Letters to the Editor
-
tbrandel
The Miami Tribe, for whom the mascot was originally named, have a close connection with the school. Prior to the national outcry over the offensiveness of Native American-themed mascots, the Miami Tribe fully supported the Redskins name and even charicterized it as a sign of respect. It was only when they realized they could get some national media attention that they changed their tune.
But if the people who we're so concerned about offending aren't offended, then is it really racism? A previous poster noted that 80% of Native Americans don't have a problem with Indian-themed mascots in sports. Taking for granted that that statistic is accurate (who knows if it is), then isn't it our own guilt that's driving this movement to eliminate Indian-themed mascots rather than the genuine outrage of Native Americans themselves?
Sorry for plucking such a large portion of your post, but I think you inadvertently hit upon an important point. I seem to discern a tendency to assume that, just because a group of people share a particular racial or cultural identity, they therefore speak with one voice. To say the Miami tribe "fully supported" the name at one point, only to shift polarity as one and subsequently rally against it -- well, you've denied them the possibility of internal debate. They were all this way, then they were all that way.
Even when presented with evidence of these internal debates (last I checked, 80% is hardly unanimity), we still shoehorn it into a single "Native American opinion". I mean, you wouldn't go to war if only 20% of the people think it's a good idea, but in terms of this particular debate, I find 20% to be a significant number.
And if white guilt informs the decision, I say why shouldn't it? Guilt is a rational emotion, given the historical circumstances.
-
Ask Native Americans!
I have to agree with the few posters here who've said that it's warped to discuss this without considering what the majority of Native Americans themselves think about it. Somebody mentioned a poll that said 80% of them like Chief Wahoo--is that true? Or is Bellecourt's opinion representative? Since it's fair to assume that the baseball team and its fans aren't using that name and that image with racist intent, these are the only questions that really matter. If Native Americans on the whole approve, keep the mascot. If they're offended by it, dump it.
Honestly, the notion that we white people should decide what's offensive and what's not in this situation (somebody here actually said "Who cares what Native Americans think?") is more racist than any of those mascots could ever be.
-
I agree to a up to a point
As an ex-clevelander who now works with and teaches native americans every day, I see that the whole mascot issue is not as clear cut as many of us would like to think it is. I was amazed to hear that in an area where there are not many professional teams near by, that native american students routinely routed for those teams with native american names/mascots. Sure, Chief Wahoo is ugly and needs to go. But there alot more pressing issues regarding race and discrimination that they care more about than a sports team two thousand miles away.
As a life long Indians fan/sufferer, I've never cared one way or another, but it took the first playoff series in decades to wake me up to the fact that Wahoo was an embarassment and a reflection of just how provencial northern ohio still was. keep the name, lose the mascot.
-
"The Cleveland fans are the real embarrassment."
At least it was the ball not batteries, bottles, and anything else not bolted to the ground. Cleveland fans have been known to throw worse than a ball back on the field.
-
My Turn: Our society must continue to defeat, reject, combat, every aspect of racism
on every front from sports to religious venues where contempt for people of color exists.
I want to get rid of every racist sport team name from the Indians,Redskins, Blackhawks etc..
King my influence is growing on you.. I must take this moment to recogized and applaud your sentiments here since I have attacked you on race issues when I think you are just another white male and part of the herd...
-
Redskins
King,
Good article. I think the point a lot of people miss is that we've evolved. That something was acceptable 50 or 100 years ago does not make it acceptable today. Especially if one might want to argue that we are more advanced (and I think all of us do) now than even 20 years ago.
That said, a little devil's advocacy...Native Americans, or as the Canadians (Canucks?) call them (more tastefully, I think), "The First Peoples" were/are not immune to racial stereotyping.
A human's natural tendancy is to generalize, thereby making it easier to separate thoughts, ideas, opinions and to plan reactions to certain events. One could argue the necessity of this way of thinking in a time or place when taking time to learn or understand was to waste time or to ignore the obvious for no good reason (Should I feel embarrassed to point out a "white guy" in a group of dark skinned people?). Are we really surprised to find that these generalizations made it into our lexicon? To wit, the origins of the term "Redskin", as found in this excellent article by Ives Goddard (found here www.nmnh.si.edu/anthro/goddard/redskin.pdf):
"Eighteenth-century records do, however, attest the emergence of the use of the color terms red and white by Native Americans as racial designations, and the adoption of these terms by Europeans in eastern North America. The first uses of the term red as a racial label that Shoemaker (1997: 627) found are from 1725. In that year a Taensa chief talking to a French Capuchin priest in Mobile recounted an origin story about a “white
man,” a “red man,” and a “black man” (Rowland and Sanders 1927–1932, 2:485–486), and a Chickasaw chief meeting with the English Commissioner for Indian Affairs at Savanna Town referred to “White people” and “red people” (George Chicken in
Mereness 1916: 169)."
The First Peoples weren't stupid. They understood the value of generalization, especially in communication.
Of course, as I said, we have the experience and knowledge today that makes it unacceptable for people to harbor such archaic/simple beliefs. But I think this knowledge would go a great distance in quelling some of the righteous indignation coming from certain groups.
All that said, Chief Wahoo and Redskins should go.