University of Illinois drops Native American mascot. Are "Chief" mascots racist? (mystic, choice)

[standing_alone]

Originally Posted by FatMan

I guess the question boils down to if depicting an Indian as a warrior is demeaning.

Let me also say that it would be much more honoring of American Indians to be respectful of their wishes on this mascot issue and even more so, to concern oneself with the issues that face American Indians today, rather than engross oneself in the romanticized Plains Indian image (this image resulting from taking hundreds of diverse cultures and reducing them to one, non-representative culture, easier to package for the American consumer, I suppose) from the Nineteenth Century. You would do more to honor American Indians by learning about their concerns about strip-mining going on in many reservations that has often had adverse effects on their health and the environment (American Indians have a life expectancy six years less than the rest of the U.S. population), the destruction of holy sites, the federal governments proposals to dump radioactive waste on native lands (in order to avoid federal standards), etc.

Also, far as I know, in the history of Florida State, only three members of the Seminole tribe have graduated from there.

[FatMan]

Standing Alone - I agree with your points - I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.

I don't like the way we have to soften things to keep people from being offended. The way I understand it, only a select few members of the tribe in Illinois have complained. So that warrants removing the mascot?? If the argument is being made that the use of the word Indian is offensive that is one thing, if it has to do with a costume, then change it to be authentic, even though I personally believe that is a sell-out.

It's a rant for a different time and place, I guess. Several of my relatives are members of a Tribe in New York. They take no offense to Indian mascots - in fact they can't stand that Syracuse changed their mascot from a Saltine Warrior, which represented their tribe. They want people to remember the Indian heritage and know that if we sanitize society so that indian symbols are no longer present, then we erase their identity. What they are most upset about is the ones calling for change in most cases are either a vocal minority of an Indian tribe or they are white folks.

We talk about being a more aware society - and we THINK we do the right thing by making terms less offensive sounding. But yet, society gets ruder and ruder each year. So we drink our plum juice, put our refuse out to be whisked away by sanitation engineers, welcome our kids back from Little League where they got 2 hits and two other at-bats where they were "not safe", and we picket the local team to change their name from the Bullets because it breeds violence, and we call it a day. Then we retreat to the den and turn on CSI and watch a bloodbath.

Meanwhile we selectively choose which terms are offensive. Indian references = offensive. A reference like "Tar Heel", which refers to the poor people who used to come out of the hills in bare feet and retreated with dirty feet = not offensive.

[standing_alone]

Originally Posted by FatMan

I don't like the way we have to soften things to keep people from being offended.

I also don't think people should misuse such things as regalia and make mockery of another culture while using that mascot image to generate a profit. When it comes to racial mascots (which I don't think should be in use at all), I think it is the racial group that is represented by the mascot that has the right to decide whether it is appropriate or not, not someone else with no relation to the group represented. If the group represented is fine with the mascot, then that's fine, if the group represented wants it changed, then that's what should be done.

For example, a few years ago, there was controversy in a city a few miles from mine over the use of an Indian mascot. The high school chose an Indian mascot since the town's name is that of a chief. The direct relatives of that chief, rather than making the school drop the mascot (which the school was being very stubborn about keeping), the relatives allowed them to keep the mascot as long as they would change the Indian image they used from a Plains Indian (which obviously was nothing like the Indians that lived in that area of Wisconsin at the time) to an Indian more representative to what Indians in the area looked like in history.

So that warrants removing the mascot??

Well, it certainly didn't until the NCAA objected to the mascot by barring the university from hosting postseason events. Illinois has been ignoring the tribe members' concerns for years. At least as long as I can remember this has been an ongoing issue. It wasn't until the NCAA stepped in that they finally dropped that offensive mascot. Dropping the mascot and discontinuing the misuse of the regalia was the right thing to do.

Indian references = offensive.

No. It depends on how Indians are referenced and depicted.

[FatMan]

Originally Posted by standing_alone

Well, it certainly didn't until the NCAA objected to the mascot by barring the university from hosting postseason events.

Point of clarification - the NCAA made a blanket rule that all teams with Indian mascots would be barred from hosting postseason events. They didn't make a distinction to which Tribes were in favor of the mascots and which ones weren't. They didn't relent until the Seminole tribe petitioned them.

The last time I looked, the NCAA board members include exactly zero members of Native American descent.

[standing_alone]

Originally Posted by FatMan

Point of clarification - the NCAA made a blanket rule that all teams with Indian mascots would be barred from hosting postseason events. They didn't make a distinction to which Tribes were in favor of the mascots and which ones weren't. They didn't relent until the Seminole tribe petitioned them.

The last time I looked, the NCAA board members include exactly zero members of Native American descent.

I understand that the NCAA made a blanket rule regarding Indian mascots. Sorry that didn't come across in my post. What my point was that the offense and concerns of the tribe members isn't what made them change the mascot, but the NCAA. The school would have continued to ignore the tibe's wishes if it wasn't for the NCAA rule. That was my point.

Now, as for the NCAA ruling, I do think there should be a distinction for teams where the tribe has expressed support for the mascot. So in the case of the Seminole mascot, since the tribe is supportive of the use, Florida State should not be affected by the rule barring Indian mascots.

[MaddLlama]

Even if a group is OK with it, does it make it any less racist?

Like I pointed out before, would it be racist, and/or improper for a sports team to use a charicature of an African American as a team mascot? How about calling the team "The Zulus" and using a mascot of an African warrior. Would that be racist? Even if people didn't complain in large numbers, would that make it not racist?

[Kungfuzed]

Are the Redskins next? Who are the Cowboys supposed to play against if there's no Indians?

[FatMan]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

Even if a group is OK with it, does it make it any less racist?

Like I pointed out before, would it be racist, and/or improper for a sports team to use a charicature of an African American as a team mascot? How about calling the team "The Zulus" and using a mascot of an African warrior. Would that be racist? Even if people didn't complain in large numbers, would that make it not racist?

Would a team called The Zulus be racist?? I wouldn't think so. Isn't racism based on the intent of something? If a mascot is created to represent the spirit of a champion and to show the fight and desire of a sports team, why would that be racist??

[Kungfuzed]

Have you guys seen the Geiko commercial with the cave men? This issue seems about as trivial as that. Sports teams are not the ones keeping native americans down. I could name a few things that are but I don't want to stir up more trouble than there already is. It would be better for an actual native american to speak up and say what's going on with his people.