Ethnic mascots in sports: Offensive? And who gets to decide?

[Mursilis]

If people are offended by it then I think they should change it. It is a disparaging term used to describe a group of people for the color of their skin.

And yet Red Mesa High School, on a Navajo reservation and with a mission statement which includes "enhancing Navajo culture", calls themselves the Redskins.

 

[Fern]

Funny that you brought up the FSU case. The NCAA also went after other schools which referenced NA culture, including the College of William and Mary, which was the Tribe. WM used two feathers in the logo, which the NCAA found objectionable. The student paper actually asked some of the few Indians remaining in Virginia (where WM is located), and they weren't the slightest bit offended by the use of feathers in the school's logo. But then, WM wasn't powerful like FSU, and the NCAA got its way - the feather was removed.

Being an alumnus of FSU I can tell you this had nothing to do with FSU having power. The Seminole tribe itself is the one that stopped the NCAA. They attacked the NCAA quite forcefully. They want to be the mascot, the minute they don't FSU will have to drop it.

When you use a generic like "tribe" who can come to your defense? There is no specific NA group exclusively known as the "tribe".

I.e., there's a difference between 'offending no one' and that of a specific group saying "we want this" and 'W(ho)TF are you NCAA to be telling us what we can and cannot have"?

Fern

 

[randomrogue]

http://espn.go.com/abcsports/bcs/s/2001/0516/1200267.html

Not sure if you're aware of Mecha (an organization that believes the USA should cede land back to latinos) but this is what they did to SDSU. Despite nearly 90% of the students voting to keep things the same they changed it due to a few crybabies. They turned a fearless warrior mascot into crap.

It was laughable at the time since it went from:

to

Monty Montezuma turned into Aztec Warrior and today is

I don't support allowing a few crying Native Americans to change the Redskins. If something is going to be changed it should be because a majority of the people in Washington want to change it.

 

[nanette1985]

Having grown up in Northern Ohio with 5 athletic brothers, & a million relatives, I totally remember the fusses about the Cleveland Indians. When I was tiny, the logo didn't have indians on it and local native americans got really mad at the Cleveland baseball team for removing them. From what I heard, the Indians were named for an early Cleveland baseball star, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Sockalexis

So Indians wasn't really a term of offense. The protests have been back and forth these years since.

If there are a lot of laws are passed forbidding Native American names, that would show that a lot of people felt that way that's when it'd probably be okay. Culture changes happen a lot over the years. Interesting subject

 

[jackstar7]

I don't support allowing a few crying Native Americans to change the Redskins. If something is going to be changed it should be because a majority of the people in Washington want to change it.

Is your tyranny of the majority view one that extends beyond sports mascots? Or is this the only place area you think that's a good idea?

 

[JulesMaximus]

I don't support allowing a few crying Native Americans to change the Redskins. If something is going to be changed it should be because a majority of the people in Washington want to change it.

You do realize that there was a time when the majority of this country was for owning slaves right? Was that okay because most people were okay with it?

 

[randomrogue]

So majority voting for a sports team mascot is equatable to majority in favor of slavery?

My opinion does not stretch that far. I'm talking about mascots.

I agree however that if you somehow got an entire state full of bigots could could run into issues but so far we've seen these mascots attacked by a very small minority who are whining about something that has very little historically or in current times to support a negative connotation to the term. What someone needs to show is that either we're glorifying a horrible group of people (The Nashville Nazis) or using a term that really means something terrible (The Nantucket Ni**ers). If the term beloved patriot means something bad then by all means change it. Is there a part of the country where people call Indians "redskins" in a way that is demeaning? When was the last time it was a demeaning term? Has anyone here ever heard the term "beloved patriot" even used or used in a derogatory way?

Sorry, but we have white people. We have black people. Yellow people. Brown people. Is that racist? For some reason people like to have adjectives to describe everything and people are described by color. The difference between that being good and bad is if you JUDGE someone inferior or superior due to their color. I don't see that happening here at all. Discrimination not found.

 

[Mxylplyx]

It seems at times there is an offense industry that shops around seeking to match offenders with potential offendees. They've gotten lazy and dont even bother looking for the offendees, which I find offensive.

 

[Craig234]

There are two issues here. One is what's the right thing to do, and the other is who has the numbers.

In other words, whatever's the right thing to do, there are very few Native Americans compared to the number of non-Native American sports fans.

So that greatly impedes getting to 'what's right' - there are large interests in the team serving their customers and not the 'injured party'.

If most of the fans say 'who the hell cares if they're offended' (or the more subtle post above this one), it's a lot harder to fix.

 

[dphantom]

there is a NA group near where I live who is fighting against the State for making local schools remove any mascot that represents a NA tribe.

I find it hard to believe the mascots are derogatory in anyway. rather they symbolize just a few of the inherent strengths of the people, animals or symbols represented.

Certainly NA are a minority in the USA. I suspect though (no data) that the majority of NA support their local schools and colleges mascots.

 

[Craig234]

So majority voting for a sports team mascot is equatable to majority in favor of slavery?

That's a straw man. No one is equating it with slavery. It's an issue of insult.

My opinion does not stretch that far. I'm talking about mascots.

I agree however that if you somehow got an entire state full of bigots could could run into issues but so far we've seen these mascots attacked by a very small minority who are whining about something that has very little historically or in current times to support a negative connotation to the term. What someone needs to show is that either we're glorifying a horrible group of people (The Nashville Nazis) or using a term that really means something terrible (The Nantucket Ni**ers). If the term beloved patriot means something bad then by all means change it. Is there a part of the country where people call Indians "redskins" in a way that is demeaning? When was the last time it was a demeaning term? Has anyone here ever heard the term "beloved patriot" even used or used in a derogatory way?

Sorry, but we have white people. We have black people. Yellow people. Brown people. Is that racist? For some reason people like to have adjectives to describe everything and people are described by color. The difference between that being good and bad is if you JUDGE someone inferior or superior due to their color. I don't see that happening here at all. Discrimination not found.

Clearly there's a history of a disrespectful view many Americans have had of Native Americans if you go into the history. Where a sports team mascot can be insulting.

'Hey, some of them will be animals, and some things, and some groups of people, all of whom are made trivial for our entertainment'.

There is a certain bit of positive about the mascots the 'strong, fast' type of thing - but there is also an amount of offensive trivializing of the groups of people.

That's built into the context of 'sports mascot'. It reminds me a bit of 'dwarf tossing', which might be consensual, but really does have a degrading aspect to it.

I'd just lean against any mascot which is likely to offend people in that group. Now, take 'Vikings' - less so because they no longer exist - but they still 'belong' to Scandanavia.

Or the Cowboys - I've never heard of an offended cowboy over it.

A relevant issue ssems to be whether the group has a history of discrimination against them. Vikings and Cowboys, not really, Native Americans yes.

That doesn't mean there's any offense intended - I think the names are meant generally in a flattering spirit - but why cause it?

If there's a strong opinion among Native Americans not wanting the team name - they could be divided - I'd lean towards fixing the name.

Then again no one asked them if they wanted our attack helicoptors to be named for them, either - Apache, Tomahawk, Comanche...

 

[Charles Kozierok]

In considering names like "Seminoles", "Cowboys", "Vikings" and so forth, and them not generally being seen as offensive, we have an illustration of a point I made earlier -- people object most to names not when they identify a group of people, but rather when they refer to physical characteristics of people. Because usually such identifications are not flattering.

 

[Craig234]

In considering names like "Seminoles", "Cowboys", "Vikings" and so forth, and them not generally being seen as offensive, we have an illustration of a point I made earlier -- people object most to names not when they identify a group of people, but rather when they refer to physical characteristics of people. Because usually such identifications are not flattering.

I don't think that's the only issue, though. I'd give more weight to the one I mentioned - the history of discrimination/bigotry.

Of course, 'redskins' is more likely to offend than 'braves' because it's about skin color which is so often an issue for bigotry, but it's not the only issue.

How about a northern team creating the 'rebels' and mocking the south, or an urban team creating 'the hillbillies' about people in the Appallachians?

No physical characteristics, but they'd be looked at closely to see if they were insulting - and if the groups involved took offense.

Often just the historical rivalries would imply some pejorative intent, real or not.

However, if Georgia made a team called the rebels, it might be quite respectfully intended and not offend. There's context.

 

[randomrogue]

Vikings. Interesting thing to think about. Horned helmets right? Except that the vikings didn't wear them. Therefore we should protest Vikings sports teams and mascots since they're misrepresenting the real Vikings. Scandinavians should be up in arms at this travesty!

/sarcasm

 

[zinfamous]

"Offensive?"

I think that's in the eye of the beholder. (And we have many 'PC-types' who jump to be offended at just about anything.)

"Who gets to decide?"

IMO, the group whose name is used as a mascot.

In same cases this is fairly easy and straight forward. Florida State University, for example, is the Seminoles. They are tribe that lives on a reservation in South FL/everglades. So, ask that tribe. Some time ago the NCAA stepped in was prepared to kick FSU out of college athletics if they didn't change the name. This greatly angered the Seminole tribe. The Seminole tribe and FSU have long and very close relationship. The Seminoles themselves make the costumes etc that the mascots wear, and the Seminole tribe is consulted about all things concerning the mascot to ensure historical accuracy. Heck, I'm pretty sure the tribal elders attend most games and sit in the luxury box with the university president, the relationship really is that close.

It was the Seminole tribe that blasted the NCAA and made them back off the university.


Now a name like redskins would seem to involve a whole lot more people over a much larger area, probably just about the entire USA. Native American communities stretch from FL to Alaska. I guess they should all be polled.

But the decision as to whether something is offensive should not be left up to a bunch of unaffected, probably white, PC types who have no business trying to speak on behalf of groups they don't even communicate with. What's more offensive, somebody using my name as a mascot or those who wish to decide for me whether or not I should be offended without even giving me the courtesy of asking me?

Fern

This is how I feel about it, and being an outsider to the potential offense, I also don't feel I am qualified to determine what is or who should (or should not) be offended by these names.

The FSU case is an interesting one, and should be held as an example of how best to approach these cases--appeal to the groups that actually have a legitimate claim to the name. If handled respectfully, I think the names could serve as a benefit to all people involved--fans, institutions, and indigenous culture.


/fan hat: I am a Redskins fan and have been one by virtue of, well, birth, essentially.

I find the name to be in poor taste and, frankly, wish it were changed. It may not be may place to call it offensive, but it seems to me that it is equivalent of calling them the Washington N*****s; the only difference being that the NA tribes do not have nearly as effective a lobbying group as do other historically disenfranchised cultures and people, so it is only rarely discussed and swept away due to lack of media pull and public concern.

The reality is that just about any WASP in this country would probably be disturbed at what is going on on most reservations the first time they visit one. This name, to me, reflects the general lack of concern, lack of appreciation for what we have done, as a country and as US citizens (not to mention pre-USA colonial habitation) to the Native Americans. But, again, this is just me: average WASP on an internet forum, impervious to offense...perhaps projecting a desire to be offended in a world that literally refuses to offend my class (Yes, I don't believe in this silly little term: "white guilt" )

 

[GoPackGo]

All Washington needs to do is change their mascot to a potato. Problem solved.