Our class had a great discussion about how being called an Indian as a team mascot seems to be degrading to Native Americans--that this is going too far. A question came up while I was thinking more about the discussion we had in class. I want to know your opinions to this question. Do teams choose minority groups as their mascots as their way of recognizing minorities? Is it a way for the majority to let minorities know they acknowledge them and "accept" who they are?
In my opinion, my answer to this is a surprising yes! It's no fun for your team to be named after your own ethnic group. What's the fun in that? By calling a team the Indians, that team is acknowledging this group of people. They are silently suggesting they want to be and act like Indians. Come to think of it, all teams have mascots named after strong or fast animals. I think I just changed my answer! Do teams name themselves Indians, perceiving Indians as animals? There are no other ethnic group mascots except for the Indians, right? I am ashamed to think that Indians are seen as animals like the rest of all the mascots.
9 comments:
Not all mascots are animals. There are the spartans and the vikings. What I do think they are representing is what Beth was trying to say, proud warriors. The problem I think is that the term Indian is really generalizing and not representing a group of a certain type of warriors. Also looking into the image of the Cleveland Indian's mascot is not a warrior but a happy stereotype of all Indians or Native Americans wear feathers on their heads. That is the issue with the Indians that I have. Then again I beleive in tradition and that the name should not change and the Cleveland Indians should stay as is. I hope everyone can understand what I am trying to say.
When we were showed the picture of the mascots of the Indians and the other ethnicities, I started to think about why these other names could have been more offensive. I think that if we call Cleveland the Native Americans as opposed to the Indians, we would have much different feelings. I felt that the other names (the Hispanics, the Africans, the Asians) were more of the ethnicity. I feel that "Indians" is more of a stereotypical word that is used and at times may not appear to sound as bad. However, I feel that certain people of an ethnicity will even have their own views and may not exactly agree on what is right or wrong. I think that it isn't wrong to have a team named the Cleveland Indians but it would be bad to have a team named the Cleveland Native Americans.
This whole discussion reminds me of the controversy with the mascot for University of Illinois. After 15 years U of I was forced to "retire" their long time mascot and symbol, Chief Illiniwek. I remember watching a movie about this in a class I took sophomore year. The movie had an interview with a woman whose family was a part of the Illini tribe and she played a huge roll in protesting the Chief. She felt that it was very disrespectful towards her ancestors. On the other hand, people from U of I felt that the Chief was symbolizing the fierceness and bravery of the Illini tribe. It was said that the costume had been designed by a Native American and the dance was taken from a real dance. There was no intention of disrespecting anyone. The two sides of the story were very opposite. In my family my brother (who attends U of I) and dad were very much for the Chief and my cousin (who is an alumni of U of I) was very much against the Chief. As for me I was not very sure where I stood. I understand how it is disrespectful, but if the costume and dance were authentic and meant to honor the tribe, then I can also see the opposite side. In our class yesterday Greg brought up an interesting point that if there were to be a mascot of a white person, we would find it more funny than offensive because we are so used to seeing our culture out in the world on a day to day basis. I had never thought of it that way before. That being the case, then people of our culture will never be able to understand what the Native Americans who were against the Chief were truly feeling. With that said I think if another mascot controversy arises again, those who want to keep it need to think about how they cannot completely understand the other side and respect the thoughts and feelings of those who feel disrespected.
I don't think teams name themselves after a minority group to recognize them. I think they are named the Indians because it fits their school/state name. There was so much news regarding University of Illinois' mascot, could you imagine if their mascot was the Causicans? I don't think teams are giving themselves these kinds of mascots on purpose but because the mascot goes with their school.
I do think teams naming their mascots after Indians is them perceiving they are animals. We tend to look down upon minority groups whether we mean too or not. Why do you think mascots are never named after white people? In my opinion white people would never view themselves as animals becuase they are the majority. I can't recall any other ethnic group that is a mascot besides the Indians. I have to say that I am not surprised that Indians are viewed as animals because of how Columbus treated them when he came to the new world. I think it is unfair how poorly Indians are still mistreated these days and mascots should only be animals not ethnic groups.
Oh man, after reading Beth's post on the homepage of our blogger I was so excited to discuss the Chief Illiniwek controversy. Emily, you beat me to it! :) I agree with everything you have been saying and I would like to add onto what you have said. Just like you, I have family members that have attended U of I which may be the reasoning why I am so updated with this whole situation. I can see both sides of this argument but at the same time I think that U of I's retired mascot was treated in a very respectful way. As Emily stated, "the costume had been designed by a Native American and the dance was taken from a real dance." The school does not pick anyone at random to be Chief Illiniwek. There are tri-outs and the person chosen, has to go through training to master the native dance. Along with the school respecting the mascot and the background of which he comes it is also seen that the student body and fans greatly respects Chief Illiniwek. I have been priviledged to be able to attend many football and basketball games in which he was present. Each time Chief Illiniwek came out to do his ceremony the crowd is entranced and respectful of his preformance. It provided a sence of community for all the spectators in the stands as they joined arms and swayed while watching the dance. So in terms of this Native American mascot, I do not see signs of disrespect or representation of an animal. I think Chief Illiniwek is seen as proud and strong. Because Chief Illiniwek was so respected I am sad that he is gone.
During our discussion about mascots during our last class I began to think back to a conversation I had with my friend who attends U of I. We both found it hard to relate to how members of the Illini tribe would be offended to having a mascot modeled after them. To me, a mascot is a representation of that school. It is a strong image that rallies the school together to be unified and supportive. I don't see anything negative about this. We also wondered why Indians would want the mascots retired when there is already so little recognition of Native Americans in our society. We felt that getting rid of them would completely wipe out Native Americans representation.
However, I also see how it would be offensive if the mascots were representing that tribe in a way that wasn't accurate to their ways. It was also interesting to look at the standpoint of if there were a "white boys" team we would think it's funny because we are so represented in society today. As for if we should or shouldn't retire Indian mascots..I'm still very torn over this issue. I think retiring them may bring a negative view of Native Americans to people who felt connected to the mascot (as I did during h.s.) however, I feel they do hold the power over how they should be represented.
I think that the controversy with U of I’s use of Chief Illiniwek and the controversy that ultimately led to the mascot’s “retirement,” stems from the purpose and actions of the mascot at sporting events. I don’t think that the symbol for the University of Illinois is what offends those who are offended by the university’s use of Chief Illiniwek, I think that it’s the fact that an “outsider” (this connects to what we talked about last week as well – “insider” versus “outsider” perspective) student dressed up in authentic Lakota tribe ceremonial dress, but also with face paint and feathers and bare foot, would emerge at sporting events and would perform an inauthentic dance that has an undetermined origins – implying that it is not a part of the ceremonial activities of the Lakota tribe. Regardless of the good-hearted intentions of the university in using this particular mascot to honor the state of Illinois’ native inhabitants, the mascot seems to have been inappropriately used, in this case.
As for mascots in general, although I can see where Beth is coming from with her comment from last class about the Indian mascot being used to honor the bravery and valor of the various Native American tribes that existed and still exist in some cases, but I question if that’s really the reason why those teams who choose to call themselves the ___ Indians do so. One thing to remember is that team names, such as the Cleveland Indians, were chosen in a time when Americans were not as focused on being “politically correct,” as is the case now. Inquiring as to the reasoning behind team names nowadays might yield an answer that would confirm Beth’s thoughts on the topic, but I think that you really need to look at when team names were chosen in order to determine if it’s really a valid assumption to think that the team names are to honor Native Americans, rather than degrade or mock them and their individual cultures. Furthermore, in terms of the Cleveland Indians, their mascot is nicknamed “Chief Wahoo.” By calling themselves the Celveland Indians is the team wanting to honor and show acknowledgement towards Native Americans? Maybe. Are they doing so in an authentic and/or respectful manner? I personally don’t think so.
I agree with a lot of the comments posted. First I have to say that not all schools have mascots as animals. I know my high school was not even an animal. It was a blazer or a fireball. Therefore, not all mascots can be compared to or seen as animals.
Also, like others have said I think the term Indians gets thrown around a lot and when one really thinks about what that term means, one will find it degrading. I do not think that was the intent for any team mascot. I think it is just something that fits with the school or maybe the history of a school. Personally, I would find the name Cleveland Native Americans more degrading than Cleveland Indians.
Like anything else, you will always have the one person who does not agree with something. It will always offend someone and someone will not always be happy. However, when they choose that mascot I do not think it was to insult or disrespect anyone.
With the U of I controversey, I ccan see where people would think it is disrespectful but I can also see how people thought it was to honor a tribe because the dance and costume are authentic. It is a very both sided issue and like i said before there is always going to be someone against it.
Thanks, Jason and the person who posted the original message. You expressed in words exactly what I was trying to say in class but could not find the words to say.
Moving on, I also do not believe that all Indian mascots should be removed, especially not the Cleveland Indian mascot. I'll use Jason's description of the mascot: happy with feathers. How many of us described our pictures of the natives in class as stern, angry, or another agressive adjective? While the Cleveland mascot does perpetuate the stereotype that all Native Americans wear feathers on their heads, it does eliminate the always angry stereotype. Some may retort, "I thought that you agreed with having Indians as mascots because they showed strength and power?" Well, a strong and powerful team can also be very happy, as I'm sure the Indians were too!
Post a Comment