Skip to content

The Indians are changing their primary logo from Chief Wahoo to the block C

Jan 8, 2014, 12:13 PM EDT

Got some controversial news you’d like to take cover from? How about letting it slip on Hall of Fame induction day? That seems to be what is happening here:

As Lukas notes, visually, this is not a big deal. We’re still going to see Wahoo all over the place. But make no mistake: this is a big deal. It’s a significant move which comports pretty nicely with what I have long suspected: Indians management’s desire to slowly, slowly marginalize Chief Wahoo with an eye towards his eventual elimination.

I first floated this idea a couple of years ago when I noticed that, at the Indians’ spring training facility in Goodyear, Arizona, Chief Wahoo is hard to find. The buildings and signage all feature the block C logo and the block C cap is worn far more often during spring training than in the regular season. With the introduction of the Indians’ alternate uniforms in the past few years — alternates that are worn far more often than most teams wear their alternates — my suspicions along these lines have increased.

Of course, the Indians have denied that they are phasing out Wahoo. As I probably would too if I were in their position. They have a large and loyal fan base who has been wearing that odious red-faced mascot on their caps and shirts for decades now. The team doesn’t want to make an abrupt change, with an attendant announcement, which effectively says “hey, fans? You all are racists in our eyes now, ok?” They also don’t want to lose merchandise sales. And to be clear, Wahoo still exists even on the alternate jerseys in the form of a sleeve patch and apparently still will even now that the official logo has changed.

But this fall the Indians surveyed fans about Wahoo. And the heat being brought to bear on the Washington Redskins for their racist name and iconography is no doubt being noticed on Ontario Street up in Cleveland. And, even if they once again deny it today, it’s impossible to see this move as anything other than a further marginalization of Chief Wahoo. One that, in my view, will inevitably lead to his elimination at one point in the not-too-distant future, even if it’s done without a press release or official announcement.

And good for the Cleveland Indians for doing so.

170 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. kyzslew77 - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:24 PM

    PC POLICE RUN AMOK

    IT’S NOT RACIST, IT’S HERITAGE

    WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT GOSH

    Just wanted to beat the handful of commenters who usually show up in stories like this and actually mean those things when they say them to the punch.

    • greatmiamisportsmind - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:26 PM

      /\ brilliant

    • dluxxx - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:28 PM

      You forgot:
      “This Indian guy I know doesn’t find it offensive…”

      • kyzslew77 - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:43 PM

        Dan Snyder and his army of “real Native American” consultants says hello.

      • 18thstreet - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:50 PM

        I think you mean, “I’m 1/16 Cherokee, and I don’t find it offensive.”

    • skids003 - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:37 PM

      Ah, yes, the PC Police win again.

      • philsieg - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:44 PM

        You must be a big Megyn Kelly fan.

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 PM

        “Who?”

        -Jeopardy contestants

      • skids003 - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:48 PM

        Never heard of her.

    • tfbuckfutter - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:42 PM

      IT’S CHIEF WAHOO NOT ADAM AND STEVE!

      • historiophiliac - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:27 PM

        God, I love you.

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM

        I know.

      • braxtonrob - Jan 13, 2014 at 11:39 PM

        said Han Solo to Princess Leia

    • dgprice54 - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 PM

      Once again…

      Within the First Amendment, it states:

      “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech…..”

      It doesnt say: The Cleveland Indians shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech

    • fanofevilempire - Jan 8, 2014 at 1:56 PM

      good thing your heritage has no connection to the Native Indian.

    • tfbuckfutter - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:18 PM

      You actually forgot the always clever “Oh yeah? Well maybe bears are offended by the Cubs mascot!”

      • historiophiliac - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:29 PM

        Careful. There’s a literate Oriole in this online community. Don’t start him up again. You know how those birds are.

      • jrbdmb - Jan 8, 2014 at 3:53 PM

        Reply was for the OP. Shame how so many like to throw around “First Amendment” with absolutely no idea what it really means.

        As said so eloquently in Animal House “isn’t this an indictment of our educational institutions in general?”

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM

        You…uh….you kind of missed the entire point of the OP I think.

    • jrbdmb - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:54 PM

      “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT GOSH”

      The First Amendment means the Indians can use whatever logo they want.

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 8, 2014 at 3:32 PM

        Who was this post for?

      • mckludge - Jan 8, 2014 at 9:36 PM

        Yes they can. And we can berate them for doing so.

    • Old Gator - Jan 8, 2014 at 3:30 PM

      @kyszlew77 – major misread. Your A-caps obscured the sarcasm font. My apologies. Please consider my riposte a sort of teratogenic pat on the back.

  2. dluxxx - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:27 PM

    Good.

  3. strictlythedanks - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:29 PM

    How about some creativity?

    not a boring C

    • pestiesti - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:39 PM

      The C stands for creativity.

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:42 PM

        A for effort on that one.

    • jarathen - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:04 PM

      A “C” in the “Indians” script would have been nice.

  4. Jason Lukehart - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:30 PM

    It’s not clear to me what is actually changing, if not the uniforms/hats. Does this mean the logo used during broadcasts will be the block C, or the one featured for their icon on MLB.com, etc.? Short of word from the team, or at least a tangible change being identified by Lukas (or someone else), I’m not sure what the story is here.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:35 PM

      Basically, yes. The MLB Style Guide lists primary logos and those are used for official purposes. They can put anything on their hats they want, but say there’s an MLB banquet, the Indians table will have a little Block C placard now.

      That seems insignificant, but I think it’s the camel’s nose under the tent.

      • dluxxx - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:51 PM

        HUMP DAY!!!

      • fanofevilempire - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:03 PM

        I think it is great what the ownership is doing.
        I think it very honorable to the Native Indian.
        Good Job!

      • Jason Lukehart - Jan 8, 2014 at 3:17 PM

        I agree then, this is a significant change. Thanks for the clarification.

      • moogro - Jan 8, 2014 at 7:43 PM

        Joe Camel’s nose.

  5. dakotaandotter - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:34 PM

    i loved Chief Wahoo. i would love to know what the results of the polling amond fans was. as said above this is not discrimination, it’s about heritage.

    • kopy - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:42 PM

      It’s about money. We’re reaching the tipping point where people less likely to spend money on the Indians with that current logo outweigh the number less likely to spend if they switch it.

      But 95% of people going to the games probably don’t care.

      • dakotaandotter - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:16 PM

        if 95% of the people don’t care how is it about money?

      • kopy - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:43 PM

        Because 5% of their non-shared revenue is still a lot of money.

      • bigbuffguy95 - Jan 8, 2014 at 4:49 PM

        Yeah, I think there’s some truth to that. I’m an Indians fan, but I would never buy a hat with Chief Wahoo on it because I’d be embarrassed to wear it. I always look for the hats with the block C.

    • tfbuckfutter - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 PM

      When the “heritage” is discriminatory it’s about discrimination.

      “Mmm, we see your POINT about slavery….but see, the thing is….we’ve just always done it. You know, it’s kind of a tradition so….you know….we’re going to go ahead and keep doing it. But it’s just about the heritage and all ya see.”

      -Actual quote from Jefferson Davis.

    • 18thstreet - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:53 PM

      I agree with you that it is about heritage — the embarrassing legacy of the worst of our history. Such a heritage should be apologized for, not celebrated.

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:56 PM

        It’s very telling that Germans are ashamed of their Nazi history, yet rednecks and hillbillies in this country want to display and defend the Confederate flag, and suggest it is anything other than racist.

        Pretty sure one of our dumbassed Carolinas still flies that piece of crap over their state house.

      • raysfan1 - Jan 8, 2014 at 1:37 PM

        You are incorrect. South Carolina only flies the Confederate battle flag at the monument to the Confederate veterans of the Civil War. It’s on state house grounds but not flying over the capitol itself anymore.

        It should also be pointed out that there is a difference between the actual flag of the Confederacy, which I have seen some idiots fly and which can only be construed as racist, and the far more familiar confederate battle flag, which for some really is only about honoring the valor of the Confederate soldier. Please note the “some”– I’ve lived in the south most of my life, have a friend who had crosses burned on his lawn for daring to date a white girl, so I’m not a head in the sand idiot. Most southerners do not use either flag at all, and again some only do so in honor of their ancestors who fought so bravely for the wrong cause.

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 8, 2014 at 1:52 PM

        rays, no accusations from me toward you, so don’t take any of that the wrong way.

        But the defense of the flag, in any use, is off-base.

        They had ancestors who died fighting for racism. That’s not something to be celebrated. It’s something to be ashamed of.

        Lots of Germans had ancestors die under the Nazi flag. They are smart enough to be ashamed by it.

      • dakotaandotter - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:25 PM

        i guess people just look at this different. i am part indian and don’t see it as offensive. i know a lot of indians and indian groups have expressed the same. the reason these symbols are used to begin with is because they are a part of our heritage. if the intent from the beginning or in the present or anywhere in between is to defame or demean in the any way then i would agree it’s wrong. should we make the pirates get rid of their logo because of what pirates have done several hundred years ago in the americas?

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:35 PM

        Jesus Christ.

        You just hit almost every single argument that was mocked in the initial post.

      • raysfan1 - Jan 8, 2014 at 3:17 PM

        Tbuckfutter–
        We aren’t arguing here. There is still a difference between the Nazi flag and the Confederate battle flag too, in that the Nazi flag was also the national political flag.

        I also lived in Germany for 4 years and our family had friends who were either Whermacht/Luftwaffe veterans themselves or children/grandchildren of those soldiers and airmen. They do honor the memory of their comrades and ancestors. They at the same time are ashamed and embarrassed about the evils perpetrated by the Nazi regime.

        Most southerners honor their ancestors’ valor and acknowledge that what they fought for was wrong. Others will also point out that many if the soldiers did not consciously fight for slavery, that they saw themselves as Virginians or Floridians or whatever and not as Americans and thus they felt they were simply obeying the orders of their government. (Yes, I know that’s the same cop out certain Nazi war criminals used in their own defense after WW II. I’ll only add here that there is a difference between a general saying that and an enlisted person saying it.) It is unfortunate that racists have used the battle flag for racists purposes, but I reiterate use of the Confederate battle flag is not automatically racist. Use of the Confederate political flag is. South Carolina also should not have flown the battle flag over its state house; that was clearly political and racist in nature. Having it as part of the veterans’ memorial, in my view, is however appropriate.

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 8, 2014 at 3:28 PM

        rays, I respect your opinion. Mine is that when I see a Confederate flag, I am completely comfortable making the assumption that the person raising/wearing regularly uses the n-word in their private life. We’ll have to agree to disagree here.

        However, assuming you are also a white male who isn’t racist (that’s what I’ve gotten from your posts in the past anyway) I would imagine you have had the same experiences I have here in Florida, which is the assumption by other white males that you ARE racist, so you have to have been witness to the same casual use of racial slurs that I have in private settings.

        Almost daily I see how mired in “heritage” the white south is.

      • raysfan1 - Jan 8, 2014 at 5:03 PM

        Tbuckfutter,
        I am male and mostly white (small part Miami). I look lily white though. Yes, I have witnessed exactly what you just posted about, and not just in the south. I have been very careful to say some do not use the Confederate battle flag with racist intent; anything more would have been stupid on my part. For myself, I’d prefer that flag stay at the monuments and cemeteries and off of the pickup trucks.

        As far as I know, all my ancestors who fought in the Civil War did so for the Union. (I can only trace one branch to around 1890.) So that flag is no part of my own heritage.

      • raysfan1 - Jan 8, 2014 at 5:17 PM

        Now, to the topic of the article itself…
        As I said a moment ago, I am mostly white, part Native American. I am as proud of my Native American ancestry as I am the Scottish and German parts that together make me a typical American mutt.

        I have zero problem with the team name “Indian.” (See the post earlier this week about the Spokane Indians’ use of the Salish language on their team patch. It’s pretty cool.)

        I am not offended, per se, by Chief Wahoo and do not feel somehow diminished by it. However, it absolutely is racist. It is nothing but a Native American version of the “black sambo” caricature that has quite properly been deemed socially unacceptable in our culture as a whole. Wahoo needs to follow “sambo” out of the mainstream and into the history books. I applaud today’s move by the Cleveland Indians and Hope Craig is correct that this is an effort to gradually phase Wahoo out.

    • pastabelly - Jan 8, 2014 at 3:21 PM

      Yup, Chief Wahoo was a real tribute to Native Americans everywhere. He’s right up there with the portrayal of Indians by the 1960s sitcom F-Troop.

      http://www.tvworthwatching.com/contributors/2011/05/14/F-Troop-Hekowis.jpg

  6. bigtrav425 - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:35 PM

    Want to ruin even more of your fan base and make even less money and attendance figures?….Completely phase out Chief Wahoo….it’s a part of the team,city and legacy.dont fall victim to all this overly PC bs !

    • unclemosesgreen - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:44 PM

      That’s the same basic argument that was used by segregationists. Congratulations.

      • asimonetti88 - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:40 PM

        baseball logos… just like slavery?

      • unclemosesgreen - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:42 PM

        Nope, just like segregation doesn’t equal slavery. Your reductio ad absurdum has been seen and acknowledged.

      • asimonetti88 - Jan 8, 2014 at 3:54 PM

        You use that term but I’m not sure you understand what it means. Anyway, I’m not arguing the notion that the logo is racist or not, but I do find it amusing to see the extremes each side of this discussion go to. It’s discussions like these that prove Godwin’s Law.

      • unclemosesgreen - Jan 8, 2014 at 4:00 PM

        This is one of the stupidest things anyone has ever written to me. Go give yourself a swirlie.

      • unclemosesgreen - Jan 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM

        Not only are you being stupid, it’s a vile, obnoxious kind of stupid.

      • asimonetti88 - Jan 8, 2014 at 4:04 PM

        I would say the guy whose comment began this whole discussion’s comment was far more vile. Again, I’m not disagreeing with you, I am just pointing out the extremes each side is using rather than rational discussion. I prefer to not exaggerate to make a point.

    • mogogo1 - Jan 8, 2014 at 3:41 PM

      They’ve been limiting the use of Chief Wahoo for the past several years. He already has been dropped from the road uniform. The home hats and one of the alternate uniforms were all that is left.

      And best of luck finding anybody who will skip attending a game because of what logo is on the hats. Only people who will say that are those who weren’t going to go anyway.

  7. Old Gator - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:35 PM

    This is a good start. As for that idiot kyzslew, hey, slavery isn’t racist, it’s heritage. Segregation isn’t racist, it’s heritage. Native American genocide wasn’t racist, it’s heritage. Now, you and all the other immigrants of Polish descent, go sit in the Heritage section at the back of the bus.

    • unclemosesgreen - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:43 PM

      Whoops – you forgot the /s

    • nymets4ever - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:54 PM

      Yo, he was clearly being sarcastic.

    • tfbuckfutter - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:54 PM

      There is no “back of the bus” on a Polish bus.

      Because a Polish bus is a unicycle.

      /zing

      • Old Gator - Jan 8, 2014 at 1:04 PM

        Well, I didn’t mean that to be a license to tell Polish jokes. Now</i you’re in for it. I get accused of anti-Hispanic racism for calling my local rooting interest the Feesh, as if Latin immigrants flatten their i’s when they pronounce them.

      • skids003 - Jan 8, 2014 at 1:19 PM

        I guess it’s OK to bash one group of people, but not another? I would like the list of groups it’s OK to bash, and the groups it’s not. Can someone from the PC Police please list that for me? The most tolerant once again is the most intolerant.

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 8, 2014 at 1:30 PM

        skids, if you think that awful joke was serious than you’re an idiot.

        That was the point of it. That it was a ridiculously stupid and off base stereotype about a group of people.

        But at least I didn’t make a huge costume of a Polish guy on a unicycle for thousands of baseball fans to laugh at.

      • skids003 - Jan 8, 2014 at 1:37 PM

        Yes it was ridiculously stupid. No more so than jokes about other groups of people.

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 8, 2014 at 1:54 PM

        Precisely.

        Much like Chief Wahoo. A caricature is a bad joke about a group of people.

    • 4cornersfan - Jan 8, 2014 at 1:09 PM

      Maybe the references to slavery are not the best way to make a point in this instance. Many Native American tribes kept slaves before and after the influx of Europeans. The Cherokees, for instance, kept Black slaves until the Civil War. There was a slave revolt a few years before the war started where a group of Blacks attempted to escape from the Cherokees to Mexico. They were recaptured and the leaders were executed by the tribe.

      • fanofevilempire - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:13 PM

        who documented this information on slavery and execution by Cherokee Nation?

      • nrbcom - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:37 PM

        That Yankee had never heard of it, so obviously 4corner must have been lying. Who taught you history Yank? lol

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_Slave_Revolt_in_the_Cherokee_Nation

      • historiophiliac - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:52 PM

        Actually, a number of tribes (not just the Cherokee) took slaves — often captives taken in battle — and they were integrated into the tribes. Many of them had a path to full citizenship within the tribes. This was the practice before white contact even and one of the ways they dealt with population problems. The slavery issue is one of the reasons the Cherokee (and some others) joined the Confederacy. (FYI, the Cherokee Nation has its Proclomation posted on its website, if you’re interested in reading their reasoning.) Of course, this drove the tribes into civil war as well. After the Civil War, the Union forced them to free their slaves and grant them citizenship within the tribe (but, of course, the Indians — and by extension their new freedmen members — were not given American citizenship). It is important to note, though, that slavery among the tribes was not identical to that among whites — most especially because their legal codes were not built on property ownership.

      • Old Gator - Jan 8, 2014 at 3:41 PM

        Slaveholding was a common practice among some tribes even prior to the European infestation of North America, though such slaves were usually captives taken in battle. The Cherokee Nation, being located in the south, held African chattel slaves both for economic and political reasons, to seem “more like” their White neighbors.

        A more disturbing issue, perhaps, was that free Blacks in the south owned slaves as well:
        http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

    • kyzslew77 - Jan 8, 2014 at 1:10 PM

      Sad emoticon.

  8. kiwicricket - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM

    So does this now mean that the Cleveland Indians own the letter ‘C’ ? Corp. America has me confused sometimes.

    • fanofevilempire - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:16 PM

      only the block C.
      please keep up.

    • asimonetti88 - Jan 8, 2014 at 4:25 PM

      No, Cookie Monster from Sesame Street owns it, that’s why he does the letter of the day.

  9. Steve A - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:39 PM

    As a Tigers fan still embarrased by that mid-90’s abomination of a logo change (Tiger through the D), media outlets are slow to update their graphics. I’m guessing we may see Chief Wahoo for many years on TV; although the negative connotations and attention surrounding Chief Wahoo may accelerate its disappearance as the Indians’ logo.

    • historiophiliac - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM

      What??? I love the Tiger through the D.

  10. steelerfanforlife - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:39 PM

    Yay!! Maybe some real baseball news now!!

  11. KR - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:41 PM

    It was really Posnanski’s thing he wrote about it awhile ago that convinced me they should make the change. I don’t think it’s that big a deal, but that’s exactly why they should change it. Teams change logos all the time, for far stupider reasons than this.

    • fanofevilempire - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:21 PM

      I grew up with the Red Men, Orange Men and they did it and nobody died.
      I respect the many High schools who have made the change too.

  12. KR - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:41 PM

    Also, still waiting for the Braves to “phase out” the Tomahawk Chop.

    • fanofevilempire - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:24 PM

      yeah,Florida State too.

  13. phillysports1 - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:42 PM

    Ugliest logo . That smile on their hats is one of the best logos ever in baseball !!

    • cofran2004 - Jan 8, 2014 at 3:38 PM

      They should get rid of the face, but keep the teeth. 9 out of 10 dentists agree… the tenth dentist is an idiot.

  14. losangelesfan - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:45 PM

    I think the Dodgers should have a logo. I like the heritage idea. How ’bout a drunk jumping out of the way of a streetcar? I like it.

    • kitnamania13 - Jan 8, 2014 at 1:13 PM

      The Dodgers logo should be a fan dodging bullets in the stadium parking lot.

    • fanofevilempire - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:25 PM

      why not.

  15. 4cornersfan - Jan 8, 2014 at 12:51 PM

    I wouldn’t read too much into the changes in the uniform. I am sure that any intellectual property rights that Cristoforo Colombo had on the name are long expired.

  16. jm91rs - Jan 8, 2014 at 1:06 PM

    This is the way to do it. Slowly phase it out and eventually people will say “Hey, remember Chief Wahoo? When did they get rid of him?” Do it before you’re forced to do it with a bunch of bad publicity.

    P.S. Can’t they do better than the block C? That’s a terrible logo.

  17. kitnamania13 - Jan 8, 2014 at 1:12 PM

    Great. Cleveland now has the most boring baseball logo ever to go with the most boring football logo ever and the most boring basketball logo ever.

  18. 4cornersfan - Jan 8, 2014 at 1:36 PM

    I believe that the issue over names and logos is irrelevant and silly. It has been used as a tool by tribal politicians to gain support and by lawyers and professors to create an issue. The working man or woman on the res could care less, they are just trying to feed their families and put something aside for their old age like most everybody else. Worse, rather than address any real problems the issue distracts from the very real social problems and bad leadership in the tribes. For instance, just about every President of the Navajo Tribe in the last 30 years has gone to jail for corruption, along with other executives. People on the reservation regularly die of exposure, disease and alcoholism. For many if not most people on the reservation it is a hard life and elitist discussions about logos are not relevant.

    • 4cornersfan - Jan 8, 2014 at 1:51 PM

      I should say “Chairman and President,” I think the title was changed about 20 years ago. The most recent, Shirley Joe, was charged with corruption involving tribal contracts and buying votes but I don’t think he was convicted.

    • fanofevilempire - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:28 PM

      you can’t fix stupid.

  19. km9000 - Jan 8, 2014 at 1:41 PM

    It’s a start, but I would’ve preferred their alternate “I” logo. It’s a little more unique, and is part of the team name on the jersey anyway.

    • Minoring In Baseball - Jan 9, 2014 at 3:26 AM

      They would probably look too similar the Indianapolis Indians logos/hat. I can’t see Indy changing their mascot or logo any time soon, either, though.
      http://minoringinbaseball.com/

  20. daveginoly - Jan 8, 2014 at 1:53 PM

    “And the heat being brought to bear on the Washington Redskins for their racist name and iconography…”

    I find this comment offensive. It’s couched as a statement of fact instead of as an opinion. “Racism” is found in intent, not merely in content. The “Redskins” name is intended to invoke the strength and resilience of the Native American, it is not intended to insult or degrade. There is nothing “racist” about the name, although the name itself may actually be offensive to some. There is a difference between “offensive” and “racist”; something can be the former without being the latter.

    • historiophiliac - Jan 8, 2014 at 3:02 PM

      It’s unfortunate that you can’t tell the difference in this case.

      • daveginoly - Jan 8, 2014 at 4:27 PM

        So your contention is that when the team was named the “Redskins” that it was intentionally meant to disparage, denigrate, or insult Native Americans? Why would anyone give their team any name with the intent to insult anyone? Are the Boston Celtics so named to disparage the Irish? How about the “Fighting Irish”? Does that name not imply the Irish are a violent people? Do you think the name is intended to insult the Irish?

        So instead of just disagreeing with me, can you provide any evidence that the team was named “Redskins” with the intent to insult Native Americans?

        It’s a shame you don’t know that simple disagreement does not constitute an “argument” or “refutation,” and it is certainly not “evidence” of the correctness of your position. By siding with the people making the claim that the name is racist, it’s incumbent upon the claimant (you) to bring forth his proofs.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 8, 2014 at 5:19 PM

        If you don’t know the argument already, you are living in a hole. If you aren’t able to figure out for yourself why reducing a group of people to the color of their skin is offensive, you are either obtuse or you need to work on your reasoning skills. I am not playing your silly game. You may think that you sound thoughtful and studied, but you do not. There are any number of helpful resources out there that could educate you on this issue, if you were at all interested in looking. Or, maybe you only learn things when other people make you. Or, you think you are clever by insisting other people do the heavy lifting for you.

      • Reflex - Jan 8, 2014 at 5:16 PM

        Have you bothered to read the history of the Redskins franchise? I ask because not only was the team originally named the Boston Braves and intentionally changed to the more inflammatory Redskins name in their first few seasons, their owners were by far the most racist in professional sports, the last team in the NFL to permit integration and repeatedly aggressively against minority rights.

        If we were talking about a team that had no history of being racist you might have a point. But the Redskins entire history is a racist one.

  21. bat42boy - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:28 PM

    Nothing wrong with the Chief Wahoo logo. It’s been good for the past 100 years and should be good for the next 100 years. Too many so-called political correct activists out there who are trying to ruin sports. They all should shut up and start talking about the economy, health care and putting people back to work. That’s far, far more important.

    • Old Gator - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM

      BS. The continued marginalization and derision of a race is damned well important, especially considering the atrocious conditions of economics, health care and employment on and around so many reservations. That repulsive logo demeans even you, though you don’t seem cognizant of how.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 8, 2014 at 3:05 PM

        You can’t do two things at once! Don’t be crazy. Also, clearly, these are unrelated issues. Just because they are both about the life and culture of Native American groups doesn’t mean they are in any way connected.

        /s

    • tfbuckfutter - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:37 PM

      Hahaha.

      Yeah, because those who take up social causes are BOUND to have other political opinions you will be 100% on board with.

    • raysfan1 - Jan 9, 2014 at 1:18 AM

      Here, go to this website for The Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memoribilia, look at the caricatures they have of African Americans and then come back and tell us Chief Wahoo is anything other than a racist caricature of a NativeAmerican.
      http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/news/jimcrow/index.htm

  22. nrbcom - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:39 PM

    This is fantastic news! Being that the only way we as Americans honor native Indian tribes in our country anymore is through the naming of sports teams, if we can just get all of those teams to change their names we won’t have to be bothered to remember anything about Indians anymore.

    • tfbuckfutter - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:49 PM

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

  23. cfballfan1 - Jan 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM

    Don’t forget the block letter “P” for that logo change.

    • historiophiliac - Jan 8, 2014 at 3:06 PM

      Pittsburgh?

  24. musketmaniac - Jan 8, 2014 at 3:34 PM

    There should be laws that t.v. and film makers have to follow when it comes to historical content. My favorite is white people in Africa hunting for slaves. lol that’s not how it went down. tribes sold other tribes that they conquered to the slavers.

    • historiophiliac - Jan 8, 2014 at 3:55 PM

      Please try to stay relevant, son.

  25. tribeguy07 - Jan 8, 2014 at 3:50 PM

    I understand phasing out Wahoo but there has to be something better than that dumb block c, it’s so boring and generic whoever designed it should be fired.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Alex Gordon, MVP candidate
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (4994)
  2. Y. Molina (2962)
  3. J. Soler (2822)
  4. D. Ortiz (2671)
  5. B. Colon (2212)
  1. M. Cuddyer (2179)
  2. D. Wright (2136)
  3. M. Machado (2119)
  4. B. Posey (2116)
  5. Y. Darvish (2102)