It is about time -- Indian Mascots

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 12:14 pm

In grade school I was a Roosevelt Red Skin at the time it was no skin off my nose. But now that I am MUCH wiser it is quite obviuos how hurtful these "abusive" nicknames are. Now if we can just find a way to get rid of the Oregon St. Beavers

NCAA bans Indian mascots, 'abusive' nicknames from postseason
Aug. 5, 2005
CBS SportsLine.com wire reports

INDIANAPOLIS -- The NCAA banned the use of American Indian mascots by sports teams during its postseason tournaments, but will not prohibit them otherwise.

The NCAA's executive committee decided this week the organization did not have the authority to bar Indian mascots by individual schools, committee chairman Walter Harrison said Friday.

Nicknames or mascots deemed "hostile or abusive" would not be allowed by teams on their uniforms or other clothing beginning with any NCAA tournament after Feb. 1, said Harrison, the University of Hartford's president.

"What each institution decides to do is really its own business" outside NCAA championship events, he said.

At least 18 schools have mascots the NCAA would deem "hostile or abusive," including Florida State's Seminole and Illinois' Illini. The full list of schools was not immediately released.

Not all schools with Indian-related nicknames would be on that list. NCAA officials said some schools using the Warrior nickname do not use Indian symbols and would not be affected.

The NCAA two years ago recommended that schools determine for themselves whether the Indian depictions were offensive.

Among the schools to change nicknames in recent years over such concerns were St. John's (from Redmen to Red Storm) and Marquette (from Warriors to Golden Eagles).

The NCAA plans to ban schools using Indian nicknames from hosting postseason events. Harrison said schools with such mascots that have already been selected as tournament sites would be asked to cover any offensive logos.

Such logos also would be prohibited at postseason games on cheerleader and band uniforms starting in 2008.

CatFamily · Post by **CatFamily** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 1:44 pm

I really have mixed feelings about the way so many groups seem to react to Indian or Native Amercan names, logos, and mascots. I have several very good friends who are Native Amercian or Indian as it were, and none have any problem at all with the use of Indians or Braves as team names. In fact they think it actually is a source of pride to all the Indian Tribes throughout our land. Again, I think a very small minority has caused the problems over the names and mascot issues. So I suppose Pirates is bad, Fighting Irish, etc. should all be banned.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 1:52 pm

Now if we can just find a way to get rid of the Oregon St. Beavers

-mslacat

surprised any man is offended by a little Beaver

-rebecca

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 1:57 pm

I think the problem arises when teams adopt a caricature of an Indian person as their mascot that isn't necessarily flattering. It's also involving a group of people that exist in our modern era as opposed to historical figures (Vikings, etc.). In that way, it's much different that Pirates, Vikings, etc. It is often seen as similar to having caricature mascots based on Jews, blacks, etc.

If the mascots themselves were displayed as dignified and respected characters, I doubt anyone would mind that they are used (and these are probably the examples that people refer to when they note that they don't mind them at all, which makes sense). It seems like the mascots that make Indians appear to be savage or stupid that raise the ire of some.

The Fighting Irish is the closest analogy, but in all fairness, the school was founded and maintained by Irish people, so it is self-descriptive as opposed to a group of people characterizing someone else's ethnicity in a mascot.

The worst Indian name is "Redskins," without a doubt. For those who don't know, the term has nothing to do with skin tone (which is bad enough), but is rather the nickname that was attached to Indians back in the wonderful days of our country when the government paid people to exterminate Indians. To prove a kill, they required that an Indian scalp be brought in for payment (whites invented scalping -- Indians only starting doing it in response to this early American tradition). The bloody scalps were called "Redskins." This term was later adapted to describe Indians that still had their scalps attached as well.

That our nation's capital has a sports franchise named after that early tradition, especially in light of the city's move to change the Bullets name out of concern for public perception, is sad.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:05 pm

I have family members who are Native American and yes their are some nick names / Mascots that some of these relations don't mind and some do. There are simply some offend some and not other. That said though their are other nicknames /mascot that they all object to ie Washington Red Skins, Atlanta Braves Tomahawk Chop ect.

Rebeca- Sorry I could not resist. Seriuosly what were the students at OSU and U of O thinking! Ducks and Beavers!! I am shaking in my sneakers!!!!

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:15 pm

mslacat wrote:Seriuosly what were the students at OSU and U of O thinking! Ducks and Beavers!! I am shaking in my sneakers!!!!

How about them Golden Gophers!

An interesting note about Native American mascots; the gentleman that donated millions of dollars to UND’s outstanding Hockey Arena said that if the University changed their mascot from the Fighting Sioux he would repeal the 100 year lease agreement for the arena.

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:17 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote: (whites invented scalping -- Indians only starting doing it in response to this early American tradition).

I don't think you have your facts quite straight on this one BAC - pretty sure there is conclusive evidence that scalping was practiced in North America before Columbus arrived. Studies of 15th century massacre sites shows evidence, and many pre-European languages had words for the act and victim of scalping. Granted bounties were paid, and scalping was practiced in Europe as well, but I think it is pretty well accepted that Native Americans practiced scalping before the arrival of Europeans as well.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:18 pm

mquast53000 wrote:
mslacat wrote:Seriuosly what were the students at OSU and U of O thinking! Ducks and Beavers!! I am shaking in my sneakers!!!!

How about them Golden Gophers!

An interesting note about Native American mascots; the gentleman that donated millions of dollars to UND’s outstanding Hockey Arena said that if the University changed their mascot from the Fighting Sioux he would repeal the 100 year lease agreement for the arena.

That was the same guy who hosted a big party at his casino celebrating Hitler's birthday, wasn't it? That wasn't a great PR move on his part.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:22 pm

grizbeer wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote: (whites invented scalping -- Indians only starting doing it in response to this early American tradition).
I don't think you have your facts quite straight on this one BAC - pretty sure there is conclusive evidence that scalping was practiced in North America before Columbus arrived. Studies of 15th century massacre sites shows evidence, and many pre-European languages had words for the act and victim of scalping. Granted bounties were paid, and scalping was practiced in Europe as well, but I think it is pretty well accepted that Native Americans practiced scalping before the arrival of Europeans as well.

Perhaps the traditions did occur concurrently, I exprapolated the genesis of the act from the fact that Europeans used the practice even before the Western migration. The main point being, though, that our perceptions of our history lead us to believe that Indians were savage and we were the noble white guys coming into liberate them from their own savage nature. Turns out we were more than savage to them, and were in truth the ones who initiated most of the violence.

I think most people are catching on to this these days, though. When we were kids, though, our history classes were a joke in this regard.

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:24 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote: That was the same guy who hosted a big party at his casino celebrating Hitler's birthday, wasn't it? That wasn't a great PR move on his part.

That is the guy. I can't remember how often the school Mascot or emblem appears in the arena, but I know that it is the most in all of the US for college sports. The guy was a real gem. The school really got a black eye from that donor, but I bet you most people have already forgotten the bad press the guy got them- it helps that he is dead now...

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:35 pm

Rebeca- Sorry I could not resist. Seriuosly what were the students at OSU and U of O thinking! Ducks and Beavers!! I am shaking in my sneakers!!!!

-mslacat

actually, since BAC keeps telling me I'm "one of the guys" the Beaver comment I made was an attempt at being raunchy.

guess, I'm really not good at being "raw" i'll go back to my nice girl self.

-rebecca

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 3:41 pm

Another waste of time and effort. If the Indians don't like it tough, they are the minority. I always prefered "Barn Burners and Wagon Burners" as a mascot myself.

JahGriz · Post by **JahGriz** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 4:25 pm

Redskins is the only one that seem like it could be genuinely offensive. Braves, maybe, with the fans doing the tomahawk chop. But that is pushing it. Braves seems to be a reference to being Brave, never really asked or looked into it though, so I'm probably wrong. As to others, like Seminoles, give me a break, find something more productive to do than bitch about good names that seem more a compliment than anything. And these mascots and emblems of the mascot always seem dignified and strong to me. Why would someone have a mascot that they didn't portray as being strong and dignified.
I'm not insensitive to Native Americans, in fact I married one, but this ruling is B.S. Truly what's next, Fighting Irish, some how I don't see anyone who will be complaining about this mascot name.
I can be offended by anything I want, it doesn't mean I'm going to raise hell and cry foul and get the rest of the world to change to accommodate my hurt little feelings.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 4:44 pm

BAC,

You just proved to me that you are willing to essentially make something up in order to prove your point. While reading your comments on the term "redskins", you sounded very sure of yourself and well-read on the subject. Then your comments were contested and you admit that you essentially "decided" that the Europeans started the practice of scalping based on the fact that it was known to happen in Europe prior to their infiltration of North America.

For someone who acts like they have IMMENSE knowledge on a vast array of topics, I'm afraid we now have to take things you state as fact with a grain of salt unless you site specific sources for your assertions.

grizbeer, thanks for the FACTUAL insight.

As for the specifics of this topic, again I ask someone to show me the area of the Constitution (or any U.S/Indian Treaty) where people are guaranteed the right to never be offended.

Here's hoping that soon some team takes up the monicker of "the Slaughtering Swedes" so that I too can join the ranks of the offended.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 4:49 pm

I HBO's Deadwood Al Swearengen call us swedes "square heads"

How about the Seatte Squareheads.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 4:50 pm

I'M OFFENDED!

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 5:23 pm

El_Gato wrote:BAC,

You just proved to me that you are willing to essentially make something up in order to prove your point. While reading your comments on the term "redskins", you sounded very sure of yourself and well-read on the subject. Then your comments were contested and you admit that you essentially "decided" that the Europeans started the practice of scalping based on the fact that it was known to happen in Europe prior to their infiltration of North America.

For someone who acts like they have IMMENSE knowledge on a vast array of topics, I'm afraid we now have to take things you state as fact with a grain of salt unless you site specific sources for your assertions.

grizbeer, thanks for the FACTUAL insight.

As for the specifics of this topic, again I ask someone to show me the area of the Constitution (or any U.S/Indian Treaty) where people are guaranteed the right to never be offended.

Here's hoping that soon some team takes up the monicker of "the Slaughtering Swedes" so that I too can join the ranks of the offended.

El Gato,

I had actually read a book (I believe it was in "Lies my Teachers Told Me" if you need the reference) that indicated that Europeans came up with it first, and if you want to do some surfing, you will find many websites that also back it up, as well as those that contest it. It's a historically debated issue, and one that I was willing to concede without further debate because it wasn't relevant to my overall point. Sorry to steal your "gotcha" moment, but that's just the reality of it. And you also fail to acknowledge that 90% of what I said (with a paranthetical point being the only contested item) was supported by grizbeer's post.

So it sounds like I did contribute some knowledge to the conversation ... unless everyone already knew the source of the term "Redskins" prior to me posting it. In which case, I just wasted some of my own time writing it.

Sorry if I "acted" like I had IMMENSE knowledge on a "vast" array of topics. If you prefer, I will instead just rant mindlessly on topics I know nothing about. That's never been done on a message board before.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 5:25 pm

Ponycat wrote:I HBO's Deadwood Al Swearengen call us swedes "square heads"

How about the Seatte Squareheads.

I thought he used that term for the Norweigans ... but I could be wrong.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 5:30 pm

I think it was Scandanavians in general.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 5:35 pm

Ponycat wrote:I think it was Scandanavians in general.

Well then, I am REALLY offended -- not at the term, but at Al mixing up the good name of my people with all of those dirty Swedes, Fins and Danes.

If this wasn't a family site, I would call him a ... a ... well, you know the term that Al uses better than any other person who has ever lived. Some of his conversations with Wu, where they communicat an entire storyline with only two words that you are never, never supposed to call an umpire, are some of the best TV I have ever seen.