Are Native American mascots racist?

[Ashmoria]

you draw the line one offense at a time.

its good to start with teams that have pejorative names, like the redskins, then move on to ones that have mascots that represent real people whos descendents object--Osceola of florida state, then question the use of names like "braves" that are not necessarily native American but have native American images (do the Atlanta braves still have that NA logo?)

itll get sorted out.

Some of Osceola's descendants approve, and the university went out of their way to consult the Seminole nation on how to appropriately portray him.

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

that's why you go one at a time.

[Cameroi]

just change the suffix from skins to necks.

[NeoCommunist Nazi Feminists From Hades]

I think it depends on context, portrayal and whether or not permission was sought.

Native Americans use totems and spirit guides to give them, as individuals and groups, a focus on things they need to learn and aspire to. The use of Native American mascots could be seen in that light - something to strive for. My high school mascot was a Native American meme - the Warrior - it was considered part of a team-building paradigm. Looked upon in this light the mascot could be considered a totem, something admired for a trait or group of traits that one wants to internalize in the context of sports and life. And certainly, Warriors, for example, are better for this than Banana Slugs.

[Terra Sector Union]

everyone complains NA mascots are offensive but if it's vikings, it's Okay. Of course, any caucasian/european-based ethnic group is immune from being offended in the world of American PC.

[Estado Paulista]

everyone complains NA mascots are offensive but if it's vikings, it's Okay. Of course, any caucasian/european-based ethnic group is immune from being offended in the world of American PC.

You know, since you mentioned, it'd be really cool if America had a football team called the "Gibbsboro Guidos".

[Mushet]

That depends, some nations have allowed use of their name for sports teams, like the Seminoles.

When it comes to shit like the Redskins that's hardly acceptable unless we can also have teams called the Crackers and Niggers, certainly make sports more interesting.

But it really is quite telling in regards of racism in America that this kind of shit is acceptable for Indians and Indians only, and don't bring up shit like the Celtics or Vikings or Fighting Irish, those aren't slurs.

[Trefeqia]

It's complicated. It's racist, but it's not really offensive, at least to Native Americans. Polls show that most Native Americans don't find it offensive.

[Terra Sector Union]

It's complicated. It's racist, but it's not really offensive, at least to Native Americans. Polls show that most Native Americans don't find it offensive.

It's the "suburban white folk" that are offended because they have to imagine minorities being offended by everything in their head.

[Mushet]

everyone complains NA mascots are offensive but if it's vikings, it's Okay. Of course, any caucasian/european-based ethnic group is immune from being offended in the world of American PC.

Are Vikings an ethnic group or racial group?

No?

Bullshit equivalency then isn't it. Like calling a team Pirates.

Not to mention Minnesota is about 1/3 Scandinavian and the people who started it's names look Scandinavian to me.

[Mushet]

It's complicated. It's racist, but it's not really offensive, at least to Native Americans. Polls show that most Native Americans don't find it offensive.

Most of us hardly care, we have the bigger things to worry about, there is a very vocal sector of Indian Country that have been going against this name for decades, not really much of one defending it.

[Terra Sector Union]

everyone complains NA mascots are offensive but if it's vikings, it's Okay. Of course, any caucasian/european-based ethnic group is immune from being offended in the world of American PC.

Are Vikings an ethnic group or racial group?

No?

Bullshit equivalency then isn't it. Like calling a team Pirates.

Not to mention Minnesota is about 1/3 Scandinavian and the people who started it's names look Scandinavian to me.

The Vikings have blood relations with the celts and the celts are an ethnic group.

[The Godly Nations]

I find the Redskins to be extremely racist, as well as the 'fighting Irishman' of Notre-Dame.

[Mushet]

Are Vikings an ethnic group or racial group?

No?

Bullshit equivalency then isn't it. Like calling a team Pirates.

Not to mention Minnesota is about 1/3 Scandinavian and the people who started it's names look Scandinavian to me.

The Vikings have blood relations with the celts and the celts are an ethnic group.

Which is still a bullshit equivalency, because scandinavian pirates having blood relations with a ethnoliguistic group is not the same as an ethnic or racial group, nor is Viking any sort of slur, are you just arguing this to be stubbornly wrong?

[Lies and Ignorance]

Where do you stand on symbols and mascots of Indians? Are they offensive and in need of replacing?

Yes.

[Suurmaani]

Yes, unless the team is composed of Natives, or has the support of whatever tribes may live nearby.

[JJ Place]

There has been much controversy over the use of Native American references in sports, ranging from team names such as the Redskins, and mascots such as Chief Wahoo. Some activist groups view these symbols as "racist" and "offensive", while others defend their use by stating that Indian mascots acknowledge the "courage and skill" of the Native Americans.

Where do you stand on symbols and mascots of Indians? Are they offensive and in need of replacing?

Yeah, they're, pretty racist; if no team was named after an ethnic group, it would probably cause, somewhere around a fair and considerable controversy for a team to literally be named "Red-skinned" and have a stereotypical Native American mascot.

[Caffeinetopia]

Yeah, I think it depends on the portrayal too. The Washington Redskins seem to be catching the most heat, but I'm not sure why. The Cleveland Indians, by a significant margin, is the worst.

Because if the team was called Blackskins or Whiteskins or Yellowskins the racism would be obvious. Redskin is no different to Chink n-word or Honky

The only time I've ever heard someone use the word "redskin" outside of the NFL team was in the Disney Peter Pan movie. I didn't know that the word was on the same level as the other racial pejoratives you cite.

Then again I never knew any Native Americans...

...point taken.

[The Tundra]

they shouldn't be forced to retire them, they should however have social pressure to retire them.

[Baader-Meinhof Gruppe]

I find it offensive when schools in Christian nations use Viking mascots. They were trying to kill us man! Even though most Christians today had no hand in it and most likely their ancestors didn't either, but the whole religion is obviously to blame! Native mascots can be offensive, but for the most part they are not if they are portrayed with respect and the Natives who still cling to the "White man is EBIL!"(which is a very small minority) are actually the people being bigoted as most Americans didn't have any ancestors here when the genocides were going on.

[Cetacea]

I find it offensive when schools in Christian nations use Viking mascots. They were trying to kill us man! Even though most Christians today had no hand in it and most likely their ancestors didn't either, but the whole religion is obviously to blame! Native mascots can be offensive, but for the most part they are not if they are portrayed with respect and the Natives who still cling to the "White man is EBIL!"(which is a very small minority) are actually the people being bigoted as most Americans didn't have any ancestors here when the genocides were going on.

Ah the point is those Natives you are referring to are STILL HERE TODAY they are not an historic reference point that existed centuries ago, they are PEOPLE with living cultures that deserve respect as living cultures

[Aurora Novus]

In general, I'm not inclined to agree that they are. I mean, think of all the other people groups that are used as mascots. Pirates, 49'ers, cowboys, American patriots, ect. The world of sports mascots are filled with human mascots.

I fail to see any reason why any people group should be exempt from this possibility, and that includes Native Americans.

[Baader-Meinhof Gruppe]

I find it offensive when schools in Christian nations use Viking mascots. They were trying to kill us man! Even though most Christians today had no hand in it and most likely their ancestors didn't either, but the whole religion is obviously to blame! Native mascots can be offensive, but for the most part they are not if they are portrayed with respect and the Natives who still cling to the "White man is EBIL!"(which is a very small minority) are actually the people being bigoted as most Americans didn't have any ancestors here when the genocides were going on.

Ah the point is those Natives you are referring to are STILL HERE TODAY they are not an historic reference point that existed centuries ago, they are PEOPLE with living cultures that deserve respect as living cultures

Ah, the point is those Vikings I refereed to are STILL HERE TODAY. Just because they don't go off raping and pillaging doesn't mean they are not around. The pagan religions survive, much of the culture survives(moreso than in Native tribes I'd say) I mean look at the Althing for example and tell me who came up with that idea. Hell, most Nordic countries don't even see the majority of the population being active in their church because it's simply just not their culture. Look at Norway in the 1990's, yeah people like Varg Vikernes are batshit crazy but they want to see the old Norse ways survive. Vikings are far from dead and the portrayal they face is false and offensive. Vikings were no more violent than those they raided, if anything they were less violent.

[Arumdaum]

just change the suffix from skins to necks.

[Cetacea]

In general, I'm not inclined to agree that they are. I mean, think of all the other people groups that are used as mascots. Pirates, 49'ers, cowboys, American patriots, ect. The world of sports mascots are filled with human mascots.

I fail to see any reason why any people group should be exempt from this possibility, and that includes Native Americans.

Except that all of the mascots you referred to are Jobs that various peoples did and not references to a particular nation/ethnicities.

Now if you were to call your team the Dutch Pirates or the Black Cowboys then you might have an issue...

[Aurora Novus]

In general, I'm not inclined to agree that they are. I mean, think of all the other people groups that are used as mascots. Pirates, 49'ers, cowboys, American patriots, ect. The world of sports mascots are filled with human mascots.

I fail to see any reason why any people group should be exempt from this possibility, and that includes Native Americans.

Except that all of the mascots you referred to are Jobs that various peoples did and not references to a particular nation/ethnicities.

Now if you were to call your team the Dutch Pirates or the Black Cowboys then you might have an issue...

And? What should the specific group matter to us? Whether a job group, an ethnic group, or a national group, it's still a group of people.

There's no particular reason we should be so uptight about one, and so lax about another. A people group is a people group.