A racist group of Chief Wahoo supporters held a rally before Cleveland's home opener on Friday, happily "
participating in the same sort of activism for which they've disparaged their opponents for years". (Right-thinking opponents of the racist logo were there, as well, as they have been for many seasons.)
It was announced before the season that the team would remove the Wahoo logo from their players' uniforms after this season. (But don't you dare think that the fact the 2019 All-Star Game will be played in Progressive
[sic] Field had
anything to do with that decision.)
"The team will still be cashing in on racism by selling Chief Wahoo merchandise," said Marjorie Shelltrack-Villafane, Chairperson of the Committee of 500 Years. "We will still be subjected to that demeaning logo, and fans will continue to mock us by wearing fake headdresses, war-whooping, and yelling slurs at us."
Joe Costello, one of the organizers of the pro-Wahoo rally,
said (without a drop of irony): "Our hope is that everyone remains respectful and courteous ... [O]ur goal is to show our support for the Chief ... not, in any way, to degrade or tear down those who would disagree with us."
That bit of nonsense made no impression on the bigots who "
yelled 'long live the chief' as they passed the demonstrators. Others made obscene gestures and cussed as they walked by."
Philip Yenyo, executive director of the American Indian Movement of Ohio:
They still want to keep hold of what they consider as their traditions and their history and they're not realizing that their history is basically a history of oppression. ... [T]o continue selling this merchandise is like saying, 'OK we realize it's wrong, but we're still going to make money on this.' It's like rubbing salt in an old wound, a wound that's actually 520 years old.
The swastika is not inherently evil in and of itself, and for centuries had a meaning radically different from its current use in the public imagination (thanks, Hitler)! [Please note - I'm using an obvious example, not comparing people on either side to the Nazis.] I don't know of anyone who really thinks Chief Wahoo is an accurate depiction of any of the members of the myriad tribes and nations throughout the western hemisphere. To some, he's nothing more than a cartoonish icon of the icon of a team they've (futilely) followed for decades. The origins don't concern them.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying keep the logo, and I absolutely understand why some find it offensive and want it done away with, but I do think it is disingenuous and unfair to crudely characterize all those who want to keep the logo as racists.
To some, he's nothing more than a cartoonish icon ... I do think it is disingenuous and unfair to crudely characterize all those who want to keep the logo as racists.
ReplyDeleteYes, Wahoo is not an accurate depiction of an actual human being. And no black person had the gigantic lips on various racist pictures and no Jewish person's nose was ever as long as drawn by anti-Semites. So?
My characterization of the pro-Wahoo people as racists and bigots was crude? I thought it was obvious and straightforward. If someone was walking around with a hat or a shirt or a jacket or gloves (!) that featured a similar depiction of a black person or a Jewish person or a Chinese or Japanese person - or if he had a huge sign with the picture that he was waving around in public, everyone would know that the guy was a racist. Because people who are NOT racist do not go around in public with pictures like this on their clothes.
The swastika is not inherently evil in and of itself,
ReplyDeleteThe prior uses and meanings of the swastika have been obliberated by the use of the symbol in the 20th century. The swastikas mean only one thing now. Any prior meanings are null and void. It is a symbol of evil because human beings made it so.
To argue otherwise is to be wilfully obfuscating and disingenuous.
Everyone who wants to keep the logo is racist -- whether they realize it or not.
ReplyDelete"My characterization of the pro-Wahoo people as racists and bigots was crude? I thought it was obvious and straightforward. If someone was walking around with a hat or a shirt or a jacket or gloves (!) that featured a similar depiction of a black person or a Jewish person or a Chinese or Japanese person - or if he had a huge sign with the picture that he was waving around in public, everyone would know that the guy was a racist. Because people who are NOT racist do not go around in public with pictures like this on their clothes."
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware any teams had those images. Do they play in the South?
No, I disagree. I have this record in my collection. Am I a racist? How about R. Crumb, who drew the picture? The execs at Yazoo records, that released the compilation? Am I racist if I throw out the cover? Or am I forbidden from even listening to the music?
Context is key, as with the swastika, its origin is not as relevant as the current social perspective. The vast majority of the people who see a swastika think, "Nazi." Maybe in a few centuries it will revert back to its original intent. Per the "Chief," I see that image, I think, "Oh, that's the logo for that baseball team from Cleveland." Not, "That's a gross caricature of the Native Indigenous Peoples of the Americas." I imagine most Cleveland fans feel the same way.
And let me repeat, I understand why people are offended by the image and would personally never wear it, but I don't think it makes those people racists ipso facto. I think the term too serious in its repercussions to use so cavalierly.
"The prior uses and meanings of the swastika have been obliberated by the use of the symbol in the 20th century. The swastikas mean only one thing now. Any prior meanings are null and void. It is a symbol of evil because human beings made it so."
ReplyDeleteBut you forget human beings also made it originally to mean something different. It changed, and can change back. Panta rhei.
"To argue otherwise is to be wilfully obfuscating and disingenuous."
I am making the observation that images, symbols, sings, even words can change their meaning and you cannot base an argument on, "Well, ORIGINALLY this was supposed to mean X, ergo it must always be thought of as so." Just as a swastika now means something different, I fail to see why an image like Chief Wahoo can't be argued to change as well.
"Everyone who wants to keep the logo is racist -- whether they realize it or not."
I wasn't aware the previous leader and designator of human behavior had passed. I didn't get the memo. Congratulations on your promotion!
Disagree with the person who runs the blog (who just happens to be a man).
ReplyDeleteInsult the other person who has commented (who just happens to be a woman).
This pattern of behaviour is so predictable, I could set my fucking watch by it.
"Disagree with the person who runs the blog (who just happens to be a man)."
ReplyDeleteActually, I disagreed with you because you engaged in an actual argument, offering examples to support your point. I don't agree, and in my reply explained why I did so. You used analogical reasoning that, while I don't think it successful, was an attempt to explain why you came to that conclusion.
"Insult the other person who has commented (who just happens to be a woman)."
Turanga made a declaration absent any supporting data, and if someone, man or woman, wants to offer opinions using volatile terms like "racist" while not considering that "culturally insensitive," "ignorant" or "foolishly stubborn," can just as accurately describe why people wear the Chief Wahoo logo, there's really not much you can do with that. If I were to have written, "Everyone who wants to get rid of the logo is a virtue signaling busybody - whether they realize it or not," I doubt you would have treated that as anything but a trollish remark allergic to any reasonable discussion of the matter.
And let me repeat - I wouldn't wear the logo and understand why many find it offensive. But I save terms like "racist" for people with deeply ingrained prejudices against other people because of their skin color, not baseball fans desperately unwilling to consider the logo in a wider social context.