About 6.25% of me cares. Oh wait. No, it doesn't.

[lincolnduncan]

Whether you're a sports fan or not, you probably are at least somewhat familiar with the controversy with American Indian/Native American/American Aboriginal/Native Population team names in sports. This, and similar concerns, has caused colleges in particular to change their team nicknames, like St. John's University going from the Red Men to the

Comments

[smilingbeef]

I don't know, man. I mean, I feel like that statement taken as-is can be called stupid, and sure, she could have gone to school somewhere else, but does that make it okay? It seems to me that asking people to tolerate this kind of thing with mascots is the equivalent of asking people to tolerate Al Jolson in blackface singing "Mammy."

Granted, I don't have a lot of experience in feeling oppressed. After all, I'm a white male who can hide the fact that he's 1/16th native american from everybody but my dentist (shovel teeth are a dominant trait among NA). But the mascots seem to be sympomatic of a larger problem: that we're not sorry, that white people are dominant, and that these people are charming noble savages that don't function in any way outside of our tiny understanding.

[lincolnduncan]

I know the difference, for example, between Al Jolson and Eric Idle (in an episode of "Monty Python's Flying Circus") doing blackface. As annoying as it is when people assume I'm a big hip-hop fan or sign me up for "black causes", I understand they are trying to be sensitive to me as a black person, even though it offends my sense of individuality as Marcus

[smilingbeef]

I think the big difference is that Pioneers and Crusaders as mascots seek to celebrate an American or Christian institution, while Redskins and Braves, et al, is now generally seen as a way to stereotype or embrace the basest of understandings about an ethnicity. And obviously, the fact that these teams are generally owned by white people doesn't help the case.

[lincolnduncan]

Yes, but at the base of celebrating an American pioneer heritage is the mistreatment of the Native people. Thousands of non-Christians were killed during the Crusades. I'd argue both could be considered worse than calling a team the Sioux or the Utes.

I also think there is a difference between using names like Redskins or Red Men and using Chiefs, Braves, Indians, or tribal names. The former are slurs and are more than understandable, the latter are groups of humans that happen to be Native American, and hence are no different than using Fighting Irish (University of Notre Dame), Ragin' Cajuns (University of Louisiana-Lafayette), Quakers (University of Pennsylvania), Trojans (University of Southern California, Troy State University), Spartans (Michigan State University, San Jose State University, etc.), Vandals (University of Idaho) or Rebels (University of Mississippi, University of Nevada-Las Vegas).

[jalfrdprufrocky]

For some reason this reminds me of the saga of White Settlement, TX - a town founded during the 19th century and so named because it was considered a haven against Indian attacks. The town has, on several occasions, put the idea of changing the town's name to a vote, but the citizens of White Settlement are too attached to the old name. And that's fine; they shouldn't have to change the name if they don't want to, both because it's a name they've had for over a hundred years, and because only a really stupid person looking to get offended would actually get offended by a name like "White Settlement" in the first place. At the same time, people who hear the name "White Settlement" are still going to roll their eyes and crack jokes about how the place is racist

[lincolnduncan]

I can see why you'd make the connection to White Settlement; the situation is very similar. As you explain it though, I'm not sure if the original naming was completely racist itself, but rather somewhat pragmatic. It is a peculiar name to have nowadays, I'd have to admit, but a name in and of itself is not a sign of racism. Actions are, and until I hear otherwise, I won't assume anything about the settlers, white or otherwise, of the town

[smilingbeef]

I think our P.O.V is actually a lot closer than I'm getting across, and in some ways I'm playing devil's advocate. But I think it IS important that people like Tenoso get outraged, even if she did it in a dumb way. Outrage is the driving force behind most of the important events of the last few centuries.

[lincolnduncan]

I think outrage has to be done intelligently, otherwise when people have legitimate concerns, they look like those people who cry "racism" at any conflict that involves people of different skin colors (like the lack of service Chris Rock's mother experienced at Cracker Barrel some months back).

All I'd like to see is people give others the benefit of a doubt when it comes to racism and other forms of bigotry, but if there is something truly unjust, then that's the point they should make noise, and tons of it.