Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
American Indians: Branding over Genocide?

By fury in Culture
Fri May 17, 2002 at 10:36:50 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

A bill about to go to vote in the California Assembly would, if passed, ban Native American-related names from being mascots for any public school in California - bet it an elementary, middle, high, community, state, or UC school.

Whether banning team names such as 'Aztecs' 'Apaches' 'Chiefs' or 'Navajo' would help preserve the Native American heritage or not is an open question. Far more disturbing is that the Native American proponents of the ban seem to be unconcerned about mascots who are far more offensive to the Native American tradition...


Follow my train of thought for this evening:
  1. California may force schools to drop Indian mascots - The move, promoted by Native American tribesmen, is intended to protect the dignity of the American Indian heritage, by forbiding schools to promote it. Braves, Chiefs, Apaches, and Comanches are all among the 'offensive' labels that would be forbidden.
  2. I went to Gaspar de Portola Middle School. No, my old school wouldn't be affected by the ban, because our mascots weren't any form of Indians. Our mascot was the Conquistador.
  3. Portola has a strict mandate of nondiscrimination.
  4. Gaspar de Portola, as the Spanish Governor of the Californias, in the 1760s, "was responsible for expelling the Jesuits from Baja California, where they had established 14 missions in 72 years."
  5. The conquistadores proper, Spanish explorers turned gold-hunting entrepenuers, braving the New World, were acknowledged bringers of torture and genocide, killing literally hundreds of thousands of Native Americans in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries.

But apparently naming a school's mascot after a Native American tribe is more offensive than naming one after the group of people that committed mass genocide against them.

Just so long as we all have our priorities firmly in place.

Lastly, I leave you with a stunning example of irony. At least somebody has the right perspective.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o A bill about to go to vote
o California may force schools to drop Indian mascots
o Gaspar de Portola Middle School
o Conquistad or
o mandate of nondiscrimination
o was responsible for expelling the Jesuits from Baja California, where they had established 14 missions in 72 years.
o bringers of torture and genocide
o killing literally hundreds of thousands of Native Americans
o stunning example
o irony
o somebody
o Also by fury


Display: Sort:
American Indians: Branding over Genocide? | 95 comments (86 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden)
Amazing... (1.66 / 3) (#9)
by Danse on Fri May 17, 2002 at 03:37:22 AM EST

Certainly this won't hold up in court, right?






An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
why not? (4.00 / 1) (#55)
by aphrael on Fri May 17, 2002 at 07:42:40 PM EST

the bill refers to *public schools*; why would a law regulating what a public agency can use as its mascot *not* hold up in court?

It's not as if they were prohibiting *private* schools from choosing controversial mascots.

[ Parent ]

It shouldn't matter... (2.00 / 1) (#71)
by Danse on Sun May 19, 2002 at 02:37:18 PM EST

Either way, it seems like a pretty straightforward violation of the 1st amendment. All of this just because some people had a banner that was in poor taste and some guy took offense to it. You can't just go passing laws like this to protect everyone's delicate sensibilities.






An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
I disagree. (4.00 / 1) (#77)
by aphrael on Mon May 20, 2002 at 01:09:17 AM EST

In California, at least, under prevailing legal theory, the school district is a *sub-unit* of the State. So the Legislature passing this law is, in essence, it saying "the state shall not use offensive figures as a mascot" which is a prefectly reasonable, and indeed to some degree expected, thing for it to do.

[ Parent ]
again!? (2.25 / 12) (#10)
by SPasmofiT on Fri May 17, 2002 at 04:07:50 AM EST

Aren't we all sick of the americans and their petty issues?! "Oh! No! Let's us all be PC... or else!"... really disgusting.

you dont understand america... (2.50 / 2) (#70)
by omegadan on Sun May 19, 2002 at 11:53:04 AM EST

only a *very very* small percentage of americans give a shit about this issue at all.  Because its not an issue, it simple "is."  What we have is a very vocal minority (indians) and white guys (our represntatives) afraid to tell them no.  I for one am sick of being bullied by PC bullshit.

I like to swear sometimes ... say the words that are "forbidden", it feels like I'm taking back a bit of my sanity.

Religion is a gateway psychosis. - Dave Foley
[ Parent ]

offensive names (4.33 / 9) (#11)
by Delirium on Fri May 17, 2002 at 04:56:07 AM EST

If the names Indians and Braves are to be banned for being "offensive to Native Americans," then certainly we should also ban the name Spartans for being "offensive to Greeks."

Fightin' Whities (4.28 / 7) (#14)
by communista on Fri May 17, 2002 at 08:16:07 AM EST

People made a great stink about the Fightin' Whities, a Colorado HS's basketball team name. See the article here.
/me fucks shit up!!!!
[ Parent ]
White people didn't make a stink (3.50 / 6) (#15)
by wiredog on Fri May 17, 2002 at 08:22:31 AM EST

That's what was so funny about the "fitin whiteys". All the whites laughed.

"one masturbation reference per 13 K5ers" --Rusty
[ Parent ]
Know what else is funny? (2.50 / 6) (#16)
by communista on Fri May 17, 2002 at 08:23:59 AM EST

The fact that never once did I mention that white people said anything about it.
/me fucks shit up!!!!
[ Parent ]
Then what did (3.50 / 4) (#18)
by wiredog on Fri May 17, 2002 at 08:28:16 AM EST

"People made a great stink" mean? That non-whites objected to it?

"one masturbation reference per 13 K5ers" --Rusty
[ Parent ]
It was a general statement. (4.00 / 3) (#23)
by communista on Fri May 17, 2002 at 10:29:42 AM EST

It may have included some white people but that was not clearly identified. As the article stated, one woman quit her job out of anger. Yes, a lot of people laughed at it...A lot of WHITE people too. However your statement of "white people laughed about it" was a little too broad. Having "Native American" mascots probably doesn't bother as many people as the media wants people to believe. But the thing to rememeber is that someone will always do something to aggravate someone else. I really wish that you would have followed the link I posted.
/me fucks shit up!!!!
[ Parent ]
ummm.. not quite. (4.00 / 1) (#37)
by dblslash on Fri May 17, 2002 at 02:13:10 PM EST


  A leader of the protest against Eaton High School's Indian mascot said Monday that he isn't retaliating against the school, although his wife resigned her teaching job there out of anger.

From that paragraph, my take is that the woman resigned because of the "Indian mascot", not in protest over "Fightin' Whities".  She's also the wife of "Solomon Little Owl", or my critical reading skills have atrophied.  

As a certified cracker-assed honkey, I think the name "Fightin' Whities" is hilarious.  That's just me, though, and we all know my vote doesn't count.


[ Parent ]

I think it's hilarious. (3.00 / 1) (#47)
by communista on Fri May 17, 2002 at 04:24:53 PM EST

I know the article says that they didn't choose the name for negative reasons, but it's a delightful little "Nyah nyah" in the face of all those who spaz at the name of school mascots.
/me fucks shit up!!!!
[ Parent ]
All right, THAT link is funny... (2.00 / 1) (#36)
by Some Blonde on Fri May 17, 2002 at 02:02:44 PM EST

I'm of Scandinavian descent (so I'm a whitey)...I found the Fighting Whities link to be quite funny.

"Everything's gonna be all white!"

LMAO

[ Parent ]

That's a terribly stupid analogy (3.00 / 5) (#19)
by wji on Fri May 17, 2002 at 09:04:51 AM EST

Think of East Dachau Junior High making it's mascot the "Judenrat" and you have a much closer analogy.

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
[ Parent ]
That's a cliche (3.00 / 1) (#27)
by gibichung on Fri May 17, 2002 at 12:09:13 PM EST

What were "Braves" and "Apaches" known for? It sure wasn't banking; they fought their battles.

The disappearance of the American Indians and the extermination of the Jews cannot be compared, unless you're unable (or ideologically unwilling) to appreciate the distinction between systematic extermination over the course of a few years, or gradual decline over centuries.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

Smallpox-infested blankets (none / 0) (#49)
by vectro on Fri May 17, 2002 at 04:45:03 PM EST

constitute biological warfare. And then there's the trail of tears.

Hardly a gradual decline.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]

Hardly? (3.00 / 3) (#50)
by gibichung on Fri May 17, 2002 at 05:03:44 PM EST

240 years sounds pretty gradual to me. How many times were smallpox infected blankets used? How many trails of tears were there?

The fact is, the American Indians went through a long decline before they nearly disappeared in the 1860's. While European diseases played an important role in the early on, infighting is what really destroyed them; however, if you'd still like to hold on to your romantic delusions, be my guest.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

That's nothing (3.00 / 1) (#31)
by broken77 on Fri May 17, 2002 at 01:22:42 PM EST

I went to Helias High School, whose mascot is "The Crusader". Especially ironic in light of 9-11, when Dubya said we would go on a "crusade" to track down the terrorists, and a collective *doh!* was heard round the world.

I'm starting to doubt all this happy propaganda about Islam being a religion of peace. Heck, it's just as bad as Christianity. -- Dphitz
[ Parent ]

sparta comes from an extinct culture (3.50 / 2) (#40)
by turmeric on Fri May 17, 2002 at 02:23:30 PM EST

perhaps it is offensive to paint sparta as violent and warrior based society.

but there are no spartans living today to offend, so perhaps that explains why no spartans are protesting teams named 'spartans'.

if there were, they might have real problems with being portrayed as violent blood-thirsty animals.

[ Parent ]

depends on how you define culture (3.00 / 1) (#46)
by Delirium on Fri May 17, 2002 at 03:27:27 PM EST

Sparta was simply one city-state of ancient Greece. Certainly it had some of its own culture, but it was still part of Greek culture (they spoke Greek, not "Spartan," after all). The residents of modern-day Greece are for the most part descendants of the ancient Greeks, including the ancient Spartans, so they might be offended.

For the most part they have better things to worry about though.

[ Parent ]

real problems? (4.00 / 1) (#80)
by ethereal on Mon May 20, 2002 at 01:07:47 PM EST

IIRC, the Spartans were proud of their fierceness, toughness, and skill. They would have been happy to have been identified with sports teams that aspire to the same attributes.

Which is what I always thought was the point of naming a team the "Braves", or the "Indians", or whatever - you are trying to take on their qualities that you respect, such as courage, strength, and skill. Frankly, I'd be pretty proud if somebody named their sports team after my ethnic group in order to emulate our characteristics (assuming I really identified with an ethnic group very much at all). I don't see it as something to get all bent out of shape about.

Like Jack Handey, I'll be happy to see sports teams named "The Americans" a millennia from now, on account of how generally fierce, loyal, and stubborn we seem to be :)

--

Every time you read this, God wishes k5 had a "hide sigs" option. Please, think of the
[
Parent ]

Changing offensive place names (3.00 / 1) (#73)
by thebrix on Sun May 19, 2002 at 04:07:49 PM EST

There's a huge online literature on changing place names considered offensive; for example, USA and Canada, a fish and related placenames! I note that Idaho has been particularly active.

[ Parent ]
+1! - FP! (3.50 / 4) (#13)
by greyrat on Fri May 17, 2002 at 08:09:46 AM EST

Just for the last link. I'll be chuckling all day over that story...
~ ~ ~
Did I actually read the article? No. No I didn't.
"Watch out for me nobbystyles, Gromit!"

thanks a lot (3.00 / 1) (#29)
by tjw on Fri May 17, 2002 at 12:58:08 PM EST

As if I wasn't already annoyed at that server being down, you had to go and say that.

Can anyone post a cache of it?  Google doesn't have it.

[ Parent ]

i stand corrected (4.00 / 1) (#30)
by tjw on Fri May 17, 2002 at 01:05:37 PM EST

http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:PJNVymfY5F0C:www.pocho.com/news/2000/aztec/aztec100900.html+site:www.pocho.com+mascot&hl=en

I guess I should have spelled Aztec correctly.

[ Parent ]

Can't offend the LAtinos (3.12 / 8) (#17)
by wiredog on Fri May 17, 2002 at 08:24:54 AM EST

Especially in California. Which is what banning Latino names from school names would do. Remember that the Jesuits, Conquistadores, Missions, etc, are part of the Glorious History of the Hispanic People in America.

"one masturbation reference per 13 K5ers" --Rusty
A history of racial mascots (3.20 / 5) (#20)
by mattbelcher on Fri May 17, 2002 at 10:17:38 AM EST

I'm now a graduate student with the Fighting Illini. My wife is with the Fighting Irish. Most unique though, is when I was in high school. Our school mascot appeared to be a member of a faction of particularly jingoistic congressmen from the early 1800s. I avoided a streak of such mascots though, since my undergraduate university was simply the Florida Gators.

It's a shame about Red indians (2.36 / 19) (#21)
by bc on Fri May 17, 2002 at 10:24:36 AM EST

I think most of their problem must surely be that they cling onto their identity too much.

You see, they were very technologically and culturally primitive compared to the Europeans who stole their land, they never stood a chance. However, instead of embracing modernity, one gets the feeling that the Red Indian culture has exhausted itself and given up.

Where the Japanese (another primitive people in the 19th century) embraced the modern world during the Meiji period and revolutionised themselves, Red Indians have just completely given up the ghost, and are content to live on state handouts and make money from exceptions made to them under the law, such as gambling, etc.

They now define themselves not as warriors or plains peoples or anything, no, they define themselves as victims, and quite frankly I'm not going to have any sympathy for them until such time as they accept the inevitability of the modern world, and their own condition, and improve themselves by undergoing a cultural transformation as the Japanese did.

Brutal it may be, but it is the only way they will regain their self respect.

♥, bc.

bc, you have serious psychological problems (1.33 / 9) (#26)
by turmeric on Fri May 17, 2002 at 12:00:35 PM EST

even worse than mine.

lets pretend you are serious in your comments. then you are some kind of sexist rapist racist ignorant asshole.

lets pretend you are just trolling. does trolling really justify everything? sure its fun, but uhh, its not 'good clean fun', it really can hurt some people.

[ Parent ]

No, I'm not (3.20 / 5) (#28)
by bc on Fri May 17, 2002 at 12:49:12 PM EST

I wasn't racist at any point in that post, perhaps a little harsh though, yes.

And as I have repeatedly tried to explain to you, I am not a rapist. But you can't seem to comprehend what I say on the issue and are content to merely be closed minded and endlessly attack me.

I'm sure it makes you feel superior, and allows you to sleep at night, but it is getting a little boring.

♥, bc.
[ Parent ]

are you trolling right now? i cant tell. (2.80 / 5) (#35)
by turmeric on Fri May 17, 2002 at 01:45:09 PM EST

actually, you were incredibly racist. and you are a rapist because you phyusically force women to have sex after they say no. unles you are trolling.

[ Parent ]
i dont get it (2.62 / 8) (#33)
by Lenny on Fri May 17, 2002 at 01:30:46 PM EST

What you're advocating is akin to having the Native Americans sacrifice their culture. That is not only unfair, but cruel. They would not have to live on reservations and receive government income - IF THEIR LANDS WEREN'T TAKEN AND THEIR PEOPLE SLAUGHTERED!

but it is the only way they will regain their self respect
I know about 25 native americans pretty well. Not one of them lacks any self respect. They are from about 7 different tribes and 4 different states. I have visited the Navajo Nation Reservation near Monument Valley and saw the conditions under which "poor" Native Americans live. The people I met were poor, but not down-trodden. They survive with much less than I could ever imagine. But they all had pride for who they were and where they came from.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Re buttal (4.09 / 11) (#38)
by turmeric on Fri May 17, 2002 at 02:15:59 PM EST

"I think most of their problem must surely be that they cling onto their identity too much."

Did any whites give up their identity when they came to America? The Irish? The Jews? The Germans? Did white people leave their cattle ranching and their ideas of property and government back in Europe? No, they integrated what was old with what was new. They usually gave up their languages, but they kept their religions, and many many other features of their societies. Oh, and they took a lot of features from Native American society too and integrated that as well. And African society, as well.

"You see, they were very technologically and culturally primitive compared to the Europeans "

They had corn tomatos potatos and many other plants, that they had developed on their own using agricultural technology. Many had democratic style governments or democratic theories of rulership, many of them had a much more respectful and egalitarian place for women in society, and many of them would adopt whites and blacks as equals intot he society (non racist), so in many aspects their culture was exactly the sort of thing Europeans would still be striving for hundreds of years later. Do you consider American endeavors to make society more egalitarian to be 'moving towards primitive culture'?

"who stole their land, they never stood a chance. "

There are many many Native American tribes that have sovereignty and have land, here, now, in 2002 in the United States. Perhaps you should listen to www.nativecalling.org for more information.

"However, instead of embracing modernity, one gets the feeling that the Red Indian culture has exhausted itself and given up."

The Mississippi Choctaw nation is one of the largest employers in the state. www.choctaw.org

"Where the Japanese (another primitive people in the 19th century)"

The japanese invented the Novel. Is the western love of this art form some kind of 'primitive'-ness? What about all the westerners who are embracing buddhist philosophy and teaching? Did you know that Van Gogh admired Japanese art and it influenced him? What about the invasion of asian food products into american groceries? Is this simply a sign of America becoming 'culturally backward'? When a Van Gogh painting sells for millions of dollars is that 'culturally backwards'?

" embraced the modern world during the Meiji period and revolutionised themselves,"

And committed some of the worst genocides of the 20th century, including the rape of nanking, the bataan death march, the attack on pearl harbor, ...

" Red Indians have just completely given up the ghost, and are content to live on state handouts and make money from exceptions made to them under the law, such as gambling, etc. "

What makes you think all people who are Indian are 'content to live on handouts'? Do you have any idea how any actual Indian people feel? Or what they do in their lives? There has been a massive migration of Indians to the cities, do you think they went there for the starbucks? Do you consider it a 'handout' when the state does things like steal Indian water-rights, even in the mid 1900s? What about all the white people living on their handouts? like the corrupt b-1 bomber contracts of the 1980s, which generated billions of dollars of business for those politicians' districts who were corrupt and greedy enough to bamboozle the government into setting up those contracts? That plane wasnt even used until like a few years ago.

"They now define themselves not as warriors or plains peoples or anything, "

They define themselves as everything from mothers to doctors to lawyers to engineers to artists to writers to poets to filmmakers to preachers to brothers to sisters to tribal members to tribal elders to americans to soldiers to Native Americans to .. i dont know. model airplane enthusiasts? cowgirls. actors. etc.

"no, they define themselves as victims, and quite frankly I'm not going to have any sympathy for them until such time as they accept the inevitability of the modern world, and their own condition, and improve themselves by undergoing a cultural transformation as the Japanese did."

That makes you roughly equivalent to the European settlers in the 1600s who felt the only way to 'deal with indians' was to force them to live as you did, and when they were being slaughtered you 'had no sympathy' for them. That is just morally wrong, you have no right to invade someone's land and force them to live your way, or else 'have no sympathy' for them being killed to make way for you. And I would also like to point out that Japan was not invaded, Japanese were fully allowed to keep their land, their nation, their country, their rligion, their language, their culture, their art, their dignity, their ideas about how life should be lived. They merely integrated western ways with eastern ways. Native Americans have done exactly the same thing, starting in the 1600s when many of them successfully integrated the horse into their culture, and continuing up to the present day.

" Brutal it may be, but it is the only way they will regain their self respect. ?, bc."

That is simply your opinion, and I think history shows the problems with this opinion, how it doesn't really help anyone or solve any problems. Your opinions are based on your own personal ignorance of the reality of Native America, and you should probably educate yourself and your theories will come out much better. I dont really see what your theory is good for now other than hurting people and accomplishing nothing. Japan did not 'throw out' its old ways and 'become western', it has attempted to integrate and maintain that which it felt was important from the past. So in fact has every European , now forming the European Union, or the European immigrants to the US. If you would simply allow Native Americans the same human dignity and freedom that you grant other people, instead of 'forcing' your way of life on them, I think the world would be much better off.

[ Parent ]

darkzero: instead of rating me 1, why not rebut me (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by turmeric on Fri May 17, 2002 at 02:25:22 PM EST

?!?!

[ Parent ]
Reply (3.12 / 8) (#42)
by bc on Fri May 17, 2002 at 02:44:53 PM EST

Did any whites give up their identity when they came to America? The Irish? The Jews? The Germans?

Er, well yes. You've heard of "the melting pot," yes? They are all Americans now.

I know people like to make out that the Iroquois were supremely democratic and the basis for all American ideas for democracy etc etc, but really incomers took very few facets of Red Indian culture. This was not prejudice, Western Culture has always been open to new ideas, especially from the Arab world, hostorically speaking. It is just that the Red Indians had very little of real value for the Westerners flocking their nation to coopt.

They had corn tomatos potatos and many other plants, that they had developed on their own using agricultural technology.

So they had some plants, then. Big whoop.

Many had democratic style governments or democratic theories of rulership, many of them had a much more respectful and egalitarian place for women in society, and many of them would adopt whites and blacks as equals intot he society (non racist), so in many aspects their culture was exactly the sort of thing Europeans would still be striving for hundreds of years later.

Hmm. You have a very, very rosy view of Native American culture. Have you not heard of scalpings, of the wonderful habit of Apaches of buying and selling their squaws (whores), and of sundry other barbarisms? They weren't some group of noble savages living in idyll, they were highly varied, with good points and bad.

The japanese invented the Novel. Is the western love of this art form some kind of 'primitive'-ness?

Doubtless they had great artistic and "cultural" achievements. So does every race & people. Name me one that hasn't, liberal. The point is that when funny people with big sticks that go bang arrive on the shores, being able to write a 3 Act tragedy describing the imminent events beutifully isn't going to fucking save you.

Do you have any idea how any actual Indian people feel? Or what they do in their lives?

Economic indicators consistently show them to be among the biggest malingerers in modern America. Sure, some of them may be doctors, Nobel prize winners, and fly in space, but that doesn't change the essential figures. All I was pointing out is that this is doubtless due to cultural malaise.

All told, Red Indians would be well advised to thoroughly reeducate themselves and let go of the past. I should know, it is something I have had to do myself. Surrendering an identity is hard, but the lifes of our children are far more important than some visceral feeling.

Economics are more important than feelings.

♥, bc.
[ Parent ]

told ya (2.20 / 5) (#43)
by turmeric on Fri May 17, 2002 at 02:50:39 PM EST

yr theory sux.

you said people were 'technologically and culturally backward', which is why i spent half the time talking about culture. art is culture.

and you mentioned that native americans had/have diverse cultures. so do euros, so does everyone. that is why i said 'some' a lot. and it is also why your whole article is wrong, for it paints every 'native american' person as the same thing, which is wrong.

your own guilt about giving up your own culture does not mean you have a right to judge others for wanting to keep theirs.

[ Parent ]

bc please read. (2.50 / 4) (#66)
by tkatchev on Sat May 18, 2002 at 02:37:14 PM EST

You're too intelligent to be posting here.

The idiots who frequent here won't appreciate.

P.S. I agree with your point. Although, to be honest, I belive that any attempt at a healthy "Native-American" self-reflection will be crushed by the U.S. powers-that-be, since such a self-reflection must necessarily be anti-American and secessionist.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

oddly enough (2.20 / 5) (#22)
by VoxLobster on Fri May 17, 2002 at 10:26:03 AM EST

I'm sitting here reading this story, and the track "If you own the Washington Redskins, You're a Cock" by Atom and his Package fires up in my playlist...that's kinda creepy...but interesting.

VoxLobster -- Wouldn't it be offensive if we cheered, Rah rah rah for Carolina Negros, with a beat box cheer and a fake foam afro... -- Atom and his Package

VoxLobster
I was raised by a cup of coffee! -- Homsar

A better idea (3.16 / 6) (#24)
by theboz on Fri May 17, 2002 at 10:35:08 AM EST

Why don't they push to educate the students at those schools as to the history of the people that the mascots represent? Maybe then it can move from a symbol of predjudice to a symbol of support for the native Americans. In that case, everyone wins.

Now, with professional teams, I think they should be left alone. It's censorship to try to change the names, even if the names are horrible. If enough people are offended and raise a stink, the professional teams will change their name without government interference.

Stuff.

two wrongs dont make a right? (3.00 / 4) (#25)
by turmeric on Fri May 17, 2002 at 11:55:59 AM EST

sorry i dont think anyone is promoting the use of conquistadors as team mascots. and i dont see how banning the use of racist mascots is 'helping' use conquistadors as mascots. hopefully, conquistadors will be the next to be banned, just like you cant name soccer team 'the nazis' in germany.

Speaking of school mascots (3.33 / 3) (#32)
by broken77 on Fri May 17, 2002 at 01:27:48 PM EST

Does anyone remember the Butte Pirates? I went to their home page, and they took down the picture they used to have (and any mention of the name of their mascot). I guess they were getting too much traffic. Why didn't I make a copy of that image when I saw it! Does anyone have one stored away somewhere?

I'm starting to doubt all this happy propaganda about Islam being a religion of peace. Heck, it's just as bad as Christianity. -- Dphitz

Oh, no... (2.00 / 1) (#68)
by meaningless pseudonym on Sun May 19, 2002 at 10:02:24 AM EST

I've seen some other unfortunately named schools and teams but really...

Was http://www.kleptomaniac.com/product/?prod_id=8979
what you were thinking of?


[ Parent ]

hehe :-) (3.00 / 1) (#81)
by broken77 on Mon May 20, 2002 at 02:24:09 PM EST

That's funny, but not what I was referring to. That's just a joke t-shirt created by a gay clothing company. This was an actual school mascot. The URL was circulated around the internet for a little while. I guess they were getting too much traffic or something so they took down the images.

I'm starting to doubt all this happy propaganda about Islam being a religion of peace. Heck, it's just as bad as Christianity. -- Dphitz
[ Parent ]

Racist My White Ass (2.50 / 4) (#34)
by thelizman on Fri May 17, 2002 at 01:44:20 PM EST

I guess nobody will be happy untill we have mascots like the "Negotiating Tolerant Rainbow Pansies". Isn't the issue more along the lines of "white guilt" and the popularity of being a victim than it is about "racism" and being "offensive"?
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
How about the 'wops' or 'the trailer trash' (3.00 / 2) (#39)
by turmeric on Fri May 17, 2002 at 02:17:05 PM EST

or 'the limeys' or 'the gits' or 'the micks'?

[ Parent ]
What About 'Em? (4.00 / 1) (#48)
by thelizman on Fri May 17, 2002 at 04:37:54 PM EST

You're missing the point; They're not going after the Redskins (obviously an insensitive racial slight), but they are going after teams called things like "Apaches". Last time I talked with an Indian, they were not at all offended with being called Navajo, because they were Navajo. In fact, very few Native American groups are getting pissy over the use of their tribal names and culture.

Incidentally, I'm not Italian or trailer trash, so neither of those offend me. I'm not at all offended by The Fighting Whitey's either.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Dineh, not Navajo (3.00 / 1) (#51)
by turmeric on Fri May 17, 2002 at 05:03:47 PM EST

Navajo is a name given to the Dineh by another tribe. they call themselves Dineh.

[ Parent ]
Whatever You Say Pal (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by thelizman on Fri May 17, 2002 at 06:42:02 PM EST

She refers to herself as Navajo, she lives on a Navajo reservation, and she is proud of her Navajo heritage. I'm not about to correct her, and neither should you.

And, to be correct, it's "Dine'", and is pronounced deh NAY, with greater stress on the second syllable. For practical purpouses, they almost always refer to themselves as Navajo when speaking to persons outside of their tribe.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
is any one complaining (none / 0) (#94)
by nodsmasher on Sat May 25, 2002 at 12:00:13 AM EST

when people call it spain in sted of espanol like they call them selfs ? or poland insted of polski
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
[ Parent ]
Ooh! Ooh! (3.00 / 1) (#65)
by forii on Sat May 18, 2002 at 05:24:35 AM EST

Or the "Celtics"!
Proud member of the ACLU, the NRA, and the EFF.
[ Parent ]
Celtics (none / 0) (#92)
by wangi on Wed May 22, 2002 at 09:23:47 AM EST

Or the Celtics!
How, if they were the "Boston Fenians" you might have a point...

[ Parent ]
Wyandotte (none / 0) (#93)
by epepke on Wed May 22, 2002 at 12:32:50 PM EST

My father told me a cheer that was popular when he went to a high school in Wyandotte, Michigan:

Hunkie, Dago, Polack, Wop
Eat spaghetti with snot on top


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Actually... (4.00 / 1) (#88)
by ubernostrum on Mon May 20, 2002 at 11:59:43 PM EST

I think that each school needs to drop its name and the names of all its teams - the only politically correct name is likely to be something like the "Players of Football at the Institution Which Happens, By Contingent Historical Factors, To Be Located At The Following Coordinates: {latitude and longitude here}." This would have the added boost that a GPS receiver would become an instrument of school pride.


--
You cooin' with my bird?
[ Parent ]

Has anyone bothered ASKING the indian tribes? (3.50 / 4) (#44)
by SvnLyrBrto on Fri May 17, 2002 at 03:04:30 PM EST

Topics like this have come up on K5 before.

And as people, including myself, have mentioned, the outrage amongst american indian tribes over their inclusion in the ranks of school mascots is FAR from universial.

Some tribes even have some damn lucrative business arraingements with the schools that use their names for mascots.

Having moved to California from Florida, the example I'm most familiar with, and usually mention, is the Florida State University Seminoles. The Seminole indian tribe gets quite a large chunk of cash from their deal, and has a LONG and established history of telling ultra-liberals to go screw off when they get into "whiney protectors of the image and heritage of oppressed peoples" mode.

cya,
john

Imagine all the people...

cool, but (3.00 / 2) (#53)
by turmeric on Fri May 17, 2002 at 05:09:31 PM EST

www.nativecalling.org, i dont think anyone is asking permission of the apache tribe...

and you have not talked about names like 'braves'.

[ Parent ]

I suppose "bravery" would be outdated, (3.00 / 1) (#57)
by pyramid termite on Fri May 17, 2002 at 10:08:45 PM EST


On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Mascots. Totems, and general stupidity (3.50 / 8) (#45)
by MalTheElder on Fri May 17, 2002 at 03:12:19 PM EST

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

K5'ers,

I'm really surprised at the level of racist crap and general ignorance in some of the replies to the post.  Maybe I shouldn't be...  Anyway, I'm home from work sick, the A/C's out (I'm in sunny Florida), and some of the replies here have just totally pissed me off.  Don your flak-jackets.

It's pretty clear that most people who've replied so far have no clue as to the meaning of team mascots.  What they are, are totems---symbols of power and generally respected by all.  Mascots/totems are presumed to have desirable qualities that the tribes (or in these cases, the teams) want to have.  In other words, they represent something that is respected and honored.  That's why the recurrent boo-hoo about naming sports teams after First Nations tribes, ranks, etc. has always puzzled me.  I'm especially puzzled that folks from the First Nations feel disrespected.

I agree that folks should maybe feel more disrespected about teams named after basically genocidal bastards like some of the conquistadores than about them being named for various tribes and such.  Think about it.

Furthermore, there is NO RELATIONSHIP between a USian sports team calling itself the "Indians" and a German sports team calling itself the "Nazis."  The meanings found in those labels are totally different, as are the very different approaches to life exhibited by First Nations people vs. Nazis, neo-Nazis, and other similar scum.  Get a clue...

As for the ass who thinks the tribes should get off their victim stance---well, I know something about legitimate and illegitimate VS's (I work in sex offender rehab---they all have major VS's, none of them justified).  The FN folk haven't chosen a victim stance; they've been forced into it.  My ancestors and yours did that.  No, I don't feel responsible for the near-genocide of the FNs---I didn't do it, and I don't perpetuate it, but I'm damned sorry it happened.  We ALL lost because of it.

FNs primitive?  I think not.  Europeans had more efficient technology, but the tribes had technology that was marvelously adapted to their environment and ways of making their livings.  They were certainly not primitive in their rich and varied types of social organization, either.  The Eastern tribes gave us the essential basics of the U.S. Constitution.  Look at the various tribal constitutions, the Virginia commonwealth governing documents, and the U.S. Constitution.  There's a straight line derivation, and Jefferson never tried to deny it.  The Western tribes produced some of the purest examples of cooperative socio-economic systems ever seen, as opposed to more coercive and competion-based systems (e.g., capitalism, chattel slavery, fascism, etc.).

So if you don't know what you're talking about, STFU.

I'd be interested in hearing some informed debate n the sports totem/mascot issue by some First Nations folks.  Say the current chiefs of some of the different tribes (hint, hint).

You may now sound the 'all clear',
  Thumper

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBPOVVokTrZEdmM7XjEQIfagCg6uaNBR2Q1d0JBRX3MgRgPRaIlFkAn1Fd
0XT3Acz6SQ46j+W1CMfm4Lja
=FJU3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --- Benjamin Franklin

read my thing again (3.40 / 5) (#52)
by turmeric on Fri May 17, 2002 at 05:08:08 PM EST

calling a team after conquistadors is like calling a team 'the nazis'. duh. conquistadors are not generally indians.

and as for you being 'puzzled' why FN people are offended, it is not your job to be puzzled about why someone is offended. why dont you put yourself in their shoes? for example, you remember the movie 'independence day'? lets say that the aliens actually did take over, and killed 90% of us. then they moved in and had big giant cities and they had sports teams called 'the humans', to celebrate the 'strength and warrior nature' of the humans.

maybe some of the humans are offended by this, for it was exactly this 'warrior' stereotype that was used to justify the aliens killing us as though we were 'barbaric savages' , rather than a meaningful civilization who cared about a hell of a lot more than bashing each other's heads in.

[ Parent ]

Point taken (3.50 / 2) (#56)
by MalTheElder on Fri May 17, 2002 at 09:44:59 PM EST

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Troops,

Turmeric's point is well-taken, and I hadn't thought of it.  I can see where FN folk could be offended at their conquerors using their names and qualities.  I'd really love to hear some of them weigh in on this.

As to the other, I agree that there is a good deal in common between the conquistadores and Nazis behavior.  I read all the then-current replies and tried to juggle them in my head while I wrote.  Obviously I got part of T's reply confounded with some others.  My bad.  However, the point I made about USian FN-named teams vs. a German Nazi-named team is valid, as is my mini-lecture on the meaning of totems/mascots.

Re-reading what I wrote, and what Turmeric wrote, he or she is not one of those who needed to STFU.  And no, I'm not one of the FN, but I was fortunate enough to be raised outside the US, so I _do_ have a bit of perspective some USians might lack.

In any case, Happy Friday!
  Thumper

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBPOWyHETrZEdmM7XjEQJqbwCg3v/UqEvtvG1j2Az7Zce6BWTPxpQAoP2j
AE5l48+FpsriM2dHPJmvD1Gt
=3hFf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --- Benjamin Franklin
[ Parent ]

Have you considered writing an article... (4.00 / 1) (#58)
by afeldspar on Sat May 18, 2002 at 12:27:23 AM EST

On the First Nations' tribal constitutions, and how our own governing documents were derived from them?  I know I'd find that fascinating; I never dreamed that the colonists respected the people they were living among enough to get more of their wisdom than "plant fish with the corn".



-- For those concerned about the "virality" of the GPL, a suggestion: Write Your Own Damn Code.
[ Parent ]

Never gonna happen, babe! (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by MalTheElder on Mon May 20, 2002 at 12:13:13 AM EST

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Lots better folk than I have written up these subjects.  I'm just pulling stuff from memory --- I had some *damn* fine anthropology instructors, one of whom was an adopted son of one of the last legitimate medicine women of her tribe.  No, I won't name her or her tribe; that would be violating many people's privacy.

You can get the comparisons between the early documents of the Virginia Commonwealth, the U.S Constitution, and the seminal FN's constitutions -- notably the Five Nations confederation -- online and in (I hope) any decent public or college library.  You might even find some decent stuff in your local bookstores.  Go get it!

BTW, most colonists obviously *didn't* respect their neighbors too well, or they wouldn't have shot 'em up for living on land they wanted to plow under.  It was a few who saw something worthwhile in their models of self-governance who were the exception.  Fortunately, some of those exceptions were influential people such as my man T.J.

In any case, thanks for the props!

Happy Monday (say what?),
  Thumper

- ----------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase
 a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
      --- Benjamin Franklin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBPOh39UTrZEdmM7XjEQI8pwCeMs0sizAdi93BFoptNBIUbxzeFGwAn3eY
+Ddck6K4v6qiJLie9CzHIDFt
=0eqF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --- Benjamin Franklin
[ Parent ]

Technically... (5.00 / 3) (#59)
by Pseudoephedrine on Sat May 18, 2002 at 12:35:56 AM EST

The majority of Indians who died weren't slaughtered by Europeans, but killed by smallpox. Over 80% of the Indian population alive in North America in the 15th century was dead by the middle of the 16th from smallpox. Conservatively, there were perhaps between 50 million Indians split between the two American continents (most non-ideologically committed estimates place it somewhere around there), actually an incredible population at the time, considering the variety of challenges to the spread of agriculture (Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel elaborates more fully on this point) and civilisation (in the narrow sense of living in cities and the concurrent degree of social organisation and specialisation).

The first European conquests, of the Incan and Aztec empires, came at the tail-end of the first set of pandemics in the New World, which essentially eliminated populations of those civilisations. The resulting social turmoil, combined with the superior military technology of the Europeans (a steel helmet made a man impervious to a wooden club, the indigenies' weapon of choice, among many other advances) left them easy pickings.

By the time the Europeans landed in force (the beginning of the 16th century), there were perhaps some 4 million Indians in all of North America, and perhaps another 4 to 6 million alive in South America.

Genocide was accomplished by disease; the Europeans simply capitalised on the social turmoil smallpox caused (much as Genghis Khan had done to them) to take advantage of their enemies.

Personally, so long as the name is not an ethnic slur, I have no problem with ethnicities being used as mascots. As a person whose ancestors were kicked out of Ireland for teaching Catholics to read (subversive, you know) back in the 18th century, I'm fine with the 'Fighting Irish', and 'paddy-wagons' and similar such things, because they aren't actually intended to give offense.

 
"We who have passed through their hands feel suffocated when we think of that legion, which is stripped bare of human ideals" -Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Fifty million? (3.00 / 1) (#60)
by gibichung on Sat May 18, 2002 at 12:47:38 AM EST

is a conservative estimate? According to what source?

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
Split between the two continents (4.00 / 1) (#61)
by Pseudoephedrine on Sat May 18, 2002 at 01:47:33 AM EST

That's the Mayans, the Missippians, the Incans, the Aztecs, the Iroquois nations, the various uncivilised native tribes in North America and South America, etc. all lumped together, don't forget, not "just" 50 million Cree or Blackfoot hanging around in the mid-western states. To make the figure a little easier to swallow, think of it as about one indigenie per square kilometer of the combined continent, or somewhere just over half of what Europe was populated with at the time. It's also a pre-smallpox number - scholars lately have been revising the number of Indians killed off by smallpox and other diseases upwards for many years now.

To be honest though, I can't remember where I got the figure from off the top of my head, just that it was between 35-50 million, with central mexico through to the andes (Aztec, Mayan and Incan civilisations) being the home of most of it. Having heard ranges from <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/03/mann.htm">1.15 to 112 million</a>, it doesn't sound that unrealistic.  I'm not committed to it, though. If you can find a more accurate estimate that isn't biased one way or the other, I'll happily revise my estimate.

As for the 4 million post-smallpox mark, I got that out of an off-hand mention in 'Ragnar Benson's Action Encyclopedia For Men of Action', a right-wing survivalist compendium a friend lent me, which leads me to believe it's on the low side, if anything.

 
"We who have passed through their hands feel suffocated when we think of that legion, which is stripped bare of human ideals" -Alexander Solzhenitsyn
[ Parent ]

Incredible (4.00 / 1) (#63)
by gibichung on Sat May 18, 2002 at 02:56:00 AM EST

Based on the history of the Persian Wars written by Herodotus, I have estimated the population of Persia in 480 B.C. to be approximately 500 million. By the way, what does "exaggerate" mean?

Never mind the lack of any physical evidence for this population; a historical account exists for it. It must simply have been swept under the rug by Greek imperialism.

I don't understand how someone can deny Herodotus, but believe that Cortez was modest. Most of this I've heard before, but this I found particularly interesting:

When Europeans moved west, they were preceded by two waves: one of disease, the other of ecological disturbance. The former crested with fearsome rapidity; the latter sometimes took more than a century to quiet down. Far from destroying pristine wilderness, European settlers bloodily created it. By 1800 the hemisphere was chockablock with new wilderness.
Sure is romantic, isn't it?

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
on 50 million (3.00 / 1) (#64)
by gibichung on Sat May 18, 2002 at 03:20:11 AM EST

It should be noted that picking a "number half way in between" is an extremely poor method of choosing a "conservative" estimate. Especially when you consider that the "100 million" people have absolutely no physical evidence, and instead rely on a holocaust-conspiracy-style argument.

The reasonable estimates of total American population that I'm familiar include up to 20 million, although they rely heavily on conjecture and the boasts of conquistadors. Fifty million is clearly preposterous; if it were so, the physical remains would have to be overwhelming - but there simply aren't any. More modest populations in other parts of the world left much more behind. It's clear that these numbers are based on assumptions rather than on evidence.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

Check out "Lies My Teacher Told Me" (4.00 / 1) (#79)
by cnicolai on Mon May 20, 2002 at 12:40:41 PM EST

Lies My Teacher Told Me, by James Loewen, discusses claims from 10 to 100 million, with citations. Sorry I don't have my copy handy.

Here's the original high-end estimate: Henry F. Dobyns: "Estimating Aboriginal American Population: An Appraisal of Techniques With a New Hemispheric Estimate," in the journal Current Anthropology, 1966. I got it from this article about the numbers and the peoples.

[ Parent ]

So don't name your team 'Virulent Smallpox' but... (4.00 / 1) (#62)
by fury on Sat May 18, 2002 at 02:01:22 AM EST

But that still doesn't mean the conquistadores weren't commiters of genocide. Tens of thousands died at the hands of the very first few waves of Europeans to the West Indies, and that's death by sword, fire, and torture, not disease.

More people have died from smoking in the last century than from genocide, but that doesn't make mass ethnic murder any less hideous.

Even in the smallpox realm, what of Jeffery Amhust, a British general who in 1763 gave the blankets of smallpox patients to visiting Indian Chiefs who had come to negotiate a treaty. The resulting plague the chiefs brought back spread to the tens of thousands.

Kevin Fox - fury.com
[ Parent ]

I feel obligated to point out (4.00 / 1) (#89)
by ubernostrum on Tue May 21, 2002 at 12:04:07 AM EST

That the conquistadors weren't the only bad guys. Go read Neal Stephenson's oft-quoted Cryptonomicon, for example, for a wonderful sequence where one charcter goes off about how the Aztecs routinely committed Holocaust-level massacres of other tribes, but now we treat them as innocent victims because the Spanish came in and gave them their own medicine (he goes on to make the sure-to-bo-controversial comment that things actually improved after the Spanish arrived in America). p.That doesn't justify the Spanish, but it does put a new light on the "Aztecs" mascot, for example - who these days would be willing to ask for the removal of an Aztec mascot on behalf of the Nahuatl (Stephenson's example) or some of the other tribes the Aztecs committed genocide with?


--
You cooin' with my bird?
[ Parent ]

You forget about the blankets... (4.50 / 2) (#83)
by Gandalf21 on Mon May 20, 2002 at 05:43:14 PM EST

that were infested with smallpox, which the colonists gave to the Native Americans so that they could wipe them out with less effort. Yes, the colonists did not kill them directly..but they were still responsible for the death of a large amount of them. Plus lets not forget the Arawaks.


I may be drunk, but you are ugly. Tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be ugly.
[ Parent ]

The Atlantic has a great story about this (2.00 / 1) (#86)
by pwayner on Mon May 20, 2002 at 08:25:24 PM EST

Two months ago, the Atlantic had a long story on how many Indians/Native Americans lived in North America before Columbus's journey. Some say it was more than lived in Europe at the time. They go through some of the theories about smallpox and other diseases. Alas, that's all my mind remembers.

[ Parent ]
Don't be embarrassed! Embrace! Utilize! (4.80 / 5) (#67)
by bluebox on Sun May 19, 2002 at 09:20:38 AM EST

It seems like a lot of people are embarrassed and guilty about our history.  All it takes is a few people to gripe, "oh
I don't like that flag", or "I don't like your team name" and then a bunch of hand-wringers start lobbying  for  more a
"politically correct" name.  

I agree that what happened to American Indians 100 years ago was pretty rough, and unfair, and deadly.  Governments
have to work pretty hard to hide these kinds of things when they do them today.  Same thing goes for slavery.  It really
sucked for the slaves.  It was wrong.  We don't do it anymore.  Even the countries that still have slavery are forced to
outlaw, it at least on paper, to satisfy other nations around the world.

But I think keeping references to our ugly past is a good thing.  I think the rebel flag should fly BECAUSE of how bad
slavery was.  We should make it into an icon to help us remember what happened, and to stop it from happening now.

Same thing for the Indian Mascots, school names, so on and so forth.  We should use these Indian references as a
springboard for education and respect.  

There is no need to feel guilty about what men did 100 years ago.  There is absolutely no way you could have stopped
them.   You weren't even there.  And sorry, but If you are an Indian less then 100 years old, the bad stuff that
happened 100 years ago to your grandfathers doesn't even effect you, because you were not there either.  In fact that
bad stuff may be what got you born.    

Seems like to me the ongoing every day presence of Indian Culture, even if only in the form of using names of tribes,
is helping tribes from slipping into obscure oblivion.     If I was a member of a tribe, I would probably be encouraging
the "Chiefs" to change their name to the "Iroquois Chiefs" just to benefit from that specific name placement.

Big companies around the country are paying millions of dollars to get their names on things like sports stadiums and
auditoriums.  Coke and Pepsi are paying hundreds of thousands for "Pouring Rights" in public schools.  But the
politically correct liberals are ripping this kind of free name placement away from our American Indians.


The Confederate Flag (4.00 / 2) (#74)
by bouncing on Sun May 19, 2002 at 11:17:46 PM EST

But I think keeping references to our ugly past is a good thing. I think the rebel flag should fly BECAUSE of how bad slavery was. We should make it into an icon to help us remember what happened, and to stop it from happening now.
Ok, but that is not what it means when they fly the Confederate flag. Every place in the South where that flag still flies, it is not being displayed as a memorial or a reminder of how bad slavery is -- it's displayed in the name of racism and hatred. Some in the South claim its heritage (not hate) and they want to celebrate it. That's no better excuse than the one you are giving. We all know what it means and it doesn't need to be celebrated.

If what you say is true, why isn't if upside down, and why do they fly it ABOVE the American flag?

[ Parent ]

You go do that... (2.00 / 1) (#76)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Mon May 20, 2002 at 12:38:49 AM EST

You go turn that Confederate flag upside down!

But first try looking at a picture of it.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

I know what The Confederate Flag means to me. (3.00 / 1) (#91)
by bluebox on Tue May 21, 2002 at 09:44:08 PM EST

Just so you know. I'm from the North.

To me, the Confederate Flag is an symbol of a War fought to free slaves. The Confederate Flag is an icon for the losers of that war. This reminds me that right can prevail over wrong. A lot of Americans forget that 618,000 people died in the Civil War. I don't know the actual numbers, be we can imagine that about 300,000 of them died fighting for right.

If I was a Southerner, I'd be embarrassed as Hell to wave that flag. The loser flag. The flag of the wrong.

Ok, but that is not what it means when they fly the Confederate flag.
It means whatever you decide it means. If you decide to be pissed off about something that happened before you were born, and walk around getting mad about everything that reminds you of the Civil War, then you will have a pretty miserable life.

We Americans should be grateful that we live in the greatest country in the world. There are a lot of places in this world where people are hungry their entire lives, where only the rich have a chance at bettering themselves, where slavery still exists, and were there is no chance for any justice.



[ Parent ]
Mascots (2.00 / 1) (#69)
by rodoke3 on Sun May 19, 2002 at 11:41:22 AM EST

Our mascot was the Conquistador.

At least your mascot was cool, I went to Centralia High School, home of the Orphans!


I take umbrage with such statments and am induced to pull out archaic and over pompous words to refute such insipid vitriol. -- kerinsky


Wow..but at least your mascot actually exists... (3.00 / 1) (#82)
by Gandalf21 on Mon May 20, 2002 at 05:37:03 PM EST

Binghampton College's mascot is the "Bearcats." I would be interested to know what one of those looks like.


I may be drunk, but you are ugly. Tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be ugly.
[ Parent ]

People are so silly (3.50 / 2) (#72)
by buglord on Sun May 19, 2002 at 02:54:00 PM EST

Just had to think about it...
In some parts of Germany, small explosive caps (like the ones in cap pistols) are called "Judenfürze", jew's farts. A kind of chocolate goes by the name "Negerküsse", Negro kisses. You get really astounded faces when you use those names - a real good way to make a bad impression on people.

I can't stand it - there are so many different cultures in the world, you can hardly speak a sentence without somebody feeling insulted. (I thought one of the pillars of democracy was argument!) So what do you do? Just ban as much as possible, until we've got a mushy newspeak nobody can complain about.

Out of mouth, out of mind.

I'm happy so much now I know how to use a gun!
Die Technik bereit und stabil... wir wollen zurück ins Telespiel!
welle:erdball - telespiel

Nazis? Of course! (3.50 / 2) (#78)
by awgsilyari on Mon May 20, 2002 at 02:13:11 AM EST

This discussion is hereby terminated under Godwin's Law.

Please, go back to your homes and places of business.

--------
Please direct SPAM to john@neuralnw.com

Legislating taste (4.00 / 1) (#84)
by jolly st nick on Mon May 20, 2002 at 05:57:28 PM EST

I used to be something of an animation buff. There's a lot of classic animation that doesn't get shown because of offensive depictions of blacks or jews. And I mean really offensive. Nonetheless, I think its a shame they're hard to find and seldom seen. The animators didn't really know better, and many of them are brilliant (Rudolf Ising's bouyant Freddy the Freshman comes to mind). I think it is better to watch and cringe at the appropriate points.

Many (but by no means all) of the Indian mascots I've seen have been pretty offensive. Chief Wahoo is just the red version of the nigger cartoon characters that we no longer get to see. My feeling is that the problem isn't the mascots, but the fact that people are too blind to see what poor taste they are in. Trying to outlaw them if anything makes people more obstinately tasteless.

I have no objection depictions of Indians or other minorities as mascots, even funny ones, so long as they depict individuals (cartoon or otherwise) rather than racial stereotypes. Disney, for example turned to Chinese artists for help in creating physically funny, but unoffensive Chinese characters for Mulan. It can be done.

not just jew's and blacks (2.50 / 2) (#85)
by nodsmasher on Mon May 20, 2002 at 07:40:11 PM EST

comady central now dosn't show speady gonzolaz, exept on there spanish chanall, there its emensly popular
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
[ Parent ]
All depictions are not necessarily offensive (4.00 / 1) (#90)
by jolly st nick on Tue May 21, 2002 at 09:13:15 AM EST

Which was my point.

Speedy is not an offensive stereotype, but an individual who happens to be an identifiable member of a group. The depictions I am talking about are not individuals, but representions entire groups done in a way that diminishes all individuals in that group.

In my view the "PC" and "anti-PC" groups both get this problem wrong over and over. They are two sides of the same coin; the anti-PC people are for negative icons; the PC people are for positive icons, which in my view are nearly as bad.

Again, the fundamental problem is that people are too dull witted to see how these depictions reflect on them. When they do, this problem will go away; and it won't until they do.

[ Parent ]

You can't break tradition... (3.00 / 1) (#87)
by Deaden Oblivion on Mon May 20, 2002 at 10:30:09 PM EST

I can understand how certain people may feel about this subject, however some of these mascots have been around for years and some of them have gotten permission from the tribes and others in this minority to use these mascots.

It's nice to know people are willing to spend time on this subject, however isn't there better things to do.  Do I need to even ask how far California is in debt?  There are other problems that need to be dealt with before they start this one.

This just in... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
by thither on Thu May 30, 2002 at 10:00:49 PM EST

Assembly rejects ban on U.S. Indian team names

American Indians: Branding over Genocide? | 95 comments (86 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!