American Indian Mascots

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

And that I can agree with; however, I think intent may be a valid consideration as well. The Cleveland Indians caricature is in bad taste, there's no doubt about that, and I would agree that it should be at least altered to give a less foolish impression.

But that particular example aside, I don't think the majority of the Native American mascots were selected or designed to make derogatory statements, but to pay homage, as it were, to the Native American nations' fighting spirit, not to offend them. There are simply some people out there who will choose to be offended by whatever is handy.

[Newtonian Fury]

Which brings us to an old point: Native Americans aren't feeling honored! They feel like being stereotyped and mispresented. There is nothing authentic about these mascots, plus the fact that some are quite derogatory even to non-Natives. If you want to honor them, fine. But do it right. That means not making up some bullshit and pass it off as their culture.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Whoa there, Sparky! Don't get mad at me -- I didn't come up with the damn things. Hey, I feel bad for those who are offended, but let's be realistic, here -- there's always something somewhere in the media or pop culture that somebody can be offended by, if they really work at it. I don't condone the deliberate mockery of anyone based on their ethnicity, age, gender, religion, orientation, etc. But have you actually determined what percentage of people are offended by these mascots, or are we just hearing from a small but very vocal group of activists on this issue?

[Newtonian Fury]

Dude, it really doesn't matter how many people are offended by it. The point is, most if not all Native Americans are offended by it(not to mention white people and other races). And the offensive nature is not even trivial. It's a fucking stereotype, and it wasn't even created to honor anyone. People only say it to defend and rationalize it.

Oh, and the activists aren't being vocal enough. If this were a black or Jewish issue, the response would be overwhelming. The fact that this thing is still of the table is because Native Americans lack strong political influence.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Newtonian, I feel for you. I can see that you personally find this offensive. The only thing I can advise is: boycott the teams, circulate petitions, raise a stink -- but do it in such a way that the owners want to change the mascots -- otherwise, it will never happen.

[Durandal]

It won't happen because University of Illinois alumni have a fetish-like attachment to the damn mascot, and if they get rid of him, alumni contributions decrease.

Better to sacrifice the dignity of an entire culture than to stunt the cashflow, I suppose.

[MKSheppard]

It won't happen because University of Illinois alumni have a fetish-like attachment to the damn mascot, and if they get rid of him, alumni contributions decrease.

Better to sacrifice the dignity of an entire culture than to stunt the cashflow, I suppose.

You have to remember that the Aluminis are very very powerful. They have
fond memories of the U of Ill, and they certainly don't want to see what is
a U of Ill tradition fucked over in the name of Political Correctness. Nobody
ever had a damn problem with the name for years and years....

You think changing the name of a sports team mascot is gonna
do a goddamn thing, Durandal? Why not just get the US Government
to actually apologize to the Indians for breaking all the damn treaties
with them and give them back the fucking land they stole from them
a hundred years ago. I mean, shit, the Government owns most of the
West. It wouldnt' be that hard to give several of the tribes their anecestral
homes back at no cost to the taxpayer....

On a related note....

http://www.tennessean.com/local/archive ... D=23909848

That reminds me...the United Daughters of the Confederacy is taking
Vanderbilt University to court....seems Vanderbilt wants to remove
the "Confederate" from "Confederate Memorial Hall' on the Vanderbilt
campus....

Only catch is the UDC PAID Vanderbilt a shitload of money back in the 30s
to build the damn hall in the first place.....

[Stormbringer]

It won't happen because University of Illinois alumni have a fetish-like attachment to the damn mascot, and if they get rid of him, alumni contributions decrease.

Better to sacrifice the dignity of an entire culture than to stunt the cashflow, I suppose.

You have to remember that the Aluminis are very very powerful. They have
fond memories of the U of Ill, and they certainly don't want to see what is
a U of Ill tradition fucked over in the name of Political Correctness. Nobody
ever had a damn problem with the name for years and years....

So in other words, like Durndal says, the university (and you) seem to say money is more important than the dignity of a culture and an end to insulting racial stereotypes. But then again to a racist like you that makes perfect sense.


And to that Confederate Memorial Hall, those people need to get over it. The South lost the war more than a century ago; let it go. There is no reason to keep a building glorifying a racist past.

[MKSheppard]

So in other words, like Durndal says, the university (and you) seem to say money is more important than the dignity of a culture and an end to insulting racial stereotypes. But then again to a racist like you that makes perfect sense.

Has anyone here ever actually asked an Indian what they actually think
of these team names?

Also, I find it funny that you are focusing on such meaningless things such
as a fucking SPORTS MASCOT, when there are far more impoerant issues
as far as dignity is concerned...

When is the US Government going to publicly apologize for repeatedly breaking
treaties with the various tribes and basically expelling them from their
anecestral lands and forcing them to live on reservations hundreds of
miles away?

Giving the land back would do a hell of a lot more than renaming a simple
team mascot, wouldn't you think?

Ask yourself: WHY is there such a massive focus on a relatively meaningless
issue such as team mascots, rather than on the brutal assfucking
the tribes got at the hands of the US Government......

Read between the lines of these activists' agendas people....

[Stormbringer]

So in other words, like Durndal says, the university (and you) seem to say money is more important than the dignity of a culture and an end to insulting racial stereotypes. But then again to a racist like you that makes perfect sense.

Has anyone here ever actually asked an Indian what they actually think
of these team names?

They hate them. If you had paid attention at all in this thread, you'd know that.

Also, I find it funny that you are focusing on such meaningless things such
as a fucking SPORTS MASCOT, when there are far more impoerant issues
as far as dignity is concerned...

When is the US Government going to publicly apologize for repeatedly breaking
treaties with the various tribes and basically expelling them from their
anecestral lands and forcing them to live on reservations hundreds of
miles away?

Giving the land back would do a hell of a lot more than renaming a simple
team mascot, wouldn't you think?

Of course the US government ought to apologize. They treated them like shit but that's not what this thread is about.

[Durandal]

You have to remember that the Aluminis are very very powerful.

Might does not make right.

They have fond memories of the U of Ill, and they certainly don't want to see what is a U of Ill tradition fucked over in the name of Political Correctness.

That's their problem. I'll have fond memories of Illinois State when I leave, but I'm not going to give a flying fuck if they retire the Redbird mascot.

I seriously don't understand why it's so much to ask to treat a people with the kind of dignity they deserve. Christ all-fucking-mighty, you'd think I was asking every male at the University of Illinois to fucking slam their dicks in sliding glass doors!

Nobody ever had a damn problem with the name for years and years....

Irrelevant. They have a problem now, and the complaint is legitimate.

You think changing the name of a sports team mascot is gonna
do a goddamn thing, Durandal?

Yes. It will eliminate a cultural stereotype. Stereotypes are bad. Why can't you grasp this overwhelmingly simple concept?

Why not just get the US Government to actually apologize to the Indians for breaking all the damn treaties with them and give them back the fucking land they stole from them a hundred years ago. I mean, shit, the Government owns most of the West. It wouldnt' be that hard to give several of the tribes their anecestral homes back at no cost to the taxpayer....

I can't fucking believe it. You're perfectly comfortable with the government granting large-scale reparations to the American Indians, but you're diametrically opposed to sports organizations granting them basic human decency by getting rid of stereotypical mascots?

On a related note....

http://www.tennessean.com/local/archive ... D=23909848

That reminds me...the United Daughters of the Confederacy is taking Vanderbilt University to court....seems Vanderbilt wants to remove the "Confederate" from "Confederate Memorial Hall' on the Vanderbilt campus....

They're paying homage to a legislatively racist state! Why shouldn't they remove it?!

[Steve]

In response to that last question... probably because of a legally binding contract between Vanderbilt and the UDotC, since the UDotC helped pay for the building's construction in a large way.

[Steve]

As for your issue with Shep... probably because the reparations thing would be more beneficial to them.

[salm]

On the Indian situation:

Wow, it's so heart-warming to see a bunch of white people saying that they feel the use of racial slurs like "redskin" or racial caricatures like the Cleveland Indians mascot are not offensive (to them).

i just dont see a logic reason why a caricatur is offensive. people know that an indian dosnt look like the cleveland indian. it´s just got exaggerated features of an indian. if i draw a black guy, i will in most cases give him a broader nose than if i draw a white guy. that´s not offensive either because most black people´s noses are broader than most white people´s noses (at least the ones i know).
if i draw a caricatur of a german i´ll give him blond hair, blue eyes and a set of these goofy lederhosn. even though most germans are not blueeyed and not blond and dont wear lederhosn. but still more germans have these features than e.g. italians.

It's a matter of context. The American government has a history with the natives, remember? If the Germans had a sports teams called "The Auschwitz Jews" and its mascot was "respectful", it would raise more than a few eyebrows. If its mascot was some kind of racial caricature, it might incite an international incident.

the name ausschwitz is directly linked with murdering jews. the name cleveland for example is not directly linked with murdering indians, afaik.
it also depends on the background. if the club was founded for the reason of honoring the jews who died in ausschwitz and if givign names to sport clubs in poland was normal i dont think it would raise many eyebrows in a negative way.
then again, jews isnt a good name for a sports club. just like catholics, muslims or buddhists isnt a good name for a sports club. the stereotypes of all these arent relevant for sports clubs. inidians are brave, couragous... that´s stereotyping of course, but that´s what these mascots are about.

[Newtonian Fury]

i just dont see a logic reason why a caricatur is offensive. people know that an indian dosnt look like the cleveland indian. it´s just got exaggerated features of an indian

Case in point about why Indians are pissed.

just like catholics, muslims or buddhists isnt a good name for a sports club. the stereotypes of all these arent relevant for sports clubs. inidians are brave, couragous... that´s stereotyping of course, but that´s what these mascots are about.

And a race of people are more appropriate? Furthermore, Native Americans are picked for mascots not to honor them as people nowadays rationalize; they were picked because they were considered backward(i.e. uncivilized, primitive, savage). People give them a brave warrior motif b/c they saw them as savage warriors when they were defending their land from the ruthless invasion of the US government. In the end, it's still a negative stereotype that has nothing to do with their culture.

[Coyote]

... if i draw a black guy, i will in most cases give him a broader nose than if i draw a white guy. that´s not offensive either because most black people´s noses are broader than most white people´s noses (at least the ones i know).
if i draw a caricatur of a german i´ll give him blond hair, blue eyes...

You're describing characteristics particular to your subjects that cannot be avoided. But if you were to draw the black guy with massive lips and a gigantic Afro, or every German with a Hitler moustache and a stiff right arm, you'd be closer to the situation faced by the Native Americans.

and a set of these goofy lederhosn. even though most germans are not blueeyed and not blond and dont wear lederhosn. but still more germans have these features than e.g. italians.

Drawing a German with Lederhosen, or a Dutch girl with tulips, or British guy with a cup of tea is one thing, again. These are social characteristics that simply reflect segments of a culture's background. In many cases, these cultures use these symbols themselves to represent characteristics they use as trademarks.

...if the club was founded for the reason of honoring the jews who died in ausschwitz and if givign names to sport clubs in poland was normal i dont think it would raise many eyebrows in a negative way.

But again, what if the mascot was a hunchbacked guy in a black coat with squinty eyes, a gigantic hooked nose and a bag of money clutched greedily in one hand? When the Indians look at these grossly exaggerated characteristics of some of these sports mascots, this is kinda what they see.