Will Logan no longer be the Chieftains?
- The Riepo Man
- All Conference
- Posts: 723
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:51 pm
Re: Will Logan no longer be the Chieftains?
In the end words are just words and you shouldn't let them hurt you in any way.
- BlizzardMan
- S
- Posts: 1928
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:31 pm
- qualified101
- SEO
- Posts: 2565
- Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:07 pm
Re: Will Logan no longer be the Chieftains?
BlizzardMan wrote:I never said you were racist! The reservation thing is going to far though! Remember the Trail of Tears? That's almost as bad as calling a stadium Auschwitz.
better reread your history books.
Re: Will Logan no longer be the Chieftains?
I have spent months visiting and living on reservations in South Dakota and I talked to hundreds of Lakota about the PC police and the controversy over Indian mascots. I call them Indian instead of Native American because that is what they wanted to be called. The Indians on the "res" called those who complain about these things "city Indians" who have no idea of the struggles of those who live in poverty on the reservations. Now, there is no doubt that American Indians have suffered more than any group in our country's history--basically it was an attempted genocide. But to the Indians I talked to these mascots were a source of pride, with the exception of the "redskins". Everyone has the right to an opinion---this is just my two cents in the discussion.
- BlizzardMan
- S
- Posts: 1928
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:31 pm
Re: Will Logan no longer be the Chieftains?
Dean, I am glad you shared that. I have heard that Indians is proper and I have heard that the term "blacks" is also mostly acceptable. I understand where all of you guys are coming from. It was meant for good intentions. Has anyone performed a survey as to how many tribes and individual American Indians actually disagree with team mascots that are related to their culture?
-
- SEOP
- Posts: 4140
- Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:50 pm
Re: Will Logan no longer be the Chieftains?
BlizzardMan wrote:Dean, I am glad you shared that. I have heard that Indians is proper and I have heard that the term "blacks" is also mostly acceptable. I understand where all of you guys are coming from. It was meant for good intentions. Has anyone performed a survey as to how many tribes and individual American Indians actually disagree with team mascots that are related to their culture?
Sports Illustrated did a whole cover story on this topic a few years ago. It was very interesting. It was a very unbiased look at the issue.
I believe it was found that the majority (like 66% I think) thought that most of the indian mascots were good (Redskins being an exception).
I think some logos (like Chief Wahoo) were also frowned upon, but without checking the article I wouldn't want to be quoted on that.
- bigdaddyblitz
- Riding the Bench
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 2:15 pm
Re: Will Logan no longer be the Chieftains?
BlizzardMan wrote: We can at least take a small step like changing a team name. We should try to clean up the stains of the past. .
Thats complete nonsense. IMO, the very name LOGAN is paying homage to a Mingo Leader named Logan(unless I'm mistaken), who's family was raped and murdered on Yellow Creek in the late 1700's. Cheif Logan was a friend of the white man until the murder of his family. Then he retreated to a life of drunkedness, revenge and sorrow. I think naming an Ohio town "Logan" and their mascot the "Cheiftains" is paying respect to the Ohio/ NW Territory Indian, namely the Mingo, Shawnee, Deleware and so forth. Maybe as Blizzard man says, they may not want honored, but too bad, we ain't gonna change hundreds of names of cities , towns river , creeks ,tributaries and other spots just "not to honor" someone. This entire region was occupied by the Indians until roughly 220 years ago(which in the big picture isn't long). I see this as just the opposite of what Blizzardman and the group suing is making it out to be. Should we just get rid of their names all-together so maybe that part of our heritage and the Indian names should be forgotten forever?
Just look at all of the towns/rivers in Ohio named after Indian names.Chillicothe, Coshocton, Wapokeneta, Cincinnatti, Cuyahoga, Scioto, Olentangey, etc....Not to mention our country(Michigan, Minnesota, Dakota, Sioux City etc...)
I too have some Indian blood in me(Cherokee). I think it's cool everytime I see a town w/ an Indian name or mascot. Especially when it's tasteful and respectful. I think it only becomes distasteful when you protray them as something opposite of what they were as a whole.Cheif Wahoo, the Cleveland Indians mascot may be taking it too far, portraying a goofy, drunk looking Indian. Thats just a silly, made up mascot, though.
However, teams or towns that tastefully display Indian art or namesakes are a sign of respect. You won't find any one on here (including you Blizzardman) who hates the fact as much as I do. The fact that our nation's growth and endless need to occupy the land from sea to sea, meant the destruction and downfall of an entire group of people with great tradition and pride.It truly was attempted and almost sucessful, genocide as Dean called it.
The fact is, I can't change it and I had nothing to do with what Lewis Wetzel, Simon Kenton, Lord Dunmore and "Morgans Raiders" ,among others, did to run the Indians out of Ohio. I am a local history buff who studies the regions Indian tribes and the dealings they had with the "white man". I know quite a bit from my studies, of what true hell they went through. I personally, think it's awesome that so much of our state is made up of Indian terms or names.
the fact is, it's all silly, and is probably "city Indians" (as Dean said), who know nothing about Ohio and the impact Indians had on us as a state.
Our entire state history is chock full of Indian heritage and lore. IMO, using a name or mascot is a sign of respect and a simple display of great PRIDE in our states history.If nothing else, it keeps these names in peoples vocabularies. Half the kids today probably don't even realize how many names they say on a regular basis were either terms or names or some mis-pronounced translation originally spoken by the Indians. I think they should know, and be proud of it.
By the way, I think they should rename Ohio as the true Indian word for Ohio= "Spay-Lay-with-ee-pee".
Now playing, your beloved "Spaylaywitheepee State Buckeyes" or the "Spaylaywitheepee Bobcats"!!
Keep on keepin on CHEIFTAINS!
- Mighty Mighty Devils
- All Conference
- Posts: 723
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:39 am
Re: Will Logan no longer be the Chieftains?
I think it would be a crime to change the name The name is a great tribute to the great indian chief himself as for a stadium name Shawnee stadium sounds good
- BlizzardMan
- S
- Posts: 1928
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:31 pm
Re: Will Logan no longer be the Chieftains?
You guys all have good points. I think it it was done from guilt as well, not just honor. I respect the opinions of all of you.
- wildthingRV
- All Conference
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Will Logan no longer be the Chieftains?
Interesting side note, the Cleveland Indians were named after Lou Sockalexis, a Native American player for the Cleveland Spiders, an earlier Cleveland franchise. They were trying to honor him, too.
Chief Wahoo ,according to a sports illustrated poll, is more offensive to activists than to real Native Americans.
Chief Wahoo ,according to a sports illustrated poll, is more offensive to activists than to real Native Americans.
Re: Will Logan no longer be the Chieftains?
Did not Bruce Dickinson sing about the Indians and their mistreatment?
-
- SEOPS Mr. Ohio
- Posts: 20590
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:49 am
- Location: Next to a lake somewhere
- Contact:
Re: Will Logan no longer be the Chieftains?
Next they will say that k-9's are upset at Athens and the plant world is upset with NY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




- 1987chieftains
- SEOPS H
- Posts: 7661
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:25 pm
- Location: IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER
Re: Will Logan no longer be the Chieftains?
boogerred wrote:Did not Bruce Dickinson sing about the Indians and their mistreatment?
yes he did. in the mid 80's. 1 hell of a song. i did a mock commerical in college in 89 using that song. it poked fun at the nra.

ironmaidens run to the hills.