News Being politically correct in baseball in the 1950s

[jtbell]

Being "politically correct" in baseball in the 1950s

I'm embarassed to admit that although I grew up in Ohio, I didn't know until today that the Cincinnati Reds changed their name to the "Redlegs" from 1953 to 1959 because of the "Red Scare."

When the Reds showed their legs (CNN)

My excuses are that I grew up in the opposite corner of the state, in Cleveland Indians territory, and I wasn't old enough yet to have gotten "into" baseball. Now that I think of it, when I was in my baseball-card collecting phase a few years later, I might have seen some Redlegs cards, but I guess I didn't think anything of it.

By chance, just last night I watched the Reds play the Braves on TV. There's another politically incorrect team name for you...

 

[lewdtenant]

Do you not think the Cleveland Indians are politically incorrect?

 

[Ken Natton]

The trouble with the term ‘politically correct’ is that it used to undermine the legitimate fight against genuinely pejorative terms that are used to disadvantage sections of society. But it is essential to recognise when terms are pejorative and when they are not and it is all about what the user of the term intends by its use. For the grid iron football team, the term Washington Redskins has very obvious racist overtones and it is difficult to find an explanation that releases it from those overtones. But ‘braves’ was a term used to refer to native American warriors. That is not racism, it is history. Everybody knows that sport is just surrogate warfare, and lots of sporting teams use the term warrior or some synonym for it in their names and mean nothing more by it than exactly what it seems. Maybe I am missing something with not being from the culture that uses the name, but I can find nothing the least bit politically incorrect in the name Atlanta Braves.

 

[Ryumast3r]

The trouble with the term ‘politically correct’ is that it used to undermine the legitimate fight against genuinely pejorative terms that are used to disadvantage sections of society. But it is essential to recognise when terms are pejorative and when they are not and it is all about what the user of the term intends by its use. For the grid iron football team, the term Washington Redskins has very obvious racist overtones and it is difficult to find an explanation that releases it from those overtones. But ‘braves’ was a term used to refer to native American warriors. That is not racism, it is history. Everybody knows that sport is just surrogate warfare, and lots of sporting teams use the term warrior or some synonym for it in their names and mean nothing more by it than exactly what it seems. Maybe I am missing something with not being from the culture that uses the name, but I can find nothing the least bit politically incorrect in the name Atlanta Braves.

This x100. Same goes for the University of Utah Utes, there's hardly anything incorrect about that, considering Utah itself was named partially because of them, and they were a major group back when the mormons first went through the area. In fact, many sports teams (like the Utes) have gotten official recognition by their Native American counterparts as non-offensive names and have been granted the ability to continue using those names indefinitely.

That's college as opposed to professional, but the same applies to professional and has happened.

 

[lisab]

The trouble with the term ‘politically correct’ is that it used to undermine the legitimate fight against genuinely pejorative terms that are used to disadvantage sections of society. But it is essential to recognise when terms are pejorative and when they are not and it is all about what the user of the term intends by its use. For the grid iron football team, the term Washington Redskins has very obvious racist overtones and it is difficult to find an explanation that releases it from those overtones. But ‘braves’ was a term used to refer to native American warriors. That is not racism, it is history. Everybody knows that sport is just surrogate warfare, and lots of sporting teams use the term warrior or some synonym for it in their names and mean nothing more by it than exactly what it seems. Maybe I am missing something with not being from the culture that uses the name, but I can find nothing the least bit politically incorrect in the name Atlanta Braves.

WRT the bolded line: I have noticed that usually when someone starts a sentence with "Not to be 'politically incorrect', but..." the next words thoroughly prove that person is ignorant and/or bigoted.

And yes I agree, in my life I try very hard to figure out a person's intent, and not jump to conclusions if they use terms that can be misconstrued as hurtful.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I watched the Reds play the Braves on TV. There's another politically incorrect team name for you...

To me that isn't really politically incorrect any more than would be "The Massachusetts Physicists", the "Saratoga Scouts", or having a game called Chinese Checkers. I can see why doing the tomahawk chop was seen as offensive but I think people are being too sensitive. It could easily be argued that by using the name, The Braves, they are honoring native Americans. The word "Indians", though seen as somewhat insulting for some reason, is ultimately just a play on a mistake. I don't understand why it is considered an insult of some kind. We all know that native Americans didn't come from India.

The red scare was just nuts, but no nuttier than a lot of stuff we see today.

 

[phinds]

I don't understand why it is considered an insult of some kind. We all know that native Americans didn't come from India.

I think you are missing the point that the term "indian" in that context IS a pejorative term because it was intended that way by the whites who settled North American. It was used because when the continent was first found by some groups of whites, they really though that they had traveled around the world to India, and "Indian" was NOT intended by them as a term of respect.

Still, I do think we are a country gone WAY overboard on politically correct nonsense, such as worrying about things like "braves".

 

[Proton Soup]

I think you are missing the point that the term "indian" in that context IS a pejorative term because it was intended that way by the whites who settled North American. It was used because when the continent was first found by some groups of whites, they really though that they had traveled around the world to India, and "Indian" was NOT intended by them as a term of respect.

Still, I do think we are a country gone WAY overboard on politically correct nonsense, such as worrying about things like "braves".

pejorative does not mean misidentification.

 

[phinds]

pejorative does not mean misidentification.

Uh ... what ? I don't get your point. What is now called "the N word" was used universally throughout the South when I was growing up and I don't believe it could be called "misidentification" since it is just a lable that everyone used, but it sure as heck IS perjorative. SO ... I agree that the 2 words have nothing to do with each other but don't understand what you brought that up.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Uh ... what ? I don't get your point. What is now called "the N word" was used universally throughout the South when I was growing up and I don't believe it could be called "misidentification" since it is just a lable that everyone used, but it sure as heck IS perjorative. SO ... I agree that the 2 words have nothing to do with each other but don't understand what you brought that up.

I believe (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) that his point was that Indian was not meant as an insult in any way or to show contempt in any way. It was simply a label that was given, much like "American" or "British." A mislabel, yes, but not an insult.

 

[phinds]

I believe (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) that his point was that Indian was not meant as an insult in any way or to show contempt in any way. It was simply a label that was given, much like "American" or "British." A mislabel, yes, but not an insult.

He was commenting on my post #7. Please reread my post #7.

 

[Ryumast3r]

He was commenting on my post #7. Please reread my post #7.

and my response fits your post very well. You were saying that it was because they thought they had traveled to India (around the world). That is misidentifying, not contempt or disapproval of a race/people.

I have also not seen anything that states that Indian was used directly as an insult. Maybe not a compliment, but not an insult. I even looked up racial slurs all over and couldn't find anything that stated that Indian was used to directly insult people. The British, feeling high and mighty, probably looked down on the Indians but that's not the same thing as calling an african-american a "cool person" directly to insult him and call him a slave.

Calling the Americans "Indians" was a mislabel, but not necessarily a pejorative.

 

[phinds]

and my response fits your post very well. You were saying that it was because they thought they had traveled to India (around the world). That is misidentifying, not contempt or disapproval of a race/people.

I have also not seen anything that states that Indian was used directly as an insult. Maybe not a compliment, but not an insult. I even looked up racial slurs all over and couldn't find anything that stated that Indian was used to directly insult people. The British, feeling high and mighty, probably looked down on the Indians but that's not the same thing as calling an african-american a "cool person" directly to insult him and call him a slave.

Calling the Americans "Indians" was a mislabel, but not necessarily a pejorative.

OK, thanks. I see now how you meant it and I think your reasoning is sound. My own opinion is that the British "high and mighty" attitude was considerably more insulting to the rest of the world than you apparently take it and that was the basis of my statement. I did not do the research that you did on the issue of slurs, so your opinion seems more grounded than mine in fact, though I have to say I'm quite surprized.

 

[Ryumast3r]

OK, thanks. I see now how you meant it and I think your reasoning is sound. My own opinion is that the British "high and mighty" attitude was considerably more insulting to the rest of the world than you apparently take it and that was the basis of my statement. I did not do the research that you did on the issue of slurs, so your opinion seems more grounded than mine in fact, though I have to say I'm quite surprized.

Yours makes a lot of sense, I'm just trying to see what Proton Soup was saying.

The British high and mighty attitude could be taken very insulting, but, then again, they've almost always had that attitude to an extent. Even now some (not all, note) will get insulted if you refer to them as Europeans, because they "Are British, NOT European!"

 

[BobG]

The word "Indians", though seen as somewhat insulting for some reason, is ultimately just a play on a mistake. I don't understand why it is considered an insult of some kind. We all know that native Americans didn't come from India.

I think the mascot, "Chief Wahoo", is the big problem some people have with the Cleveland Indians.

People don't seem to get upset with Notre Dame's mascot, even though it promotes the stereotype of Irishmen drinking too much and getting into fights.