I've always been dumbfounded that there are so many sports programs (pro sports teams, colleges, and high schools) with Native Americans as mascots. Simply because these people are virtually powerless politically and financially, the rest of us are just free to dehumanize them and marginalize them by name our mascots, among others, the following: Braves (Atlanta), Chiefs (Kansas City), Fighting Illini, Seminoles (Florida State), Indians (Cleveland), and Redskins (Washinton & numerous high schools).

Does anybody know the derivation of the name Redskin?? It's NOT the color of native american skin, which many assume, and which would be bad enough. Redskin is the term that soldiers used in the frontier days when referring to the retrieval of a scalp of an Indian for bounties. So it's literally the color of the bloody flesh of a killed human being. (This was explained on a recent episode of HBO's "Real Sports.") The only equivalent a Native American can draw for the word redskin would be the N Word, according to the subject of the report.

And the Cleveland Indian mascot?? Chief Yahoo with the terribly exaggerated features? (reminiscent of the old Aunt Jemima bottles and other art of the time which is so rightly frowned upon today as anti-black).

The professional teams rely on polls which state that over 80% of Native Americans are NOT offended by the pratice of using these names for their teams as a way to avoid renaming their franchises. (Incidentally, the Wash Redskins is currently the most valuable franchise in the NFL, with the associated merchandising, etc.)

But even if just 1% of them were offended, they should change those names. Studies have also shown that the suicide rate in Native American communites are so high for a variety of factors including the basic humilition imopsed on their people from the rest of American society, and I feel that this naming practice is a huge part of it.

This is obviously not a new thing, but it HAS to change soon. I remember seeing a non-profit ad in a Sports Illustrated when I was young showing logos for the "Chicago Jews" and the "New York Negroes", and it shocked the hell out of me. How about the "Memphis White Trash"? These don't even approach Redskin in my opinion.

Just thought I'd put this issue back on the table for everyone.

Remember Iron Eyes Cody? Had the simlar stereotyping.

yeah this subject is old...but it is very important...the redskins...c'mon...i am 1/4 indian myself...and i cringe everytime i se them on tv or an announcer using it.I t is equivelent to the "n" word in reffering to african-americans.

I am soeey if i repeated what ray ray said...i didnt have time to read it all...i just wanted to second anything.

Everyone knows this is wrong...it is just surprising that nothing will probabbly happen for a long time...lets hope something does though.

I can understand for "Redskins". But how on earth is "Chiefs" or "Braves" or "Indians" Offensive?

People that get all uptight and offended over the "Chiefs" need to get over it, really. It's not a big deal.

Let me help you. Okay, you are a black person and there is a team called the "N*ggers". It is offensive. Native Americans do not want to be called the "Chiefs". If you white do you want to be called the "slavemasters" or "crackers"? Its just is stereotypical.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: St. Mike,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:
Let me help you. Okay, you are a black person and there is a team called the "N*ggers". It is offensive. Native Americans do not want to be called the chiefs. If you white do you want to be called the "slavemasters" or "crackers"? It just is stereotypical.

---

But, basically they need to get over it! Yes, "Redskin" IS offensive. BUT COME ON "Chief"!??! I mean, "Cracker" and "Slavemaster" are purposely derogatory but, "Indian" isnt nor is "Brave", so shut the hell up! This racial nonsense is just so prominent these days and as you can tell it pisses me off! I am as sympathetic to any minority being treated poorly as anyone would be, but calling a baseball team the "Braves" is not mistreatment!! It's similair to the Native American's getting mad that "we're taking their land away" but I have yet to see a Indian chieftan preparing his meal with mortar and pestle in a wigwam out in the middle of New Mexico or wherever we are stealing their land. these guys are living the same way we are so in reality were not STEALING anyones LAND! I guess, I am young and naive and I probably have offended more people with my comments than the National Baseball League with their "Redskins". I dont know on a slightly unrelated note I get called "stupid white boy" on a regular basis from all sorts of people everywhere. I dont bitch and complain. Of course, "white boy" doesnt have the same effect as "redskin" or the "n" word. But I hear the words "wassup my n!gga" as a form of greeting in the hallway from fellow African-Americans. Now if I, an unpopular white kid, said that I'd be shot dead. Not to say I hear Native Americans go around saying "wassup my Redskin'd brotha", but since 80% of Native Americans ARENT offended by "Braves", "Chiefs", "Seminoles" and the remaining 20% are probably out abusing their title of "being in a minority" then I dont understand what the big deal is.


Of course, I am not FOR a team called the "Redskins" so DONT get me wrong, here!!

I've never really gotten TOO far into this one, and two of my best friends are part-Native American, and they've never even mentioned it. I'm talkin' about someone I've known for 48 friggin' years! But I would think "Indians" would be offensive to both Native Americans and East Indians. It really is a phrase that was used in The Land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave to completely marginalize a group of people...this country's original people...so far that they weren't even allowed to be themselves. It goes without saying that the Native Peoples of our "great" country weren't EVEN citizens for years upon years.

I don't really want to get into this, but now, you got me thinkin' about "immigration." All these "Mexicans" who cross the border...there used to not be a border. Their families lived here some or part of the time since even before the Spanish came. That's about all I'm going to say. This subject is a hell of a lot larger than what my tax dollars pay for...

Crap, taxes, hell, no, I'm touchin' that one, at least not yet!

My big thing is the fact that America doesn't accept its immigrant citizens. If someone from Mexico becomes a citizen they are still called a "Mexican." For some reason we just cannot accept people who were born in other countries. These are derogatory terms used to segregate people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CompmanJX3:
I can understand for "Redskins". But how on earth is "Chiefs" or "Braves" or "Indians" Offensive?

---

That's the difficult part of this debate. MANY schools and teams are very respectful of their mascots and don't treat them in a derisive way. But in my mind, the University of Georgia honors their mascot "UGA", too. But he's a DOG! I have no doubt that these schools and teams have the best of inentions, but you still must realize that a race of people are made to be mascots!! Calling a team a "The Indians" is not like calling another team "The Cowboys." If it were the "W.A.S.P.s" (with no derragatory implication), and you dress up the mascot in pink & green, with "Preppy Handbooks" abounding, that still wouldn't be as bad, because it's tough to marginalize the majority that way.

As I said earlier, this is an OLD debate, but it still needs stoking, so I thought this would be a good place for it. thanks, all...

I thought I read somewhere that the Seminole tribe in Florida actually approves and is very supportive of the fact that Florida State uses the Seminole as it's mascot.

Do people on this board who are offended by the use of Indian mascots still think that Florida State should change it's mascot?

So, are you in favor of changing the "Fighting Irish" as well?

Is calling a team "Cowboys" really that different from calling a team "Braves"? Both are historical sects or subcultures of our country's citizens. I fail to see why one is less appropriate simply because the race it represents is a minority.

I really agree with Eccento. I'm dislike racism as much as the next guy, but I'm far too cynical to believe it's all in the name of justice.

As I said earlier, I'm not especially vested in this discussion. Now, if someone wanted to call me a White Russian ("Caucasian")...oops, they already have...for years. I just thought that the fact that the term Indians stuck for so long and had nothing to do with anything was worth noting. I guess sometimes things aren't really that important in the grand scheme of things. Hitler [a dark-haired, dark-eyed (I believe) wacko] wanted his countrymen to be "pure Aryan". The fact that Aryans come from East India apparently didn't deter him at all in his quest for racial purity.

As far as "Seminoles" goes, I imagine that they know that they aren't "Indians", plus they are the Native Americans of the area, so I can understand that that's all good.

I'm inclined to think that more generic terms like "Braves" or "Chiefs" aren't bad, although the Chiefs logo (an arrowhead) might draw certain connections. They are terms, however, that have non-racist connotations.

More specific names (like Seminole or Illini) may be subject to more scrutiny, but as asc85 points out, if the tribes consent to the use of the name, it seems innocuous enough, although I'm not sure what the ramifications of this kind of thinking are to copyright law.

I'm in total agreement, however, that Redskins is pretty unpleasant. And, while the Indians is quite general, the mascot is not. At least the Braves have gotten rid of "Chief Nokahoma."

There may be a double standard at play, I admit. We are more sensitive to the plight of the Native Americans than to the "fighting Irish" or the "WASPs" or to the "cowboys." I'm not sure that sensitivity is undeserved. Maybe, for the sake of justice and restoring the fortunes of those who have been disadvantaged, a little political correctness isn't going to hurt.

And, for the record, I'm a pretty strong advocate of free speech and free expression, so I see the tension.

quote:

---

Originally posted by philosopherEric:
but as asc85 points out, if the tribes consent to the use of the name, it seems innocuous enough.

---

So if the NAACP agreed to allow an NBA expansion team to be called the East St. Louis Negroes, that's OK?? Why should any leadership in any community be able to speak for all members of a minority group like that?? That's doesn't seem to be a meaningful justification.

And with regard to the fighting Irish... It folds into the larger discussion on racism. It's difficult to be racist against the majority group. Yes, that's a massive generality, so don't jump on me. I'm Irish, and my instinct is that I've never been offended by that mascot, but there may be others (especially in Ireland) who might not like the name, so I can't speak for them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RayRay:


So if the NAACP agreed to allow an NBA expansion team to be called the East St. Louis Negroes, that's OK?? Why should any leadership in any community be able to speak for all members of a minority group like that?? That's doesn't seem to be a meaningful justification.

---

You raise a good problem, but I think there are at least a couple of significant differences, RayRay. Seminoles and Illini, as far as I am aware, were tribal names based on the native tongues of the members. In essence, the native Americans called THEMSELVES these names. Negro, on the other hand, has its etymological roots in the tongue of the white man and was, essentially, forced upon the black person. This makes a difference.

Also, there is a difference in connotation in the way the two names are used. "Seminole" and "Illini" don't have derogative meanings attached to them, at least none that I'm aware of. Negro, and the uglier derivation of it, does have a pretty dark connotation, even if was not the original intention of those who coined the phrase.

The bigger problem, for my view, is the question of who can give the consent, and I'm not sure how to adjudicate it. If it was unanimous among ALL tribe members, there's not a problem, but I worry about leaving it to tribal elders, politicians, or committees to decide. And that may make it hard to justify, harder than I'd like.

I also wonder, if we get TOO wrapped up in this debate, if we'll see other team names being challenged (Angels by atheists, Raptors by Creationists, Warriors by descendents of African or South American tribes, Yankees by people from the north, Vikings by my fellow Norwegians, etc). I offer these only to point out that, as long as you can find just cause to end the Indian mascots (and I concede there may be cause to do so), we might find ourselves on a pretty slippery slope.

Here's another one...in St. Louis, the term "hoosier" has a very strong negative connotation: it means, essentially, redneck or white trash. It has nothing to do, here, with being from Indiana or with being a fan of UI.