I have some Native American friends at BYU and one of them started a discussion about Indian mascots throughout the country in her facebook account. There are people who argue that having such mascots is actually helpful to promote the tribes around the US, and another way to provide them with some money that comes from using their name for a team. However, most Native Americans would see this as derogatory and offensive to their cultures. One person asked, what would happen if a football team used an African American person or tribe as a mascot? Surely there would be controversy, and they would immediatly be cataloged as racist. Why is it different for Native Americans?
This is a short part of a documentary called "In whose honor" that I found very interesting. I hope you like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVo0fuspW3M
Monday, March 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have to admit, I hadn't really thought about this issue much before. I had heard a few people complain about it and had felt that they were being overly sensitive about the matter.
ReplyDeleteMy attitude however changed when I learned where the term "Redskin" came from. We often think it is a simple reference to the color of their skin (as if that's not racist enough), even though Native Americans are clearly not red. But this is not where the word comes from. The word "Redskin" is a reference to the color of a Native American's skin after having been scalped. The blood from their head would run down their body, momentarily staining their skin red.
Forgive me for using this example, but the term Redskin is every bit as racist as the term "Cotton-picker", as they are both used to denote the awful treatment of these people in the past. Can you imagine a football team called the Washington Cotton-pickers? They could even put the image of an African-American man wearing a straw hat on the helmet. It would make us sick. So why doesn't this?
These mascots provide fake images of what the Native Americans really were. We should not use the offensive names given to Native Americans by whites as modern-day entertainment. These mascots are a violation of human rights as the Native Americans are denied respect. It would be hard to change all these degrading mascots, but what is better--dishonoring a group of people or putting in effort to change a mascot that will last forever and not offend people?
ReplyDeleteI do agree that "Redskins" is out of line. Although some may argue all Native American named mascots should be banned, but I see that some schools are respectful and are proud of carrying a name of an Indian Tribe. Florida State University has a great relationship with the Seminole tribe and this is great for both groups. The University of Utah got permission to use the name "Ute" but not have their mascot be an actual Ute Indian (It is a red-tailed Hawk currently). The Ute tribe has been glad to share their name with the University. I believe that with the proper relationship between a school or sports franchise and an Indian tribe the use of a mascot can be done right.
ReplyDeleteMy elementary school was originally the High Plains Indians. When I was in 4th grade it changed to the timber wolves because many parents found it disrespectful. Being a student there, I was proud to be an Indian. I knew my ancestors were Indians so being "an Indian" was exciting for me. We were taught about some of their history and to respect them even though the United States was at war with the Indians a lot of the time.
ReplyDeleteI can see how many people are against it, but I agree with Dane. If there is a good relationship between the school and the tribe, the use of a mascot can be done.