Cleveland Indians changing name
- Thread starter Kaner04
- Start date
That was my thought. If they didn't have the red face Indian mascot I don't think this would be happening. But there is no way to sugarcoat that one.
It certainly didn't help matters. Chief Wahoo is a wee bit of a stereotype.
That *is* cancel culture, though.
It is a slippery and overused term, sure, but an attempt to define it would be something like putting pressure on heterodox views through economic relationships, such as advertisers pulling dollars from media, venders and suppliers cancelling their engagements with each other, or putting people's employment in jeopardy.
All because we do not want to be "associated" whatever the daily outrage topic is on social media. This is especially the case when the people being cancelled are in specific industries or inherently work on controversial topics, such as academicians or journalists, where this degrades the quality and diversity of scholarship and journalism because this enforces an ideological rigidity when you should actively want heterodox views around in those fields.
Sure, a lot of time they are going to be wrong, but human knowledge and culture does not progress unless that 1% minority sometimes and somehow makes itself into tomorrow's "common sense."
The "Redskins" got cancelled because Washington's advertisers said no more of it. I would not be surprised if the Cleveland Spiders (and just going to use that name for now) had something similar happen. Using dollars and your market power to force the political outcomes that you want is central to "CC."
Winer, winnner, winner.
Cancel culture would be if the government MADE them change their names. That's not happening. This seems to have been done in a good and thoughtful way.
No its not. Not at all. If advertisers pull their dollars its because they don't want to be associated with a potential stereotype. The ballclub is free to pass on their ad dollars and plow forward with their name. Or they can reassess and see if they want to change it.
Just make it "Bass." Then it could be pronounced with short "a" for the fish or long-a for bass, as in guitar. So you get fishing plus rock & roll all in one.
That’s where I wish they would have worked to create something that better represents their culture and honors it.
I don’t think having a sports team necessarily is going to lead to a lot of education on their name but it keeps it in people’s consciousness.
Partnerships like Florida State are the model that we should strive for. Yeah maybe money talks in that relationship but the Seminole Tribe is probably the most well known tribe in the country.
Well........what about the Cleveland Mohawks? Then people can look up the history of how the city started.
Is West Virginia next? The folks that live in the mountains have to be upset about the nickname, and their mascot mocking them, making them all look like Davy Crockett is disgusting.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,709
- 33,665
- 113
That is the free market, though. All of those advertisers and suppliers are free to maintain their relationships if they choose. It's entirely up to them.
I'm sure the MyPillow guy and some gold coins cartel would be more than happy to be associated with the Indians.
Huh? The pillow dude is weird but is from Minnesota, and I have no idea about gold coin cartels. Joke must be over my head.
I never figured you for a radical ancap/libertarian.
I think you are kind of missing the point, however, by just repeating "that is capitalism for you."
The question is not if the New York Times can fire a reporter, undoubtedly an at-will employee, but if they should simply because of some heterodox views that challenge those in power.
It is using economic relationships to try and control thoughts and speech.
I also think "cancel culture" is a neutral term, sort of like "cultural appropriation." It is not inherently in itself good or bad. It is just a process. I consider cancelling the "Redskins" and the "Indians" because those are slurs/insensitive a positive development. The issue is where is the line -- and it is always going to be fuzzy in a complex world.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,709
- 33,665
- 113
Exactly. The Cleveland ownership made a decision to change because they thought it was the best way for them to continue to make money. That's really all there is to it. The invisible hand is pushed by all sorts of factors and public perception/reaction has always been a strong market force. Coming up with a scary new name for it like "Cancel Culture" doesn't change what it is.
The line isn't at getting rid of chief wahoo. There really isn't anything fuzzy about that.
On one hand we have a political mindset that's against cancel culture and for free and unregulated commerce
Then when businesses make a business decision to distance themselves from a controversial idea it's a bad thing?
The tomahawk chop is frankly embarrassing. The Chiefs and Braves should expect some businesses to rethink their relationships
I do believe the Chiefs were named for the mayor of KC?
