Cleveland announces name change to Guardians

This is so lame. Makes me ashamed to be Ohioan.

Getting rid of Chief Wahoo is hardly understandable, but this takes the cake in idiocy.

How so?

I have nothing against Indians. :thinking:

Ok. But what’s so wrong with changing the name?

What is so objectionable?

Because it’s an obvious attempt to cash in on the woke movement.

Instead, why not donate some money and space inside the stadium to allow native Americans to share their culture with the fans or donate a specific percentage of revenue to better native communities?

It’s an insult to tradition and an insult to native Americans using their hardships to cash in on the woke movement, which is filled by in large with people who in reality give a flying fuck about anyone except themselves.

How so? I find the old Clevland logo very offensive as I think many other do. As the USA and the world becomes multi ethnic you need consider others. I was happy the opening in Tokyo Friday a biracial Japanese torch lighter and parade flag holder, if Japan can do this and show change , USA needs too.

2 Likes

OP is upset they are changing the name. I asked what is objectionable to changing it to the Guardians.

I didn’t ask if the old logo was objectionable.

You misunderstood :slight_smile:

Have you asked first nations people if they like having their likeness stand amongst imagery that include violent/savage animals and/or warmongers?

Is it ‘woke’ to respect the requests of the group you are depicting or interacting with?

1 Like

I’m not totally on board with all the name changes (think it’s justifiable in some egregious cases like “Red Skins”, but I don’t get the big deal about “Braves”), but Guardians is cool. It’s named after the Art Deco statues on the bridge leading to the stadium; the Guardians of the Traffic. Pretty bad ass if I’m being honest.

4 Likes

I know, right? Awesome change. I’m stealing from Twitter when I say that Cleveland’s got their own Argonath! Lovely local detail for a name that at first seemed just sort of odd and generic.

2 Likes

They have. Over 90% aren’t offended. It’s just a vocal minority and their woke white minions.

Very much agree with this, look at the old logo, in this day it seems racist to me. With the name+logo I do not see how a native American would like that, and good for the team for the changes.

Do you have sources that 90% are not offended?

If Taiwan or China named a team the ‘Negroes’, would you say the same thing?

And you know that is something that is entirely possible here.

1 Like

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

Not even offended if personally called a “redskin”. Real people have real problems to worry about.

1 Like

Some background on old logo and why it’s not used now

1 Like

Ohhh… So that’s where @OysterOmelet’s avatar comes from.

2 Likes

They asked 500 people out of a population of 5 million. Can that be considered a large enough sample size?

They asked across a bunch of US states as well. If it was all 50 US states, that means they asked ten people in every state on average.

That would be for black-skinned people of African ancestry to decide.

Other surveys at different times came to the same conclusion, so I’d guess it’s pretty accurate.

Why bother offending people for something that’s just supposed to be a fun pastime? It’s reasonable that some at least could find it disrespectful. No brainer I’d say. I think they just decided it was in the team’s best interest. Were they under some kind of intense pressure, as the Redskins were? I didn’t really notice

4 Likes