What is inherently "abusive" about calling your team the "Braves" or even the "Indians" or "Redskins"?
I think it be more "hostile" if we completely forgot about the part that the "Indians" played in our past.
[EDIT] This story was just updated, it clarified the point that the teams themselves will not be banned, just the team mascots ... for now.
[ August 05, 2005, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: RoyHobbs ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:INDIANAPOLIS -- The NCAA banned the use of American Indian mascots by sports teams during its postseason tournaments, but will not prohibit them otherwise.
Um...this doesn't sound like the "ultimate" in anything, let alone "PC hysteria."
College athletics are not more important than the cultural sensitivities of a subpopulation of Americans. I think this ban during post-season events is a good start. It means that the NCAA is taking a socially-responsible stand that recognizes that while the majority of people in America may not give a flip about this, the people to whom such images are most closely associated do not like it and have asked repeatedly for it to stop.
That's not to say all native Americans care about this either. Sure...it's a squeeky wheel issue. But it's also a recognition of when someone is right and when they have more of a stake in it than a few college teams.
Implying that the alternative to using indian-related images in college sports is that we "completely forgot about the part that "indians" played in our past" is disengenuous too. Nobody is asking to be forgotten -- they've gotten plenty of that already.
The fact that use of native American images somehow counts as "remembering" is just plain insulting in and of itself.
What's the big deal? It's not like there aren't plenty of wonderful team names/mascots for these folks to choose from that wouldn't be viewed as a parody of a subculture within our country. The fact that they've asked for it to change is pretty much enough for me. I may not care that much about it, but I can certainly see that they have a right to want to control how their people are portrayed and the what symbolic use is made of their culture.
Good for the NCAA, IMHO. This is a good start.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I see where they are coming from. It seems to cause extreme pain to be exploited like that. I saw a documentary about that ages ago. It is extremely disrespectful.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Wow. All that spin made me dizzy.
The first post leads you to believe this was some sort of Supreme Court ruling, not an NCAA decision. Hysteria indeed.
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
Postseason play is the "ultimate" for a college sports team.
This ruling is tantamount to forcing these schools to change their, in some cases, very old and traditional names.
The big deal is that the nickname is, in some cases the heart and soul of the school.
I was at the Final Four (gulp... fine I'll say it, its the championship of college basketball) this past year in St Louis. The Illinois Illini were a team that made it. (With a nickname that is now outlawed) During the semifinal game, in a stadium that sat around... I don't know, maybe 50,000, about half of them were Illini fans. The fervor of their chants makes me believe that their nickname is more important to them than it is to you.
Ultimately I think that the student body and alumni are the only ones who should matter in this situation, its their school and its their nickname.
Nicknames like "Braves", "Redskins" and "Indians" are so general so as to lose any meaning, but thats just my opinion Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I demand that any teams named 'Vikings' immediately cease and desist, and pay me millions of dollars compensation for insulting my brave ancestors by using their name for a trivial game!
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
That reminds me of a Weekend Update joke from the Norm MacDonald years:
quote:In Wisconsin, students at Menomonie High School are desperately fighting efforts by the politically correct to change their team nickname, The Indians. Already opponents of the name have rejected the students' first compromise: The Drunken Indians.
They feel that's almost worse in a way...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:The big deal is that the nickname is, in some cases the heart and soul of the school.
Um, hyperbole perhaps? Shouldn't the heart and soul of a school lie in it's ability to train young men and women for their future employment?
Seriously, a dude in a rubber suit is a dude in a rubber suit.
Roy & KOM, every subculture in America has some folks in it that worry about defamation of character. They take stuff seriously. I know in the Italian community there are folks who try to openly battle stereotypes related to their people. I fail to see how the gratuitous use of Native American images is somehow fair game.
But then, I don't really think college athletics are all that important in the grand scheme of things. The attention given to them is blown all out of proportion to what I think of as the core mission of colleges and universities.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Ultimately I think that the student body and alumni are the only ones who should matter in this situation, its their school and its their nickname.
Except that its the NCAA's tournaments that such nicknames are being banned from. Seems fairly obvious that they'd have the final say.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:This ruling is tantamount to forcing these schools to change their, in some cases, very old and traditional names.
I think the Native Americans have a superior claim to these "very old and traditional names."
quote:The big deal is that the nickname is, in some cases the heart and soul of the school.
My school's basketball team had one of the greatest dynasties in the history of sports (UCLA). I think the "heart and soul" of that team was the players, the students, and Coach Wooden. The bear is just there for laughs.
quote:I think it be more "hostile" if we completely forgot about the part that the "Indians" played in our past.
So, instead of "Alcorn State Braves," we should call them "Alcorn State People We Stole Land From and Committed Genocide Against."
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The names aren't being banned from the tournaments anyway. Just the mascots.
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
Good point dkw, this story seems to have updated itself over the past couple hours. I was under the impression that it was the schools themselves, they seem to have clarified that.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Um...it was in the first line of the story you linked to. I posted within a few minutes of you putting the link up. It's right there -- first reply in this thread. I quoted it from the story...
The story was not JUST updated.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
What irritates me is that we've reached a point where any depiction of a Native American on anything at all is automatically and absolutely offensive, regardless of context.
Okay, "Redskins", yes. I can see that. That sounds like a racial slur. But there's nothing inherently offensive about "Indians", unless you actually get offended by the inaccuracy of the term as applied to genuine Native Americans.
And "Braves" is just a way to say "Native American warriors". It is very much analogous to "Vikings".
Suppose a new sports team formed that happened to be made up mainly of African-Americans. Suppose they were looking for a name that indicated valor and strength, and so decided to call themselves the "Knights". Would white people get all up in arms about the exploitation of our heritage? No, for two reasons. One, none of us would be offended. Two, if somebody got offended, everyone else--white and otherwise--would just laugh and ignore them.
I'm not saying Native Americans should just shut up and live with it. I'm just asking people to look at context. Merely mentioning Native Americans does not, in and of itself, constitute a debasement of anyone's heritage. Sometimes the images are actually positive, or--like with the Native woman on the box of butter someone mentioned in another thread recently--neutral at worst. A Native woman on a box of butter is automatically offensive? Are we supposed to ban all depictions of Native women altogether? Can we all agree that would be worse?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
What would you think of teams/mascots named, say, The Atlanta Sambos? The Atlanta Africans? The Atlanta ... Zulus?
Just...curious.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think traditional nicknames like "Redskins" and "Indians" should definitely be kept, if only to avoid legitimizing the idea that it's acceptable to get so offended about something so trivial as a sports mascot that depicts a part of your cultural heritage in a nonderogatory fashion.
And if anyone gets first dibs on complaining about how they are depicted, it should be the Irish.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:What would you think of teams/mascots named, say, The Atlanta Sambos? The Atlanta Africans? The Atlanta ... Zulus?
"Sambo" is a pejorative. Unacceptable.
"Africans" would be a strange choice. But no more so than "Indians", I guess. Questionable, maybe.
I'd have no problem with "Zulus", though perhaps "Impi" would be a better choice; the Impi were the Zulu warriors. Many sports teams choose words that mean "warrior" as a way to reflect valor and strength, such as "Vikings", "Braves", "Raiders", and my hypothetical "Knights".
Then, too, you have to consider how the name is used. Is the mascot of the Atlanta Zulus a realistic depiction of a Zulu warrior? Or is it a cartoonish "blackface"-type figure? That could make all the difference.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Verily, that was my point exactly.
Tres, I think "Redskins" is also a perjorative, akin to "Sambos".
No one would get away with "Africans" the way they do with "Indians".
And I don't honestly think even a realistic depiction of an Impi warrior would be acceptable to the majority of people.
It's just that there really aren't enough Native Americans left for people to care much if they objectify their heritage.
But then, we don't follow sports teams so I really don't care one way or the other.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm pretty much with Verily on this one. I think the NAACP ruling was not necessary and misses the fact that the mascots aren't being shown in a pejorative manner.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote: Tres, I think "Redskins" is also a perjorative, akin to "Sambos".
Perhaps it was at one point, but it has now been used so long that there no perjorative meaning left in the term, at least insofar as when it is used to refer to the football team. In fact, to Redskin fans (like myself) it is a noble term. (Possibly no so for Cowboys fans, though!) Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, let's remember we're not talking about team names, but team mascots.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Okay, Olivet, would you be offended by a team called the "Samurai"? How about the "Highlanders"? Or the "Cossacks"? "Crusaders" would, these days, probably be considered offensive for other reasons altogether, but what about the "Cataphracts" or the "Janissaries"? Exactly which cultures are we allowed to draw from, and which ones are off limits?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: And if anyone gets first dibs on complaining about how they are depicted, it should be the Irish.
The least we could do is pronounce "Celtic" correctly.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I bet you pronounce 'Neanderthal' with a hard 't' sound, too, you communist hippy tree lover.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
When one group, either currently or historically, holds great power over a disenfranchised minority, their jokes, caricatures, and other communications about that minority have much greater power to hurt than caricatures directed at their own people. When you haven't lived as a minority, it can be a difficult thing to wrap your head around, but it's true. It's one of the costs of having the deck stacked in your favor.
When someone tells a Mormon joke, I can recognize that it's funny and laugh. But under the surface, I always think, "Is this ALL that some non-Mormons know about my people? Am I just a joke to them? How easy would it be for them to dismiss or mistreat me if the wrong situation arose, if they really think of me as something so strange, foreign, and laughable?"
And I'm even a white Christian male I can only imagine a Native American looking at a caricature of an Injun, thinking, "They came here, conquered us, took our land, caused the deaths of millions of my ancestors ... and now we're FUNNY? We're a CUTE JOKE to entertain KIDS at a BALL GAME? And to some of these people, that might be ALL an Indian IS?"
I have to say, that sounds like it would really suck.
I know that no harm was ever meant by these depictions. But good intentions do not automatically justify the perpetuation of stupid or harmful actions. Even if you meant well, if you find out that something you're doing legitimately hurts someone else's feelings, you have to at least consider the idea that your choice, however well-meaning, was the wrong one, and should be corrected.
When white Americans complain that they're suddenly not allowed to make the jokes they want to make, all I can say is, "Yeah, that's the price of being the most ADVANTAGED HUMAN BEINGS ON THE PLANET who BASICALLY CONQUERED EVERYBODY. Gosh, I feel REALLY FRICKING SORRY for you."
[ August 06, 2005, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I bet you pronounce 'Neanderthal' with a hard 't' sound, too, you communist hippy tree lover.
Well, if I can pronounce the name of my ancestors correctly, I suppose you can do the same for the name of yours. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Ow
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Excuse me. I never conquered anybody. I've never owned a slave, I've never stolen anyone's land, I've never even killed an organism more advanced than a housefly. Don't tell me that it's fair to discriminate against me because of what some white people have done.
If they can make the jokes, I can make the jokes. If I can't make the jokes, they can't make the jokes. The whole argument of "members of your ethnicity have done awful things, so you can't say anything when members of an ethnicity they did awful things to do awful things to you" is still ludicrous.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
It's easy for you to ignore the weight of history you carry around with you. For you, it's all positive. Your ancestors won. You ended up in the majority population of one of the most prosperous nations in the history of the world.
Other people who grow up as the ones who stand out as being different, minorities, disadvantaged, ostracized, or what-have-you, that weight of history means a lot more.
Imagine a classroom of children making fun of the kid in the wheelchair, calling him a "gimp" and making up "funny" stories about things he can't do. Pretty oppressive and awful for that kid, right? He doesn't belong, he's different, he's despised by the majority of the class, and each joke drives that message in deeper.
Then imagine an entire classroom of kids in wheelchairs calling each other "gimps" and telling the same stories. Now, instead of being used to tell a "different" student that he is despised, they are being used to build solidarity among students who share the same struggles.
When a guy in your same situation tells a joke that makes light of that situation, you both feel better about it.
When someone in a different situation — particularly someone who is "advantaged" or more "acceptable" or "normal" compared to you — tells the same joke, it does not make you feel better. It makes you feel looked-down-upon. Ill-understood. Dismissed. Despised.
You can't pretend that this kind of context doesn't exist just because you don't want it to.
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
I remember hearing rumors of legislation like this when I was in high school. And being part of an ethnic minority myself (I'm half Filipino), I can understand why it might be a good idea to change some of them - I agree that "Redskins" is more on the offensive side than not.
But at the same time, a lot of these names are also tied in with the local heritage - where I grew up in Illinois, a large chunk of town and street names came from Native American terminology. My high school's mascot was the "Indian", and the two towns closest were the "Redskins" and the "Braves". Granted, none of those terms are especially PC (maybe "Braves" comes closest), but I still appreciate the fact that they're somewhat tied in with the local history.
Those aren't really the best examples, though. I kinda think that outlawing specific tribes' names, such as the Illini or the Seminoles, might be going a bit overboard. I mean, in my view, the schools are basically invoking the tribes' legendary battle prowess to inspire pride and ownership of the team and the school itself. If they were using the names in mockery, that would be a different thing altogether.
I wonder, if more emphasis were placed on the historical significance of some of these names, would this still have become as sensitive an issue?
I'm trying to imagine how I would feel if masses of people who were not from and knew little-to-nothing of my culture were taking pride in and celebrating the name of my ancestors, but with pretty much no understanding of what they were cheering for. That would probably annoy me. But if I knew that the majority of them actually did have at least a basic grasp of the cultural and historical significance of the name, and were taking pride in the history as well as the team, I think I'd feel pretty good about it.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Ow
Geez. Now I feel bad.
(((Stormy)))
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:It's easy for you to ignore the weight of history you carry around with you. For you, it's all positive.
And it's easy for you to make blanket statements like that without even knowing me. You haven't the slightest idea how much I've struggled with the terrible things that have been done by "my people". You just assume that because I reject racial discrimination against whites, it must be because I am white and, golly gee, it sure would suck if people were mean to me.
History is not the fault of people who live today. This is not remotely the same thing as saying it should be ignored or forgotten. In order to maintain a just and equitable society in the future, we must understand the mistakes that have been made before. But just because we understand them and must come to terms with them, does not mean we are responsible for those mistakes having been made in the first place.
I was not there to point out to the settlers that there were already people living here. I was not there to protest slavery. I was not there to vote against the Chinese Exclusion Act. I have done a hell of a lot of soul-searching regarding these atrocities, and I've gone through the whole self-hatred thing about my ethnicity and my nationality. Do not tell me that white American history is "easy" or "positive" for me.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
[written before Verily's post above]
Another example. When someone you know has been through a tragedy (loss of a loved one, loss of a limb, paralysis, sudden desperate poverty, terminal illness), sometimes they will lighten their own suffering by telling a joke about their new limitations, or about their pain.
It's okay for them to make a joke like this because the suffering is THEIRS to make light of or not. They own it. There's no one for them to offend.
But YOU don't get to make fun of them for it. Seem unfair? Why? The suffering isn't yours. You're not going through the pain, and so when you make fun of it from your privileged position, it's like you're saying you don't care.
And when someone complains that they don't get to make fun of people for painful things, I'm like, "WHY IN THE HELL IS THIS SOMETHING YOU WANT TO DO?"
Being a minority SUCKS. You fully understand the majority culture because it dominates your life, yet often, they don't understand you at all. Sometimes the ONLY thing they know is the jokes they tell about you behind your back. You stand out in a crowd. Your specific form of differentness is the first thing people notice about you, and it is often the only thing they remember. If your minority has a history of oppression or a current disadvantage, then it sucks even more.
That's pain. Sometimes it's mild, sometimes it's strong ... but it's YOUR pain. If you want to make jokes about it with other people who share it, then that can be cathartic. It can lighten your burdens.
When someone who doesn't share your situation makes fun of your pain, though, it takes some effort to treat it as a joke, because it doesn't show the same kind of solidarity. Especially when the pain you feel is CAUSED in part by others' ignorance and dismissal of you, when they come up and prove that ignorance and dismissal while making fun of you ... well, it's not actually all that fun.
As a final note, I think this passage:
quote:If they can make the jokes, I can make the jokes. If I can't make the jokes, they can't make the jokes.
... shows a remarkably first-grade understanding of the concept of "fairness".
And note that the rest of your post doesn't really apply to my position. I'm not saying that you shouldn't make jokes because of the sins of your long-dead ancestors. I'm saying you shouldn't make jokes because of the situation in this country RIGHT NOW.
[ August 06, 2005, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Do not tell me that white American history is "easy" or "positive" for me.
I'm not saying that your view of history is completely positive. I'm saying that your situation right now is positive. You're a member of the majority population. You don't deal with a lot of the day-to-day struggles that minorities deal with.
If you're the lone white kid growing up in a black neighborhood in inner-city Detroit or something, then naturally, you ARE a minority, and if that's the case, then you're right, different — even opposite — rules apply to you in that area, for the same reasons I cited above.
But in general, in America, the situation is that most people are white. If you're white, you look like "everybody else". Jokes about your ethnicity have no teeth, because your ethnicity is not a disadvantage to you. It doesn't make you stand out, and it doesn't lead most people to unconsciously stereotype you. Not everyone is in your enviable position.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Be that as it may, if a minority mocks me for my ethnicity, we're going to have an issue. Racism isn't funny, no matter who it is coming from. Your little head-patting condescension aside, "fairness" does not equate to saying that people in an advantaged position can be discriminated against because after all, they did it first. Maybe a society where the minorities get to mock and belittle the majority and the majority can't say a word about it is your idea of "fair". But it's my idea of asinine. I say again, equality does not mean we take turns being the bad guy.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
That's fine. You can take offense. There are aspects of our culture in which white people are treated as inferior, and jokes about those subjects can be painful, I'm not denying that.
Maybe we're miscommunicating here. When you said, "If they can make the jokes, I can make the jokes," I took that to mean, "If they can joke about THEMSELVES, then I can joke about THEM, too." But if you meant, "If I can't joke about them, then they can't joke about me," well, that's more fair.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:But if you meant, "If I can't joke about them, then they can't joke about me,"
That is exactly what I meant. I don't even want to joke about them because, as I say, I don't regard racist humor as funny. I don't laugh at racist jokes, no matter who the target is, or who the teller is.
At present in America, we have a society where certain people are allowed to make whatever jokes they want, and others are severely restricted. Even a black comedian can make fun of Latinos, because they're both minorities and therefore share that "brotherhood" that the mostly-white like myself are not allowed to share in. If a white comedian tried to make fun of any ethnicity other than his own, he'd be booed off the stage--meanwhile, any minority comedian can say anything at all about whites, and everybody laughs.
I am in rebellion against this double standard. I say that either we can all make fun of each other, or we had all better keep our mouths shut.
To put it another way, if a black person calls me a cracker, then he'd better be able to laugh if I answer with, "We can't all be n*****s."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:When you haven't lived as a minority, it can be a difficult thing to wrap your head around, but it's true. It's one of the costs of having the deck stacked in your favor.
I'd wager that there's nobody here, and probably nobody anywhere, who has never lived as a minority. There are other sorts of minorities than just ethnic and cultural minorities, many of which are in things that have a far greater impact on everyday life and one's individual identity than their ethnic heritage. Just to pick one of many, I am an introvert - a minority status that effects me nearly every day and in most situations, which carries stereotypes that are widely circulated, and which is often mocked publicly in the media. I am also a member of many different other minorities - some significant, some less so.
It would be fantastic if no minority of any sort was ever represented in any way that could offend anyone. However, this is impractical - the costs in terms of the limitations on what we can say or do is simply too high. I think a much better approach is to teach people to be less offended by things that aren't intended to offend. I think this is an important part of a person's character, especially in an age where everyone will be in a minority of some sort where they will have to tolerate misconceptions by a less-than-sympathetic majority. At the absolute least, this should include expecting people to tolerate things of the most trivial sort - like mascots or team names.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Especially if those team names were not intended to offend. Some names simply are offensive, period. "Redskins" may be one of them. But it's hard to imagine what's offensive about "Braves". It's a positive portrayal. It, at least in my mind, is a display of admiration for a certain aspect of Native culture. Just as "Knights" would display admiration for a certain aspect of European culture.
quote:I think a much better approach is to teach people to be less offended by things that aren't intended to offend. I think this is an important part of a person's character, especially in an age where everyone will be in a minority of some sort where they will have to tolerate misconceptions by a less-than-sympathetic majority.
Exactly. That's why I concluded my previous post the way I did.
There are two ways I could rebel against the double standard I mentioned before. One, I could go ahead and make all the jokes on the theory that it's only fair if we can all do it (which I do believe). That approach would probably get me beaten up a lot.
So instead I go for the other approach--not making the jokes, and not laughing when other people make them.
I actually don't want a society where we all have to shut up and not say anything. That would be too much of a triumph for political correctness, and that's my idea of hell. What I want is a society where everyone is on equal footing. Where no one is booed for saying things that would be considered funny coming out of the mouth of someone with more melanin.
I want to live in a society where a sports team can draw from any culture it wants to represent positive ideas about courage or strength--regardless of whether the actual members of the team belong to that culture. I don't think it's offensive when white people play for a team called the "Braves". And if non-white people made a team called the "Knights", or the "Cossacks", or the "Highlanders", I wouldn't think that was offensive, either.
That's what equality is. Not, "you walked on us for a long time, so we get to walk on you for awhile". It's all of us recognizing that we are a part of something larger than petty concerns about skin color, and treating such concerns with the triviality they deserve.
But until the day comes when we can all do that, equally, then I will not show signs of amusement when anyone does it. Because as long as it's unequal, it perpetuates injustice.
And I'm completely mixing my topics now. But that's okay. We sort of got back on track there.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
SS wrote: "I'm pretty much with Verily on this one. I think the NAACP ruling was not necessary and misses the fact that the mascots aren't being shown in a pejorative manner."
It wasn't the NAACP, it was the NCAA. And it reminds me of some frinds of mine who lived in Tuscon when the NCAA tournament was coming to town. They just didn't understand what the tournament was for.(they were not sports fans-thought it was the NAACP)
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:What irritates me is that we've reached a point where any depiction of a Native American on anything at all is automatically and absolutely offensive, regardless of context.
I don't think anyone here has expressed the sentiment that any depiction of a Native American is automatically offensive. Not a criticism Verily, just an observation.
quote:. There are other sorts of minorities than just ethnic and cultural minorities, many of which are in things that have a far greater impact on everyday life and one's individual identity than their ethnic heritage. Just to pick one of many, I am an introvert - a minority status that effects me nearly every day and in most situations, which carries stereotypes that are widely circulated, and which is often mocked publicly in the media.
There is a difference between self-imposed limitations and external limitations. Many black people are denied jobs, housing, promotions, and paroles based on something they cannot change: Their skin color.
If you can't get a cab, it's simply because you were too shy to raise your hand. Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:I don't think anyone here has expressed the sentiment that any depiction of a Native American is automatically offensive. Not a criticism Verily, just an observation.
If you mean that no one has actually made a post that literally said, "I think that any depiction of a Native American is automatically offensive," then you are technically correct.
But someone did post recently that the Land O'Lakes Butter box struck them as offensive, and had no real reason other than that it has a Native American woman on it.
And people out there, off this message board, are protesting sports teams for no real reason other than that they draw on Native American imagery for their symbols.
Which, to me, is pretty close to saying, "You can't depict Native Americans, because it's offensive."
Which I think is foolish. No, we shouldn't depict Native Americans as comic stereotypes. We shouldn't depict anyone as a comic stereotype. But that's not what the woman on that box of butter is. And that's not what promoting yourself as valorous and strong by calling your team "The Braves" is. Many people are failing to distinguish between positive portrayals, negative portrayals, and neutral portrayals. And though some of them wouldn't believe me, I insist that portrayals of Native Americans that come from white or otherwise non-Native sources are not automatically negative.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Sorry if I was being unclear, but I was referring to the posts in this thread and not Hatrack in general.
I would be interested in reading the thread you are talking about. Perhaps the person who made that comment would like to elaborate on why they take offense at the Land O'Lakes Butter box. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I have no strong feelings either way, but I would like it on the record that feeling amongst American Indians is NOT unanimously against this. Many favor many of the names.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I'd wager that there's nobody here, and probably nobody anywhere, who has never lived as a minority. There are other sorts of minorities than just ethnic and cultural minorities, many of which are in things that have a far greater impact on everyday life and one's individual identity than their ethnic heritage
There are some good points here. I can tell you, funny as it sounds, my WASP self experienced what it was like to be a member of minority on Ash Wednesday in New Orleans - a predominantly Catholic culture. In my ignorance, I told someone they had something on their head and may want to wash it off.
At first it was taken as a joke, then when everybody in the office (I was at work) realized I truly didn't know what was going on, I was summarily laughed at.
Anybody can be a minority, depending on the situation. Anyone can be a victim of discrimination, no matter what their ethnic heritage. Ask young white women who are denied jobs because they might have a baby and be gone a lot. Ask a 50 something white male whose passed over for a job because of his age. Ask a white man applying for a job as a pharmaceutical rep who is passed over for an attractive young woman instead, because doctors supposedly like to talk to attractive young female drug reps.
Discrimination exists everywhere, everyday for all kinds of reasons.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
There is a subpopulation that objects to Indian mascot names, but it isn't Indians. It's liberals.
I wish I could find the name of the team in NC, I think it was, that was ordered to change its name because it was offensive to Indians (it was a tribe's name). They said: we're Indians, and it's our tribe! The organization said: no exceptions.
The people to whom the images are associated are NOT offended, mostly, and have NOT repeatedly asked it to stop. It's whites, not Indians, that try to stop this. It can't be that easy to convince somebody without a full head, that naming your child, or a building, or a team after them, is degradation.
Oberlin College doesn't have a name for its teams. I was told by an Oberlin student that wthey wouldn't even consider something like "Hornets" (my school's team) because it would be degrading to hornets.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
quote: Fourteen schools have removed all references to Native American culture or were deemed not to have references to Native American culture as part of their athletics programs
So, erasing all references, even the most respectful ones is the way to go... IMO you do more harm to a minority by pretending they don't exist...
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
On the subject of stereotypes, white males are made fun of in commercials and ads on tv more than any other group.
I guarantee that if you turn on the tv for 15 minutes you will see at least 5 commercials that show a white male as weak, stupid or (more often) pathetically funny.
Why is this?
I believe it is an offshoot of the "whites did a lot of bad things, so they deserve anything that happens to them" movement, mixed in with liberal Hollywood or something...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:When white Americans complain that they're suddenly not allowed to make the jokes they want to make, all I can say is, "Yeah, that's the price of being the most ADVANTAGED HUMAN BEINGS ON THE PLANET who BASICALLY CONQUERED EVERYBODY. Gosh, I feel REALLY FRICKING SORRY for you."
<high fives Puppy>
I'm usually amazed by this attitude. I often see it most prevalently from people who are struggling economically or "socially" (whatever that means in their context). I can sort of see how, if you are feeling "disadvantaged" in US society, you'd probably feel like you should be able to get respect, etc. And it might feel like everyone can have a pride movement but white guys.
But the reason that stuff is there is BECAUSE of the past, whether you participated in it or not, and whether you feel like you benefit it or not. Ignorance of it, or purposeful sidestepping of it, doesn't change the fundamental facts.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
That doesn't mean it's right. Racial discrimination is an ugly thing, regardless of how many people keep chanting "white guys did it first, white guys did it first."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:There is a difference between self-imposed limitations and external limitations. Many black people are denied jobs, housing, promotions, and paroles based on something they cannot change: Their skin color.
If you can't get a cab, it's simply because you were too shy to raise your hand.
That's a potentially offensive stereotype right there. You don't choose to be introverted any more than you choose to be gay or black. It is not something you impose upon yourself. And 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.
But there are even far more discriminated minorities than that. Consider ugly people - people who don't conform to society's ideal for beauty though no fault of their own. Studies have shown these folks are discriminated against nearly everywhere - from childhood to old age. Consider fat individuals, many of which are fat for genetic reasons. Consider short people. Consider the challenges faced both by the mentally gifted and the mentally disabled. Consider people with speech impediments or accents. Consider people with obscure and socially unaccepted passions. I suspect each of these faces more fundamental daily problems than a Native American would simply for being Native American, and none of these categories are a matter of chocie. And the list probably goes on....
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: The people to whom the images are associated are NOT offended, mostly, and have NOT repeatedly asked it to stop. It's whites, not Indians, that try to stop this. It can't be that easy to convince somebody without a full head, that naming your child, or a building, or a team after them, is degradation.
Will B., while the issue is complex your statement is just not true. It took me less than a minute of searching on google to come up with Native American complaints about the use of "mascots."
quote: "It's the behavior that accompanies all of this that's offensive," Clyde Bellecourt told USA Today. Bellecourt, who is national director of AIM, said "The rubber tomahawks, the chicken feather headdresses, people wearing war paint and making these ridiculous war whoops with a tomahawk in one hand and a beer in the other-all of these have significant meaning for us. And the psychological impact it has, especially on our youth, is devastating."
While team names like "braves" or "chiefs" may get mixed reviews in Native American circles, I think you'll be hard pressed to find fans of Tomahawk dances done by a mascot.
I've been meaning to post, but wanted to do a little research before I did. Never a bad idea on an issue like this.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think part of the reason we have so much unrest over these issues is precisely because people have an inate sense of what's fair. If two kids are born side by side and don't have the same advantages, the chances are that they will end up in very different places over their lifetimes. You could say "well one kid's parents were rich and the other's were poor, so there ya go."
But why the economic disparity? Was it because kid A's parents worked hard, or did they inherit? Did kid B's parents have a run of bad luck due to health problems, or were they just lazy?
It used to be that everyone "knew their place" and one of things ascribed to "God" was some sort of social preordination. Kings were kings because of Providence. Peasants were in their place because of the same divine will.
Not that many people believe that now. At least not in America, where opportunity is not supposed to be handed down along with the family fortune, although we know it is.
At the bottom, or on the outside, life can seem pretty darned unfair. And it's probably pretty easy to ascribe much of the personal bad consequences to the operation of people who seem to be getting everything or already had it three generations ago.
Certainly at some level, this must be true. The inequalities of birth persist and influence our lives so that equal amounts of hard work pay off more handsomely for the wealthy than for the poor. The unequal distribution of resources alone would account for the greater likelihood of success for some rather than others.
But there's also the group dynamic too. That real "haves" all seem to be white (with rare exceptions) and the real have nots all seem to be in the minority group that one is constantly exposed to (with exceptions of course). So, a rational being, untrained in logic or the scientific method, is likely to draw certain conclusions from the (apparent) facts at hand. And from those conclusions, make further deductions about the world and life in general.
That's what we humans do. It's how we think, whether we're trained in proper logic or not.
I come at this from a slightly different perspective. What portion of the inequality is necessary? If we had a different way of running our society, would the problems be worse, or would they be alleviated? If we had a true meritocracy, what would that do? If everyone had truly excellent education, what would that do?
Then I compare that idealized state to the one we have. And then I wonder why we aren't where we could be.
And there is often enough an answer that does point right back to the people who ARE privileged in our society not necessarily comfortable with giving up their perks in order to pursue greater equality for all.
And so, to the extent that there is resistence to true equality, and fairness, and justice, then the blame can and most certainly MUST be placed with those in power. It is from them that the changes must flow in times other than revolution.
So...back to the indian-themed mascots. It's a frequin' sports team. Get over it. Both sides seem to be saying that. Well, guess what. The change should come from those in power. It is unfair and derogatory to those whose images are being used. It is MORE than a sports team to them. It is their identity. The school will still have a sports team when all is said and done. It might have a cute new rubber suited mascot too. How great will that be?
Something tells me that in a few years time, we'll look back on this and wonder why it took so long to get it straight.
It should've happened within a few months of being asked the first time, IMHO.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I think the NCAA should also be careful about speaking for groups without their permission. It is one thing when a Native American group has said that a mascot is offensive...but not all of the cases are like that. The Florida State Seminoles are one of the schools that is banned from using its mascot in post season play. However, the Seminole governing council in Florida recently unanimously endorsed FSU's use of the Seminole as their mascot. Supposedly the team represents the fighting spirit of the tribe. Yet, the NCAA knows better than the Seminole tribe in Floria about whether the use of the tribes name is offensive to those in the tribe?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Oh, how I adore Bob and Puppy. I really, really do.
[/fangirl]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I don't have a problem with the name, The Braves. I live in Atlanta, and despite having absolutely no interest in spectator sports, I have taken my son to a Braves game, when we were given free tickets.
But, putting myself in other people's shoes is my specialty, so look at it this way:
The mascot tomahawk dances, feathered headdresses and so forth are a part of some people's RELIGION.
Geez, people, how would some of you feel if there was a mascot running around in exaggerated Sacred undies, doing parodies of purification rituals or something?
I do honestly think it is a tempest in a teapot, since sports like this are almost entirely irrelevant to me and my life. But I can see whay people would be offended.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Geez, people, how would some of you feel if there was a mascot running around in exaggerated Sacred undies, doing parodies of purification rituals or something?
Yeah, I remember seeing an interview years ago of someone - I think it was Sherman Alexie - talking about this issue - cartoon-like parodies of rituals and revered figures. Whether it was Alexie or not, the guy wondered if white people would be good sports if people on reservations started waving around "stuffed toy" figures of Jesus on sticks, whooping it up and drinking. He wondered if Christians would be good sports about it and see it was just "harmless fun." Maybe even a compliment.
Here are some interesting comments from Alexie that make me think it was him I saw interviewed:
quote:Q: How do you feel about the sport mascot debate?
Alexie: They're certainly racist, but more than that, they're blasphemous. Those songs and feathers and drums and dancing --- that's Indian religion. Seeing somebody dressed as an Indian, in an Indian headdress, running across the floor at a football stadium is akin to somebody dressed up as a Jesuit tossing communion wafers into the crowd.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yep... How can this go on past the first request for it to stop?0
Lupus: re: the Seminoles -- can you provide a link? I'm particularly interested in what the Seminole governing council might've said about mascots, behavior, respect, etc. Or even what they might not have said. I'm thinking they might've put some conditions on their endorsement that could align pretty well with what we're talking about here.
And, in the case of a team using a mascot with approval (and in an approved manner) from the tribe which it is named after, I think the NCAA should allow it.
I'm not so sure that the "Indians" or the "Braves" are going to find it easy to get EVERY tribe's approval or the list of conditions to satisfy.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
CT -- back atcha!
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Bob, Lupus,
Here's a link to a site with a reproduction of a Sun-Sentinel article on the Seminole Tribe and mascots (the original article isn't online any more):
Here's another article about it on Indianz.com Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote: I'd wager that there's nobody here, and probably nobody anywhere, who has never lived as a minority.
A couple of years ago I spent a summer in Mozambique. I am a very white woman, and it was really the first time in my life (other than a few jaunts through inner-city neighborhoods), that I knew what it was like to be noticed and judged constantly only on the basis of the color of my skin. In the cities, the people were used to us "Mazungos," but out in the very rural areas I was regarded with fear--some children crying at the sight of scary me. On the other hand, I will never forget all the beautiful children I held who would just pile on top of me, hungry for a hug, combing their fingers through my light, straight hair, or just laughing and pointing at such a curious sight.)
But I was not a minority in the sense that we use the term in the U.S. Because I was still viewed as a member of a dominant race: powerful, wealthy, educated, etc. People who didn't know me at came to me with heart-wrenching problems, looking to me as a source of a solution. It was definitely a humbling thing, because I certainly had no power or wealth to offer; I really only had enough money to maintain my own existence for the months I was there, and was too selfish to part w/ the comforts I'm used to and live the kind of life the people around me had known since they were born. And I certainly wished I had more wisdom.
I remember having a conversation with one young man at a university who was going on and on about how his country drove out the white people and what they really needed now was the white people back, etc. etc. And I felt awful that he had this view that was distilling all the complications down to a matter of race and discounting the educated and capable people of African descent, and tried to tell him that it was education, training, experience and resources that his country needed, and that those did not necessarily have to come from "white people." For sure, the white people who lived there for 500 years didn't do so much for them (and I love the Portuguese, as I love my own American people, so not a blanket condemnation, just just saying that what we did to the Indians they did to the Africans).
Anyway, this is way off track from the initial post, but it just made me think of my experience living as a "minority" and truly understanding what a privilege and responsibility it is to be blessed with SO MUCH just by having been born in the circumstances I was born in.
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
Sndrake: This article you provided mentioned a Sports Illustrated survey about this subject.
The survey (taken in 2002) said that 87 percent of American Indians who lived off Indian reservations did not object to Native American mascots or nicknames. Of the Indians who lived on reservations, 67 percent were not bothered by the nicknames.
That seems to put a damper on a large portion of that argument.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Well, no.
IIRC, that was a survey of Sports Illustrated readers who were Native Americans. That is a biased sample which is far far far from representative of the community as a whole. You can't justifiably generalize from "just SI readers who are NA" to "everybody who is NA."
So, from that study, perhaps one could generalize from that sample to the conclusion that "out of Native Americans who are Sports Illustrated enthusiasts, x percentage believe that y," but I wouldn't even take it that far. The only guarantee that the respondents were Native Americans was that they said so on the survey -- and I can think of plenty of self-interested reasons for some non-Native American SI readers to try to skew the results.
Call me cynical. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
RoyHobbs,
It would be nice to know the wording of the questions asked and how the polling was done. (These are important issues - a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center did something interesting. They polled people on assisted suicide using two different types of wording. When the word "suicide" was used in the question, supporters fell short of a majority. When that word was avoided, supporters increased to a majority of the people polled - linky.)
Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me that much - the activist part of many minority groups can be at odds with the nonpolitical people in the minority. For example, the African-American community is far from unified in opposing the death penalty, but just about every African-American advocacy group that has a position is opposed.
It doesn't keep it from being a real issue at all. And there's the other side of the equation. One of the articles I came across earlier today mentioned some not-so-laudable motives of schools attached to those mascots. One school's largest donor has strings attached to his money - if the school changes the name of the team, he'll take his money back (the article made it sound like it was written into the contract).
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I found this to be interesting from the Indianz link that sndrake provided:
quote:"We have bigger things on our agenda, like the health, education and housing of our own tribal members," Shore wrote, The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported.
Seriously, there ARE bigger issues out there for the tribes (and tribal councils) to work on. My sense of this issue remains, however, that if a school was asked by a tribe to change their name, they should, immediately and without a fight. It's enough that they ask, IMHO.
If the request is coming from some group speaking "on behalf of native Americans" then I'd be inclined to ignore it too. The tribal folks I've encountered aren't really all that cohesive a group, and they certainly don't seem to enjoy having people speak on their behalf.
But in the grand scheme of things, I believe that team names are less important than the sensibilities of a group of people.
But then, I think sports are given far too much importance in this country and the best thing we could do is abolish professional sport altogether and churn the money back into education.
I'd like to see college athletics be turned into something less like a money machine too.
Not very likely, but then, I don't run the world either.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
sndrake, thanks for doing some research! It's always to the better to have some real facts! However, I don't think you've proven your point. You can find Indian protests on Internet; I believe it. I can find proof that Bigfoot exists, on Internet. Now, I did say "mostly"; I am sure there are some Indians, somewhere, who object. But when I go to a powwow, nobody's interested in saying the Seminole tribe was wrong to endorse the FSU 'Noles. They complain about Peltier being in jail, and Custer, and Columbus, but not sports teams; so I think it's reasonable to conclude that most Indians don't care. Especially the ones that were consulted by the universities, and said they didn't care.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: On the subject of stereotypes, white males are made fun of in commercials and ads on tv more than any other group.
Yes. The white man in America has it really, really hard. All the constant mocking must be a real strain, especially when he has to work so hard maintaining the government, the financial establishment, and most of the popular culture.
quote: I think it's reasonable to conclude that most Indians don't care.
On the grounds that you know most Indians? It seems to me that the most you can say here is that "the Indians I know personally don't, as a rule, appear to care." Which is something entirely different.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:You don't choose to be introverted any more than you choose to be gay or black. It is not something you impose upon yourself.
I disagree. People can definitely step out of their shell if they want to. One of my good friends is terrified of public speaking. When she became an attorney, she decided that she had to overcome this fear or risk never making partner at a law firm.
She joined the Toastmaster club and made short speeches at her weekly Toasmaster meetings. After a year she was able to improve as a public speaker and never let public speaking bother her again.
Unless you have some kind of serious phobia about interacting with people, I don't think the "discrimination" introverts suffer is greater than, or even equal to, the discrimination suffered by black people.
quote:And 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.
Jobs - It is possible that certain jobs require a person to be friendly and outgoing. Everything else being equal, if I had a chance between hiring a quiet person and a friendly person, I would hire the friendly person. It is good for office morale.
Housing - As a landlord, I would much rather rent my apartment to the mousy graduate student than the partying frat boy.
Marriages, friendships, and relationships - These are private relationships unrelated to the type of systematic discrimination that Blacks suffer. There is no law that says introverts and extrovertss cannot marry or hang out together. But there were laws forbidding interracial marriage and many private clubs still deny membership to Blacks, Jews, or women.
Edited to add: Just out of curiosity Tres, would you rather be an introverted white guy or an extroverted black dude living in America?
[ August 06, 2005, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Will B, there are definitely significant numbers of Indians who do care. Point to as many Indians as you want who don't; you don't change that fact.
For numbers to be relevant at all, first we need to determine what the proper percentage is of like v. dislike before we make a change. Divide the Indians into three groups: those who are offended, those who don't care, and those who would be offended if it were changed.
I know there are some of the third group, but I'd bet dollars to donuts they are outnumbered by the first group.
Do people who don't care count in this equation? As much as someone really, really offended? If a mascot is tribe-specific, does only that tribe count?
Why don't you propose the circumstances under which you would agree that a school should change its name. If you think it shouldn't take Indian opinion into account at all, then it would be specious to continue arguing about what that opinion actually is.
Edit: For that matter, I'd like to hear what everyone who has on opinion on this thinks is the appropriate framework for making the decision, particularly with respect to proportions in those three groups.
Dagonee
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
Disclaimer: My knowledge is almost wholly of the issues facing the indigenous peoples of Canada. I make these comments assuming my common sense is right and many issues are largely the same in the US.
quote:I suspect each of these [ugly, short, fat, mentally disabled/gifted, etc people] faces more fundamental daily problems than a Native American would simply for being Native American, and none of these categories are a matter of chocie. And the list probably goes on....
I have to reply to this first because it incensed me the most. Dude. The entire way Western society *works* is contrary to the Native American worldview. Why are so many NA citizens in jails? Among a load of other reasons like unemployment rates, low education rates, and high alcoholism rates, another reason is because lying or not telling the whole truth or not emphasizing and acknowledging the wrong one has done is seen as contrary to healing and spiritual recovery from committing crimes. This is an unusual quality in a defendent and the justice system is biased against it. Why are there so few NA university students graduating? One reason is that the Westernized university style of teaching and learning is not easy to adapt to at all for those raised with more traditional views. Western society focuses on the linear. Aboriginal society focuses on the cyclical. Think of the challenge of taking a history class taught in a manner that does not emphasize chronology or verified versions of events whatsoever. Tough, eh?
I could go on. Point being, it is far harder to live in a world where one's everyday values and very conception of life are different from the majority than to live with a physical difference that merely inhibits one's ability to participate in a world they agree with.
Also, regardless of such innate difficulties, there are also the difficulties still resulting from severe racial mistreatment of old, such as residential schooling. Abuse often helps spawn abusers, a well-known fact, and hard work is being undertaken to combat this trend but it is not conquered yet. Thus, this generation is still undergoing pain and suffering from mistreatment at the hands of 'our' ancestors. That pain began because of views that Aboriginal people were 'savage', 'uncivilized', and 'unintelligent'. Stereotypes like the Cowboys and Indians type Indian and the tomahawk-bearing, war-dancing, feather-wearing, whooping Brave were born then and it came to be synonymous with the idea of the savage, uncivilized and unintelligent Native. This is why it's important TO stop the use of such images as sports mascots and other widely publicized logos.
If everyone who ever saw the Braves logo knew the history of the outfit the man wears, its sacredness, its symbolism, and its religious and cultural meaning, and consciously acknowledged it such as a symbol of bravery and courage and sacredness to the Native American people, then I would have no problem with its being used, and fewer Native Americans would either I imagine. I mean, do the mascots themselves know which dances they're allowed to do, and which ones are more sacred so they don't perform the wrong ones by accident? However, without this conscious acknowledgement and knowledge on the part of dare I say the majority of North Americans, it is a mockery of their culture and perpetuates unkind stereotypes from long ago that have only served to cause problems ever since.
Sure, the folks who come here and read Hatrack can all say "No, no, I never think of Native Americans as drunken, lazy, unemployed bums like the stereotype would have me do" but for every one of you, there's an ignorant person out there who does think that, and these logos and dancing mascot mockeries of sacred prayer dances on TV help him or her believe he or she is right.
It is unfathomable to me that people hold the nostalgia and 'college heart and soul' which the Western custom of using unacceptable stereotypes has made into tradition dearer than the desire to stop misunderstandings between cultures. Yeah, people get riled up and feel like a unified crowd of happy brethren by all chanting the age old chants of "Go Kill 'Em, Redskins" or whatever together, but would you hold the same kind of togetherness surely felt by the members of the KKK chanting whatever they chanted dearer than the desire to stop their racism? Is there a difference? Maybe. Should there be? I don't know.
Whew. I can be long-winded when I have something to say.
Oh, and Will, buddy. It's been said but I have to reiterate that your Indian population polling skills are not approved by Representative-Samples-R-Us.
(Edited to break up a huge, scary paragraph).
[ August 06, 2005, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Astaril ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks Astaril!
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:On the grounds that you know most Indians?
Is that what's required? Really? Most Indians don't know most Indians. Pollsters don't know most poll-ees. On this basis, I am not qualified to say whether most Americans are members of al-Qaeda, since I don't know most Americans.
I expect better of you than that.
--
What many of you seem to forget is that we do have mechanisms for determining the will of the Indian people: tribal councils. These councils not only are democratically controlled (in the tribes I know about), they have the authority to speak for Indians. Finding the Miami Indian tribe's position on this is no more mysterious than finding Israel's position on the Gaza Strip: you can just ask them. (Miami U did. The tribe didn't care.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So are you saying that the mechanism for determining offensiveness should be the tribal councils, and that if a tribal council objected a school should change the mascot?
What about situations spanning more than one tribe (Indians, Braves, etc.)?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
If I ran the X High School Chippewa, say, and the Chippewa tribe asked us to change the name, I would try to make that happen. Why not? It's their name, after all.
If this response surprises you, I think one problem may be in the way you phrased that: "mechanism for determining offensiveness," as if there could be a way to decide, for everyone, what they thought. Tribal councils don't have a right to determine for the rest of us what's offensive (nor would they try); conversely, whites don't have a right to tell Indians what they are offended by. This is an act of cultural shortsightedness: assuming that if something would offend me, it would offend any reasonable person. Human, but not exactly accurate, or humble.
It's OK for Indians to be different. They are what they are, and one thing they are not is PC.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I'm an Othodox Jew. If a sports team, even one from a Jewish school, decided that they would have a team name and mascot that represented my people in a stereotypically unfavorable light, then I'd certainly feel uncomfortable about it. But if they were respectful of my people, I'd be fine with it.
So,"The Moneylenders", "The Kikes", and "The Yids" would be offensive, but "The Maccabees", "The Matza Balls", or "The Zions" wouldn't.
A mascot that was a hook-nosed beggar would be offensive. A matza ball wearing a kippah would not be.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Edited to add: Just out of curiosity Tres, would you rather be an introverted white guy or an extroverted black dude living in America?
Well, I'd rather be me as I am now, no matter how hard or easy I have it at the moment, but then again I'm completely biased on that matter. However, having met both introverted white guys and extroverted black dudes, I'd say introverted white guys have it harder.
For an example of why, just read your post. While I'm betting you think it's unfair to discriminate against black individuals, you seem to suggest it's okay to discriminate against introverts - you imply they are unfriendly, suggest its okay to require them to step out of their "shells", and mention that if your friend did not give up her personality she risked never making partner at her firm. Would you ask the same of a black person - to step out of their cultural heritage - to give up their "blackness" at least in public? Many times society does exactly that to black individuals, but at the very least it is frowned upon by those who recognize how difficult it is to ask a person to deny their cultural heritage. The difference for introverts is that discrimination against them is considered valid by almost everyone - few if any consider it equally difficult to ask a person to deny their own personality, but in truth I think one's personality is even more fundamental to oneself than one's cultural heritage.
Posted by naledge (Member # 392) on :
*Wonders what type of images would come out of a "conservative Hollywood" *
-nal
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I look forward to seeing the Fighting Matza Balls!
I'm from the South, but somehow the Fighting Hush Puppies doesn't sound as dangerous.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:I'd say introverted white guys have it harder.
Interesting. Just to be clear, do you really feel this way Tres or is this one of your Devil's Advocate positions?
quote:... and mention that if your friend did not give up her personality she risked never making partner at her firm.
Partners at large law firms are expected to be rainmakers and bring in tons of business. That means doing well at social functions and public speaking engagements.
When your personality trait has a real effect on your job performance, then it is not "discrimination." We call that meritocracy.
quote:but in truth I think one's personality is even more fundamental to oneself than one's cultural heritage.
I'm not disputing your claim that large parts of your life is dictated by your personality. But again, you can CHANGE your personality, but you cannot change the color of your skin.
When a black person can't get a cab, it is not due to his "cultural heritage." Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
Thanks Puppy, Bob, and Astaril.
I guess I'm too pissed off to say much more than that. Maybe I can chime in later.
Oh except:
quote: But someone did post recently that the Land O'Lakes Butter box struck them as offensive, and had no real reason other than that it has a Native American woman on it.
That is not true.
She said it was offensive because the Woman was portrayed inaccurately in whatever the artist made up as thinking it looks "Indian", not in any way looking authentic. I agree that it is a pretty lame "depiction" of a Native American.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
Oh even if that poll wasn't a completely biased sample group (which it is)... what does it prove exactly?
Offending 36% of a population is a pretty big deal.
I did a study for a college class (Social Research Methods) in which most of the participants were from the Native American Studies Department, and the American Indian Student Services (Also clearly a nonrandom sample) 85% of 120 total participants thought Native names and imagery used as/for sports mascots should be discontinued 13% didn't care, even a little bit. The last 2% thought the mascots should be kept.
Of that 84% (which was 102 people) that wanted the discontinuation, 20% found them very offensive, 20% found them moderately offensive, 20% slightly offensive, 18% found them more ridiculous or stupid than offensive, and 22% although not personally offended, supported those who were offended.
The 13% who didn't care all said that they didn't think it was a good thing, but not important enought to waste time and energy on when Native face so many bigger problems.
The 2 percent who wanted them kept were evenly divided among 2 groups... either one or more of their favorite teams had Natve names/mascots, OR they felt that Natives were being honored by having teams named after them.
All the respondants identified themselves as Native American or First Nations (which was our target group.)
I ALMOST didn't have this available. I was taking my old College research papers off to storage unit tomorrow!
OK... this isn't the best research ever done... it was a group of college freshmen and sophomores doing the study... but it is at least as good as the study by SI
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Interesting. Just to be clear, do you really feel this way Tres or is this one of your Devil's Advocate positions?
If I say I feel that way, I feel that way. And playing Devil's Advocate doesn't mean lying for the sake of making an argument.
quote:Partners at large law firms are expected to be rainmakers and bring in tons of business. That means doing well at social functions and public speaking engagements.
When your personality trait has a real effect on your job performance, then it is not "discrimination." We call that meritocracy.
And that's one reason why introverts may have it harder - because "discriminating" against them is considered meritocratic.
(Although I might add that clients might favor whites in such a way that black partners would be less capable of bringing in business - and it would still be considered discrimination to hold back black employees.)
quote:But again, you can CHANGE your personality, but you cannot change the color of your skin.
Do you believe that insofar as black individuals can change to act less "black", it's okay to ask them to do so?
[ August 07, 2005, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
My heritage is Native American, and the team names don't bother me. I admit that the mascots and some of that stuff DO bother me, but in much the same way I'm bothered by the ignorant "Squeal like a pig, boy" Southern stereotype, or the like.
However, some of the things said in this thread DO offend me, and in the interest of not having bad feelings toward some of you who are probably on in this as an intellectual exercise, I'm going to bow out of the discussion.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:If I say I feel that way, I feel that way. And playing Devil's Advocate doesn't mean lying for the sake of making an argument.
I believe you. I just wanted to make sure.
quote:And that's one reason why introverts may have it harder - because "discriminating" against them is considered meritocratic.
If your personality trait has a bearing on your job performance, then it is acceptable. If we are not allowed to select employees based on their personalities, then am I "discriminating" against a lazy person if I don't hire him for a construction job? What about a person with anger management problems for a customer service position? What about a cleptomaniac for an accounting position?
quote:Do you believe that insofar as black individuals can change to act less "black", it's okay to ask them to do so?
What does it mean to act less "black"? It depends on the situation.
Let's say a person (black or white) went to a job interview speaking ebonics. Can the company not hire the person based on that alone? Of course, if the job requires written or verbal communication skills. It has a bearing on the job performance. That is not discrimination.
But some black people experience discrimination purely based on the color of their skin. That is very different from getting differential treatment based on one's personality or communication skills.
Edited to add:
I consider myself an introvert. I'm not the life of the party; girls notice more outgoing guys before they notice me, and most girls I date were usually friends with me before we went out; I don't feel comfortable speaking in public, but I do it, because that's my job.
But, I'm not you Tres and I'm not black. So if you really do feel that you have it tougher than a black guy, I am not going to argue against you.
For me, this is only an intellectual exercise. But I guess this is a more personal issue for you. Maybe it is best if we just agree to disagree.
[ August 07, 2005, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If your personality trait has a bearing on your job performance, then it is acceptable. If we are not allowed to select employees based on their personalities, then am I "discriminating" against a lazy person if I don't hire him for a construction job? What about a person with anger management problems for a customer service position? What about a cleptomaniac for an accounting position?
It certainly wouldn't be wrong to hire in that fashion, but I do think I'd call it discriminating against certain groups. I don't believe discrimination has to be wrong to be discrimination - but that's a matter of definitions.
But regardless of whether it is right or wrong, and regardless of whether it is discrimination or not, it still does happen, and it is still unpleasant and offensive for those in the groups in question. My main point was that everybody is in a minority, and everyone has experienced "discrimination" (whether it be just or unjust.) And it IS harder for introverts, even if employers and friends do have a good justification for making it harder on them. You can't say one group's problems are not so bad, simply because you have a good justification for subjecting them to those problems.
Since everyone is a minority and could be offended by almost anything, we cannot make everybody happy and ban all offensiveness. And rather than selecting just a few minorities to whom we want to give a special right to be offended at things, I think the ideal would be to expect all minorities of all sorts, whether it be blacks or introverts, to be offended only when offense seems to be intended - not by things as innocent as sports team names, which are almost certainly not named the way they are in an effort to intentionally hurt people's feelings.
quote:But some black people experience discrimination purely based on the color of their skin. That is very different from getting differential treatment based on one's personality or communication skills.
Different in what way? Again, it might be more justified, but that doesn't make it less harmful and offensive to the group in question.
quote:But, I'm not you Tres and I'm not black. So if you really do feel that you have it tougher than a black guy, I am not going to argue against you.
For me, this is only an intellectual exercise. But I guess this is a more personal issue for you. Maybe it is best if we just agree to disagree.
I wasn't speaking about myself - I was speaking about introverts and black individuals in general. The whole issue dissolves when you get into individual experience, because no person is simply "a black guy" or "an introvert" but rather a complicated, complete being which has problems that cannot be isolated into a single cause. If people discriminate against me, there is really no telling what their real reason is, unless they actually come out and say it.
And no, I'm never inclined to agree to disagree - I think no discussion really ends until we actually do agree. Until then, it is just on hiatus until one of us thinks of something meaningful to add. Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:I wasn't speaking about myself - I was speaking about introverts and black individuals in general.
I didn't mean to misinterpret your arguments. I guess I just assumed you had some personal experience in this because you said:
quote:Just to pick one of many, I am an introvert - a minority status that effects me nearly every day and in most situations, which carries stereotypes that are widely circulated, and which is often mocked publicly in the media. I am also a member of many different other minorities - some significant, some less so.
I think this is the key:
quote:I don't believe discrimination has to be wrong to be discrimination - but that's a matter of definitions.
If your definition of discrimination is this:
quote:The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
Then yes, almost everyone of us "suffers" from discrimination everyday. But when we are talking about discrimination in the context of this thread--a thread about disrespecting racial minorities--I was thinking of this definition:
quote:Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit (emphasis added; both definitions from dictionary.com)
Again, I point to the employment situation where you can fairly "discriminate" against a person based on whether that person's attribute is relevant to how well he can perform a certain task.
quote:And it IS harder for introverts, even if employers and friends do have a good justification for making it harder on them. You can't say one group's problems are not so bad, simply because you have a good justification for subjecting them to those problems.
If the treatment is justified, I think we call that "life."
Tres, if you lump justified and unjustified discrimination together and compare them as if they are the same things, it cheapens the real suffering of racial minorities.
I guess I consider the reason of discrimination as more important than the results of discrimination.
Death row inmates may have it tougher than blacks AND introverts. The media portray them as dangerous killers; they can't get out of their cell; I'll bet they have a tough time getting home loans. But if they committed the crime, I have no problem with this type of "discrimination."
quote:Since everyone is a minority and could be offended by almost anything, we cannot make everybody happy and ban all offensiveness. And rather than selecting just a few minorities to whom we want to give a special right to be offended at things, I think the ideal would be to expect all minorities of all sorts, whether it be blacks or introverts, to be offended only when offense seems to be intended - not by things as innocent as sports team names, which are almost certainly not named the way they are in an effort to intentionally hurt people's feelings.
I don't think anyone in this thread has ever advocated the banning of all offensiveness. And as many people have pointed out, the NCAA is only banning offensive mascots, and not the names of the sports teams.
quote:And no, I'm never inclined to agree to disagree - I think no discussion really ends until we actually do agree. Until then, it is just on hiatus until one of us thinks of something meaningful to add.
I think I ran out of meaningful things to add years ago. But that never stopped me from offering my opinions.
[ August 07, 2005, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If the treatment is justified, I think we call that "life."
Tres, if you lump justified and unjustified discrimination together and compare them as if they are the same things, it cheapens the real suffering of racial minorities.
Acknowledging the suffering of racial minorities and failing to acknowledging the suffering of other groups cheapens the real suffering of those other groups. This is especially true if you try to define nonracial discrimination out of existence, by saying it can only be discrimination if it is racial. It is as if, because you think their suffering is justified, that means it isn't suffering at all.
"I'm sorry, you are too fat for this job. We are justified in denying it to you, because pretty people sell better than fat people. And you have no right to claim this is any hardship on you, or get offended by the implication that fat people are bad salesmen, because it's really true and we are justified in doing it. We don't care if you are fat for genetic reasons and can't help it. That's just what we call 'life' so suck it up."
[ August 07, 2005, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Quite to the contrary, acknowledging the suffering of racial minorities and failing to acknowledging the suffering of other groups cheapens the real suffering of those other groups.
I acknowledge the suffering of both racial minorities and introverts. It is just that I believe one is more worthy of my concern, because while one is the result of systematic social injustice, the other is the result of individuals being judged on their merits.
quote:This is especially true if you try to define nonracial discrimination out of existence, by saying it can only be discrimination if it is racial.
Never said that. I'm not saying introverts are not discriminated against, I'm saying the kind of discrimination they suffer from really doesn't concern me as much as the kind suffered by racial minorities.
quote:It is as if, because you think their suffering is justified, that means it isn't suffering at all.
Oh, it is still suffering and deserving of my sympathy. It is just not as high up on my sympathy scale. I'm just a bit surprised that you would consider the life of an introvert as more difficult than the life of a black person. But I'll get over it, I'm sure.
quote:"I'm sorry, you are too fat for this job. We are justified in denying it to you, because pretty people sell better than fat people.
If an overweight person is being denied a job simply for being fat, then yes, that is a serious form of discrimination.
Is a fat person automatically not as good a car salesperson? Of course not. Many factors go into deciding whether a person is good at pushing merchandise.
But if the company were hiring a tv spokesperson for their new gym, then yes, I think they have the right to hire the person with the right weight.
Edited to add:
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?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I acknowledge the suffering of both racial minorities and introverts. It is just that I believe one is more worthy of my concern, because while one is the result of systematic social injustice, the other is the result of individuals being judged on their merits.
But is the suffering actually less if it is justified? I ask because of this:
quote:I'm just a bit surprised that you would consider the life of an introvert as more difficult than the life of a black person.
Does whether or not the suffering of a group is justified determine how bad that suffering is? I would argue that the two are separate - that even if the suffering of introverts is justified, that still does not diminish the amount of suffering, and therefore is no reason to say black people suffer more than introverted people.
It's entirely possible that the suffering of introverts need not be a concern of yours or mine. However, even if we aren't concerned about it, it still happens.
This digression started with the insinuation that white people do not understand what it is like to be discrminated against, because they have never been in a minority. My point was that everybody knows what it is like to be in a minority and what it is like to suffer as a result, because there are so many minorities besides racial minorities. You may say the treatment of those minorities is justified or necessary, and you may even be right in saying so, but you can't say that introverts or fat people or the ugly or any other minority group doesn't know what it's like to suffer at the hands of the majority. It may be justified suffering, but it IS suffering, and it has happened to everyone, to one degree or another.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:It may be justified suffering, but it IS suffering, and it has happened to everyone, to one degree or another.
But you're saying introverts suffer more than black people in general. That I do not accept.
In many circumstances, the cause of one's suffering matters as much as the result.
If I'm hungry because I'm too lazy to find something to eat, I am tecnically suffering from hunger.
But does that mean my hunger is on the same level as a child in Ethiopia suffering from real hunger because there is no food in the village to feed him?
Sure, the hunger pains may be similar, but I know I can get some food if only I walked down the street to the local Subway. That knowledge makes a difference, I think.
edited to add last paragraph.
[ August 07, 2005, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
Hey, I'm a fat introverted "Indian" (First Nations actually, ya know are Natives of Canada)!
i must have it RALLY bad Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Olivet,
Would you please shoot me an e-mail if I said something that bugged you? I do feel as if I've only got one way to approach much of this issue -- an intellectual one. So, if something I said bothered you, I'd like to understand it.
I actually have to deal with tribal folks related to my work sometimes. Not much, and not directly...usually...but it'd be helpful to know for future reference.
Thanks!
Bob
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Sure, the hunger pains may be similar, but I know I can get some food if only I walked down the street to the local Subway.
Are you suggesting introverts can simply become extraverts as easily as walking down to the local Subway? I would argue that that is no more true than the suggestion that gay people can simply choose to be straight.
I don't think it is fair at all to compare introversion to people who are too lazy to eat, as if introverts are simply too lazy to be extraverted.
You are suggesting that the "cause" of introverts' suffering makes it a lesser suffering than the suffering of racial minorities, right? Why? What about its cause makes this true? It seems to me that both are caused by a person's nature and are very difficult to change. One is caused by skin color and one's cultural origin, while the other is caused by one's personality, determined partly by genetics and party by upbringing. Why would suffering from the former category be more painful than suffering from the latter category?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:I don't think it is fair at all to compare introversion to people who are too lazy to eat, as if introverts are simply too lazy to be extraverted.
But it is fair to compare introversion to being black?
I thought the background story really doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the amount of suffering right?
Overcoming shyness is much harder than walking to subway, I admit. But it is much easier than, say, getting an full-body skin graft.
I am not using the hunger example to compare an introvert to someone too lazy to get food. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that the cause of a person's suffering matters when we are considering how much sympathy the suffering person deserves.
quote:You are suggesting that the "cause" of introverts' suffering makes it a lesser suffering than the suffering of racial minorities, right? Why? What about its cause makes this true? It seems to me that both are caused by a person's nature and are very difficult to change.
If a black person doesn't get a cab because of the color of his skin, there is nothing he can change about himself to improve that situation.
If a shy person is not assertive enough to get a cab, he can probably overcome that through practice, unless he has some sort of rare, heightened social phobia.
While one condition is difficult to change, the other is impossible.
[ August 07, 2005, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I thought the background story really doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the amount of suffering right?
The background story does matter if it's being used to imply that the person isn't really suffering that much at all, like a person who is simply too lazy to get something to easy. That example doesn't show that the cause influences the amount of suffering. It mainly is just a way of suggesting the person being lazy isn't really suffering at all - because presumably if they were REALLY suffering, they'd stop being lazy and go get some food.
quote:Overcoming shyness is much harder than walking to subway, I admit. But it is much easier than, say, getting an full-body skin graft.
Introversion is not shyness. Shyness is a sort of fear or inhibition. Introversion is a personality type, referring to a natural preference against social intraction (as opposed to a fear or inhibition of it). There are shy extraverts, and introverts who aren't shy at all.
Shyness can be eliminated by confronting the fear associated with it, as I understand it. But I'm not sure introversion can be intentionally eliminated at all - it can only be hidden.
quote:While one condition is difficult to change, the other is impossible.
See above.
But more so, imagine if we invented a quick, easy method for black people to change their skin color to look white. If we get such a technology, do you think the black individuals will feel less pain when subject to discrimination? It might give them another alternative to escape that pain, but I don't think the capacity to change a condition makes that condition less painful. And I don't think we should ever expect black individuals to change their skin color just to avoid discrimination.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:If we get such a technology, do you think the black individuals will feel less pain when subject to discrimination? It might give them another alternative to escape that pain, but I don't think the capacity to change a condition makes that condition less painful.
And I don't think we should ever expect black individuals to change their skin color just to avoid discrimination.
I never said we should expect black people to change their skin color.
I addressed this point, here:
quote:If your personality trait has a bearing on your job performance, then it is acceptable. If we are not allowed to select employees based on their personalities, then am I "discriminating" against a lazy person if I don't hire him for a construction job? What about a person with anger management problems for a customer service position? What about a cleptomaniac for an accounting position?
Tres: Do you believe that insofar as black individuals can change to act less "black", it's okay to ask them to do so?
Let's say a person (black or white) went to a job interview speaking ebonics. Can the company not hire the person based on that alone? Of course, if the job requires written or verbal communication skills. It has a bearing on the job performance. That is not discrimination.
But some black people experience discrimination purely based on the color of their skin. That is very different from getting differential treatment based on one's personality or communication skills.
I think I've clearly differentiated between acceptable and unacceptable discrimination.
Edited to add: A black person should not be expected to change his skin color, because his skin color has nothing to do with his job performance. On the other hand, it may be perfectly acceptable to reject an introvert for a job that requires intense levels of social interaction.
quote:The background story does matter if it's being used to imply that the person isn't really suffering that much at all, like a person who is simply too lazy to get something to easy.
Again, I've already addressed this point:
quote:I acknowledge the suffering of both racial minorities and introverts. It is just that I believe one is more worthy of my concern, because while one is the result of systematic social injustice, the other is the result of individuals being judged on their merits.
[ August 08, 2005, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:But I'm not sure introversion can be intentionally eliminated at all - it can only be hidden.
If one could overcome it enough to become a good public speaker, as my friend had done, then I think the introvert's plight is not as deplorable as you would have us believe.
Edited to add:
quote:Introversion is not shyness. Shyness is a sort of fear or inhibition. Introversion is a personality type, referring to a natural preference against social intraction (as opposed to a fear or inhibition of it). There are shy extraverts, and introverts who aren't shy at all.
I always thought shyness is a major attribute of being an introvert:
But I don't have a degree in psychology, nor have I studied the difference between introverts and people who are merely shy. So if you have more experience regarding the categorization of personality types, I defer to your expertise in this area.
[ August 08, 2005, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I always thought shyness is a major attribute of being an introvert:
Absolutely not.
I am an extreme introvert, a fact which surprises many people that know me.
I am not shy. I am not afraid of talking with people. I don't mind being the center of attention.
But I am an introvert because while being with a group of people can be fun, I also find it draining. I find an evening alone more rejuvinating than an evening at a fun party.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If one could overcome it enough to become a good public speaker, as my friend had done, then I think the introvert's plight is not as deplorable as you would have us believe.
Deplorable is not the word I'd use at all.
I said I thought the plight was harder than what an average black person might have to go through on account of his racial status - and I don't think that is great suffering. 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 having to deal with a few more extreme racists. It is significant, unfortunate, and unfair, but it is not akin to starvation or torture or anything very severe, at least from what I've observed in my part of the country (which is all I can judge based upon.) I would call it an injustice that pales greatly in comparison to what happened in the past.
And as I said, it is definitely possible to ACT like an extravert in certain situations. But as I understand it, most intraverts find this draining and feel out of place in extraverted environments. 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. Yes, this is not the end of the world by any means. But neither is the plight of racial minorities - let's keep it in perspective too.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Deplorable is not the word I'd use at all.
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
It's pretty cool. Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
That is pretty darn cool.
quote:I haven't seen a fellow employee in months.
You are my hero.
Not that I hate my coworkers... oh who am I kidding. I do hate my coworkers. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:That sounded pretty serious to me.
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.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
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.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
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.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
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
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
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 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
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?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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?
Dagonee
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
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?
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
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.
(Edit for spelling typo)
[ August 09, 2005, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Astaril ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
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.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
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.
Alright, that's enough to type while at work.
Feyd Baron, DoC
EDIT: Didn't mean to hit reply right then.
[ August 09, 2005, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Architraz Warden ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
It all comes down to the microclusters, I tell you!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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 by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
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).
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
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.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I loved Fred Gwynne's line in "My Cousin Vinny":
"What is a Ute?" Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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?
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by ChaosTheory (Member # 7069) on :
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! Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
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.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I think that the first group of humans known to colonize an area should get to call themselves the "Natives".
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
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.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: not all of us Scandinavians are tall, blond, handsome people who love pillaging!
Yeah, right. Pull the other one...
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Great! It finally happened!
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?
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
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.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, since you repeatedly ignored and dismissed the plain facts in front of us
What fact have I ignored or dismissed? Please tell me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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?
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
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?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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?
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
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?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course you can think about it.
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.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
OK, that helps.
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?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
[ August 14, 2005, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
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.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:OK, genius, put yourself in the place...
Does this sort of talk help you get what you want in the rest of life?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How's that calling people intellectually dishonest working out for you?
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
I'd say most of the "snide" comments started on one side and it wasn't Will...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And you'd be wrong:
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?
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.
The bold portion is calling me intellectually dishonest. The italicized portion is such a ridiculous strawman that it's barely worth mention.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
If you roll in the mud, blaming someone else for the puddle won't make you any less muddy. Even if you're right.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
Dagonee,
I think your ideas are interesting.
A book I recommend for people interested in this issue is The Heart Of A Chief by Joseph Bruchac. It IS a kid's novel, but covers the issue nicely and in a heartfelt way. It brings it out of an intellectual discussion and I think portrays the emotions from a Native boy's point of view. I also just think it is a really nice coming of age... or at least starting to come of age story.
Back to Dagonee. This discussion has inspired me to start reading the book to my son! I like many of you ideas. I think an interesting proposition would be in a school that DOES have a mascot in question, and has a population of students that the mascot "represents" (i.e. from the specific tribe, or just Native American) that would be an easy population to poll or ask, and adjust accordingly.
I have heard of some schools with a high Native population which support their Native themed mascot. I think that's pretty alright. But I have to say I think that when the Native students in the school are calling for a change, then clearly the matter should certainly be SERIOUSLY studied to ascertain the real opinion and feelings, then probably acted on. And I agree with you that it is the Natives' opinions that matter most.
I will now share 2 of my favorite bits from the book:
"...A Penacook man drives into a gas station. The gas station attendant comes out and sees that the man is an Indian. " 'Shall I fill it up, Chief?' the gas station attendant says. " 'No,' the Penacook man says, "just give me ten dollars worth, Mr. President.' " ... "The point is, ... that every Indian man is not a shief, the same as every non-Indian man is not the president of the United States. Whe you call someone by a name they haven't earned, it just becomes a joke."
and
It has been said that giving a sports team name is meant to honor Indians. But if real Indians don't feel honored by that name, what really is the honorable thing to do?"
-The Heart of a Chief by Joseph Bruchac
EDIT for grammar
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Will, I'm not sure if you're intentionally mistaking their point or not, but I'm going to restate something it looks like you missed.
There is a big difference between the Seminole tribe and the specific governing body that saw fit to write that resolution.
The support was not the "tribe's decision" - just as the US military's invasion of Iraq was not the people's decision, nor were any of the acts of terrorism a Muslim decision.
Do all Seminoles *in Florida* support that resolution? Likely not - things are rarely unanimous. All we can be sure of is that the ruling body produced a resolution. Congress passess resolutions all the time, and I doubt you agree with all of them - just as it's impossible that each resolution has unanimous support of the people.
That's important.
Second, and also very important, is that the Seminole tribe is not centered exclusively in Florida. There are many Seminoles that are not in Florida, a large group of which resides in Oklahoma.
*That* group's ruling body is looking to pass a resolution counter to the first. Does this mean all Seminoles in this body are against the team name? Not at all.
But surely you can accept that there are Seminoles who do not like their name being used for a sports team.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"...A Penacook man drives into a gas station. The gas station attendant comes out and sees that the man is an Indian. " 'Shall I fill it up, Chief?' the gas station attendant says. " 'No,' the Penacook man says, "just give me ten dollars worth, Mr. President.' "
See, this would never occur to me, although I don't think I'd go calling people "Chief," either. But it's blindingly obvious once pointed out.
A lot of this is simply the difficulty in seeing the world from another's perspective.
I'm going to add this book to my reading list.
quote:Do all Seminoles *in Florida* support that resolution? Likely not - things are rarely unanimous. All we can be sure of is that the ruling body produced a resolution. Congress passess resolutions all the time, and I doubt you agree with all of them - just as it's impossible that each resolution has unanimous support of the people.
If the government is elected, I'd be willing to accept a majority decision on this. But, see below for a huge caveat.
quote:Second, and also very important, is that the Seminole tribe is not centered exclusively in Florida. There are many Seminoles that are not in Florida, a large group of which resides in Oklahoma.
This, however, is what makes it impossible to rely on one vote. If more than one elected council can speak for a tribe with an interest in the name, then unanimity across the councils is needed (that is, each council has to approve use, not each council has to be unanimous). If I understand the history right, the Chief who FSU's mascot was named after led the Seminoles against Jackson. The Florida tribe is descended from about 200 who escaped to the Everglades after he was killed and his head taken for a trophy; the Oklahoma tribe is descended from those who did not escape and were forcibly marched to Oklahoma.
How does Florida tribe have a better claim to the name than Oklahoma name?
To further complicate matters, some in the Oklahoma tribe don't seem to mind, but their not minding is couched in terms of having more important things to worry about, not approving of the mascot.
My main concern is that I don't want people thinking this is easy for a college president to figure out. It's not. It's easy to be insensitive. It's easy to be patronizing. And I don't envy those who have inherited this dilemna.
However, I don't think we should underestimate the impact money has on this. Sports teams are brands, even college teams, and the brands are worth a lot of money.
All this makes me almost despair of figuring out what the right thing to do is.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I don't know, either.
But to me, what's the difference between this symbol and this one?
Symbols are powerful, and I understand why people want to do away with certain pervasive ones.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.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.