As an interesting comparison, the Southern Oregon University Raiders used to be the Red Raiders, as reference to the large Native population in the Rogue Valley.
They ended up removing the "Red" from the name, and asked the Native population for help coming up with a respectful mascot.
This often irritates me, words are words, when the team starts behaving in a racist way you can complain.
I mean, the Viking is a stereotype too. As are the 49ers. Hell, even the Patriots are a stereotype.
See, you might be able to defend other team names such as the Indians, Braves, or dozens of college teams this way (though not the Cleveland Indians mascot)...but "Redskins" is, like, an actual racial slur. The name itself is overtly racist. It's the equivalent of having the Washington Wetbacks or Washington word-that-starts-with-N-that-I-can't-type-here.
It's indefensible.
Still doesn't mean I support any law against it, or would side with the plaintiff in a civil suit. I just can't believe that our society as a whole is okay with it, with the sole reasonable defense being "ZOMG it would costs sa much monies to fix it!!"
Like, the bulk of Indian-themed team names and mascots fall somewhere on the offense spectrum, where different numbers of people may be offended based on their background and how tender their sensibilities. The Redskins and the Chief Wahoo mascots, though? Those should offend every last person. And they don't. Which is fucked up.
EDIT: My primary theory on why this is okay with most people and may never change is because Indians are, like, 1% of the population, have little to no representation in mainstream government or culture, and for most people Indians are a bunch of people who are "somewhere else," if they even exist at all. There are only a handful of states that really have significant (as a portion of population) Indian populations.
I think part of the idea is that if your people get used as a mascot, it is supposed to be an honor, no matter what name they choose. It's supposed to mean that you have a reputation for kicking ass. Whether you see it that way or not. I mean, Fighting Irish... dude's in a stereotypical Irish boxing stance. And the Irish were hella good boxers, too.
I think part of the idea is that if your people get used as a mascot, it is supposed to be an honor, no matter what name they choose. It's supposed to mean that you have a reputation for kicking ass. Whether you see it that way or not. I mean, Fighting Irish... dude's in a stereotypical Irish boxing stance. And the Irish were hella good boxers, too.
I can buy this for a vast majority of names.
Mascots? Not so much. See: Chief Wahoo. That dude does not look like somebody who is there to kick ass.
FYI for people in the thread all saying "yeah they won the lawsuit!" the merits of the question were never reached. The court basically said "you waited too long to bring your claim" and dismissed it on a technicality. It's called "laches."
There is another suit in the works to try and address this issue. The issue at hand is that federal trademark law dictates you can't trademark things that are "disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable." (There are a lot of other restrictions, like you can't use flags or seals of the country in your mark, can't use someone's name without their permission, etc etc). But this is the rule that the plaintiffs were asserting was violated by the Redskins mark, and initially in 1999 they did win on that issue before the appeals court threw the suit out because the plaintiffs apparently waited too long to bring it.
I think part of the idea is that if your people get used as a mascot, it is supposed to be an honor, no matter what name they choose. It's supposed to mean that you have a reputation for kicking ass. Whether you see it that way or not. I mean, Fighting Irish... dude's in a stereotypical Irish boxing stance. And the Irish were hella good boxers, too.
I can buy this for a vast majority of names.
Mascots? Not so much. See: Chief Wahoo. That dude does not look like somebody who is there to kick ass.
It's much more likely that mascots are accepted based on ownership. As I noted, Notre Dame was at the time the name was picked, and continues to be somewhat of an Irish school. Boston is known for being the place where all the hardcore revolutionaries were during British rule, so we get to keep the Pats (and I wouldn't mind reviving the Americans [not exactly the most creative naming]). Men from Harvard have periods, so they get to call themselves the Crimson, Yale students look like Bulldogs, and Dartmouth has Keggy.
Well, as a Native American who owns KC Chiefs and Washington Redskin's coats. I can't help myself but wonder who cares? I mean come on, look at the Cleveland Indian's logo. He's so happy and cheerful, I guess I would be offendend if he looking like he was down in the gutter carrying an empty bottle of beer in his hands. But of course, as being part of the younger generation I would be easily dismissed by those who are advocating the ban.
"Redskins" as a racial slur? Probably not, it's just not how we would say 'Politically' correct as is calling a group of people based of the 'Color' of their skin. Which, as absurd as it sounds to me. Is something, I won't get into. But, besides Now if they were called the "Washington Savages" I can understand if it were to be offensive. (Though, I would probably own alot of teams merchandise)
I really miss chief wahoo. There isn't a whole hell of a lot offensive about the Cleveland Indian mascot other than his color being red. I think it's a blatant caricature but then again I live 50 minutes away from Cleveland. It's certainly not as if they picked the name to make fun of Indians or insult them.
I had no idea that redskin was a racial pejorative. I mean, now that I'm stopping and thinking and saying it out loud I'm going "oh", but it never occurred to me before. It was always just a word with no meaning at all to me.
Organichu on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
Chief Knockahoma was pretty rad. They don't use him anymore.
If I recall, that had nothing to do with offensiveness. It had a lot more to do with the Braves giving Noc-a-Homa a tepee in the outfield, Bernie Brewer-style, and the Braves peppering the tepee with BP homer after BP homer.
And Noc-a-Homa asking for too much money despite him already getting a bunch of doodads up to and including Princess Win-a-Lotta.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
edited May 2009
Man, but look at the old Chief Wahoo logo some time. That shit is racist as hell.
I had no idea that redskin was a racial pejorative. I mean, now that I'm stopping and thinking and saying it out loud I'm going "oh", but it never occurred to me before. It was always just a word with no meaning at all to me.
I blame it on the fantasy genre, where at least one race is being called [color]skin.
Racial slurs and depictions are most certainly out, but I don't see an issue with titles or what-have-you so long as things are done tastefully. This thread has, however shown how this stuff can desensitize us. Gotta be careful with that.
The real indictment of all these logos is that, like the comic points out, it would never be acceptable if it depicted another minority, even if the nickname was superficially unoffensive.
It's worth mentioning that the whole native american mascot thing can be done in a positive, respectful way, too. IIRC Florida State's mascot is "endorsed" by the actual seminole tribe, and they go to a fair amount of effort to make sure his dress and dancing and such is at least somewhat true to tribal traditions.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
DeadfallI don't think you realize just how rich he is.In fact, I should put on a monocle.Registered Userregular
I graduated from UNC and I knew about the Fighting Whites, but I never knew they were from my school.
Also as a track and football conditioning coach, one of my favorite warm-ups for the team is the Indian Run (which is, if you don't know, where all the runners run in a single file line, and the last person in line sprints to the front over and over again). A few years ago all the schools were asked to stop calling it the Indian Run. All the athletes know it as the Indian Run, as did all the coaches. So there was a bit of confusion when we had to change it.
"Time for the.....last-person-sprints-to-the-front-run."
Reading over this, I didn't contribute much to the conversation at hand, but still.
I had no idea that redskin was a racial pejorative. I mean, now that I'm stopping and thinking and saying it out loud I'm going "oh", but it never occurred to me before. It was always just a word with no meaning at all to me.
I blame it on the fantasy genre, where at least one race is being called [color]skin.
Racial slurs and depictions are most certainly out, but I don't see an issue with titles or what-have-you so long as things are done tastefully. This thread has, however shown how this stuff can desensitize us. Gotta be careful with that.
The Redskins I think are by far the worst offenders here. The name is an actual pejorative. But like others have said, as a professional sports team, the name will never be changed unless the NFL makes a rule about offensive names or a new owner comes in and has some kind of change of heart.
Going back to the Bullets, the owner changed the name of the team because he got sick of the overtones of it.
The Indians logo shit is just offensive too - as that comic shows.
Other reasons these things are offensive:
Misappropriation of Native American culture: The "Tomahawk Chop" used by a bunch of teams, and shit like "Chief Noc-a-homa."
Incorrect portrayals of Native American culture: Chief Illiniwek
The whole "paying homage to Native Americans" argument is bullshit - originally it may have been intended in that way, but the product is usually incorrectly portrayed, implies that all Native American culture is inherently savage/warrior, or offensive in general.
The real indictment of all these logos is that, like the comic points out, it would never be acceptable if it depicted another minority, even if the nickname was superficially unoffensive.
What's actually funny about it is that the black and asian ones look a lot like business mascots that USED TO be used a lot, and the hispanic one, honestly, looks like some that are still in use. Honestly, I know for a fact that I used to see images similar to all four of these in the old episodes of Looney Toons I was watching in the mid-80s.
It's a bit ironic to the direct intent of the ad, but it's still all bad stuff.
The other characters in that image are all grossly stereotypical. I mean the intention is clearly there but with the Indian if he was some neutral color there wouldn't be much going on there. Maybe i'm just bad at Indian culture.
The other characters in that image are all grossly stereotypical. I mean the intention is clearly there but with the Indian if he was some neutral color there wouldn't be much going on there. Maybe i'm just bad at Indian culture.
When was the last time you saw an American Indian walking down the street with feathers in his hair?
The other characters in that image are all grossly stereotypical. I mean the intention is clearly there but with the Indian if he was some neutral color there wouldn't be much going on there. Maybe i'm just bad at Indian culture.
The other characters in that image are all grossly stereotypical. I mean the intention is clearly there but with the Indian if he was some neutral color there wouldn't be much going on there. Maybe i'm just bad at Indian culture.
From the mid-to-late '40s:
What Chief Wahoo looks like now makes him look like a respectful and well thought out depiction in comparison.
The other characters in that image are all grossly stereotypical. I mean the intention is clearly there but with the Indian if he was some neutral color there wouldn't be much going on there. Maybe i'm just bad at Indian culture.
When was the last time you saw an American Indian walking down the street with feathers in his hair?
Man I live in Ohio. I've never even seen an American Indian who wasn't chief wahoo.
The other characters in that image are all grossly stereotypical. I mean the intention is clearly there but with the Indian if he was some neutral color there wouldn't be much going on there. Maybe i'm just bad at Indian culture.
When was the last time you saw an American Indian walking down the street with feathers in his hair?
Man I live in Ohio. I've never even seen an American Indian who wasn't chief wahoo.
So you're not really in a good position to make your intial statement, then?
The other characters in that image are all grossly stereotypical. I mean the intention is clearly there but with the Indian if he was some neutral color there wouldn't be much going on there. Maybe i'm just bad at Indian culture.
When was the last time you saw an American Indian walking down the street with feathers in his hair?
Man I live in Ohio. I've never even seen an American Indian who wasn't chief wahoo.
So you're not really in a good position to make your intial statement, then?
The part where I said it doesn't seem terribly racist compared to the others or the part where I said I may just be bad at Indian culture? I know Indians had head dresses but I don't know the details of their construction etc. I know when I and many other folks from Ohio see chief Wahoo we tend to think "Yes! I love that guy!" not so much "lol silly red person. your culture is worthless."
The other characters in that image are all grossly stereotypical. I mean the intention is clearly there but with the Indian if he was some neutral color there wouldn't be much going on there. Maybe i'm just bad at Indian culture.
When was the last time you saw an American Indian walking down the street with feathers in his hair?
Man I live in Ohio. I've never even seen an American Indian who wasn't chief wahoo.
So you're not really in a good position to make your intial statement, then?
The part where I said it doesn't seem terribly racist compared to the others or the part where I said I may just be bad at Indian culture? I know Indians had head dresses but I don't know the details of their construction etc. I know when I and many other folks from Ohio see chief Wahoo we tend to think "Yes! I love that guy!" not so much "lol silly red person. your culture is worthless."
but that's the whole point!
I mean, the hispanic one is "just" a guy with a mustache and a sombrero, so how is that bad? Mexicans wear sombrerros, after all...
As I understand it, Evander has some direct knowledge about this kind of shit. (Unless I'm horribly, horribly mistaken and confusing him with somebody else.) It's at this point in the argument that it would be best to acknowledge that people do, in fact, find Chief Wahoo to be inappropriate and move on.
The other characters in that image are all grossly stereotypical. I mean the intention is clearly there but with the Indian if he was some neutral color there wouldn't be much going on there. Maybe i'm just bad at Indian culture.
From the mid-to-late '40s:
What Chief Wahoo looks like now makes him look like a respectful and well thought out depiction in comparison.
The other characters in that image are all grossly stereotypical. I mean the intention is clearly there but with the Indian if he was some neutral color there wouldn't be much going on there. Maybe i'm just bad at Indian culture.
From the mid-to-late '40s:
What Chief Wahoo looks like now makes him look like a respectful and well thought out depiction in comparison.
Holy... holy shit.
Honestly, he doesn't look much better now:
He still has the big nose, goofy smile, wide eyes, and the feather headdress thing.
And his skin is bright red now.
As I understand it, Evander has some direct knowledge about this kind of shit. (Unless I'm horribly, horribly mistaken and confusing him with somebody else.) It's at this point in the argument that it would be best to acknowledge that people do, in fact, find Chief Wahoo to be inappropriate and move on.
I have some knowledge of stereotypes and discrimination in other areas, but there are certain constants regardless of the particular group.
What I was getting at was that DUE was educated about American Indians THROUGH stereotypes. That is what people want to avoid by getting rid of these stereotypes. When folks are educated through these stereotypes, they end up continuing to espouse these ideas that people find offensive (in this case that American indians are primative savages) except they do it without any sort of malice; it is an honest mistake on their part. Being an honest mistake makes it easier to spread it, though.
The other characters in that image are all grossly stereotypical. I mean the intention is clearly there but with the Indian if he was some neutral color there wouldn't be much going on there. Maybe i'm just bad at Indian culture.
From the mid-to-late '40s:
What Chief Wahoo looks like now makes him look like a respectful and well thought out depiction in comparison.
Holy... holy shit.
Honestly, he doesn't look much better now:
He still has the big nose, goofy smile, wide eyes, and the feather headdress thing.
And his skin is bright red now.
Yeah, they've really only softened the point of the nose a bit.
The other characters in that image are all grossly stereotypical. I mean the intention is clearly there but with the Indian if he was some neutral color there wouldn't be much going on there. Maybe i'm just bad at Indian culture.
From the mid-to-late '40s:
What Chief Wahoo looks like now makes him look like a respectful and well thought out depiction in comparison.
Holy... holy shit.
Honestly, he doesn't look much better now:
He still has the big nose, goofy smile, wide eyes, and the feather headdress thing.
And his skin is bright red now.
Yeah, they've really only softened the point of the nose a bit.
My comparison is more how the fifty year-old version (to me) appears more 'minstrely' compared to the current incarnation. Frankly, if they must continue to use both the name and image, I'd prefer they change it to something much more respectful. Along the lines of the Blackhawks logo, for example.
I have a problem with the cartoon earlier in the thread because the examples of other inappropriate nicknames and logos aren't even in the same art style as the Chief Wahoo example (which itself isn't an exact copy of the current logo). As if the artist had a point to make and by god you were going to get it.
The other characters in that image are all grossly stereotypical. I mean the intention is clearly there but with the Indian if he was some neutral color there wouldn't be much going on there. Maybe i'm just bad at Indian culture.
From the mid-to-late '40s:
What Chief Wahoo looks like now makes him look like a respectful and well thought out depiction in comparison.
Holy... holy shit.
Honestly, he doesn't look much better now:
He still has the big nose, goofy smile, wide eyes, and the feather headdress thing.
And his skin is bright red now.
Yeah, they've really only softened the point of the nose a bit.
My comparison is more how the fifty year-old version (to me) appears more 'minstrely' compared to the current incarnation. Frankly, if they must continue to use both the name and image, I'd prefer they change it to something much more respectful. Along the lines of the Blackhawks logo, for example.
I have a problem with the cartoon earlier in the thread because the examples of other inappropriate nicknames and logos aren't even in the same art style as the Chief Wahoo example (which itself isn't an exact copy of the current logo). As if the artist had a point to make and by god you were going to get it.
The current one is pretty "minstrelly" too, it's just that you are far more used to seeing him, so you aren't shocked. There's also a higher level of "realism" in the old one, which is maybe what is making you feel uncomfortable with it (it's more difficult to pass it off as just a cartton exageration when it looks less cartoony.)
I don't doubt that the familiarity of the newer logo makes it seem less offensive to me. But I see the older logo more like the kind of caricature that would appear in old Looney Tunes shorts that I used to see all the time as a kid but were essentially phased out from repeated viewings. Speedy Gonzales comes to mind as a less extreme example of minstralism.
Baseball already has (had) a lot to answer for in it's racial practices. I see the older version of Chief Wahoo, as bad as it is, as simply a product of its time. Still, in my admittedly small experience with North American Indians, even ignoring the head dress, I still don't remember ever seeing or meeting an Indian with a giant hook nose and big toothy grin. Hell, it makes me think of vaguely (and not so vague) anti-semitic references.
Still, in my admittedly small experience with North American Indians, even ignoring the head dress, I still don't remember ever seeing or meeting an Indian with a giant hook nose and big toothy grin. Hell, it makes me think of vaguely (and not so vague) anti-semitic references.
How many Jews have you met with giant hook-noses, for that matter?
These stereotypical facial traits aren't always based on reality. The fact is, that nose was definitely a part of the "accepted" view of the Native American savage, whether it was true or not.
It's not that things haven't gotten better, it's that, overall, Native Americans still have such a raw deal that every little thing is still bad. Asians and Hispanics technically have other countries that they could be in if they wanted to be accepted, and Blacks have worked hard already to make sure that charicatures of them are considered to be unacceptable (Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben are still around, but they've definitely been softened.) American Indians have no where to go, and their rights movement simply didn't gain as much attention. So, really, we're still in the midst of it.
I think that eventually these things will be accepted as unacceptable, and they'll be changed. The issue is that if you force change, it actually results in MORE racism.
Posts
They ended up removing the "Red" from the name, and asked the Native population for help coming up with a respectful mascot.
Someone did...the University of Northern Colorado.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites
See, you might be able to defend other team names such as the Indians, Braves, or dozens of college teams this way (though not the Cleveland Indians mascot)...but "Redskins" is, like, an actual racial slur. The name itself is overtly racist. It's the equivalent of having the Washington Wetbacks or Washington word-that-starts-with-N-that-I-can't-type-here.
It's indefensible.
Still doesn't mean I support any law against it, or would side with the plaintiff in a civil suit. I just can't believe that our society as a whole is okay with it, with the sole reasonable defense being "ZOMG it would costs sa much monies to fix it!!"
Like, the bulk of Indian-themed team names and mascots fall somewhere on the offense spectrum, where different numbers of people may be offended based on their background and how tender their sensibilities. The Redskins and the Chief Wahoo mascots, though? Those should offend every last person. And they don't. Which is fucked up.
EDIT: My primary theory on why this is okay with most people and may never change is because Indians are, like, 1% of the population, have little to no representation in mainstream government or culture, and for most people Indians are a bunch of people who are "somewhere else," if they even exist at all. There are only a handful of states that really have significant (as a portion of population) Indian populations.
He looks so jolly.
I can buy this for a vast majority of names.
Mascots? Not so much. See: Chief Wahoo. That dude does not look like somebody who is there to kick ass.
There is another suit in the works to try and address this issue. The issue at hand is that federal trademark law dictates you can't trademark things that are "disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable." (There are a lot of other restrictions, like you can't use flags or seals of the country in your mark, can't use someone's name without their permission, etc etc). But this is the rule that the plaintiffs were asserting was violated by the Redskins mark, and initially in 1999 they did win on that issue before the appeals court threw the suit out because the plaintiffs apparently waited too long to bring it.
Just to clear that up.
It's much more likely that mascots are accepted based on ownership. As I noted, Notre Dame was at the time the name was picked, and continues to be somewhat of an Irish school. Boston is known for being the place where all the hardcore revolutionaries were during British rule, so we get to keep the Pats (and I wouldn't mind reviving the Americans [not exactly the most creative naming]). Men from Harvard have periods, so they get to call themselves the Crimson, Yale students look like Bulldogs, and Dartmouth has Keggy.
"Redskins" as a racial slur? Probably not, it's just not how we would say 'Politically' correct as is calling a group of people based of the 'Color' of their skin. Which, as absurd as it sounds to me. Is something, I won't get into. But, besides Now if they were called the "Washington Savages" I can understand if it were to be offensive. (Though, I would probably own alot of teams merchandise)
And Noc-a-Homa asking for too much money despite him already getting a bunch of doodads up to and including Princess Win-a-Lotta.
Racial slurs and depictions are most certainly out, but I don't see an issue with titles or what-have-you so long as things are done tastefully. This thread has, however shown how this stuff can desensitize us. Gotta be careful with that.
I'm just glad that the black dude didn't have watermelon or chicken somewhere.
It's worth mentioning that the whole native american mascot thing can be done in a positive, respectful way, too. IIRC Florida State's mascot is "endorsed" by the actual seminole tribe, and they go to a fair amount of effort to make sure his dress and dancing and such is at least somewhat true to tribal traditions.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Holy shit.
I graduated from UNC and I knew about the Fighting Whites, but I never knew they were from my school.
Also as a track and football conditioning coach, one of my favorite warm-ups for the team is the Indian Run (which is, if you don't know, where all the runners run in a single file line, and the last person in line sprints to the front over and over again). A few years ago all the schools were asked to stop calling it the Indian Run. All the athletes know it as the Indian Run, as did all the coaches. So there was a bit of confusion when we had to change it.
"Time for the.....last-person-sprints-to-the-front-run."
Reading over this, I didn't contribute much to the conversation at hand, but still.
xbl - HowYouGetAnts
steam - WeAreAllGeth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin
The Redskins I think are by far the worst offenders here. The name is an actual pejorative. But like others have said, as a professional sports team, the name will never be changed unless the NFL makes a rule about offensive names or a new owner comes in and has some kind of change of heart.
Going back to the Bullets, the owner changed the name of the team because he got sick of the overtones of it.
The Indians logo shit is just offensive too - as that comic shows.
Other reasons these things are offensive:
Misappropriation of Native American culture: The "Tomahawk Chop" used by a bunch of teams, and shit like "Chief Noc-a-homa."
Incorrect portrayals of Native American culture: Chief Illiniwek
The whole "paying homage to Native Americans" argument is bullshit - originally it may have been intended in that way, but the product is usually incorrectly portrayed, implies that all Native American culture is inherently savage/warrior, or offensive in general.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_mascot_controversy
What's actually funny about it is that the black and asian ones look a lot like business mascots that USED TO be used a lot, and the hispanic one, honestly, looks like some that are still in use. Honestly, I know for a fact that I used to see images similar to all four of these in the old episodes of Looney Toons I was watching in the mid-80s.
It's a bit ironic to the direct intent of the ad, but it's still all bad stuff.
Oh, I know, I'm just saying that it says something about our town if we get sick of the overtones of "Bullets" before "Redskins".
Says a few things, really. One of those things isn't so great, though.
When was the last time you saw an American Indian walking down the street with feathers in his hair?
He has a fucking feather stuck in his head!
From the mid-to-late '40s:
What Chief Wahoo looks like now makes him look like a respectful and well thought out depiction in comparison.
Man I live in Ohio. I've never even seen an American Indian who wasn't chief wahoo.
So you're not really in a good position to make your intial statement, then?
The part where I said it doesn't seem terribly racist compared to the others or the part where I said I may just be bad at Indian culture? I know Indians had head dresses but I don't know the details of their construction etc. I know when I and many other folks from Ohio see chief Wahoo we tend to think "Yes! I love that guy!" not so much "lol silly red person. your culture is worthless."
but that's the whole point!
I mean, the hispanic one is "just" a guy with a mustache and a sombrero, so how is that bad? Mexicans wear sombrerros, after all...
Holy... holy shit.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Honestly, he doesn't look much better now:
He still has the big nose, goofy smile, wide eyes, and the feather headdress thing.
And his skin is bright red now.
I have some knowledge of stereotypes and discrimination in other areas, but there are certain constants regardless of the particular group.
What I was getting at was that DUE was educated about American Indians THROUGH stereotypes. That is what people want to avoid by getting rid of these stereotypes. When folks are educated through these stereotypes, they end up continuing to espouse these ideas that people find offensive (in this case that American indians are primative savages) except they do it without any sort of malice; it is an honest mistake on their part. Being an honest mistake makes it easier to spread it, though.
Yeah, they've really only softened the point of the nose a bit.
I have a problem with the cartoon earlier in the thread because the examples of other inappropriate nicknames and logos aren't even in the same art style as the Chief Wahoo example (which itself isn't an exact copy of the current logo). As if the artist had a point to make and by god you were going to get it.
The current one is pretty "minstrelly" too, it's just that you are far more used to seeing him, so you aren't shocked. There's also a higher level of "realism" in the old one, which is maybe what is making you feel uncomfortable with it (it's more difficult to pass it off as just a cartton exageration when it looks less cartoony.)
Baseball already has (had) a lot to answer for in it's racial practices. I see the older version of Chief Wahoo, as bad as it is, as simply a product of its time. Still, in my admittedly small experience with North American Indians, even ignoring the head dress, I still don't remember ever seeing or meeting an Indian with a giant hook nose and big toothy grin. Hell, it makes me think of vaguely (and not so vague) anti-semitic references.
I do know that I don't know a whole lot about them and that a mascot is the furthest thing from an educational tool.
How many Jews have you met with giant hook-noses, for that matter?
These stereotypical facial traits aren't always based on reality. The fact is, that nose was definitely a part of the "accepted" view of the Native American savage, whether it was true or not.
It's not that things haven't gotten better, it's that, overall, Native Americans still have such a raw deal that every little thing is still bad. Asians and Hispanics technically have other countries that they could be in if they wanted to be accepted, and Blacks have worked hard already to make sure that charicatures of them are considered to be unacceptable (Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben are still around, but they've definitely been softened.) American Indians have no where to go, and their rights movement simply didn't gain as much attention. So, really, we're still in the midst of it.
I think that eventually these things will be accepted as unacceptable, and they'll be changed. The issue is that if you force change, it actually results in MORE racism.