I already explained it. Because said image is supposed to be a racial caricature of a black person with a watermelon. The image is done with the intent of reinforcing a particular stereotype about race. A smiling red face and a feather in a baseball cap does not comment one way or the other about the characteristics of a particular race.
But again, if other people truly don’t view this the way I do then maybe the logo really should be replaced. I won’t be up in arms about it. I just think it would be a shame if it was done, because removing it is a tacit admission that the logo is a racial symbol, when it isn’t used in that context and does not have to be.
Not to belabor the point, but I think what
@David. is saying (and I agree) is that you're using rather subjective and ad hoc lens with respect to which ethnic caricatures are racist and which aren't.
And I think it's the logic that you've presented which begs the question; since, as you said, those Sambo images are completely unacceptable. However, what about other Blackface imagery?
For example, is this unacceptable?
Again, it's difficult to tell by your logic since, on it's face (no pun intended), it's not immediately suggestive of anything. But to you and I we immediately identify this image as racist and horrible. But if you asked someone from say, Japan or the Philippines or South Korea, most would hesitate to call it offensive and otherwise might think it's funny.
So do you see the problem here, and how the logic can be so subjective?
Depending upon when you ask the question and what group is asked, you'll get a different answer as to just how offensive such a caricature is. However, in
our culture,
today; this imagery is remarkably racist. But it hasn't always been; just as Chief Wahoo is still being debated today -- when in 10-20 years we'll likely look back and think quite differently.
Right now, we're realizing that yes, much of what we've accepted as norms are either racist or sexist or homophobic. A lot of people have difficulty adjusting to change, and so, we get a reactionary response (as
@BimboColesHair rightfully pointed out). They're not necessarily bad people, they just aren't able to understand that the wider world might view something like this as not only offensive - but as a Clevelander, it's
embarrassing.
Nonetheless, I would again offer you another hypothetical:
Imagine if the San Francisco 49ers wanted to "honor their Chinese heritage" and made something like this their new mascot:
I'm not sure if you watched the Flintstones; but I remember watching that episode as a kid.. I laughed my ass off.
And remember, I told you I was fairly aware of Chief Wahoo being racist as a kid, right?
I never once thought this was racist, though. This depiction of an Asian man as a tiny, karate-trained, funny-talking little guy. It never occurred to me that this was in any way offensive or played on horrible historic racial stereotypes. Especially considering the conversation Q-Tip and I had (he didn't support this, we just had a conceptual debate) regarding the treatment of Chinese people as an almost sub-human species by our government throughout our history.
But with that said, as a kid, I thought all Japanese people could draw, would wear kimonos, and do some level of ninja-stuff. So, these kinds of caricatures just reinforced that stereotype in my mind. And one might say, well; you grew up, so surely you realized all those stereotypes were wrong, right?
Maybe... or maybe I didn't? Those stereotypes that I enculturated as a child probably have something to do with why I can speak Japanese today.
And that's why such stereotypes are bad and are harmful; because, while some can seem playful others can dehumanize. And the beliefs we learn as children can't always be washed away with knowledge and experience - sometimes, those feelings stay with us, and a stereotype that depicts a people as savage warriors probably isn't representative of the current day realities of Native American people.
And you could say this about any number of stereotypes...
A stereotype about a person being good at math could just as easily be one about a person eating rats for dinner.
A stereotype about a person having an affinity for music and dance (which is 100% untrue
), can just as easily be about a person being predisposed to rape.
And a stereotype about an ethnicity being good with finances could just as easily be turned into a belief that this ethnicity is somehow pulling the strings of world government.
All of these examples have been used, at various points, to dehumanize and justify the subjugation and death of
millions of people.
And while, admittedly, Chief Wahoo isn't going to cause the next genocide; it's a painful reminder of the first genocide America ever committed. That which was against the native indigenous population, a genocide that literally wiped them from the face of the nation we now inhabit.
So yes, many folks find it offensive; and rightfully so. And while you won't likely see any protests at your nearest Native American reservation; that's likely because those folks have a whole hell of a lot more to worry about than the Cleveland Indians embarrassment of a mascot.
Anyway, I appreciate you offering your perspective and I hope you can try to understand why many of us just want to change the logo. It's just not something we should want to keep as a representation of our city.
