It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's up with the Native American mascots?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
the first native american woman to file suit against the chief was at a football game with her daughter,


Interesting that she chose to file a lawsuit instead of just leave. That's what I would have done. People think they can control everything these days by filing a lawsuit.


Originally posted by Shoktek
death threats, and physical beatings have occured.


Who is beating whom? Who's giving death threats and why?



If it's "just a mascot", or "just an image", then surely you wouldn't care so much about changing it.


I personally wouldn't care, no. But I'm a staunch defender of the first amendment and that means defending someone's right to speech and expression especially when it's "offensive".

People make fun of other people all the time. They make fun of themselves. Men make fun of women and women make fun of men. People make jokes about death and fat people and short people. I just don't get what all this taking offense is about. I guess I'm just really secure in who I am and don't need to be offended to get attention.


Originally posted by truthseeka
It wouldn't have been right if you hadn't manipulated my sentence there.


I didn't touch your sentense. I edited it down to what I was responding to, which is what ATS posting standards call for.




posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Is that all?


If you still don't see what is offensive by "redskin" as a name for a NATIONAL football team, I don't know what to tell you.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Interesting that she chose to file a lawsuit instead of just leave. That's what I would have done. People think they can control everything these days by filing a lawsuit.


At a state university you shouldn't have to endure school sanctioned racism while you attend.




Who is beating whom? Who's giving death threats and why?


Students, and other locals, who have verbally and physically attacked native americans, as well as others who are just involved with the anti-chief movement. Faculty members of the university who supported the movement have been threatened in various ways, such as threatening to fire them, not allow a sabbatical when they are entitled to it, etc.



I personally wouldn't care, no. But I'm a staunch defender of the first amendment and that means defending someone's right to speech and expression especially when it's "offensive".

People make fun of other people all the time. They make fun of themselves. Men make fun of women and women make fun of men. People make jokes about death and fat people and short people. I just don't get what all this taking offense is about. I guess I'm just really secure in who I am and don't need to be offended to get attention.


And you think it's fine that a state university condones, and supports this kind of behavior? The first amendment doesn't allow libel and slander, especially not within the context of a state university, which is supported in part by taxpayers, including native americans.


[edit on 13-2-2007 by Shoktek]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Hey, Shok...

Maybe she's right. Maybe you should just LEAVE the school if you don't like it. What's the point in suing, you trying to CHANGE things so Native Americans aren't offended and can thus stay?

What's the matter with you? They should suck it up and take the beat downs or leave. Simple and plain.




posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Maybe she's right. Maybe you should just LEAVE the school if you don't like it. What's the point in suing, you trying to CHANGE things so Native Americans aren't offended and can thus stay?


Sadly, many of them have done just this...many native americans have gone to the school for various reasons or incentives, then realized that they just couldn't do well in the environment, and left. Many backed out of the anti-chief movement, or left altogether, simply because they couldn't put up with verbal abuse and the constant negative images that are portrayed of them all over campus.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I can't believe this. :shk:

I think this all comes down to who is being believed--once again. I mean, there has been sources and personal experiences discussing how offensive the names are to Native Americans. (!?!)

And still the same message is to "suck it up"? :shk:

I wonder what will it take to get through to some who remain oblivious to this?

What is it do they not understand?

Again, this is yet another situation when the "conscience" of some shuts off...along with their capacity for thought and empathy.





[edit on 13-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

Originally posted by truthseeka
Maybe she's right. Maybe you should just LEAVE the school if you don't like it. What's the point in suing, you trying to CHANGE things so Native Americans aren't offended and can thus stay?


Sadly, many of them have done just this...many native americans have gone to the school for various reasons or incentives, then realized that they just couldn't do well in the environment, and left. Many backed out of the anti-chief movement, or left altogether, simply because they couldn't put up with verbal abuse and the constant negative images that are portrayed of them all over campus.


GOOD!

Now, they should all just SHUT UP!!! Why are they whining if they've already left? JESUS!!!

(note the constant sarcasm in this post and the one you quoted).




posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
Many backed out of the anti-chief movement,


I haven't read about the anti-chief movement. And I don't think I would support it. Every mascot is a Caricature of what they represent. The Cardinals, the Patriots, the Chiefs.

I believe it was the school who wanted to be The Seminoles who went to the Seminole nation and asked. The Seminoles gave their blessing. I totally support this. But "chief" is not a specific tribe, and I don't understand taking offense and I don't see it as a racially motivated insult or anything.

Sorry.


I also believe there are much more important things to be worried about.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
The actual team is called "The fighting Illini". The chief logo is offensive to them, but the main thing is the "war dance" that is performed by the guy dressed up in a chief outfit ("chief illiniwek") before basketball and football games. If you still can't understand how this could be offensive, then you're beyond hope.


Google Video Link



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I wonder if eskimos feel the same way. They are still considered Native Americans, yes? We hear about the Cherokee and Navajo all the time, and even teh Erie natives (i think they were called teh erie, thats where the city gets its name) but we never hear about the eskimo people.


i say we give the Natives all of California, those rich b@st@rds can afford 6 more houses, what do they care.



but seriously......we haven't really given much, if anything, to the Natives....makes me feel like an @sshole



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
If you still can't understand how this could be offensive, then you're beyond hope.


Oh, I understand how people could choose to take offense at it. I totally see that. People take offense at many things. I just don't know why they do.

And yeah, I'm beyond all hope. If your hope is for me to sympathize with people causing a big stink because they're offended at something someone else is doing that causes NO harm whatsoever.

I find it interesting that the Chief has been doing this since the twenties, with approval from the Illini (now Peoria) tribe, but it was only in 1989 that a student at the school decided to have a problem with it.

Charlene Teters, who first started all the lawsuit action attended the school herself. She knew about the Chief but went there and went to the games anyway.

Source



The Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma are the closest living descendants of the Illiniwek Confederacy, having been relocated to Oklahoma in the 19th century. The position of the tribal leadership has evolved over the years. In a television interview with WICD-TV in 1995, Don Giles, then Chief of the Peoria Tribe, said, "To say that we are anything but proud to have these portrayals would be completely wrong. We are proud. We're proud that the University of Illinois, the flagship university of the state, a seat of learning, is drawing on that background of our having been there. And what more honor could they pay us?" Supporting Chief Giles was another tribal elder, Ron Froman, who stated that the protesters "don't speak for all Native Americans, and certainly not us."


Froman later changed his mind (saying that he doesn't approve mainly because the costume is Sioux - make up your mind!) after speaking to the Native American students at the school. So who is driving this "Let's be offended" campaign? NOT the Native American tribes, but the bratty college students who have nothing better to be pissed about!

Yeah, I'm beyond all hope, I'm afraid.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Well it doesn't offend me either, and personally I think the dance and logo are kind of cool...but if it upsets others, they might as well just stop doing the dance. It's just Jim Crow in a different uniform, and shouldn't be done. I don't see what the big deal is with stopping the performance from occuring at school sanctioned sporting events...just play the music and do the cheer, minus the frat boy in fake indian costume and you have the same effect. What is it that makes people like you NEED to see someone dancing around, imitating a person of another race?



So who is driving this "Let's be offended" campaign? NOT the Native American tribes


You left this out from the source that you used:


"Among the national Native American organizations calling for the retirement of the symbol are the National Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Education Association. "


The NCAI represents 250 tribes within the United States.

and



"Ron Froman was later elected Chief, by which time his views on the Chief Illiniwek mascot changed. His views changed following meetings with American Indian students attending the University. In April 2000, the tribal council, with Chief Froman's support, passed by the margin of 3 to 2 a resolution requesting "the leadership of the University of Illinois to recognize the demeaning nature of the characterization of Chief Illiniwek, and cease use of this mascots [sic]". [9] Froman stated "I don't know what the origination was, or what the reason was for the university to create Chief Illiniwek. I don't think it was to honor us, because, hell, they ran our (butts) out of Illinois." [10] This puts Chief Illiniwek in a position different from that of the mascots of other schools such as Florida State University, whose Native American mascots are not opposed by the leadership of the corresponding tribes."


[edit on 13-2-2007 by Shoktek]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
...but if it upsets others, they might as well just stop doing the dance.


Do you think that kids who wear their pants around their butt should have to pull them up? Because that's offensive to some and people get upset when they see it in public. They don't want to look at a young boy's underwear.

Do you think fat women should not be allowed to wear shorts? Because that's offensive to some and people get upset when they see it in public. They don't want to see cellulite city.

Do you think black comedians should stop using the N-word in their shows? Because that's offensive to some and people get upset when they hear it.

Do you think strip clubs and pornographic magazines should be shut down completely? Because many women take offense at the way it "cheapens" the female.




It's just Jim Crow in a different uniform, and shouldn't be done.


Eddie Murphy and Martin Lawrence dress up as fat black women in thier movies. They play outlandish caricatures of black women and I don't hear anyone crying about that. What's the difference? Why isn't everyone all up in arms about them? You can bet your sweet bottom that if a white person dressed up and played a caricature of a fat black woman, some sort of nationwide circuit would break and smoke!

BTW, that, I find offensive, but I'm not going to be taking out a lawsuit.

I enjoy discussing this with you, Shoktek.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I didn't leave it out. I didn't think it was important to list the complainers and I did mention that Froman had changed his mind and WHY.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Thers's been a lot of talk about Native Americans and race.

What race do they belong to?



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Do you think that kids who wear their pants around their butt should have to pull them up? Because that's offensive to some and people get upset when they see it in public. They don't want to look at a young boy's underwear.

Do you think fat women should not be allowed to wear shorts? Because that's offensive to some and people get upset when they see it in public. They don't want to see cellulite city.

Do you think black comedians should stop using the N-word in their shows? Because that's offensive to some and people get upset when they hear it.

Do you think strip clubs and pornographic magazines should be shut down completely? Because many women take offense at the way it "cheapens" the female.


There are all pitiful analogies, and completely different from someone dancing around, imitating or mocking a different culture/race.




Eddie Murphy and Martin Lawrence dress up as fat black women in thier movies. They play outlandish caricatures of black women and I don't hear anyone crying about that. What's the difference? Why isn't everyone all up in arms about them? You can bet your sweet bottom that if a white person dressed up and played a caricature of a fat black woman, some sort of nationwide circuit would break and smoke!


Again, this is, analogically, a flimsy example. Within the realm of comedy it's completely different...infrequent, not "serious", and not a public spectacle.


Still no one has responded to my question from earlier:

What is it that makes people like you NEED to see someone dancing around, imitating a person of another race?

[edit on 13-2-2007 by Shoktek]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Can you tell me how they have suffered? What do you mean by suffer? Do you mean they're offended or something more?


Psychologically and physically...the first native american woman to file suit against the chief was at a football game with her daughter, when this mockery "the chief" came parading out on to the field to do his "war dance"...of course it severely offended herself, and her child, and she had no idea that this was even going on. Other native americans have gone through the same experience, and psychologically, couldn't stand being on the campus, and many have left because of this.

Also with this constant image of the chief and "fighting illini" are the students who blindly support, without any concern for native americans on campus or in the area...name calling, death threats, and physical beatings have occured. The question I want to know is, if something like this causes so much hurt and damge to a group of people, who clearly want it to be removed, then why do other people care so much about keeping it around? If it's "just a mascot", or "just an image", then surely you wouldn't care so much about changing it.

Sorry, but I don't believe that any violence that you allege has happened was a result of a mascot.

And as far as "hurt and damage", please, grow up. If the team were on a winning streak, it wouldn't be an issue. And if you are so thin-skinned to allow something so innocent to bother you, then you really need to get out more.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Sorry, but I don't believe that any violence that you allege has happened was a result of a mascot.

And as far as "hurt and damage", please, grow up. If the team were on a winning streak, it wouldn't be an issue. And if you are so thin-skinned to allow something so innocent to bother you, then you really need to get out more.


There have been beatings of native americans as a result of them being anti-chief...if the mascot weren't here, it wouldn't have happened, because it wouldn't have been an issue.

I'm not "hurt and damaged", as I already said in a post on this page, if you could actually read the thread. This is according to native americans who have vocalized their own feelings on the issue, it makes no difference to me if someone dances around in a costume because I'm not native american. According with the "no difference to me" that it makes, I could also care less if they keep the chief, and think they might as well just stop the dance if it offends people.

And the basketball team actually does get an incredible amount of support and coverage, they have been one of the top teams in the country for several years now. But good job chiming in when you obviously have no clue about what it is your attempting to argue against.

Again I will ask:

What is it that makes people like you NEED to see someone dancing around, imitating a person of another race?

[edit on 13-2-2007 by Shoktek]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
There are all pitiful analogies, and completely different from someone dancing around, imitating or mocking a different culture/race.


How is it different? It's about being offended. Basically you're saying that the people in my examples have no right to be offended but the Native American students do?

Why?

Why should we have more respect for Native American students than anyone else? Why should their desires outweigh anyone else's?

Pornography "mocks" women. Is it OK to mock women but not races?
(I don't have a problem with pornography, just an example)

What's so special about one's race that we can make fun of anything else in the world, but that?



and not a public spectacle.


That's a matter of opinion.

But if after reading my examples you still insist "Well, that's different", I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Well, you seem to be awfully vocal and defensive for someone who says he doesn't care one way or the other...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join