Coalition continues to push for end of Native American nicknames/symbols used in sport

[ichbinkanadier]

I don't quite think we're having the same conversation.

I'm only talking about the Atlanta baseball team becoming the Atlanta Hammers.

I was referring to the last line in second paragraph.

And Atlanta Braves is fine: just get rid of the Native American references and go red, white, and blue with a military rifle instead of a tomahawk

"...and the home of the brave."

 

[Albatros]

The name is "Fighting Irish", not "Fighting Leperchauns".

If anything, the use of a leprechaun makes it worse. It's like the use of Chief Wahoo for Indians

One can like or dislike the Fighting Irish moniker and certainly the historical logo, but it's a largely Irish college that willingly nurtured their identity whereas professional sports teams with Indian mascots have never had any meaningful connection to Native Americans or their cultures.

 

[ichbinkanadier]

One can like or dislike the Fighting Irish moniker and certainly the historical logo, but it's a largely Irish college that willingly nurtured their identity whereas professional sports teams with Indian mascots have never had any meaningful connection to Native Americans or their cultures.

True. I always found it a bit weird. Virtually vanquish a people and then make them your mascot.

 

[KevFu]

I was referring to the last line in second paragraph.

Ah. Your point there is valid, I'm just saying that changing ONE person's mind is easier than changing the mind of multiple people.

If the one person is the billionaire who owns the club, he can just change the name, and it's easy. (Like Dolan did. Took him eight years, but he got there).

And Atlanta Braves is fine: just get rid of the Native American references and go red, white, and blue with a military rifle instead of a tomahawk

"...and the home of the brave."

Nah, Cleveland showed there's no reason to do something halfway. It's simple game-theory. With both Cleveland and Atlanta in 2013, there were basically four groups:

1. Keep Name/Logo
2. Keep Name but Change Logo
3. Change it, but it's gotta be GOOD/COOL.
4. Protesting Name and Logo.

When Cleveland dumped Chief Wahoo for the Block C, they eliminated "Group 2." But they just joined Group 3 because the Block C was a terrible logo, so now EVERYONE'S unhappy.


When Cleveland rebranded as the Guardians, Groups 2 and 3 change.
1. Mad they didn't keep Name/Logo
2. That's NOT good/cool
3. THAT'S good/cool (protestors now in this group and silenced)

 

[KevFu]

And Atlanta Braves is fine: just get rid of the Native American references and go red, white, and blue with a military rifle instead of a tomahawk

"...and the home of the brave."

But here's the thing with your idea: Cleveland's Block C was totally benign. Your suggestion isn't. That would backfire spectacularly.

You're going to KEEP a nickname that evokes the era of "Cowboys vs Indians" but change the logo from the stereotype TRIBAL weapon, to the stereotype weapon of the white people?

 

[ManofSteel55]

Shhh ..

Don't interfere with white knighting; makes them feel good about themselves


The name is "Fighting Irish", not "Fighting Leperchauns".

If anything, the use of a leprechaun makes it worse. It's like the use of Chief Wahoo for Indians

Except leprechauns are not a caricature for Irish people, but a mythological creature that us often associated with Ireland. Chief Wahoo was a gross caricature of first nations people.

 

[ichbinkanadier]

But here's the thing with your idea: Cleveland's Block C was totally benign. Your suggestion isn't. That would backfire spectacularly.

You're going to KEEP a nickname that evokes the era of "Cowboys vs Indians" but change the logo from the stereotype TRIBAL weapon, to the stereotype weapon of the white people?

White people? The U.S. is under 70% white and the name would reference all Americans by alluding to the national anthem.

The suggestion of the rifle was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but rebranding the team to have Braves be a synonym of sorts for Americans would be fine by me. Would it piss a lot of activists off? Yup. And that's why I like it. Lol

Except leprechauns are not a caricature for Irish people, but a mythological creature that us often associated with Ireland. Chief Wahoo was a gross caricature of first nations people.

Nonetheless, it's an absurd cartoonish character used to represent a group of actual people.

 

[ManofSteel55]

White people? The U.S. is under 70% white and the name would reference all Americans by alluding to the national anthem.

The suggestion of the rifle was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but rebranding the team to have Braves be a synonym of sorts for Americans would be fine by me. Would it piss a lot of activists off? Yup. And that's why I like it. Lol


Nonetheless, it's an absurd cartoonish character used to represent a group of actual people.

No it isn't. Leprechauns are Irish. And if it is actually offensive to Irish people, go ahead and change it.

 

[ichbinkanadier]

No it isn't. Leprechauns are Irish. And if it is actually offensive to Irish people, go ahead and change it.

And Chief Wahoo is Indian.

Honestly, I completely forgot what my train of thought was when I wrote the initial reply. Lol

Either way, you have a good point.

 

[Gnashville]

I was just listening to a podcast with Hari Kondabolu and Hank Azaria about Apu on the Simpsons and that controversy, and a lot of that seems apt here.

That was more about representation in media, but "the problem with Apu" (pun intended) and how it pertains to sports is the caricature and cultural appropriation. Using charicatures of PEOPLE as a mascot.

And any "oh, PC or woke stuff, let it go" is dumb. "it's our teams tradition!" Yeah, it was THEIR tradition FIRST, and it's also THEIR identity that you don't have a right to, unless you're a tribe member.

Atlanta actually has the easiest rebrand on the table sitting right there. And they need to use it, because their franchise started as the Braves in Boston, so it's not a tribute to the local tribes native to Atlanta.

The Atlanta Hammers, honoring Hank Aaron, with a hammer replacing the tomahawk in their logo is really, really easy. Borderline unnoticable. And they should have done it BEFORE Hank Aaron died.

Actually the Chiefs have the easiest rebrand. Chief is an old English word and used for other purposes outside of just Natives. Just Keep the color scheme and change the arrowhead to a fire Chief logo.

 

[KevFu]

The suggestion of the rifle was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but rebranding the team to have Braves be a synonym of sorts for Americans would be fine by me. Would it piss a lot of activists off? Yup. And that's why I like it. Lol

Forget any kind of "politics" or whatever about the name, and just compartmentalize the issue into one of PR. That's why I brought up game theory.

Your idea is Lose-Lose-Lose.

The activists on one end of the spectrum get even madder (which you find amusing, but is still bad PR)
You're ALSO pissing off the OTHER extreme side of the argument at the same time,because they don't want anything changed.

AND you're making more people talk about the issue simply because changing anything calls attention to it. You're just inviting people talk ad nauseam about your bad PR mistake.

The best PR move is what Cleveland did: Commit, try your best, and start the clock on "people getting used to it."

When they first changed it, the Tampa Bay Rays sounded WEIRD because we were used to Devil Rays. Now Tampa Bay Devils Rays sounds weird because we're used to it. The faster that gets here the better.

 

[ichbinkanadier]

I hear what you're saying but are the activists types a big enough group to be concerned about? Do they even like sports (you have to remember that many activists are addicted to activism per se and not so much the issue itself).

Will the 'No change' camp he pissed off? Likely. Will they stop watching? Not likely. Also, would they object to a patriotic reference? Agsin, not likely.

Everyone still talking about it...is that really a bad thing? You say negative PR, but the the thing is the vast majority won't care. The ones who will carry on about it is the media. The average fan will likely see it as a "Who cares!" situation.

No matter what they do, people are going to be pissed off. There are still people simmering about the Elks, Commanders, and Guardians. And you also have to know your customer base. If I recall correctly, sports fans tend to lean centre right much more than left. Even those who lean left may not necessarily care about a nickname either. And defiance, especially in this current political climate may be of greater benefit than bending the knee.

Again, I get ya, I think we're just reading the room differently.

 

[ponder719]

I hear what you're saying but are the activists types a big enough group to be concerned about? Do they even like sports (you have to remember that many activists are addicted to activism per se and not so much the issue itself).

Will the 'No change' camp he pissed off? Likely. Will they stop watching? Not likely. Also, would they object to a patriotic reference? Agsin, not likely.

Everyone still talking about it...is that really a bad thing? You say negative PR, but the the thing is the vast majority won't care. The ones who will carry on about it is the media. The average fan will likely see it as a "Who cares!" situation.

No matter what they do, people are going to be pissed off. There are still people simmering about the Elks, Commanders, and Guardians. And you also have to know your customer base. If I recall correctly, sports fans tend to lean centre right much more than left. Even those who lean left may not necessarily care about a nickname either. And defiance, especially in this current political climate may be of greater benefit than bending the knee.

Again, I get ya, I think we're just reading the room differently.

One thing I've found myself doing to my detriment, is try to figure out what percentage of people feel a certain way on an issue without basing it on polls or studies. It's human nature to look at an issue, consider one's own perspective on that issue, and presume that more people agree with you than actually do. I tend to lean left on these things, and if I were to guess how many people would be somewhere from mildly relieved to actively happy to make a change and get this issue off the table, I'd almost certainly overshoot that number. I suspect someone on the other side of the issue would likely do the same. (Not saying you are or aren't, but I feel it's helpful to remind myself that this can become an issue.)

I would like to see some polling on certain specific options and outcomes (Chicago replacing their logo with the cool hawk's-head logo concept, the Atlanta Hammers, the KC Chiefs adopting a fire station motif), to see if specificity helps move people in one direction or another. That would, potentially, be illuminating.

My preference would be to rip the bandaid off, make the change, and get everyone mad all at once so we can get over it and back to enjoying sports. I'm sure there are others who feel there is no bandaid at all, and would rather I just remain annoyed/disappointed about the whole thing forever. Ultimately, it will come down to the almighty dollar; when and if the owners of the teams in question decide it's in their financial interest to make a change (or, more accurately, when they feel remaining with the current name is too harmful to overcome), they will. Until then, they won't.

 

[SK13]

Nah, Cleveland showed there's no reason to do something halfway. It's simple game-theory. With both Cleveland and Atlanta in 2013, there were basically four groups:

1. Keep Name/Logo
2. Keep Name but Change Logo
3. Change it, but it's gotta be GOOD/COOL.
4. Protesting Name and Logo.

When Cleveland dumped Chief Wahoo for the Block C, they eliminated "Group 2." But they just joined Group 3 because the Block C was a terrible logo, so now EVERYONE'S unhappy.


When Cleveland rebranded as the Guardians, Groups 2 and 3 change.
1. Mad they didn't keep Name/Logo
2. That's NOT good/cool
3. THAT'S good/cool (protestors now in this group and silenced)

Being "unhappy" that a logo sucks and being "unhappy" that (mostly) white billionaires are using cariactures of you and your culture as a sports mascot, only a handful of generations after they stole your land and committed genocide on your people is not functionally comparable.

This is a moral argument, not a business one. The fact that we need to browbeat these turds with bad PR until they're forced, financially, to do the right thing is an indictment of our society.

But even if we do play your game and turn this into some kind of financial game theory argument? Group #1 will throw their baby tantrums and be back on the bandwagon by the first winstreak because corporate branding is not why they love their sports. Everyone else just wants a good rebrand. So do a good rebrand.

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

The tomahawk chop is racist AF, but Kansas City gonna Kansas City.

The name “Chiefs”… I dunno. To me, “Chief” is a rank. Like King or Senator.

 

[ichbinkanadier]

One thing I've found myself doing to my detriment, is try to figure out what percentage of people feel a certain way on an issue without basing it on polls or studies. It's human nature to look at an issue, consider one's own perspective on that issue, and presume that more people agree with you than actually do. I tend to lean left on these things, and if I were to guess how many people would be somewhere from mildly relieved to actively happy to make a change and get this issue off the table, I'd almost certainly overshoot that number. I suspect someone on the other side of the issue would likely do the same. (Not saying you are or aren't, but I feel it's helpful to remind myself that this can become an issue.)

I would like to see some polling on certain specific options and outcomes (Chicago replacing their logo with the cool hawk's-head logo concept, the Atlanta Hammers, the KC Chiefs adopting a fire station motif), to see if specificity helps move people in one direction or another. That would, potentially, be illuminating.

My preference would be to rip the bandaid off, make the change, and get everyone mad all at once so we can get over it and back to enjoying sports. I'm sure there are others who feel there is no bandaid at all, and would rather I just remain annoyed/disappointed about the whole thing forever. Ultimately, it will come down to the almighty dollar; when and if the owners of the teams in question decide it's in their financial interest to make a change (or, more accurately, when they feel remaining with the current name is too harmful to overcome), they will. Until then, they won't.

Good points.

I'm taking a more sociopsychological approach in noticing patterns of behaviour in people in general and one that has come up again and again is the indifference people have to things that don't crop up in their day to day life.

I'm a sports fan and the topic of Native names rarely comes up- so rare that the person who brings it up is all but guaranteed to be quite far left on the political spectrum.

And I'm not just basing this on just this issue, but instead a pattern I've noticed spread across the entire board of sociopolitical issues.

As far as the controversy; as I said, I think it's media-contrived because rarely does it come up in sports conversations and I am in contact with people throughout the political spectrum. It's not a perfect poll but I haven't encountered evidence to suggest I am way off base. Even the Redskins only gave in because sponsors were threatening to back out. None of these name changes were the result of a grassroots boycott.

 

[KevFu]

Being "unhappy" that a logo sucks and being "unhappy" that (mostly) white billionaires are using cariactures of you and your culture as a sports mascot, only a handful of generations after they stole your land and committed genocide on your people is not functionally comparable.

This is a moral argument, not a business one. The fact that we need to browbeat these turds with bad PR until they're forced, financially, to do the right thing is an indictment of our society.

But even if we do play your game and turn this into some kind of financial game theory argument? Group #1 will throw their baby tantrums and be back on the bandwagon by the first winstreak because corporate branding is not why they love their sports. Everyone else just wants a good rebrand. So do a good rebrand.

I agree with you.

But when talking to strangers on the internet, removing "political" and "moral" and "emotional" aspects of a debate, and boiling it down to game theory works much better with someone on "the other side" from you.