Introduction
The cultural misappropriation of the Cleveland Indians, an American ball club, has been a practice that has continued for a long time because of the unresolved contention encompassing its logo and Name. Even though the logo was removed, the Indian Name is themed and remains part of the American mascot debate (Jurkovac 38). That has resulted in more than 115 expert organizations addressing social liberties, education, athletics, and logic to share goals and strategies. Stating that any use of American Native images and names by non-local game groups is an unsafe type of ethnic generalizing that promotes misjudgment. The essay discusses the controversy over the Cleveland Indian’s name and how the issue was resolved.
The Controversy of the Name
Divisiveness over the Name and emblem began in the early 1970s. However, it quickly escalated to Chief Wahoo’s resignation after the World Series of 2016 brought the attention of the international team. Neighborhood groups vowed to continuously fight for a change in the group’s Name and protest the sale of branded products with Chief Wahoo’s image, which many saw as a racial generalization (Rodesiler 83). Agents of the group disguised both the Name and logo as a component of their practice during that protest, with no expectation of demonizing Native Americans. Native Americans were called upon to participate in the 175th commemoration of Cleveland’s founding in 1971. They used that opportunity to highlight the history of local abuse by non-locals, from slaughters through Chief Wahoo. The abuse by the non-natives is not what culture inclusivity calls for, but rather such abuse should come to an end.
Since roughly 1973, fights have always preceded the start of the baseball season. During the 1990s, the magnitude of the conflicts increased. The following year, the group shifted its focus and began to combat the Indians’ group name and logo exclusively. The group received national attention in its early years as it wrangled with the Indians’ board of directors about whether the logo of Chief Wahoo would still be in use once the team moved to their new arena. When the team relocated to its new field, the arena’s manager tried to prevent shows from taking place, and dissenters filed a lawsuit to get entrance (Seigeil 93). The logo garnered renewed attention in the World Series of 1995 when Cleveland Indians faced Atlanta Braves. Fights in the two metropolitan communities separated the games. The 1997 All-Star game also featured fights, which were in attendance by Louis Sockalexis’ relative, the local American player for whom the Cleveland team was said to be named after.
Clark Hosick, the leader overseer in Ohio, admitted that the emblem promoted stereotypes, such as reports from sports depicting how “the Indians scalped” their opponents. Hosick also acknowledged that if the group eliminated the symbol, some of these insults would go. On July 3, 2020, the Cleveland Indians formally announced that they would conduct a name review in the light of cross-country challenges surrounding the homicide of George Floyd. Paul Dolan, the group owner, announced that on December 14, 2020, the process of altering the Name would commence. For the 2021 season, the team continued to play as the Indians until a new name was decided and several rebranding procedures were completed.
In addition, on July 23, 2021, the team publicly stated that the Cleveland Guardians would be their new Name beginning in the 2022 season. Charlene Teters, a Native American crafter, and extremist, said, “We are the main gathering of individuals utilized as mascots. You wouldn’t have somebody painted in blackface run on the field” (Jurkovac 37). Charlene talked about the logo in a narrative of 2009 delivered by New Mexican PBS “This picture ought to have passed by the wayside alongside Little Black Sambo and the Frito Bandito that this picture praises neither Indian nor non-Indian individuals. I think any individual who sees this can remember it as a conspicuous bigoted cartoon tells you, honestly, once more, our spot in the general public. He proceeds and asks “If it is insignificant, as they like to say, why is there any complaint about changing these pictures? (Jurkovac 37). From this, he felt he was genuine that the Name had to put more influence other than cash.
How the issue was Resolved
After many years of backlash from Native American groups and fans, the Cleveland Indians decided to change their Name, thus separating themselves from a term that has often been branded as discriminatory for some time. The initiative comes after a decision in July by the Washington National Football Redskin League to stop using a name that was periodically thought to be a racial slur since it’s essential for a more extensive public discussion about race. This has also been amplified amid fights over foundational prejudice and police brutality. Indeed this, on its way, was solving the cultural misappropriation of the Cleveland Indians.
Cleveland declared its arrangements that week, as indicated by the three individuals, who talked in a state of obscurity since they were not approved to speak freely on the matter. Cleveland spent most of the year leading to the 2019 season progressively moving away from Chief Wahoo’s emblems and symbols (Schultz and Sheffer 483). Two persons indicated that one option the team was considering was continuing without a replacement name, similar to what was done by the Washington Football Team, and then concocting a new name through interviews with people in general.
Since roughly 1915, the Cleveland Indians have been identified as the Indians, but American native groups and others have long opposed the iconography of sports teams, mascots, and Indigenous names because they were claimed intolerant and demeaning. Washington’s and Cleveland’s previous words were among the most popular models, and they were the targets of several lobbying efforts (Sharrow et al. 113). The cycle began for Cleveland when it said it would retire its long-serving mascot, Chief Wahoo, a ridiculous exaggeration that sparked outrage.
Many appreciated the choice but urged that the group name be removed as well (Lalonde 330). In July, Cleveland announced its plans to conduct an “exhaustive assessment” on its nickname after Washington announced its Name due to pressure from sponsors like Pepsi and Nike. The group spoke with several local American groups, both around the country and in Ohio. Local American groups usually show up each spring at Cleveland’s home despite shriveling aggressive attacks from supporters as they enter the arena.
Finally, in recent months, the group collaborated with the police and nonconformists to ensure demonstrators’ safety and their peaceful and free expression rights. The name was intended to honor a prior player known as Louis Sockalexis, a member of the Penobscot Nation who played for the Cleveland Spiders, a significant association team in the nineteenth century. As an alternative, some have suggested Cleveland adopt the name Spiders. Cleveland’s Name was accompanied by the Chief Wahoo logo for an extended period, thus resolving the issue.
Works Cited
Jurkovac, Timothy J. “The Enigma of Being a Cleveland Indians Fan.” NINE: A Journal of Baseball History and Culture, vol. 29.no.1, 2020, pp. 37-44.
Lalonde, Dianne. “Does cultural appropriation cause harm?.” Politics, Groups, and Identities, vol. 9, no. 2, 2021, pp. 329-346.
Rodesiler, Luke, and David Premont. “On second thought: Teaching for social justice through sports culture.” English Journal, vol. 107, no. 6, 2018, pp. 82-88.
Sharrow, Elizabeth A., Melinda R. Tarsi, and Tatishe M. Nteta. “What’s in a name? Symbolic racism, public opinion, and the controversy over the NFL’s Washington football team name.” Race and Social Problems, vol. 13, no. 2, 2021, pp. 110-121.
Siegel, Brett. “Mascot Nation: The Controversy over Native American Representations in Sports by Andrew C. Billings and Jason Edward Black.” The Velvet Light Trap, vol. 87, no.1, 2021, pp. 90-92.
Schultz, Brad, and Mary Lou Sheffer. “The mascot that wouldn’t die: A case study of fan identification and mascot loyalty.” Sport in Society, vol. 21, no. 3, 2018, pp. 482-496.