University of Illinois drops Native American mascot. Are "Chief" mascots racist?

Kungfuzed said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

standing_alone said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

FatMan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

*nods to Mike and Sunstone*

spacemonkey said:

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

Click to expand...

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

standing_alone said:

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

Click to expand...

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

spacemonkey said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

FatMan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

FatMan said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

FatMan said:

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??

Click to expand...

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. :bonk:

FatMan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

jamaesi said:

Why is respect for other people and cultures mocked as "political correctness"?

Click to expand...

Because that way we can dismiss it and not have to go through the inconvenience of actually respecting other people and cultures.

You know, there are a lot of different ways team nicknames and mascots can be offensive. Every once in awhile someone stirs up some controversy about teams that are named for criminals (Pirates, Raiders, Bucaneers). Certainly if, say, a family member had been on a cruise ship that got attacked by pirates off the Horn of Africa, that would color my feelings about these names.

But it seems to me that there's a big difference between this and naming your team after an ethnic group. When you do that, you are reducing an entire community of people into a stereotype, regardless of how positively you think you're portraying them. There are some cases that are flagrantly, appalling racist (Cleveland's Chief Wahoo), and others that tread a finer line, such as the Seminoles. It's not just Native Americans either. Am I the only person that thinks the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame is a horribly stereotypical mascot?

The Yankees may be a rare exception, I suppose. But I think in 50 years or less, people are going to look back on this era and be mortified that we used ethnic names for our sports teams. I'm not saying it can't be done in a way that doesn't perpetuate (or create) stereotypes, but I think it's usually not.

Incidentally, my understanding is that the Redskins are named not after Native American skin color, but after the scalped heads of their enemies. Not that that's any less offensive!

madcap said:

Incidentally, my understanding is that the Redskins are named not after Native American skin color, but after the scalped heads of their enemies. Not that that's any less offensive!

Click to expand...

I'd say that's just a tad more offensive. We talked about this in my office yesterday and someone pointed out that one of our local roads is still called "Indian Head Highway." :cover:

I like football but for as long as I live in DC and for as long as they're called the Redskins, I will NOT root for my home team. Go FortyNiners!!

jamaesi said:

Why is respect for other people and cultures mocked as "political correctness"?

Click to expand...

Very good question.

lilithu said:

I'd say that's just a tad more offensive. We talked about this in my office yesterday and someone pointed out that one of our local roads is still called "Indian Head Highway." :cover:

Click to expand...

We had the same thing around where I grew up - only it was a number of places - on "Indian Head Road" there was "Indian Head Library" and "Tomahawk Condominiums" :cover:

Well? Does the use of Native American mascots show a demeaning/blasphemous image or an honorable one? Did Illinois do the right thing or did it pander to political correctness?

Click to expand...

\

I think it's very demeaning. Afterall, mascots are generally animals, aren't they? All of the schools in my area (these are high schools,though) have either an animal or an indian as their mascot. That is not cool at all. I think illinois did the right thing.

yes it is racest.... they are misuseing our religious and cultural identities for entertainment. They mock us not honor us.
just look at the picture.... chicken feathers and warpaint....

would anyone argue about getting rid of "blackface"?

wa:do

Personally, I thought mascots were supposed to be inspiring to the team. Something that is tough that you want to associate your team with. That is why "fighting" goes in front of many mascots. I am Scottish and think it would be cool if there was a Scottish mascot somewhere (there probably is).

Does anyone think that Notre Dame's mascot, "Fighting Irish" is offensive?




Also, I don't know if you guys are familiar with the "fighting whities" but I love it. It is a group of Native American kids who were sick of the Native American mascots, so they named their intramural team the "fighting whities" I loved it. They have sold T-shirts all over the world because it was so popular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites


http://www.cafepress.com/fightinwhite

Anyway, that is just my opinion. Personally, I think the fightin' whities is hilarious.

I do not think there is anything wrong with the Fighting Irish either. If the mascot is intended to demean or ridicule the Native Americans then I won't go with it. If it is to associate with and honor the Native Americans, then I am all for it.

Several years the Boy Scout's Order of the Arrow made "right" by our native Americans. The dances now used in ceremonies have to be authenticated and approved by tribal elders. Some dances are off limits and some regalia can not be used. It has happened that an Order of the Arrow Dance Team has been the last to know a dance and then pass it back to the tribe. There are times when it is hard to find native Americans willing to carry their own traditions.

It's appropriate to use an Indian mascot IF and ONLY IF the tribe approves. Just like the Fighting Irish approve of their leprechaun mascot,

BTW,

There are "Frogs" as there are

Battling Bishops, Quakers, Swedes, Celts, and VIKINGS. Should all these be reigned in as problematic? BTW, a full list can be found here: http://www.smargon.net/nicknames/

Scuba Pete said:

It's appropriate to use an Indian mascot IF and ONLY IF the tribe approves. Just like the Fighting Irish approve of their leprechaun mascot,

Click to expand...

I agree with you that teams should not be forced to change their names if the Indian nation gives its blessing, but still these two situations are NOT equivalent.

Notre Dame is a Catholic University, which in all likelihood started off with a healthy percentage of Irish-Americans in their student population when they chose their mascot, the Fighting Irish. In that context, it is clearly a symbol of cultural pride.

The universities with Native-Americans as mascots were started and run by European-Americans, the same group which killed off most NAs.

Scuba Pete said:

BTW,

There are "Frogs" as there are

Battling Bishops, Quakers, Swedes, Celts, and VIKINGS. Should all these be reigned in as problematic? BTW, a full list can be found here: http://www.smargon.net/nicknames/

Click to expand...

Again, were these groups systematically slaughtered by the ancestors of the those that are now using them as mascots?

Honestly, some people ain't got no problems.

Also, I don't know if you guys are familiar with the "fighting whities" but I love it. It is a group of Native American kids who were sick of the Native American mascots, so they named their intramural team the "fighting whities" I loved it. They have sold T-shirts all over the world because it was so popular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites


http://www.cafepress.com/fightinwhite

Anyway, that is just my opinion. Personally, I think the fightin' whities is hilarious.

I do not think there is anything wrong with the Fighting Irish either. If the mascot is intended to demean or ridicule the Native Americans then I won't go with it. If it is to associate with and honor the Native Americans, then I am all for it.

Click to expand...

It's "funny" and "you love it" because white caucasians are not a group that have been institutionally discriminated and oppressed against.

Whitie and redskin are not even on the same level when it comes to oppressive backgrounds. For the "Fighting Whities" to be on the same level Native American mascots you would have to name the team "White Devils" and have the mascot be a KKK member- and even that isn't as offensive as most NA mascots.