Native American group planning $9 billion lawsuit against the Indians

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadwinter**

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24597118/native-american-group-planning-lawsuit-against-indians-chief-wahoo-logo

A Native American group is planning to file a $9 billion federal lawsuit against the Cleveland Indians and their "offensive" Chief Wahoo logo, according to CBS Cleveland. The suit is expected to be filed next month.

Here's more from CBS Cleveland:

Robert Roche, a Chiricahua Apache and director of the American Indian Education Center, is planning to file a federal lawsuit in late July against the Cleveland Indians organization. Roche, who is also the leader of the group People Not Mascots, says the lawsuit will challenge that the team's name and Chief Wahoo logo are racist.

“We're going to be asking for $9 billion and we're basing it on a hundred years of disparity, racism, exploitation and profiteering,” Roche told WEWS-TV. “It's been offensive since day one. We are not mascots. My children are not mascots. We are people.”

Local supporters of the Chief Wahoo logo say it is only a small minority of people who are offended by the logo.

“If just a small amount of people are against it, than I think you're doing a disservice to people that like it,” Bob Rosen, president of the Wahoo Club, tells WEWS. He added that thousands of Indians fans embrace Chief Wahoo as a loyal and friendly symbol.

“I'm not insensitive to the issue, but our 1,650 members of the Wahoo Club, anytime we have a Wahoo Club item they but it up they love it,” Rosen said. “Can you imagine the baseball team in this city not being called the Cleveland Indians? I can't picture that.”

The Indians have been gradually phasing out the Chief Wahoo logo over the last few years, replacing it with the red block letter "C" logo.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office stripped the NFL's Washington Redskins of its trademark last week and called the team name a "racial slur." The Redskins are appealing the landmark ruling. People Not Mascots is looking for similar action against the Indians.

**Polonius**

I'm curious what the cause of action is. Just "being racist" isn't really actionable.

**djones520**

Chicago Blackhawks better start battening down the hatches, they'll be next in this latest PC Crusade...

**Polonius**

djones520 wrote:
Chicago Blackhawks better start battening down the hatches, they'll be next in this latest PC Crusade...

They're actually a really odd case, because they aren't named after a tribe or a group of people. They are named after a person:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hawk_(Sauk_leader)

And the name also came directly from an early owner's miltary unit:

http://blackhawks.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=46778

**pretre**

Polonius wrote:I'm curious what the cause of action is. Just "being racist" isn't really actionable.

Yeah, I'm not getting where they think they'll be successful with this. Simply suing someone isn't going to do it.

djones520 wrote:Chicago Blackhawks better start battening down the hatches, they'll be next in this latest PC Crusade...

/eyeroll

You have to admit that even if they're going about it the wrong way; the mascot is pretty racist. It has nothing to do with a 'PC Crusade'.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Obligatory:

**Jihadin**

PC though knows no bounds

**Dreadwinter**

Actually, the Blackhawks are not really disparaging towards Native Americans. They seem to only be going after things such as terrible stereotypes of their culture and racial slurs.

**Polonius**

pretre wrote:

You have to admit that even if they're going about it the wrong way; the mascot is pretty racist. It has nothing to do with a 'PC Crusade'.

Chief Wahoo is embarrasing and offensive. I'm less bothered by the name, but even then, they'd probably just change the name to the Cleveland Tribe.

**pretre**

Polonius wrote:
pretre wrote:

You have to admit that even if they're going about it the wrong way; the mascot is pretty racist. It has nothing to do with a 'PC Crusade'.

Chief Wahoo is embarrasing and offensive. I'm less bothered by the name, but even then, they'd probably just change the name to the Cleveland Tribe.

Yeah, that'd be fine.

**Polonius**

Jihadin wrote:
PC though knows no bounds

Yeah, I mean, a movment built around the idea that people should be respected, and that the entertainment of white men isn't the most sacred of traditions, are the real monsters.

**pretre**

Dreadwinter wrote:
They seem to only be going after things such as terrible stereotypes of their culture and racial slurs.

Yep, which has nothing to do with Political Correctness and everything to do with not being marginalized as a people.

If there was a Washington Negroes team, I guarantee it would be shutdown in a heartbeat.

**Kilkrazy**

While I am sympathetic to the plight of the American Indian and other minority groups I hardly think the Chicago Braves or Washington Redskins are responsible for 200 years of repression and marginalisation.

**pretre**

Kilkrazy wrote:
While I am sympathetic to the plight of the American Indian and other minority groups I hardly think the Chicago Braves or Washington Redskins are responsible for 200 years of repression and marginalisation.

Agreed, which is why it is silly for them to be trying to sue there way through to this.

All that being said, the Indians should just man up and change it. They've been distancing themselves from Wahoo anyways.

**Dreadwinter**

pretre wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
They seem to only be going after things such as terrible stereotypes of their culture and racial slurs.

Yep, which has nothing to do with Political Correctness and everything to do with not being marginalized as a people.

If there was a Washington Negroes team, I guarantee it would be shutdown in a heartbeat.

They would be and I agree.

**Polonius**

pretre wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
While I am sympathetic to the plight of the American Indian and other minority groups I hardly think the Chicago Braves or Washington Redskins are responsible for 200 years of repression and marginalisation.

Agreed, which is why it is silly for them to be trying to sue there way through to this.

All that being said, the Indians should just man up and change it. They've been distancing themselves from Wahoo anyways.

I think MLB is also "encouraging" that.

http://news.sportslogos.net/2013/10/30/is-chief-wahoo-finally-on-the-way-out/

**pretre**

Polonius wrote:
I think MLB is also "encouraging" that.

http://news.sportslogos.net/2013/10/30/is-chief-wahoo-finally-on-the-way-out/

Yeah, compared to Washington, Cleveland has been downright friendly to the concerns.

**Kilkrazy**

But having seen the following grotesque caricatures that apparently are used as team logos I fully support the suit and aim to join it.

Disgusting.

**Dreadwinter**

Kilkrazy wrote:
While I am sympathetic to the plight of the American Indian and other minority groups I hardly think the Chicago Braves or Washington Redskins are responsible for 200 years of repression and marginalisation.

The Braves and the Redskins are two completely different monsters. One is a reference to proud Native American Warriors(Even though some of the other things about the club may be suspect) and the other is a Racial Slur.

While the Redskins cannot be responsible for 200 years of repression and marginalization, since they are clearly not 200 years old as a franchise, I fail to see how they can in any way not be hurting the people by proudly displaying a racial slur across their jerseys as a popular sports team in the most popular sport in the country.

**Polonius**

Dreadwinter wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
While I am sympathetic to the plight of the American Indian and other minority groups I hardly think the Chicago Braves or Washington Redskins are responsible for 200 years of repression and marginalisation.

The Braves and the Redskins are two completely different monsters. One is a reference to proud Native American Warriors(Even though some of the other things about the club may be suspect) and the other is a Racial Slur.

While the Redskins cannot be responsible for 200 years of repression and marginalization, since they are clearly not 200 years old as a franchise, I fail to see how they can in any way not be hurting the people by proudly displaying a racial slur across their jerseys as a popular sports team in the most popular sport in the country.

there's a difference between hurting a (very poorly defined) group of people, and writing that group a check for $8 billion.

**Jihadin**

Would that mean they would have to redigitized the "Major league" movies?

**Dreadwinter**

Polonius wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
While I am sympathetic to the plight of the American Indian and other minority groups I hardly think the Chicago Braves or Washington Redskins are responsible for 200 years of repression and marginalisation.

The Braves and the Redskins are two completely different monsters. One is a reference to proud Native American Warriors(Even though some of the other things about the club may be suspect) and the other is a Racial Slur.

While the Redskins cannot be responsible for 200 years of repression and marginalization, since they are clearly not 200 years old as a franchise, I fail to see how they can in any way not be hurting the people by proudly displaying a racial slur across their jerseys as a popular sports team in the most popular sport in the country.

there's a difference between hurting a (very poorly defined) group of people, and writing that group a check for $8 billion.

First, Native Americans are a very poorly defined group? It seems self explanatory to me in the name. Also, given the tribal laws for being a member of a tribe, it seems they have this definition down fairly well.

Second, I am doubting the group expects to get $9 billion and that "writing a check" is really how the whole situation will go. For all we know, the number could be blown our of proportion as we are very early in to this issue. This could just be something to throw out there to finally push the Cleveland Indians in to finally removing "Chief Wahoo" from their ball club.

Again, a lot of this particular issue is speculation.

**Polonius**

Dreadwinter wrote:

First, Native Americans are a very poorly defined group? It seems self explanatory to me in the name. Also, given the tribal laws for being a member of a tribe, it seems they have this definition down fairly well.

Actually, yes, the issue of who is and isn't a Native American (NA) is complicated. There are local tribal definiations, state definiations, and federal definitions, as well as plenty of people walking around talking about who they are 1/16 cherokee.

More to my point, the plaintiffs in this case seem poorly defined. Who, exactly, is suing the team, and who will split the money?

Second, I am doubting the group expects to get $9 billion and that "writing a check" is really how the whole situation will go. For all we know, the number could be blown our of proportion as we are very early in to this issue. This could just be something to throw out there to finally push the Cleveland Indians in to finally removing "Chief Wahoo" from their ball club.

Again, a lot of this particular issue is speculation.

I forget that not everybody is a lawyer.

Nobody with anything close to a law license thinks they can sue the team for $8billion. The team itself is likely worth less than a quarter of that.

It's almost assuredly a bargaining chip.

**pretre**

Polonius wrote:
Actually, yes, the issue of who is and isn't a Native American (NA) is complicated. There are local tribal definiations, state definiations, and federal definitions, as well as plenty of people walking around talking about who they are 1/16 cherokee.

Which is pretty strange considering I don't know a lot of other ethnicities that have to prove they are part of it.

**Jihadin**

Think some are not familiar with what I think is called "Blood Law" that define a true Native American from one who has Native American blood in them. Learn that one from Longmire

**Polonius**

pretre wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Actually, yes, the issue of who is and isn't a Native American (NA) is complicated. There are local tribal definiations, state definiations, and federal definitions, as well as plenty of people walking around talking about who they are 1/16 cherokee.

Which is pretty strange considering I don't know a lot of other ethnicities that have to prove they are part of it.

Most ethnicities don't have the financial rationale to claim it.

Also, NA tribes still have treaties which affect the tribes. Tribal membership is more difficult to establish than sheer NA heritage, but the one that's valuable is tribal membership.

that said, if you want to call yourself any given ethnicity/race when the Census comes calling, nobody will stop you.

**pretre**

Jihadin wrote:
Think some are not familiar with what I think is called "Blood Law" that define a true Native American from one who has Native American blood in them. Learn that one from Longmire

Presumably you're talking about blood quantum. Which I'm pretty familiar with. What other ethnicity requires it as proof? Also, a great many 'True Native Americans' could give a gak about blood.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:
Most ethnicities don't have the financial rationale to claim it.

Also, NA tribes still have treaties which affect the tribes. Tribal membership is more difficult to establish than sheer NA heritage, but the one that's valuable is tribal membership.

Oh, I know. I just think it is silly. I consciously made the decision not to get a card a long time ago and I still don't plan on it.

**Polonius**

pretre wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Think some are not familiar with what I think is called "Blood Law" that define a true Native American from one who has Native American blood in them. Learn that one from Longmire

Presumably you're talking about blood quantum. Which I'm pretty familiar with. What other ethnicity requires it as proof? Also, a great many 'True Native Americans' could give a gak about blood.

Since it's a tribal issue, I think it's less about ethnicity, and more about descending from a specific group.

But again, proof is really only required when you get something special for being NA, which almost no other ethnicities have to worry about.

**pretre**

Polonius wrote:
But again, proof is really only required when you get something special for being NA, which almost no other ethnicities have to worry about.

The problem is that it bleeds over into pretty much every other discussion of what it is to be Native. Even when financial benefit is not involved.

**Jihadin**

pretre wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Think some are not familiar with what I think is called "Blood Law" that define a true Native American from one who has Native American blood in them. Learn that one from Longmire

Presumably you're talking about blood quantum. Which I'm pretty familiar with. What other ethnicity requires it as proof? Also, a great many 'True Native Americans' could give a gak about blood.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:
Most ethnicities don't have the financial rationale to claim it.

Also, NA tribes still have treaties which affect the tribes. Tribal membership is more difficult to establish than sheer NA heritage, but the one that's valuable is tribal membership.

Oh, I know. I just think it is silly. I consciously made the decision not to get a card a long time ago and I still don't plan on it.

Tribes requiring 1/2 degree blood quantum for membership

(equivalent to one parent)

Kialegee Tribal Town[26]
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Mississippi
St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin
White Mountain Apache Tribe, Arizona
Yomba Shoshone Tribe, Nevada[28]

Tribes requiring 1/4 degree blood quantum for membership

(equivalent to one grandparent)

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma[26]
Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma[26]
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington
Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin [29] Wisconsin
Hopi Tribe of Arizona
Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas[30]
Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, Oklahoma[26]
Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Oklahoma[26]
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona
Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, Montana
Navajo Nation, Arizona, Utah and New Mexico
Oneida Tribe of Indians, Wisconsin
Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Arizona
Penobscot Indian Nation, Maine
Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Kansas[31]
Seminole Tribe of Florida, Florida
Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming[32]
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, North and South Dakota
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, Oklahoma[26]
Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe, California[33]
Yavapai-Prescott Tribe, Arizona
Blackfeet Tribe, Montana
Chippewa Cree, Montana

Tribes requiring 1/8 degree blood quantum for membership

(equivalent to one great-grandparent)

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma[26]
Comanche Nation, Oklahoma[26]
Delaware Nation, Oklahoma[26]
Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon
Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma
Hooopa Valley Tribe of California
Karuk Tribe of California
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington
Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation of Utah (Washakie)
Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma[34]
Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma[26]
Ponca Nation, Oklahoma[26]
Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma[26]
Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska
Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation, Washington
Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation, Washington
Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe of Washington
Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco and Tawakonie)[26]

Tribes requiring 1/16 degree blood quantum for membership

(equivalent to one great-great-grandparent)

Caddo Nation[26]
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, North Carolina
Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California[35]
Fort Sill Apache Tribe[26]
Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma[26]

Tribes requiring 1/32 degree blood quantum for membership

(equivalent to one great-great-great-grandparent)

Kaw Nation[36]

Edit

I have a "wee" touch of Delaware blood in me but I do not claim Native American.

**pretre**

Your point?