|
And I think it provides some insight on the mascot issue. I went to school at Haskell with this man, so, its not my words, but this is what "Steve" had to say about the mascots...
I haven’t written on this issue yet because I’ve been gathering my thoughts, but here they are. I can’t think of any good reason to keep a Native American-themed mascot if certain Natives find them offensive. Here are some of the arguments I’ve heard.
The “We are honoring you” argument:
The simple fact that a significant portion of Natives who find such mascots as offensive dismantles any claim of “honoring” Native Americans. Imagine a sports team called the Christians. What if they were to simulate a crucifixion at the fifty-yard line before a game, similar to the way FSU does with a flaming spear before their football games. The mascot could run around in white robes and sandals with fake puncture wounds on his hands and feet, yelling “I am the way and the light,” while running up and down the sideline, “resurrecting” people as the band plays, “Onward Christian soldier.” Could that be excused by simply stating that they we’re honoring a person whom a great deal of white people worship as a god?
The “What about the fighting Irish?” argument:
How many Irish-Americans have complained about this mascot? It’s an honest question because I don’t know. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that most Irish-American are not offended. My response: “so what?” Are you seriously going to tell me that since one group of people are not offended by how they are portray as a sports mascot, that Native Americans don’t have not right to be? Would the same argument be as effective if a group of African-Americans were offended by team called “The N*****s?” Would those people tell that group of African-Americans, “well the Irish aren’t offended by the ‘Fighting Irish,’ so why should you?” And if you’re thinking that I’m stretching this with using the “N” word, try going into a place where there are a huge number of Natives present (i.e. powwows, tribal councils, an Indian Center) and say, “What’s up Redskins.” (Then after that, try explaining that you are honoring them.) Some people are shocked when I tell them that terms like “Skin/Redskin” or “Chief” are the equivalent to the “N” word for some Native Americans. The whole the-Irish-aren’t-offended-so-why-should-you-be argument simply does not make sense.
The “What’s next, PETA complaining about the use of animal mascots, or the Audubon Society complaining about bird mascots?” argument.
Are you seriously going to align animals and birds with Native Americans? We may be few in number, but we’re not dead and are not simply a part of the natural background.
The “It’s been long tradition at this institution” argument:
Hmmmmm, let’s see here, the oldest university in the U.S. is Harvard, which was established in 1636. Would it surprise anyone if were to say that Native Americans tribes predate 1636? If you’d like to play the “its tradition” card, I believe any Native American tribe would be able to trump that.
The “Let’s not get too P.C.” argument (a.k.a. the “someone is going to be offended no matter what you do” argument): Simply saying that someone is going to be offended no matter what I do seems to be a weak reason to continue with Native American-themed mascots.
Yes, it’s true, you can always find at least one person who would be offended by any action you take, but does that excuse continuing an action that you know to be offensive? Not to mention that the whole argument breaks down when you consider that not just one person will be offended, but a significant group of people. Hyper-sensitivity is one thing, but basic common respect is down-right civil. Let’s say that I refer to you has “shithead” or “asshole” and you are offended by that (and believe me, naming a sports team “the Savages” is equal if not more offensive than “shithead” or “asshole” to a lot of Natives). Let’s say that you inform me that you do not wish to be referred to by those names because it offends you. What would you say if I then said, “I know it offends you, but 1.) I say it to honor you, 2.) Bob isn’t offended, so why are you, 3.) I suppose you don’t want me calling your dog “shithead”, and 4.) there’s nothing I can do that someone won’t find offensive so stop being to sensitive.
The “Seminoles have give permission to FSU” argument:
Okay, you got me. If the Seminoles of Florida and, according to recent reports, of Oklahoma are fine with how Florida State University represents their image, who am I to say anything; I’m not Seminole. This may seem like a copout, but the whole “Seminole” argument is a red hearing. Just because the Seminole Nations of Florida and Oklahoma offer their approval to FSU does not excuse the owners of the Washington Redskins to use the term “Redskin.” Am I offended by FSU using the Seminoles and their portrayal of Chief Osceola? Sure, but, like I said, I’m not Seminole. It’s their sovereign right to offer such an approval because it is particular to their people. It’s similar to the “Fighting Irish” argument. It would be like saying, “Since the Seminole nations of Florida and Oklahoma aren’t offended, why should the remaining 560 tribes (and these are just the ones that have federal recognition; it does not include those without federal but state recognition and those tribes that are fighting for federal recognition) be offended by teams like the “Savages” or the “Redskins?”
There you have it. I have not come across an argument for the retention of Native American-themed mascots that is overly convincing. To be quite honest, I feel that those who do argue for the mascots’ retention are simply saying, “We don’t care what Native Americans think,” and I’m not too keen on that sentiment.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
