DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Indians 2020 (continued)

While I'm sad to see the Indians name abandoned, there are a few nicknames I wouldn't mind

Since we were always called "The Forest City" because we have so many trees in our city neighborhoods, and also because the Cleveland Metroparks form an "emerald necklace" that circles the city from the Rocky River reservation on the west side to the North Chagrin reservation way over on the far east side, we could name them the Lumberjacks, and shorten it to Jacks. (Get it? Lumber : Wood Bats, Jacks : Homeruns.)

Or, for a nautical spin, name them the Captains, shortened to Caps.

Bulldogs wouldn't suck.

I'd also be okay with honoring the Negro Leagues from the 40's and 50's, with either the Buckeyes, Comets, or Monarchs.

Other possibilities, just because I like alliteration: Coyotes, Cougars, Cobras, Condors.

Just please, no Spiders, no Rockers, no Naps.

Oh, I certainly won't argue with you about it but will try and answer your question from my perspective.

I don't feel a monument in the town square "educates" anyone. IMO monuments in public places are an honor of sorts. Like the founding father of your town, a war hero from your town or someone you feel deserves commemorating. An act of honor and or respect. That's where I have an issue with Civil war "heroes" being commemorated in that way.

Of course there will be those on the fringe who take the entire thing too far as we have seen. But commemorating people who were responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths of American soldiers is something I find horrendous. Let's be honest here, we don't have statues of generals from any other armed forces that were enemies to The United States of America.

What about statues of Native Americans that fought against and killed American soldiers?

I guess if you call genocide and stealing a continent from its indigenous people the same as people starting a civil war you have a point. I mean if Russia were to invade the United states and we fought back, would you consider that a bad thing?

I love the sound of the Cleveland Buckeyes but with Ohio State that seems likel it might get confusing. Love those old negro league Buckeye uniforms. I like Monarchs too.

And whoever proposed Linders is ridiculous. How did that even get any traction??

Don’t like anything with Dogs .. my wife’s ugly she’ll get offended

I like it. With "Spiders" there is a chance of offending arachnologists, or even entomologists - for lack of inclusion.

Water may be one the few of things that can't be offended... although that may change with time.

Go White Caps!

On behalf of the Wicked Witch of the West, I'm offended.

I knew there was an angle!

The Dolans know they aren't the toast of the town and have been spoon feeding this change over the last few years. Wahoo was fazed out, and it was a slow burn.

The timing of this is hilarious, as the Indians currently don't look like a very good team. Shoulda have announced it when they were up 3-1 on the cubs.

J/c

I’m hearing some people claim that other mascots aren’t as offensive, which is the case. But I think teams like the Seminoles or Braves or whoever may have to dial back their caricatures or traditions too now

I don't feel like I am the top person to gatekeep this kinda stuff.

I don't think every team with a native american name is going to have to give up their names as well.

I know the University of Miami of Ohio worked with the Miami tribe to get rid of the Redskins name, and came up with Redhawks, which is awesome.

Now mind, you there will still be white hipsters out there to tell you that their heritage isn't your mascot, but when the school themselves worked with the tribe? can't go wrong there.

I don't know if the Indians want to do that, or if they are just going to completely abandon the concept. Something tells me they want to just wash their hands of it completely.

I think they have several avenues they could go down. You have the Buckeyes from the Negro Leagues, I think that would be pretty cool.

Everyone has been talking about the Spiders, but that seems a little hokey.

I dunno, but I respect the move. It's not my place to be offended at anything, but I totally understand where they are coming from.

I will continue to wear my Cleveland Indians, and Chief wahoo stuff until if falls apart. (Apporx 20 years)

Possibly a little hokey, but it's nod back to the team from 1887-1899. Plus, in their final year the Spiders were 20-134 so it will bring fond memories of those 100 loss teams of the 80s!

Additionally, they can do a lot with the a logo from a merchandising standpoint.

I'll be a bit surprised if it is not the Spiders. I suppose they have nearly a year to market test nicknames.

Ladies and Gentlemen ... your Cleveland Household Pests. At least Cockroaches would be alliterative.

j/c:

If we are going to change the name, which I am not a fan of doing, I still like the Blue Sox option. Red Sox, White Sox, and Blue Sox.

Baseball clubs were once so good at having names that weren't so, shall we say, gimmicky. -- Mets, Royals, Brewers, Padres, Phillies, Reds, Astros, etc.

I'd like to be the fly on the wall on conversations if this is being more directed by MLB or the Indians.

From Jason Lloyd and Zack Meisel...

The team held staff meetings on Monday to finalize its plan to drop the name “Indians,” though it will remain in use until a new name is adopted.

This shouldn’t come as a shock. Once the organization revealed its intent to review its nickname in early July on the heels of Washington’s football team ditching its own, it signaled that change was inevitable. Really, this can be traced back to the team’s dismissal of its Chief Wahoo logo two years ago.

The club has touted that its primary decision-makers have consulted with fans, corporate partners, team employees, civic leaders and members of the Native American community about the appropriate action to take. But once it publicized its plan to examine the nickname, the only questions to answer were when the change would take place and whether the club would settle on “Spiders” or “Guardians” or “Blues” or “Rocks” or “Walleye” or “Commodores” or “Hazards” or “Wild Things” or “Baseball Club.” It won’t be “Tribe.”

......

Meisel: The name change was always intended to be a thorough, years-long process. Now that they have decided on a direction, there’s still a ton to accomplish once they settle on a new name, with trademarking and rebranding and scrubbing the Indians signage from the ballpark and the city. But again, we knew this was all coming.

With respect, it doesn't matter what you mean. Sitting Bull and others killed many US Soldiers at Little Big Horn.

You can't pick and choose when it is OK and when it isn't.

It probably sounded like it, but I wasn't trying a whattabout. I was sincerely curious how you would navigate the question. I don't think your Russia scenario really fits

Then could you give me an example that does fit when a foreign entity comes in and steals your land and commits genocide against your people?

You most certainly can. When you are protecting "your soil and your people" from being taken over and having further genocide committed against them from a foreign ivvader, you have every right to take on the invaders. America broke every treaty with the Native Americans. Every. Single. One.

That's why the law allows some people to be charged with murder and some killings are considered self defense. But then you know this.

We're talking about statues erected to honor here in America. You put forth that Confederates shouldn't be honored because they fought America and lost, the flip around when talking about Native Americans defending themselves. They lost, but not before they took American lives and committed some questionable acts of their own (and I don't agree with your upcoming argument that what they did pales in comparison to what we did, but I'm just staying within the bounds of this conversation).

What? You do know that there is only 1 tribe 11111 that had a problem with the name.

my question is, When do we as a country stop being thin skinned and grow up! next thing will be the Browns is disrespecting people that are brown.

I feel those who are actually thin skinned are those who get so offended by anyone trying to disrupt their status quo. As if they always get it right and anyone who questions them or wants change they label as being thin skinned.

Actually I'll try to make this as simple as possible. Not due to you not being able to understand, but because it's the very simple basis of my POV.

The confederate army started the war when South Carolina attacked the United States at Fort Sumter. That is an act of war. That is treason against the United States of America.

Over 200 Native American nations were invaded and had genocide committed against them. They were fighting against an enemy that had attacked them.

Who the aggressor is has everything to do with this. Who starts a war has everything to do with this. You seem to wish to focus on how war is fought rather than focus on why and who started the war.

BREAKING NEWS ... In the interest of racial sensitivity, India's Prime Minister Modi has announced that the country is changing its name to Cleveland.

So it's more important which side you're on (which has more to do with where/to whom you're born) than what you do? Keep in mind, we're talking about statues of people erected for their individual actions.

If we were talking about flags (we have in the past) or creeds/codes I would agree with you.

If you believe those that blatantly committed treason against The United states deserve statues, then that's fine.

If you believe people fighting for their very existence is wrong, so be it.

I don't see that as having " a side". I see it as fairly black and white.

I just don't believe you can boil everything down to where someone lived or was born (which is essentially what's going on here).

I'm not following you here.

If I follow you correctly, the side that you're on (which is largely dependent on where you're living/born) can invalidate the good actions or cover for the bad actions of that specific person.

You could be awesome, but since you lived in the South when the decision was made to kick things off, that means nothing.

You could be a Grade AAA jumbo d-bag, but if you lived in the North when others decided to attack, then that's ignored.


That's (part of) what I read from your posts.

I have no idea where you arrived at that conclusion. My family is from the south. I thought our discussion revolved around the acts of individuals and and the reasons of why people did the things they did.

Many people in south were poor people, not slave owners. The vast majority of them in fact. I'm simply relaying the facts as I see them. Did not the south secede from The United States? Did not the Confederate Army initiate the Civil war with their attack on fort Sumter? Isn't that a treasonous act?

You see, I don't make a blanket statement about people depending on where they're from. Heck, I made the choice to move about 20 minutes SE of Nashville TN.

What you seem to be insinuating would be like saying everyone in America approved of attacking Iraq. We both know that isn't true. Yet we all live in America. Looking back at history there are times when our government has done the right thing. And there are times they have done the wrong thing. There are times we've been attacked and there are times we are the attacker.

I would suggest you take what I'm saying in context for just a moment. On one hand I'm standing up for what you deem as "the north". But that's not it at all. I'm standing up for the United states of America who was attacked. The south seceded from the union. They were no longer a part of "The United states". They were the "Confederate States".

On the flip side I'm standing against the United States in their actions for committing genocide against native people and doing everything in their power to wipe them off the face of the earth until cooler heads prevailed. I'm against them breaking every treaty they made with Native Americans.

Does that still sound like I'm sticking up for "the north"?

But the conversation is about statues of individual people, and you keep going back to a decision made by a governing body. You make it seem like every person fighting for the south had a hand in the decision to kick off the War.

Who is this "everybody else" you speak of? I thought part of the discussion was about things like Confederate Civil War Generals having statues erected in their honor? I didn't know that having foot soldier statues was a big thing.

But please let me ask you, if you were a black person living in the south, how would you feel about seeing statues of those who fought to keep your ancestors enslaved in the town square every day?

I can't say. I'm not black.