A few of our stories and columns are now in front of the paywall. We at The Chief remain committed to independent reporting on labor and civil service. It's been our mission since 1897. You can have a hand in ensuring that our reporting remains relevant in the decades to come. Consider supporting The Chief, which you can do for as little as $3.20 a month.
To the editor:
Regarding "List? What list?" (Letter, The Chief, July 25):
The word "Indian" was coined by Christopher Columbus, who thought he had discovered India. The Cleveland Indians were possibly named after Louis Sockalexis, a Penobscot who played for them in the 19th century, The author overlooks that "offensive" (and by inference racist) Cleveland cracked the American League color line in 1947, only the second team in history to do so. Further research reveals that "Indians" generally wasn't considered offensive but the Chief Wahoo symbol on the uniforms. Similarly, the name "Redskins" is inconclusive as to being racist. Also, the Cleveland Indians — tragically, tangentially and arguably — saved Major League baseball. Their shortstop Ray Chapman was killed by a pitch that struck him in the temple.
As a result the spitball was outlawed and the ball from that point on had to be white and spotless, allowing Babe Ruth to club home runs and bring fans to the ballpark in the wake of the White Sox scandal. So a team rich in history and important to both baseball and the Civil Rights Movement is named to honor one of its players and per the author it is offensive?
Since the author is so concerned about racism, what about the name "White Sox?" I'm white. My race is associated with the team that threw the World Series. I could easily take offense. "All white men are crooks associated with gamblers." Why no indignant protests from the author?
Finally, I really don't care. Our city, state and country are facing some of the greatest challenges in their histories. There are far more pressing concerns than the names of sports teams.
Nat Weiner
1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Valete
Hello Nat,
Your letter is well-written and presents a compelling argument. You assert that the name “Cleveland Indians” honors a player and is not inherently offensive, highlighting the team’s historical significance and its role in the Civil Rights Movement. Additionally, you raise concerns about the double standard in naming teams, drawing parallels between “Indians” and “White Sox,” and wisely suggest that addressing more pressing societal issues should be prioritized.
Friday, August 8, 2025 Report this