Do something: Craig Calcaterra on Major League Baseball mascot images

It’s that time of year again—falling temperatures and Major League Baseball’s grand finale event, the World Series. With the Cleveland team participating, increased media attention is predictably drawn to the team’s caricature mascot. NBC Sports staff writer Craig Calcaterra wants the national organization of MLB to take a public stand on the mascot, and he presents his case in this October 2016 essay.

Read it here: Calcaterra, “It’s time for Major League Baseball to take a stand on Chief Wahoo” 

1. Calcaterra invites Commissioner of Baseball Rob Manfred to do exactly what your textbook invites you to do—enter the conversation. What conversation does Calcaterra want Manfred to enter? What would he like him to say? Why? Provide specific examples from the essay to support your response.
2. Calcaterra states very clearly that he isn’t providing any support for the assertion that the Chief Wahoo image is racist. Why isn’t he supporting his assertion? Do you think his explanation is adequate? Why or why not?
3. Calcaterra anticipates opposing arguments and discusses why both the Cleveland Indians organization and Major League Baseball might not be inclined to eliminate the Chief Wahoo image. How fairly does he represent their positions? Why do you think so?
4. As Calcaterra notes, fans “root from a primarily emotional place” and generally don’t stop to consider if a team image is offensive in any way. Does a sports team’s mascot or the manner of its depiction influence your attitude toward that team? Would you be inclined to stop supporting a team if you became aware that its mascot was considered offensive? Why or why not? Would you be inclined to begin supporting a team if new mascot images were attractive or appealing to you in some way? Why or why not? Reflect on these questions in order to explore your position.
5. How do you think Major League Baseball should respond to the last question that Calcaterra poses: if Wahoo is a racist caricature, and if such a character is inappropriate, what, if anything, should MLB do about Chief Wahoo? Write an essay addressing the question and explaining your reasoning. Whether you advocate for MLB to do nothing at all or you propose a specific action, use Calcaterra as your They Say, and utilize at least two of the templates in Chapter 11 of your text that offer suggestions for addressing opposing positions.

Comments

[Rogelio Guizado]

Goedde wants president Barack Obama to give a commencement address at a community college. He would like for the president to give this commencement address because it would give community college students that "new hope" to achieve their goals. Goedde feels and believes that the president sees community college students as heroes.
Goedde thinks that a commencement address given by the president of the United States Barack Obama would help encourage and push more students to succeed. The president is like the biggest fan of the community colleges because he would bring so much spirit and pride. For example you see that Goedde states, " I agree. We may not have a fight song, but it has been extraordinary to have our president as our biggest cheerleader." This shows how bringing the president would be a good idea.

[Tyler Biggs]

NBC Sports writer Craig Calcaterra explains his viewpoints on how the Indians’ caricature portrays a negative perspective and racist outlook for Native Americans. Calcaterra wants to see action from the national organization of MLB to take a public stand on the mascot, and dives deeper into the aspects of his argument. The writer invites the Commissioner of Baseball, Rob Manfred, to enter the conversation. The conversation where Calcaterra introduces his urgency to have the organization change the logo. He describes the caricature as “racially insensitive” and continues to add how, “no one has once made even half a case that that red-faced, big-toothed, hook-nosed, feather-wearing abomination is not, in fact, a racially insensitive caricature.”(NBC Sports)
Calcaterra would like Manfred to abolish the logo from the league, and he states very clearly that he isn’t providing any support for the assertion that the Chief Wahoo image is racist. He asserts this through the accusations that there are good guys and bad guys, and that it has everything to do with institutions and inertia. I believe his explanation is somewhat adequate but could be clearer on the aspect of the Native Americans’ viewpoint in the situation. There could be people and or fans of the Indians who look at the logo and see it as merely a traditional piece of the team, and look at it like any other ball club. This is also how Calcaterra introduces his opposing arguments and discusses how the Indians organization and the MLB might not be inclined to eliminate the Chief Wahoo image. He doesn’t necessarily give the opposing side a fair argument to work with, and only seems to add a sense of compromise in between his ranting paragraphs. By all means, I’m not implying that he is not including some very compelling and informative arguments. He is just biased, with very little evidence to his claims.
Calcaterra noted that fans, “root from a primarily emotional place” and generally don’t stop to consider if a team image is offensive in any way. I personally believe that a sports team’s mascot and the manner of its depiction is in no way shape or form a influence of racial and stereotypical context. I see teams like the Indians and Redskins at their most. The NFL and MLB implement these images associated with the name to give off the sense of fear and power. Indians were very tactical warriors back then, and this should be utilized as a team that promotes and uses strategical influence when every pitch and snap is released. I don’t think I could stop supporting a team once someone claims it to be offensive. I see it in my viewpoint, and I’m content on it being that way. Most importantly, I believe the organizations within the MLB and the MLB itself doesn’t inflict any sense of racial prejudice. They've been ridiculed in the past because of Jackie Robinson, and he was the man who had “changed the game forever.” Lastly, Calcaterra does make a good point on how the Indians could have removed the caricature years ago, but due to fear of fan backlash of the iconic logo, the forbid the progress to remove it. I feel the MLB would come to the same decision, while confronting the head office and historians of the organizations who have experience with the team that their intentions were never in racial context.

[Emma H]

After reading Craig Calcaterra’s article, I concur with Tyler Biggs’ response that “a sports team’s mascot and the manner of its depiction is in no way shape or form a influence of racial and stereotypical context”. I hold the opinion that teams in the MLB, and essentially all sports leagues, should not change or adapt a mascot in order to avoid backlash from sensitive Americans who take offense to logos. I believe that American culture today makes it easy for people to take symbols and argue that they are racist or offensive. While I must acknowledge that people are allowed to hold their own beliefs and exercise their right to free speech to change a mascot, such as the Cleveland Indians’ Chief Wahoo, I feel it is unnecessary and superfluous. I will constantly take the view that a symbol or mascot which has been representing a team throughout history, should be embraced. The Indians’ mascot, Chief Wahoo, has been used since 1932, representing a strong warrior. It is absolutely unnecessary for the team to spend time and money to change a logo just because some people take offense to an image that has been used in the MLB for decades. The history of the Indians’ Chief Wahoo, and all mascots in general, should be preserved and maintained as an ode to history and tradition.

[Sam]

I agree with Emma H. that the Indians should not have to change their mascot but I have different reasons for believing this. Instead of being offended by the Indian logo, I believe that people should embrace it and be proud. I am not trying to argue that racism doesn’t exist, or that it doesn’t hurt, or that it isn’t a problem but maybe if people started to embrace each other’s differences, we would be better off. In my opinion, being different is a good thing. I think that people need to stop feeling bad for themselves if they are different, stop feeling entitled, and stop treating people who are different poorly. Yes, there are different races and yes, there are different sexes but we need to stop treating that as a bad thing and use it to our advantage. As a whole, the world would be a lot better off if we started working together instead of blaming each other for all of our problems. So no, I do not think the Indians should change their logo. It should not be looked at as derogatory, if anything it should be an honor to have a mascot represented by a strong people and those people who are offended should be honored to have a team choose them as a mascot.

[Thomas B.]

I cannot agree with Emma H. at all about controversial sports logos. While I agree that Chief Wahoo is a tradition loved by many throughout the country and has come to mean much more than a racist caricature for most people, he is still a racist caricature. I believe, along with many others, that this logo is definitely racist. Yes, the logo could barely be seen as racist when it was first made, but just because something is old doesn’t mean it is good. There are many teams similar to the Indians that have embraced the Native American culture without coming off as offensive. For example, the FSU Seminoles and Chicago Blackhawks are named after a specific tribe in the area they play in, and the logo they use is not an offensive stereotypical image of a culture. I for one am also fed up with our culture’s current obsession with political correctness, but the Indian’s logo has been offensive to anyone unfamiliar with the franchise for way longer than the past ten years.

[Scott Goettee]

After reading both the article and the comments to the article, I agree with Sam and Emma H. that the Indians should not be forced to change their mascot because of its rich history with the team and should be seen by Native Americans as a complement to their culture. As Emma pointed out, Chief Wahoo should be seen as "a strong warrior" instead of a racist being. The mascot is trying show respect for the culture of Native Americans, not insult them. The mascot has also been apart of the Cleveland Indians culture for almost 75 years and has been the spirt of the Indians since he has been named the mascot.

[Chris]

I agree with Scott’s comment that the Indians should not be forced to change their mascot because clearly the purpose of the mascot was not intended to be racist toward Native Americans. The mascot has been representing the team for decades and has not received as much media attention until now. I believe that too many people in today’s generation are becoming too sensitive and are trying to find unreasonable ways to criticize others. I agree with Scott that it’s the way you perceive the mascot that makes people believe it is racist. If people happened to take a step back and realize the mascot is for a sports team that wants to show dominance over the other teams, they would realize the depiction is for the purpose of dominance rather than racism. Overall, there is obvious racism occurring around the nation and this situation does not compare to the acts of prejudice occurring every day.

[Ryan Grauel]

I agree with Scott Goettee that the Cleveland Indians should not be forced to change their mascot. In professional and collegiate sports, there are multiple mascots that depict a person in what can be argued as a stereotypical manner. As a baseball fanatic, I don’t view Cleveland’s mascot as a racist symbol but rather a symbol of team pride and loyalty. The author Craig Calcaterra admits to understanding that fans don’t view the mascot as a racist figure but still insists that it must be completely changed. I feel that it’s over sensitivity leading Calcaterra and others to overlook the innocence of Cleveland’s mascot. If Cleveland is forced to remove their mascot, then I’d be afraid that every team with a mascot depicting a certain person would be forced to also make a change.

[Brad S]

I agree with Scott’s comments that the Indians should not be forced to change their logo, because a very select group of individuals find it offensive. Though I see how it can be offensive, it’s time to stop being so politically correct in the U.S. The logo has been around for decades and it holds such a deep history that it would be wrong to force them to change the logo. There has never been a problem until the recent generation has been getting insulted, when they were never affected by what they interrupt the logo to represent. Yes the U.S. mistreated Native Americans in history, but it’s time to move on and allow our sports entertainment to use any logo they want. If it really offends you then don’t watch them play.

[Dylan G]

In the article “It’s Time for Major League Baseball to Take a Stand on Chief Wahoo,” the author Craig Calcaterra is arguing that Major League Baseball should finally admit that the Indian’s mascot Chief Wahoo is racist and begin to force them to make a change to it. His purpose in writing this article is to try and begin the conversation about how the Indians mascot, which he views as racist, can be eliminated from the sport. He does admit that he strongly believes the Indians management nor their fans are racist, but he does argue that it is time for mascot to go. He argues that since the Indians clearly won’t get rid of the mascot, which he chalks up to “fear of fan backlash”, that it is time for the MLB management to initiate a change. He admits the Indians management have done a good job in recent years of limiting the mascot, he thinks more should be done. The author proceeds to list the reasons, both systematic and historical as to why the MLB has yet to act, yet despite these he says “That does not mean the MLB should not act.” He calls on them to stop dodging the matter and actually enter the conversation on the mascot and do what he calls “right”, which is moving towards a retirement of the mascot.
I disagree with Calcaterra’s view that the mascot, Chief Wahoo, is racist. Although I do concede that some may find it offensive, I think that it is due to the cartoonish nature of the mascot, which fits in with the norms of other mascots around the league. If a team has a mascot that is a human, they are almost always turned into a cartoon in order to make them more marketable to a mass group. It even happens with non-human mascots, an example would be the Orioles, who made their bird more cartoon like. Though I do concede that if enough people come to the MLB and complain that something should be done about the mascot, I believe that it is such a small issue currently that the MLB Front Office has more pressing matters to deal with.

[Ryan Town]

When gauging the reactions to Craig Calcaterra’s article concerning the Cleveland Indian’s mascot, Chief Woohoo, one may notice the trend of responders supporting the use of Chief Woohoo. This can be seen through posts by Emma H. or Chris, who state that people shouldn’t be offended by the caricature and instead should be proud of it. I think that this reasoning is flawed. While I believe that the ultimate decision to change a mascot solely lies in the hands of the MLB (a fact that Calcaterra finds highly unlikely), I think that the Indian’s should still strongly take into consideration their use of their current mascot. I think that forcing a group of people to be proud of something their offended of is hypocritical and useless. If people in the past had followed the arguments made by Brad S., who stated that Chief Woohoo is part of a longstanding tradition of baseball, then there would not be African American players in baseball, there would be a rampant use of steroids, and there wouldn’t even be the use of free agents. Chief Woohoo is outdated and out of touch. It’s time to make another change in baseball for the better.

[Allitello]

In his article, Craig Calcaterra discusses the issues surrounding the Cleveland Indians mascot, Chief Wahoo. Calcaterra points out the obvious point that the Indians’ mascot is an extremely racist image that needs to be removed. His main argument is that since the Indians are not making any efforts to change it, the duty should now be passed to the MLB to make the change. Her understands that this change may upset millions of fans however he feels as though it is important to not have a racist symbol as part of a sport that our nation so much idolizes. He wants people to stop acknowledging the issue and start acting to solve the issue.
I do not personally agree with everything that Calcaterra writes. I am more on the side of the people that he addresses in his article. Chief Wahoo is a symbol that has represented the Cleveland Indians for so long. I believe that the issue is much more innocent and that the image is not made to personally offend anyone. I also do not agree that it should be up to the MLB to solve the problem. The Indians’ should have the final say if their mascot is going to be removed. If majority see the mascot as such an issue and want change, I believe that they must take it up with Cleveland and ask them for change, not MLB.

[Bradley Fayonsky]

In "It’s time for Major League Baseball to take a stand on Chief Wahoo" Craig Calcaterra makes the claim that Chief Wahoo has no place in the MLB. He believes that Wahoo is a racist caricature and the MLB should not support such imagery.
I disagree with Calcaterra for several reasons. First, there is little evidence that any Native American tribe is offended by the Cleveland Indians or the logo. Another is that the MLB, it's players, or fans have no hate for Native Americans and is clear that baseball is an accepting sport. If a large group of Native Americans ask for the logo and mascot to be changed, or signs of Major League Baseball being hateful to Native Americans appear, then it would obviously be inappropriate. As previous people have stated, baseball is a game that people enjoy. It is important to include all people in the sport, but it is also important to leave politics at the door. Personally, I am a very political person, but I follow sports to ignore politics or aspects of the outside world. Sports news outlets and broadcasting channels have begun to suffer the tanking ratings that are associated with making sports political. A discussion can occur, but Native Americans need to head it up, not other people looking for a reason to be offended.

[Gwen]

I disagree with Scott’s comments. Clearly, the Native Americans do not see the mascot as a compliment as they have protested it and tried to have it changed before, and it is unreasonable to ask them to see it as a compliment. I do not see why it would be a big deal for Cleveland to change their mascot. Sports teams such as the Hartford Whalers have changed states and also their mascot, becoming a new team, and none of that mattered to anyone. I think people have missed the main point of Calcaterra’s argument, though. He is not arguing about whether or not the mascot is a racist caricature, he argues that the MLB should be doing something about it. Society today just ignores questions about racism in sports, talking about everything but. Calcaterra argues that this should be something that is talked about and that the MLB needs to step up and put a mechanism in pace for dealing with issues like this. I agree with this. While I agree with others comments that society today is too over sensitive, I do think the Cleveland Indian is a racist mascot. Most people don't think so because they are not Native American. It would not be ok if a team had an African American caricature so I don't know why it would be ok to do this with Native Americans, a group that almost the entirety of America forgets that we several mistreated.

[Clay Sellers]

After reading Craig Calcaterra’s article, “It’s time for Major League Baseball to take a stand on Chief Wahoo”, I am in two minds over Sam’s assertion that MLB teams should embrace and be proud of the Indian’s logo. While one on hand I agree that we should celebrate each other’s differences, but on the other hand, I agree that the “red-faced, big-toothed, hook-nosed, feather-wearing abomination” that is the Cleveland Indians mascot is an over-the-top expression of one’s differences based on race (Calcaterra). Sam can’t have it both ways, because although we must accept that we all have natural differences, we cannot be expected to accept ignorance or insensitivity from the one of the largest organizations in the United States. However, while a complete name change would likely be unrealistic, it is not inconceivable that the Cleveland Indians could rebrand their team logo into a less offensive jeering at the differences of Native Americans and into something that does a better job of celebrating our differences and satisfying both parties.

[Ruan Penland]

After I read “It’s time for Major League Baseball to take a stand on Chief Wahoo” by Craig Calcaterra, I have to say I agree with Clay’s point that they should rebrand their team’s logo to avoid offending people, while not making such big change that will cost their organization. The current mascot is offensive and, according to Calcaterra, it is “a racist caricature” (Calcaterra). They shouldn’t have to rebrand the entire team with a new name because the name itself is not meant to be racist. There are many teams, both collegiate and professional, with native american mascots. They all aren’t going to change their name, but they should make an effort to make it non-offensive.

[ever c.]

I disagree with Thomas B.’s argument that the Cleveland Indians’ mascot is racist. I can understand where he is coming from when he says that it is a racist caricature of a Native American, but in reality the logo itself is not meant to be offensive. Chief Wahoo was chosen as the team’s mascot because the franchise had the utmost respect for the people whom he represented. It would not make sense to name a team after something that you are ashamed of or want to make fun of. Instead mascots are chosen because they represent values that the franchise believes in, and in the case of the Cleveland Indians and Chief Wahoo, these values are honor, loyalty, and bravery. Many people argue that the logo itself is extremely offensive, but in the time that it was designed, it was made to fit in with the bubbly, fun, cartoonish logos of all the other teams. Chief Wahoo also has a lot of sentimental value for both the franchise and its fans. This mascot is nothing to be ashamed of or taken offense to, but rather one to celebrate with pride.

[Gian Sutton]

The subject of this article is that the mascot for the Cleavland Indians (Chief Wahoo) is racist. The author ,Calcaterra, thinks that the Indian is racist. What he does after making his claim is go on to ask Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred a couple of queations to support his claim like "Do you think the symbol is racist, why or why not?" I think this an effective way of arguing his point because if force Manfred to analyze the situation and understand how Chief Wahoo can be seen as racist. I personally agree with Calcaterra and i do think it is racist. I understand that the players and fans in favor of Chief Wahoo may not see it as racist but the fact that some people do is reason enough to consider changing the mascot to something else. One thing that I've noticed in America is that we like to ignore problems pertaining to race and pretend like racism doesn't exist. I feel like this is especially true pertaining to Native Americans because this is not the first time this argument has been brought up and not with the same mascot. There have been similar arguments brought up about the National Football League team the Washington Redskins. What I didn't notice is just how racist this mascot can be seen until Calcaterra gave his description of the Indian as "that red-faced, big-toothed, hook-nosed, feather-wearing abomination". As i look at the Chief Wahoo I notice how his facial features are exaggerated and kind of funny looking. It's a cartoon-ish representation of an Indiana and it does look kind of bad. As with every argument you have to look at both sides of it and Calcaterra does a pretty good job of doing that. He understands why people who aren't racist would want to keep the mascot as it is and that is simply because that is what it has been for years now. Whiel it may at one time been an attemptt at a racist rendition of a Native American it is now a symbol of Cleavland for both player and fan. Calcaterra also goes on to explain how changing the mascot is probably easier said then done. The MLB isn't in charge of what specific clubs do as far as things like dugouts, uniforms and mascots. In order to make the club change the mascot it would be a rather complicated and extensive process and this is all at the risk of fan backlash. Calcaterra goes on to say that even though these are real obstacles in changing the mascot it is still something that should be done and I agree. In an era where we are fighting for equal rights and trying to confront the problems in America, this should be change. I understand that some people just complain and whine about anything and will be unhappy but if there is a situation like this where there is a symbol offensive to an ethnicity of people, then it needs be addressed.

[Cole L.]

Craig Calcaterra acknowledges the fact that the Cleveland Indians Mascot is a racist one and should be removed. I agree when Calcaterra writes, "they, like every other sports team, have a history and, for lots of reasons, the Indians history comes with Chief Wahoo packed in the baggage." Calcaterra and I both agree that the community backlash would be ginormous, but what they get in return would be worth it. Having a racially appropriate in the 21st century would be the best thing for our society as it stands today.

[sierra kempthorn]

I agree with Emma that the mascot Chief Wahoo should not be changed because there are plenty of numerous other mascots that could be judged as racist as well that have not been ordered to comply. This mascot has been around for a very long time and has brought memories and years of loyal fans with it. I believe it is unfair to now ask them to change their Chief Wahoo mascot in compliance with a small group of people who find it offensive. Growing up through Middle School, my mascot was a Brave which was a male Indian holding a sharp weapon. No one ever complained about this colored mascot and I honestly never thought twice about the mascot being racist. These mascots only become racist when we let them have that image in our eyes and bring attention to that. The individuals who feel that way in my opinion should just not watch those games then; because it is unfair to the loyal and loving fans who have adored this mascot for generations. Although I do understand the point of the article in that the character can have a stigmatism of racism, I do not think the mascot should be forced to changed. I also believe that the issue is not going to be solved, just as the author mentioned, because no one wants to confront the issue. This issue is one that has some people very heated, and so will most likely be avoided at all costs to not create more controversy.

[Marshall]

I agree with Scott's comment, I think that the Indians shouldn't have to change their mascot merely because it is such a historic piece to the teams background. With multiple other mascots around the league, not to mention other sports as well, there are many that could be considered offensive to certain cultures.

[Brandon Ashley]

i agree with scotts comments, simply because there is no justified reason for a native american to get offended or upset about a team mascot being a Indian. they should look at this as being honored for there past time and letting there legacy travel through the next generations.

[Kylie T.]

3. Thomas B. argues that the Indians mascot is a racist caricature that does not capture the essence of Native Americans like the FSU Seminoles or the Chicago Blackhawks do. However, I believe that the Indians mascot is not racist nor should they be forced to change it. An individual cannot gage how much one sports team or another captures the essence of Native Americans. Chief Wahoo is an icon for the Indians and taking it away would affect not only the players, but also the fans. History, merchandise, and memories would be erased all due to a simple mascot change. There will always be someone who disapproves, so even if the MLB decided to change the Indians mascot, someone would still be unhappy with the choice.

[Jacob Arnold]

In NBC Sport’s article “Its Time for Major League Baseball to take a Stand on Chief Wahoo”, it discusses the controversial mascot of the Cleveland Indians. The mascot, which is a cartooned depiction of an Indian, with a red face and overly large teeth, has for years been in discussion with the topic of racism. Craig Calcaterra in his article argues why the Major League Baseball Association should dismiss and abolish the Indian’s mascot. Calcaterra in his article argues that getting rid of what he considers to be the racist depiction of an Indian would be the right thing to do. He argues the offensive nature of the mascot to individuals and addresses what he considers to be the small importance of tradition the mascot holds. Calcaterra’s article is strongly opinionated and doesn’t contain any concrete reason to why the mascot should be abolished besides the possibility of Chief Wahoo being racially insensitive.

Calcaterra’s claim that the Cleveland Indian’s mascot, Chief Wahoo, is a racist symbol rests upon the questionable assumption that those that would consider the iconic mascot to be racist are offended. I disagree with Calcaterra’s opinion that the mascot is racially insensitive and a racist symbol. I feel that over the years the mascot has developed into much more, a representation of a baseball culture. A team’s mascot, like a teams colors, unite a group of people under a unanimous cause, bringing unity. Calcaterra’s desire to have the mascot removed is his ambition to follow political correctness, which I disagree with. Political correctness should not be the primary concern in changing tradition and I feel that the Major League Baseball Associations firm hold on keeping the mascot is an attempt to preserve tradition and the historical foundation of the team.

[DJG]

Lets make it fair across the board. We make the Cleveland Indians remove the Chief Wahoo and all other teams in MLB change their mascot or name . This way everyone losses their Identity and tradition with their fans. I wonder what name the Yankees choose. Since I am from the northern states of America and some people from the southern states of America use Yankee as a pejorative term that is offensive to me. I am being facetious, see how silly this is. In todays world everyone is so thin skinned they are looking for an offense. We are all Americans and we should be more united and less decisive.