
If you’ve got a friend on Facebook vaguely interested in (or, on an off chance, authentically plugged into) Native American culture, you may know that there’s an important vote happening in South Dakota’s Pine Ridge Reservation today. If you’re not, about the only “Native American” news you’ve likely heard lately has been this brouhaha about the Washington Redskins’ football franchise, and owner Dan Snyder’s tycoonish intractability regarding the name.
“We’ll never change the name,” he told USA Today. “It’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.”
The issue has spawned a great deal of controversy and conversation about racist symbols in sports. The online magazine Slate has even renounced the use of “Redskins” to refer to Washington’s NFL team.
And it’s only natural that in the wake or crest of these conversations, those of us in Cleveland are getting increasingly uncomfortable. To be clear: Chief Wahoo is much, much worse.
Here’s Peter Keating in the August 19 edition of ESPN Magazine, addressing those who defend the Redskins’ name by saying it’s not racist: “Of course ‘Redskin’ is racist …. Your real argument is that your enjoyment of the team’s name, and your connection to its folklore, is more important than its genocidal history.”
That’s a nice synthesis of a Peter Pattakos argument in his Scene feature story from 2012, “The Curse of Chief Wahoo.”
“To many if not most Clevelanders,” wrote Pattakos, “Chief Wahoo has never represented a race of people at all, but a benevolent symbol of the magic of those first trips to the ballpark: a smiling, slugging alien angel of joy.”
Regardless of our emotional connection, though, Wahoo remains “the only professional sports logo in the western world to caricaturize a race of people,” wrote Pattakos.
So what’s the major difference between the Redskins’ debate and the Wahoo debate?
Bluntly, there’s zero legitimate debate as far as Chief Wahoo is concerned. Zero. It’s an aggressively racist symbol, and it’s mortifying if you take thirty seconds to look at the image, or think about it in a human context, or any context other than, you know, a “logo.”
The arguments for keeping “redskins” as a mascot, if not necessarily persuasive, at the very least exist. David Plotz, editor of Slate, in his post earlier this week, suggested that the name actually might not be as historically pejorative at it has been characterized.
The word redskin has a relatively innocent history. As Smithsonian linguist Ives Goddard has shown, European settlers in the 18th century seem to have adopted the term from Native Americans, who used “red skin” to describe themselves, and it was generally a descriptor, not an insult. Over time, it became a more ambiguous, and less benign term, sometimes used as a slur. When Washington owner George Preston Marshall—who was admittedly a racist, refusing to integrate his team until 1962—chose the name in the 1930s, he was almost certainly trying to invoke Indian bravery and toughness, not to impugn Indians.
Obviously. I mean it wouldn’t make sense to invoke something perceived as inferior. That’s just totally not in the spirit of athletic competition. Ultimately, though, as Plotz says:
Changing the way we talk is not political correctness run amok. It reflects an admirable willingness to acknowledge others who were once barely visible to the dominant culture, and to recognize that something that may seem innocent to you may be painful to others.
And Chief Wahoo? It’s just about as bad as it gets. Even Major League Baseball seems to be quietly, if unofficially, phasing it out. A Change.org petition is available to sign here. Petition creator Sam Kay has the right attitude about retiring the Chief.
This isn’t about judging or scolding our fellow fans. (Most of us have worn “Chief Wahoo” before, perhaps very recently.) This isn’t about taking the fun out of the game. This is just an opportunity to get people to think twice about something that many of us have taken for granted for too long.
Tweet @Indians with #LittleRedSambo #RetireWahoo.
This article appears in Aug 7-13, 2013.

It would be pretty simple to stop making hats and jerseys with Chief Wahoo and to remove the logo from the ballpark. No reason not to. Don’t have to make a big deal about it, just phase it out once and for all.
THE TEAM IS CALLED THE INDIANS SO IF YOU ARE GOING TO PHASE OUT WAHOO YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE TEAM PERIOD BECAUSE WHAT WILL YOU USE AS A LOGO THAT ISN’T GOING TO BE CONSIDERED RACIST…..
As long as there is a profit to be made from the logo, there is no incentive for ownership to make a change. And even if Wahoo gets dumped onto the Island of Defunct Mascots, it could have a fantastic second career on “throwback” gear.
Can we change the team colors then, too? The color blue makes me sad and red is the color of the devil! I find that to be offensive.
What about the Atlanta Braves having a tomahawk that could be considered racist because they used those to scalp people everything is considered racist lately. Who cares the Indians have had Chief Wahoo as the logo for decades. Yet people wont just let it go, its a baseball team its not like they are like hey we hate Native Americans. Which when you say that it can mean all of us cause if you were born in the us then you are considered a Native American. Either way its just a sports team you want to give Native Americans something give them back the land that was stolen from them. How about that and maybe it will make things better.
I really appreciate Scene’s dedication to this issue, even when it seems like a lone voice in the wilderness.
Is the writer of this article named Sam Allard?
Sam, the name of our team is the Cleveland Indians. Many here like the name. I like the name – just as I like the name Blackhawks for the beloved hockey team in Chicago.
That being said, I would invite you to take a look at all of the Cleveland Indian “logo’s” for the past 80 years or so and pick one you like… there are about 10 or so to pick from. If you hate them as well, have an artist draw one up.
If I like it – I will get behind it. If not…I will tell you it’s not good enough. Just like you’ve told us.
Brian Rezotko
I think it’s really hard to prove that Chief Wahoo is a damaging figure. The team does not encourage discrimination in any way. No individuals are harmed when looking at the logo. Sure, people might have hurt feelings or not like the logo, but that isn’t enough “damage” to cause change. The team doesn’t even have a mascot that looks like Chief Wahoo.
Also I don’t think the fans have a better alternative. The alternative, the capital I, is terribly boring and has next to 0 personality. The majority of people just aren’t offended by this logo and that’s probably the bottom line. I’m not sure I like the idea of changing everything that a minority doesn’t like. Democracy is based on the majority’s decision.
I’m not sorry if I have offended fans of the capital I.
What a crop of liberal influenced wusses!
Ahhh, white people deciding if something is racist or offensive to non-white people. The. Best. #whiteprivelgedidiots