On the Beat: Phunky St... (01/24)
65 comments have been left for this article. BP Comment Quick Links
| |
|
|
January 25, 2013 BP UnfilteredWhy Wahoo's Gotta GoEarlier this week, I came across a link from Craig Robinson at Flip Flop Fly Ballin’ to a cache of 14 radio broadcasts of baseball games from 1948-1967. If you like history or listening to baseball on the radio, this is a treasure trove, and you’ll want to spend a while absorbing the sounds of the game in the time of fast talk and high trousers: Boudreau, Berra, and Ballantine Beer. One of the broadcasts is from the fifth game of the 1948 World Series and features Mel Allen (in the third of what would be 18 consecutive World Series assignments) and Jim Britt calling the Boston Braves’ 11-5 win over the series’ eventual victors, the Indians. It starts out innocently enough—a friendly greeting from Allen, a word from our sponsor (Gillette, not yet bragging about its blade counts), and a reminder that we’re listening to a relic of a time when someone still watched boxing. So far, so good. But it’s 1948, and it’s Indians vs. Braves. If you’re thinking, “That sounds like a recipe for some casual cultural insensitivity,” you’re right! I’ve embedded the relevant bit below. Prepare to be snapped out of your nostalgia around the 30-second mark. It’s not surprising that this would have been considered kosher on a national baseball broadcast in 1948. One need only look at that game’s lily-white lineups to be reminded of what passed for acceptable at the time: the Braves, the fifth major-league team to integrate, wouldn’t do so until 1950, and even the progressive, Bill Veeck-owned Indians fielded only two non-white players. What does seem a little surprising, in light of how long it's been since we left those lily-white lineups behind, is that some remnants of Allen’s attitude remain. This was the Indians’ primary logo in 1948 (courtesy of SportsLogos.net): By 1951, "Chief Wahoo" had evolved (if you can call it that) into this: Since then, though, Wahoo hasn't aged a day: While Wahoo’s silent grin might not set off the same alarm bells as Allen’s references to reservations, medicine men, and peace pipes (if only because we’re so used to seeing it), it comes from the same cultural lineage—one we shouldn’t be particularly proud of. As Emma Span once put it: Look: I know it’s a tradition; I know the vast majority of people who do that chant, or wear caricatured Cleveland Indians mascot gear, are not racist and have no actual problem with Native Americans. But it’s well past time for those fans, and those teams, to demonstrate that by knocking this stuff off. Even if no great harm is being done now, these are the vestigial remains of a very real racism which has done plenty of harm, and I don’t understand why anyone would want to associate themselves with it. Does that pleasure of tradition really outweigh the ickiness of taking part, however briefly, in that kind of creaky, ugly, outdated world view? We’ve come a long way in the last 65 years. Why not take one more step and make Wahoo go away for good?
Ben Lindbergh is an author of Baseball Prospectus. Follow @benlindbergh
|
The Keeper Reaper: Outfielders for 1/25/13
If we get rid of Chief Wahoo we will have to get rid of all human mascots. Do we want to do that? No Irish, Spartans, Trojans, Cowboys, Minutemen, Aztecs, Colonials, Senators, Hoosiers, Knights, Pirates, Warriors, Rebels, Aggies, Miners and etc.
This what we do because I like solutions. If you don't like it don't buy Cleveland Indian merchandise or watch their games. It's a baseball team that nobody really cares about.
I doubt ownership will do anything about it. It will be a slippery slope if the Indian mascot is changed.
Those arguments were mentioned by Paul Lukas in the piece I linked to in the last line of the post. I thought he countered them fairly convincingly.
That's a terrible argument.
"It will be a slippery slope"
I disagree. In fact I look at your whole argument as a slippery slope fallacy. Mainly because besides the Pirates, none of those mascots are MLB team names. Even more so, I don't know of a big pirate population in the US that are being offended by the Pittsburgh mascot.
And some of the other mascots you named don't have negative or stereotypical connotations to them (such as Minutemen, Colonials, Senators, Hoosiers, Miners etc.) and some are nicknames for groups of people that simply don't exist anymore (Spartans and Trojans come to mind).
I can't really fault anyone for not taking offense to the Cleveland logo and nickname. But it does hurt me a little that a sport like Baseball has been somewhat progressive culturally in this countries history.
You must've missed "Talk Like a Pirate" day. They're around. Of course, it's hard to understand what they say so it's hard to tell if they are offended or not.
I think the vast majority of anti-Wahoo folks would be happy with getting rid of all ethnic mascots. Aztecs, for instance, probably should go. Hoosiers and Irish aren't the same either, because these mascots are self-referential (or were at one point, in the case of Notre Dame). If a bunch of Native Americans want to start a baseball team called the Indians, they should feel free.
Your solution doesn't really work, because the only people who could boycott in numbers sufficient to make a difference are Caucasians and Hispanics. If the markets decide, every other group will be fair game.
Besides, what would be the harm, even if that slippery slope came to pass? That's not a question you even attempt to answer. The only answer I've ever heard is tradition. Big deal. We have plenty of traditions. Some of them are worth keeping and some aren't. If a fan can't fathom his favorite team with a new, they either have a profound lack of imagination or weren't much of a fan in the first place.
Not the least bit convincing.
Plus you insult the team to boot, but falsely stating that nobody cares about them.
"It's a baseball team that nobody really cares about."
I didn't know Chris Perez had a BP account...