NationStates Jolt Archive


Sinhue / First Nation / US Tribal folks - Comment?

Syniks
22-08-2005, 17:25
>>>Comment: Growing up right next door to the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming, I can relate to both sides of this issue.... <<<<

Playing politics and Indians
Paul Jacob

When playing cowboys and Indians as a kid, I always wanted to be the Indian. Little did I know.

Back then, I thought pretending to be an Indian was neat, even better than watching Saturday morning cartoons.

According to my childhood mythos, Indians were swift runners, wise planters, crafty hunters and brave warriors. My slippers became moccasins; I would walk, silently, sneaking up on people. My jittery parents endured.

It wasn't that I thought Indians always went sneaking about, mind you; I knew they didn't. It's simply that — on TV anyway — their ability to sneak up on their enemies was amazing. Not being the biggest kid in school, I appreciated their stealth and cunning.

Indians were exotic, yes. Different. Romantic — in the James Fenimore Cooper sense. But they seemed something more. The Indians I admired were heroes; they deserved respect for how they lived and how they fought. I looked up to them. Had any pro-cowboy bigot challenged me way back when, I would've responded with a simple "What's not to like about Indians?"

Well, according to some of today's more sensitive folk — to those who stand as guardians of our schools and universities and overseers of government-produced speech — there appears to be a whole lot not to like about actually being one. The folks at UnderstandingPrejudice.org present visitors with the information that more than 30 percent of Indians living on reservations are below the poverty level and 40 percent are unemployed. (Does that mean that one out of four unemployed Indians on reservations live well without working?)

Furthermore, more than 15 percent are living without electricity and roughly one in five homes lacks indoor plumbing. And most shocking of all, today one out of five Indian girls and one out of eight Indian boys attempt suicide.

This is serious business. The destruction of Native American culture is more than terribly sad, it's tragic. The European settlers and the U.S. government decimated the Indians through systematic brutality and broken treaties, and even more through the (usually) innocent spreading of disease.

And now added to the injury of this horrific past is the insult of modern-day sports mascots that present Indians in a negative light.

Or so we're told.

That's why the National Collegiate Athletic Association passed a new rule saying college teams with Indian names and mascots cannot participate in NCAA championship events. "We believe hostile or abusive nicknames are troubling to us and it can't continue," said Walter Harrison, the NCAA committee chairman. "We're trying to send a message, very strongly, saying that these mascots are not appropriate for NCAA championships."

Hmmm? Teams can still have Indian mascots, but only if they're not going to be champions. That's the silent bigotry of low expectations!

The Florida State University Seminoles have caught a good bit of the controversy because of their successful football program. The school's mascot troubles the NCAA brass, whose sensibilities apparently outweigh the resolution in support of the team's name passed by the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

Or consider the University of Illinois's Fighting Illini. The Illini tribe is the state's namesake. Protestors say the team's name is disrespectful and should be changed. But would that be enough? Shouldn't the name of the state be changed while we're at it?

The University of North Carolina-Pembroke is the Braves, which is usually a "hostile and abusive" name according to the new NCAA rule. But the school is exempted because more than 20 percent of students are American Indians. Wait a second . . . doesn't that mean that more than 20 percent of the student body must be deeply offended and humiliated by the Indian mascot?

What am I missing?

Oh, enough politics. I just like sports. I want to watch the game on TV. And, frankly, offend as few people as possible. So, for goodness sake, please change the names of teams like The Savages of Southeastern Oklahoma State University. Is the name Savages really such a tough call? It would be the polite thing to do.

And please do something about the NFL's Washington Redskins. I'm as offended by their name as I am by their pitiful play in recent years. Clearly, if any city should not feature an Indian mascot, Washington is that city. It's not just that politicians in Washington used to lie and cheat the Indians. (After all, they still haven't unscrambled all those misplaced Indian Trust Fund accounts.) It's also that they lie and cheat to the rest of us, too.

But on the other hand, how is a name like the Chiefs or the Braves offensive? Braves are good, right? They're brave, that's for certain. How can anyone equate the obvious hero-worship of some names with the more tasteless denigrating names of others? How can they equate the Seminoles and the Braves with the Redskins and the Savages? If civilization is in the business of making the right distinctions, why can't some people make any distinctions at all?

Of course, in the end, I'm not an Indian; I only pretended to be one as a kid. I cannot speak for what they think and feel.

So, how do Native Americans see it? The University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Election Survey in 2004 asked 768 randomly selected Indians (in the continental 48 states) if they found Indian mascots "demeaning." Overwhelmingly, they did not. For example, only 9 percent were offended by the Washington Redskins moniker.

If Native Americans, and not just liberal political activists, actually wanted an end to sports imagery involving Indians — if, in their eyes, such depictions belittled their culture and offended their sensibilities — then I'd hope they would find success. But I'd still miss the imagery, because I see Indians as proud and noble. As heroes and not merely as victims.

Paul Jacob is Senior Fellow at Americans for Limited Government. His daily Common Sense commentary appears on the Web, and on radio stations across America.
Laerod
22-08-2005, 17:31
I can understand when they'd want to ban names like "Redskins" or "Braves", but Seminoles or Illini?
Dobbsworld
22-08-2005, 17:41
If anyone sees Sinuhue, please let her know there's a TG for her?

Thanks.
Gramnonia
22-08-2005, 17:54
I've never heard of the Savages before, though they seem to take their name a bit far. Are they actually American Indian themed? For all I know, they could be referring to some other savages entirely. As for the rest of the "offensive" names -- people should get a grip. It's a sports team, for Chrissakes, no need to get your knickers in a knot about their name.

Heh, that guy wanted to play the Indian when he was growing up. What a sucker. Everyone knows that the cowboys had guns.
Laerod
22-08-2005, 17:59
Heh, that guy wanted to play the Indian when he was growing up. What a sucker. Everyone knows that the cowboys had guns.
The pirates lost too...(shows ya how weak democracy is :D)
Jocabia
22-08-2005, 18:11
I actually live in Champaign-Urbana the home of the Fighting Illini. I'd offer a correction. Basically, we were told that we couldn't host any NCAA championship events and cannot wear cheif attire to NCAA Championship events. They have not excluded us from participating (we do that ourselves by sucking up the football field).

As far as the names, I think if they were approved by the tribe, I think no one is in a position to say differently. However, I do have a problem with pretending to do war dances and such.
Sinuhue
22-08-2005, 18:26
My 2 cents.

It really depends.

Savages, Redskins, definately not. Squaws, Injuns, Heathens, whatever...any sort of derogatory name, no.

Braves...that one is touchy. Why? Because it's a name that goes hand in hand with 'Squaw', the word used for female natives. Braves and squaws. We don't call ourselves that, so why should you be calling us that? Braves doesn't mean, brave natives, it means, a male native. Like calling our men 'bucks'. It's a bit dehumanizing, like you're describing the member of a different species. I wouldn't want our men described as 'braves' in history books either. It is an inaccurate description, and a name given to us by others.

Using the name of a tribe...well. That also poses some problems. For one, the team members are NOT part of the tribe. Would you call yourself "the Chicago Italians"? Or worse, to equate a name with 'the Savages', the "Chicago Wops"? You're naming yourself after an ethnicity, and it sounds pretty weird. A bunch of white, black, latino guys, with a native name on their jerseys? WTF? It doesn't offend me, per se, I just think it's damn odd.
Sinuhue
22-08-2005, 18:28
As far as the names, I think if they were approved by the tribe, I think no one is in a position to say differently. However, I do have a problem with pretending to do war dances and such.

Exactly. And were a team 'adopted' by the tribe, and using the name legitamately, you wouldn't need to be pretending to do war dances and such. More likely, the tribe itself would be proud to highlight native dancers and so on at the games. As long as it didn't turn into a friggin' spectacle.
Jocabia
22-08-2005, 18:39
Exactly. And were a team 'adopted' by the tribe, and using the name legitamately, you wouldn't need to be pretending to do war dances and such. More likely, the tribe itself would be proud to highlight native dancers and so on at the games. As long as it didn't turn into a friggin' spectacle.

In the case of the Illini, the early 'chiefs' (the name of the mascot) spent time living with the tribe and actually learned some of the dances. The dances were approved by the Illini tribe and others (tribes). That was at first. Now, the 'Chiefs' are students and don't really know what they're doing. The outfit and name are authentic, but I totally disagree with the dancing.

The funny thing is, like my opinions on religion, people get mad at me from both sides like you have to have an all or nothing opinion. One side accuses me of marginalizing the plight of natives and the other accuses me of wanting to change the history of the school. Why are people so afraid to judge issues on their individual merit?
Laerod
22-08-2005, 18:41
Would you call yourself "the Chicago Italians"?Something like the Fighting Irish?
http://www.justgiving.com/pfp/images/UserImages/EGG/Fighting%20Irish%202.JPG
Syniks
22-08-2005, 18:42
My 2 cents.

It really depends.

Savages, Redskins, definately not. Squaws, Injuns, Heathens, whatever...any sort of derogatory name, no.

Braves...that one is touchy. Why? Because it's a name that goes hand in hand with 'Squaw', the word used for female natives. Braves and squaws. We don't call ourselves that, so why should you be calling us that? Braves doesn't mean, brave natives, it means, a male native. Like calling our men 'bucks'. It's a bit dehumanizing, like you're describing the member of a different species. I wouldn't want our men described as 'braves' in history books either. It is an inaccurate description, and a name given to us by others.

Using the name of a tribe...well. That also poses some problems. For one, the team members are NOT part of the tribe. Would you call yourself "the Chicago Italians"? Or worse, to equate a name with 'the Savages', the "Chicago Wops"? You're naming yourself after an ethnicity, and it sounds pretty weird. A bunch of white, black, latino guys, with a native name on their jerseys? WTF? It doesn't offend me, per se, I just think it's damn odd.
Well, I think the actual number of Irish going to Notre Dame (Fighting Irish) is pretty low, and there are'nt too many axe-weilding Scandahoovians on the Minnesota Vikings, But, I agree with your first point.

I think that, like any Brand Name, the Tribe should have First and Last say as to whether or not their name can be used by a sports team, not a bunch of outsiders with an agenda.
Laerod
22-08-2005, 18:43
The funny thing is, like my opinions on religion, people get mad at me from both sides like you have to have an all or nothing opinion. One side accuses me of marginalizing the plight of natives and the other accuses me of wanting to change the history of the school. Why are people so afraid to judge issues on their individual merit?Polarization of American society. Americans have gotten used to not having a middle ground... :(
Syniks
22-08-2005, 18:47
Polarization of American society. Americans have gotten used to not having a middle ground... :(
Not when there is the possibility of Media and a Law$uit... :headbang:
Sinuhue
22-08-2005, 18:51
Something like the Fighting Irish?
http://www.justgiving.com/pfp/images/UserImages/EGG/Fighting%20Irish%202.JPG
Yeah...that seems kind of weird too...not necessarily offensive, just weird....more like "The Fighting Dubliners", since our tribal names are more specific because of area than a nationality would be...
Sinuhue
22-08-2005, 18:52
The funny thing is, like my opinions on religion, people get mad at me from both sides like you have to have an all or nothing opinion. One side accuses me of marginalizing the plight of natives and the other accuses me of wanting to change the history of the school. Why are people so afraid to judge issues on their individual merit?
Who knows (to answer your rhetorical question:)).

But like I said...I think you have to take it on a case by case basis. It depends. And that means it can change. Something that wasn't offensive can become offensive if certain things are changed, and visa versa.
Jocabia
22-08-2005, 18:53
Something like the Fighting Irish?
http://www.justgiving.com/pfp/images/UserImages/EGG/Fighting%20Irish%202.JPG

I actually had someone take a swing at me over that one. We were in Minneapolis but both went to college at the University of Illinois (Illini). He went into a tyrade about how wrong the name is. I asked him if he thought the Fighting Irish (many t-shirts have logos with an Irishman holding a beer and preparing to fight) was offensive and he told me if the Irish had been treated like Indians then I would have an argument. At which I started to laugh and suggested he pick up a history book. And he took a poke at me, at work. He was little so I just calmed him down and set him back at his desk, but I found the whole thing to be evidence of the problem. Many if not most people who are up in arms about this are just being politically correct. If you don't think people should be mascots, fine, but be CONSISTENT. If you just reasonably think the Fighting Irish and the Redskins are demeaning, then I can get behind it. But this cherry-picking of what's offensive based on the plight of the people is ridiculous.
Sinuhue
22-08-2005, 18:54
Well, I think the actual number of Irish going to Notre Dame (Fighting Irish) is pretty low, and there are'nt too many axe-weilding Scandahoovians on the Minnesota Vikings, But, I agree with your first point.


If the mascot for the Fighting Irish was a drunken sot with black eyes, I bet people would get pissed off:).

Minus the black eyes, I guess it isn't as offensive?

:)Who knows. I for one, being half Irish, don't appreciate the connotation of Irish=drunk/fighter, and we all know the Irish weren't too high on the (excuse me, I have to) totem pole when they first came over either...

...but hey. Whatever.
Jocabia
22-08-2005, 18:56
Polarization of American society. Americans have gotten used to not having a middle ground... :(

I totally agree. Clinton has to be the BEST president in history or EVIL. Same for Bush. People who make their decisions on a case by case basis (Bill Maher) are ostracized and eventually end up losing out because something or other offends both sides of the polarization.
Sinuhue
22-08-2005, 18:57
I totally agree. Clinton has to be the BEST president in history or EVIL. Same for Bush. People who make their decisions on a case by case basis (Bill Majer) are ostracized and eventually end up losing out because something or other offends both sides of the polarization.
You USians...Canada is all about the middle ground :D
Jocabia
22-08-2005, 18:58
You USians...Canada is all about the middle ground :D

Listen if I want to hear about our northern national parks, I'll ask. Otherwise, shut your trap. ;-)
Laerod
22-08-2005, 19:00
I totally agree. Clinton has to be the BEST president in history or EVIL. Same for Bush. People who make their decisions on a case by case basis (Bill Majer) are ostracized and eventually end up losing out because something or other offends both sides of the polarization.Yeah, I think it's the true cause why America is morally going down the drain. I don't mean issues like abortion specifically, but how the arguements go about it. Why does anybody need be mad enough about what they consider murder to plant bombs? And the whole PC thing. Why do people take it to such extremes that it's possible to be considered a nutcase if all you're trying to be is polite.
I think both sides are to blame for the moral destruction of American politics :(
Sinuhue
22-08-2005, 19:01
Listen if I want to hear about our northern national parks, I'll ask. Otherwise, shut your trap. ;-)
whore
Laerod
22-08-2005, 19:03
You USians...Canada is all about the middle ground :DSame in Germany. We have two big parties that differ marginally on certain issues, but not extremely. That's what we have small parties for. Those bring their "extremist" issues into coalitions.
Jocabia
22-08-2005, 19:03
I'm such a hijacker. And now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Syniks
22-08-2005, 19:05
If the mascot for the Fighting Irish was a drunken sot with black eyes, I bet people would get pissed off:).

Minus the black eyes, I guess it isn't as offensive?

:)Who knows. I for one, being half Irish, don't appreciate the connotation of Irish=drunk/fighter, and we all know the Irish weren't too high on the (excuse me, I have to) totem pole when they first came over either...

...but hey. Whatever.
Well, there's Clan Buchanan on both sides of the Irish Sea, and Gramps was about as Irish as they come. I also believe the mascot is more Leprechan than Sot... at least all of the drunken sots at the game in South Bend have painted themselves green and wear Leprecanish clothes, so... :p
Jocabia
22-08-2005, 19:07
Back to remotely on topic -

I just visited Mesa Verde in the southwest. It was really interesting to learn about the culture there and how so many cultures descended from the Puebloans. I read a lot about their religion and such. It was enlightening to say the least. Also, did you know the Puebloans didn't just grow corn, they invented it.
Dempublicents1
22-08-2005, 19:15
I'm not Native American myself (not enough to matter anyways, although I am 1/16 Seminole and some unspecified amount of Cherokee =), but I would have to go with the "it should be judged on a case-by-case basis" folks.

Something like the Seminoles, I think should be left alone. The tribe have endorsed the use of their name for the team, as well as the use of Osceola as their mascot. The team name was chosen specifically to make reference to (and honor by imitating) the indomitable will of the tribe - who fought the US government until the US finally gave up and gave in.

Something like the Savages - pretty obviously offensive.

Something like the Braves? Maybe. Like Sin said, while people may see it as signifying that Native Americans were brave, it was most likely begun as a reference to the name for a male native. If this is seen as offensive because of that, then it should probably be changed.

And I agree with Jocabia that teams or cheerleaders or whatever shouldn't attempt Native dances unless they have been properly taught them (and been given the go-ahead to use them) by members of the tribe in question.
Jocabia
22-08-2005, 19:25
I'm not Native American myself (not enough to matter anyways, although I am 1/16 Seminole and some unspecified amount of Cherokee =), but I would have to go with the "it should be judged on a case-by-case basis" folks.

Something like the Seminoles, I think should be left alone. The tribe have endorsed the use of their name for the team, as well as the use of Osceola as their mascot. The team name was chosen specifically to make reference to (and honor by imitating) the indomitable will of the tribe - who fought the US government until the US finally gave up and gave in.

Something like the Savages - pretty obviously offensive.

Something like the Braves? Maybe. Like Sin said, while people may see it as signifying that Native Americans were brave, it was most likely begun as a reference to the name for a male native. If this is seen as offensive because of that, then it should probably be changed.

And I agree with Jocabia that teams or cheerleaders or whatever shouldn't attempt Native dances unless they have been properly taught them (and been given the go-ahead to use them) by members of the tribe in question.

You realize people begin barricading themselves in bomb shelters when we agree, right?