-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
native american mascots
- Thread starter two feathers
- Start date
OK, now I'm getting set to fight a two front war:
For those that see absolutely no problem with such mascots; let's pick the worst-case scenario; the Redskins. This is an overtly racial epithet. Do you really think it takes a revisionist historian to see the problem there? I would trust a survey from Fox news BTW, about as much as I would trust electronic billing handled by a convicted felon.
Two-feathers: I get a little tired of insider/outsider distinctions. So, I'm curious as to how you are drawing the line? But there is a reason I consider it important to choose. There is an economic side to reformist crusades. Public opinion will only support so many moral crusades at any given time; and such issues will only occupy the public's attention for a limited amount of time. If public attention is not used wisely, you end up waisting an opportunity. It would be nice to imagine a world in which everyone showed everyone else the proper respect they deserve, but in this world that's not how politics works; you have to choose your battles. This one is a poor choice because it diverts attention from more critical issues, many of which have far more impact on the daily lives of Native Americans, and because it serves inadvertantly to promote the idea that pronative politics is about trivial subjects.
MY point about this being a cause celebre among professional Indians and liberals goes to precisely the issue of how one draws this outsider/insider dichotomy. This is one of many causes that are more important to those working the margins of Indian/white relations than it is to those living on the reservations. It supports the political economy of academic liberalism insofar as it gives those writing articles, books, giving lectures, etc. something to talk about in the professional world, and there it is generally preaching to the choir. But many of these people, even the Native professionals themselves do not live or work in the communities of which they speak. Their priorities are not necessarily those of the people they claim to represent. But it's easy enough to dismiss the views of any white guy on this subject. Trouble is that extends easily enough to natives as well; they get accused of thinking like white people if they don't jump on the bandwwagon. Thus do ineffectual political movements eliminate internal dissent and preserve their symbolic capital.
And the paragraph on problems in Indian communities is standard fair, but you merely assume that it these are due to public ridicule. You do not show that to be the actual case. It is a self-serving assumption insofar as it elevates symbolic conflicts to a level of practical importance far beyond their real-world impact. More importantly, it is one more way of saying that the only way to straighten out things in Native America is to straighten out white people's thinking about Native Americans. That is one more way of putting the initiative on non-Native people. I will never support that kind of passive-aggressive BS again. White people may very well be the ultimate cause of the problems in Native American communities, but we will never be the solution. The sooner people realize that the better.
For those that see absolutely no problem with such mascots; let's pick the worst-case scenario; the Redskins. This is an overtly racial epithet. Do you really think it takes a revisionist historian to see the problem there? I would trust a survey from Fox news BTW, about as much as I would trust electronic billing handled by a convicted felon.
Two-feathers: I get a little tired of insider/outsider distinctions. So, I'm curious as to how you are drawing the line? But there is a reason I consider it important to choose. There is an economic side to reformist crusades. Public opinion will only support so many moral crusades at any given time; and such issues will only occupy the public's attention for a limited amount of time. If public attention is not used wisely, you end up waisting an opportunity. It would be nice to imagine a world in which everyone showed everyone else the proper respect they deserve, but in this world that's not how politics works; you have to choose your battles. This one is a poor choice because it diverts attention from more critical issues, many of which have far more impact on the daily lives of Native Americans, and because it serves inadvertantly to promote the idea that pronative politics is about trivial subjects.
MY point about this being a cause celebre among professional Indians and liberals goes to precisely the issue of how one draws this outsider/insider dichotomy. This is one of many causes that are more important to those working the margins of Indian/white relations than it is to those living on the reservations. It supports the political economy of academic liberalism insofar as it gives those writing articles, books, giving lectures, etc. something to talk about in the professional world, and there it is generally preaching to the choir. But many of these people, even the Native professionals themselves do not live or work in the communities of which they speak. Their priorities are not necessarily those of the people they claim to represent. But it's easy enough to dismiss the views of any white guy on this subject. Trouble is that extends easily enough to natives as well; they get accused of thinking like white people if they don't jump on the bandwwagon. Thus do ineffectual political movements eliminate internal dissent and preserve their symbolic capital.
And the paragraph on problems in Indian communities is standard fair, but you merely assume that it these are due to public ridicule. You do not show that to be the actual case. It is a self-serving assumption insofar as it elevates symbolic conflicts to a level of practical importance far beyond their real-world impact. More importantly, it is one more way of saying that the only way to straighten out things in Native America is to straighten out white people's thinking about Native Americans. That is one more way of putting the initiative on non-Native people. I will never support that kind of passive-aggressive BS again. White people may very well be the ultimate cause of the problems in Native American communities, but we will never be the solution. The sooner people realize that the better.
Upvote
0
now that you've spelled it out brimshack, i have found that i am more in agreement with you than in disagreement.
there is great wisdom in your post.
there is great wisdom in your post.
Upvote
0
I'll be darned.
and here I was gearing up for war, so to speak, sorry if anythig sounded harsh.
Take care guys.
and here I was gearing up for war, so to speak, sorry if anythig sounded harsh.
Take care guys.
Upvote
0
cenimo
Jesus Had A 12 Man A-Team
two feathers.....nobody said Native Americans were fish....the mentality behind both laments is the same though... a town that was named who knows when is suppossed to change its name because 100 or 200 years hence some group doesn't like it?
Why are we suppoosed to abandon names like Braves, Indians, Chiefs, etc..while at the same not suppossed to used Rebels, for instance?
If we're discussing the Confederate flag, many people feel, You Lost, Get Over It...so I guess white Southernersor whites are the only group all these restriction should apply to, huh?
Someone posted something here about A Minuteman statue being remoced because a white Minuteman was "racist"....what was he suppossed to be, polka dot? rainbow?
Why are we suppoosed to abandon names like Braves, Indians, Chiefs, etc..while at the same not suppossed to used Rebels, for instance?
If we're discussing the Confederate flag, many people feel, You Lost, Get Over It...so I guess white Southernersor whites are the only group all these restriction should apply to, huh?
Someone posted something here about A Minuteman statue being remoced because a white Minuteman was "racist"....what was he suppossed to be, polka dot? rainbow?
Upvote
0
what you do not believe is offensive to a race of people may in fact be incredibly offensive. if that's the case, as it is in this one, then cease using and supporting such terminology and the blatant misuse of another's culture. simple.
is this not what a decent human would do?
is this not what a true christian would do?
is this not what a decent human would do?
is this not what a true christian would do?
Upvote
0
"If we're discussing the Confederate flag, many people feel, You Lost, Get Over It...so I guess white Southernersor whites are the only group all these restriction should apply to, huh?"
This doesn't even relate to the issue at hand, but the offensiveness of the confederate flag is not based on the fact that it belonged to the losing side of a war; it lies in the deliberate use of that flag by white southerners as a pro-segregation statement during the civil rights era. Had the flag not been used in that way it might be received differently, but in any event, I haven't heard any white southerners complain because Northerners are using it. So, there is no direct comparison, unless you are arguing that Native Americans should just shut up now. What war was it that you think they all lost anyway?
This doesn't even relate to the issue at hand, but the offensiveness of the confederate flag is not based on the fact that it belonged to the losing side of a war; it lies in the deliberate use of that flag by white southerners as a pro-segregation statement during the civil rights era. Had the flag not been used in that way it might be received differently, but in any event, I haven't heard any white southerners complain because Northerners are using it. So, there is no direct comparison, unless you are arguing that Native Americans should just shut up now. What war was it that you think they all lost anyway?
Upvote
0
[mod hat on]
cenimo was not intending to insult anybody. I am asking that consideration be given to all. Nobody likes to be insulted, including cenimo.
Please keep it civil and kind. Thank you.
[mod hat off]
cenimo was not intending to insult anybody. I am asking that consideration be given to all. Nobody likes to be insulted, including cenimo.
Please keep it civil and kind. Thank you.
[mod hat off]
Upvote
0
If the point is that we should tone down the arguments, then I will certainly do my own part, but I must object to the implication that anyone has traded insults here. Neither Cenimo, nor those of us responding to him have directed any personal commentary at one another. All comments appear to be at the gerneral topic if not always on the mark, and if the tone of discussion isn't exactly sugar coated, then neither is it peppered with insults. This is a heated exchange, but it certainly isn't a malicious one.
Upvote
0
I don't think the names mentioned are intended to be offensive. Nor are most of them any more disrespectful of native Americans than are Cowboys disrespectful to ranchers and cowhands; or Aggies, Farmers or Cornhuskers to farmers; or Lumberjacks to loggers; Texans or Hoosiers to people of those states; or Knights to armored warriors; or Miners to mine workers; or one of the best known ethnic mascots: Notre Dame's Irish. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with PastorFreud on this point: If a significant number of native Americans find it offensive to have school mascots named after them, then the schools should probably rethink the situation and consider changing the school's mascot.
Upvote
0
cenimo
Jesus Had A 12 Man A-Team
Two leters to the editor, consider:
1. Editor, the Daily Bugle....
As the sons of confederate Veterans, we consider renaming our team the Bumbling Beauregards because of their 0-15 record to be offensive.
Editor..
you lost, get over it.
2. We the xxxxxxxxx people do not like the use of Braves, Tribe, Warriors, Chiefs, as team names.
Now can the editor say, "You lost, get over it?" Why not? Why should one group get any more consideration than the other?
Brimshack...
the point was that those demanding tolerance on one side of the coin are willing to show none on the other While we don't want any teams named The Braves, we won't let you name your team The Rebels,either ...
but we do agree that none of this is personal, I don't see how anyone would have thought it was...
PastorFreud, Sinai...
since when is 15% a majority?
Bear in mind that the same people that are behind all this have already vowed that after the Native American names are gone they are going after teams with animal names...gee, just Tigers, Wildcats, and Cardinals covers an awful lot of college football teams...ask yourself what the real agenda is because it certainly is not any real concern for Native Americans.
1. Editor, the Daily Bugle....
As the sons of confederate Veterans, we consider renaming our team the Bumbling Beauregards because of their 0-15 record to be offensive.
Editor..
you lost, get over it.
2. We the xxxxxxxxx people do not like the use of Braves, Tribe, Warriors, Chiefs, as team names.
Now can the editor say, "You lost, get over it?" Why not? Why should one group get any more consideration than the other?
Brimshack...
the point was that those demanding tolerance on one side of the coin are willing to show none on the other While we don't want any teams named The Braves, we won't let you name your team The Rebels,either ...
but we do agree that none of this is personal, I don't see how anyone would have thought it was...
PastorFreud, Sinai...
since when is 15% a majority?
Bear in mind that the same people that are behind all this have already vowed that after the Native American names are gone they are going after teams with animal names...gee, just Tigers, Wildcats, and Cardinals covers an awful lot of college football teams...ask yourself what the real agenda is because it certainly is not any real concern for Native Americans.
Upvote
0
The use of Aboriginal American themes as mascots for Non-Aboriginal American sporting teams is something I find highly offensive since it perpetuates the ill-treatment that Aboriginal Americans suffered at the behest of the U.S. government.
The "Washington Redskins", of course, represent the epitomy of that crass coarseness as it was the government based in that same Washington which paid bounty for Aboriginal American scalps. It was also that government which practiced genocide on the Aboriginal Americans and generally treated them as heinously as the Nazi's treated the Jews during the war in the middle of the 20th century, although the mistreatment of the Aboriginal Americans continued for a much longer period.
The choice of an Aboriginal American mascot by a sporting team is easily understood to represent what it stands for. If the sporting team was paying homage to Aboriginal Americans, they would have chosen a noble figure that represented dignity of the Aboriginal American heritage. When they choose cartoon representations, such as the red, smiling face of the Atlanta Braves, then it is clear that caricature is not chosen out of respect.
The choice of questioning the use of Aboriginal themes for non-Aboriginal sporting teams is actually a wise choice of issue to confront, as it is one that is in the public conciousness and continuously on display. Therefore that issue would have larger repercussions throughout society if it was resolved favorably.
The "Washington Redskins", of course, represent the epitomy of that crass coarseness as it was the government based in that same Washington which paid bounty for Aboriginal American scalps. It was also that government which practiced genocide on the Aboriginal Americans and generally treated them as heinously as the Nazi's treated the Jews during the war in the middle of the 20th century, although the mistreatment of the Aboriginal Americans continued for a much longer period.
The choice of an Aboriginal American mascot by a sporting team is easily understood to represent what it stands for. If the sporting team was paying homage to Aboriginal Americans, they would have chosen a noble figure that represented dignity of the Aboriginal American heritage. When they choose cartoon representations, such as the red, smiling face of the Atlanta Braves, then it is clear that caricature is not chosen out of respect.
The choice of questioning the use of Aboriginal themes for non-Aboriginal sporting teams is actually a wise choice of issue to confront, as it is one that is in the public conciousness and continuously on display. Therefore that issue would have larger repercussions throughout society if it was resolved favorably.
Upvote
0
Cenimo, you don't provide much context, but it appears that the 'lost' in your example refers to the losing of 15 games, and the renaming was done for the explicit purpose of mocking them. I doubt the team changed its name; more likely someone else suggested it as a deliberate insult. Once again the comparison appears loose, but Ok, that example is offensive too. It shouldn't have been done, and that fact in no way undermines the offensiveness of Native American mascots.
As to the rebel references, once again the comparison is different. If a southerner objected to UNLV naming their teams Rebels, because that was a Union state, then we'd have a direct comparison. As it is, the desire to surpress rebel references is motivated, as I said in the deliberate use of those symbols as means of intimidation. And I suspect terms like 'rebels' are less the issue than the waving of the rebel flag. I think the mere fact that that flag was raised in rebellion against the United States alone should be sufficient to explain any opposition to its use, and it's deliberate use as a means of intimidating blacks during the civil rights movement, and continued use as a statement against minorities should pretty well explain why others are offended by it. When the symbols you tout are associated with treason and racism, it shouldn't be surprising that others will object.
As to the people behind this movement vowing to do the same with animals, I'm sorry but that is pure conspiracy theory at it's worst. This is not one monolithic movement to restruct all the team names, it is a variety of different people with different concerns. You and everyone else are free to treat each ushc matter on a case by case basis, and there is absolutely no reason to think that getting rid of Natiuve American mascots will commit you to getting rid of animal mascots. The people from PETA and Native American leadership are opposed to one another as often as they are allied with one another. Just because both are liberal doesn't mean they are in bed together.
John MacNeil: "The choice of questioning the use of Aboriginal themes for non-Aboriginal sporting teams is actually a wise choice of issue to confront, as it is one that is in the public conciousness and continuously on display. Therefore that issue would have larger repercussions throughout society if it was resolved favorably."
There are several problems with this:
1) Symbolic victories are subject to an infinite variety of possible reinterpretations. While pro-native groups would regard the elimination of such mascots as a success indicating greater respect for Native Americans, conservatives will chalk it up to the coercive arm of political correctness. It then becomes part of an underdog narrative of its own helping to set the stage for backlash. Thus, such matters are NEVER resolved, favorably or otherwise; one gets only temporary victories in the culture wars, and each one sets the stage for the next loss.
2) As I said before the public will only pay attention to so many reforms, and only for so long. They also tend to get sick of hearing about certain causes over time, and their attention moves on. When public attention to a cause is at its peak you have to realize it's not part of a growing consciousness, not a step toward some grand improvement of the moral fabrick in America, no; it's opportunity, and a temporary one at that. You have to grab for something concrete before the chance disappears.
The trouble with political agendas like mascots is that they leave the focus of power outside Native American circles. These are political agendas that take as their goal changing the way non-Indians think about Native Americans. As far as political agendas go, that's pathetic. A real political agenda is designed to get power, not to influence someone else's use of it. At peak attention, what can possible be gained from this issue, a few teams will change their names yippee! and the BIA will remain the dead weight that it currently is, reservations will continue to be underdeveloped, state jurisdiction will continue to encroach on tribal jurisdiction, federal enforcement of felonies committed on-rez. will still be lax, education will still be substandard, the lure of jobs off-reservation will continue to draw people away and break up families, tribal faction will continue to fight over blood quantum measurements, and the Indian Health Service will continue to be the joke that it currently is. Some off-rez white people MIGHT think more respectfully about natives without the mascots, so what? That's status politics at its weakest, and doesn't put food on anybody's table. I say if you can get the public to force a change like that, better to use that attention to force some meaningfull reforms.
As to the rebel references, once again the comparison is different. If a southerner objected to UNLV naming their teams Rebels, because that was a Union state, then we'd have a direct comparison. As it is, the desire to surpress rebel references is motivated, as I said in the deliberate use of those symbols as means of intimidation. And I suspect terms like 'rebels' are less the issue than the waving of the rebel flag. I think the mere fact that that flag was raised in rebellion against the United States alone should be sufficient to explain any opposition to its use, and it's deliberate use as a means of intimidating blacks during the civil rights movement, and continued use as a statement against minorities should pretty well explain why others are offended by it. When the symbols you tout are associated with treason and racism, it shouldn't be surprising that others will object.
As to the people behind this movement vowing to do the same with animals, I'm sorry but that is pure conspiracy theory at it's worst. This is not one monolithic movement to restruct all the team names, it is a variety of different people with different concerns. You and everyone else are free to treat each ushc matter on a case by case basis, and there is absolutely no reason to think that getting rid of Natiuve American mascots will commit you to getting rid of animal mascots. The people from PETA and Native American leadership are opposed to one another as often as they are allied with one another. Just because both are liberal doesn't mean they are in bed together.
John MacNeil: "The choice of questioning the use of Aboriginal themes for non-Aboriginal sporting teams is actually a wise choice of issue to confront, as it is one that is in the public conciousness and continuously on display. Therefore that issue would have larger repercussions throughout society if it was resolved favorably."
There are several problems with this:
1) Symbolic victories are subject to an infinite variety of possible reinterpretations. While pro-native groups would regard the elimination of such mascots as a success indicating greater respect for Native Americans, conservatives will chalk it up to the coercive arm of political correctness. It then becomes part of an underdog narrative of its own helping to set the stage for backlash. Thus, such matters are NEVER resolved, favorably or otherwise; one gets only temporary victories in the culture wars, and each one sets the stage for the next loss.
2) As I said before the public will only pay attention to so many reforms, and only for so long. They also tend to get sick of hearing about certain causes over time, and their attention moves on. When public attention to a cause is at its peak you have to realize it's not part of a growing consciousness, not a step toward some grand improvement of the moral fabrick in America, no; it's opportunity, and a temporary one at that. You have to grab for something concrete before the chance disappears.
The trouble with political agendas like mascots is that they leave the focus of power outside Native American circles. These are political agendas that take as their goal changing the way non-Indians think about Native Americans. As far as political agendas go, that's pathetic. A real political agenda is designed to get power, not to influence someone else's use of it. At peak attention, what can possible be gained from this issue, a few teams will change their names yippee! and the BIA will remain the dead weight that it currently is, reservations will continue to be underdeveloped, state jurisdiction will continue to encroach on tribal jurisdiction, federal enforcement of felonies committed on-rez. will still be lax, education will still be substandard, the lure of jobs off-reservation will continue to draw people away and break up families, tribal faction will continue to fight over blood quantum measurements, and the Indian Health Service will continue to be the joke that it currently is. Some off-rez white people MIGHT think more respectfully about natives without the mascots, so what? That's status politics at its weakest, and doesn't put food on anybody's table. I say if you can get the public to force a change like that, better to use that attention to force some meaningfull reforms.
Upvote
0
I wouldn't view it as a symbolic victory, but as a real one. A social conscience is something real and is something which must be nurtured within the larger community. It all harks back to the first recorded laws when, in Leviticus in the Bible, God set out the laws for the Israelites. When Moses was on Mount Sinai, God specified what was allowed and what was not allowed. Not all of the laws had to do with justice and retributution and it is obvious that many of them had to do with cleanliness and, specifically, the avoidence of the spreading of germs, something that the people of that time knew nothing about, and people wouldn't know anything about for thousands of year. This is our first comprehensive social planning document that dealt with physical as well as psychological health of the community. We must also have strictures that ensure the psychological health of the community, especially so in this age when so many cultures are constantly interacting in everyday society.
When the caricature symbols that are derogatory to Aboriginal Americans are removed from society then all children in society will grow up with that much less mental garbage polluting their thought. Propaganda is insidious and, by it's nature, generally has long-term negative effects on society. If children are brought up to be tolerant of other cultures, then racism and elitism will both fade from society. As long as the offensive issues aren't dealt with when they are constantly on display, then the other related issues will be harder to deal with by virtue of the tolerance granted toward some of the offensive symbols.
Believing the public will only stand for so much justice is a narrow view that doesn't reflect reality. The mainstream national media is owned 100 % by the same people who control the corporate/government and it is they who limit the coverage of issues in their publications, whether that be the newspapers, radio, television or the internet. People in society don't stop believing in justice simply because the mainstream media directs it's narrow focus to some diversionary topic as soon as they think it is practicable.
When the caricature symbols that are derogatory to Aboriginal Americans are removed from society then all children in society will grow up with that much less mental garbage polluting their thought. Propaganda is insidious and, by it's nature, generally has long-term negative effects on society. If children are brought up to be tolerant of other cultures, then racism and elitism will both fade from society. As long as the offensive issues aren't dealt with when they are constantly on display, then the other related issues will be harder to deal with by virtue of the tolerance granted toward some of the offensive symbols.
Believing the public will only stand for so much justice is a narrow view that doesn't reflect reality. The mainstream national media is owned 100 % by the same people who control the corporate/government and it is they who limit the coverage of issues in their publications, whether that be the newspapers, radio, television or the internet. People in society don't stop believing in justice simply because the mainstream media directs it's narrow focus to some diversionary topic as soon as they think it is practicable.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
