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 ...
That’s all fine and good, pal. I’m not trying to go I war w you. Like I said originally, I enjoy CAC and read it daily. I just found this piece to be poorly written and not very well thought out. So pin a rose on your nose for approving my comments. You can call them insulting. I just call it criticism. The point here is that it really is simple. Some people are offended by his imagery. Some aren’t. You are never going to please everyone. From a business perspective, it seems like a bad idea, bc you never want you alienate any of your fan base or attach a negative connotation w your brand. But I do understand that there is a demand for classic symbols and images from the past. The culture right now is eating up anything and everything that has a retro feel to it right now. So, maybe the Braves – like you and your fellow writers here – said to hell w what some people think. We’re gonna do what we want to do. That’s their right. I like the image and am not offended by it. It’s an innocent enough caricature. No different than the Padres or Brewers. I don’t see Catholic priests getting all worked up in SD or burly, Northern European heritage Midwesterners having issues in Milwaukee. Point is, you overcomplicated a simple issue by adding all these superfluous layers of complexity that don’t really exist. I get where you were going. But in the end you just got carried away and lost your point.
It’s not a simple issue, you dope.
Why don’t you check out the writings of Bartolome de las Casas and see what the Spaniards did to the natives when Columbus landed, or how the govt issued a 100 dollars for the scalps of apaches, Jackson and the trail of tears, etc etc etc etc.
Oh, and to your point about being a customer. I am a customer. Just bc you aren’t charging for your service doesn’t mean I’m not a customer. You aren’t writing this blog just for yourself. It’s out there for consumption by people like me. Consumption being something done by a consumer. Consumer being equal to customer. Don’t play semantics games w me.
it’s not semantics to say that someone who doesn’t buy anything from you isn’t a customer. Customers have rights and expectations. People who read a free blog don’t. When you are being given something for free, it’s kind of crazy to call yourself a customer.
Listen to yourself, you’re trying to say because you get something from us, for free, that you have rights as a customer. What kind of bizarro world do you live in where getting something for free entitles you to certain rights? Consumer=/=customer. Customer, ie person who BUYS something from you = customer.
We write a blog, when we see fit, and you guys get to read, if you want to. That’s all this is. Sure, you can feel free to comment, and we encourage it, but not because we feel like we owe anything to anybody. We let people comment merely because we want to foster conversation. We could just as easily go back to no comments whatsoever.
You keep talking like we get something out of this. The only thing we get out of this is the enjoyment of writing. I wanted to write this article, so I wrote it. And that’s the end of the discussion as far as what we write or don’t write goes. You’re free to criticize, and I’m free to tell you that your criticism isn’t taken into account by any of us, because, again, we write what we want to write. And for every one of you, there were several people who liked the article, including the majority of the regulars.
You got me figured out… Damn…
Vivabeta,
I wasn’t trying to compare animals to humans… My point was to put together a list of of names (humans, animals, and inanimate objects) that some people may find offensive…
The findings in the SI poll that cited that 91% of Indians didn’t find the use offensive is enough for me to consider this a closed case… If Indians, in overwhelming numbers, don’t consider the names/use/logos/etc offensive then who exactly are we catering to? The 9% that do? My point is that there will always be someone who is offended by something… However pandering to the fringe is not necessary…
It’s a bit more complicated than that, as the poll was of anybody who claimed native american ancestry (ie any tom, dick or bob who is 1/16th native american). When tribal leaders are polled they generally are overwhelmingly against these mascots.
I don’t think anyone is saying that the actual name of the team is the problem. It’s the depiction of the name in the image. It’s the actual mascot aspect of it. When I think of mascot, it’s usually some sort of animal, or someone in the garb representing whatever regional distinction (49er goldrush guy for example). It really shouldn’t be the representation of a conquered people being paraded around between innings, during halftime, etc for an audience. Thats just kinda shitty in my opinion.
And let’s be serious, the reason these hats exist in the first place is money. This is a business. The Atlanta Braves-and every other pro sports team besides the GB Packers-exist to generate revenue and everything else is secondary. Teams issue these spring training and alternate jerseys/hats so they can sell more crap at the stadium, and this is why I tend to have a problem with the IMAGERY, not the names. Simplifying the identity of a racially themed team to a more ambiguous state (tomahawk, arrow, feather) is acceptable. The Indians mascot is not acceptable. It’s the same as if a team was called the NY Jews and had a big nosed character w glasses. Not good. The Braves just need a better design staff, since the ones they have now can only churn out shitty new alternate apparel like the horrendous spring training jerseys of seasons past, or rehash a mildly offensive caricature that wasn’t ever very good to begin with.
Leave it to the lefties to turn a lauding and complementary tribute into racism.And if that isn’t bad enough,also telling the plurality of NOT offended that they just aren’t smart enough to know how insulted they should be and how victimized they are.
Few things contribute more to disastrous social policy than white guilt and self loathing.These narcissists accomplish little more than managing to feel better about themselves while stepping on the toes of those they claim to represent.They give far too much credit to the few race baiters that carry the compelling need to tweek whitey on the nose,while giving no consideration to the majority of the NOT offended,who take varying levels of pride in the tributes to their histories.
I agree a lot w Scott A. Reminds me a lot of when the NCAA tried to ban Indian-themed mascots and Seminole Indians came out in droves against the measure to keep their name and the Seminole Indian image alive at FSU. This whole article is literally much ado about nothing.
If the poll isn’t a reliable indicator of indians feelings on the subject then it should not have been used/developed by SI and personally I wouldn’t have referenced it if I knew it had some serious design flaws… If Indians are truly offended in large numbers then that warrants a closer examination IMO…
I have not been able to locate the parameters of the specific study in question, however I have been able to locate very similar legitimate academic studies on google scholar and surprisingly, literally every study I am finding backs up the SI study findings. It seems that true native Americans do find the use of their names/imagery as honoring… It is true however that a lot of conclusions with negative consequences have been drawn to the subject… But there is difference between statistical findings and follow-up conclusions…
Hi Dandy,
I apologize for getting off the topic intended here but something you wrote peaked my interests…
I agree there is no such thing as “reverse racism”… Racism is racism not matter who it is against…
That said, while it may be minimal and insignificant somewhat on the large scale, there are cases for discrimination against whites… A simple and oft referred to example would be if a less qualified candidate gets accepted to a university over a more qualified candidate based off of race alone… It does happen in order for colleges and the university to promote diversity in academia… I’m not getting into the discussion whether that is right or wrong but it does happen… [by less/more qualified I am using the general indicators - gpa, social activities, etc]
Somewhat unrelated yet related… If you haven’t seen them before there are some great articles and studies that demonstrate the unintended consequences of affirmative action… There are some interesting stories of minorities who get accepted to schools that maybe they weren’t the best fit for because of the level of education and the students end up either a) not graduating or b) ending up switching to non math/science types of programs that have less “real world” use and hence end up making less money or unhappy with their field…
I wish I would have included this in my last response… Just the tip of the iceberg but a very well written article that discuses the subject and makes a strong case for more emphasis to be place on the socioeconomic challenged rather than race….
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444799904578050901460576218.html
The article discussed the topic in a manner that was as balanced and reasonable as one can hope to find. It tried to talk about the issue using facts and logic with no emotion and achieved that goal IMO. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by some of the comments to it but I was anyway.
And this is a Braves blog. Not sure why this would be considered a topic unworthy or extraneous for discussion here. Especially in January (December actually after looking at the dates – guess I’m late to the party).
I honestly don’t believe any of these nicknames have a racist, derogatory, or inflammatory motivation behind them. Maybe I’m wrong there.
Sports teams are meant to be a celebration and mascots and nicknames are an attempt to create an image to rally behind and be proud of. It is certainly possible – likely even – many of the names or images are ignorant or poor caricatures at best and may be best served left behind. But that is certainly much different than the knee jerk reaction of calling those racist that defend the names.
Leaving the “is/is not” question for a moment, I have to say this is a pretty horrible mis-step for the Braves marketing department. Yes, it’s their responsibility to put out new merchendise to help pump up sales, but they have to be pretty tone-deaf to not think it wouldn’t cause a fracas.
Now they are in a position where they probably will withdraw it and look like buffoons.
“We let silly baseball players be called the same thing we called your fiercest warriors.” The problem I have with this example is the idea that the mascot is intended to be a literal representation of the team or players. This is never the case. Is Detroit releasing tigers onto the diamond? Do the padres only begin Sunday games after they’ve finished conducting mass?
I also believe that possible negative or violent stereotypes are perpetuated by the use of the “Raiders”, “Vikings”, “Spartans”, “Fighting Irish”, …etc. However if the supposed offense is against any people group of Euro/white descent than it seems there is no concern over how they may be depicted. Why does something that isn’t considered offensive when directed at a white person become “racist” or offensive if it involves any other people group?
While I appreciate the thought that went into the article, it’s just too much analysis. No one really cares what the origin of the word “Braves” is, and 90% of people who do don’t even think it’s germane. The bottom line is: what do Braves represent? A group of fighters from a Native American tribe. To me there is something noble about that, or at least there would be in their culture, just as we honor those who serve America as warriors. There is nothing inherently offensive in the word per se other than the fact that applies strictly to Native American culture. The Tomahawk Chop? Maybe. The chant? Maybe, just because it’s inane and pretends to be fierce when it’s nothing more than singing some notes. Maybe if it had actual words I’d give it a pass. The Cleveland Indians, on the other hand, you’d have a better case against, especially with the Chief Wahoo caricature, even though I always thought he was kind of, well, cute. It would be just as bad if it referred to people from India and had some caricature of Bombayites. I see the Braves as not particularly offensive, no more so than if the Mariners changed their name to the Samurais and used a sword on their hat, especially if they seemed to honor the name and not disparage it. And that Braves hat has nothing to do with Wes Studi. They used that logo back in my childhood; it’s just a nostalgia trip. I’ve got a lot of old baseball cards with that face as part of the uniform.