Q: In How Many Ways Is This Hat Racist?
Jack Moore is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with degrees in Mathematics and Economics. He also blogs the Brewers at Disciples of Uecker, the Wisconsin Badgers at Badger of Honor and fantasy baseball at Roto Hardball. Follow him on twitter at @jh_moore.
11
extremely racist, and I’m a huge Tribe fan.
Ugh. I wish they would get rid of Chief Wahoo once and for all. I’ve been an Indians fan my whole life and I’ve always been ashamed of this logo.
I count 3 ways
I submitted this to Fail Blog a few years ago, it was not selected.
good thing notgraphs has lower standards
We’re lowering the bar, one post at a time, my friend.
But aren’t Native Americans more American than anyone?
Andrew Jackson might disagree
I thought they got rid of this cap? http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/MLB-pulls-Chief-Wahoo-off-Cleveland-s-09-Stars-?urn=mlb-164637
Has it reappeared?
Looks like it still hasn’t been used or sold since 2008.
http://shop.mlb.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=1844882&cp=1452349.1452728
yeah, it’s here.
http://www.fangraphs.com/not/index.php/q-in-how-many-ways-is-this-hat-racist/
The link to this page on this page just opened up a cosmic wormhole, and I am now experiencing an existential crisis.
Thanks.
but Native Americans are American and baseball is American…so what’s the problem here?
I once saw a black-on-black version of this hat where the eyes and teeth are still white, so it looks like the Chief is wearing blackface. Needless to say, you can’t buy that anymore.
I think that’s the third way.
yep
people are extremely sensitive. Although it is an “offensive” symbol, its been years since any real oppression has been “dished” out towards Native Americans, its time to move past this issue. If native americans really wanted to take offense, how about the actual team name. Since we’re being sensitive, isnt “Indians” politically incorrect/ offensive? Wouldnt the “Cleveland Native Americans” be better suited?
Your argument is, because the team name is very offensive, anything that is additionally offensive isn’t important?
I don’t even get why it’s so offensive to begin with. Back in the day when Indian was still the proper term for a Native American, the Indians had one, and changed their name to honor him. Chief Wahoo was a picture that a guy in a bar would draw and post up marking every Indian’s win.
Whether or not that is true, that context is lost on the vast majority of people. And even it if wasn’t, it would still be an offensive caricature of a proud people. I’m not sure there’s a way to spin this positively. It’s pretty bad. We can all admit that, right?
e-gads man!
The term “Indian” isn’t actually offensive to every Native American. It’s not derogatory; it’s just a historical misnomer. Additionally, it depends who you’re talking to. Some members of one tribe may refer to themselves as one thing, and another group as another, and there’s just a whole mess of naming to try to sort through. We’re not arguing that point because it’s stupid.
Oh, and you’re kind of wrong about the “real oppression” thing in contemporary American society, unless your idea of oppression is only limited to things like genocide and segregation. But I digress.
This isn’t about “political correctness”. Naming your team after a group of people and then proceeding to rewrite their sense of identity by using a large-nosed, red-faced, feather-wearing, sinister-looking stereotype of a cartoon is altogether dehumanizing.
Now, the design for this hat is particularly cringe-worthy because, not only is the mascot itself offensive for reasons pointed out earlier, but because b. (as mentioned by another reader) Chief Wahoo (really? “Chief Wahoo”?) looks like he’s wearing blackface, and c. the flag of the United States of America is plastered across the head of what’s supposed to be a Native American chief, once again asserting Euro-American dominance over a previously-dominated people (that last bit might be taking it too far, but if we’re counting the number of ways this hat is racist…).
Anyway, this is just not a very well-executed idea.
I don’t think that the American flag should ever be taken to represent European-Americans only or European dominance of the continent. Notwithstanding the fact that Native Americans largely didn’t have a choice whether to be a part of the USA, the flag itself at least should be symbolic of American independence from European dominance (not the other way around, so to speak).
I didn’t even notice the blackface thing until it was pointed out.
As for the caricature-as-racism “way”, which “way” is the normal sense in which having your sports team named for a people is considered inappropriate, it ought to be clear that a sports-related depiction of a human, animal, weather event, or other object is always a caricature of the actual thing. With this in mind, reasonable people (supposing they exist somewhere) should recognize that the Indians on the field are nothing like real Native Americans. I don’t think I was yet 8 years old when I understood this. I disagree that it dehumanizes the actual people, because, in particular, the characteristics of the caricature are so far from modern stereotypes that there is no real conflating of identities (which is necessary to impact the original identity).
Ok after writing all of that, I realized that I had implicitly taken the point of view of an outsider (in order to conclude that one’s perception of Native Americans wouldn’t be negatively changed). But if someone uses a depiction of your people involving stereotypes common from the past rather than the stereotypes du jour, the older stereotypes are probably still in your consciousness and therefore can still be hurtful. Perhaps this distills it to a question of “too soon” or not. I still think that everyone ought to consider that team mascots are caricatures whether they depict humans or not, so they shouldn’t be taken as equivalent to the teams’ or supporters’ views of the people (or animals or weather events) depicted.
I don’t think you quite get it. A caricature that emphasizes and exaggerates facial features common to a particular race in a demeaning way will never be okay. I’m guessing you are not a native yourself, in which case you can’t possibly win this argument, because you don’t have the required perspective on the subject to make the point you are trying to make.
but what if they traded for Jacoby Ellsbury?
And yet, nobody complains about the Notre Dame “Fighting Irish.” I smell hypocrisy afoot.
I say we reconquer both and run some OPS and WAR numbers.
And by “reconquer both” I meant reconcuer one and conquer the other for the first time. pardon my blatant stupidity.
also my lack of spellcheck.
The hat itself is probably trademarked with a MLB *”C* hologram sticker. This means that the image, as offensive as it is, is actually the property of a corporation that will sue you if you use it without permission, or you have to pay to use it.
That’s #4.
how is that racist?