Jump to content

"Cleveland Baseball Team"


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Michael said:

Believe that story was debunked or just pretty much doesn't have the necessary proof. Not 100% sure though.

There's proof of the nickname coming from newspaper writers soon after the player debuted n 1897, but it may have been a mockery or sarcasm. The player was released seven games into the 1899 season due to injuries and alcoholism and he passed away in 1913. When the nickname became the official team name it wasn't until 1915 and the team never mentioned the player or anything about the name being an honor for him. Also, it was actually a different team/organization in 1915 as the Spiders with the Native American player were an NL team and disbanded after the 1899 season and so now this was a new/second Cleveland team in the AL that began play in 1901.

So, yeah, shady at best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

...the club ownership and newspapers got together and on January 16, 1915, chose Indians, which they have retained ever since. This name was based on a former nickname of the old National League club, which was sometimes called the Indians in 1897 and 1898 because of outfielder Lou Sockalexis.

From research on team nicknames during an era when they frequently changed, https://sabr.org/journal/article/setting-the-record-straight-on-major-league-team-nicknames/

So yes the name did originally come from the Spiders having the first Native American player but whether or not it was actually an honor is unproven.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Photo-Realistic Billy said:

Case in point, some folks get offended when a team they don't care about changes their name. 🤷‍♂️

Not offended.  Amused...in disbelief, sure.

 

I'll sit back & wait to be called a racist bigot now...I know it's coming eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, el_gmac said:

I agreed what was say above if NA are bother by the name and logo then take it off, but if only bothers white women with cats then NO. Also I wonder if NA knows the team name was picked due to the fact than a NA was in the team roster at the time and in honor of him the team adopted the name Indians

Exactly!!!

And the second half of your post, I look at that like the dummies tearing down statues - if it took Google to find out who the staue is, and what they did that offended you, your not that offended.

FSU is constantly brought up in these discussions, only for the uninformed to find out that they work closely with the Seminole tribe to honor them, not insult them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SilverBullet said:

This only applies to people who have no connection to this imagery and they're not the point. If actual Native Americans are bothered by this then it should be changed. Who cares what everyone else thinks. I'm not all about the rah rah rah cancel culture people who wanna complain about everything just to sound like they're smarter than everyone else, I can't stand that. My point is ask someone who this name really matters to.

If Native Americans are that offended, sure, change it.  But if it's anything like the Redskins, it all politics.

But again, moving on with life & not allowing myself to get offended by anything has worked out very well for me.  I highly recommend it for anyone that gets their feeling hurt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cyoung said:

If Native Americans are that offended, sure, change it.  But if it's anything like the Redskins, it all politics.

I'm not disagreeing with you here. This needs to be done for the right reasons and not just for the politics of it.

5 minutes ago, AeroFishOne said:

Hey the old logo, I absolute get but I’m genuinely curious when the name ow word became offensive. Again the old logo and the Redskins, I get.

Good question but I think with Cleveland it's more like the damage has already been done and if they don't change the team name then people are gonna always have a reason to reference the stereotypes. So I think they just want to completely separate themselves from the imagery.  The quicker you get on the path towards spiders or whatever else, the quicker you can get away form the offensive stuff.

But yeah it's a fine line, like the Braves who have a name that isn't offensive but they still have some of the less pleasant imagery as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SilverBullet said:

like the Braves who have a name that isn't offensive but they still have some of the less pleasant imagery as well.

They are getting rid of the tomahawk chop right? Hasn't been proven yet since no fans have come in awhile but I thought I remembered seeing that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SonOfJack said:

They are getting rid of the tomahawk chop right? Hasn't been proven yet since no fans have come in awhile but I thought I remembered seeing that.

Maybe. The Braves said they wouldn't change the team name but will consider losing the tomahawk chop and the tomahawk logo. Easy fix, they already have an alternate jersey without it. Harder fix to get the people to not do the hand sign though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SilverBullet said:

I find this so cheap and overused. Is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame really that big of a deal over there? Do people in Cleveland even care about it that much? It's like if the city of Cleveland is known for nothing else but that one damn building. Also, the Rockies wouldn't approve of this name.

Spiders is the most logical fit as long as they stay away from minor league style angry cartoon spider images... Blues works really well and has a historical place and is a more subtle nod to the music connection... Steamers is such a winner in my book... I have no faith in any other "original" names.

I have a buddy that lives in Cleveland, and he said this move was a long time coming, and expected by everyone there.

 

As an outsider, I like the Spiders name.

 

1 hour ago, SilverBullet said:

While I shot down @SonOfJack for thinking this is what the rebrand will look like man I'd be so happy to be proven wrong. I would love this...

image.thumb.png.0ccf7aacbb38c21d40279b2ac2724514.png

 

That looks good!

 

I know I had done this several months ago when we were talking about it:

 

srZNqIh.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, SilverBullet said:

Maybe. The Braves said they wouldn't change the team name but will consider losing the tomahawk chop and the tomahawk logo. Easy fix, they already have an alternate jersey without it. Harder fix to get the people to not do the hand sign though.

If they go that route, might as well just throw it all out and start over. That would be such a boring identity without the tomahawk. Off the top of my head, the Braves have what I consider the least offensive current Native American set with the Blackhawks being the second. Neither of them have anything that needs to be changed in my opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cyoung said:

Not offended.  Amused...in disbelief, sure.

 

I'll sit back & wait to be called a racist bigot now...I know it's coming eventually.

Only if you begin to start showing racism and bigotry. 😁 So far you've only questioned things which is fair.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is saying that the Indians and their imagery aren't offensive in at least some way. I think a lot are just questioning if this is being done for the right reasons because 2020 has brought quite a few examples of over censoring things for the wrong reasons.

I'm still not ok with losing Aunt Jemima. 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cyoung said:

If people were this reasonable, we'd be much better off for it!

I agree with you entirely. Civil debate has quickly faded from our societies and it's very fast, "you said this, I interpret it as this, therefore you're bad and I don't want to give you a chance to explain." No progress that way.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, cyoung said:

For what it's worth@Photo-Realistic Billy, my previous post wasn't directed at you.  I wasn't expecting shots fired from you, necessarily. 

Like Michael noted, I ain't seen anything racist yet.

My only caution is that we should resist outrage for outrage's sake. Moreover, outrage focused against outrage -- being mad because people are mad -- is even more unproductive. But y'know, maybe I could be accused through all of this of being outraged by outrage at outrage. 😂

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Photo-Realistic Billy said:

Like Michael noted, I ain't seen anything racist yet.

My only caution is that we should resist outrage for outrage's sake. Moreover, outrage focused against outrage -- being mad because people are mad -- is even more unproductive. But y'know, maybe I could be accused through all of this of being outraged by outrage at outrage. 😂

Just makes me wonder what's wrong with @el_gmac ... (kidding of course ❤️ )

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Photo-Realistic Billy said:

Like Michael noted, I ain't seen anything racist yet.

My only caution is that we should resist outrage for outrage's sake. Moreover, outrage focused against outrage -- being mad because people are mad -- is even more unproductive. But y'know, maybe I could be accused through all of this of being outraged by outrage at outrage. 😂

scott aukerman head spin GIF by IFC

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...