NationStates Jolt Archive

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has an article on colleges with Native American mascots, such as Cheif Illiniwek of the University of Illinois and Osceola at Florida State.

I personally believe that these are symbols of pride and in a way honor Native Americans.

What are your opinions on this issue?

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has an article on colleges with Native American mascots, such as Cheif Illiniwek of the University of Illinois and Osceola at Florida State.

I personally believe that these are symbols of pride and in a way honor Native Americans.

What are your opinions on this issue?

Symbols of pride in what? Fictional Indians?

If Native Americans feel dishonored, doesn't that rather settle the question of whether it is an honor?

Symbols of pride in what? Fictional Indians?

If Native Americans feel dishonored, doesn't that rather settle the question of whether it is an honor?
How many Native Americans need to be offended before the question is settled? All of them aren't offended, as far as I can tell.

If they want to change the teams name to the "Krauts" or the "Yodelers" or any such other thing, I'd be perfectly non-caring. Yep, I don't give a flying fuck if someone makes a joke about my heritage. Or maybe a team could be named after something polish, and a big clumsy guy could be the mascot. That would be fun. So, folks, change your names to my ethnicity, and I'll laugh repeatedly, but I won't get offended like a little bitch.

How many Native Americans need to be offended before the question is settled? All of them aren't offended, as far as I can tell.

So as long as some Native Americans aren't offended, then you are bestowing an "honor" on them by persisting in offending the rest?

I'm not saying the sole reason such mascots should be reconsidered or modified is that it offends some Native Americans. But calling it an honor to be caricatured in a way you find offensive is rather Orwellian.

If they're offended, then they should write to the team in question, and ask that the name be changed.

I've done a lot of research into my own geneaology, and on my father's side, I'm the 33rd generation of my father's name. On my mother's side, I have a substantial Dutch ancestry, especially during the time that America was first colonized.

So, I'm offended that New York City is not named New Amsterdam.

They had better change the name, or I'll sue on the basis that my heritage is being abused.

If they want to change the teams name to the "Krauts" or the "Yodelers" or any such other thing, I'd be perfectly non-caring. Yep, I don't give a flying fuck if someone makes a joke about my heritage. Or maybe a team could be named after something polish, and a big clumsy guy could be the mascot. That would be fun. So, folks, change your names to my ethnicity, and I'll laugh repeatedly, but I won't get offended like a little bitch.

Good for you.

While we are at it, can we kill off most of your relatives, friends, and community, take your property, and relocate you to remote hellholes?

Or might you complain like a little bitch?

So as long as some Native Americans aren't offended, then you are bestowing an "honor" on them by persisting in offending the rest?

I'm not saying the sole reason such mascots should be reconsidered or modified is that it offends some Native Americans. But calling it an honor to be caricatured in a way you find offensive is rather Orwellian.
Man, I'm getting tired of reading about "Orwellian" this and "Orwellian" that. Can't things just be ironic? Or contradictory? Okay, I'm better.

I don't think I could point out that the sky was blue without offending some color-blind crybaby. Society just seems to be like that. Thank goodness the feline species hasn't become oversensitized to their use as mascots.

Symbols of pride in what? Fictional Indians?

If Native Americans feel dishonored, doesn't that rather settle the question of whether it is an honor?

The Illini was a confederation of Native American tribes in the 17th century, they are not fictional.

But I will admit that my opinion does not matter in this issue. The only opinions that matter are those of the university and that of Native Americans.

Beyond that, what about sports mascots with the names of other ethnic groups? For example, my high-schools mascot was the Viking, and this big, plush beardless viking ran about at our football games. Were any Norweigians offended? I don't think so.

Or how about this one, New Philadelphia, Ohio has the strangest mascot ever, the "Fighting Quaker." Think about the odd little contradiction there, a fighting pacifist. I've never heard any quakers complain about that, only laugh at the comical name.

Good for you.

While we are at it, can we kill off most of your relatives, friends, and community, take your property, and relocate you to remote hellholes?

Or might you complain like a little bitch?

well while we're at it, why not mention all those frontier families' torture/murder as the source for the treatment that the native americans got?

How the US government handled the response was wrong, but I wonder if things would have been different if our settlers had been asked to leave instead of simply raped, tortured and murdered.

Good for you.

While we are at it, can we kill off most of your relatives, friends, and community, take your property, and relocate you to remote hellholes?

Or might you complain like a little bitch?

I don't think that is relevent to this discussion.

Beyond that, what about sports mascots with the names of other ethnic groups? For example, my high-schools mascot was the Viking, and this big, plush beardless viking ran about at our football games. Were any Norweigians offended? I don't think so.

Or how about this one, New Philadelphia, Ohio has the strangest mascot ever, the "Fighting Quaker." Think about the odd little contradiction there, a fighting pacifist. I've never heard any quakers complain about that, only laugh at the comical name.
Well, Quakers obviously have a sense of humor. Remember Dick Nixon and all those wacky things he did?

I don't think that is relevent to this discussion.

no, it is, because this guy is into revisionist history, especially the kind that blames everything from food poisoning to the fall of Rome on the white man... especially white conservative republican males.

no, it is, because this guy is into revisionist history, especially the kind that blames everything from food poisoning to the fall of Rome on the white man... especially white conservative republican males.

That wasn't relevant either.

What is relevant is that the motivation and results of having mascots that represent Native American culture.

i think it depends on the actual name and how the mascot is portrayed


the atlanta braves are no worse than the dallas cowboys, for example. its all in how its handled. you cant use a team mascot to ridicule a group of people. racist characatures are not appropriate. fake "indian" chants are offensive.

maybe they should just stick to mascots that dont reference people at all. there is just too much tendency to go over the line. it probably is better to not lump "devil rays" and "vikings" together.......

gee i dont know, marty, what do YOU think?

Good for you.

While we are at it, can we kill off most of your relatives, friends, and community, take your property, and relocate you to remote hellholes?

Or might you complain like a little bitch?
The topic is about sports teams names, not unfortunate bits of history. And yes, my ancestors did suffer from time to time, first at the hands of the nativists here who didn't want immigrants from central and Eastern Europe, and later during the first world war, when I had relatives who were beat up (and robbed, occasionally severely injured) because they didn't buy their warbond that day and clearly were supporting the Kaiser. But that's the past. It's back then, we need to move on, not grump and complain.

If they're offended, then they should write to the team in question, and ask that the name be changed.

I've done a lot of research into my own geneaology, and on my father's side, I'm the 33rd generation of my father's name. On my mother's side, I have a substantial Dutch ancestry, especially during the time that America was first colonized.

So, I'm offended that New York City is not named New Amsterdam.

They had better change the name, or I'll sue on the basis that my heritage is being abused.
im sorry but the dutch sold new amsterdam to the english in return for nutmeg. it was their perogative to change the name.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has an article on colleges with Native American mascots, such as Cheif Illiniwek of the University of Illinois and Osceola at Florida State.

I personally believe that these are symbols of pride and in a way honor Native Americans.

What are your opinions on this issue?

the entire point is that people SHOULDN'T be offended by a mascot name. if someone is offended (and has a viable reason to be offended), then the name need to be rethought. the point was made thatone person was polish, and wouldn't mind a bumbling mascot. while that one person might not be offended, many people still would be.

many of my ancestors are full blooded cherokee, and while i may not be so 'pure' (for lack of a better word), i still sometimes find me thinking of myself as native american. that being said, i am not offended by the majority of mascot names. the only name that really comes close to being offensive is the washington 'redskins'.

the only name that really comes close to being offensive is the washington 'redskins'.

How about Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians http://home.earthlink.net/~supermahn/wahoo.gif

And don't get me started about poor, unfortuneate poland. They've got the shit end of everything for ages.

frankly it should go like the constitution, protection the minority as opposed to the majorit. Basicly, even if some of the native americans are offended, thats enough to change it.

How about Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians http://home.earthlink.net/~supermahn/wahoo.gif
chief wahoo is pretty offensive. but the name "cleveland indians" should be kept as it honors an actual indian baseball player.

why not cleavelend natives, or cleaveland native americans?

the entire point is that people SHOULDN'T be offended by a mascot name. if someone is offended (and has a viable reason to be offended), then the name need to be rethought. the point was made thatone person was polish, and wouldn't mind a bumbling mascot. while that one person might not be offended, many people still would be.

many of my ancestors are full blooded cherokee, and while i may not be so 'pure' (for lack of a better word), i still sometimes find me thinking of myself as native american. that being said, i am not offended by the majority of mascot names. the only name that really comes close to being offensive is the washington 'redskins'.
when you take a great indian leader like chief osceola http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9711/images/e-osceola.gif
and reduce him to
In 1975, Chief Howard Tommie, then-chairman of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, helped FSU create Osceola, a portrayal of an Indian who charges onto the football field on horseback at the beginning of home football games. Osceola ends his charge by throwing a flaming lance at mid field.
http://theconferencestore.com/store/images/fsu_osceola.jpg

its offensive.

why not cleavelend natives, or cleaveland native americans?
because "native american" is no more accurate than "indian"

The Illini was a confederation of Native American tribes in the 17th century, they are not fictional.

But I will admit that my opinion does not matter in this issue. The only opinions that matter are those of the university and that of Native Americans.

The Chief Illiniwek character is fictional. A stereotype. His appearance, costume, and trademark dance are not authentic.

My rhetoric aside, your opinion matters as much as anyone elses. I did not mean to imply otherwise.

I do think it is rather odd to say that people should be honored, rather than offended, by a distorted depiciton of their heritage.

im sorry but the dutch sold new amsterdam to the english in return for nutmeg. it was their perogative to change the name.

I believe the contract was signed under threat of military force (or that's what I'll claim). A contract signed under duress is not valid.

The topic is about sports teams names, not unfortunate bits of history. And yes, my ancestors did suffer from time to time, first at the hands of the nativists here who didn't want immigrants from central and Eastern Europe, and later during the first world war, when I had relatives who were beat up (and robbed, occasionally severely injured) because they didn't buy their warbond that day and clearly were supporting the Kaiser. But that's the past. It's back then, we need to move on, not grump and complain.

Calling Native Americans "whiny little bitches" was an attempt to move on or engage in intelligent dialogue?

The history of genocide against Native Americans and their culture is (a) not quite comparable to the hardships your family suffered and (b) is relavent to why Native Americans are a tad sensitive to continued subversion of their heritage and mockery.

That you might be fine with a goose-stepping "Fighting Kraut" stereotype as a university mascot does not mean all of your relatives would be, would it?

I don't think that is relevent to this discussion.

Neither the historical nor current plight of the Native Americans is relevant to whether Indian mascots are appropriate or offensive?

But calling them "little bitches" is productive?

You have a rather arbitrary sense of what is appropriate discussion.

The Chief Illiniwek character is fictional. A stereotype. His appearance, costume, and trademark dance are not authentic.

I don't know how much of the mascot is a caricature, but I assume it mostly is.

My rhetoric aside, your opinion matters as much as anyone elses. I did not mean to imply otherwise.

In this situation, my opinion on whether it is offensive, or whether that means the mascot should changed, does not matter. I am not associated with any of the parties involved in this argument. Now when a mascot comes out that is meant to represent white guys with little or no distinguishable culture whatsoever, then I can chime in.

I do think it is rather odd to say that people should be honored, rather than offended, by a distorted depiciton of their heritage.

That is true.

And kudos to Ashmoria for her point on Chief Osceola.

I personally believe that these are symbols of pride and in a way honor Native Americans.

What are your opinions on this issue?

Given the history between the native Americans and the invading peoples I don't think that any solution will be agreeable for all. Calling a sports mascot "chief [something]" will make it so both parties will have a very different 'appropriation' of the symbolic meaning of it - it will become an emotional point anyways. One party might try to do good, but the other party might see it as an insult. It would be very idiotic to presume that "all will be forgiven" when some mascot will be honored with a native American term. On the other hand, it would be bad to pretend nothing ever happened - and after all, I presume it's with the best of intentions, right? But bestowing something "trivial" as a sports mascot with a native American term is probably more offending (especially in the long run) than other methods of regognition - like named statues, parks, museums (like the one in Washington D.C. that opened recently - don't know too many details, but even us in Europe heard good things about it).

Neither the historical nor current plight of the Native Americans is relevant to whether Indian mascots are appropriate or offensive?

But calling them "little bitches" is productive?

You have a rather arbitrary sense of what is appropriate discussion.

The University of Illinois and the mascot they have was in no way responsible for the atrocities inflicted upon Native Americans that you mentioned. Chief Illiniwek, in my opinion, does not endorse the actions taken against the Native Americans that you mentioned. Therefore, I didn't think it was relevant to the topic.

Andelucie made the point that, since he would not be offended if his ancestors were ridiculed, others shouldn't get offended. While it is not a reasonable argument, it was relevant to the topic at hand.

I agree with Cat-Tribe. If a native american (Ashimora I want to know why that term isn't accurate) is offended by a mascot then his/her opinion is quite valid and should be taken into consideration. Perhaps the guy who decided to use the caricature had good intentions in honoring another peoples heritage, but you cannot ignore the horrible attrocities that were commited against the native americans and ignorantly push the idea that it is honorable and they should just shut their traps about it.

but you cannot ignore the horrible attrocities that were commited against the native americans and ignorantly push the idea that it is honorable and they should just shut their traps about it.

I am not trying to say that they or anyone else should ignore the past. I just don't understand how that makes sports mascots offensive.

The topic is about sports teams names, not unfortunate bits of history.

except that it is entirely about those 'unfortunate bits of history'. when the descendents of those who were involved in a genocide, who still treat the living indigenous population patronizingly or with contempt, who still are not upholding their end of tons of treaties they signed, who have outright stolen billions of dollars from various indian trust funds and are still doing so, etc., when they try to say that their use of native stereotypes as mascots is actually a way of honoring the amerindian people you really can't be surprised when people call bullshit.

you want to honor indians? then stop treating the living ones like dirt.

Calling Native Americans "whiny little bitches" was an attempt to move on or engage in intelligent dialogue?
Nope, I have to use intelligent dialogue in class. Sometimes I don't feel like using it here. And I'm not calling AIs whinly little bitches, I'm just calling the members of certain groups who would whine and complain about irrelevant things that, irregardless of race. There are plenty of AIs out there who are responsible for themselves. They certainly are not whiny.

The history of genocide against Native Americans and their culture is (a) not quite comparable to the hardships your family suffered and (b) is relavent to why Native Americans are a tad sensitive to continued subversion of their heritage and mockery.
My point wasn't that the hardships and suffering were equal. It's that both parties suffered at the hands of others. And reconciling these problems is something that must be done. But quibbling about irrelevant things is not one of them. I'd much rather see real progress, in improving AI schools, decreasing their rates of alcoholism, increasing their attendance at universities and improving their integration into the rest of society.

That you might be fine with a goose-stepping "Fighting Kraut" stereotype as a university mascot does not mean all of your relatives would be, would it?
I don't think anyone would particularly care...we don't really consider ourselves to have all that many ties to Germany these days.

you want to honor indians? then stop treating the living ones like dirt.
Excuse me? I'm treating them like dirt? I have never held down, harmed or hurt an AI anywhere, ever. I wish the best for them, that they may learn, grow and prosper. But this PC stuff annoys me to no end.

I am not trying to say that they or anyone else should ignore the past. I just don't understand how that makes sports mascots offensive.


I guess it takes empathy. Try putting yoruself in their place and see it from a different perspective.

Perhaps it could play out like this: You see the white man as a great plague upon the earth because of the way they have treated you in the past and the way they continute to treat you to this day. The govt is still discriminating against you and keeping you and your tribe poor giving you little to nothing to make your lives better, unless you leave your tribal land and go out and live as the white man does... the white man you hate for what they have done to you. Now They are saying you should be honored because they are doing retarded little tribal-like dances and putting a feather on a red skinned cartoon.

There are many ways to look at a situation. Many points of view (not just one as I'm sure you know). Just because you have a view that seems right to you doesn't mean that view is or should be all pervasive for all. We cannot know all the factors for anything so we should not pretend that any situation is just black and white. It may all be in fun and it may even be in honor or possibly admiration of native americans to make a mascot based on their heritage/language/dress/whatever, but if it is seen as offensive by many of those you are supposedly honoring because the people doing the caricature is part of a group of people that oppressed you and it looks to you like you are being mocked and yoru heritage is being demeaned, then your feelings are the most valid of all because this is a representation of YOU.

Excuse me? I'm treating them like dirt? I have never held down, harmed or hurt an AI anywhere, ever. I wish the best for them, that they may learn, grow and prosper. But this PC stuff annoys me to no end.

As in...the government and institutionally more so than individually.

I agree with Cat-Tribe. If a native american (Ashimora I want to know why that term isn't accurate) is offended by a mascot then his/her opinion is quite valid and should be taken into consideration. Perhaps the guy who decided to use the caricature had good intentions in honoring another peoples heritage, but you cannot ignore the horrible attrocities that were commited against the native americans and ignorantly push the idea that it is honorable and they should just shut their traps about it.
its not accurate because it lumps people from disparate backgrounds together

a navajo isnt a native american, hes a navajo. he isnt the same as a cherokee or an iroquois.

so the extremely innacurate term "indian" isnt less descriptive than "native american". although native american carries much less baggage.

As in...the government and institutionally more so than individually.

What is sad is that that had to be spelled out.

It should be noted that, while many of us (I'm hardly full-blooded, but I do have ancestry from two tribes) don't really give a damn what a bunch of racist morons do, that doesn't mean we -like- it anymore than an African American enjoys seeing "Blacky McBlackface" running around on the field with shrunken heads screamin "Mastah mastah!", or "Cracker Whiteson" running around tripping in baggy pants, groping his crotch to the beat of Eminem, and fumbling with a pointy white hood.

None of it really matters. The people out there in the world who are asses are already asses.

its not accurate because it lumps people from disparate backgrounds together

a navajo isnt a native american, hes a navajo. he isnt the same as a cherokee or an iroquois.

so the extremely innacurate term "indian" isnt less descriptive than "native american". although native american carries much less baggage.


I think I get yer drift, but still they are a people that are native to America and have cultural ties right? What would be better? aboriginal americans?

its not accurate because it lumps people from disparate backgrounds together

a navajo isnt a native american, hes a navajo. he isnt the same as a cherokee or an iroquois.

so the extremely innacurate term "indian" isnt less descriptive than "native american". although native american carries much less baggage.

This is true, but it's essentially a historical continental placement, much like saying "Native European". One would hardly confuse the Spanish with the French, though they all have similar ancestry.

I guess it takes empathy. Try putting yoruself in their place and see it from a different perspective.

Perhaps it could play out like this: You see the white man as a great plague upon the earth because of the way they have treated you in the past and the way they continute to treat you to this day. The govt is still discriminating against you and keeping you and your tribe poor giving you little to nothing to make your lives better, unless you leave your tribal land and go out and live as the white man does... the white man you hate for what they have done to you. Now They are saying you should be honored because they are doing retarded little tribal-like dances and putting a feather on a red skinned cartoon.

I have already said that I could understand how the nature of the mascots can be offensive. As Ashmoria pointed out with her post, many of the mascots are degrading caricatures that are not a faithful representation of the culture.

But to say that faithful representations should not be used because of atrocities committed in the past doesn't make sense to me.

There are many ways to look at a situation. Many points of view (not just one as I'm sure you know). Just because you have a view that seems right to you doesn't mean that view is or should be all pervasive for all. We cannot know all the factors for anything so we should not pretend that any situation is just black and white. It may all be in fun and it may even be in honor or possibly admiration of native americans to make a mascot based on their heritage/language/dress/whatever, but if it is seen as offensive by many of those you are supposedly honoring because the people doing the caricature is part of a group of people that oppressed you and it looks to you like you are being mocked and yoru heritage is being demeaned, then your feelings are the most valid of all because this is a representation of YOU.

I know this and have expressed this sentiment in at least two posts.

I will say this... stop bloody calling us "Indians". I ask this as a historical, linguistic thing, not as a pride thing. Nobody in my bloodline has ever been to India that I've ever heard of. I'd be hardly surprised if none of my homo erectus or homo ergaster ancestors, all the way to today, had NEVER seen India.

Stop giving that stupid incompotent Christopher Columbus so much worship. The twit tried to trick Spain in to thinking he found India by calling Chilis "Pepper," for crying out loud, and claimed that if they just kept torturing people, they'll eventually tell you where the non-existant gold mines are.

How about the Fighting Whiteys? A group of AIs came up with the idea of lampooning Indian stereotypes by poking fun at Anglo stereotypes. I love it!

Homepage of the Fighting Whiteys (http://www.fightingwhites.org/)

Our local university is unofficially divorcing...it's not even that; they never got rid of the Indian logo and Mascot they just treated like some girlfriend you didn't have the guts to break up with so you just stop calling and avoid her. It's more like that. Now Arkansas State University has Big Red...looks a lot like a red condom wearing a winter tobagan or Barney the Dinosaur in a tux....

Picture of Barney...I mean Big Red (http://www.asuindians.com/index.php?op=article&artID=1997&PHPSESSID=c7abed634a518170c0cfe446804c9399)

(Matchopolis shakes his head in disgust) Why can't that schmuck get scalped? Even the Pima (Southwestern Indian tribe) I worked with hates the new mascot.

Please can we humiliate the Indians instead of ourselves...just kidding. Running Joe the Indian (who was used in copyright violation) was the old Mascot of the Milwaukee Braves but was dropped when they moved to Atlanta. He dropped and they adopted a decent looking profile image of a plains chief but that was also scrapped.

I think I get yer drift, but still they are a people that are native to America and have cultural ties right? What would be better? aboriginal americans?
there isnt better. indian, native american, they all are what i think of a "meaningless indentifiers". most indians accept either. some prefer native american.

when you live in the southwest you get used to using words that dont mean much. here, i am an anglo. what does that mean to a person who has a minor part of her ancestry being from england? nothing. it means im white and grew up speaking english.

what does hispanic mean? nothing. it means spanish surnamed. as if a cuban, a mexican and a chilean are all the same.

so we use the short cut of indian or native american but it doesnt say much about the person except that they have a genetic/cultrual connection to one of the hundreds of different cultures that existed in north america before columbus. there are more cultural, linguistic and genetic differences between the various indian nations of the US than existed in europe in the 1500s.

more correct would be to identify individuals with the culture they actually come from.

anthropologically American Indians would be American Aboriginies or Indigenous peoples of North America. Referring to each of their nations by native name would be quite a task.

That wasn't relevant either.

What is relevant is that the motivation and results of having mascots that represent Native American culture.

i know.

i was just practicing the art of melodrama. hehe

no offense, cat-pride

i don't understand how some native americans are offended by the use of such mascots... that said, their views should be respected, not ridiculed.

if teams/schools are going to change their names, however, if it is for the stated reason that the current mascot is disrespectful/oppressive/offensive... then I'd much rather it be at the behest of those who are actually harmed by the use -- IE, the native americans themselves -- than at the behest of non-native-americans who presume to speak for native americans.

ask them how they feel about the moniker before making the leap of abstraction that they hate it.

anthropologically American Indians would be American Aboriginies or Indigenous peoples of North America. Referring to each of their nations by native name would be quite a task.
no more so than calling a german a german instead of a european.

which is why indian is as correct as native american. its a shorthand that that has limited informational value.

anthropologically American Indians would be American Aboriginies or Indigenous peoples of North America. Referring to each of their nations by native name would be quite a task.

Agreed.

So long as a term is -accurate-, it doesn't matter how far-reaching it is.

Inuits are as Native to America as Maya are. So, the term works.

Suggesting otherwise is saying that calling a Californian an American is wrong.

no more so than calling a german a german instead of a european.

which is why indian is as correct as native american. its a shorthand that that has limited informational value.

No, the term "Indian" was intended to suggest that they were people from India.

They are not.

It's like calling a dinosaur a dragon because someone once thought it was a dragon.

i don't understand how some native americans are offended by the use of such mascots... that said, their views should be respected, not ridiculed.

if teams/schools are going to change their names, however, if it is for the stated reason that the current mascot is disrespectful/oppressive/offensive... then I'd much rather it be at the behest of those who are actually harmed by the use -- IE, the native americans themselves -- than at the behest of non-native-americans who presume to speak for native americans.

ask them how they feel about the moniker before making the leap of abstraction that they hate it.

And if they do find it offensive, it should be the choice of the university to change the mascot out of respect, not because they were forced to.

How about the Fighting Whiteys? A group of AIs came up with the idea of lampooning Indian stereotypes by poking fun at Anglo stereotypes. I love it!

Homepage of the Fighting Whiteys (http://www.fightingwhites.org/)

Our local university is unofficially divorcing...it's not even that; they never got rid of the Indian logo and Mascot they just treated like some girlfriend you didn't have the guts to break up with so you just stop calling and avoid her. It's more like that. Now Arkansas State University has Big Red...looks a lot like a red condom wearing a winter tobagan or Barney the Dinosaur in a tux....

Picture of Barney...I mean Big Red (http://www.asuindians.com/index.php?op=article&artID=1997&PHPSESSID=c7abed634a518170c0cfe446804c9399)

(Matchopolis shakes his head in disgust) Why can't that schmuck get scalped? Even the Pima (Southwestern Indian tribe) I worked with hates the new mascot.

Please can we humiliate the Indians instead of ourselves...just kidding. Running Joe the Indian (who was used in copyright violation) was the old Mascot of the Milwaukee Braves but was dropped when they moved to Atlanta. He dropped and they adopted a decent looking profile image of a plains chief but that was also scrapped.


yah

Washington Whiteskins
Illinois Fighting Caucasians
St. John's White Bread
Hawaii Honkies
Alabama Crackers

hehe

no big deal to me. You don't hear Texas ranchers bristling at the Cowboys moniker for the Dallas NFL team.

But, to each his own.

i don't understand how some native americans are offended by the use of such mascots... that said, their views should be respected, not ridiculed.

if teams/schools are going to change their names, however, if it is for the stated reason that the current mascot is disrespectful/oppressive/offensive... then I'd much rather it be at the behest of those who are actually harmed by the use -- IE, the native americans themselves -- than at the behest of non-native-americans who presume to speak for native americans.

ask them how they feel about the moniker before making the leap of abstraction that they hate it.
i SOOOO agree with that.

except for the few mascots that are still so offensively done that any thinking person would be offended to be associated with them.

it drive me crazy that there are people who make a fuss because they think someone else should be offended. if calling your local highschool team the warriors doesnt bring protests from some local indian group, ITS FINE.

Cowboy is, at least, a profession, and not something you're born in to and stuck in for life.

It's also not presented as grotesquely as some of the nastier interpretations.

Vikings are another issue.

No, the term "Indian" was intended to suggest that they were people from India.

They are not.

It's like calling a dinosaur a dragon because someone once thought it was a dragon.
yes, 500 years ago

since then it has meant the aboriginal peoples of america.

yes, 500 years ago

since then it has meant the aboriginal peoples of america.

Based on your logic, dinosaurs should all be called Dragons, and this should be considered a valid term.

Or, in the case of a protoceritops, "Griffons".

Also, moon rock should be reffered to as "Cheese. :D "

it doesnt compare though when talking about the cowboys (not sure about the vikings but at first glance it doesnt seem to compare either) the cowboys of the old west werent invaded by anyone and killed off in the millions - had they been they might be a bit irritated to be mocked by someone who had done sucha thing to them.

Based on your logic, dinosaurs should all be called Dragons, and this should be considered a valid term.

Or, in the case of a protoceritops, "Griffons".

Also, moon rock should be reffered to as "Cheese. :D "
actually my logic is that its a term in common use for the past 500 years and most indians dont object to its use.

if its fine with them, its fine with me.

frankly it should go like the constitution, protection the minority as opposed to the majorit. Basicly, even if some of the native americans are offended, thats enough to change it.
The irony of that, coming from someone with this username!

it doesnt compare though when talking about the cowboys (not sure about the vikings but at first glance it doesnt seem to compare either) the cowboys of the old west werent invaded by anyone and killed off in the millions - had they been they might be a bit irritated to be mocked by someone who had done sucha thing to them.

yeah, neither cowboys nor vikings works as a good comparison. this is the closest i can think of:

imagine if the nazi regime hadn't been destroyed, but survived the war. afterwards, germany slowly stepped back from fascism in the following decades, possibly even acknowledging that they may have behaved rather badly in the 'distant past'. now imagine if they had a team called 'the jews'.

i don't understand how some native americans are offended by the use of such mascots... that said, their views should be respected, not ridiculed.

if teams/schools are going to change their names, however, if it is for the stated reason that the current mascot is disrespectful/oppressive/offensive... then I'd much rather it be at the behest of those who are actually harmed by the use -- IE, the native americans themselves -- than at the behest of non-native-americans who presume to speak for native americans.

ask them how they feel about the moniker before making the leap of abstraction that they hate it.


Okay ....

Most of the mascot names in question have been objected to by Native Americans.

For example, I claim no in-depth knowledge of Chief Illiniwek, but -- in addition to hundreds (if not more) of individual Native Americans that have protested that mascot -- every national Native organization that has taken a stance on the issue has called for the elimination of the "Chief," including: the American Indian Council of Illinois, the American Indian Education Association, the American Indian Movement, the Cherokee Nation, the Peoria Tribe, the National Congress of American Indians, and the National Indian Education Association.

Good enough?

Similar things can be said of most Indian mascots. Some are more offensive and have drawn more fire than others.

And let me explain one part of the objection. Ugly stereotypes about Indians have persisted into modern culture. "What Makes the Red Man Red" is dated, but still greets every child who watches Peter Pan. When institutions of higher learning like the University of Illinois contribute to the perpetutation of these stereotypes it is rather galling.

Thus, Native Americans have repeatedly requested sports teams -- particularly those of publicly-funded schools -- be changed so as not to be walking insults and advertisements of stereotypes.

(Not to mention that much of what is depicted by such mascots are twisted caricatures of sacred dances, costumes, etc.)

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has an article on colleges with Native American mascots, such as Cheif Illiniwek of the University of Illinois and Osceola at Florida State.

I personally believe that these are symbols of pride and in a way honor Native Americans.

What are your opinions on this issue?
There was a chick in nova scocia i believe who made a nice segment on it and posted it on zed.cbc.ca and it got on their show. It was about exactly this. Its nice to know that its finally made it into the papers.

Personally I dont give a shit. I have an Asian friend who's pissed that thoes steriotypes are even harder to break out of than most any but I just shrug it off. Maybe im just an ignorant white chick, but I think youd have to be very anal to take these things seriously.