Redskins = Racism

[aurora_borealis]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
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.

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

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

[mu_agd]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
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.

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.

Originally posted by mu_agd
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.

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

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361
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

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.

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361
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

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.

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361
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

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.

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
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.

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

[mu_agd]

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361
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

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.

[DeltAlum]

[i]I'm merely saying that attitudes of tribes at the time of treaty signing could be completely different that tribal attitudes today.[/B]

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.

Originally posted by sugar and spice
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.

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?

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

[GeekyPenguin]

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

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.

Originally posted by mu_agd
. 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.

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

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361

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.
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.

[33girl]

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361
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.

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?

[DeltAlum]

[i]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.

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.

Originally posted by sugar and spice
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.

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