Post
by SonomaCat » Fri Aug 12, 2005 5:55 pm
I'd certainly agree with the assertion that most college nicknames, including many/most modeled after Indians, are perfectly respectable. As to the NCAA ruling, I will be curious to see how they try to implement it. It seems to be somewhat subjective, and how they go about sorting the offensive names from the non-offensive names under the policy will be an interesting debate.
At the same time, I think it is impossible for people who aren't a part of the potentially offended group to really insightfully opine as to whether something is not offensive due to the fact that we aren't personally affected and don't have the background to realize when someone else's culture is being distorted in a way that would be reason for concern. That's why I am interested in reading articles such as the one in the Chronicle from people who can articulate why something is offensive to them.
Some would suggest that they are whining or bitching and that we should disregard how they feel. Perhaps that is true. Perhaps they are making a bigger issue out of something than it needs to be. Or, perhaps, we are simply too quick to throw out the now derogatory and cliche term "PC" to dismiss people's perspectives and are, in the process, trying to justify our own simple lack of empathy and courtesy towards another group of people. Where do we draw that line? I don't know. It's a grey area.
But for purposes of playing devil's advocate, let's assume the following scenarios:
1. A school in Berkeley is looking for a new mascot and, based on the historical influences of the Spanish Missions in this area, comes up with a mascot called the "Crusading Christians." They have a mascot drawn up who has a whip in one hand, and bible in the other, and a crazy intimidating look in his eye. They dress up a kid for the games as a black-robed Christian and have him throw bibles at native people and cast spells on opposing teams with exagerrated signs of the cross. When the opposing team scores, the mascot drops to the ground and writhes in a seemingly epileptic fit in honor of the shakers and to display his displeasure with the bad turn of events. When the Christians score, the mascot celebrates by simulating the hanging of witches or torturing of non-Christians.
A group of Christians complains about the mascot as not being a fair representation of modern Christians as they see them to be. The majority of the people at the school and in the administration, however, are not Christians, and think the name and actions of the mascot are perfectly fine. They even say that the moniker is honoring Christians as it shows how strong they were as a warring class in early America and Europe.
Who's right? Is the mascot appropriate? Who should decide? The majority of non-Chistians at the school, or should they cave to the real Christians who don't like it?
2. A school in a predominately hispanic part of Texas, which until several years ago was predominately white, adopts a mascot called "Los Gringos Luchadores," ("The Fighting Gringos") to honor the veracity of those whites that used to live in the area. This mascot is Casper the ghost white, has menacing sharp teeth, a mouth full of chew, and long dirty hair. It dresses in a wife beater and is pictured as always shaking his fist and screaming like a lunatic in anger at the opposition. He never wears any shoes, and his jeans are a bit too short and are frayed. They don't fit quite right and are held up with suspenders. Sometimes he wears a conquistador hat and carries a 1500's musket to go along with his banjo strapped to his back, and he breaks out into knee-slapping jigs everytime the Gringos score. He's adored by the Hispanic student body.
Same questions. Appropriate, as long as the students don't mind it? Should the input of white people influence the debate at all, or is their opinion irrelevant?
Come up with any other number of examples along similar lines. Yes, I think some mascots are fine, but I feel that some probably do need to be looked at (especially any "Redskins," since that one is simply disgusting in my opinion). It troubles me when people dismiss discussions about it as being simply "PC" talk, as I don't think that sentiment would hold if something more sympathetic to their own beliefs was being caricatured. It's all a matter of perspective, and the more distant we are from the people claiming to be offended, the easier it is for us to dismiss and mock their complaints out of hand.
besides, no benefits come out of being nasty and making me cry.
