Braves Prove Cowards; Claim BP Cap Was Never Official

Written By:

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Braves Prove Cowards; Claim BP Cap Was Never Official

The Atlanta Braves have cowered in the corner, yielding to a tiny minority of voices and have made a last-minute change to their BP cap design. But they don’t even have the nerve to issue a press release saying that they chickened out and didn’t want to step on anyone’s toes. They didn’t say that they decided that honoring their past wasn’t worth offending the white guilt of some writers. They didn’t say that they wanted to be in the news one more time for bowing the the infinitesimal pressure they might have read in the comments section of some article about their new BP hats.

No, they have decided to pretend that they had several designs, and the choice hadn’t yet been made, and they were going to go with the most boring BP hat design in the entire history of BP caps (at least in the history of having separate designs.) The Braves PR department apparently thinks you, their fans, are idiots. They must think you will accept this falsehood, this fabrication, hook, line, and sinker. They apparently believe you will ignore the multiple style guides that show the former design. They obviously intend for you to choose to forget the New Era catalog with photographs of the BP caps with their Laughing Native American design.

Atlanta Braves BP Batting practice cap hat new release change

The new Braves BP cap for 2013, apparently that other one in all the final stylesheets never existed

John Schuerholz, GM of the Atlanta Braves, seems to think you are too stupid to catch on. Too stupid to realize he heard rumor that some article somewhere had dismissed the use of their historic logo, so he decided to change it. One could assume he thinks you lack the mental capacity to calculate that he was too afraid of someone’s delicate little feelings getting hurt, that he rushed a replacement design into production. He said the “potential design” that was shown everywhere, including on this news site, was never the choice.

“I like the selection we made this year,” Braves president John Schuerholz said. “We had a variety of choices that we looked at, some more thoroughly than others. But at the end, we liked this one.”

To call the Laughing Native American design a “potential design” is an insult to fans, from the MLB and from the Braves.

“When we made our decisions, we tried to contemplate. We tried to be creative. We tried to carry on the theme of our organization, and we think this script A does that. It is part of the continuum of the uniform look we have. We’ve never had one that looks like this during Spring Training.”

To call this design “creative” offends me as a creative person. To say they’ve “never had one that looks like this” is an insult to me as a person with eyes. This is obviously a horrible rush job. One can image the orders to New Era. “Ditch the current one, go with our current Sunday Atl cap, but in all navy, or, use our 03-06 BP design… either way, just lose the tomahawk.”

Atlanta Braves sunday cap hat

Braves Sunday Caps worn with their tomato-red and yellow “softball jerseys” as if they’re sponsored by McDonalds.

The simple fact of the matter, in my observation, is that the Braves organization read a couple articles from pro and amateur writers, all white, who were getting themselves some cheap readership mileage out of stomping their little feet and complaining about the logo. Self-entitled, unintelligent, hipster wannabes pouring out their white guilt all over their blogs about how offended someone somewhere should be about the logo the Braves actually used in the past. People whose writings can’t be respected as long as they continue to bitch and cry about teams having historical caps or shirts.

The facts are clear. The Braves hunted down the commentary, looked to see what people were saying, and have apparently decided they’d rather placate the tiny percentage of those indignant, rather than honor their own franchise’s past and serve up a cap a vast majority of people wanted, liked, and didn’t find in poor taste at all.

At some point, this article (like the previous), will be shared amongst the small community of those who have calculated that they would like to take offense to any imagery using Native American names or faces. And I’m sure the comments will fill.  Last time, I felt badly for only giving my opinion, and not balancing the article with the other viewpoint. The facts are; previous to writing the article, I had seen a couple news items and blog posts who tried to tell me that I should be ashamed for liking the cap, that I should accept their mantel of outrage. My article was written to them to address those writers’ mock concern.

But then our article’s comment section was filled with very interesting debate about the use of Native American imagery. A camp was against its use at all. Several folks claimed (very likely accurately) that they were Native Americans and they were offended. Several other posters said they were also Native but weren’t offended. The one thing that these folks had in common, was when I reached out to them and asked them to help me put out a new article, with balancing viewpoints, they didn’t respond. Perhaps they were busy or used a fake email when they commented. Perhaps their blog contact email was so rife with junk mail, they didn’t see my earnest request for help in furthering the discussion. Maybe they didn’t believe me and didn’t want to put their words on our news section. Or, perhaps they knew they didn’t have a leg to stand on, and their taking offense was purely out of their own need for indignation, their subconscious desire to punish themselves. I don’t know which. But in 40 emails I sent, ONE person replied and said they would be willing to help. Hardly enough to create a round table of opinions on the matter.

The Braves have insulted me as a person with a brain. As a person who knows full well that they are lying to our faces. Through their teeth. Lying to pretend that they didn’t kowtow to the couple of voices saying the logo was wrong. I feel they have attempted to spin the story to be, “But we never decided on a design!”

The Braves need a new spin doctor. Just don’t put him on a cap, six random people with a blog somewhere might whine. And maybe even a doctor or two.

Article Categories:

Share This Article

Related News

Blue Jays Explain Lack of Camo Cap on Memorial Day
MLB Request Spurs BP Cap Blitz
All 30 MLB Teams in Camo for Memorial Day

About Author

JR Francis

JR Francis is an actor, writer, director, graphic designer, UX guru, father, comedian, and craft beer snob. You can reach him at jrfrancis@sportslogos.net or on Twitter @JRFrancisSLN *One of several full-time uniform reporters this site has including its founder, Chris Creamer, who started his site in 1997

(89) Readers Comments

  1. Marcus Jackson
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 15:50

    If that wasn't the chosen design, what the hell was it doing in a style guide? It shouldn't have been chosen, bit they shouldn't have lied about it.

    • maxCLE
      Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 12:58

      This!

  2. Andrew O'Herron
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 15:51

    dangit Anthony Sperando this was one i definitely would have bought

  3. Brian
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 15:57

    That pretty much assures I will never buy anything Atlanta Braves ever again. I refuse to support cowards!

    • Aaron
      Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 18:54

      Relax, at least the name and tomahawk are still around.

      • Brian
        Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 15:21

        Not the point.

  4. John Robert Crawford
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 15:57

    Cowards. It's an awesome logo and they gave in to the politically correct bullshit.

    • Jason
      Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 08:30

      Yes...how dare they not offend a minority group!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. Michael Kaiser
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 15:58

    If you're so ashamed of your logo you can't use it...that's not an effective logo.

    • Patrick
      Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 09:24

      Exactly. Additionally, the indignation in this article is laughable.

  6. Gary Morgan
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 16:00

    Sad. The Braves of today are nothing like the team and the ownership of the 80's and 90's. Corporate cowards who can't play their way out of the first round.

  7. Frank Fleming
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 16:00

    boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

  8. Anthony Sperando
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 16:06

    they lost 35 bucks from my pocket

  9. K
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 16:07

    Does this article have a point, or did you just feel the need to incoherently rant about some related subjects? Seriously, there's no sense of organization to this piece at all. You go from attacking the Braves organization for (wisely) backing down from the use of a potentially offensive design to criticizing them for using something simple, and then somehow you get to needlessly attacking the "self-entitled, unintelligent, hipster wannabes" who you perceive to be the root of the problem? Pick a subject and stick to that, don't just jump around from idea to idea without any sort of rhyme or reason. I'm not saying that I completely disagree with you - I think the logo, in this day and age, is a bit much, but there are certainly worse depictions of Native Americans that need to be stamped out first (looking at you, Washington Redskins). However, the way you go about constructing your argument makes you sound like an angry high schooler. Also, this all seems like a thinly veiled attack at Paul Lukas, who's been very vocal about his opposition of these sorts of caricatures. Maybe it's just me, though.

    • JR Francis
      Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 16:21

      I am sorry my point wasn't clear. I'm saying that the Braves made a mistake, compounded thrice. They listened to the tiny vocal minority. This minority is largely (though not entirely) comprised of self-entitled pricks. And they changed the design to something completely boring. Those three things were three mistakes, in this writer's eyes.

      • Max Pozel
        Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 06:38

        The writer of this article needs to stop responding to the comments section of his own article. The writer knew that the cap was offensive before comments were written about it ("Braves BP Cap is Perfectly Fine, Settle Down"). The name of the logo is not "Laughing Native American," it's "Screaming Savage."

        • ChopAttack
          Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 08:52

          This logo is not called the "screaming savage." That's the racist name given to the logo from people who think the logo is racist. Isn't that the biggest irony? The people who are concerned about the logo keep calling the logo an offensive name. That tells you all you need to know about the people complaining.

    • mike
      Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 21:28

      Yeah, it's you...

  10. Ben Fortney
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 16:10

    I'm impressed. You state that you, personally, are insulted 3 different times over a merchandising decision, yet fail to see how reviving a racial caricature might in any way be insulting to an entire race of people. While Schuerholz excuse is chickensh!t, your defense of a tasteless design is tone-deaf.

    • JR Francis
      Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 16:18

      Being offended by a marketing decision was satire, to prove a point. Thank you for reading.

      • Ben Fortney
        Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 16:26

        This rant was satire? Which part?

        • JR Francis
          Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 17:12

          Only the part where I say I'm offended.

          • Jake Gless
            Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 21:49

            JR, your shallow rant is cringe-inducing. It's a stupid, unnecessary piece of merchandise, for goodness sake.

  11. Jack
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 16:11

    I'm disappointed, but I can't really say I'm shocked or surprised. The "Moral Left" has become the very monster they've indignantly rebuffed for so long, and the Braves were afraid of getting hit with a boycott or lawsuit. You'd be amazed at how many people I know complain about my Indians hat.

  12. Jay Jackson
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 16:12

    Kudos to you for liking the cap and not caving in. We all know who the Self-entitled, unintelligent, hipster wannabe was that started this mess. This person happens to have a history of forcing his opinion while refusing to acknowledge anyone else's. I'm not saying he is the main reason, but he sure as hell is patting himself on the back like he is. Guys like that just make things worse. I e-mailed and tweeted a few writers telling them that that is not called a screaming savage and the guy who wrote it first (same guy) was just using that terminology to make it seem worse than it was for his benefit. This writer's response was that even if the real name is 'Laughing Brave' be was going to continue to call it 'Screaming Savage' because that's what it looks like. You can't do anything with people like that. Never let the truth get in the way of a white guilt movement that these people have no business getting into.

  13. Fred
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 16:14

    Oh great, its this "writer" again. Out to protect us from the "lies" of the Atlanta Braves organization. Somehow I don't mind that they chose to not go the racist route. It's a damn shame that some people actually view NOT being racist as "cowardly," but then again it's not surprising that some folks in AmeriKKKa would react that way. I'm glad the organization had enough brains to not cater to the tiny percentage of "fans" who wanted to go with the racist logo (aka pasty white racist basement-dwellers). Good job, Atlanta Braves organization. Continue to move forward with the times, not backward.

    • JR Francis
      Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 16:25

      The vast majority of people did not find the logo to be offensive. Poll after poll about the hat has the numbers in the 90% of people who liked the design and didn't think of it as racist. Finding their decision wise is entirely within your rights. The cowardly portion was not being honest with their fanbase and saying, "We have changed the design due to the negative feedback we received." That would be genuine and a decision one could respect.

      • Kyle
        Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 20:34

        Whether or not the hat was offensive is really a moot point. The hat was unnecessary. I don't find it offensive per se but I don't think it is right to make caricatures of any race, especially for usage on sports memorabilia. In Iowa (where I live), I have heard if the population were to vote on gay marriage it would never pass. Yet we have gay marriage (which I have no problem with). It is a case of people making decisions based on what is right, not what is popular.

      • Patrick
        Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 09:31

        Can you show an example of these polls please.

  14. John Pat Sher
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 16:20

    Political correctness wins yet again :(

  15. Brian Castner
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 16:22

    I like the one they are going with now... As a replacement for their road hat. I hate the retro/throwback trend but caving in to the pressure and making a last minute change like this is just as sad.

  16. Jeremy
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 16:30

    What I learned from this piece: White people cannot say something is racist. White people can tell you something is not racist. Seems legit.

  17. Dayne Wills
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 16:40

    i dont really understand...i can see why people would be upset with the indians logo and also the indians throwback logo,the cartoon image could come across as kind of wrong(still a big fan of the current indians logo)but the one the braves were going to use was strong and powerful,if anything i feel it paid respect to native americans...same with the blackhawks and old UND logo's,but then again i havent ever spoke to a native american and got their thoughts

  18. John Aiken
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 17:25

    lets change all the names of team to Wildcats (course it might offend some domestic cats) then colors would be an issue black and white would be implying race divisions. Red might upset all the blue people, yellow will offend asians, blue offends the dead and cyanotic, green too earthy and might upset that irish guy. It is a hat with a picture nothing more.

  19. Joseph Newell
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 17:28

    good lord, was this written by an 8th grader? Geez, get over it. Braves didnt want to be criticized like the Redskins and Indians.....bottom line. Get over it.

  20. B. Gerecht
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 17:39

    First off, yes, the Braves organization should be upfront with its decisions, if their reason for the change was due to negative feedback. I agree, organizations should strive to be transparent. The bigger issue, though, is that I don't think you're getting why the minority that is opposed to this hat is so vocal about it. Think about hypothetically. You are one of the 10% of people (as per your claim) that disapprove of the proposed hat. My guess is that you're not a "self-entitled, unintelligent, hipster wannabes" (ad hominem never really helps an argument, anyway) -- you're probably someone who has faced (or knows someone who has faced) systematic policies of discrimination that are unfortunately built into the way our society functions. (Full disclaimer: I'm a white male, so our society is built to advantage me in every way possible.) Being aware of this, you see this hat as representative of a lack of understanding among the people who made the decision to use this logo but aren't affected in any way in their daily lives by any type of discrimination. And that's why you come down against it -- it trivializes the difficult realities that many people find themselves in and, when they find themselves being insulted for voicing their opposition to it, they are told that they are just being "too sensitive," which is something is usually being said by people who haven't themselves faced institutionalized discrimination. I hope this helps shed some light on why (some people) are opposed to it. If not, I'm happy to elaborate on my thoughts and hopefully add to this discussion a little bit.

    • Patrick
      Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 09:37

      Thank you. And for those who are posting suggesting this is 'political correctness'. What is wrong with being correct and not promoting institutionalised racism?

  21. Chip Hendrix
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 17:47

    Political Correctness can go to hell.

  22. Curtis J Spangler
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 17:55

    It's a boring, generic looking logo to begin with, and should have been scrapped for that reason alone.

  23. 54321
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 18:34

    'PC wins again'?? Yeah, you're right... because MLB isn't about money & business... a bp cap no less lol.

  24. Will R.
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 18:47

    images like these, although not outright offensive, carry a stigma of racism and a long history of discrimination against natives. it's a caricature of an already marginalized and systematically oppressed group of people. As such, it trivializes their struggle. I can assure you that this isn't about "political correctness" for native americans who have had to face persecution and institutionalized stereotyping throughout this country's history, it's much more personal and directly offensive than that. also this article sounds like it was written by a teenager who's pissed because they won't sell pizza in the school cafeteria any more.

  25. Aaron
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 18:51

    As much as this design is cool, I don't see what the big deal over a BP cap is either way. The cap with red A shown alone on top should be the road cap instead of the navy and white.

  26. Jason
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 19:01

    I don't understand the uproar over the Braves BP cap. The Indian Head has been apart of their team logos since they were in Boston. The logo is not distasteful, the Indian is not doing anything offensive. It would be different if the logo was more of a caricature and depicted the Indian doing something truly out of character.

  27. Swiss
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 19:35

    The Braves' franchise usually got scared at playoffs and at designing! :D

  28. manny silvia
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 19:48

    come on guys, the logo is offensive

  29. Arturs Irbe
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 20:04

    a bloo bloo they are taking my racist stereotypes away Cry more. Can't believe the website would publish such trash. Call Rush Limbaugh or post on Free Republic with your whining. Oh hey it's February, tell us how unfair it is that there's no WHITE history month

    • sloth
      Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 16:22

      You, sir, are a legend, for both your comment and your name. That is all.

  30. Tony O'Neill
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 20:12

    You know, the "Braves War Chant" and the music and Tomahawk chop are more offensive. Why don't they put an end to that instead?

    • SFforlife
      Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 00:26

      Agreed, why not stop that as well?

  31. cm62198
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 20:12

    I think they should have used this logo or the B on the jerseys http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/2267/Atlanta_Braves/1972/Alternate_Logo

  32. Anthony
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 20:58

    I bet if there were a lot of sales or pre-orders on that hat it may have stuck around. Since it is a character based on a segment of society that has been discriminated and mocked in the past so often that those caricatures are common in American popular culture, it's probably best to not have a hat like that.

  33. John
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 21:34

    Francis keeps talking about how those against this Braves hat are in the minority. What polls is he basing this on? Or are all people he disagree with him always in the minority? This guy is the worst writer on this site. He offers no reporting and is a poor opinion writer. When commenters criticize his writing, instead of ignoring it or actually defending himself, he claims "satire".

    • JR Francis
      Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 23:23

      A poll on the AJC.com Braves blog drew 4207 responses, including 2549 (61 percent) who said they hoped the Braves would bring back the logo, which was part of the team’s uniform when it moved to Atlanta in 1966. Another 22 percent of the respondents said they either were indifferent to the logo or were not offended but just didn’t like it. Nine percent of those responding to the poll said they liked it but could understand why some might be offended, and eight percent (334) said the logo was offensive and shouldn’t be brought back. http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-braves-blog/2013/01/02/on-the-braves-indian-head-logo-future-catching-and-lf/

  34. Steve L.
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 23:16

    I've been a Braves fan ever since I started to watch baseball as a little boy (27 now). It honestly doesn't bother me since you don't really see that logo on merchandise or on the official uniforms/caps. The only logos on stuff I've bought was the A and Braves with the tomahawk. The last time they used that logo was before I was even born. They're not cowards. I don't see why they think it's politically incorrect. I'm sure they're just saving their butts from being sued. Most companies have to do that these days since people complain about any little thing. So they're getting rid of a logo that they haven't used for 3 decades, get over it. If someone is going to stop being a fan over this isn't a true fan. Too many cry babies these days and I'm not even that old.

    • Steve L.
      Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 23:19

      My mistake on one part. Where I said where the logo hasn't been used since before I was born, I was born in '85 and the last I knew they used it was in '89 I believe. So that's about 2 1/2 decades, not 3. I will add that they stopped using it before I was a fan.

  35. Cesare Bellano
    Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 23:44

    Does this make the ones that got produced valuable? Really, you make this announcement on the FIRST day of spring training, after a winter of everyone seeing the pictures of the style. I call B.S..

  36. Matthew Garry
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 00:19

    I think JR brings up some good points. The Braves were honestly trying to save face last minute. The overused "gum-ball head" Mr. Red logo was more offensive to me than the laughing brave. Hate that logo.

  37. SFforlife
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 00:23

    I think the cap is fine looking. It's definitely not the most exciting, and yes, the Braves copped out of the design due to potential backlash, but at least it's a little different. Some teams like the Giants didn't even change to a new design at all! They're cap is the same as their alternate! Ugh! Anyways, it's funny....a lot of the guys down at Uniwatch, including Paul Lukas, the founder, sem to be against Native American imagery. But here, at least to this author, he's not. Differing views on two websites that share similiar interests...pretty cool.

  38. FJOJR
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 01:21

    The Braves were too scared to put out an awesome logo and the Marlins had the balls to put out the crap they currently wear. No wonder Atlanta only won the World Series once.

    • Michael Q.
      Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 01:36

      The Braves have won three...

      • SFforlife
        Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 01:09

        ATLANTA only won it once though.

  39. Long island
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 01:33

    Atlanta cowards! Lol I can get used to that

  40. Michael Q.
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 01:34

    It's racist to even say it was racist!

  41. 1434
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 05:19

    It's amazing how butt-hurt you boys are over not getting "your" favoritest, most precious and special ball cap in the history of the whole wide world. Just a whole lotta moaning from the same group of dudes always bitching about how sensitive everybody else is. Crybabies.

  42. Chris Oglesby
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 09:56

    With all due respect but it's a pretty bad logo. I remember seeing that logo on some old baseball cards from the late 80's and remembering how I never cared for the logo then.

  43. Jumbotron
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 10:52

    I can understand that you are upset about cowards but at all every mlb bp are ugly this year looks like big cheap cap that you buy at wal mart especially colorado rockies it's not a baseball cap it's the cap of my two years old son the Native blablabla Braves is not a good baseball logo it's ugly and remember me the loosers they are in the 80's

  44. maxCLE
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 13:02

    I think it's funny for any majority to tell someone what they can find offensive. I didn't know that Native Americans were "self-entitled" to tell others what they might find offensive to THEIR own culture.

  45. Robert Ullman
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 14:41

    Goddamn. Self-entitled, unintelligent, hipster wannabes? White guilt? Step off the ledge, pal.

  46. Jason
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 15:00

    I liked the Indian logo and had planed on purchasing the hat; but I also understand why the Braves withdrew that option and went a different direction. Couldn't they at least come up with something more creative than their road hat with a red "A"? The creativity and design of this hat is "boring" at best.

  47. ingmar66
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 16:01

    Well, I guess JR is referring to me when he says that only one person responded to his request for a balanced discussion about the subject. I would feel disappointed too if only one person responded to a sincere and openminded invitation to give as many (possibly very valid) arguments in favor of or against the use of images like the Laughing Brave .I therefore really feel sorry for him (and not in a condescending way, JR) and for the sake of the argument that nobody else responded to his invitation. My point of view I will not repeat (JR knows and I already gave it in the comments on the original article), suffice to say that the Braves have taken a sound, if not entirely truthfully communicated, business decision in the long run to drop the Laughing Brave (even if they seem to ignore the fact that a lot of their fans would love to buy such a cap right now). Regarding the current version of the BP hat, it is a little bit too bland in my opinion. I would have liked them to take either the Braves B or the Hank Aaron home-run-record-era-underscore-a in red, white and gold (maybe with a retro drop shadow) on a all over navy hat.

    • JR Francis
      Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 01:00

      Thank you for your words. I agree, I'd much rather have seen a Braves B (even though the old version was really for Boston) or ideally, the shoulder feather in the center of the cap. That would have been worth celebrating.

  48. darkhaha
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 16:03

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-atlanta-braves-logo-features-gruesome-depictio,31284/

    • ingmar66
      Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 16:20

      Hahaha, classic! I just love The Onion, still funny after all these years! Thanks for the link!

  49. 54321
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 17:15

    Cleveland uses a 'C' logo more often than not now yes?

    • Aaron
      Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 17:37

      More on the road. However the C cap logo should become an alternate.

  50. Andy
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 17:24

    Really disappointed to see this. I hate when sports teams kowtow to people who claim to speak for people who are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.

  51. Josh W.
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 20:40

    Just happy the Braves aren't my team, that I'd have to defend this or other branding decisions. I don't think Braves as a name are inherently racist, but man, why go back to the Laughing Brave? Seems sketchy.

  52. JayBBluejay
    Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 23:23

    I sent an e-mail to the Braves about this decision. I told them that they had changed it due to the Native Americans, that's one thing, but if it were because of the media or the PC police (regardless of race or creed), that's another. I have a cap with the Screaming Savage logo on it (not the BP cap but a Cooperstown Collection one) and the only way they'll take it is from my cold dead head.

    • SFforlife
      Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 01:14

      Still, you don't find that even a bit racist? Calling them "savages"? That's a primitive term for them...what if we had a logo of black face and called them the "Atlanta Niggers"? People would be outraged.

      • JR Francis
        Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 13:11

        The "Screaming Savage" term was recently coined by someone against the use of the logo. The people who have said it since then are being influenced by negative marketing. The actual term for the logo, if one wanted to be correct, is the "Laughing Brave"

        • Jay Jackson
          Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 19:36

          I've told people this over and over again. But the response I get is "That's what it looks like so I'm calling it that"

  53. Sean McCarthy
    Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 09:52

    Native Americans hate the logo and logos like it. If you aren't Native American then you don't get to vote and your opinion on this issue doesn't matter. It's up to them because it's their heritage that is being demeaned and they'd consider the logo overwhelmingly offensive. You could say that it's honoring them, but they'd disagree and if they disagree then you have to take their word for it. Sorry. On top of that, it's a REALLY REALLY REALLY bad logo regardless of racist issues.

  54. Dan
    Friday, February 15, 2013 at 13:21

    Note to self: Avoid JR Francis' writing from now on. I come here to see news on sports logos, not defense of racism.

  55. Justin
    Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 01:16

    That's funny Sean, I went to a high school that had the nickname Indians and used an Indian head as a logo. Just so happened our town's police chief at the time was a full-blood Native American. Our government teacher had him in to talk to the class one day about law enforcement, etc but at the end of class we had a chance to ask him about anything we wanted. One of my former classmates brought up the school logo and mascot and asked if he was offended (this was right after all the politically correct BS really started blowing up in the 90's). His response surprised many of us as he said that it didn't offend him at all and in fact, most Native American's are honored by the vast number of sports team's and schools that celebrate their heritage, even the ones that are considered to be "offensive". He went on to say that the only Native American's who were really going after this were ones who believed they could gain financially by raising a big stink over it. Now with that said, I do believe the Braves should have given a better explanation rather than coward away from the situation. I see nothing wrong with paying homage to the past. Personally, I never cared for the logo, not because it was offensive but because I just don't think it was a very good logo.

  56. Sirius
    Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 16:41

    Seriously, JR? You try to make some point about people with "white guilt" stomping their little feet in an effort to gain a couple of page views? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You've been whoring this topic now twice, and use inflammatory language in order to do it. Of course, then you just claim it is "parody", but the folks who post in the comments who are in total agreement with your "parody" sure aren't taking it as such. They take your "parody" as gospel truth. I'm one of the people you emailed, and I ignored you. I ignored you because your previous article and your response to it were, at best, cowardly. You hid from responding, letting Chris fight your battles for you, then came out pretending to want a discussion about it. You were a coward then, and, judging from your line of reasoning in your article and your comments, were never sincere about wanting any kind of dialogue...as 39 of us guessed when you emailed us. Throw all the numbers out that you want. It still boils down to the only people being justified in commenting on something being offensive are those who can actually be offended by it. Why in the world would I ask YOU if Native Americans would be offended by something? Why would I ask YOU if blacks are offended by the n-word? Why would I ask YOU if women should feel offended about being called "ho's"...you know, in a friendly way, not a slutty way? Your articles are arrogant, your feigned desire for a real conversation pretentious, and your opinion, quite simply, is wrong. There's no justifiable poll numbers of fellow southern white boys telling you that you're right and that Native Americans have no right to feel offended, much less express it to those offending them.

  57. Cory G. Smith
    Sunday, February 24, 2013 at 21:03

    JR, I'm with you. It would probably immediately appear to the sensitive left that I agree with you because I'm white, but that's just ignorant reverse bigotry. Teams like the Washington Redskins, the Atlanta Braves, and the Florida State Seminoles were named so to pay homage to and honor Native Americans for their proud culture and heritage, and uniform items like the Braves' BP cap are supposed to continue the tradition. We real fans appreciate such doings because they make us remember instead of forget. Just like the number of amazing ball players who played in the Negro Leagues and the uniforms items that are still made available for purchase by real fans. We don't want to forget them. We want to remember and honor them. PC idiots: wake up and smell the fresh cut grass in the outfield...

  58. Pat Shaw
    Friday, March 8, 2013 at 19:48

    Even though it has been explained MANY times before, one more time please: Why does the Minnesota Twins have CT or TC in their logo?

    • Cory G. Smith
      Thursday, June 6, 2013 at 13:54

      Pat, the TC stands for Twin Cities: Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN.

  59. Inkassoforum
    Thursday, June 6, 2013 at 23:24

    hey there and thanks on your info ? I've definitely picked up anything new from right here. I did on the other hand experience a few technical issues using this site, since I experienced to reload the site a lot of occasions prior to I could get it to load correctly. I have been brooding about in case your web host is OK? No longer that I am complaining, however sluggish loading cases instances will sometimes have an effect on your placement in google and could injury your high-quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Well I am including this RSS to my email and can glance out for much extra of your respective fascinating content. Make sure you update this again soon..

Leave A Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>