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

[Booko]

Originally Posted by 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.

I've yet to meet any that felt especially honoured by such use.

I rememer Kevin Locke (Lakota) making a lighthearted remark about wanting to go into the neighboring town where all the Germans settled (Lawrence Welk's hometown, actually) when they were having a dry spell and asking the residents to do a rain polka dance.

[spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by standing_alone

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.

You've got this very wrong. College's that use Native American mascots do not combine the many diverse tribes into one as you suggest, that's the pros. Universities almost always use the name of a tribe that was once indigenous to the region they are located. In many ways the colleges are helping to preserve the individuality of the different tribes if for no other reason then keeping their names alive. How many people would know that Illinois is named for the Illini tribe if not for the University? As for FSU, its not about how many Seminole alumni there are, they have offical sanctioning of the use of the Seminole name and the images of Osceola (the Seminole chief depicted) by both the Seminole Tribes of Florida and Oklahoma. The Seminoles realize
that the school doesn't use the name out of disrespect but rather as a way to preserve the history of the region.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by FatMan

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.

FatMan -- the "costume" has sacred symbols all over it.

Would we think it's okay for someone to have a team mascot dressing up in a bishop's mitre?

I've always thought the easiest way to figure out "is this okay or offensive" is to do the same thing to *my* people, and if it doesn't work for me, then I should not be doing it. It's really not rocket science.

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.

I'm part Huron, but I'm so divorced from that part of my heritage that on this side of life I don't claim it. Culturally speaking, I'm all Northwestern European.

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.

Interesting. The most vocal First Nations supporters of keeping our baseball team called the Atlanta Braves are people who look whiter than I do.

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.

Bizarre, ain't it?

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.

I'm still waiting for someone to name a sports team the Dragons.

*nods to Mike and Sunstone*

[standing_alone]

Originally Posted by spacemonkey

You've got this very wrong. College's that use Native American mascots do not combine the many diverse tribes into one as you suggest

The remarks of mine you quoted had little to do with universities using Indians as mascots.

[spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by standing_alone

The remarks of mine you quoted had little to do with universities using Indians as mascots.

Oh, I thought that's what this thread was about....silly me

[standing_alone]

Originally Posted by spacemonkey

In many ways the colleges are helping to preserve the individuality of the different tribes if for no other reason then keeping their names alive.

I call bullsh*t. If they cared at all for the tribes, they would respect the wishes of those tribes when the tribes request they stop misusing regalia and mocking their culture. Illinois isn't keeping any individuality of the tribe alive. It's mocking the tribe's culture to bring in revenue for sporting events. The image of the "Chief" doesn't preserve anything. And it's not the university's place to keep the tribe's name alive or be its rerpresentative. It is the tribes that should dictate how their culture is presented and preserved and how their name is used, not a university with no ties to the tribe. If the tribe in Illinois was honored by the university or felt the university was going the tribe a "service" by using them as a mascot and treating the regalia as merely a costume for some white student to parade around in, they wouldn't have been offended by it, now would they?

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by FatMan

I guess the question boils down to if depicting an Indian as a warrior is demeaning. The Seminole Indians look at the Florida State mascot as a symbol of pride and a rememberance of their past.

Perhaps it also has to do with how the University depicts Seminole culture outside of the sports arena. If they show respect and support for the Seminole nation in other ways then the argument that the mascot is actually a sign of respect becomes more believeable.

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414098

Whereas, if a school (or professional sports organization for that matter) does NOTHING to show any respect for the people whom it uses as a "mascot" then it's rather hard to believe that there is any real respect there.

Originally Posted by FatMan

A mascot is a mythical creature. There is no difference between using a Chief or having a giant Orange come bouncing out.

One is a human being; the other isn't, so I would say there is a big difference. The danger of using Native American nations and leaders as mascots is that it depicts them as something less than human beings. You can argue that the mascot is a mythical creature, but a Chief isn't. The only way that we can view a Chief as mythical is to ignore the fact that there are people living today who are in fact Indian chiefs.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by FatMan

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??

I'm sorry but this line of thnking drives me bonkers. You're saying that we can do whatever we want with other people's culture unless they complain. And if some of them do complain, then the argument becomes, well it was only a few of them. By your way of thinking, the responsibility/burden is on the people affected to convince you that using their culture for our entertainment is wrong. By your way of thinking, we have no responsibility to consider the appropriateness of this beforehand unless someone else puts in the effort to complain. And then when people do complain, they are dismissed as over-sensitive and not representative of their whole group anyway.

Originally Posted by FatMan

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.

The fact that you acknowledge that it's a costume is the operative word here. If the costume is inauthentic, then what we have is a people being misrepresented. If the costume is changed so that it is authentic, then what we have is authentic sacred symbols being used to get people riled up at a sporting event. Personally, I don't like either option.