Are Native American sports mascots racist or demeaning?

[NUance]

Fighting Sioux Lose Mascot Fight

 

Wednesday, February 08, 2012 By Elly Weinstock

 

 

Many schools have been forced to change their sports team mascots over the years because they were not deemed politically correct. Most recently, the University of North Dakota was attacked for its mascot: the Fighting Sioux. The school board previously agreed to retire the name. However, some who see nothing wrong with the name or the symbol made an effort to collect signatures to put the matter to yet another vote. Surprisingly some of the greatest supporters include the Spirit Lake Tribe and the Sioux Tribe. However, the Standing Rock Tribe refuted the notion that the name should be kept.

 

UND attempted to sue the National Collegiate Athletic Association for charges against the logo. The evidence against the WCAA included an article from 1969 that reported that the tribe “gave UND teams the right” to use the name solely for their athletic department. Allison Davis O’Keefe, photojournalist at UND, says, “If we’re not the Fighting Sioux, who are we? It’s a loss of identity.” Although the fight for the title is valiant, the loss of a name is not necessarily a loss of uniqueness. After all, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Yet for a majority of the students and supporters the fight has been about more than just a logo — it’s about a sense of pride and choice. Frank Black Cloud, a prominent member of Spirit Lake and an avid supporter of the cause, explains, “The name is an enormous source of pride. To have that taken away from us— it’s more hurtful than you can possibly understand.”

 

On Dec. 31, the title was officially revoked; the school is now ‘Siouxless.’ In addition, the school cannot adopt a new name or logo until 2015. The final push came from the Standing Rock Tribe, which admitted to taking offense at the title.

 

The task at hand now includes ridding the campus of the logo. It will cost approximately $750,000 to simply remove the logos from the school’s sports arenas and uniforms. Reflecting on the change, Mac Schneider, former UND offensive lineman says, “Being forced to change what you’re called doesn’t mean changing who you are.”

Other schools would do well to follow in the footsteps of UND and to stand up for their rights. Although the University of North Dakota did not win this battle it is truly commendable the students and staff did not stop Fighting.

 

 

LINK

This is the latest school to lose its Native American mascot. Personally, I think it's a bunch of baloney. Schools don't choose a mascot in order to demean or poke fun of a race. It's the symbol of their school--something they have pride in.

[Omaha-Husker]

How the Fighting Souix is any more or less demeaning than the Fighting Irish is beyond me.

[NUance]

How the Fighting Souix is any more or less demeaning than the Fighting Irish is beyond me.

That's exactly the example I was going to bring up in this thread. Imagine the uproar if ND was required to get a new mascot. Irish football fans would be getting in drunken brawls, rioting, and lighting couches on fire. Even more more than usual.

[okaive]

Maybe someone should sue ND to try to get that point across.

[Husker John]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_mascot_controversy

[The Dude]

If I remember right, walksalone is fairly passionate about this subject. Wouldn't mind him chiming in.

 

I, too, think it's a bunch of bologna.

[HSKR]

How the Fighting Souix is any more or less demeaning than the Fighting Irish is beyond me.

That's exactly the example I was going to bring up in this thread. Imagine the uproar if ND was required to get a new mascot. Irish football fans would be getting in drunken brawls, rioting, and lighting couches on fire. Even more more than usual.

 

http://gothenburg.k12.ne.us/

 

I wonder if the Swedes have ever protested this one?

[MLB 51]

There is a team here in Okla. That refered to their female athletic teams as the squaws. That was recently changed because of protests by local Native American groups. I wonder if they had taken the fightig part out if it would have been such an issue.

[Notre Dame Joe]

Maybe someone should sue ND to try to get that point across.

 

Nah, our mascot actually was intended as stereotypical joke about the Irish. The Brothers of the Holy Cross are a French Canadian order and "Fighting Irish" started off as a joke; like Yankee Doodle.

 

Factoid: until the 1960s the mascot was an Irish Terrier. I'd bring him back to chase Southern Cal's Traveler.

[walksalone]

I'm Lakota (aka Sioux) and I think it's bullsh#t. I bet the tribe wouldn't be so pissed if they were seeing some of the money from the sale of all the merch?

[Excel]

I'm Half Swedish and I would like to sue the Minnesota Vikings for slandering the image of my ancestors.

[Enhance]

I think it really just comes down to the people whom the mascots are associated with. If Native Americans are insulted by the term "redskins", for example, I don't have too big of a problem with them wanting it changed. I'm generally a strong opponent of political correctness, because I think people care too much about stupid and irrelevant things.

 

That said, I find nothing offensive about Fighting Sioux, but I'm also not American Indian.

[walksalone]

I think it really just comes down to the people whom the mascots are associated with. If Native Americans are insulted by the term "redskins", for example, I don't have too big of a problem with them wanting it changed. I'm generally a strong opponent of political correctness, because I think people care too much about stupid and irrelevant things.

 

That said, I find nothing offensive about Fighting Sioux, but I'm also not American Indian.

 

Being a native american I get more offended by the manufactured activism. I wouldn't have as big a problem if this had been brought up 40 or 50 years ago.

[The Dude]

The guy who named the Washington Redskins was a known bigot. Wouldn't be surprised at all if that one was actualy intended to be racist.

[knapplc]

It's not for the general public to determine what is or is not offensive to a particular person or group. It's up to them, and if they're offended, they have a right to make their point. I agree with walksalone that a lot of this is manufactured activism, and in a less politically-correct time this likely wouldn't be (and wasn't, for a long time) an issue. But if someone is offended, we cannot tell them, "You shouldn't be offended." It's up to them. And then it's up to a judge (if it gets that far) to make the call.

 

 

 

EDIT - I'm the (currently) lone "Yes" vote up there. I don't wholly agree with the phrasing of the Yes vote option, but in the context of the above paragraph in this post, it is "racist" or "demeaning" if someone says it is. What is "demeaning" is in the eye of the beholder, much like what defines a religion is in a person's heart/head. A religion is simply a deeply held belief, meaning that if I truly, deeply, really feel that my water cup sitting on my desk is my deity, the government cannot tell me it is not, and they cannot dictate to me how I am to worship it (within certain guidelines, of course).

 

In much the same way, the government cannot tell me, a free citizen, that I am not allowed to be offended by something. If someone else is not offended that's OK, but it doesn't negate my offense.