Sorry if I mischaracterized your argument, Tres. I just got that impression based on this statement of yours:
quote:...introverts are not only denied jobs, housing, promotions, and paroles based on their minority status, but also potentially friends, marriages, and many other significant relationships in a world where the majority are extraverted, where things are set up to favor extraverted ways.
That sounded pretty serious to me.
quote:It may have been in the height of segregation, but today I think it amounts mainly to a sense of not belonging, a slight unintentional bias in certain significant areas of life, and being viewed with slightly more suspicion by a large segment of society - along with a few more extreme racists.
You're painting a pretty rosey picture that I think a lot of people would disagree with. I ask my question again:
"Tres, if introverts have it worse than black people, then should we legislate special protections for introverts, or should we remove the speical protections we have given black people?"
Should black people stop their bellyaching? If the introverts don't have special legal protection, why should black people?
quote:And I think, based on the introverts I've known, that many nevertheless develop ways and mannerisms that give them away, and lead to a certain bias against them.
Porter seems to have hid it pretty well.
quote:MPH: I am an extreme introvert, a fact which surprises many people that know me.
quote:Originally posted by Beren One Hand: That's interesting Porter.
So if you do not mind talking to people, but merely prefer to be alone, then you can get a job that requires constant social interaction. You may dislike that job, but you can certainly do it.
And if you demonstrated your social skills in a job interview, there is no reason why an employer wouldn't hire you.
I'm actually a pretty decent salesman.
It's just that I hate it.
I now work in a job where I telecommute. I haven't seen a fellow employee in months. We communicate through IM, email, and an occasional phone call.
posted
Also, let me point out that people that know me well know that I am an introvert. But people that know me from, for example, classes that we have together -- they often don't believe me when I say that I'm an introvert.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I wrote that statement in the same fashion as your statement, to which I was responding, about the effects of racism - which also sounded quite serious. In truth, however, it is rare for someone to lose a job ONLY because they are black or ONLY because they are an introvert. Those are just individual factors among many that could work against them, in a subtle way - especially in things like interviews where slight differences can make or break you.
quote:You're painting a pretty rosey picture that I think a lot of people would disagree with.
Yes, but a lot of people exaggerate racism. America, in general, is very sensitive to anything remotely racist. Keep in mind that this thread is about changing school mascots that may or may not offend Native Americans. If that is the sort of racist problem we are worried about today, things really are not that bad. I would not call it "rosy" though. I think the subtle bias and sense of not belonging are significant, especially when accumulated across a lifetime.
quote:"Tres, if introverts have it worse than black people, then should we legislate special protections for introverts, or should we remove the speical protections we have given black people?"
Should black people stop their bellyaching? If the introverts don't have special legal protection, why should black people?
You said yourself that you thought discrimination against blacks was normally unjustified, while discrimination against introverts was often justified. I don't dispute this. Isn't that a pretty good reason to legislate the former and not the latter?
And no, black people shouldn't "stop their bellyaching". They have a right to complain when they are treated in an unjustified unfair fashion - as all minorities do. But also like every other minority, they shouldn't have the right to get offended at anything, at least if they expect something to be done about it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If that is the sort of racist problem we are worried about today, things really are not that bad.
I do look forward to the day when that is our only racial problem.
quote:But also like every other minority, they shouldn't have the right to get offended at anything, at least if they expect something to be done about it.
I think blacks have more to complain about than most minority groups in this country. But yes, I agree with you that no minority group has license to get offended at everything.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Keep in mind that this thread is about changing school mascots that may or may not offend Native Americans. If that is the sort of racist problem we are worried about today, things really are not that bad.
No I think what it really means is that many, even most people are really uncomfortable talking about the really serious race issues. It is easy to say "I think racism isn't a real concern because mascots really aren't a big deal" or to say "I know I'm not at all racist, after all, I AM against Indian mascots."
It is an easy and safe topic to discuss.
Harder topics to discuss are about the subtle ways in which Racism masks itself.
Why is it that when I am going to stores alone, salespeople are generally helpful, but when I am with my mother, who is far darker than I am, it is hard to get service, unless we are being tailed throught the store?
Why is it when I am with my White husband, we never get asked for a reciept at the door, but when I am with my Mom, we are half or more of the time?
Why is it that when my son is somewhere with me and gets rambunctious, people smile and comment about how high-energy and smart he is, but when he is with my Mom, people shake their heads and say he's a brat who isn't disciplined enough? (He is appreciably better behave when my mom is taking care of him than with me. Not that he is ever "bad.")
At church EVERY week at least one of the same four women welcome my Mom, and another lady who is originally from Camaroon and is VERY dark skinned, and say they hope they visit again. Both have been members for over 5 years, and been treated as visitors for over 5 years. I have checked and the women do not regularly greet anyone else.
Ya know what? These are all subtle. They are all "so what?" But they are pervasive and common, and they really begin to wear you down, because they happen over and over, month after month, year after year. And they are not infrequently punctuated by incidences of overt racism.
When the Museum of the American Indian opened last year in Washington D.C., there was a story on Yahoo about it. YAhoo has a discussion section after their stories.
Most comments were about how Native Americans didn't DESERVE a museum, or how they were useless drains on society, or how they have NEVER contributed anything important to the U.S., or how uncivilized they are, a whole host of comments touting common Indian Stereotypes. Many of these people were trolls, absolutely true. But many weren't.
In conclusion...? No mascots are NOT the only, nor even the biggest race problems America has. But they are certainly one of the easiest to tackle.
Posts: 772 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And while I'm at it, I am now calm enough to talk about the mascot issue.
Many Native Americans (N.A.) were brave and fierce fighters. They were being overrun by people who wanted the land that N.A.s had been living on for uncountable years. There were massacres left and right. Yes many returned the massacres, Geronimo's band immediately coming to mind, but the sheer number of N.A. Men women and children who were casually killed in massacres is huge. N.A. religions were regularly banned and outlawed. Children were forcibly taken away to schools. And N.A. fought it savagely every step of the way. They were fighting for their lives, for their families, for their peoples. They were fighting against cultural annihilation.
Basketball consists of people running up and down a court trying to throw a ball through a hoop.
Football sees people running up and down a large usually green grassy field with pointy oval ball trying to reach one side or the other, or maybe they might be trying to kick that ball through two posts.
Baseball has people smacking a ball with a stick and running from spot to spot while other people try to catch the ball and stop the runners.
NONE of these embodies the courage and determination and desperation Native American warriors showed. Naming a sports team does not HONOR those brave warriors. It turns their cause into a game.
EDIT to fix sentence fragment and spelling
Posts: 772 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Seminole Tribe of Florida would seem to disagree.
I don't mean to discount anyone's feelings. It's worthy to care! And at the same time, I think it's time for whites to stop deciding for Indians what Indians should do, think, or be. Let's have our sensibilities without imposing them on the tribes.
[ August 09, 2005, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd still like to see, from either side, what kind of numbers in each category of opinion would justify removing/keeping the mascots.
Let's look at the extreme ranges: If every American Indian thought it offensive, would Will B think they should be changed? If only one American Indian found it offensive and everyone else thought it honored them, would the mascot opponents think they should be kept?
I know neither is true. I know we couldn't hope to actually determine the true numbers. What I'm looking for is the weight to be given to the various opinions (offended by mascots, apathetic, would be offended by changing the mascots) of American Indians. Is there a presumption against offending? If so, what about situations where someone will be offended either way?
We can argue back and forth about what the Seminoles actually think about FSU's mascot. But the more interesting and more important issue is what principles should be used to inform this decision.
posted
We can "argue back and forth about it," but there wouldn't be much point. They endorsed the team name. It's intellectually honest to admit when points have been indisputably established. Why not do it?
Isn't your statement a bad rhetorical technique? Any time a point is inconvenient, we can simply say, "Well, we can argue back and forth about whether your indisputable proved point is correct, but let's ignore it instead." I don't think that's the best idea.
But I'll answer your question from my end, Dagonee, by un-asking it. It isn't about numbers. It's about tribal self-government. Let the Indians make their decision about what they want, their way. (I am not arguing against democracy; AFAIK all tribes now are run democratically.)
A good principle, IMJ, is: what decisions do these nations make, for themselves? A bad one would be: what do we enlightened white people decide for them that they should want, and can we find a way to phrase a polling question to make it sound like they agree with us?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We can "argue back and forth about it," but there wouldn't be much point. They endorsed the team name.
You mean the tribal council endorsed it, right?
quote:It's intellectually honest to admit when points have been indisputably established. Why not do it?
Yes, but it's intellectually dishonest to claim points have been indisputably established when they haven't. Are you honestly telling me every single Seminole agrees with this decision? I don't think so.
What you've done is skip an intermediate step in the analysis. Specifically, "does the council reflect tribal opinion?" You have no proof it does. Moreover, the question I'm specifically posing is about percentages. A council elected by majority vote, in an election that almost certainly contained other vote-determinative issues, tells us little about public opinion within the electorate.
quote:It isn't about numbers. It's about tribal self-government. Let the Indians make their decision about what they want, their way. (I am not arguing against democracy; AFAIK all tribes now are run democratically.)
So that's your principle: let the tribal councils decide. What about when more than one tribe has a claim to the name being used, and the tribal councils reach opposite conclusions?
posted
Why does it matter who is offended or who is not? What matters is whether ot nor they SHOULD be offended. If they should be, chances are that even if they aren't now, many will someday. And if they shouldn't be, it doesn't matter if every single Native American is offended - the name should stay.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, I don't think anyone but the group in question itself is able to say whether they 'should' be offended. So saying "if they shouldn't be, it doesn't matter if every single Native American is offended - the name should stay" is a ridiculous point. How would you decide whether they should or shouldn't be without their input?
Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
QUOTE: "Let the Indians make their decision about what they want, their way."
I agree with a specific name such as Seminoles or Illini. The school should do everything within its power to ascertain the tribes feeling toward the nickname, the only realistic way to do this is by the tribal council taking a vote, as they did in Florida.
But with names such as "Indians" or "Braves", those names do not "belong" to any specific tribe or even the NA people as a whole. Those words and their connotations are part of the American peoples' lexicon and past. Schools and organizations should strive to respect all peoples when naming their teams, as a general rule, but I don't think that any reasonable person can say that the names "Indians" or "Braves" are meant to be, or can even be construed as "hostile" or "abusive" toward a tribe.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'd bet that they are going to say that whatever does offend them should offend them, like most people usually do. But it seems clear to me, at least, that some people do get offended when they should not.
I think you'd make a judgement about what 'should' be offense based on two things: What is intended, and what is communicated. The group in question can help explain what message is communicated to them by the mascots in question. But they can't say what is intended by the mascots, and what is communicated to the public at large. If to Native Americans these mascots communicate that their culture is trivial, but if the message intended is to honor them and if the message recieved by the public at large is that it honors them, then I think they 'should' not be offended even if they are.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if it "honours them" at the expense of perpetuating a potentially negative and untrue stereotype? I disagree. If an entire group of people, as in your proposed situation, takes offense at a stereotype of themselves, I think there's probably a reason for it. This is like saying any time 98% of a given group believe something to be true about the remaining 2%, it is. I agree that offense may not be intended by those who create or support the mascots, but I don't think that gives them the right to ignore the protestations of those whom the unintended offense concerns.
posted
It's only perpetuating that stereotype if people come to opinions about the Native American culture based upon team mascots. To some Native Americans and those acting on their behalf, this may appear to be true. I'm inclined to think that for most fans, this is false - that people know the difference between a mascot and reality. I think the main reason why nobody worries about that Fighting Irish mascot is because we mostly all know that the Irish are not really short green leprachaunish people.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most people do know the difference between mascots and reality. Some people don't. Also, a lot of children don't have that line built into their system yet. Is it good to let kids who might never otherwise come in contact with 'real' Native American culture grow up with images like the dancing Braves mascot and goofy cartoon Indians as their image of Native American society? Wouldn't you think at some level that would make it harder to think of those same dances the mascot does as part of a real and sacred religion once the child grows up? It's a subtle, you may say 'trivial', issue, especially compared to the bigger issues facing Native Americans, but if it's being discussed anyway by the people in power, I don't see why a trivial issue shouldn't be fixed in the meantime while we're working on bigger issues too.
My problem with your argument is really more that you seem to think (and correct me if I've misunderstood you) that stereotyping and portraying cultures in a way that does not necessarily portray reality is okay if people don't mean to offend by it, even if those being stereotyped disagree.
Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they don't mean to offend, and if they don't mean to convey misconceptions about that culture, yes. I don't believe I have any right to expect you to censor your own expression just to make me less offended, provided that you aren't intentionally trying to bother me with it and provided that you aren't intentionally trying to misportray me.
Now, I may want to explain to you why you are misportraying me, so that you know better, at which point I could expect you to censor your expression. However, I don't think that is the issue here. I think the issue with mascots is a case where the symbol in question is not supposed to be taken seriously. It's not that they are portraying Native Americans wrongly. It's that they aren't really portraying them at all - any more than the dancing bear mascot is supposed to portray a real, actual bear.
It is bad that some people will not fully distinguish between the mascot world and the real world, and that should be taken into account when thinking up mascots, but there is more at stake here than just that. We are talking about changing a tradition that people often feel passionate about and connected to. There is a rather significant cost in doing this - destroying the symbols of a team. I don't think Native Americans or anyone else really has the right to expect teams and fans to incur that cost just because some fans or children don't distinguish between mascots and reality as well as they are supposed to. If there is an intent to harm or misinform, then yes.
Keep in mind that there are many other similar portrayals that I'm betting you would not want to change. Peter Pan, for instance. It clearly portrays Native Americans in a false fashion, but it does so only in the spirit of imagination and fun. Children may get the wrong idea, but the expectation is that adult readers will realize 'Indians' didn't really live like in that fantasy. Should we keep that book away from readers because they might get the wrong idea about Native American culture? I'd say no, not even if Native Americans wanted us to.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Peter Pan was published in the first few years of this century when most white, middle-class, powerful adults really *did* think of Native Americans as ignorant, savage barbarians whose culture should be totally annihilated. This perception is what led to residential schools and the banning of potlatches, religious ceremonies and such a negative view of aboriginal culture as a whole. Yes, it might have been written in the spirit of imagination and fun, but that doesn't stop it from being very wrong. I highly doubt Barrie familiarized himself with Native American culture and intended to honour it in that book. No, I don't think it should be banned. I think, like any historical object, it has great anthropological worth.
As for the worth of the mascots, I guess that's the question. Is the temporary pride and spirit of the team worth offending a large group of people? I say no, because while people might miss the old mascot and cheers, in all probability they will continue to cheer on the 'new' team and eventually come to feel the same way about the new mascot. It doesn't really damage the team that much, excepting a year or two for people to get used to it, whereas *not* changing has the potential to do another type of damage that I consider worth more.
quote:Now, I may want to explain to you why you are misportraying me, so that you know better, at which point I could expect you to censor your expression.
I am glad we agree on this at any rate. I still, however, disagree with the idea that the general public should decide whether an entire group of people should or should not be offended, regardless of that group's feelings. So determining that group's feelings becomes the problem then, as has been discussed earlier in this thread.
Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: While the Seminole Tribe of Florida formalized its approval of Florida State's use of "Seminoles" as a nickname and mascot, supporting the school in a resolution last week, the case underscores the complexity of an issue that has occupied the NCAA for more than four years.
The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, which counts 14,000 members in that state and several others, staunchly opposes attachment of the name to sports teams, and its General Council expects to consider a resolution next month condemning the practice by Florida State or any other institution.
"(Use of the) name is not only a Florida indigenous issue," said Ron Stratten, an NCAA vice president and liaison to the association's Minority Interests and Opportunities Committee.
Just because one regional tribe of Seminoles happened to find the mascot inoffensive by no means that it is common among other Seminoles. I heard this discussed on the news the other day, and decided to link it here because the actions of one tribal council seem to concede assent to the use of the Seminole name. Such is certainly not the case, and to think otherwise is naive. Also, as a counterpoint to most the things on indianz.com I'd recommend looking at indiancountry.com as well.
I seem unable to provide my two cents in these discussions. One would think I would have learned differently by now. As with a couple of others that have posted here, I'm of some Native American descent (enough to claim official ancestry as far as the United States is concerned). I have no qualms about using Native Americans as academic or sports mascots, provided it is done tastefully and respectfully. It doesn't help that what tastefully and respectfully actually means is horribly subjective.
I firmly believe the only professional team in danger with its name is the Redskins. For some reason, physical descriptions don't make particularly good team names, particularly one that has been used to make less than positive inferences in the past. We've had the debate here regarding common use does not make a pejorative acceptable. Teams like the Indians and the Braves are likely too abstract to ever challenge on a legal basis. I just feel an overwhelming wave of pity for the fans anytime they go into the tomahawk chop. Poor silly sods.
College (and High School) mascots are likely a different fight entirely, and for once I find myself agreeing with the NCAA. I'd like to see strong public reassurances from universities that they have an orientation regarding the history and importance of their clothing and accessories. This of course serves a dual purpose that the clothing and accessories are in fact authentic. And if an academic institution is using a tribe name, and any tribal council within that group asks them to cease using the name, they should do so. And be forced to should they not volunteer to. Hopefully there would be some communication between the school and tribe as to what is and what is not acceptable to do with their name (and image in some cases). It would certainly benefit both to work as an emissary of all members of a particular group (as opposed to FSU appeasing one Seminole tribe and not addressing the concern of others.
quote:Yes, but it's intellectually dishonest to claim points have been indisputably established when they haven't. Are you honestly telling me every single Seminole agrees with this decision? I don't think so.
What I said was the Florida Seminole tribe endorsed FSU's use of the name. As you said, we can argue about it ... but there'd be no point. It happened. Claiming that "we can argue about" it, although technically true, is a distraction: it happened. We should admit it.
quote:What you've done is skip an intermediate step in the analysis. Specifically, "does the council reflect tribal opinion?" You have no proof it does.
No, what I did was point out that the Florida Seminole tribe endorsed the use of the name. This doesn't require analysis. It's just true.
I have not confirmed that the Seminole Tribe is democratic, but since every other US Indian tribe I've heard of is, I think the burden of proof is on anyone who claims otherwise.
quote:Moreover, the question I'm specifically posing is about percentages. A council elected by majority vote, in an election that almost certainly contained other vote-determinative issues, tells us little about public opinion within the electorate.
I get that that's your question, but it isn't mine. I don't think we should interfere in Indian decisions. We aren't Indians.
quote:So that's your principle: let the tribal councils decide. What about when more than one tribe has a claim to the name being used, and the tribal councils reach opposite conclusions?
One possible answer is: if we can find one council -- or even one Indian -- to agree with us, we can impose our will on them and use that Indian as a justification. This has been done in the past to take land from tribes: find one Indian, or a few, willing to sign it away. I consider this to be absolutely horrible.
A better answer: let them work it out. It isn't our decision. It's theirs.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I said was the Florida Seminole tribe endorsed FSU's use of the name. As you said, we can argue about it ... but there'd be no point. It happened. Claiming that "we can argue about" it, although technically true, is a distraction: it happened. We should admit it.
I said this:
quote:We can argue back and forth about what the Seminoles actually think about FSU's mascot.
You said:
quote:We can "argue back and forth about it," but there wouldn't be much point. They endorsed the team name. It's intellectually honest to admit when points have been indisputably established. Why not do it?
My whole point is that what you said DOES NOT ESTABLISH what the Seminoles actually think about it. It establishes what the tribal council of one particular tribe of Seminoles think about it.
You have not indisuptibly established anything except that this council approves of the use of the name. That's a far stretch from what I was claiming could still be argued about.
As to "admitting it," I admit that one tribe's elected representatives voted this way.
Before you make a claim of intellectual dishonesty about indisputible points, it would be wise to 1) actually understand what the point was and 2) make sure you've actually bothered to address it.
quote:No, what I did was point out that the Florida Seminole tribe endorsed the use of the name. This doesn't require analysis. It's just true.
And no one has disputed it. What we've disputed is the conclusion YOU'VE draw from that one fact.
quote:I get that that's your question, but it isn't mine. I don't think we should interfere in Indian decisions. We aren't Indians.
Well when calling me intellectually dishonest, it would be wise to deal with MY question, not yours.
quote:One possible answer is: if we can find one council -- or even one Indian -- to agree with us, we can impose our will on them and use that Indian as a justification. This has been done in the past to take land from tribes: find one Indian, or a few, willing to sign it away. I consider this to be absolutely horrible.
A better answer: let them work it out. It isn't our decision. It's theirs.
And I've asked for specifics on how the people who actually have to implement these decisions, who have no connection to the tribes at all, should judge what "they" have actually decided.
Get it? It's a question of HOW the decision is made and implemented. You've already brushed off one very important objection. Why don't you actually propose a system whereby a college can determine 1) which tribes are applicable to a given mascot, and 2) what those tribes actually think about the mascot.
quote:Is the temporary pride and spirit of the team worth offending a large group of people? I say no, because while people might miss the old mascot and cheers, in all probability they will continue to cheer on the 'new' team and eventually come to feel the same way about the new mascot.
quote:I highly doubt Barrie familiarized himself with Native American culture and intended to honour it in that book. No, I don't think it should be banned. I think, like any historical object, it has great anthropological worth.
But is that anthropological value worth offending a large group of people? After all, there are other good books to read that don't falsely portray Native Americans. Does the fact that you see nothing wrong with the promotion of Peter Pan while seeing something wrong with the promotion of Indian mascots imply that you believe the antrhopological worth of a book is greater than the value of team spirit inspired by a team mascot?
I'm not sure you are giving the value of a team symbol it's due importance. Yes, people would come to accept any changes eventually, but to those who have dedicated a lot to the team backed by that symbol, forbidding it can be a painful insult. It can even be offensive, as you are then implying that fans who have been praising that symbol all along were actually engaging in a form of racism. It is taken as an attack on their team, and therefore an attack on them - an unfair attack, if the intent was never to misportray real Native Americans.
quote:TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Gov. Jeb Bush criticized NCAA officials on Tuesday for their decision to penalize Florida State for using an American Indian nickname and symbols, saying they instead insulted the university and a proud Seminole Tribe of Florida.
The NCAA's finding that the school's Seminoles nickname is "hostile and offensive," instead of honoring American Indians has the opposite effect, the governor said, because the tribe supports the school's use of its name.
"I think it's offensive to native Americans ... the Seminole Indian tribe who support the traditions of FSU," Bush said on his way into a Cabinet meeting. "I think they insult those people by telling them, 'No, no, you're not smart enough to understand this. You should be feeling really horrible about this.' It's ridiculous."
posted
Please note, first, that I have never said people other than the Native Americans have the right to tell the Native Americans when they ought to be offended. My issue with your arguments to begin with was that it seemed in some situations (eg. if there was no harm intended), you thought there should be no changes even IF the entire tribe wanted things to be changed. My arguments have centred around reasons why this should not be the case and reasons why there could still be harm even if there was none intended. If the Native Americans whom the mascot concerns are fine with it, then that's fine. I have simply been trying to point out reasons they might find it offensive which the general public might not see or understand.
As to Peter Pan, it's a totally different case. It was published around 1904. It reflects the views of 1904. No one reads it and says "People must still feel and live this way". The mascots are a contemporary symbol. If they were changed, I wouldn't support the banning of old baseball cards and programmes and souvenirs either. They have that same anthropological worth. They would no longer be contemporary portrayals, and that's what makes the difference, in my view. Yes, you can argue as I did that well-off, isolated, white children might read Peter Pan and think that's how Indians still live, but I think it's less likely, given that they'll know from personal experience that that's *not* how 'white people' still live, and might make the link. Never mind the fantastic setting which links Indians with mermaids and pixies. Even children know these things are outside the realm of everyday reality, even if they still think they're reachable places.
I don't think "the antrhopological worth of a book [and] the value of team spirit inspired by a team mascot" can be really compared. Apples and oranges, in short.
quote:you are then implying that fans who have been praising that symbol all along were actually engaging in a form of racism.
But what if they are? Even if it's unintended? Should unintended racism be allowed to continue just because the people are ignorant of it? I'm not saying this is always the case. Again, if a tribe and a team liaise and both are okay with a mascot's portrayal, then that's totally fine. If the Irish ever all band together and protest the Fighting Irish mascot then I think yes, it should be removed too. I doubt this will happen, however. I think part of the reason that Native American mascots are under particular fire is because NA society is fighting for its culture in a way that the Irish and other cultures aren't. Yes, Irish Gaelic is endangered. Not nearly as endangered as probably 80% of Native American languages. That's a whole lot of languages. I forget the exact statistic but in a fairly short time, most of them will likely be gone. Western North America was so successful in almost wiping out aboriginal culture here that every shred which can be saved is of tremendous value. I think steps like banning mascots which have been determined offensive by those they portray are steps forward in regaining Native American culture (as far as it can be regained in a Westernized world) and steps forward in helping make Native American culture an integrated, valued, accepted part of North American culture rather than a bunch of people who don't see or do things the same way all the Westernized "normal North American" folks do. (To be clear, I do not mean assimilation by this, but rather cooperation with and acceptance of things like Native self-government, etcetera).
Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My alma mater, the University of Utah, is on the list of offending schools. The "mascot" (I don't like that word) is the Utes. The school does not use any images of native americans, or any native american symbols except for a drum and feather. The actual mascot that appears at sporting events in costume is a red-tailed hawk. Fans and students that appear at sporting events do not use faux or real native american chants or gestures.
Several years ago, the Ute tribe came to the University and protested the use of the name. The administration offered to cease the use of the name, but said that they would not pay the tribe for the privilege of continuing to use the name. The tribe then said that it approved of the use of the name as long as it was "respectful". All of the things listed in the previous paragraph are part of that. Ever since then, the Ute tribe has continued to support the use of the name. The administration goes back to the tribe every few years and asks if it is still okay, and whether there are any changes the tribe would suggest.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As to Peter Pan, it's a totally different case. It was published around 1904. It reflects the views of 1904. No one reads it and says "People must still feel and live this way". The mascots are a contemporary symbol.
So would you oppose contemporary works that portray Native Americans in a stereotypical fashion? For instance, there was a Peter Pan movie created just last year. Or for that matter, have you seen Pocahontas? Or, to take perhaps the most appropriate comparison of all, what about the Alvin Maker series? If a group of Native Americans were offended by the Tales of Alvin Maker, do you think it would be wrong to read, promote, and show it to our children? If a group were offended by it, would it be wrong of OSC to continue the series? Though I think most readers recognize that it is fantasy and would probably view the portrayal of Native American characters as positive, it is just as possible that some people would take away misconceptions about how Indians really were, just as they could with team mascots.
Clearly there is little of historical value to Alvin Maker, since it is a work in progress even now. So, why should we support or read the book and risk offending Native Americans?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Peter Pan movies are still based on the old book. As for Alvin Maker, I have not read it so I can't comment on how it portrays them. I assume it is clearly a fantasy series, and as such has that same benefit I mentioned concerning Peter Pan, in that people recognize it is fiction, outside the realm of everyday reality. Fictional books are all seperate from reality in that sense. Mascots do not have that benefit. There are no fantastic elements to baseball whatsoever. There is a world of difference in this. Also, books are static things once finished, while mascots are not. Mascots continue to pile on fresh offense (if, again, they are offensive - as UofU demonstrated, there are perfectly acceptable ways of using such mascots or names) every time they are used, while books can only truly offend at the time they are written.
I have to go to work now, for about the next day and a half straight, so I won't be able to continue this for a while (if it's even in a state to be continued when I get back). It's been an interesting discussion so far though.
Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fictional books are all seperate from reality in that sense. Mascots do not have that benefit.
I'd say mascots are much more obviously fictional than books. All but the youngest children know that mascots are guys in suits just acting wacky.
quote:Also, books are static things once finished, while mascots are not. Mascots continue to pile on fresh offense (if, again, they are offensive - as UofU demonstrated, there are perfectly acceptable ways of using such mascots or names) every time they are used, while books can only truly offend at the time they are written.
I think a book could continue to offend as long as it is read.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and I as a Scandinavian call for the withdrawl of the team name for the Minnesota VIKINGS, not all of us Scandinavians are tall, blond, handsome people who love pillaging! Posts: 163 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does it seem strange that "native Americans" are not really native to the America's at all? ( and I am proud of my Mohawk heritage (Mohawk, the term itself, means : those who eat human flesh / those who eat people...just a little historical input.) I may not be full blooded or even what used to be termed as a "half-breed" (horrible term) but I am proud that I am part of the Iroquois Nation. I also know that between 20 to 30 thousand years ago my "Native American" ancestors travelled across the land bridge from Siberia and spread from Alaska down to South America (yes there is actual DNA proof that now exists that maps how man has populated the world .... from African origin after the last ice age. I guess that makes all Americans African Americans in the long run. )
I see both sides of this issue. I am proud of my cultural heritage. I happen to be an "International Mutt" - Swedish, German, French, English, Welsh ,Scots, Irish, Norwegian, and Native American!) I have learned about each of those nationalities and cultures. I have studied many of their languages, traditions, and customs. I can feel insulted that people cheer and chant for the Braves or Indians when they know nothing about them, But I can also hope that they learn something about the tradition behind the names and mascots. I can also respect the fact that in the case of the Florida Seminoles, they support the use of their tribal name and images, and not try to force them to see it differently.
I still think the term Indians is wholly inaccurate seeing as Columbus was totally off course and was not in the Indies at all, but is this too far off the topic? Sorry to digress. Just my humble opinion about this mascot/team name issue, besides aren't academics more important than sports anyway? I know they bring a lot of scholarships and needed funding to the schools, but after all, it is just a game.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the first group of humans known to colonize an area should get to call themselves the "Natives".
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think a book could continue to offend as long as it is read.
Have you read Sixth Column by Robert Heinlein? The book is so HILARIOUSLY racially insensitive by modern standards that you can't even take it seriously. Though its words are offensive, it is such a clear relic of its time that comes across as quaint, rather than abusive.
(For those who haven't read it, it's about an underground rebellion of white Americans that drives out a conquering force of Chinese and Japanese soldiers by inventing a "safe" weapon of mass destruction that kills only Asians.)
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As to "admitting it," I admit that one tribe's elected representatives voted this way.
Great! It finally happened!
Of course, I drew no conclusions from the FL Seminole tribe's endorsement except that the FL Seminole tribe gave the endorsement.
quote:Why don't you actually propose a system whereby a college can determine 1) which tribes are applicable to a given mascot, and 2) what those tribes actually think about the mascot.
I already did, of course, repeatedly: let the tribes decide.
I did not specify how tribes should run their governments, although I am happy with the current, democratic arrangements. It's up to them. I really don't see how someone can claim to be sympathetic to Indians and not respect their right to self-government. Admittedly, not everyone here has claimed such sympathy.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Get this straight: No one refuted that the vote you mentioned took place. They refuted what it meant.
quote:Of course, I drew no conclusions from the FL Seminole tribe's endorsement except that the FL Seminole tribe gave the endorsement.
Then why did you say that I was intellectually dishonest to say "We can argue back and forth about what the Seminoles actually think about FSU's mascot." Why did you say that the point I claimed was disputed wasn't in dispute IF YOU WEREN'T BASING A CONCLUSION ABOUT WHAT THE SEMINOLES THOUGHT BASED ON THIS VOTE.
quote:I already did, of course, repeatedly: let the tribes decide.
No, that would be a principle upon which such a system might depend. Could you please explain how "Let the tribes decide" tells a non-Indian college which tribes they should listen to with respect to the mascot question?
quote:I did not specify how tribes should run their governments, although I am happy with the current, democratic arrangements. It's up to them. I really don't see how someone can claim to be sympathetic to Indians and not respect their right to self-government.
Are you intentionally ignoring the multiple tribe question? Or do you not see how it causes problem with your so-called system?
Are you ignoring the evidence of OTHER Seminole tribes who dislike the FSU use of the name? If so, please explain how you decided which tribe's input matters.
quote:Admittedly, not everyone here has claimed such sympathy.
Do you really think this, or are you intentionally ignoring the practical problems already raised with this idea?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: The Seminole Tribe of Florida would seem to disagree.
I don't mean to discount anyone's feelings. It's worthy to care! And at the same time, I think it's time for whites to stop deciding for Indians what Indians should do, think, or be. Let's have our sensibilities without imposing them on the tribes.
Well, you most certainly DID discount my feelings... in fact you discounted my whole post with just one sentence didn't you?
"The Seminole Tribe of Florida would seem to disagree."
In a previous post in this very discussion I posted a summary of the results of study of Native American College Students at the University of New Mexico. Feel free to peruse it.
Yes it was a class project, but the methodology is not flawed in that I know of, nor that the Professor who graded us pointed out. We got a 97/100. We lost 3 points because each person wrote part of the final papre and 3 of us used APA style and the other 2 used MLA. It was supposed to all be APA. The five of us who worked on it were ALL Native American. The sample IS biased in that all the participants are College Students, BUT age range is diverse, and all participants were Native Americans who used the American Indian Student Services center or the Native American Studies Center.
Posts: 772 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thing is, mimsies, the Seminole Tribe of Florida DID disagree.
I don't agree that recognizing their decision is discounting your feelings. I know that some people think disagreement is discounting; it really isn't. If the only choices, however, are to discount your feelings or to discount the wishes of the elected tribal councils, I'm going to have to go with the councils. Your project is interesting, but it doesn't justify ignoring -- or silencing -- the elders and elected councils that have the right to make the decision.
==
Dagonee, since you repeatedly ignored and dismissed the plain facts in front of us -- I never said "refuted," of course; I think you mean "disputed," and I didn't say that either -- I saw no reason to go on to more abstract issues. Can we really go on to solving the entire problem, when the facts in front of us are not acknowledged? Only if we want to reach the wrong conclusions.
As you know, I didn't say which tribe's input matters. I said, "Let the tribes decide." I also, as you have complained, haven't assumed for myself the right to tell multiple tribes how to decide common issues. I said, "Let the tribes decide." I did not propose a "system," so-called or otherwise. (The Indians have a system, however.) I said, "Let the tribes decide."
The news announcement that started this thread proves shows that once again, whites decide for Indians what Indians should have. Now you're proposing that we on this thread decide for them, too. I've given you my answer: I will not answer for them. I invite others to give up answering for them, as well.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said, "Let the tribes decide." I also, as you have complained, haven't assumed for myself the right to tell multiple tribes how to decide common issues. I said, "Let the tribes decide." I did not propose a "system," so-called or otherwise. (The Indians have a system, however.) I said, "Let the tribes decide."
OK, genius, put yourself in the place of a school with an Indian mascot. The school wants to decide if it should change its mascot.
How does it find out what the tribes decided?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Thing is, mimsies, the Seminole Tribe of Florida DID disagree.
I don't agree that recognizing their decision is discounting your feelings.[/i] I invite others to give up answering for them, as well.
The thing is Will, posting one short sentence in answer to a longer post that had numerous points, with a snide remark about ONE tribal council IS dismissive of feelings.
Point out where I ever said that ANYONE's feelings should be ignored, OR discounted. YOU are the one trying to say what policy should be. *I* have been trying to give some idea of what other Native Americans feel about the mascots and names being used for some game. AND I have been trying to give a reason why.
The only the thing you have going in your argument is that ONE tribal council OK'd ONE mascot and name.
I agree it would be nice if we Native Americans decided which team names aare or are not acceptable ourselves. Ya know what? When we do object we get IGNORED.
There are the poeple who say "I'm Scandanavian and I don't care about the Vikings" or "I'm Irish and I don't care about the Fighting Irish" therefore you shouldn't care either... only they are usually much ruder and more condescending than that.
There are the poeple who say "Sports fans' feelings are more important that yours. Obviously if *WE* don't understand why you object, then you must be wrong. You're just being oversensitive and stupid."
Ya know what? The NCAA is FINALLY paying attention to something that we have been trying to get changed since the 80's. Since I was In HIGH SCHOOL. Good.
I HAVE noticed that you HAVE NEVER responded to the people who have pointed out that the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma DOES object to the use of their name being used for a team and mascot. Do you plan on continuing to ignore that?
Posts: 772 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't mind his picking and choosing what to respond to so much if he wasn't calling people who aren't actually doing that intellectually dishonest and accusing them of picking and choosing.
mimsies, I am interested in hearing answers to my questions from those definitely against the use of mascots: what percentages are sufficient to place a moral burden on the schools to change, and how are conflicting opinions to be reconciled?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind picking and choosing usually either. But I think when someone has a real point against one's argument, that to ignore that point IS dishonest. But, that's just me.
Can I think about your questions?
Also can you clarify? do you mean percentages of the Ethnic Group in question, of the students, of the students belonging to the Ethnic Group in question, or something else?
same with the conflicting opinions... those who want them vs those who don't, among Native Americans? How do we count those who don't care either way, or those who think they aren't good , but aren't concerned with them?
Posts: 772 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
At this point, I consider only the Ethnic Group in question, all members. For tribe-specific mascots, assume all tribes that identify with it (their own determination). For general mascots, assume all American Indians. No non-American Indians get a say in this exercise.
Assume there's some perfect way to identify them, and assume we have a perfect way to get their opinions.
I would divide them into three categories:
1.) Those who are offended by mascots.
2.) Those who don't care either way.
3.) Those who would be offended by their removal.
I suppose the middle group could be broken into "I don't like them; I really don't care; and I do like them."
Assume it's no effort or time to register the opinions, so we're not worried about concentrating on other priorities.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I guess it is not a question I have never considered, because most of the Native Americans *I* know ARE against most Native American mascots. Not that any are into making it one of their main concentrations when fighting injustice, or anything like that. I mean really, we DO have many more pressing issues, but in *MY* experience most would think that the NCAA made a good decision. But that is MY experience, which is necessarily colored by my opinion.
But about your questions... I guess the complications lie in the specifics. I mean, I think my reasons for being against most teams and mascots with Native Names and Imagery is reasonable. I think that even just a small minority of Natives objects but most don't really care either way, the name should not be used.
But what if 2% object, 2% like the usage, and everyone else doesn't care? I don't know. Why do the 2% object? Why do the 2% want the names? Why do so few care?
I think that a breakdown of ALL Native American opinion would be similar to our results, but that the opinions would be more moderate. Fewer would find them very or moderately offensive, more would find them mildly offensive or just think they are stupid/ridiculous, maybe slightly more would not be personally offended, but support the feelings of those who were.
I think probably a larger percentage would think they are a bad idea, but don't support wasting time and energy on something as unimportant and irrelevant as sports team names/mascots
I think a very low percentage woulkd support their use, or be offended if they were changed.
Huh, I just think it is a really complicated set of questions, and will probably think about it more. What is YOUR opinion on the same questions?
Posts: 772 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have none on the what percentages exist for each category. I do know one or two American Indians who have stated they would be very offended if Indian mascots were changed. I know one or two who are very offended that they exist. And I know one or two who kind of shrug it off.
I know my numbers aren't representative at all, except to demonstrate none of those sets are empty.
I don't really "feel" this issue, for obvious reasons. My working principle would be to honestly find a way to determine how the individual members of the groups feel and accede to their wishes. Practically, I'm not sure how to do that.
The easy case: If I ran a school that was selecting a mascot for the first time, I would not select an Indian mascot.
If I ran a school that already had one, and I knew the percentages, the decision would be harder. My gut is to avoid using religious symbols for non-religious purposes, just as a sign of respect. I'd probably compare those in category 1 to category (Edit: changed 2 to 3) and go with whichever is higher. (Remember, I'm assuming a perfect way to learn the percentages exists. In the real world, I don't know what I'd do. But in the real world, I don't run a school. )
Going by official council votes for specific tribe names isn't a bad idea, but I don't know nearly enough to determine which tribes where should have a "say" in the matter. The Seminole controversy illustrates the problem. Until I figure out how a non-Indian can get reliable information on that when such a contentious issue is involved, I'm reluctant to endorse it as the sole method of determination.
quote:The thing is Will, posting one short sentence in answer to a longer post that had numerous points, with a snide remark about ONE tribal council IS dismissive of feelings.
Point out where I ever said that ANYONE's feelings should be ignored, OR discounted. YOU are the one trying to say what policy should be.
Referring to an Indian tribe's decision is not "snide."
I did not say that you said anyone's feelings should be ignored.
I did not say what policy should be.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Just my humble opinion about this mascot/team name issue, besides aren't academics more important than sports anyway? I know they bring a lot of scholarships and needed funding to the schools, but after all, it is just a game.
