I found some interesting comments along these lines:
http://www.cardsclubhouse.com/fo...opic.php?
t=9823
"Beckett93":
"There is no mistake what the Redskins are supposed to be, or that Chief Wahoo isn't a gross caricature of an entire race that our ancestors annihilated, and that tomahawk chops and laughing Mohawk warrior mascots are taking the culture and image of a people and using them as the symbolism in a game. This isn't just over sensitive whining."
"The fair thing to do is not look at a logo of another race and think it's cool because we're fine with it, but to consider how we would feel if it was our race or nationality that was being ripped on."
" The Redskins is the absolutely the worst name in sports. And Chief Wahoo is a stereotype. And that whole thing people do at Turner Field when they do the chop, that "Whoa-whoa-whoawhoawhoa-whoawhoa" war chant, that is just awful."
"Not all Native-Americans find the Indians logo offensive, or care about the tomahawk chop, but there are many who do, and in spite of how the names came about (I think the Indians were once called the Naps because of Lajoie and later became the Indians to honor a deceased Native-American player, so it wasn't done purely out of bigotry), how can we turn our backs on them, say they are being too sensitive when rich white men take the image and culture of their people and use it as the logos of their business? Of course us white guys wouldn't care if anyone made a logo about us, because to take an idea I borrowed from cardsrul's post, we're WASPS. Throughout the history of this country, we have been on the top of the power structure. We weren't the slaves, we weren't the ones forced onto reservations, and our race wasn't nearly wiped off the face of the earth by simple contact with the Europeans. People get irritated that Native American activists find these things offensive, but considering the history of how they have been treated and are still being treated, I don't see why they don't get more upset. First we took their land, now we take the very characteristics that define their race, cartoon them up a little, and then have the gall to tell them it's nothing and they need to relax."
"One person's idea of harmless fun is another person's insult. What happened to the Native Americans was basically genocide. No joke. It ranks right up there with the holocaust in terms of man's inhumanity to man. Our nation did something just as bad, if not worse than bin Laden, and now our nation uses the same people we once slaughtered and thought of as vermin infesting land God meant for us to fill as logos for our stupid sports teams. Is that the decent thing to do? I don't see how it can be."
"You're a devout Christian. Imagine that there was a college team called the Christians and their mascot is Pastor Smith, who jumps up and down praising the Lord and shouting Hallelujah at halftime. This wouldn't be one o
(cont.)
. . . of those Christian prayer things that some people are so into, but just a little display for halftime fun. Would you appreciate seeing your culture and religion turned into a joke or a little diversion not much different than when the dance team takes the floor?
I don't think dressing up other minorities in Native American dress and passing them off as indigenous, mocking their ceremonies, and making mascots out of them is any way to "show respect" to the Native Americans, no matter how solemn a bunch of shirtless students painted up in orange and blue are while watching it. And changing these team names won't send the Native Americans into obscurity any more than the white man's greed in the push to steal land from "sea to shining sea."
"Harry_Doyle"
"I mostly agree with the post against race related logos, but I'm just a little more conservative, with their assessment. What I mean is you just can't lump all team names that use Native Americans into one big lump. We had this same discussion at work recently. I am about 1/8 Cherokee (+/-), and one of the guys participating in the discussion was a guy named Buffalochief, and he looks like a "buffalochief". He didn't necessarily have any problems with Native American teams name in General. I told him I went to a High School with the team name "Warriors". Our mascot was a guy in a full Native American outfit (as close to "authentic as we could get), with a Chief's Headress.
". . . The teams he hates are the "Indians", with what he called a demeaning and stereotypical caricature. The Braves, not for the name, he likes the name OK, but because of the whole tomahawk chop thing, and Chief what's his name in the Teepee. And of course, the Redskins. He really hates this name with a passion. He said when he hears it, he probably feels the same way as when black person is called a N word (filter won't let me post the word, even though it was posted above). From what I tell, it seemed like he got into more than a few fights as a kid over being called this. To me if you're glorifying a group of people for their skills, and culture that's one thing, but if somehow if anything comes into play that would demean the people you are trying to glorify, good intentions or not, it's probably gone too far."
"Etheridge2"
"If somebody used a black person as their logo and made them thick lipped, broad nosed, natty haired, with a big hunking piece of watermelon in their hand it would be offensive
If they used a Jew and gave him a big nose lots of nose hair and some long curly side burns, with a funny looking beanie, it would be offensive
Both of the above may not lead people to believe that all Jews or blacks are like that but both still cross the line. The picture of chief wahoo is derogatory
It is true many jews have larger noses, a lot of black people do have thicker hair and lips and broader noses, not all but a lot, but to perpetuate the stere
(cont.)
. . . stereotypes and turn these people into cartoons is WRONG it is wrong when it is a Jewish person, a black person, a white person, or an Indian person and the fact that so many native Americans have voiced these concerns should be enough for any decent person to object to these logos and mascots."
"Ted Danson (when he was dating Whoopi Goldberg) put on black face for some shindig. He did it to entertain and be funny, but he was roundly criticized as insensitive and some even called his actions racist even though his girlfriend at the time was black. His intent wasn't to do harm or make fun of people, but his actions were irresponsible and offensive and he quickly and rightfully apologized for his actions.
Fuzzy Zoeller made a comment about Tiger Woods after he won his first Masters and what he would pick for the dinner the next year, his comment was laced with racial stereotypes, now anyone who knows Fuzzy Zoeller knows it was an attempt at humor but it was a poor choice of jokes and Zoeller apologized.
Intent matters, but in the end racism is racism and Chief Wahoo is racist regardless of the manner in which he is being used and for whatever purpose."
"You can not kowtow to everyone but you should not disparage and mock an entire race of people, that should be an easy enough line to draw."
"ESPN (I think) did conduct one that showed a majority were not offended, but AIM (The American Indian Movement) has also demonstrated that as many as 80% of aboriginal people find the logos/mascots offensive and would rather them be removed. Neither survey is large enough to accurately reflect the feelings of an entire race of people."
More insightful comments:
Beckett93:
http://www.cardsclubhouse.com/
fo...p=137932#137932
http://www.cardsclubhouse.com/
fo...p=138001#138001
"Etheridge2":
http://www.cardsclubhouse.com/
fo...p=137948#137948
Very thoughtful thread indeed.
And here are related comments from the earlier thread:
I think exactly what Colson thought in the article: what if five had been Jews and a cartoon was done of them wearing yarmulkes and having Star of David badges? It always has to be a double standard. Catholics are an open target because it is one of the last acceptable prejudices.
I don't think it is the only acceptable prejudice, though. I would also add to the list anti-Protestantism, anti-overweight people, and anti-native American prejudice (imagine a team called the Brooklyn Jews; but we have the Cleveland Indians and the Atlanta Braves and the Washington Redskins. How about the San Francisco Yellowskins or the Washington Blackskins?).
The apparent double standard proves it is prejudicial and stereotypical in the worst sense of that word.
The cartoon also presupposes a one-way relationship between their Catholicism and their pro-life affinities in this case, as if pro-life rests solely on a religious dogmatic basis: it does not at all; it is based on natural law and universal moral sensibilities.
Dave Armstrong | Homepage | 05.01.07 - 6:18 pm | #
Maybe it's because I'm from a younger generation, but I'm not at all offended by that cartoon. We'd be in much better shape if all the teachings of the Church were publicly manifested in every Catholic's daily decision making processes. Let them ridicule the judges for following their consciences, at least they did, which is more than we can say for the average Catholic. We should all be so lucky as to face contempt for following the Truth.
Brian Walden | 05.01.07 - 6:26 pm | #
ME, cited: (imagine a team called the Brooklyn Jews; but we have the Cleveland Indians and the Atlanta Braves and the Washington Redskins. How about the San Francisco Yellowskins or the Washington Blackskins?)
Um .... New Orleans Saints, San Diego Padres, and Minnesota Vikings come to mind. I don't think anyone finds those names to be offensive. Oh and just to add some Michigan flavor to it for Dave -- Michigan State Spartans.
Jamie Donald | 05.01.07 - 7:43 pm | #
Dave,
I dont think anyone here denies that there is a double standard when it comes to anti-Catholicism. We all agree that if that comic was in regards to 5 black or 5 female justices we would see an outrage. The issue here should be that of the fact of an existing DOUBLE standard, NOT if this comic was truly offensive or not.
In this case I am simply not offended because unlike the media I believe people should be able to express themselves freely (but within legal guidelines)...in other words I dont pretend to be free speech but in reality have a DOUBLE STANDARD like the media.
I have no problem with people "telling it like it is." In fact one huge problem with America today is that when people "tell it like it is" they often get shouted down and attacked by the same liberal SOBs who parade the "free speech" banner when it suits them (ie double standard).
If the 5 judges were the majority and Catholic there is nothing to hide from, its the simple truth. That is no way bigotry. I wouldnt consider it bigotry if the comic was about 5 black judges who voted on some black rights issue. The problem is that if someone were to comment about 5 black judges the media would be jumping up and down in rage...its the double standard that is the problem.
The REAL danger about Protestants and Catholics not speaking up however is that the Catholic Church is the last stronghold, if the Catholic Church goes so does the conservative protestant voice.
Nick | 05.01.07 - 8:19 pm | #
Gravatar Nick (and Brian),
You seem to misunderstand my point a bit. The double standard is precisely what proves the prejudice. You [Nick] admit the double standard yet seem to overlook the prejudice, or manifest bias or bigotry (choose your term).
The analogy to other situations is precisely the proof that it is wrong to make the idiotic equation of "Catholic automatically equals imposition of blind dogmas onto others" and/or "these Justices think as they do only because of religious [Catholic] dogma." This is what the cartoonist is driving at, I'll guarantee it. I know how these people think.
I understood the liberal mind well even in college, because I majored in sociology and minored in psychology: two of the most secularized fields of study. And I've studied the secularist outlook ever since (now 30 years).
If prejudice is not at play here, then why do you think Chuck Colson -- a Protestant -- was outraged by it? You can't say he was too sensitive because he isn't even the target. But he thinks in terms of Christian solidarity over against secularism (as I do if a Protestant is subjected to anti-Protestant bigotry: I consider him "one of us", as a fellow Christian).
But back to the double standard: women and black people would be offended by these things being pointed out because they are "minorities" in this country (either in numbers or in power and influence). In that case, it would be the insinuation that they voted a certain w
(cont.)
. . . way JUST because they are black or female.
I am saying, from a broader perspective, that it is foolish and insulting to pretend that Catholic Justices vote as they do only because of that factor. It's as if they don't have a brain and are puppets controlled by the Vatican.
We never hear it said by the mainstream media that liberal judges vote the way they do simply because they are liberals, or secularists, or (in the case of two: liberal Jews). It's only conservatives and pro-lifers and Protestants and Catholics that get painted in this way.
Hi Jamie,
Nice try and clever, but no cigar. This isn't analogous, and I'll explain why I think it isn't. "Saints" is not pejorative or offensive in that context because it is an obvious allusion to "when the saints go marching in." It's simply referring to that song, from New Orleans.
"Padres" is similar. If I'm not mistaken, that would have to do with the Spanish heritage of the area and (perhaps) the old missions that are on the California coast.
Vikings and Spartans refer to groups of the past, so that no one is being referred to today. Again, it doesn't involve the double standard.
You could just as well bring up the "fighting Irish" of Notre Dame or the Boston Celtics.
Dave Armstrong | Homepage | 05.02.07 - 1:28 am | #
In those instances it was the association with the Irish in both places. I think it makes a difference if something is a proud self-description, as opposed to using stereotypes and mere physical features of another ethnic group. George Carlin used to do a comic routine about when people made fun of themselves it was okay, but if they went after other groups, then it was unacceptable. He hit upon a profound "social more" there.
One must also factor in the atrocious treatment that the American Indian has received in this country: being virtually subjected to genocide or at the very least what can only be called selective extermination.
To have that history, and to see even today the terrible living conditions that many Native Americans live in, and to name sports teams after an entire ethnic group, is classic superior-subordinate behavior. I don't see that it is even arguable. And it is not for the same reasons I gave above: other groups wouldn't stand for such treatment.
That's why I gave the examples I did. We have the Redskins, so why not the yellowskins or blackskins or brownskins? The very citing of such names sounds ridiculous. But we oh-so-tolerant, baby-killing, freedom-loving Americans have no problem with naming a team the Redskins. Why?
I don't think "Braves" is quite as offensive as Indians and Redskins. The Indians logo is ridiculous, and also classic prejudicial use of images to belittle and condescend to a group other than one's own. I found a logo that compared the Indians' logo to other possibilities, that I will post above, on this blog.
Like they say: a picture speaks a thousand words. Now, it seems to me that those who think such things harmless should, then, believe that the other theoretical analogies are just as harmless and inoffensive to the groups involved.
But all four of the groups in these logos (real or imagined) have had a long history of discrimination in America. The Chinese were treated like dirt when they were building the railroads out west: Hispanics have often been treated very poorly. I need not go over the miserable history of blacks in this country.
But the American Indian tops even African-Americans for past maltreatment and exploitation. This country didn't embark on a program of extermination even on those who were kept in the bondage of slavery (and for no noble reasons: they wouldn't get the free labor and all the riches therefrom if they killed their slaves, after all).
And so cultures make fun of groups that they have oppressed. It's part of the whole package. This is why black people objected so strenuously to all the stupid stereotypes they were subjected to in the minstrel shows and in the movies. The Jews have sought to show that such stereotyping was a key part of the Nazi propaganda machine that helped lead to the Holocaust.
It ought not be this way.
My objections are not at all about being "offended" simply because it was noted that these men were Ca
(cont.)
. . . Catholics. I did that myself in my blog post commenting on the decision. I'm proud of that (which is why I made a note of mentioning it).
Rather, it is about the attitudes of lots of folks towards Catholics exercising their right to influence the public realm, just like anyone else, and about the low ethical standards and inconsistencies of stereotypical prejudice, as I have been trying to explain (however poorly).
Dave Armstrong | Homepage | 05.02.07 - 1:34 am | #
You guys think you got problems? How would you like it if everybody assumed the emblematic symbol of your nation of origin was Vlad the Impaler? I just hope there aren't any Romanian sports teams that call themselves the Vampires or the Nosferatus.
Okay, I'm mostly joking. Seriously, I think Dave has a point about the emblem of the Cleveland Indians. I'm not opposed in principle to the use of national or tribal names for sports teams and mascots, but there's definitely a double-standard if it is socially acceptable to have Chief Wahoo (do they really call their mascot Chief Wahoo??? At least the U of I called theirs something dignified like Chief Illiniwek) you can't have a mascot named, say, Mr. Bojangles.
I don't see anything wrong with any of the cartoons. I recognize that people are offended by stuff like that. They should grow up.
If the point of the Indians' log and mascot were really to sneer at American Indians, they wouldn't have CHOSEN THAT NAME IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Indians, Braves, etc. are chosen to represent teams because Indians are famous for martial spirit and courage. That may be a stereotype, but it's a flattering one. We don't and never have had, even in the darkest days of segregation, the Birimingham Darkies, because no one wants that unflattering stereotype for their team. On the other hand, the Fighting Irish may produce the occasional silly spoof or foolishly grinning logo. But the Irish love it and don't complain at all because they know that the whole thing rests on admiration and fondness, not on contempt.
Go Indians! Whampum Redskins!
And for those who object: Get a better hobby.
I think you're living in a dream world, Jeff. You offered a few mildly interesting, but weak, straining-at-the-gnat arguments, but scarcely interacted with the several lines of reasoning offered at all.
This is never impressive to me. I want to see people deal with the actual arguments on the table: a real discussion back and forth, as opposed to mutual monologue.
Instead, you start out insulting folks who disagree with you by telling them to "grow up". This is symptomatic of prejudice itself: that the perpetrators don't have a clue as to why anyone would be offended, and indeed, blame them for being oversensitive, dumb, whiners without cause, etc.
I ain't buyin' it. The Christian has a duty to do his best to see that others are NOT offended by something they do or say. You want to flip that totally around and call offended people immature whiners. Wouldn't it be better to seriously consider why they might be offended in the first place?
Don't get me wrong; I think there is a great deal of oversensitivity and liberal "victimhood" games (and I have opposed that mentality for many years), but I don't believe for a second that this is one such instance.
Here is what bothers me, once we start down this road of pointing out wrongs done to groups of people over US history at the end of the day we condemn ourselves. Whats next, reparations?
I guess I can see how "Redskin" is the Indian (even "Indian" is incorrect) equivalent to "Nigger"...but how do we fix this problem? In the age of political correctness and everyone being "offended" we are on the doorstep of pure relativism and self-condemnation.
The US has some bad stuff on its track record but at the end of the day I guess it must come down to God's judgment and divine punishment. Isnt that the story of history though, empire rises, turns to sin, empire crumbles...
This is a million miles from "reparations", which is a completely different discussion. What this deals with is basic, elementary consideration towards others. I don't think it is very complicated at all.
We're so used to prejudicial stereotypes about Indians in this country that it doesn't even occur to many to question such a thing. It isn't even on the radar screen.
That's very much how it was with black people until Jackie Robinson, Rosa Parks (whom I met once), and Martin Luther King and changes in TV, etc. They fought against the stereotypes and prejudices and discrimination and have been largely successful in marginalizing them (now the black community has other massive problems, not directly related to racism (but arguably, indirectly related in some fashion).
But the Native American community has obviously not been as successful at that (because they are much, much poorer and smaller in number). I'm an advocate for fair treatment of all people. I don't just fight for my own particular ethnic group. Justice involves fairness and dignity for all peoples. If we treat one poorly, it has negative effects on our whole society.
How about those Fightin' Whites? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fig...Fightin'
_Whites
Well...the Wiki link didn't seem to work.
Here's their official store: http://www.cafepress.com/cp/stor...?
s=fightinwhite
Fightin' whites: A stereotype for sure but not an offensive one. Does anyone actually mind being portrayed as a suite wearing, affluent, if bland, individual?
A question could be, “when does a stereotype become offensive? (or a name)”. A southern High School in my home town renamed their team from the, "Rebs" to (I don't know: the kittycats?) and they quit flying that offensive rebel flag. (Deja Vu: I think I've lost this discussion before).
I understand now. Rebel flags are ok because they don't mean what you think they mean but "Redskins" is unacceptable because, even though it doesn’t mean what you think it means, is offensive.
BTW: The original cartoon was offensive because it was aimed to be offensive. It was clearly meant to insult and offend.
LOL I saw that picture!
As an aside, The Cleveland Indians were first named, "The Forest City's," then the Spiders, Bronchos when they moved to the AL, Blues, Naps, and ultimately the Indians in 1915. Legend has it that the name was changed by popular demand of the fans because their great love for Louis Sockalexis, a Penobscot Indian (Catholic, too) who played for the Spiders. (I do not know if the above story is actually true or not but I do know that when fans hated the name Spiders they often referred to the team as the Indians or the Tribe when Sockalexis played for them.)
Yes, the logo was "Chief Wahoo." And perhaps as bad as you find that logo, since 1998 the name and the logo are being slowly phased out in favor of a stylized "I". While the logo does seem to perpetuate a sterotype, is it any different than the Moor of Freising that graces Pope Benedict's Coat of Arms? When does a symbol stop being offensive? (cf 1 Cor. 1:1
Chief Wahoo is not a pejorative for me, but a symbol of honor and something to be proud of when I was growing up.
And as far as the name "Cleveland Indian" being racially offensive, it is not really fair for me to say, having grown up and lived in NE Ohio all my life. I will say this though-Mose Fleetwood Walker, the first black player ever to play major league baseball, played for Toledo and Cleveland some 50 years before Jackie Robinson played ball. The color barrier went up in baseball because Cleveland's actions of hiring Walker. Cleveland also was the first American League team to break the color barrier in 1947 when Larry Doby started for the Indians only 11 weeks after Robinson started. The great Satchel Paige, the first black pitcher in the majors, played for Cleveland and Cleveland did have the first black coach, Frank Robinson, in the majors. That and the fact that Sockalexis was one of the first American Indians to play in the majors doesn't seem to me to me that Cleveland Indian is synonymous with racism.
Names are offensive when they are used to offend. The name "Indians" was never used in that context, at least not in Cleveland when it comes to baseball.
Speaking of racial or ethnic slurs, should we get rid of the Knicks which was short for Knickerbockers, a pejorative term for the Dutch that lived in NY; the Yankees, which was a perjorative that British used to refer to us Colonists; not to mention the Buckeyes which was a pejorative the Indians themselves used to refer to the first white settlers and traders in Ohio. Very few names are defamatory per se, most are defamatory per quod. I think that words become offensive through the context that they are used. (Like calling someone a lawyer~Watch 1776 and you will understand my meaning) Offensive words are offensive when they are meant to be that. Like when James White uses the phrase "Roman Catholic" vs. a Catholic referring to himself as one.
I don't know Dave on this one...perhaps I haven't thought it all the way th
I have no idea how a smiley face ended up in my comment...the reference is I Cor. Chapter One, Verse 18.
Paul, when you type an '8' and then type a ')' it will automatically be transformed into a smiley face wearing cool shades. If you want to avoid getting smileys, you'll have to remember to put a space in front of every close-parenthesis.
perhaps I haven't thought it all the way through, but I don't believe that people deny someone justice or their dignity because people root for their hometown team or wear what some may find to be a politically incorrect mascot. But what do I know? I went to a school that had a crusader as a mascot and someone told me that several people in my hometown have protested its use because the crusader is a symbol of Christain barbarity against Muslims and it might offend Muslims living in town.
Thanks Jordan! I will try to remember that.
One more thought~I remember reading a sci-fi story where an inter-galactic war got started because our word "friends" was the same word used for a racial slur on the world where a group of alien explorers visting our world came from.
And of course the cartoonist of the cartoon at the beginning of this thread (Auth) is the same buffoon who drew the cartoon about the partial birth abortion decision depicting the five Catholic justices wearing bishop mitres.
As for Hispanic team mascots, what do you think the "Padres" are?? I don't see anyone up in arms about them.
I'm a white guy and my mascot back in middle school was the Scots...I'm not offended.
American Indian mascots have been chosen at some schools because they represent admirable, warrior-like qualities that teams admire and wish to portray to their rivals...I'm not seeing how that's an insult.
I dealt with "Padre" already: it is an affectionate use, based on the history of the area, not a pejorative or prejudicial one, as far as I can see; nor is it about an entire ethnic group, with a goofy face smiling like an idiot, despite the person's ethnic group almost being annihilated by US society. How this logo is supposed to represent "admirable, warrior-like qualities" is, I confess, a mystery to me.
Paul made some very good points, as always, but even he conceded my central point: "the logo does seem to perpetuate a stereotype."
Dave,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Please note that I was really only recording an initial reaction and not a fully composed point. That is my fault for not clarifying - indeed, not really making a point at all. I will beg off on the constraints of time. Here I hope for fully articulate a thought. And while you may disagree with some aspects of that thought (as would be expected due to us being distinct and unique individuals), I do not think our positions are very different.
First, let me say that I ABHOR RACISM IN ALL FORMS. Period. There was a time when I thought much along the lines that Paul Hoffer expressed. However, over time, I have come to the conclusion that these particular mascots are offensive and should be removed. However, I also think that the position against the logos and mascots stands on its own and does not need to rely on the basic argument, "we don't name other sports teams for other groups of people."
First, that "basic argument" will too often be misunderstood even if you stipulate that you're applying it only to perjorative forms (which you clarified was your intent). Some folks will either miss the "perjorative" part (unintentionally) or ignore it (stubborn and intentional). Second, as Paul H aptly pointed out, what one person finds insulting is nothing of the sort to another. For example, in college I knew an Irish priest who would correct people when they would say things like "beat the Irish" when Notre Dame was the opponent. He told them that beating Notre Dame was ok, but "let's leave the Irish out of it." Yet later, I knew another Irish priest (both of these men born and raised in Ireland) who was rather proud of the Irish-Notre Dame affliation.
I debated with myself for some time over whether or not I should point out why I still differ with you and your responses on "Padres," "Irish," "Vikings," and "Saints" (I'll concede "Spartans" ). I've decided that such a discussion would be more of a detraction than benefit. We're in the realm of opinions on those and as I pointed out above, in my mind the "other groups of people" argument isn't necessary. So why go off on a tangent when the important issue at hand is our charity (or lack thereof) towards the Indigenous Peoples (or any other group for that matter)?
Instead, I wish to illustrate how well the argument against the logos/mascots stands completely on its own.
1. Intended or not, the logos and mascot actions at games uniformly depict the so-called "hero" as either a savage or a simpleton. Either way, someone who is far below the sophisticated and civilized populace.
2. Symbols from the wrong tribes are used (the Illinois mascot depicts someone from a different tribe than is claimed by the Illini) or symbols from several different tribes are mixed together. This in effect says that there is no difference between Iriquos, Ottawa, Huron, Sioux, Apache, ect., an
(cont. with overlap)
2. Symbols from the wrong tribes are used (the Illinois mascot depicts someone from a different tribe than is claimed by the Illini) or symbols from several different tribes are mixed together. This in effect says that there is no difference between Iriquos, Ottawa, Huron, Sioux, Apache, ect., and is akin to saying, "they all look the same to me." If we as a people learned a long time ago that saying this was offensive, why do we keep saying it today through our mascots?
3. The various symbols used have spiritual or religious meanings in their cultures. Not only does this appear sacrilidgeous (sp), but they are then again used in the wrong manner/context. This slap in the face is the equivalent of saying, "We don't care at all about your culture, nor do we care to learn how you find these things important. We don't care about you!" The best analogy I can think of (and forgive me if it fails) that most readers of your blog would relate to is this. How would we feel if the Saints received a saltine cracker in a fake communion ceremony to "fortify" themselves for their afternoon football game?
If I had someone saying any of these three things to me (especially on a repeated basis), I would be offended. Thus, I agree with the Indigenous Peoples that these logos and mascots should be removed and renamed. Is there a way that we could ever use an "Indian" as a logo or mascot? I don't know. While noting that the Seminoles endorse the use of their name, this is not entirely convincing. What I do know is that what we are doing now is uniformly done in the wrong manner and the practice should be abandoned.
So I hope that I've shown that we are pretty much in agreement. We just approach it from a different angle.
You don't see how calling Indians "Braves" indicates an admirable quality, particularly in a competitive physical activity?
Dave, I'm not sure how much you'd like this spelled out for you, lol.
How about the Dallas Cowboys? Are you upset because they're being stereotyped into some "goofy" mascot? Or the New York Yankees (which historically, if I recall, was an insult to be called such, first of Americans as a whole, and then Northerners)?
Also, I don't see what your specific issue is with a mascot smiling. Would you like mascots to be crying?
That'll make baseball fun for the whole family: "Mommy, why is the Indian man sad?" "Well, honey, it's because us evil white people tried to kill all his innocent ancestors."
I really think you're taking something that is supposed to be fun and inspire camaraderie far too offensively.
What does everyone think of the University of South Carolina's Mascot, the GameCocks?
"the logo does seem to perpetuate a stereotype."
I Disagree. I don't think anyone makes an intellectual or emotional connection between the silly grinning "Redskin" and the actual Indian tribes. I will conceed though that Christian charity calls for us to forgo such symols if a SIGNIGICANT number of the culture characterized are offened.
I'm influenced by Bishop Sheen (as I was just listening to an old tape) who called for us to not be a people asking, "What are the rules and how close to the Abyss can I get"? but rather, "How can I suffer and die for my fellow man"?
Giving up a silly face/logo isn't much if it truly offends. Now, ya'll take down your battle flags, ya hear.
Great comments.
Jamie,
We do largely agree. You have hit upon my main concerns. The other stuff is indeed arguable on a case-by-case basis.
Somewhat ironically (one might opine) I defended the use of Confederate flags a while back on this blog (and caught significant flak from some, and I am a Northerner). So my position on these types of issues isn't monolithic at all. I reason through them and make up my mind, and am open to being persuaded otherwise.
You don't see how calling Indians "Braves" indicates an admirable quality, particularly in a competitive physical activity?
It's a bit more complex than that, but I have already stated that I didn't think "Braves" would be nearly as offensive to Indians as Redskins and Indians (particularly with with that ridiculous logo).
How about the Dallas Cowboys? Are you upset because they're being stereotyped into some "goofy" mascot?
Not at all, because the cowboy is a venerated American icon and that has nothing to do with possible prejudice. It's neither ethnic nor racial.
Or the New York Yankees (which historically, if I recall, was an insult to be called such, first of Americans as a whole, and then Northerners)?
Again, this is affectionate self-effacing terminology, which is acceptable and not objectionable. If it applies to Americans at large, as seen by the British, it can hardly be prejudicial to use it (Yankee Doodle Dandy, etc.) by Americans themselves.
Also, I don't see what your specific issue is with a mascot smiling. Would you like mascots to be crying?
It has to do with how oppressed people are portrayed as these happy ignoramuses. It's a way that the dominating culture rationalizes how they have treated them. Hence, black people were often portrayed as these happy, smiling simpletons. Slavery was a wonderful thing; thank God for the white man who cared for these poor helpless creatures, etc. It's a subtle level of racism and ethnocentrism, but very real.
I really think you're taking something that is supposed to be fun and inspire camaraderie far too offensively.
And I really think you are taking a serious issue that should trouble you and minimizing it by not thinking through the issue deeply enough.
Reasonable and good men can differ on these things, but the position I am staking out is neither merely silly, nor oversensitive, nor the liberal victimhood thing.
It's not even my group in the first place. My concern is that an entire ethnic group (not my own at all, but one I do admire in many ways) is being portrayed in what many of them think is a condescending, patronizing fashion. I don't see that this is that difficult to grasp.
You say, "I will conceed though that Christian charity calls for us to forgo such symols if a SIGNIGICANT number of the culture characterized are offened."
Okay; what is a significant number? 51% ? It seems to me that that would be far more than enough to
(cont.)
. . . eliminate the logo and the name. I would say even if 25% in a poll was highly offended, that would be a significant number, to be taken into consideration. 10% ? Maybe not.
If I could produce such a poll and it showed whatever number you thought was "significant", then you would change your mind?
Interesting discussion, on all sides, . . .
I would point out that the problem of native American mascots isn't always a problem. The Florida State Seminoles, for example, worked closely with the tribe in fashioning the attire, pre-game ceremony, and the like for their mascot. I understand that the tribe is pleased with the tradition, and I've not heard any objection to the "Tomahawk chop" that they have in common with the Braves. However, I still think it would be difficult to rationalize "Chief Knock-a-homa!"
And Redskins is simply inexplicable; if the name is too offensive to be trademarked as a matter of law, it's hard to see how it can be explained. I suppose it is such a fixture of American culture at this point (with the football rivalry between Dallas and Washington recalling the "Old Western" genre) that it will never change, but it should.
BTW, I'd also lump "Fighting Irish" and Yankees in the category of a term of derogation being accepted with pride. Given that this is known to be the situation in which the term was adopted as a matter of historical fact, I see no problem with them. It isn't simply the historical use of the name that matters, but the actual instance in which it was used by the team in question. One could make similar arguments for the Padres (one of numerous gestures of homage to the Spanish Fransicans who played an important role in the city of San Diego, including founding the University of San Diego) and the Saints (which does double duty as an homage to New Orleans jazz and its Catholic history). In cases where the historical facts are as clear as these, it shouldn't matter whether 99% of the people are offended, although it would be awfully hard to sell tickets if one were ridiculously stubborn about it (which is probably why the "Washington Bullets" name has gone away). If the name historically was just picked because it sounded cool, made for good marketing, or whatnot, I can't see supporting them. It is, of course, their right to do whatever they want, but I'll call it stupid nonetheless. Using the name of an ethnic group with no support from that group and no better rationale than its marketing cachet is pretty ridiculous.
I did make that same exact argument regarding the Padres and Saints (and Yankees and Fighting Irish).
Dave:
I notice that you didn't answer anything that I said, just called it "weak."
But at the end, you conceded the main point:
There is a lot of self-absorbed whining about "victimhood." And I would add, there is a lot of "offense taking" that goes on in relation to it that needn't at all be taken seriously.
The logo is in the same spirit of fun as all the other logos discussed above. It's affectionate. There are many sterotypes about Indians, but that they are grinning fools is not one of them. Those stereotypes apply to blacks and to Hispanics on some occasions, but not to Indians. Indians are stereotypically portrayed as violent and wooden in expression. So, I don't think the logo is any more offensive than those for the Padres or the Fightin Irish.
In fact, the one for the Fightin Irish DOES play into stereotypes about the Irish...that they are stupidly aggressive and pugnacious and looking for a fight. But the Irish don't complain precisely because they are not into the victimhood nonsense that you so rightly acknowledge to be a problem.
The Irish don't complain because--although such prejudices helped the English nearly starve them out of existence a hundred years ago, they have some pride and self-confidence and haven't taken a shine to the whining stuff.
Yes, people are sometimes hurt and offended. Some Indians may be hurt and offended and I'm sorry about that. But I think they simply need to listen to voices other than the media roar...there are plenty of Indians that enjoy the iconic status that comes with these team names: why should they be ignored?
No, this is all part of the drab spirit of the age: the same sort of spirit that produces the Joke Police who go around saying "That's not funny! That's not funny!" and hunting for injuries.
I haven't seen you even begin to refute any of this...I think it's your original "argument" that is weak as water, not my response. I can't see any merit in it at all, except the tiny bit of merit that people sometimes get their feelings hurt.
My wife was recounting to my 11-year-old son the story of one of the British sailors recently captured by the Iranians. The sailor told us all that he cried himself to sleep because his captors took away his IPOD and called him Mr. Bean. My son was flabbergasted. Cried because they called him Mr. Bean? A British sailor?
Should I tell him that he has a Christian duty to sympathize with those who are wounded in their spirits? Poppycock. His astounded contempt is a sign of the desire for manliness and fortitude.
The "deep pathos" produced in a few by a perfectly innocent name and logo which are obviously signs of affection and honor should not be treated with grave respect. It should be dismissed.
Really I think the critical part of the argument that needs to be addressed is this:
OF COURSE these team names and logos are affectionate! If they weren't affectionate and if they didn't involve admiration, they wouldn't be used.
Indians were feared in American history, but they were also admired. We don't have and have never had teams named Kikes or Niggers (which the Indian Political Action groups constantly compare these Indian team names to) because those stereotypes and names didn't involve admiration or affection. We didn't have to abolish these team names when we became more aware of prejudice and racisim because such team names NEVER EXISTED. People simply don't name their teams after groups and animals that they despise. Right?
But naming your teams after Indians is immensely popular--a whole tradition is schools across the country--because people like 'em.
All that seems painfully obvious to me.
Dave:
I consider my own argument a supplement to yours, because my point wasn't that people oughtn't be offended because it wasn't intended to be offensive, but that they actually in fact had a good reason to use the name. What Jeff seems to have missed from my argument is that I am not condemning the use of such mascots for offense, but for stupidity. There is simply no reason for its use, apart from appeal to people's dumb, base, irrational inclinations. As if there weren't enough low-brow humor in the world, these guys are basically appealing to "those people look funny" to sell merchandise. If you're actually emotionally damaged by people commenting on your appearance, then you've got problems. But it ought to be perfectly legitimate to point out that it is uncivilized and stupid and that no thinking person should go along with it.
But naming your teams after Indians is immensely popular--a whole tradition is schools across the country--because people like 'em.
Fortunately, there is also a trend of realizing how ridiculous it is to make a mascot out of people just because they look different. The fact that it has taken this long to figure out what Stanford and Dartmouth figured out years ago is disappointing, but at least people are finally getting around to it.
We don't have and have never had teams named Kikes or Niggers (which the Indian Political Action groups constantly compare these Indian team names to) because those stereotypes and names didn't involve admiration or affection.
Which makes the name "Redskins" all the more baffling, because it is basically the same thing.
Some of you folks are in sad shape -- truly ridiculously fooled by the ultra-liberal, politically correct crowd of recent years. I have been a Cleveland Indians' fan since 1958, when ALL of the team's fans LOVED Chief Wahoo -- in both his original and current "incarnations." Back then, NOBODY -- whether "white" or "black" or "yellow" or "red" or "brown" -- said ANYTHING against Chief Wahoo (or any other mascot of any sport in the U.S.). And that is exactly as it still should be. These things are NOT offensive and are NOT "stereotypes" at all. (People who say that they are either or both of those things have fallen into temporary insanity!) These mascots are just cute cartoons, for heaven's sake! Snap out of it, guys and gals.
Interesting Wikipedia article on this issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lis...igenous_peoples
"Time to dump Braves, Indians and Redskins," by Keith Law (ESPN)
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/p...page=law/
070410
Hank Aaron Steps Up to the Plate
on the use of Native American Names and Mascots in Sport
Richard E. Lapchick
Special for the Sports Business Journal
"In one day, Hank Aaron did more for the campaign to stop using Native American names and mascots for sports teams than the 30 plus years that the campaign has been active.
"As fans gathered for the All-Star Classic in Atlanta, Aaron stepped up to the platform that throwing out the first pitch gave him. He talked to the media about race and sport. This was not new for the man who had his own personal triumph of breaking Babe Ruth's career home run chilled by innumerable death threats and a barrage of hate mail. What was new was his statement that if the name "Braves" that he wore on his chest for decades was hurtful to many Native Americans, then it should be changed. He instantly became the most prominent athlete to take that position publicly."
http://web.archive.org/web/20050...-
article10.html
American Indian Sports Team Mascots
http://www.aistm.org/1indexpage.htm
Commenting by HaloScan
