About 6.25% of me cares. Oh wait. No, it doesn't.

[lincolnduncan]

Whether you're a sports fan or not, you probably are at least somewhat familiar with the controversy with American Indian/Native American/American Aboriginal/Native Population team names in sports. This, and similar concerns, has caused colleges in particular to change their team nicknames, like St. John's University going from the Red Men to the

Comments

[lincolnduncan]

I know the difference, for example, between Al Jolson and Eric Idle (in an episode of "Monty Python's Flying Circus") doing blackface. As annoying as it is when people assume I'm a big hip-hop fan or sign me up for "black causes", I understand they are trying to be sensitive to me as a black person, even though it offends my sense of individuality as Marcus.

I don't think that making Tenoso feel uncomfortable is good or right, but I also think that she had a responsibility to go where she felt like she belonged. You can't make a statement like that with foreknowledge of the situation you're getting into and not seem less than intelligent.

Likewise, the University of Illinois (or the Atlanta Braves, or the Chicago Blackhawks, etc.) should take into consideration how people feel about their nicknames and mascots, surely, if for no other reason than the image the institution portrays to Natives or anyone else. On the flipside, however, assuming that the intent of each and every Indian mascot is to promote racism or bigotry is problematic as well. You have to hold everyone to the same standard of reasonable thought, otherwise racism will never disappear.

So what about nicknames like Pioneers or Crusaders that historically were used by those who conquered other (now) minorities? Are those names bigoted too, or do we realize that they aren't talking about forcing Natives on reservations and slaughtering Jews and Muslims? Just a thought...

[smilingbeef]

I think the big difference is that Pioneers and Crusaders as mascots seek to celebrate an American or Christian institution, while Redskins and Braves, et al, is now generally seen as a way to stereotype or embrace the basest of understandings about an ethnicity. And obviously, the fact that these teams are generally owned by white people doesn't help the case.

[lincolnduncan]

Yes, but at the base of celebrating an American pioneer heritage is the mistreatment of the Native people. Thousands of non-Christians were killed during the Crusades. I'd argue both could be considered worse than calling a team the Sioux or the Utes.

I also think there is a difference between using names like Redskins or Red Men and using Chiefs, Braves, Indians, or tribal names. The former are slurs and are more than understandable, the latter are groups of humans that happen to be Native American, and hence are no different than using Fighting Irish (University of Notre Dame), Ragin' Cajuns (University of Louisiana-Lafayette), Quakers (University of Pennsylvania), Trojans (University of Southern California, Troy State University), Spartans (Michigan State University, San Jose State University, etc.), Vandals (University of Idaho) or Rebels (University of Mississippi, University of Nevada-Las Vegas).

[smilingbeef]

But! (And this has to be short because I'm headed out the door) All of those schools have close ties to thier mascots ethnically, racially, and socio-culturally. Most schools with Native American nicknames aren't predominantly Native American, and don't necessarily have a history as such. That's the difference, as I see it.

[lincolnduncan]

Sure, but are most people in Southern California descendants of Troy or Idahoans descendants of the Vandals? To say that just because they are mostly or mainly Europeans is to group them all together like people tend to do Native Americans. Saying that using a Native American symbol is racist simply because whites (or non-Indians) are using it is somewhat bigoted in itself. (Not you, of course. :-)

[smilingbeef]

But I think that stance is just as naive as mine, because even though an individual's or a group's intent isn't racist, that doesn't mean that it's not an instance of institutional racism.

My question is this: do you really believe that Chief Illiniwek was designed as a means of glorifying Native American culture, in the same way that the Vandals or the Spartans or the Crusaders do? I honestly don't know the history of that particular school mascot, but other cases I've followed are (to me) clearly acts of subversion. This is particularly apparent in the case of the Redskins name and the depiction of the Braves' mascot.

[lincolnduncan]

Institutional racism is a version of the race card; very easy to declare, but nowhere nearly as easy to prove and nearly impossible to get rid of, if for no other reason somebody always has a reason to keep it around. (Note that goes for the beneficiaries of whatever actual ingrained racism there is as well as those who gain by claiming to suffer from it.) The difference in our stances, it seems, is that intent is irrelevant in determing racism while I believe intent is consequential.

I don't know if Illiniwek initially was designed as a glorification of Native Americans, but I do know that it is not in the same ballpark (if you excuse the pun) of Chief Nok-A-Homa of the Atlanta Braves. My point is if we're going to consider what is and isn't deliberately offensive, we have to take everything into account, and in that case, the fact that the University of Illinois went so far to buy an authentic Sioux outfit, or that "Redskin" is a slur, or what the Crusades meant to the populations that suffered through both of them, and so on. I will agree that some mascots are horrendous caricatures, but I still think that mascots can even be separated from the names. It's why, to use the past example, I don't have any qualms about the use of the term "Braves" by the Atlanta National League Baseball Club, but I greatly dislike the mascot.