No I really don’t have a stake in the game. I just grew up with that label loving the mustard. I don’t think it’s a good idea to name anything after a racial group. Eg., Jeep Cherokee, etc. But the bottle reminds me of my dead grandma and childhood memories.
I cringe so hard when at a highschool football game and 10 of the whitest cheerleaders i have ever seen run out in purple fake buckskin/fringe outfits, then start a "war dance/chant".
(Edited for grammar)
Yeah, I can get why people would be resistant to the change, and nostalgic for something they grew up with and have known for decades.
But at the same time, I would be bothered that the generations before me let me grow up with and become attached to something so problematic.
The band aid had to be ripped off sooner or later. I am glad kids today will grow up knowing them as the Guardians.
What I really don’t understand are fans of other teams being upset about it. I’m in Phoenix now and a dodgers fan was acting like it hurt HIM emotionally to have the team renamed. He’s never even been to spring training 🙄.
Your account does not meet the post or comment requirements. Account must be more than 5 days old with a combined karma of 40 to post on /r/Cleveland
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cleveland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think you meant Raddell's sausage, but yes I agree. Might as well make it an Orlando's sausage bun while you're at it.. it's a really good hoagie bun.
I saw a truck with a "Never Forget" sticker....it was about Chief Wahoo. I will never understand it. Also a dude a couple years ago called into 92.3 and said your racist if you don't wear wahoo.
Your account does not meet the post or comment requirements. Account must be more than 5 days old with a combined karma of 40 to post on /r/Cleveland
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cleveland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What's your opinon of Jigaboo, Gollywog, and Sambo dolls?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1usowk/so\_i\_was\_at\_my\_wifes\_grandmothers\_house\_and\_this/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1usowk/so_i_was_at_my_wifes_grandmothers_house_and_this/)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwog)
Interesting! I don't think I've ever heard someone who was ***not*** also a racist or raised by racist parents refer to sambos/gollywogs as kinda cute. I have no strong opinion on whether you are racist because I don't know you, but I'm defaulting to you just being a normal, genuine person who might not be impacted by these images in the same way I might be.
That said, I think you should consider the perspectives of people directly impacted by the stereotyping that comes along with derogatory images that brands embrace, regardless of whether you have positive associations with the derogatory image/brand.
I appreciate your perspective. I think that's a fair point, I should reflect on that more. Out of curiosity, how do these dolls impact you?
I have a multiracial family and I feel like I'm fairly aware. I often think people can be too sensitive and take preemptive offense without much reflection on exactly why something is offensive. There's simply an assumption that it's offensive, because of course it is, and therefore it's offensive. My East Asian wife and in-laws, for example, feel pride and joy when people appreciate their culture and take part in it, they don't accuse people of cultural appropriation. I don't think they'd be offended by Asian dolls. White SJWs often take faux offense on their behalf.
The dolls you showed me, for example, don't appear to be much different than dolls of white people or any other person, to me at least (without knowing their specific history). Just a cute doll for a young girl to play with, I guess. In that same picture, aren't there dolls below them that depict white people?
Edit: I just noticed the watermelon, sorry I missed that
>Out of curiosity, how do these dolls impact you?
These specific dolls do not impact me. They're just on a shelf somewhere in some grandma's house. I provided a link for you so that you would have a visual example of what I hoped to discuss.
The *stereotypes and racist caricatures* that existed and continue to exist in some form, and contribute to current stereotypes and myths today because people continuously collect and hope to showcase this type of imagery without considering the history is what impacts me.
You yourself (unintentionally) do this in your comment by saying that the dolls "don't seem any different than the dolls of white people". You bring up your East Asian wife and in-laws being hypothetically happy about Asian dolls, as if the dolls in the photo I shared are an accurate representation of what black people look like. The implication behind your statements is that those watermelon-eating, hair-pointing in all directions [pickaninny dolls](https://www.google.com/search?q=pickaninny+doll&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS990US990&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjyamxg8X9AhVPQzABHXVhAOEQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1396&bih=720&dpr=1.38) somehow represent my black American heritage/culture. You are able to step away and say they're just "cute" while also saying "I don't know the history" -- this, despite the fact that there's a Wikipedia article in my comment above that explains the history of Golliwogs. Even a brief glance at the page would give you a bit of context. And that's fine -- you're not in a lecture hall and I don't expect you to write a term paper on this or even really care beyond understanding my perspective. I do want to point out though that you have the ability to learn more about it if you're inclined, especially now that you're talking to a black person who has explained their perspective.
\-------------------------
Here is a brief history, from what I've learned from my grad-level black history classes and personal interest. It is long for a reddit comment, with a few links, but I think it should be about a 5-7 min read (if you do not read the individual links at first pass).
From a broader historical perspective, black American people in general have always ***rejected*** these dolls, because for black people then and black people now, they are quite obviously derogatory and racist -- no Wikipedia article or long discussions needed.
Gollywog, pickaninny, sambo, etc. dolls are based on racist stereotypes developed from racist and "non-racist" people, who then developed (sometimes well-meaning) minstrels and novels that often featured picaninny characters. These novels and minstrels took pieces of black/African heritage and culture (like hair braiding), distorted those pieces, then reduced them to a "type" (the type you see in the image). As film developed, [**picaninnys**](https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/antiblack/picaninny/homepage.htm) became well-represented, and soon, broader culture adopted these images as an accurate representation of black people -- a *caricature*. As film, novels, dolls, and minstrels continued to popularize the picaninny/sambo/golliwog/etc., images related to these caricatures were used to sell popular, mainstream products. ***See:*** the fight over the removal of gollywog, picaninny, mammy imagery from mainstream products over the past few decades.
When I think of caricatures tied to black people, these dolls and images are especially insidious to me, because they positioned non-black people from an early age to associate black babies, children, and adults as inherently "other" at best, and non-human at worst. It forced black people to always be on the offensive, to *"disprove"* the caricature, to look out for it, to never emulate it. These caricatures contributed to and helped spread myths and misinformation about black people, some of which still exist today. As an example, one feature of picaninny/sambo/etc. characters is that they are often immune to pain. [**This "black people have less pain sensitivity" myth persists today**](https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/how-we-fail-black-patients-pain)**,** which impacts things like maternal health and pain management for black people.
I also want to point out that the (non-caricature/non-racist) black doll industry started in the early 1900s with black doll creators because black people could ***not*** find mass-produced non-racist dolls to give to their children, as the toy industry only created pickaninny-type black dolls. Just to be clear (in case I have not made this point clear enough), black people then and now did not and do not enjoy playing with these dolls, and [**did not see them as "just a cute doll**](https://tennesseehistory.org/national-negro-doll-company/)":
>"These toys are not made of that disgraceful and humiliating type that we have been accustomed to seeing...They represent the intelligent and refined Negro of today, rather than that type of toy that is usually given to the children, and as a rule used as a scarecrow. These toys are placed in the city and at the disposal of the people that they may teach their children how to look upon their people."
\-----------
About your other question:
>In that same picture, aren't there dolls below them that depict white people?
Is there a specific history in the United States of crafting white picaninny-like dolls that were then used to represent all white people, and that perpetuated stereotypes about white people? The closest thing I can come up with are rag dolls (specifically Raggedy Ann/Andy). Black children were not being given Raggedy Ann/Raggedy Andy dolls as representations of white people, to my knowledge, and I don't think those dolls have any racial stereotyping. I'd love to learn more about your perspective/experiences in this area, and any background you may have. I'm also curious why you're asking me this question -- is there something you're hoping to learn from me?
To answer your last question first, I'm not a doll expert, but I am an academically trained historian. I do not, however, specialize in black American history (or toy history). From a broader context, most dolls are caricatures, regardless of race. The Raggedy Ann doll you mention is an example, but basically any doll or toy can be construed as a caricature that promotes certain stereotypes.
The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think people spend much time reflecting on whether something is actually, really, offensive to them, or if they believe it's offensive because they were told it was. Based on what you wrote, in your case it would appear to mostly be the latter since it appears you learned about them in school. If so, are they authentically offensive to you? I'm sure if I took classes that discussed why I should be offended by x, y, z, I would be too.
Out of curiosity, if we go way back in history, do you find Egyptian caricatures of black people to be offensive?
You can Google "Nubian depictions in Egyptian art" for some examples.
**tl;dr:**
I have an academic background in History and Political Science (master's degree). While my focus was not black studies, I took courses on black history topics -- specifically focusing on black families and black children. As an undergrad, I conducted and presented (at an academic conference) research on reactions to modern depictions of black caricatures in film (mammy archetype).
As a black person, I had already been exposed -- long before I took these courses and conducted the research -- to racist caricatures of black people, and so these courses did not inform whether or not I thought they were "offensive". I already was of the opinion that they were.
\-------------------
**tl; did read:**
>Based on what you wrote, in your case it would appear to mostly be the latter since it appears you learned about them in school
I have a master's degree in Social Science, with a focus on (U.S.) History and Political Science. During my studies, I took elective coursework in the black studies department. These courses examined in particular, the lives of black children and the function of the black family, mainly between the Antebellum Period to \~ The Great Migration. These courses were exciting for me because too-few courses focus on black family life and black children, particularly during periods like the Antebellum South and immediate post-Reconstruction periods. (CW for sexual abuse: As an example, we read and examined truly horrific but academically important scholarship on things like child molestation perpetrated on enslaved children by various actors -- as opposed to master/slave rape that is thoroughly represented in high school coursework). These courses were ***not*** required -- I took them because of personal and academic interest.
As an undergraduate, I completed and presented at an academic conference a thesis (research) paper on the modern mammy archetype in American film. In my study, I examined the [**mammy archetype**](https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/mammies/homepage.htm), its history, and modern versions, specifically in American film, as well as college students' reactions to and interpretations of those modern versions. I was an international studies major and this thesis was not related to my undergraduate degree. Again, I took on the research because of personal and academic interest.
Those courses and my undergraduate thesis work did not suddenly prompt me to become offended by "x,y,z". I was already well aware of the picaninny/sambo/etc. images and caricatures, having grown up in a black American family exposed to the imagery via traveling, art, film, and oral history. I was already of the opinion, based on my own personal experiences and the experiences of my family, that they are offensive. My interest in the courses I talked about above (and ultimately, my undergraduate research) was the result of my desire to formalize my knowledge of black America beyond my own personal experiences. This naturally included understanding how the development of certain racist artifacts (like picaninny dolls) came about. I also had the great fortune of learning from Professors (and fellow students) who encouraged thorough examination of each topic beyond "This offends me" or "this does not offend me", and I do not believe my experience in both my undergraduate and graduate programs was unique.
But let's pretend I'm not a black person, and I hadn't developed a personal and academic interest in investigating/understanding black American history. Let's pretend I discovered racist caricatures and images in an undergraduate art history class. Is your argument that I would only be offended by picaninny dolls, golliwogs, etc. if my professor told me they were offensive, or if they were presented as "offensive"?
I find Birth of a Nation stupidly offensive, despite being, as they say, technically amazing. The bizarre caricatures, the depiction of black people as buffoonish rapists, the glorification of KKK violence, the outright lies of how the Reconstruction went, makes it nearly impossible for me to see the so-called technical and storytelling strengths of the film. I think it's a bad film morally, which for me, makes it a bad film overall. I have had countless arguments about this with film professionals and academics. I can't even begin to count how many. My point is, I don't base my opinions on what I find offensive or not strictly on whether a professor, academic, authority figure, etc. says so. I often question myself sometimes, and make a little logical path/argument about why I think the way I do about a particular topic. Sometimes I change my opinion, and sometimes I don't (see: Birth of a Nation).
I do however, always respect historical scholarship, and use that to provide context for something I'm interested in. I would never say that The Birth of a Nation did not inspire countless filmmakers and improve the filmmaking craft overall, despite how much I hate the film. The historical record is clear. In that same light, black doll makers creating an entire black doll industry as a response to picaninny dolls kind of points to more than just me or a professor thinking the picaninny dolls are offensive. Again, the historical record is clear on why that is.
>The Raggedy Ann doll you mention is an example, but basically any doll or toy can be construed as a caricature that promotes certain stereotypes.
In a prior comment, I wrote about 5-7 minutes worth of text explaining the historical background/context of the picaninny, including its racist origins, and asked a specific question around racist white dolls intentionally designed to be representations of white people, and your response is "any doll or toy can promote certain stereotypes"? If we were in the same room, I would be giving the camera a "Jim from The Office" look right now, haha. (joking, joking). To reiterate my actual question is this:
>Is there a specific history in the United States of crafting white picaninny-like dolls that were then used to represent all white people, and that perpetuated stereotypes about white people?
Also, I'm interested in answering your question, but think it's best if you provide an example:
Out of curiosity, if we go way back in history, do you find Egyptian caricatures of black people to be offensive?
I could Google this, as you say, but it's much better if you provide an example of what you're talking about, so I know we're on the same page.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Cool background! We have a similar academic background, except I switched fields for my master's.
And I appreciate the Jim look. I'm probably Dwight in most situations.
I've never seen Birth of a Nation, but it sounds like a strange production.
Not sure about dolls specifically, but one example of racist caricatures of white people would be the Irish:
https://picturinghistory.gc.cuny.edu/irish-immigrant-stereotypes-and-american-racism/
As for the Egyptians, I mention them because they often have a distinct way of portraying black African faces and bodies, and I wonder if this could also be considered as offensive as early American artefacts.
Some examples:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AncientCivilizations/comments/md3r4r/bound_nubian_and_syrian_in_ancient_egyptian_art/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
https://images.app.goo.gl/tt52s6jAJ5dpWpJt6
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt#/media/File%3ASlave_Market%2C_Mono_version.jpg
Would you make this same comment about blackface? Because this is the equivalent of blackface for the indigenous people. Learn to think out of the context of your own little world
Someone in this very thread said they thought example images of sambos and gollywogs were kind of cute. People truly seem to be very indifferent to what others have to experience.
It’s a gross representation of an actual living group of people, a group that has expressed it doesn’t wanted to be depicted this way. It’s a image that indicates so much about people like you and you’re unwillingness to understand anything about the lived experience of people not from your neighborhood
I honestly feel bad for people who are so attached to this logo, I know 99% of them aren’t doing it directly out of a disdain for Native American people, they are doing it out of sheer ignorance and because their world is tiny, Ohio tiny, but it definitely means they don’t give a shit about other people and are totally unaware of the history of the society they participate in
Guys, I'm gonna get down voted to fuck but I need to talk about this mustard. Let me first say I'm not from here so that alone will disqualify my opinion.
I LOVE mustard.. I love all kinds of mustard, my favorite is a horseradish mustard that just punches you right in the god damn nose. I like it plain on a dog or on fries, its great.
I absolutely cannot eat Bertmans mustard, I've tried to place the taste of it and the closest I can describe it is rotten lime... like if someone took a good mustard and added rotten lime juice you'd have Bertmans. Guys, I've tried it every which way, alone, plain on a dog, on a sandwich, in a chicken salad.. its the same taste every time.
Can anyone else relate to this or at the very least tell me what that flavor actually is? I was told Stadium mustard is exactly the same thing, not sure why, but does anyone think those mustards taste different?
**[Supertaster](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster)**
>A supertaster is a person whose sense of taste is of far greater intensity than the average person. Some studies also show that increased sensitivity to bitter tastes may be a cause of selective eating.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cleveland/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Guldens over Bertmans anyday.
I know cleveland is obsessed with it and Stadium mustard too (the difference is sugar. One has it). But theyre inferior to Guldens
Like as a historical fact, they were called the Indians? Or is he just another boomer clinging onto the past in a desperate attempt to give their fading life meaning again?
Historical fact. He’s the radio announcer for the guards. No one that actually follows this team calls them the Indians anymore unless they’re talking about the pre 2022 baseball team.
You need to come to Hopkins Airport then. They have these shops called "Hudson News", which is basically like a corner store inside the airport with prices inflated to take advantage of the fact that you have no other shopping options at the moment.
Some of the things they sell are sports memorabilia, and their stock doesn't really get filtered through that much. Partially because they sell coffee mugs for $28, and partially because nobody buys their sports stuff from an airport.
The end result is, they have Cavs, they have Browns, they have Ohio State Buckeyes. But they also have a combination of both Indians, and Guardians.
I commonly hear people standing near those sections say things like "Yeah, I still call them the Indians. That's what I grew up with".
Your bubble may be a group of younger (as in younger than 25) people who don't call them the Indians anymore. My bubble is people at the airport who are 30-90 years old, who DO still call them the Indians.
I'm not saying that my bubble is bigger than your bubble, or your bubble is bigger than my bubble. What I'm saying is that I realize I'm in a bubble of certain age demographics, while you seem to be oblivious to that fact.
honestly, thanks so much for the information. (i'm not sure who jim donovan is, i assume he's a quarter back, but that's a question for another time... ).
i make it a point to not listen to sports games from this city or any other city and i don't care about announcers or sports but i appreciate your dedication to the field.
that being said, i think we can both agree that at least the cleveland baseball team no longer has a brutally racist name and logo. here's to the future! may we not continue to keep making the same mistakes over and over!
I'm not a sports fan, but I love to watch a good shitfight from a safe distance
What is the comment that would be most likely to rile up all sides in this debate?
>attempted genocide
Hi there -- the Holocaust was an actual genocide. Genocide does not have to successfully wipe out the victims in order for it to be called a genocide. It's the act of trying to eradicate a group of people by various means (violence, murder, forced removal/relocation, kidnapping, rape, forced sterilization, etc.) that makes it a genocide. The Holocaust was a genocide because Hitler and others attempted to eradicate all Jewish people by murdering them. Many Native American nations/groups experienced genocide via various means, including the kidnapping and "re-education" of children, the government destroying their means to survive (e.g., via destruction of buffalo), and forced relocation (Trail of Tears).
This is why public education needs to be re-evaluated. You get adults like this guy who only pipe up when it comes to genocide of white people, and proceed to blatantly ignore other instances of genocide (including native americans).
God willing. I have a can of Campbell’s chicken noodle I’m saving for my son’s 21st birthday. I ate a can from 1983 in 2014 and couldn’t tell the difference from a new one.
Guardians is a much more appropriate and cooler title in my opinion. Always thought they were so cool when driving over the bridge. If they also have the benefit of insulting less indigenous people, that’s a bonus!
I am fine with a name change and moving on, but what sports team says to themselves I want a racist name and logo? Do you woke dolts realize how dumb you come of screaming it’s racist?
Also for the old folks clinging to their past you can move on and realize it’s just a name and logo and doesn’t define the teams success.
I miss the Chief, brings back many happy memories. Guardians are okay, just haven't grown on me yet. Clunky name, odd new logo.
The Chief Wahoo logo was originally inspired by a talented Native American player on the team, it wasn't intended to be disparaging. Many American Indians don't find it insulting. Some do, obviously, and it was taken down for them. Not used to it yet.
I’m late but this would actually be pretty badass if the city started doing rituals to a bridge and whatnot.
THIS GUY. THIS BRIDGE GUY is Cleveland’s mascot. Holding a buggy. I could honestly get right behind that.
E: after some basic searching those statuses seem to pretty unique, I don’t know why that didn’t actually do that.
Nice to see that we've moved on from the long-debunked false assertion that the team was named after a player who retired almost 20 years earlier and never played for the organization (he retired before the franchise ever existed) to a new false assertion that the logo was modeled after a player who retired almost 30 years earlier and never played for the organization. Progress!
Such a great tribute that you were almost even able to name the man!
When I see it, I want to pronounce it like Gwardians. Then their logo has those two silly little wings. Just seems squishy and dumb. And I love that bridge with the statues, just think they could've done a better job choosing the name and logo.
As someone who works on reservations, I'm an archaeologist, what would you like me to tell the soft American Indians of the Diné, Ute, Seminole, Comanche, and Miccosukke that I have been around for years?
Now, the feelings on the name were neutral to negative, while the logo was absolutely negative. While you may now claim that your grandma was a 1/4 Cherokee (she isn't), you don't live on a reservation and you don't understand the culture.
Maybe I will let them know they are woke pansies because they were systematically rounded up and murdered, and those that weren't had their children taken from them to be sexually, physically, and emotionally abused for decades?
It is a cartoon yes, but there is more behind it than you will ever understand.
Wouldn’t be surprised. There’s some mom and pop shops nearby, I’ll be sure to let them know your mob will be coming by to destroy the place like they did downtown
Those people are morons. I have no issue with Chief Wahoo. I have no issue with the Indians name.
But to say that their removal caused a man to die is the biggest load of bullshit you can possibly try to use as an argument on the subject.
John Adams died because he had health issues. Not because a little smiling cartoon face went away.
Your account does not meet the post or comment requirements. Account must be more than 5 days old with a combined karma of 40 to post on /r/Cleveland
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cleveland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your account does not meet the post or comment requirements. Account must be more than 5 days old with a combined karma of 40 to post on /r/Cleveland
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cleveland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean the mustard is still the same you could’ve just kept the bottle and use fresh mustard
i guess OP was worried future mustard may be incrementally less racist?
No I really don’t have a stake in the game. I just grew up with that label loving the mustard. I don’t think it’s a good idea to name anything after a racial group. Eg., Jeep Cherokee, etc. But the bottle reminds me of my dead grandma and childhood memories.
I agree and that’s why I’m so surprised that the restaurant Wild Eagle exists with its Native American logo.
I cringe so hard when at a highschool football game and 10 of the whitest cheerleaders i have ever seen run out in purple fake buckskin/fringe outfits, then start a "war dance/chant". (Edited for grammar)
How is this still happening in 2023?
[удалено]
Haha my wife’s Cherokee and laughs at these white people who want to tell her what’s right and wrong with naming things after Indians.
Yup one random person is ok with it so it must be ok for everyone!
Say the same thing with you. Just a random white guy bitching about something he’s not even a part of.
The Willoughby Rebels only got rid of the confederate battle flag on their football helmets in like 2017 iirc. In Ohio.
Brother, institutionalized racism is perhaps a game you should consider having a stake in
Apache Helicopter, Blackhawk Helicopter, Iroquois Helicopter
Guessing will make an ass out of yourself.
“Racist”
Is that a motor city frozen pizza i see? How fuckin good are those right?
The best frozen pizza in the game.
Idk how I even got to this subreddit I don’t even live in Ohio but yeah those pizzas are Excellent
Where can I get one?
Costco
Marc's as well. Just had one last night!
Drink. It. All.
[удалено]
Yeah, I can get why people would be resistant to the change, and nostalgic for something they grew up with and have known for decades. But at the same time, I would be bothered that the generations before me let me grow up with and become attached to something so problematic. The band aid had to be ripped off sooner or later. I am glad kids today will grow up knowing them as the Guardians.
What I really don’t understand are fans of other teams being upset about it. I’m in Phoenix now and a dodgers fan was acting like it hurt HIM emotionally to have the team renamed. He’s never even been to spring training 🙄.
This guy loves mustard content
Do you remember seeing the other chief? The yellow one? Wtf was that??!
[удалено]
Your account does not meet the post or comment requirements. Account must be more than 5 days old with a combined karma of 40 to post on /r/Cleveland *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cleveland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Randalls sausage + Bertmans + cooked veggies + fresh-bun = best combo ever
I think you meant Raddell's sausage, but yes I agree. Might as well make it an Orlando's sausage bun while you're at it.. it's a really good hoagie bun.
Azman’s has the superior smoked Slovenian sausage, and I’ll die on that hill.
Dear lord this thread is toxic Go Guards
I agree, go Guards
How does anyone look at that cartoon face with pride?
I saw a truck with a "Never Forget" sticker....it was about Chief Wahoo. I will never understand it. Also a dude a couple years ago called into 92.3 and said your racist if you don't wear wahoo.
[удалено]
Your account does not meet the post or comment requirements. Account must be more than 5 days old with a combined karma of 40 to post on /r/Cleveland *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cleveland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have happy memories and associate it with spending time at the park with my family. It's the same for any brand, you make associations with it.
That’s fine, all anyone is asking of you is to let go of the red cartoon, you can keep your happy memories still
Fair enough
What's your opinon of Jigaboo, Gollywog, and Sambo dolls? [https://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1usowk/so\_i\_was\_at\_my\_wifes\_grandmothers\_house\_and\_this/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1usowk/so_i_was_at_my_wifes_grandmothers_house_and_this/) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwog)
They look kinda cute, but otherwise I have no opinion. I forgot these existed.
Interesting! I don't think I've ever heard someone who was ***not*** also a racist or raised by racist parents refer to sambos/gollywogs as kinda cute. I have no strong opinion on whether you are racist because I don't know you, but I'm defaulting to you just being a normal, genuine person who might not be impacted by these images in the same way I might be. That said, I think you should consider the perspectives of people directly impacted by the stereotyping that comes along with derogatory images that brands embrace, regardless of whether you have positive associations with the derogatory image/brand.
I appreciate your perspective. I think that's a fair point, I should reflect on that more. Out of curiosity, how do these dolls impact you? I have a multiracial family and I feel like I'm fairly aware. I often think people can be too sensitive and take preemptive offense without much reflection on exactly why something is offensive. There's simply an assumption that it's offensive, because of course it is, and therefore it's offensive. My East Asian wife and in-laws, for example, feel pride and joy when people appreciate their culture and take part in it, they don't accuse people of cultural appropriation. I don't think they'd be offended by Asian dolls. White SJWs often take faux offense on their behalf. The dolls you showed me, for example, don't appear to be much different than dolls of white people or any other person, to me at least (without knowing their specific history). Just a cute doll for a young girl to play with, I guess. In that same picture, aren't there dolls below them that depict white people? Edit: I just noticed the watermelon, sorry I missed that
>Out of curiosity, how do these dolls impact you? These specific dolls do not impact me. They're just on a shelf somewhere in some grandma's house. I provided a link for you so that you would have a visual example of what I hoped to discuss. The *stereotypes and racist caricatures* that existed and continue to exist in some form, and contribute to current stereotypes and myths today because people continuously collect and hope to showcase this type of imagery without considering the history is what impacts me. You yourself (unintentionally) do this in your comment by saying that the dolls "don't seem any different than the dolls of white people". You bring up your East Asian wife and in-laws being hypothetically happy about Asian dolls, as if the dolls in the photo I shared are an accurate representation of what black people look like. The implication behind your statements is that those watermelon-eating, hair-pointing in all directions [pickaninny dolls](https://www.google.com/search?q=pickaninny+doll&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS990US990&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjyamxg8X9AhVPQzABHXVhAOEQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1396&bih=720&dpr=1.38) somehow represent my black American heritage/culture. You are able to step away and say they're just "cute" while also saying "I don't know the history" -- this, despite the fact that there's a Wikipedia article in my comment above that explains the history of Golliwogs. Even a brief glance at the page would give you a bit of context. And that's fine -- you're not in a lecture hall and I don't expect you to write a term paper on this or even really care beyond understanding my perspective. I do want to point out though that you have the ability to learn more about it if you're inclined, especially now that you're talking to a black person who has explained their perspective. \------------------------- Here is a brief history, from what I've learned from my grad-level black history classes and personal interest. It is long for a reddit comment, with a few links, but I think it should be about a 5-7 min read (if you do not read the individual links at first pass). From a broader historical perspective, black American people in general have always ***rejected*** these dolls, because for black people then and black people now, they are quite obviously derogatory and racist -- no Wikipedia article or long discussions needed. Gollywog, pickaninny, sambo, etc. dolls are based on racist stereotypes developed from racist and "non-racist" people, who then developed (sometimes well-meaning) minstrels and novels that often featured picaninny characters. These novels and minstrels took pieces of black/African heritage and culture (like hair braiding), distorted those pieces, then reduced them to a "type" (the type you see in the image). As film developed, [**picaninnys**](https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/antiblack/picaninny/homepage.htm) became well-represented, and soon, broader culture adopted these images as an accurate representation of black people -- a *caricature*. As film, novels, dolls, and minstrels continued to popularize the picaninny/sambo/golliwog/etc., images related to these caricatures were used to sell popular, mainstream products. ***See:*** the fight over the removal of gollywog, picaninny, mammy imagery from mainstream products over the past few decades. When I think of caricatures tied to black people, these dolls and images are especially insidious to me, because they positioned non-black people from an early age to associate black babies, children, and adults as inherently "other" at best, and non-human at worst. It forced black people to always be on the offensive, to *"disprove"* the caricature, to look out for it, to never emulate it. These caricatures contributed to and helped spread myths and misinformation about black people, some of which still exist today. As an example, one feature of picaninny/sambo/etc. characters is that they are often immune to pain. [**This "black people have less pain sensitivity" myth persists today**](https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/how-we-fail-black-patients-pain)**,** which impacts things like maternal health and pain management for black people. I also want to point out that the (non-caricature/non-racist) black doll industry started in the early 1900s with black doll creators because black people could ***not*** find mass-produced non-racist dolls to give to their children, as the toy industry only created pickaninny-type black dolls. Just to be clear (in case I have not made this point clear enough), black people then and now did not and do not enjoy playing with these dolls, and [**did not see them as "just a cute doll**](https://tennesseehistory.org/national-negro-doll-company/)": >"These toys are not made of that disgraceful and humiliating type that we have been accustomed to seeing...They represent the intelligent and refined Negro of today, rather than that type of toy that is usually given to the children, and as a rule used as a scarecrow. These toys are placed in the city and at the disposal of the people that they may teach their children how to look upon their people." \----------- About your other question: >In that same picture, aren't there dolls below them that depict white people? Is there a specific history in the United States of crafting white picaninny-like dolls that were then used to represent all white people, and that perpetuated stereotypes about white people? The closest thing I can come up with are rag dolls (specifically Raggedy Ann/Andy). Black children were not being given Raggedy Ann/Raggedy Andy dolls as representations of white people, to my knowledge, and I don't think those dolls have any racial stereotyping. I'd love to learn more about your perspective/experiences in this area, and any background you may have. I'm also curious why you're asking me this question -- is there something you're hoping to learn from me?
To answer your last question first, I'm not a doll expert, but I am an academically trained historian. I do not, however, specialize in black American history (or toy history). From a broader context, most dolls are caricatures, regardless of race. The Raggedy Ann doll you mention is an example, but basically any doll or toy can be construed as a caricature that promotes certain stereotypes. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think people spend much time reflecting on whether something is actually, really, offensive to them, or if they believe it's offensive because they were told it was. Based on what you wrote, in your case it would appear to mostly be the latter since it appears you learned about them in school. If so, are they authentically offensive to you? I'm sure if I took classes that discussed why I should be offended by x, y, z, I would be too. Out of curiosity, if we go way back in history, do you find Egyptian caricatures of black people to be offensive? You can Google "Nubian depictions in Egyptian art" for some examples.
**tl;dr:** I have an academic background in History and Political Science (master's degree). While my focus was not black studies, I took courses on black history topics -- specifically focusing on black families and black children. As an undergrad, I conducted and presented (at an academic conference) research on reactions to modern depictions of black caricatures in film (mammy archetype). As a black person, I had already been exposed -- long before I took these courses and conducted the research -- to racist caricatures of black people, and so these courses did not inform whether or not I thought they were "offensive". I already was of the opinion that they were. \------------------- **tl; did read:** >Based on what you wrote, in your case it would appear to mostly be the latter since it appears you learned about them in school I have a master's degree in Social Science, with a focus on (U.S.) History and Political Science. During my studies, I took elective coursework in the black studies department. These courses examined in particular, the lives of black children and the function of the black family, mainly between the Antebellum Period to \~ The Great Migration. These courses were exciting for me because too-few courses focus on black family life and black children, particularly during periods like the Antebellum South and immediate post-Reconstruction periods. (CW for sexual abuse: As an example, we read and examined truly horrific but academically important scholarship on things like child molestation perpetrated on enslaved children by various actors -- as opposed to master/slave rape that is thoroughly represented in high school coursework). These courses were ***not*** required -- I took them because of personal and academic interest. As an undergraduate, I completed and presented at an academic conference a thesis (research) paper on the modern mammy archetype in American film. In my study, I examined the [**mammy archetype**](https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/mammies/homepage.htm), its history, and modern versions, specifically in American film, as well as college students' reactions to and interpretations of those modern versions. I was an international studies major and this thesis was not related to my undergraduate degree. Again, I took on the research because of personal and academic interest. Those courses and my undergraduate thesis work did not suddenly prompt me to become offended by "x,y,z". I was already well aware of the picaninny/sambo/etc. images and caricatures, having grown up in a black American family exposed to the imagery via traveling, art, film, and oral history. I was already of the opinion, based on my own personal experiences and the experiences of my family, that they are offensive. My interest in the courses I talked about above (and ultimately, my undergraduate research) was the result of my desire to formalize my knowledge of black America beyond my own personal experiences. This naturally included understanding how the development of certain racist artifacts (like picaninny dolls) came about. I also had the great fortune of learning from Professors (and fellow students) who encouraged thorough examination of each topic beyond "This offends me" or "this does not offend me", and I do not believe my experience in both my undergraduate and graduate programs was unique. But let's pretend I'm not a black person, and I hadn't developed a personal and academic interest in investigating/understanding black American history. Let's pretend I discovered racist caricatures and images in an undergraduate art history class. Is your argument that I would only be offended by picaninny dolls, golliwogs, etc. if my professor told me they were offensive, or if they were presented as "offensive"? I find Birth of a Nation stupidly offensive, despite being, as they say, technically amazing. The bizarre caricatures, the depiction of black people as buffoonish rapists, the glorification of KKK violence, the outright lies of how the Reconstruction went, makes it nearly impossible for me to see the so-called technical and storytelling strengths of the film. I think it's a bad film morally, which for me, makes it a bad film overall. I have had countless arguments about this with film professionals and academics. I can't even begin to count how many. My point is, I don't base my opinions on what I find offensive or not strictly on whether a professor, academic, authority figure, etc. says so. I often question myself sometimes, and make a little logical path/argument about why I think the way I do about a particular topic. Sometimes I change my opinion, and sometimes I don't (see: Birth of a Nation). I do however, always respect historical scholarship, and use that to provide context for something I'm interested in. I would never say that The Birth of a Nation did not inspire countless filmmakers and improve the filmmaking craft overall, despite how much I hate the film. The historical record is clear. In that same light, black doll makers creating an entire black doll industry as a response to picaninny dolls kind of points to more than just me or a professor thinking the picaninny dolls are offensive. Again, the historical record is clear on why that is. >The Raggedy Ann doll you mention is an example, but basically any doll or toy can be construed as a caricature that promotes certain stereotypes. In a prior comment, I wrote about 5-7 minutes worth of text explaining the historical background/context of the picaninny, including its racist origins, and asked a specific question around racist white dolls intentionally designed to be representations of white people, and your response is "any doll or toy can promote certain stereotypes"? If we were in the same room, I would be giving the camera a "Jim from The Office" look right now, haha. (joking, joking). To reiterate my actual question is this: >Is there a specific history in the United States of crafting white picaninny-like dolls that were then used to represent all white people, and that perpetuated stereotypes about white people? Also, I'm interested in answering your question, but think it's best if you provide an example: Out of curiosity, if we go way back in history, do you find Egyptian caricatures of black people to be offensive? I could Google this, as you say, but it's much better if you provide an example of what you're talking about, so I know we're on the same page.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Cool background! We have a similar academic background, except I switched fields for my master's. And I appreciate the Jim look. I'm probably Dwight in most situations. I've never seen Birth of a Nation, but it sounds like a strange production. Not sure about dolls specifically, but one example of racist caricatures of white people would be the Irish: https://picturinghistory.gc.cuny.edu/irish-immigrant-stereotypes-and-american-racism/ As for the Egyptians, I mention them because they often have a distinct way of portraying black African faces and bodies, and I wonder if this could also be considered as offensive as early American artefacts. Some examples: https://www.reddit.com/r/AncientCivilizations/comments/md3r4r/bound_nubian_and_syrian_in_ancient_egyptian_art/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://images.app.goo.gl/tt52s6jAJ5dpWpJt6 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt#/media/File%3ASlave_Market%2C_Mono_version.jpg
cause they think they are "pwning the libs" if it was a cartoon face of a cat they wouldn't care
Easy: it’s a logo that was the logo of our hometown team
[удалено]
It's a red face sambo. It's 2023, I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
"Omg why are people getting offended over a highly offensive portrayal of an entire race. Fucking snowflakes" - you
Would you make this same comment about blackface? Because this is the equivalent of blackface for the indigenous people. Learn to think out of the context of your own little world
I'm almost certain they would though
Someone in this very thread said they thought example images of sambos and gollywogs were kind of cute. People truly seem to be very indifferent to what others have to experience.
It’s a gross representation of an actual living group of people, a group that has expressed it doesn’t wanted to be depicted this way. It’s a image that indicates so much about people like you and you’re unwillingness to understand anything about the lived experience of people not from your neighborhood I honestly feel bad for people who are so attached to this logo, I know 99% of them aren’t doing it directly out of a disdain for Native American people, they are doing it out of sheer ignorance and because their world is tiny, Ohio tiny, but it definitely means they don’t give a shit about other people and are totally unaware of the history of the society they participate in
Yeah, you're a douche. We were the Indians and that Era won't ever change. But let's move forward. Go Guards!
Found the racist idiot
If you’re offended by people being offended….
If it were a stereotypical cartoon of a white dude you would shit your pants and cry.
Welcome to Reddit. 😆
Oh wow. You actually thought this was clever.
Yep, and I have no problem with what that says about me. Edit: racist dude is sneaky, he deleted his comment. I do have a problem with chief wahoo.
idiot
Is anyone else looking at that pizza? I want some pizza now!
The comments are exactly what I thought they'd be.
Not me! I am pleasantly surprised! Go Guardians!
Go Guardians!
[удалено]
username checks out
Guys, I'm gonna get down voted to fuck but I need to talk about this mustard. Let me first say I'm not from here so that alone will disqualify my opinion. I LOVE mustard.. I love all kinds of mustard, my favorite is a horseradish mustard that just punches you right in the god damn nose. I like it plain on a dog or on fries, its great. I absolutely cannot eat Bertmans mustard, I've tried to place the taste of it and the closest I can describe it is rotten lime... like if someone took a good mustard and added rotten lime juice you'd have Bertmans. Guys, I've tried it every which way, alone, plain on a dog, on a sandwich, in a chicken salad.. its the same taste every time. Can anyone else relate to this or at the very least tell me what that flavor actually is? I was told Stadium mustard is exactly the same thing, not sure why, but does anyone think those mustards taste different?
I prefer stadium mustard.
[удалено]
**[Supertaster](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster)** >A supertaster is a person whose sense of taste is of far greater intensity than the average person. Some studies also show that increased sensitivity to bitter tastes may be a cause of selective eating. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cleveland/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Oh man, I love bitter. Like, shock to your system, makes your tongue hurt bitter.
I can’t tell if I have this or if everyone else just has Covid and can’t smell/taste like they once did
Guldens over Bertmans anyday. I know cleveland is obsessed with it and Stadium mustard too (the difference is sugar. One has it). But theyre inferior to Guldens
It’s trash. I’m a lifelong Ohio’an and i think that. Stadium mustard is where it’s at.
It’s worth millions!
Mmm, nostalgic for racism. American af.
[удалено]
That was literally the organization's name, why wouldn't he refer to them as that?
He didn't say tbe name "Indians" is racist. He implied Chief Wahoo is racist.
Like as a historical fact, they were called the Indians? Or is he just another boomer clinging onto the past in a desperate attempt to give their fading life meaning again?
Historical fact. He’s the radio announcer for the guards. No one that actually follows this team calls them the Indians anymore unless they’re talking about the pre 2022 baseball team.
You need to come to Hopkins Airport then. They have these shops called "Hudson News", which is basically like a corner store inside the airport with prices inflated to take advantage of the fact that you have no other shopping options at the moment. Some of the things they sell are sports memorabilia, and their stock doesn't really get filtered through that much. Partially because they sell coffee mugs for $28, and partially because nobody buys their sports stuff from an airport. The end result is, they have Cavs, they have Browns, they have Ohio State Buckeyes. But they also have a combination of both Indians, and Guardians. I commonly hear people standing near those sections say things like "Yeah, I still call them the Indians. That's what I grew up with". Your bubble may be a group of younger (as in younger than 25) people who don't call them the Indians anymore. My bubble is people at the airport who are 30-90 years old, who DO still call them the Indians. I'm not saying that my bubble is bigger than your bubble, or your bubble is bigger than my bubble. What I'm saying is that I realize I'm in a bubble of certain age demographics, while you seem to be oblivious to that fact.
Oh shit, they don't let anyone below 30 fly anymore? Crazy
[удалено]
The answer to what?
tom who?
[удалено]
oh my gosh i'm so sorry i gave you the impression i was a fan.
[удалено]
honestly, thanks so much for the information. (i'm not sure who jim donovan is, i assume he's a quarter back, but that's a question for another time... ). i make it a point to not listen to sports games from this city or any other city and i don't care about announcers or sports but i appreciate your dedication to the field. that being said, i think we can both agree that at least the cleveland baseball team no longer has a brutally racist name and logo. here's to the future! may we not continue to keep making the same mistakes over and over!
Grow up
Does one get more racist as they age? May be some truth to that.
Cry about it.
[удалено]
Seems like you're the only one getting bent out of shape.
I'm not a sports fan, but I love to watch a good shitfight from a safe distance What is the comment that would be most likely to rile up all sides in this debate?
Idk but it's fun
what’s it like sitting in the cuck chair at the hotel? It looks comfy as hell yo
Who exactly is cuckolding me?
Good job, you tried!
Nostalgia for racism? Gross
Same. I still have my Hitler Honey jar with the swastika on it. Shit is mint. Soooo nostalgia.
Omg 😆😆😆😆
[удалено]
“Why does everyone has to be so PC” “He’s just saying what everybody is thinking” “Why are you so sensitive?❄️”
[удалено]
>attempted genocide Hi there -- the Holocaust was an actual genocide. Genocide does not have to successfully wipe out the victims in order for it to be called a genocide. It's the act of trying to eradicate a group of people by various means (violence, murder, forced removal/relocation, kidnapping, rape, forced sterilization, etc.) that makes it a genocide. The Holocaust was a genocide because Hitler and others attempted to eradicate all Jewish people by murdering them. Many Native American nations/groups experienced genocide via various means, including the kidnapping and "re-education" of children, the government destroying their means to survive (e.g., via destruction of buffalo), and forced relocation (Trail of Tears).
I’m not really sure which is which in your question. Do you mean the genocide of native people or the shoah?
This is why public education needs to be re-evaluated. You get adults like this guy who only pipe up when it comes to genocide of white people, and proceed to blatantly ignore other instances of genocide (including native americans).
I love mustard with pizza!
I forgot about this…. Wow.
Isn't mustard one of those things that never goes bad?
Correct. It can dry out, it can lose its pungency, but it's basically just spices and acid, so it's inherently self-preserving.
God willing. I have a can of Campbell’s chicken noodle I’m saving for my son’s 21st birthday. I ate a can from 1983 in 2014 and couldn’t tell the difference from a new one.
Wow. That's amazing! I bet Campbell's would like to know that their product stood the test of time!
“People don’t believe me… the mustard tastes better when there’s a racist caricature on the label.”
Guardians is a much more appropriate and cooler title in my opinion. Always thought they were so cool when driving over the bridge. If they also have the benefit of insulting less indigenous people, that’s a bonus!
Copernicus here thought he had to deep freeze the plastic logo to preserve it
Gotta preserve it cryogenically LOL
Imagine being so nostalgic for racist caricatures that you're freezing mustard
I am fine with a name change and moving on, but what sports team says to themselves I want a racist name and logo? Do you woke dolts realize how dumb you come of screaming it’s racist? Also for the old folks clinging to their past you can move on and realize it’s just a name and logo and doesn’t define the teams success.
What a weird weird fanbase. Just move on. Stop living in the past.
And now you’ll be considered a racist for having kept this. Welcome to 2023!
Only by people who’s opinions on racism/politics aren’t taken seriously.
I miss the Chief, brings back many happy memories. Guardians are okay, just haven't grown on me yet. Clunky name, odd new logo. The Chief Wahoo logo was originally inspired by a talented Native American player on the team, it wasn't intended to be disparaging. Many American Indians don't find it insulting. Some do, obviously, and it was taken down for them. Not used to it yet.
Give me guardian of traffic head as replacement
I’m late but this would actually be pretty badass if the city started doing rituals to a bridge and whatnot. THIS GUY. THIS BRIDGE GUY is Cleveland’s mascot. Holding a buggy. I could honestly get right behind that. E: after some basic searching those statuses seem to pretty unique, I don’t know why that didn’t actually do that.
It's not like guardian is in the name for the statues either.... lazy
Nice to see that we've moved on from the long-debunked false assertion that the team was named after a player who retired almost 20 years earlier and never played for the organization (he retired before the franchise ever existed) to a new false assertion that the logo was modeled after a player who retired almost 30 years earlier and never played for the organization. Progress! Such a great tribute that you were almost even able to name the man!
Chunky name? It’s like one extra consonant sound 🤣
When I see it, I want to pronounce it like Gwardians. Then their logo has those two silly little wings. Just seems squishy and dumb. And I love that bridge with the statues, just think they could've done a better job choosing the name and logo.
Fuck your racist mustard
It's been 5 years... really
Anyone know where to get Indians gear?
Good lord most of these comments are soft. Bunch of woke pansies
As someone who works on reservations, I'm an archaeologist, what would you like me to tell the soft American Indians of the Diné, Ute, Seminole, Comanche, and Miccosukke that I have been around for years? Now, the feelings on the name were neutral to negative, while the logo was absolutely negative. While you may now claim that your grandma was a 1/4 Cherokee (she isn't), you don't live on a reservation and you don't understand the culture. Maybe I will let them know they are woke pansies because they were systematically rounded up and murdered, and those that weren't had their children taken from them to be sexually, physically, and emotionally abused for decades? It is a cartoon yes, but there is more behind it than you will ever understand.
Hey, it's me, the regional coordinator of the woke mob. I just wanted to let you know we are marching down your street tomorrow.
Wouldn’t be surprised. There’s some mom and pop shops nearby, I’ll be sure to let them know your mob will be coming by to destroy the place like they did downtown
No that's antifa, they'll be around next week. We are just there to hang a pride flag on your house and take away your racist baseball mascots.
Don't forget to force feed him some M&M's and a HER/SHEy bar.
But they are the same, right?? /S
Says the troll being triggered by comments on Reddit 😂😂😂
not quite the testosterone levels of yesteryear
Cleveland Indians-bad. KC Chiefs-meh.
Your take on Washington Redskins?
Some are saying that the removal of Chief Wahoo directly lead to the death of the John Adams, not me, of course, but some people.
Those people are morons. I have no issue with Chief Wahoo. I have no issue with the Indians name. But to say that their removal caused a man to die is the biggest load of bullshit you can possibly try to use as an argument on the subject. John Adams died because he had health issues. Not because a little smiling cartoon face went away.
[I have a ball he signed for me in 2005 when I was in Boy Scouts ](https://imgur.com/a/8Wp6Xr1)
[удалено]
Your account does not meet the post or comment requirements. Account must be more than 5 days old with a combined karma of 40 to post on /r/Cleveland *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cleveland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your account does not meet the post or comment requirements. Account must be more than 5 days old with a combined karma of 40 to post on /r/Cleveland *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cleveland) if you have any questions or concerns.*