Indians Prospect Insider - Covering the Cleveland Indians from the Minors to the Big Leagues

Official 2013 Akron Aeros game thread

Talk shop about the various prospects and teams that make up the Cleveland Indians organization.

Re: Official 2013 Akron Aeros game thread

Postby BrianM » Wed Oct 30, 2013 2:25 pm

GoTribe028 wrote:
BrianM wrote:
martyinnewyork wrote:And between innings they could have Weenie Races!
Here they come, fans- it's Ribbed in the lead, with Flavored gaining fast and Extra Large in the rear!!!


10 points if someone can guess this movie quote...

'ribbed for her pleasure....ewwwwww'

but back to the topic, I would like to know why they changed mascots. I really thought the Aeros was one of the best names in sports.

Honestly, if I was starting an expansion team or simply changing the team name of my Major League club, I would probably just purchase the rights of a minor league team name rather than try to think of something new. It seems like there has been a lot more criticism lately of our logo, so maybe a name switch really is on the agenda and the Aeros are an option.


Don't remember if it was the first Wayne's World or the Second, bu I do know Garth says it lol


10 points sir. Waynes World 1.
BrianM
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:52 pm

Re: Official 2013 Akron Aeros game thread

Postby Edible14 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:45 pm

daingean wrote:
GoTribe028 wrote:
You could make a "less offensive" Chief Wahoo and another butt hurt white person is gonna complain. I think Bob Costas ripped the Indians name along with CW on TV a few weeks ago during a rant on the Washinton Redskins. I used to not care, and will forever have the Chief Wahoo logo for myself but I'm tired of hearing about it from crybaby TV peeps.

I'm almost hoping for a new "brand name" for Clevelans baseball just so all these protesters will finally have to shut the hell up about it and can move on to the next thing. I mean let's face it, my red socks and the local Cardinals have never been more vocal about their misrepresentation since this World Series has begun play.


Let me get this right........the Indians name was at least partially chosen in honor of Louis Sockalexis, the first Native American, to play MLB baseball. I understand if you have no sense of humour, that Chief Wahoo may be offensive but I tell them to get a sense of humour. Not if the Indians do want to get a new mascot....then I say revive the Spiders name and use a web as a logo but have the web kind of resemble Chief Wahoo.


I'm fully on the "ditch Chief Wahoo" bandwagon (and the "ditch the Redskins name" bandwagon). I think we should go to the Block C and call it a day. You don't need a cartoon mascot in baseball. The Dodgers, Yankees, Rays and Angels get by without one just fine. I wouldn't be *against* a name change to the Blues or the Spiders (especially if a Blues team led to us using those awesome navy throwbacks some more), but I don't think it's necessary as long as there are plenty of teams that use Indians, Braves, Warriors, etc.

Sooner or later the Chief will go. Because anyone that looks upon that logo with fresh eyes and a modern perspective finds that it's blatantly offensive and stupid. The logo has nothing to do with Sockalexis. The logo is a racist caricature, that will over time become an even greater point of shame for the fans and the owners. It's just a matter of demographics - younger people are simply less tolerant of racism. I'm a young guy (24) that has plenty of friends that grew up with the Indians. A majority of them dislike Wahoo... and that's a problem. The outrage over this is only going to get worse over time - the Indians *should* be proactive and get rid of it sooner than later. Whether they will or not is another story.
User avatar
Edible14
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:49 am

Re: Official 2013 Akron Aeros game thread

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:22 am

Edible14 wrote:
daingean wrote:
GoTribe028 wrote:
You could make a "less offensive" Chief Wahoo and another butt hurt white person is gonna complain. I think Bob Costas ripped the Indians name along with CW on TV a few weeks ago during a rant on the Washinton Redskins. I used to not care, and will forever have the Chief Wahoo logo for myself but I'm tired of hearing about it from crybaby TV peeps.

I'm almost hoping for a new "brand name" for Clevelans baseball just so all these protesters will finally have to shut the hell up about it and can move on to the next thing. I mean let's face it, my red socks and the local Cardinals have never been more vocal about their misrepresentation since this World Series has begun play.


Let me get this right........the Indians name was at least partially chosen in honor of Louis Sockalexis, the first Native American, to play MLB baseball. I understand if you have no sense of humour, that Chief Wahoo may be offensive but I tell them to get a sense of humour. Not if the Indians do want to get a new mascot....then I say revive the Spiders name and use a web as a logo but have the web kind of resemble Chief Wahoo.


I'm fully on the "ditch Chief Wahoo" bandwagon (and the "ditch the Redskins name" bandwagon). I think we should go to the Block C and call it a day. You don't need a cartoon mascot in baseball. The Dodgers, Yankees, Rays and Angels get by without one just fine. I wouldn't be *against* a name change to the Blues or the Spiders (especially if a Blues team led to us using those awesome navy throwbacks some more), but I don't think it's necessary as long as there are plenty of teams that use Indians, Braves, Warriors, etc.

Sooner or later the Chief will go. Because anyone that looks upon that logo with fresh eyes and a modern perspective finds that it's blatantly offensive and stupid. The logo has nothing to do with Sockalexis. The logo is a racist caricature, that will over time become an even greater point of shame for the fans and the owners. It's just a matter of demographics - younger people are simply less tolerant of racism. I'm a young guy (24) that has plenty of friends that grew up with the Indians. A majority of them dislike Wahoo... and that's a problem. The outrage over this is only going to get worse over time - the Indians *should* be proactive and get rid of it sooner than later. Whether they will or not is another story.


I have a few things....

First off, Chief Wahoo is not a mascot; he is a Logo. I know most will say "same thing" but it's not. It's a huge frakin difference and IMO changes the argument. I know you caught yourself later so maybe it was a typo at first, but something I see far too often by people that actually don't realize there's a difference (you may have so don't take this personally). We aren't running out someone dressed as an Indian. Not like we're Notre Dame dressing someone up as an "Irishman" at games. Or the San Diego Padres having a cartoon mascot "Friar" running around the park. Cause that's what all Irishmen and Friars look like right?


I also love how "young people" are so against racism...yet many don't seem to even know what that word means. They just throw it around whenever they find something they find offensive (even if it's not offensive to them). There is a big difference between something being offensive and racist. Chief Wahoo is absolutely not racist. It's just not...unless you actually think that the Indians as an organization feel that white, blacks, hispanic and/or asian people are all better as a race(s) than American Indians are. Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe that for one second. Do you? Cause if you don't, then Chief Wahoo is not racist. Maybe you can argue it's offensive (though over 50% of Indians surveyed have said it's not to them), but it's not racist. People need to stop using that word to describe Chief Wahoo and need to stop calling him our mascot. Both of these inaccuracies are big issues with this whole debate IMO.

Now, is Chief Wahoo offensive? The Cleveland baseball team we know and love has been called the Indians since 1915. They introduced Chief Wahoo in 1947 as a way to give hope to the team and city. Big eyes, big smile....it's inviting. It wasn't created to say "hey look at that Indian, we're so much better than him as a race". Chief Wahoo is no different than the Notre Dame logo (really, a fighting Irishman...that's not stereotypical at all), the Boston Celtics logo, or Minnesota Vikings log. Or lord, should we talk about the Washington Nationals? They dress people up in cartoonized outfits to look like US Presidents and have them race. It's not like the Indians are doing an Indian Nation race with Sitting Bull, Geronimo, Red Cloud, and Crazy Horse running out of the LF fence instead of hot dogs.

So at the end of the day..is Chief Wahoo offensive? Sure, probably to some it definitely is. But I'm sure people are offended by the Padres mascot, some people may be offended by the "fighting irish" moniker, some people who fought and watched friends die for this country in battle are probably offended with how we respect our former leaders at Nationals games. Hell, someone in PETA is probably offended by the Cardinals logo and a red-green color blind person is probably offended by the Red Sox log as they can't see it (ok, so that was a joke but still). You can't please everyone....best part is this is America so you don't have to.

Hey if "young people" want to stand up for something that's fine. But some of these things are just dumb to stand up for. Stand up for American Indians and their economic issues, not some logo for a sports team. Pretty much ever poll done says the same thing....most Indians don't find Chief Wahoo to be offensive. Hell, my favorite poll was probably the 2001 Gallop poll that showed that only 37% of American Indians found "Redskin" to be offensive...but 46% of the General Public (non-Indians) found it to be offensive. It's like non-Indian Americans are just afraid that if they aren't offended or don't say they are that they'll be called racists. Yes, what white people did to the American Indians 100+ years ago was terrible...but you aren't racist if you aren't offended by a logo. And having a cartoon Indian as your logo isn't racist, period.



Sorry for this being so long-winded. Just a topic I'm pretty passionate about (clearly).
Last edited by Hermie13 on Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Official 2013 Akron Aeros game thread

Postby El Em » Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:06 pm

Hermie,

Just as a point of reference, Notre Dame's logo and mascot is not an Irishman, but rather a leprechaun. I believe the Celtics fall into the same place but am not positive...in any case, I do not find that especially important to the "Chief debate".

I have referenced it before, but I am no fan of the image....splitting hairs, I like it better than the ultra long nosed caricature of the 40's. I will not wear either, as I find them repelling and offensive. There is probably no way I am part of the "younger people" block, but that is my feeling, all the same....block C for me. Somewhat obviouly I guess, I remain a huge fan of the team.

How long before Spring Training? :biggrin

Larry
El Em
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:31 am

Re: Official 2013 Akron Aeros game thread

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:26 pm

El Em wrote:Just as a point of reference, Notre Dame's logo and mascot is not an Irishman, but rather a leprechaun. I believe the Celtics fall into the same place but am not positive...in any case, I do not find that especially important to the "Chief debate".


Fair point the logos being a leprechaun...but honestly that makes it worse doesn't it? You're using the term "Irish" and "Celtic" but then using a leprechaun to depict them. These two teams' mascots, logos, and names degrade those of Irish heritage, portraying them out to be drunkards, brawlers, and/or leprechauns.

Chief Wahoo depicts Indians as red faced....and....well smiling with a feather. Sure Indians aren't "red" skinned but white people (or irish people specifically) aren't actually white (more beige/cream colored), black people aren't actually black but more dark brown and Asians aren't yellow. It's just the tint of their skin and the easiest color to use. Not racist to use the color, but racist to draw conclusions from or judge others based on color is. And sure, most Indians probably aren't happy (looking from an economic standpoint, one of the worse ethnic groups out there) but would hardly say that depicting Chief Wahoo smiling is offensive.


I don't know...maybe I just don't offend easily or know people who are. I have a ton of Irish in me (come from an Irish Catholic family) yet neither Notre Dame nor Boston's logos actually offend me. My wife's family has American Indian in them (her father is big time into that part of his family)...yet no one in that large family is offended by Chief Wahoo.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7093
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Official 2013 Akron Aeros game thread

Postby martyinnewyork » Thu Oct 31, 2013 6:09 pm

The "political correctness" thing gets ridiculous. Let's carry it on further. The name "Giants" is offensive to me because I'm tall and don't t like being called a "giant". "Angels" implies a belief in the afterlife, offending athiests. "Dodgers" may refer to someone playing dodgeball, well-known as a dangerous game. "Yankees" is just plain offensive, as are "tigers" and "Red Sox".
martyinnewyork
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Official 2013 Akron Aeros game thread

Postby El Em » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:40 pm

Marty,

What I find repellant, off putting, or otherwise offensive, certainly does not have to be agreed upon or shared by you. Speaking only for myself, it is not political correctness, it is a personal feeling and sense of what I find acceptable...thinking people should always continue to assess and reassess the world around them. I certainly accept you have the right to do the same, but to chock it all up to PC paints with a very large brush.

As time marches on, I think it will be commerce that dictates how visible the chief might be.

L
El Em
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:31 am

Re: Official 2013 Akron Aeros game thread

Postby Edible14 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 7:43 am

Hermie13 wrote:First off, Chief Wahoo is not a mascot; he is a Logo. I know most will say "same thing" but it's not. It's a huge frakin difference and IMO changes the argument.


Fair and true.

Hermie13 wrote:I also love how "young people" are so against racism...yet many don't seem to even know what that word means. They just throw it around whenever they find something they find offensive (even if it's not offensive to them). There is a big difference between something being offensive and racist. Chief Wahoo is absolutely not racist. It's just not...unless you actually think that the Indians as an organization feel that white, blacks, hispanic and/or asian people are all better as a race(s) than American Indians are. Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe that for one second. Do you? Cause if you don't, then Chief Wahoo is not racist. Maybe you can argue it's offensive (though over 50% of Indians surveyed have said it's not to them), but it's not racist. People need to stop using that word to describe Chief Wahoo and need to stop calling him our mascot. Both of these inaccuracies are big issues with this whole debate IMO.


As much as I hate to debate semantics, I think racist still applies with regards to the Chief. The logo could not come from any other mindset than that of someone who thinks that Native Americans don't matter, and that their heritage is not something worth respecting. It's a stupid caricature. To willfully ignore the offense caused by the logo is to value your own nostalgia for a logo you grew up with over the actual dignity of an entire race of people is something that is at the very least racially insensitive. It may not espouse the idea of "whites are better", but it does espouse the idea of "Native Americans/Indians don't matter". And that is racist. Nobody likes to be called racist, and it's certainly not a pretty word. But there's a cause for it here. I won't argue that people who support the logo are racist - I think that's just a bias towards what's familiar from childhood - but the logo is.

Hermie13 wrote:Now, is Chief Wahoo offensive? The Cleveland baseball team we know and love has been called the Indians since 1915. They introduced Chief Wahoo in 1947 as a way to give hope to the team and city. Big eyes, big smile....it's inviting. It wasn't created to say "hey look at that Indian, we're so much better than him as a race". Chief Wahoo is no different than the Notre Dame logo (really, a fighting Irishman...that's not stereotypical at all), the Boston Celtics logo, or Minnesota Vikings log. Or lord, should we talk about the Washington Nationals? They dress people up in cartoonized outfits to look like US Presidents and have them race. It's not like the Indians are doing an Indian Nation race with Sitting Bull, Geronimo, Red Cloud, and Crazy Horse running out of the LF fence instead of hot dogs.

So at the end of the day..is Chief Wahoo offensive? Sure, probably to some it definitely is. But I'm sure people are offended by the Padres mascot, some people may be offended by the "fighting irish" moniker, some people who fought and watched friends die for this country in battle are probably offended with how we respect our former leaders at Nationals games. Hell, someone in PETA is probably offended by the Cardinals logo and a red-green color blind person is probably offended by the Red Sox log as they can't see it (ok, so that was a joke but still). You can't please everyone....best part is this is America so you don't have to.


This is all over the place, but I'll start with something obvious: The Fighting Irish. Notre Dame is a Catholic school that is predominantly Irish, and they named themselves that. That's not analogous to Wahoo in the slightest. There's a huge difference in predominantly white people making fun of their own history and traditions, versus white people knowingly supporting something that is demeaning and belittling to anther culture.

Put a cute spin on Wahoo all you like. He's still bright red faced with a giant goofy smile that makes him look stupid. It's been pointed out by numerous people that if we drew up any similar caricature for any other race/ethnicity/religion today, it would be roundly panned as offensive. We view Wahoo differently because he's established, because he's been associated with Cleveland baseball for so long. But the argument I'm making is that younger people don't have those blinds, and they aren't going to accept Wahoo the same way. With the amount of online chat that exists on the topic - and it's never going away - the Indians cannot expect that Wahoo won't suffer from diminishing support. It's a matter of demographics, and it's a matter of time.

Hermie13 wrote:Hey if "young people" want to stand up for something that's fine. But some of these things are just dumb to stand up for. Stand up for American Indians and their economic issues, not some logo for a sports team. Pretty much ever poll done says the same thing....most Indians don't find Chief Wahoo to be offensive. Hell, my favorite poll was probably the 2001 Gallop poll that showed that only 37% of American Indians found "Redskin" to be offensive...but 46% of the General Public (non-Indians) found it to be offensive. It's like non-Indian Americans are just afraid that if they aren't offended or don't say they are that they'll be called racists. Yes, what white people did to the American Indians 100+ years ago was terrible...but you aren't racist if you aren't offended by a logo. And having a cartoon Indian as your logo isn't racist, period.

Sorry for this being so long-winded. Just a topic I'm pretty passionate about (clearly).


I agree that there are larger issues for Native Americans. And polls have been all over the place about Native American support/apathy on the subject of the Chief and the name Redskins. But what does it say if only 37% of Natives would respond such a way in a poll? Do those 37% not matter because they're not the majority? Even if it's only a tenth - that's a significant amount of people that have way more stake in the way their heritage is portrayed compared to a bunch of suburban white folk baseball fans. The fact is that it's difficult to put together any comprehensive poll of American Indians, because they live all over the place, have very different cultures and there's questions as to how you factor in mixed race peoples. There's no way to put the idea up to a referendum among all Native people. The idea is more that you listen to their loudest objections on the subject, and you listen to their suggestions (interestingly, there's a really good article about how a lot of Natives love the Redskins' logo, it's a point of pride. On a similar note, Florida State keeping "Seminoles" because the local tribe actually wanted to be remembered and commemorated is a good example of doing things right).

Chief Wahoo has always been a loud point of contention, and for good reason. When we have native people coming out to Indians games and decrying the logo, which we have had for years, I don't see how people can shut their eyes and ears and go "THEY DON'T REALLY CARE... A POLL I READ ON THE INTERNET SAYS SO". It's willful ignorance at this point. I don't think the FO should engage in willful ignorance. Whether they will or not is another story. At the end of the day, fans will grow to love a team no matter what the logo is. A bunch of people will be angry when Wahoo is retired, but I think that's happening at some point no matter what. They'll get over it, and they'll learn to love other logos (actually, the Block C hats sell really well, and people wear them all over Cleveland as-is. I see more Block C caps than I do wahoo hats at this point, and I work at the casino). Best to get that pain over with now rather than later
User avatar
Edible14
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:49 am

Re: Official 2013 Akron Aeros game thread

Postby martyinnewyork » Fri Nov 01, 2013 7:59 am

Ok, what if the team became the Cleveland Shawnee and had Tecumseh on their caps?
martyinnewyork
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Official 2013 Akron Aeros game thread

Postby Rocky55 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:06 am

martyinnewyork wrote:Ok, what if the team became the Cleveland Shawnee and had Tecumseh on their caps?

Marty, you giant ninny! :biggrin

I like Hermie's idea of Chief races during games. I'll attempt to handicap them:

Sitting Bull will get left in the gate.

Geronimo will find the nearest cliff and jump off.

Red Cloud won't even run because he thinks he's "above it all".

Crazy Horse should win, first because he's a horse, and second, because despite his erratic pattern of running(he's Crazy), he's the only one who might make it to the finish line. Unless the vagaries of wind current send Red Cloud over. Also, the cliff might be past the finish line, in which case Geronino...Does anyone remember the Cleveland Cliffs ships? Damn, I lost my train of thought. "Train of thought"? Did I just offend Engineers & Conductors?

Figuring out for whom to be offended is hard work & gives me a headache. Good thing I'm Libertarian & prefer to mind my own business. At least I'm not on Obamacare & can afford ibuprofen for my headache. Oops, I just offended the Socialists, shit, I mean Liberals. Wait, I'm a Libertarian, I object to them using the designation "Liberals", it's to close to Libertarian.

Now I'm offended!

Bow Down to My Offendedness Peons!!!
Rocky55
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:13 pm

Previous

Return to Indians Prospect Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron