The Cleveland Guardians

I think that they could have come up with some better names. Perhaps the Eagles, after the Newark Eagles, from whom Bill Veeck bought Larry Doby's contract in 1947. (Branch Rickey didn't want to pay Negro League teams to sign players they had under contract.) Maybe the Bulldogs (the mascot of Van Meter High School.) Certainly, the Satchels would work. Or, the Wrecks (as in the title of Bill Veeck's autobiography, Veeck as in Wreck.)

Instead of getting worked up about this, people should read Our Team about the 1948 Indians.

www.screwballtimes.com/reviews/our-team/

EDIT:  One more---The Barnstormers.  Paige and Feller were two of the greatest ever.

Maybe, The Cleveland baseball club will be members of the U S Space Force Reserve.

www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2452910/space-force-personnel-to-be-called-guardians/

They should've gone with Sipders.

While it will take time to adjust to the name, at least it references a marker of Cleveland. I hope the Washington Football Team goes a similar direction in 2022.

Midges would have been a much better selection.

I don't like the new name at all. It makes me think of the insurance company of the same name. I am glad "Indians" is gone though. The Chief Wahoo caricature, beating of tom toms, etc. was pretty offensive stuff. What if they changed the name to the Cleveland Catholics, or Cleveland Jews, or Cleveland Gays? You can imagine some of the ways these names could go south. If it were the Catholics you could have concession people walking through the crowd dressed as priests selling snacks called "plenary indulgences". And when a player committed an error you could have the mascot, someone dressed as the pope, leading a chant of "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa." I'm being ridiculous, of course, but I don't think it's "woke" (whatever that means) to avoid demeaning groups of people.

San Diego is pretty darn close to the above ...


   



  

And I don't think anyone in the 20th century was offended by this.  Today, I imagine there is . someone who is offended.

I was not offended by Chief Wahoo and the war chants, but I get some people could be.  Probably why Cleveland went to the letter "C"   I'm not even sure if the name Indians was offensive because it's bad to name something after people who were here before European settlers arrived or because using the word "Indian" to describe those people is offensive.  

Why do grown adults continue to hang onto cartoon symbols from their youth and adolescent as if it is some sacred talisman that will provide a magical power to a collection of people on a field or court playing a game, that in 99% of the time have absolutely no direct impact to their day to day lives?

The more I see and hear of defense of mascots across the broad spectrum of sports teams, the more inane the arguments become. Sheesh...... It is a drawing or a person in a costume, that in most cases is benign. But is just that, a cartoon or a person in a costume. The depiction of ethnic stereotypes is humiliating and a point of trepidation to the group being represented by said character either in a drawing or prancing around like a fool. Not one of pride or honor, that some continue to state.

It is a 20th Century marketing concept, mascots and cartoon characters, that has run its course as being acceptable in the 21st Century. Difficult for some people to accept, however, looking at updated branding image being used today, colleges and universities have moved away from these ridiculous depictions to represent their institutions. As far as I am concerned, good riddance to them. Their time has come and now is going. Time for old men to put away their toys, and talisman and move onto worthwhile issues such as a quality of life in the 21st Century for their grandchildren. 

I’m open to a cogent rationale of why it is important to the quality of their lives and the removal provides an adverse impact to their enjoyment of watching a particular sports team function.

Seeing a cartoon or someone in a costume does not enhance my fan experience. However the new video boards have great potential to making the games visually enjoyable.

#1. I'm Irish, descended from the last high king or Ireland. Notre Dame has the "Fighting Irish" leprechaun and while I think it is the stupidest mascot around and plays to a negative stereotype of the Irish, somehow, I can't work myself up to be offended by it. (BTW, that leprechaun also looks to be drunk in my viewpoint, another negative stereotype). But I'm proud enough of my ancestry that it rolls off my back. (How about Notre Dame becoming the "Irish Poets?"
#2. Mascots/logos have been around forever in sports. This is not unique to colleges, or high schools or the United States. They have always been a source for fans to rally around. You might question having competitive sports right after getting rid of mascots. I mean, why compete? You can get exercise running, jumping, and other exercise w/o competition. 
#3. As I posted earlier, the Cleveland Indians were named that, not as a slight, but as a homage to our esteemed best athlete ever at Holy Cross. 
#4. If "Indian" is a pejorative word, and for awhile all I heard was "Native American" (after all, they really were never actual "Indians" from India, were they?), lately on the news I've heard many Native Americans ("indigenous people") referring to themselves as "Indians." But, if they truly are offended, not just a few vocal ones but a consensus majority, fine, get rid of the name.
#5. You knew I'd get here . . . . . while "Iggy" was a stupid name (IMHO), our Crusader mascot served the purposes in #2 since 1925 and we aren't offending any living Crusaders that would want us to remove the logo/mascot. Au contraire, the only ones that logo seems to offend are non-Catholic (non-Christian, even) faculty and perhaps some students and a few alums. Granted, some like Crucis,  think it is silly to have this or any mascot. That's different than being offended. The Crusader represented someone who defended the Christian faith - Catholics - the religion that founded and still runs the College. They were not without fault and without being agents of very bad deeds. That, however, is "presentism" - judging them by the standards of the 21st Century. Not every, or even most, Crusaders were slaughterers of the innocents. The Muslims, Jews and likely every other religious group in that day were guilty of many of the same evils when it was them with the "leg up." The question I ask and I can't get an answer is that especially for faculty but also for students who were offended by the Crusader, who forced them to come to Holy Cross? There are and were many fine alternatives to HC. Instead, they came to Holy Cross. 
#6. Perhaps mascots mean nothing to many grown-up adults. Speaking from experience with children and now grandchildren, mascots, especially the Crusader, means something to young people - future students and alums of the College.