Native American mascots

[Sondakhan]

In reference to the article "NFL: The Battle Over Native American Mascots": I think an important part of this issue that many people forget is that this country's Constitution was designed to prevent the majority tyrannizing small minorities. The point is that whether or not most people feel like they are "honoring" Native Americans with their team mascots (incidentally, placing them in a category which consists mostly of animals), or even if they feel that "it's just a sports team, what's the big deal?", their superior numbers give them no right to make that decision in the face of significant protests from Native Americans. If someone tried to make a similar mascot using an African society, all hell would break loose because of the numbers of people who would protest. People who are so intent on "honoring" Native Americans with outdated caricatures need to be reminded that in this country, we have no right to mock the humanity of minority groups, regardless of how small they are, or how entrenched the stereotypes.

[Marc]

Hi, welcome Sondakhan. For our members who haven't read the e-sports! article you're referring to, it's at: http://www.e-sports.com/article.asp?Article_Id=7016

[lmanchur.]

I heard this on the news a few years ago -- not only in the NFL, but in the NHL (Blackhawks), and other pro leagues (I forget the team names right now)... it also focused on some college team.

A name's a name. I don't really think they're "honoring" Native Americans... I don't really think they're making a mocorry (sp?) of them, either... it's a sport team name!... I don't see the big deal... like the Bullets were changed to the Wizards in the NBA because the Bullets were "too violent" (well, that's what I heard, anyway... maybe they just wanted to change). It's stupid. It's a name!

[Sondakhan]

To you or me it might be just a sports team name. But my point is, it clearly bothers a lot (I'm not saying all) of the people whom it represents. Who am I as a member of a white majority to say that it doesn't matter that they are offended? I think it's just because there are not many of them that people think it doesn't matter. For example, can you imagine a team called the Blacks or the Jews? (And these are not even inherently racist terms, unlike Redskins.) No, because there are a lot of black and Jewish people in this country, and other people too, who would protest.

[ryanpaige]

Well, if we are talking about the NFL specifically, the team nicknames are not "mostly animals". Of the 32 NFL teams, 16 teams have names that are based on a person or people. One is an inanimate object (the Jets) and 15 are animal names.

Of the 16 names based on a person or people, only two are related to Native Americans (Chiefs and Redskins).

While I would side with the Native American community on the use of the term "Redskin" since it is a derogotory term, I'm not sure that names like Chiefs (or Warriors, which seems to get a lot of Native American groups up in arms, even though the name could denote something other than Native Americans, and in the NBA, it most certainly doesn't denote anything to do with Native Americans) are any worse than having a team called the Cowboys or the Texans (and I am a Texan. I don't care that my people are being used for a team's nickname).

[30X90]

Originally posted by ryanpaige


I'm not sure that names like Chiefs (or Warriors, which seems to get a lot of Native American groups up in arms, even though the name could denote something other than Native Americans, and in the NBA, it most certainly doesn't denote anything to do with Native Americans) are any worse than having a team called the Cowboys or the Texans (and I am a Texan. I don't care that my people are being used for a team's nickname).

If I remember right the whole point of the Alamo was that Texans had settled on land owned by Mexico...When the Mexicans suggested that the Texans return the land to Mexico they refused....So the Mexicans killed everybdy in the building.Seems reasonable to me...
Now...the Native Americans...man.talk about "ethnic cleansing"...What Hitler did wasn't much worse than what European settlers did to the Native Americans.
Kind of like Palestine and Israel...one side has sticks and rocks trying to defend what is rightfully theirs and the other side has automatic weapons.

I'm sure naming teams the "Texans" or "Cowboys" doesn't offend you...Look,the "Texan" "Cowboys" subdued the uncivilized "savage" indians and stole half of Mexico.
What's there to be offended about?...all a very noble American heritage.(SARCASM FONT ENABLED!!)

Now if there was a team named the "Murdering Texas Thieves"...or the "Sons of Confederate Slave Holders"...

[ryanpaige]

Actually, Texas was part of Mexico at the time of the Alamo and the Texans were seeking Independence and fought and died for it. Texas eventually won.

A few years before that, Mexico (and Texas) belonged to Spain, but the Mexicans wanted their Independence, so they fought and died for it. Before Spain controlled it, Texas (and parts of Mexico) belonged to France.

Just as the Mexicans wanted to control their own fate and sought Independence, the Texans wanted to control their own fate and sought Independence. The two peoples were no different. (And, for the record, the Spanish and the Mexicans encouraged the settling of Texas by Anglos. It wasn't as if the Anglos were just walking by and said, "This place looks good" and stole the land. They were sold the land under a settlement system set up by the Governments that controlled the territory. Mexico never tried to seize those lands and get the settlers off of it. They simply tried to keep that section of Mexico from seceding and becoming a separate country). Nine years later, the United States annexed Texas. A few years after that, a good portion of Texas was taken away and eventually became parts of other states (most of Oklahoma, and parts of Colorado and New Mexico). By your standard, we Texans are oppressed peoples, too. We were once an Independent country with much more land than we have now.

Your claim that Texans stole half of Mexico is akin to claiming that the US Founding Fathers subdued the English and stole half their country.

Besides, that's not what's at issue. Why should it matter whether a people was victorious or not? The complaints I've heard from groups like AIM has been that their people shouldn't be used as mascots, not because of what happened when this country was being settled by white people, but because they don't want their people to be mascots. If it is wrong for one group of people to be a mascot, then it has to be wrong for all groups of people to be mascots. If it is wrong for there to be a team called the Chiefs, then it is wrong for there to be a team called the Texans.

The fact that we were able to briefly gain our Independence doesn't make any difference to the argument.

[ryanpaige]

And what do Cowboys and the Cattle Industry have to do with Texas Independence anyway? Cowboys and the Cattle Industry had virtually nothing to do with the battle for independence. And Cowboys certainly aren't limited to Texas. More Cowboys inhabit such places as Wyoming and Montana than do Texas. Kansas was a bigger player in the cattle industry at the time Texas was fighting for Independence. Chicago has as much ties to Cowboys and the Cattle Industry as Texas does.

[Sondakhan]

I disagree that making an ethnic group, or a certain type of member of an ethnic group as in "Chiefs", into a mascot is the same as making someone who lives in a certain state a mascot. You can't hear the word "Texan" and automatically know what ethnicity that person is; they might be white, or Hispanic, or anything else. And also, you can't look at a Texan (or a cowboy, or an Irish person) and recognize them by their bone structure, skin color, etc. When you think of Chiefs and Braves and Indians, a specific kind of person comes to mind based purely on their genetics. In a society that tries so hard to get over a really nasty and racist past, those kinds of associations made only in reference to one particular ethnic group (unless there are others that i'm not thinking of) seem pretty questionable.

[Marc]

I agree with Lee in folks, this is just a name. Nothing else. Whatever else you make it into is the result of your mind twisting it. Clearly, the teams who use these names are not negatively poking fun at these ethnic groups, they are naming them aftergreat groups of people and races. If you are suggesting these teams change their names to more "suitable" names that don't clearly target a certain ethnic group of people, I think that is unreasonable. Not only are many NFL teams, as ryanpaige pointed out, using names of people and/or persons, but many collegiate teams are, as well, such as FSU. Would their fans like their name to be changed? Definitely not.

[Sondakhan]

I don't think one's mind has to "twist" the word redskin much to realize that it's a derogatory term, comparable to ******.

[Rick Dogg]

On a local Cleveland radiostation, a Native American said he put a curse on the Cleveland Indians, and we would never win the World Series until the name was changed. In game seven of the 1997 World Series, Cleveland was beating the Florida Marlins going into the bottom of the nonth, the Marlins ended up winning. Kinda wierd, huh?
But anyway, I'd love having a sports team named the Washington White Guys, or the Cleveland Crackers, it be great!

[SC-Jared]

What's next?

Revolutionaries come back from the dead and say that "Patriots" is disrespectful? Oh, jeez....the Miami Dolphins are exposing dolphins illegally..... and those Blue Jays are racist against birds not colored blue....

[iFroggy]

That post a bit off the map. Dolphins and Blue Jays are wild life and a Patriot is one "who loves, supports, and defends one's country."

While on the other hand I can understand how someone might take offense to Redskin. Dictionary.com refers to Redskin as "offensive slang" and says it is "a disparaging term for a Native American." So I definitely understand.

[Titandude]

I think it's big load of crap personnally. The point of picking a nickname is to pick one that emits pride, envokes fear, and one you have respect for. Do you honestly think they got the name "Redskins" by saying "Gee, let's piss off Native Americans" or "I want to find the most disrespectful name I can." The nicknames were chosen because they envoke pride. I'd rather be a Chief than a Seahawks

Redskins is no more offensive than "white skins" which is what many Native Americans used to describe white settlers. Sure there's no "New York Whiteskins", but guys what, if they was, then miniority groups would ***** about the team being racist for being "too white". Think about it. The Nebraska Cornhusker mascot used to be a big redneck country looking white dude, but no more since it was "racist". Geez where does it end people? Christians mad at the New Orleans Saints? Pilots mad at the New York Jets? People who suffer from Giganticism mad at the New York Giants?

And as far as the "Indian curse" story, yeah well I heard an American Indian put some good spell on the Chicago Cubs, and guess what, they still sucked! A blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

[iFroggy]

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=redskin


red·skin (rdskn)
n. Offensive Slang

Used as a disparaging term for a Native American.


Maybe the reason its not offensive to a lot of you is because your not Native American, just like being called a certain name doesn't mean anything unless your African American. We need to have team names that aren't considered "offensive slang" as their main definition.

[30X90]

I won't argue history with ryanpaige,I'll let the people who MADE history speak in their own words

In his later reminiscences, Ulysses S. Grant roundly condemned the Mexican War in which he had served, and even saw the Civil War as a sort of karmic retribution for America's sins against its southern neighbor:

"Generally the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation [of Texas] was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory."

Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs, 1885

...Here is a revealing look at another American "hero" regarding Native Americans

Theodore Roosevelt, impatient with the excesses of "purely sentimental historians," authored his own stirring vindication of America's relations
with the Indians:

"[L]ooked at from the standpoint of the ultimate result, there was little real difference to the Indian whether the land was taken by treaty or by war. ...No treaty could be satisfactory to the whites, no treaty served the needs of humanity and civilization, unless it gave the land to the Americans as unreservedly as any successful war."
"Whether the whites won the land by treaty, by armed conflict, or, as was actually the case, by a mixture of both, mattered comparatively little so long as the land was won. It was all-important that it should be won, for the benefit of civilization and in the interests of mankind. It is, indeed, a warped, perverse, and silly morality which would forbid a course of conquest that has turned whole continents into the seats of mighty and flourishing civilized nations. ...It is as idle to apply to savages t he rules of international morality which obtain between stable and cultured communities, as it would be to judge the fifth-century English conquest of Britain by the standards of to-day."
"The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages, though it is apt to be also the most terrible and inhuman. The rude, fierce settler who drives the savage from the land lays all civilized mankind under a debt to him. ...[I]t is of incalculable importance that America, Australia, and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black, and yellow aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races."

Theodore Roosevelt, The Winning of the West: Book IV, 1896


...but you won't find these quotes in the average history book...they don't fit the noble heritage that Americans like to fool themselves into believing.

[iFroggy]

I haven't fooled myself into believing anything. But, I understand what you mean and I know tons of people like that.

[TitansAngel]

If I remember right the whole point of the Alamo was that Texans had settled on land owned by Mexico...When the Mexicans suggested that the Texans return the land to Mexico they refused....So the Mexicans killed everybdy in the building.Seems reasonable to me...
Now...the Native Americans...man.talk about "ethnic cleansing"...What Hitler did wasn't much worse than what European settlers did to the Native Americans.
Kind of like Palestine and Israel...one side has sticks and rocks trying to defend what is rightfully theirs and the other side has automatic weapons.

I'm sure naming teams the "Texans" or "Cowboys" doesn't offend you...Look,the "Texan" "Cowboys" subdued the uncivilized "savage" indians and stole half of Mexico.
What's there to be offended about?...all a very noble American heritage.(SARCASM FONT ENABLED!!)

Now if there was a team named the "Murdering Texas Thieves"...or the "Sons of Confederate Slave Holders"...



[/B]

First things first, I am Native American, also, Italian, Irish and Scottish, all at one time or another have been persecuted...
I am not offended by a 'word' on a jersey/uniform, unless of course it is vulgar, profane or anti-God/Jesus...
What does offend me is hatred for the sake of hatred, and racism and it seems like these days the ones with the more racist attitudes are the 'persecuted' and not so much the 'persecuters'...strange how that has happened...
Oh and by the way...The Palestinians are not the rightful owners of Jerusalem...God is the deed holder and His tenants are the Hebrew people...
Thanks...

[Edited by M. James on 03-07-2001 at 04:25 PM]

[30X90]

....so God allows his "tenants" to murder unarmed children for throwing rocks?

flip a coin...to the Jews we are considered "unclean"...to the Arabs we are "infidels".....but...without U.S. support to Israel (read:MILLIONS and MILLIONS of $$ in aid and military technology annually) you would have to admit there would have been some new "tenants" on the "property" long ago.

no offense,but rivers of blood have been spilled throughout history by either devious or misguided people because one side or the other claimed it was doing Gods will.

No one has a direct line to God or can truly claim to know His intent... no not even the precious Israelis.I know...I know..."but the Bible says"....etc...
God didn't write the Bible,however.

[Rick Dogg]

Somebody please close this. We are way off topic and this is a dead issue.