Save Chief Wahoo

I see this morning that Major League Baseball has made the Cleveland Indians remove their smiling Indian mascot, Chief Wahoo, from their uniforms. This action will only make me wear my own personal Chief Wahoo cap more and more often even though I am a lifelong and devout Detroit Tigers fan. No tiger that I know is offended by that, and being me, perhaps they should be.

Chief Wahoo violates, in the eyes of many, one of the worst sins of the modern world: racism. I will not debate his origin. Being not naive, I would not be shocked if the image originated with a degree of racism. I also don't doubt that the charge is overblown, or at least ameliorated over time. Chief Wahoo in 2018 is a symbol of a baseball team. Nothing more.

Now I'm really going to stir the pot. As a white guy, a Catholic, and being of Irish descent, I'm sure that I cannot possibly understand such harm as Wahoo offers (I'm being smarmy here folks). Be all that as it may, I am in fact not offended in the least by the San Diego Padres and their sometimes-used goofy friar pathetically swinging a bat at a ball, nor by the enraged Irish caricature used by the Notre Dame Fighting Irish (and don't you dare tell me that the Irish weren't a genuinely offended group once), neither by the Wake Forest Demon Deacon. Why should I be? They are, to use the word again, mere caricatures and intended to be funny. I am not so overly sensitive, so thin-skinned that I cannot take a jibe. I wonder if we shall ever be equal until we can equally jibe one another.

Yes, the line can be crossed. Not to upset NFL fans, but the moniker Redskins does cross it. But the problem with Chief Wahoo is nothing more than he offends the PC police. And I intend to offend them all summer long with my Cleveland baseball cap. They've earned it.

What's in a name?

As we descend (and I mean descend) into the mire of hyper hype that is American Football, there is that one issue which will surely creep back into the radar. It is the question of offensive team names. It will be centered on tribal names of Native Americans, and generally brought up by non-Native Americans.

I wonder who is actually being offensive on such an issue. Catholics do not appear offended by the San Diego Padres logo of a goofy looking monk swinging a baseball bat. Why should they be? It's all in good fun. Are Irish Americans bothered by Notre Dame's Fighting Irish and that mean looking two-fisted leprechaun image with which they proudly adorn themselves? It doesn't seem to be the case. It's not meant to provoke the Irish, and indeed they might rather like the idea that their ancestors from the old sod are seen as rough and tough.

So why should Native Americans be offended by Chiefs or Hurons or Chippewas or Braves or even Indians? I'll wager that a good many aren't, in fact; they may actually like the references along the lines of the Irish and the Catholics. We will concede something on Redskins, to be honest, as that moniker does seem to cross the line in crudity. But then, I'm not saying that all's fair either. Do we really think that a group of citizens are so thin skinned that they can't appreciate a powerful or even playful nod towards their culture? If they are, I humbly suggest, then, that that's their problem.

In short, don't insult or use overtly racist slurs in naming teams and institutions. But don't be a stick in the mud either. It's supposed to be fun, remember?

Or does our increasingly politically correct society wish to ban that too?

Native American Mascots

The Michigan Department of Civil Rights is asking federal officials to issue a national ban barring schools from using American Indian mascots and names on the grounds that such names are offensive.

We wonder who is actually being offensive on issues such as these. Catholics do not appear offended by the San Diego Padres logo of a goofy looking monk swinging a baseball bat. Why should they be? It's all in good fun. Are Irish Americans bothered by Notre Dame's Fighting Irish and that mean looking two-fisted leprechaun image with which they proudly adorn themselves? It doesn't seem to be the case. It's not meant to provoke the Irish, and indeed they might rather like the idea that their ancestors from the old sod are seen as rough and tough.

So why should Native Americans be offended by Chiefs or Hurons or Chippewas or Braves or even Indians? We'll wager that a good many aren't, in fact; they may actually like the references along the lines of the Irish and the Catholics. We will concede something on Redskins, to be honest, as that moniker does seem to cross the line in rudeness. But then, we aren't saying that all's fair either. Do we really think that a group of citizens are so thin skinned that they can't appreciate a powerful, or even playful, nod towards their culture? If they are, we humbly suggest, then, that that's their problem.

In short, don't insult or use overtly racist slurs in naming teams and institutions. But don't be a stick in the mud either. It's supposed to be fun, remember?

Or does our increasingly politically correct society wish to ban that too?