[GN] "Indian Mascots and a particularly offensive Washington, DC - NFL Team"
Marc Stauffer
Subject: Native Nations Need Help
Elsie Meeks, the first Native to serve on the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights (USCCR), needs our help. An important article appeared on the FOX
NEWS web
page yesterday (it's still on there today). I am not aware of any other
print or broadcast new agencies picking up the story. The USCCR is set to
vote
next month on a statement that would condemn "Indian"-based sports team
names
and mascots as a violation of Titles II and VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.
Apparently two USCCR members question whether there is "enough" evidence of
wide-spread Native objection to the use of such mascots. Commissioner Meeks
has been given 20 days to compile additional evidence to show that the
Native community objects to the continued use of "Indian"-based sports team
names
and mascots.
Please forward this e-mail to everyone you know who objects to the use of
"Indian" mascots AND strongly encourage them and their friends to voice
their objection to "Indian" mascots IN WRITING
to: Ms. Elsie M. Meeks
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
624 9th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20425
>
>
>Together, we will make a difference
Sandra Bernabei,CSW,CASAC,CPP
Program Director
Alcohol & Substance Awareness Program
Barnard College/Columbia University
3009 Broadway
108 Hewitt
New York, NY 10028-6598
Tel: (212) 854-2128
fax: (212) 854-8912
http://www.barnard.edu/stulife/asap/index.html
M. G. Stauffer
**********
If you receive GayNet via direct email:
To post, send mail to gay...@queernet.org.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majo...@queernet.org; put a line saying
unsubscribe gaynet
in the body. (This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact gaynet-...@queernet.org.)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Mathemagician
of Titles II and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
Ahem.
The moment one of these groups starts protesting using Greek or
Norwegian or any other nationality for sports team names and mascots,
I'll start believing their sincerity.
So why are the SDSU Aztecs insulting but the USC Trojans not?
Why are the Atlanta Braves insulting but the Minnesota Vikings not?
Indians, Redskins, Chiefs, all an affront to anybody's dignity.
Spartans, Athenas, Canadiens, all proud symbols.
Are we going to then protest the Saints as sacrilegious? Do the
Devils get to stay since it's alright to insult the devil? What about
the Cowboys, or it is fine to portray them in "insulting" ways? And
will the use of animals as mascots cause PETA and similar groups
object to the portrayal of animals as insulting?
We've already had people protesting the XFL's use of "Maniax" as a
mascot since it is considering insulting to people with mental illness.
--
Brian P. Evans | Yeah, I used to work for Bill Gates
rrh...@ix.netcom.com | ...but I got better.
Roger B.A. Klorese
> So why are the SDSU Aztecs insulting but the USC Trojans not?
Because they're usually physical stereotypes that caricature modern-day
people as savages, for a start.
The best reason is that Native Americans *are* insulted by it, and as far
as I know, no modern-day Trojans have admitted offense...
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE rog...@QueerNet.ORG
PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114
"There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick
Wolf : Big Bad, The
> Marc Stauffer forwards a letter asking people to petition the USCCR to
> "condemn 'Indian'-based sports team names and mascots as a violation
> of Titles II and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
>
> Ahem.
>
> The moment one of these groups starts protesting using Greek or
> Norwegian or any other nationality for sports team names and mascots,
> I'll start believing their sincerity.
>
> So why are the SDSU Aztecs insulting but the USC Trojans not?
> Why are the Atlanta Braves insulting but the Minnesota Vikings not?
> Indians, Redskins, Chiefs, all an affront to anybody's dignity.
> Spartans, Athenas, Canadiens, all proud symbols.
I would like to point out here that I and many of the people who are
supporting this protest have only minor problems with using the names of an
entire people as a mascot name, i.e. the Aztecs and the Trojans.
However, as a Native American, I do object to names like the "Indians" the
"Redskins" and the"Chiefs" and other names of this sort, all of which are
terms that have been used against me in my life, very much like the n-word has
been used against people of African American ancestry. It has been used to
denigrate, humiliate and intimidate me and people who share my ancestry.
To me, there is a profound difference between naming a team after an
admired culture and naming them after an ethnic slur or stereotype. I don't
think anyone would particularly support naming teams the "Micks", "Krauts" or
"Orientals" (disrespectful slurs which I use only to illustrate a point). To
me these naming conventions represent a level of disrespect for my people that
is very much unrecognized by the majority of Americans.
And actually, if you look at our history, isn't our request to have these
sports teams renamed a rather small one? It's not like we're asking for, say,
an apology for the genocide or to have our land and culture back. We're just
asking to not have sports teams named after words that hurt us and are
disrespectful of us as a people.
That's just my point of view, being someone who's been called an "Indian",
"Redskin" and "Chief".
Your mileage may vary, of course.
Kai Laughing Wolf
--
"The basis of optimism is sheer terror."
-Oscar Wilde
--
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:15:03 -0700 Mathemagician <rrh...@ix.netcom.com>
<< So why are the SDSU Aztecs insulting but the USC Trojans not?
Why are the Atlanta Braves insulting but the Minnesota Vikings not? >>
Because neither descendents of Greeks nor descendents of Vikings are presently persecuted
and oppressed in our modern society. If they were, I assure you that titles like "USC Trojans"
and "Minnesota Vikings" would then be considered highly offensive.
However, I reserve my unlimited support for any oppressed group that maintains its own forms
of homophobia. Sure, give them *some support, but don't go overboard if you know they'd stab
you in the back for being gay, without so much blinking an eye of hesistation.
Wolf : Big Bad, The
> of homophobia. Sure, give them *some support, but don't go overboard if you know they'd stab
> you in the back for being gay, without so much blinking an eye of hesistation.
>
> **********
-Some- American Indian cultures have a problem with homophobia, not all. All Native Americans and
all Native American cultures are not anti-gay or apt to stab you in the back for being gay.
Some groups are more homophobic than others, true. Most of my tribe today are Baptists in
Oklahoma, sadly enough, and yes, there are many of them who are very anti-gay. But from what I've
been taught and have read, historically, many Native American cultures were very accepting of
queer relationships, and some still are to this day. There are many as well in the other tribes
who, like myself, are fighting to get our cultures back to that position of acceptance. We're
standing up to the legacy of another culture's biases, fighting that homophobia from within. Do I
deserve to be "cut loose" as far as support goes, in my struggle to have some really bigoted
representations of my people replaced, because members of my tribe have been trained by the
occupying culture to accept a religion that preaches hatred and homophobia?
I certainly hope that a culture's total acceptance of queerness isn't the litmus test we, as a
community, use to decide whether or not we join others in protesting things that are wrong.
Kai Laughing Wolf
--
"The basis of optimism is sheer terror."
-Oscar Wilde
--
**********
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:49:11 -0700 "Wolf : Big Bad, The" said:
<< Some- American Indian cultures have a problem with homophobia, not all. >>
I understand, Big-Bad. My perspective is that a lot more tribes are homophobic after The
European Invasion...thanks to the legacy of myriad Xian missionaries. This includes many tribes
that are seeking to regain their heritage, part of which is dropping most European notions...with
the sad exception of anti-gay prejudice. Such is the nature of homophobia...that this prejudice
remains long after the rest of the invading culture's dogma has vanished.
<< All Native Americans and all Native American cultures are not anti-gay or apt to stab you in
the back for being gay. >>
I do not find that to be so...I do find NA's (Native Americans) to be as equally homophobic as any
other group, here in the U.S.. There are some who tell me there is no problem with homosexuals
in their tribe....but they only say that because the issue is deadly SILENT. There is no problem,
because gay NA's are completely suppressed: they must either be totally closeted if remaining
with their people--even get married in the traditional manner to keep up appearances--or leave
their home for the big city. Otherwise, they will be persecuted and driven out by their own people.
<< Some groups are more homophobic than others, true. >>
From what I have read, heard, and discussed, Native American people are, at large, quite
homophobic...in the same way as are African and Asian Americans. There are, of course,
excellent exceptions; just few and far between. And when there is clearly some sort of
"acceptance", too often it is only for feminized stereotypes, not for everyday types who would
like to hug, kiss, and dance with their partners in public venues...and even marry. They would
prefer NOT to act goosey, and inferior to their hetero counterparts. You could dress like a female
and declare yourself a berdache (or shaman), and find acceptance...but you could not just be a
regular guy (or gal) who says "I'm homosexual", and be appreciated for who you are (rather than
for what they perceive you should be: a gifted freak whose value is divine guidance for the
happiness of hetero couples).
<< Most of my tribe today are Baptists in Oklahoma, sadly enough, and yes, there are many of
them who are very anti-gay. >>
And I find this to be quite *typical of the present situation for most NA tribes and nations. This
homophobia is mostly due to the dogmatic reign of Christian fundamentalists, starting with the
missionaries several centuries ago.
<< But from what I've been taught and have read, historically, many Native American cultures
were very accepting of queer relationships, and some still are to this day. >>
Emphasis on "some". Christianity has destroyed the gay-friendly spirit among most NA's...and
this has changed very little thus far; even among those nations that choose to revive their pre-
Colombian heritage. They tend to maintain one of white man's prejudices: anti-gay hatred.
<< There are many as well in the other tribes who, like myself, are fighting to get our cultures
back to that position of acceptance. >>
It is still a painful, courageous, uphill struggle. I do commend you for your incredible efforts and
persistance, in the face of ridicule and rejection. A few years ago, I created an iconic design to
honor our gay Native Americans...which you may view at the following links:
Sun Dancing:
http://netjunk.com/users/gaybible/icons/sundance.htm
Sun Dancing (animated):
http://netjunk.com/users/gaybible/icons/1sundance.htm
These are part of a larger collection of computer art, where I attempt to honor gay people from
each culture, religion, and world view. In fact, I also have created a "gay islam" design here:
http://netjunk.com/users/gaybible/icons/gayislam.htm
and so far, no jihad against me has been stirred up. No one has bashed down my door and sliced
me to pieces with his scimitar...yet.
<< Do I deserve to be "cut loose" as far as support goes >>
No, of course not. In fact, you deserve the highest honors possible. However, it is for you to
decide whether or not the extent of persecution is worth the extent of your sacrifices. Like others
before you, some have rejected the virulent gay hatred, and joined specifically gay groups. I
know some African American gays who cannot find true love and acceptance within their own
black family and community...but DO find this unity in black (and other) gay groups. Not that
gays at large don't have their own problems with racism and classism...but homophobia tends to
far exceed these other prejudices.
Are these black gay folks traitors to their black culture? No, I don't think so. What they do, is
bring their African culture to the gay community, and thereby enrich our own queer family. Nor
do I see you as betraying your NA culture, if you did same. There is nothing stopping you from
inculcating gays with your heritage...through art, dance, conversation, and so on...in fact, just be
BEING who you are. Your identity need not be more weighed by being a Native American, than
by being gay...they are equally important...and the gay side perhaps needs to be strengthened, to
be recognized as such.
Being gay is not a secondary "fringe" to your native heritage. However, being gay has more of a
global identity, than a native one...and thus may seem on the surface, to be less significant. In
fact, I believe that we gay men and women are only at the beginning of a process of CREATING
our own ethnic state of being...the first people to devise our culture with conscious intent, than to
simple evolve unconsciously into a specific ethnicity. Unlike all other ethnic groups, we do not
have a geographical origin, or a native cuisine. Does this then relegate us to irrelevance...or
does this mean we have a unique dimension of human perspective, that is our gift to all people?
Do you feel you have a greater obligation to your NA heritage (than to your gay future-heritage),
such that you should continue to suffer outrageous persecution, even death? And if so, don't you
think perhaps you are being a bit masochistic? There is no NEED for you to trade off your native
culture for a European one, should you lean MORE towards a gay sensibility. You can bring your
Native hertiage with you, and gain more respect as a NA within certain gay circles, than you ever
would for being openly gay within your native circles.
<< to have some really bigoted representations of my people replaced, because members of my
tribe have been trained by the occupying culture to accept a religion that preaches hatred and
homophobia? >>
I think the ugliness of U.S. homophobia is intolerable...and I would readily migrate to Holland, if I
had the right connections and/or resources. At present, I do not. Certainly, I feel no obligation to
"my own people" to roll up my sleeves and further educate them as to the blatant wrongness of
gay hatred. They do not deserve my good works, talents, and devotion to my ideals. They are
sluggards, beasts, losers, and bullies. And I regard ANYONE who is gay-hateful in that
way...including of course, those who also happen to be Native American.
So you can either go your own way, and present yourself to the world as both a PROUD gay
person, and Native American...untethered from the dogma of your nation's heterocentric
ignorance. Or, you can remain suffocating under a pox-blanket of hatred, and die in speaking out
for your innocent sisters and brothers. Consider this: is being a martyr for the gay cause the
best approach?
Remember, there was once a time--long ago--where homophobia was NOT a part of European
culture. They were poisoned, too, though much earlier in history than NA's...in fact, Europeans
brought their virus of gay hatred to your shores (as of course you know, better than I do). But
they, too, are victims of a hatred whose roots go way back to the early Semites...maybe earlier.
I probably support Native Americans as much as Native Americans do...I am all for returning
large swaths of our country (U.S.) to them, similar to what Canada did for their Inuit. In fact, I'm
for handing back all of America to our remaining natives...as I implicitly trust them to do a much
better job of running our country. Though not when it comes to gay folk, unfortunately...for the
Christian poisoning has become too deep, to easily change this prejudice.
<< I certainly hope that a culture's total acceptance of queerness isn't the litmus test we, as a
community, use to decide whether or not we join others in protesting things that are wrong. >>
I'm afraid that this IS the case...and the sooner we gays wake up to this, the sooner we will finally
win our liberation. It is a revelation that too few gay folk are capable of accepting. Yet such
revelation IS the path to our ultimate victory. There is no other way.
<< Kai Laughing Wolf >>
That's a lovely name, Kai. My own Native American name is "Little Pony". I don't have a drop of
NA blood in my system...however, I was an anthropology major many years ago, specializing in
cultures of the Western Hemisphere, with a further focus on the Maya. I have done some
archaeological digs, and met and befriended many Native Americans and advocates of Native
American culture. My advisor, Richard Krause (of the U. of Missouri) was half Lakota...and
numbered among the best experts of Plains Indian cultures. Their spirit has always shone
brightly in my heart, over these many years, and will always remain so.
But what I really am saying about the gay issue, is that IMO, too many gays dedicate themselves
to non-gay issues...to minorities and causes which wouldn't ever lift a finger to defend gays,
even those among their own people. In fact, they would BASH you for being gay; no questions
asked. I believe that we gays should drop our dedication to those causes, and focus on our own
queer family. This goes as much for Native Americans, as for blacks, Asians, the disabled, and
so on. We cannot afford at this point in time, to spread ourselves so thin, and hope to
nonetheless acheive our victories. I mean: would you really blame Jewish people for focusing on
their own survival during the rise of Nazism in Germany, in the 1930's? Or would you accuse
them of being selfish, for not caring about other oppressed groups?
Too often, the hetero mainstream accuses gays of being "selfish" whenever we speak out for
our own rights...even though we have a great history of dedicating ourselves to the struggles of
other minorities. Nonetheless, we still get bashed and accused of selfishness. Perhaps it's time
to take a stand and WITHDRAW all support for any non-gay issues (except those few groups
that give unequivocal support for gays)...and come to the rescue of our own (gay) people. For as
I see it, THERE IS NO ONE ELSE RISING TO OUR DEFENSE. "Who will help me bake my
bread?" said the Little Red Queer Hen.
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
Mathemagician
> > So why are the SDSU Aztecs insulting but the USC Trojans not?
>
>Because they're usually physical stereotypes that caricature modern-day
>people as savages, for a start.
You mean the physical stereotype of people from the Near East, people
from whom I can trace my ancestry, is just fine to do? Even to the
point of having a "Greek system" where too many times the point seems
to be to get drunk?
Even more recent in history, it's alright to make fun of the
Scandinavians? After all, there aren't any Aztecs anymore just as
there aren't any Vikings. Why the specificity of the outcry?
There *are* Canadians still alive...a whole country of them. Why is
using them as a mascot and having someone in a silly costume doing
outrageous things somehow not just as mocking of Canadians as it is
claimed to be of American Indians?
>The best reason is that Native Americans *are* insulted by it, and as far
>as I know, no modern-day Trojans have admitted offense...
Have you thought to ask?
I'll believe the sincerity of it when they argue about the problem
being the use of a culture and not just the use of *their* culture.
Mathemagician
> > The moment one of these groups starts protesting using Greek or
> > Norwegian or any other nationality for sports team names and mascots,
> > I'll start believing their sincerity.
>
> However, as a Native American, I do object to names like the
> "Indians" the
>"Redskins" and the"Chiefs" and other names of this sort, all of which are
>terms that have been used against me in my life, very much like the
>n-word has
>been used against people of African American ancestry.
And let's not forget the wonderful reputation Vikings have for rape,
pillage, and plunder. The wondrous array of jokes that poke fun at
Greek sexual practices (even in gay slang, "Greek" has a very specific
meaning.)
I'm not denying that you've been insulted. I'm not denying that the
people who insulted you were deliberately trying to do so. I'm simply
saying that these specific instances are not examples of insults.
> To me, there is a profound difference between naming a team after an
>admired culture and naming them after an ethnic slur or stereotype.
So you're saying that by naming their team after symbols derived from
American Indians, they were trying to insult rather than admire? That
seems a rather backwards thing to do.
>To
>me these naming conventions represent a level of disrespect for my
>people that
>is very much unrecognized by the majority of Americans.
Could it be because they don't think it is disrespectful? Could it be
because they think are pointing to the strength, courage, and bravery
of the symbol?
Words have meaning and context is always important. Do you seriously
believe that by naming a group, "The Indians," they are trying to say
that Indians are beneath them? And that they are showing their
contempt by making it the focus of their cheering?
> And actually, if you look at our history, isn't our request to
> have these
>sports teams renamed a rather small one?
It is.
Does that mean that I can't say what I think about it? That I can't
ask why the specificity of the outcry seems to be not about the
concept of silly stereotypes of cultural symbols but only about
certain such silly stereotypes?
Why is your culture so much more important to protect from this than mine?
--
Brian P. Evans | Yeah, I used to work for Bill Gates
rrh...@ix.netcom.com | ...but I got better.
**********
Mathemagician
> >So why are the SDSU Aztecs insulting but the USC Trojans not?
> >Why are the Atlanta Braves insulting but the Minnesota Vikings not?
>
>Because neither descendents of Greeks nor descendents of Vikings are
>presently persecuted
>and oppressed in our modern society.
I'll remember that the next time I hear about how Vikings were rapists.
I'll remember that the next time I see a "Swedish bikini team."
I'll remember that the next time I hear about the abnormal sex lives
of Greeks.
I'll especially remember that the next time I get hit on *because* I
am Greek.
>If they were, I assure you that titles like "USC Trojans"
>and "Minnesota Vikings" would then be considered highly offensive.
What makes you think they're not?
--
Brian P. Evans | Yeah, I used to work for Bill Gates
rrh...@ix.netcom.com | ...but I got better.
**********
Mathemagician
> > Even more recent in history, it's alright to make fun of the
> > Scandinavians? After all, there aren't any Aztecs anymore just as
> > there aren't any Vikings. Why the specificity of the outcry?
>
>Because the outcry *originates* from those stereotyped.
And it never occurred to them that the offense they feel at having
symbols that draw from their cultural heritage might also apply to all
the other symbols that draw from other cultural heritages?
And as there are no Aztecs, why is there a small movement to have SDSU
drop the Aztecs as their mascot? Who is originating this response?
> > Have you thought to ask?
>
>Nobody *asked* Native Americans. They volunteered the information. This
>isn't some white liberal guilt attack.
Again, it never occurred to them that the offense they feel at having
symbols that draw from their cultural heritage might also apply to all
the other symbols that draw from other cultural heritages? It isn't
like American Indian symbols are the only ones used as mascots.
No, I don't think all of it is "some white liberal guilt
attack." Some of it is, though. If they're trying to get rid of the
symbols, wouldn't it be a good idea to try and get as many people as
they can behind them, point out the endemic problem, and how it is not
just an "Indian thing"?
> > I'll believe the sincerity of it when they argue about the problem
> > being the use of a culture and not just the use of *their* culture.
>
>Self-interest doesn't make it any less sincere. Look out for yourself.
Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that by the time they
made it to the feds, it never seemed to have occurred to them that
this isn't something that is unique to them.
Mathemagician
> > I'm not denying that you've been insulted. I'm not denying that the
> > people who insulted you were deliberately trying to do so. I'm simply
> > saying that these specific instances are not examples of insults.
>
>Cheerleaders dressing up in war-paint and chanting nonsense is, if not
>dleiberately insulting, insensitive.
So cheerleaders dressing up in animals skins with horns on a helmet
and chanting nonsense is, if not deliberately insulting, insensitive?
The "toga party" is, if not deliberately insulting, insensitive?
Why is this one culture more deserving of these protections than any other?
>Once you've been told someone finds
>it demeaning and you continue, it's insulting.
...*to*them.* There are at least two people involved in any
communication. Context is important. Just because somebody finds
something insulting does not mean it inherently is.
> > Why is your culture so much more important to protect from this
> than mine?
>
>Because it's your friggin' job to speak up for it, not theirs.
Funny...I thought I was speaking up....
And notice your response: It's somehow different when an extinct
culture like the Aztecs are used rather than an extinct culture like
the Vikings.
You'll pardon me if I don't see it that way.
Therefore, by your logic, since I'm telling you it is demeaning, it
must be.
Mathemagician
> > >If they were, I assure you that titles like "USC Trojans"
> > >and "Minnesota Vikings" would then be considered highly offensive.
> >
> > What makes you think they're not?
>
>Because no Scandinavians or Greeks have expressed it in public, for a
>start.
What makes you think they haven't.
Just because *you* haven't heard of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Marc Stauffer
You point of "being derived from their / our / my culture is your first
false premise. The stereotyping of NAs as though all of our cultures had
war bonnets, tomahawks, scalping- you've seen one to many John Wayne
movies and bought into what whites have portrayed very falsely in film,
radio, and the print media.
You haven't had the insults thrown at you. You haven't been denied service
because of your race. You haven't had a whole continent stolen from you.
You haven't watched your principle food source- the Buffalo deliberately
killed off to starve you - consider this - the massive government
extermination of the American Bison heard 1880-1883 killed over 10 million
of the animals. Are you even aware that Buffalo lived from the plains of
Eastern North Carolina up to New York and west to their last range in the
west. When the US government finished its massive kill off for racial
extermination there were barely 500 Bison left? The US had to import from
Canada to rebuild and establish the herd that exists today?
This is an area of history you need to do some research on.
Marc
M. G. Stauffer
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<< Just because *you* haven't heard of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. >>
Somebody's trolling, and needs to stop it.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:41:11 -0700 Mathemagician <rrh...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>Ezekial J. Krahlin responds to me:
>>If they were, I assure you that titles like "USC Trojans"
>>and "Minnesota Vikings" would then be considered highly offensive.
>
>What makes you think they're not?
Show me their reservations, where they live in abject poverty and isolation from the rest of
society...and then I'll accept your point. Until then, I'll have to say you are overreacting, to the
point where you believe an ethic joke in bad taste is equivalent to the bludgeoning of our Native
Americans (and gays).
Mathemagician
> > ...*to*them.* There are at least two people involved in any
> > communication. Context is important. Just because somebody finds
> > something insulting does not mean it inherently is.
>
>Yes, actually, it does, whether it was intended to be or not.
And here is the fundamental difference. I'm of the opinion that
nothing is inherently insulting. Everything depends upon context. If
the people involved in the communication don't think it is, then it isn't.
But if one of them thinks it is, then it may or may not be. The only
thing that is known for certain is that the one person feels
insulted. But that doesn't mean anything insulting was said...just
that somebody feels insulted.
I'm reminded of the Donelan cartoon where a father is looking a bit
shocked and the just as shocked mother is saying to him, "I don't
know! I put the orange juice on the table, he glared at me, said
'Mother, how could you?' and stormed out."
So did the mother insult the son? He certainly felt insulted, but did
she actually insult him?
I say no.
> > Funny...I thought I was speaking up....
>
>And how *is* it your culture?
Because I am Greek and Norwegian. I'm pretty sure I said that.
Mathemagician
>You point of "being derived from their / our / my culture is your first
>false premise. The stereotyping of NAs as though all of our cultures had
>war bonnets, tomahawks, scalping- you've seen one to many John Wayne
>movies and bought into what whites have portrayed very falsely in film,
>radio, and the print media.
I have never seen a John Wayne film, thank you very much.
And the stereotyping of Scandanavians as though all of our cultures
had rape, pillage, and plunder on their minds, glorification of
violence for violence's sake, etc., etc.
Why is it when it's done to my culture, there's no problem?
>You haven't had the insults thrown at you. You haven't been denied service
>because of your race.
And you know this because of what, exactly?
I'm always fascinated when people who have never met me seem to know
the most intimate details of my life. I always learn new things about
myself!
>You haven't had a whole continent stolen from you.
No, just my country (or don't you know anything about the history of
Scandinavia...and talk about conflicted, I'm English and Irish as
well...everybody was taking over everybody else in that part of the
world.) But I suppose that's ok because it was other Europeans doing
it. Any idea when Norway finally got its independence from Sweden?
>You haven't watched your principle food source- the Buffalo deliberately
>killed off to starve you - consider this - the massive government
>extermination of the American Bison heard 1880-1883 killed over 10 million
>of the animals.
No, just had my Irish heritage held against me.
>This is an area of history you need to do some research on.
Once again, it is fascinating to learn things about myself from people
who wouldn't know who I was if I knocked on their door.
Question: Did I deny any of the things that have happened to American
Indians? In any way, shape, or form? Did I try to downplay the
significance of it or say that it wasn't that bad?
Or did I restrict my comments to the use of a symbol as a team mascot?
--
Brian P. Evans | Yeah, I used to work for Bill Gates
rrh...@ix.netcom.com | ...but I got better.
**********
Mathemagician
> >Ezekial J. Krahlin responds to me:
> >>If they were, I assure you that titles like "USC Trojans"
> >>and "Minnesota Vikings" would then be considered highly offensive.
> >
> >What makes you think they're not?
>
>Show me their reservations, where they live in abject poverty and
>isolation from the rest of
>society...and then I'll accept your point. Until then, I'll have to
>say you are overreacting, to the
>point where you believe an ethic joke in bad taste is equivalent to
>the bludgeoning of our Native
>Americans (and gays).
Like I said, I'll believe the sincerity when it's considered a
bludgeoning when it happens to *anybody.*
Why is it when you use my cultural symbol, it's "an ethic [sic] joke
in bad taste" but when I use yours, it's an affront to your very
dignity as a person? Since when did ethnic slurs become acceptable
for any group?
Come with me to Ireland (since I'm also Irish) and you tell me what
the continued fighting with the British (and I'm also English, at
that) has done to the people there. Do I have to remind people of the
"Irish Need Not Apply" signs?
But I'm not going to get into a "my pain is worse than yours" trolling
match. It only clouds the issue: Are using symbols of a culture as a
team mascot insulting or not? Why does it matter what the culture
is? If the actions performed by the mascot are identical except for
the costume, why does it matter whose symbol is up there making a fool
of himself?
--
Brian P. Evans | Yeah, I used to work for Bill Gates
rrh...@ix.netcom.com | ...but I got better.
**********
Mathemagician
> > Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that by the time they
> > made it to the feds, it never seemed to have occurred to them that
> > this isn't something that is unique to them.
>
>That's not particularly their job.
Considering that they have been told of it, why do they ignore it?
And why is the response when they are told of it that it is somehow
different when it's done to my culture compared to theirs?