• http://twitter.com/midway_brennan brennan barry

    it probably has something to do with me being a white male that leads to my indifference of it. i’m not claiming that it isnt stereotypical or not racist even, but to me it still just boils down to a logo. its interesting though that in most instances, activist groups for native americans are only willing to go after colleges ie Illinois, North Dakota. the pressure they can apply on schools is a lot more PR driven it seems then any leverage they can get against billion-dollar franchises in major league sports. in fact, as is the case with the chicago blackhawks, they actually have the blessing of the tribe that is represented. the team is active in donations and causes and what not. but with the braves, they get scorn for something as lame as the tomahawk chop. at the least the logo is an actual representation (albeit, stereotypical) of a person. unlike the cleveland indians who have a smiling characiture…and they call them indians. i get the feeling that even if it were a teepee on the hat there would be an uproar.

    • Jamie Bradley

      I don’t know. I mean, to me, that image on the Braves hat is every bit as much of a caricature as the one on the Indians – and both are incredibly insensitive. And you’re right, there are some teams – like the Blackhawks – that have the blessing of the tribe. And that’s fine. But this logo is just a little too much for me.

      And, to “Indian Head,” I think it’s a little naiive to just brush this off as saying “Jeez, people get so touchy these days.” I mean, yes, people do tend to get touchy when major organizations release a logo portraying a racial caricature. And with good reason.

      And if the Yankees came out with dreidels on their hats that would probably catch some heat, but at the end of the day, it’s an object. But I guarantee you if they came out with a caricatured logo of a jewish dude with curly hair and a big nose there’d be a huge outcry. As there should be.

      As far as I’m concerned, this is 2012, almost 2013…there’s no reason for a major organization to release a ridiculous logo that portrays racial stereotypes as – quite literally – their logo. It’s absurd.

      • http://twitter.com/midway_brennan brennan barry

        although, this is only their BP cap. and they were going to put this image on the throwback’s sleeve last year but didnt. i think if it were a part of the game uniform itd be a bigger issue, but since it’s only for BP maybe it…ehhh theyll still catch hell for it. Why would the yankees have dreidels? i mean i get jews live in new york, but theyre not the new york jews.

        • Jamie Bradley

          Yeah that didn’t make much sense. But, oh well.

          And I know it’s only their BP cap, so that’s a plus, i guess. But, really, I don’t really think it should be used at all. It doesnt make it any less of a racial caricature because it’s on a hat they don’t wear quite as long as their other hat.

          • http://twitter.com/midway_brennan brennan barry

            for sure, limited exposure is all i meant

      • Talkdaddy

        Aaaannnnd, you are an idiot. I’m offended by your idiocy.
        Remove yourself.

        • yourmother

          You’re an idiot. Use your big boy words the next time you comment on something. This isn’t espn you twat.

        • Jamie Bradley

          Okay, I’ll bite.

          What exactly about my assessment was so asinine? I think that the Braves new logo is a disgraceful caricature of an American racial minority that is being used as a team logo and, lets not forget, for profit.

          Your opinion is…?

        • StepDad

          your friends probably dont like you.

  • Indian Head

    Everyone gets so upset about everything these days. Granted, I am not native american, but I am Jewish and I wouldn’t be upset if the Yankees came out with dreidels on their hats….Just Sayin

  • gtt

    How is this racist? You don’t think Native Americans wore feathers in their hair, had face paint, mohawks I.E. Chicago Blackhawks. Love the site….hate this article.

    • Jamie Bradley

      Thanks for the MidwayMadness love! Even if you don’t like my article.

      But to reply, Sure, some native Americans wore face paint. Some wore feathers in their hair. Some had mohawks. Many didn’t. The point is it’s a caricature of an entire race.

      It’s like asking how black-face is racist because, you know, african americans really do have dark skin, so it can’t be racist, right? (NOTE: No, I’m not comparing black-face to this logo apples-to-apples. I’m just pointing out what I find to be the err in your logic for saying this logo isn’t racist).

      Honestly, just pretend we’re not talking about native americans here. Pretend we’re talking about Jews, or Arabs, or Asians, or Africans, or Hispanics, or literally any other race, culture or creed.

      Images like this, caricatures of an entire race, wouldn’t be tolerated for ANY other nationality, religious faction, race or creed… except native americans.

  • Madhouse

    what about the “commit to the indian” tagline for the blackhawks coined by denis savard? should people get upset with that? it has become iconic! or is this tomato-tomato?

    • Jamie Bradley

      To me that’s a little different. I don’t have a problems with teams being named after indians in so far as how it’s done by the Blackhawks. They have the blessing of the tribe and they don’t have a ridiculous-looking caricature. Their team is named after a specific tribe, who clearly have no problem with how their image is portrayed.

      That’s different, in my opinion, from the ridiculous caricature you can find on the hat above. I mean for goodness’ sake, that thing is referred to as the “Screaming Savage.” Not a very positive connotation.