Wahoo

Every time the Cleveland Indians baseball club makes it to the playoffs, a sense of unease sets in with the euphoria. It’s only a matter of days, if not minutes, from the time they step into the national spotlight before broadcasters or bloggers or commenters will decry the “racism” of the Indians name or, more pointedly, the team’s icon, Chief Wahoo. The excellent Salon columnist King Kaufman lasted the entire Yankees series and most of the Red Sox series before he could hold it in no longer and he popped.

I wrote a letter in response. Here is it, with a few typos fixed.

* * * * *

Thanks for reminding me how racist I am

I grew up in Cleveland in a large family where playing baseball was the family passion (I’m this close to saying “the family religion”). I loved the Indians, terrible as they were throughout the sixties and seventies and eighties. Chief Wahoo was simply part of the landscape. I don’t think I loved him. He was just there. In the case of the huge revolving Chief Wahoo at the old stadium, he was really there.

I was also interested in Indians as a kid—the real ones, some of whom lived in northeast Ohio at one time and left their names for things scattered all over the place: Cuyahoga, Geauga, Conneaut, Ashtabula, etc., etc. I don’t know if there was a connection between my interest in the baseball Indians and the phantom Indians. I read a lot of books about Indians and kept my eye peeled for arrowheads in the woods. That’s all I know.

Be that as it may, as a liberal – progressive – socialist – humanitarian – internationalist white guy, I have at times felt ill-at-ease with Chief Wahoo. On balance, I wish he would retire. The problem is, he doesn’t seem to age, and he looks so damn happy. I have noticed how the Indians front office has been downplaying the image in recent years. But of the millions of people who buy Indians gear, a certain percentage actually buys the stuff not in spite of the image but because of it. They are so benighted, aren’t they? What is wrong with these people?

But here’s the funny part (if you have a sense of humor, which most people outside of Cleveland don’t when it comes to Chief Wahoo). A few years ago I happened to be talking on the phone with someone in Maine, someone I’d never met, a guy who wanted to offer his web design services to my organization in northern Virginia (I live in Washington, DC). In passing I asked about the Penobscot tribe. He seemed surprised. He asked how I knew about them, and so on. I must’ve mentioned I’m from Cleveland, and somehow or other the Indians and their mascot came up (maybe it was 1997, a bittersweet year for Indians fans). I expressed my embarrassment about Chief Wahoo before we returned to the business at hand.

A few weeks later this guy in Maine sent me an e-mail saying how he had come across some Indians (the real ones) wearing the Cleveland Indians cap with Chief Wahoo. He asked them about it, and they said they love Chief Wahoo. They actually seemed to appreciate that there was a Major League baseball team called the Indians—that someone actually remembers that Indians exist, that they, in fact, had the run of the continent for centuries. Would they also have said, “Hey, white man, lighten up! You think Indians don’t laugh? You don’t think Indians appreciate a caricature? You think Indians are that touchy and soft and perpetually down-at-the-mouth?” They didn’t say that, as far as I know. They just wore the hats and said they liked them. Are they “self-hating Indians”? I wouldn’t like to assume that. Are they idiots? or fools? Hmm—I think it would be a bit racist to think that, don’t you?

As I said, if Chief Wahoo won’t ride off into the sunset on his own, I personally would like to see the Indians management give him more than a little nudge. But I don’t pretend to speak for anyone else. And I hope to see the Indians finish off the Red Sox and beat the Rockies. Not scalp them—just out-hit, out-run, out-pitch, and out-field them on the diamond. And I hope everyone, starting with King Kaufman, can keep their pain (which I’m sure is heartfelt) at seeing Chief Wahoo from billowing forth in phrases like “outrageously racist” and easy but misleading comparisons to minstrelsy. I, too, wish fans wouldn’t paint their faces like Chief Wahoo. But then, I wish they wouldn’t paint their faces at all. Or their flabby stomachs. I wish the loud music would go, and that people would watch the game—the indescribably beautiful game of baseball—with their undivided attention. Obviously I’m an old fart.

Perhaps some especially sensitive commentators can keep in mind that the presumably racist city of Cleveland happened to field the first black player in the American League and the first black manager in the major leagues (leaving aside that the white population of Cleveland helped elect the first black mayor of a major US city, that the college in nearby Oberlin was the first to regularly admit African-American students [back in 1835], and so on). If, every time the Indians claw their way to first place in their division and step onto the national stage, Chief Wahoo makes intelligent people like King Kaufman think the people of Cleveland are more racist than those who live in Chicago, or Boston, or Los Angeles, or [name a tiny town somewhere in the heartland], then that is the best reason for killing him. Not because you happen to think he offends Indians, or because he offends you (and makes you feel strangely good being offended), but because Cleveland gets a black eye, in what should be a deliriously happy time, over a silly cartoon—an Indian who’s giddy with the pleasure of competing and emerging victorious over a pair of socks, or an entire mountain range.

This entry was posted in Agora and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Wahoo

  1. ervington says:

    I don’t think King was calling Cleveland racist, although I think that one could make that conclusion when they cling to a mascot that is so clearly a caricature of entire groups of people. While it is admirable that you have encountered a Native American who doesn’t have a problem with the mascot or team name, and it is admirable that Cleveland did have the first African American athlete in baseball, it’s not admirable that two guys in minstrel makeup can hang out on ESPN.com’s frontpage without any sort of comment about the inherent racist/insensitive nature of such a display.

    Again, not saying all of Cleveland is racist, just like I’m not trying to speak for all Native Americans or trying to say that all white people are rapist pedophiles because some white dude raped a little girl and videotaped it. I am saying that the image shouldn’t have been on ESPN’s front page, and if anyone should be ashamed, it’s them. I am deliriously happy that Cleveland has a chance to down the Red Sox because I hate the Red Sox, and I’m not taking away from anything they’ve done. But yeah, dressing up in minstrel make up isn’t ok, and it’s not really ok that ESPN chose to publish that image above all the other images they could have published.

    Wouldn’t you rather ESPN had shown some of the Cleveland players, who have gotten so little credit in all of this (the day after they beat the Yankees comes to mind, when all ESPN seemed to report on was “Will Torre lose his job,” the same story we’ve heard every time he doesn’t win the World Series)? Or a picture of the crowd waving those white rags in jubilation, a really cool image in that it showed some sort of unison and excitement going on? And instead, all we got to see was two doofuses in red face. It’s a shame that it distracted from Cleveland’s victory. It’s a shame that that’s what some people think “Dressing like an Indian” means. And you know the easiest way to avoid this? Get rid of the mascot.

  2. Thanks for your comment—you make some excellent points, some of which I would like to have made myself. Why, indeed, was Joe Torre the news after a young, exciting team (with the emphasis on team) made short work of the Yankees? And you’re right: King didn’t explicitly call Cleveland racist; it’s just a place that happily tolerates an “outrageously racist” mascot and team name. The dots couldn’t be easier to connect. And I also realize that King started off criticizing ESPN for showing those guys (though he could have taken Fox to task for repeatedly showing them as well, but TV can’t seem to keep the camera off these dudes who paint themselves at just about any sporting event). I know some American Indians are offended by Chief Wahoo, and naming teams after human subgroups (Yankees, Padres, Fighting Irish, etc.) is the product of, shall we say, simpler times. As I said, I think Chief Wahoo should retire. But for whatever reasons, not necessarily nasty or racist ones, an awful lot of people seem to like that image.

    Thanks again for writing.

  3. Michael says:

    Really enjoyed your letter to Salon, which speaks to a lot of my feelings.
    Being a Clevelander, I’ve long thought that outsiders don’t understand us, and it makes my blood boil when they judge us (or rather, “prejudge” us.) Whether it’s about the Burning River or the strange theory they seem to hold that the Yankees lost because of the midges, I’ve long felt that they just don’t get it. Similarly they have no clue about the depth of our affection for the Chief Wahoo talisman.
    But to expand on your point about the Penobscots: I was visiting Albuquerque a few years ago (I have family there) and was told not to wear my Chief Wahoo cap when I went to a flea market with my Uncle. “Why?” I asked, “Will I offend someone?” No, he told me, rather, that there was a street gang of Native Americans who hung out in those parts and that they used Chief Wahoo as their logo and gang sign. He told me that they’d give me a hard time if they saw a Chief Wahoo cap being worn by a non-gang member.
    I think Wahoo’s appeal is universal. 🙂
    Best of luck,
    Michael Goodman
    Vermilion, OH

  4. Life continues to offer unpredictable, wonderfully unclassifiable details, doesn’t it? Chief Wahoo as a gang symbol—who would’ve thought?

    I have a theory that Clevelanders excel at self-deprecating humor. Outsiders pick up on the negativity and play it back for us. But it sounds different when they say it. Why? Well, for one thing, the affection is missing. That will leave a Clevelander feeling misunderstood, as you described. I’ll try to think this through. Maybe I can figure out what it means to be “from Cleveland” and whether there is indeed a Cleveland Problem or it’s a phenomenon to be found in many medium-sized cities, especially those not on the coasts.

    In the meantime, thanks for writing, Michael. I’m glad you enjoyed my scribbles over at Salon, thrown together in some haste, very late at night. I was surprised I didn’t find more goofs or gaffes in the harsh light of morning!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.