OT - Use of Native American images/names as mascots. Opinions?

In article , Banty says...

In article et, Jeff says...


"Jeff" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Banty" wrote in message
...
(...)
But how do you ascertain "..when the people the name refers to doesn't
want you
to use that name..."?

Simple: Native Americans tell us that they don't want us to use names that
refer to them.

Of course, this doesn't apply to all use of Native American Names.

http://seminoles.collegesports.com/g...080505aab.html

In this particular case, Seminole Tribe of Florida supports the use of the
Seminole name by FSU.

In cases where Native American tribes support the use of their names and
symbols by teams, I am all for it.

Yes. Like I say, let's repair where there is true insult and insensitivity, but
let's not be stupid about it.


There is also a peice on this on NPR's morning edition. You can hear it at
www.npr.org, probably after about noon EST if you don't hear it on the
radio.

Interesting piece! A self-identified Black commmentator, scolding you-know-who
for not letting Native Americans speak for themselves, advocating that we stop
using the Indian mascot references (all of the Indican mascot references), he
can say this because (yes he really said this to close his piece!) he's a
"person of color".

..to be followed by the NPR announcer stating that tomorrow a member of the
Seminole nation will be presenting the other side for retaining the FSU mascot!

He gave some silly hypthetical counterexamples - he apparently hadnt' noticed
the Irish and Viking references we've been discussing here. Straw men being so
much easier to knock down, y'know.

The "person of color" thing got brought up as a side-thing in this discussion,
but they're related, aren't they? Here we have, in a nutshell, a lot of what's
wrong with the "person of color" terminology. "People of color" as opposed to
you-know-who, all have the same complaint, so all form some amorphous mass, so a
Black man can scold the White establishment for not letting the Seminole speak
for themselves. Let *him* do that - he's a "person of color".

It will be on the npr website probably tomorrow to stream and listen to.

Banty


Here it is. Note: the tone is ironic, all through.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4797365

Banty

"Banty" wrote in message
...
Here it is. Note: the tone is ironic, all through.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4797365

You know, the guy goes on and on about how some rich white
guy shouldn't be speaking for the Seminole Tribe, so why does
he think that he, as a rich black guy can do any better? It will
be interesting to see what the tribe spokesman says.

Bizby

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:28:22 GMT, "P. Tierney"
wrote:

It's lovely, but I don't see how the heck it applies to what
I wrote. Again, It doesn't seem to me that you read my full
post (when I clearly stated an example in which I *listened*)
before you tossed out your ad hoc put-down.

I was unaware that you had taught in high school.

That's okay. Since the original post that you responded to
include an anecdote regarding my teaching experiences, then
I assume that you knew as much about me (hence my reaction),
but you must not have seen that part of the post.


P. Tierney

In article ,
Banty wrote:


Thinking it's important to listen is NOT the same as agreeing; however,
I do want to understand minority view points. You never know what you
might learn!

I'd agree heartily with that.

But so often we hear that a viewpoint was not taken into account, the evidence
offered being that those expressed desires of that party had not been duly
implemented in full!

Yes, I'm familiar with that thinking: if you don't agree with me, it
MUST be because you weren't paying attention, since I am so clearly
RIGHT and you are so clearly WRONG . . .
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
dragonlady says...

In article ,
Banty wrote:


Thinking it's important to listen is NOT the same as agreeing; however,
I do want to understand minority view points. You never know what you
might learn!

I'd agree heartily with that.

But so often we hear that a viewpoint was not taken into account, the evidence
offered being that those expressed desires of that party had not been duly
implemented in full!

Yes, I'm familiar with that thinking: if you don't agree with me, it
MUST be because you weren't paying attention, since I am so clearly
RIGHT and you are so clearly WRONG . . .

...or it must be that their consiousness hasn't been raised..

But I dont' think you understood what I was saying. What I was saying is that
you hear "we asked for X, X did not happen, therefore our viewpoint was not
taken into account".

Banty

Hot button here in Milwaukee. Marquette University changed from the
Warriors to the Golden Eagles about 10 years, and in re-opening the
issue this spring, a think panel came up with "The Gold," which served
to unify old alums who hated the Golden Eagles, the newer alums who had
got kind of attached to the name THEY graduated under, and the entire
community. They're back now to the Golden Eagles. Kind of like the New
Coke fiasco, I guess. (What WERE they thinking? The Gold? Does this
imply the Jesuit institution values money above all? LOL)

Not all Native Americans said they were offended by "Warriors" although
enough of them were that I think those feelings should be respected.
Some of them were not necessarily offended by the name itself -- which
could be portrayed as warriors of any culture, after all -- but rather
by the cartoonish mascot and some of the "dances" and other demeaning
traditions that were long associated with the nickname.

I also am uncomfortable with portraying NA as warriors, because, well,
not all NA peoples were known as fierce warriors. I guess an analogy
might be if we called a team "The Europeans" -- complete with a
Viking-like mascot.

There's much we could learn and much to admire in the various NA
cultures, skills and worldviews, but boiling it all down to "noble
warriors" really rubs me the wrong way, and I'm not even NA.

Lori G.
Milwaukee, WI

In article ,
Banty wrote:

In article ,
dragonlady says...

In article ,
Banty wrote:


Thinking it's important to listen is NOT the same as agreeing; however,
I do want to understand minority view points. You never know what you
might learn!

I'd agree heartily with that.

But so often we hear that a viewpoint was not taken into account, the
evidence
offered being that those expressed desires of that party had not been duly
implemented in full!

Yes, I'm familiar with that thinking: if you don't agree with me, it
MUST be because you weren't paying attention, since I am so clearly
RIGHT and you are so clearly WRONG . . .

..or it must be that their consiousness hasn't been raised..

But I dont' think you understood what I was saying. What I was saying is
that
you hear "we asked for X, X did not happen, therefore our viewpoint was not
taken into account".

Banty


That's exactly what I think I was saying . . . I asked for X, you didn't
do X, therefore you must not have understood/heard/valued/considered my
opinion.

Because if you'd considered my viewpoint, you would have done what I
wanted, because I'm so clearly right.

Then there are those who seem to think if they just explain LOUDER
people will agree with them . . .
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
dragonlady says...

In article ,
Banty wrote:

In article ,
dragonlady says...

In article ,
Banty wrote:


Thinking it's important to listen is NOT the same as agreeing; however,
I do want to understand minority view points. You never know what you
might learn!

I'd agree heartily with that.

But so often we hear that a viewpoint was not taken into account, the
evidence
offered being that those expressed desires of that party had not been duly
implemented in full!

Yes, I'm familiar with that thinking: if you don't agree with me, it
MUST be because you weren't paying attention, since I am so clearly
RIGHT and you are so clearly WRONG . . .

..or it must be that their consiousness hasn't been raised..

But I dont' think you understood what I was saying. What I was saying is
that
you hear "we asked for X, X did not happen, therefore our viewpoint was not
taken into account".

Banty


That's exactly what I think I was saying . . . I asked for X, you didn't
do X, therefore you must not have understood/heard/valued/considered my
opinion.

Because if you'd considered my viewpoint, you would have done what I
wanted, because I'm so clearly right.

OK. It's that, the way I look at these things, even though one party may be
"right", the issue is more that the *other* parties are "right", as well.

Majority parties, too.



Then there are those who seem to think if they just explain LOUDER
people will agree with them . . .

Yep.

Banty

Nikki wrote:
dragonlady wrote:


However, pretty close to the bottom line is the general way that folks
of that particular group feel about it. There are no more Pilgrims or
Pioneers, so it would be hard to ask. But if a large number of Irish
folks were offended by Notre Dame calling their teams the Fighting
Irish, then I'd have to say it needs to be reconsidered. Same goes
for the Seminole -- if a lot of Seminole folks are offended, then I
think it needs to be reconsidered.


I think another thing to consider is if there is an undercurrent of racism.
Is there racism towards Irish people at Notre Dame? I have no idea but I
rather doubt it. I don't know if there even is racism towards Irish people
in this day and age? Not in my area but that doesn't mean anything.

There is lots of it about, the whole drunken fighting Irish stereotype
is racist.

How
about decedents of Vikings or Celtics?

The Celts morphed into many cultures, Irish Welsh, manx etc...most
(all?) cultures probably experience prejudice from another in one form
or another.