The Indians Mascot
-
said_aouita
I'm offended for the Irish-Catholics being called "fighting Irish" F*ck Notre Dame. -
OSH
Like I said, go on a reservation and say "Redskins." What will be the response?
The SI poll didn't say anything about people saying "Redskins" on the reservation. It's hard to tell what reservations they also polled. But that poll actually is more damaging than others have said...when it says that 69% of Natives and 57% living on reservations feel it's "ok" to use the "Redskins" name. That means there is 30-40% of Native Americans that do not like the usage of the name. That's a pretty large percentage.
I am definitely not a "bleeding heart liberal." This is something that really opened up my eyes when I spent two years in South Dakota. There just needs to be a sensitivity towards others. It's built around respect -- I feel. I never had this opinion. I would use terms like "Indian giver," "Indian run," "Indian style," or similar terms for things only replace with a different people group. You never know who is around that may be offended, for whatever reason, when using stereotyping terms.
I know, I know...where does it stop, start, or end? Well, it's pretty simple to not use the term Indian, Jew, or other people group names that may be stereotyping.
I guarantee you that if the Hawaii Rainbow Warriors used a caricature that happened to stereotype the LGBTQ community...even if 60% were okay with it...that it would be changed. And, rightfully so.
People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care. Saying something that may be offensive will never get you anywhere. -
hoops23
Who gives a fuck. -
OSH
enigmaax;1140523 wrote:Haven't read the whole thread, but I don't understand a few parts of this argument. First, why are white people always "bad" in the whole land-taking thing just because we won? Natives killed plenty of other natives for land and whatever else. Would the world have ever progressed had we not expanded our horizons?
I'm not sure how using a logo that represents a historical figure implies that all those with native heritage wear feathers and warpaint. Mascots/logos are one representation of a particular era/character. That's it. The wahoo logo doesn't mean all Indians are goofy asses. Not all "Raiders" wore eye patches. Not all "Texans" have cattle. Not all "Vikings" wore horns. Not all New Yorkers are Metrosexual. Not all "Celtics" are leprechauns. Nobody in Utah even likes Jazz and for the love of God...a "Maverick" is NOT a ****ing horse.
I posted this as the reasoning behind the need for change:
No Raiders were harmed OR threatened. No Texans were removed from their land -- from an American's perspective. No Vikings were plighted. The New York Mets have nothing to do with Metrosexuals (good joke there...[LEFT]The issue here...isn’t about ethnic stereotyping; it’s about systematically destroying a culture and then using that culture’s imagery as if it belongs to you, which it doesn’t.[/LEFT]
)
I do agree that the Jazz need to change their name...it should've stayed in New Orleans!
But, why isn't there any Jewish "goofy" caricatures for mascots? Why aren't there any other people groups that are stereotyped by these million-dollar franchises and universities? Why must it all go towards the Native Americans...oh yeah, we "honor" them by naming our teams after them... -
enigmaax
Because Jews aren't known for being tough. Neither are Asians. Neither are slaves. Sorry, whether you like it or not, Native Americans have an element of the heritage - of which most of their own people are proud - that is about being bad.ass.mother.fucking.savages. So, you take a snapshot of that history and create a drawing that represents it and you hope that the best qualities that everyone assoicates with it comes out in your team. What was the purpose of feathers? What was the purpose of war paint? What did it take to be a Chief? If you choose to focus on the fact that the group ultimately lost their shit, that's your problem...and that is how the heritage dies.OSH;1140540 wrote:But, why isn't there any Jewish "goofy" caricatures for mascots? Why aren't there any other people groups that are stereotyped by these million-dollar franchises and universities? Why must it all go towards the Native Americans...oh yeah, we "honor" them by naming our teams after them...
Also, there's a difference between "honoring" them and having the gesture be an honor. It doesn't have to be, "hey we picked your name because we want to be sure everyone remembers you." But the fact that your heritage is considered a symbol of something tough/good/whatever is an honor. -
OSH
See. That is where you are wrong.enigmaax;1140559 wrote:Because Jews aren't known for being tough. Neither are Asians. Neither are slaves. Sorry, whether you like it or not, Native Americans have an element of the heritage - of which most of their own people are proud - that is about being bad.ass.mother.****ing.savages. So, you take a snapshot of that history and create a drawing that represents it and you hope that the best qualities that everyone assoicates with it comes out in your team. What was the purpose of feathers? What was the purpose of war paint? What did it take to be a Chief? If you choose to focus on the fact that the group ultimately lost their ****, that's your problem...and that is how the heritage dies.
There isn't that mentality among Native Americans. They don't want to be known as savages. Their "own people" don't want that stereotype! That's what you aren't getting.
There are MANY mascots that aren't known for being "tough" or "vicious" or "competitive" or anything else people want to claim about Native Americans. So, now we must stereotype Native Americans for that? Pretty lousy.
And to clear things up, the fact that Native Americans lost their land is not MY problem. My grandfather wasn't around until 1930's...and my family didn't get to the states until early 1900s or 1910s. So, it isn't MY problem.
The Native American heritage is alive. It will continue to be alive. And no thanks to the pro teams or universities, they'll be truer once you actually get real-life knowledge of the people. -
enigmaax
But how many people had long-ago relatives who had their shit stolen by pirates or were raped by vikings? How many Mexicans have been killed in Texas? You can't really have any type of person represent your team because there's always some fuck who can claim that group of people was either shit on or seventeen generations ago their relatives had shit fucked up by that group.OSH;1140540 wrote:No Raiders were harmed OR threatened. No Texans were removed from their land -- from an American's perspective. No Vikings were plighted. -
enigmaax
Oh, so they want to re-write history to be something different? Is that what the problem is?OSH;1140577 wrote:See. That is where you are wrong.
There isn't that mentality among Native Americans. They don't want to be known as savages. Their "own people" don't want that stereotype! That's what you aren't getting. -
WebFire
Not to mention some Yankees got fucked up in the Civil War.enigmaax;1140584 wrote:But how many people had long-ago relatives who had their shit stolen by pirates or were raped by vikings? How many Mexicans have been killed in Texas? You can't really have any type of person represent your team because there's always some fuck who can claim that group of people was either shit on or seventeen generations ago their relatives had shit fucked up by that group. -
enigmaax
Damn Yankees both interfered in the Southern lifestyle AND played incredibly bad music.WebFire;1140592 wrote:Not to mention some Yankees got ****ed up in the Civil War. -
OSH
Not true.enigmaax;1140584 wrote:But how many people had long-ago relatives who had their **** stolen by pirates or were raped by vikings? How many Mexicans have been killed in Texas? You can't really have any type of person represent your team because there's always some **** who can claim that group of people was either **** on or seventeen generations ago their relatives had **** ****ed up by that group.
Not all Vikings did "bad things." There really aren't many pirates that are shown in "Pirates of the Caribbean" or exemplified by East Carolina or Pittsburgh. I don't know where the Mexicans thing came from...last thing I checked there are zero teams called "The Mexicans" in American professional sports.
Again, I quoted the reasoning behind it. None of the people groups you mentioned fall into the category behind that quote. -
OSH
This makes no sense.enigmaax;1140591 wrote:Oh, so they want to re-write history to be something different? Is that what the problem is?
Could you make it make sense to me? -
WebFire
Isn't that the point though? The vikings mascot is a mean mother fucker. So why is ok for that stereotype, but not an Indian?OSH;1140598 wrote:Not true.
Not all Vikings did "bad things." -
enigmaax
They don't "all" have to be bad. If you found out your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother was killed by a viking, would you hate that mascot? Or, if I told you that happened to my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother, would you want to do away with the viking mascot on my behalf?OSH;1140598 wrote:Not true.
Not all Vikings did "bad things." There really aren't many pirates that are shown in "Pirates of the Caribbean" or exemplified by East Carolina or Pittsburgh. I don't know where the Mexicans thing came from...last thing I checked there are zero teams called "The Mexicans" in American professional sports.
Again, I quoted the reasoning behind it. None of the people groups you mentioned fall into the category behind that quote. -
OSH
Who says the Vikings mascot is "mean?"WebFire;1140606 wrote:Isn't that the point though? The vikings mascot is a mean mother ****er. So why is ok for that stereotype, but not an Indian?
The blonde hair doesn't intimidate me. I mean...look how nice...
Don't address the quote...that's fine.enigmaax;1140608 wrote:They don't "all" have to be bad. If you found out your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother was killed by a viking, would you hate that mascot? Or, if I told you that happened to my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother, would you want to do away with the viking mascot on my behalf? -
enigmaax
Were there ever any of these?OSH;1140603 wrote:This makes no sense.
Could you make it make sense to me?
"uncivilized; barbarous: savage tribes." -
WebFire
Nice try.OSH;1140614 wrote:Who says the Vikings mascot is "mean?"
The blonde hair doesn't intimidate me. I mean...look how nice...
Don't address the quote...that's fine.
-
WebFireAnd, Chief Wahoo or whatever his name is, isn't mean looking either. So I guess it's ok.
-
enigmaax
This quote(?):OSH;1140614 wrote:Don't address the quote...that's fine.
"it’s about systematically destroying a culture and then using that culture’s imagery as if it belongs to you, which it doesn’t." -
lhslep134
The Indians were named to honor a Native American player. How could that be anything other than respectful? -
WebFire
Because his skin is red. Duh.lhslep134;1140632 wrote:The Indians were named to honor a Native American player. How could that be anything other than respectful? -
WebFireAnd he has a goofy smile.
-
WebFireAnd someone didn't grant permission.
-
enigmaax
I think this is the requirement.WebFire;1140638 wrote:And every single fucking person in the world didn't grant permission. -
hoops23
I think that's a myth. I think they actually changed their name to the Indians because of the Boston Braves.lhslep134;1140632 wrote:The Indians were named to honor a Native American player. How could that be anything other than respectful?