Chief Wahoo Discussion

[Lee]

What if most believed Its not racist?

Define most. If 99% dont find it racist and a local tribe or two were fighting to keep it, then keep it, but if many are indifferent but several tribes find it racist, then get rid of it.

I am of the belief that like a Browns QB, Chief Wahoo's days are numbered.

 

[David.]

Define most. If 99% dont find it racist and a local tribe or two were fighting to keep it, then keep it, but if many are indifferent but several tribes find it racist, then get rid of it.

I am of the belief that like a Browns QB, Chief Wahoo's days are numbered.

Thats what im getting at. Setting the precedent at "people are offended" to change things such as the face of a major league franchise is perniscious.

People can be offended by anything. And are. Can't change the world to accustom that.

90% of natives think having a problem with "redskins" is silly

 

[AZ_]

Define most. If 99% dont find it racist and a local tribe or two were fighting to keep it, then keep it, but if many are indifferent but several tribes find it racist, then get rid of it.

I am of the belief that like a Browns QB, Chief Wahoo's days are numbered.

What about all the Native Americans that were already killed? They don't have an opinion now, so we should just focus on the small group that do?

I think they'd have bigger fish to fry, like keeping their population alive.


But the logo is obviously a racist caricature, whether or not it offends people should be beside the point, especially since your main beef with this generation seems to be how easily offended so many people are.

 

[gourimoko]

90% of natives think having a problem with "redskins" is silly

The poll you're referring to stated that roughly 9/10 self-identifying Native Americans weren't bothered by the name Redskins. Within the same poll, 27% of respondents stated the term 'Redskin' was 'disrespectful,' which demonstrates there is a disconnect between the top-line and the cross-tab data with respect to respondents understanding of the questions asked.

More importantly, it was conducted by the Washington Post, and has been blasted as having a very peculiar methodology given whom was polled and how the pollsters verified they were talking to the intended audience.

By contrast, a more comprehensive survey/study (not simply a poll) done by James Fenelon out of California State University found that 67% of Native Americans (with some effort made to verify their identity) found the term Redskin to be offensive. Only 20% disagreed.

When discussing controlling for sociological factors, Fenelon states: “One key to the fallacious polls is that a great many whites claim Native ancestry, especially when anonymously called. In evaluating typical national random sample surveys, the key question about the survey is who are the ‘Native’ Americans they surveyed? A great many white Americans, for example, claim Native American ancestry (including my Scotch-Irish rural grandfather), with either no evidence or credibility or very tiny ancestry generations back.”

p.s.

Spoiler

Just picking up where we left off in the other thread: methodology is important. Bias, in this case, is not. This is a good example as to what I mean by that.

We could point to the fact that it's the Washington Post, and that they're rehashing a poll done from 2003 and finding a similar result with similar methodology with the intent to sell newspapers and subscriptions; however, it's unnecessary and their motives are irrelevant.

The flawed methodology in the poll speaks for itself; and by asking active members of tribes the same question, and getting wildly different results, one can demonstrate such a flaw. In fact, the poll itself demonstrates the question leads the respondent, since a statistically significant group of respondents (roughly 1 in 5) stated that the term Redskin was 'disrespectful' but .. did not 'bother' them. Likely meaning, yes it's disrespectful but they aren't shaken or disturbed by it; which is not what one would think if they only read the top-line of the poll.

 

[Lee]

What about all the Native Americans that were already killed? They don't have an opinion now, so we should just focus on the small group that do?

I think they'd have bigger fish to fry, like keeping their population alive.


But the logo is obviously a racist caricature, whether or not it offends people should be beside the point, especially since your main beef with this generation seems to be how easily offended so many people are.

I do think the logo is racist, I also think this generation is offended too easy, and i agree, one should have nothing to do with the other.

Really not sure how anyone defends the log to be honest, but arguing this is pointless, those that dont see the racism will never and I am not offended enough to actually protest, just offended enough to comment on a message board about it, lol.

 

[Otsego Mar]

What about all the Native Americans that were already killed? They don't have an opinion now, so we should just focus on the small group that do?

I think they'd have bigger fish to fry, like keeping their population alive.


But the logo is obviously a racist caricature, whether or not it offends people should be beside the point, especially since your main beef with this generation seems to be how easily offended so many people are.

It's not a racist caricature. It's a caricature which you find to be racist.

There's a huge difference. One in which I don't think you're capable of differentiating between.

The caricature was not founded on racism. America, however, may have been founded on racism and/or the slaughter of Indians. In that case, nuke it all I say.

 

[Real Deal]

If the logo goes, send Bauer with it.

 

[Real Deal]

Damn liberal's

 

[Lee]

Damn liberal's

Its those damn Jews.

 

[kosis]

Damn liberal's

The image in this article says it all, really.

 

[macbdog]

The image in this article says it all, really.

I have to disagree, while the photo says 'hipster douchebag' with the sideways look, nonprescription glasses, and non-matching facial hair, I think the article makes very valid observations.

 

[kosis]

I have to disagree, while the photo says 'hipster douchebag' with the sideways look, nonprescription glasses, and non-matching facial hair, I think the article makes very valid observations.

To clarify, I was referring to the pic in the actual article. (Apologies if you knew that)

 

[macbdog]

If the logo goes, send Bauer with it.

Hypothetical question: if the team was to trade team names with another franchise, with Trevor Bauer as the throw in, what teams make sense? I could see someone like the Marlins owner being game for this. Maybe the As owner. Or maybe a swap with a minor league team? Cleveland Clippers? Cleveland Bulls? Cleveland Rubber Ducks?

 

[Real Deal]

Hypothetical question: if the team was to trade team names with another franchise, with Trevor Bauer as the throw in, what teams make sense? I could see someone like the Marlins owner being game for this. Maybe the As owner. Or maybe a swap with a minor league team? Cleveland Clippers? Cleveland Bulls? Cleveland Rubber Ducks?

New logo and new name should be long thought about for the best name and image possible. The last thing I want to root for is something cheesy. Gotta be original and something that represents what Ohio and Cleveland can get behind. It's going to be a hard time to adjust though.

Funny thing is regarding Bauer, watch him magically mature into a Carrasco type of pitcher around 28-29. I just don't have the damn patience with his stupid face shaking off the catchers anymore.

 

[David.]

Damn liberal's

Not liberals, leftists