the logo?

    • nategearhart - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:55 AM

      1. People can get upset about more than one thing at the same time, you know.
      2. There’s a difference between “PC” and bigotry. A racial stereotype is bigotry.
      3. What Hollywood has to do with baseball, I have no idea. But I don’t think Hollywood has made a film portraying American Indians as stock villains whooping and massacring for several decades now. You are right though; if some movie studio has something like that in the works, they should can it.
      4. “How idiotic” – How profound; how convincing.

    • jarathen - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:57 AM

      Just because some issues are bigger than others doesn’t mean the smaller issues should be ignored.

    • kirkvanhouten - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:02 AM

      ” It is a hat. If the hat is bad, then maybe Hollywood should stop making movies and TV shows about Indians.”

      …I’m going to wait for this sentence to come around again before I jump on it.

      Hmm…okay. I don’t really know what Hollywood has to do with it…but they kind of have stopped making movies and TV shows stereotyping “Indians”, haven’t they?

      And on the subject of the name Indian, I’ll allow Louis CK to speak for me on my opinion of that:

      http://vimeo.com/48141880

      • The Common Man - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:41 AM

        Well, let’s see what The Lone Ranger and Johnny Depp have to offer before we claim Hollywood has moved on from embarrassing and racist Native American stereotypes.

      • jpack1974 - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:05 AM

        Or the series Hell On Wheels where they cannot build the tracks because the indians keep coming in and killing all the women and children. Yes, Hollywood has moved on.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:46 PM

        Not to pile on you, but the last time I saw a “good” depiction of a character who was Indian was when Adam Beach (HOT!!!) was on Law & Order…and of course they wrote him off the show by having him shoot someone. Generally, you just don’t see native characters on TV. It pains me to say this but Walker, Texas Ranger stands out among mainstream shows.

      • kirkvanhouten - Jan 3, 2013 at 2:11 PM

        Okay, we’re nitpicking here, so I’ll rephrase for the Hardballtalk literalists:

        but they kind of have stopped making movies and TV shows stereotyping “Indians” *nearly as often as they used to*, haven’t they?

      • historiophiliac - Jan 3, 2013 at 2:48 PM

        How about if we just say that they don’t paint Indians as overtly bloodthirsty animals so much anymore? Is that what you’re getting at? (Or, that they just stopped making westerns as much?) For me, I think the racism has just gotten more subtle.

    • philsieg - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:12 AM

      Wow, to(sic) much PC

      From my link below,

      “Politically correct is just a term assholes came up with so they can dismiss people who have the nerve to want to be respected.”

      You know what they say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

    • historiophiliac - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:28 AM

      jpack, I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that you were not raised in Indian culture by the way you’ve presented your opinion — in which case, using your blood line to justify your lack of offense is a tenuous position.

  8. thatyankeedude - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:51 AM

    I mean the hat looks like crap but aside from that the politically correct cries are just obnoxious. It is just a symbol of an old Indian doing a war cry. It doesn’t imply anything against the Indians unless you try to twist it and make it a big deal like a good little liberal would.

    • skids003 - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:53 AM

      Just change their name to the Atlanta Flowers, if that’s not too offensive to the plants. What next?

    • historiophiliac - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:58 AM

      I love when people throw hissy fits about using their good manners and then blame others for being petty.

      • philsieg - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:33 AM

        You’re assuming the people throwing the hissy fits have good manners. I think Craig would tell you that’s assuming facts not in evidence. ;-)

  9. jarathen - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:51 AM

    I’ve never understood the love and defense of caricatures of other peoples, especially when those other peoples are a repressed minority. From the depiction of an entire people to a screaming savage to the absolutely atrocious name (Chief Noc-A-Homa? Really?), the design speaks of a time in which the super-majority didn’t care what others thought. I don’t think “Braves” is a terrible name any more than Vikings or Spartans is, since many different teams choose warriors of an unrelated nationality, but the reductive imagery needs to go.

    Personally, I think Washington needs to change their name ASAP, perhaps team up with a local native community to create a more accurate and appropriate name, and Cleveland never should have stopped being the Spiders, simply because it’s awesome.

  10. kirkvanhouten - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:53 AM

    I like it!

    While we’re at it, let’s bring back Coon Chicken Inn, the Gold Dust Twins, and rename some teams, shall we? Let’s see, the New York Jews, San Francisco Homosexuals and St. Louis White People seem like obvious choices. Perhaps we should give them some nice caricature logos to…like some a cartoon gay man with assless chaps for San Francisco and a guy in front of his trailer smoking meth for St. Louis. I mean…hey, it’s just a name and a logo. No reason for the PC police to get into a snit about it…amiright guys?

    • chadjones27 - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:25 AM

      All chaps are assless.

      • lmoneyfresh - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:47 AM

        As they should be.

    • El Bravo - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:50 AM

      In all fairness, it would be the St. Louis Crackers. That, actually, was a baseball team name, just not from the Lou.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:32 AM

        I have to tell you, when I found out my grandfather played for the Atlanta Crackers, it freaked me out. I only partially felt better knowing there was a Black Crackers team too — a pic of him in a jersey that says “Crackers” out of context is too disturbing.

  11. thetruth702 - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:54 AM

    Jokin right? Dont even call yourself a braves fan. The liberal media are a bunch of babies. It’s a damn logo., only you psychopaths think of it being racist or think of it as degrading when you see it. I see it and think braves, not oh that’s a racist picturw. Ridiculous. Get over it.

    • historiophiliac - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:07 AM

      Dude, you’re embarrassing white people. Stop.

      • philsieg - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:13 AM

        No, he’s not. He’s embarrassing the human race.

  12. philsieg - Jan 3, 2013 at 9:58 AM

    Ryan linked to this blog entry and it’s worth a read, particularly by those who will soon bemoan another attack by the “PC police”. I’m not sure when some of us decided it was an affront to our personal freedom to be asked to treat someone else with dignity and respect. When I was growing up, we didn’t call it PC; we called it the Golden Rule.

    • historiophiliac - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:04 AM

      Amen.

    • stlouis1baseball - Jan 3, 2013 at 4:44 PM

      Phil: Not that it matters but I just wanted to tell you I thought your comparison to the Confederate Flag was well stated. Some people mistake a discussion for an argument. Discussion is good. It helps foster understanding. Again…great post.

  13. thetruth702 - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:00 AM

    We better tell PETA to go after broncos and falcons then too right? Depicts animals in a bad light and disrespects them and shows a violent manner. We dont view them as God’s creatures, but instead as a gimmick for a team and takes away what the animal is. LOL gimme a break.

    • nategearhart - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:01 AM

      False analogy is false.

    • jpack1974 - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:15 AM

      sounds like a good idea. How dare someone have a picture of a falcon on a helmet. I think falcons all over the worl should unite

    • El Bravo - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:45 AM

      So you are comparing Native Americans (correct me if I’m wromg, but I believe they are humans like you and me) to horses and birds? Just making sure that is clear. It is that line of thinking that put the Wahoos and the like on the hats in the first place.

  14. uspoika - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:07 AM

    this article is a bigger piece of garbage than any hat someone wears to take batting practice.

    • nategearhart - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:10 AM

      What is your exact issue with the article?

  15. FinFan68 - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:10 AM

    The PC idiots love conjuring up bigotry and racism where there is none. For the perceived slight to exist you have to accept that the team is disparaging themselves first. They do no such thing. They project pride in the team and the logos are merely a symbol of that pride. People love to complain about their own hurt feelings. The problem isn’t with the logos or what they truly represent, it’s with the shallow mindsets of those that see racism or slights where there are none

    • 18thstreet - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:18 AM

      What does racist imagery looks like to you? Does it exist?

    • philsieg - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:19 AM

      They project pride in the team and the logos are merely a symbol of that pride. People love to complain about their own hurt feelings.

      I think you should take a walk around the photos at this site. They’re all about people expressing pride in who they are. And I’m pretty sure those whiners they’ve expressed their pride to would love to complain about their hurt feelings – if they could.

      What bigots like you fail to see is that it all begins with words.

      • FinFan68 - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:10 AM

        I’m no bigot; I just don’t see the issue with this logo. There have been and still are people in this world who hate others for dumb reasons. The point I was making is that the use of the logo is not racist at all. It’s use is about pride of the logo and the team. The element of potential racism does not lie with the team; it lies with the people who assume it is racists because that is what they wish to believe. They are looking for a cause to champion and have chosen this. What you and the other bleeding hearts are suggesting is akin to the KKK using the image of a black man as their logo. It just doesn’t pass the common sense test.

      • philsieg - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:34 AM

        Ah, the old “racism is in the eye of the beholder” argument. You want the symbol to exist in a vacuum so that you can consider it pure and innocent. But symbols come with baggage. This symbol comes with the baggage that genocide was the de facto policy of the US government for over a century and that even after the aggressive pursuit of that policy was abandoned, the objects of that policy were systematically discriminated against in every walk of life.

        These things really happened. Lives were lost and families rent asunder. It’s not only about your pride in your team. It’s not about how comfortable you are with it. It’s not about you and your petty little affectations at all. It can only be about the people that symbol is supposed to represent and how they feel about it and what they want done with it. You simply don’t count

        If you fail to comprehend this and still insist it’s your “right” to parade around in public in attire that you have been informed offends others in very non-trivial ways, then your assertion that you are not a bigot – well, in your own words…just doesn’t pass the common sense test.

      • philsieg - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:10 PM

        One more thing, FinFan68. When you use ad hominems like “PC idiots” and “bleeding hearts” as pejoratives, it is a form of bigotry.

        To refresh, from our old friend Webster again,

        bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

        To be sure, you have a lot of company on this forum today. It’s a sad state of affairs.

      • bh192012 - Jan 3, 2013 at 6:35 PM

        philsieg, you directly called FinFan68 a bigot. You even included the decription for us, thanks. So unless you know FinFan68 personally, how the ???? do you know that he is obstinately devoted to his prejudices? Maybe he’s easily swayed? While I haven’t known FinFan68 long enough to know if he’s a bigot, I can say with certainty that you are also using ad hominems, ergo pot kettle.

        Also, amazingly, even though you’ve quoted the meaning of bigotry, you’ve applied it wrong in trying to argue that saying “PC idiots” by itself is bigotry. Something is bigotry when even when faced with logic, they still hold thier position. As FinFan68 started this thread with that comment, and has been given no logical reason to change his position, we can’t assume it’s bigotry. I guess if your prejudice you can assume?

        Bigotry would be continuing to insist that most Native Americans hate the Indians logo, even after seeing evidence to the contrary. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_mascot_controversy

      • philsieg - Jan 3, 2013 at 7:06 PM

        bh,

        First, your link doesn’t do anything to support your argument. It does contain quite a bit of information to support mine. But at the end of the day, it’s Wikipedia. You’ll need to do better. Please read my response on pg 3 to your posting of the link to the discredited SI survey for further enlightenment.

        Your defense of FinFan is passionate, even if your approach demonstrates a lack of reading comprehension. The definition of bigotry pays no homage to logic. That’s exactly why the words “obstinately” and “intolerantly” are there. The terms PC idiots and bleeding hearts display a given prejudice against an opposing point of view and attempts to dismiss it by diminishing and insulting the holders of the POV. In so doing, FinFan has shown an obstinate adherence to his prejudices. That same obstinate adherence is present in his insistence that this is only about a logo and a sports team even when presented with plenty of rational evidence to the contrary.

  16. crawdaddybob - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:13 AM

    As a lifelong Braves fan I have several hats, jerseys and even a toaster that ours this logo on my waffles. I’ve never gone out of my way to choose this logo over, say, the tomahawk; but I do like it. I will also say that Indian head looks happy, not savage or aggressive in any way. Looks more like he just won the lottery than anything else. With all of that said, if it’s offensive to those in the Indian community then I wouldn’t lose sleep if it went away.

    • louhudson23 - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:24 AM

      That’s because it is and always has been the “Laughing” Brave,not the screaming Brave.

  17. cranbery - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:14 AM

    Disgusting……….another reason I will not be a Braves fan in 2013.

    • jpack1974 - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:16 AM

      Awesome, this is how someone who is offended should act. Not ask to have the hat banned

  18. deathmonkey41 - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:15 AM

    I can care less about the politically correct implications, but it’s an ugly #$#@ing hat though.

  19. phillyfan75 - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:19 AM

    I always thought the Brave was laughing, not screaming. Never thought it portrayed the Indian as a savage, but rather a strong, leader. But I guess that’s just me – others apparently look for the victimization rather than the admiration.

    But if we’re going to start throwing out caricatures, here’s a few more:

    Notre Dame’s Fighting Irish – makes all Irish people look like angry little leprechauns

    Minnesota Vikings – makes Nordic folk look like mindless plunderers

    Tampa Bay and college teams’ Buccaneers and Pittsburgh and college teams’ Pirates – makes seafarers look like swindlers, cheater, and plunderers

    Nebraska Cornhusker – makes heartland folk look like hicks

    Wake Forest Demon Deacon – makes Baptists look angry and unhinged

    San Diego Padres – makes priests look like dopey folks from the middle ages

    Elon Fighting Christians – name says it all

    Providence Friars – makes priests look like evil men from the middle ages

    • jarathen - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:24 AM

      Slippery slope at best here.

      • blacksables - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:57 PM

        Hey, Jartahen, you know why people use the ‘slippery slope’ argument?

        Because it’s true.

        But don’t you worry. There will be peace in our time.

    • louhudson23 - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:31 AM

      You are correct Philly fan,it is in fact officially the laughing Brave. and as much as I hate racists and bigots and homophobes,I do not necessarily find the sports team names to play up demeaning stereotypes. However,even as a lifelong Skins fan,that one is harder for me to ignore. But I don’t see these teams as looking to assign demeaning qualities to their players or fans,in fact exactly the opposite.

    • historiophiliac - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:57 PM

      Because people keep bringing it up here, I feel compelled to respond to the Fighting Irish thing. Leprechauns are trickster figures from Irish folklore. Using that mascot does not denigrate all Irish people. Now if you used one of the cartoons they used to print in the 19th century that made Irish people look like apes, I’d be with you. But, the leprechaun is intended to draw from Irish culture (by Irish people) and to use a figure that represents a crafty opponent. If you were to use the same from Native American culture, you would use a coyote or something along that line. Also, for what it’s worth, ND uses a cartoon version that is decidedly not realistic in representation.

  20. eagles512 - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:23 AM

    Relax. I guess the Patriots old school helmets are offensive to white people too? What a joke

  21. cosanostra71 - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:24 AM

    BFD

  22. dayno66 - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:27 AM

    PC nonsense. If people spent more time actually helping their fellow man, and less time whining about a non-offensive baseball hat, then the world might actually improve.

    • nategearhart - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:32 AM

      So nobody who complains about offensive hats helps “their fellow man”? Painting with a pretty broad brush there, aren’t we?

  23. chill1184 - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:35 AM

    To be honest I didn’t realize the logo was screaming until I read it was called the “Screaming Warrior”, I thought the logo was laughing. In addition whats the difference between this and photos of players (mostly in the NFL but it happens in MLB too) who are yelling at the stars in an animal-like fashion? If you don’t like it, then dont buy it, its that simple.

    Is bigotry and racism still out there? Of course their is, hatred is always there you’ll never stamp out an emotion. Like a spoiled brat, a bigot’s biggest weapon is attention. Oh before anyone starts screaming that Im right wing conservative, Im a libertarian. I hate conservatism as much as I hate liberalism and will be jumping for joy the day race obsessed losers like Pat Buchanan, Jesse Jackson, Frosty Wooldridge and Al Sharpton are gone.

  24. mrhojorisin - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:37 AM

    Just playing Devil’s advocate here, because I don’t like these images, either, but regarding this statement:

    “…who continue to make contributions to human culture…”

    Do loans at about an 84% interest rate qualify as such a contribution?

    • nategearhart - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:52 AM

      You lost me.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:02 AM

        Probably talking about those Western Sky commercials, where you can borrow like $5,000 and end up paying back about $45,000. If you get a chance, DVR one and look at the monthly payments in the reimbursement terms. They are absurd.

      • nategearhart - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:13 AM

        Ah I see. I the ol’ double-whammo stereotype “American Indians took up the greedy shyster businessman role after all the Jews went into comedy”.

  25. jolink653 - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:39 AM

    Someone tell me what’s offensive about this logo…It doesn’t stereotype, doesn’t mock….If anything, it’s paying tribute to the Native Americans and the way they were as our country was founded and developed…This is in no way offensive and it annoys me to no end how everyone is so desperate to find racism in everything

    • nategearhart - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:52 AM

      You’re wrong; it does stereotype.

      • jolink653 - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:56 AM

        Okay, tell me exactly how this sterotypes

      • nategearhart - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:06 AM

        Well, your own statement lends a clue:
        “…paying tribute to…the way they were as our country was founded and developed…”
        The idea that this image of the “noble savage” is more or less what every Native American looked and acted like when Europeans came along is a stereotype.

      • philsieg - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:18 AM

        From Webster:

        stereotype: to repeat without variation : make hackneyed

        The caricature is a stereotype by the definition above because it assumes to represent all Native Peoples regardless of differences due to tribe, culture or geographical location. It presents a very unoriginal and one-dimensional picture of what a native person is and how such a person behaves. It does not allow for variation and as such demeans individuals whose only commonality may be genetic.

        Any time one uses a simplistic image or phrase to portray a complex and diverse group it’s stereotyping. It’s no different than Dapper Dan the Coon Jigger. And I doubt anyone with even a small smattering of common sense would try and argue that Dan isn’t a stereotype, and a racist one at that.

      • jolink653 - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:17 PM

        Who said every Native American looked that way? This logo in no way applies a uniform definition or description to all Native Americans…Native American warriors wore facepaint and feathers when they went out to hunt or went to war, and I’m sure at Native American ceremonies today some still do to keep tradition…Should priests be offended at the old Padres logo of a fat guy in a robe swinging a bat? Should elephants be offended at the old A’s logo of the elephant doing tricks on a ball? Not all elephants stand on a ball doing circus tricks, but the logo doesn’t suggest that they do and this logo doesn’t suggest that all Native Americans wore facepaint and feathers…This is not offensive and I still don’t understand why everyone wants to take it that way

      • nategearhart - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:36 PM

        I think we’re in danger of debating in circles here, so if I may, let me turn the question around real quick to see where you’re coming from. Can you tell me what (if anything) is offensive about something like this (Apart from the word, of course)?
        http://tinyurl.com/a8bxysp

      • philsieg - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:40 PM

        Native American warriors wore facepaint and feathers when they went out to hunt or went to war, and I’m sure at Native American ceremonies today some still do to keep tradition

        You do understand the difference in Native Peoples choosing to don the garb of their ancestors at tribal celebrations and meetings to honor the customs handed down by those ancestors and a marketing department ginning up an image to sell baseball caps, don’t you?

        Should priests be offended at the old Padres logo of a fat guy in a robe swinging a bat? Should elephants be offended at the old A’s logo of the elephant doing tricks on a ball?

        You should be careful. You’re going to strain something if you keep throwing those false equivalencies around.

        This is not offensive and I still don’t understand why everyone wants to take it that way

        I’m guessing you’re just another white boy like me. If that’s so you don’t get to decide what’s offensive or not in this case. You’re not registered to vote in this particular election.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 3, 2013 at 3:07 PM

        Part of the problem is that this logo encourages a static stereotypical image of Indians. Jim Thorpe wasn’t going to war in face paint. Cherokee fashion was utterly different than how the Sioux or Dine presented themselves. etc. Probably much of what you think of in regard to Indian fashion you learned from movies and TV rather than from actual persons who are Native American — and probably a lot of it was made by white people as their version of some Indian “look.”

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Teams searching for trade deadline impact
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. H. Street (3697)
  2. C. Lee (2884)
  3. T. Tulowitzki (2641)
  4. H. Ramirez (2572)
  5. Y. Puig (2412)
  1. C. Headley (2369)
  2. T. Walker (2358)
  3. B. Belt (2167)
  4. M. Trout (2158)
  5. D. Price (2137)