Mets favor Braves over Indians

Mets Alter Event, Upsetting American Indian Group

By Scott CacciolaIt has not been an easy season for the Mets, who are lurching toward the All-Star break with a losing record. Opposition has come in the form of hard-throwing pitchers, mounting injuries and marathon-length games, but the team suddenly finds itself facing heat from an unexpected source: an American Indian organization.

When the Mets approached the American Indian Community House, a New York-based nonprofit organization, in March about helping to organize a Native American Heritage Day, the proposal struck members of the group as a good opportunity to celebrate their involvement in the community. A date was selected—July 25—and they began to plan pregame festivities that would include traditional dancing and singing outside Citi Field.

But there was a glitch, as far as the Mets were concerned: they were scheduled to host the Atlanta Braves that day. So in the past week, concerned that such activities might be interpreted by the Braves organization as a form of protest over its nickname, the Mets drastically reduced the day’s activities: no singing, no dancing. And now there won’t be any American Indians, either.

On Monday, the A.I.C.H. pulled out of the event, citing frustration with the Mets for thwarting months of planning. The team has removed the event from its online schedule of activities.And:As for the game, the A.I.C.H. began to promote it in early April. In an e-mail to the Indian Country Today Media Network, the group pitched the event as a “great opportunity to educate the public about the stereotypes professional sports teams continue to promote through logos, mascots and fan traditions, such as the ‘tomahawk chop.’” But if Mets officials harbored concerns with that type of language over the coming months, they chose not to express them publicly.

It was not until July 1 that the Mets contacted the A.I.C.H. to inform the group of significant changes to Native American Heritage Day: no public-service announcements of any kind, and no pregame festivities outside the stadium. The group could still attend the game and do some fund-raising, but that would be the extent of its involvement.

The Mets, Osborn said, suddenly seemed “only to be interested in holding a Native American Heritage Day without the culture.”

Last Wednesday, a member of the Mets’ group sales department e-mailed the A.I.C.H. in response to a series of questions from the group, which sought an explanation.

“It was brought to my attention that we need to be sensitive to the Braves being a partner MLB team and can’t put them in a situation for a potentially negative environment to be brought upon them,” the Mets official wrote. “I know this is not the plan, but sometimes people come to events under different agendas than expected. I’m not referring to [A.I.C.H.] or any of the organizations involved, but more about unknown groups that may want to change the perception of the event.”Indians screwed over again

People around the blogosphere quickly recognized the Mets' action as a craven cave-in:

Mets Try To Honor American Indian Culture, Upset American Indians

By Tom Ley[T]he Mets went and fucked everything up. You see, they are set to play the Atlanta Braves on July 25, and the Mets suddenly became worried that the visiting team might see the planned festivities as an anti-Braves protest and get offended. So what did the Mets do? They went full chickenshit, cancelling the singing and dancing portions of the event out of deference to the Braves.

[H]ere we may have the lowlight of the Mets' season: Citing sensitivity when choosing to spurn a group of American Indians in favor of a baseball team that routinely offends American Indians.Another Error at Citi Field

By Caitlin Kelly[W]hen the team decided that it would be a nice gesture to organize game-day festivities with the local American Indian community, it took months for someone to realize the potentially problematic scheduling of Native American Heritage Day on July 25th, when the Atlanta Braves were in town. Faced with the prospect of embarrassing their guests, and not wanting to appear insensitive, the Mets followed centuries of American tradition and shafted the Native Americans.

While the nature of this snafu is particularly Mets-ian in its clumsiness, the underlying discomfort with Native American heritage is common enough in the sports world.New York Mets offend Native American Indians

By Matt MullinOn Monday, according to Cacciola, they called the whole thing off and decided to ask the Mets for a refund. The cancellation of the event--which stemmed from the Mets' self-serving need to protect themselves, the Braves and MLB from potential protests--is more than that, however.

The decision clearly showed that the Mets value the Braves more than the people their mascot represents.New York Mets Cancel Native American Heritage Night So They Didn’t Offend The Atlanta Braves

By Travis Waldron[T]his night wasn’t about the Atlanta Braves. It was about actually honoring Native Americans, their heritage, and their culture, something the sports world often professes to do through logos and imagery but rarely ever goes out of its way to actually accomplish. It is, I suppose, understandable that the Mets wanted the night to be about that honor and not about political statements. But if anyone felt awkward about the juxtaposition of an actual honor and logos and cheers that purport to honor, it should be the Braves and Major League Baseball, not the Mets and most certainly not Native Americans. The Mets had a chance to get one right in a sports world that rarely does. Instead, they failed because they worried that the mere presence of a group of people so few in sports care about offending might make the offenders feel a little shame.Comment:  Here's a great example of what I've said many times. Indian mascots exist to "honor" the phony, romanticized Indians of history, not real Indians. The sports teams and leagues that supposedly admire Indians don't. Rather, they admire their ability to inflate a sports team into a historical symbol they can exploit. If they have to choose between profits and people, they'll choose the almighty buck every time.

For more on the Atlanta Braves, see Braves Reject "Screaming Indian" Cap and Braves Bring Back "Screaming Savage."

Below:  Atlanta Braves fans "honor" Indians by demonstrating how savage they supposedly were.

Braves reject "screaming Indian" cap

Braves reject 'screaming Indian' logo

By Moni BasuIn the end, the Braves are keeping with tradition - as in the signature 'A' that is the team's logo.

MLB.com posted a photo of the new navy blue batting practice caps with a red and white scripted 'A.' The team will wear those hats at spring training, which starts Tuesday.

The Braves said a decision on the batting caps had not been made yet when a potential design was leaked several weeks ago. That design drew ire for its "screaming Indian" logo.

"I like the selection we made this year," Braves President John Schuerholz said in a statement Monday. "We had a variety of choices that we looked at, some more thoroughly than others. But at the end, we liked this one."

But writer Paul Lukas of ESPN's Uni Watch blog, who broke the news of the cap design in December, wasn't buying the Braves' statement. He suggested the Braves withdrew the design because of the furor it caused.

"In other words, the Braves are claiming that they were never committed to the Indian head cap to begin with," Lukas wrote. "But that doesn't ring true.

"The Indian head cap has been shown for months in the official MLB Style Guide and is still shown there right now," Lukas wrote. "It's also shown in the new New Era catalog. All signs indicate that the Braves fully intended to go with the Indian design until the recent controversy caused them to have second thoughts."Comment:  For more on the Atlanta Braves, see Braves Bring Back "Screaming Savage" and Origin of the Tomahawk Chop.

Braves bring back "screaming savage"

Braves bring back 'screaming savage' logo on batting practice hats

By Chris ChaseWhen sports franchises go retro with uniform redesigns, it usually conjures idyllic versions of the past. The Atlanta Braves new batting practice caps are a surprising turn in the other direction.

Atlanta's new batting practice cap features the team's old "screaming savage" logo--a Mohawked Native American with a feather in his head engaged in a tribal yell. The logo was part of the team's uniform from 1967 to 1989. The team got rid of mascot Chief Noc-A-Homa (wait for it ...) two years earlier.

Paul Lukas of Uni Watch released photos of the new cap Thursday morning.

People are in a justifiable uproar at the return to the Mohawked caricature, as if they expected a more nuanced take on race relations from a franchise whose fans still do the tomahawk chop.Really, Atlanta? Braves Bring Back 'Screaming Savage' Logo[F]or Natives, and much of the sportswriting/blogging world, seeing the logo again in use is very disappointing. That's the word used by Paul Lukas of Uni-Watch.com, who is probably the foremost scribe on professional athlete apparel, in his ESPN review: "Unfortunately, it turns out that the logo hasn't been permanently mothballed. Disappointing. Grade: F"

Others had similar reactions:

"Perhaps ownership was sick and tired of the Washington Redskins and their culturally insensitive name remaining the most offensive rendition of Native American culture in this country," wrote Timothy Rapp of Bleacher Report. He added, "Atlanta should retract these hats immediately. The organization is better than this."

In a post tagged "racism," Tom Ley of Deadspin described the logo as an Indian "captured here in mid-shriek as he watches either a Braves home run or the forcible uprooting and assimilation of his culture."

"Hands down, the worst," was Trent Rosecrans' verdict at CBS Sports' Eye on Baseball blog.

Dylan Murphy of SportsGrid presents some pro and con Twitter reactions, but concludes that "No matter how the Braves PR department tries to spin it, the logo is racist–it’s just a screaming Native American head, emphasizing stereotypes and the emotional simplicity of a people."

Mascot lovers defend cap

As with almost any instance of racism and stereotyping, white people crawled out of the woodwork to defend their "right" to belittle others. Adrienne Keene tackled some of them, beginning with those who criticized Lukas's "Grade: F" above.

Dear Defender of the new Atlanta Braves Cap“Disappointing. Grade: F”

Read those vile and fighting words! Clearly he is calling each and every one of you a dirty, stinking racist. Clearly he is saying that you are the scum of the earth and that everything you hold dear is offensive to someone, so you might as well run around naked and live in a hole in the ground to stave off the “PC police” who are coming for you. Yes, by saying that returning to a tired, offensive stereotype of Native people is “disappointing,” that’s clearly what he meant.

Because in the comments, it seems you and your fellow sports fans have lost your damn minds. There are 30 caps in the post, 30 pieces of commentary from Lukas, but somehow, 99.9% of the comments on the article are concerning the Braves cap. You are so original to pretend you are a “pirate” and are offended by the Pirates, or that you are a “communist” and are offended by the Reds. Or Irish, or a Viking, or even more creatively, you’re an elephant who’s offended by the new A’s logo! L.O. effing L. Cause, yep, Indians are just like pirates and Irish and communists and elephants! All those folks are marginalized racial groups who have been historically oppressed and continue to have the highest statistics for poverty, and homelessness, and suicide, and live in third world conditions, while they constantly and repeatedly have their cultures and lives mocked and stereotyped on every corner. Yep! The welfare lines are just full of elephants this time of year.

And I’m so glad there are people like your friend “chrohandhaivey” who can tell me what I should be honored by and how “fierce” I “was”:Im tired of this native american racist crap…$@%! you should be honored your race is a team mascot…thats a good thing…it shows how fierce you were to be used as a sports team….its not like its the n****rs or something i mean come on…personally i wish there was an Atlanta team named the “White People”…Id rock the $@%! out of that with pride not complain about it like some puddinsOr your friend “canigs013″ who gave us a backhanded compliment by saying we’re “too smart” to care about mascots:for real. has anyone actually heard a native american complain about things like that? no, because they’re too smart to care about dumb things that do not matter.Nope, “canigs013,” you’re right. I’ve never heard of a Native American complain about Indian mascots. Nope, there’s not a Supreme Court case, or millions of news articles, or decades and decades of activism against the cause. Nope.

But I’m stoked that one of your other friends brought up the infamous Sports Illustrated poll that shows that 80% of Native Americans support Indian mascots. A poll from 2002. Here are 20 other things that were popular in 2002, and I don’t think you’d care to argue their relevance today. Though, who knows, maybe you are rockin’ your CD’s on your walkman right now while fearing a boyband anthrax attack. There are also a million other things wrong with that poll, including the fact that they won’t release their polling sample or how they determined who to interview. Read this article to hear all the ways that poll is ridiculous and shouldn’t be used in an argument a decade later. A decade later.

I really wonder if you know how you sound. Your arguments are tired, are weak, and are getting more eye-roll worthy by the day. How long will you stand by the argument that “PC culture” is ruining “your” America? I’d like to share this awesome quote by Dion Beary that sums up your thought process perfectly for me:“Politically correct” is just a term assholes came up with so they can dismiss people who have the nerve to want to be respected. Demanding not to be stereotyped is not political correctness, it’s a human right, and you are not some hero for refusing to respect people’s right to be treated like humans.I am a real person. Hi. I am a modern Indian who likes sports and doesn’t want to take away “your” beloved franchise. But the images aren’t yours to keep. They’re representations of me, and my people, and my ancestors, and I should have the right to control them. And you see, the thing is, times change. While maybe at one time (though I’m gonna stand by the fact that it’s never been acceptable) these images were deemed “A-ok,” we’re not in that time anymore. In the not-so-distant past, folks were lamenting the loss of the minstrel show as a lovely form of family entertainment, or demanding that black folks use separate water fountains. Which side of the fight do you really want to be on?The Womanist blog also tackled some of the mascot lovers' comments:

The Problem With the New Braves Practice HatThe aforementioned is only a small smattering of the racist commentary about the hat. There were a few reoccurring themes:

Native People should be proud of the representation and that it is actually complimentary to their culture.

Being upset is silly and there are more serious issues in the world than this hat

Being upset about the hat is a symptom of a leftist politically correct culture, which infringes on free speech.

Native People should be thankful because Whiteness does not get to be celebrated in the same vein

It could be worse and what about teams like Notre Dame and the offensiveness of the drunken fighting Irish stereotype?

The very idea that having your culture demonized and reduced to an insensitive racist caricature should be deemed a positive and something to be proud of is beyond a twisting of the truth. It speaks to a complete desire to silence any form of dissent and it further suggests that Native People should not have the right to define themselves as they see fit. It is not for those outside of the Native American community to set the agenda for organizing. If you do not belong to the group in question, you cannot possible understand the impact of racist caricatures used by sports team because you don't have to live with the consequences. It is important to note that there are no social stereotypes that specifically demonize Whiteness and even more accurately, regardless of context, Whiteness is deemed to be the universal good.

The lack of celebration of Whiteness is something that would amuse me because of the ridiculousness of the claim, if the concept itself didn't completely depress me. The only reason people can complain that Whiteness is not celebrated, is because it has become so ubiquitous. You don't need a special hat, or television station to celebrate something that is so socially ingrained. White culture, and White pride are everywhere you look and they appear in a multitude of fashions.

One of the most common comments I saw was the continual suggestion that complaining about racism is being politically correct. Just like asshats how stand behind their freedom of speech to say the most reprehensible things, the people who go on about politically correct speech want the freedom to say whatever they desire without being held accountable for the hateful shit that they regularly spew. The very idea that a demand to be respectful to marginalized people reduces the English language to newspeak is asinine at best. It's not politically correct to avoid hate speech, it's called being a decent human being. The reason they have such an issue with the idea that it is wrong to attack historically marginalized people is not from a fear of losing the ability to express thoughts or ideas, but because it represents a limitation of their ability to maintain and advance their undeserved social power and privilege.Rob weighs in

One mascot lover wrote a whole column defending the cap:

Braves BP Cap Is Perfectly Fine, Settle Down

By JR FrancisSomehow the people who don’t like the logo keep referring to it as the “Screaming Savage” even as the logo itself is quite obviously laughing. There is a smile on his face. No one with the Braves or the MLB calls him that, and that has not been the implication. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good hissy fit.

Let’s not forget what this logo is, or why it is there; It is an almost exact implementation of a logo the team first used 58 years ago when they were located in Milwaukee. This isn’t a team breaking new ground into imagery that might possibly offend, this is a team paying tribute to their logos past, to an image many, many Braves fans have seen their whole lives, who associate it with good times of watching baseball. And who buy massive quantities of throwback merchandise with this logo and its variations.

This is not some old logo, relegated to the dustbin for lack of interest. It is one of the prime identifying marks of the team, and it is popular. It is available as a FatHead everywhere on hundreds of different tshirts, and fills the Atlanta Braves Team Store in the CNN Center, and inside the stadium. During the season, thousands wear gear with this logo.Some admirers said this column was "perfect" and they loved it. To which I responded:

The people who "love" this article must've skipped the parts about how old and popular the clownish mascot is. Because those arguments are irrelevant and have nothing to do with the current protests.

"It shows them as selfless, honorable, and to be respected." Hee-hawing like a donkey (your claim) or screaming (the Native claim) is equivalent to selfless and honorable? I guess you don't have the slightest idea what "respectable" means if you think a braying "brave" is respectable.

I could add that a Mohawk from the Northeast has nothing to do with the Indians of Georgia. That alone makes the logo false and stereotypical. But why bother, since mascot lovers aren't amenable to reason? They love their traditional examples of racism and the feelings of superiority these examples engender.

For more on the Atlanta Braves, see Origin of the Tomahawk Chop and Animals, Objects, and Professions.

Below:  "Hee haw! I'm a savage brute who either laughs like a donkey or screams like an ape."

Origin of the tomahawk chop

‘Tomahawk chop’ pops up in Mass. Senate race after history in arenas, activists’ crosshairsBack in the mid-1980s, the Seminole football boosters asked a student spirit group, then called the Scalphunters, to create a cheer to compete with the University of Florida’s two-armed “Gator chomp,” said Florida State alum Tom Desjardin.

Desjardin, a Scalphunter, said that, for lack of a better idea, they debuted the chop at a 1984 pep rally he was leading. Florida State boosters say the famous chant was added later, on a suggestion from a student from Natick High School in Massachusetts, where the chant was used to support the school’s Redmen, a nickname since changed to the Red Hawks.

The chop really took off in a game at Auburn in 1985, when the Seminole band rolled out an intimidating drum beat and trumpet music to accompany it, said Desjardin, now a historian for the state of Maine.

Desjardin said the chop’s violent imagery wasn’t lost on the Scalphunters, but it wasn’t what drove its creation. A main consideration was the fact it was a shoulder-up motion that could be seen in a crowd, he said.

Desjardin added there’s a deep respect at Florida State for the Seminole tribe, which the school consults closely on all uses of tribal imagery and which in 2005 granted the school permission to use its name.

“If the tribe had ever said, ‘We don’t like that (the chop), you would have never seen it again,’” Desjardin said.Instead, the chop spread to Atlanta. That city’s Seminole Booster Club claims credit for starting it all when some members used it at a Braves game to catch the attention of outfielder Deion Sanders, an FSU alum who began playing for Atlanta in 1991.

When the Braves made the World Series that year against Minnesota, American Indian groups protested in Minneapolis and Atlanta, saying the cheer perpetuated racist stereotypes of Native Americans as war-obsessed savages. Some called out Braves owner Ted Turner and his wife at the time, Jane Fonda, for doing the chop.

But former President Jimmy Carter defended it, saying it was a way to note that the team was emulating the courage of American Indians.Comment:  Turner, Fonda, and Carter are as wrong as everyone else about the "honoring" argument.

If the Seminole Tribe protested the tomahawk chop, it probably would face the usual firestorm of protest. The school would try to negotiate a compromise rather than simply ban the practice. See the whole "Fighting Sioux" conflict for a good example of how it would play out.

For more on the subject, see More Racism from the Brown Campaign and Brown Staffers Whoop and Chop.

Below:  The Seminoles' spearchucking mascot Chief Osceola.

Animals, objects, and professions

How 'Indian' mascots oppress

By John Two-HawksLet's take a look at sports team names in general. There are only three categories that nearly all sports team names fall into.

1. Animals 2. Objects 3. 'Professions'

Some examples:

Animals

Eagles, Bears, Falcons, Lions, Tigers, Ravens, Bulls, Wolverines, Cardinals, Dolphins, Ducks, Jaguars etc.

Objects

Pistons, Bullets, Rockets, Suns, Jets, Red Sox, White Sox, Stars, Rockies etc.

Professions

Packers, Kings, Steelers, Spartans, Buccaneers, Vikings, 49ers, Cowboys, Rangers, Lakers etc.

Obviously there are exceptions.And:[W]hich category do these so-called 'Indian' sports team names fit into? Animals? Objects? Professions?

The answer of course, is simple, none of the above! These names/mascots fall into the category: RACIAL.Good analysis, although it's not quite right. Vikings and Spartans (along with Trojans, Fighting Irish, and a few others) are more properly classified as ethnic or political groups--like Indians.

The main point with these groups is that they're predominantly gone, and thus not around to be offended. As for the Fighting Irish, I addressed that case in Fighting Sioux vs. Fighting Irish.

One could argue that most people classify Indians with animals, not professions. People think they're fierce and predatory like animals. They wear skins and feathers like animals. They make sounds (chants) and movements (dances) like animals.

Being Indian isn't a profession, obviously. If people thought it was, every Indian mascot wouldn't have a display of plumage like an exotic bird's. They could represent an Indian with an abstract logo like that of the Steelers or Saints.

Fact is that people choose Indian mascots precisely so they can display a wild animal savage on their logos. That's why they bawl like babies when you let them keep a name such as "Warriors" without the Indian imagery.

More thoughts on mascots

Why is the fact that Indians are a racial category a problem?These 'Indian' mascots/team names oppress Indian people. They oppress because they continue in the use of extreme negative stereotypical antics, words and images. Antics like the 'tomahawk-chop', mock 'Indian war-chants', non-Indians painting their faces and dressing-up like 'Indians', mascots performing mock 'Indian' dances or throwing fiery spears etc.

Indian children cannot possibly look at a stadium full of thousands of people mocking their ethnicity and making fun of their traditions and feel good about being Indian. This is what 'Indian mascots' do. They glorify all the stupid old stereotypes and steal the pride our children could have in the beauty of their race. They insult the entire Indian race.

Insulting an entire race...the very real definition of racism....Nor should we excuse the less controversial Indian mascots:Braves

This is a word that has been used to denigrate Indian men. It dehumanizes the Indian male and equates him to something less than human. The terms 'buck' and 'doe' were also used by early european immigrants as a way to patronize Indian men and women. As you can see, they also infer that the Indian person is in some way inhuman. We are men, NOT 'braves'....

Chiefs

This is a word that is commonly given as a nickname which insults Indian men. The cultural equivelant would be to nickname all white men 'Prez' or 'King'. The term 'chief' itself is incorrect. Our leaders were never 'chiefs', but headmen, or clan mothers, and so on. Not 'chiefs'. Our leaders were highly disrespected by the USA. So calling someone 'Chief', is just a way to continue that disrespect....Comment:  For more on Indian mascots, see Hockey Team Chooses "Tomahawks" Name and Oregon Bans Indian Mascots.

Savage Indians on Braves patches

Braves ditch insensitive patch on new throwbacks

By 'DukIt was a complete no-brainer, but props to the Atlanta Braves for placing a new crossed tomahawk logo on the sleeve of their new weekend alternates. The cream-colored throwbacks—which the baseball world learned about a few weeks ago—are based on the uniforms that the team first wore after moving to Atlanta in the 1960s.

The jerseys of those less-enlightened times featured a savage on the sleeve and it's a wonder that anyone ever thought the image was OK. The logo strips Native Americans of any humanity and turns them into a one-dimensional character devoid of any sympathy or tribute. It honestly might be the only defense that the few defenders of Cleveland's Chief Wahoo have left. ("Well, it's not as bad as what Atlanta used to have.")

Thankfully the current Braves brass made the necessary alterations before the retro resurrection so that paying tribute to the franchise's history is possible without alienating a group of people in the process.

Comment:  A no-brainer...because the crossed tomahawks are so much more sensitive than the leering, shark-toothed savage. Gee, thanks for your sensitivity.

Someone on Facebook said the second patch is more sensitive, to which I responded:

With the emphasis on "more" sensitive. As in slightly more sensitive.

Alternate headline: "Braves replace one insensitive patch with another."

For the double implication that Indians were killers and evildoers, the Braves get a Stereotype of the Month entry.

For more on the Atlanta Braves, see Braves Haven't Helped Choctaws and Former Noc-A-Homa = (Oxy)Moron.

Braves haven't helped Choctaws

Mississippi Choctaw Sponsorship of Atlanta Braves Not Paying OffThe Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians has spent millions to sponsor the Atlanta Braves since 2008, reported The Clarion-Ledger. And the payoff has proven minimal: less than 4 percent of customers are making the trip from Atlanta, Georgia to play their luck at the tribal casinos in northern Mississippi.

“That surprises me,” Beverly Martin, commissioner with the Harrison County Tourism Commission, told The Clarion-Ledger.And:The Choctaw tribe inked the deal with the Braves in 2008, and at the time Denson said revenue from the casino had leveled off and he hoped advertising with the Braves would spike its attendance—an idea from the Titan Agency.

The Choctaws spent “eight figures” to sponsor Turner Field, said a business newspaper in Atlanta, according to the Ledger. Thus, “The Lexus Level” was renamed “The Golden Moon Casino Level.”Comment:  Many Braves fans are conservative Christians who think it's okay to stereotype Indians as tomahawk-wielding savages. That they might not be fans of Indian casinos doesn't surprise me.

For more on the subject, see Potawatomi Casino vs. Atlanta Braves and Former Noc-A-Homa = (Oxy)Moron.

Potawatomi casino vs. Atlanta Braves

The case of the missing Potawatomi sign

By Don WalkerWhen the Milwaukee Brewers met the Atlanta Braves last weekend for a three-game series, something was missing at Miller Park.

Normally, on the outfield wall near the visitors' bullpen, is a large sign for Potawatomi Bingo and Casino.

This past weekend, however, the large sign was covered in plastic wrap.

How come? Neither a casino or Brewers' spokesman would comment, other than to say that the two business partners have a confidentiality clause in their agreement that forbids release of any details of the contract.

But there is a sense that the Potawatomis find a team named the Braves offensive. Moreover, the tribe might not be thrilled with the Braves logo, which includes a hatchet.Comment:  If the tribe is indeed covering its sign only when the Braves play, it would seem to be an anti-Braves message. That would be an unusual and "brave" stand for an Indian tribe or casino to take.

For more on the subject, see Former Noc-A-Homa = Oxy(moron) and Team Names and Mascots.

Former Noc-A-Homa = (oxy)moron

Ex-Braves mascot Chief Noc-A-Homa talks tepee

‘Political correctness is an oxymoron,’ former stadium fan favorite Levi Walker Jr. contends Now: “Political correctness is an oxymoron, like ‘pretty awful’ or ‘military intelligence.’ The first indication is that it starts with the word ‘political.’ That tells you there’s something wrong. It leaves no room for discussion, negotiation, equality. Political correctness is my way or the highway.”

Then: “As soon as I became Chief Noc-A-Homa, I felt my neck stretching over a chopping block. I knew somebody wouldn’t like it. … All those people in the Native American movement were calling me Uncle Tom, sellout, turncoat and all these other names. The tomahawk chop. They protested it. But why didn’t they protest the tomahawk missile? It’s more deadly, capable of going in a door or a window and killing everybody.”Comment:  Walker actually has a point when he says "political correctness" is an oxymoron. It's hard to call an intellectual point correct when it's subject to political pressures.

But he blows it when he says people can't discuss a "political" issue. What he means is that he can't discuss the issue of Chief Noc-A-Homa because he doesn't have a leg to stand on. He'd get his butt kicked if he tried.

In other words, Chief Noc-A-Homa is incorrect, period--a phony stereotype that has nothing to do with real Indians. And the criticism of Chief Noc-A-Homa is correct, period--not "politically correct." The critics have nailed the Chief for his stereotypical portrayal of Indians.

This allows me to call Walker an oxymoron. He's a real Indian, presumably, but he pretends to be a fake Indian. He's a real fake Indian or a fake real Indian, which sounds oxymoronic to me.

Tomahawk chop vs. missile

As for the Tomahawk missile, it's a weapon, genius, just like a tomahawk. The name doesn't tie the missile to any particular tribe or culture, so no one is particularly upset about it. Indians are generally proud about their role in the military and any connections to it.

Unlike the tomahawk chop, the missile isn't in everyone's face on national TV during the baseball season. Soldiers aren't comparing themselves to Indians and saying they're going to chop their enemies with Tomahawk missiles. There's no association with Indians except the Tomahawk name itself.

I for one have criticized the use of Indian names for military craft. It's the same problem as associating Indians with braves and warriors. It stereotypes them as being warlike and nothing else--i.e., one-dimensional.

But even *I* don't think it's a major issue in the stereotype field. Once we get rid of all the stereotypical team names and mascots, then we can worry about stereotypical helicopter and missile names. Until then, they're a low priority.

Below:  The Chief Noc-A-Homa logo, which looks nothing like a chief or an Indian from Milwaukee or Atlanta. But who cares, because all Indians are the same, right?

I can't tell if he's laughing, shouting a war cry, or braying like a donkey. Can you?

All about Chief Noc-A-Homa

Chief Noc-A-HomaChief Noc-A-Homa was the original mascot of the Milwaukee and Atlanta Braves from 1950s until 1986. The name was used for the "screaming Indian" sleeve patch worn on Braves jerseys. From at least the early 1960s, while still in Milwaukee County Stadium, until the early 1980s at Atlanta's Fulton County Stadium, this mascot "lived" in a tipi in an unoccupied section of the bleacher seats.

The name was intended to be a playful variation of "Knock a Homer." The mascot's job was to exit his tipi and perform a dance whenever a Braves player would hit a home run.

Broadcaster Curt Gowdy, completely missing the point of the mascot's name, once referred to him in a way that sounded more like Japanese: "NO-KAH-HAH-MAH."

Late in Noc-A-Homa's duration, a young woman companion called "Princess Win-A-Lotta" was introduced. The original creator of the companion character was Princess Poc-a-homa.And:The best-known Noc-A-Homa was Levi Walker, Jr., an Ottawa native. In 1986, Walker and the Braves mutually agreed to end their relationship due to disagreements about pay and missed dates. Walker petitioned the club to revive his role during the Braves' 1991 magical pennant run, but the Braves' management declined.

Noc-a-Homa was eventually replaced as the mascot by the characters Homer and Rally, most likely due to concerns over racism. This has not, however, circumvented the introduction of other Native American-inspired traditions for Braves fans, such as the "Tomahawk Chop," adapted with the arrival of Florida State University multi-sport star Deion Sanders from Florida State's popular War Chant.Comment:  I presume Walker is an Ottawa Native rather than an Ottawa native. Only a real Indian could be called a sellout and turncoat--and rightly so, judging by the evidence.

For more on the subject, see Team Names and Mascots.

Below:  Chief Noc-A-Homa makes a fool of himself with Braves pitcher Gene Garber and teammates in 1982.