Sports mascots

High praise to Lewis W. Diuguid for attacking the practice of using Indian mascots and symbols in sports (“Inaccurate portrayals,” Opinion, 1/25). His citation of the spiritual importance of the traditional Indian costume is particularly significant. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that conservatives will get the message until they see themselves in the picture.

I envision a billionaire who purchases a pro team and names it, say, the Screaming Baptists. Imagine thousands of fans, Styrofoam cups of beer in one hand, large Styrofoam crosses in the other and crowns of thorns on their heads.

Then, as the teams line up to bash each other, the fans drunkenly swing their crosses back and forth and scream, “Crucify! Crucify!” Then we’d see how long it would take the right wingers in Jefferson City and Topeka to sit down and write up some legislation.

Allen Ramsey
Fairway

Comments

[Ray Seay]

Concidering the record of the KC baseball team, a lot or royality should really be angry.

[CRD]

There's a bunch of really ticked-off bulldogs and tigers roaming around out there.

[Lost_In_Ambivalence]

Perhaps I am just oblivious to things that should offend but I still don't see it. When I see a Cleveland Indians anything all I think about is the movie Major League. I never understood the whole red-skinned thing. As far as the chief thing goes...what about fire and police chiefs, our commander and chief, the hanker-chief (sorry, just popped into myhead)? Ever single mascot is a mock-up of something.

I think more to the point is that every mascot has to potential to offend someone.

[Ray Seay]

I also do not oppose the Tampa Bay baseball team being named after me, but I do resent them putting the other name in there with mine, especially putting him first.

[JUNGLEJACK]

"I might be more inclined to take these complaints seriously if the Natives themselves respected and continued to practice their culture."

Many do. - CRD

What part of their culture involves following sports that were either brought to their sacred land, or concieved by the evil white european devils?

[Craig B]

Of course many Native Americans embrace their cultural traditions, and even more complain about sports mascots as a symbol of racism. Here is part of what AIM says (much more is available at their website - http://www.aimovement.org/ncrsm/index.html):

"The American Indian community for 50 years has worked to banish images and names like Cleveland's chief wahoo, Washington redskins, Kansas City chiefs, Atlanta braves. We work to remind people of consciousness of the use of the symbols resemblance to other historic, racist images of the past. Chief wahoo offends Indian people the same way that little black sambo offended African Americans and the frito bandito offended the Hispanic community and should have offended all of us. It assaults the principle of justice."

[Lost_In_Ambivalence]

CRD

We could likely find some Viking ancestors who still celebrate many nordic traditions yet where is the outrage.

[CRD]

"I might be more inclined to take these complaints seriously if the Natives themselves respected and continued to practice their culture."

Many do.

[Lost_In_Ambivalence]

I don't understand the arguement of "well, you are the majority/leaders/winners and therefore, it is easier for you to laugh at yourself". This is rediculus. It all is based on the individual. I personally can not think of the last time that someone said something about me or any group I belonged to and actually got offended. My wife gets offended by everything that is said, whether as a joke or meant to offend. What is the difference? I don't care and she does.

I might be more inclined to take these complaints seriously if the Natives themselves respected and continued to practice their culture.

[Ray Seay]

The problem is not with names, except for Redskins; but with logos like that of the Cleveland Indians. Also with some of the symbols used by fans, and some of their actions.
The names Chiefs, Indians, Braves, and most others are not insults. Indians are not united about this.
When I was in Florida I went to a lot of powwows and I guess about 1/3 were against this practice, 1/3 favored it (except for Redskins) and 1/3 did not care. It was not a big issue with most people, even those against it. There were more important issues.

[jack]

As has been mentioned, many have issue with "Redskins". Probably needs to go.

Somewhere in here we the people have forgotten the entire "melting pot" concept. And yes, at this point that would best include the Native Americans. What was is gone. Ain't coming back. Cherish it, honor it, remember it, but move on.

I have seen the reservations of the Dakotas and Minnesota. They are pathetic, hopeless places that are only good for convincing people they are without worth.

Some how that always seems more important to me than the utter stupidity (and probably racisim) of the "tomahawk chop".

[Craig B]

Engineer,

you are right of course that there are much more serious problems. The point, though, is that the little things make the big things happen. That is the focus of the Ward Churchill essay that I mentioned, and is a phenomenon of all oppression. The idea is that by dehumanizing in small ways (anyone rember sambo dolls and lawn jockeys?) a group is subtly dehumanized in "harmless" and "just having fun" sorts of ways. We get desensitized by degrees until we miss the big stuff. A lot of analysis of Nazi Germany shows that effect, and it also existed during slavery and other such times of oppression.

As a country we have made huge progress, but treatment of natives is one area where we are seriously screwed up. Do any of you honestly think we could have a team using terms like "redskin" or "chief" for any other ethnic group - any group that still had enough people to make their voices heard?

[Engineer]

Craig B
With all the problems Native People face, team mascots seem like a minor one. One son, also an engineer, spent his career in the Public Health Service assigned to Indian Health. He had extensive associations with Tribal leaders and with Tribal members who were wastewater treatment plant and water system operaters. None of them ever complained about team mascots. And they all, especially the Tribal leaders, were very willing to voice any complaints they had.

[JUNGLEJACK]

In response to how I would feel if the tables were turned:

To use the letter writer's analogy - If I found myself as a member of a dwindling sect of an extremely small minority in my country, I would take the example of the "Screaming Baptists" in the spirit it was meant. Which would be a clumsy but good natured attempt to show a certain ammount of honor to my culture. Nobody names a team after someone or something that they disdain, but rather they look for an embodiment of qualities for their team to emulate. It's meant as a compliment, and I'll bet a lot of less vocal American Indians see it that way.

[Craig B]

A couple quick things:

1. To be considered native american, one must be on tribal rolls. Having native blood in some percentage is not sufficient legally or culturally.

2. It's interesting how in discussions of race and ethnicity, white folks (I'm pretty sure most everyone who has posted here is white, including me) think it is up to them what is "silly" or "okay" or whatever. How about listening to the people affected? The vast majority of them are not accepting of the use of native mascots, names, etc. One can always find people who will say anything - slave owners always trotted out slaves who talked about liking slavery, too. That didn't mean most did, or that it was therefore okay. Native Americans have been speaking out against these things for years; most of us just haven't wanted to hear it.

3. Most of the names mentioned as if they were analagous are to groups who no longer exist (vikings, aztecs, pirates, etc.). Obviously, that is not a similar situation. There are a couple exceptions. Someone mentioned fighting irish - an odd name indeed, and one that many people of irish descent (and catholics) hate, though of course many like them. The oddest is the San Diego Padres, though there are no bibles or crucifixes in the cheers. More important, it's not the same thing to trivialize parts of the dominant or winning groups (whites and Christians), who can always laugh at themselves without doing harm. Trivializing groups of people who are the victims of genocide - hardly the same thing.

Bottom line is that we tend to act defensively whenever we hear that things we accept or do are offensive to someone. We don't want to be offensive, so they are "oversensitive," or "crazy," or "stupid" or whatever.

Why is it so hard to simply change one's mind and behavior?

[JUNGLEJACK]

Of course, I liked my response to Diuguid's column better - but it didn't get printed.

In reference to Lewis Diuguid's column concerning American Indian culture being insulted by sports teams (Jan. 25 Opinion): If we are to blame teams like the Chiefs for "having a harmful effect on the self-esteem and social identity development of young American Indians" , then what kind of disastrous results are we seeing by young white males being exposed to the likes of the "Vikings", "Irish", "Ichabods" and "Pirates"?

Maybe the REAL reason young American Indians have low self - worth has more to do with their "Tribes" becoming nothing more than casino managers and suppliers of cheap tobacco, rather than what jersey someone wears.

I also find it ironic that the NCAA , which is headquartered in INDIANapolis, INDIANa is banning Indian nicknames and imagery. Perhaps if they would have stayed in K.C. they would at least have some integrity on this issue.

[jack]

How about "Fighting Irish" for a stereotype? There are lots of them out there. Maybe it is time that we all quit being offended by everything. Then it would be easier to draw attention to the worst. "Redskins" being to my knowledge the worst.

I slao have a bunch of Indian blood, but rarely claim it. The Grandmother who carried it was ashamed. So all that history and culture is lost from my family. Our loss.

Maybe we could get those with mascots some help in doing it right. After all, the Indian tribes were some fighting sons of guns, both with the europeans and amongst themselves.

[CRD]

Maybe if we had a "Screaming Baptists" football team, then Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and their ilk would spend less of their energy gay bashing and getting all up in arms about "The Book of Daniel." Hmm, it's a thought.

[Engineer]

This all reminds me of the Community College with a student body made up of mostly African-Americans, that adapted the mascot name "Fighting Whities". There was a great demand for Tee shirts, etc., with this logo. The College was very put out about this reaction, explaining that the mascot name was supposed to be an insult.
Although I have a small percentage of Indian blood (1/32), CraigB's Post failed to sway me. When I was at the U of I, there was no concern about the Chief, in fact he was called Oski Wah Wah or some such. Should the name of the state be changed also? After all, it's the English version of the name of an Indian confederation. Or how about Kansas, named after the Kansa, the People of the South Wind?
Native Peoples-American Indians-especially those on reservations, have serious and continuing problems. The energy expended in worrying about team mascots would be better spent helping to solve some of these problems.

[Jim Dent]

Like Jack, my warped sense of humor gave me visions of the Screaming Baptists being "eaten alive" by the Detroit Lions in the first quarter.......

Craig, your right, my post was a knee jerk reaction to the letter. I was thinking about the name aspect more than the "native dances and dress"

From my military background, we have the "tomahawk" cruise missile, an "Apache" helicopter, the Air Force "Thunderbirds" ect.....

As you can tell, I never gave the rest of it much thought. Thanks for the insight.

[Ray Seay]

The worst representation I know of is the picture on the cap of the Cleveland Indians. The name is OK but the picture should go. (I am 3/8 Indian)

I do feel exploited by the Minnesota use of Twins. (I have a twin brother,)

USC could be a problem.

How about this name
Banana Slugs ---
University of California-Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz, California

[Lost_In_Ambivalence]

Perhaps Craig is right. Here are some other "offensive" mascots because of their mockish portrayal of something...

Wake Forrest Demon Deacons
Wyoming and Pistol Pete the Cowboy
UNLV and Reb the Rebel (mocking rebels...what has our country come to?)
KU Jayhawks (important Civil war groups depicted by a fictional bird.)
UCSB Gauchos (the phantom of the dome is more sad than offensive)
Texas Tech and the Red Raiders
SDSU Aztecs (Though this one is pretty cool)
Purdue Pete (boilermakers)
Stanford and the tree (what an intimidating mascot.)
Portland State Vikings
OSU Cowboys
Northern Arizona Lumberjacks (such stereotyping)
Michigan State Spartans

I think that part of the problem is that we aren't sticking up for those groups that don't have a voice. We turn them into stereotypical cartoonish figures and parade them around. Perhaps if we talk to PETA people we might find that some of the animal characters are offensive as well.

[Craig B]

Ray, you are right about the Seminoles and Florida State, and in fact Florida State has been granted an exemption from NCAA rules on that basis. But that situation is an exception.

Jim, we usually agree but I strongly disagree with you here. I have found that it is an issue that usually receives strong negative first reactions, but upon further study and reflection it is really a no-brainer. Ward Churchill has a terrific essay on the subject called "Crimes Against Humanity" that I strongly recommend.

As the letter writer said, native dances and dress are usually spiritually significant and always culturally significant. Adopting them is indeed insulting and most native Americans of any political bent are deeply offended by them. Because the U.S. wiped out most natives, they don't have the numbers or organization for their protests to be heard like other groups, but the protests are out there. A few years ago when there was a protest in KC, the local media actually mocked the protestors rather than covered the protest. It was appalling.

I went to the University of Illinois some years ago. When I was there, Illiniwek was controversial. He should have been long gone. The dress he wears is not the traditional dress of any tribe from that area and the dance is entirely made up. It's a joke and an embarrassment.

The high school I went to was named the Indians; the sister school was the Cowboys. While I was in high school, the names were changed. There was no loss of team pride there or in any of the hundreds of schools that have made the change.

Finally, the Washington "Redskins" is deeply offensive. Even if someone wants to try to justify other names, that one has to go. It is precisely the same as the "N-word" - a term created by whites to insult, dehumanize, and mock another race. It is sickening (and a sign of how far we have to go as a society) that such a name still be "acceptable."

Like many progressive ideas, this one too will eventually be common wisdom and 100 years from now people will wonder how we could ever have been so ignorant and cruel as to keep such names, or have a death penalty, and so on.

[jack]

As far as the "Screaming Baptists" are concerned, it appeals to my sick sense of humor. I think it would be a hoot. But then again, when I lived in Richmond, Indiana I loved the reality that Earlham University (worlds biggest Quaker U) had a football team. Thought they should have been called the "Fighting Quakers". Irony can be fun.

[jack]

Why are so many of the Tribes coming forward to SUPPORT the use of their names and such as mascots? Maybe they just haven't had old Luis explain to them what they really need.

There really is a kind of racism in the assumption that the Tribes just don't know what is best for them, isn't there?