Many Native Americans protest every year against the use of racial and derogatory Indian icons used by sports teams across the US; Braves, Chiefs, Indians and the Red Skins for example. You would never hear of a team being called derogatory Jewish, Black or Asian names, so many people would cry out. In fact, the idea of those minorities being exploited in such a manor wouldn't even be considered.

So why is it that Native Americans get this type of treatment, especially with the horrible treatment they have received in this country throughout it's history?


http://stutzfamily.com/mrstutz/prejudice/logowebquest1.html

http://aistm.org/1996mascot.articles.htm

My opinion is simple, we call caucasian people white without a second thought. I hear African-Americans and white people using the terms "black" and "white" without a second thought. If we use the word white, I don't see a problem with the word black.

What does this have to do with Indian mascots?

Braves, Chiefs, Indians and the Red Skins
Not exactly derogatory in my opinion. Why would anyone want to name themselves after losers. The names are generally repectable names.
Just for the sense of humor check out this link
http://www.fightingwhites.org/index.aspx
I think its very funny. I'd order a t shirt but I shave my head and would hate to get shot because as we all no there are people out there who judge by appearance and I'd hate to get the rep as a skinhead. Although the only people who have ever associated me with them have been my fellow Crackers.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...14/SP193744.DTL
this is good too.

You know, I went to high school for a lil while at Fullerton High School in SoCal. Our mascot was an indian. And at football games we had a guy dress up and do flips and stuff. Were we insulting the Native American race? Hell no. Even when other high schools were changing their mascots in other states from indians to other things, we kept our's. And we had the blessing of some tribes in the area.

Why dont they go after the Celtics for their mascot? Look at it. Its a 3 1/2 fott Irish guy with a four leaf clover. Oh but that's not a sterotype, cause Irish folks are caucasian and caucasians, all of us know, have no right to be offended. This is comin from a guy who used to wear an Iron Cross on my jacket and was asked if I was a Nazi twice a month.

As you can tell, this really gets my goat. ITS A MASCOT. As long as they aren't reenacting the French and Indian wars during a football game, let them be. Everyone should look be able to a symbol and have pride, no matter what race they are.

The Red Skins really do need to change names. I'll not list the equally derogatory names associated with other races since you all can hear them echoing in your heads.

So, here are some suggested names appropriate to the Washington, D.C. region:

The Smarmies

The Insiders

The Lobbyists

The Sneers

The Warmongers

The String Pullers

The Suits

The Corrupts

Any of these names are fearful enough for a football team. Meanwhile, let's stop picking on a conquered race and displaying our ignorance of its cultures. I'd also like to see the Braves renamed to the Christians and see them in the arena with the Lions. The Chiefs can stay, but make the symbol a newspaper editor.

Hmm, lets see why it's different, shall we? The Boston Celtics, who's biggest player was Larry Bird, was obviously Irish. Boston's biggest celebration is St. Patricks day, where the whole city is converted into one big green shamrock. The city and the state takes pride in it's very Anglican heritage and rightfully so, there's nothing wrong with that. The leprechaun is a mythological icon of Ireland, who's been exploited by cereal companies and the movie industry. Irish descendence who moved to the US have melded in with society quite easily. Unless you're in one of the New England states who's caucasian population prides it's self in it's very diverse and distictive Anglican ancestry, a white person in this country is a white person and could care less about the exploitation of the leprechaun.

Now, on the other hand, the Native Americans of this country have had a long history of persecution, exploitation, demonization and discrimination. I'm not aware of any Indian Nation owning a major league sports team, having a nationally recognizable athlete. I don't see in any major city in the US where there is one day to celebrate the Native American culture nationally. I do see Natives being exploited, be it somewhat willingly by major league sports teams who degradingly have them manufacture the Braves foam Tomahawks. I do see where Native Americans for years being portrayed in film as ignorant savages.

Titus, honestly, I don't see the comparison you're trying to make.

The use of Native American team names and mascots can be construed as offensive because the Native Americans lost the battle. (I think it's so ignorant to refer to Native Americans as Indians - you now know that what Columbus stumbled upon was not INDIA). I have an adopted Indian brother (from India) and my family is Cherokee (Native American) so in our family, there is a big distinction, as there should be.

Had northern teams started naming their sports teams the Confederates or the Rebels, the south would know exactly how we feel.

It's a name reserved in the hearts of those who went through an ordeal and claim it as a cultural significance, the reminders of the way other people treated us like nothing. It's the same reasons why a white person saying the n-word is offensive to blacks, but two blacks saying the n-word is acceptable.

My high school mascot, the Crusaders (named after the Christian murderers), displays a pride for the victors, when true Christians should feel horror at being reminded of those who "deviated from the true path of christianity" in the name of their god. But there is no offense taken by the winners of a battle. If the winners utilize the cultural names (whether positive or negative in original connotation) of the losers, the loser will be offended - in a "what, you haven't taken enough from us already?" type of way. But if the winners are utilizing the "noble names" of their own causes, even if the causes were unjust, it's just history - not offensive.

Maybe I'm being confusing - but I hope you see what I'm saying.

Well actually, there are some.

http://unlvrebels.ocsn.com/calendar/unlv-calendar.html

And they even have them in the south.

http://olemisssports.ocsn.com



I understand what you're saying, but that is a poor excuse. I have never heard Holocaust survivors refer to eachother familiarly by saying 'How's it going, Juden?' and I have yet to hear Japanese-Americans use the word Nip in a friendly connotation. In fact, many black people in the US, would never use the word Nigger or Nigga in friendly connotation with other black people. A lot of them fiend it just as much of a slur when said by either a black or a white.




I'm not talking about the exploitation of the leprechaun, I'm telling you that if you walk into a neighborhood in Southie and call someone a 'lep', be prepared to have medical insurance info on your person.



Well, as far as ownership, I haven' found any, but as for athletes, here's a few....

Native Americans who have played or are currently in the NHL....

Chris Simon of the Washington Capitals
Greg Berube and Sandy McCarthy of the Philadelphia Flyers
Denny LAmbert of the Atlanta Thrashers
Blair Atcheynum of the Chicago Blackhawks
Gino Odjick of the New York Islanders

Now granted, they are far and few between but for sake of time, I cannot locate all Native American athletes who are in major sports.

Lest we forget the most famous Native American athlete who was recently voted in an ESPN poll (although they gave the honor to Michael Jprdan) as 'Athlete of the Century', won the deacthalon and the pentathalon in the 1912 Summer Games (a feat that has never been reached before or after). He played prfessional baseball and football (including for teams then known as the Boston Braves and the Cleveland Indians) Now I could go on but for sake of time, Ill just tell you his name.

Jim Thorpe. Who, in 1999, was recognized in a United States Congressional resolution as the 'Athlete of the Century'.

Another interesting fact taken from an ESPN.com article.....



So is it wrong for Phil Jackson to use these ideals and these items to instill in his players a sense of teamwork and pride?



Ok... well, now you do.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/feature/indian/



And I've seen WWII movies that have American soldiers call Germans 'Krauts' and be portrayed as willing accoplises in the Holocaust. My grandmother, who grew up in Germany during the war, was offended when she heard that slur. But I don't see anybody sympathizing with that.

My example, a little extreme I'll admit, was to show the fact that noone can escape stereotypes. That doesn't make them right, but this isn't relegated to one race or people. If a school uses a mascot that also identifies a people (whether it be Native Aerivan or not) and chooses to portray that mascot in an inappropriate manner then they are wrong. But many dont, and many students are proud of their mascot and rally behind them.

You must be from a different area of the country than me. All of my African American friends refer to each other lovingly with the N word. And we work in the most African American county in the state, comparable to any African American population in the nation.



Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Exploiting someone's cultural dress and mannerisms in an inaccurate manner or in a tainted way is insulting. The "Savages" were only perceived that way by white folks who were trying to steal their land. They were only vicious and fighting warriors when they were provoked. Native American ways revolve around peace and harmony and as a last resort violence. I take offense at the portrayal of such an unflattering side of a culture that had much beauty and dignity as its foundation. Same thing as portraying the christians as crusading murderers when their whole principal is the basis of love and caring.


I also don't see "Smithville High School Krauts" on any banners.



I'd say that the images do portray Native Americans in an inappropriate manner.
Not that mainstream America would care about the people who used to own and respect the land before they (their ancestors) plundered and destroyed it.

edited for spelling

Im not refering to area but to class. At the risk of sounding racist, which I contend I am not, (and if I could get some feedback from African-American fourm members) Id say most African-Americans who are from a upper-middle to upper class background won't use it in that connotation. But, that's just me.



How is hanging up the Lakota symbol for prayer in a locker room identifying a race as 'savage'? How is it 'unflattering'? They're taking peaceful and noble ideals from them and using them on the basketball court.



Oh, so that makes it completely alright then, doesn't it? This is the hypocracy I am talking about. You can insult any white person but don't let a white man insult you, that's racism.




Well, I can't say I have, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Oh, BTW, didn't the Native-Americans have NO system of land ownership? Not that it makes what settlers did ok, but...

Well since there aren't any hard facts on this one, we'll have to disagree. I happen to associate with upper-middle class african americans who have a sense of humor and a sense of culture and political interests and other "high class" traits that use the N term amongst themselves.


I was agreeing with you that using their peaceful and noble ideas is a form of flattery - not misrepresentation.


I don't understand what you're saying. You said that you don't see people sympathizing with the Germans who were called Krauts. I'm saying I also don't see any high schools using such negative slurs about Germans, hence the reason you don't hear people sympathizing about the use of Krauts as a high school mascot.



Disagree with what? Just because Native American's didn't horde land amongst themselves means that it's ok for Europeans to ruin their system of sharing all natural resources?

First, I'd like to say that I see a distinct difference between names like the Chiefs or the Braves, and the Redskins. Chiefs and Braves seem to me to be somewhat misguided, but sincere forms of flattery - they are trying to capture a positive ideal for the teams. The Redskins, however is merely derogatory, and is similar to a team being called the Washington Niggers.

That said, however, I would like to throw in my personal experience - I lived for two years on the Navajo Nation, and currently reside on the Makah Nation. When I first moved to the rez, I was surprised most by two things.

First, the ubiquity of the term 'Indian.' Both Indians and Anglos alike use the term around here. On the Navajo rez, there were some anglos who used the term disparagingly in the border towns, and it was offensive, but it carries nowhere near the same power as a word like 'nigger.' Most people just use it generally, to refer to themselves and others. There is a running joke, on most reservations, about "Indian time." When an event is scheduled to start at 7PM, it might start at 7:45, or 8, and we call it "Indian time." I remember seeing signs advertising powwows that said "Time: 4PM Indian Time."

Second, it surprised me that many Indians on the rez were big fans of all the teams mentioned in this thread. I was shocked, frankly, the first time I saw a bunch of Redskins memorabilia in someone's house. The people most vocal about changing these names are a very small minority of politically active NAs, most of whom live off the reservations. Now, that doesn't mean they are wrong, just that they don't reflect a majority, who either don't think about it (being apolitical like most folks), or take a certain almost perverse (in the case of the Redskins) pride in it.

Our Makah high school team is called the Warriors. But they used to be called (you'll love this) the Red Devils. They adopted this name because at one point, many years ago, when they were playing an away game, the commentator said "Look at those red devils go!" In that case, using the name really was a political statement.

My personal opinion is that Native Americans have been called so many different things, that for the most part, they've become inured to all of them. Heck, even the terms Navajo and Makah and Souix are names given for tribes, not the actual names of the tribes. The Navajo are really called Diné, which means 'the people,' the Makah are the Kwih-dich-chuh-ahtx, which means 'people who live by the rocks and seagulls,' and the Souix are composed of several tribes - the Oglala, the Lakota, and others.

This article details why the Cleveland Indians were/are being protested.

"When Lajoie was traded to the Philadelphia Athletics, in January 1915, a local newspaper had a contest to rename the team.
The winning selection was "Indians," in honor of Chief Louis Francis Sockalexis, a Penobscot Indian from Old Towne, Maine, who was the first Native American to play professional baseball."


I understand the reasoning behind the people's vote (if it was indeed the reasoning), but that still doesn't make sense. "Indian" is a term that showcases the misconception of Columbus. Not that a commonly-used word should be avoided just because it was coined in error, but not only is this word a decidedly bad-call but it MEANS SOMETHING ELSE. That's the main problem that I have with the term "Indians" - there really do exist Indians that are not the American connotation of Indians. And on top of that, the Columbus errantly called Native Americans INDIANS, naming them after actual people who should rightly be called Indian. It makes no sense. And it's arrogant. I understand why Native Americans on a reservation don't care about being called Indian, just like America doesn't care about calling Native Americans Indians. But India's citizens living in America don't get it. And I don't get it. Just because something is a traditional error means we shouldn't try to correct the error?

Sorry for the tirade - back to the show:
Native Americans are a dying culture. They won't be around for long. I think it's sad that their heritage won't really live on in the sacred and dignified way that a dying culture should. Instead of a commercialized, misrepresented, disrespecting exploitation for modern athletics.

Names of sports teams are chosen out of admiration of the mascot, not out of denegration or spite.

As quark pointed out, the majority of Native Americans (my daughter tells me all the time not to call them Indians) see this as a non-issue. Who the heck cares what some sports team is named after?

Are Lions, Tigers, or Bears (oh my...) objects of scorn because they are team mascots? No. The opposite is true.

Some people will always be thin skinned and want their 15 minutes of fame.

I don't really see this as an issue (although I am a big Cleveland Indians fan, so I guess I am biased).

Sorry about that last one Perspective, that's what being riled up with no sleep gets you. Let me re-iterate my view and save some sort of face.


If a school or sports club mascot is an 'indian', 'chief' or a 'brave' and they are not running around make believe scalping people and the like then what's the harm? If you ask me the, Native American populous should have a bigger bone to pick with the US government and it's own people. There are some reservations in this country where 1 in 3 is an alchoholic and are not getting any help from either party. Other tribes that own casinos and the like are seeing only very little of the profits go to the entire tribe, while a very few of their brothers grow rich. This is why I feel that the name issue is a bit trivial.

Say they do get every single team or school with an 'indian', 'chief' or a 'brave' as a mascot to change their name, then what? You still have less than great treatment from the US government, you still have social and health issues to deal with, and some cases you have the wealth that should belong to the whole tribe going to only a few. What will have been accomplished?

Now that doesn't mean I don't understand their point of view, I do. But between the reverse racism that Ive seen, the treatment of their people in the past by this government that has had long lasting effects, and now the unfair distribution of wealth within the tribes themselves, I just think that there would be more pressing matters.

Lol, can I get my last post stricken?

I am opposed to the whole idea of political correctness with respect to team mascots. Mascots are often chosen based on historical factors. For instance, the Celtics, as shown in an earlier post, were named for the large population of irish-catholic immigrants that made their way to Boston. My high school mascot was named the warriors, not to spite the native american history that pervaded my hometown, but to honor it. We erased the culture of the people that onced lived there, but remembering that they lived there, at least keeps their historical significance alive.

At what point are you remembering their historical significance? Is it when you make funny sounds every time the football team scores. Or is it when you run around the stadium bare-chested to make other laugh? At what point does someone is your school teach this historical significance?

I am not trying to jump on you personally, I am saying this in general. Many people use this argument about historical significance and remembering. I used it when I was in high school because I didn't want anyone changing my mascot. I was proud to be an Albany High Indian.

But personal preference should not cloud the judgment. You use the example of Boston Celtics referring to the immigrants who migrated there. Today, Boston is overwhelmingly Irish-Catholic. Yet, there aren't enough Indians in America to fill up 10% of the schools who use their ancestry and religious articles (tomahawks and headgear) as reasons to run around acting crazy at a football game.

I love the Georgia Bulldogs. I where red and black atleast 3 times a week here, and I have everything from the UGA comforter to the Georgia football helmet - umbrella. But at the end of the day, I know it is GA's reputation that made the Bulldog popular, not the other way around. And more than that, if we weren't the GA Bulldogs, people would care less about that animal. The only "pride" involved is being able to have something to use as our object for representation.
Nothing more.

I've read a few comments, and the first thing I want to dissipate is the continuous question when a race, class, or social issue comes up, "Why don't you focus on something else?" Yes, alcoholism is a problem, but the issue here is the use of mascots believed to be racist. Rather than try to change the subject, we should address the issue at hand. If you care about the other subject, that's another discussion altogether.

I don't know why people want to bring up the Celtics as if it is comparable to the Redskins. A large group of Native Americans find it offensive. I see it no different than changing the Knicks to the New York Niggers.

Many of the images you have of people hooting and hollering like "savages" and the tomahawk chop motion were used as racists portrayals of Native Americans. Perhaps the Chiefs and the Braves aren't derogatory, but the axe chopping and names like Redskins are.

Well, I must be in the minority who views that institutional stereotyping of a race of people is wrong no matter who it is. 'No big deal'? I wish to explain why it is a very big deal and what harm 'is' done.

People would not accept team names like the Georgia BLACKS, or the Texan REDNECKS or the New Jersey CRACKERS. We would never name teams after any of our divisions who fight wars.
If we had a black mascot that came out in a loin cloth with a spear, a shield and a bone in his hair, would that be all good?
What if we had a big fat ole boy in his boxers with a case of beer on his shoulder and a wife in curlers, housecoat and bedslippers as mascots? That would be ok? Or if we had people dressed as Hasiddic Jews or Priests or a Marines as mascots? These are the equivalent of what you are talking about when you say, "No Big Deal".

Regalia is sacred to Natives, and running around yelping, waving tomahawks and chop chopping is as bad a stereotype as the Blackfaces were. The problem is not only sports teams, IE: We long got rid of the little african negro on the side of coffee cans etc, why not the 'indian' as well? We claim that we are actually honoring them? Our depictions of native americans are based on ignorance, it isnt applicable that we honor them on the side of butter tubs. Our understanding of native culture is still ignorant (explaination below), so it isnt appropriate that we pretend to honor them as sports team mascots.

I quote ''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 experience it as no less than a mockery of our cultures."

Using these objects is making fun of the scared values of another culture. We dont see that because most people have never understood that they were sacred in the first place.
We have to face that were being culturally insensitive, we have no way of relating to native culture because of this very problem. Its a catch 22.

"Indians are people not mascots. Indian" logos and nicknames create, support and maintain stereotypes of a race of people. When such cultural abuse is supported by one or many of society's institutions, it constitutes institutional racism."

People (most) are not aware of contemporary native culture, lifestyle, values. As we continue to use native stereotypes we hold a view of them 1.) Incorrectly, based on their true culture. 2.) in the past, both of which make it difficult to relate to them and their concerns or struggle in the present.

This is from a site that explains these things quite well, although its dealing with school teams:

http://pages.prodigy.net/munson/

The US is still breaking treaties with Natives. Until we can bring them into the realm of being 'real people' in the public mind this will continue.

This movement started at least 10 years ago in schools which were closer to reservations. In South Dakota one school had an Indian Princess Day, in real regalia gifted at one time by Red Cloud himself. Part of the ceremonial ritual was that the girls teeth were examined by judges on the lawn of the school! Two female students went to complain about feeling uncomfortable about the whole pageant which had decades of history. Amongst plenty of controversy they took on the school board and finally won. That was in an area thought of by most local whites as having 'an indian problem'.
My point is that this issue is only now reaching a national level after many years coming up in the ranks.

I disagree with Titus that this is a non-essential issue. This is a back of the bus issue, and changing it is a way to move forward, solve other problems and bring natives into our common minds as contemporary beings and part of the whole. It allows children to grow up with accurate depictions and will positively effect native children's self-esteem as well.
Titus, right after asking why natives should care about our sports teams named Braves and Chiefs when... he speaks of alchoholism and casinos, very commonly held stereotypes of 'indians'. There is an indication that they should not care what we name our teams because their real concerns should be that 1/3 of them are drunks. (ie: you were once 'braves' and 'chiefs'.... now you are casino owners or drunks, so what do you care anyway, we are honoring your past.) Im not accusing Titus of that thought process, Im just saying that its a common jump. We need to change it by dropping the stereotypes.

Quark, often people are so, as you said, inured to things over time that they themselves dont even realize the damage until someone who can see it speaks up finally.
People need understand that a Redskin was by definition less than an animal, to be slaughtered without care or locked up, whos skin was once used to make garments, a godless creature of no value. Its possible this definition has weakened in the last hundred years, however I'm sure the elders would roll in their graves at natives with Redskin memorabilia, if it werent for the irony.

This topic has been up alot since 'Outkast' showed up at the Grammys in bright green 'indian' dress with a teepee and half naked dancing girls with feather headresses in the backround. It moved people to outrage.

As Litefoot, native rapper/ actor put it, "If I put on African American regalia and jumped around the stage when I did my concerts on the rez...Do you think people would have a problem with that? Or when I did the gig with Ludacris, Nas and Busta Rhymes last year at the Nassau Colliseum..If I would have come out like Andre from Outkast did at the Grammy's...they would have killed me! Or beaten me so badly I would have wished I were dead. I feel we don't have any choice but to stand strongly from now on, against all acts like this. "

Apart from the Redskins, I don't find the team names offensive, but I do find the costumes and behavior of the mascots themselves, if not outright offensive, at least disrespectful - particularly as they tend to reinforce the stereotype of Native Americans being universally warlike.

I would agree with Titus, as well (though not in the sense that he might expect) - I do find the Celtics mascot offensive (and idiotic) and would be even more offended if they were instead called the Micks. I would also take offense if there were a team called the Krauts - or the Kikes or the Wops or the Chinks or the Spics or the Towelheads or... the Redskins.

Wertz, Im suprised you are missing some of the point.( boo hoo on you) Of course you do not find this outright offensive because of the fashion in time which we have made the indian a symbol. You should easily understand the offense. ( I know you will as I pound the point. ) Indians/Natives are living people, not symbols of bravery and conquest, however they are in fact brave and survivors, much the same as holocaust victims. Not symbols to be used by their conquerers.
The use of facial logos of a race and other related symbols in another's sports games is wrong (painted faces, eagle feathers, war personages). No other race is depicted in this way. We dont have white, black, hispanic or asian faces 'racially' depicted on helmets as personages. Its not only disrespectful, its outright commercialising of a race and that includes names.

Warriors is ok, because its not race specific, Chiefs would not be race specific if they didnt include faces of 'indians'. This is subtle but important. How about Chiefs with George Washington on the helmet? Not exactly a driving force to intimidate the competition, and we never thought of it. I believe Braves to be race specific.

We have Vikings, which no longer exist. You might think Cowboys vs. Indians but Cowboy is a profession. I can only think of race based team name that is not of indian extraction and thats The Fighting Irish of Notre Dame. My thoughts are, if the Irish have a beef with it they can take it up with them too.

redskin
noun [C]
TABOO DATED
a Native American

Cambridge International Dictionary of English

red·skin
n. Offensive Slang

Used as a disparaging term for a Native American.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

I think most of us can agree on this. Now to draw another arrow into the mix:

7/14/02
"The Redskins debate — in addition to the latest condemnation from the Metropolitan Council of Governments, a challenge to the team's trademark is tied up in federal court — focuses on the genesis of the name (was it born as an ethnic slur?) and its use today (does it denigrate Indians?).

There are at least three versions of the name's origin. The official story, says team spokesman Karl Swanson, is that when the Boston Braves football team left Braves Field to play at Fenway Park in 1933, owner George Preston Marshall needed a new name for his squad.

He chose Redskins in honor of Lone Star Dietz, the team's coach and an Indian who often wore an eagle feather headdress,( as a native this was his perogative and right. my emphasis) beaded deerskin jacket and buckskin moccasins. Dietz brought four to six — accounts vary — Indian players with him to Boston from the Haskell Indian School in Kansas, where he had coached for four years."

The genesis may always remain murky because Marshall never wrote a word about his choice, the Boston newspapers from the time are silent on the question (football was a minor sideshow in those days), and survivors of the period offer conflicting and vague recollections. But it is clear that the Boston Redskins, who moved to Washington in 1937, sought to capitalize on their Indian players and coach: The team played wearing red war paint. And Indian players from the time considered the name and trappings an honor. (Supposedly, or did they just go along...my edit)
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/redskins.htm

However, that was 1937. In 1937 we know where we were in relation to indians, race and its ambiguities.

The context on names is very simple. Imagine for a moment: The Cleavland Asians, The Cleavland Africans, or The Cleavland Hispanics and you can see that its not just a mascot problem but a problem of ignorance towards a people still living amongst us, not relegated to museum archives and a commercialization of the 'braves and chiefs' of the past. (There are still braves and chiefs. Attend a tribal council where 'war' chiefs are still elected, however they do not loom like the logos.) 'Indians on helmets' is wrong and is likely ( though unintentionally) a subversive means of keeping a culture in a struggle to be seen as 'real people' and not symbols. That and of course, its rascist.

Why don't we just all get real and have names like the Atlanta Wife-beaters (Bobby Cox can still manage this team) and have a face with a hand-print on it?
Also, we could get the St. Louis Carjackers, that would be a good one to watch.
The New York Pimps with brightly colored uniforms. They could have their own cheerleaders, Da Hoes. The mascot would definitely be worth the ticket to the game.
Washington Shysters, definitely known for their great ability to steal bases.
San Francisco Homosexuals. Known for their ability to come from behind, especially in the 6th and 9th innings. They'd probably have the best pitchers in baseball.

Why not be real with it all? I'd have respect for someone who named their team something like that. Why should everyone be so uptight? Aren't there bigger fish to fry? I believe the way in fighting and expiating the problem is to take away the offensive element to it. Not by wrath does one kill, but by laughter. Racism is a problem that should be confronted, and laughter is a universal language. To make it funny would be to make it all ineffective at creating hatred. Kinda like with the KKK. I hate when they decide to have a rally somewhere, not because of them, but because the protesters are morons. Let them speak, digest their inane arguments, and rip said arguments to shreds. It's giving them what they want in violence and protesting that makes them come back.

I see sports team mascots almost like the doppelganger to what hate groups have done with other symbols. For instance, the KKK perverting the Confederate battle flag into a symbol of oppression and hate. Nazi use of the swastika, which up until that point I believe was a Native American symbol for good luck. I don't think that's the context we think of when we hear "swastika" now is it? But these sports teams, imo have taken something that one might think is derogatory and re-created it into something that plenty of people rally behind.

Overall, I don't get the big deal. I'm much in agreement with what Titus has expressed with the real problems faced by Native Americans in this country. People should pick their battles more carefully. However, I'm still all for the changing of the Braves to the 'Beaters.

Yes, I realize noone is getting it, despite the information and links. That is because we are so inured to it. Natives are a race not a symbol, especially not a symbol to be commericalized after defeat and genocide! puleeze! Name one other race depicted in this way! This just goes to show how really bad the situation is for Natives.



Pardon me but Indians do not have anything to do with the KKK or wife-beating and your post is thoroughly offensive. Native American cultures are not a thing to be laughed about but a real and evolving culture of today. Sure, lets all get a good laugh in at the expense of a RACE of people. Its ludicrous to think of in todays day to do to any other race, hey, how about the New York Holocaust Surviors! Hey we are honoring them! The Atlanta Confederates, the Chicago Ghetto Blasters, why not the San Fancisco Orientals, or the Detroit Slaves. We can claim we are honoring them too.

You (several) are not getting it because of the fact that 'they' are not seen as people because of this problem. Any other race would take exception, and they are, and we need to listen. Any other race would be listened to by now. If they do not feel honored but slighted, then how is that honor?



Wrong. The swastika goes back to early times to mean the continuation of life. It was reversed by the Nazis and is never used today because of its connotations.



Well if you dont get the big deal maybe you should read about it, including my extensive postings, since I know what I am talking about. Natives are picking their battles and this is at the head of it, which you have so justly proved to be correct by your insidious post.
People, especially a conquering people, rallying around PAST symbols of someones RACE , especially when they are ALIVE is WRONG. It is perfectly evident if anyone wishes to remove their head out of their rear quarters.

Here is a perfect link describing the situation in Native terms, the site is very extensive and explains it all is easy to use ABC's, following the links in every article.
[URL=http://www.bluecorncomics.com/mascots.htm]
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/mascots.htm[/URL]

This is just pure denial of something that has become SO distained by everyone towards every other race. Usage of the symbol of 'the mighty indian' is so ingrained you cant even see the slight, but it is one.

So instead of going after the alcoholism epidemic or the wave of poverty amoung many tribes, what are they doing? Going after mascots. I'm sorry, but I'd rather live for a while having a sports team named the Krauts or the Honkeys and fixing my people's problems than going after said teams while many of my people are in need of help.

I had a talk with a friend of mine (who is part Chocktaw if I remember right) about how many Native Americans are living in poverty, due in part to the unequal distribution of wealth. I asked him if their was something that we as Americans can do to fix this via state laws and what not. To my astonishment he said no, because in a way, each tribe is their own nation with theirown set of self-regulatory guidelines. It's up to the tribal leaders how things work out.

And I'm proud to say that Wertz and I have found some common ground. I mean, if you agree that Native American mascot names are offensive, then I wanna see a mascot change for the Boston Celtics. It goes both ways.

Yes, I suppose one as dumb as your average indian cannot adress more than one issue at a time. Hello!
Obviously, noone reads anything of pertinence in this thread, just pound your idiotic views and deny the problem which has been adressed in reference to Natives and their deeper problems.


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

IF WE dont consider natives as real a people as Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and Whites, enough to STOP institutionalized racism and stereotyping them, how can they EVER gain ground as far as their real struggle goes?

Titus, Wertz was not agreeing with you BTW and if the Irish have issue, take it up with the Celtics. That commentary has nothing to do with what we are talking about here, which is the native feeling of being mocked and their sacred rites being characterized and misused.

I am sick of discussing things with ignoramouses that do not even read anything they wish to vacantly defend , for no reason I might add. You cannot discuss this if you dont read about it.

But, that a given, what is your argument towards holding onto these outdated racist stereotypical images? Why, if its no big deal, not change the names when you know its hurting people who are most affected? This is truly telling.

BTW, if you read my links and change your thoughts about this, then I consider it worthy. I had to be educated on this and spent some time in trying to understand and I came to get it as others will. This is not an 'if' but 'when' issue.

Let me make a loose analogy here.

Let's say, hypothetically, that religion was something one was born into - like race. Let's pretend that you couldn't change your religion. The Catholic Church obviously has internal problems - trouble keeping up with new social norms (homosexuality), problems keeping up with scientific progress (the earth is flat, says the pope), problems within it's own ranks - child molestation among the clergy, alcoholism, financial embezzlement. Let's say that 1/3 of the members of the Catholic church were in some way being affected by internal problems. Let's say that the Christians and the Satanists had a battle in the past, and that the Satanists won. How do Catholic internal problems justify Satanic sports teams naming their sports teams "The Catholics"? Their mascot walks around in a robe, carrying a bible and crusifix and praying while the fans laugh at the mascot. The mascot rips off his robe, underneath wearing body armor and carrying a cardboard sword (becoming a Crusader). The fans mock him. A bit condescending, no? Obviously, the Satanic population and the Christian population have been at odds with each other in the past. Even today. The looseness of the analogy comes from the observation that the Native American population and the "invaders from Europe" are not necessarily at hostile odds today. (In actuality, they are at odds - Native American tribes have their own form of government because they don't accept the invaders' government). Just because the Natives are not at hostile odds as in the analogy, any christian can see the juvenile, arrogant, disrespectful and ignorant aspect of it all.

I want to start by saying that I never mean to insult anyone during any of these debates, because at it's fundamental level, we are just swapping our feelings toward a subject.

However, this "reasoning" behind why Natives should not fight for equality in my opinion is ridiculous.

And it is the same thing the majority has always used in times past. During the women's movement, Civil Rights movement, AIDS epidemic... people have continually used some stereotypical example as a reason why another problem should not be fought.

And it does not pertain to the subject at hand. It is just a means to justify a continuation of a wrongdoing.

It is about time that we as Americans stop trying to justify why our wrongdoing is actually right (and yes, I am making allusions to other current events) and begin the process of correction.

Some say they just don't see the big deal. Maybe it is just because their vision is being blocked by the orange and green feathers hanging from their Indian mascot's headgear.

I am assuming we are talking about a team like the Kansas City Chiefs? Can somebody tell me how that is any different than the New England Patriots?

Or the Atlanta Braves? That sounds like a complimenting name to me. I guess I could see some offence in the name Redskins.

Before you know it PETA will want the names of the Florida Marlins and Miami Dolphins changed, or any other animal name for that fact, because it is exploiting the animals.

Don't we have enough problems in the world as to not be so tripe about sports teams' names?

I wonder, how many people here have the same kind of animosity towards Rocky and Bullwinkle?

It stereotypes an ethnic group does it not? And let me tell you, being named Boris, hardly a day goes by without someone making a reference to it, for the entire 15 years I've lived in the US.

I can get pissy and try to sue the creators of the show for 15 years of mental anguish. Or I can laugh about it.

Did I miss some kind of a meeting? When did this mandatory sensitivity crap start?

If somebody lets this kind of stuff get to them, that's their problem, it's their thin skin. Gods, when did we turn into a country of wimps (I'd use a different word if it wasn't for the profanity filter)?

CobraNightViper, I couldn't agree with you more.

Those of you who trivialize the insensitivity are obviously far removed from it. If it was your culture that was dying at the hands of an insensitive invading force, you'd feel differently. Calling people wimps for losing the battle is a tad.... arrogant....dontcha think?

Anyone who doesn't feel strongly one way or the other is sure free to post his or her opinion here, but it's obvious such posts add nothing to the debate. Trivializing the feelings of others makes the trivializer look like a rectum.

Easy there, we both know I did not imply that. But I do imagine that if whoever is angry about this issue was as angry about the epidemic of alcoholism and poverty surrounding Native Americans, a lot more positive things would be achieved.




Well I did a little reading on that link, here's what caught my attention....



Someone either on the link or you yourself pointed out that warriors in a tribe fought when they had to. Just because the mascot is not seen at the game reenacting the daily life of a Native American does not imply that they're war like 24/7 or implies that an entire race is war-like. Give mainstream America a little more credit. BTW, not all tribes were peace loving. The Pawnee were pretty fierce people.

The link also tried to justify why the U of North Dakota's mascot is suffering more than the Notre Dame mascot.

Here's what the link said...



Apparently, you have to be the victims of those who started it not perpetuated in order to seek grieveance.

Not to mention that the Irish were treated like trash when they started coming here. If you've ever seen Gangs of New York, that's a start.



Uh... but we do...

U of Virginia Cavaliers

http://virginiasports.collegesports.com/

U of Mississippi Rebels (and the U of Nevada Las Vegas)

http://olemisssports.collegesports.com

U of Tennessee Volunteers

http://utsports.collegesports.com/genrel/081601aab.html

And as much as I like the Army, I have to mention the US Naval Academy's Midshipmen.

Does this mean that all southerners are rebels? That all Americans do is fight? Of course not.



From your own link....



This is what gets me mad.



If they were offended? Obviously some were. And although there were measures taken, that's not what I'm upset about. "If". "Twisted logic". This person, to me seems to minimize the offensive acts of the Stanford Band. I dare say its because of race. Don't get me wrong. Personally, I don't care. But I just wanna see it go both ways. If one wants us to be more thoughtful. If one wants us to be more enlightend on an issue, then whoever is bringing the issue should be considerate of the other's feelings as well.

I also read a passage from the link quoting that their more opposed to he actual mascot (i.e., Monty Montezuma, Chief Yahoo) then the names of the teams (i.e. U of North Dakota 'Fighting Sioux'.

And if I haven't said it before, I'll say it now. I do think that the 'redskin' name is racist. And I would surely understand if 'Chief Yahoo' was no longer used. But when it comes to team names like 'Fighting Sioux' and 'Seminoles' (Florida State), I don't see the big problem.


I can hear you screaming at me as you read this Artemise. I just hope I went up a notch from ignarameous this time. But I won't hold my breath.

Edited to add...



Far removed from it? Let me tell you a little story. My family and I had move to a part of town that had a large amount of hispanics. My sister was to attend her 6th grade year at the school nearby.

She was forced to have a tutor translate the class material because it was taught in SPANISH! She was the only white girl in her class and one of a handful at the school. She was repeatedly taunted with names like "whetta", or white girl, and other crap. It eventually became so bad that she couldn't finish there. In other words, she was chased out. She finished in a scool across town. Did anyone else speak out for her? No. Did the school do anything? No. Am I insensitized? No. I was taught that what the US government did to Native Americans was reprehensible. I still believe that. But when I and my family have been victims of reverse racism, don't expect me to have a bleeding heart.

So before you claim how insensitized the 'white man' is, remember, it goes both ways.

I wasn't call anyone a wimp for losing any battle. I wasn't even talking about any battle, I don't know where you got that from. I was talking about people getting offended at ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING. If someone is offended, I see it as their problem.

This mandatory sensitivity, this movement to turn the world into a sickeningly sweet version of itself is really getting old. The conservatives get offended by nudity. The liberals get offended by "insensitivity" and humor. To quote Shakespeare,

"A plague o' both your houses!"

I'm just waiting for the day that somebody declares Rocky to be racist propaganda. After all, he got to to the top by beating up a black guy.

As long as you're not a part of the minority, I can understand why you would see some of our "getting offended" as stupid. I guess if ever your culture is herded into dessert wastelands and let to die a slow indignant death, you might feel differently.

Until that point, I guess I can't really expect you to sympathize. Nor can we expect America to change the names of their money-making sports teams. Capitalism rules this country, I'm not naive. Just saddened that my ancestors were forced from North Carolina, where my family might still be living today had my ancestors not been treated like so much garbage. I'm saddened that the majority of what others know about my Blackfoot heritage is what they read in American history books and see at Braves and Redskins games.

I guess I would never hope that you'd have to watch your heritage die a mocked death, but I almost wish you would, so that you could understand why some of us feel the way we do.

Yes, there are plenty of important things going on in the world, why discuss this particular controversy? Well, it's obvious that those who want to debate the important things have every opportunity to skip over this thread and start threads regarding "important" topics.
Rolling your eyes at the topic is juvenile and insensitive. (By you I'm referring to 'you' in general sense)

Any time someone wants to justify the use of stereotypical ethnic names...feel free to jump right in. Those who think this topic is trivial, I would suggest one of the topics in the Education forum...

I definitely agree with this statement.

It seems strange that certain people would really consider THIS to be a trivial item.

"Sensitivity Crap?" Wow. It sounds like being a WASP really does have its benefits.

My ancestors did not want to leave their town when Nazi invasion was imminent. They could not believe that the Germans actually were going to try and exterminate all the Jews. The result was them getting buried while they were still alive. Yet, when that rumor was going around about Tom Green showing up at a Bar Mitzvah wearing an SS uniform and carrying a microwave, I could not stop laughing (it turned out to be false). I wasn't laughing out of disrespect, or because I trivialize what they went through, I was laughing because it was funny. Period.

Look, I fully understand that Native Americans got the shaft in a major way, and I do sympathize. And if banning these mascots would somehow change history, and undo what was done to them, I'd be all for it. But it won't.

So what exactly is gained about devoting THIS MUCH TIME to a frikkin cartoon character (not meaning the time spent debating here, but the time that some people invest trying to change the mascots)?

You seem to think that not caring about the mascots, and not caring about what happened to the Native Americans are mutually inclusive. That's not true. If I laugh at dead baby jokes, does that mean that I'd be laughing if something happened to my son?

Yeah, like being chased out of a school because you're white. Not being able to wear certain cultural objects (Iron Cross) because people automatically think you're a Nazi. Not being able to sound off on being discriminated against because someone assumes your ancestors were slave owners and thereby your claim isn't valid. Real advantages.

What a thing to say. This is exactly what I am talkin about. It's ok to bash whites, cause I guess we've had it coming right? But don't dare speak out against it.

It's not about not caring. You don't have to care. During the American Revolution, nearly 2/3 of the country didn't care

During the Civil War, 1/2 the country could care less about slavery.

But if a culture of people are seriously offended by having their sacred items - and culture for that matter - thrusted around and touted for the pure pleasure and enjoyment of rich (relatively), drunk, apathetic fans who claim to be a "Redskin" only because someone along the line thought it would be interesting to name their franchise after a derogatory term, then we should do something about it.

CHANGE people. CHANGE.



Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Oh, so now you have valid discrimination claims, but the Indians are just being annoying?

See this is the stange thing. The only people who seem to be legitimately oppressed these days are the very ones running the country. All the rest of us just want something.

Looms, thank you. You're cool. I'm glad that someone else seems to get it. The whole Boris thing (where IS Natasha anyways? hehe), I totally sympathize. Being named Dale, I don't know how many times I had the theme song to Chip 'n' Dale's Rescue Rangers sung to me as if I had never heard it in my years of existence.

Artemise, you totally mistook my point and correlation. I'm not saying that Native Americans are like the KKK or Nazis in terms of hatred or bigotry. To say that would be the dumbest utterance ever made. I'm just saying that the hate groups have taken some symbol and perverted it while the honkeys have taken Native American symbols and transformed them into something endearing to sports fans everywhere.


I love the idea. But I think Detroit Uncle Toms would be better. And I don't think San Francisco needs another team. How about the Seattle Orientals? Or Oakland Orientals? Although I prefer the Oakland Bubb Rubbs (anyone that frequents Ebaumsworld should know what I'm talkin about Woo WOOOOO).

A few small bones to pick. Well, at least with perspective's post about Satanism. For all practical purposes, one could say that I'm a Satanist. Depends on who's definition of Satanism. Satanists are basically people who do not worship Satan, hell, often is the case they don't believe in Satan. It's just a name. Like Christianity, just a name. It's a matter of self-worship essentially. Check out a link here: http://www.satanism101.com/

I recognize that I'm probably the only person like me. Well, there's my future roommate who's like me. But I get offended at nothing. Well, except when I'm called a liar or something that I definitely am not (no one called me a liar, I'm just stating this for the record). I dislike labels. But you can make fun of me because I'm fat, because of my name, because of my college affiliation, my background, I DON'T CARE. As caring would waste energy that I could use to fight something better. I don't have time for such petty nonsense (except when talking about it online )

Also, I laugh at just about everything. If I didn't have the ability to laugh, I probably would've made Eric Harris and Darren Klebold look like diaper-wetting amateurs. That, and I don't get offended at anything someone can say to me. I once got in trouble while a member of the UGA Redcoat Band when there was an Alabama fan asking if I had any SEC Championship rings for sale to which I retorted, "You couldn't afford it as you spent all your money on getting recruits." This banter went back and forth, and "sentence enhancers" were used, but when it was all over, we both knew it was all in fun and not to get mad about. One of the directors obviously didn't care for my diction and jumped my case. To make a long story short (too late) he called me a liar, and to this date, I still owe him a slashed tire. (When you drive a Mercedes and make 60k to sit on your butt and LOOK important (not BE important), you have nothing to whine about). I'm a big fan of Chappelle's Show, as I should be, since he falls in line with the lack of something being offensive. One of the funniest movies I've ever seen is The Original Kings of Comedy. I first saw it at a friend's house with that same posse I hung out with in high school in which I was the token male cracka. Those were good times. But I'm not here to defend myself as much as I am trying to get what makes THIS in particular a big deal.

Complaining about such things as mascots will get nothing done. It will bring bad press to the complainers, further ostracizing them. Or that is what I think. It's a attempt at what is only a temporary salve for a much greater ill.

Folks, I'm part Cherokee...Am I offended because Atlanta named their baseball teams the Braves...NO. Why? Because I understand that the name of a team is not used in a negative way...Why would a school or a pro team, choose to name itself something that they think is negative? It wouldn't make sense...I hate political correctness.

CP

The patriots are not a RACE! Braves still exist, they are a race of people. Chiefs still exist and dress like you and I they are not wearing feathers, its a mockery.
The point is still being missed because we never knew a damn thing about natives in the first place and still dont. Its about a race of people who still exist on this planet today who are being relegated to symbolism as no other is, by thier conquerors; thier religious objects and clothing being mocked in a ridiculous and empty show of honor, which does not honor them at all but insults their dignity.

Titus,

You are all too good at setting up strawmen and trying to waylay the issue on nonsense. Did you read through my links only picking out what agreed with your argument for the Irish? If you agree with the Irish question why not with the Native?
If the Irish have problems with team names they need to fight to change them. This is an issue based on race discrimination and racial stereotyping. The Native issue is also about using peoples sacred objects and ritual in ridiculous and mocking ways and symbols.



This kind of discrimination would not be tolerated by any other race and is not now by natives either. This is institutionalised racism, its not only about getting the shaft in the past, its getting it now. Fun is always all good when its at someone elses expense. This is not a private party, nor is it a black calling another a nigger, it is about commercialization of race and religion by a rich commercial entity of a poor and conquered one. Try reading the links, they explain everything for anyone not too stubborn to learn something new in life.



Precisely, a cartoon character. This cartoon character is based on a race that is alive today. It uses sacred objects in mocking ways. It lies to people about what indians are, it lies to indian children about who they are, because indians still have chiefs and still use these objects and clothing in their sacred rites. Its misuse of sacred objects. For indians to see their sacred objects and themselves used in cartoon depictions of themselves is offensive and harmful, and WRONG! We long ago stopped doing it with every other race, at least in public, and the time is now for Natives also.



That does not make it right in anyway. Just because the conquerers thought that in the PAST you were really brave, even though we kicked the crap out of you killed half of you and enslaved the rest, NOW is the time to become Endeared to your imagery?Forgetting that of course you are still alive, oh yeah, on some dry tract of land, struggling to maintain your Authentic culture which we have mocked and cheapened by commercializing it to your sad faces!

My question has not been answered... WHY If you know this is hurting people, and its NO BIG DEAL, just not change the names? To be stubborn against political correctness? Obviously it is a big deal, even to you, so just IMAGINE, what a big deal it is to Natives.

Remember the Blackfaces? It is the same thing only worse because we have infringed on religious rites in our cartoon depictions. Imagine the anti-defamation league, if we had cartoon mascots of hassidic jews!
Read and educate yourselves:
Indians for Laughs



Well if you are part Cherokee youd think youd be up on the issues, obviously not. You have no clue about Sioux sacred objects and ritual, or what your (part) people think on this. Its also a shame that you dont hate institutionalized racsism and stereoetyping as much as you hate some ridiculous idea of political correctness on this issue. Too bad the part of you that is Cherokee doesnt recognize racism against your people when its right in front of your face. THATS how removed we all are from Native as 'person' today.

I think our difference Artemise is in the fact that I find no offense to any of it. I wouldn't mind if someone came out with a team that made fun of my background or heritage. Hell, half the people I ever knew online thought that since I was from the South I talked like Cletus from the Simpsons, etc. But did it offend me? No. I took it in stride and let people realize that there is more to me than where I am from.

I don't know how many people have ever seen Sir Mix-A-Lot's Baby Got Back video (I swear there IS a correlation, I promise. lol), but in this video when he says, "Even white boy's got to shout," there is this scrawny looking, typical cubicle rat white guy who yanks at his collar as if he's getting turned on. If I was so full of myself, I would say, "That's discriminating against white people!" but did I? No. I laughed my natural-born backside off.

I guess there is just something appealing to today's American culture that finds Native Americans worth using.
I will say this, though: why not have the Braves, Chiefs, Indians, Redskins, Blackhawks (I believe that's all the pro teams) to donate to the American Indian College Fund or some initiative to improve the lives of Natives? I would agree with that. Quite similar to the way Jaguar Cars has its Save the Jaguar program.

I don't make the mascot issue a big deal, so much as I believe in the fact that Native Americans deserve more than what this country gives them. Call it a double standard, but I don't think that changing mascots will do any good. So many people will learn that their beloved team whom they have devoted many a beer to has changed its name. Some, if not most will be your typical regular guy who doesn't understand much and think of this as being over-the-top liberal propaganda hippy pansy "B"arbara "S"treisand. And how is that truly going to help Native Americans when if they drive through Kansas City who now had to become the Commander-in-Chiefs and those fans are mad. You think that deep down people won't harbor some enmity for the name change? Would it not be like how many Americans felt about Muslims after 9/11? People are always looking for their scapegoat.

While we're still on the subject of mascots, I found this site and nearly fell out of my chair reading the write-ups: http://www.unclemelon.com/team_names.html

I read all the posts in this thread, followed most of the links included and pondered.

During the heyday of Negro League Baseball there were some teams that had some very interesting names including, The Baltimore Black Sox, Birmingham Black Barons, New York Black Yankees, Austin Black Senators and my personal favorite, The Atlanta Black Crackers.

Does anyone think that a baseball team in 2004 would preface their nickname with "black." No chance and why is that? Because we don't need racially loaded nicknames to call our attention to the fact that this is a sport played predominantly by one racial group or the other.

Would you expect to turn to your sports page to see if the Los Angeles Black Lakers or the New York White Rangers or the Philadelphia Puerto Rican Phillies won or lost?

There's no reason why the Washington Redskins can't change their name. The Washington Bullets became the Wizards after years of high murder rates in the nation's capital made their old nickname seem a little insensitive. Has the St. John's Red Storm really played any better or worse than when they were called The Redmen?

Modern sports franchises and most college programs shy away from polarizing nicknames. It's much less contentious to be the "Lions" "Stingers" or "Fury" than to be the Conquistadors, Crusaders or Disgruntled Postal Workers.

White resistance (and it is predominantly white sports fans doing the resisting) brings up the usual suspects as reasons to oppose a nickname change. It's tradition. It's a compliment. It's about standing up against political correctness.

All of those reasons are garbage. Would you go up to a Original American and shake his hand, do the Tomahawk Chop and call him "Chief?" I doubt it unless you wanted your feelings hurt.

White people are reluctant to part with the privilege their skin color grants them. Too often they have an unfortunate tendency to say when confronted with acts of racial insensitivity that it is they whom are suffering from discrimination and it's the person of color that is "overly sensitive" about race. Whites see people of color who assimilate as becoming "less (Black, Latino, Hispanic, Asian, Indian) and more "White" in their acceptance of the dominant culture.

The person of color who "escapes race" is the one whose views most closely mirror that of Whites. This may be a good way to get along and gain the acceptance of White People, but it can be mentally unbalancing for the person of color. The educator Gerald Early wrote in his essay, "The Almost-Last Essay on Race In America", To be black in America is to suffer from an insanity that can be cured only if, on the one hand, African Americans erase race consciousness from their being, which means that they would, in effect, approach the world the way whites do.

Whites congratulate themselves for their color-blindness by saying race matters only when they say it does. Thusly, Whites can view the video taped beating of Rodney King and say he was the one controlling the situation and Amadou Diallo wouldn't have been shot at 41 times if he had not made a move for his wallet and James Byrd had less than a sterling character and was probably drunk when he was chained to the back of a truck and dragged to his death in Jasper, Texas.

So why should it come as a surprise that Whites don't find Chief Wahoo a horribly racist stereotype? If the big evils don't merit sympathy and compassion why should the little evils?

The author Julius Lester wrote that racism psychologically imprisons both Whites and non-Whites. "If racism exalts one race on the basis of skin color, all other races are condemned by their skin color. To be condemned for what one cannot change, to be condemned for who one is collectively and not for what one does individually is not only to given a life sentence in jail from the moment one is conceived in the womb, it is to be born and live under a perpetual sentence of death."

Perhaps a tad melodramatic? Granted, but so is some of the passionate feelings expressed by some of the posters in their thread about their sacred right to remain insensitive to how Native Americans are portrayed by sports teams. The people who are offended by racially and culturally intolerant icons have a stronger case than those who wish to hold onto outmoded traditional representations of people of color.

Or do you also long for the return of the Black savages being beaten down by Tarzan or the inscrutiable Asian wisdom of Charlie Chan?

I do not understand why whites cannot understand this simple principle: Everything white people do to black people, they will eventually do to each other.

Cobra, you only have a point because you are personally a jokster in your own viewpoints on life (self admitted) and view that as sound, however, yours is not the accepted view from any other culture in this place and time, leaving your points only personal and moot in the great hope that we will stop marginalising minorities. Your views may seem funny to you and those around you but are not consistant with the great scheme of trying to right an insidious wrong which keep people locked in boxes and unable to escape through unfair stereotypes. Again we are not talking about frat parties and haha hehees amongs friends, we are talking about national institutions and institutionalized racism.

I go back to something you posted:



Yes. This argument has been the backbone of racists and oppressors over all time, it was done to blacks, women, jews, you name it, when they fought for their rights to live equally amongst others without stereotypical and undignified reproductions of themselves. I'm sure those that complained about Blackfaces faced the same resistance." Its all in good fun!" Sports fans say, this is honor, however, the honor is based on misuse and misunderstanding of the culture, therefore it is NOT AN HONOR, BUT A CHARICATURE.



Using is certainely the pertinent word here, and theme. No care for whether these peoples sacred rites are being trampled upon, their self image mocked, their past exploited.



Holy Crap! Another totally ignorant viewpoint, Indians/Natives are not animals to be saved from extinction ( which is part of the problem with PAST Iconography), nor are they to be used/IE: Bought off in exchange for money to continue symbolizing them! They are people for gods sake, they are here, they live amongst us, they are not Icons or symbols.
What is anyones issue with just changing the names? Dont you see that your argument 'against' is illogical and perpetuates the problem of Natives seen as a dead culture? Needing saving, like the Jaguars, like some animals on the verge of extinction?



May I ask, do you read at all? Are you saying that the greater need to be treated with dignity as a human being outweighs the opinion of some beer drinking slugs who dont want to give up being racists? That the Native should just consider the imagery of self to be commercialized as a lesser evil, based on some greater good for sports fans? I guess Natives should just lie down to some commercial entities and "fans" that want to use their imagery as beer swilling good fun, not to rock the boat no matter how much it offends their rites, religion and self image? Aint that just sweet, thats how much we think of them in relation to us. Fans of sports teams mean more than their sacred rites, Now THATS HONOR!

Of course you dont see it as a big deal because , first, you havent read much of the information disclosed here, and second because it is not personally affecting yours or your childrens self esteem in any way so you cant relate, and third, because you appear to think everything is a joke. Thats you. Not everyone.

I reiterate, NO other race is depicted in this undignified, racist and stereotypical manner, with exception of the Irish, but that is their fight.
Using peoples religious symbols and antiquated imagery when they are alive and members of a growing society is wrong. Those that cannot see this are the victims of the very use of that imagery as symbolic, not understanding that these are real people who should not be commercialized and 'used'. Political correctness has nothing to do with blatant racial stereotyping on an institutional level and consistant mockery of ones beliefs and culture. Those that do not want to change this 'harmful' discrimination have weakly vested and superficial interests, which proves the whole point that IT IS A BIG DEAL.

I've seen people most happiest in the throes of laughter and in the throes of orgasm. I stand by such belief that people do not laugh as much as they should, and also do not have orgasms as much as they should.

I'm trying to stay completely calm and sane. Unfortunately here I cannot rant with a plethora of "sentence enhancers" like I would want to.

I will never admit to being a racist, as I do not discriminate, as I HATE EVERYONE!

I knew the AICF plug was a catch-22 from the start. But tell me, someone, anyone, God who doesn't exist, please someone tell me WHAT WILL CHANGING NAMES OF A PRO SPORTS TEAM DO FOR BETTERING THE LIVES OF NATIVE AMERICANS? Does that TRULY provide an outlet for improving living conditions? If it will, then by all means let's change it. But I don't get the correlation, and I believe resources could be used elsewhere to truly get something done. Call me blind (not the worst thing I've ever been called), but I don't see the basis for the hoopla.

Also, answer me this question: Suppose the Chiefs, et. al have name changes (I really want to see what would happen at FSU, but that is an aside) and become whatever else that is deemed non-offensive, like say, the University of Hawaii. Then what? All-the-sudden Native Americans will have an increase in wealth as a demographic? All-the-sudden the bonds of oppression will be broken? I guess I'm a racist for not being all that involved about the production made of this and as if one instance proves that all my life I have worked in earnest to oppress all peoples besides my own. I love how people can tell how I am before I even know how I am.

If I could get something that completely proves to me how this is truly oppressing Native Americans and also get a plan of action that details exact ways in which to rectify these problems of oppression, then I will join the fight to change mascot names. However, I believe that the Native Americans have greater things to be concerned about than mascot exploitation. If I were them, I would let people profit off my heritage but demand compensation, and if so, I wouldn't kill the cash cow. Heck, most people do it all the time: it's called a job.


Nietzsche, whenever I can. Also F.A. Hayek. But Nietzsche is my main focus right now. The Will to Power currently.

I wish the world had more people like me, as if it did, this discussi