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: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
I can't find the site, but when I was looking for my original source online, I came across a Native American forum.

The people on there had similar views to Giago. I'll dig it up, if I can. And these were just regular joes like us here on ATS.

Well, come back when you've done your homework. In the meantime, we don't need to be made aware of your every move.




posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
And rap music... don't forget the pervasive effects of rap.


Yeah, single out rap. At least rap doesn't have people killing themselves and worshipping the devil (cough *rock music* cough)

And to clear up confusion over what Shoktek mentioned (yet didn't stop people clueless on this from running off at the mouth about it
), blaxploitation refers to a genre of movies from the 70s, NOT contemporary black movies.

And if you don't think the people involved in production have a role, consider this. In Langston Hughes' autobiography, he talks about segregation and the way whites treated blacks in a VERY careful, controlled way. So much so, in fact, that a number of his contemporaries criticized him for not being harder on whites. I concur with these critics, as Hughes went through some racist spit that I can't even imagine.

Just think about that when you don't consider the people in control of the media...



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, come back when you've done your homework. In the meantime, we don't need to be made aware of your every move.


Silence. I wasn't talking to you.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   
and here I thought this thread was about Native Americans.


/goes and worhships and devil while listening to the rap group 3 Six Mafia.

/informs everyone of his every move.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lysergic
and here I thought this thread was about Native Americans.


/goes and worhships and devil while listening to the rap group 3 Six Mafia.

/informs everyone of his every move.


You're right, Lysergic.

Becky's derailing this topic and I keep drifting off with him. Shame on me. :shk:

Thanks for getting my head straight.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   
From what I read, there's two ways to see this:

1)Some white posters are becoming aware of how "whiteness" is being depicted in the media. Since they are being affected by this, it would be quite interesting to put up a thread discussing how whites are portrayed. I would hope that this would help other members see why groups of "color" apply a critique to how they are seen in the public eye.

2)This is a thread about Native Americans. And as much there is a move to show that it is "equal" across the board, it is not quite the same thing. For one, the depictions of whites in the media brought up as examples (i.e. "Dukes of Hazzard", "Deliverance", etc.) were all done (and directed by) white people. With this insight, it would show that whites perhaps show a different critque about themselves than what they have done to people of color.

With that being said, Native Americans are being negatively depicted in sports by the mascots without anyone asking them how they felt about it. Their portrayal as mascots (as well as having white actors [which is also the case with Blacks in the media even up to Angelina Jolie's portrayal today] portray them), projects the same type of disrespect not only to their person, but to their heritage.

The inequality of the matter is that nobody of color asked the white people involved how their images would be produced. White directors and actors went right ahead and did it. They did not show any sort of conscience when doing it. And because of that, the images portrayed show prejudicial feelings and thoughts about the person of color being depicted on screen no matter how satirical or funny it is supposed to be.

It always gets me when people say that things like "Amos and Andy" or the Native American "mascots" make them happy and laugh. In my point of view, there's nothing particularly funny about these depictions. It only tells me that we, as people of color, have a long way to go before we are treated with dignity and respect.

And as long as people continue to show little conscience and empathy about these portrayals, there will still be that lack and dignity and respect being paid to us.

It's fine to bring up other examples relating to whiteness to show that white people also are depicted as caricatures in the media. However, get it straight to who is doing the depicting and how power relations in terms of the portrayals are done.

Just my .02.


[edit on 16-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by jsobecky
And rap music... don't forget the pervasive effects of rap.


Yeah, single out rap. At least rap doesn't have people killing themselves and worshipping the devil (cough *rock music* cough)

Nah, it just refers to women as bitches and hoes and talks about killing cops.



And to clear up confusion over what Shoktek mentioned (yet didn't stop people clueless on this from running off at the mouth about it
), blaxploitation refers to a genre of movies from the 70s, NOT contemporary black movies.

If this is another one of your juvey slaps at BH, well, she's forgotten more about interracial than you'll ever know, Tooty-Frooty.





And if you don't think the people involved in production have a role, consider this. In Langston Hughes' autobiography, he talks about segregation and the way whites treated blacks in a VERY careful, controlled way. So much so, in fact, that a number of his contemporaries criticized him for not being harder on whites. I concur with these critics, as Hughes went through some racist spit that I can't even imagine.

Hughes is a chump. Talk about "people involved in production", let's talk Timbaland. Another chump.



Silence. I wasn't talking to you.

No, but you are going to listen to me.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Final response to becky, Lysergic (real talk this time
).

You don't even know who Hughes is, becky.
Take your white supremacy sentiments elsewhere; we're talking about Native American mascots here.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Hi All,

I usually tend to only lurk and not post on sensitive threads such as this one, because they tend to get derailed, "post-picked" (my term for multiple line quote responses), and not much information in the way of additional information is provided to help educate those who may not know much about what is being discussed.

Yet, I feel compelled to throw my 2 cents in here, because hopefully I can give the reader a fresh point of view.

I am of quite a mixed heritage and often lovingly refer to myself as a "mutt".
For all intense purposes I am black, yet my features are such that people who are Native, Mulato, Indian, Hispanic, Ethiopian, and some from South America, often approach me and either start speaking to me in their language, or ask me where I am from. None of them reguard me as a "typical" black american. (whatever that may be!!
)

I have always had a strange way of seeing the world, and I have always believed that one of the ways for me to better myself as a person, and to learn new things, was to befriend a someone and learn from them. I see a person as a person before I recognize any physical characteristics. Then I respond to that person based on how they behave towards me and how they view world in general.

In my 36 years of life I have met many wonderful people and have discussed a variety of topics with the ones I could openly speak with. That being said, I will, unfortunately, categorize some of my friends according to what race they happen to be and what their particular viewpoint was on this particular subject.

I think it is fallacy to believe that one person or a group of people is the voice for an entire race. To me that would be like the US claiming to be the voice of the entire earth to a group of alien beings... That being said, here is what some of my friends, who happen to be Native, have said about the whole mascot thing.

Friend A: I really dont care one way or the other. I just hate that people think that war paint and a headdress represents ALL Native cultures!

Friend B: Yeah I cant stand that mascot-(explicative)!!! First the white man takes our land, then destroys our culture (via boarding schools), then mocks us with these damn dancin "injuns"! And you would think you black folks would be a bit more understanding of it all! Why arent you out there marching with us on Anti-Columbus day??!! Rant-rant-rant... (Until we share a good laugh and get something to eat!!
)

Friend C: Well, I aint no militant, but I dont like the "redskin" name. You know that bounty hunters would get paid a certain amount of money for every Indian scalp they turned in? They called the scalps "redskins", and then began referring to the Indians as "redskins". I know most think it is because of our skin color, but the scalping thing is what it really about.

Friend C: Dude! I dont give a good hot damn about it either way. Most folks think Im Mexican anyways!!

These are just a few thoughts I have that have been told to me throughout the years, and they certainly dont represent what most Native people believe.

I often ponder the great irony of what it means to be an American. We are a nation of great diversity, yet with much cultural ignorance and bias. Anyone can move here and become American, but we only exist as a unified people in name only.

We have very little tolerance for other people if they are not someone we can readily "understand". It exists on ALL levels- race, sex, residency, class, and even mentally in terms of knowledge! It makes me really sad when I think of it on the whole. But every time I spark a new friendship, and relish in the great friendships that I have had the good fortune to be a part of, I smile because we both learn from each other, and those "barriers" of in-tolerance and ignorance are no where to be found.

Hmmmm... Maybe that is why I lovingly refer to myself as a mutt.

For anyone who would like to read one viewpoint on the Native Mascot issue as a whole, here is a pretty informative website I found: Mascots

The main website with other information on some other topis can be found here: American Cultural Indian Support

Here is another website that deals with the Indian boarding schools that most native people were forced to go to in the 20th century. Indian Boarding Schools



[edit on 2/16/2007 by sylvrshadow]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Final response to becky, Lysergic (real talk this time
).

You don't even know who Hughes is, becky.
Take your white supremacy sentiments elsewhere; we're talking about Native American mascots here.

Sure I do, Dorothy. And your promises of "I will neither read nor respond to your posts" rings hollow. You've said that before.

[edit on 16-2-2007 by jsobecky]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link   
sylvrshadow, that was a great post. I'm glad you decided to post in this thread.



I know this really isn't my place to say anything, but I'm going to anyway....

jsobecky and truthseeka, could one of you (I don't care which one) please be the bigger person and stop with the bickering? Pretty please with sugar and marachino cherries on top?

If you don't want to, that's fine. I just thought asking politely was worth a try.




posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Hi All,

Thank you Duzey.


I wanted to post this article that I found today related to this story:







U of I: Mascot will no longer perform
By DAVID MERCER, Associated Press Writer


RBANA, Ill. - The University of Illinois will retire its 81-year-old American Indian mascot, Chief Illiniwek, following the last men's home basketball game of the season on Wednesday.

The
NCAA in 2005 deemed the buckskin-clad Illiniwek an offensive use of American Indian imagery and barred the university from hosting postseason events.

American Indian groups and others complained for years that the mascot, used since 1926, is demeaning. Supporters of the mascot say it honors the contributions of American Indians to Illinois.

Illinois still will be able to use the name Illini because it's short for Illinois and the school can use the term Fighting Illini, because it's considered a reference to the team's competitive spirit, school officials said. It is unclear if the school will get a new mascot.



Source



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This article has made me wonder if it is easier for pressure to be applied to schools and universities to change their mascots, as money and political maneuvering are involved. Here is another article that I found in the Boston Globe that discusses how the NAACP is requesting that certain schools and universities re-evaluate their mascot choices. Here also is a list of institutions that have changed their Native influenced mascots: List

In the entire list, there are aprox. two minor league baseball teams listed who have changed their mascot imagery. This has made me wonder if the reason that professional sports teams do not entertain the idea of doing away with Native mascot imagery has more to do with money than anything else. I wonder, for instance, how much money it would cost the Washington Redskins to change their name and the images associated with it? Would it not even be a financially feasible idea to entertain?? Would they loose a significant amount of fan support if they did so?

Well, from my standpoint as a "super-fan" of the Washington Redskins, I would not abandon my team due to a name change, as it is the only thing that I really dislike about my team. (Yes, I even love them during our loosing streaks, which I like to look at as growing seasons
) Of course, I do have a different way of looking at things, but I dont believe that a significant number of people would be so upset that they would no longer support the team.

Most people I think would be disgruntled, but would accept the changes. It is when a franchise team leaves its home-base that most fans start to look for other teams to support. Well, that is my take on the whole thing anyway.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
sylvrshadow, Thanks for posting that!



Originally posted by sylvrshadow
the NAACP is requesting that certain schools and universities re-evaluate their mascot choices.


Gosh, I wonder what the NAACP has to do with it? ... Gotta make sure no one is offended...




I wonder, for instance, how much money it would cost the Washington Redskins to change their name and the images associated with it? Would it not even be a financially feasible idea to entertain?? Would they loose a significant amount of fan support if they did so?


sylvrshadow, you bring up some very good points. If the Redskins decided to change their name under pressure, a lot of their fans might think it makes them look weak or something ... perhaps. Maybe they can just phase out their old symbols and phase in the new one. Or maybe they can change their name to "Bedskins"
or "Snakeskins" or "Buckskins". At least their 'nickname' could still be the "skins".


I"m not a sports fan, but I hope they don't lose any fans. In fact, I hope they gain some.

I'm glad to see that Chief Illiniwek is retiring. I'm sure they were getting pressure from all around and I'm sure some people were truly offended. Hopefully, the self-appointed advocates can now move on to the next item on their "list of offensive things". I hear Denmark is running another cartoon contest.


[edit on 16-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by sylvrshadow
the NAACP is requesting that certain schools and universities re-evaluate their mascot choices.


I looked for that in the article and didn't see it. Would you please help me out and give me a link or quote or something. I don't understand why the NAACP would get involved in tribal affairs. That doesn't make sense to me.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I couldn't see anything about the NAACP in that article either, just the NCAA. Spelling error maybe?


I can't imagine true fans ditching their team because of a name change and the cost of changing would probably be somewhat offset by all the fans buying new jerseys, bumper stickers, flags, etc.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I'm sure it was a typing error. I should have looked at the article, too. :blush:

You're right, Duzey! The team should be able to re-coup any losses by selling fans new hats, T-shirts, etc.!
Then everybody's happy!

[edit on 16-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
all the fans buying new jerseys, bumper stickers, flags, etc.


Jerry Sienfeld did a joke once about how people really aren't sports fans .. they are laundry fans ... because the players in the jerseys keep rotating so fast that the fans can't keep up with them.

This is so true. That's why we don't buy Flyers Jerseys with names on them. The players have been coming and going so fast that if you spent the $150-$200 for a jersey it would be obsolute almost immediately.

(plus we don't have that kind of money anyways).

ON TOPIC - Changing mascots is no big deal. People get used to new mascots and a slight name change very easily.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Its a sad day when Mascots are considered wrong just because they deal with a group.



Responding to widespread complaints from Native Americans and others, the NCAA in 2005 deemed Illiniwek a "hostile and abusive" use of American Indian imagery and barred the university from hosting postseason sporting events.


That an exert from : cbs2chicago.com...



[edit on 16-2-2007 by Royal76]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
And I have a great idea for their new mascot.

Generic Man! The man NO ONE can be offended by! Yay Team!

(speedo added so as not to offend anyone)





posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I'm offended by generic man. Isn't a woman good enough for them?



Kidding.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join