Not all Native Americans care that the Atlanta baseball teams are named the Braves, and if they do, they don't find the word Brave very offensive or racist.
My people? I live in New Jersey, there aren't many of my people there...I can go by my family, who doesn't care at all...Except maybe the Redskins, I can see the uproar about that.
That's because I don't see it as institutionalized racism...I don't think anyone comes away from a Braves baseball game with any more or less of a stereotype of Native Americans.And again, if I saw this as racism, why wouldn't I be outraged...Obviously I don't see it as racism. From what I read in Quarks post, Native Americans more um, Native American than my self [I'm only a quarter or so], don't seem to care.

BTW, I actually asked a decent question in my previous post...Here it is:

CP

Ok, I will set the record straight for what hopefully will be my last post in this topic.

I have read the corresponding materials and links and I do deem this issue to be one that shows Native Americans in a poor and untruthful light.

So while I may think it "not correct" in having a team named after a group of people, I will most likely continue to not care. It's my apathy. When the other things I want to see change in society happen, and I check them off, I'll get down to this mascot thing. I just believe in a more micro-view. Rather than making fuss about mascots, I'll just continue to be myself and befriend those worth befriending whether he/she is black, white or any color in between. The interpersonal actions are more important. And that's me. If you don't like it, stuff it, I don't care if you don't like it.

There are greater ills in the Native American world and the world itself. And who am I to say this? I'm GOD! That's who. Bow before me of else I will smite thee. People are entitled to opinions no matter how false those opinions may be.

So I will reiterate that if teams have to change their offensive mascots, fine, good, I like it. If not, I'll question why that battle was fought. I try to find compromise, and perhaps there is no compromising this, but I still would want to try. I'd just like to see both parties come off feeling as though they have "won" or at least that they were not heard.

I don't know you well enough to call you a "stupid white man" Titus, but then I don't know how you score on your I.Q. tests.



Look, until more of us educate ourselves in the culture, tradition and concerns of Original Americans, all we can do is speculate on what their most pressing issues are or are not. I read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee and it blew my mind, but I'm hardly an authority on Indian culture.

As regards the Florida State Seminoles and the mascot that comes out to toss a spear, I would ask one question. Is the mascot an Native American? Because unless it is, it's just another White dude in Indian drag and that's not cool. It's no different from the straight line you can draw from Al Jolson's Blackface schtick to Vanilla Ice biting off Black culture. It's called a homage, but it is really just a rip-off.

If a image, nickname or routine is performed by someone who ISN'T a member of the group involved in the presentation, it may not be racist, but it does risk being insensitive and unintenionally cruel.

Titus,

Ok I found the bit on the Irish. Why you seem to think this is about Irish issues or that Natives should care about Irish issues is beyond me but Ill respond with the other stuff that was in that same section: You know they were responding to a newspaper article copmparing the indian mascots to Notre Dame when they wrote this stuff.







Heres an interesting article on what happened when Note DAmes Band parodied the potato famine and a Catholic Cardinal in one of their shows:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../15/MN69409.DTL



Sounds familiar to me.

Im sorry for the tone in my previous posts, I just got angry when people who knew nothing about an issue simply trivialized it without having the first notion of what the problem is or bothering to read whats written.

I know about lysol, and hairspray, and a myriad of other problems on the rez., but thats not the subject of this thread and Ive explained how self esteem issues are linked. They adress this on the site also.

Im done anyway, Ive said my bit and Im sure the next time the people who participated here see indians exploited they are gonna think about it in a deeper sense. More links of interest:
http://aistm.org/1indexpage.htm
http://aistm.org/david_rider_essay.htm
http://aistm.org/fr.education.htm
http://ishgooda.nativeweb.org/racial/quote.htm

I would like to note that this battle has been going on for 35 years, since 1969, when the first teams began to change. Hundreds of school and college teams have changed their names, many have seen the wrongs inflicted and helped others understand as well.



They chose a name and a charicature of an indian, who is a real living being with a current culture, ripped off their ritual and sacred gear and used it, mostly as warlike. It was not negative to them to rally behind this cartoon. It is negative for the people that the cartoon is based on. It isracist.

One last thing CP:




http://www.bluecorncomics.com/mascots.htm#polls

"The American Indians were meaner to themselves than anybody was ever mean to them. The people were savages. It’s true, they damn well were … these people were out there destroying timber, they were out there conquering and killing each other, scalping people."

Rush Limbaugh, quoted in Bigotshtick: Rush Limbaugh on Indians, 1995

"“Move to the reservation you drunk. Do you enjoy the
> casino money? You lost the land to a more
> intelligent being (human). Go Redskins”"
Note left on AIM supporters truck in Louisville Kentucky hospital parking lot. 7/5/02

" I agree, Indians lived here for 25,000 years and lost it all to Europeans in a short period of time. Nobody should name their sports teams after those F'in losers! Lets erase indians from our collective memory!
Note on link page.

"In point of fact, the Europeans who discovered America brought advanced civilization to a savage, vicious, animalistic New World. The Natives who inhabited the Americas were brutal thugs waging constant wars and engaging in widespread scalping. Their economies were primitive with little incentive for technological innovation. A three-course meal consisted of maize, tree bark, and human flesh."

Joseph J. Sabia, Cornell Leftists Trash Columbus/America, Front Page Magazine, 10/14/02

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/savagena.htm

I have been away for a while and the posts have surely accumulated. There are so many things I want to respond to, but I will choose not to since people have mostly responded to most of these. However, there is one thing in particular I would like to respond to from a fellow UGA student:




I am not Indian and I could not make the decision myself. However, I personally feel that this is a reasonable compromise. If you are making millions of dollars at the expense of a race of people, why not give back a little and help them better themselves?

Now I am not sure if anyone else here agrees with this statement, but I for one would consider this quite the compromise. Instead of the possibly hundreds of millions of dollars in collective losses from all the name changes, allow the owners to reach into their couches and scrape up a few million to help the same people they claim to be "honoring".

And I don't see why this wouldn't work... It worked for Philip-Morris.

UGA Boy, I don't understand your comparison at all. Philip Morris didn't perpetuate stereotypes or employ racist imagery. What relevance does it have?

The idea of Pro Sports teams making charitable donations makes no sense whatsoever. The groups mentioned don't have a problem with how these names are being used, but the fact that they are being used at all. The "Fighting Irish" perpetuates a stereotype, but the example of the Redskins or Braves would be akin to the Notre Dam "Mics"...

Some of my ancestors were the norsemen from Scandinavia commonly refered to as "Vikings". Amongst other things they were known for raping, pillaging, murdering and burning the towns and villages of the western European coastline for several centuries in the middle ages. Should I be offended, or ashamed that Minnesota's NFL team uses "Vikings" as it's moniker.

Some of my ancestors were Cherokee from Oklahoma (originally Tennessee). The only team name I find stupid and only slightly offensive is "Redskins" and the part of me that is only slightly offended is the part that must put on sunscreen when I go to the beach. The only people with red skin are light skinned people with very bad sunburns.

I do not find names like "Warriors" or "Braves" or "Chiefs" offensive at all and I also see nothing offensive in using tribal names like Seminoles which merely acknowledge a group of people who live or lived in an area. I think it all depends on whether the name is used in a pejorative or derogatory way. For instance, the term "Squaw" is derogatory (I will allow you to research and find out why), but I know of no team with such a name. "Warriors" or "Chiefs" or "Braves" are no more offensive than "Vikings" or "Bucaneers" or "Raiders" (GO RAIDERS!) and in fact they are less so because all three of the later were theives and worse!

I think one lesson here is that modern technology has raised our standard of living and leisure time to a level where many people have way to much time on their hands to fret over such things. Just an opinion.

P.S. Current scientific thinking has it that those of my ancestors who we call "Native Americans" (aborigines would be a more acurate term since anyone born here is a "native american") actually migrated here from Asia, just like some of my other ancestors migrated from Europe. And of course the whole "Human" thing started out in Africa.

Yes, let's use some of this abundant free time (and perhaps a little creativity) and come up with something that wouldn't be hurtful for an oppressed race. Maybe you could use some of the energy (and time) you are using to defend keeping these hurtful sterotypes to come up with an inspiring mascot that doesn't rely on cheap stereotypes.

And I'm not buying the "my ancestors were _______ so I can speak for them" stuff. Unless you are living the life -- skin color, economic and cultural oppression, you don't know what it's like to walk in their shoes. I'd rather take one who is living that life's word on how they feel as being more valid.

The viking analogy doesn't cut it either, since they were conquerors, and the for the most part the natives are the conquered.

My point is that there is idealism and there is reality. The reality is that these companies are not going to lose that much money in the name of ethics. It just will not happen, regardless of whether it should or not; regardless of whether you think it will or not.

So what is the middle ground? Philip Morris knew smoking is bad, especially bad for kids. However, there is no way they would shut down there multimillion dollar tobacco sector in the name of morality. So they did the next best thing. Fund education about the very same drugs they are selling.

The Natives are understandably upset. I would be too if someone was making a buck off of my heritage. But here in America corporations don't go down easily. Let's be realistic here.

Jonathan B. Hook, Ph.D., president, American Indian Resource Center


Chad Smith, principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, Cherokee Chief, Equal Opportunity Advocate Square Off, Indian Country Today, 9/2/01


Mike Wicks, MASCOTS - Racism in Schools by State


Vine Deloria, Jr. (Sioux), Custer Died for Your Sins

All of the above: http://www.bluecorncomics.com/stquotes.htm

UGA Boy


Oh but it will. Little Black Sambo got booted, and so will this. Hundreds of school teams have changed; but now getting a larger profile and hitting the national teams. The problem is that they own their trademarks so the battle is harder.
Accepting compensation would mean legitimising racism for profit.


Chief Illiniwek of U. of Illinois is being discussed by the school board after student sit-ins last week, likely on his way out as well.
Mascot toilet paper "honor"
Scroll down.

"The Cleveland area Cuyahoga County Library instituted a dress code policy in 1999 banning "Chief Wahoo" from appearing on apparel worn by the library systems's 700 employees."

"In 1997, the minor league Canton-Akron "Indians" renamed themselves the Akron "Aeros" and boosted their merchandise sales from $60,000 to $1.2 million, the largest merchandise income of any minor league team."
http://aistm.org/fr.action.htm



US COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
RELEASES STATEMENT
"The fight to eliminate Indian nicknames and images in sports is only one front of the larger battle to eliminate obstacles that confront American Indians"
"They are particularly inappropriate and insensitive in light of the long history of forced assimilation that American Indian people have endured in this country."

Maybe I could, but I won't. And I did not defend, or not defend anything. I stated who some of my ancestors (Viking and Cherokee amongst others) were, asked if I should be offended by one team name, and stated why I was not offended by others. I then opined that many people have too much time on their hands to fret about such things due to the progress of technology and the resulting general increase in leisure time. If I wanted to defend peoples right to name their team or have whichever mascot they wanted, I would have (and will now) simply remind you that this is a (somewhat) free country and as far as I know there is nothing (other than copyright laws and the like, or slander etc...) that can dictate which names or mascots a person or group of persons can use. Of course, people are also free to (non-violently) try to persuade others, one way or another (boycotting for example). Finally, I'll leave choosing names and mascots up to the teams and fans they represent. I don't think that's any of my business. Now if the Raiders ever ask me if I think they should change their name (GO RAIDERS!), I'd vote no.

How sad and dishonest it is when one person has to conjur up words that were never said and place them into a quote by someone else in order to try to make a point. I never said "so I can speak for them". How very ironic that you accuse me of trying to "speak for them" when it is you who are trying to speak for all "Native Americans". From what I have read and seen and actually talked about with other "Native Americans" over the years, there is hardly a universal consensus among all "Native Americans" on whether certain team names and mascots are offensive. Quarkhead's earlier post would seem to confirm this. Then again, maybe all that matters is that you think that those "Native Americans" who are not offended should be offended, and to the exact same degree that you are. Perhaps those "Native Americans" who do not share your outrage are simply misguided and need to be properly enlightened, presumably by you and those who share your opinion.

I did say that some of my ancestors were Vikings. I never said I spoke for them. I was speaking for myself as a descendant of the Vikings. If you are going to put quotation marks around things I say, please do so without inserting your own assumptions. And although in the intervening years, I and my ancestors gave up wearing animal skins and helmets with horns, and sailing up and down the European coast waving axes and swords, I have learned quite a bit about the lifestyles of my Nordic ancestors. There was a lot more to them than just pillaging and murder. Seems "valid" enough to me to wonder if I should be offended by a mascot that could be construed as negatively representing only the occasionally violent nature of my ancestors. I've decided that I'm not. Knowing what I do know about them, I now think that they would be amused or flattered for a few seconds and then get back to the business of living. Of course I could be wrong.


I am glad that you are not the arbiter of what does or "doesn't cut it". And just in case you didn't know, there was a lot more to Vikings than "conquering". Regarding the "conquered", I would be offended by team names such as "The Vanquished Heathens" or "The Slaughtered Savages", with corresponding "Native American" logos and mascots because my Cherokee ancestors certainly could not have resisted the greater numbers and technologies of my other ancestors. While those names represent a reality, they are used in a pejorative way. Of course there are no such team names. Even if there were and I was offended, I certainly wouldn't call for laws to prohibit them. Laws do not change peoples hearts. Only persuasion and time can do that. But as someone else pointed out, team names (like Warriors, Chiefs, and Braves- or Vikings, Cowboys, Raiders, Lions, Tigers, and Bears-OH MY!) also represent things that were or are real, but they are not pejorative and are chosen to represent the aspects of strength, speed, endurance, cunning, pride, etc...present in groups of people or types of animals.

Regarding "taking offense", I think it all depends on the intent behind the name. Of course you always have the right to feel offended, but there is no right to not feel offended.

Artemise sent me a link to a website full of cartoons about the very subject we are talking about.

I thought this picture was pertinent to one of the arguments being made and decided to post it.

Thanks Artemise for the website.



IMAGE LINK

Just to clarify, this is what I said:



As I said, the fact that a majority are apathetic about it, does not mean that those who are making an issue of this are wrong. In fact, I do agree with them. And it is irrelevant that they are a minority. I cannot think of a single political movement which was not, in reality, carried out by, or at least led by, a small minority - including the American Revolution.

I also want to make a correction to my earlier post:



Shows how out of touch I am with sports programs. Our team is still, proudly, the Neah Bay Red Devils.

I'd like to see how some people would react to the Baltimore Catholics - the marching band (and rabid fans) wear pope hats and carry large crosses. OK, I made that up.

It is no longer such a minority, and not only native. There are over 100 organizations, universities, churches including the NAACP that endorse the retirement of 'indian' sports team tokens.

The list is HERE

A few of these:

American Jewish Committee

Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes
(Composed of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muskogee (Creek), Cherokee, and Seminole Nations)

National Congress of American Indians

National Education Association

National Indian Education Association

New Hampshire State Board of Education

New York State Education Department

United States Commission on Civil Rights

Well, first let me clarify that the in the first few sentences of your quote of me:



I was refering to Artemise's act of taking my words and adding her own and then quoting me as having said them all.

Thanks for the clarification Quarkhead, but I believe I understood what I referenced you as saying in your first post and did not spin it or take it out of context in my last. Just for clarification, this is what I said:


And here is what you said:



I honestly see no substantial difference or conflict between our observations. Furthermore, I never said that anyone was "wrong" about the lack of (or varying degrees of) being offended. I was merely pointing out (as you did) that the "offense" taken is not "universal". I hope this much is clear.

In your last post you went on to say:



You are absolutely right about many political movements being carried out or at least led by small minorities. As a libertarian (talk about a small minority) I can certainly relate and have no problem with that. But I hope that you would agree that those who oppose the goals of a political movement (minority or not) have just as much a right to express their views on the subject (in this case- team names and mascots) and to engage in the process as do the proponents. Some people have implied that if you don't live the exact same life as the proponent, or at least empathize and agree, then you have no business speaking on or getting involved in the subject. I hope that is a minority view.

And finally, if your clarification was offered in order to differentiate yours and my opinion on other matters in our previous posts that were not mentioned in our quotes discussed above, please help me by citing those other matters.

Argonaut,

I never responded to you, it was someone else.

Artemise,

You are absolutely right Artemise! I meant to say that it was Jenreiautter that dishonestly added her words to mine and then quoted them all as if I had said them. Please forgive me for confusing the two of you! I am extremely embarrassed that I made such a mistake and hope that you will forgive my error. However, everything beyond this mistaken identity is accurate
The reason that I added this commentary is that Quarkhead included a portion of a quote by me that refered to Jenreiautter's misquoting of me in her post that had nothing to do with his clarification of of what he said and what I said on other posts. I was just trying to make sure that other readers could separate out the issues. Now they are just as likely to be more confused than before. On the other hand, I believe that most members are quite bright and will trust in their powers to sift through the mess and see the truth.

I am sorry for the mix-up!

The quotations marks in this case were not meant as a direct quotation, but was used to paraphrase of all the posts that used similar types of arguments. It was not directed at one particular person.

From Jenriautter


Here is what I (Argonaut) said:



Here is what (Jenriautter) said:


................................................................................
...................................
I may be crazy, but using my exact words- "some of my ancestors", led me to believe that it was I whom you were attempting to intentionally misquote. There were indeed other members who mentioned their heritage and while I cannot speak for them, I will take your word that you were merely trying to "paraphrase all of the posts that used similar types of arguments."

However, I don't believe I saw any of them use your words- "so I can speak for them". I know I didn't. I will not presume to know the intent of these others in their decision to share their ancestry with us. You will have to ask them. I will just speak for my self. You presumed to know my intent. You call it paraphrasing. In this case, I call it putting words (that I never said) in my mouth and intentions (that I never had) in my mind. To be sure, paraphrasing can be a valid literary tactic, but not when it is used to alter the original meaning and intent of the person(s) being paraphrased in order to further the agenda of the one who is paraphrasing. At it's best, we often call this "SPIN". At it's worst, it's a lie.

Having said that, we all make mistakes. I certainly have. Remember what they told us in school- "when you assume, you make an ... out of u and me".

Enough said.