In this delightful column, Garrison Keillor muses about the Cleveland Indians’ decision to change their name to Cleveland Guardians. As a boy, he wanted to be an Indian when the kids played cowboys and Indians.
He begins:
It’s okay by me that the Cleveland Indians will be the Cleveland Guardians even though “Guardian” is a colorless term and they might’ve done just as well with Employees or Tenants. And “Indians” is hardly a slur. I grew up admiring Indians as a boy and trying to imitate them — I had no desire to be a cowboy, I was an Indian, and I can see how my Indianness was a natural step in wanting to be a writer and not a cog in a corporation. To me, then as now, the real insult is the title “vice president.” My Ojibwe friend Jerry uses the word “Indian” freely because, as he says, “There are too many tribes for even an Indian to keep track of.” I’ve never heard the words “native American” come out of his mouth.
It’s fine for the Washington Redskins to rename themselves, and I suggest, thinking of Washington, that Lickspittles would be appropriate or Filibusterers. As for Minnesota, I was never fond of Twins as a nickname but it’s an improvement over Gophers. The gopher is a rodent, a cousin of the squirrel and rat. There are more distinguished rodents, such as the porcupine or beaver, but the gopher is near the bottom of the gnawing order, along with the hamster. No athletic team will be named the Hamsters. Count on it.
Open the link and read the rest.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Thanks, Diane. I can identify with that having been an Eagle Scout and Order of the Arrow honoree. Back in the 40’s I also wanted to be an Indian more than a cowboy and had a love of my bow and arrows.
No, Indian is not a slur, but neither is African, yet if we named a sports team “the Africans”, I hope Mr. Keillor would understand why that would be wrong.
Frankly, for such a renowned liberal writer, this piece has a very cantankerous conservative, “don’t police my language, I don’t care if you’re offended” tone to it.
And, yes, frankly we’d be much better off if we removed all references to Columbus in this country.
There goes Columbus, Ohio, and Columbia University and hundreds of other places.
Why would “the Africans” be a slur, and why is “the Indians” a slur? We should replace them all with currently-neutral-sounding names like “Guardians” and “Nationals”? To my mind those sound like cops, army, fascists: what if my particular conception of those names became mainstream—what’s next in the PC parade, swans and sweetpeas? As for replacing “Columbus,” “Columbia,” etc – with what: Leif Erikson? I’ll bet he did bad s***t too. Maybe we should just pretend our nation rose from the ether and replace all explorer’s names with stuff like “Aladdin” and “Venus on the Half-Shell.”
We could substitute numbers for names.
I like that. I like how some teams like the Yankees don’t have names on the backs of their jerseys; just numbers.
I’m not sure where Keillor is going with his comments. I guess it’s supposed to be an amusing musing not to be taken too seriously………maybe. Considering the US’s dark and bloody history as relates to the indigenous peoples of this country, I’m with them on this. If the name of a team is offensive to them, then the name should be changed. The theft of native lands, forced removals, violations of treaties and countless slaughters: changing a sports team’s name seems a very small price to pay. Ninety-nine per cent of the time I love GK’s wry observations but this one left me a bit cold.
“I grew up admiring Indians as a boy and trying to imitate them”
Garrison Keillor is such a “Romantic”, on this and other matters.
But, of course, that depends on one’s definition of “Romantic”.
“What’s in a name, that which he calls “romantic” by any other name would smell as feet”
Ha ha. Don’t powerful men get to decide what is “romantic” and what is “sexual harrassment”? And get to decide what might be offensive in a sports team name and what isn’t?
As a long-time Braves fan, I have followed the controversy of team names for most of my life. Here are some observations:
The Bostons Celtics are named for the non-germanic ancestors of those who lived in the British isles. Scotts, Picts, Gaels, and many more celtic peoples lived across Europe during the period before the Roman Empire and continue their unique culture. The southern term “cracker” is, according to Grady McWhiney, a pejorative term for celtic people and was also used as a team name for a baseball team in Georgia many years ago.
Braves is the team name for the Cherokee High School sports teams as well as the Farmington, NM high school sports teams.
While trying not to offend people this day in time is hard, it strikes me that we should be kind as we are able. Kindness is a soothing balm upon the sores created by mankind as we try to live in peace with each other.
“Indian” is not a slur, and neither is “Jew,” but I would be uncomfortable having the Knicks renamed the “New York Jews” and hearing chants of “Jews suck!” whenever they play badly. Considering how terribly Indians/Native Americans have been wronged in our nation’s history, let’s err on the side of caution and respect here. Whatever you think of the new name, Cleveland made the right call in abandoning the old one.
Yep.
And if the team called “the Jews” used a caricature of a man dressed in Hasidic garb with payot and a big nose as their logo, it would be even more offensive.
Is it different when the Navajo choose the name Braves? Does that make it OK?
How about the Atlanta Crackers? Is it OK to call a team by a pejorative associated with Celtic culture outside a London?
How do you think those Greek Gods feel about the Tennessee Titans?
Roy,
Is it so hard to say “when it doubt, consider that the views of the people whose ethnicity is being used that way”?
If there was a movement of people who were of Celtic descent to change the mascot of the Boston Celtics or rename the team, that would be perfectly valid. Maybe there would be other people who thought it was okay, but I don’t think people who aren’t of that ethnic background should be defending it.
I’ll agree to that. WE just need to be good to each other. That said, we also need to be thick skinned. As a southern man, I have often been parodied in the media using the negative stereotypes of drawling southerners as bigoted and narrow minded. A man from Boston once expressed surprise that I was “smart.” My response? Oh well. His loss. I cannot spend my life defending the way I talk. It is hard enough to be what I am.
Roy,
Good point about negative stereotypes of drawling southerners, although I think that is a different issue than sports teams using stereotypes for logos.
I noticed that the sitcom 30 Rock voluntarily pulled a number of episodes from syndication because what seemed funny before in those episodes wasn’t anymore. Kudos for Tina Fey, who did it the way it should be done, which is why it didn’t become a huge scandal. No defensiveness, just a clear recognition that it was wrong and stopping it.
There is an animated show called “King of the Hill”, a sitcom family in Texas that probably includes southern stereotypes that could be seen as offensive but also presents a well-rounded portrait of a loving family as it seems to be based on the creator/writer’s own family. I think it does make a different when the shows and created and written by people of that background.
I grew up in Houston, with many relatives in Alabama and Louisiana. Believe me, y’all, the Southern drawl is real, not a stereotype.
I don’t think it is the drawl itself, it is when almost all the people represented in media with that drawl are stereotypical bigots.
As a young person, I probably had some unintentional biases when I heard that drawl because of stereotypical media portrayals. But I remember when the brilliant sitcom “Designing Women” came out — 4 smart southern women – and it really was a revelation. At times it made fun of itself, but I think that because it was created by a southern woman, it was much more of a fully rounded portrayal. Like “King of the Hill”. But if a southerner complained about stereotypes in those two sitcoms, I would defer to their opinion.
Haha, SteveD, excellent analogy. That should be the acid test for any team name: how does it sound when bellowed out as “___ suck!” Best to stick with animals, I think. [Although I wouldn’t mind “Senators suck!” should the name be revived]
Garrison Keillor is wrong. His column reminds me of the older white folks who just loved Billy Crystal doing Sammy Davis, Jr. and they are very cranky that someone else sees something wrong with it because “Even Sammy himself loved it.”
Garrison Keillor repeats the right wing talking point that confuses “censorship” with consideration. Using a different, less offensive word is not “censorship”. I am not going to repeat the various words that were used by supposedly well-educated, non-racist people to describe people who are Asian or Black when I was growing up. We don’t use them anymore. That isn’t “censorship”.
I grew up in the midwest and cheered for the Cleveland Indians. I didn’t even notice the offensive “Chief Wahoo” logo, let alone the name itself. Then I did.
And like Billy Crystal’s act, once you see how offensive it is, you can’t go back. It’s a shame that Keillor still doesn’t get it. Just like some people still want Billy Crystal to be able to perform his black face impersonations at the Oscars. Just like some people think Mickey Rooney’s disgusting portrayal of the neighbor in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” is not a big deal. It won’t surprise me if Garrison Keillor is one of them. His problems with women who worked for him shows that he is still living in a world where privileged folks like him decide what is okay and what isn’t.
Here is Mickey Rooney: “Rooney said he was shocked to hear that his role as Yunioshi had been branded racist by several Asian-American activists. Rooney said he was heartbroken about the criticism: “Blake Edwards…wanted me to do it because he was a comedy director. They hired me to do this overboard, and we had fun doing it….Never in all the more than 40 years after we made it—not one complaint. Every place I’ve gone in the world people say, ‘God, you were so funny.’ Asians and Chinese come up to me and say, ‘Mickey, you were out of this world.'” Rooney also said that if he had known people would be so offended, “I wouldn’t have done it. Those that didn’t like it, I forgive them and God bless America, God bless the universe, God bless Japanese, Chinese, Indians, all of them and lets have peace.”
That is the kind of reaction that people like Garrison Keillor have at the beginning. Mickey Rooney, explaining that it really isn’t offensive but he “forgives” the people who didn’t like it.
There have been complaints about the Cleveland name for many decades, with people like Keillor having the loudest voices to marginalize them. Now it is time for people like Keillor to be marginalized. He can have his opinion, but the more he is marginalized, the better our country will be.
In truth, I would expect this opinion from a man who decided that as long as he defined what he wrote as “romantic writing”, that means anyone who he mailed it to who found it to be sexually suggestive is wrong. Despite many years where he could have learned what sexual harrassment included, Keillor decided that his own definition was more important. Only his feelings matter.
That was a delightful column. Loved the poem at the end. I absolutely, positively, entirely, completely, and altogether guarantee, GUARANTEE, or your money back, that the words we use in the messed up, hifalutin, hoity-toity, almost purposely absurd English language to define and describe people, places, things, and ideas will have no effect of change on the economic and living conditions of anyone. Words will never hurt me, but sticks and stones may scratch my phone. A rose by another name needs water and sunlight. Keep calm and tax Amazon.
Not sure if my longer comment will post, but Keillor is wrong. He sounds like the cranky folks who think Billy Crystal should still be able to perform in black face because they thought it was fine and “Sammy liked it”.
Keillor’s sexual harrassment scandal is clear proof that he is a man who believes that other people’s opinions of what is problematic are unimportant. He needs to be marginalized. But like Trump, his return from obscurity has made him believe in his own infallibility. He probably still believes that there was nothing wrong with Mickey Rooney’s portrayal in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”.
I grew up in which different words were used to refer to people who were Asian or Black. People thought those words were okay, until they realized they weren’t. It takes a long time, but when you are among the last people still trying to demonize critics who have been pointing out what is offensive for decades, because finally most people are agreeing with them, you are on the wrong side of history.
“Why are those nasty fem-nazis making me use the word “Ms” when I want to call all married women Mrs. and everyone else Miss. How dare they be such snowflakes”.
Time for Keillor to be marginalized. Not censored, marginalized. His opinions are old and tired.
A nomenclature experiment: Cleveland Italians, Cleveland Greeks, Cleveland Russians, Cleveland French, Cleveland Spanish, Cleveland Danish, Cleveland Finnish, Cleveland Swedes, Cleveland Belgiums, Cleveland Tibetans, Cleveland Chinese, Cleveland Arabs, Cleveland Pakistanis, Cleveland Japanese, Cleveland Indians (Asian), oh wait, never mind. The Cleveland Guardians will do just fine, बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद or ありがとうございました.
Just to play a little devil’s advocate, ever been to Cuba, Alabama? You know what, Italians don’t use Italian salad dressing. Stay away from a Guinea worm or German measles. I know it’s weird, but the fact is Paris Hilton isn’t from France, and it’s likely that neither are French poodles. Heck, Japan isn’t called Japan in Japan; it’s Nippon. The language of Nippon doesn’t have the two hideous æ sounds in the word 16th century explorers ascribed to the civilization. It’s the language of the British Empire we’re using — poorly.
Now, I’m going to go to a fast food restaurant and order some freedom fries.
The British are responsible for most of our worst habits.
Slavery, colonialism, imperialism, witch burning, tea-drinking, to name just a few
Oh, and worst habit of all: English speaking.
“You know what, Italians don’t use Italian salad dressing.”
That seems to be a false equivalency.
Playing devil’s advocate would be saying that there’s nothing wrong with a NY professional baseball team, the New York Italians, which uses a completely innocuous depiction of a mafia don as their logo, and has all the fans changing “mama mia, mamma mia” and “leave the gun” throughout the game – what’s wrong with that and why would anyone feel demeaned?
Playing devil’s advocate would be saying that a team, the “New York Jews” with a Hasidic man with a big nose logo would be perfectly fine, and you don’t see any problem with fans chanting “oy vay, oy vay” and “we love money”.
Playing devil’s advocate would be saying “Sammy Davis Jr. liked Billy Crystal’s performance of him, so that means it’s okay.”
Being considerate means that you don’t just consider that something bothers you, you consider whether something might bother someone else. I get that the first women advocating the use of Ms. seemed like they were making a big deal out of nothing, but they were right and if people had simply insisted that there was no need to change, ladies would still be Miss or Mrs. depending on their marital state.
Wow, New York Italians against the Boston Celtics. Interesting.
Those are some ugly stereotypes, by the way.
Yes, they are ugly stereotypes like “Tomahawk Chops” and Chief Wahoo.
The Rogers Rangers used real tomahawk chops in the French and Indian War. U.S. Army Rangers still use tomahawks in close combat today. Nasty weapon, highly respected in the military. Not saying stereotypes are okay; they are distortions. If we take the prejudices out of the way, we can see each other in a more positive light. I personally think American Indian culture is really cool. I love their religious beliefs. Tomahawks are cool, as deadly weapons go, I think wearing feathers is styling, way better than a necktie.
The danger lies in the appropriation of other cultures. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, but if the imitation gets distorted, exaggerated or diminished, people will be upset. Cultures are complex. Not really sure I have a point to make here, other than to say this is all not such a big deal. Baseball is a sport in which grown men don pajamas and play a children’s game.
I can’t see the relevance to this discussion of whether or not anyone in the military or not uses a tomahawk today.
Just like I can’t see the relevance of whether Garrison Keillor pretended to be an Indian as a child.
He was just saying it’s okay to change his favorite team’s name, but that with the old name he personally meant no disrespect. That, I appreciate. It’s a good thing to say. Can’t shake hands with a clenched fist.
I used to be certain that it was very important that people said “we meant no disrespect” when we used words that are no longer acceptable to use. But I was wrong. The right way is to simply acknowledge that things need to change, because all that attempt to justify or mitigate past actions by saying “I meant no disrespect” just makes the people who were insulted feel even more insulted.
No doubt Garrison Keillor “meant no disrespect” when he sent e-mails to women, but what he needed to say was “I was wrong, I should have realized it earlier, and I won’t do it again.” Do you think his victims feel better because Keillor told them “I meant no disrespect”?
I understand the strong temptation to say “I meant no disrespect” when you have (perhaps unintentionally) insulted someone, but that is something that only serves the interests of the person who did wrong, not their victims.
The San Francisco Samurai? The Gainesville Griots?
The Bombay Indians
And their National cricket team : The Subcontinent Indians
Oddly, the “Washington Football Team” is one of the few new major sport team names within the past few decades that I don’t dislike. Unfortunately, I think they’re changing it next year.
There’s no ‘i’ in Football Team.
Good morning Diane and everyone,
I actually work at a school where the Indian is the mascot. Recently, a neighboring school that also has an Indian mascot went through a debate about changing the mascot but ultimately decided to keep it. Every day I walk past a huge mural of the Indian in traditional headdress, large nose and serious features. According to the dictionary, a mascot is “a person or thing that is supposed to bring good luck or that is used to symbolize a particular event or organization.” I often wonder how the Indian “symbolizes” our school. As a school community, we never discuss “Indian” matters, culture, traditions, etc. Do the students know anything about what they call “Indians” or have they ever even met one (not likely)? What does the “Indian” have to do with our sports teams? How does the Indian bring us luck? Is it that we are promoting the stereotypical image of the Indian as warrior and thus the aggressive, warrior-like qualities of our school community or sports teams? I don’t know. We’ve never discussed it. I asked students if they thought the mascot should be changed. Most said no. They said they’ve always had the Indian as mascot so why change? One student said that we mean no disrespect to Indians. Some students pointed out that it would cost the school a lot of money to change the mascot ( change the images around school, the stationery letterhead and the football field, etc). They pointed out that “this type of Indian was part of the area.” It seems to me that we just have the Indian as our mascot without knowing why and that its always been done this way and we’re comfortable with it so why change.
Have any Native American students complained about it?
Hello Flerp,
I don’t believe we have any Native American students at my school. Interestingly, there is a Native American school board member at the neighboring school where this issue came up. He was in favor of keeping the Indians as the mascot. First, the board voted to change the name and then reversed that decision and decided to retain the name.
What if there aren’t any Native American students in the school? Does that mean it is okay?
I don’t think it seems too big of a burden to not have mascots that represent any ethnic group unless members of that ethnic group specifically express positive support about having that mascot. I don’t think the absence of negative support should be interpreted as it being okay.
And if there are not any members of that ethnic group in the school, then probably a good idea to change the mascot.
In my view, a Jewish Yeshiva that calls its sports teams the “Hebrews” is different than a public school with no or very few Jews that calls itself the “Hebrews” with a stereotypical depiction of a Jew as their mascot.
But that’s just me. Feel free to disagree.
Was just curious if any Native American students complaint. I don’t have strong objections to removing ethnically based team mascots, with all due deference to Notre Dame, of course.
Hello NYS public school parent,
I agree with you. I was just relating comments I heard from students. I don’t think we should have people (any kind) as mascots. I actually find it sad but not surprising that the questions I brought up in my post aren’t even considered. But that would require thought and reflection.