Cleveland removing Chief Wahoo from uniforms next year

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/22255143/cleveland-indians-removing-chief-wahoo-logo-uniforms

The polarizing mascot is coming off the team's jersey sleeves and caps starting in the 2019 season, a move that will end Chief Wahoo's presence on the field but may not completely silence those who deem it racist.

Click to expand...

They've got the same issue UIUC has with the Chief trademark falling into the public domain.

However, the American League team will continue to wear the Wahoo logo on its uniform sleeves and caps in 2018, and the club will still sell merchandise featuring the mascot in Northeast Ohio. The team must maintain a retail presence so that MLB and the Indians can keep ownership of the trademark.

Click to expand...

"We don't wanna appear racist, but we also would like to keep our trademarked racist images, so we will be as little racist as possible."

Good, that was the second most racist thing in pro sports (Redskins still hold the prize).

Funny though:

However, the American League team will continue to wear the Wahoo logo on its uniform sleeves and caps in 2018, and the club will still sell merchandise featuring the mascot in Northeast Ohio. The team must maintain a retail presence so that MLB and the Indians can keep ownership of the trademark.

Click to expand...

That may not be enough to maintain the trademark. To maintain the federal trademark, you need to use the mark in commerce that is controlled by Congress. If they limit the sales to only one state, that is not interstate commerce and thus outside of Congress's control. Single state sales can not be used to maintain a federal trademark.

Using the mark on their uniforms will help, but then they are limited to that scope. That opens up a lot more merchandise to have the symbol on it and not infringe because I wouldn't confuse an alarm clock with a baseball team.

Their better hope is the fact that I really doubt they manufacture the apparel in Ohio. Shipping it in from China is foreign trade, and thus part of Congress's control. There is case law to support that, but it is not the strongest and I could see a court wanting to tell them to eff off with their racist trademark.

What would be poetic is if they only sold the apparel on Indian Reservations. Trade with Native Americans is under Congress's control and thus would count. And funneling the profits to the reservation would at least be a slight signal of good faith, while maintaining the exclusive use of the mark and blocking others from using it.

ju1ce said:

It's a cartoon caricature of an Indian stereotype, you should easily be able to see how it's racist/offensive to some Native Americans. I don't understand how so many people say they cant see how it's offensive.

Click to expand...

I'm not getting in this argument, but basic logic tells me that if American Indians are offended (and they definitely have every right to be) by Chief Wahoo, then the Irish should be marching on South Bend and burning the golden dome.

Illiniwek66 said:

then the Irish should be marching on South Bend and burning the golden dome.

Click to expand...

And yet, they aren't. So maybe retire this jr. high-level argument from your repertoire.

mattcoldagelli said:

And yet, they aren't. So maybe retire this jr. high-level argument from your repertoire.

Click to expand...

I didn’t say they were. I simply made an analogy for sake of discussion. And then you deliberately insulted me. That’s why these discussions always go downhill. You could just disagree without being rude.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Illiniwek66 said:

I didn’t say they were. I simply made an analogy for sake of discussion. And then you deliberately insulted me. That’s why these discussions always go downhill. You could just disagree without being rude.

Click to expand...

It's a terrible analogy, and I insulted it, not you.

I would venture that these conversations go downhill because people casually do things like use invented hypotheticals to defend their position, and people find bad/dishonest arguments frustrating, but that's just me.

CAHALL15 said:

I know your opinion, but this does not seem racist to me. I don’t see any prejudice or discrimination against Indians in the representation of the logo. Furthermore, there are actual Indians (Native Americans) who have said that they are fine with the logo.

Click to expand...

That is really unfortunate.

It is one thing to say "I think weighing it on the whole, it is ok" and a completely different thing to say "I don't see any prejudice or discrimination against Indians in the representation of the logo." You have to be willfully ignorant, IMO, to not see anything questionable.

First, the over-saturated redness of the face, the large nose, and the eyes are classic methods of dehumanizing a group via caricature by highlighting the differences between them and the majority. This is exactly what Black Sambo did, which is universally accepted as racist. When you do this to an entire group (as opposed to an individual like a political cartoon) you are treating them as "different". That is blatant discrimination.

Second, the feather. In the closest native american cultures, that is a war time award for shedding blood in battle. Very similar to a modern day Purple Heart. Do you not think it would be in poor taste for a sports teams to put the Purple Heart on their mascot?

Regardless of some native americans being "Ok" with it, many many more are not. You can't just ignore the masses and focus on the voices you want to hear.

I believe Cahall15 was making a point through a generic argument that could be applied to any Native American mascot/symbol. It's essentially the argument many of us Illini fans make when defending the chief. It gives some of us, who think the chief logo is okay but the Indians logo racist, a taste of what those who think the chief logo is racist feel like.

Branson53 said:

I believe Cahall15 was making a point through a generic argument that could be applied to any Native American mascot/symbol. It's essentially the argument many of us Illini fans make when defending the chief. It gives some of us, who think the chief logo is okay but the Indians logo racist, a taste of what those who think the chief logo is racist feel like.

Click to expand...

I would hope any adult, especially one educated at the University of Illinois, would recognize that the Chief does have an element of racism to it. It is reasonable to consider it insignificant in light of the honor also associated with it and the benefits of tradition. It is not reasonable to pretend it isn't there.

bobbob said:

I would hope any adult, especially one educated at the University of Illinois, would recognize that the Chief does have an element of racism to it. It is reasonable to consider it insignificant in light of the honor also associated with it and the benefits of tradition. It is not reasonable to pretend it isn't there.

Click to expand...

People also need to understand that even though the intent is not to be racist, or the intent is to be honorable, does not mean it will be taken as such.

Then take the next step to understand why, and you can start to understand the legitimate concerns in an opposing viewpoint.

FiveStar said:

People also need to understand that even though the intent is not to be racist, or the intent is to be honorable, does not mean it will be taken as such.

Then take the next step to understand why, and you can start to understand the legitimate concerns in an opposing viewpoint.

Click to expand...

Really well said.

ChiefIllini said:

"We don't wanna appear racist, but we also would like to keep our trademarked racist images, so we will be as little racist as possible."

Click to expand...

I think they were scared of what South Park did to the Redskins logo.