American Indian Mascots

Post by **Steve** » 2002-10-19 10:09pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:What you didn't specify in your questionnaire answer is how the Native American population is affected by the use of these mascots. Are Native Americans being forcibly abducted and made to play baseball against their will? Has a Native American been lashed to a flag and flown at a Major League game? Have big-nosed buck-toothed grinning young Native American men been made the center of adulating Braves fans? What real and perceptible harm has been done? Or are we seeing Quebecers of a different stripe?
If the "fighting whites" had a chain-smoking, drunk white guy in his underwear standing outside a trailer screaming obscenities at people as its mascot, would that be offensive?

No. It'd be damned hilarious.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-19 10:29pm

Darth Wong wrote:If the "fighting whites" had a chain-smoking, drunk white guy in his underwear standing outside a trailer screaming obscenities at people as its mascot, would that be offensive?

No, just retarded.

I think the charictures of American Indians are offensive. I think they have every right to be pissed off over the offense.

Newtonian Fury · Post by **Newtonian Fury** » 2002-10-19 11:59pm

Of course Native Americans should be pissed! Mascots like Chief Illiniwek aren't really portraying Native Americans to honor them, but rather, a semblence of them that has nothing to do with the real life. The rituals, dances, and chants are just archaic stereotypes of a people once oppressed under these same stereotypes. The mascots should go. The people they represent are not feeling "honored".

Speaking of logical fallacies, one of my pro-Chief friends(I go to U of I, btw) says that he really can't take stand the anti-Chief people b/c most of them aren't even Native Americans. But does that have anything to do with the situation? No, it doesn't. He and his family is pro-Chief for the sole purpose of tradition. But this is a hot debate over here. I expect both sides to get ugly with the arguments.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-10-20 09:17am

Stormbringer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:If the "fighting whites" had a chain-smoking, drunk white guy in his underwear standing outside a trailer screaming obscenities at people as its mascot, would that be offensive?
No, just retarded.

I think the charictures of American Indians are offensive. I think they have every right to be pissed off over the offense.

as you said, it´s a charicature. what´s wrong with charicatures? you get them in political newspaper jokes all the time and no body cares about it. it´s just stereotyping on a humorous base. of course the cleveland indian could depicted with typical (exaggerated) features of a white or black or asian person or with the features of a big samoan, or all of them combined. but that would be rather dumb.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-10-20 11:06am

as you said, it´s a charicature. what´s wrong with charicatures? you get them in political newspaper jokes all the time and no body cares about it. it´s just stereotyping on a humorous base. of course the cleveland indian could depicted with typical (exaggerated) features of a white or black or asian person or with the features of a big samoan, or all of them combined. but that would be rather dumb.- salm

Then you would be okay with exaggerated features of a white, black, or asian person as a mascot for a professional sports team? Okay.

As an aside, have any of these sports teams, such as the Brace, ever consulted with the Native groups and tried to work out a compromise?

XPViking

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-20 02:23pm

Speaking of logical fallacies, one of my pro-Chief friends(I go to U of I, btw) says that he really can't take stand the anti-Chief people b/c most of them aren't even Native Americans. But does that have anything to do with the situation? No, it doesn't. He and his family is pro-Chief for the sole purpose of tradition. But this is a hot debate over here. I expect both sides to get ugly with the arguments.

No, shit, eh? I'm about an hour or so away at Illinois State University. :)

Anyway, if the Braves or the University of Illinois insist on "honoring" that American Indians despite their requests to just leave them the fuck alone, why not have an American Indian student do authentic dances and rituals instead of some blonde-haired, blue-eyed white boy just making shit up? I mean, come on. Did Spike Lee cast Dustin Hoffman to portray Malcolm X to honor him?

Again, I can't believe that it's so much that a group of people be treated with the basic human decency they are entitled to. If it was a black mascot, you'd have everyone up in arms but the most virulent racists, but for some reason, it's acceptable to stereotype American Indians. The Chief's flagrantly idiotic and disrespectful antics have reduced some American Indians to tears, for Christ's sake!

I feel ill. I'm in agreement with Shep, the Redskins logo is just too cool, and my dad raised me as a 'Skins fan (of course, my main loyalties are to the home teams for this area, namely the Bucs and Jags).

Steve, the term "redskin" is a racial slur, and comparable to having a team named the "Harlem Niggers" or "New York City Greaseballs." I'm sorry, but it's just fucking unacceptable.

Post by **Steve** » 2002-10-20 02:27pm

Well, they're the Gatorskins now.

But at least their insignia is respectful.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-10-20 02:59pm

The Minnesota Vikings are disrespectful to people of Norwegian descent! Wait, no, they're not. That's just fuckwitty, and the last time somebody brought that idea up in the Twin Cities, they were promptly shouted down by everybody in the entire state.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-10-20 06:05pm

XPViking wrote:
as you said, it´s a charicature. what´s wrong with charicatures? you get them in political newspaper jokes all the time and no body cares about it. it´s just stereotyping on a humorous base. of course the cleveland indian could depicted with typical (exaggerated) features of a white or black or asian person or with the features of a big samoan, or all of them combined. but that would be rather dumb.- salm
Then you would be okay with exaggerated features of a white, black, or asian person as a mascot for a professional sports team? Okay.

As an aside, have any of these sports teams, such as the Brace, ever consulted with the Native groups and tried to work out a compromise?

XPViking

of course. in the end it´s just a fucking mascot.

Newtonian Fury · Post by **Newtonian Fury** » 2002-10-21 11:19am

There's a pretty simple reason why the U of I haven't scrapped the mascot: There's not a big enough protest! The Native American community is very small when compared to other minority groups, say, blacks. Blacks have a strong political power because of both population and very vocal leadership. Native American groups, on the other hand, are much more passive and shows less anger at their demonstrations. Here's another reason why political power is so important for minority groups to get their issues discussed.

Oh, and the Viking stuff is a whole another type of situation. For one thing, the Viking people are virtually nonexistant as a culture(i.e. no raiders, pirates, warriors, etc...). And the sports team doesn't try to do Viking portrayals like U of I does with Chief Illiniwek. Therefore, there's not really much stereotyping as the Vikings are now more a legend than a fact, unlike the Native Americans.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-10-21 01:46pm

Come on people, we have to be some what reasonable here. Having a team name like "The Indians" is no different than "The Vikings" or "The Fighting Irish". Those are not insulting, using slang or epitats like "Redskins" are insulting. As far as mascots go they are supost to be goofy for entertainment purposes and a distortion of the team icon. Now if the team icon is insulting, the team should consider changing it.

No, nobody would like the New York Niggers, but having a team called the Buffalo Soldiers would not be demeaning. The name would be a honor to the valient soldiers of old. People would want to make it a demeaning name because of its association but that in itself is an insult.

Some of the names, icons, and masscots are insulting but it should not be a all or nothing. Alot of the States and a shit load of towns all over America, are named after native indian tribes. Are they insulting, do the native americans need to petition to change the name of these states and towns due to some sort of percieved insults.

Slander is slander but on the other hand political correctness is political correcness and both need to be snipped in the bud. People of these comunities need to stay some what sympithetic to the native population but with that in mind IMHO some of these activists just like the way their ugly mug apears on the TV.

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2002-10-21 01:58pm

Just wait for the day PETA strikes against the Lions, Tigers and Bears, Oh my!

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-21 02:07pm

Kelly Antilles wrote:Just wait for the day PETA strikes against the Lions, Tigers and Bears, Oh my!

If it were anyone but PETA I'd be rooting for them against the Lions and Tigers. They suck ass and I'd like to see a sports team in Detroit (other than the Red Wings) have a winning season.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-10-21 02:09pm

Kelly Antilles wrote:Just wait for the day PETA strikes against the Lions, Tigers and Bears, Oh my!

PETA deffinatly falls into the "like their ungly mugs on TV" area even though most of the ones on TV do not have ungly mugs. GGGGRRRRR.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-21 02:13pm

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).

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.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-10-21 02:24pm

Darth Wong wrote: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).

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.

True, but having a team just called the Indians or the Braves or something like that is not a stereotype or a slur. If the mascots of these teams are degrading then they have a point and hopefully a case but I do not believe it should be an all or nothing deal. Eliminate the bad and leave the good. Just because a team has a native american related name does not mean that its degrading, some people just like to stir up trouble. And by the way, isn't it stereo typical to say that all us white guys do not see anything wrong with it?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-21 03:53pm

Knife wrote:True, but having a team just called the Indians or the Braves or something like that is not a stereotype or a slur. If the mascots of these teams are degrading then they have a point and hopefully a case but I do not believe it should be an all or nothing deal. Eliminate the bad and leave the good. Just because a team has a native american related name does not mean that its degrading, some people just like to stir up trouble.

That depends, doesn't it? Don't the natives have a right to be a bit more sensitive than others? My example of the "Auschwitz Jews" is a relevant one; I don't think anyone would be shocked if Jews were outraged, even if the name "Jews" is not a slur. It's the context.

And by the way, isn't it stereo typical to say that all us white guys do not see anything wrong with it?

I never said that all white guys saw nothing wrong with it. Durandal is white. I said that I saw a bunch of white guys on this thread who saw nothing wrong with it.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-10-21 04:02pm

Durandal wrote: Steve, the term "redskin" is a racial slur, and comparable to having a team named the "Harlem Niggers" or "New York City Greaseballs." I'm sorry, but it's just fucking unacceptable.

I feel the appropriate phrase for such a moment is:

The Redskins have been around since the fucking 30s, and there is no
way you are ever going to win against their l33t corps of lawyers plus
the large number of fanatical fans (like me)

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-21 04:11pm

MKSheppard wrote: The Redskins have been around since the fucking 30s, and there is no
way you are ever going to win against their l33t corps of lawyers plus
the large number of fanatical fans (like me)

Wow, what an advanced concpet of morality. It's ok to be making racial slurs as long as you can get away with it? By that standard, OJ was a fucking saint, the child molesting preists were paragons of moral virute; think it through for once..

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2002-10-21 04:16pm

Stormbringer wrote:
MKSheppard wrote: The Redskins have been around since the fucking 30s, and there is no
way you are ever going to win against their l33t corps of lawyers plus
the large number of fanatical fans (like me)
Wow, what an advanced concpet of morality. It's ok to be making racial slurs as long as you can get away with it? By that standard, OJ was a fucking saint, the child molesting preists were paragons of moral virute; think it through for once..

That's beyond Shep's mental capacities, Stormbringer. Just look at his new avatar.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-21 04:20pm

Kelly Antilles wrote:That's beyond Shep's mental capacities, Stormbringer. Just look at his new avatar.

Lots of things are beyond his mental capacities but I figured he just might be able to figure that one out with some help.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-10-21 05:36pm

If the "fighting whites" had a chain-smoking, drunk white guy in his underwear standing outside a trailer screaming obscenities at people as its mascot, would that be offensive?

No... that would be every 3rd sitcom character.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-21 05:38pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:
If the "fighting whites" had a chain-smoking, drunk white guy in his underwear standing outside a trailer screaming obscenities at people as its mascot, would that be offensive?
No... that would be every 3rd sitcom character.

In "Married with Children", I suppose. Then again, I don't watch TV much any more, so maybe I'm not qualified to talk about sitcoms.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-10-21 05:46pm

The point being that whites in the mass media are just as caricaturized, for the most part, as every other ethnicity. "White Trash", most especially. Whites are caricaturized as being either greedy, shallow materialistic Yuppies or moonshine-swilling, gun-waving cousin-fucking trailer filler. It's no more flattering than the Cleveland Indians mascot, and far more often seen.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-21 05:52pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:The point being that whites in the mass media are just as caricaturized, for the most part, as every other ethnicity. "White Trash", most especially. Whites are caricaturized as being either greedy, shallow materialistic Yuppies or moonshine-swilling, gun-waving cousin-fucking trailer filler. It's no more flattering than the Cleveland Indians mascot, and far more often seen.

With all due respect, such people DO exist, whether you like it or not. They are not caricatures, but representations. If it is implied that all white people are like this, that's wrong, but you can't compare this to the Cleveland Indians mascot, which is a true caricature.

Besides, the matter of context still must come into play. If the Israelis had a sports team called the Tel Aviv Jews, we might raise an eyebrow but we probably wouldn't actively protest. However, if the Germans had a sports team called the Auschwitz Jews, we would think it pretty damned offensive. Tens of millions of natives died for Manifest Destiny; I think they have a right to be a little sensitive.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

American Indian Mascots

Do you think sports teams should stop using American Indian mascots?