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: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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?


Nobody said that Native Americans need more respect than any other person...they deserve just as much though, and in cases like this "war dance", they aren't getting it. They have said that it offends them, and yet we can't just stop doing the little dance before the game. WHY?

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

Are you incapable of answering this question?

Pornography is something that is already on the "taboo" side, it's not something that you see just walking around the street (maybe arguable on TV and in movies or magazines, though in varying degrees). The women who take part in these things are doing so because they decided it is worth it for whatever amount of money they are being payed...they are not using it as a venue to imitate or mock people of a DIFFERENT race or sex, they are just showing their own bodies naked. It is thier own choice, but they aren't actually playing the role of another sex or race, and it is not in mainstream state school sanctioned media.

Comedians make fun of race all the time...watch Mind of Mencia, Dave Chappelle, and a number of white comics, who all make fun of other races and the opposite sex constantly...this is fine because it is within the realm of comedy. It is not a public sporting event at a state university. If people want to hang out in their own homes and dance around like Indians and laugh about it, no one will care. Making it a public spectacle, a necessity within the sporting event, is not the right way to portray a group of people.


[edit on 13-2-2007 by Shoktek]




posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, you seem to be awfully vocal and defensive for someone who says he doesn't care one way or the other...


Because I am mainly trying to understand WHY people NEED to have these mascots, minstrel shows, Jim Crows, Chief Illiniweks as a part of their entertainment. Can't you be just as happy mocking your own people or your own culture? Why do you need to have entertainment in something like this, when other people have come out and said that it offends them? What's the big deal with just NOT having the chief run around at a basketball game? Is there some kind of psychological issue involved here, maybe this gives us a feeling of superiority? These kinds of derogatory images and performances only help to divide and separate us all, creating walls between groups and cultures.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
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.


But if the Ant-chief coalition hadn't formed, it wouldn't have happened, either, so we can say that the beatings are a result of the anti-chief thing.

(In fact, the beatings are totally and completely the responsibility of those who did the beatings, Not the chief, not the Anti-chiefs, but the people who assaulted someone)



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


It's not about need. They've been doing it since 1926! Everyone thought it was OK then.

It's just recently, in the last 30 years or so, people have started to get really thin-skinned and 'race' has become like some kind of sacred ground. It's not, It's just a fact of life. It's like having blond hair or brown hair.

Just think if it was a blond person out there and blonds all over the world were up in arms about it. That's ridiculous!

What's so special about 'race' that everyone is expected to walk on eggshells and be sure we dont offend their race? We can pay large men obscene amounts of money to run around and knock each other down but don't say anything that might offend someone's race or you're just ... just... Oh!! :shk:

Check out these Mascot Costumes.

There's Billie the Hillbilly, Colonial Boy, Conquistador, Madcap Leprechaun, Victor Viking, Roman, Frontiersman and more. There's even an American Eagle! But you don't see any lawsuits about them. Because none of them are a race, although they do represent people in different walks of life. But only if it's a race are we justified to get offended. I just don't get that. Sorry.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
They have said that it offends them, and yet we can't just stop doing the little dance before the game.


Women have said that porn offends them.



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

Are you incapable of answering this question?


I thought you were asking jsobecky. I don't NEED to see someone dancing around, imitating a person of another race. You wouldn't catch me dead at a sporting event, public or otherwise. THEY OFFEND ME!



Pornography is ... not something that you see just walking around the street


Neither is "the chief" doing a war dance!



watch Mind of Mencia, Dave Chappelle, and a number of white comics, who all make fun of other races and the opposite sex constantly...this is fine because it is within the realm of comedy.


I do watch them. I love them. They make fun of other races. ON TV!!!! For MILLIONS of people!



It is not a public sporting event at a state university.


No, it's on TV! That's about as public as it gets!



If people want to hang out in their own homes and dance around like Indians and laugh about it, no one will care.


But Dave Chapelle and Mencia can make fun of races on TV and millions of people laugh and it's not a problem? I don't get the logic here...


How about taking a stab at answering my question?

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



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
It really doesn't matter to me either, I just think that if a group of people are very vocal about something like this that offends them, then we might as well change it...afterall, a sports team mascot really makes no difference whatsoever to the university or the sports team. The only people that it does make a difference to, apparently, is those who are being offended. I don't really think that the names, the logos, or imagery needs to change, and most of those in the anti-chief camp don't care about that as much...but the dancing chief at the sporting events is just an easy thing that could be removed to make them happy, and it won't affect anyone else except that they won't get to cheer as a mock chief runs around the stadium. So there must be some deeper reason as to WHY people insist on having this type of thing continue. Until someone can really answer this question (doubtful), I'm done with this thread.

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

Edit:

As I said earlier, Chappelle and Comedy Central are clearly within the "REALM OF COMEDY". This is not at all similar to a sporting event being held at a state university...the realm of academia. And race does seem to be more of a "hot" issue than others, but there's a difference between simply making fun of other races EQUALLY/indiscriminately on a COMEDY tv network, and continuing to characterize a culture or race in a mocking/false/insulting way, sports game after sports game, year after year, within the world of academia.

[edit on 13-2-2007 by Shoktek]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
a sports team mascot really makes no difference whatsoever to the university or the sports team.


I think it's pretty important to them. Chief's History and Tradition



So there must be some deeper reason as to WHY people insist on having this type of thing continue.


Tradition. And I have answered your question.



This is not at all similar to a sporting event being held at a state university...the realm of academia.


The classroom is academia. The basketball court is the realm of sports. Cheerleaders and mascots have LONG been a tradition of sporting events.



And race does seem to be more of a "hot" issue than others, but there's a difference between simply making fun of other races EQUALLY/indiscriminately on a COMEDY tv network, and continuing to characterize a culture or race in a mocking/false/insulting way,


Thank you. I agree there's a difference, but making fun of one race or making fun of several isn't enough of a difference for me to say, "Oh! OK, I get it now"!


Funny we can debate so strongly when neither of us cares very much about the subject!


Great debating with you, though! Thanks! Good job!



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I actually attended college at University of Louisiana-Lafayette. Guess what? Their mascot is The Rajun Cajun! I happen to be a Cajun, and am not offended at all.

Anybody that doesn't know what a Cajun is, just check out Adam Sandler, in "The Waterboy." That will give you an idea!


Once again are the Irish offended by Notre Dame? Are the Cajuns offended by UL-L? Are northerners offended by the New York Yankees? Are the people of Scandanavian descent (Vikings) offended by the Minnesota Vikings? Are Texans offended by the Houston Texans? Are Canadians offended by the Montreal Canadians?

I would say no to all the examples listed above and could go on and on listing more examples. If that is the case then why in the heck would Indians be offended?



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Women have said that porn offends them.


Ok, ok, that's enough.

You have mentioned porn too many times, especially when it doesn't compare to this. Have you ever watched a flick?

WOMEN participate in porn as much as MEN!!!

Do you blame porn stars like Jenna Jameson for offending women?
How about girl on girl porn? Or girl on animal porn? (hey, it's out there)

If porn was so degrading to women, women like Jenna Jameson wouldn't live in huge mansions from doing porn. Hell, the rise in amateur porn even refutes that. But enough about porn...



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   

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

The same thing that makes me want to watch the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders. Or the marching band. Or the silly clown that leaps off a springboard at half-time to slam dunk a basketball.

It's entertainment. Nobody is looking to mock any race.

To the contrary, mascots are often used to rally people and teams. A symbol of unity and strength.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by jsobecky]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Women have said that porn offends them.


Ok, ok, that's enough.

You have mentioned porn too many times, especially when it doesn't compare to this. Have you ever watched a flick?

WOMEN participate in porn as much as MEN!!!

Do you blame porn stars like Jenna Jameson for offending women?
How about girl on girl porn? Or girl on animal porn? (hey, it's out there)

If porn was so degrading to women, women like Jenna Jameson wouldn't live in huge mansions from doing porn. Hell, the rise in amateur porn even refutes that. But enough about porn...

No, BH, it's not enough about porn. Let's talk some more about porn.

Why do women feel degraded by porn? Because it portrays them as being used by men? If they only knew, or realized, the power they hold over men, they would see porn as a weapon, not a threat.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Have you ever watched a flick?


I'll wager I''ve seen more than you have, young fella!


What is it about EXAMPLES that you don't understand???


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
(I don't have a problem with pornography, just an example)


Either read my posts before you respond or don't expect an explanation next time.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Either read my posts before you respond or don't expect an explanation next time.


Too bad I responded AFTER you explained yourself...


And, yeah, becky, why not talk about porn some more...
Yeah, I couldn't help myself on that one...



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
If they only knew, or realized, the power they hold over men, they would see porn as a weapon, not a threat.


Wow.


You actually said something that makes sense. The phrase "a man's greatest weakness is a woman" comes to mind. I totally agree with that. As for the porn as a weapon...I dunno. Maybe for the right wing nut job Christians, I guess...




posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
And, yeah, becky, why not talk about porn some more...
Yeah, I couldn't help myself on that one...

No, not with you. You're too anxious. Leave that one to the grownups.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
No, not with you. You're too anxious. Leave that one to the grownups.


Pfff. Sure, I'll leave it to the old folks.


Too bad for you, though. Though many, MANY things are discussed on ATS, porn doesn't strike me as one of them. Bad luck with trying to keep talking about it.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by jsobecky
No, not with you. You're too anxious. Leave that one to the grownups.


Pfff. Sure, I'll leave it to the old folks.


Too bad for you, though. Though many, MANY things are discussed on ATS, porn doesn't strike me as one of them.

Much to your dismay, I'm sure.



Bad luck with trying to keep talking about it.

If I wanted to, I could drag that topic out for a dozen pages.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Whatever.

Why don't you get back on topic now?



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I'm sorry to say, this is another of those cases in which instead of talking about the "racism" of the topic, it knowingly shifts to another "ism" (classism, sexism, etc.).

I agree that we need to keep focus on the racism attached to Native American mascots. And only that.

However, I have a question to ask:

It is fine that the mascots bring you any sort of joy watching them. However, knowing that it hurts another group of people, wouldn't you feel an attack of your conscience when the mascots knowingly belittle the culture, history and lifeways of the Native Americans?

[edit on 14-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
It is fine that the mascots bring you any sort of joy watching them.


The mascots bring me no joy, I don't watch them, I don't watch sports.



However, knowing that it hurts another group of people, wouldn't you feel an attack of your conscience when the mascots knowingly belittle the culture, history and lifeways of the Native Americans?


I feel bad for people who are 'hurt' regardless the reason.

That doesn't mean, though, that everyone should act in a way as to be sure not to 'hurt' or offend anyone else. (They're not really being 'hurt', they're taking offense. They're making a choice to take offense. Having a man in an outfit dance doesn't 'hurt' anyone.)



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I feel bad for people who are 'hurt' regardless the reason.

That doesn't mean, though, that everyone should act in a way as to be sure not to 'hurt' or offend anyone else. (They're not really being 'hurt', they're taking offense. They're making a choice to take offense. Having a man in an outfit dance doesn't 'hurt' anyone.)


Quite the contradiction.

I guess black people weren't hurt by the minstrel shows (as Shoktek already mentioned), when we were shuckin' and jivin', playing a banjo and singing, eating watermelon, or running from Mammie and the rolling pin. Things like Birth of a Nation and white actors in blackface acting like idiots didn't hurt either, right? (the prez at the time said BOAN was ABSOLUTELY true...
)

Or Chinese/other Asians weren't offended by the Asian characters in movies, who usually had thick glasses to exaggerate their epicanthic eye folds, exagerrated buck teeth, and horrible broken English (Bruce Lee didn't seem to mind the white audience's laughter in Dragon, when he watched the movie with his then girlfriend, later wife
).

If you ask me, Native Americans were probably upset with most Westerns, but I can't that for sure. That's speculation on my part, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Maybe you're right; maybe it's all spits and giggles...




new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join