|
|
Post by Strife on Jun 2, 2011 4:29:17 GMT -5
Y'know, this is a discussion that would apply all-too-well to my high school, because our team name has always been the Waterloo Indians. Not only that, but there's an Native American in our school's insignia. Because the school is notorious for its mostly-undefeated women's basketball team and it's had the imagery for as long as I can remember, I highly doubt that they'll want to change it unless it becomes forbidden by law.
This a tough issue for me to take a stance on, mostly because both sides have pretty valid arguments. For that reason, I think it could be addressed on a case-by-case basis and how each team is treating the stereotype. If one town with a large Native American population is sorely offended by the sports teams' imitative battle cries, then they should have the right to axe it. If, however, the sports team is treating the imagery with respect or basically not caring about it all (i.e. Indians is just a team name, nothing more), and nobody in the town is complaining, then I don't see any issues with it. (Though you could argue that such a stance would give even more of a reason for them to change it since they won't care what their team mascot is either way. xD)
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jun 2, 2011 5:16:40 GMT -5
I agree that the atrocity of bringing black slaves over to replace natives who died as a result of European invasion is deplorable. But I don't see the textbook as treating it rudely. The text just sounds bland and plain, which is misleading because it doesn't betray any tone of voice. So it's not hard to read it the wrong way.
Of course, if your teacher taught on this section, and read it out to you with the tone that said, "Oh, those silly natives died too much to let us enslave them, pah how pathetic, now we gotta get us some African slaves, they're tough stuff" then I would worry that the school is treating the tragedy of it really poorly.
---------------------
As for the mascots: the way that images spread messages is complex and subtle. A person does not turn up at a game, see a cheesy mascot, and think, "Haha Indians are stupid. I'm gonna be racist now." But the implicit message can be very harmful even just because it is not really consciously opposed. Take an example, there's this famous image of an ape walking and turning into a human. What you might realise is that the various middle forms look vaguely African, and the final form is a white man. Accepting the image as a classic, evidently true representation of the way things went means implicitly accepting the notion that African peoples are more primitive, less "finished" evolutionarily. Ony the white man is a Homo Sapiens. Actually, I think there's been a movement to remove or alter the image as it appears in textbooks now. Rightly so.
But - and this is my big but - I think the very act of removing Native American images from sports can also be seen as potentially harmful. I think someone said before that they knew some Native Americans who supported that team specifically because it was the one with the Indian as its mascot. And I've heard people commenting on just how invisible Native Americans can feel, how little they are represented in politics, and so on. If you were to remove a cheesy, caricatured, image of an Indian, and take it away because it is not accurate or authentic... it sort of sends the message that when it comes to Indians, only the authentic counts. That if an icon or art or product displays a mixture of Indian and non-Indian elements, then it's better to be removed entirely and wiped from the record. Only "genuine" Indianness counts, Indians are not allowed to compromise or change. They are either to stay exactly the way they are, the way we say they ought to naturally be, or they will just have to disappear entirely. Surviving only as a museum exhibit. They are a historical people, not a current people.
I recently did a bit of uni work on how folk customs in South America have ironically suffered from the burden of needing to be "authentic". So I'm not sure if it's just me, or whether any others will agree that trying too hard to impose standards of authenticity can do more harm than good, for an icon which some people take pride in as a symbol of their ethnic identity.
But since I don't live in America, and haven't met a Native American... I think I'd really need to hear more of what the Native Americans have to say about these mascots. Even something as basic as an opinion survey would be really helpful, if enough Native Americans took part in it. Not just a few anecdotes, but the voice of many peoples of different age groups of different tribes.
|
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Jun 2, 2011 8:05:23 GMT -5
Authenticity is not actually an argument I've seen used against them. They are, for the most part, caricatures that are far too vague to be authentically anything, and the teams that do accurately depict a group of Native Americans typically do it with the assistance and blessing of a particular tribe such as the Florida State Seminoles. Their 'mascot' (though they don't actually use that term because they don't want to refer to a real person from history that way) is based off of the warrior Osceola. The Seminole tribe actually provides the costume and helps with the choreography. By their own admission is is dramatized and somewhat inaccurate but it's really respectful and fun. I find it strange to think that a removing a stereotypical icon like the Cleveland Indian's embarrassing Chief Wahoo would send the message that Native Americans only exist in history. These icons are not a modern representation. They're the hundreds of years old 'generic Indian guy wearing feather hat' variety of images. They in no way express an idea of native Americans as a living, modern people. (as an aside, almost no media does. Though the comic book Scalped does a really awesome job. It's about a Native American FBI agent returning to the reservation where he grew up)  Seriously, not the face of Native Americans as a current people. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jun 2, 2011 9:26:45 GMT -5
You make a good point. I guess whether something is respectful or not respectful really does depend on how it is done. I wasn't really familiar with how it can work, but if the Seminoles are happy and involved, then of course I can find no problem with the use of Osceola as a team representative.
And I guess I probably rambled a bit too far about that whole authenticity thing. I have to stop using discussions like this as an excuse to procrastinate between writing uni essays >.>
But whoa, didn't realise how tacky that very red looking caricature of a featherwearing native is. Somehow the massive grin and those acutely triangular eyes don't seem right... certainly not the most neutral depiction I've seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nimras on Jun 3, 2011 15:32:19 GMT -5
Since the privately owned sports teams are constitutionally protected by the first amendment,they shouldn't be forced to change their names and mascots. However, they should want to because it is tacky as all heck. Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for all the money the sports teams could be losing when they are profiting off of the image of the poorest ethnic group in the country. Also, take a look at the Red Skins, whose name is even an actual racial slur on par with calling an African American a 'darkie'. Oh gosh and golly, why can't these redskins take a joke like the rest of us? We only murdered them wholesale, stole everything it is possible to steal from them, and shoved them onto dead, barren land. Heaven forbid we allow them some modicum of respect. Public schools with these mascots are a completely different kettle of fish. These mascots send a loud and clear message:"You're not real. You don't matter. You only exist as cartoon characters to us." Racial caricature makes it easier to disregard a group of people as human beings. It's a powerful tool that has been used to dehumanize people for hundreds of years. Look at the cartoons of the Japanese used in World War II. The idea is to replace an image of a real human being in your head, so you find it easier to dismiss them as people. And it works. As a nation we are completely dismissive of the very real plight of most First Nations people. The generic Indian mascots also serve to homogenize Indian culture into one massive single entity. An Indian is an Indian, why should they care that a Lakota doesn't look like a Lenape? As it turns out, there is a distinct difference between the Fighting Irish and most Native American mascots: The Fighting Irish got their name by actually being Irish. Representing the Irish as leprechauns comes off as kinda crappy, but it was chosen by Irish people for Irish people. This. A hundred times this. Many of my friends and family are Native, and you wouldn't believe the number of stereotypes they have to put up with every day that people just aren't aware of even having. Because a Tsalagi, a Nimíipuu, a Muscogee, and a Dine are all totally the same thing -- and they all lived in teepees, used hatchets to scalp people, and wore feathers in their hair! I'm just lucky that most of the time, I can pass as white with strangers. You can be English-American, German-American, Irish-American, Nigerian-American, Egyptian-American, Pakistani-American, Australian-American, Mexican-American, Peruvian-Amerian, Spanish-American, Saudi-American --- but people will just consider you to be "Indian." Even if you tell them your tribal affiliation. Congratulations, you're all the same -- and any cultural quirks must be the ok'd ones for the "noble savage" image. Although I do get mistaken for being Mexican-American often. I've gotten all the derogatory terms thrown at me, just because as soon as I go outside my skin darkens right up, and dark skin but not of African decent = Mexican. *facepalm* My father had actually been turned down for a job as recently as the 1980s because they needed people "with fluent English skills" and because of his looks they assumed Spanish was his first language, and that he was lying about his English fluency. |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jun 3, 2011 16:15:49 GMT -5
Although I do get mistaken for being Mexican-American often. I've gotten all the derogatory terms thrown at me, just because as soon as I go outside my skin darkens right up, and dark skin but not of African decent = Mexican. *facepalm* I think most people in general fail at being able to recognize ethnicity, and anyone dark but not black must be Mexican. >_< I'm half-Filipino and everyone assumes I'm Mexican. And no one can seem to tell the difference between people of Middle Eastern descent and Indian (from India) descent. In fact, so many people can't tell the difference between Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, and Korean, it's no surprise they'd lump all Native American tribes together too. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2011 16:25:21 GMT -5
Although I do get mistaken for being Mexican-American often. I've gotten all the derogatory terms thrown at me, just because as soon as I go outside my skin darkens right up, and dark skin but not of African decent = Mexican. *facepalm* I think most people in general fail at being able to recognize ethnicity, and anyone dark but not black must be Mexican. >_< I'm half-Filipino and everyone assumes I'm Mexican. And no one can seem to tell the difference between people of Middle Eastern descent and Indian (from India) descent. In fact, so many people can't tell the difference between Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, and Korean, it's no surprise they'd lump all Native American tribes together too. *huge hugs for Nimras* I don't really try to recognize who is what race because I don't care. That stuff doesn't matter to me. I have friends at school who have all sorts of skin colors, and that does not matter to me at all! If only everyone thought that way... |
|
|
|
Post by Jo on Jun 3, 2011 16:39:34 GMT -5
Although I do get mistaken for being Mexican-American often. I've gotten all the derogatory terms thrown at me, just because as soon as I go outside my skin darkens right up, and dark skin but not of African decent = Mexican. *facepalm* I think most people in general fail at being able to recognize ethnicity, and anyone dark but not black must be Mexican. >_< I'm half-Filipino and everyone assumes I'm Mexican. And no one can seem to tell the difference between people of Middle Eastern descent and Indian (from India) descent. In fact, so many people can't tell the difference between Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, and Korean, it's no surprise they'd lump all Native American tribes together too. I think really it depends on where you're from. I have no idea on the differences between Native Americans (in fact, I'm not even sure how you tell the Native American race apart from other races) because where I live in England, there are no Native Americans. However, I do live in an area where the majority of people are Indian (from India XD), so telling the difference between Indian and Middle Eastern people is no problem. It's not necessarily a bad thing to not be able to recognise ethnicity, just means you don't come from an area with a lot of ethnic diversity usually. The only issue comes up when people try and judge based on that. |
|
|
|
Post by Nimras on Jun 3, 2011 20:22:13 GMT -5
I think really it depends on where you're from. I have no idea on the differences between Native Americans (in fact, I'm not even sure how you tell the Native American race apart from other races) because where I live in England, there are no Native Americans. However, I do live in an area where the majority of people are Indian (from India XD), so telling the difference between Indian and Middle Eastern people is no problem. It's not necessarily a bad thing to not be able to recognise ethnicity, just means you don't come from an area with a lot of ethnic diversity usually. The only issue comes up when people try and judge based on that. The thing is, you can't tell by looking. It's not actually possible. Race and ethnicity don't exist as a biological reality that you can see. It's culture that makes people different from each other, not genetics. The problem is that people try to guess someone's race/ethnicity, and then make huge assumptions about the person by that guess. 
That's Chad, my ex-boyfriend. He's 1/4 Dutch and 3/4 Nimíipuu (or "Nez Perce").
That's my niece Kera on the right, who is German and Cherokee, and her friend on the left (whose name I forget) is Kalamath. Whatever one wants to call our race (we're mixed), it's the same one. That's me and my two (full) sisters. While people think that they're harmless stereotypes ('Ha! Nobody really calls them "redskins" anymore! It's harmless!'), your average person doesn't have any actual facts to counter the perpetuation of stereotypes. Sure, theoretically one knows that the vast majority of Pakistani men are not abusive towards women, but the stereotype is pervasive enough in England that my friend who was studying at Durham in got several odd looks (and some well-meaning "you don't have to put up with abuse, there's help for that kind of thing" comments) when she was dating a man whose family immigrated from Pakistan. One theoretically knows that someone of Native ancestry is just as smart as anyone else, but let's face it, people are surprised when you're not a stupid, uneducated alcoholic. My assumed Mexican ancestry has been used as an explanation for my love of spicy food ("All Mexicans eat chilies!"), my equestrian skills have been explained as being caused by my "Indian" ancestry... even my prosopagnosia has been explained in "ethnic" terms ("I suppose all white people/hispanic people/black people must look the same to you.") My grandfather was Irish, so I must love potatoes, my grandmother Norwegian so I must secretly desire to eat whales. My sister must adopted -- or she must be my husband's sister and therefore not REALLY my sister, but my sister-in-law because we don't look to be the same "race." While it's easy to say that those old stereotypes and characters are remnants of the past and don't do any harm -- there's nothing out there that paints a much different story. The caricature becomes the truth for those who aren't brought face-to-face with reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Jun 24, 2011 7:30:37 GMT -5
Also, take a look at the Red Skins, whose name is even an actual racial slur on par with calling an African American a 'darkie'. Ironically, in the Chinese dialect I speak, we routinely call westerners "red furred". I'm pretty sure we also call African Americans "negros" (although sometimes that's switched out with simply "black person", whereas a white person is almost always called by the slang.) I hadn't actually paid attention to it before, until I came home after a long stint in politically-correct America. I was like "Wow... we're so rude."  About the topic at hand, I have no opinion on it, having never met an American Indian. However, like someone else said, there are, among all races, people who abhor their stereotypes and people who like and identify with them. I don't really try to recognize who is what race because I don't care. That stuff doesn't matter to me. I have friends at school who have all sorts of skin colors, and that does not matter to me at all! If only everyone thought that way... Not really. I'm more or less with Jo on this as far as recognizing race goes. Being or not being able to depends on where you were brought up, and how much cultural diversity you were exposed to. I enjoy trying to guess race, and I feel that race and culture isn't really something that 'doesn't matter'. It's something to be proud of, to identify with, and to know about. I recently struck up a conversation with a girl in Detroit airport by "Are you Japanese?", and we became friends. I can understand, though, the viewpoint of Nimras on this, where it isn't quite so distinct, and having to put up with bad guesses. I do have enormous trouble telling Caucasian people apart, though. If I squint really hard, I can vaguely tell if someone's European or American. |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jun 24, 2011 13:50:19 GMT -5
I do have enormous trouble telling Caucasian people apart, though. If I squint really hard, I can vaguely tell if someone's European or American. Then you'd be better than me. I can't usually tell if someone's from Europe unless they opened their mouth and an accent came out. XD; I guess Italians and Greeks look diffferent from Norwegians, though. :3 But also, I've never heard anyone say their race was "American," unless they were saying they were "Native American." (Nationality, sure, but not race) My dad's side of the family's lived in the US since before the Civil War, but they still refer to themselves as a combination of Welsh, Irish, maybe French, and various other touches of different European countries. |
|
