It is deplorable that in the 21st century professional sports teams continue to bear the nicknames of Native Americans. The Chicago Blackhawks hockey franchise is probably the least offensive, but it depicts a Native American as its mascot nonetheless. In addition to being called the “Braves,” the Atlanta baseball franchise implores the dreaded “Tomahawk Chop” as a way to motivate its team to victory. The nickname for the Washington DC professional football franchise is the “Redskins.” Need I say more? But the aforementioned names are trumped by the Cleveland Indians major league baseball franchise, their overtly racist logo continues to stand the test of time because of a long held tradition.
For years, Native Americans have protested the depiction of “Chief Wahoo,” the demeaning, fiery red, wildly grinning Cleveland Indians logo that is about as politically correct as having two black children in overalls with big eyes and big lips eating watermelon.
Those favoring the status quo point to the origins of the name. The argument is that the nickname is merely a tribute to an early Cleveland ball player, Louis Sokalexis, the first Native American to play major league baseball. The Cleveland team was known for years as the “Naps,” after player-manager Napoleon Lajoie. When Lajoie was released in 1914, a Cleveland newspaper held a contest to re-name the team. The winning entry suggested the name “Indians” after Sockalexis; or so the story goes, because he was not on the team in 1914.
Recently, Fox News host, Bill O’Reilly pointed out that he was not offended by the Notre Dame “Fighting Irish” or the Boston Celtics mascots, given his Irish heritage and does not understand why Native Americans raise such a fuss. Mr. O’Reilly’s point of view fails to consider a fundamental question: Who gets to decide what is offensive, the perpetrator or the recipient of the perpetrator’s action? Hard to imagine change occurring when it is the perpetrator who decides, especially since the Cleveland baseball franchise has already reached its position.
Richard Jacobs, the Cleveland Indians principal owner, remains steadfast in
his belief that “Chief Wahoo” and the team name are inextricably linked
to Cleveland baseball tradition. Such responses require little thought and lots
of arrogance. Tradition is nothing more than long established customs or beliefs
that have been handed down over time.
Under this rubric, could not the Klan make the case that lynching is a part of
their tradition? Did not white South Africa make the argument that Apartheid was
a part of their tradition?
Tradition may be used as a euphemism for not wanting to change the status quo, but it should never be mistaken as a legitimate response against doing what is right. The irony of “Chief Wahoo” is that he is depicted as a smiling sports mascot. The historical systematic dehumanization of Native Americans is nothing to smile about. Not even the African American adventure can match the level of brutality that befell Native American brothers and sisters. How can any of us, black, white, Hispanic, liberal or conservative remain comfortable in 2003 with the trivialization of Native American culture for our personal amusement?
African Americans, in particular, would be outraged if “Chief Wahoo” wore “black face” and tap danced during the seventh inning stretch. Regretfully, there are not enough individuals who are offended to the extent of forcing change. The Cleveland Indians and “Chief Wahoo” are not wholly owned subsidiaries under the conglomerate known as “Native Americans Issues Only,” this is an injustice that requires the involvement of all concerned. Because as Martin King noted, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Nationally boycotting the Cleveland Indians home and away games, along with the purchasing of their paraphernalia is the only way to get the attention of Richard Jacobs who still feels that maintaining a racist tradition is more important than long needed change.
Cleveland is clearly the most outlandish example when it comes to racial insensitivity by a sports franchise. A successful boycott of Cleveland, however, could force the Blackhawks, the Braves, and the Redskins to examine their practices. Wouldn’t that be a great tradition?
For those interested to doing more, go to Stop Racism in Major League Mascots. www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction.