You have to remember that a lot of Native American tribes use terms like Brave and Chief, etc, in spiritual contexts. For them, some of those terms and the concepts that go along with them are almost holy. It would be like naming a team the Fighting Jesuses or God Almighties.
The logo sucks. I think they should have went with something more along the lines of this as their logo: os
Actually, that is a good point. It is ok for a church to use that name. For them, it is a tribute, not an insult. If Native Americans owned the Atlanta Braves, that would be fine. They would be honoring the name. As it is, the name isn't honoring anything other than Ted Turner's wallet.
Didn't see the SI article, but saw this a few days ago. http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr030802.shtml "Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81 percent of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83 percent of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters, and symbols." The poll also found that 75 percent of Native Americans don't think the use of these team names and mascots "contributes to discrimination."
Yep.... x34 Fightin' Whities swamped with T-shirt requests By Coleman Cornelius Denver Post Northern Colorado Bureau Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - The Fightin' Whities, an intramural basketball team of American Indians at the University of Northern Colorado, has been flooded with requests for T-shirts since news broke of the team's satirical mascot protest. On Tuesday, the student basketball team set up an e-mail account to start taking orders - even though players have not yet figured out exactly how to mass-produce their shirts. Would-be buyers may send T-shirt requests to fightingwhites@hotmail.com. The team will send back acknowledgments and more information. The system is meant to gauge demand while the team irons out copyright issues and checks university guidelines, said Jeff Van Iwarden, 21, one of the team's few Anglo players. The Fightin' Whities expect to charge about $20 for their shirts and will donate all profits to a Native American cause that has yet to be determined, Van Iwarden said. In the course of just two days, as news of the team has exploded nationwide, the players have gained countless fans across the country. Many are clamoring for T-shirts bearing the team mascot - a 1950s-style caricature of a middle-aged white guy - and the phrase "Every thang's gonna be all white!" The intramural basketball team's official name is "Native Pride." But the team calls itself the "Fightin' Whites" - and is widely known by the more in-your-face "Fightin' Whities" - as a jab at nearby Eaton High School. School officials in Eaton, a farm town north of Greeley, have refused to discuss the school's mascot - the Fightin' Reds - despite complaints from area Native Americans who see it as a degrading stereotype. Eaton High School's mascot is a caricature of an Indian with a misshapen nose, wearing a loincloth and eagle feather. The UNC team was frustrated that pleas for tolerance were misunderstood or discounted, they said. So the players decided to use some provocative humor to stir up the debate. "Walk in someone else's shoes, and then you can make a judgment," said Ryan White, 22, a team player and member of the Mohawk Nation.
I saw the Chron story had this line in it: More than 1,600 e-mails have flooded into the university in Greeley, north of Denver. Some say it's about time that a white person is made a mascot for a sport team. It's about time? What about all the schools that already use white people as mascots? What about that obnoxious Rowdy (from the Dallas Cowboys)? What about the pirate on the old Bucs helmets (though that person could've been Spanish or Portugese, I suppose.... Though that wouldn't make them non-white), what about the Lewisville Fighting Farmers, the Texas Tech Red Raiders, the Tascosa High School Rebels, the Hustling Quakers of Eastling College, the Fighting Irish of Norte Dame, the West Virginia Moutaineers, Oklahoma State Cowboys (and Pistol Pete), UNLV Rebels, Michigan State Spartans, University of Southern California Trojans, Wake Forest Demon Deacon, Xavier Musketeers, The Rifleman mascot of the University of South Carolina Spartanburg Rifles, and so on and so on to name just a few. And I would mention that the Charlotte Hornets were sort-of named after white Revolutionary War fighters. I have no problem with the fact that Native Americans are offended by being mascots, but I wish this whole idea of there not being any white people used as mascots would go away. There are white mascots. To say things like "It's about time there was a white mascot" or something of that nature is to ignore reality.
Maybe native Americans wouldn't be so sensitive if they weren't, you know, removed from most of the continent. You know how many treaties the American government honored with the "indians?" None. Most white people in the history of the world were not buccaneers, vikings, or cowboys, anyway. Think about how outrageously native Americans have been portrayed in movies and television and you tell me how they are supposed to feel about having their entire history reduced to a ****ing logo of a red faced man with a cartoonish hook nose a la the Cleveland Indians? Why is this is so difficult to understand? If, say, American natives came over to Europe, wiped out most of the native population while calling its civilization "the land of the free and home of the brave," culturally humiliated them for a hundred years and then called their soccer teams the New Sioux Krauts, don't you think the remaining German people would be a little pissed? When you have no power and no hope for any these things that seem petty to others take on a much larger meaning.
Because those of us who disagree with you lack your brilliance, as well as your patient and reasonable method of explaining things.
Oh, Brian, are your little feelings still hurt? You would think as a former "history major" (if not graduate) at UT you might have developed a thicker skin by now. And, really, the *last* person who needs to give lectures about conducting a "patient and reasonable" discourse is your spazzy ass. You have had more than your fair share of mewling and dorky rants that had nothing to with patience and reason. I don't bother to make any claims that I am always reasonable, or temperate, but you too often come across as an annoying little child who got his tonka toys away. As evidenced by todays little temper tantrum, you nurse more wounds than Florence Nightingale. Your serve.
Brian raises valid points (after his sarcasm). Your post sounded like a rant on the injustices (which there are many) to the Native Americans, but the question is...does that really have anything to do with mascots? If the Natives felt that way, I might be so inclined, but you did not address that 75-83 percent don't think that it's a problem. Statements like 'entire history reduced to a ****ing logo of a red faced man with a cartoonish hook nose a la the Cleveland Indians?' may 'sound' good, but are so outlandish they are totally meaningless. Was that really the sum total of your exposure to Native history?
My point was entirely about the false claim that it was about time a white person was used as a logo. We have white people in logos all over the place and have for a long time. It's hard for me to support any cause where the people promoting it use false claims. This whole "How would you like it?" question has been settled. We don't care. Does that mean that Native Americans can't care? Of course not. They can be personally offended by it all they want to and be well within their rights. And I can sympathize with that and understand their position. But if they want things to change, I would suggest being honest in the debate. Don't claim there aren't any white people used as logos unless there really aren't any. It's dishonest, and if anything, it hurts their point (because we don't care, It doesn't show us how it feels to you, especially since we already know how it feels. If anything, it makes it harder for us to understand your point.) If they can claim that there were no white people used as mascots before these Fightin' Whities, then I claim that there are no Native American/Indian mascots used anywhere. Yet, if I claim that, I suspect that a large number of people (including the media stories about my claim) would correct me and think I'm an idiot. Yet when this group makes essentially the same claim, there's no correction. And any attempt to correct the misinformation gets only a large diatribe that completely ignores the point (I was correcting misinformation, not making any judgement on their claims of being offended. They can be offended all they want. I just want them to be honest).
Just to further prove that mrpaige is RIGHT, I offer the name and the logo of the Boston Celtics. Not only does this name and logo caricature white people, it singles out people of a specific ethnicity and culture, that being Americans of Irish descent. As an American of (partly) Irish descent, I am absolutely NOT offended by this caricature of my ethnicity. But I still hate the Celtics for the '81 and '86 finals.
OK, I have two (related) reasons why I think a comparison of the white mascots and the Native American mascots doesn't hold water: a) Differing power relationships. It's easy to laugh at yourself if you're secure in your position, right? So if you extrapolate from that personal example to the example of a culture: it's easy to enjoy caricatures of your own culture if that culture is the dominant one. b) Perhaps more to the point: of course there are lots of white mascots - don't we all actually *agree* that the Fighting Whities guy was exaggerating? - but not all of them are the *same* mascot. There are all these wacky variations, as people have mentioned. Cowboys and pirates and celtic people and all that malarkey. Those variations in mascots tend to emphasise the many different groups in white culture. They're a kind of affectionately regarded *range* of characters. But Native American mascots are usually just the same offensive caricature, aren't they, despite all the differences between tribes and all the different roles or characters which *could* be adopted if their culture was really affectionately regarded or respected. Their culture has been reduced to ever-so-slight variations on that *horrible* Cleveland Indians logo (which I was utterly appalled by when I first arrived here, and my opinion hasn't changed any after four years). So saying that 'there are white mascots too!' sort of avoids the real issues, to my mind. New Zealand doesn't bother with mascots anyway. Or cheerleaders. Or football helmets. Or national anthems for provincial games. Why don't you all just play the bloody sport without all that hoopla?
Screw it !!! I am 1/8th American Indian and I don't give a rat's A$$ whether or not people use Redskins, or Indians as their mascot. JESUS PEOPLE !!! Get real, it is a mascot, nothing more. Too many people running around saying it is offensive to people when in reality, they are just stuff shirts that want to argue about these poor underprivlidged this or that. Guess what? The INDIANS lost the war, they were conquered, and they have now been assimilated into the good ole US of A. Not one of us was alive when all those treaties were broken or written, and not one of us can be held responisible. What the F..k ever happened to people's sense of humor....sheesh...all you sensitive screwballs need to reach down between your legs and see if you still have a pair !!! DaDakota PS. I think there are more women on this board who have bigger sacks then a lot of the men....
OK. So I take it no one wants to actually address my point. <shrug> Let's break it down for people who aren't 'sensitive screwballs': if some team at home had a caricature of a Maori warrior as a mascot, they would get their asses royally kicked by a bunch of giant, pissed off, tattooed brown guys with clubs who objected in no uncertain terms. And I, along with my 'sensitive screwball' family of Maori descent, would be cheering them on. If Native Americans aren't violently angry at how they're portrayed, I can't help that. But I certainly wish they were. And I'd *love* some hypothetical smug white apologist to be missing some teeth after telling them to 'get over it'.
