Do you agree?

librasoul22 · #1 08-24-2002, 05:22 PM

Being that I go to a school with a Native American mascot and there are weekly protests about it at every football game, I was wondering...

Do you guys think that it is appropriate to have Native Americans as mascots? (i.e. the Washington Redskins, the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians, etc.)

I, for one, do not agree. I went to many seminars and talked to many professors that gave me the real deal. I also reserached the Native American group that my school chose for its mascot. It is all kinda shady and it puts a slight damper on my school spirit. But hey, as long as I graduate, lol.

Anyway, what do y'all think?

PositivelyAKA · #2 08-24-2002, 06:02 PM

i guess if enough people take issue with it they should have the decency to get another mascot.

Sugar_N_Spice · #3 08-24-2002, 06:57 PM

No, I don't agree w/it. It's racist and culturally insensitive.

straightBOS · #4 08-25-2002, 11:02 AM

I think the mascots should go. It's actaully kind of sad, because if a team does not get the money they want or a new stadiumm, they are quick to threaten to move to another city. But, when asked to change the name to something more appropriate, all of a sudden there is all this history, or "respect" (?) or value in the name of the mascot.

The Cleveland Indian mascot is QUITE offensive. The name Redskins is offensive enough. Also, if you go to Fighting Illini or Seminoles games, they have the mascot with a full headress and warrior paint acting a fool doing backflips etc. Not to mention the tomahawk chop and the warrior call. Its all quite derisive. I think the teams won't lose a single fan if the name was changed to something more appropraite.

AKA2D '91 · #5 08-25-2002, 11:09 AM

What about the Jeep corporation? This debate came up a few years ago. They are still selling the Cherokees.

I'm not going to lie. When we were in college, our school played Alcorn Braves. lmao. Whenever their band would play their fight song and they'd go (uh,uh,uh,uh (the sound you are taught that Indians made when they covered their mouths with their hand)) it would start to rain. NO JOKE. It would rain, not all times, but sometimes.

Anyway, the "church" hasn't protested anything about the Saints. I personally, think they should change their name, that way they could win a few games, more than preseason games.

I really do not have an opinion, and I have "Indian in my family". Protesting makes the world go 'round.

miss priss · #6 08-25-2002, 06:22 PM

As an Alcorn alumnus, I must say I don't agree either. How would we like it if there was a team called the San Diego Sambos, the Nevada Niglets,the Colorado Chinks, or the California Crackers? These names are quite offensive and I am 100% sure that Indians take offense when their names are used out of context. In defense of Alcorn, we are the Braves which could be defined in different ways so legally we are somewhat protected. Its meaning is totally debatable. However, it still doesn't mean that we shouldn't be more politically correct.

Although it makes you wonder,what price has America payed for the usage of a name....could it be the millions of dollars and land given to reservations untouched by the government to build multibillion dollar casinos? If Blacks,(another issue another thread) received reparations would we really care if there was a team called the New York Negroes? In today's world , how true and real is our value system as it relates to our culture with the use of our "given" name?

ClassyLady · #7 08-25-2002, 06:46 PM

I am 100% against those mascots and I always have been. If it were any other racial minority group, the mascots wouldn't have lasted twenty minutes. It is really offensive and I cannot fathom any kind of justification for it.

The only reason that these teams can still use these names is because the Native American voice in this country is so weak. Sometimes I really feel that all minority groups, not just Blacks and Hispanics, should come together to fight for what is right. We all get discriminated against.

neicy81 · #8 08-25-2002, 08:12 PM

Actually there was a team called the _____ Crackers.I believe it was started by some Native Americans but don't quote me on that.I think using Native American names and symbols are wrong.The University Of Illinois and the Native Americans there had a long going battle with their Illini Chief.It's a shame

markmywords · #9 08-26-2002, 12:34 AM

there is a high school team in ND(?) that named themselves the WHITIES to show how ignorant one of the neighboring schools "Indian" mascots was. The team is all white and they believe that the mascots are offensive.

i say way to actually take a stand on principle. they caught a lot lot of flack for that including an ESPN interview.

Steeltrap · #10 08-26-2002, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by neicy81
Actually there was a team called the _____ Crackers.I believe it was started by some Native Americans but don't quote me on that.I think using Native American names and symbols are wrong.The University Of Illinois and the Native Americans there had a long going battle with their Illini Chief.It's a shame

Atlanta Crackers. It was a minor-league baseball team.
I can't verify if the team was started by Native Americans, however.

jali0004 · #11 09-05-2002, 03:15 PM

I think the names are totally offensive (I go to a school where our mascot is a friendly, suave, gopher..but anyway...). But the names are also offensive. The names we associate with Native American tribes are names other tribes gave them. This means that (hypothetically) the name "Cherokee" was given to this tribe by another (let's say the Sioux for example purposes only) tribe. The name Cherokee is something offensive in their language (I won't post it here, but you may PM me if you want to know).

So having NA names act as mascots/brand names etc, is offensive, and then offensive again because the names are already cruel.

Okay that's my .08 cents!

poodleNtraining · #12 09-05-2002, 07:43 PM

There has been a LONG battle here in the DC area to change the name of th Redskins. In a TV interview the Native American they were interviewing said that "Redskin" to them is the equivalent to "nigger" to us. But they've been debating that forever, and have come no closer to making a change. I mean, It wouldn't be TAHT hard, they changed our basketball team a few years back from the Washington Bullets (another long tradition) to the Wizards (which sucks, but whatever). What they did was they had the public suggest new names and then they picked 5 I think and someone(s) picked the final name, so the people had SOME say in the matter. But you know its HARD for some folks to break with tradition.

AKAtude · #13 09-05-2002, 09:16 PM

I agree that the names are offensive and should be changed. This debate has been going on for so long. I remember when I was growing up, the mascot of a high school in my hometown was and still is the "Warriors". Nothing has changed. But I suppose there are other questions we could ask. Is it because "the squeaky wheel gets the oil"? Is there not enough media attention? Are other minority groups too busy pushing their own agendas to be concerned with another group's plight? Or is it that enough people simply don't care?

Steeltrap · #14 09-06-2002, 11:57 AM

FYI: My best friend is an alumna of Compton High School in SoCal. The school, which has a 40% black enrollment (57% Latino), has a mascot called the Tarbabe. Yup, Uncle Remus and isht.

AchtungBaby80 · #15 09-06-2002, 12:49 PM

Sorry to jump in on your board, but I couldn't resist!

My university's mascot is pretty inoffensive (a wildcat), but the mascot of my high school was the Indian. Nothing much was said about it except for a blip several years ago when a couple people pointed out that the mascot name could be considered racist to some and proposed that we change it. (Bear in mind, the person who wears our mascot outfit had to wear the stereotypical Indian gear--feather headdress, war paint, etc.) Of course nothing changed because many people didn't see anything wrong with it, but I did (although I didn't make a big deal about it because it would have been all for nothing). Indians (the Native American kind) are just like any other racial group, so why should they be picked on when we wouldn't even dream of having a "Chink" or "African" mascot? I blame the idiots who chose that mascot in the first place after all the county's high school merged way back in the day--they could have chosen to be the Eagles, the Hornets, or the Trojans (which were the mascots of the other high schools), so I just wonder why the heck they chose to be called the Indians. Not only is it offensive, it's not very original, either.