Bernie: are you seriously saying you can’t understand the difference between a cartoon like The Simpsons and a racist caricature?  Really?

The Native American issue is more complex than most today want to admit.  It is definitely a blight on the historical record.  However, if you really get into the history, what transpired was the result of actions by both sides.  The problem is that the early attempts at more peaceful solutions were undermined by representatives from both sides creating a distrust that could not be overcome.  I get where Jacob is coming from but getting rid of a mascot is not going to change any of that.  Maybe it might give a few a more warm fuzzy feeling but I do not see that as a reason for getting rid of a mascot (and I really do not care if it stays or goes; it has zero affect on me.)  Jacob and others want to make a token gesture that makes them feel better about themselves.  Were I a Native American, I would take more offense at the bogus gesture than the mascot.  I actually think it is humorous that people like Jacob want to get rid of a mascot; if they are really upset about what transpired, they should move out of the country as the space that they occupy/own is not rightfully theirs to occupy or own if you carry their logic to its conclusion.

My hypothesis is not that a cartoon “can’t” be racist.  I totally agree it can be.  My question is why are two cartoons, which are obviously exaggerated caricatures, not seen as racist when the other is?  They’re all three in the same mode, yet only one is viewed as racist.  I’m just trying to understand the criteria.

Bernie, since Chief Wahoo is the mascot of the INDIANS, it’s should be pretty clear to everyone that Wahoo was explicitly designed to be symbolic of Indians as a group.

In my opinion, that gives all people in the group INDIANS (or sympathetic to the group INDIANS) some right to object to the depiction. They get to say what they sincerely find troubling, and if we have some empathy and think they make a valid point, we support them.

That’s how decent people behave, I think.

Homer Simpson is symbolic only of HOMER SIMPSON. That gives all people in the group HOMER SIMPSON (or sympathetic to the group HOMER SIMPSON) some right to object to the depiction. They get to say what they sincerely find troubling, and if we have some empathy and think they make a valid point, we support them.

So if you are sympathetic to Homer Simpson, and you reallly, truly , and sincerely wish to express what you find troubling about this depiction, Go ahead.

If instead, you craft this arguement primarily for rhetorical purpose, please state so now, so that our time might thus be saved.

Fifth:  At the outset, I will not accept your premise that declining to rub a person’s face in their guilt is akin to proclaiming their innocence. None of us are innocent about much of anything in this world, friend, and I will not have you put that word in my mouth with respect to this subject.  With that out of the way:

If, as you say, “The debates about Chief Wahoo are, absolutely, not central in the least to the struggles that they’ve emerged from,” then why is it necessary to apply your more rigorous standards of racial justice to the issue?  For my part, I agree that Wahoo is, relatively speaking, unimportant to racial relations as a whole.  His removal, while pleasing to me as a baseball fan and maybe—maybe—bringing about some marginal change in the minds of baseball fans, is not going to make life better for contemporary Native Americans nor will it atone for a shameful history.

At the same time, I don’t see how you can deny the fact that a position in which no intellectual quarter is given to anyone who has ever rooted for the Cleveland Indians is going result in some reactionary response among common baseball fans which, in turn, will shift the focus from the elimination of Wahoo to what will inevitably, if erroneously, be described as an attack on tradition and mom and apple pie and baseball and everything else.  Trying to affect change regarding a perceived baseball icon in 2009 is akin to going after other social insititions 50 year ago.

On a personal level, I find that silly and counterproductive.  I think baseball will be a slightly better place if the Indians don’t have a red faced racial caricature on their caps, and that if baseball is a slightly better place, so to is the world.  If wanting to make that happen in an efficient manner makes me an appeaser or an apologist or some victim of scorn in the world of critical race theory, so be it.

Bernie,

As I posted yesterday in the “Whitewashing Wahoo” thread - there is a different set of rules for the way a culture refers to itself and the way it refers to another culture. I am assuming (do correct me if I’m wrong) that Native Americans are not responsible for the creation of or the continuation of Chief Wahoo. 

There is also a different set of rules for the way we refer to groups who are percieved to have more power.  For example, it is ok for the poor to mock the middle-class and the rich.  It is ok for the middle-class to mock the rich, but not the poor.  The rich had ought not be mocking anyone about their lower socioeconomic status.

This may seem unfair on the individual level (“I didn’t subjugate the NAs, I didn’t ask to be white” etc.), but the fact remains that caucasians are percieved as being (and, for the most part, are) the dominant group in our country.  Racist rhetoric is never a good thing, as it cuts off all opportunity of understanding each other, but humor the dominant group directs at minority groups is in a different category than humor that goes the other way.

But let’s not lost sight of the original post.  We can agree that the Indians organization and their fans do not have a racist agenda; however, the symbol of Chief Wahoo represents a culture without actually having that culture’s values and interests in mind.

Sara K, I figured that was the rationale.  It’s the old “OK to hammer the white guys but don’t touch anyone else.”  Got it.  Given that, I don’t have anything more to say on the issue because there’s no way any amount of rational or logical argument can counter that kind of “reasoning.”

Sara,

I understand your point, and as you know, I’ve spent lots of time in South Dakota, out and about and on the reservations. I know what it’s like out there, and it’s ugly.

But people want to cherry pick their moral outrage, and only want to do what’s necessary to get noticed. If the people complaining about Wahoo put as much effort into raising money to build another rehab center, the Indian community would be much better off than if a logo is painted over.

Especially since 95% of Indians could care less about Wahoo. But since the majority of people taking the high road have never been to Pine Ridge, or Rosebud, or Standing Rock, they take the high road and pretend that’ they’re doing something positive by protesting about a drawing.

If the people complaining about Wahoo went to Pine Ridge, they would piss their pants. And they still wouldn’t do anything to help the Indian community.

They want to whitewash Wahoo on a water tower, and that’s what their doing with the real problem. Whitewashing, so it isn’t noticed and pretending like they’ve actually done something when they haven’t.

They can feel good about themselves, but in the end, they’re more guilty than the people who want Wahoo to stay. Covering up the problem doesn’t make it go away, it just covers it up.  We have to treat the desease, and not the symptom.

Ron,

I think you just said a lot more than you did in your previous post. And you are absolutely right.  The average person hasn’t a clue the kind of abject poverty many NA groups experience.  It’s truly shocking. And it’s a shame that most Americans know more about professional sports mascots than the actual people who live in the country, but don’t they?

I guess I just have too much time on my hands.