Cleveland Indians most hated team in baseball

[razzzorsharp]

It's true that the Indians and Redskins logos aren't PC. Neither is Notre Dames but no one really cares about that one.

[BrewCrewRising]

It's true that the Indians and Redskins logos aren't PC. Neither is Notre Dames but no one really cares about that one.

 

Personally it bothers me. My ancestry is mostly Irish, and I hate the fact that the Domers seem to claim the whole nationhood for their dumb school.

 

But you can't compare the Indians with "The Fighting Irish" in terms of logos. The ND log is a leprechaun, and is a fictitious being, whereas the Chief Wahoo is a caricature of an entire people. If ND changed their logo to a drunken, whimsical looking Irish person, I think you'd notice a lot more people being vocal about it.

[TheCrew07]

Count me in the "I don't care about mascots and logos" camp.

 

We look around for reasons to be offended these days, and in the case of "Indian" type mascots, you can't even get a consensus between the various tribes or members of a specific tribe in case after case; Illinois, Florida St, Cleveland, Atlanta... "Offensive" and "insensitive" are often thrown around, but who gets to determine what's truly over the line or who's just being thin skinned about nothing? Why isn't the cowboy insensitive? Because it's an over the top depiction of a white man? What about the minuteman? Or the mountaineer? Are the Angels too religious? What about Greek mythology and the Argonauts because after all Warriors wasn't PC enough for Marquette? There are 2 colleges that still have their mascot as the Aztecs, but is that okay because they weren't primarily a North American tribe? What about all of the colleges that have Beavers as their mascot, we all know the modern double meaning? How about the Patriots? Quakers? Saints? Knights? Spartans? I could go on and on, there are probably an average of 2 or 3 potentially offensive mascots for every single letter in the alphabet.

[BrewCrewRising]

Count me in the "I don't care about mascots and logos" camp.

 

We look around for reasons to be offended these days, and in the case of "Indian" type mascots, you can't even get a consensus between the various tribes or members of a specific tribe in case after case; Illinois, Florida St, Cleveland, Atlanta... "Offensive" and "insensitive" are often thrown around, but who gets to determine what's truly over the line or who's just being thin skinned about nothing? Why isn't the cowboy insensitive? Because it's an over the top depiction of a white man? What about the minuteman? Or the mountaineer? Are the Angels too religious? What about Greek mythology and the Argonauts because after all Warriors wasn't PC enough for Marquette? There are 2 colleges that still have their mascot as the Aztecs, but is that okay because they weren't primarily a North American tribe? What about all of the colleges that have Beavers as their mascot, we all know the modern double meaning? How about the Patriots? Quakers? Saints? Knights? Spartans? I could go on and on, there are probably an average of 2 or 3 potentially offensive mascots for every single letter in the alphabet.

 

There were black and Mexican cowboys, and cowboys of Indian blood. So, being a cowboy isn't predicated on being white. Neither is being a knight, mountaineer, a minuteman, or a patriot. It's a role based on one's actions, and inclusion in that group isn't defined by race. It might have been shaped by race, but it's not defined by it. Spartans in every mascot context refers to warriors from the ancient city state of Sparta. Argonauts are solely from mythology. None of these is the same as taking a race of people and making a caricature of them.

 

Personally, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about mascots either. But I'm not going to automatically decide, 'Well I'm not losing sleep over that, so why are they?' if I'm not part of the same race or group that's being caricatured.

 

 

[joepepsi]

So if a team chose a nickname that was, say, derogatory to Jews you'd all be OK with that? What if their mascot alluded to the time of the Holocaust? What if a team's nickname/mascot referred to stereotype of a big strong African American slave? I'm just trying to get a fix on where the line is drawn.

[Funketown]

It's true that the Indians and Redskins logos aren't PC. Neither is Notre Dames but no one really cares about that one.

Neither are as offensive as this one:

 

http://india4indians.com/news/files/2010/03/mumbai-indians.jpg

[wisconsinfan47]

1. Cubs

2. Twins

3. Cardinals

4. Red Sox

5. Yankees.

 

Oh, and I think cnycerveceros nailed it about the logo. I'd be embarrassed to cheer for a team that wears that. Thank goodness my team is represented by beer and beer-makers.

[BrewCrewRising]

My hate meter:

 

1. Braves This goes back 45 years and it's personal.

 

2. Cubs This one is threatening to take over number 1 spot. There's just so many levels on which it's based.

 

3. Yankees This isn't as intense as it was in the 70's and 80's, but it lingers. This started in the 58 World Series.

 

4. Cardinals

Just curious: Is the Braves hatred just because they left?

 

What if the Brewers left Milwaukee, and somebody moved the Braves back to Milwaukee. Would you still hate them, or would you connect to the old glory? I ask because I had this conversation with somebody not long ago ( We decided that it would take a while, and it would take a lot of PR work).

 

Did you hate the Cubs before the Brewers went to the NL? I know you've lived in Chicago a while, so I'm wondering if they bothered you before you had to deal with them as much as now. I personally grew to hate them after 2003 when the fanbase got extremely fashionable about their "playoff contenders". It didn't help that I didn't live far from Wrigley at the time.

 

The Yankees still linger for me. 1981 will not subside for me.

 

Cardinals still linger for me. 1982 will not subside, and La Russa doesnt' do much for their current aura.

 

[Invader3K]

So if a team chose a nickname that was, say, derogatory to Jews you'd all be OK with that? What if their mascot alluded to the time of the Holocaust? What if a team's nickname/mascot referred to stereotype of a big strong African American slave? I'm just trying to get a fix on where the line is drawn.

Not to rip on you, but those examples seem pretty over the top. I can't imagine any team in the US naming themselves after something associated with slavery or the Holocaust.

 

I wonder sometimes if the complaints are actually generated by the people supposedly affected. Look at here in Wisconsin, the state passed a law that allows people to complain about school mascots, possibly causing the schools in question to be fined. I live in a town where the local high school is nicknamed "the Blackhawks", after Chief Blackhawk of the Sauk tribe (IIRC). It was done as a tribute to someone integral to the history of the area, and the logo is pretty diginified looking (not a caricature). I'm sure someday, some person trying to "defend the dignity of Native Americans from something offensive" will complain about it, and the school will be forced to change its name to something generic like the Lasers or Blackbirds (or is even that offensive?) or something.

[cnycerveceros]

I live in a town where the local high school is nicknamed "the Blackhawks", after Chief Blackhawk of the Sauk tribe (IIRC). It was done as a tribute to someone integral to the history of the area, and the logo is pretty diginified looking (not a caricature).

That's an important point, and illustrates even more (for me) why the generic and caricatured Indians logo is on the wrong side of this debate. Not every Native American inspired logo and/or name is offensive, and we should be sensitive to the spirit of the choice. That said, sometimes you make a really poor attempt at honoring that spirit and to say 'well you just don't get it' isn't good enough.

 

The Irish nickname is a really interesting question. It was founded by a French religious order, but it quickly attracted a lot of Irish Catholics. I've heard that early on ND football teams would be heckled as the Fighting Irish, but that the players/coaches (maybe Rockne?) sort of tried to turn it around and emphasize the tenacity aspect as something to be proud of. So, I think the issue here is maybe that there were actual Irish people involved in the choice to become the Fighting Irish. I don't know for sure, but I'd be really surprised if there were Native Americans directly involved in many of the decisions to name colleges/pro teams like the Fighting Sioux or the Redskins.

[craigharmann]

OK, OK, I get the hatred for Roger Dorn, and their owner....but come on! Who can't get behind Pedro Cerrano or Willie Mays Hayes? All I'm saying, is give Cleveland a chance! They have a pretty decent announcer from what I remember.....not that great when he's sober, but that hardly happens.

[Baldkin]

What a joke.

This all seems made up, especially without any information on how the data was gathered or what might've been asked.

I mean, "How do you feel about your team's start so far?"

"I friggin hate it, and I'm an Indians fan."

There we go. Most hated = Indians.

[brewcrewchisox]

So if a team chose a nickname that was, say, derogatory to Jews you'd all be OK with that? What if their mascot alluded to the time of the Holocaust? What if a team's nickname/mascot referred to stereotype of a big strong African American slave? I'm just trying to get a fix on where the line is drawn.

Not to rip on you, but those examples seem pretty over the top. I can't imagine any team in the US naming themselves after something associated with slavery or the Holocaust.

Native Americans were indeed enslaved. Please check your history. And while "holocaust" may be too strong of a word for you, I don't believe the strategic annhilation of entire tribal nations is much of a reach.

 

[joepepsi]

So if a team chose a nickname that was, say, derogatory to Jews you'd all be OK with that? What if their mascot alluded to the time of the Holocaust? What if a team's nickname/mascot referred to stereotype of a big strong African American slave? I'm just trying to get a fix on where the line is drawn.

Not to rip on you, but those examples seem pretty over the top. I can't imagine any team in the US naming themselves after something associated with slavery or the Holocaust.

Native Americans were indeed enslaved. Please check your history. And while "holocaust" may be too strong of a word for you, I don't believe the strategic annhilation of entire tribal nations is much of a reach.

Right, thank you. Strategic annihilation= genocide. Just because our history books ignored it when we were kids, and it happened 150 or more years ago, doesn't mean we can dismiss it today.

 

I am all for team nicknames that honor history or a legacy. Truthfully, I don't see what's wrong with naming your team the Indians as long as it's not meant in racist way, but then, I'm not Native American. In the end, I think it's up to Native Americans to decide whether it' offensive. It's up to the rest of us to respect that.

[Invader3K]

Native Americans were indeed enslaved. Please check your history. And while "holocaust" may be too strong of a word for you, I don't believe the strategic annhilation of entire tribal nations is much of a reach.

You're really nit picking my statement and trying to create an argument where none exists.

[davego]

I forgot about my Braves hatred. My (since now passed) grandfather taught me to hate them for moving from Milwaukee. I'm happy to follow his lead.

[YoGasKpose]

My personal hate list:

1) Cardinals

2) Cardinals

3)Yankees

Distant 4th=Twins. I know everyone is supposed to love them and all, but after living in Minnesota and watching the Crew lose game after game in that craphole, I just can't do it. The new stadium is awesome, but it doesn't lessen my dislike. Especially after walking around town and looking at all the smiling faces after their great start. Grrr....

[pitchleague]

they screwed it up:

 

http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/index?id=5149845

 

 

 

I kind of thought that this was the case.

[Invader3K]

Too funny. Sloppy reporting at its finest.

[Buckylovesbeer]

That is great stuff ...... it sure didnt sound right to me, even if people hate the mascot.

[Principessa21]

I don't remember where I read it, but the study couldn't account for sarcasm or emoticons.

[sbrylski]

I am all for team nicknames that honor history or a legacy. Truthfully, I don't see what's wrong with naming your team the Indians as long as it's not meant in racist way, but then, I'm not Native American. In the end, I think it's up to Native Americans to decide whether it' offensive. It's up to the rest of us to respect that.

I would agree with this for the most part.

 

But, I think a some of the names/logos that are considered acceptable might really just be aversive racism. I do not understand the distinction between this being okay:

 

http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/Cleveland%20Indians%20Logo.png

 

Yet this being totally unacceptable for a sports logo:

 

http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/images/Coon%20Chicken%20images/menufront_250.jpg

 

 

The only difference seems to be the level of education or awareness of the culture and history.

[ilovebeer]

Judging by there attendance tonight of just over 13000 on a Saturday night, i can see why.

[BCZF]

Russ... What else can I say...

[The Heartbreak Yid]

The Cubs have a huge national fanbase.

 

Its mainly because their radio and TV broadcasts were widely available in the 70-80's, while most teams broadcasts were not.

 

Not true. A lot of the national Cubs love has to due with the 100+ world series drought. As the biggest title drought in american sport history, its gained them an international intrique and fan base, even a cult follwing. However, Im kinf of surprised that the Cubs arent on the top 10. I know were considered enemy number 1 on most NL Central fan bases even when they suck. Probably because of the way Cubs fans have a tendancy to flock opponents stadiums. As far as nation wide fan bases go, theres the Yankees, Cubs, Red Sox and everyone else.