The Atlanta Braves have a new spring training cap, and it may or may not be racist
December 27, 2012 at 3:13 pm by Franklin Rabon under Atlanta Braves
The Braves have a new spring training cap and twitter has been abuzz with reaction to it.
Let me first say that this article is not going to offer any answers. What will follow is an incredibly complicated issue, that will only barely have the surface of it scratched, if that. Hopefully what will follow is slightly more in depth and level headed than the simplistic “that’s racist” and “deal with it, lol” type responses that mostly characterized both sides.
Let me also say that I would personally be more than happy to see the entire “Braves” mascot/theme done away with. It has nothing to do with the city of Atlanta. It obviously does offend some people. Since there’s no real reason why it SHOULD be the moniker for the MLB team in Atlanta, and it does make some people uncomfortable, I’d personally just as soon get rid of it. I’m also not someone to take ‘tradition’ as a justification for anything. That’s my personal take, and that’s all it is. I have no interest in arguing that one way or the other.
What I do find interesting is the idea of racism in America. So the questions I want to address are these: 1) Is the usage of any Native American imagery, whatsoever, racist? 2) Is the usage of any Native American imagery to represent a school or sports team, ie as a mascot, inherently racist? 3) Is the image on the Braves’ spring training cap racist in a way that the Tomahawk it replaced isn’t? 4) If not, why was their outrage this year and not last year?
For the first question, I’m simply going to lay out the arguments, because they are well worn, and seem to be at a stopping point from both sides. It would be relatively easy if Native Americans agreed on the issue, but famously 91% of Native Americans polled by Sports Illustrated said that they didn’t even find the clearly pejorative term ‘Redskin’ to be racist or even offensive. However, I’m not saying that means that it’s not racist, just that one possible clear path to deciding the issue is cut off. If Native Americans themselves felt that the usage of these symbols and names were racist, then clearly I think it would be offensive to continue to do so. Minorities get to decide what terms offend them and are mocking. If it was clear that Native Americans were offended by the Atlanta Braves name, logos and imagery, the issue would be decided more or less. But it’s not. Now perhaps it’s the case that Native Americans are so discriminated against and marginalized that they themselves have grown unresponsive to racism and have come to accept it. This would be akin to the little African American girl in the 50s pointing at the white doll as being prettier. Sometimes a class of individuals is so harmed that they simply can no longer even recognize some discrimination levied against them.
The American Psychological Association, while speaking towards a resolution recommending the banning of all Native American imagery for educational institutions had this to say: “The use of American Indian mascots as symbols in schools and university athletic programs is particularly troubling because schools are places of learning. These mascots are teaching stereotypical, misleading and too often, insulting images of American Indians. These negative lessons are not just affecting American Indian students; they are sending the wrong message to all students.”
While the issue is particularly problematic for places of learning, some of that could still apply to their usage by a sports franchise. Perhaps a sports franchise has no obligation to foster learning, but it should at least not make things worse. Ultimately, for the Braves, I think the issue comes down to this question: Is the usage of the name Braves, the tomahawk and the image of the Native American on their spring training caps “teaching stereotypical, misleading and too often, insulting images of American Indians.”
An additional argument is that the usage of such is exploitive in nature. That essentially the Atlanta Braves are using the mass genocide of a native people as a cheap marketing ploy. While in some sense that might seem the easier path to declaring the usage of any Native American imagery wrong at all, it also ignores that using the same criteria most movies made about Native Americans are made by white individuals and using a simple “making money off of it = exploitation” argument would deem even insightful and positive movies like Dances With Wolves as exploitive and thus wrong. The counter there is that a movie like Dances With Wolves, while in some sense exploitive, has counterbalancing good, and is thus no longer bad. But to make that argument puts us back at square one. If we are to consider the societal impact of the usage of Native American imagery to make money, then we are simply begging the original question “is the usage of Native American Imagery inherently bad by sports teams?”
Utimately, the question of whether or not any usage of any Native America imagery at all by sports franchises is inherently racist is one that nobody seems to agree upon. Native Americans don’t seem to agree, white people don’t seem to agree. Perhaps in 30-50 years society will move towards a consensus on the matter, but it’s clear that one doesn’t exist now. I think it would be a bit presumptuous to think we would find one here, but I am merely hoping that we at least viewed the issue with open eyes.
Next, let’s ask ourselves if the Atlanta Braves primary images are racist, in a way that Native American imagery doesn’t have to be. That is, for the moment, let’s put aside the arguments that apply to all Native American imagery, ie the ‘inherently bad’ argument. Because even if Native American Imagery being used by sports teams isn’t inherently bad, this particular instance might be so. We’ll also, for the moment, put aside the image on the Braves spring training cap, merely because I want to deal with it separately.
First, the simple name Braves, is it inherently racist? The name Brave isn’t actually itself a Native American term. It is a spanish term for North American native warriors. A sort of catchall that has the same latin derivation as barbarian. Bravo itself essentially meant courageous indigenous warrior. In fact, the term can also be found applied to pacific islanders as well in some historical documents, though the term fell away in that usage over time. Additionally, unlike what many proponents claim, the term isn’t an honor bestowed upon warriors by tribes themselves, and thus a celebration, it was a term used by enemies. The term did carry with it a sense of respect, but it was nevertheless a term created by Europeans for those that they were fighting. Further, even if the term was meant to honor Native American warriors, the usage by current day Americans for its sports teams can easily be seen as mocking them, ie we let silly baseball players be called the same thing we called your fiercest warriors.
Ultimately this is part of why I don’t particularly love the name of the team in the first place. I don’t really see the argument that the term Brave is a positive for Native Americans. I’ve never gained a deeper understanding of Native American traditions because of the term. However, I think jumping from ‘non-educational and perhaps ignorant’ to ‘racist’ is a significant jump.
I believe it’s important to clearly define important terms in an argument. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, most disagreements between intelligent people come down to hidden disagreements on the meanings of the terms they were using. I’m going to define racism as
prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as such.
And this is where I think the usage of the name Braves falls just short of racism. Simply by limiting the term to warriors it, by definition, isn’t intending to perpetuate a stereotype about all native americans, but just the warriors. The Braves aren’t the Atlanta Indians. It’s not uncommon for sports teams to (perhaps idiotically) equate sports with war. In fact it’s perhaps the most common metaphor used for both (ie sports metaphors in war, and war metaphors in sports). And many academics believe that our love of sports is in fact intimately related to primitive clan warfare. We are, after all, glamorizing arbitrary ‘us v. them’ designations and picking ‘sides’ based on nothing but shared geography and imagery. The idea that one should be ‘loyal to their team’ is idiotic without the clan warfare metaphor. That is, I don’t think that the name Braves and the tomahawk are by definition racist, because the term doesn’t itself make claim that all native americans were violent and used tomahawks, but that their warriors were violent and that the tomahawk was a weapon. A follower on twitter asked me why the Braves mascot wasn’t a picture of a Native American woman in a slightly colorized shirt. The answer, both complex and simple, is that she wasn’t a warrior, and thus would be a poor depiction of a Brave. In choosing the term Brave, the choice was made for a warrior mascot. Choosing to glorify (or perhaps mock) Native American warriors is perhaps an issue of its own, but that goes back to our first question that was left unanswered. The tomahawk chop is perhaps particularly egregious, because there is literally zero evidence that any Native Americans ever used the ‘war chant’ and it’s most likely a completely bastardized myth. It uses tones that weren’t even common to any Native American music. But racist? I don’t know.
Now, to say that a term isn’t racist isn’t to say it’s good either. Even if the term isn’t overtly racist, it is possible that it helps perpetuate ignorant stereotypes and that it glorifies violence. This is where my problem with the name Braves and the tomahawks comes into play. Because people don’t particularly delve in to it, it can help people make shallow assumptions. This is especially the case because the name is a generic catch all for all native american warriors, indicating that they were some sort of homogenous monolith of a single, shared culture. It also glorifies their military aspirations, which I think we should be past glorification of violence by anybody. We clearly aren’t. But such is society. In sum, my issues with the term Braves is that it’s a european catch all term, and it does little to foster any real appreciation of Native American peoples. That it glorifies violence, like a large number of mascots do, and that is in and of itself not something I’m totally comfortable with.
Finally, addressing the hat that started it all. Keith Law characterized the logo as “a caricature of a racial stereotype.” A caricature is defined as: “A representation, especially pictorial or literary, in which the subject’s distinctive features or peculiarities are deliberately exaggerated to produce a comic or grotesque effect.” Sorry Keith, but this clearly fails any reasonable definition of the word caricature. Not even close. It’s a completely proportional image that is barely even identifiable as a native american outside of the mohawk and feather. Those two aspects aren’t exaggerated. Maybe it’s still a stereotype. Here though we run into the issue of how exactly do you make a depiction of a ‘brave’ look?
*Here* is an image from a magazine on indigenous youth leadership. It’s a depiction of a native American warrior/leader, as realistically depicted by Native Americans themselves. It depicts him with a mohawk and feathers. It may be a more complex drawing, showing complex chest tattoos and other features that the single face doesn’t show on the Braves’ cap, but is it categorically different than the logo on the Braves spring training hat? The problem with picking something to depict a Native American Warrior is that you have to depict something, some Native American warriors did in fact wear feathers and have mohawks. Is it a stereotype? Perhaps, but would it be any more or less of a stereotype if it showed two braids on the side? Mohawks aren’t really a stereotype, other than one of several period correct hair choices for Native American warriors.
Why find the image of the Native American offensive and not the tomahawk or name Braves? Ultimately, I think the issue is that the personification of the mascot reminds us that the name Braves has some non-arbitrary meaning. That it stood for Native American warriors. I think the tomahawk, and especially the name are easier to abstract, and to essentially forget what it is that they stand for. The picture reminds us precisely what and who it is that this symbology represents. And many are, perhaps rightly, uncomfortable with that. The name Braves and the tomahawk allows us to forget the issues above in a way that this image doesn’t. If the image of the Native American is bad, it’s bad in precisely the same exact way that the term Braves is and the tomahawk is. It’s just easier to ignore it for those, while the image of the Brave on the spring training cap literally stares you in the face.
Ultimately, I think the logo on the Braves spring training caps may be deemed offensive, and perhaps rightly so, but I do have trouble distinguishing any way in which it is offensive and the term Braves, and the usage of the tomahawk aren’t as well. If you find this hat offensive, and not those images, I think it’s because you simply like ignoring what the other terms and symbols mean. That was what was so curious to me. Ultimately I’m okay with saying we should do away with the whole idea of Braves to begin with, but I don’t see a way in which this particular thing is racist, and last year’s spring training hat, glorifying a Native American tool of war in a stereotypical way wasn’t. Ultimately I’d just as soon not have this design, but more because some people find it offensive in a way that all the other Braves imagery isn’t, for whatever reason, not because I think there actually is a reason. I do think that the image falls short of the most common definition of the term racist (although I’m willing to grant other people have different definitions of racism that perhaps it does fall under). However, it’s not politically correct. And while political correctness is often mocked, it is often a necessary by product of increased racial sensitivity to an issue that is important. If we are over vigilant in this regard, that’s certainly preferable to being crass and using logos like the *Cleveland Indians*, or a name like Redskins. In the end, while I may not agree with the outrage over this particular logo in comparison to everything else that the Braves do, perhaps the fact that people are outraged is a good thing.
The one thing I’m sure of though is that it’s much more complicated than “that’s racist!” or “just deal with it bro”.
The opinions expressed here are the author’s own, and not meant to be interpreted as representative of the beliefs of ‘the blog’ as a whole.
Loading ...
The Native American pic is of Wes Studi. A.Native American film actor. I am indifferent to the logo, although i wish they would just stick with the.A .
A very insightful article. I once had to debate this very subject in a sociology class (“Baseball as America”), and I used very similar arguments to this one.
I think this issue is complex, but unfortunately there is simply too much money and brand recognition for anything to change without something drastic being done by the opposition.
I know I’d be crushed if the Atlanta Braves were no longer the Braves, as a lifelong fan, but I’d understand if it was for the greater good.
I think the biggest issue is the use of Native American logos in a violent nature, which has been cut out, for the most part. I can see how the Tomohawk Chop may be insensitive, and using “Chief Noc-A-Homa” as a mascot was certainly insensitive. The chanting is also a bit much, probably because it never really existed outside of sports and is likely used in an ignorant way.
However, I don’t think the name Braves or the logo are at all offensive. As you mentioned in the post, I couldn’t really ever fully understand if it was racist, because I haven’t been subject to it at any point in my life.
But why are names like Braves and Indians so scrutinized when others like Yankees and Padres are not? As Southerners, should we be upset that a sports team is named after our Civil War counterparts? Should the New England Patriots be scorned for having a Revolutionary War themed mascot? Hell, he holds guns and has silly hair.
I feel that the logo, when recognized contextually as a historical reference, should not be deemed offensive. Just as Native Americans are normal people in today’s world, they were at one time what is depicted. Just as white people had ridiculous hair and fought wars, they are now much different. I don’t think the intention with the logo is meant to be violent, offensive, or misleading. If sports were filled with only modern mascots and logos, it wouldn’t be quite the same place. I’m fine with leaving that to soccer…
We could also add in mascots like Vikings, Spartans, Trojans, Fighting Irish, etc, etc.
Incidentally, I’ve never met a native American who used the term “native American.” They just call themselves Indians.
I think when determining whether something is racist or not, it might be constructive to ask “was this group ever subject to organized extermination attempts?” And proceed from there. Maybe next ask “was this group subject to centuries of bondage and human trafficking?” And conclude with, maybe, “was this group subject to organized discrimination sponsored by this very state?”
I fail to see where Yankees and Patriots are anywhere near this conversation. That’s deflection and its lazy . Spartans, Trojans et al, sure, you could make a case. But geographically removed, and separated by two millennia, I think that’s a pretty useless comparison and is, again, deflection and is lazy thinking.
Fighting Irish may be seen as racist, but for the fact that its a turning on its head of a perjorative term. “Fighting Irish” was a racial slur in the 19th century, and one that was used against Notre Dame’s (predominantly Irish Catholic) players by opposing fans when the team was named The Catholics. The team, comprised in large part of Irish Catholics adopted the term, more or less, to say “We are Irish. We are going to fight. What of it?”
It’s a different thing to have your name or culture appropriated by an outside group unrelated to you (ie American sports teams named Spartans) than to have your name or culture appropriated by the very group who subjugated or profited from the subjugation of you (any American sports team using Indian imagery.) It’s another thing again to appropriate ones own name or culture for their own purposes (ie, Irish Catholics subjected to racism or discrimination for their religion embracing perjorative terms in such a way as to be prideful of their own struggle.)
The leprechaun logo, however, I do find unfortunate. But, its instructive to go back to our first group of criteria in order to temper our response.
You can make a case of unfortunate events happening to any group or thing that has ever existed. Do some of us have ancestors that were likely extremely racist? Of course. Does that make us racist, too? Some of us are of German descent, but we are not Nazi’s. Just because Native Americans were subject to mass organized extermination does not mean that you and I support what happened. You are moving farther and farther from the fact that the logo, independent of historical context, is not out of line. It is an Indian, seemingly accurately pictured, with no violent, misleading, or attacking qualities that is meant to serve as an icon for a professional sports team. Bringing up the past is irrelevant, as the logo is in no way tied to any specific instance.
As I said, mocking the tomohawk chop, chant, and cheap shot naming of mascots is out of line, as it purposefully takes advantage of our widely under-educated ideas of Indian tradition. A picture is not a tradition, and it is in no way being mocked, and it does not take advantage of any stereotypes that we may have in mind.
I understand your point, and I think we all feel badly about the past treatment of the effected group. But in this instance, the logo is only bad IF you make it bad by attaching unrelated events of the past.
I can’t help but think, would this be an issue if the man in the logo had his mouth closed, would this be as much of an issue? It seems to only be fuel for talking heads to make headlines about ‘Screaming Indian’ and ‘War-Chanting Indian.’
JJ: great thoughts here, and I found this to be the only aspects lacking in Franklin’s otherwise thoughtful post. Personally, I think you have to view the various ways in which Native Americans were exploited, lied to and forcibly removed from their lands before you can start to think about this issue.
Like Franklin, I’m not in love with the franchise name since there is no real tie to Atlanta. I’d just as soon they looked at alternatives, but I doubt it happens anytime soon.
“Yankee” is a term that predates the civil war and isn’t directly in reference to the northerners in the civil war. Spartans and Trojans refer to those inhabiting a city or city state in the Mediterranean over 2,000 years ago. None of these terms have any relation to the commentary on race. We’re talking about groups of people who were systematically wiped out on our own continent in a holocaust lasting a few hundred years, not characters from antiquity.
You used the phrase “I’d just assume” a couple of times and I think you mean “I’d just as soon.” Not trying to be a dick, just FYI.
I personally can’t understand the argument that the logo is racist. The definition of racism is “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” The logo does not speak to any type of inferiorities or capacities of Native Americans. I also don’t believe the logo intends to represent modern day Native Americans. As the photo linked in the article shows, it is a decently accurate depiction of history. Is it racist to depict history? Whether or not it’s in the best interest of professional sports to do so is another question I suppose, but I can’t think of a logical basis for it to be deemed “racist.” I doubt historical cowboys, trojans,or vikings are accurately portrayed through modern mascots, but I don’t think inaccuracy is the equivalent of racism.
How ridiculous… Maybe the marlins are inconsiderate for all marlins that have been overfished in the Atlantic…maybe the Yankees are inconsiderate to the rebels that died in the civil war… Maybe the Astros are inconsiderate to the people that died during the challenger mission… The diamondbacks are also not very thoughtful to those that have died from diamondback bites for countless years… Don’t forget the athletics who discriminate to the physically challenged… Definitely don’t forget the giants who’s name makes all dwarfs feel inferior… Seriously dude… Get a life… Anyone can, and has the right, to be offended by anything; however, that doesn’t mean their feelings have merit or warrant others to comply with their ridiculous beliefs… If you don’t like, or do not agree with with a teams stance on any level then simply ignore them… This crap has to stop somewhere… Someone will always take offense to something however that doesn’t mean that others are compelled to act on behalf of the offended… My god, the native Americans themselves have stated their not offended in overwhelming numbers… Let it go and find something worthwhile to write about…
AMEN! I can’t believe I just wasted ten minutes reading this holier-than-thou article.
Lazy and wilfully ignorant. You know the comparisons you’re making are foolish to the point of being irresponsible.
You should have just said “I don’t want to have to think about this.” At least that would have been intellectually honest. It also would have been succinct, so as to waste a lot less of everyone’s time.
As spence said: “I don’t think the intention with the logo is meant to be violent, offensive, or misleading. If sports were filled with only modern mascots and logos, it wouldn’t be quite the same place.”
I agree.
If Native Americans are upset over the usage of words such as Indian or Braves, shouldn’t I be as incensed as they if I am not recognized as a Native American? Clearly, I was born in the United States and that makes me a native. The U.S. is usually referred to (mistakenly, I should point out) as America. Therefore I am a Native American. Should I not be outraged that my national identity is being usurped by “the indigenous americans”.
All this points to is that people will be upset about anything that they personally find offensive, whether or not it is intentional or makes sense.
Let’s not offend anyone.
Atlanta Oxygen, perhaps? Nah, too many climatologists would complain that it is a parody of what we once had in abundance.
In all seriousness, no one can name any sports team or franchise without offending someone. Racism is usually the claim, and sometimes rightfully so, but it is not the norm.
Americans have become too sensitive to both real and nonexistant offenses and that is the shame.
I never understand this argument. Trying to be sensitive to the feelings of others is a virtue and a particularly Southern virtue at that. If you feel you should be included when we talk about Native Americans, then I’ll be glad to include you. Although I think it will make the conversation confusing, because Native American is simply a designation to avoid using the term Indian, which has a clearly negative racial history.
I love all the false equivalencies that come up when we talk about race. Many, many white people in America cannot fathom race because it doesn’t affect them in their day to day lives. The only thing they can ever come up with is some bullshit about “reverse racism,” which doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. People don’t like to be challenged, and they don’t like to have the things they enjoy questioned on racial lines. Because if those items are deemed racist by the larger society, then the people who supported it, even if they didn’t think of it as racist, feel they are being called a bigot. No one is calling you a bigot, but it doesn’t mean you can’t think outside your own experiences.
Finally, this is a question the Braves, as an organization, has addressed and must address again. In the end, they are a business that wants to reach as many people as they can. If this hat is deemed offensive by a significant number of people (read: significant, not majority) then they shouldn’t use it. Why bother with the bad publicity? It’s the same reasoning why a man in leather doesn’t run around the ballpark anymore. Does that affect you in any way? Are you less a fan now? I bet you aren’t, and the Braves preserved a few more fans who might have dropped their support for the organization.
Very nice article. I agree with all of your points.
I bought a shirt with this logo on it a long while ago, thinking it was vintage “cool” and something different than just the ‘A.’
But when I went to wear it, I immediately felt awkward and like I was blatantly insensitive to Native American culture. Didn’t like that feeling. I haven’t worn it because of that.
I don’t think the logo is racist in the baseball world or to those knowledgeable of baseball history, but out of that context it does get pretty close to the line imo.
The franchise, logos, etc. were born in a time rampant with racism. And that, while not an excuse, should be part of the equation. This particular logo hasn’t been used since the late 80s and I think it’s lost its Brand connection to the current Atlanta Braves baseball team and this era of fans. Thus it does seem pretty racist in the year 2012, where we as a society are more sensitive to racism, to introduce this kind of imagery as your logo.
The tomahawk and name Braves, though, has more or less always been connected to this baseball franchise and thus isn’t racist in my eyes (if that makes sense). Kind of like Grandfathered in. This new Spring Training logo was phased out thirty-some years ago and lost its grandfather status…
The chop is really racist imo.
Anyway, go Braves!
As a long time fan of both the Braves and the Florida State Seminoles, I don’t see anything wrong with the use of a Native American as a mascot is fine as long as the symbol is tasteful and/or historically accurate. As the article points out, the image is historically representative and does not caricature Native Americans. The Seminoles’ Chief Osceola must be a student who is a portion Seminole and the garb is made by the women of the Seminole Tribe. Florida State uses the name and imagery with the approval of the Tribe as well.
@bennito
Uh, those people weren’t killed by europeans in massive numbers and had their land taken from them. To equivocate the issues between native americans and fish is just silly. Your stance is simply ignoring that there was any issue to begin with, that Native Americans were wronged in any sort of way.
@bob long
Of course you understand that the term native american is simply shorthand for ‘geneological descendants of pre-european tribes that lived in the geographic north and south america”. I can go back and replace Native american with that phrase every single time if you’d prefer.
@q I tend to agree that it’s not racist, but maybe it fosters negative stereotypes of native americans as war like. Or maybe it’s just ingorant to use a term invented by the spaniards that applied to all warriors of any tribe as the same thing. Perhaps it’s ignorant to glorify warriors of any type and equate them to baseball players. These are all, I think, more subtle issues. Also, thanks for the catch. I wrote the piece above in probably ten minutes. I used ‘perhaps’ way too much and missed a few idiomatic phrases originally. Thanks.
Sorry, I suppose I should have used the sarcasm font. I was simply trying to illustrate how easily some people get upset over terminology.
If I upset you, I apologise.
I hope that terminology isn’t offensive to anyone.
I honestly stopped reading after the 2nd paragraph basically because it’s all garbage. Not because of what you wrote being garbage, but because racism as a whole is garbage.
We, as a society, cannot tackle the problem of racism for two reasons. First, racism exists even within the same culture. African-Americans judge and hate on other African-Americans for being too “hood” or a lack thereof. Caucasians hate on other Caucasians because the are… “too” Caucasian. So, how in the world can one race even begin to claim that another race is racist when they, themselves are racist?
Second, we keep trying to deny that racism still exists. We want to cover it up and say that we’ve progressed as a society and “we’re better than that.” I promise you, if the country’s infrastructure fell today, tomorrow you’d see race’s stick together tomorrow.
When we can finally admit, as a WORLD, that we are all a part of one race… the HUMAN race, then we will have progressed.
Until then, it’s all garbage.
Uh what?
@michael
I fail to see how the argument “racism is really problematic, therefore any discussion of it is garbage” works. Of course racism still exists. I think that’s sort of the whole reason why we’re even having this discussion today, because racism is real and rampant.
A problem being particularly thorny and complicated doesn’t mean it’s not a problem we should do our best to deal with.
@Franklin
There’s a difference in knowing that it still exists and admitting that it still exists. The reason we can’t fix it is mainly because as a society, we are afraid to admit that it is still very much alive and rampant. We want to go up and hug a Spanish-American because they are our friend, yet we complain behind their back about them possibly being illegal and stealing our jobs. Companies are afraid to hire a well qualified African-American man because they Google’d his address and found that he lives in a “bad” neighborhood and will in turn hire someone that is under-qualified.
If we want to fix racism, we have to look in the mirror. That is my point. Until you, me, Joe blow down the street can look at ourselves and say that we are ALL (meaning we’re no better than the homeless guy sitting on the street) the same, then racism will never die.
As a high ranking member of PETA I am highly offended about the exploitation of animals in MLB by clubs like the cubs, cardinals, bluejays, orioles, tigers, amongst others (kidding but just as silly as this article)…
It’s interesting that you seem to equate a race of people to animals. I assume you would be fine with naming sports teams The Blacks, Jews, Yellowskins, etc with each accompanied with a caricature for the logo.
Thanks for the insightful writing on a difficult topic that obviously has strong feelings on both sides. I happen to love the Braves more than any sports team, but its not the mascot and logo as much as the players and the city.
The argument that “anything offends someone” is not being honest to the history of a people who were widely killed and displaced, and mistreated to this day. To say that the Diamondbacks’ mascot could be offensive is a seriously misguided equivocation.
This topic deserves further discussion, more so by the Cleveland Indians and Washington Redskins- but it is certainly relevant here. Would be interested in hearing some of the players takes on the matter.
Go Braves
I really don’t think it’s racist. I actually think it’s an honor. I mean your people are the face of a franchise along with the New England Patriots, New York Mets, and the Texas Rangers. Are the Rangers insulting their police force? No
Again, this doesn’t equate. A ranger is an occupation. A patriot is an unofficial title, or adjective. The Metropolitans were named after a club. None are in reference to a race of people.
And according to the article, ‘Braves’ does not refer to a race of people either.
Kind of a departure for CAC, but I like it. Did you just write this today?
I was glad to see this article written in a way that appreciated the complexity of the issue. If I may complicate things even further, according to the ’95 Census, the supposedly politically correct term “Native American” was actually favored by only 37% of Native Americans/Indians, as opposed to the term “Indian”, which was favored by 49%. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/bismarck_200504A16.html). From this same article, the rationale (according to Lakota activist named Russell Means) is that “Native American” is a “generic government term.” So my point is, 1. When we say a term is favorable/unfavorable, what we’re probably really saying is that a percentage of the group favors the term and 2. It’s probably good to err on the side of caution and not use these terms/logos, but being overly PC isn’t a good thing either, because generic PC terms can strip culture away.
I have always thought of all of these teams as honoring the cultures/races that they are promoting themselves as… Additionally, I have never heard any Indian taking offense to the braves… In fact, I actually know (use to work with) the little Indian girl that use to be at the teepee with chief knocka homa at braves games in the 80′s at fulton county and she has no ill will or anything towards the braves; she’s actually a big fan to this day…
The only way that I can see any race taking offense is if their name(s) were used in some derogatory manner (which none of the teams do)…
Look at it like this… There are MANY African Americans that take offense to the name/reference “African American” and prefer the term “black”… Does that make someone racist for referring to another as an African American? Of course not… And the sports teams aren’t even going that far… That is, there is no dispute over the name “braves, Indians, chiefs, redskins” etc…
Besides “racist/racism” is not even a relevant or correct term to use for this discussion… Something along the lines of “is this name/logo offensive” but not racist…
So, just out of curiosity, why aren’t the Boston celtics so offensive with their mascot and clear references to the Irish? Anyone familiar with the history of Irish slavery?
I think it’s an insightful post, and regarding the name “Braves,” a different take that I had not thought of. I can’t say I disagree with your assessment.
Should have just let Ted change the name to the Eagles like he wanted in the first place.
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20066107,00.html
I get sick and tired of people preaching about what is offensive that don’t even mean a thing to them. The Braves, Indians, Redskins, and etc is up to the actual people who it would pertain to. If they do not have a problem with it don’t make it a problem. Someone is always looking to find discrimination in everyone else. Get a life and go to church and clean out your own bigoted mind.
TL;DR
Good God, an insightful article on racism in America? Well done, Mr. Rabon.
First of all, thanks for tackling this. Anyone with half a brain should understand this is a complex issue.
Secondly, and relatedly, the comments to this post should definitely be used in evaluating who to drop the ban hammer on. Not because any of the comments are particularly vile or racist, but because the commenters being overly dismissive of this issue are showing they’re morons who aren’t worth listening to in intelligent discussions.
Finally, wanted to add my two cents. I’m typically someone who says that we should get rid of things that are probable or even decently possible of offending someone, if possible. (For instance, I’m a native Mississippian, and I strongly favored changing the state flag … it’s just a fucking flag, after all. Even if it doesn’t offend me – which it kinda does (I’m white) – it offends enough people that it’s worth getting rid of) However, when I thought of the Braves changing their name, it set off a really visceral negative reaction in my mind.
I’m not saying that my (unhealthy) emotional attachment to the “Braves” name should factor into the equation, but I just found it interesting that the thought of the Atlanta team changing its name sparked such a strong reaction in me.
@bennito
WHy are you talking about whether Indian is a racist term? I use the term Native American not because I think Indian is racist, just because given my age, it was the term most everybody used. I think Indian is a weird term, but I don’t think that term is inherently racist. Same thing with black v. African American, I don’t think either is right or wrong. I don’t think I made the argument anywhere in the article or comments that the term ‘Indian’ is racist. I did say the Cleveland Indians logo was racist, because it actually IS a caricature and wildly offensive at that. But the name, I think, is okay.
As far as it being an ‘honor’, I don’t really get how using a term invented by the spanish when they were fighting against the Native Americans is ‘honoring’ them, but w/e. I think you can maybe make the argument that Florida State honors the Seminoles (though the Tomahawk chop and war chant are still pretty bad), but Braves? A generic term for native america fighters invented by the spanish is an ‘honor’? At best it’s just neutral.
Best comment ever:
“Get a life and go to church and clean out your own bigoted mind.”
Best comment ever: “Get a life and go to church and clean out your own bigoted mind.”
Maybe minus the church part. Just change the names of all these borderline-offensive teams. It’ll probably help sales anyways.
I’d like to point out that, from following Keith Law on twitter, he is a bit of a prick with an ego.
That’s all.
Franklin,
I apologize as I realize that I (as well as others) have gotten off topic a bit from the article itself…
As you know, the title of the article says that the new logo may be “racist”, and the articles comments have evolved to the more generalized discussion of whether or not anything associated with Indians/native Americans is racist or not… My personal stance is that any insinuation that the braves new (old) logo, the organization, etc is racist is far fetched…
As far as the term “braves” being an honor or not, I do understand how you could perceive it otherwise, however my personal view is that it honors the Indians (braves to be specific)for their bravery, fierceness in battle and so on… If it wasn’t intended as an honor then why would a team use the name/logo? After all, logos and names are used (in sports) to promote and demonstrate a teams prowess… It’s not used to say “hey, we make fun of ______”…. Just my opinion…
The article is overall well written and I was probably a little quick to dismiss it and probably shouldn’t have been so harsh to dismiss others views… For that I do apologize… I guess a lot of this is out of frustration over a topic that has gone on for the last two decades (at least) that I personally feel has no real merit…
@bennito
no harm. One thing I will point out though is “braves, to be specific” doesn’t mean anything. The term is literally just what the Spaniards called all Native American fighters. That’s part of my issue with the term, that it’s a generic term invented by europeans while they were fighting.
Butt wut about Barves?
Point taken… And I appreciate you listening to my stance and again apologize for taking out my pre exisiting frustration of the topic on an article that was simply presenting a point of view on the subject matter
Ugh, spring training can’t come soon enough.
If we are going to be discussing whether the name ‘braves’ is racist, it might be of value to remember where it came from. The following address includes the origins of all 30 MLB nicknames, including the braves:
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/51678
So the team nickname was only tangentially related to native americans, and it is only more recent tradition that has shifted the meaning. So I would say that the team name is definitely not racist. As for the other imagery used, I find it more silly than racist. It would be like me (a white dude) being offended by Charlie Brown as a representation of white people. Logos are never true to life, or incredibly detailed, and tend toward the cartoonish. And anyone who gets offended by a cartoon’s representation needs to get a life.
Great article. You offer an honest and fair analysis. I also think that braves could change their name… Haha maybe we could offend Persians and call them the immortals. Jk.
My other problem with the hat is that it is super ugly. I wouldn’t be caught wearing it in public.
As a long-time Braves’ fan I am more comfortable with the name and ‘A’ logo than with the tomahawk and brave images associated with the team. Would rather they both stayed retired. It just makes us look insensitive. As with Wyoming above, I stopped wearing my ‘brave logo’ gear a long time ago. Hopefully a new logo would be rolled out just as the team embarks on a championship season, as in 1914, and that becomes the new face of the team.
racism is the real problem in society, the real problem is hate. we as people feel the need to differ from one another and segregate ourselves through several different criteria.
religion, income, region, heritage, politics, sports, education, etc…. anyone different to us we dislike no matter how little we actually care about the situation, and anyone who is vastly different we develope a hatred. skin color is the only one of the criteria that people can see and cant change therefore racism becomes the biggest issue. racism will always exist and cannot be changed therefore we shouldnt worry about a logo on sports team.
Personally i believe that BET, black entertainment televison, is the one of the most racist things in america right beside the confederate flag. i dont care for either one of these things so i dont watch BET and i dont buy confederate clothing or accessories.
IF YOU DONT LIKE IT DONT SUPPORT IT!!!
*racism isnt the real problem in society*
correction to the first sentence
It seems the people that have the biggest problem with the logo are not even Native Americans. They are the people that are afraid to look racist/insensitive by supporting it. It’s really kind of sad. There are ‘conservationists’ that do what they do not for the well-being of the planet, but because they want their own clean place to live. There are men that support women’s rights simply to aid their perception by women. While there are good people out there, the ones whining about these topics are the ones who are merely terrified by how they are perceived. The ones screaming loudest usually have the most to hide.
I think if it were a problem, something would have been done by now. Clearly the right people have not taken the steps necessary to have it changed. While the name and logo were created in a different time, we have been ‘politically correct’ for decades now. The Braves panel that decided to use the logo on the new cap likely have a better idea of those affected by it than we do, and they felt it was still reasonable enough to use.
Uh Mr. Costas, sir? Can we have our baseball site back?
Just as soon as there is baseball to talk about, we will gladly talk about it. Further, as long as me and Ben are paying for this site out of our own pockets, we’ll write what we please when we please. I’m all for disagreement and discussion. In fact, I individually approved the vast majority of the negative comments, when the auto filter had captured them (mostly because of being first time posters). But this is a topic that has been talked about by all sorts of media outlets, including the AJC, and thus I felt was appropriate for a Braves blog to at least discuss.
Keep up the good work, Franklin. Life is easier when CAC is buzzing, regardless the topic. I think most of us appreciate what you guys do.
Fair enough. I’m an avid reader of this site for the last couple years (rarely post though) and have found that it has by far more informed articles, opinions, and insight than most others out there. However, I would prefer (and its likely I’m not the only one) to have more baseball related material vs politically baseball related. But, like you said it’s your site and you guys can write what you want, just please don’t take your ball and go home ;). Just wanted to state that opinion, so other than this article, IMO, keep up the the good work :)
I have not read all of the comments here so I apologize if this is redundaant. In a case styled Pro Football v. Harjo, the D.C. Circuit court held that the redskins logo and team name had developed a secondary and non-offensive meaning as th trademark of the Redskins, and thus was, at least from a legal perspective, not considered offensive to a substantial portion of consumers. Since the new logo is one the Braves have used before, I would think that it has also acquired secondary meaning and, at least from a legal POV, is not actionably bad. Plus thats not racist bro.
We should just go back to being the Crackers. That would not offend anyone.
@spence said:
“I can’t help but think, would this be an issue if the man in the logo had his mouth closed, would this be as much of an issue? It seems to only be fuel for talking heads to make headlines about ‘Screaming Indian’ and ‘War-Chanting Indian.’”
Interesting questions. Personally I always thought it was laughing. As a photographer, the eyes to me look much more like laughing than screaming.
Very minor, unimportant point: the “Braves” mascot actually originated in Boston, not ATL, in 1912, probably as a nod to the city’s colonial history. ATL seems to be pretty fond of the it’s own history as the oldest continuously running franchise (rightfully so), so keeping a mascot that harkens all the way back to its earlier days makes some sense. Of course, none of this matters if it offends people. If that’s the case, then yes, change it. Just thought I’d point out that its not really supposed to have a connection with the city of ATL, but more with the team’s history.
I think it is cool, I don’t know how it could offend Native Americans, if anything it shows admiration and respect for them.
If the braves changed their name as you suggested i would be done with the team i’m an atlanta braves fan i’m not going to support some off-brand re-brand just because it says atlanta on their chest. Just like my beloved Charlotte hornets and the bs bobcats
you’re loyal to a made-up name instead of the city/team/franchise? I just don’t get that.
We have a strong Native American history in Georgia. I live near the Chattahoochee, Yonah mountain, Sautee-Nacoochee. All derived from the tongue of the Cherokee. 60 years ago you could walk into a pasture and find dozens of arrowheads. If we can find a tasteful way of honoring our state’s history and have a nationally recognized team as a mascot that’s great. Are we doing that? Not really. But to say the name doesn’t apply to Georgia is wrong. The Creek’s lived throughout central and south Georgia.
I find it amusing that people’s general reaction to things like this is to scream “RACISM!” and to chase that with “sweep it under the rug!!!”
IMO, these things promote discussion and perhaps inspire people to read about history.
I also find it amusing that nobody complains about Florida State for being racist.(because they pay the Seminole tribe)
This mamby pamby political correctness crap makes me sick. Man up, grow a pair, quit being such a candy ass.
What I’m saying is, if we change everything in life because somebody is offended, we won’t have much of anything left. Cuz somebody is always offended by something
I don’t think thats necessarily true. I think the main problem is that people (including American Indians) are so accustomed to the marginalization of these people that they almost feel insulted themselves when someone says there is something wrong w the imagery. We’re talking about one of the most screwed over populace in the history of the world.
I appreciate CAC and read the blog almost daily. But this is the most drawn-out dribble I’ve ever seen written here. There isn’t the slightest bit of coherence in a single paragraph. I come here for statistical analysis and baseball insight; not for political commentary. Leave that crap for the Huffington Post.
You do realize that none of us owe you anything, correct? I appreciate all of our readers, but we do this because we are passionate about it. Me and Ben pay money out of our own pockets to keep this site running. I try to let open debate foster, and in fact approved most of the negative comments on the article. But I find comments like yours pointless. You knew what the article was about from the headline, if you don’t want to read discussion on the topic, why did you read it?
It’s funny that people who are complaining about ‘being overly sensitive’ to this issue are seemingly offended by thoughts on a blog.
Of course they’re my opinions. This is a BLOG. You can feel free to disagree with them, and I’m glad to hear opposing thoughts, I’ve in fact approved probably 15-20 posts that the spam filter caught that were opposing my view. But if you’re going to comment, at least add something other than insulting my intelligence and attempting to tell us what we should or shouldn’t write about.
Franklin, don’t get all frazzled. If you are going to put your work in a public forum you have to be prepared to accept the criticism that comes with it. And I don’t think I intimated that anything was owed to me. So I’m not really sure where that comment comes from.
All I’m saying is that you drug out the point. You never made a concise point. And after reading on and on (as this post never seemed to end) I never really got what the point of the post was. It just seemed like pontificating for the sake of pontificating. Now slowly untwist your panties and tell us what the Braves are going to do about a leadoff hitter and left field.
(Oh, and thank you for making this site possible. I do really enjoy it. But no one is perfect. And I don’t have to enjoy every single article that is posted. That’s my prerogative as your customer.)
Of course it was a long post, that’s easy enough to just see. My point is that I have very little patience for “write this, not that” type comments. Feel free to disagree with anything we agree with, fine, I’m all for that. Sure, this is a public forum, but I can tell you what it used to be like when Peter was here, when we cleared the banned list several hundred IP’s had been banned. I think we’re more than hospitable.
There’s a place for concision, and there’s a place for bringing all the various issues to the forefront. The whole point of this article was because I felt that an incredibly multi-faceted and complex issue had been reduced to simple platitudes by both sides. If you had trouble finding a single, simple conclusion, that’s because there simply wasn’t one, which the article clearly stated up front. I’m not expecting kudos, I’m simply saying referring to writing as ‘dribble (sic)’ and trying to tell us what we should write about is not going to get you anywhere here.
When it comes to writing articles our thought process is 1) Is this interesting to me? 2) Is it Braves related? 3) does it fit within the couple of relatively lax guidelines ESPN gives us? If the answer is yes to all of those, the article gets written. We don’t and won’t ever consider what our readers do or don’t want to read, and I think most of our readers actually like it that way.
Finally, your comment was insulting in nature, which is fine, but don’t expect a polite reply in response when you do so. Plenty of readers have enjoyed the piece, found several points that they understood, and it has in fact been the most popular article we’ve put up, outside of the BJ Upton stuff, in quite a while. That’s not why I wrote it, but I’m just pointing out that good articles that people like tend to happen when we write what we want. When we start listening to what readers want and pandering to what they like and agree with, we become Bleacher Report, which is a fine site, but it’s not who we are.
As far as ‘getting my panties in a wad’, if my panties were really in a wad, I simply wouldn’t have approved your comments, both of which the spam filter caught.
Finally, under what definition are you my customer? When did you ever buy anything from us? Last I checked, we don’t sell anything, we pay money out of our pockets to write what we want, when we want. We don’t even really put up advertising.
Nick, I agree and that is to a larger extent what I was getting at with earlier comments… The author of the article received all thoughts/critiques/ideas well but many of the commenters just want to make assumptions about intelligence or even better cry for the “lets ban them” since others don’t agree with them lol… Love it…
yeah, I’m all for disagreement, but I do find the people saying “shut up” or “I’m going to leave the blog if you write stuff like this” or making statements about my or other commenters’ intelligence a bit absurd.
My best friend from law school is a clerk for Justice Thomas and another is an attorney for the ACLU. I don’t think that somebody having different opinions for you is a reason to be hostile. But apparently several commenters believe that talk on a topic is only worth mention if they agree with it.
Tell your friend to watch out for pubes in his pepsi.
I personally feel that Franklin hasn’t been frazzled in the least and also feel he has been overly hospitable to a wife array of thoughts and ideas on the subject.
As much as I complained about the post at first, I’m glad he wrote it b/c I would have never stumbled onto this site had I not ran across the article from bleacher report… Didn’t even know this site existed and I’ve been a braves fan for 35 years!!
Thanks to those that make this site, and sites like these possible.
This is similar in the way QT is catching hell for the word “nigger” being in Django Unchained 109 times (or wtvr). People have made all sorts of accusations about it as being racist and thus the movie is awful…etc The real truth of the matter is he’s depicting slavery in the pre civil war era! If he had all the slave traders, plantation owners (and yes slaves themselves) saying “colored, or black” it would’ve been dishonest and I bet the same people calling his movie “racist” would have been calling for his head for “glossing over the uglier parts of history”
There’s no winning with this type of stuff with some people.
I’ve read a bit about Django and haven’t heard about how people are up in arms about that.
Actually nevermind. A friend just brought up the same subject and the people who are going nuts over the movie.
Because changing the name would feel like to me to be rejecting the history and the braves teams i knew and loved. I’ve never lived in Atlanta and have no particular attachment to the city my love is for the atlanta braves no longer being the braves would sever my emotional connection. I would still cheer for the players that were braves but as far as new players that were never braves or the results of the team in general the emotional connection just wouldn’t be there. (I don’t think this is anything to worry about though i’ve never heard about changing the name just wanted to explain my thinking. Love the blog franklin and go braves)