The use of American Indian logos in sports

Jabba
If there is no such, support, and in fact we know that some Native Americans have taken offense to this kind of thing in the past, might we consider changing the names?

Not if those sports teams have the support of those very people you claim are offended.

If there is no such, support, and in fact we know that some Native Americans have taken offense to this kind of thing in the past, might we consider changing the names?

It's now less than those "15 odd other schools" you cite. The NCAA has already ruled on other schools, not just Utah and Florida.

And oh, by all means, if someone if offended about anything at all we must hurry and change names and mascots so we don't continue to "offend" them. You're giving minorities(not racial) more rights than they have in this country under the constitution. We protect minorities, but don't put them in charge.


Dark-Lady Mara, what was the american indian males primary role in his tribe? He was a hunter and warrior. He wasn't home playing Mr. Mom. A warrior charicature is spot on.

 

Horax, if any significant number are offended, it should be removed. Of course the group won't have a universal, monolithic opinion, even if we could find a reasonable method for discovering it. Rather, given the historical damage that such caricatures have caused, they should be removed if a significant segment of that population does not like them.

ShaneP, I agree that if they have support of the Native American clutures/ethnic groups in question, then there is no problem. However, of over a dozen schools affected by this ruling, I am aware of only two such cases (the Utes of Utah and the Seminoles of Florida). That suggests to me that the other ten schools (or however many more there are), don't have support. If that is indeed the case, then I would conclude first that those teams should find a new mascot, and second that the NCAA's ruling was justified, since the vast majority of cases (over 80%) would have lacked Native American support.

 

No, I think there were other schools too that the NCAA took off the list.

And if the NCAA orders them to change their mascot, they really don't have much of a choice do they? Some may end up changing their mascots and names;however, it's more complex than just saying "american indians are offended so the schools must change".

As I've already pointed out, some tribes openly support these schools and look at their depictions and names as signs of respect and tribute.

And they are right, IMHO.

EDIT
Jabba
Rather, given the historical damage that such caricatures have caused,

Are you kidding me?! Are you frickin' kidding me?!

When these caricatures were started at schools, the american indians were already decimated en masse and subject to living on reservation in abject squalor or attempting to assimilate into amercian society through indian schools.

They had already been introduced to alcohol, refined sugar, and disease, all of which killed large numbers. They had already been lied to by the national government in Washington. They had already been herded into Oklahoma, whic was later taken from them as well. They already were seeing large numbers of diabetes and other diseases from the culture clash.

Your comments point out the true evil of liberalism. It deflects from the real root-problem and deals with triviality. Sad, sad.

 

You never hear anything like this:

"As a white, male, southerner, I'm offended by the Ole Miss Rebels mascot...an old white man with a moustache holding a gun, wearing a white suit."

You know why? Because there WERE such a thing as southern rebels...just like there were and are Utes, Indians, etc...

 

That's right. Within the caricatures there's a grain of truth. That's why they're caricatures to begin with. They are exagerrated reality.

And actually, the Florida Seminoles and Utah macots and depictions don't have much caricature at all. They're rather straight-forward depictions.

 

Not if, as you argue, the mascots were chosen as symbols of respect for the culture in question. If the culture feels disrespected, and your sole purpose in the action was to show respect, you would obviously modify your action.

And as I've already acknowledged, that is excellent, and should be respected. However, there are others that don't have the open support of Native Americans, and it is these that I (and the NCAA, and those that agree with their decision) are concerned with.

I didn't say that the schools started the caricatures. I am concerned with, to what extent the school is borrowing from classical caricatures and racist intercourse that provided the justification for the decimation of the Indians you described here. That is because, as I see the world, a resurgence in the philosophies and arugements used to justify such actions increases the likelihood of a resurgence in such actions themselves.

Again, no one is contesting the FSU or Utah mascots. Why do you continue to try and frame the debate around what is a minority of cases? Do the majority of schools have such open support and good relationship with the local Native American communities? If these two cases are not representative, why do you continue to trump them around as if they are? Policy is geared at treating the general rule, not the exception. Why do you act as if the reverse were (or should be) true?

 

Would fewer people support a team that dropped its Native American nickname in favor of something else? Doubtful.

 

You'd be surprised at how many people would throw in the towel. The nicknames and logos become the symbol of the team, and when that changes, the fan base can often change.

Case in point: In Denver, when the Broncos changed their logo and color scheme, there were riots in Colorado. Nobody truly liked them. Even today, lots of people refuse to go to a game unless they are wearing throwbacks. People don't tend to like change.

 

BTW, those new colors for the NFL did suck. I hate what my Seahawks did to their really cool blue. That dark blue crap infecting pro sports has to die.

DIE!

In fact, those WTO riots in Seattle a few years ago were nothing of the sort. Those were actually seahawks fans upset at the jersey changes.

At least they kept the cool seahawk.

 

Now THAT is true!

I wish Denver would have kept the new bright orange jerseys with the new logo and a blue stripe instead of the blue jersey and white pants.

 

well I think Tampa Bay Buc's look better in the red, then they did in the orange...

which brings up another issue..

Is "Buccaneers" a racist mascot?

some say yes!...

 

Why are you guys talking about team colors? That's not what this thread is about.

 

Your previous inquiry led us to this natural occurance.

 

More care should be showed to the offended than the apathetic. Your point would be supported if there was a large swell of people actively in FAVOR of the mascots...if there is, I don't see it.

 

Team colors etc. will eventually come up..

but to revisit the concept, there are few team mascots that will offend no one.

I mentioned the Buccaneers because in Tampa, Pirates are sort of a town thing,
there is even a sort of Mardi Gras rippoff (it's called Gasparilla )that is centered on the idea of Pirates taking
over Tampa.
Several Years ago a Museum of Piracy was opened and some objected.
Why?
Because Some Pirates were in the slave trade.
A Pirate flag is a racist flag!
So basically any none animal mascot can be turned into something racist or offensive

 

Correct, he was a hunter. However, he was hunting for food so he could survive, not going out constantly starting wars and scalping white people. That's where reality differs from the stereotypical mascot.

 

Let's try this from another direction.

I don't believe that people teach or promote hate, and act as they ought. I believe it is incompatible with any standard of acceptable conduct. Further, I believe that hate can be promoted through indirect means, and that using the traditional tools of its discourse can, in fact, prime people for outright ideologies of hate.

What am I talking about? Allow me to explain.

First, I'll address this:

This, to me, sounds a little like saying "Who does America have an alliance with? Israel. Osama Bin Laden's depiction of America as godless, infidel, Zionist-lapdog evil-doers is spot on!"

I bring up the terrorism parallel very consciously. Throughout this thread, opponents of the decision have derided concern about parallels to racist Indian imagery as "trivialities" and arguing that "anything can be considered racist." I would respond to you with a couple of questions. Why was there such concern a few months back over the Al-Manar television network? Why has the CIA tried to create two Arab-language networks of its own, Al-Hurra and Al-Iraiqya? Why has Britain threatened to take action against imams inside the coutnry that promote terrorism? Why did the Nazis have a Minister of Propoganda? Why are many conservatives outraged that those fighting the US in Iraq are referred to as "insurgents" rather than "terrrorists?"

In each case, it is because the parties involved know the power of message. Message creates perception, and perception defines how people approach reality. If, as in the case of Al-Manar, you spend all your time trying to stir anti-American feelings, you are implicitly creating sympathy for those who act against them. You can encourage certain actions by promoting arguments which have those actions as their logical outcome. Thus, these are not by any means "trivialities" but important pieces in a larger struggle over which ideology will be dominant.

To be clear, I do not claim that the universities chose these names with the intent of starting a resurgence in anti-Native American sentiments. However, regardless of their intentions, some have chosen symbols and mascots that have histroical significance and a legacy of being used for exactly that purpose. In light of such facts, I feel that it is irresponsible to continue to use them. This is most especially the case when/if Native Americans report being offended by such images. While you might disagree, I would urge you to at least acknowledge that widespread popular depictions of groups (such as these mascots) can have the potential to help shape people's perceptions about said groups.

 

More care should be showed to the offended than the apathetic. Your point would be supported if there was a large swell of people actively in FAVOR of the mascots...if there is, I don't see it.

The is a huge amount of support for these mascots. It's just a case of loud minority and hushed majority. The majority don't protest or get air time on TV.

 

I cant see how any native American can be happy with the " Redskins ". At least the Seminoles and alot of other college teams display a fierce warrior and use the actual tribal name, but you'd the NFL wouldve changed done something about D.C.'s teams name. Its definetely a deragatory term.

 

From the native Americans?

 

Well the Native American guy who dances as Chief Illiniwek is clearly against it.

 

Somehow, I don't think one paid actor qualifies as either of the above the two descriptions.

 

The current Cleveland Indians Mascot

[image=http://www.logoshak.com/~asgsport/images/Cleveland_Indians.gif]

some proposed alternatives

The Cleveland Klansmen
[image=http://orifice.net/t/1735.jpg]

The Cleveland SS
[image=http://orifice.net/t/1733.jpg]

The Cleveland Jews
[image=http://orifice.net/t/1734.jpg]

The Cleveland Flavor Flaves
[image=http://orifice.net/t/1732.jpg]


looks like the new mascot won't offend anyone, reguardless of what they choose!
(the purpose of this post is to put the shoe on the other foot not be a jerk.)

 

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

 

Somehow, I don't think one paid actor qualifies as either of the above the two descriptions.

Somehow I don't think he would do it if his people thought the mascot was insulting. And if they did have a problem with the mascot the media would be all over it.

On a side note I have seen local Native Americans on the news saying that they are proud of the Illini being a mascot and seeing how the fans love the Chief.