What's up with the Native American mascots?

And you wonder why I made this thread.

Originally posted by Royal76
To get upset because someone wants to use YOU as the REPRESENTATIVE of there organization is stupid.

Do you really think that people would sue if the "Fighting Whitey's" were a schools name.

Maybe not.

But what about the "New England Honkies," or the "Philadelphia Peckerwoods," or the "Washington Crackers?" Think about that.

Is everybody up north upset because of the "Yankee's"

Are big horned steers mad about the Texas "Longhorns"

Are people in Oklahoma mad about the "Sooners"

Are the people of troy going to rise against the USC "Trojans"

This whole topic is idiotic. If they don't want their names to represent these teams, then change it. THE DON'T DESERVE TO HAVE THEM NAMED AFTER THEM.[edit on 12-2-2007 by Royal76]

THAT is truly what is idiotic. When was the last time a steer complained about anything? I won't even comment on the rest of your lame examples.

Trust me; the Native Americans who complain about it WOULD change it if they could. THAT'S why they complain; they WANT the names changed.

Truthseeka- " Me think-um topic dead. White-eye not care to open him heart and see. Time to smoke-um pipe....Hmmmmm"

So are you stating that the "native american stereotype" of caring about the enviorment is a bad thing, I really don't feel that the video is bad at all if anything native americans might actually somewhat associate with it. I do not think that video and sports logos have anything in common. Not all sports logos are a bad thing, I can see that in some cases it can be a complement. I.E. lets call our team the Indians because they are a force to be reckoned with. In the same token lets remember how they came to be called indians. I think it is cool if there is a place with a high population density of a particular tribe, and wanting to name a team that would a tribute. The braves can be taken as a term of endearment towards native americans, in the same token its Ironic te team resides where the native americans were forced to move from because the land lottery.

Now on to the redskins, lets remember they were origonally called the boston braves. The boston braves does not have a bad ring to it, but when they were changed to the redskins I have to say that that is no term of enderement. Redskin . I have to say that this was coined in the same time that bigotry was commonplace. And it is quite the same as the new orleans coons from the standpoint that it is a derogatory term.

Originally posted by _DISAVOWED_

Truthseeka- " Me think-um topic dead. White-eye not care to open him heart and see. Time to smoke-um pipe....Hmmmmm"

Please pass it here, I guess cigar store indians are a tribute to native americans as well

You are depressing me man. I feel what you are saying, but is going after mascots the best way to go about it?

Truthsekka, do you make your own Avatars. Man I've been trying to get a good Spawn one for a while.

PS. There was a school that after losing its mascot. (Redskins), they voted in the fighting Whiteys. The school refused to except it and they are the ducks or something now.

If you ask any white person, most would like to be a representative of a sports team, school.

The fighting peckerhead wouldn't work, the people with growth on there foreheads would sue for libel or something.



[edit on 12-2-2007 by Royal76]

What about having white college kids parading around the basketball court, dressed up as a native "chief", performing a mock war dance before a sporting event?










[edit on 12-2-2007 by Shoktek]

Is the Notre Dame "Fighting Irish" name offensive to Irish people?

What about the state of Illinois or the city of Indianapolis? Illinois was named after an Indian tribe, and Indianapolis obviously was named for Indians. I'm sure there are hundred of places named for Indians.

Should we demand the state of Illinois change its name?



[edit on 12-2-2007 by RRconservative]

It's not just using the name that's offensive...it's the imagery that goes with it. The pictures I posted above is Illinois' "Fighting Illini" team mascot. The image of the "chief" is all over their campus, and the "chief" also does his dance at every basketball and football game. The NCAA has declared it to be an offensive campus/symbol. The "war dance" of the "chief" is exactly the same as the old Jim Crow/Minstrel Show.




What if the team were called "The Fighting Africans", with a black mascot, and had a white frat boy with black makeup dancing around on the stadium floor? We'd be right back to post civil war minstrel shows, and the dance of the chief is a relic from that time that has somehow managed to survive up until now. Chief Illiniwek is exactly the same as Jim Crow, the only difference is that the native americans make up a much smaller percentage of the population, so their voice is lost in the media and in politics.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by Shoktek]

The NCAA, who is leading the charge against indian college mascots is based out of Indianapolis, Indiana. Both the city and the state are named to honor Indians. Should we demand that the NCAA find another city to headquarter in? If they do, they can't move to Illinois, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachutes. Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, or Wyoming.

All these states are named after Indian tribes, or are taken from Indian words or phrases. If these states can honor the Indians be naming themselves for them, then why can't colleges do the same?

Who cares about the name of a state or where the NCAA is located? Surely you must be able to distinguish between the varying degrees of racism here...naming a state after a group of people would not even rank a 1 on this scale. Dancing around in a mock chief outfit dressed up like a native american, performing a "war" dance for the "fighting illini" is quite a different matter. If you can't admit the difference here, then nobody can help you, might as well break out the black face paint and start dancing around.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by Shoktek]

I read this thread, truthseeka. And I thank you for bringing this up.

I got to see Florida St. (I had to see Bobby Bowden coach) play a football game once. It was amazing to see all those people stand and do the "tomahawk chop" without even thinking how derogatory it was. And then to top it off, they had the band play that "faux" song imitating the Hollywood stereotype of Native American music (otherwise known as the Seminole fight song).

It makes me wonder whether the people at these schools are even conscious of what they are doing. :shk:

But, believe it or not, there is a double standard in mascot names. Of course, no one is going to complain about the Yankees or the Irish or the Patriots. Believe me, the dominant culture is not going to disrespect their own when it comes to college and professional athletic tradition. But the mere mention of Native American names (along with animals) reflects the disrespect that America has paid to Native Americans since the getgo.

Think about it this way. In the 19th century, the n-word was in common usage in literary books (Mark Twain's Adventures of Huck Finn), scientific tracts and newspapers. And then, the intelligentsia thought nothing of the derogatory word and used it as simply as changing their socks. They simply didn't care. And if they were attacked as a result of its usage, they would get "haughty" about it and try to legitmize their animus behind the usage of the n-word. And the usage of the n-word stayed there for many, many years in the realm of print as a form of "proper usage".

That's how I see this. By some defending their usage of derogatory Native American names as mascots, they are defending that last stand of superiority. It is amazing to me that for all the work of the dominant culture does to legitimize their slandering of Indians solely convinces me that there is truly a lack of empathy.

I'd bet they'd change their tune if the Houston "Rednecks" was a team instead of the Houston Texans.

And if the mascots did a dance or cheer to "honor" redneck tradition? Perish the thought. It would be stopped quickly. The rightist slights against political correctness would be halted in its tracks when it hits too close to home. I mean, my goodness, how would the cheerleaders dress?

Btw, I have Cherokee blood from my mother's side. I have Cree blood from my father's side.



[edit on 13-2-2007 by ceci2006]

Late last night, I was surfing the web and I found this site discussing the issue in detail. I would certainly hope that this source might help with increasing the knowledge about this pertinent issue. This is by Barbara Munson from the Oneida Nation. Read it and think about it:

COMMON THEMES AND QUESTIONS ABOUT THE USE OF "INDIAN" LOGOS
"We have always been proud of our "Indians"." People are proud of their high school athletic teams, even in communities where the team name and symbolism does not stereotype a race of people. In developing high school athletic traditions, schools have borrowed from Native American cultures the sacred objects, ceremonial traditions and components of traditional dress that were most obvious; without understanding their deep meaning or appropriate use. High school traditions were created without in-depth knowledge of Native traditions; they are replete with inaccurate depictions of Indian people, and promote and maintain stereotypes of rich and varied cultures. High school athletic traditions have taken the trappings of Native cultures onto the playing field where young people have played at being "Indian". Over time, and with practice, generations of children in these schools have come to believe that the pretended "Indian" identity is more than what it is.

"We are honoring Indians; you should feel honored." Native people are saying that they don't feel honored by this symbolism. We experience it as no less than a mockery of our cultures. We see objects sacred to us - such as the drum, eagle feathers, face painting and traditional dress - being used, not in sacred ceremony, or in any cultural setting, but in another culture's game.

We are asking that the public schools stop demeaning, insulting, harassing and misrepresenting Native peoples, their cultures and religions, for the sake of school athletics. Why must some schools insist on using symbols of a race of people? Other schools are happy with their logos which offend no human being. Why do some schools insist on categorizing Indian people along with animals and objects? If your team name were the P***cks, N*****s, G**ks, S**cs, H***kies or K***ts, and someone from the community found the name and symbols associated with it offensive and asked that it be changed; would you not change the name? If not, why not?

* [I apologize for using this example but have found no way to get this point across without using similar derogatory names for other racial and ethnic groups.]

[edited for racial epithets]

FYI


[edit on 13-2-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by truthseeka
I wouldn't feel honored if the Washington Coons or the Kansas City Darkies went to the Super Bowl.

Don't worry. Neither Washington nor Kansas City are gonna make it to the Superbowl for a long time to come.

I think PETA or Greenpeace should get involved and denounce the use of the Miami Dolphins mascot.

And I'm damn tired of hearing about the New England Patriots. Who do they think they are, the only people who fought for America???

All religious people should be offended by the New Orleans Saints.

And the Carolina Panthers... well that black cat seems racist to me.

Hey Boston Celtics! The Irish aren't the only game in town!

Aren't you guys just a little over-sensitive?

Originally posted by jsobecky
I think PETA or Greenpeace should get involved and denounce the use of the Miami Dolphins mascot.

And I'm damn tired of hearing about the New England Patriots. Who do they think they are, the only people who fought for America???

All religious people should be offended by the New Orleans Saints.

And the Carolina Panthers... well that black cat seems racist to me.

Hey Boston Celtics! The Irish aren't the only game in town!

Aren't you guys just a little over-sensitive?

After recent events in this forum, I am now not surprised at sentiments such as this.

Just like the guy who mentioned the Longhorns (I'm one, BTW), how the HELL can a dolphin complain about being offended? There is NO SUCH THING as a racial epithet for animals .

Patriots is a positive term. Saints is a positive term. Panthers...see post on dolphins. Celtics describes a culture of people neutrally.

And finally, we have the "over-sensitive" comment. Typical, just typical.

[edit on 13-2-2007 by truthseeka]

I personally know a few of the people involved in the anti-chief illiniwek movement, and I can assure you that the native americans who are involved with this have suffered a great deal with their exposure to this mascot, war dance, and general community which supports it.

Originally posted by truthseeka
I had occassionally wondered how Native Americans felt about teams like the Redskins, Braves, or Chiefs ... I wouldn't feel honored if the Washington Coons or the Kansas City Darkies went to the Super Bowl.

You're mixing metaphors, so to speak. While I"ll give you "Redskins" as a bit offensive, the words Braves and Chiefs are not at all offensive in their own right whereas "Coons" "Darkies", "Honkies", "Peckerwoods" and "Crackers" are.

I don't see why people would be any more offended at Chiefs than they would at Patriots or Fighting Irish. Chiefs is not an offensive word. When you compare apples to apples, it doesn't make sense.

People are simply ALWAYS looking for something to be offended about! I personally don't think they have enough of a life if they take offense at a word or a dance or some SPORTOs, for Christ's sake, using their name!

Originally posted by truthseeka
Patriots is a positive term. Saints is a positive term.

So is Chiefs. So is Braves. (They call themselves these words, don't forget.)

"Coons" and "Crackers" however, are not.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Celtics describes a culture of people neutrally.

Well, don't you have it all figured out? Chiefs and Braves are also neutral. Those aren't derogatory. A group of people can't "own" a word and say how every one else uses it. Of course it is their right to be offended.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Columbus DIDN'T discover America (Native Americans have been here for like 25,000 years or something), we still have Columbus Day.

Gosh if we had a white history month, we could address that...

Originally posted by Shoktek
I can assure you that the native americans who are involved with this have suffered a great deal with their exposure to this mascot, war dance, and general community which supports it.

Can you tell me how they have suffered? What do you mean by suffer? Do you mean they're offended or something more?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Can you tell me how they have suffered? What do you mean by suffer? Do you mean they're offended or something more?

Psychologically and physically...the first native american woman to file suit against the chief was at a football game with her daughter, when this mockery "the chief" came parading out on to the field to do his "war dance"...of course it severely offended herself, and her child, and she had no idea that this was even going on. Other native americans have gone through the same experience, and psychologically, couldn't stand being on the campus, and many have left because of this.

Also with this constant image of the chief and "fighting illini" are the students who blindly support, without any concern for native americans on campus or in the area...name calling, death threats, and physical beatings have occured. The question I want to know is, if something like this causes so much hurt and damge to a group of people, who clearly want it to be removed, then why do other people care so much about keeping it around? If it's "just a mascot", or "just an image", then surely you wouldn't care so much about changing it.

It just goes back to people who enjoy seeing the old Jim Crow hop around and dance for them as entertainment, and entertainment is all it provides them, at the expense of those who they exploit.

There was actually even a ceremony held a few years ago with local native medicine men, who placed a curse of some sort on the Illinois football team, as long as they had the chief as their mascot...interestingly, the team has been horrible ever since.


[edit on 13-2-2007 by Shoktek]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You're mixing metaphors, so to speak. While I"ll give you "Redskins" as a bit offensive

I see. Perhaps you miss Giago's citation of Webster's definition for "redskin."

People are simply ALWAYS looking for something to be offended about!

I personally don't think they have enough of a life if they take offense at a word or a dance or some SPORTOs, for Christ's sake, using their name!

Talk to Tim Giago or another Native American about that.

Gosh if we had a white history month, we could address that...

It wouldn't have been right if you hadn't manipulated my sentence there. In case you missed it, y'all have had PLENTY of time to address that with the Eurocentric school system over the White History Years. And, once again, this is an issue better addressed to someone like Giago.

Can you tell me how they have suffered? What do you mean by suffer? Do you mean they're offended or something more?

What part of them saying they're offended by it do you not hear? So what if you don't understand it; they say they're offended. But, in a way you're right; statues like that of Hannah Duston are probably worse.

Interesting points there, Shoktek.

If it is "just a mascot," what's the big deal about changing it? The curse on the team is pretty interesting as well. Not so much for the question of whether the curse worked, but for the fact that the people went to this length to get back at the team.

But of course, they didn't do it because they were OFFENDED, it was because they hadn't cursed anything in a long time...