Earlier this week, I came across a link from Craig Robinson at Flip Flop Fly Ballin’ to a cache of 14 radio broadcasts of baseball games from 1948-1967. If you like history or listening to baseball on the radio, this is a treasure trove, and you’ll want to spend a while absorbing the sounds of the game in the time of fast talk and high trousers: Boudreau, Berra, and Ballantine Beer.
One of the broadcasts is from the fifth game of the 1948 World Series and features Mel Allen (in the third of what would be 18 consecutive World Series assignments) and Jim Britt calling the Boston Braves’ 11-5 win over the series’ eventual victors, the Indians. It starts out innocently enough—a friendly greeting from Allen, a word from our sponsor (Gillette, not yet bragging about its blade counts), and a reminder that we’re listening to a relic of a time when someone still watched boxing. So far, so good. But it’s 1948, and it’s Indians vs. Braves. If you’re thinking, “That sounds like a recipe for some casual cultural insensitivity,” you’re right!
I’ve embedded the relevant bit below. Prepare to be snapped out of your nostalgia around the 30-second mark.
It’s not surprising that this would have been considered kosher on a national baseball broadcast in 1948. One need only look at that game’s lily-white lineups to be reminded of what passed for acceptable at the time: the Braves, the fifth major-league team to integrate, wouldn’t do so until 1950, and even the progressive, Bill Veeck-owned Indians fielded only two non-white players. What does seem a little surprising, in light of how long it's been since we left those lily-white lineups behind, is that some remnants of Allen’s attitude remain. This was the Indians’ primary logo in 1948 (courtesy of SportsLogos.net): By 1951, "Chief Wahoo" had evolved (if you can call it that) into this: Since then, though, Wahoo hasn't aged a day: While Wahoo’s silent grin might not set off the same alarm bells as Allen’s references to reservations, medicine men, and peace pipes (if only because we’re so used to seeing it), it comes from the same cultural lineage—one we shouldn’t be particularly proud of. As Emma Span once put it: Look: I know it’s a tradition; I know the vast majority of people who do that chant, or wear caricatured Cleveland Indians mascot gear, are not racist and have no actual problem with Native Americans. But it’s well past time for those fans, and those teams, to demonstrate that by knocking this stuff off. Even if no great harm is being done now, these are the vestigial remains of a very real racism which has done plenty of harm, and I don’t understand why anyone would want to associate themselves with it. Does that pleasure of tradition really outweigh the ickiness of taking part, however briefly, in that kind of creaky, ugly, outdated world view? We’ve come a long way in the last 65 years. Why not take one more step and make Wahoo go away for good? 
Wahoo isn’t as easy to find as he once was, but the logo has shown surprising staying power. Earlier this month, the Braves’ so-called “Screaming Indian” made an ill-considered comeback (at least until the predictable backlash), and Atlanta’s tomahawk chop is alive and well. Allen’s intro seems almost impossibly archaic, but at some point, won’t we look back and say the same about Wahoo?
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
This what we do because I like solutions. If you don't like it don't buy Cleveland Indian merchandise or watch their games. It's a baseball team that nobody really cares about.
I doubt ownership will do anything about it. It will be a slippery slope if the Indian mascot is changed.
I disagree. In fact I look at your whole argument as a slippery slope fallacy. Mainly because besides the Pirates, none of those mascots are MLB team names. Even more so, I don't know of a big pirate population in the US that are being offended by the Pittsburgh mascot.
And some of the other mascots you named don't have negative or stereotypical connotations to them (such as Minutemen, Colonials, Senators, Hoosiers, Miners etc.) and some are nicknames for groups of people that simply don't exist anymore (Spartans and Trojans come to mind).
I can't really fault anyone for not taking offense to the Cleveland logo and nickname. But it does hurt me a little that a sport like Baseball has been somewhat progressive culturally in this countries history.
Your solution doesn't really work, because the only people who could boycott in numbers sufficient to make a difference are Caucasians and Hispanics. If the markets decide, every other group will be fair game.
Besides, what would be the harm, even if that slippery slope came to pass? That's not a question you even attempt to answer. The only answer I've ever heard is tradition. Big deal. We have plenty of traditions. Some of them are worth keeping and some aren't. If a fan can't fathom his favorite team with a new, they either have a profound lack of imagination or weren't much of a fan in the first place.
Plus you insult the team to boot, but falsely stating that nobody cares about them.
I didn't know Chris Perez had a BP account...
Who is this offending anyway?
I would rather listen to you tell me how you helped disabled vets or the homeless over the weekend than read one of these holier than thou screeds.
But, onto the rest of your comment, it was just all kinds of crazy. Not sure how you get from this mascot is an insensitive and a relic of an era of racial intolerance to homeless vets and how Ben should just help them already. But, I think you're letting a perceived difference in ideology colour your opinion of this article.
Then again, I am Canadian, so I am probably just an elitist leftist bastard :)
I have to grant you that your point is probably well taken.
Cleveland Erie - confusing
Cleveland Iroquois - doesn't flow
Cleveland Native Americans - long and boring
Cleveland Cuyahogas? - that has a nice ring, but Cuyahoga just means crooked river.
What if we went with something Cleveland is known for:
Cleveland Rock 'N Rollers? - long and aiding competition
Cleveland Burning Rivers?
How about something baseball related:
Cleveland Steinbrenners?
Cleveland Fellers?
Cleveland Boudreaus?
Cleveland Dobies?
Those don't work. What else?
Cleveland Great Lakers? - better than those basketballers
Cleveland Standard Oils?
How about putting the name up to the highest bidder:
Cleveland Primus Capitals?
Cleveland Sherman-Williams?
I guess we have to go to animals or sock colors. The problem is there that all the good ones are used already. Remember that Tampa Bay couldn't use "Sting Rays" because some school had rights to it. But wait? Who has "Bats"? They must have bats flying around Cleveland at night, we have plenty of them down lake here in Toronto. It's about time a baseball team called itself the Bats!
It's settled. I am becoming a billionaire, buying this franchise and renaming them the Spiders!
I will give you one ticket in return for the inspiration jssharo, but you'll have to pay for your own parking.
By the way the oldest continuous team name in baseball is "Philadelphia Phillies" - leaving the Quakers logo behind in 1890. Surprisingly, the American League "Detroit Tigers" have the next oldest - and the oldest franchise that never had any sort of name change. That's what they have been called since their arrival in the Western League of 1894 - before that league became the American League in 1900 (and promptly considered a Major League in 1901). You could argue that the "Pittsburg Pirates" of 1891-1911 becoming the "Pittsburgh Pirates" in 1912 was not really a name change. That still makes "Pirates" the fourth oldest continuous nickname, behind "Giants" of 1885 and the "Phillies" and "Dodgers" of 1890. The "Cincinnati Reds" were also shortened from "Red Stockings" in 1890, but were known as the "Redlegs" from 1954-1958.
The Cleveland Indians joined the Western League as the Grand Rapids Hustlers the same year as the Tigers: 1894. That was when Ban Johnson took over the league. When that league became the American League the Hustlers moved to Cleveland and became the Blues. I like that, but it wasn't a musical term in 1900. The Blues is now better associated with Chicago or Memphis. Team nicknames were much more informal at the turn of the century - something generally sportswriters used out of convenience. Baseball-Reference lists them as the Cleveland Bronchos in 1902, then the Cleveland Naps from 1903 to 1914. As that was so due to their star Napolean Lejoie, that brings us back to the Cleveland Fellers - or maybe the Cleveland Asdrubals? Drubys? (again: Doobies), Carlos Santanas? (again: Rock 'N Rollers), Cabs?
The Cleveland Spiders were a National League team that died in 1899.
I don't know how Dan Snyder sleeps at night, owning a team called the Washington Redskins. Oh, wait, I know -- that guy doesn't have a soul.
http://www.clevescene.com/imager/the-curse-of-chief-wahoo/b/original/2954425/7ba4/cover-10.jpg
http://www.clevescene.com/gyrobase/the-curse-of-chief-wahoo/Content?oid=2954423
I do like the Spiders, though, or the Fellers.
As for the Redskins, Snyder will never get rid of the nickname, offensive as it is. He is the stereotypical fanboy owner who's clueless.
I just don't understand how you can write this article without asking a native american. Tribal leader, professor, writer, rights advocate...anyone??
It's also interesting that no one has brought up that there has been a running discussion amongst many tribes over the term "native american" vs. "indian." And while "indian" was an inaccurate description applied to them by anglo-saxon settlers, there has actually been a shift in many native tribes to prefer the nomenclature of "indian" since "America" is where they are native form seeing how they are here first.
And yet, "native american" is the preferred, PC term that has been used and applied on government forms without the input of the actual native population.
Clearly, it's a logo that probably needs to be phased out. However, why not input from someone in the tribes themselves. Maybe I am in the minority here but the Braves logo seems somewhat flattering to me. Though, I can't make that call neither here nor there b/c I'm not a indian/native american.
*"America" is NOT where they are native from seeing how they were here first and there was no "America"
To be clear, I think Wahoo should be phased out. I agree with you. I do feel though that a lot of the discussion going on does lack native american voices in their articles.
That's because our world is not limited to our own narrow perspective, but rather we are imbued with the ability to experience empathy for others.
I just wanted more Native American voices.
Ironically, the Cleveland Indians have had their nickname for longer than India's been an official country ;)
The fact is that India existed long before nation-states were ever developed as a political mechanism, and the idea of "countries" was conceived.
Otherwise, Christopher Columbus would have never set sail for the land called India. Moreover, if India hadn't already existed, the explorers of the "New World" would not mistakenly believed they had come across the real "Indians."
I really haven't heard a good explanation, beyond the reflexive "you must be insert political group you disagree with here" argument.
The image was born out of a bad place. It was a caricature of a race of people that comes from a time when those in a position of power believed that race of people to be lesser than them. It's cartoonish depiction of features of that race seemed okay at the time, because society didn't really view that race as equals or "civilized people".
Why do we wish to celebrate that ignorance today? Because our Grandparents cheered for a team with that logo?
What bothers me most isn't that some Native American may see the logo and be offended. But, that so many people see the logo and aren't upset. Upset about the way we used to treat people with different genes as a society (we're far from perfect today, but we are better). Why do you want a relic from that era displayed proudly on a major league baseball team's hats?
I guess the best way I can put it is that, despite the fact that he's embarrassing and the fact that you know you shouldn't be so disposed to him, like a crazy aunt you keep in the attic or an annoying uncle who's obnoxious in public, Chief Wahoo is still seen as family. And it's hard to get rid of that attachment. It's a lot easier to say "ditch the Chief" when you're not a fan of the team.
Even tradition falls short. This is a franchise that has only two World Series titles to its credit. Many disappointments, the mistake by the lake, Ray Chapman, etc.
On the other hand, changing to a new name could be a real marketing boon to the organization. They could open up the re-naming as a civic competition, much like the Toronto Raptors franchise did before settling on that name. IIRC, their attendance figures could use a boost anyway.
As for Cleveland, I'm not an expert, but I can't believe they've had much foresting there for 100 years. From what I've seen, Ohio looks pretty much like New Jersey. Akron = Newark. Columbus = Morristown. Who thinks of forests when they think of Cleveland?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_%28gay_culture%29
Modern day Greeks don't look like Spartans or Trojans.
Modern day white people don't look like Pirates, Cowboys, Hoosiers, and Knights
People from the South don't look like the UNLV mascot.
Chief Wahoo is an old image that represents a romanticize period in our history.
Lighten up. Its just a mascot. Try to realize when you are being a racist.
There are PLENTY of Indians who are offended by the logo, I assure you. There are also plenty who don't care, but I don't profess to speak for either group. One of the fraudulently paternalistic arguments I see trotted out in these kinds of discussion quite a bit (thankfully not much here) is: "Don't they have bigger things to worry about? It's such a petty thing." And I guess my response is: Who are you to decide what's important to someone when that issue pertains to them? Anyway, "it's just a mascot" ties in with that. How about these mocking logos for the Cleveland Negroes? Is that "just a mascot" to you?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ON2JOBVPzEM/RgM1475HLtI/AAAAAAAAAAw/9OytGN37Ha8/s200/wahoo_negroes.jpg
http://honorindians.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/copy-of-cleveland-negros-grey-logo.bmp
I'll also be damned if I'm going to let someone who has twice posted remarkably, stunningly ignorant nonsense on this thread tell progressives to "realize when they are being racist." Do conservatives only have moronic defenses on this and other issues?
" ... this mascot is an insensitive and a relic of an era of racial intolerance ..."
But I guess I do see how conservatives view those times as "a romanticized period in our history." Remember those days when we didn't have to be considerate of minorities! Sigh ... Another julep, Uncle Tom!
As far your ancestors being miners and cowboys, I am also guessing that your ancestors probably never belonged to a race that was seen as less than human and was systematically eradicated with smallpox blankets and constant wars, moved from their lands to reservations, made to ditch their centuries-old lifestyles for ones they had no experience with (and had a hard time adjusting to), and so on. Were your ancestors ever at the bottom of the racial "totem pole" in this country, so to speak, like American Indians were? Can you not see how some members of a race that has been treated so shabbily by the dominant culture in this country might not really care to be "celebrated" by being used as mascots?
You say you don't like political correctness. Well, PC also stands for something else: Plain Courtesy. If a segment of the population says, please, stop ogling us, or stop referring to us with these names, or stop using us as mascots, or treat us as fairly as your own are treated, what you are saying by rejecting their "political correctness" is essentially, "The other groups' thoughts and wishes are not as important as ours." That is what it comes down to. You wouldn't do it if a relative asked you to not use Sue but call her Susan, so why is it less important when a someone from a different race/sexual orientation/gender asks you the same thing? You are operating from a dominant culture perspective where your POV is automatically "correct" and everyone else's is less than that. And members of the other groups aren't necessarily right, but when you reject it out of hand as being PC, you're being dismissive, unfair and, basically, prejudiced. Screeching "PC!" is the lamest, most thoughtless excuse there is for rejecting other people's points of view. You're reacting and not considering or thinking. Other people wouldn't hold their views unless they were important to them, and the views of women or minorities or gays aren't automatically less important or correct because their POV differs from yours, or the dominant culture's.
You say you'd like to talk to an ancestor of an Indian sometime. Ben Lindbergh linked to a great article with points of view from Indians, but perhaps you missed it the first time. It's here, and it has some good opinions worth considering:
http://www.clevescene.com/gyrobase/the-curse-of-chief-wahoo/Content?oid=2954423
I hope you're able to consider other people's points of view a little more seriously and not automatically reject them as being "PC" because they disagree with you. Walk in their shoes sometime. It's very liberating.
I use to live in Central Illinois and was a big University of Illinois fan. We all know their mascot is The Fighting Illini. The University did the best job I have ever seen in honoring the Illini Nation. The person that played the Chief was Native American and beloved. But there were four people from the Illini Nation that wanted the Chief removed. All other Illini's loved the Chief and the university. These four Native Americans were coached by hardcore Progressive groups to get the mascot eliminated. They were used as pawns in the progressive movement on mascots. Ever since then I decided never to give into political correctness.
Like I said before the majority of Native Americans could care less. Do me a favor and Google the Souix Nation's "fight" to get the North Dakota mascot removed. You'll find that 4 or 5 people are trying to get it removed. North Dakota University honors the Souix Nation and the majority of the Souix know this.
I know, I know Chief Wahoo is a caricature of an "Indian". But it looks like an Indian brave smiling to me. It's funny and playful. The fight in getting this mascot removed is fake.
What is puzzling is that you can believe that is a point of pride.