See BITS's post above in which he makes a very similar point with far more eloquence and elegance.


[Edited by Nevadaref on Aug 6th, 2005 at 06:23 AM]

It's kind of funny to me that when someone complains about violence or profanity or negative portrayals of women on TV, the response is always "If you're offended, then just change the channel." Like, duh!

But on this issue, someone complains about negative portrayals of Native Americans and the response is "You may not use that anymore."

Is that a contradiction? Do those responses come from the same groups? Seems so to me.

Sheez, BITS, do you suppose you could quit being so specific and generalize a little?

Isn't it at least possible that there are some people somewhere who ARE offended and that they have expressed this opinion, and that they deserve to have their feelings considered? This whole issue was begun not by "the self-appointed elite intellectual class seeping from academia" but by Indians themselves who found that the stereotypes and prejudices of "mainstream" people were promoted and reinforced by the mascots.

I'm not surprised that some Indians don't object to their own tribe's name being used. That doesn't change the fact that many are hurt by the practice of 10,000 fans doing the Tomahawk" and that false stereotypes are reinforced by pictures of "indian heads" with "war bonnets" who are chanting in a minor key.

The fact of the matter is that those "on the fringes of society" deserve to be treated with respect, and their wishes deserve to be considered. Virtually everyone in the "mainstream" today was once on the fringes of society. They are now in the mainstream only because our constitution and set of laws give those "on the fringes" the same privileges, rights, and responsibilities as those "in the mainstream". You know that holds for the Mormons, and there have been numerous other groups who have prospered and succeeded in life because of our respect for decent law-abiding citizens, regardless of which group they belong to.

For us to take the names and drawings of Indians, and use them in ways that they find offensive is arrogant and self-serving. Basic human dignity should include the right to control, at least to some extent, my image and my name. Why doesn't that seem reasonable?

I am an alumni of the University of Utah.

With the exception of the name UTES and two feathers that hang on the logo there are no references to the tribe. The tribe gives its permission and I if I recall right has royalties paid to them.

The mascot is a hawk...

FSU and UU (dont know about the others) have been extremely politically correct in working so that it is not offensive. Is the name Utah next since it is a Ute word?

I am in the Army and I am referred to a Chief...

I am extremely offended that the term "warrior" is one that people are offended by... I guess the US Army and some of us are NOW offensive as well.


The Soldier's Creed


I am an American Soldier.

I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.

I will always place the mission first.

I will never accept defeat.

I will never quit.

I will never leave a fallen comrade.

I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.

I am an expert and I am a professional.

I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.

I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.

I am an American Soldier.


I agree that there are terms that ae offensive (Redskins) Can you see a professional football team called the (insert City) Black Guys but Aztecs is ok and Utes is not...

Oh well I am off my soap box.

Juulie, I know from other conversations that have taken place here on the forum that you feel pretty strongly about issues like this. But I have to ask, who exactly is hurt by a tomahawk chop? Who is injured? Whose property is damaged? Whose person has been assaulted?

Yes, these images and words have connections to unflattering stereotypes and outright historical fabrications. But don't we pretty much know that at this point? Does anybody really think that Native Americans scalp their enemies or smoke'em peace pipe?

Do the words and images cause some mental pain to some Native Americans? Maybe. And to those people, I can only say, 'get over it'. I know that's callous, I know you probably think I'm a jerk for saying it, but that's the reality. What the heck ever happened to "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me?" If I learned that lesson in kindergarten, anybody else can learn it too.

Chief Wahoo and the tomahawk chop have absolutely no affect on anybody -- unless they let them. Do I think those are great images? No. Do I think anyone should dictate whether they can be used? No.

Not that anybody really cares, but I'm of Lebanese descent. You know how many raghead/camel jockey jokes/rants I heard after 9/11? More than I could count. You know how many of them hurt me? Not a single one. Sticks and stones worry me. Redskin logos don't.

I'm not trying to be more-enlightened-than-thou. Just my opinion, that's all.

Very interesting. I suppose the NCAA is entitled to do this, however, it will not be very well-received, I believe.

At least one school here that uses native american name/mascot (the Chippeawa) has been doing everything it reasonably do in the past 10 years to ensure the Chippewa image is promoted in an appropriate way.

And last night on the local news, a local school named the Warriors was mentioned. Their mascot looks like a green and yellow bug, something I'd hardly find offensive.

When the whole Native American logo issue started to become more of an issue ~20 years ago, my mom asked a relative-by-marriage who is native american what his opinion was. He rather bluntly stated that the tribes need to worry more about the poor education, joblessness, and drug abuse that is prevalent among native americans and not some stupid logo or cheer.


A lot of schools are more mindful of the need to promote their mascots appropriately, so why punish the schools that are taking those measures?

The problem with this issue is Native Americans are as different a box of candies. Each tribe had their own customs and backgrounds. If a specific tribe has no problem with their image and customs being used, I really think no one has the right to tell them how to portray their tribe. I do have a problem with names that are arbitrary like the Indians or Warriors if there is no backing from a tribe or customs are not taken into consideration. FSU has done that as well. It appears that Utah has done the same thing. If a specific tribe is represented, I cannot see how the NCAA can decide what is offensive. Maybe the Fighting Irish should be banned as well. It seems like most people that are Catholic and Irish seemed to support Notre Dame or any other school that has that mascot. Why are the Fighting Irish OK and a specific tribe not OK? As I said, I have not problem with getting rid of names like the Redskins, Braves or Red Men. Those are racial slurs. But the Seminoles or the Utes, that is another story all together.

Peace

SOme random thoughts not in response to any particular post...

Why is the NCAA including "Warriors" at all? It is most certainly NOT a native american term, people, or reference. Nearly every culture to have existed on the earth has had warriors. It is a job/function/position, not a racial or ethnic reference. Since I'm sure they had cooks, craftsmen, and farmers, the NCAA will have to ban those sorts of names too! ;)

There is someone somewhere that is offended by just about everything. Guess we ought to lock ourselves in our houses and never tune into any media lest we be offended.

I think the NCAA should have focused on the use of specific native american references without the explicit permission of group being referenced.

This entire debate is based on generalizations, Juulie. All uses of Native American images, names, nicknames, stereotypes, etc. by non-Native Americans are bad. All Native Americans are always demeaned by war whoops, tomahawk chops, and other caricatured references to Native American culture. All Native American-based team names must be abolished. All American's who don't agree with this are unenlightened, bigotted, tomahawk chopping racists. And apparently all Native Americans who don't agree with the NCAA's ruling are irrelevant.

It is becoming clear that Native Americans themselves are all over the map on how they feel about this. So how is it that the NCAA has appointed themselves as the steward of this issue when they are not directly affected and why have they chosen sides where no consensus exists?

Because this isn't about the Native Americans, as usual it's all about us us us. It's about how the self-described enlightened thinkers of our society believe that we should all feel about this issue. One part of our society is trying to force another part of our society to adhere to what they have decided is best for the Native Americans' society. So the University of Utah may be forced to drop the Ute as its mascot over the objections of the Ute tribal elders, the very people who are supposedly being so offended and demeaned, because we have decided what's best for them. :rolleyes:

Don't step in the enlightenment.

Ray, this just isn't true. Although not all Native Americans' individually are offended, many have been, and they were the ones who started the issue many many years ago. I don't know where this thing about the "self-described enlightened thinkers" comes from. It was Indians themselves who were concerned about this to begin with, and it has been Indians who have pushed it as far as they have. Others have joined in the effort, because they feel that they want the offense to end, but the core drive has been primarily Native American.

Chuck, I feel strongly about this, because I have listened to many many Native Americans express their opinions and I feel that they should get more respect than to just say, "Get over it." I know it's sappy and touchy-feely to say, but I prefer to relate to people on a more positive basis, than to dismiss their feelings out of hand. Does that mean they can just wallow in self-pity? Of course not! But why should I contribute to the problem if I can do something to make it less difficult? Who gains if I take the attitude, "The heck with you, I'm doing it my way."?

Whoever said something about the homelessness, alcoholism and lack of education that Indians tend to suffer under, I'd just like to note that it's generally the people who are doing the most to address these issues who are also making an issue of the stereotypes and offensive mascots. And those are usually Native Americans themselves, not "self-described enlightenment thinkers," by the way.

It's obvious that I'm not going to win a lot of converts, so I'm not going to keep arguing about this, but I gotta admit, it always surprises me to find that such nice guys as y'all are so dense about some of these issues. Now you can argue with each other about whether that was an insult or a compliment.

Nobody's asking you to contribute to the problem. And I'm not saying it's not a problem. I'm not saying that you (or I) should join in with the tomahawk chop.

I think you missed the most important part of what I said in my post. Maybe I didn't make it explicit enough. But this is literally a cornerstone of my personal philosophy: No one's words or opinions about me can ever hurt me, unless I allow those words to hurt me. It's completely within my control whether I am hurt by somebody else's comments. Completely.

My advice to "get over it" is in no way a lack of respect. Rather, it is a plea to people to empower themselves; to realize that it's entirely within their own power to be offended or not. Take control of your perceptions and outlook and realize that the tomahawk chop is NOT a comment on you, your tribe, or your heritage. If anything, it is a comment on the amount of alcohol that has been imbibed at a sporting event.

If a person is upset over a stereotype or comment, it's entirely because that person allowed the stereotype to upset him/her. Entirely. So "get over it" simply means "control your own thoughts and don't allow it".

And the amazing thing is, it's not that hard. Sticks and stones.

Why is it always people with the most privilege telling others to get over it? If the term "sticks and stones" applies, it surely only works when it does not apply to them. I have said many things over the years and I did not hear many in you situation talking about "sticks and stones." I guess I just find this part of the discussion interesting. If someone just mentions someone that is not of color the first thing many here will accuse me or others of is being a racist. Sounds to me like a huge contradiction.

Peace

These statements are interesting to me. One definition of ignorant is "Unaware or uninformed." I don't want this to come off in the negative way this word is often used. Sometimes we, all of us, just don't know which means we are ignorant to some things. It isn't and shouldn't always be used in a "name calling" manner.
It seems like you are just automatically assuming the NCAA is an organization that is not of color. By saying the NCAA isn't affected means you know for certain there are no Native Americans or others of color within the NCAA. Furthermore, it seems like we all know there is a supreme overlord that tells us what we should think.

If we still have to talk about these and other things like this, WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM!

As many of you know, Juulie and I are friends, but I must take a slightly different tack on this issue other than hers.

I think that if a mascot is chosen to honor a particular group of people, and the representations of that group are not offensive to them, then not only is there nothing wrong with it, but it should be complimented. I'm talking about situations in public instutitions, of course.

However, if that group has a legitimate objection, such as being portrayed as negative stereotypes, then the mascot should be changed. Public funds should not be used to further prejudice.

I'm sure none of us would want to have a school mascot that "made fun of" an ethnic group to which we belonged.

That being said, I can't wait for Juulie's take on a school that calls it's team the "Fighting Quakers". ;)

You mean Karl Rove? :p