Indians abandon Chief Wahoo

Quote:

---

Citing a goal of diversity and inclusion, Manfred said in a statement provided to The New York Times that the Indians organization "ultimately agreed with my position that the logo is no longer appropriate for on-field use in Major League Baseball, and I appreciate Mr. Dolan's acknowledgment that removing it from the on-field uniform by the start of the 2019 season is the right course."

---

weak

Because, you know, that now changes everything.

Acting like you've grown a moral compass when you've killed a sense of humor. Dilly dilly.

I can think of only one suitable replacement:

So stupid.

*******

Why not change the team name to the "Cleveland Native Americans" while they're at it.

Now that that's settled can we move on to changing the team names for the Yankees and Angels and make them take the halo out of their logo?

I have a chief Wahoo bobblehead. On of the great logos in sports

Kashchei said:

---

*******

Why not change the team name to the "Cleveland Native Americans" while they're at it.

---

I would bet a name change happens within 5 years.

If it's that offensive, why are they waiting until 2019 to take it off the uniforms? Why not immediately? Proof that they are just pandering.

Quote:

---

They are going to sell a ****load of Chief Wahoo merch this year.

---

It's a win/win for the organization. They can win the PR game, and make a lot of money off of both people thinking they wont make it anymore (they've already said they will keep selling it) AND everyone feeling like they have to "rebuy" everything with the new logo.

That said, I don't get the people are upset about the change. Well, actually, I get that it just a "omg Leftist are evil" thing. It's just an odd hill to die on, considering that they give you so many other reasons.

No issue is too small to get upset about if you are in the right

Quote:

---

No issue is too small to get upset about if you are in the right

---

Is their logo no different than the Astros logo, in terms of offensiveness, to you?

CampingAg said:

---

If it's that offensive, why are they waiting until 2019 to take it off the uniforms? Why not immediately? Proof that they are just pandering.

---

Any changes to team colors and/or logos have to be approved by MLB something like a season in advance. Probably not to hang their licensed merchandise providers and other vendors out to dry.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

No issue is too small to get upset about if you are in the right

---

Is their logo no different than the Astros logo, in terms of offensiveness, to you?

---

I think Orbit is very offensive

We are characterizing an entire species of potential people as green creatures

Astros logo is also embarrassingly divisive like the Indians

Quote:

---

I think Orbit is very offensive

We are characterizing an entire species of potential people as green creatures

Astros logo is also embarrassingly divisive like the Indians

---

I see the Politics-Board-level arguments have seeped in over here. There's not many camps on this issue. If you are in disagreement on the logo changing, either one of these 2 things are true: It's literally not offensive and you don't think anyone should be offended by it...or you admit that it might be offensive, but you don't care because of any myriad of reasons.

Usually strawmen claims about other teams mascots fall in the latter camp. I am just clarifying your position.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

They are going to sell a ****load of Chief Wahoo merch this year.

---

Ordered a low profile 59fifty in red and navy and looking for a all navy one in my size.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think Orbit is very offensive

We are characterizing an entire species of potential people as green creatures

Astros logo is also embarrassingly divisive like the Indians

---

I see the Politics-Board-level arguments have seeped in over here. There's not many camps on this issue. If you are in disagreement on the logo changing, either one of these 2 things are true: It's literally not offensive and you don't think anyone should be offended by it...or you admit that it might be offensive, but you don't care because of any myriad of reasons.

Usually strawmen claims about other teams mascots fall in the latter camp. I am just clarifying your position.

---

This logic could be used for any logo for any team in any sport. We are in 2018 and people are offended when the sun comes up.

I think if the majority of Native Americans find it offensive, then it's not up to us to question it or decide "no you're wrong it's not offensive"

are the Indians completely getting rid of the logo?

I thought they were just taking it off their uniforms, but will still sell merchandise at the ballpark with the logo beyond 2018

Rossko said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think Orbit is very offensive

We are characterizing an entire species of potential people as green creatures

Astros logo is also embarrassingly divisive like the Indians

---

I see the Politics-Board-level arguments have seeped in over here. There's not many camps on this issue. If you are in disagreement on the logo changing, either one of these 2 things are true: It's literally not offensive and you don't think anyone should be offended by it...or you admit that it might be offensive, but you don't care because of any myriad of reasons.

Usually strawmen claims about other teams mascots fall in the latter camp. I am just clarifying your position.

---

This logic could be used for any logo for any team in any sport. We are in 2018 and people are offended when the sun comes up.

---

No, the logic behind this decision could not be used for any logo for any team in any sport.

They were strong armed by MLB and agreed to it as a condition to hosting the all-star game.

Rossko said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think Orbit is very offensive

We are characterizing an entire species of potential people as green creatures

Astros logo is also embarrassingly divisive like the Indians

---

I see the Politics-Board-level arguments have seeped in over here. There's not many camps on this issue. If you are in disagreement on the logo changing, either one of these 2 things are true: It's literally not offensive and you don't think anyone should be offended by it...or you admit that it might be offensive, but you don't care because of any myriad of reasons.

Usually strawmen claims about other teams mascots fall in the latter camp. I am just clarifying your position.

---

This logic could be used for any logo for any team in any sport. We are in 2018 and people are offended when the sun comes up.

---

I bolded the portion which covers situations where it's really silly...like if someone said they were offended by the Astros logo.

Honestly, I can understand how someones whos not Native American can see the logo and think it's not offensive. There can be conversations around that.

But leaning on these bad arguments that everyone gets offended too easily or that non-existent Orbit clones might be offended just screams that you don't really care. You really can't have a conversation about that.

Quote:

---

They were strong armed by MLB and agreed to it as a condition to hosting the all-star game.

---

This is only a narrative for the public. The team didn't need to be strong armed into it.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

They were strong armed by MLB and agreed to it as a condition to hosting the all-star game.

---

This is only a narrative for the public. The team didn't need to be strong armed into it.

---

Then why now and why only for "on the field use?" Did it just become offensive? Or is it only offensive if it's on a uniform worn by the team or a sign hanging in the stadium? Not offensive if it's on a team hat or shirt for sale to John Q. Public?

diehard03 said:

---

Rossko said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think Orbit is very offensive

We are characterizing an entire species of potential people as green creatures

Astros logo is also embarrassingly divisive like the Indians

---

I see the Politics-Board-level arguments have seeped in over here. There's not many camps on this issue. If you are in disagreement on the logo changing, either one of these 2 things are true: It's literally not offensive and you don't think anyone should be offended by it...or you admit that it might be offensive, but you don't care because of any myriad of reasons.

Usually strawmen claims about other teams mascots fall in the latter camp. I am just clarifying your position.

---

This logic could be used for any logo for any team in any sport. We are in 2018 and people are offended when the sun comes up.

---

I bolded the portion which covers situations where it's really silly...like if someone said they were offended by the Astros logo.

Honestly, I can understand how someones whos not Native American can see the logo and think it's not offensive. There can be conversations around that.

But leaning on these bad arguments that everyone gets offended too easily or that non-existent Orbit clones might be offended just screams that you don't really care. You really can't have a conversation about that.

---

Silly to some is not silly to all. You make think plenty of names are not offensive at all but there would actually be people offended by them. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this decision, it's the team's right to do whatever they want with the franchise they own. I'm just saying your bolded portion of the two options is an opinion and isn't really an option. Everyone falls into the second camp whether you agree or disagree with the decision.