The Cleveland Indians baseball team made a surprise (sort of) move yesterday by getting rid of its mascot and symbol, Chief Wahoo. I am no social justice warrior (everyone who has read my past posts know about this) but I think this is not a surprising turn of events. But, I know, a lot of people in the Cleveland area (a land rich in Native American tradition) are going to be heartbroken by the news. I have three words for them: Get over it!
But first, why the big hubbub about Chief Wahoo and why did so many fight his dismissal? Probably because the little cartoon figure is steeped with tradition.
Chief Wahoo first appear in 1932 drawn by Fred George Reinert. It started as a cartoon character in a newspaper in Cleveland. At the time, it was simply called "the Little Indian" and was used when the Indians won a baseball game. In 1947, Bill Veeck, owner of the Indians, hired J.F. Novak Company to create a mascot for the team. J.F. Novak Company designed the mascot from the Little Indian and, with a little help from the media for naming the mascot, Chief Wahoo was born. Of course, the owner pointed out that Wahoo was actually not a chief but a warrior but the name stuck.
There have been a lot of complaints about the logo since the 1970s. It was seen as racist and insensitive towards Native Americans. But ownership never saw these complaints from their fans and refused to change the logo. Since then, we have had to hear about the disaster that is Chief Wahoo at the beginning of each baseball season.
Now, I am never for replacing icons, statues or anything the is a symbol of our past. As George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it". This is why I am against destroying the Civil War statues of the south. We have parts of our history which are embarrassing and we must remember and even embrace. It is what this country is made of.
But Chief Wahoo has nothing to do with our history except show how we minimized an entire race (that we all but eliminated). The Indians are not going to get any worse if the mascot is replaced. And being a mascot for fifty years does not give the mascot any real social relevance.
Another argument is that this is only the beginning. What else can people start complaining about? Are we going to change everything that people do not like? Well, should we change the Washington Redskins name? Well, yeah. The fact is I think calling a Native American a "redskin" is probably as racist as calling me a "cracker" (which does not really bother me but is racist). Is that bad?
I will give you a step further: getting rid of the icon is a good business decision. Three things will make business successful: a good product (the Indians need to work on that), good marketing and no controversies. I assume the Indian ownership is trying to make money. Getting rid of their mascot will help marketing and end any controversies (though the team name might become an issue later). The people who currently go to the games probably are not going to stop going because they got rid of an out-of-date mascot.In other words, I think Chief Wahoo is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to the identity of the team. I think Indian fans would be more stressed out if they changed the food menu than getting rid of Wahoo.
I will always back the Indians ownership when it comes to this decision. Not because I like the censorship of mascots because it might offend someone but because it is a good business decision and this is not a battle to wage. It just is not that important. I think ownership would be better off figuring out how to shore up their infield and getting a couple of middle relief pitchers.
So, all that being said, RIP, Chief Wahoo. It was a hell of a run!
Follow me on Twitter @RunninFewl
Visit my website at http://www.RunninFewl.com
References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Wahoo
Photos courtesy of:
cbssports.com
beltmagazine.com
flickr.com
theheraldsun.com
thehill.com
wkbn.com
indiancountrymedianetwork.com