I loved him in Under a Killing Moon.

I’ve put a curse on you. I announced it with a lawsuit.

To paraphrase Zay N. Smith, add "curses" to the list of things that aren't what they used to be.

I see your curse and raise you a fatwa.

To be fair, I still don't understand why sports teams across the country equate Native Americans to animals or other sub-human things with the whole mascot thing. It's just not respectful and while it might have been fine in the 1940s, there's just no place for it anymore. I wish that, although it's actually named after one person, my Kansas City Chiefs would at least consider a name change.

That is literally like saying the Cleveland Indians are playing the Memphis Black Folk (or substitute a racial slur here if you prefer) tomorrow. There's simply no place for it.

Yeah there just no place for calling teams after people.

Fighting Irish
Saints
Padres
Yankees
Knickerbockers
Trojans
Spartans
Cowboys
Pirates
Buccaneers
Mariners
Brewers
Dodgers
Patriots
Packers
Raiders
Vikings
49'ers
Celtics
Cavaliers
76'ers
Trailblazers. . . . Oh wait.

The "Redskins" is probably the worst name in American Pro Sports, but even they don't have a "Wahoo"-like mascot. It's a little ironic that Bill Veeck who was progressive in promoting minority interests adopted the Wahoo logo way back in the 40s. I'm sure he thought it was a saleable image -- and that's pretty much the reason why the logo still exists today. I had thought with the introduction of the weird "I" on the caps, that they were phasing out Wahoo... but that was a few years ago now. I don't know if the Cleveland Dolans are related to the NY (Knicks/Rangers) Dolan, but if so, not a good omen.

Cleveland Spiders wouldn't be a bad(retro)idea.

Braves seems to be a positive thing.

I've done some studying into Native Americans culture recently and I'm under the strong impression that many of them don't like that. It's like the term 'Savages'. It's implying that these proud and brave Indians know nothing but how to fight, even if they are good fighters.

While that may be a positive thing to some of us, many of us would like to disassociate ourselves from fighting (see: Iraq war).

Yeah, Redskins is very not nice. It is the equivalent of us having an NFL team called the Memphis N-----s.

Yeah there just no place for calling teams after people.

Fighting Irish
Saints
Padres
Yankees
Knickerbockers
Trojans
Spartans
Cowboys
Pirates
Buccaneers
Mariners
Brewers
Dodgers
Patriots
Packers
Raiders
Vikings
49'ers
Celtics
Cavaliers
76'ers
Trailblazers. . . . Oh wait.

(A) Just because others do it doesn't make it right.
(B) Besides the Irish, Vikings, Trojans and Celtics, most of those names are a choice. People can choose to be a Saint, a Pirate, a Patriot. Native Americans are Native Americans, no matter how assimilated they are into non-Native culture. That's why those examples aren't as strongly related to Natives as making the Black Folk a team mascot.
(C) Also, the Vikings, Trojans and Celtics (sort of) are more historically based people, particularly the Vikings and Trojans. There's no offending them; in fact, it may be honoring them to remember them. Whereas Native Americans are still a very alive an active people. In this vein, even if naming teams after Natives isn't sub-humanizing them, it's equating them to a historical gimmick. They are, obviously, still very much an active people.
(D) I would agree that the Irish and probably Celtics should change their name, but this article is about the Indians, so I thought I'd just address them.

I don't know if the Cleveland Dolans are related to the NY (Knicks/Rangers) Dolan

Yes, they are.

The lawsuit, which called for the renaming of the club and elimination of Chief Wahoo as mascot, was settled out of court.

Um, why would you settle out of court without receiving either of those two things? What, did he accept cash to go away?

A) Just because some object doesn't make it wrong.

B) So you don't have a choice to be a "Brave", you don't have a choice to be a "Chief"?

C) So we should wait until all the Indians are dead before we "honor" them with team names and outrageous mascots? So Chief Wahoo is an insult now but 500 years from now a cartoon indian shall be an honor?

D) Why should the Irish change their name? Why should the Celtics? I would love to see what the group of Irishmen look like that would want Notre Dame to change their name.

I wish that, although it's actually named after one person, my Kansas City Chiefs would at least consider a name change.

Is Chiefs that far off from Generals or Kings?

I lived in Illinois growing up. My schools nickname was the Redskins, a nearby High Schools name was the Chinks. Nobody in our school wanted our name changed. Not the students not the alumni. It was something like 95 to 98% approval for the name. The outgoing superintendant decided that one of his last acts was to do the PC thing and change the name. Again nobody wanted it and nobody associated the name Redskins with any kind of slur towards Indians. It was a name, it was our name. We were Redskins, and we were proud of our name, proud of our history, and proud to be called Redskins. Heck we wanted to be called Redskins. Nobody in my school went around with some sort of negative view towards Indians because our school nickname was Redskins. It just didn't happen and for the most part I bet it doesn't happen elsewhere either. Nobody (or I should say the sane ones) look at the Washington Redskins for their information on Indians and their culture.

How about if they replace Chief Wahoo with him.

The only two sports team names I would consider offensive are Indians and Redskins. And Indians would probably be kosher with me if they got rid of Chief Wahoo. The others - Illini, Blackhawks, Seminoles, Chiefs, Braves - they're fine by me.

(C) Also, the Vikings, Trojans and Celtics (sort of) are more historically based people, particularly the Vikings and Trojans. There's no offending them;

(D) I would agree that the Irish and probably Celtics should change their name,

How exactly does (D) follow from (C)? Have you ever heard one Irish or Celtic person voice any objection to the Notre Dame or Boston teams?

The Redskins have the worst nickname, the Braves have the most dreadful chant, and the Indians have the worst mascot. Pick your poison.

And as for curses, the biggest curse of them all belongs to the Redskins, in the form of a Napoleonic owner with a bad case of hemorrhoids and perhaps another 40+ years to live.

Nobody in my school went around with some sort of negative view towards Indians

And you know there was no bias or prejudice towards Native Americans because.......?

All I know is that you don't screw around with Russell Means. He played the character "Chingachgook" in 1992's The Last of the Mohicans, who, although "elderly", finished off Wes Studi's "Magua" character right quick in the finale.

Weapon of choice? This bad-ass war club.

Ah yes I love the PC'ness of the word Native American. It is the same as "Indian", a bunch of white guys sat around a table and said you know we came up with this word "Indian" a couple of hundred years ago, then we did some bad things to them, and then glorified it, now my christian guilt is just killing me what can we do? Give them money? No. Give them more land? No. I know we'll call them Native Americans. See it will show them how sensitive we are. Shouldn't we you know actually discuss it with them first? Nah, why do that?

The one and only Chief Wahoo: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1048057/bio

Professional wrestler

Played collegiate football at Oklahoma as a kicker, end, and fullback. Kicked the 6th-longest punt in NCAA history for 91 yards.

Played pro football for the Houston Oilers (1960), Denver Broncos (1961-1963), New York Jets (1964-1965), and the Miami Dolphins (1966-1968).

Inducted into the WCW Hall of Fame on May 21st, 1995.

Had a large impact on the career of Ric Flair.

Former US President George Bush Sr was Wahoo McDaniels baseball coach when he was a kid.

Notable title wins include: Florida Heavyweight title; Texas Heavyweight title; NWA American Heavyweight title (2); Mid Atlantic Heavyweight title (5); NWA American Tag Team titles with Thunderbolt Patterson (2); NWA American Tag Team titles with Johnny Valentine; Southwest Heavyweight title (2); Southwestern Championship Wrestling Tag Team titles with Terry Funk; NWA Southern Heavyweight title (2); Georgia Heavyweight title (2); Georgia Tag Team titles with Tommy Rich; NWA National Heavyweight title; Florida Television title; NWA United States Heavyweight title

He was originally scheduled to be on the plane that crashed in 1975, carrying Ric Flair, Tim Woods, Johnny Valentine, David Crockett and Bob Bruggers. At the last moment, he decided to drive and Bruggers took his place. All five wrestlers were injured (Valentine with career-ending injuries).

If one is concerned about Native issues why isn't one more involved with:

1) Living conditions on Native American Reservations;
2) The high preponderance of diabetes in Native American children;
3) High levels of illiteracy and low education levels amongst Native Americans;
4) and other countless problems which affect the average Native American moreso than any symbolic gesture which merely provides visual opportunity for protesters.

As Garth Sears has pointed out, the overwhelming majority of those names are for occupations or something else similar.

The reason the Celtics and Irish are different is that there is a strong historical correlation between those names and the fans of the team. The Irish in particular, considering a HUGE percentage of Notre Dame fans, alums, etc. are still Irish. It is a self-identification.

How many Indians do you think are fans of the Indians? I'd be surprised if it was any higher than the percentage who are fans of any other team, and would guess it's probably lower. And given how effectively we white people have wiped them out, it's a pretty miniscule number either way.

Frankly, if even one Native American objects to the name, given all the crappy things we have done, it should be eliminated. Since they're never going to get their land back, or reparations, or anything close to compensation for the incommensurable, it seems like the least we could do is err in favor of not continuing to exploit the image of the Indian for our own sick entertainment.

Oh, and this...

My schools nickname was the Redskins, a nearby High Schools name was the Chinks. Nobody in our school wanted our name changed. Not the students not the alumni. It was something like 95 to 98% approval for the name.

clearly disproves this...

Nobody in my school went around with some sort of negative view towards Indians because our school nickname was Redskins.

Good lord.

This is not about people calling Indians racist slurs or beating them up or anything. It's about a general social attitude which treats them as a relic, an icon, rather than actual living and breathing people.

Anytime people use the term "PC" about Native Americans it makes me want to scream. I mean, it drives me nuts in any context, but how in the world can anyone who knows anything about what has been, and continues to be done, to the indigenous people of North America suggest that any minor inconvenience on your part could matter if it makes life better for them?

This is not about being politically correct, it's about recognizing, for one brief moment, that our place on this land, our ability to live lives of comfort, and our chance to name stupid sports teams came at the hands of a genocide, a genocide for which we have never apologized or made any real effort to make up for.

But you just love that mascot you grew up with, right? Never mind that the millions of inhabitants of this land probably love their land, their family, their home until it was all taken from them. But they didn't have much choice in the matter.

At the very least, any team with an Indian mascot really ought to give a couple million dollars a year to support education, public health, environmental protection, etc. on reservation. If you want to capitalize on identification with the name, at least take a hit, y'know.

Sorry for the rant. This stuff just gets my blood boiling.

McCoy has a point. This nation is never going to do anything to right the wrongs that have been done to the original native polulation, so why should we pretend we care by changing offensive names. And by not changing the name, it gives a platform to those to continually complain that nothing will be done. Which is of course true. Why hide the truth. What I dont understand are those that pretend some of these names and symbols are not offensive.

At the very least, any team with an Indian mascot really ought to give a couple million dollars a year to support education, public health, environmental protection, etc. on reservation. If you want to capitalize on identification with the name, at least take a hit, y'know.

Your moral clarity sure took a hit with this paragraph.

"a nearby High Schools name was the Chinks."

Really? Nothing you write indicates that your post is a lark. But, come on, there never was a high school with "Chinks" as its nickname, was there?

"Ah yes I love the PC'ness of the word Native American."

As a whitey, albeit a jewey whitey, I've used the term Native American and American Indian interchangeably for a long time. However, I was surprised to find -- recently, I've had occassion to interview about one dozen local Indians associated with a nearby failing tribal college (DQU) -- that most Native Americans don't use that term. They stick with Indian. And I don't think there is much difference in this regard based on political orientation. Even radicals like Russell Means and Dennis Banks seem to use "Indians" to refer to the aboriginal people of America.

Another thing that surprised me is that public opinion polls among American Indians suggest that most do not object to Indian team names. I don't think that applies to characters like Chief Wahoo. But it is only a minority of American Indians who don't think non-Native institutions should have nicknames like Indians or Braves or Mohawks. (I don't recall a poll about the name, "Redskins.")

"The only two sports team names I would consider offensive are Indians and Redskins."

I think most Americans would object if a new sports club would try to name itself Redskins. I suppose I would. It seems out of date. However, I'm not sure that the term is patently offensive. Certainly Whiteskins is not offensive to me, as someone who has white skin. It just seems like a description. I can't imagine, for example, some drunken racist, in a fight with a Native American, perjoratively calling his opponent, "You redskin!" It just doesn't sound like an insult. There must be some perjorative terms. But "redskin" doesn't seem like one to me.

"I loved him in Under a Killing Moon."

Fantastic game, if not as good as The Pandora Thingy.

Really? Nothing you write indicates that your post is a lark. But, come on, there never was a high school with "Chinks" as its nickname, was there?

Yes, Pekin High School near Peoria, IL. Here is a link to an article:


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20050216/ai_n11842237

This is not about being politically correct, it's about recognizing, for one brief moment, that our place on this land, our ability to live lives of comfort, and our chance to name stupid sports teams came at the hands of a genocide, a genocide for which we have never apologized or made any real effort to make up for.

I knew I said I wouldn't post anymore today, but I just wanted to agree with this. The Indians and Redksins etc as names of sportsteams is a national shame. I say we call the Indians the Naps again and, if the Redskins won't change their name voluntarily, we let Cowboys fans choose a new name for the franchise.

Lord Baldrick,

Has any nation, has any group of people in the history of the world ever gotten above the dumpster of civilization without killing or severely subjugating another group of people? Should everybody in the UK go "oops sorry mate I'll be off to France and Scandinavia then, sorry for the trouble"? Should everybody in Europe head back to Central Asia? Should the Mongolians and Chinese apologize to practically the entire world for forcing pretty much the entire world off their land and killing a few hundred cultures? Should Italians be paying North Africans for all the trouble they caused a few thousand years ago? Where does it end? The Indian cultures were involved in a power struggle with other nations both native and foriegn. They lost, it happens, get over it.

And no I don't think if one single Indian objects to a name it should be changed because of all the problems we caused. Because I didn't cause them, and I refuse to be the symbolic whipping boy for some wrong that happened 100 years or more ago.

"I loved him in Under a Killing Moon."

Fantastic game, if not as good as The Pandora Thingy.

I had under a killing moon, unfortunately for me it came out right at the time that there was the whole RAM rift going on, and this one needed a lot and I didn't have a lot. So it looked real grainy. Then I never did get to finish it since the last disk was corrupted, the last point I got to was in the park talking to some weasel-like character and poofda no more.

So how does it end?

But, come on, there never was a high school with "Chinks" as its nickname, was there?

Wouldn't surprise me. According to my mother who grew up in central NJ, there was a nearby high school that were called the Fighting Japs. Would have been mid/late 1950s and/or early 1960s. It may not have been the official name, but that's what all the local high schools called them.

The Golden Horde......now there's a name that would strike fear in an opponent

Only in Total War and if you have land in the east that doesn't have massive armies. Otherwise you rarely see them or care about them. They usually peter out before they get to the west.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pekin,_Illinois.......

Pekin Community High School teams were officially known as the Pekin Chinks until 1980 when the mascot was changed to the Pekin Dragons (an earlier attempt was made by a visit of the NAACP to change the name from Chinks during the 1974-1975 school year, this was voted down by the student council; the event received national attention).

And no I don't think if one single Indian objects to a name it should be changed because of all the problems we caused. Because I didn't cause them, and I refuse to be the symbolic whipping boy for some wrong that happened 100 years or more ago.

Well, I undestand what you mean, but the "Indians" and "Redskins" are in the here and now, not a 100 years ago. It's a wrong happening presently. If nothing else, changing the names would be just good manners. Is it really such an awful thing? Now, if the D-rays really change their name, I'm going to start following Australian baseball. As a SCUBA diver, I'm very pro-Devil Rays logo.

People can choose to be a Saint

I've put in my application and am waiting to hear back. Wish me luck.

My schools nickname was the Redskins, a nearby High Schools name was the Chinks. Nobody in our school wanted our name changed. Not the students not the alumni. It was something like 95 to 98% approval for the name.

Which, of course, makes it right.

Certainly Whiteskins is not offensive to me, as someone who has white skin. It just seems like a description.

Well, Rich, you are consistent, at least.

Has any nation, has any group of people in the history of the world ever gotten above the dumpster of civilization without killing or severely subjugating another group of people?

Does that make it OK when our nation has done it and was practically BUILT upon it in our relatively recent history?

The Indian cultures were involved in a power struggle with other nations both native and foriegn. They lost, it happens, get over it.

I'm guessing you and your family have never been close to losing such a "power struggle" in your lifetime. Care to give any adviced to the displaced native cultures on how to "get over it"?

I refuse to be the symbolic whipping boy for some wrong that happened 100 years or more ago.

You refuse to give up your preferred sports team nickname and logo? That would be some steep sacrifice, eh?

Plus, the forced relocation and other inhumane treatment of Native Americans isn't entirely confined to "100 years or more ago." Some would argue that in many places, we're still seeing the direct effects today.

What I don't understand is how the NCAA determines what is and isn't "hostile" and "abusive" with regards to American-Indian nicknames, mascots and imagery.

Chief Illinwik....bad
Florida State's horse back riding flame throwing spear mascot....good

Not taking sides either way but the NCAA threw me for a loop on this one.

Who gives a ####? And if some cultural group with a persecution complex finds that offensive, well, they have too much time on their hands. If I was a American Indian acitivist I would be more concerned with dragging my own cultural group out of the dumpster than anything else.

My cynical brain is telling me this is nothing more than an easy target to try and force a cash payout to "go away".

How many Indians do you think are fans of the Indians?

This is a tough question. If by "Indians" you mean those who play baseball for the Cleveland franchise, I'd guess the number is between 25 and 40. If you mean "Indians" as in native Americans, then the number is probably roughly the same. If you mean "Indians" as in those who hail from India, then we're looking at nearly a billion people - but probably only about 25-40 actual fans. So, after this analysis, the question may be tough, but the answer is always the same. 25 to 40 Indians are fans of the Indians.

I think winnipegwhip said what I was trying to convey without being snarky and purposefully obtuse.

It's implying that these proud and brave Indians know nothing but how to fight, even if they are good fighters.

I agree. There should, in order to provide a more well-rounded picture, be less imagery of fighting and more of drinking and smoking. The potato-eaters have their warrior Celtics as well as the drinking, pipe-smoking, Fighting Irish.

What I don't understand is how the NCAA determines what is and isn't "hostile" and "abusive" with regards to American-Indian nicknames, mascots and imagery.

Chief Illinwik....bad
Florida State's horse back riding flame throwing spear mascot....good

Not taking sides either way but the NCAA threw me for a loop on this one.

One factor is how the nation tribe at issue views the situation. Seminole tribe of Florida is fine with FSU (I think they get some money from the university). None of the tribes of the Illini confederation exist, so the U of I can't get approval.

Chief Illinwik....bad
Florida State's horse back riding flame throwing spear mascot....good

FSU got permission from the local Seminole tribe to use the name and mascot and I believe the costume is historically accurate and approved by the tribe. Even with that, they had to fight the NCAA to keep the name and mascot.

I think most Americans would object if a new sports club would try to name itself Redskins. I suppose I would. It seems out of date. However, I'm not sure that the term is patently offensive.

It was once very offensive, and the hostile intent of the name was clear. And since the subjects of the name's hostility are still living among us, and and their culture and well-being are struggling to survive, it seems patently offensive that a billion-dollar industry owned by others continues to profit by using the hostile name.

Certainly Whiteskins is not offensive to me, as someone who has white skin. It just seems like a description.

It would be -- that's because the term has never really been used, unlike the term 'redskin'.

I can't imagine, for example, some drunken racist, in a fight with a Native American, perjoratively calling his opponent, "You redskin!" It just doesn't sound like an insult. There must be some perjorative terms. But "redskin" doesn't seem like one to me.

Given the historical context, this goes far beyond what a drunken racist could say today in bar fight. It's a word from a dark chapter in our nation's history, an even darker chapter in the history of Native Americans. I don't know what good it does to gloss over that history with a pro sports nickname, and the business interests behind the name abdicating even token responsibility/sensitivity for the related atrocities.

I think winnipegwhip said what I was trying to convey without being snarky and purposefully obtuse.

Yeah, I'm not going to spend energy on this, to be honest. There are too many fights to fight. I do appreciate the irony of some people feeling persecuted by Indians, though. When something like this comes up, I like to use the acronym WSGCS. What would George Carlin say? I know he'd make fun of all of us, but how specifically? Trying to figure out how I'm being ridiculous make me a better person, I think. Or not. My cat likes me in any event, as long as I keep feeding him.

WSGCS

That should be WWGCS. Ok, ok, I never used that acronym until I just made it up 2 minutes ago. Sue me!

(D) I would agree that the Irish and probably Celtics should change their name,

I'm Irish. STFU.

My cat likes me in any event, as long as I keep feeding him.

And as long as you don't name your softball team the Fighting Pussies.

winnipegwhip Posted: November 02, 2006 at 01:30 PM (#2230319)

If one is concerned about Native issues why isn't one more involved with:

1) Living conditions on Native American Reservations;
2) The high preponderance of diabetes in Native American children;
3) High levels of illiteracy and low education levels amongst Native Americans;
4) and other countless problems which affect the average Native American moreso than any symbolic gesture which merely provides visual opportunity for protesters.

Well, the sports angle gave him a hook, and anything related to sports has a shot at media attention and to get people talking. Bringing up Chief Wahoo gets a group of people, who, by and large, probably don't think about Native American issues that much energized on it. And, I am not sure what Means'--or the filmmakers--level of involvement with these other issues is, but it's exceedingly presumptuous for you to suggest that you are some kind of authority on how a Native Amnerican activist or documentary filmaker should spend his/her time--unless you happen to be one yourself, and even then it would be questionable.

And as long as you don't name your softball team the Fighting Pussies.

So, you're saying my cat doesn't like me then. I can't win in this world.

Regarding the Cleveland American League ballclub (or any other business), if it were my concern, unless someone could do better than "I'm offended" (e.g., show real harm), AFAIC they can go pound sand.

Check out the logo for this Chicago-area company (with which I am not associated, BTW, although I know some who are).

I draw a difference between that and a high school being called the Redskins (or whatever)--schools have a mandate to educate.

(My HS was the Indians; there were at least three teams in our athletic conference that had Indian-related nicknames; probably they still do. All of our depictions were respectful, not Wahoo-ish in the least. The next town east (not in our conference) had huge fights in the 90s over whether to change from "Redskins". Four or five years ago they did finally change to a non-ethnic name. And I can assure Mr. Rifkin that the Pekin Chinks did exist, and there are alumni that deeply regret the change.)

If nothing else, changing the names would be just good manners. Is it really such an awful thing?

Excellent point. In the grand scheme of things, the name of a sports team isn't a big deal. There are a lot more problems facing Native Americans/Indians than this issue and a lot more has to be done to help them overcome these problems but changing the name would be a decent way to get things rolling.

Note: click on a word meaning below to see its connections and related words.
The noun Redskin has one meaning:

Meaning #1: offensive terms for Native Americans
Synonyms: Injun, red man

Regarding 45 and 46, above, this is an over-simplification, but it all has to do with support of the named tribe. Originally, a member of the Oklahoma Seminole Nation protested the Florida State mascot. The NCAA placed them on the "hostile and abusive" list in August of 2005. However, the Florida Seminole Nation protested, and the FSU Seminoles were approved upon appeal. The NCAA even admitted that they thought the representative from Oklahoma was speaking for all Seminoles.

Shortly after that, both the Central Michigan Chippewas and the Utah Utes had their appeals granted due the namesake's tribal approval. There's a real backlash at North Dakota over "Fighting Sioux", and since there wasn't tribal support, UND isn't allowed to use their mascot, logos or imagery in any NCAA event. The outcome with Illinois is that they can be called the "Illini", but cannot use the Chief Illinwik imagery or logo.

In terms of team names, the ones with a specific tribal affiliation were given the most leeway, with an opportunity to show tribal support. "Generic" names such as Indians, Braves, Redskins, Redmen and Chief/Chieftains were deemed off-limits, as were the Southeastern Oklahoma State University Savages. The term "Warriors" was reviewed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the imagery.

The Mississippi College Choctaws were granted permission to use their name and imagery, and Southeast Missouri State Indians (men's) and Otahkians (women's) were scheduled to change to Redhawks prior to the NCAA rule. The William and Mary Tribe was originally granted an exemption for self-study, found themselves to be in good standing, and were then banned by the NCAA due to their use of feathers in their logo.

I believe if you can show your team to be a non-Native American non-specific "Warrior" - like how Golden State has moved from this to this, then you should be in good shape.

This has been posted before:

http://www.cafepress.com/fightinwhite

I lived in Illinois growing up. My schools nickname was the Redskins, a nearby High Schools name was the Chinks. Nobody in our school wanted our name changed. Not the students not the alumni. It was something like 95 to 98% approval for the name.

McCoy - Where in Illinois? I'm from Athens, IL. Home of the Warriors (the Indian Kind)

When I was a student at Central Michigan, they changed the helmet from the spear (like Florida State) to the "Flying C" they have now. They kept the nickname but banned any sort of student dressing up in feathers or a headdress or anything like that. I know a couple members of the band were kicked out of the band because they painted "war paint" on their faces.

They took a poll of the local tribe and over 75% wanted to keep the name.

They took a poll of the local tribe and over 75% wanted to keep the name.

This is really the only thing that bothers me with this issue. It seems the majority of the time when the tribe is asked they don't mind the school name. I think it would be pretty cool if the schools/NCAA would work with the tribes to authenticate instead of ban.

Redskins probably needs to be changed but since I do not know if it does indead offend the majority of the tribes I will not be fighting either way.

Frankly, if even one Native American objects to the name...

I don't agree with this, you will find one person that has a valid beef concerning pretty much everything anyone can think of. I am sure there is an Irishman offended by ND, hell I am sure there are people in PETA that are offended with animal names for teams.

Really? Nothing you write indicates that your post is a lark. But, come on, there never was a high school with "Chinks" as its nickname, was there?

Others have already covered this, but I'll add a little. Reportedly, it changed its name because the old head of the school district retired, and no job candidate worth hiring would come to a place called "chinks." There were protests when it happened. They still make some Pekin Chinks clothing. They had the name in the first place because the town was named after China's capital, then known as Pekin or Peking, now translated as Beijing.

It has an extremely nasty reputation for race relations. It was an old sundown town, almost certainly the most populous one in Illinois. It's still state headquarters of the KKK. A few years ago I was getting an oil change and the female (white) counter worker was telling a friend about a time she went to Pekin with a black guy she knew. People were openly staring/glaring at them as they walked down the street. I went to college with two guys from Pekin. It's definately a place where people can openly say "n1gger" in public and not have to worry much about how it comes off. Then again, I knew people in college from many different towns all over Illinois where one could say that, so it ain't just Pekin.

Pekin probably has the worst reputation for racism of any town in Illions. Definately among any town with more than 20,000 people.

None of the tribes of the Illini confederation exist, so the U of I can't get approval.

There's still some Peoria left, but not a lot and none pure blood. From foggy memory, at one point in the 1990s a council of Peoria leaders voted 3-2 to OK the school's use of Illini, but they may have sense flipped or the OK might only have referred to the nickname.

If nothing else, changing the names would be just good manners. Is it really such an awful thing?

This is essentially my position. I didn't grow up rooting for the Illini, but I did go to school there for three years and consider myself a pretty big fan today. Be that as it may, I'd like to think that if I were Native American, I wouldn't find the name offensive. Maybe 10% of the Native American population finds it offensive. Maybe less. But when the choice is between a) offending some small group of people or b) offending no one, it's really not a hard decision for me. Tradition isn't that sacred. I'm not going to stop rooting for the Illini, but if asked to vote one way or the other, I'd vote to at least get rid of the chief, if not the name entirely.

I may find their offense at the name somewhat less than rational, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.

There's still some Peoria left, but not a lot and none pure blood. From foggy memory, at one point in the 1990s a council of Peoria leaders voted 3-2 to OK the school's use of Illini, but they may have sense flipped or the OK might only have referred to the nickname.

To be clear, I should have said none exist in the form of an officially recognized tribe (or at least none did as of the mid-90s).

The outcome with Illinois is that they can be called the "Illini", but cannot use the Chief Illinwik imagery or logo.

It was my understanding that they could not use the name either. The other problem, at least for Illinois, is that there is no tribe to provide support (or withold support).

If one is concerned about Native issues why isn't one more involved with:

1) Living conditions on Native American Reservations;
2) The high preponderance of diabetes in Native American children;
3) High levels of illiteracy and low education levels amongst Native Americans;
4) and other countless problems which affect the average Native American moreso than any symbolic gesture which merely provides visual opportunity for protesters.

This, I think, is the best point anybody's made in this thread so far.

but it's exceedingly presumptuous for you to suggest that you are some kind of authority on how a Native Amnerican activist or documentary filmaker should spend his/her time--unless you happen to be one yourself, and even then it would be questionable.

By that ridiculous standard, it's exceedingly presumptuous to suggest that anyone on this site is some kind of authority on how managers or general managers should go about their jobs in baseball, unless we happen to be managers or general managers ourself. You don't have to be an authority on Native American filmmaking to surmise that one's filmmaking time could perhaps be better spent on real life issues for today's Native American than on Chief Wahoo. It's analogous to a Democratic filmmaker going out and discussing various logos and cartoons that mock the donkey logo when he could instead go out and discuss political issues relevant to the Democratic party.




And for the record:

Mexico City is awarded a major league baseball team tomorrow.

They announce they are going to be the Mexico City Gringos.

I don't care.

Biscuit, I think Hooked on Phoenix has covered your point, seems as though they are doing what you want.

Shooty. I know Im pretty obtuse and all, so I really can't complain, but I must admit you lost me.

Robin Red, I may be mistaken, but I think winnepegwhip was speaking of the people posting here, not the protester. If we are really concerned about the issue, those are the things we should be complaing about as opposed to the relativiely straightforward issue of offensive names. This was what I was attempting to point out in my poorly worded post 23. If we, the non native american (this may be a big assumption) are going to care about an issue it should be the real problems. The name problem is at best a lightning rod to bring attention to more substantial problems.

That being said there is a real long term advantage to getting rid of the offensive stereotypes. If people do not grow up with negative or unrealistic sterotypes of Indians, then they will be more likely to offer support when support is needed... maybe.

So am I the first actual Indians fan to post in this thread? Jeez you guys.

My position is that the Indians name is fine, but Chief Wahoo sucks and should go. Personally I do not buy or wear any gear that has Chief Wahoo on it, which means the script-I suits me just fine. People really do get insanely worked up about this though -- once a year or so on the scout.com indians messageboard (I know, I know) this topic comes up and there are people that are incredibly vicious towards anyone who says anything bad about Chief Wahoo. Which, I don't get. It's a stupid and unfunny caricature and has nothing to do with baseball. Why not just get rid of it?

Also I'm pretty sure that the story about the Indians being named in honor of Louis Sockalexis, who I guess was a Maine-born Penobscot, is horsepucky. The name was changed to "Indians" in some fan poll in like 1912 and not until 20 years or so later did anybody think to connect it with Sockalexis. Who wasn't a particularly good or popular player anyway.

Then again, I knew people in college from many different towns all over Illinois where one could say that, so it ain't just Pekin.

Disgustingly true. I used to say "especially in the Central / Southern part", but have discovered large amounts of racial contempt in all corners of the state. I grew up 15 minutes from the State Capital, and when I came home this year for a wedding, the big rumor was that one of my friends was going to bring a black man (gasp!) as her date.

Several years ago, a member of BTF relayed a story about nearby Ashland (or was it Tallula?), IL having a sign that said "n**ger don't let the sun set on you in Ashland". And there's Anna, IL, which supposedly means "Ain't no n**ger's allowed".

It's the primary reason I get sick to my stomach every time somebody invokes the term "good midwestern values".

I could understand how a Native or Non Native American would take offense with the Fighting Illini football team, they suck.

The snake handling toothless hillbillies stories come out.

Shooty. I know Im pretty obtuse and all, so I really can't complain, but I must admit you lost me.

I think I was agreeing with your agreement of an earlier post. If I fotched that up, the err is all mine.

The snake handling toothless hillbillies stories come out.

Must you make every thread about the Sox? ; )

But it's purely a sign of native Americans' lack of political power that Chief Wahoo still exists...pretty ####### unbelievable, really, in 2006.

Things have gotten better on the political front. Lobbying for Indian casinos has turned into a multimillion industry, and that polluted lake that causes a tear to run down the Chief's face is a lot cleaner that it was in the early '80s.

However, I'm not sure that the term is patently offensive. Certainly Whiteskins is not offensive to me, as someone who has white skin. It just seems like a description.

Rich Rifkin's lunatic theory of language raises its head again.
---
I'm not sure the term "n*****" is patently offensive. After all, if you make a similar word out of "white", you get "whitter", which wouldn't bother me.

Fun fact: if you change hte words you use, you get a new meaning. This meaning comes from the historical use of the word. Oddly, phrases that have been used to demean oppressed peoples have a different meaning than phrases that have never been used, or only used to refer to people who were not the subject of oppression.

Also I'm pretty sure that the story about the Indians being named in honor of Louis Sockalexis, who I guess was a Maine-born Penobscot, is horsepucky. The name was changed to "Indians" in some fan poll in like 1912 and not until 20 years or so later did anybody think to connect it with Sockalexis. Who wasn't a particularly good or popular player anyway.

I read a biography of Sockalexis a few years ago that reprinted several contemporary newspaper accounts about the 1897 season. Sockalexis got off to an incredible start with Cleveland (he was hitting .338 through the first 60 games, with power and speed). He quickly became a huge fan favorite, and was a sensation not only in Cleveland, but throughout baseball. On July 4 of that year he jumped from the second story of a brothel, severely injuring his ankle, and was never the same ballplayer again. He was out of the league in two years.

So yes, for half of a season, Sockalexis was both extremely good, and extremely popular. Whether that half-a-season would be enough to name the team for him almost twenty years later is another matter, entirely. The name was changed to Indians in 1915, and was done so by a poll of Cleveland sportswriters, not fans. It is possible that sportwriters would have longer memories than fans. The bio was very skeptical about that claim, however...

Indian Summer: The Forgotten Story of Louis Sockalexis, the First Native American in Major League Baseball, by Brian McDonald, was the book.

ou don't have to be an authority on Native American filmmaking to surmise that one's filmmaking time could perhaps be better spent on real life issues for today's Native American than on Chief Wahoo.

So your criticism is that there are other injustices in the world to attend to? That's the cheapest high school debate tactic in the book.

Why are you posting on the internet? There are people dying in Iraq.

Why do you complain about people fighting against the Chief Wahoo label? Aren't there greater injustices for you to oppose?

Why do you hold the job you do? Why don't you donate more of your money to UNICEF? Why don't you volunteer for 20 hours a week with the Boys and Girls Clubs? Why aren't you out finding homeless children on the street?

Every single action that anyone takes can be held to be "useless" by the standard that there is another, better act they could be taking. You are ignoring the entire substance of the argument.

You are ignoring the entire substance of the argument.

But that makes things easier!

I took my then fiance to the Brookfield Zoo. Next to the train station is a little junk/antique store run by an old guy. We had some time to kill before the train arrived so we went into the store. One of his customers brought in an old song book that was apparently for lynch mob jamborees. So of course they were singing the songs. Now that was an awkward moment.

In terms of regions and racism, I have lived in the South (Texas), the midwest, and the NorthEast. I would say east coast racism trumps the midwest, but we tended to stay away from areas with covered bridges out here in the midwest so I might not be seeing the whole picture.


If nothing else, changing the names would be just good manners. Is it really such an awful thing?

Wouldn't it be good manners not to force a whole town, a whole school to change its name? Seems kind of rude to me for some stranger to tell me to change

One of his customers brought in an old song book that was apparently for lynch mob jamborees. So of course they were singing the songs. Now that was an awkward moment.

Nice anecdote showing how gestures can be infused with heavy political and historical weight. These actions are not innocent, same is true, though not to the same degree with using Redskins.

Wouldn't it be good manners not to force a whole town, a whole school to change its name? Seems kind of rude to me for some stranger to tell me to change

Sure, but history trumps good manners. It's the same reason why one asks state capitols not to put up the Confederate flag, there's a lot of history behind such an act.

And there's Anna, IL, which supposedly means "Ain't no n**ger's allowed".

Sadly, I heard this several times during my years at SIU.

My alma mater Syracuse had an Indian mascot from around 1930 to 1970. It seems the school humor magazine ran a story claiming that archeeologists had determined that the university was built on an Indian burial ground, home to a "Saltine Warrior." Apparently everyone took the story as gospel truth and for the next 40-odd years there was a "Saltine Warrior" roaming the sidelines at Archbold Stadium.

By the '70s members of the local Onondagan Nation began protesting SU's choice of mascot. The alumnus who wrote the original article was tracked down and said, "There never was a Saltine Warrior to begin with. I made it up. It ran in the campus humor magazine. Hel--lo!?!" At this time (pre-Carrier Dome, pre-Coach Mac) SU football was almost on its way out anyway, so nobody much protested when the university dropped the Warrior mascot.

I'll second MCoA there. That's a pretty bush-league argument.

However, I'm not sure that the term is patently offensive. Certainly Whiteskins is not offensive to me, as someone who has white skin. It just seems like a description.

Leaving the language problem that MCoA has addressed, Redskins is not a physical description, it is something of something oldtime sick f*ck murderers would wear on their pelt, along with snakeskins and racoonskins. That clear anything up?

Disgustingly true. I used to say "especially in the Central / Southern part", but have discovered large amounts of racial contempt in all corners of the state. I grew up 15 minutes from the State Capital, and when I came home this year for a wedding, the big rumor was that one of my friends was going to bring a black man (gasp!) as her date.

Several years ago, a member of BTF relayed a story about nearby Ashland (or was it Tallula?), IL having a sign that said "n**ger don't let the sun set on you in Ashland". And there's Anna, IL, which supposedly means "Ain't no n**ger's allowed".

It's the primary reason I get sick to my stomach every time somebody invokes the term "good midwestern values"

Customs and values are hard to change. It's probably not fair to characterize a region by rumors and legends, I'm sure that most midwesterners do not have such overt racial hatred. And good midwestern values certainly can be used and are not associated with the troubling acts you described.

*description* of something.

And Means would use this as a way to rally people around, and draw attention to other very real sufferings and exploitation of American Indians, as most people in America think about the Cleveland Indians a lot more than they do 'real' Indians.

Sure, but history trumps good manners

Okay so lets look at the history. Why does a school or team choose a certain name? Do you or anyone else honestly believe that when these teams picked Indians or Braves or Illini that they did so because they wanted to capture the essence of some lazy drunk poor Indian? Or do you think they were trying to capture the proud romantic warrior image?

A lot of these schools picked names related to Indians because they wanted a connection to Indians. They wanted some of that imagery we associate with Indians to be attached to their team as well.

And Means would use this as a way to rally people around, and draw attention to other very real sufferings and exploitation of American Indians, as most people in America think about the Cleveland Indians a lot more than they do 'real' Indians

The problem is that once people solve the Cleveland name problem most if not all pat each other on the back and go home. It is an easy victory makes you feel good, changes absolutely nothing, and doesn't force you to risk anything or sacrifice anything.

So sure go right ahead and draw attention to a name but all you are really doing is giving people an escape route and a chance to trivialize your real problems.

Robin Red, I may be mistaken, but I think winnepegwhip was speaking of the people posting here, not the protester. If we are really concerned about the issue, those are the things we should be complaing about as opposed to the relativiely straightforward issue of offensive names.

That may be true. If so, however, that is sort of an odd point to make on a BASEBALL discussion board. Chief Wahoo is a way to call the attention of the baseball-watching public to the larger issues, as well as being an issue itself to some. This thread--in a small way--illustrates the point.



By that ridiculous standard, it's exceedingly presumptuous to suggest that anyone on this site is some kind of authority on how managers or general managers should go about their jobs in baseball, unless we happen to be managers or general managers ourself. You don't have to be an authority on Native American filmmaking to surmise that one's filmmaking time could perhaps be better spent on real life issues for today's Native American than on Chief Wahoo. It's analogous to a Democratic filmmaker going out and discussing various logos and cartoons that mock the donkey logo when he could instead go out and discuss political issues relevant to the Democratic party.

The baseball analogy doesn't work, because social and anti-discrimination activism, as well as documentary filmamaking, are very different kinds of things than running a baseball team. And, like I said, Chief Wahoo is a way into the topic. What do you spend more time thinking about, baseball, or the problems of Native Americans? What do you spend more money and time on, baseball, or learning about Native American history? What gets more media attention in a generalized sense, baseball, or the problems of Native Americans? And of course, it is suggestive, although declarative, of a false dichotomy to begin with: you can ##### about Chief Wahoo AND focus on the other issues.

The problem is that once people solve the Cleveland name problem most if not all pat each other on the back and go home. It is an easy victory makes you feel good, changes absolutely nothing, and doesn't force you to risk anything or sacrifice anything.

So sure go right ahead and draw attention to a name but all you are really doing is giving people an escape route and a chance to trivialize your real problems.

Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of examples either way. And it obviously wouldn't be an 'easy victory', considering various groups have tried to change Cleveland's name for decades. And 'I'm' not doing anything. Arguing in the second person is annoying.

Mccoy,
You started your post talking about history. Then you changed the topic to images. Are you aware that there is often no connection between the images of today and the reality of the past?

In terms of regions and racism, I have lived in the South (Texas), the midwest, and the NorthEast. I would say east coast racism trumps the midwest, but we tended to stay away from areas with covered bridges out here in the midwest so I might not be seeing the whole picture.

I've lived in several small, rural Indiana towns. While there may be a slightly larger percentage of racists (particularly among older residents) than in other locales in the U.S., it is by no means the dominant opinion. Nor, are public displays of racism welcomed or tolerated in these communities. However, there remain a few areas where racist attitudes are the norm and frequently trotted out for all to see. With apologies to native son John Wooden, Martinsville, Ind., may be the awfulest place on earth.

Also, McCoy, you're main argument would have been perfect in the Canadian Socialist Party of the 1910s. Impossibilism - if you can't change everyting, it's pointless to change *anything*. You don't really believe that, do you?

Sure, but history trumps good manners

Okay so lets look at the history. Why does a school or team choose a certain name? Do you or anyone else honestly believe that when these teams picked Indians or Braves or Illini that they did so because they wanted to capture the essence of some lazy drunk poor Indian? Or do you think they were trying to capture the proud romantic warrior image?

A lot of these schools picked names related to Indians because they wanted a connection to Indians. They wanted some of that imagery we associate with Indians to be attached to their team as well.

Yes, I'm sure they're associating all sorts of images with the Indian nickname - most of them inaccurate, but useful to reinforce a desired image of the "other." One project all sorts of qualities and define what "an Indian" is, irrespective of what reality is. A much more scholarly and broad sweeping examination of this tendency is explored by Edward Said in "Orientalism."


The point is that whatever you're thinking that you're associating with the image and nickname, you're appropriating and defining the Indian identity for your own use in football imagery. That's fine as long as a significant portion of the Native American population don't find it offensive. But they do. It sounds like the statistics are that at least 25% of the population finds the imagery offensive, and there are prominent politicians who do find it offensive. That's more than enough for me, and so I don't see how it is much dissimiliar from "Fighting Japs" or "Chink," which clearly cross the line in my view.

although NOT declarative

It is an "easy" victory in that it doesn't cost the winners anything of real value to achieve. Nothing is at risk. Suzy Soccer Mom can stay at home put her name on a petition, have a little talk at her coffee clutch and then hang the moral pennant on the wall when the name changes. What did she risk? What did it cost her? Nothing.

Now then is it possible that some people who would get drawn into this issue through a trivial thing like a name get drawn deeper? Sure, but the majority are just going to go home and do nothing further.

If you told Suzy Soccer Mom that she would actually have to risk something to get the name changed she wouldn't do it. It is real easy to be morally right when it costs you nothing to do so.


Also, McCoy, you're main argument would have been perfect in the Canadian Socialist Party of the 1910s. Impossibilism - if you can't change everyting, it's pointless to change *anything*. You don't really believe that, do you?


I don't believe it needs to be changed, that is what I believe. I also don't believe that me a white guy and my fellow white people around me can change in any real way whatever plights Indians suffer today. Not in any real and lasting way. Sure we can throw money at them and give them extra considerations, but that pendulum only swings so far and then it swings back. The only people that can change the condition of the Indians are the Indians themselves, and once they do that I think you will find that it will be much much easier for whites to view them in a non-derogatory manner. If indeed they do so now.

The problem is that once people solve the Cleveland name problem most if not all pat each other on the back and go home. It is an easy victory makes you feel good, changes absolutely nothing, and doesn't force you to risk anything or sacrifice anything.

So sure go right ahead and draw attention to a name but all you are really doing is giving people an escape route and a chance to trivialize your real problems.

Well, it's not as if solving one means excluding solving the more difficult ones. There is certainly the danger you speak of in terms of "escape route" within our society, i.e. we tend to try to solve the simple, non-entangling ones and then ignore the much tougher problems.

I think in terms of the latter, the reason why they're not being approached is:

a. they're much harder
b. they're expensive - the budget is stretched as it is
c. they reflect the difficulties at a broader population level. Has anyone figured out a better way to improve education or public health?

So while those issues may rage on (or be unfortunately brushed aside), it's much simpler to stop with some of the unnecessary nicknames or images that are being used today.

They announce they are going to be the Mexico City Gringos.

I don't care.

This is an old line of argument on these kinds of topics. It doesn't work.

How exactly does (D) follow from (C)? Have you ever heard one Irish or Celtic person voice any objection to the Notre Dame or Boston teams?

Andy, I just heard one this morning. Just because most people of Irish decent are either Nth generation, like me, or too distant to care doesn't mean that they represent everyone.

My co-worker is an Englishman (not to be confused with a "Chinaman") whose girlfriend is Irish, and infuriated by Notre Dame's logo.

There's certainly a case to be made that "Fighting Irish" is not problematic, but you ruin your stance by implying that people who oppose it don't exist. When they inevitably surface, it looks like you don't know what you are talking about.

The point is that whatever you're thinking that you're associating with the image and nickname, you're appropriating and defining the Indian identity for your own use in football imagery. That's fine as long as a significant portion of the Native American population don't find it offensive. But they do. It sounds like the statistics are that at least 25% of the population finds the imagery offensive, and there are prominent politicians who do find it offensive. That's more than enough for me, and so I don't see how it is much dissimiliar from "Fighting Japs" or "Chink," which clearly cross the line in my view.

So now we alter things because 25% of a very smal group of people want it so? Does that mean Walter Mondale should be president? If 25% of the Indians want their land back do we give it to them? Or do we only give them the easy/free stuff that costs us nothing?

I really don't care what an Indian that doesn't live in my town thinks about my schools name. Just like I really don't care what some white guy who doesn't live in my town thinks about my school name. What does matter is what the citizens of my town and the students in my school think of their name, and they by an overwhelming majority want the name. Which means to me "go fish".

I also don't believe that me a white guy and my fellow white people around me can change in any real way whatever plights Indians suffer today. Not in any real and lasting way. Sure we can throw money at them and give them extra considerations, but that pendulum only swings so far and then it swings back. The only people that can change the condition of the Indians are the Indians themselves, and once they do that I think you will find that it will be much much easier for whites to view them in a non-derogatory manner.

No one is asking you and your band of fellow white people to do anything. We as a multicultural, multi-historical society constantly faced with problems need to do something about the condition of the Indians because they are a part of our nation.

And part of the way of making it easier to not view them in a non-derogatory manner would be to change your view of the situation in the way you described above, I would suggest.

The only people that can change the condition of the Indians are the Indians themselves, and once they do that I think you will find that it will be much much easier for whites to view them in a non-derogatory manner. If indeed they do so now.

Sure, because white people have nothing to do with Indians' current situation. What a crock. The way other people can help native people is by listening to what they need and working in coalitions to help them achieve it. Your attitude is some liberal sh*t which allows people to feel comfortable continuing to ignore Native Americans, 'so they can work it out themselves.'