Indians and the naming of sports teams.

[MAGunter]

^^

Amen.

And this has been a great thread

[EllisDee]

I couldn’t find the SI article to link to as a cite, but I found an interesting article that addresses the topic at hand.

Hail to the Redskins:

In a new National Annenberg Election Survey conducted across the continental United States, 90 percent of all Native Americans say they favor Redskins over other ethnic identity labels.

[EllisDee]

I did find one article that references the SI article.

By Any Other Name:

Here’s the most important finding: “Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81 percent of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83 percent of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters, and symbols.”

The poll also found that 75 percent of Native Americans don’t think the use of these team names and mascots “contributes to discrimination.” Opinion is divided about the tomahawk chop displayed at Atlanta Braves games: 48 percent “don’t care” about it; 51 percent do care, but more than half of them “like it.” The name “Redskins” isn’t especially controversial either; 69 percent of Native Americans don’t object to it. As a general rule, Indians on reservations were more sensitive about team names and mascots, but not to the point where a majority of them ever sided with the activists on these questions.

Sports Illustrated writer S. L. Price reaches the obvious conclusion: “Although Native American activists are virtually united in opposition to the use of Indian nicknames and mascots, the Native American population sees the issue far differently.”

[Liberal]

@chique

Says who? You? People take offense to these sports names, whether or not you like it. It does offend some people. How many people must it offend before it offends you as well? Is there a magical cutoff number? For decades people thought stereotypical cartoon images of African Americans were cute and inoffensive but they’ve still faded into history; why can’t the same be done for stereotypical cartoon images of Native Americans? Don’t they deserve the same respect?

Frankly, I’m offended when I stumble upon people who constantly look for offense. The notion that I am somehow causing offense is offensive to me. If you want to do Indians a favor, stop using the term “Native American”. America’s namesake, Amerigo Vespucci, was a murderous slave-trader who bragged about how many savages he killed and sold in Spanish ports.

[CateAyo]

As an Native American (apologies to Liberal) and a member of AIM, I might have a vested interest in this issue. Mascots are an issue for N/As, most especially when they reinforce racist caricatures (i.e., Cleveland’s logo) or derogatory names (Redskins). Compare the image of the Cleveland logo with the images on the recently protested Mexican stamps, or the cartoons used against Jews and Blacks by the racist and anti-Semetic fringe. The term “redskin” has been used historically as a derogatory term similar to the nuanced “prairie nigger”. The foregoing is only to explain why such depiction and labeling is offensive.

Although I certainly do not speak for ALL Native Americans, nor AIM in general, I would argue that if mascot and teams were titled and depicted in a manner which reserves the diginty and humanity of those peoples being referenced, this would be a non-issue. In reality, they do not. Many, although not all, depict negative and racist stereotypes.

Like many of the previous posters, I am not a fan of knee-jerk defensivenss and the misuse and corruption of the already nebulous premise of PC. I would be in favor of replacing the dated idea of PC with one of mutual respect. I agree that many people go through life looking for a reason to whine and play the victim. However, recognizing the dignity and humanity of a race of people should be in keeping with what we Americans, hyphenated or otherwise, hold dear. I do find the argument that no one can possibly be reasonably offended because “no offense is intended” as problematic. Equally problematic to me are those people who get all worked into a lather regarding sports mascots but have nothing to say, and no interest in, ongoing land theft and land poisoning by the government and corporate America, the extreme poverty on some reservations, and the government’s failure to honor treaties. I am far more concerned with government-run reservation schools having no pencils, no books and no toilet paper than that a professional sports team depicts a mascot that is grossly racist. I am far more concerned with the elderly and very young starving or dying of exposure in Native American communities and on reservations.

To me, while mascots and team names are possibly very offensive, it comes down to a matter of priority and picking the battles, not that one can necessarily win, but which are most important. Changes depictions and team names will do nothing to cure the underlying disease of racism.

Thank you for abiding with the long, verbose post.

Hawk

[Liberal]

A very good post, CateAyo. Especially regarding the priorities. I don’t understand why the cartoons bother people. I mean, every team packages its product for saleability. You might find that baseball uses a more cartoonish image because kids love baseball, while football uses a more mature image because its demographic is grown men. Thus, a cartoon character for the Cleveland Indians, and a chief’s headress for the Washington Redskins. But that’s true no matter what their mascot. A Bulldogs baseball team might have a cartoonish face, but a Bulldods football team might have a realistic face. There simply aren’t enough numbers in our camp to make a difference in this majoritarian society, so we need to spend our political capital wisely. Demand pencils first. If you begin by pissing on everyone’s parade, then when you demand other things, you’ll be told that you were given what you wanted, and to shut up.

[wonky]

I’m a Cleveland Indians fan and I would be disappointed if they changed the name, since it was meant to honor one of their players.

On the other hand, I would have no problem with them changing the mascot if it offends a significant chunk of people. I would hesitate if changing the mascot would actually offend more Indians (I have known a few people of Shawnee descent, and they preferred to be called “Indians” or, preferably, Shawnee. I use that term out of respect for their wishes.) than leaving it alone. I don’t have an answer for that.

[Odesio]

@CateAyo

As an Native American (apologies to Liberal) and a member of AIM, I might have a vested interest in this issue. Mascots are an issue for N/As, most especially when they reinforce racist caricatures (i.e., Cleveland’s logo) or derogatory names (Redskins).

I understand that Chief Wahoo is a caricature but I don’t understand what makes him a racist caricature. Is it the red skin? The feather? The fact that Chief Wahoo has a silly grin? Chief Wahoo doesn’t strike me as being any more offensive then many other mascots in existence.

Marc

[CateAyo]

Again, not presuming to speak for all involved, I would suggest that it is the composite of the typical racial characteristics in parody.

[Colibri]

@jsgoddess

I’m a Cleveland Indians fan and I would be disappointed if they changed the name, since it was meant to honor one of their players.

Lou Sockalexis actually played for the Cleveland Spiders in 1897, but yes, the Cleveland Indians team name does commemorate him.

@MGibson

Chief Wahoo doesn’t strike me as being any more offensive then many other mascots in existence.

Such as the psychoticaly hyperagressive Fighting Irishman or the beer-bellied and clownish Boston Celtic.

[Odesio]

@CateAyo

Again, not presuming to speak for all involved, I would suggest that it is the composite of the typical racial characteristics in parody.

What typical characters do they parody with Chief Wahoo? I’ve heard complains about noses but I’ve never heard people refer to indians has having hooked noses. Perhaps it’s the silly grin but if that’s a sterotype of indians it isn’t one I ever heard. Is it the red skin? It isn’t as if cartoon figures of white men are particularly accurate when it comes to color. So what’s so offensive about Chief Wahoo? The strongest negative sterotype I can think of about indians involves alcohol. The second stereotype I can think of is the wooden indian with cigars.

As I said earlier I believe this issue is less about offense and more about power.

Marc

[Liberal]

Don’t forget taking back gifts.

[Odesio]

@Liberal

Don’t forget taking back gifts.

I used to hear indian giver and never understood where it came from. Was it based on stereotypes of indians or on indian agents who were suppose to give things to indians but didn’t?

Marc

[Odesio]

@Liberal

Don’t forget taking back gifts.

I used to hear indian giver and never understood where it came from. Was it based on stereotypes of indians or on indian agents who were suppose to give things to indians but didn’t?

Marc

[JXJohns]

Indian Agents or more generally, the white man.

[Colibri]

@MGibson

I used to hear indian giver and never understood where it came from. Was it based on stereotypes of indians or on indian agents who were suppose to give things to indians but didn’t?

Marc

Stereotypes of Indians. From here

Indian Giver

There are two popular etymologies for this term for a person who gives a gift only to later demand its return. The first is that it is based on an unfair stereotype of Native Americans, that they don’t keep their word. In the other popular explanation, the term doesn’t cast aspersions on Native Americans, instead it echoes the broken promises the whites made to the Indians. Neither is accurate, although the first is closer to the truth.

Instead the term comes from different commercial practices. To the Native Americans, who had no concept of money or currency, gifts were a form of trade goods, of exchange. One didn’t give a gift without expecting one of equivalent value in return. If one could not offer an equivalent return gift, the original gift would be refused or returned. To the Europeans, who with their monetary-based trade practices, this seemed low and insulting, gifts were not for trade but were to be freely given.

The noun Indian gift dates to 1765. Indian giver follows about a century later in 1865. Originally, these reflected simply the expectation of a return gift. By the 1890s, the sense had shifted to mean one who demands a gift back.

[MAGunter]

Update:

The NCAA on Friday morning announced a ban on Native American mascots and imagery that is considered hostile and abusive at all championship events starting in February.

The organization has compiled a list of 18 schools that fall into that category, including Florida State’s Seminoles and Illinois’ Fighting Illini. Those schools must eliminate physical references on their team uniforms or face not being able to host future championship events. If events have already been awarded to a school, such as a basketball regional tournament, it must cover up references to the nickname.

Abridged from the Dallas Morning News.

[chique]

I’m rather shocked attitudes I thought long dead aren’t. Images of the pickaninny have been effectively banned (not legally but popularly) from the culture for thirty or more years. The only thing separating those images from Wahoo and Illiniwek is ethnicity. Yet the latter is fiercely protected by non-AIs as it’s tradition, while the former appropriately relegated to the cultural trash bin. Pardon me if I refuse to understand.

[Zakalwe]

@MAGunter

Abridged from the Dallas Morning News.

From the AP article:

North Carolina-Pembroke, which uses the nickname Braves, will not face sanctions. NCAA president Myles Brand explained said the school’s student body has historically admitted a high percentage of American Indians and more than 20 percent of the students are American Indians.
<snip>
Florida State, for example, has received permission from the Seminole tribe in Florida to use the nickname. That, however, will not suffice.
“Other Seminole tribes are not supportive,” said Charlotte Westerhaus, the NCAA vice president for diversity and inclusion.

So as long as you get a bunch of Indians to come to the school, you’re okay to use a generic term, but an agreement with the local tribe for which you are named isn’t good enough? And, AFAIK, there aren’t other “tribes”, there is only the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.

[Zakalwe]

And, from the actual press release at ncaa.org:

“Colleges and universities may adopt any mascot that they wish, as that is an institutional matter,” said Walter Harrison, chair of the Executive Committee and president at the University of Hartford. “But as a national association, we believe that mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin should not be visible at the championship events that we control.”

The policy prohibiting colleges or universities with hostile or abusive mascots, nicknames or imagery from hosting any NCAA championship competitions takes effect February 1, 2006.

“The NCAA objects to institutions using racial/ethnic/national origin references in their intercollegiate athletics programs,” said NCAA President Myles Brand. “Several institutions have made changes that adhere to the core values of the NCAA Constitution pertaining to cultural diversity, ethical sportsmanship and nondiscrimination. We applaud that, and we will continue to monitor these institutions and others. All institutions are encouraged to promote these core values and take proactive steps at every NCAA event through institutional event management to enhance the integrity of intercollegiate athletics related to these issues.”

So where do the Fighting Irish fit in to all this? Are they also barred from hosting events? If not, why not?