This is what bothers me about the furor over Indian-based names. So, "Indian" or "Warrior" is no good, but you keep Seneca and Iroquois and Shawnee? I don't get it?

 

 

Well, we also have parks with Indian names, Iroquois, Cherokee (No school with that name), Seneca and Shawnee being the most prominent, but there's also Chickasaw (No school with that name). I think that the names of the schools and the parks is meant to be an homage to the history of the area, rather than a negative connotation.

 

And I'll be broken hearted if the parks are ever forced to rename.

My high school mascot was a gopher. I thought it should be changed because it was goofy; not because it was offensive.

 

Mine was a cartoonish road runner. We were the Ramblers.

The Black Devils have changed their First name anyway. Their was a discussion back in the early 90's about a mascot change.

Well, we also have parks with Indian names, Iroquois, Cherokee (No school with that name), Seneca and Shawnee being the most prominent, but there's also Chickasaw (No school with that name). I think that the names of the schools and the parks is meant to be an homage to the history of the area, rather than a negative connotation.

 

And I'll be broken hearted if the parks are ever forced to rename.

 

Again, most Native Americans would rather be identified by their specific tribe name, not Indian, Native American, American Indian, or any other name created to identify the indigenous peoples of this country. The word Indian means nothing....Iroqouis, Senaca and all the other tribe names, are their true sense of identity. You'd be surprised at how many truly don't like the word Indian.

I know most of what you're saying is tongue in cheek, but it's not exactly a fair comparison, and kind of trivializes a whole race by comparing a potentially offensive nickname with traditional animal nicknames. People are only talking about nicknames that are considered offensive in racial aspects. That being said, as a Native American, I'm not offended by any of the typical nicknames...Braves, Warriors, etc. Redskin doesn't bother me, (although I've never been called a Redskin), and Indian is a term that is a misnomer (Columbus screwed that one up, thinking he had landed in the Indian Ocean), so I can see where some might be offended by those.

 

It's kind of strange though, Native Americans are the only race that faces this issue with so many teams that use Native American tribes, images, or characters as mascots.

 

Hence, the first sentence in my original post, "I can understand some of the changes to an extent," Didn't trivialize anyone. I was just illustrating, tongue-in-cheek as you posted, that some of this PC stuff just snowballs out of control.

 

By the way, I have Native American blood as well from my father's side.

Thank you for the insight. I will certainly look at the term Indian in this context somewhat differently going forward.

 

It sounds like the term 'Indian' is viewed not to differently than 'Redskin'. I not sure to have an opinion on 'Raider'. Its context may be akin to savages just slight differently since certainly during the conflicts of the 1700s there were 'raids' by the the Native Americans and Europeans. So I could see a problem with that.

 

Are the other terms viewed without negative light - Braves, Warriors?

 

Also, should any entity at least attempt to get permission to use the specific tribes name? I do think of these almost as 'copyrighted terms'. I think it was an excellent idea of Louisville to name parks after specific tribes and the nearby schools the same way. But, looking back, I do not recall specific learning about the namesake of the school. There was no attempt to raise this understanding of the tribes beyond what was it the standard history books.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't know that "Indian" is necessarily a negative word, especially for the last several generations. But in the early part of this country, "Indian" did have somewhat of negative connotation, although not nearly as negative as some other terms used for other races. The government has struggled with "what to call" Native Americans (that term being the latest, greatest, but still greatly oversimplified) since the beginning. While most, especially, the elders, would prefer to be identified by tribe, more and more recent generations don't really care, and maybe we should. You have to remember there were perhaps over 1000 tribes present in the United States pre-colonial/early US history times, all with different cultures, languages, customs etc. One blanket word like "Indian" doesn't nearly do justice to the diversity that was present among that population. It would be like trying to come up with a word that equally describes Irishman and Romanians. Both are natives of Europe, but nowhere near close culturally, and impossible to lump together as a nationality. Historically, we do a much better job teaching the histories and cultures of other countries than we do the cultures and nations that were present prior to the Europeans coming to The Americas. It's this lack of understanding that makes it difficult for people to understand why some of these team names may potentially be offensive. Once again, no current race or nationality aside from Native Americans are used so specifically as team names or mascots.

 

I don't find and most others don't find "Braves", "Warriors" particularly offensive, as those are terms that can be broadly applied across cultures and have never been portrayed negatively in film, or print, like many of the names associated with the many Native American Cultures.

 

As far as should permission have been asked to use these tribal names.....well, in a perfect world, that answer should probably be yes. In practice though, like many other things, its easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

Edited May 2, 201412 yr by rjs4470

Hence, the first sentence in my original post, "I can understand some of the changes to an extent," Didn't trivialize anyone. I was just illustrating, tongue-in-cheek as you posted, that some of this PC stuff just snowballs out of control.

 

By the way, I have Native American blood as well from my father's side.

I'm not sure that any of this team mascot subject is spiraling out of control. PC exists for a reason. Certain groups for whatever reason, whether it's race, sexual orientation, religion etc, often end up on the short end of the stick. Whether it's their beliefs or customs that are ridiculed because they don't fit in with the majority, or even the color of their skin, the whole idea of political correctness is to help institute greater inclusiveness in our society, and not exclude others because they are different. And to bring in and make a comparison like "Let's ban the Bulldogs because their logo is scary" or not to allow any team to have an endangered animal species as a mascot, is really being disingenuous, especially to a rich culture that though the years has suffered at the hands of government, and still struggles for recognition. Those tongue in cheek references make it sound like we shouldn't even consider changing those names under any circumstances. You can't legitimately compare animal nicknames/mascots with those that are based on inaccurate or offensive cultural references to a group of people like Native Americans.

 

And I know that's not what you were trying to do, but this is where many of these arguments start, and comments such as those often the starting point. My only point is just be careful in the comparisons you make. There is no apples to apples comparison that you can create, especially when using animals, mythical creatures, etc.

I've never had anyone be able to explain to me why I should be offended that a school, team, etc wants to name their mascot after my heritage. I've always felt it was an honor not a dishonor.

 

Their team/mascot is something they fight to defend.

I'm not sure that any of this team mascot subject is spiraling out of control. PC exists for a reason. Certain groups for whatever reason, whether it's race, sexual orientation, religion etc, often end up on the short end of the stick. Whether it's their beliefs or customs that are ridiculed because they don't fit in with the majority, or even the color of their skin, the whole idea of political correctness is to help institute greater inclusiveness in our society, and not exclude others because they are different. And to bring in and make a comparison like "Let's ban the Bulldogs because their logo is scary" or not to allow any team to have an endangered animal species as a mascot, is really being disingenuous, especially to a rich culture that though the years has suffered at the hands of government, and still struggles for recognition. Those tongue in cheek references make it sound like we shouldn't even consider changing those names under any circumstances. You can't legitimately compare animal nicknames/mascots with those that are based on inaccurate or offensive cultural references to a group of people like Native Americans.

 

And I know that's not what you were trying to do, but this is where many of these arguments start, and comments such as those often the starting point. My only point is just be careful in the comparisons you make. There is no apples to apples comparison that you can create, especially when using animals, mythical creatures, etc.

 

I think you missed my point, but thanks for the info. And again, I did not compare people and animals in my post. You've read entirely too much into it. In my opinion there is too much unwarranted PC. And I'm sure you'll disagree with me so we'll agree to disagree.

I think you missed my point, but thanks for the info. And again, I did not compare people and animals in my post. You've read entirely too much into it. In my opinion there is too much unwarranted PC. And I'm sure you'll disagree with me so we'll agree to disagree.

 

And I think you're missing my point;-). I understand what you're saying....I just don't think it came across as to how you meant it in the way the post was structured. As far as there being too much PC, I don't know. I certainly don't think it's gotten to the length that you described. I know terms like "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and other similar things are often brought up as being too politically correct. The reason why the term PC has come to light, isn't such a negative reason. It's become somewhat necessary due to the sheer diversity of folks that call this country home. Once we all recognize that there are a lot of people (in fact many,many) that have came from different races, cultures, and backgrounds, etc, then PC really doesn't seem so negative.

I've never had anyone be able to explain to me why I should be offended that a school, team, etc wants to name their mascot after my heritage. I've always felt it was an honor not a dishonor.

 

Their team/mascot is something they fight to defend.

 

I'll take a shot:D. A person's heritage or culture (or tribe) is very special to them. There are a lot of things to celebrate and understand. And while on the surface, it might seem pretty cool, how many students at the school who's mascot is named after a tribe really understand the deep meaning of what that tribe is all about and what it means. Do they know anything about the culture, language, customs?? Are they doing/teaching anything to ensure that it lives on? Do they pay the proper respect to it, or does the mascot just dress up in typical "indian" gear, with feathers and headresses (which weren't a part of all tribes). Ever notice the mascots/logos are often portrayed as either angry, carrying weapons (the savage stereotype) or worse cartoonish (Chief Wahoo anyone??). A stadium full of kids dressed in warpaint and whooping it up with made up war cries, especially when most tribes were very peaceful. Some consider that making a mockery of the culture. It's completely unacceptable for someone to dress up in blackface to portray a black person, but it's ok and encouraged to do so if your school mascot is a Native American?? How many members of the tribe are involved with the school, or are tribes consulted when their names are used??

 

Again, I'm not so against it, and for the most part, not offended (aside from the inaccurate caricatures that are often displayed). But if you just stop for a minute, and dig a little deeper, or even better, just ask someone why they might be offended, and be willing to listen and accept the answer they give, it might be easier to understand.

Personally, I never understood how Lloyd has gotten away with it for so long.

With the uproar over the past several years over Indian Mascots in college football and even the NFL, how many high school teams (primarily in Ky) need to look at changing their mascot/name?

 

I would love to be in charge for a day just to tell them, "kiss my donkey, we are not changing nothing, you don't like it tough :poop:"......but then again I'm the last person who would be considered PC.

Again, most Native Americans would rather be identified by their specific tribe name, not Indian, Native American, American Indian, or any other name created to identify the indigenous peoples of this country. The word Indian means nothing....Iroqouis, Senaca and all the other tribe names, are their true sense of identity. You'd be surprised at how many truly don't like the word Indian.

 

So then what is the problem? I would rather be identified by my true heritage as ruler of the planet, but nobody is going to call me that. Much ado about nothing.

 

Plus do you know that native americans can attend any college in the country free of charge because of their heritage.....what about eskimos?

 

So then what is the problem? I would rather be identified by my true heritage as ruler of the planet, but nobody is going to call me that. Much ado about nothing.

 

Plus do you know that native americans can attend any college in the country free of charge because of their heritage.....what about eskimos?

 

Wrong. Native Americans do not get an automatic free ride. They have to apply for scholarships or pay their own way just like anyone else. Many tribes do have money to pay for college that only tribe members can get, but it is awarded on merit just like any other scholarship. This is one of those myths that a lot of people somehow believe. I'm surprised the true ruler of the planet wasn't aware of this fallacy.