Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Racism and Ignorance

August 9, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Eighteen colleges are now on the mascot pariah list of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Three are Braves. Six are Indians. Four identify as specific tribes -- Seminoles, Utes, Chippewas, and Choctaws. Carthage College calls itself the Redmen. The University of Illinois has created its own tribe, the Fighting Illini. The last university on the list -- Southeastern Oklahoma State -- doesn't beat around the bush or go for modifiers. Its team name is the Savages.

American Indian leaders and activists have objected to their tribes' use as sports mascots since the 1970s, but the public has shrugged its shoulders and gone on cheering for its favorite Indians and Redskins, a term one linguist compared to Darkies. It is hard to have a serious public discussion about sports mascots because most of us don't know enough history to put the debate into historical context. Native Americans know this history. These are their family stories.

American Indian sports mascots exist under a double bubble of mythological padding. One layer is the mythology that surrounds, in this case, college sports and the "student athlete." The other consists of the deeply planted myths we have absorbed about American Indians. Under all this mythological wrapping, our thinking tends to get fuzzy. Fake Indians don't seem problematic because they are so very normal, just part of our "cultural wallpaper," in the words of Jay Rosenstein, who made the documentary film In Whose Honor?

The mascot debate is actually the latest in a long series of battles over who controls American Indian culture. Since most of us never learned the history of white/Native relations in our country, the issue seems to have sprung out of nowhere. Until I wrote a book about sports mascots, I never knew the history of forced assimilation. But culture was as much a battleground as land. The U.S. government conducted a strenuous campaign to wipe out American Indian cultures, religions, and languages. American Indian children were forcibly taken from their families to boarding schools where they were physically punished if they spoke their tribal languages or tried to maintain their religious observances. In a country that prides itself on religious freedom, the First Americans had none until 1934. Before this, Native people faced sanctions even when trying to conduct ceremonies and dances on their own reservations. One of the few historical incidents many of us do know about, the tragic massacre at Wounded Knee, took place because American Indians were gathering to dance at a religious ceremony that the government was determined to suppress.

At the same time that we were trying to destroy American Indian cultures, non-Native Americans loved to dress up and play Indian. What could be more American -- we've been doing it since the Boston Tea Party. Mascot performances like Chief Illiniwek, a fictional chief who dances at Illinois on the 50-yard line at halftime or Osceola, who gallops in at Florida State University games carrying a burning lance, trace their origins to the Wild West show, traveling big-tent performances that were part of the American circus tradition. This is why mascot performers and Indian profile logos almost always feature feathered headdresses, no matter what tribe they represent. The feathered headdresses are typical of Wild West performers, who were recruited from the Sioux Nation. Buffalo Bill, the best-known Wild West ringmaster claimed, just like modern universities, that his show was both historically accurate and morally uplifting.

Buffalo Bill's signature acts -- the Indian attack on the settler cabin, on the circled wagons, and on the stagecoach -- survived after the circus era as film and television clichés. Wild West shows were filmed and evolved into Westerns. When Americans flocked to Wild West shows, they believed they were seeing the last vestiges of a dying culture. It was true that Native populations were declining. But this idea, that American Indians would disappear like dinosaurs, became so embedded in American mythology that even today many non-Native Americans are startled to encounter a flesh and blood Native person. Boy Scouts were told it was their patriotic duty to learn Indian songs and dances lest they be lost forever. Thrilled by the Wild West performances, college boys and Boy Scouts emulated the showbiz Indians when they created Indian sports mascots, many of which date from the 1920s.

The college boys and Boy Scouts, despite their good intentions, were working under an enormous misperception. Native American people survived. Their populations rebounded. Having paid dearly to save what is left of their cultures, religions and languages, they want to control how they are used and passed on. Understandably, they resent how lightly colleges appropriate their cultures for entertainment at sports events and it is particularly hurtful that this happens in higher education. The United States Commission on Civil Rights pointed this out in April 2001 when it urged non-Native colleges to retire American Indian imagery and names in sports.

Public symbols that use other minority groups have mostly disappeared. They make us all uncomfortable. Can you imagine the Washington Darkies or the Florida State Chicanos? At Sonoma State University, when Jewish groups objected to the Cossacks nickname, they became the Seawolves within two years. If students were to stage minstrel shows, as they did in the 30s, the students would be justifiably criticized. But when America discusses race, the terms are usually black and white. Native Americans say they feel invisible.

The strong attachment students feel for their mascots or nicknames is not instinctual; it is promoted. Students are indoctrinated into a campus cult of racial stereotyping. Critical thinking on the subject of the mascot must be discouraged and the school has to promote an anti-educational, anti-intellectual reaction. This is even more disturbing because it takes place in a setting of talk about "honoring" Indians. But Indian mascots are fantasy figures, firmly stuck in the past.

One parallel symbol is Aunt Jemima, the slave cook who loved the plantation so much she didn't want to leave when she was freed. She is a white fantasy that denies and betrays the real history of slavery, just like the mascot Osceola. The real Osceola fought against American expansion into Seminole land and was betrayed when he came in good faith to a peace council with American soldiers. But his mascot reincarnation is happy to welcome Florida State fans.

Knowing this history, Native people find it hard to explain to us why mascots are so offensive. We can't hold up our end of the argument. It's like the modern teenager who looks at the Aunt Jemima syrup bottle, sees a positive depiction of a smiling African-American grandmother, and says, "What's the problem? It's so positive."

The problem isn't this particular logo, but the long pattern of denying the history of slavery that the original Aunt Jemima, with the ads depicting her life history, represents. In addition to slavery, there is another reality we have swept under our historical carpet: how we acquired this land we love so much. When you sweep something that large under the rug, you get bumps. Mascots are bumps in our historical carpet, something we are trying to rearrange and deny to make it more appealing. In our version of the story, American Indians just disappeared and our mascots commemorate them with respect and honor.

But American Indians are not gone and they don't want to be commemorated with a halftime Wild West show by fans that know nothing of their culture. Universities' and fans' proprietary insistence -- this is ours and we'll keep it no matter what you say -- is offensive. When the two sides clash on campuses, the racial hostility gets ugly.

The mascot/nickname/logo issue is about how the majority depicts the minority, so if you go to a reservation and interview people randomly, they may say it's not a concern for them. But listening to Native people who have spent time on the campus at Illinois or at the University of North Dakota, I usually hear strong feelings of frustration and bitterness. In those places, everything Native exists in relation to the mascot or nickname. And because American Indians nearly always oppose the mascot, the hardline students who support the mascot become anti-Indian.

Although the mascots are not intended to be hostile or abusive, the campus climate around them certainly can be, especially for Native students. Native leaders and educators, including the American Congress of American Indians, list mascots and anti-defamation as one of the important issues facing Native people.
Native people want to be in our institutions of higher education, not as mascots and sports souvenirs, but as equals and contemporaries -- as students, faculty and staff. They want their history taught truthfully in the classroom, not presented in a false pageant of white longing.

It is not easy to retire a nickname or mascot. The attachment of fans, their identity as Seminoles or Indians, runs deep. Generations of alumni come out of the woodwork, write letters, threaten to withhold money, bring lawsuits. Education is usually a popular enterprise and educators are taken aback at this kind of controversy. The NCAA has given these schools a perfect opportunity to say, "had to do it, couldn't hobble the sports program." I congratulate the NCAA for declaring that American Indians are not an exception to the non-discrimination policies of higher education and college sports that benefit other minority groups. Name and mascot changes can go very smoothly when the campus leadership is united and when they hold to their resolve that a new sports identity is best for the institution. The NCAA policy will have a ripple effect on high schools, another positive result.

Southeast Missouri State avoided the pariah list by changing its nickname this year. In October I spoke at the ceremony when the Southeast Missouri State Indians were retired, to the sounds of Mohican musician Bill Miller's haunting flute music. Everyone in attendance was positive about the future. Everyone was ready to cheer for the SEMO Redhawks. There's a lot of talk in college sports about respect. I felt it that day.

Carol Spindel teaches writing at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She is the author of Dancing at Halftime: Sports and the Controversy Over American Indian Mascots (NYU Press).

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Racism and Ignorance

  • Posted by Steven Blachard on August 9, 2005 at 6:27am EDT
  • There are team names which would be offensive to any ethnic group. I have no problem with names such as redskins or savages being banned. These are names which could easily invoke negative connotations. But come on.. Seminoles or Fighting Illini? The fact of the matter is that only a very small vocal minority of Seminoles object to Florida State using their tribe name. In a society where being offended is the norm, we have really climbed out on the edge of the cliff of political correctness. Give me a break! The NCAA, an organization which sanctions colleges with athletes who couldn't have passed my 6th grade class, needs to be back off.

  • Posted by Robert Eurich on August 9, 2005 at 7:01am EDT
  • It remains evident that no matter how many attempts are made to raise awareness about the serious educational, ethical, moral, and civil rights issues that are associated with the profuse, institutionalized use of "Indian" sports team tokens by publicly funded schools, some people just "don't get it" and can do no better than parrot the dubious, negatively charged "politically correct" cliché which wrongly contends that these matters concern mere "offensiveness." Such individuals are also typically the same ones who ignore any number of scholarly papers and position statements offered on this issue by scores of American Indian advocacy groups, such as the National Congress of American Indians, as well as many educational, civil rights, and religious organizations ranging from the NEA and NAACP to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Apparently the 19th century observation of Oliver Wendell Holmes remains true to this day: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract."

  • Posted by michael , Give me a physical break on August 9, 2005 at 7:57am EDT
  • As a member of a group of people referred to as the Tribe of Abraham, the Hebrew Tribe, and the Jewish Tribe, I do not find or take any offense in William and Mary's use of the Tribe nickname. Indians do not get a lock on this term, but it is amazing how an incredibly few people have co-opted this term as theirs and theirs only.

    And, when did a person who we characterized as brave become Indian? Jackie Robinson is Indian? Neil Armstrong is Indian? Do we have to eliminate the term brave and its associate, bravery, because some group of people bound by ethnic heritage says it is offensive? Any person who stands up for truth, exhibits courage, or does what is right is indeed brave.

    What is next? Many state names use Indian terms. Are they offensive? Maybe not today, but somebody's feelings will get hurt tomorrow. Of course, that is not very brave.

    When I asked the football coach who also doubled as the school’s counselor, if Sequoyah, the Cherokee’s private boarding institution, should or would change its nickname from Indians, he replied, we have too many real problems to worry about instead of fixating on some contrived issue. His words apply to every group involved in this mess championed by the NCAA.

  • Posted by Charlene Lawson on August 9, 2005 at 8:56am EDT
  • Just a personal observation as someone born and reared in Florida. I have often wondered how Florida State University could use the Seminole name and image without their express permission and payment for the use. All of us are very aware of trademark and copyright issues. So why are we surprised or offended by all of this? Someone suggested that now the "animal rights" people will make an issue out of the use of animal names and mascots. That's not a bad idea. I can see the University of Florida (Gators) perhaps paying the National Audubon Society for the use of that name and logo. Not a bad idea at all!

  • Know the facts first
  • Posted by Jason on August 9, 2005 at 10:36am EDT
  • regarding FSU's Chief Osceola Mascot:

    1) the Seminole Tribe of Florida has APPROVED the use of Chief Osceola and related symbols

    2) any student of Seminole lineage recieves free tuition to the University

    3) a recognized majority of native americans polled are NOT offended by most usages across the nation in all levels of sports ( there are exceptions, such as the Washington Redskins )

    it seems to me these points castrate the argument of the idealogues, and render them silly in appearance

  • Racism and Ignorance
  • Posted by Carmen on August 9, 2005 at 10:37am EDT
  • A few Indians/Tribes are complaining and why should we buckle for a few, however, those few are the voices of many past generations that suffered greatly to preserve their culture and language so their children may have a heritage. They were great and wise men/woman who deserve the most respect and honor for their sacrifices at the hands of ignorant people. The sports mascot indian names/logos would be, I believe, a reminder of the pain their fathers and mothers once suffered for many years as they fought so bravely and with courage to keep what is precious and sacred for the next generations to come -- their culture, language and heritage.

  • Savages and Braves?
  • Posted by Susan on August 9, 2005 at 10:37am EDT
  • Hey, I know! Let's change the name of Notre Dame's teams to the Fighting Drunkards! Shoot, everyone knows that this old stereotype isn't really true, so it's okay.

    And, I personally can get behind the Wittenberg teams changing their team names to the Nazis. Hey, there are all sorts of Nazis, right? It's not like we don't refer to "parking Nazis" when we find our car ticketed, so no ethnic group can take offense at that.

    Yup, no problem there.

    Sheesh.

  • Mascot Business
  • Posted by Chuck on August 9, 2005 at 10:43am EDT
  • The summer torpor has gotten the best of the busybodies and chronic malcontents who fret and fuss over things like school nicknames and mascots.

    I say put the matter to a vote of all alumni from the university in question. If they disapprove of nicknames like Redmen, Chiefs, Braves, Fightin' Sioux, and the like then let them say so and offer a replacement.

    But for the NCAA or students, faculty or alumni to take it upon themselves to tell another university what they can or cannot choose perpetuates the grotesque and shrivelled mindset of the politically correct grievance industry.

    Honest injun.

  • I am trying!
  • Posted by Samwise on August 9, 2005 at 11:13am EDT
  • Really, I am trying to care. I just can't get there. The kids are right about Aunt Jemima - its a positive image! So are the mascots positive images. Native Americans have a right not to be discriminated against and a right not to be harrassed. They don't have a right to be referred to always with careful sanctimonious reverence, and neither does anyone else.

    In response to Robert's comments: We get it! Really we do. We just disagree.

  • Posted by Bob on August 9, 2005 at 11:34am EDT
  • Here we have a very thoughtful article on the impact and significance of mascots for the peoples the mascots symbolize and the comments, I'm afraid, nearly ignore the article itself in favor of pat positions. I too was in the "oh come on!" camp, and still find the NCAA policy faintly ridiculous. But I found the article persuasive as to how universities' appropriation of a people's historical figures, or its heritage, and their reduction to cardboard cutouts prancing around at midfield, however "noble" the intent, can be hurtful and offensive and an endless irritation, or worse. And all this is magnified many times over when considering the terrible history of the Indians in American. So those thoughtful sentences in the article have convinced me - those mascots should go.

  • Let's study this for another five years
  • Posted by Bob A. on August 9, 2005 at 12:11pm EDT
  • Culture is about symbols. College sports symbols ('Noles, Chip's) are deeply ingrained in a college's culture. Yes, we are trying to make a better world. Yet, cultural changes can take time -- and understanding.

    Isn't this what *education* is about? To teach, to learn? The NCAA can issue orders -- but perhaps Myles Brand ought to take the time to explain his position to 'Noles' fans, fans of the Mighty Chips, Fighting Irish, Panthers, Poets, Slugs, etc. I'm sure, he'd get an earful -- for quite a while.

  • Posted by JImmy on August 9, 2005 at 12:11pm EDT
  • I'm with Jason (above) on this one. Get the facts before you spout off. The vast majority of native folks I know are PROUD that they are represented in sports in this way. They consider it an HONOR, not an OFFENSE.

    The statement "American Indian leaders and activists have objected to their tribes’ use as sports mascots since the 1970s" may very well be true, however these "leaders" and "activists" do not represent the majority of Native Americans. They are (as if often the case) out of step with those that they claim to represent.

  • Posted by George on August 9, 2005 at 12:48pm EDT
  • Well, I am Greek American and in theory... we should get rid of all the Greek based mascots & names too!!! No more Michigan State Spartans! And for my Persian friends, No More Trojans mascots! No More Fraternities or Sororities!!!! BAN IT!!! No more Greek college councils! No Frat houses with Greek letters on them! Hey, why not right? Native Americans can do it, why not Greeks? They cant make use of our history like this!

  • Take some responsibility
  • Posted by Rochelle on August 9, 2005 at 1:44pm EDT
  • I applaud Carol Spindel for writing about racist mascots and team names. I'm surprised she still needs to; I generally like to imagine that we live in a world where this conversation would no longer be required. But from the comments above, I see it still is. For some reason people seem to think that if they mean well, it's not racist.

    I don't care how many native people have or have not complained about a particular team name; "Redskins" is offensive, and it should be offensive to everyone. People in North America have a responsibility to learn the history of their countries and recognize the injustices being done in their names.

    If Osama Bin Laden invaded and conquered the United States and then founded a cricket team called "The Flying Americans" (for the people who had to jump from the WTC buildings on September 11th, of course) I'm sure you would be just as "proud" to be so honoured.

  • Posted by LemonThrower on August 9, 2005 at 2:16pm EDT
  • "College boys and Boy Scouts"? I suppose the author is unaware that Florida State University was historically a womens' college until after WWII. Its primarily female student body selected the name "Seminoles" by popular vote to honor the indigineos tribe.

    Also, the depiction of Seminole symbols has for more than a decade been done with the consultation and approval of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, which is perhaps the only Native American Tribe that successfull resisted forced assimiliation (in contrast with the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma, who were forcibly assimilated).

  • To help an Indian scholarship fund ..
  • Posted by Bart on August 9, 2005 at 2:23pm EDT
  • At the University of Northern Colorado .. a group of long-standing prescence ..

    http://www.cafepress.com/fightinwhite/111

  • Posted by Cynthia , Librarian on August 9, 2005 at 3:34pm EDT
  • The cavalier attitude displayed by many of the above respondents is indicative of why so little thought is given to other people's feelings. Isn't it amazing that the first REAL Americans are given such short shrift, while the rest of us walk around beating our chest about how great it is to be an American. I beg your pardon! What am I thinking? Of course, there are many Americas and many Americans and, not every American is equal. Who are these Indians anyway? Why should we be sensitive to their feelings? Afterall, we emasculated their men, took their land and left them for dead. And, surely, if the Seminole Indians are happy about having their name used, they are the voice of EVERY other tribe. Come on people, cultivate and grow some sensitivity, that is part of what it is means to be a bona fide American.

  • No Irish...No Greeks
  • Posted by Kevin on August 9, 2005 at 3:34pm EDT
  • Fair Enough...get rid of all references to the Irish...we should now be called the friendly Irish...Greeks...ditto. My team was the "Screaming Eagles" how insulting to eagles everywhere...I mean eagles cannot even talk. I think we should not be allowed to even SAY "Indian" unless we are referring to a motorcycle. And why "Irish Whiskey"? Just cause it is from Ireland...and think about Scotch...we should have to get permission from everyone about everything cause we have to prove we are sensitive. PS stop hitting each other on the field...it offends me. You did not get my permission for this article either...

  • I'm still confused
  • Posted by Evan J. on August 9, 2005 at 5:39pm EDT
  • Carol Spindel has argued that Native Americans should be able to do what they can to protect their culture. I agree with her. I believe that groups such as the Seminoles and Utes have done this by correcting the inaccurate way these schools previously portrayed these tribes. The Seminoles have given FSU traditional garb for Osceola to wear. If you doubt these please find a picture of Osceola and compare it to the images on the top of the Seminole tribe of Florida's web page. Also, the Utes have give Utah a traditional headdress to use.

    I don't agree that these tribes speak for all Native Americans, but they can speak for the schools that represent them and they have (see the Seminole tribe of Florida ratifying a document stating they approve and enjoy FSU's use of the Seminole name).

  • Weak arguments
  • Posted by Sean on August 9, 2005 at 5:39pm EDT
  • The fallacies and inconsistencies of the victimhood movement know no bounds in these absurd arguments.

    Certainly, a plausible argument can be made that terms like "savages and redskins" are offensive to a large number of native Americans. Although a scientifically sound study on the subject recently poined out that onlt about a quarter of Native Americans view these symbols with hostility.

    But there just isnt an argument to be made against schools like Florida State University, who not only have the approval of their state Tribe, but have the enthusiastic cooperation of the Tribe in ensuring the symbol remains authentic to the culture.

    Its intellectual shallowness masked as "minority rights".

    Not only has the NCAA been taken over by the thought police advocates of the left, it has apparently abandoned all reason, in place of bogus cliches and diversity clap-trap all too common in today's victimhood advocates who leach onto tenured positions in higher education.

    A travesty. A shameful one.

  • The argument is incongruent
  • Posted by Bryan , The argument is incongruent on August 9, 2005 at 6:36pm EDT
  • You say it would be wrong to sweep the past under the rug, but then we are criticized for drawing attention to their proud history... and your solution is to ban those displays? Just what light would you like the Native Americans to be portrayed in? Would you prefer that every single reference to Native Americans portray them being forced into reservations? History classes do a fine job of teaching the accurate history of Native Americans. Sporting events would be an inappropriate place to display the sad plight of on oppressed people. Don't forget... this was a war, atrocities were committed on both sides; should we portray any of the atrocities the Native Americans committed during their war with the English Settlers? That topic seems to be taboo, but for what reason? It would be "historically accurate" to do so, and even Aunt Jemima wouldn't be offended. The point here is, in the vast majority of these sporting events (not all, I agree) the Native American tribe and it's history is being treated with respect, and in some cases has even given its blessing to the University (Florida State, University of Utah). Do you think for a moment that Florida state is honoring the "broken spirit" of the Seminole Nation by selecting them as their mascot? Are they telling their opponents, "The Seminoles were easily conquered. You'll have no problem with us, either!" For the most part, selecting a Native American symbol for a mascot is a celebration of the integrity of the history of that symbol.

    Using only a segment of history while ignoring the whole to make your argument weakens the entire stance.

  • Could it be...?
  • Posted by Rick on August 9, 2005 at 6:37pm EDT
  • Not much happens at the level of the NCAA without money being an issue. Could this be about... money?!!

    Here's the equation... Mascots described as "offensive" by a few vocal people = nervous advertisers who are not interested in getting in the middle of this "debate"; innocuous mascots = a few disgruntled fans who are still going to watch no matter what their team is called!

    It's a no-brainer for the business person. Names MAY cause nervous advertisers - out; generic names that mean nothing to anyone - in. This has nothing to do with the NCAA's concern for the "offended" groups. It's nervous advertisers they're worried about.

    I'm sorry, but there are people who actively look for things to be offended by so they can say, "Look at me! I'm offended!" or "I fight against injustice!"

    The example of Florida's Seminole tribe support is the clincher for me and should put this whole issue to rest.

    The tribe has spoken... it's OK to use the name! Go find some real victims of some real injustice and do some real good in the world.

  • Racism and Ignorance
  • Posted by Chris at High School on August 9, 2005 at 7:02pm EDT
  • This is a good article. We must find a middle ground in this subjec that is dictated by those native americans who face this legacy of American intervention in their society. The American populace should not disucss this issue without the opinion and blessing of Native populations in America. Also, NCAA should get off its high horse and actually promote education over athletics which would diminish the view of mascots in college athletics.

  • Taking What's Not Yours to Take
  • Posted by Wimbrel on August 9, 2005 at 8:40pm EDT
  • The proponents of exotic Indian mascots seem to be missing the point that whatever else, these mascots represent a misappropriation of Indian cultural material. They are not Indians, nor do they speak for Indians, and for them to hold these displays, no matter how earnest and well-researched, is a travesty.

    And to all those who compare Indians to animals: imagine a team called the Blacks. There would be a Black mascot who would perform an authentically Black rite at halftime... See the problem? Or how about a team called the Winsome Jews?

  • Posted by Martin on August 10, 2005 at 4:21am EDT
  • If Myles Brand, Poster Boy of Political Correctness for the left, has anything to say about it, Indianapolis, Indiana, (current headquarters of the NCAA), will soon be renamed 'City of Racist Republicans'. The State of Indiana will be renamed 'State of Ignorant Conservative Bigots'.

  • Why so much passion?
  • Posted by William on August 10, 2005 at 4:22am EDT
  • I remember having the same passion about the Stanford Indian nickname being retired > 30 years ago. I find it odd in hindsight and wonder why these fans are so unreasonably passionate about a nickname. If only they'd really reflect on their attachment to it. Now if we could only get rid of ticket scalpers...

  • Mich. Indians comment
  • Posted by Bob on August 10, 2005 at 7:39am EDT
  • From ..

    http://www.detnews.com/2005/editorial/0508/10/A06-274166.htm

    "The university's athletics nickname does not sit well with the presidents and chancellors who comprise the group that governs college sports. But it doesn't seem to bother the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, which endorses CMU's use of their name.

    "Any arbitrary decision made from an outside source regarding university-tribal relations is not acceptable," Joseph Sowmick, a Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe spokesman said in a release.

    - 30 -

  • Posted by Charlene Lawson on August 10, 2005 at 8:29am EDT
  • Jason - Thanks for setting me straight on Florida State University's policies and procedures about the use of the Seminole image. I am glad I was wrong. I wonder what other colleges do. After reading all of the comments, I realize that it is still the image of the native American culture that is being represented, and it is important to all of us how that is being done.

  • South African mascots
  • Posted by Ex-pat on August 10, 2005 at 8:57am EDT
  • You people certainly have a lot of time on your hands, don't you? You'd probably not like it down here: the biggest rugby rivalry in South Africa is between the Univ of Cape Town and and the Univ of Stellenbosch. The half century-old nicknames? US are the "Maties", because the Afrikaner farmboys' red faces reminded people of ripe red tomatoes (to-MAH-tos). UCT are the Ikeys, honouring the long and strong support for UCT from the local Jewish community. Offensive? To be honest, we're all too busy trying to build a new non-racial, non-sexist nation to give a shit. We just GET ON WITH LIFE........

  • Posted by Rob Schmidt on August 10, 2005 at 11:19am EDT
  • For more information:

    Why FSU's Seminoles Aren't Okay:
    http://www.bluecorncomics.com/seminole.htm

    Fighting Sioux vs. Fighting Irish:
    http://www.bluecorncomics.com/irish.htm

    Smashing People: The "Honor" of Being an Athlete
    http://www.bluecorncomics.com/athletes.htm

  • Re: bluecorn.com (see above)
  • Posted by Bob on August 10, 2005 at 1:47pm EDT
  • Dear Mr. Schmidt:

    FYI -- comparantive illustration of GWB to Hitler are passe', according to Jon Stewart of Comedy Central.

    So many different groups have accused their opponents of being Nazis, the effect of calling someone a Nazi is no longer in effect. "Only Nazis, are Nazis -- OK?!?" Jon said.

  • Posted by RC , Hackles Up! on August 10, 2005 at 4:22pm EDT
  • After reading the article and the subsequent comments, I could not find one compelling argument for keeping any of the mascots.

    Here are some questions to ponder: If these mascots are removed will your life change drastically (at all)? Does this strip you of your freedom? Will you wake up in three years and even remember why you had your hackles up? In three years will Native People’s and other minorities NO LONGER suffer from prejudice and inequity?

    The answer to all of these questions is NO.

    It is really OK for the mascots to go away. I promise it won’t change the outcome of the games. Promise.

  • Weak argument, RC
  • Posted by Bryan , WEAK! on August 11, 2005 at 4:38am EDT
  • RC,

    That's just a weak argument. By that standard, all the associated sporting events could evaporate, and our live would go on fine, as well. Also, a vast majority of the books in our libraries could disappear, and many recreational equipment/activities, could also cease to exist as well, and our lives would, for the most part, all go on like before. How does that fact bear any impact on the argument at hand? The NCAA didn't put any valid thought into their decision, and they certainly didn't consult with the Native Americans who were being affected, and that's just a silly way to make decisions that impact thousands of people. Whether or not it merely gets my feathers ruffled, or even changes the course of my life is irrelevant to that discussion. This is a free country, and it makes us happy to voice our opinions on such matters, as useless as that may be!

  • This issue in WSJ
  • Posted by Bob on August 11, 2005 at 12:05pm EDT
  • fyi

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110007090

  • Huh? What?
  • Posted by RC on August 11, 2005 at 12:07pm EDT
  • Huh? What? Sports evaporate? Impact thousands of people? Are you kidding. Do you think the all state quarterback cares what the mascot of the university he is signing to is? No. All he cares about is the winning record and how many others from that school get drafted into the pros.

    Consult Native Americans? How many have to be consulted for the decision to be valid? One, one thousand...

  • Posted by Chance McClain on August 11, 2005 at 2:20pm EDT
  • I dug around and found some really good information about the history of the name “Seminoles” for Florida State.

    The name was adopted in 1947 after being voted by the student body. The other name finalists were:

    Crackers
    Statesmen
    Tarpons
    Fighting Warriors

    Imagine if they had voted “Crackers”. Back then, “Crackers” was another word for a “Go-getter”.

    Some quotes from the papers.

    Taken from The Daily Democrat; November 9, 1947
    “In commemoration of the tribe of Indians whose descendants still live in the Florida Everglades, the name was chosen by the FSU student body in final elections Thursday and Friday.”
    It was “in commemoration” not a slap in the face of the Indians.
    Taken from The Daily Democrat; November 9, 1947
    “The selection certainly gives FSU a distinct title. There are no college teams that bear the name that we know of, and as yet no high school bearer has been revealed.”
    Part of the reason it was selected was because it was unique.
    Taken from The Daily Democrat; November 9, 1947
    “New nicknames, especially when applied to a school, team or group are apt to appear ill-fitting, but they take on polish with constant usage, and are mellowed, aged and honored with time.”
    The line “honored with time” shows that “Seminole” is a symbol of pride, not prejudice.

    I believe I am gong to side with the NCAA on this one.

  • One question and one question only!
  • Posted by "Indian Man" on August 11, 2005 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Hello everyone, I would like to say is I have a question in two parts for everyone. It does not matter if you are for mascots or against it. Why is it okay to have "Indian" mascots and why should "Indians" be okay with it?

  • Posted by Sheila on August 11, 2005 at 3:01pm EDT
  • For all the non-Natives who are commenting on this subject....

    You will 'never' understand the personal feeling that 'we' Natives share in this abhorration of our culture. So whatever 'remarks' you make towards this subject, make 'you' the ignorant people. Just as 'my' people were judged to be ignorant, becuz we would not accept the assimilation that the US government forced upon us.

    Shame on 'all' of you!!!!

    Ojibway...AND PROUD!

  • mascots
  • Posted by TERY on August 11, 2005 at 5:09pm EDT
  • i myself am native american and went to a high school not of my choosing where the mascot was an indian. During rallys or games he would run onto the field as if in battle and raise his spear into the air in all four directions..wait a second isnt that prayer? Natives do give thanks to all directions in prayer at least my tribe does. I,at the time was too involved in my schooling and just thought it was cool to have an indian mascot. Now I am an adult and my son will go to that high school but we are fighting to have the indian mascot removed from there also. We are people, proud people, not mascots.

  • Mascots vs. Totems
  • Posted by Bryan , Mascots vs. Totems on August 12, 2005 at 4:40am EDT
  • Tery,

    I mean no disrespect by this, but what about the animals that are chosen by individual Native Americans as their pesonal totem? Do you have one? Why did you choose that particular animal? The way I understand it (my father was adopted by a Lakota family, and Native American issues have always been important in our family), a main belief of most Native American cultures is that people exist as equals with other creatures in nature. Totems are chosen to help individuals express themselves through the characteristics of that animal (among other reasons, but space here is limited). When you do this, are you intending ANY disrespect for the animal you chose as your totem? Of course not... in fact, quite the opposite; it's a sign of great respect to choose an animal as your personal totem. Why, then, is it offensive if a particular school (Florida State, for example) thinks that particular virtuous and positive aspects of Native American cutlures (sometimes generally, sometimes specifically) help exemplify morals and virtues that they as a school which to portray? You say that you're people, not mascots, and that is certainly true. But nobody is trying to turn you into mascots, are they, the same way Native Americans are not trying to turn animals into totems.

    The Ute Nation and the Seminole Nation of Florida have given their unanimous, whole-hearted support to the schools who reference them as mascots (University of Utah, and Florida State). If they don't have a problem with it, why do you and the NCAA?

  • Native American nicknames
  • Posted by Andrew Bradley on August 12, 2005 at 9:50am EDT
  • Folks like Steve "needs to be back off" Blanchard are part of what is wrong with education in the U.S. Yes, many NCAA schools have poor academic standards with regard to athletes but the ban on Native American nicknames is a step towards raising awareness and therefore, hopefully, standards. What is to be gained by perpetuating these stereotypes? Nothing, compared to what we as a society stand to recover in terms of our basic humanity by finally and unconditionally denouncing the sordid legacy of oppression and genocide from which the names originated.

  • Why is it important??
  • Posted by Ansel on August 12, 2005 at 10:20am EDT
  • I have one question to ask the people who are in favor of keeping mascots. Why should there be "Indian" mascots? Why is the point? If I was to have a mascot, I would have a hillbilly as a mascot and I say this mascot is honoring and respecting all the white people in America. How many white people would be mad? How many white people would want to get rid of the mascot? How many white people would say that is not who I am? I think every white person in this country would raise up and have it get rid of. Why is it okay to tell American Indians that they do not have a voice about their own image? Answer these questions if you can

  • It Is Important, But...
  • Posted by John on August 12, 2005 at 1:16pm EDT
  • Ansel, It important, but...
    The Ute Nation is Ok the U. of Utah.
    The Seminole Tribe of Florida has a long standing relationship with Fla. State. The Seminole Nation is more ambivilant, but doesn't say no (actually the current head chief or next one said he thinks FSU using the mascot helps keep the Seminole in view.
    Most importantly in national polls, the vast majority American Indians say they don't care about mascots. This is on the order of 80% or 90% (I've seen both lately).
    But back to Ansel's question - What if he had a mascot "Hillbilly", saying it honors white people. Frankly, bad example. Most whites I know won't care. They don't characterize themselves as hillbillys. But I might get irritated about some mascot of my ancestry (not so far, the Fighting Irish and the Vikings don't bother me). But that doesn't count. What does count in this case is the vast majority of the people involved (American Indians) don't care or do support the use of specific mascots.
    Sorry this was so long.

  • What about SEMINOLE Drive?
  • Posted by Bob on August 12, 2005 at 1:28pm EDT
  • Will my relatives have to change their stationary?

    Relatedly: why not let the Seminoles trademark their name? Then let them decide what to do. That would fix ol' Ward Churchill! (The phony BS artist).

  • Important?!
  • Posted by Ansel on August 12, 2005 at 3:33pm EDT
  • In case you did not read what Carol wrote about the polls. Look at the article again. Speaking for myself, I am a American Indain, I have not taking any poll regarding this issue of mascots. I know other "Inidans" who have not either taking these "polls". Yeah these tribes are in favor of their mascots, but everyone should no is that no one or two tribes can speak or a people. If that is the case, does the president speak for you? Some will say yes and some will say no. If you do not understand my point than really think about it.
    And another thing, no one answered my question.

  • Hillbilly = Chief/Brave/Warrior?
  • Posted by Bryan , Hillbilly = Chief/brave/warrior on August 12, 2005 at 4:36pm EDT
  • Ansel,

    I'd like to answer your question, but let me make sure I'm understanding it first... are you saying that you feel that that great Chiefs of your Nations are roughly the equivalent of the American Hillbilly? That's probably the most offensive statement about Native Americans on this board, and YOU'RE the one saying it. Equating Chiefs and Braves and Warriors with Hillbillies is degrading to Native Americans, don't you think? I don't understand why you would make that correlation. Now, if a Native American University selected as there mascot a generic, ubiquitos "White" military leader as their mascot, and called themselves "The Generals," are you asking if we would all be offended at the reference, I don't think so. What if it was a religious reference, and the mascot dressed up as a Catholic Bishop, and the University called themselves, "the Padres", or "The Cardinals?" I still don't think there would be a whole lot of offense taken to that.

  • "White" mascot
  • Posted by Bryan , "White" mascot on August 13, 2005 at 4:57am EDT
  • Ansel,

    Also, there is a case in point that you reference: a year or 2 ago, a group of Native Americans in Colorado were making the same point you are making about "white" people probably being offended at having them being mascots, so they started an intramural sports team called "the Fighting Whities", and the local "White" population was the biggest supporters of the team. They loved it! Nobody was offended by it, so I don't think your point is being well-made. I understand that you are offended by the refrences being made, but your point about the tables being turned hasn't been made yet.

  • Important?! Yes
  • Posted by John on August 13, 2005 at 4:57am EDT
  • Yes I did read what Carol wrote about polls. The only comment I saw was "so if you go to a reservation and interview people randomly, they may say it’s not a concern for them. But listening to Native people who have spent time on the campus at Illinois or at the University of North Dakota, I usually hear strong feelings of frustration and bitterness." That, to me, indicates what I said about the polls - most American Indians don't care about mascots. And those who have been to Universities are frustrated. But still a minority. Also you stated that you were not polled. I assume you know that most polls cannot check with everyone in the interest group - too expensive. So, if you specifically are not included in a poll, it can still be an accuracte reflection of the overall feelings of the interest group. Lastly, I thought I answered your question. My answer was that the Ute Nation has said ok about using it's name. The Seminole Tribe of Florida has said ok. The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma has stated that they were misrepresented by one of their own and they have no objection to the use of the Seminole name by Florida State. And, yes I believe that those tribes can and should speak for a people when it is their tribes names and images being used. Why should you (unless you are a Ute or Seminole) have a say about it. I sure don't. Last thing, Yes the president does speak for me in national issues. That's his job, even if I didn't vote for him (which I didn't). If I disagree with him, I can demonstrate, write to my congressman or the paper, but in the end, he still speaks for the American people. Hope I didn't miss any questions this try.

  • Uof I's response to NCAA
  • Posted by Stephen Kaufman , Professor at University of Illinois on August 16, 2005 at 12:20pm EDT
  • University of Illinois Board Chair Lawrence Eppley statements in USA Today are a sad but not unexpected reflection on him and the institution he purports to serve. Instead of taking the recent initiative by the NCAA to have the U of I end the invidious discrimination and institutional racism promoted by Chief Illiniwek and Fighting Illini, Eppley, chooses to attack the NCAA’s choice of words. This is understandable, since as chair of the Illinois Board of Trustees that has taken sole authority over the mascot issue, Eppley is largely responsible for the failure of the Board to resolve this. Although Eppley was quoted in the NYTimes, now years ago, stating that the chief was at best an outdated Boy Scout project, and, it was a matter of when rather than if, Illiniwek would be retired, he has failed to provide the leadership to do so.

    Eppley scorns the NCAA and its President Myles Brand for inflammatory rhetoric, but he has said nothing about the bumper stickers of his supporters that proclaim, “The Chief Today, Tomorrow, Forever,” a direct appropriation of the racist slogan “Segregation Today, Tomorrow, Forever.” Eppley calls any one or any language that he does not agree with “extremist”. He says he seeks, “opportunity for real, substantive, and constructive dialogue” yet he does nothing to promote that and continually refuses to engage in real dialogue rather than charade.

    Instead of providing the NCAA with a forthright response to its recent request for information on the impact of its Indian mascot and symbols, the University responded with a worn out “whitewash”. And Eppley now complains that the NCAA has not initiated a proper opportunity for discussion! That the NCAA has demonstrated integrity to its principles of non-discrimination in intercollegiate athletics and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has been twice reprimanded by the North Central Association (its academic accreditation oversight organization) for its lack thereof, is an example of the courage and leadership that have been lacking by the Illinois Trustees and administration. Congratulations to the NCAA for filling that void!

    Mr. Eppley’s attempt to diffuse the content of the NCAA’s stance against racial stereotyping by calling it political correctness fails, as it is under Eppley’s leadership that the board has succumbed to pressure from past and present Illinois governors to keep their mascot. Yes, this is a political issue and yes, it is correct to end racial stereotyping.

    Most recently Eppley has led the Board to affirm the intractable association of Fighting Illini with American Indians, and now he tries to justify and dissociate the use of that moniker from Native Americans. After 16 years, he just doesn’t seem to get what the debate is all about, that “Native Americans are People, Not Mascots.”

    Eppley, cited that portion of the 1995 U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights decree that suits him, but omits the part that encourages the University to resolve the issue before it exacerbates racial hostility on the Urbana campus. The failure of the University’s Board and administration to do just that during the past decade gives them no quarter to complain when forty presidents of colleges and universities reviewed the issue and with the NCAA's leadership state, it is time to end the racial stereotyping in intercollegiate athletics that is inherent in the use of Native Americans as sports mascots and symbols. That Eppley cannot see that Illiniwek and Fighting Illini have fostered a racially hostile environment on the Champaign-Urbana campus is truly unfortunate. Perhaps he should listen to the Native American students and faculty on the Urbana campus. Perhaps he should talk with those African American students who support their Native American peers who are told, "if you don’t like our Chief, go back to Africa." Perhaps he should read the resolutions by the United States Commission on Civil Rights and the NAACP against the use of Native Americans as sports mascots. Perhaps he should talk with his faculty, 80% of whom encourage retiring Fighting Illini and Illiniwek.

    If the Illinois Trustees do not have the courage to retire Fighting Illini and their fake chief, they should at least welcome the NCAA’s initiative, integrity and willingness to take the heat on this.

    Stephen J. Kaufman
    Professor
    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  • Misread
  • Posted by Ansel on August 16, 2005 at 2:24pm EDT
  • People people!! Why are you misreading what I am saying. Why are you people turning this around about me saying that my chiefs are equal to hillbillies. That statement is unfound and insulting. I wasn't saying that but whatever majority people turn everything around they have been doing it since they came over in their boats and they are still going to be doing it. No one understands that one or two tribes do not speak for enitre nations of "Indians". They don't, I have been to a protest in Champaign and at the protest they had a banner with all the TRIBES that were against "Chief Illiniwek". Residents in Champaign think that the Illini people are still alive and I am sad to say they are not. Teh decendents of the Illini people, which are the Peorians are against the "Chief". These polls really need to show what these "mascots" are doing at these halftime shows. If they show who they are asking. I promise you that the polls would be different. Everyone would be against it. They were against the TNT series "Into the West". The reason why is because it was not accurate. So if I was you people trying to keep your view about who we are. I think you need to get some help. This is not your culture, leave it to the ones who this culture does belong to. Stop trying to be something your not. That is what is wrong with the majority they have no culture so they need to sucks someone else's. If you do not like this comment then you know what weare going through with this mascot issue. That is all I have to say.

  • Native Americans and other Politically Correct Phrases
  • Posted by Ken Rohrer , Faculty at University of Phoenix on August 16, 2005 at 6:00pm EDT
  • I like to visit pow-wows across Indiana and Michigan. At these pow-wows, the "Native Americans" have stated that the term calling them Native American is not prefered. They prefer "native human" because they were here before this land was called America. This illustrates how rediculous politically correct terms are. Did they even poll all "Native Americans" on what they prefer to be called? -Or did they just talk with a few people on a reservation? I believe this same thought process continues with this debate on sport teams. Do only a few "Native Americans" have a problem with it, or is this the feeling of the vast majority? I grew up in a community with the Urey Indians as the high school team. A man in full headress would stand in the center of the court while the teams were practicing before the game. These images from childhood convey strength, pride, courage and beauty. I don't think anyone thought this mascott was an insulting image. And no, I am perfectly aware that "Native Americans" have survived and live across America. If only I could have a mascott representing me like this.

  • Double Standard
  • Posted by JD on August 16, 2005 at 6:24pm EDT
  • The article criticizes the Southeastern Oklahoma State University Savages but says nothing about the Oklahoma State University Cowboys or the University of Oklahoma Sooners. Can someone explain this double standard without being paternalistic?

  • So full of assumptions!
  • Posted by Bryan on August 17, 2005 at 5:01am EDT
  • Let me ask you something, Ansel... what was it that gave you the impression that by having an image of a Seminole in traditional head dress on the FSU jersies, when I hear that Ansel is a Native American, that would automatically make me wonder, "hey... where's HIS head dress and leather-skin clothes? What kinda Indian IS he, anyway?" Just because some universities use Native American symbols as mascots, it does not mean that I think that you, some, most, or any other Native American should look, act, dress like that... any more than I think that anybody with the last name O'Leary is supposed to look like the mascot for Notre Dame and be constantly drunk and alway looking for a fight just because the Notre Dame mascot is doing just that sort of thing. I was also a Cleveland Indians fan for a long time, and can you believe that I wasn't the least bit surprised to find out that Cheif Wahoo didn't IN THE LEAST DEGREE represent one single Native American anywhere in the country - not even a little bit? And do you know what else, Ansel? This may surprise you, but I also don't think that anyone who likes to attend Oktoberfest is fat and keeps a supply of sausages in their pocket. I don't think everyone named Morimoto knows karate and likes egg rolls... in fact, if I see someone of Asian decent, I don't automatically assume their name isn't "Johnson." You may be surprised to find out that most people posting here are just like that. I would venture to guess that the attitude of assumption you've been displaying here are every bit to blame for the situation we all find ourselves in as much as our lack of understanding of your culture. I know many, MANY Native Americans who, as you say, "have a voice about their own image," regardless of what universities or professional sporting teams do with their mascots.

  • question for Professor Kaufman
  • Posted by RPIC Editor Boy on August 18, 2005 at 2:48pm EDT
  • A few questions for Professor Stephen Kaufman of the University of Illinois:

    There are no known surviving members of the Illiniwek, and you yourself say that Illinois' Chief Illiniwek is fake.

    So how is it possible for a race of people that no longer exists to be offended by anything at all, much less a fake Chief?

    And are you not guilty of stereotyping when you lump all Native American peoples into one group of outraged, offended people.

    The argument against Native American Indian names, symbols and imagery in college sports assumes that abuse and offense were primary motives behind choosing the names and logos of those teams in the first place, and that simply is not the case.

  • Assumptions
  • Posted by Mari on August 24, 2005 at 10:59am EDT
  • I am involved in University statistics and I have extensive polling research. For all of those people that are using polls that say 80-90% of Native Americans don't care about Native mascots, must realize that you can skew a poll to achieve desires results and that polls are not meant to be used as scientific data. If one where to use a survey that could be used as scientific data there would have to research done prior to the survey and include equal number of individuals randomly chosen from all backgrounds of each 500 recognized tribes....To my knowledge this has not been done....Also for the people who claim that their "Indian" friends have no problem with the mascot, "all things are relative", ask yourself honestly are these people who speak their language? Are they involved with their native community (reservation)? Have they been raised around other enrolled members of their tribe? These are all things that must be taken into account. If someone does not live what they represent, then they cannot know who they represent. Similarly, if the only arguement to keep Native mascots is because they "honor" people, but the people who are supposed to be honored disagree, then all attempts to retain these mascot are not done to honor Natives.

  • Fighting Illini and Chief Illiniwek
  • Posted by Matthew on August 24, 2005 at 1:21pm EDT
  • Regarding the University of Illinois and the current mascot debate, the mascot Chief Illiniwek should not be confused with the name Fighting Illini. Since many vocal participants in the current debate have failed to make this distinction, a brief history is in order.

    When French explorers first made their way down what is now the Illinois River in 1679, they met several tribes of Native Americans: Cahokia, Kaskaskia, Michiganmea, Moinwena, Peoria, and Tamaroa. This confederation of tribes collectively called themselves Illiniwok (or Illiniwek), which means, loosely, “group of men.” The French version of the word was Illinois, with which they named the river. The State of Illinois later took its name from the river that ran through the heart of the state.

    The first use of the term “Illini” was in 1874, when the editors of the student newspaper at the University of Illinois changed the paper’s name from the Student to the Illini. This soon became a collective name for University of Illinois students and alumni and, later, for all Illinois residents.

    The name evolved from Illini to Fighting Illini during the campaign to build Memorial Stadium, shortly after the end of the First World War. This stadium, which stands today, was built in honor of those University of Illinois students and alumni who fought and died in service to their country. The memorial campaign coincided with the Illinois’ great championship football season in 1919, under the legendary Coach Bob Zuppke. The name stuck.

    The term “Illini” literally stands for students and alumni of the University of Illinois. Not surprisingly, the name bears an indirect linguistic relationship to the original inhabitants of the state. However, the name “Fighting Illini” was not meant as a tribute to the tribes of the Illiniwek Confederation; the name is a tribute to those Illinois students and alumni who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

    Unfortunately, the addition of the mascot Chief Illiniwek generated confusion about the origin of the team name. Chief Illiniwek made its first appearance in 1926, some 52 years after the first use of the name Illini. Today the mascot is the subject of heated debate. Unfortunately, the name Fighting Illini has unfairly been included in the same debate. Whether or not the University of Illinois chooses to retain Chief Illiniwek, the University must keep the name Fighting Illini.

    If we retire Chief Illiniwek, so be it. But the name Fighting Illini is not for others to take. It is ours.

  • Native American related Mascot Ban
  • Posted by Melinda on August 24, 2005 at 3:03pm EDT
  • I am the GGGG Grandaughter of Chief Between-The-Logs of the last Wyandot Tribe in Ohio. What is the problem? I understand that "savages" isnt a term anyone wants to be associated with, I'll give you that. Chiefs? Indians? Redskins? Warriors? Please! Find something better to gripe about. My son attends a school here in Lexinton Ohio... the "Minutemen". Should we be up in arms over a mascot of a white man holding a gun? Choosing battles in life is important...but if this is all you have to complain about in life - feel lucky. Your life is pretty good. GO TRIBE!!!

  • More assumptions
  • Posted by Bryan , More assumptions on August 25, 2005 at 4:27am EDT
  • Mari, what are you saying? That because a certain Native American doesn't grow up around certain practicing members of his tribe we should discount his/her opinion? "Wait a minute... you're not informed enough to have an opinion about your heritage, but thanks anyway!" Either it's THEIR heritage to care about, or it ain't, regardless of where they grew up or who they grew up with. Would you also suggest that because African Americans didn't grow up around people speaking their language and practicing their tribal traditions that we should discount any efforts they are trying to make to protect their heritage? I daresay you would not say that. That plain and simple facts of life are as follows:

    1) No decision, ever, is going to make everyone happy.

    2) When making a decision affecting VERY large amounts of people, SOMEBODY is going to be offended. The larger the group affected (say, on a national level), the greater the chance of offending somebody.

    What The NCAA needed was some common sense to make their ruling, and that was sadly lacking. Removing names that are obviously offensive can't be a bad idea (Savages and such). But how is Cheif, Warrior, and Brave any worse than General, Minutemen, Commodore, Fighting Irish, Scots, Cavilier, President, etc? Let's be honest... if you're Irish, do YOU want people thinking of Notre Dame's mascot everytime they think of you? Short, drunk and ready for a fight? I'd REALLY like to know how that mascot made it past the NCAA's offensive ethnic mascot list. Talk about stereo typing! The NCAA's own inconsistencies on this matter speak loud and clear that this was not about protecting ALL races againts racial injustices, but rather about protecting the NCAA from a few people who threatened legal action.

  • Posted by Martha on August 29, 2005 at 6:31pm EDT
  • I could only read half of the comments and realized most of the comments are made by non-Natives. Anyway - you just don't get it! Before you all make comments why don't you try walking in our shoes and truly research our history (not what you learned in school or saw in the movies). Seems to be a lot of ignorant opinions out there.

  • Posted by Mindy on August 30, 2005 at 4:49am EDT
  • I have Native American blood running through my veins, I DO get it. We're talking about team mascots here! It's not as if we are talking about a Native American on a football helmet scalping a white man. It's not as if we have a mascot tying a murderer to their victim until they die themselves. You also dont see the mascots running into the stands kidnapping white children and forcing them to grow up as a team player. As much as we may not like it, these are things that have actually happened. Do you want to re-write history so it portrays all Natives as being fair skinned men with war paint upon their faces, never wearing traditional dress, etc.? Native Americans have had to fight through many ignorant stereo types over the years. Many life long struggles by many brave and honorable Natives. It is my own belief that if you choose to complain about such a trivial matter...you are only spitting on our ancestors...the ones who faught much larger battles for many years, so that we may have a better life. Do not add to the stereo types. Don't allow others to also believe that we are dishonerable people who cry until we get our way. Hold your head high. Be proud of who you are. Choose your battles in life carefully...for if you don't, you will only make yourself look like a fool.

    BE A BELIEVER IN THE CLEVELAND INDIANS!
    GO TRIBE!

  • you just don't understand!
  • Posted by jalyssa nava on March 19, 2006 at 4:50pm EST
  • It's not the point of what socity calls us "native people". Iam Native american not rasied on the reservations, but mi grandfather did. but iam dam proud of mi blood, and where mi people come from and the hard ships they went throught and i be damd if society as a whole trys to dehumanize and be little me or mi people. and no offense but if you have native blood and more then the whitos saying "im have 5% native american" you should be outraged by the native american mascots. Because if we are not as Native American society as a whole sure in hell is Not. and all the non-native american let me leave you with this would you like your culture being moocked by some one not of your race on a field of their own game. -Jalyssa Nava 2nd generation off the reservation from the Hoptuh (Hopi) Tribe.