Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Many Native Americans believe that their identity as people is diminished by the nicknames and mascots of Indians. My point of view -- and I recommend it to others -- is to not want to do harm. If someone tells me that my actions belittle and dehumanize them, I will stop, if possible. Then if they continue to be offended, that's another story. You think it's silly for the Indians to make a big deal out of the nicknames. But if you fight that request, then you're making a big deal, too.
But if you immdeiately change the nickname/mascot, then you get a lot of brownie points, and you get to spend your time on something more important, like graduation rates, and affirmative action.
|
One major problem I see in this is that the common arguments are lumping all "Native Americans" into one bucket with regards to thier views. However, there were hundreds (or perphaps thousands) of difference tribes on this continent and the only thing many of them had in common was the continent. The had different languages, customs, and practices. Just because some Indians are offended doesn't mean all are. Why should the the fact that an indian of the Illini tribe is offended about use of their image matter to the Seminoles or Utes who are apparently satisifed and supportive of the use of their image? This is no more right than saying all (fill in a race or ethnic group) are (fill in a word)?
|
I don't think anyone did say that all are offended. The point isn't that this individual or that single tribe is trying to jerk the tiger around by the tail. It's also not the point that a few indians are off sulking in the corner because they got their candy taken away.
The point is that trivializing and belittling people because of their racial and cultural heritage is not a healthy thing to do. It hurts both the one who is misunderstood, and the ones who perpetuate the misunderstanding. You and I are dehumanized when we condone or ignore this, just as many indians are demeaned.
If it seems small and petty to us, but it's huge to the indians, then why would we not quickly change the mascot and get on to discussing more important things? If they keep telling us it's important, and we keep saying no it's not, then we're just being hypocritical -- by acting in a way that doesn't accord with our words.
There are lots of different types of psychological ways that people define themselves. Cultural and racial background are an important part of how children learn about their own foundations and roots. If some of those are repeatedly belittled by people around, children learn to believe that they aren't important and that others don't respect them. It's very damaging.
When children have loving, attentive, mature adults around them to help them counteract the effects of a negative society, it isn't a huge problem. I'd guess that most Amish children fall into this category. Although many outsiders treat them like they're not very bright, and tend to belittle their culture, still the adults can lead the children in learning to see themselves as solid people with worth and dignity.
But many many Indian adults have never received this, and barely know how to live it, much less pass it on. For many Indian children the self-respect that we all need to grow into mature adults isn't very available. Why should our society contribute to that downward spiral? Even if the only thing we do is to merely reduce the negative influence on children who are struggling to grow, that is still a huge difference. Why wouldn't we want to be part of the solution, instead of part of the problem, when the cost to ourselves is so small?
|
You completely missing my point. You (and the NCAA) treating the "indians" as if they were unified in their stance and that all portrayals are bad. They're not. While an Illini has every right to be offended by the use of their image, none of them have any right to say anything about the use of a Seminole image if the Seminoles approve of the use. Yet, they've placed enough pressue on the NCAA to have the use of the Seminole's also restricted. That, according to some, will actually harm the Seminole's or others like them who approve and benefit from it's use.
Why not extend the mascot ban so that only images of plants are acceptable. I'm sure there are people that are offended portrayal of animals or any group of humans. Isn't that Purdue mascot a bit of a humorus person...not exactly flattering...coudn't someone be offended.
If the group being portrayed is offended, then they image should not be used...but the "group" must be appropriately defined....all indians is too broad of a group.
[Edited by Camron Rust on Aug 11th, 2005 at 08:57 PM]