Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Chief Wahoo's Last Hurrah
The Cleveland Indians mascot Chief Wahoo is a crude caricature of a Native American that many people find offensive. A private school in the Cleveland area tolerated this offensive caricature when it was restricted to a once weekly dress down day. However, when the school switched to a more relaxed dress that allowed sports wear on any day, the administration decided to ban any apparel that featured Chief Wahoo's likeness. Several students are bothered by this policy because they revere Chief Wahoo as vital symbol of their team and see wearing it as an example of team spirit and civic pride. Did the school administration make the right decision? How might the offense principle apply in this circumstance?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do believe the school made the right decision. Although I love the Indians I believe it might be time for a change of brand. In this day and age a new logo and team name are needed. Having a team named the Indians and having a logo like Chief Wahoo causes offense to others. The offense lasts for an extreme duration as it is always around, and although it may not be the most intense, I believe it is offensive enough that it needs to be banned. Chief Wahoo and the Indians serve as a reminder that Americans have done terrible things to native Americans throughout our countries history. Having a team named as the Indians is in a way similar to having a team called Jews and having a Rabbi or Jewish star as the mascot, or having a team called the Catholics with Jesus or a cross as the mascot. If either of these were indeed the case there would be outrage. It is not okay to target a specific group of people in naming a team and creating a brand as it will most likely always cause offense to others.
ReplyDeleteThe school administration made the right decision to ban Chief Wahoo, as the logo’s history and popularity does not justify its racist depiction of Native Americans. This situation essentially concerns whether a popular symbol that has significant meaning to some should be banned due to its offensive nature to others. In an attempt to fairly judge whether the logo should be banned or not, the “Offense to Others” principle can be applied - This principle tries to determine an objective scale of offensiveness by accounting for both the seriousness of the offense and reasonableness of the conduct. Specifically, the principle notes the image’s personal importance, maliciousness, noticeability, and more. In the case of Chief Wahoo, the symbol has a long-standing history and brings pride and spirit to many; yet in terms of its maliciousness, the logo does present a bad-natured depiction of Native Indians. Clearly, both sides each have a compelling case for the matter, so perhaps there is some room for compromises (without having to set any more restrictions) - For instance, if the logo was to be banned from the school, Indians fans could just choose to use a different symbol to celebrate the team, such as wearing the red “C” instead. Yet, this could still discourage many Indians fans who believe in the original logo’s popularity and history. Now if there were no restrictions on the logo, the offended ones would have a difficult time avoiding the symbol - specifically, if wearing the symbol had no restrictions, it could be located on T-Shirts, posters throughout the school, tattooed on students’ faces, etc. Unfortunately for Chief Wahoo fans, this is where the offended have a better stance on the issue - there is more room for compromise if the logo is banned than if the logo wasn’t banned. Overall, although the original image is important to some Indians fans, this importance shouldn’t outweigh the fact that the logo is a racist depiction of Native Americans - essentially, wearing a shirt with a Native American stereotype would be just as bad as wearing a shirt with an African American, Asian, Latino, or White stereotype.
ReplyDeleteFinally, in regard to the Offense to Others principle, the conduct might seem reasonable, but the offense is more serious than some might think (making the conduct less reasonable).
DeleteI believe the school made the right decision in this case. Although the majority of kids are not personally offended by Chief Wahoo, I believe that the logo is offensive enough in general that it should be banned. It is a clearly racist caricature of a Native American that many people, even those who aren’t Native American, find offensive. Considering this country’s terrible history of killing and persecuting Native Americans, this logo should not only be banned in schools, but also everywhere. If someone is wearing a hat or a shirt with Chief Wahoo on it, it’s not like you can avoid looking at it so the offense is unavoidable. Also, depending on how long you are forced to be around this person, the offense can also last for a considerable amount of time. Supporters of the Chief Wahoo logo argue that they only wear the logo to support their team and their team’s cherished history. However, the logo has the potential to cause great offense to Native Americans and people of Native American descent because it perpetuates stereotypes that have been around since we first tried to kick the Native Americans out of our country. Also, if an Indians fan really wanted to support his or her team, he or she could easily just wear a different Indians logo, such as the red “C”. They do not need to shove their team’s racist caricature of a Native American in other people’s faces to show “team pride”.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the banning of Chief Wahoo was the right decision to be made by the administration. Joel Feinberg argues in his offense principle hat the seriousness of the offense should outweigh the reasonableness of the conduct. If that is the case, then the action should not be allowed. The logo of Chief Wahoo clearly meets this condition.
ReplyDeleteThe seriousness of the offense rises to a level that most would not realize at a first glance. The most blatant offense resides in its intensity. Chief Wahoo is a glaring example of cultural appropriation and racism that must be rejected. Although the scope of the offense might not be as large, since only one specific group and culture is harmed, the magnitude of the offense more than makes up the scope. As Feinberg argues, when a black person is deeply insulted by a racist banner, or when a Jew feels offended by swastikas, “the interpersonal extent of the offense might not be great”, but “the sharply pointed, threatening edge of the offense could make up in intensity … for what is lacking in extent” (29). No element of a minority culture should be used by a dominant culture and used for entertainment purposes. It degrades the value of the minority culture, especially when used out of context like Chief Wahoo for a baseball team. Furthermore, during certain times of the year, the impact of Chief Wahoo is long-lasting, almost impossible to avoid, and extensive. During the baseball postseason, hundreds of kids wore shirts depicting Chief Wahoo. For those that are insulted, this offense was almost impossible to avoid.
On the other hand, the reasonableness of the conduct has little to no justification. Chief Wahoo has no significant personal importance to anyone; people only wear the logo because it is used by the Cleveland Indians. The social utility it serves is little to nothing. If Chief Wahoo were suddenly removed from society, there would basically be no harm. The larger point comes with the idea of finding an alternative. If the Indians stuck with the “C” that they transitioned to, or even switched out Chief Wahoo with a bear, for example, no one would protest and feel harmed. They would continue to wear shirts with the new logo, and the social utility of the new logo would be the same - people would have a new logo to identify the Cleveland baseball team with. At the University of Illinois, the logo of Chief Illiniwek stirred massive controversy regarding the cultural appropriation of Native American culture. In 2007, the university decided to retire the logo and everything affiliated with it. Today, the University of Illinois remains the exact same institution, and continues to participate in sports like college basketball and football at a high level, even without a mascot.
In the case of Chief Wahoo, the harms derived from cultural appropriation and the misrepresentation of an entire culture far outweigh any reasonableness of conduct, especially when an alternative can easily be found. Or in the case of the University of Illinois, the mascot can be completely removed and Cleveland can just use the “C”.
In my opinion, the school made the right decision on this topic. I am a student senator and I was present at the meeting when Ms. Samson came to state her case and her reasoning for wanting to ban the Chief Wahoo caricature. Many of my peers were not happy with this banning because over time, Chief Wahoo has become overlooked in its true meaning. Chief Wahoo today is merely a harmless symbol for a sports organization meant to unite, inspire, and rally fans of the Cleveland Indians. However, it is plain to see how one could be offended by such a depiction. The logo is very clearly a racially charged stereotypical exaggeration of Native Americans. This could very easily be offensive to Native Americans, especially taking into account their history of being persecuted and banished from their own land. With the possibility of such great offense from this logo, it is justified that the logo should be banned. One may not be able to stop oneself from seeing the logo if that person were offended by the logo. Especially during baseball season which lasts over half the year, this logo can be seen everywhere in Cleveland, from apparel to hats to restaurants to just about any other item you can think of. With inevitable exposure of this degree in addition to the unpredictable and extreme duration that one would have to be exposed to the logo, it is reasonable to ban the logo. Although many may argue that Chief Wahoo represents their passion for the Cleveland Indians, they could just as easily turn to the many other logos of the Cleveland Indians. It is unnecessary and, in fact, harmful, to continually expose the Chief Wahoo to those who may take offense and have no means of sheltering themselves completely from the logo.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the school made the correct decision in choosing to ban the caricature, both personally and under the offense principle. The offense principle compares the reasonableness of conduct to the seriousness of the offense. Thus, in order for the caricature to not be banned reasonableness of conduct must outway the seriousness of the offense, but upon examination that is clearly not the case.
ReplyDeleteReasonableness of conduct is evaluated by looking at personal importance, social utility, intent, and alternatives. There is no question that to some individuals supporting their team could be of large personal importance. It even could be argued that it has social utility because it helps to support the city of Cleveland, but where this line of thinking falls short is the intent of the action. While it is maliciously or innocently worn the Chief Wahoo caricature represents racist ideology that doesn't bring the city of Cleveland together but instead perpetuates racial differences. There are also many alternatives that aren't prohibited such as wearing Cleveland Indians merchandise that does not depict the caricature that would support the city of Cleveland in the same manner without causing any offense.
The seriousness of the offense is evaluated by looking at the extent, intensity, and duration of the offense as well as its avoidability, and if individuals have consented to the offense. The offense is pretty extensive and intense due to the historic oppression of the Native American community in the United States. While walking through the hallways it is pretty much unavoidable even if you are just minding your own business. Finally, no one has consented to be offended by the caricature in the school environment, therefore they are under no obligation to condone it.
When you use the offense principle to weigh the conditions it becomes obvious that the seriousness of the offense is too severe to condone students to wear the Chief Wahoo caricature on their clothing.
The school administration made the right decision in banning Chief Wahoo; regardless of whether or not it is being worn for civic pride, a racist caricature that offends members of the community should not be tolerated by a progressive school. The argument that it should be allowed for team spirit is flawed; by the same logic, I could wear a swastika to school if it was a team’s logo. Chief Wahoo is a harmful form of ethnic stereotyping and a forward-thinking school should not allow images/text that make others feel unsafe or unwelcome in keeping with the idea of fostering a healthy, inclusive community. Despite the confusing language, this is really not a restriction on free speech but rather one on hate speech. Under the new code, students are allowed to wear clothing with political messages even if others disagree with them; however, speech that crosses over into hate speech is strictly prohibited. It becomes tricky when there is disagreement on at what point free speech becomes hate speech, however. While I think the school has moved in the right direction, Mills would disagree because it could appear that it was a ban compelled by the possibility of people being offended rather than actually harmed. In accordance with the offense principle, Mills would say that the school was not justified in banning Chief Wahoo simply because some people were offended by it; it would have to go as far as to actually harm someone in the community. I wonder at what point discomfort actually becomes harm, either directly or indirectly. Perhaps there is an assumption that words or symbols cannot actually cause harm when, in fact, they can. For example, verbal bullying in schools can compel students to take their own life. In the case of Chief Wahoo, it is not like political speech where people may simply disagree but rather it is a case in which students may actually be harmed. I think if Mills could be convinced that Chief Wahoo had the potential to harm, not just offend, he would agree with the ban. Overall, it is an interesting question of at what point taking on the appearance or behavior of another group becomes cultural appropriation rather than celebration of another culture. I think it is safe to say that Chief Wahoo is most certainly a form of cultural appropriation rather than celebration and, for this reason, the school was justified in the ban.
ReplyDeleteAlso an important note: The ban on Chief Wahoo didn’t have to do with the fact that students are allowed to wear sportswear any day now. Regardless of how many days a week “casual dress” would be allowed after the vote, the school would have moved in this direction anyway.