It is 2013, and there is still a professional sports franchise that uses this logo. Try to imagine a new primetime cartoon with this as the main character. Would anybody think that would be OK? However, this logo, which portrays an actual race of people as red-skinned, goofy, savages, will be all over the TBS broadcast tonight…




  1. Brad Mofsky says:

    Who cares? We are all too sensitive. Live and let live,as we always have in the past. Lets not be offended life is not perfect there will always be upsets, we must all try to get along! Life is just too short.

  2. Mr. Smith 1980 says:

    Come on, Cork. Let’s not be silly. It’s a sports logo and nothing more.

    • Cork Gaines says:

      So if somebody started a team called the New York Africans and their logo was a black-face cartoon with chains on his wrists, that would be OK, because it’s just “a sports logo”?

      It’s not just a logo. It’s an artist’s cartoon representation of a race of people based on ignorant stereotypes that Native Americans are somehow less than the rest of us and still clinging to some made-up savage lifestyle.

      • Kelley says:

        I’m with you, Cork. If we saw that cartoon in any other context it would be hideously offensive. Go Rays!

      • Mr. Smith 1980 says:

        So where is your rail against the Washington Redskins? Do we go back and change history and change the name of the Negro League because that is now offensive? Do we tell the Atlanta and FSU to stop doing the tomahawk chop because it isa negative stereotype? Where does it stop?

        • Cork Gaines says:

          1) This is a baseball website and the Rays are playing Cleveland. I have railed against the Washington football team in other arenas; 2) We did change history by getting rid of the Negro Leagues because the entire concept of not being allowed to play Major League Baseball was racist; 3) Yes; 4) It stops when people stop being ignorant and insensitive for the sake of sports. These are all things that normally sensible people would never do in the rest of society, but for some reason it is accepted in sports because people suddenly stop thinking rationally.

          • Mr. Smith 1980 says:

            I fully understand where you’re coming from, but ending segregation (and the Negro League) doesn’t erase it from history.

            One could, in hypothetical theory, imply that sports teams are actually raising awareness of Native American culture by creating a continuation of dialogue in their regard.

      • Ted Sheckler says:

        How do you get “savages” out of that logo? Nothing about it says savage. Is he red-skinned? Yes. Goofy? Maybe. Savage? Not even close. Although it would be quite a feat to portray both goofy and savage in the same logo, this logo does not do that in any way.

        Opinions lose merit when emotions do the arguing. You’re letting your emotions argue the Native American mascot issue. Be mindful of what you are trying to accomplish when you care about an issue, because your efforts can have the opposite effect.

        • Cork Gaines says:

          One definition of “savage” is brutal or fierce. Another definition of “savage” is primitive or uncivilized. That’s how I, and a lot of other people, get savage out of that logo.

          • Ted Sheckler says:

            Is it the feather? Would it be ok if he was wearing a suit and holding glass of merlot?

            You are using the harshest possible word for primitive that you can, and even saying he looks primitive is arguable. I think you know “savage” is a poor description of that logo, but you’re still letting your emotions argue your point. You can argue that too if you want, but comparing that logo to an African in chains should be a huge sign that you are exaggerating quite a bit when discussing this particular logo.

  3. Chief Sitting Bull says:

    The white man does not care about our people.

  4. Drew says:

    I’d prefer to root for the Rays because they are my favorite team…..regardless of which team they are playing and what logo that team has.

  5. Bo Cephus says:

    He looks quite “savage” to me!

  6. Alex says:

    Really Cork? Between this and the Longo article a few days ago you’re kind of grasping at straws. This is a pretty stupid reason to cheer against a team. Same thing goes with the Braves.

    Your African reference is not even close to the same thing here.

    • Cork Gaines says:

      I’d be curious to hear why you believe that they are not the same thing? A race of people historically oppressed by people in this country and now “honored” with a cartoon that depicts that race, not only in an inaccurate fashion, but also as if that race was still living in some non-modern, non-civilized context. Pretty much the EXACT same thing.

  7. Martin says:

    I’m a fan of the Rays, but lets be honest here. We rostered a convicted rapist and an antisemite on the team. I dont think we should be preachy over this.

  8. mike says:

    Hi Cork. It’s not close at all because you added the ‘chains on the wrist’ part. Before that it’s more comparable to the Minnesota Vikings, which I haven’t heard any complaints over.

    • bw says:

      im willing to bet at least a few actual indians live in ohio. and if they dont well think about why. and then the logo. just try.

    • JR says:

      I agree with Mike. I was taught over and over as a kid, “stick and stones will break my bones but words will NEVER hurt me”…

      • Cork Gaines says:

        I’m not sure what your point is. These are not children making fun of other children. Just because they are “words” doesn’t make them any less racist or ignorant.

    • Cork Gaines says:

      The chains on the wrist part were just a way to stereotype somebody from a different era, which is EXACTLY what this logo is doing. And nobody complains about the Vikings because they were never oppressed or enslaved in this country. Although, to be fair, Vikings never wore horned helmets, so maybe people of Nordic descent will want that changed.

      • Ted Sheckler says:

        You’re actually sticking by your “chains on the wrist” comparison? The black-face part was plenty good, accurate, and appropriate. Throwing “chains on the wrist” at the end is where you start becoming offensive yourself. It’s not even remotely appropriate for you to make that comparison, let alone defend it.

  9. Dave L says:

    Cork you are absolutely correct and I have thought this for years. A better analogy would be the ‘little black sambo’ as an african american mascot. For those of you too young to remember — google it

    For pete sake Cleveland just get a dignified Indian logo and bring yourselves into the 21st century.

    Thats the difference between the Indians baseball team and every other Native american logo using franchise in the sports world.

    Its about making the image one of dignity, not a slope browed goofy grin micro-cephalic “indian” from unreconstructed racist early 20th century white america. Some traditions just should be buried or at least refined.

  10. Sean Gibson says:

    People never cease to amaze. What do you gain by defending something as racist as this logo? I’m sure most of you aren’t racist, but if you can’t see a problem with this logo it just shows how closed-minded you are. Be better than this, people. This is not the 1860s or even the 1960s. Things change and most of the time for the better. History is filled with things that were once deemed OK. Then we grew up as a society and realized they weren’t OK. The same will happen to the Redskins and the Indians and the Braves. A hundred years from now, people will look back and think “why did they think that was OK?” When they do, people will point to the comments sections of sites like this and be shocked to see how many people still defended logos like this in the 21st century. And when the topic is discussed they will say “for some reason, sports made it OK,” and the other people will just shake their head.

  11. Michael says:

    I’m not usually a Rick Reilly fan, but he hit the nail on the head here with his take on the Washington Redskins fake contraversy:

    “White America has spoken. You aren’t offended, so we’ll be offended for you.” Get over yourselves, losers.

  12. Mobula says:

    The Sun is upset with the Rays for using it’s energy in a demeaning fashion, using yellow light instead of the full spectrum of light it produces. In all seriousness, while the logo may be an issue at this point in time, I would like some real native-Americans to weigh in. Having worked on a Seminole Reservation, I’m not so sure that this is a concern for Native Americans. I believe they may be more interested in how they and their children are treated instead of concern with an obviously cartoonish logo of a sports team that has existed for decades.

  13. CRRaysHead90 says:

    The biggest reason people are against this logo and the Redskins logo is they’re worried about offending the Native Americans. Well polls have consistently shown they by majority don’t find them offensive. Let’s move on, much bigger things to worry about then a sports logo.

    Cork, you bring up the possibility of a logo with African Americans in chains, well the fact is we don’t have that. and of course it would be wrong because it would be portraying a negative stereotype. However neither of these logos that DO exist paint Native Americans in a Negative light. Rather they’re seen as fierce warriors. I’m sorry, I just don’t see anything wrong with these logos.

Leave a Comment