Plan B Forum

It's been a year or so since the Washington NFL franchise eschewed the "Redskins" team name, coming up with the generic "Washington Football Team" instead.

Now, the MLB franchise in Cleveland has announced that, as of the end of the 2021 season, they will set aside the 'Indians" moniker and become the "Cleveland Guardians".

May I be permitted to raise one point here?  Look at the picture below:



This is one Louis Sockalexis.  He was a Native American.  In fact, he was the FIRST Native American to play professional baseball when he played for the Cleveland Spiders (a forerunner of the modern-day franchise) from 1897 - 1899.  HE is the reason the Cleveland Indians are the Cleveland Indians ...

A little history.   The Indians weren't always the Indians.  From 1904 to 1915  <side note — it was also during this time that 'Shoeless Joe' Jackson could also be found in a Cleveland uniform>  the team was known as the 'Cleveland Napoleons' — often shortened to the 'Naps' — and named in honor of their team captain (and later player/manager) Napoleon 'Nap' LaJoie.  However, when LaJoie was let go in 1915, owner Charles Somers asked the local baseball writers to come up with a new name.  Based on their input, the team was renamed the Cleveland Indians, a reference to the nickname of 'Indians' that was applied to the 'Cleveland Spiders' baseball club during the time when Louis Sockalexis played in Cleveland.

Which means the name is in reference to and celebrates a REAL Native American who actually played the game in the city of the team which bore the 'Indians' name.

So let's cut right to the nitty-gritty.  if you're still offended, at least in this case, by the name 'Indians', you aren't 'woke', not by a long shot.  You are uneducated and ignorant, and should be pitied.

-"BB"-

Native Americans don't give a shit. They are tired of white people claiming that these grossly offensive terms were intended to honor them. They don't. You don't honor someone by using a term that they find grossly offensive.

Is that clear enough, for you, Bill? It would be like claiming that you are naming an institution to honor an African-American, and you were to call it the Harriet Tubman Museum of N-gg-r History.

"Indian" has ALWAYS been a grossly offensive term to Native Americans. They have NEVER accepted it. You are pissing in their faces if you claim that you are using it to honor them

I bet the Indians really love having a white gay man from Canada do their speaking for them.

I worked with a respiratory therapist who was 100% card carrying, yes they actually have a card, who insisted on being referred to as an Indian. When we were in Cherokee, NC, the casino was referred to as the Indian casino, by Indians with whom we spoke.

So the gist is, some do like to be called Indians, some may not and results may vary. Whatever the case, I bet you were not elected spokesperson for them.

Unless you are willing to recruit some Native Americans to join the board, somebody has to counter the bullshit colonialist narrative. Claiming that "no one here can speak for them" is an obvious tactic to allow the oppressor's narrative to go unanswered.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 8:16 pm

Is that clear enough, for you, Bill? It would be like claiming that you are naming an institution to honor an African-American, and you were to call it the Harriet Tubman Museum of N-gg-r History.

Firsts of all, black people today are using the shit out of the word 'n*gg*r'. In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see some black rapper refer to Tubman as a 'warrior bitch nigga' or something like that.
Secondly, even the primary civil rights organization for black people in the United States still uses the words "colored people" in its official name — the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)
And people like yourself are 'reclaiming' the word 'queer'...   How long before 'faggot' becomes common again among your type?

So unless I am consciously and specifically trying to offend someone in the heat of an argument or other less-than-civil confrontation, I will draw the line at certain specifically offensive terms like 'wop' or 'Dago' for an Italian, 'spick' or 'wetback' for Mexicans, or 'gook' for a person of Southeast Asian origin — or even 'queer', 'fairy', or 'faggot'.  But I refuse to be limited to a constantly-changing list of 'socially-approved words' — and you'll note that i still refuse to capitalize the 'B' in 'black', just as I do not capitalize the 'W' in 'white' — merely for fear of upsetting or pissing off someone like you.  If I want to use perfectly good loan-words like 'mulatto' to describe a mixed-race person or common terms like 'Indians' to refer to Native Americans in normal conversation, I will do so...    And you can just pucker up and kiss my chocolate starfish.

-"BB"-

Indians have accepted and owned the generic term and generally dislike the idea of being forced into a new term by “white men” or others who claim to speak for them. That being said they would generally prefer being called by thier tribe.

Crackpot wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 9:28 pm

But but but if Indians accept being called Indians where is the ( woefully uninformed) progressive smack down point then?

And the white colonial fragility can't help outing itself...

I’ve lived and worked with native Americans in Maine, Arizona and Montana. I’d venture a guess that over the years I’ve had a much closer experience to them than anyone who regularly posts here, having spent a lot of time working on reservations in the tribal court system and having a number of enrolled friends and being a student of Native American history (I have a small library on the subject) and being a regular reader of Indian Country Today.

The incredibly shocking thing about these indigenous peoples of North America is that they are just like other people. A wide range of intelligence, common sense, political leaning, etc. There are even native Americans who love Trump!

Yes some don’t give a shit whether they are called Indian (they are very used to this, it being the federal legal system’s official label for them) or if the Washington football team uses a slur as their mascot. Some were really outraged that was dropped and doubtless also upset about this name change.

Millions of Americans vote against their interests and hold views that seem antithetical to their own psychological and physical well being. The people descended from the indigenous peoples of North America are no different.

Nevertheless it is common sense that real change on racial discrimination must involve a societal rejection of the objectification of other people. Rejecting racially based sports mascots is exactly that.

I'd support changing the Cleveland baseball team's name to the Cleveland Caucasians.

Or maybe the Cleveland White Privilege Apologists. That might be better.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 10:24 pm

I’ve lived and worked with native Americans in Maine, Arizona and Montana. I’d venture a guess that over the years I’ve had a much closer experience to them than anyone who regularly posts here, having spent a lot of time working on reservations in the tribal court system and having a number of enrolled friends and being a student of Native American history (I have a small library on the subject) and being a regular reader of Indian Country Today.

The incredibly shocking thing about these indigenous peoples of North America is that they are just like other people. A wide range of intelligence, common sense, political leaning, etc. There are even native Americans who love Trump!

Yes some don’t give a shit whether they are called Indian (they are very used to this, it being the federal legal system’s official label for them) or if the Washington football team uses a slur as their mascot. Some were really outraged that was dropped and doubtless also upset about this name change.

Millions of Americans vote against their interests and hold views that seem antithetical to their own psychological and physical well being. The people descended from the indigenous peoples of North America are no different.

Nevertheless it is common sense that real change on racial discrimination must involve a societal rejection of the objectification of other people. Rejecting racially based sports mascots is exactly that.

Which is shy I wrote, "So the gist is, some do like to be called Indians, some may not and results may vary." My opinion on this was formed in close association with the RT lady. She was terribly interesting and a hoot and a half. I wish I could remember her last name, I would see if I could get in touch and beg her to join the board. I would pop some popcorn and let the games begin.

The principal objection originally was not so much to the word "Indians" but to the depictions of Chief Wahoo.

Old version


The cleaned up versions were not much better.

Guardians is a dumb-f name - absolute bull. So what that the guardians of transport are on the bridge over the flaming river? What's road safety got to do with baseball? It's also the name of an adult (I believe) incontinence product.

I suppose we'll have to Groot Groot Groot for the home team now. (There was some legal reason they couldn't use Spiders again I hear, but surely there was another name that might have worked - Zebras? Hippos? Some animal. Pythons? Cobras?

Looks like they wanted the "ians" ending to echo the old discarded name

Maybe the Cleveland Depends would have been a better name.

Here's a comment my brother made over there on the big ol' Book o' Faces: "Guardians? That's the best they could come up with?
How about the Cleveland Rocks (or the Cleveland Rockers)? Plus that would given them multiple options for a mascot - anything from an electric guitar to a boulder to a rocking chair."

It would take a special kind of Feller to arbitrate this one. On the right and wrong, there are many offended and many not, and I am not in a position to decide what makes sense, though the name is clearly not as offensive as the football team in DC. And the new name is pretty bland and unworthy of the team's history.

Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 9:09 pm

Scooter wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 8:16 pm

Is that clear enough, for you, Bill? It would be like claiming that you are naming an institution to honor an African-American, and you were to call it the Harriet Tubman Museum of N-gg-r History.

   And you can just pucker up and kiss my chocolate starfish.


-"BB"-

Scooter wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 10:18 pm

And the white colonial fragility can't help outing itself...

I suppose the irony of that comment escapes you?

It is, once again, a case of white/straight/Christian/fill-in-your-own-oppressive-majority people saying, "look, I can point to a Black/Jewish/Indigenous/gay person who doesn't think that doing/saying/believing x is wrong, therefore how dare you criticize me for it?"

It's a cheap way of trying to justify why continued oppression is ok.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 26, 2021 7:28 am

It is, once again, a case of white/straight/Christian/fill-in-your-own-oppressive-majority people saying, "look, I can point to a Black/Jewish/Indigenous/gay person who doesn't think that doing/saying/believing x is wrong, therefore how dare you criticize me for it?"

It's a cheap way of trying to justify why continued oppression is ok.

I am the only one who said they knew an Indian who insists on being an Indian. I never said I was onboard with oppression of anyone, even gay know-it-alls like you. You get a hard eye-roll on that one beanie boy.
But if it gives your superiority complex a lift you go ahead with your over-the-top rhetoric.