Cleveland Indians are dropping their name...

[Neurotic Guy]

I know a team in a different sport owns this name but the Cleveland Lakers makes sense. Right?!?!

LOL. Yup, as much sense as "Los Angeles Lakers."

Nice to see that Cleveland's in no rush to change this "offensive" name, so they can make as much money as possible from it before ditching it.

I understand the context of ditching "Indians," and how the cartoonish Chief Wahoo is offensive, but I'm not convinced that "Indians" is offensive. Yes, it was an inaccurate name for Native Americans based on the geographic confusion of certain European explorers, but offensive? Or is it offensive simply because it's inaccurate?

Edit: Perhaps they should go back to being the Cleveland Naps, in honor of (perhaps) the greatest player in team history.

I don't know how to make the judgement about whether it is/isn't or should/shouldn't be offensive.  I guess the name connected with the stereotypical "Chief" is understandably offensive.  I am sure some Native Americans couldn't care less and other are offended.  Maybe the best way to draw comparison is to think -- what if there was a team called the NY Jews or the Mississippi Blacks or San Francisco Asians -- with mascot caricatures of each...  ? 

Idk -- sometimes I am guilty of easily accepting that when someone tells me something is offensive to them, I believe them.  But I definitely can see that the world is imperfect and people have to learn to have some thicker skin around these types of things sometimes. Or at least maybe to presume positive intent (or that there was no negative intent).  But I am definitely OK with changing the Cleveland name at this point -- I think it's time to make a change.  And yeah -- can't deny that profiteering is/ will be part of the game and is the primary motivation for some. 


BTW -- I hate to bring this up, but the Boston Celtics with it's Irish caricature mascot might be the closest real equivalent.  I don't think I've heard anyone register offense to this thankfully. But it's interesting.

[Roy H.]

BTW -- I hate to bring this up, but the Boston Celtics with it's Irish caricature mascot might be the closest real equivalent.  I don't think I've heard anyone register offense to this thankfully. But it's interesting.

The “Fighting Irish” are a stereotype.  If a vocal 1% of Irish Americans called for it to change, should ND do so?

We’ve also got nicknames called the “Scots”, “Saxons”, “Spartans”, “Saints”, “Swedes” and the most offensive nickname of all, “Senators” ...  and that’s just the “S”s. 

I don’t know, but it does show that perception of these things change based upon who the offended party is.

[CelticsElite]

Irish people were oppressed and trade as slaves (or indentured servants).

So we will see Boston basketball team in a year or 2

[nickagneta]

I say go to Southie and into an Irish pub and see if any of the Irish in that pub are offended by the name Boston Celtics. I am guessing they will be very proud to be represented by the team's name.

[PhoSita]

I say go to Southie and into an Irish pub and see if any of the Irish in that pub are offended by the name Boston Celtics. I am guessing they will be very proud to be represented by the team's name.

I think an analogy that gets closer to the dynamic would be some random football club in southern England being known as the Leprechauns or some such.

[Roy H.]

I say go to Southie and into an Irish pub and see if any of the Irish in that pub are offended by the name Boston Celtics. I am guessing they will be very proud to be represented by the team's name.

It’s more like if some group in California decides Irish should be offended and starts an activist campaign.

If you ask the actual Irish, I’m sure they’d simply wonder why we can’t pronounce the word “Celtic” (as in Keltic).

[Neurotic Guy]

Irish people were oppressed and trade as slaves (or indentured servants).

So we will see Boston basketball team in a year or 2

Probably not. But I think it does speak to the reality -- like it or not -- that different people have different reactions to things.  Observers can choose whether or not to take others' points of view to heart or whether to dismiss them.  Bottom line for me is that it almost never hurts to hear someone's perspective and it's usually pretty easy to avoid offending someone if that matters to you.

[Neurotic Guy]

I say go to Southie and into an Irish pub and see if any of the Irish in that pub are offended by the name Boston Celtics. I am guessing they will be very proud to be represented by the team's name.

It’s more like if some group in California decides Irish should be offended and starts an activist campaign.

If you ask the actual Irish, I’m sure they’d simply wonder why we can’t pronounce the word “Celtic” (as in Keltic).

Totally agree that we'd be hard-pressed to find many Irish people who are offended by the Boston Keltics and Lucky.  But it is really interesting to me to think about why one caricaturized team moniker/mascot is offensive to a race/ethnicity... and another isn't. 

[Donoghus]

I say go to Southie and into an Irish pub and see if any of the Irish in that pub are offended by the name Boston Celtics. I am guessing they will be very proud to be represented by the team's name.

It’s more like if some group in California decides Irish should be offended and starts an activist campaign.

If you ask the actual Irish, I’m sure they’d simply wonder why we can’t pronounce the word “Celtic” (as in Keltic).

Totally agree that we'd be hard-pressed to find many Irish people who are offended by the Boston Keltics and Lucky.  But it is really interesting to me to think about why one caricaturized team moniker/mascot is offensive to a race/ethnicity... and another isn't.

My two cents there.

Lucky is a leprechaun.  Based on a mythical creature.  It's not a depiction of an irish person.  I mean, look at the older Celtics logos. It's better established there.

Chief Wahoo, on the other hand, was a horribly, insensitive caricature of a Native American. 

It's a pretty significant difference. 

[BruceBanner18]

Thinking outside the box... Maybe if they just changed the logo to a brown man in a warrior 1 yoga pose and dots instead of feathers on their hats they could keep the name Indians?

[Roy H.]

Thinking outside the box... Maybe if they just changed the logo to a brown man in a warrior 1 yoga pose and dots instead of feathers on their hats they could keep the name Indians?

I found their new logo.

[Neurotic Guy]

I say go to Southie and into an Irish pub and see if any of the Irish in that pub are offended by the name Boston Celtics. I am guessing they will be very proud to be represented by the team's name.

It’s more like if some group in California decides Irish should be offended and starts an activist campaign.

If you ask the actual Irish, I’m sure they’d simply wonder why we can’t pronounce the word “Celtic” (as in Keltic).

Totally agree that we'd be hard-pressed to find many Irish people who are offended by the Boston Keltics and Lucky.  But it is really interesting to me to think about why one caricaturized team moniker/mascot is offensive to a race/ethnicity... and another isn't.

My two cents there.

Lucky is a leprechaun.  Based on a mythical creature.  It's not a depiction of an irish person.  I mean, look at the older Celtics logos. It's better established there.

Chief Wahoo, on the other hand, was a horribly, insensitive caricature of a Native American. 

It's a pretty significant difference.

I’m not disagreeing that Wahoo is an insensitive caricature and also not questioning the offense taken or the name change. But I would think one wouldn’t be completely wrong to suggest that a leprechaun is a caricature  of a stereotypical Irish person regardless of its mythical origin. 

[CelticsElite]

I say go to Southie and into an Irish pub and see if any of the Irish in that pub are offended by the name Boston Celtics. I am guessing they will be very proud to be represented by the team's name.

It’s more like if some group in California decides Irish should be offended and starts an activist campaign.

If you ask the actual Irish, I’m sure they’d simply wonder why we can’t pronounce the word “Celtic” (as in Keltic).

Totally agree that we'd be hard-pressed to find many Irish people who are offended by the Boston Keltics and Lucky.  But it is really interesting to me to think about why one caricaturized team moniker/mascot is offensive to a race/ethnicity... and another isn't.

My two cents there.

Lucky is a leprechaun.  Based on a mythical creature.  It's not a depiction of an irish person.  I mean, look at the older Celtics logos. It's better established there.

Chief Wahoo, on the other hand, was a horribly, insensitive caricature of a Native American. 

It's a pretty significant difference.

I’m not disagreeing that Wahoo is an insensitive caricature and also not questioning the offense taken or the name change. But I would think one wouldn’t be completely wrong to suggest that a leprechaun is a caricature  of a stereotypical Irish person regardless of its mythical origin.

Interesting point

From Wikipedia:

"Films, television cartoons and advertising have popularised a specific image of leprechauns which bears little resemblance to anything found in the cycles of Irish folklore. It has been argued that the popularised image of a leprechaun is little more than a series of stereotypes based on derogatory 19th-century caricatures"

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=J2GzFmGkuGsC


The good thing is, I believe vast majority of Irish Americans are not offended one bit by leprechauns. I actually think they're charming characters (hence lucky charms leprechaun lol)


I think we are safe from changes but you never know with how many sports teams seem to try to take the safer route.

Also, Idk if anyone noticed but lucky seems to show up less and less on merchandise and TV appearances, etc  might just be my imagination though. I'm still hoping we see a special edition alternate celtics jersey with lucky on it. We get so many boring alternate jerseys year in and year out.   

[Neurotic Guy]

I say go to Southie and into an Irish pub and see if any of the Irish in that pub are offended by the name Boston Celtics. I am guessing they will be very proud to be represented by the team's name.

It’s more like if some group in California decides Irish should be offended and starts an activist campaign.

If you ask the actual Irish, I’m sure they’d simply wonder why we can’t pronounce the word “Celtic” (as in Keltic).

Totally agree that we'd be hard-pressed to find many Irish people who are offended by the Boston Keltics and Lucky.  But it is really interesting to me to think about why one caricaturized team moniker/mascot is offensive to a race/ethnicity... and another isn't.

My two cents there.

Lucky is a leprechaun.  Based on a mythical creature.  It's not a depiction of an irish person.  I mean, look at the older Celtics logos. It's better established there.

Chief Wahoo, on the other hand, was a horribly, insensitive caricature of a Native American. 

It's a pretty significant difference.

I’m not disagreeing that Wahoo is an insensitive caricature and also not questioning the offense taken or the name change. But I would think one wouldn’t be completely wrong to suggest that a leprechaun is a caricature  of a stereotypical Irish person regardless of its mythical origin.

Interesting point

From Wikipedia:

"Films, television cartoons and advertising have popularised a specific image of leprechauns which bears little resemblance to anything found in the cycles of Irish folklore. It has been argued that the popularised image of a leprechaun is little more than a series of stereotypes based on derogatory 19th-century caricatures"

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=J2GzFmGkuGsC


The good thing is, I believe vast majority of Irish Americans are not offended one bit by leprechauns. I actually think they're charming characters (hence lucky charms leprechaun lol)


I think we are safe from changes but you never know with how many sports teams seem to try to take the safer route.

Also, Idk if anyone noticed but lucky seems to show up less and less on merchandise and TV appearances, etc  might just be my imagination though. I'm still hoping we see a special edition alternate celtics jersey with lucky on it. We get so many boring alternate jerseys year in and year out.   

It's nothing new that what offends one person (or group) might not offend another. Being offended by something is less a should or shouldn't issue than an is or isn't issue.  I don't think it's my place to tell anyone what should or shouldn't offend them.  My question earlier was wondering what the sociological conditions are that result in one group taking more offense than another to something that on its surface might seem similar.

[boscel33]

While I might agree with the Indians, Redskins, and others with those generic names being dropped, I don't see and issue with Chief's, Warriors, Braves, etc.  They're names that are on a more spectacular platform, we're Warriors!  Maybe they change a look and feel of the logo, but that's about it.

In theory, they play on the Cuyahoga River, Cleveland Cuyahoga's.

Seriously, here are the past team names.

Cleveland Indians (1915–present)
Cleveland Naps (1903–1914)
Cleveland Broncos (1902)
Cleveland Bluebirds (1901)
Cleveland Lake Shores (1900)
Grand Rapids Rustlers (1894–1899)

I'm thinking, go OG, Cleveland Rustlers.