Redskins = Racism
 

Disclaimer: All racial terms in this post are being used in a discussionary manner, and are not directed towards any persons

Ok, so i've been thinking about this a lot.

I think we would all agree that if a team or school chose the name "Darkies", "Coloreds" or "N-words" for a team mascot that it would be EXTREMELY offensive and there would be an enormous uproar in this country. I'm sure the ACLU and Jesse Jackson and his cronies would be all over it.

So, why is it that the term "Redskins" isn't given a passing thought? Native American groups have been protesting the use of native-themed mascots for years and the Redskins in particular for at least a decade, yet the so called advocates for equality haven't rallied to their side. When the issue did go to district court, it was ruled that the Redskins could keep their name, because the protesting groups waited too long to challenge it. (the team being named in 1967). Does that make it right? I guarantee that if we had the SF "Slopes" that had been formed back then their name wouldn't have survived the case.

To many NA's this name is the utmost of offensive. It refers to a time when NA's were considered less than human and trappers were paid for their scalps in the same vein as beaver and bear pelts.

Y'all know that i'm not a hippie liberal by any stretch of the imagination, but this is something that i truly think is wrong and needs to be changed.

Kitso
KS 361

Kitso, stop making everything into a race issue! :p

I think the biggest problem is that no matter how big of a protest people come up with in favor of changing the name, the counterprotest will be bigger. People grew up with the Redskins and don't react well to change. That's the problem with changing the names to any of these teams. I don't think it has anything to do with the time between the name change and filing the complaint; I think it has to do with the fact that they know more people will get angry if they force the name change than if they don't.

I agree with you, though. I think that while team mascots like "Indians" and "Braves" are sketchy and borderline, Redskins is pretty blatantly offensive and needs to go.

my school used to be the Redskins. the reason why that name had been choses was because the land the school is on was bought from the Miami Indian tribes and they picked that name together. during the 90's, the school got a lot of heat from people saying that the use of the Redskins wasn't PC and that they should change it. after a lot of debate, in 96 or 97, they changed that nickname to the Redhawks, amidst much protest from students, alumni, and staff. i think that the bookstores loved it though, because my siter, myself, and the majority of the miami students and alumni all have shirts now that say "I am and always will be a Redskin".

I agree with you on this one. The names should have been changed a long time ago. I know my sister went to a school that had Indians as their mascot, and she graduated in the late 1980's. It was changed in the early 90s to the Cardinals. I also remember when I was at UAF, one of the other CCHA hockey teams had Indians at their mascot. I think it may have been Miami University (mu_agd don't hesitate to correct me), but looking at the CCHA page now, none of the mascots are Native American related at all. I know it was one of teams we played, as it came up in coversation at a game with some other students. As Native Alaskans and Native Americans it bothered them and they considered making a statement with their displeasure when that team came by writing a letter to the student paper, and not coming to the game. It wouldn't have been an obnoxious protest, as that wasn't the style of these folks. However this girl said in ALL seriousness "Well we play Notre Dame, they are the fighting Irish, and that offends ME because I am Irish!!!". We knew trying to explain the differences would make her little brain explode.

Playing off that girl, I am Norwegian and having "Viking" as a mascot doesn't bother me. Why? Because we as a people haven't been exploited, decimated and almost wiped out in our own lands. My school mascot now is closely related to a Viking and since the whole situation is different, I have almost a sense of pride. There are a lot of mascots schools could let the current students and alumni choose from that could represent them individually. I know with UAF we were the "nanooks" which is a polar bear, but the Native tradition was honored since we used Nanook instead.

To be the Devil's Advocate John, how do you feel about the use of "Rebel" and the Stars and Bars for school mascots? My cousins all attended the same "south" side highschool in a town, and they are "The Rebels". A student from another school's team was offended by that and refused to play there until it changed. They ditched the Stars and Bars but they still have "Johnny Reb" as a mascot.

but this is a serious race issue.

and here's a link to the ruling

NFL Team can keep Redskins Trademark

pay particular attention to the last line:

Kitso
KS 361

Annie, that is correct and that is the school i was talking about in my post.

mu_agd - I saw these banners in the arena in 2000!!! Let's hope they have UPDATED them by now. I know Fairbanks was behind the times compared to Anchorage and the Lower 48, but DANG.

You said how i feel in that first paragraph. The Confederates were not exploited, decimated, wiped out, taken from their traditional lands, placed into reservations, had their heritage stolen and mocked, etc.

I do think the stars and bars should not be used in any logos. It is highly offensive to fellow Americans and i will honor their wishes that it not be displayed.

Kitso
KS 361

So,

If i purchased land on a former plantation from the decendants of the slave that worked there i could call my team the Darkies?

Not right, at all.

Kitso
KS 361

I'm totally opposed to changing the names. I don't think they're deragatory. My high school mascot was the Warhawks, and people complained all the time that it was offensive - not so much! I hardly ever saw merchandise with a NA on it except for old stuff passed down from older siblings/parents - everything had a big Arrowhead on it.

The reason I hate changing - my university used to be the Warriors, and there was a huge sense of pride in being a Marquette Warrior. Now we're the "Golden Eagles" which is about the most boring mascot ever. No wonder our main cheer is "WE ARE MARQUETTE" rather than something with the generic one.

I don't think either of my schools intended to offend, and I'm glad my high school hasn't wimped out and changed it over. They'd have to change the school name too, if they want to change the mascot. An Arrowhead is probably offensive too. :rolleyes:

And do you guys think I can sue Notre Dame? Because not all Irish are Fightin'.

i would hope so! i started at Miami in 1998 and we were already the Redhawks then. Although, when i graduated, Miami did still have the old symbol used in certain places on campus, just for the history of it. They had been known as Redskins for so long. It's a bit hard to just whipe that out at one meeting.

This is the Irony Police, pull this post over.

Not all Irish are fightin'? Well, not all NA's are Warring and violent peoples. Why is it OK to paint NA's with that brush but not the Irish?

PLEASE do not compare the plight of ANY anglo immigrants to this country to the devastation suffered by the indiginous people of two continents at their hands.

Kitso
KS 361 times i seriously think that you just look to disagree with anything i post

well, the founders of Miami and the Miami Indian Tribe came up with that together. There is a whole written document signed by them in which the Miami Indians gave there permission and support to use that. The symbol and the name had been used to signify the ties that the school had with the tribe. To this day Miami University and the Miami Indian Tribe are very close with exchange programs happening all the time.

Far be it from me to say anything good about our arch-rival Miami of Ohio, however, I think her point -- which I've heard from a number of friends from there -- is that the school mascot was named in conjunction with the local tribe. In other words, the Miami Indians were consulted and considered it an honor.

Times do change, but I believe the university still has ties with the tribe, and has the chief on campus yearly if not more often. Or at least they did the last time I had this conversation with a good friend who is on the local Miami Alumni Chapter here in Denver.

edit

Obviously, I was typing my response at the same time the one above was being posted, but they seem to agree with each other.

GP- Perhaps they chould have stayed the Warriors, and been nonspecific Warriors like the California basketball team?

As far as Notre Dame, someone said to me that people that identify themselves as Irish chose the mascot and nickname. Likely not as many Native Americans were in on the decision making which makes it different.

I still snicker when I see the Pacific Lutheran "Lutes". What is the mascot going to do, pour people coffee and serve hot dish? hehehe

that is all correct! thanks DeltAlum. I know that was hard for you! :) I mentioned in a previous post that there is a document that is signed by the Indian Chief at the time and I believe Miami's president at the time. It was hanging on a wall at the Miami Inn when I was there. I read it everytime my parents were staying there when i was at school. ADPiQTMel can probably tell us if it is still there or if it has been moved.

Well, former Slaves would have probably jumped at the opportunity to recieve money for their land and other naming rights, anything to compensate them.

To me it depends on the time that this written document was written and this 'exchange' was brokered. If this agreement was entered into during the time when other tribes were being slaughtered in the West then it takes on the appearance of the Miami tribe taking the lesser of two evils and recieving compenstation for their land as opposed to facing annhilation.

But i don't know, i'm not a historian of the tribes of that area, nor do i claim to be. I'm merely saying that attitudes of tribes at the time of treaty signing could be completely different that tribal attitudes today.

Kitso
KS 361

Yeah, and I don't think any Native Americans are BIRDS, which is what our mascot is. We already got rid of the kickass Indian, I'll be damned if somebody finds the BIRD offensive.

Oh, and our school store was named the Trading Post.

I bet that's offensive too.

I think it's pretty stupid that just because you decide this race issue is important because it affects your heritage that other race issues are not "serious" just because they don't. But I'm hoping that stuff like this will open your eyes to some other things, at least. I can certainly think of many race issues that I think are more "serious" than sports team names that you would probably dismiss, but hey, to each his own.

And I know what the official ruling was, but what I was saying is that I think that, although that was the "official" reason given, I don't think that's the real reason why it won't get changed. It's the reason they can't force them to change the name, but plenty of other names have gotten changed through pure pressure alone, without the threat of lawsuits.

I think that what she meant is that the Confederates have a reputation for unabashedly celebrating a culture that exploited another race, pretty much decimated parts of it, took them from their traditional lands, placed them into slavery, and stole and mocked their heritage . . . so should we really be encouraging that? Is it really all that different from having a mascot called The Guys Who Killed The Native Americans?




Oh oh? What's that I hear? Oh, it's the sound of this thread getting locked.

cuz arrowheads are commonly used by birds.

You said yourself that older school gear used NA depictions. I'm guessing that they used them in connection with the WARhawk name. To me, that paints NA as violent and warring people.

Kitso
KS 361

yes, this did happen in the early 1800's, as Miami was chartered in 1809. and Miami did buy the tribe land in Oklahoma where they still exist to this day. but you are also talking about a relationship that has lasted almost 200 years and is incredibly strong. i don't think that if the tribal attitudes were different today the relationship could have lasted as long. the Tribe does get many benefits at our school, including automatic acceptance and partial to full scholarships. part of me doesn't understand though, how you can compare this tribe, or any tribe, to slaves. it seems like entirely different situations to me.

And in many cases, you are correct. However, the fact that the school and the tribe continue their relationship would tend to indicate that the Miami Indians were still OK with the mascot.

In any event, it's moot since the mascot has been changed to the Redhawk -- of which there is no such thing. There is, however, a Red Tailed Hawk if my information is correct.

I said that this was a serious race issue, because you asked why i had to make everything a race issue. I don't make everything a race issue, but you have to admit, race is at the center of this issue.

Confederates did, yes. And i understand that's what she's referring to, and in that sense yes, Rebels is offensive. But, the name Rebels in itself holds no negative connotations. Rebel forces and armies are different the world around. You could go so far as to say that GW and the other patriots of the time were "Rebels" against Britan.

Yes, the stars and bars and Johnny Reb are offensive depictions and should not be used. But not all Rebels = Confederates.

Redskins however, refers to a specific group of people in a derrogatory manner and should not be used.

To me, the sports team name is indicitative of larger injustices suffered by the NA's in this country. They in a lot of cases lack the political clout enjoyed by other minorities in this country and are given "casinos" as a end-all, solve all solution.

I'm not saying that sports team names = slavery, but it is also a race issue that should be dealt with.

Kitso
KS 361

It never was Fighting Warriors, or anything like that...just the Warriors. They sell shirts at one of the stores off campus that says "My son/daughter/granddaughter is a Marquette Golden Eagle..." on the front and the back says "And I'm a MARQUETTE WARRIOR." I think I'm going to get my mom one for Christmas so she can be offensive.

Also, I have a gigantic Arrowhead on the back of my shirt right now. It's huge!

Kitso, I think you need to understand further the area where I grew up. It was originally populated by Native Americans and we've kept most of their names. EX: Milwaukee, Pewaukee, Chenequa, Oconomowoc, Mukwonago, etc. My high school campus has effigy mounds all over it. Nobody attending the school has ever complained about it, to the best of my knowledge. I certainly doubt any Native American people are offended by our state championships or respect of all the effigy mounds on campus, that all our remodeling has been done around. They will buy more land and have a highway divide the school before they allow those to be destroyed...stop assuming.

What??

Oh yeah, you're right, the slaves were at least permitted to live. Albeit in the worse conditions imaginable, they at least got some semblence of a life [/sarcasm].

I don't see how they are entirely different situations. Both were groups of indigenous people that were killed, exploited and had their way of lives drastically changed for the worse by Anglo peoples.

Kitso
KS 361

Okay, then I think we are mostly in agreement. I agree that "Rebels" is not necessarily offensive -- just as "Warriors" is not necessarily offensive until you add in the Chief Illiniwek-style mascot running around doing his war dance at halftime and the crowds doing the Tomahawk chop and singing "We will, we will scalp you" or whatever it is that such teams do these days. That's what makes it offensive.

It's all about context.

But I think you and I both agree that you don't need context to see that "Redskins" is offensive.

would you really want your team to be the Rebels? I mean, if they were Rebelling, wouldn't that mean they'd be scoring touchdowns for the other team? :p

As clarification. Obviously the white and red man have had conflicts pretty much ever since the former landed on these shores.

However, when Miami of Ohio was founded in 1809 (just five years later than my Alma Mater), the conflicts to which you refer (which were around the time and just after the Civil War) had not yet begun. In fact, the Northwest Territory had just been established in 1787, and there weren't too many settlements West of this area at that point in time.

Indians (or Native Americans, if you will) played an important part in both sides of the War of 1812 -- which simple math tells me had not yet been fought yet.

Which is a very long way of saying that the campaigns to which I think Kitso refers were still several decades in the future at that time.

ok then.

translate that to GeekyPenguin too. i apparantly am typing in some foreign conservative language ;) I never said i saw a problem with the use of tribal names, what i have a problem with is the perpetuated negative stereotype of Redskins and NA's as violent and savage people.

I'll go so far as to say, the term braves and warriors aren't offensive in themselves, however, if in naming a team that leads to mocking of tradition, culture, symbols, etc, THAT's something that needs to be dealt with.

Kitso
KS 361

kitso -

i understand your concern about native american rights. however, i don't understand how you can take a relationship that is almost 200 years old, between two groups of people that have worked together constantly for almost 200 years and compare it to tribes that were killed and exploited. that didn't happen in this relationship. stated numerous times by me and by DeltAlum, Miami University and the Miami Indian Tribe CHOSE this name together, a name which the school no longer uses because of people like you that were offended by it. therefore, i don't see how you can pretty much attack the school for something that no longer exists, the nickname. however, the relationship with the Miami Indians is still going strong. do you take offense to that too? is that a problem for you? the Miami Indian did not complain about having to move, they were very willing to move. the ties between the two groups are incredibly strong. the university hosts the Indian Chief and other members of the tribe at the school every single year. the Tribe hosts faculty and students of Miami University every single year. there are exchange programs constantly happening. there is incredible history between the two groups that will never change.

We never used tribal names. I have nooo clue where that came from. The names given to the areas surrounding my hometown were names given to them by the tribes which were there, but are not named after the tribes.

Thanks DA.

I will admit, my knowledge of eastern tribes is less extensive than my knowledge of the Lakota peoples.

The treaties signed by the Lakotas were signed in the late 1860's-1870's, with the fateful Battle of Little Big Horn being fought in 1876, the year of the founding of my alma mater as well(and also the founding of budweiser, so, kinda a good year for Kitso all around)

My experience with tribal-government relations has therefore been shaped by the experiences of a war-weary people, who signed treaties and were then slaughtered in camps at Wounded Knee, and are still today fighting for the allowances given to them in those treaties.

Kitso
KS 361

Re: Redskins = Racism
 

Who said that team mascots and those terms aren't given passing thoughts?

Jesse Jackson and the like HAVE (a long time ago) given this a "passing thought." Many, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, have warned one another against acknowledging certain team mascots and terms. Unfortunately, people (including minorities) still acknowledge them.

If the Native American community was a more visible force and collectively expressed discontent, consistently moving toward getting such terms and images abolished, there may be change. But, since the Native American community is relatively small, other groups must combine forces for this type of massive social change. This has yet to happen to a degree of consistency and influence.

The things your post has pointed to are nothing new and are taught in many courses dealing with Race and Ethnic Relations. It's important that you raised these issues, though.

The general consensus among Americans is that "these are just sports teams, no harm done," "Native Americans aren't angry, we're honoring their heritage," "If THEY were really mad...where are the protests?" and my favorite..."Well, my FRIEND (one person) is Native American and SHE sees nothing wrong (as if ONE person speaks for MANY)."

so they were named BY the tribes? so they are then, the tribal names for the areas? that is what i meant by tribal names.

mu_agd:

That's fine that your school has a pleasent symbiotic relationship with the Miami tribe. That is not the case in other parts of the country. My issue from the start was the use of negative stereotypes such as the term Redskins. You can't convince me, or others, that it's ok to use that term. Just because some AfAms use the N-word to refer to each other doesn't mean that i'd ever use it. I'm sure there are other AfAms that are totally offended by that world and never use it either.

Kitso
KS 361

That relationship between sports team and Native American group is rare.

Nevertheless, we have to look at the impact that such limited portrayals of racial and ethnic minorities, in this instance Native Americans, has on America.

I agree 100% and I'm glad you started this dialogue.

I'm also glad this dialogue is informative.

i never tried to convince you. i tried to give you background information on why Miami originally had used Redskins and did so up until the middle of the 90's when they changed it to the Redhawks. which you then basically went on to say the founders of the school killed and exploited the tribe. it seemed like you were taking this one situation and lumping it in with every other situation, while i was trying to explain how it was different. i was trying to make you see that in a way, Miami's use of the nickname Redskins was different than other schools and teams used terms that are generally associated with Native Americans.

Re: Re: Redskins = Racism
 

i agree with you on both of these statements. Although i disagree with Rev. Jackson on some issues, i think that he is an extremely effective leader for the AfAm community.

The thing that the NA community lacks the most are these charismatic, high-profile leaders. We have our share of leaders, but none as highly visible as Rev. Jackson.

Kitso
KS 361

Re: Re: Re: Redskins = Racism
 

;) Correction:

Jesse Jackson is not a leader for the African American community. The media gave him that title. Rev. Jesse Jackson has been a strong component of the continuing civil rights struggles. He's one of the many American leaders who often speaks from the African American perspective.

However, he's not a "leader for the African American community," just as there is no ONE leader who is the "leader for the white community."

So, with that said, I hope I am not speaking "out-of-turn" when I say:
The Native American community DOES have a group of influential people with the ability to organize some movement. This IS occurring in the Native American community, but it remains on a smaller scale. I have seen where the Native American community is extremely fragmented based on affiliation. Affiliation aside, gathering forces will allow the Native American community to create bonds with other minority communities (the average African American, in particular, has STRONG Native American ancestry). Without "unions," movements are impossible.