The roots of the Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves go back more than a century.
Officials of the Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians both find themselves under renewed assault by social activists this week for their teams’ uses of nicknames viewed by some as demeaning.
It’s nothing new for either team, both of which have been forced by social pressures to modify the ways in which they use imagery to convey their brands. For instance, both teams have abandoned the practice of using live or cartoonish mascots – Chief Nok-A-Homa in Atlanta and Chief Wahoo in Cleveland – that once were considered popular, but which over time drew extensive criticism for what was perceived as their reliance on stereotypes.
What is often lost in the playing out of such social pressure movements is the context within which the original team name was chosen. The odd thing is that an understanding of that process would not necessarily reflect negatively on those calling for change; indeed, it may buttress their cases.
But it may do so for reasons change advocates may prefer not to acknowledge. And for that reason, to the extent they are aware of the contextual basis for the original name, activists may choose to ignore or minimize that context anyway.
Neither the Braves nor the Indians nicknames have pure, non-controversial origins. Indeed, in both cases, the only good argument for retaining them is probably the simple fact that they have been in use for more than a century.
That being so, and given the saccharine way both are applied today, it is a fair question how much, if any, actual harm is done by their use.