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. MattJanik - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM

    First thing’s first, this comments section embarrasses me as a human being, frankly. I’m most definitely with Craig and the apparent minority here, who thinks such imagery should be eliminated from the sporting world.

    That said, and I’m just spitballing here (I’m certainly not under the impression any team would actually do this), but what if the Braves took the proceeds from this cap and donated them to a local Native American tribe? Would we re-evaluate our stance on such imagery? Is it still offensive if it’s being used to benefit the very people it offends? My first instinct is that it’s still a caricature and thus probably still offensive, but I wonder if it might be a future avenue for teams to retain their traditional markings without engendering public disdain (which is only going to grow as society continues to evolve).

    If nothing else, it would have to be an improvement over the status quo.

    • MattJanik - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:46 AM

      Bah, erroneous apostrophe in the freaking second word of that comment. My bad.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jan 3, 2013 at 4:14 PM

        Matt…I appreciate your take on this. While I don’t necessarily agree…I sincerely appreciate your take. I did however give you a thumbs down for feeling compelled to apologize for a silly ass apostrophe error. This is a blog…not English Literature or Grammar/Writing 101. LOL!

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:55 AM

      Is it still offensive if it’s being used to benefit the very people it offends?

      I’d still say yes, even though the money is going to a good cause. Take an extreme example, let’s say the Yankees wanted to do a tribute to the Negro Leagues (Black Yankees), and had all of their players come out in blackface with proceeds of the gaming going to the NLBM. Would the blackface still be offensive? Of course!

      The Braves could offer all proceeds to a local tribe, and then refuse to ever use that image again. It doesn’t eliminate the offense, but makes it a lot easier to handle.

      • MattJanik - Jan 3, 2013 at 2:16 PM

        Valid point, there.

        I do like your Braves-related proposal more than my own. The offense is already there, it would certainly help if they used it for good while stepping away from it.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 3, 2013 at 2:57 PM

        Mine is just a hypothetical. Unfortunately I think we’re in a lose/lose situation here because you have one side that sees nothing with using these images and feels those that do are part of the “pussification” of America, whatever that means. And the other side sees this a terrible idea and wonders who could actually want to do this?

        There doesn’t seem to be any middle ground, where only real compromise can occur. The anecdotes from people who “know a Native American” are funny though. I want to read more of those takes.

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

      If you took the time to research, you would find archival imagery of native Americans, mostly from the southwest and midwest who resembled the caricature above (perhaps not laughing). What does it resemble though? Is he laughing? A war cry? Who knows. But we have media and oft-offended individuals looking for anything to yap about.
      Funny thing is that I have attended a few native festivals and they had paintings created by themselves that depict pretty much the same image. Perhaps they are only angry when they don’t directly profit from it?

      • stlouis1baseball - Jan 3, 2013 at 4:15 PM

        Well stated Slick!

    • hojo20 - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:22 PM

      You’re off the totem pole.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:25 PM

        Do you even know what a totem pole represents?

      • hojo20 - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:26 PM

        Please don’t scalp me if I don’t know the correct answer.

  2. innout10 - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:47 AM

    Craig… What exactly is wrong with it? Is it the Mohawk, the fact he’s laughing, or just you trying to make a political issue so people will read your article? It’s a throwback logo… So now anything associated with culture is negative? Is that logo REALLY a negative portrayal of Native American culture? Have you heard any native Americans complain yet? Or is it just white writers like you…. As a braves fan, I hope it dissuades you from supporting our team moving forward. We don’t need fans like you that care more about a pregame hat than the play on the field.

    • kirkvanhouten - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:40 AM

      I understand this argument, but I think you’re missing the larger point.

      1. If the team were called the Atlanta Blacks and had a logo of a stereotypical African-American, we would all be offended
      2. If the team were the Atlanta Hispanics, the Atlanta Asians, the Atlanta White Men…we would all find it kind of fucked up, no?

      • wlubake - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:09 PM

        Not analogous here. Maybe your examples work for the Indians or Redskins. However, the Braves are more akin to the Minnesota Vikings or the former arena league’s Desperados. These are a subset of a culture, referencing that historical context. Braves were Native American warriors, not a race of people.

        It’s like calling a team the Samauri.

        As for the Indians, Redskins, Seminoles, etc., that is just taking an ethnic group and naming your team after it. However, I see few complaints about the Fighting Irish.

      • sparty0n - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:20 PM

        Agree with @wlubake…. How come no one get pissed at the use of the Fighting Irish, the Fly Dutchmen or the Fighting Scots?

      • sparty0n - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:21 PM

        Agree with @wlubake…. How come no one get pissed at the use of the Fighting Irish, the Flying Dutchmen or the Fighting Scots?

      • The Common Man - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:39 PM

        Because those team nicknames were created by and used by the ethnic groups who primarily comprised those teams at one point. It may shock you to learn that relatively few Native Americans have owned a major league professional sports team.

  3. Francisco (FC) - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:54 AM

    I wonder if it’s possible to do what the Florida Seminoles did and come up with a constructive way to come up with imagery or logo that is fair and agreeable to the parties involved.

    • stex52 - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:13 AM

      There you go, FC, thinking logically.

      I have struggled with this and I certainly saw more than my share of racism growing up in east Texas in the ’50’s, but here’s the problem. I see nothing in the drawing that suggests denigration of the native americans at all. And I have asked in the past if any native americans had any kind of organized protests going. My bias is to look for outrage from the aggrieved parties. Otherwise I think finding proxy offense by a bunch of us white guys is pretty presumptious.

      If some group of native americans gets on the bandwagon and calls for getting rid of it, I am all on their side. But if they do, it will be no problem. The Braves will take care of it themselves.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:20 AM

        Stex, they have had organized protests but these have been dismissed. That’s the problem.

      • stex52 - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:30 PM

        Organized by whom? Dismissed by whom? I’m seriously interested.

      • indaburg - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM

        Here you go, stex:
        http://www.cnn.com/US/9510/mascot_protest/
        http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=2067
        http://www.workers.org/2009/us/native_protest_0611/
        http://www.aimovement.org/ncrsm/index.html

        Like ‘philliac said, they’ve been largely ignored at the pro level. This isn’t just some white guilt thing. They’re offended.

      • philsieg - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:11 PM

        Stex,

        I’ll post this link again, because I think all of those who see the caricature on the Braves’ BP cap as innocuous or no different than the Viking or Padre or whatever should read the specific article and then spend a little time on the blog. The author is a native American woman (and Stanford alumna, so she’s had some direct experience with the issue). A number of the posts are anecdotal, but she has also researched the subject well and provides citations. There are details about protest efforts, too. It provides perspective from the eyes of an “offended party” and adds a human dimension to what many here seem to think is an abstract issue.

        Otherwise I think finding proxy offense by a bunch of us white guys is pretty presumptious.

        Let me try to approach from a different perspective. I’m a native Southerner. We Southerners tend to pride ourselves on our hospitality and neighborliness. I would like to see the Confederate battle flag relegated to history lessons and museum displays. It’s existence is a fact and I’m not offended by it’s mere existence. But it carries with it its own history that makes some of my neighbors uncomfortable and reminds them of painful times and experiences. In my desire to remain hospitable and neighborly, I can’t see how responding to their discomfort by removing the flag from broad public display in any way inconveniences me. My rights are the same before and after the fact. The arc of my life isn’t affected in any material way. The flag still remains a part of history where it belongs and my neighbor, whose comfort matters to me, no longer has to confront the relics of a painful past as he goes about his everyday existence. This is what is known as a “win-win” situation. In this case, the outrage comes from the other sides, whose stated motives and supporting behavior don’t bear up to close scrutiny.

        Everything I wrote above applies to the controversy surrounding native American imagery. The outrage I see is coming from the same people and same quarters as the Confederate battle flag. Even some of the same arguments are used. For the flag, it’s “heritage” and “honor”. Here, it’s “bravery” or “nobility”. But if we’re honest, these are just placeholders for resistance to change because it’s seen as eroding certain privilege and runs contrary to both a spirit of community and a shared existence. I want to think we all want to be better neighbors than that.

      • stex52 - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:30 PM

        Phil,

        Thanks for posting. I thought all I was going to get was “Thumbs Downs”.

        I’m with you on the Civil War stuff. But that one’s too easy. That’s the darkest aspect in our collective history.

        It would be easier for me to judge if I thought I saw a real groundswell on this one, too. But certainly there are aggrieved parties.

        We’ll see. With all the noise this is creating on this site, Atlanta’s management has got to know there is some controversy.

      • stex52 - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:34 PM

        And you, too, Indaburg. I can be educated.

      • philsieg - Jan 3, 2013 at 2:18 PM

        I’m with you on the Civil War stuff. But that one’s too easy. That’s the darkest aspect in our collective history.

        Two points, stex. It’s not too easy for some folks. At least not for some down here. The Late Unpleasantness (as some folks refer to it) has a hell of a lot to do with why the political map looks the way it does today, at least as far as the South is concerned.

        Second, one has to think that the practice of genocide by a legally constituted government has to be as dark an episode in our history. If you’ve never read it, Dee Brown’s Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee is a seminal text on the subject of native Americans in the 19th century. The author was unapologetic for the emotional tone of the book, so it’s not without controversy. But there’s too much there to ignore or dismiss. When I read it first as a twenty-two year old shortly after its publication, it literally gave me the shakes in the same way that Martin Gilbert’s essays of the Holocaust did decades later.

        As indaburg has shown, the resistance is and has been there. I think the lack of a groundswell, as you put, is due less to Native American opposition to these things than the dominant culture (yes, white folks) perception that the crimes visited on native Peoples are somehow “less” than the institution of slavery. (This thread has examples of this.)

        This is due to both those crimes being subsumed to the larger narrative of the building of America through our pioneer spirit (How the West Was Won, anybody?) and the relatively more complete assimilation of Native Peoples into mainstream America over several generations.

        (I’ve actually got one more theory as a corollary to this. Matters concerning race in this country are always couched in “Southern” terms in the media. The South certainly deserves this opprobrium, but it also reveals a certain intellectual laziness that allows people from other regions to feel better about themselves – it’s a Southern problem, don’t you know. However, in the push to expand this country in the 19th century, every American from every region was a party to theft and genocide. Nobody gets to do mental gymnastics and let themselves off the hook. The only way around this is to diminish it and paint the aggrieved parties as overly sensitive and overreacting.)

      • stex52 - Jan 3, 2013 at 3:34 PM

        I’ll hold with my “darkest stain” thought based on sheer numbers and brutality if nothing else. Not to say that the Indian Wars were good either. Refer to my comments further down the thread. I do know something about our history with the natives.

      • philsieg - Jan 3, 2013 at 4:00 PM

        I’ll hold with my “darkest stain” thought based on sheer numbers and brutality if nothing else. Not to say that the Indian Wars were good either.

        The Civil War was a well-documented, compact event, although slavery itself stretched on longer. Even so, slavery is better documented than the genocide practiced against the Native Peoples if for no other reason than it was a business and records were kept. The attempt to eradicate the Native Peoples stretched over nearly three centuries, too. But getting a handle on the true numbers and the depth of brutality here is a harder task.

        Part of the reason, IMO, it’s harder is that it is something we as a people have difficulty coming to grips with. We think we’ve done that with slavery, although there’s room for debate. We can at least say that we have recognized slavery is evil and have made noticeable progress from the days when slaves were considered three-fifths of a human being. But I’m not convinced we’ve even begun to grapple with fundamentals of our own nation building – how we acquired the land under our feet. To do so means calling into question the legitimacy of America’s existence. We know it’s part of our history but we’ve not a clue what to do about it, if anything can be done that’s remotely adequate.

        It’s not a contest, and I’ll not choose between the two evils. Both left deep stains on our history, stains that exist to this day.

        Refer to my comments further down the thread. I do know something about our history with the natives.

        Read those, stex. Good comments. We’re not arguing here, just discussing.

  4. dsmaxsucks - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:56 AM

    Why you bring Craig’s race into it? Are you a racist? Should the Braves perhaps put KKK robes on their hat? Since it wouldn’t bother you, and that apparently is the standard you wish the world to adopt, why not? Lynching and killing and burning crosses are (to most of us) a negative portrayal of white culture, but is it REALLY? Its part of the culture, its overwhelming white, ergo we should celebrate it like it was the flag of a defeated dictatorship or a car from a dumb TV show.

    Its always the one toothed fatboys wearing aprons who never seem to mind when we stereotype others. No one really cares what they wear on their heads, but we all wish they would save some of that money and spend it on books. Or toothpaste.

  5. DelawarePhilliesFan - Jan 3, 2013 at 10:59 AM

    “I’m here for the baseball, not to buy in to some cult of fandom which requires me to approve of these things”

    There you have it folks – Craig has officially acknowledged that an indivdual fan is not responsible for everythign that happens surrounding the team they support.

    Filing this away for everytime he disses the Phillies with “yea, but that one guy threw up on a fan, and lets not forget the taser”

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:03 AM

      Filing this away for everytime he disses the Phillies with “yea, but that one guy threw up on a fan, and lets not forget the taser”

      You do understand that Craig is trolling you with those posts, and the reason he does it is you flock to them like flies to shit.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:47 AM

        And how else can we troll him back if we don’t use his words against him? ;)

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:38 PM

        touche

    • stex52 - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:15 AM

      Another Philly fan takes the bait. Seriously, guys, you need to calm down.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:48 AM

        Hmmmm….so the entire post about a Brave’s Cap was simply a ploy to bait a Phillies fan….fascinating theory.

        Seriously – learn what banetr is before you lecture popel to calm down. It’s sort of the backbone of Blogs…..

      • chadjones27 - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:09 PM

        I think he baited himself. Which is quite impressive. He’s pretty good… dare I say a “master” at it? But, don’t all master baiters go solo, anyway.

      • stex52 - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:38 PM

        No, I actually agree with POPO. And besides, no negatives against the fans. A lot of them are very knowledgeable. But there is a subset that is just too easy to troll. Maybe I missed that you were kidding and just piled on.

      • stex52 - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:50 PM

        Mistype. “COPO”.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:56 PM

        It’s all good stex – my rebuttals sound harsher then I intend them to be. I think it’s all fun, and I think most Phillie baiters (including Mr. Clean) feel the same way.

        I have said many times – when push comes to shove Craig is Tom Cruise and we Phillies fans are Col. Jessup……Deep in places he doesn’t want to talk about, he wants us to reply. He NEEDS us to reply!

  6. boatdoc61 - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:05 AM

    The logo is wrong. Just plain wrong. Not borderline wrong – it’s as wrong as slavery and denying women the vote.

    Do any native American’s object?

    Yes.

    Should ANY business or person or entity do ANYthing that disrespects another group –
    Not only no, but it shouldn’t even be up for discussion. The arguments that “it’s not REALLY disrespectful” or “it’s all in fun” or “it’s meant as a compliment” don’t hold water.

    They don’t.

    The logo is just plain dead wrong. Not a little wrong. Totally completely as wrong as wrong could be wrong.

    • jpack1974 - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:15 AM

      what is offensive about the logo? My dad has native american in him, which in turn has me at about 1/4. I’m not offended. He is 1/2, and he is not offended. My grandfather is 100% and NOT OFFENDED. In fact, is a huge Braves fan. So who decides that it offends? Do we poll every native american in the country? It is silly that most posters on here say it is offensive, because the odds are, you haven’t asked any native ameican for their opinion. And if you have, you probably spoke to just one. But again, I want to know what is offensive about the hat?????

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:31 AM

        I’m offended because I am supposed to live in a country and at a time where folks respect each other.

        My favorite sports should not be shoving this borderline (at best) racist bs down the throats of their fans.

        The Washington DC football team is THE WORST. The imagery on this baseball cap makes me cringe.

        And I’m not Native. I’m a Jew, and I would despise anybody who would take my people’s background and likeness to use as a mascot for anything, let alone a sports franchise that pockets hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

      • 18thstreet - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM

        Wait — Koufax is Jewish?

      • stex52 - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:04 PM

        koufaxmitzvah?? Jewish?? Well whack me on the head with a phylactery!

        I think most of us had probably guessed that. :-)

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:10 PM

        At one point, my HBT handle was going to be ShawnGreenBarMitzvahInvitation, but that doesn’t quite roll off the tongue.

      • stex52 - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:36 PM

        Plus any association with Sandy Koufax is a positive.

    • nothanksimdriving123 - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:40 PM

      boatdoc, of course it is wrong, but if you are expecting the many thousands of Atlanta fans who think the “chop” with accompanying music is cute fun to understand this, well, you can expect a rather long wait. They just don’t get it. Watch them down-thumb this comment.

  7. ireportyoudecide - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:10 AM

    Do you people find the Minnesota Vikings logo offensive as well? Seriously it’s an Indian with a mohawk laughing. Get over it.

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

      The original Vikings owner was Ole Haugsrud, for crying out loud; he named the team after himself and the majority Scandanavian-rooted fanbase. Show me where the “brave” that was ever the owner of the Atlanta Braves.

      • jpack1974 - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:24 AM

        that is not the point, maybe some poor guy with Viking in his blood is offended by the fact that are Vikings and portrayed as savages.

      • nategearhart - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:44 AM

        You missed my point entirely. The difference is that the Vikings name comes from the origins of the actual owner and fanbase. They’re not saying “we hope to exemplify on the field the savage fighting spirit of the lion/eagle/timberwolf/”brave”.

      • cosanostra71 - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM

        @nategearhart

        The Braves were named such by their owner James Gaffney who was a member of Tammany Hall. Tammany Hall in turn was named after Tammanend, a Delaware Indian Chief.

      • nategearhart - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:55 PM

        @cosanostra71 Right. It was chosen to honor corrupt New York politicians, not “braves”.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:12 PM

      I suspect people have been saying to “Get over it” ever since this name and mascot became controversial. Which– and this wouldn’t be surprising– could very well have happened the same day/moment the team name and mascots were concocted.

  8. yahmule - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:16 AM

    Pathetic. Hopefully it brings down a Chief Wahoo level curse upon all the sports teams in Atlanta.

    http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/the-curse-of-chief-wahoo/Content?oid=2954423

  9. rockthered1286 - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:21 AM

    So we can complain about these teams using Native American symbols/logo’s because it’s not PC and really nothing more- they are not promoting hatred, nor are they painted in a way that is putting native americans in a negative light. It’s simply a logo with a picture that relates to the team name. (By the way, LOVE that everyone trashes on the Indians, Braves, FSU Seminoles and Redskins, but not ONCE have I heard a soul mention the Chicago Blackhawks whose logo is almost identical to the Redskins with warpaint all over the face).

    But if it’s for nothing more than the simple fact that they are using native americans on their logo and someone is offended (ironically more non-NA than anything), then why stop there? Let’s go ahead and take race, push it aside, and jump on religion- I want to see the NO Saints change their name. and the Padres. And the Angels. And the NJ Devils. For that matter why can you force Patriotism down my throat? Tell New England time to switch it up. And I don’t think it’s fair to force the Wizards and Mystics on us if we don’t believe in magic. The Celtics also have a very sterotypical mascot- where’s the outcry in Boston?

    Simply put: no matter what you do, you will offend SOMEBODY. And if we are going to remove every possible chance of offending someone, then let’s just go ahead and get rid of ALL mascots, all team names, and just call each by their city. The Atlanta baseball team. Or the Washington football team. That sounds great right? I mean I foresee a loss of millions in merchandise for every franchise involved, but as long as a few hundred people stop crying that’s all that matters in the end…

    • jpack1974 - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:26 AM

      Fantastic post rockthered…….I want to see someone counter this……

      • yahmule - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:36 AM

        I would like to see your counter if a native American said you were an Apple.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:01 PM

        Fantastic post rockthered…….I want to see someone counter this……

        Ok ready? Here goes nothing…

        So we can complain about these teams using Native American symbols/logo’s because it’s not PC and really nothing more- they are not promoting hatred, nor are they painted in a way that is putting native americans in a negative light. It’s simply a logo with a picture that relates to the team name. (By the way, LOVE that everyone trashes on the Indians, Braves, FSU Seminoles and Redskins, but not ONCE have I heard a soul mention the Chicago Blackhawks whose logo is almost identical to the Redskins with warpaint all over the face).

        It’s not just a logo, it’s a caricature of a group of people. Y’all thinking this is nothing don’t seem to understand this. Here’s the definition of a caricature:

        car·i·ca·ture [kar-i-kuh-cher, -choo r] Show IPA noun, verb, car·i·ca·tured, car·i·ca·tur·ing.
        noun
        1.
        a picture, description, etc., ludicrously exaggerating the peculiarities or defects of persons or things:

        That’s what people are doing with these symbols. So now it’s my turn to ask a question. If we changed the image to a blackface photo, would you still not find it offensive? As for the blackhawks, it’s a non-starter.

        But if it’s for nothing more than the simple fact that they are using native americans on their logo and someone is offended (ironically more non-NA than anything), then why stop there? Let’s go ahead and take race, push it aside, and jump on religion- I want to see the NO Saints change their name. and the Padres. And the Angels. And the NJ Devils. For that matter why can you force Patriotism down my throat?

        Are the religions being mocked in these images? Are they caricatures of them? If they are, then they are offensive. However, let’s not pretend that these are the same situations. While the US’s treatment of the Irish and Chinese in our history was disgusting, it doesn’t match what we did to the Native Americans which essentially amounted to genocide.

    • nategearhart - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:46 AM

      Oop, you caught us. We’re all secretly Chicago Blackhawks fans and see nothing wrong with their logo.
      Let’s go guys, show’s over.

      • rockthered1286 - Jan 3, 2013 at 3:54 PM

        Was simply mentioning that it’s a bandwagon sentiment to back the banishment of these mascots. People easily jump on the 4 mentioned simply because they know them. If it was a broader issue and people were more in tune, they would know that the Blackhawks NHL team has an equally (in some folks opinion) offensive image. Apparently that’s not the case.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Jan 3, 2013 at 3:15 PM

      That’s great. I guess those of us who are offended should just learn to STFU because this is America. Fuck yeah!

      Irony? Is that you?

      • stlouis1baseball - Jan 3, 2013 at 4:34 PM

        While we don’t necessarily agree on this topic Sandy…I love your sarcasm…as always.
        Between you…TCM…Gator…Philiac and Cur I can stop laughing.
        This is a America! Fuck yeah! Hahaha! Well played.

  10. scoregasmic - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:28 AM

    To me, using Native American images Is the same as using warrior images from other races. Spartans, Vikings, And Trojans, it’s really not meant to be insulting, they use the warrior side of the old native Americans just as the Spartans use the warrior side of old Sparta.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:16 PM

      So White is a race that can laugh at itself?

      More like White is a race that demands to take a dump on all other races.

      The Internet is the wrong place for intelligent debate, but a great place for porn. ‘Nuff said.

  11. yahmule - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:30 AM

    I’ve noticed a lot of people fall back on the term “PC” when they’re not intelligent enough to actually present a coherent argument.

    • nategearhart - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:46 AM

      I’M not a bigot, YOU’RE PC!

    • cur68 - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:19 PM

      Use of “PC” is the code for “stop reading here. This person is intolerant, simplistic and doesn’t think past their own cultural group”. Also, you can bet if the letters “PC” appear the comment is a mile long and likely written at a 4th grade level and involves use of what the writer considers “logic” and “examples” and the rest of us consider “False Equivalencies”. I find use of “PC” very useful in knowing what to read and what to ignore.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jan 3, 2013 at 4:25 PM

        Cur: Your post wasn’t very politically correct. Sorry. I couldn’t refuse.

  12. scoregasmic - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:41 AM

    Honestly though, if I was Native American, those logos make me look like a bada**, things shouldn’t be taken too seriously, no one is making a statement about native Americans with that hat, it’s a old Native American warrior. Anyone who still thinks they act like that should go back to school, It’s not offensive…at least it shouldn’t be…but then again, we live in a country where no one wants to offend anyone anymore. People need to lighten up and get off their high horse. Just because you say you are against the hat you don’t become the best person in the world. I respect Native Americans and I know they are just like me but I have no problem with using a warrior as a logo

    • yahmule - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:54 AM

      I think you’re the one who should broaden his education.

  13. opie41 - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:51 AM

    What a crock of political correctness bull. I’m of Cherokee descent and I couldnt care less that the Braves are using the retro cap logo. Get over it and go find some other drum to beat. Go Braves!!

  14. scoregasmic - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:51 AM

    The only offense i would take to the Atlanta blacks, Asians, or white men would be how bad those names are…

  15. simon94022 - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:55 AM

    Craig is working overtime to drive January traffic. All we need now is for Tori Hunter to state that he’s uncomfortable around gay designated hitters dressed up as Indian warriors. 1,000 comments, guaranteed.

  16. nategearhart - Jan 3, 2013 at 11:57 AM

    To those saying “Native Americans don’t care”:
    http://nativeappropriations.com/2012/12/dear-defender-of-the-new-atlanta-braves-cap.html
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/us/july-dec09/redskins_12-17.html
    But mostly the first one.

  17. buggieowens - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:00 PM

    Several years ago as an adjunct instructor in a class on Vietnam and the Cold War, I invited a Vietnam vet to discuss his personal experiences. He in turn invited his friend, a full-blooded Chiricahua Apache, a former marine sniper who served in every major American conflict from Vietnam to Afghanistan. He is probably more “brave” than anyone else on this messageboard, myself included (purple heart recipients excepted). It’s too bad that his bad-ass image could not have been used instead of some racist caricature of the past.

  18. scoregasmic - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:03 PM

    And you need to take life less seriously. It was a joke besides they do have teams like those. Ballers – blacks, samurai – Asians, patriots – white guys

  19. anybodyinhere - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:19 PM

    For what its worth, my wife’s side of the family (Cherokee grandmother somewhere in the family tree) has no problem with it.

    Its interesting to see how the tribal communities choose to market themselves. Do an image search on the kinds of logos used for Indian casinos, for example. Lots of headdresses and dream catchers, as well as tribal-specific images.

    • nategearhart - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:56 PM

      Ah, but it’s THEIR imagery, for THEIR tribes. What American Indians are on the Atlanta Braves ownership group?

      • anybodyinhere - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:49 PM

        That’s kind of my point. If you want to use Indian imagery that isn’t offensive, look at how they represent themselves (or even refer to themselves — according to http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmterms.html the greater percentage prefer Indian/American Indian over Native American).

      • nategearhart - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:54 PM

        “If you want to use Indian imagery…”
        I’ll argue that if you aren’t American Indian, you don’t get to use American Indian shit. Pretty simple, really.

      • rockthered1286 - Jan 3, 2013 at 4:26 PM

        “I’ll argue that if you aren’t American Indian, you don’t get to use American Indian shit. Pretty simple, really.”

        Does that only apply for their culture or all? Or is this kind of like how only African American people can drop the “N word” but nobody else can because it’s THEIR word and it’s offensive if a white guy says it? Or am I offensive for even bringing that word up? I never use it, believe that. I just think if it applies to one, it needs to apply to all. So on that note- if a casino wants to use their own image and does so in a similar fashion to the Braves or Indians, is it no longer viewed as offensive just because the OWNER okayed it? Of course not, because others would still find it offensive. If it offends one onlooker, it offends all and should be taken down as well, regardless of the owners decent. Only fair…

    • historiophiliac - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:38 PM

      Again, having a mixed-race family that does not participate in native culture does not give your claim any extra credence. I can introduce you to a mess of people where I live who do have a problem with it. We have this same argument in my state at the start of every football season…

      • anybodyinhere - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM

        Didn’t claim any. Just stating a fact.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 3, 2013 at 2:06 PM

        Yes, you did. You attempted to use your family connection for legitimacy. It doesn’t work.

      • anybodyinhere - Jan 3, 2013 at 2:27 PM

        @historophiliac I guess i miss your point then. I didn’t personally state whether I liked it or not, I just stated that I have people of Cherokee of decent in my family that didn’t care. Then I suggested people do a little research before jumping to conclusions (e.g., my family doesn’t participate in its culture). If I don’t make a personal claim one way or the other, how can stating what others think legitimize me?

      • historiophiliac - Jan 3, 2013 at 2:40 PM

        Sorry for being unclear. My point was that your family’s position has no special meaning just because someone in the background somewhere is Native American. That doesn’t give it any special legitimacy. I wasn’t sure why you wanted to share their feeling on the matter (and with a sense that they might have some special standing on the issue). Dang it, I’m not sure I’m explaining it any better here either. argh. Try this: I’m not going to put up my family’s sentiments on this, regardless of their background. Any better?

  20. chadjones27 - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:27 PM

    I don’t think you’re a bigot if you see no problem with the logo. I think you’re a bigot if you like the logo BECAUSE it’s offensive.

  21. rayfeathers - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:29 PM

    maybe it’s time to get rid of these logos just so we can make these whining little PC babies SHUT THE FUCK UP.

    • opie41 - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM

      Hey, you know they’ll never shut up. It’s all about keeping the pot stirred!!

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

      Ok, just do it and shut us up then. I’m COOL with that.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jan 3, 2013 at 4:36 PM

        Off topic…but I see you changed your Avatar. I dig it. But liked the previous one better!

      • historiophiliac - Jan 3, 2013 at 4:51 PM

        That pic was a couple of years old. My hair is long now, but I HATE having my picture taken. I am not photogenic. Anyway, this one matches my twitter, so it simplifies things. Don’t worry, when spring training hits, it’ll change to a D or Tiger. :)

    • The Common Man - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:47 PM

      Yeah, the surest way to get people to stop talking about something that’s offensive is to get rid of the offensive thing. I like your idea. Everybody wins!

      • stlouis1baseball - Jan 3, 2013 at 4:30 PM

        TCM/Philiac: Your comments made me laugh to the point of someone stopping by my office and looking at me like I had a 3rd eye protruding from my forehead. Thanks for that. I needed it.

  22. DelawarePhilliesFan - Jan 3, 2013 at 12:39 PM

    Are we positive that that logo is in fact a Native American, and not Geoffrey Holder?

    http://www.edgeboston.com/display/viewimage_story_element.php?id=113852&ord=1

  23. hojo20 - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:23 PM

    NBC (the liberal network of America) is telling Craig to write this. It’s tragic that people are protesting this logo.

    • The Common Man - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:51 PM

      I’m pretty sure Craig (or “Kraig” as some people call him), has pretty wide editorial discretion. And save your “tragic” hyperbole for something like Sandy Hook or Congress refusing to take up Hurricane Sandy relief funding or the treatment of women in India (and practically everywhere else). This isn’t some conspiracy, it’s a discussion. I wish you were capable of actually having one of those.

      • hojo20 - Jan 3, 2013 at 6:55 PM

        I overcooked my bacon tonight. So “tragic” for me because i ran out of slices.

  24. jimmymarlinsfan - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:24 PM

    I love the hat and hate the braves.

    We basically brought genocide upon Native Americans, so putting an image of a Brave on the hat of a team called the Braves makes sense and is entirely less offensive than murdering them and breaking treaties and forcing them onto reservations.

    I know, I know….call me crazy

    • The Common Man - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM

      Is that how it works? We get to put the image of the conquered dead on hats by way of apology? I call Grenadans.

    • cur68 - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:58 PM

      People will drag fascist Germany and The Holocaust into things just to prove how right their own argument is. Often its an over the top, beyond-all-logic statement. THIS time? This time it’s pretty spot on. Europeans nearly exterminated the North American People and, when they tired of simply shooting them and wiping out their way of life, they rounded them into “reservations” and left them to starve and die of disease. Along the way Europeans confiscated land, property, children, rights and whatever the hell else they could get by force of arms.

      Even IF the North American Peoples are not offended by the “screaming Indian” logo, those Americans of European descent should be DAMN embarrassed by it. Just because people don’t know their own country’s history doesn’t mean that history isn’t a matter of public record or untrue. Just because the group depicted doesn’t complain at every turn doesn’t mean the depict-ors should just go ahead because “its always been like that”. Caricaturing a group of people whom you’ve nearly destroyed should not be a money making enterprise.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 3, 2013 at 2:08 PM

        You have no idea how much I wish some of the people on here had to take my history class. Sigh.

  25. ronmagnifico - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:37 PM

    I’m a liberal and I love the hat! I love the fact that a lot of the old school logos are coming back. People are too sensitive in today’s world. And as a white liberal I would love to root for the St. Louis White People but I have a feeling the logo would be pretty boring.

    • The Common Man - Jan 3, 2013 at 1:54 PM

      YEAH, politics and basic decency be damned! You’re having fun reminiscing in the glories of your youth, and that’s all that matters! Good for you!

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Who are the favorites for Rookie of the Year?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Soler (3255)
  2. Y. Molina (3252)
  3. R. Castillo (2839)
  4. D. Wright (2231)
  5. D. Murphy (2063)
  1. S. Doolittle (2061)
  2. B. Colon (2049)
  3. D. Ortiz (2027)
  4. T. Lincecum (1960)
  5. R. Cano (1944)