(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Greetings from a fellow Nodak to the folks that meandered over hmyah from the message boards at siouxsports.com. Enjoy the blog, and hope y’all stick around a while.
Anyway. A comment was made to me in my previous post about Amerind/First Nations/Native American team names that I would like to cover in more depth:
Justin Bryant said:
There’s another way to look at this. Not all natives are honored by teams using names such as Sioux, Seminoles, etc. Here’s a short analogy to explain why:Say you were promised a promotion and a big corner office at work. Then your boss reneged at the last minute, gave the promotion and office to someone else. But then he tells you that he’s naming the break room in your honor. You wouldn’t be at all insulted? You wouldn’t think, “If you want to honor me, treat me fairly and with respect, not the window dressing of an empty gesture?”
That’s why your Vikings analogy, while funny, is not relevant. Vikings were never systematically oppressed, slaughtered, cheated, etc.
I know I’m being Mr Serious No Fun Guy here, but is it really so hard to see why not all Natives see it as an ‘honor’? And by the way, the implication seems to be that “they” don’t mind. This is certainly not entirely true. Here’s the position taken by The American Indian Movement:
I ripped off a short response, but I wanted to reheat this a little bit because I feel that this analogy blows more chunks than a drunk supermodel.
First: This analogy assumes that the corporate culture at the fictional company has been exactly the same the whole time the fictional employee has been there–in other words, it completely ignores the passage of time and the changing of minds by other people in the company, just as it ignores the passage of time and the changing of minds by people here in the United States. It blames the innocent for the sins of the guilty, in other words, and that is something that won’t fly with me.
Second: This analogy also assumes that the US Gubmint still patronizes and marginalizes the American Indian, which I disagree with. They’ve moved on to other things like hauling off the random innocent person who happens to be Muslim, turning a horrific national tragedy into a latter-day Reichstag Fire, invading countries for their oil, strip-searching travelers that wear t-shirts with benign sayings because those sayings are in a foreign character set, and telling four-year olds that they can’t get on airplanes because they’re turrists. They no longer have the time to devote to marginalizing and patronizing the last group of people to be recognized as citizens.
Third: Universities and colleges are not arms of the federal government. This gets back to my above statement. The states are responsible for their institutions of higher learning, whether they receive any sort of Federal funding or not.
Fourth: My analogy is not wrong, especially after I hear a customer telling me (after I told her what my belief system is) that she thought I was Christian because I display what are seen as Christian values (you know, trying to treat people with respect, being honest, working my ass off, all that–stuff that my ancestors placed great stock in. Read the Eddas if you don’t believe me)–my Norse ancestors have been maligned as barbaric savages who bathed in blood and had no morals whatsoever, because of the guys that raided Lindisfarne and other such places. Sound a little like how the American Indian was painted for years and years because they defended their homes and lands from invaders? Yeah.
Fifth: The American Indian Movement, though I respect them and their goal of empowering the American Indian to stand on his own and rise out of the hole that past Administrations dug for him, does not speak for all Native peoples. Using them as the sole end-all/be-all authority on this subject doesn’t do much to impress or sway me, especially since I feel that in this matter they’re not taking into account the wishes or feelings of those Native people that may not agree with them–you know, that whole patronization thing.
Sixth: I maintain that this campaign is even more demeaning to Native Americans than the mascots themselves are supposed to be, because it’s mostly led by the White Man–and excuse me, but last I checked quite a few tribes (like the Lakota (Sioux), the Cherokee, the Illiniwek, and the Seminoles) were heirs to a proud warrior tradition. They are strong people who can fight their own battles, and they don’t need some bleeding-heart cracker with White Guilt patting them on the head and saying “There there, you poor oppressed person. You just don’t understand how this is demeaning to you so I’ll go wage your wars for you.” That, to me, is FAR more offensive than a team being named for an Indian tribe–especially since one of those tribes (the Seminoles of Florida) has been quite vocal in saying “We’re not offended, so all y’all can just step the hell off” only to be ignored by activists who are–more often than not–white.
And if THAT is not demeaning and patronizing, I don’t know what is.
Well done AQ,this PC crap is sure getting old.If you look at it enough,everybody’s a victim if they choose to be.If this guy wants an anology what about the “Fighting Irish”?It was originally not meant to be a compliment,rather a put down that ND embraced.The Irish have come to look at this with pride as do the Seminoles.Don’t think the Irish were,”systematically opressed,slaughtered and cheated” my friend?Read your history,I’d call over a million starved to death a bit shoddy in the treatment category by the British along with hundreds of years of opression.But they were all European so I guess that doesn’t count.
Floyd (Red Crow) Westerman is one of the board members of the NCRSM, and he endorses a product that has been involved in similarly controversial advertising. Obviously, this isn’t a black & white issue.
AQ, you put a great deal of effort into refuting my little analogy. Fair enough, youmake some valid points.
Yet you didn’t bother refuting the POINT the analogy was meant to illustrate, which was merely the clearly stated line, “Not all Natives are honored by teams using names etc…”
You disregard AIM as “not speaking for all Natives” and suggest I presented them as the “be-all, end all” authority. When in fact, had you taken the time to examine the language I used, you would see that I made no such claim - I said it is not “entirely” true that “they” (as you put it) all support using tribal nicknames, andused AIM as one prominent example. I assumed that presenting just one major organization rejecting these nicknames would demonstrate that the entire Native community does not in fact support the use of tribal names - as your original article strongly implies (by suggesting that only white liberals oppose it - a claim you more directly make in the above rebuttal to me). That’s just wrong: some prominent Natives do in fact oppose them.
To TLW - Notre Dame was founded by Irish Catholics and they chose the “Fighting Irish” nickname themselves. Which schools with native nicknames were founded and continue to be governed by Natives?
See the difference?