Skip to content

Teams will be wearing some ugly hats on the Fourth of July

Jun 2, 2013, 10:52 AM EST

Spare me your patriotic talk. Not everything that has the stars and stripes on it is worthy of praise. And just because Major League Baseball is, once again, putting the stars and stripes on ballplayers’ caps on the Fourth of July doesn’t mean we have to pretend that these caps don’t look ugly. Via UniWatch:

source:

It’s not even the flag pattern that’s the problem. It’s the white/gray, which very rarely looks good on a cap. Well, the flag is a problem on Chief Wahoo. I’m sure native Americans love having the stars and stripes superimposed over the racist logo to give it the sheen of a national endorsement.

They make and sell these every year. And I don’t think they’d keep selling them unless people were buying them. But I can’t remember ever seeing anyone wearing these caps out in the world, can you?

  1. Joe Hansen - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:00 AM

    That Houston logo is pretty awesome though.

  2. misterj167 - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:00 AM

    At least they won’t be wearing shorts. Seeing Don Kessinger’s legs is something that will be burned into my brain forever.

  3. beefytrout - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:05 AM

    These aren’t that bad. The flat bill that they put on caps now is ten times uglier.

  4. decimusprime - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:15 AM

    Craig, you do know the Indian’s have started to move away from “Chief Wahoo” and now use just a C on all thier hats. Started this year, normal and special versions… In the pic you posted you can see it’s the “C”

    • paperlions - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:21 AM

      I’m confused. Do you not see a poxy Chief Wahoo in the far right column of the 2nd row?

      To me, this is especially shitty. “Hey Native Americans, remember when you lived all across the continent and then we killed most of you and relocated the rest and then broke treaty after treaty in our greed to take everything from you? Well, just to rub it in a little we’re going to put our flag across the face of a racist caricature of your ancestors that we murdered.”

      • historiophiliac - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:32 AM

        You know, there’s a lot of Native American vets though (and they’ve fought with the Anglos since colonial days). They made a movie about Native American code talkers once…staring a white guy. Anyway, I generally agree with your sentiment, but there is a way they could make that work. What they have here is not it. This just looks like they added a little Sambo to it to make it worse for the holiday. Yikes!

      • paperlions - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM

        I know….but that was waaaaaay too hard to work into a comment that would be short enough that people might read.

        I know that many NAs have fought on different sides during wars between various European clans, but I’m guessing as soon as they weren’t useful anymore, most of those temporary NA allies were screwed over too.

        Apropos of nothing, I love old re-runs of F-Troop. Who knew that NAs were all Jewish?

      • historiophiliac - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:44 AM

        F Troop? Okay, pops!

        Here’s one difference between where I live and where the rest of you live: The Chickasaw and Muscogee run TV ads here with tidbits about their history, including their veterans and participation in our various wars. It’s actually kind of fun to see how they blend their traditional culture with military service. (Not that the army lets them keep their hair long.)

      • paperlions - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:48 AM

        How much of OK is reservation land? When I used to drive the length of the state (taking 40 to 44) on trips back and forth from Lubbock to StL, I was surprised by the number of tribal issue license plates I would see.

      • historiophiliac - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:01 PM

        Just to be technical, there is a difference between reservations proper (which we did not have here like in other places) and tribal land. Much of our state — including the cities — are built on tribal land but it’s not a reservation. Parts of Tulsa and Oklahoma City actually lie on tribal land. The Indian nations do not have legal jurisdiction over these areas though. They do in other areas though. It’s really complicated and much of it is the result of how things worked out in practice. Anyone who is a member of one of the nations can get a tag/license through their nation though. You don’t have to live on tribal land for that.

      • paperlions - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:07 PM

        Is it not weird to have something be “tribal land” but for the tribe to not have any say over how it is used? Or for non-tribe members to actually own tribal land, which I assume is true if parts of cities are on it and cities real estate is mostly owned by someone.

      • historiophiliac - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:15 PM

        Basically, white people just used it and the BIA looked the other way and now no one will undo it b/c it’s been so long. It’s one of the informal ways they got screwed. On the upside, there’s a pretty big casino in south Tulsa, right along the river, and one on the northeast side of town. It’s legal because both of those areas are technically tribal land. Similarly, there’s one down south along Hwy 75 by the Texas border that’s “in” Durant. You can drive through towns here and see the signs that mark when you’ve crossed onto “tribal land.”

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:08 PM

        Sambo is right. That cap is hideous.

        I hope MLB changes their mind.

      • blacksables - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:22 PM

        “Hey Native Americans, remember when you lived all across the continent and then we killed most of you and relocated the rest and then broke treaty after treaty in our greed to take everything from you?

        Said every group of Indian to every other group of Indian long before the white man showed up.

        Where’s your condemnation for that?

      • paperlions - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:23 PM

        Feel free to provide evidence that tribes committed genocide on one another. Yes, they defended lands and had battles…none decided to exterminate the others and take all of the land for their own.

        You are falsely equating survival with greed.

      • blacksables - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:41 PM

        You’re never able to answer a direct question, are you?

        You always have to try and turn it back the other person with a question that had nothing to do with what you were asked.

        Amazing.

      • paperlions - Jun 2, 2013 at 2:48 PM

        I did answer the question. There is no evidence that native american tribes treated each other like Europeans did. If you provide such evidence, I would similarly condemn that behavior….BUT LACKING SUCH EVIDENCE THERE IS NO REASON TO ANSWER WHEN YOU ARE BEGGING THE QUESTION (assuming facts not in evidence and basing everything on something that is either not true or not shown to be true).

        Now, if you would kindly provide the required evidence necessary, I will condemn away. If you can’t or won’t, kindly fuck off.

      • blacksables - Jun 2, 2013 at 3:10 PM

        NIce. Get put in your place and you have to resort to name calling.

        You’re showing your true colors.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:27 PM

        Said every group of Indian to every other group of Indian long before the white man showed up.

        Where’s your condemnation for that?

        Hey Native Americans, remember when we came to you, offering you gifts of peace, that happened to be intentionally infested with small pox that you had no immunity to?

        How about that?

      • historiophiliac - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM

        sables, no one is defending the way the Apache preyed on the Zuni, the Iroquois Confederacy’s treatment of the Illinois, or anything like that. For the most part, no one even studies it because our society is dismissive of native history. Really, those Indian disputes have become largely obsolete in light of the genocide perpetrated by whites who came here and justified their actions as ordained by God because the people already here weren’t using the land the “right way.”

      • stoutfiles - Jun 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM

        “Hey Native Americans, remember when you lived all across the continent and then we killed most of you”

        We? I know I didn’t kill any Indians. Did you?

        Yes, my ancestors were bad, but I’m not them. Perhaps Chief Wahoo was a joke back then, but it’s not now. Anyone who looks at that logo and thinks less of Indians for it is fooling themselves. The past is the past, but there is no widespread racist hatred of Indians. I’m hard pressed to even find one, especially in Ohio.

        Or we could just get rid of all Indians logos everywhere and try to forget them completely. The teams honor Indians when they use their logos. Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Redskins, Seminoles…they aren’t being racist or making a joke out of it, the PC police just want something else to complain about. Of Indians polled, over 90% don’t care. How many topics can 90% of people agree on something?

      • historiophiliac - Jun 2, 2013 at 1:59 PM

        How exactly did you poll 90% of Indians in America for their feedback?

      • stoutfiles - Jun 2, 2013 at 3:31 PM

        “How exactly did you poll 90% of Indians in America for their feedback?”

        They polled tribes over the recent Redskin talk. Over 90% don’t care, and are proud that they’re associated with an NFL team positively. No Redskin fan thinks less of Indians or is racist towards them, quite the opposite. It is used in a positive manner.

        PC people hear the word “skin” and just assume it’s racist and make a big deal about nothing. It’s NOT a big deal but we have Congress whining about it when they should be doing real work.

      • historiophiliac - Jun 2, 2013 at 4:47 PM

        I think you are referring to the flawed poll recently conducted that was in NO WAY a scientific assessment of the majority of native Americans in this country. Do not try to use that as speaking for native Americans. Also, if most Indians don’t care, why has there been a new push for them to change their name? They had a symposium on this very subject earlier this year, and that did not in any way indicate that most native Americans are cool with these names and images.

        If you’d like, I can ask my mom to do an informal poll when she’s in South Dakota over the next couple of weeks doing work there with some native groups. *That* would be more credible.

    • sfb5761 - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:45 PM

      That Indians’ logo has always looked to me like a fist flipping someone the bird.

  5. ndnut - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:18 AM

    @beefytrout you can bend the bill to your liking. That is why they do that.

    • beefytrout - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:58 AM

      They do that because the “flat bill” look is a current fashion trend. Has nothing to do with giving me the option of bending the bill to my preferred curvature.

  6. historiophiliac - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:19 AM

    I didn’t think you could make Wahoo look worse. I stand corrected. And, the OE D looks terrible (er, turrible)! I wish they’d stop jacking with the hats/unis. If you want them to wear a flag patch, fine. But, this is dumb. (Although, I’m secretly hoping that some year they come out with powdered wig caps. That’s hot!)

    • indaburg - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:07 PM

      :-( The Chief Wahoo looks like blackface on that cap. I know it is not the intent (I expect to break my thumbs down record for that comment), but it looks awful. This is just a cheap, blatant attempt to move more merchandise. Charge me more for a wiener if you must, wear a flag patch–do something else–but dump this misbegotten idea. How about hot dogs with stars and stripes hot dog buns? That’s cute.

      I’m working with PC to celebrate some Canadian holiday across all MLB. Why not? They’ve humored (humoured?) us all this time. I like your powdered wig idea though.

  7. ndnut - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:19 AM

    The white looks good. The grey looks like the U.S. invaded the U.S.S.R.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:48 AM

      Yeah, count me in as one who likes the look of the white + colors + block lettering (Braves, Sox, Cubs and Tigers all look good to me, the Houston one looks great). But holy crap that grey bill makes them awful. Would white on white be that bad?

      And the Indians one is a troll right? Like Van Halen’s M&M rider stipulation to see if people are actually paying attention…

  8. leerosenthall - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:19 AM

    If this really had anything to do with MLB trying to promote patriotism on Independence Day, they’d just have little flag patches representing Betsy Ross’s design sewn onto the players’ regular caps. How stupid and gullible do they think we are?

    I can’t wait to listen to Tom McCarthy drone on about how impressive these f***ing ugly designs are and how I should rush out to buy my favorite player’s at some auction. /smh

    • historiophiliac - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:19 PM

      “Betsy Ross” did not design a flag.

      • leerosenthall - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:40 PM

        I don’t think is been determined definitively that she didn’t, but feel free to conclude that’s the case. Nonetheless, that 13-star flag is beautiful and iconic regardless of who designed it. And it’s a far better choice for commemorating July 4th than those sorry-ass ball-caps.

        http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/summer08/betsy.cfm

      • historiophiliac - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:50 PM

        1) There is no evidence that she did design the flag, so no, she didn’t. There is evidence that others did. The only opposition to that is mythmaking.
        2) Her legal name was Elizabeth Griscom Ross Ashburn Claypoole. She married three times and signed her church register “Elizabeth Claypoole” in the years before her death.
        3) The current flag of the US has 50 stars, For those flying the original 13, you are dishonoring the contributions of 37 other states.

      • blacksables - Jun 2, 2013 at 4:32 PM

        I don’t see a Scott or a Lee listed in those surnames?

        Are you saying Francis was illegitimate, and then not telling us who the father was?

        Was George really the ‘father of our country’?

  9. b453841l - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:25 AM

    USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!! WHOOOOOO!!!!

  10. proudlycanadian - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:26 AM

    I do not know what hats the Jays will wear on July 4, but on July !, I am sure that they will wear their spiffy Maple Leaf hats. They also wore that hat on Memorial Day. The Maple Leaf hat is loved by fans and players alike. It is selling very well.

    • josemartez - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:30 AM

      Am I the only one who thinks that hat is tacky?

      • proudlycanadian - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:32 AM

        Yes, but you have a perfect right to have that opinion.

    • apmn - Jun 2, 2013 at 2:54 PM

      How about a cap with the Queen’s mug on it?

    • jwbiii - Jun 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM

      Here’s the full set. I like Toronto’s.

      https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151412517411927.1073741839.7157811926&type=3

      • proudlycanadian - Jun 2, 2013 at 4:00 PM

        Thanks. Toronto’s is OK.

  11. gmenfan1982 - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:27 AM

    I can’t stand these gimmicky tribute things that sports leagues do. I don’t want to see Stars and Stripes on hats, camo hats on Memorial Day, or pink on players in the NFL. Just looks stupid. Donate some money to the right places as a tribute, leave the uniforms alone. It’s bad enough half of the uniforms in most leagues already look bad.

  12. 13arod - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:44 AM

    they are cool not ugly

  13. decimusprime - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:48 AM

    im sorry, i was mistaken, while they have started using the block C on caps this year the change has yet to be 100%. I use the mobile version of HBT and cant see the whole picture (or watch any video!!!) and with the American flag puking on the team symbols, i mistook the Cubs hat for a new style Indians cap. oops.

  14. heynow13 - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:48 AM

    @Craig Calcaterra the hats look great. Why is this even news? Chief Wahoo is not a racist logo. It’s a cartoon logo. Quit pushing the liberal agenda on us and do your job.

    • leerosenthall - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:51 AM

      The hats are hideous and it isn’t Craig’s “job” to blow smoke up your ignorant ass.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:06 PM

      You don’t see how a cartoon logo can possibly be considered racist?

      And for all the “artists” out there, it never helps your point to elongate a nose.

      Signed,

      A Jewish Guy

      • paperlions - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:11 PM

        So what you are saying is that Chief Wahoo might be based on the “indians” from F-Troop?

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:15 PM

        He might. Wasn’t it a 15-year-old who came up with the winning drawing?

        They don’t make F-Troop anymore, and so it remains dated by its time.

        This is live television, 2013.

  15. airedale1950 - Jun 2, 2013 at 11:58 AM

    Calcaterra, Stop with the tree hugger PC crap about the Indian’s Chief Wahoo. He’s been around a lot longer than you have, and I’m sure the majority of loyal Cleveland baseball fans prefer him 10 to 1 over your liberal ass.
    Write about baseball like you are (over) paid for, and forget the blue state candyass whining you are not being paid to put to print.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:02 PM

      So should he write more about the women-hating, ignorant-of-science racists that the conservatives are?

      By the way, change chief wahoo to a caricature of a black man, or maybe someone in black face. Do you still think it’s not racist?

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:10 PM

        Think? That guy? Thinking is for wimps and puddy tats who prefer Commie Pinkos to God and the Good Ole US of A.

      • paperlions - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:14 PM

        Nah, none of these are racist:

        These either:

      • jimeejohnson - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:33 PM

        Thinking is a mitzvah for some.

      • mrwillie - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:46 PM

        If you are arguing with someone on the internet…..you’ve already lost.

      • thomas844 - Jun 2, 2013 at 1:04 PM

        You must truly know nothing about conservatives. I know many women who are conservatives and I know many conservatives (including myself) who aced their college and graduate school classes in physics, anatomy, and chemistry, so no, we are not ignorant of science just because we tend to be more religious. You are the one who is ignorant by posting such a thing.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jun 2, 2013 at 1:16 PM

        You are the one who is ignorant by posting such a thing.

        Or I’m just making blanket statements about a group of people in response to him doing so?

      • philsieg - Jun 2, 2013 at 1:31 PM

        OK, college boy, conservatives know science. But those same conservatives have decided to put that knowledge aside to stoke the fears and resentments of homophobes, xenophobes, racists, misogynists and those intolerant of any religious belief not their own because it empowers them and satisfies their short-term greed. That actually makes them worse than their ignorant followers because they know better but since it profits them to abandon that knowledge they do. They are why modern conservatism is both morally and intellectually bankrupt.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Jun 2, 2013 at 1:04 PM

      Tree-hugger?

      • historiophiliac - Jun 2, 2013 at 1:56 PM

        Oh, God, please no Rush quotes.

        /plugs ears lalalalala I can’t hear you lalalala

  16. digitaldonnie - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:08 PM

    Craig…in 1915 when the owner of the Cleveland Naps requested a team name change, I’m pretty sure there was no racist attempt to belittle American Indians in any way. So why, almost 100 years later do you, amoung a small amount of people cry racism? Do you think an Oriole complains about a cartoon pic of them on a hat?

    • koufaxmitzvah - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:11 PM

      Actually, this debate has been going on for over a century.

    • paperlions - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:16 PM

      Here is the difference, as you don’t seem to be able to spot it. The Oriole logo LOOKS JUST LIKE A FREAKIN’ BALTIMORE ORIOLE. In contrast, the racist caricature that is Chief Wahoo looks nothing like a native american (who, by the way, we have known were not from Indian for over 500 years) and has grotesque features that are purposefully belittling.

      • historiophiliac - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:23 PM

        Yeah, but if Orioles could talk, I bet he’s right and they’d bitch about it. Birds!

      • paperlions - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:25 PM

        Orioles talk a LOT.

        http://www.birdjam.com/birdsong.php?id=2

        I’m pretty sure that translates to “Chris Davis FTW.”

      • historiophiliac - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:27 PM

        I mean English, like God intended.

        Crush did not have the win yesterday.

  17. mazblast - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:29 PM

    1. It’s just another way to sell a lot of crap.
    2. In this case, it really is crap.

    The more this goes on, the more “alternate” caps, jerseys, pants, the “awareness” specials, the colors that have nothing to do with the team, the more I’m getting to be “old school”–one hat, one home uniform mostly white, one road uniform mostly gray. I’m amazed that players and coaches even know which uniforms, hats, etc., to wear on a given day, it must be posted in the clubhouse.

    And please, all sports, drop the “throwback” stuff. In most cases, those old unis were dropped for good reasons.

    • jimeejohnson - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:34 PM

      Except for those damned Yankees and their eternal pinstripes.

      • mazblast - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:50 PM

        As much as I loathe the Yankees, I give them credit for resisting what must be overwhelming pressure from the suits. The pinstripes are cool and should never change. Second-coolest award goes to the Tigers’ home uniforms.

  18. hbk72777 - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:45 PM

    “Spare me your patriotic talk”

    Well, this article won’t be biased .

    The new trend in blogs, feign outrage, shock, horror in mundane things, just to fill up article space.

  19. psunick - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:48 PM

    Curious why the Chicago Blackhawks aren’t pelted with self-righteous commentary like this. At least the Indians and the Redskins use a logo commensurate with their team names; the Blackhawks use a gratuitous picture of an Indian head, and their team name has nothing at all to do with Native Americans.

    Isn’t that even more insulting?

    • mazblast - Jun 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM

      Black Hawk was a Sauk chief who led the Native American forces in what became known as the Black Hawk War in the 1830s. Most of the NA forces were from tribes in and near Illinois.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hawk_War

      So, it’s hardly gratuitous. It’s related to a distinguished Native American warrior, and it’s tied to local history in Illinois.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jun 2, 2013 at 1:23 PM

      At least the Indians and the Redskins use a logo commensurate with their team names; the Blackhawks use a gratuitous picture of an Indian head, and their team name has nothing at all to do with Native Americans.

      This is a joke right? First, the Indians name has nothing to do with Native Americans. The ignorance of Columbus thinking he landed in India is what gave the indigenous people the term “indians”. Second, the logo of the Indians is a caricature of a Native American. Pretty much every complaint you have of the Blackhawks applies to the Indians…

  20. thomas844 - Jun 2, 2013 at 1:00 PM

    Granted they aren’t masterpieces but the hats aren’t THAT ugly….

  21. philliesblow - Jun 2, 2013 at 1:10 PM

    I clicked on the pic with this post to see if it would enlarge the hats, instead it showed the same pic with the word NEXT in green. When I clicked on that it took me to a picture of an old guy (Old Gator?) in a Stars & Stripes Speedo. Much more disturbing than Chief Wahoo.

    • apmn - Jun 2, 2013 at 3:05 PM

      I didn’t believe you and now my eyes are paying the price…

      What is bizarre is his tanline. He must have been wearing a larger speedo the day before, and then decided that he wasn’t showing enough skin, so he put on a smaller one.

  22. ramblingalb - Jun 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

    Many people are patriotic, and will love and buy these caps. If you do not love your country, you probably won’t. That said, I’m not sure why you feel the need to tear something down just because of it.

    • mazblast - Jun 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

      And most people will probably say, “I don’t care how patriotic I am, or how much I love my team, that’s some ugly sh** and I’m not buying it.”

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jun 2, 2013 at 5:06 PM

        that’s some ugly sh** and I’m not buying it.”

        Isn’t buying ugly shit the epitome of being an American? How else do you explain Ed Hardy gear or those Affliction t-shirts?

  23. mazblast - Jun 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM

    My theory on the whole Chief Wahoo nontroversy is that if the PC crowd would just do something they’re apparently totally unable to do–namely, shut up for a while–the logo will finally fade into obscurity. IMO it’s not nearly as tied to the team as, say, the Washington Redskins’ team name. Just let it go a little, maybe just STFU for once in your politically correct, can’t-be-happy-unless-we’re-bitching-about-something lives, and the Indians and their fans won’t dig their heels in nearly as much as they do now.

    As for that “special” Cleveland hat, wow, that’s the worst of the bunch, and that’s saying something. I wish the Tribe players (am I allowed to say “Tribe”? Is that un-PC also?) would take a team vote and say, “We’re not wearing that sh**.”

  24. Jack Marshall - Jun 2, 2013 at 2:12 PM

    F Troop was sublime….one of best “anything for a laugh” sitcoms ever. Don’t diss F Troop. Imagine: the name of the Indian tribe was a set up for a joke the writer’s didn’t use until the second season. What timing!

  25. barkleyblows - Jun 2, 2013 at 2:21 PM

    Another great article. Typical NBC crap.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Maddon has high hopes for Cubs
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. P. Sandoval (5724)
  2. Y. Tomas (3932)
  3. H. Ramirez (3734)
  4. J. Lester (3262)
  5. A. LaRoche (2249)
  1. J. Upton (2226)
  2. J. Bruce (2205)
  3. T. Hunter (2032)
  4. I. Davis (2026)
  5. M. Scherzer (1826)