The Fightin' Whities
Arthur Levesque
By Valerie Richardson, the Washington Times
DENVER -- Go ahead, Washington, keep your Redskins. Florida State can have
its Seminoles and Atlanta its Braves. But don't mess with the University of
Northern Colorado's Fightin' Whities.
Frustrated by their lack of success in ridding the sports world of
Indians, Braves and Seminoles and assorted ferocious tribes, several members
of the university's Native American Student Services in Greeley, Colo., are
fighting mascots with mascots. Now fans of the school's intramural basketball
league can, and many do, cheer for the Fightin' Whities.
The team's players, who include American Indian, Hispanic and even
Caucasian students, wear white T-shirts emblazoned with a drawing of a not
very fearsome-looking Ozzie Nelson-era man in a suit and tie, obviously
looking for his briefcase with a white-bread sandwich inside. In the caption
he declares: "Every thang's gonna be all white!"[2]
"We thought, 'Let's just turn the tables on them,'" says Solomon Little
Owl, director of the university's Native American Student Services and a
member of the team. "We disagree with Native American caricatures in sports
logos, but when we raise the issue, people say, 'Oh, it's not derogatory, it's
meant to honor you.' So we decided to show them how it feels."
Unfortunately for Mr. Little Owl's campaign, a lot of the whities think
it feels, well, pretty good.[3]
The name was intended as a rebuke to Greeley's Eaton High School, whose
mascot, the Fightin' Reds (it doesn't mean fightin' communists), has become
the target of protests. Unable to persuade officials in the rural,
predominantly white school district to change the logo, American Indian
leaders are hoping that the Fightin' Whities will drive home the point.
"It's reverse psychology. If they're offended, we just proved our
point," says Mr. Little Owl.[4]
So far, however, Greeley's whities don't seem to get it. Far from being
offended by the nickname, locals are telling the Greeley Tribune they "loved"
the Whities and want to know where to get their jerseys.
"As a white male, I'm not offended, I'm honored that they are doing
this," says one anonymous e-mailer. "It isn't often that white males get any
good news."
"My husband and son (and me too) are honored to be finally named as the
treasured mascot for something, anything. What a treat!" wrote another
e-mailer.
With the irony lost on the community[5], Mr. Solomon agrees that the
Whities could soon find their cheering section filled with fans who aren't
exactly bursting with Native American pride. "Some people don't realize what
we're trying to do" he says. "I'm getting these calls and e-mails from people
saying, 'Hey, we're rooting for your team, we're proud to be white,' like
they're white supremacists or something.[6] Our next game is going to be
pretty wild."
Another Greeley resident pointed out that the Fightin' Whities are hardly
the nation's first Caucasian mascots. The Fighting Irish, the Ragin' Cajuns,
the Norsemen, the Flying Dutchmen, the Britons, the Highlanders and the
Gallopin' Gaels were representing their universities long before the Whities
arrived.[7]
Ken McConnelloghue, the university's spokesman, harrumphs that he is not
amused, and the university is officially "disappointed" by the team's
decision.
"Our mothers told us that two wrongs don't make a right," he says.
"Being derogatory because someone was derogatory toward you is not the best
way to go about it."[8]
But derogatory is as derogatory does. Doug Chamberlain, principal of
Eaton High School, says the name "doesn't insult me at all," although he's not
sure why his school has been targeted by Indian groups. "There are mascots
elsewhere in the nation that are much more egregious, like the Savages[9],
than what we have here."
A group known as the Coalition to Eliminate Native American Caricatures
and Mascots in Colorado High Schools[10] went to the school board earlier this
year to try to change the mascot, but so far the board has taken no action.
One reason is that the logo enjoys strong support from the 450-member student
body.
Before the university's intramural team became the Fightin' Whities, it
was the Native Pride. "At the time, there was all this news about the local
school, the Reds, so we thought, 'If they want to have the Reds, then we can
be the Fightin' Whities," says Charles Cuny, a UNC student and founder of the
Fightin' Whities.
Mr. Cuny, who grew up on the Oglala Lakota reservation in Pine Ridge,
S.D., says most people are taking the mascot as good clean fun. "Some people
look at it as a joke; some might say we're crybabies."
Even if most people don't take the Fightin' Whities seriously, however,
Mr. Cuny says the name has served its purpose. "It's a way to break the ice,
to look at the issue in a different light," he says.[11]
The team meets March 27 for the intramural basketball tournament, and the
Whities are bracing for a big night. Mr. Little Owl says he expects between
200 and 500 persons[12], and he thinks a lot of them will be reporters and
photographers.
"This is the beginning, and we're going to keep at it," says Mr. Little
Owl. "The fight's on now." And if everything's not going to be all white, it
might be all right.
--
/\ Arthur M Levesque 2A4W <*> b...@boog.orgy =/\= http://boog.org __
\B\ack King of the Potato People <fnord> "Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!" (oO)
\S\lash When is Alec Baldwin going to leave? (-O-) Urban Spaceman /||\
\/ I was a lesbian before it was fashionable "I hate rainbows!"-EC
[1] http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020313-89129160.htm
[2] The newspaper has a picture of the mascot, but it doesn't appear on
the web page. There is a picture on this newspaper's web page,
though not a very good one: http://makeashorterlink.com/?L1FC2368
(Click on the photo to enlarge it).
[3] Should I be offended? I think it's funny!
[4] Since when does anyone care about white people taking offense in
these PC times anyway?
[5] Nobody in Colorado practices irony anymore -- I could have told them
that after watching Steve Martin's "Roxanne".
[6] Why aren't whites allowed to be proud? Everyone else is.
[7] And yet, none of them have ever been viewed as offensive or sparked
people with too much time on their hands to protest.
[8] Team names are not, and never have been (until this case) meant to
be derogatory.
[9] One of my best friends has the last name "Savage". I doubt if she'd
feel offended by this. Where are they?
[10] "Coalition to Eliminate Native American Caricatures and Mascots in
Colorado High Schools" -- CENACMCHS was the best acronym they could
come up with? They need help from Arnold J Rimmer.
[11] Seems to me that it's just going to make more people say "So? What's
the big deal?"
[12] "between 200 and 500 persons" -- also known as "people"
Morfydd
"I am Jacks complete lack of surprise" - fight club
:-)
Mop
--
"Arthur Levesque" <meist...@boog.org> wrote in message
news:a6nfi2$fnbfh$1...@ID-75701.news.dfncis.de...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 19/02/2002
Wabishka Maengun
Thought it sounded good but, there again they missed the point (as usual!).
Must have picked up speed on the way out the other ear and they didn't have
time to catch it.
"Gigawabamin naguth!"
Wabishka Maengun
"Arthur Levesque" <meist...@boog.org> wrote in message
news:a6nfi2$fnbfh$1...@ID-75701.news.dfncis.de...
Arthur Levesque
WM>Thought it sounded good but, there again they missed the point (as
WM>usual!).
Someone missed the point, but it could just as easily be the ones
who've been crying for years "You wouldn't like it if there were teams
named after you!" Well, there already have been for years, and I have
yet to see the Irish, Vikings, Cajuns, Britons, et al. whine about it.
Just Lori
>CHEER, CHEER FOR THE FIGHTIN' WHITIES[1]
>By Valerie Richardson, the Washington Times
>
>DENVER -- Go ahead, Washington, keep your Redskins. Florida State can have
>its Seminoles and Atlanta its Braves. But don't mess with the University of
>Northern Colorado's Fightin' Whities.
Hahaha! I keep thinking of "tighty-whitey" underwear!
> Frustrated by their lack of success in ridding the sports world of
>Indians, Braves and Seminoles and assorted ferocious tribes, several members
>of the university's Native American Student Services in Greeley, Colo., are
>fighting mascots with mascots. Now fans of the school's intramural basketball
>league can, and many do, cheer for the Fightin' Whities.
If they really wanted to cause a stir, they should have called them the
Palefaces.
> The team's players, who include American Indian, Hispanic and even
>Caucasian students, wear white T-shirts emblazoned with a drawing of a not
>very fearsome-looking Ozzie Nelson-era man in a suit and tie, obviously
>looking for his briefcase with a white-bread sandwich inside. In the caption
>he declares: "Every thang's gonna be all white!"[2]
>[2] The newspaper has a picture of the mascot, but it doesn't appear on
> the web page. There is a picture on this newspaper's web page,
> though not a very good one: http://makeashorterlink.com/?L1FC2368
> (Click on the photo to enlarge it).
Cute.
> "We thought, 'Let's just turn the tables on them,'" says Solomon Little
>Owl, director of the university's Native American Student Services and a
>member of the team. "We disagree with Native American caricatures in sports
>logos, but when we raise the issue, people say, 'Oh, it's not derogatory, it's
>meant to honor you.' So we decided to show them how it feels."
> Unfortunately for Mr. Little Owl's campaign, a lot of the whities think
>it feels, well, pretty good.[3]
>[3] Should I be offended? I think it's funny!
I think it's silly. But it doesn't offend me.
<snip>
> So far, however, Greeley's whities don't seem to get it. Far from being
>offended by the nickname, locals are telling the Greeley Tribune they "loved"
>the Whities and want to know where to get their jerseys.
> "As a white male, I'm not offended, I'm honored that they are doing
>this," says one anonymous e-mailer. "It isn't often that white males get any
>good news."
> "My husband and son (and me too) are honored to be finally named as the
>treasured mascot for something, anything. What a treat!" wrote another
>e-mailer.
> With the irony lost on the community[5], Mr. Solomon agrees that the
>Whities could soon find their cheering section filled with fans who aren't
>exactly bursting with Native American pride. "Some people don't realize what
>we're trying to do" he says.
Or, maybe they *do* realize it, and aren't fazed/offended/angered by it,
and are going along with it just to piss him off? :)
> "I'm getting these calls and e-mails from people
>saying, 'Hey, we're rooting for your team, we're proud to be white,' like
>they're white supremacists or something.[6] Our next game is going to be
>pretty wild."
Since when is it wrong to be proud of your own race? There's a large
difference between pride and supremacist.
> Another Greeley resident pointed out that the Fightin' Whities are hardly
>the nation's first Caucasian mascots. The Fighting Irish, the Ragin' Cajuns,
>the Norsemen, the Flying Dutchmen, the Britons, the Highlanders and the
>Gallopin' Gaels were representing their universities long before the Whities
>arrived.[7]
See, if I'd only waited a week or so, Arthur would have posted this article
in place of my original inquiry, and I wouldn't have had to take the blame
for that huge flamewar and Tyler's subsequent leaving, eh?
^^
(Sorry, that was my 11% Canadian coming out.)
> Ken McConnelloghue, the university's spokesman, harrumphs that he is not
>amused, and the university is officially "disappointed" by the team's
>decision.
> "Our mothers told us that two wrongs don't make a right," he says.
And all work and no play makes... oh forget it.
>"Being derogatory because someone was derogatory toward you is not the best
>way to go about it."[8]
"He started it!" "Did not!" "Did too!" "I'm telling!" "Mooommmmm!!!"
<snip>
> The team meets March 27 for the intramural basketball tournament, and the
>Whities are bracing for a big night. Mr. Little Owl says he expects between
>200 and 500 persons[12], and he thinks a lot of them will be reporters and
>photographers.
>[12] "between 200 and 500 persons" -- also known as "people"
As someone's daughter, I am offended by the word "persons" because it
contains the word "sons"! I demand we start using the more
politically-correct spelling of "persyns" immediately!!11!!!1!@1!1@!!
++
Lori
"No one in Italy can just walk around with arms like that."
This week's out-of-context quote is brought to you by:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R6902568
Arthur Levesque
Lori>article in place of my original inquiry, and I wouldn't have had to
Lori>take the blame for that huge flamewar and Tyler's subsequent
Lori>leaving, eh?
Nice try, minion! I hadn't posted any of the other stories on this
"issue" to Servo, because I really didn't (and don't) think that it has
any importance or relevance in the real world. It's just SPORTS.
Although, there's admittedly a good chance I would have posted this
one anyway, since it makes me giggle (unlike today's Onion; nothing there
that's really Random Bits-able today).
>>"Our mothers told us that two wrongs don't make a right," he says.
Lori>And all work and no play makes... oh forget it.
*guffaw*
Russell B
>CHEER, CHEER FOR THE FIGHTIN' WHITIES[1]
>By Valerie Richardson, the Washington Times
> With the irony lost on the community[5],
I wonder where the writer got the idea that the irony was lost on the
community. Looks more like the community recognized the irony but didn't
care--or even went out of their way not to get bent out of shape, so as to
drive home the point that the name of a basketball team is...like...NOT
WORTH GETTING BENT OUT OF SHAPE ABOUT or something.
>[12] "between 200 and 500 persons" -- also known as "people"
Or, to kneejerk leftists, "peoples."
lisa dillon
It's not a sports issue Go take a poll of Native Athletes what they
THINK really! Specialy the Football Players I Dare YAH!....Lisa D....
Arthur Levesque
LD>It's not a sports issue Go take a poll of Native Athletes what they
LD>THINK really! Specialy the Football Players I Dare YAH!....Lisa D....
"...A scientific survey of Americans with Indian ancestry -- paid
for by Sports Illustrated magazine[1] and published in this weekæ„€[2]
issue -- says the average American Indian is not offended by high school
teams that use Indian words for team mascots. In fact, 75 percent of
those surveyed by the Peter Harris Group[3] said even Washingtonæ„€ use
of the nickname "Redskins"[4] did not offend them..."[5]
--
/\ Arthur M Levesque 2A4W <*> b...@boog.orgy =/\= http://boog.org __
\B\ack King of the Potato People <fnord> "Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!" (oO)
\S\lash When is Alec Baldwin going to leave? (-O-) Urban Spaceman /||\
\/ I was a lesbian before it was fashionable "I hate rainbows!"-EC
[1] I don't subscribe to SI, and didn't see the article on their web page
<http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/> -- maybe I can find that issue
next time I'm in my doctor's office.
[2] Presumably, the first March issue.
[3] http://www.pharrisresearch.com/
[4] Arguably the most likely to cause offense, as opposed to simple tribe
names or honorable names like "Braves"
[5] This quote is from an article in the Washington Times on March 4,
2002: http://www.washtimes.com/metro/default-20023422330.htm
(Footnotes are, as always, my own comments and additions.)
J.
> Someone missed the point, but it could just as easily be the ones
>who've been crying for years "You wouldn't like it if there were teams
>named after you!" Well, there already have been for years, and I have
>yet to see the Irish, Vikings, Cajuns, Britons, et al. whine about it.
Okay, I think this is where I'm supposed to chime in with my sadistic
humor, and Lori should be falling into line right about....now.
Lori?
Hello?
Dammit.
J.
"That Curséd Initial"
--Your beak is blinkin' like a blinkin' beacon!--
J.
>If they really wanted to cause a stir, they should have called them the
>Palefaces.
Well, we already have some Yankees (Yanquis?) so maybe the next one
should be the Gringos.
>Cute.
Silly cracker. You're supposed to be *outraged*.
Will the White Man (or Woman) never learn?!
>Or, maybe they *do* realize it, and aren't fazed/offended/angered by it,
>and are going along with it just to piss him off? :)
How hard could pissing off someone named Solomon Little Owl be? It
undoubtedly happens twice a day at least. Sometimes twice before
*breakfast*.
>Since when is it wrong to be proud of your own race? There's a large
>difference between pride and supremacist.
Cite proof or retract!
...and until you can paint with all the colors of the wind, you'll
never be able to cite any proof that will be acceptable to anyone.
>See, if I'd only waited a week or so, Arthur would have posted this article
>in place of my original inquiry, and I wouldn't have had to take the blame
>for that huge flamewar and Tyler's subsequent leaving, eh?
Blame? Don't you mean credit?
Besides, I bet Tyler jumps into this little discussion just as soon as
he can. White guilt don't sink, it floats!
Geoduck
>80s_...@bigmailbox.net (Just Lori) wrote:
>
>>If they really wanted to cause a stir, they should have called them the
>>Palefaces.
>
>Well, we already have some Yankees (Yanquis?) so maybe the next one
>should be the Gringos.
>
>>Cute.
>
>Silly cracker. You're supposed to be *outraged*.
>
>Will the White Man (or Woman) never learn?!
(snip)
The 'Whities-as-team-name' plan was doomed to failure for this very
reason; all the derogatory slang words for whites (whitey, honkey,
gringo, cracker, even paleface) just don't carry a fraction of the
historical and emotional baggage as crap like 'nigger' or 'redskin'
does, at least as far as the vast majority of the white population is
concerned.(1) You call a white man one of these names, all you're
liable to get is a laugh (as witnessed by the massive rush to buy the
team's t-shirts) or a blank stare. You seriously use one of those
other terms in reference to the ethnic group in question, and you're
making a deliberate effort to pick a fight.
I think this is why a lot of white people can't ever really grasp
why some (not all, some) Indians are so upset about the use of Indian
names and imagery in sports teams. In this instance, there is just no
way to walk in the other guy's shoes.
As to *why* some words are so much more inflammatory than others...
I'm not going to touch that one.
(1) There are more offsensive words you can use to attack specific
sections of the white community, like the various religious slurs, but
there's nothing that can spread a wide enough net all at once.
--
Geoduck
http://www.olywa.net/cook
Just Lori
>80s_...@bigmailbox.net (Just Lori) wrote:
>
>>If they really wanted to cause a stir, they should have called them the
>>Palefaces.
>
>Well, we already have some Yankees (Yanquis?) so maybe the next one
>should be the Gringos.
Heh.
<snip>
>>Since when is it wrong to be proud of your own race? There's a large
>>difference between pride and supremacist.
>
>Cite proof or retract!
>
>...and until you can paint with all the colors of the wind, you'll
>never be able to cite any proof that will be acceptable to anyone.
You want colorful wind? I'm gonna be eating at Chili's tonight.
>>See, if I'd only waited a week or so, Arthur would have posted this article
>>in place of my original inquiry, and I wouldn't have had to take the blame
>>for that huge flamewar and Tyler's subsequent leaving, eh?
>
>Blame? Don't you mean credit?
Two sides of the same coin 'round here.
>Besides, I bet Tyler jumps into this little discussion just as soon as
>he can. White guilt don't sink, it floats!
Now that you've said that, he's gonna purposely stay away. But you can bet
his face is pretty... um, red right about now. :)
Mike
> Lisa Dillon (lisa_...@hotmail.com) wrote underpunctuated:
> LD>It's not a sports issue Go take a poll of Native Athletes what they
> LD>THINK really! Specialy the Football Players I Dare YAH!....Lisa D....
>
> "...A scientific survey of Americans with Indian ancestry -- paid
> for by Sports Illustrated magazine[1] and published in this weekæ„€[2]
> issue -- says the average American Indian is not offended by high school
> teams that use Indian words for team mascots. In fact, 75 percent of
> those surveyed by the Peter Harris Group[3] said even Washingtonæ„€ use
> of the nickname "Redskins"[4] did not offend them..."[5]
> --
Hi Lisa
Hello Arthur
I believe I'll jump in here for a minute or two. I tryed to look up
the article, but couldn't find it. It wouldn't make a difference
anyway as I can talk to twenty Native Americans, and get any results I
want. All I have to do is talk to the ones I wish to. So unless the
survey took into account the vast number of Native Americans meaning
more than 70 percent of them the survey is a joke and a way to say I'm
right and your wrong. I am a number cruncher, and a card carrying
Native American born here in the US of A on a reservation that's put
up with the callous way many people ( not all) like to use names to
put down people. Now just talking about me I'm willing to say I know a
few thousand Native Americans in this country alone. Out of just them
I'm willing to say 90 percent will tell you if you called one of them
some of the names used by teams in this country you would get your
butt kicked or at the very least told off. If they thought you just
were dumb and didn't know how destructive some words are. Now many
people are taught, and are just influenced by their friends or family
that just because of color or the way a person lives they are better
than another. I feel sorry for them because they will be so alone in
the long run. well it was real good talking to ya hope some one
learned something from all of this.
Mike
Arthur Levesque
says the average American Indian is not offended by high school teams
that use Indian words for team mascots. In fact, 75 percent of those
nickname 'Redskins' did not offend them..."
Mike (MikePu...@msn.com) wrote:
Mike>I believe I'll jump in here for a minute or two. I tryed to look up
Mike>the article, but couldn't find it.
Me neither, so far...
Mike>It wouldn't make a difference anyway as I can talk to twenty Native
Mike>Americans, and get any results I want.
I can't comment on the methods behind the survey until I find out
more about it (I'm fully aware of how easily poll results can be
influenced by the wording of the questions and so on); but I would tend
to assume, all other things being equal -- that a large poll done with a
random sampling is more likely to be accurate than just "asking my
friends" or reading a couple of newsgroups...
Until someone provides more info on the poll, or comes up with
better evidence of their own (and most people thus far have simply said
things which boil down to "I hate mascots, therefore all Indians hate
mascots, and anyone who says otherwise is a racist"), I have to go with
what I've got. And from the various stories I've read, so far it looks
like this is only an issue to a vocal minority. This is my opinion,
and subject to change if something more convincing comes to light.
It doesn't affect me either way, I only got into this discussion
because someone asked a question -- and then I continued it with the
"Fightin' Whities" story because I thought it was funny.
Mike>All I have to do is talk to the ones I wish to. So unless the
Mike>survey took into account the vast number of Native Americans meaning
Mike>more than 70 percent of them the survey is a joke and a way to say
Mike>I'm right and your wrong.
Can you produce any actual evidence to support or dispute the
validity of the poll?
Mike>I'm willing to say 90 percent will tell you if you called one of
Mike>them some of the names used by teams in this country you would get
Mike>your butt kicked or at the very least told off...
But the offensive terms (like the Redskins, which pretty much
everyone here, myself included, acknowledge) are in the minority. Are
you saying that "Seminoles" is an offensive term, and that if I were to
walk up to a Seminole and call him a Seminole, he'd kick my ass?
By painting *all* usages of Indian names as racist and offensive,
even though they clearly aren't, and even though plenty of other ethnic
groups are also represented as team mascots, these people are clearly
showing themselves to be extremists and are making arguments that are
clearly inaccurate.
If they focused on the offensive names, that would be one thing.
If they could actually demonstrate why "Seminoles" was offensive and yet
"Vikings" wasn't, that would be one thing. But by being extremists and
name-callers, they're discrediting their argument (and discrediting
those moderates who semi-agree with them).
--
JRWolf
Sports Illustrated article:
JRWolf
****************************
Don't take Sports Illustrated poll at face value
Posted on Sat, Mar. 09, 2002
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforksherald/news/opinion/28243
41.htm
As I am part of the Herald's editorial board, it sometimes is
implied that I
agree with the editorial opinion in the paper. That isn't always
true. The
March 4 editorial about the recent Sports Illustrated article is
one of those
instances ("A change in nickname strategy," Page 4A). I disagree
with the
editorial - in part.
I agree that the survey should be taken by advocates as a wake-up
call. I
don't agree with the editorial's words, such as "dealt a body
blow to the
movement," or ". . . wither and die." The survey, which may be
the most
damaging part of the article, has flaws.
The survey, done by the Peter Harris Research Group Inc.,
indicated to
"Fighting Sioux" supporters that use of Native American team
names and
mascots do not contribute to discrimination. The Harris Group,
which did the
survey, is a well-recognized and accepted polling group.
Unfortunately, there is the assumption that a national
organization can poll
American Indian reservations and Native people and come up with
the same kind
of accuracy as a poll about the chances of Gov. Jesse Ventura
winning a
second term.
Mind you, I'm not a polling expert. But experts are starting to
weigh in on
the SI survey, and some of their questions about its validity
sound
reasonable to me.
For example, reservations are known within the field of polling
to be very
challenging to survey. Here are some reasons why and why the SI
poll may need
retooling:
With unemployment as high as 70 percent on some reservations,
many Americans
take it for granted that most people have telephones. That is not
true on
reservations. That limits the survey to those who could afford
telephones.
The number of Native people - 351 - surveyed seems small,
especially when you
consider there are 560 federal-recognized tribal nations with
very different
cultures, and that means entire nations were not surveyed.
Pollsters such as
Gallup will survey 1,000 to 1,100 people, as I understand it.
The survey didn't indicate how many of those people refused to
answer the
questions. I suspect that's an especially important factor when
non-Natives
are calling reservations.
The survey didn't indicate whether the survey takers were aware
that many, if
not all, reservation hometown teams use names such as Braves,
Chiefs or
Warriors. So, when a call comes out of the blue from this
non-Native survey
taker from "Big Town, USA," and the caller asks if the listener
feels that
the use of American Indians names is discriminatory - well, of
course not,
the listener answers. They ARE warriors. The questions and the
answers are
from two different worlds, two different perspectives.
This, however, does not negate the survey completely. There is a
disconnect
between the advocates and some Indian people.
Eugene DeLorme, director of UND's Indians into Medicine program,
travels to
the reservations regularly. He said he doesn't bring up the
question of the
mascot and logo, but people on the reservation do ask him about
it.
At first, many say they are honored by the name. However, as soon
as he shows
them some of the spinoffs of the name, 100 percent of them - that
is everyone
- changes their mind, he told me.
Based on my regular travels to reservations, I can vouch for his
findings.
That point could be driven home if you were to wear one of the
T-shirts with
"Sioux Suck" or "F--ing Sioux" on the reservation. My guess is
that those on
the reservation would readily connect your T-shirt to an insult.
In one of the SI interviews, a man from the Colville Reservation
in
Washington said his mother loves the "Redskins." I did some
interviews as a
stringer for the SI article that were not used. When I
interviewed an elder
from Spirit Lake, she, like the Colville elders, said she liked
the "Fighting
Sioux" name. After all, she said, they are warriors. (I had a
list of
questions given to me by the magazine to ask).
When asked about whether she approved of Chief Wahoo or the
tomahawk chop:
Oh, no she said, that makes fun of Indian people. She had not
connected the
name of the team to the spinoffs or the disparaging remarks. My
guess is that
neither of these elders knows what "Redskins" mean.
For me, the SI article is a wake-up call. Those who have been out
there in
the trenches need to take stock of where they are. They need to
help Native
people make that very real connection and understand the
atmosphere that is
created by the mascots and logos.
Unfortunately, connecting the dots between the monikers and the
catcalls from
a passing car where the rider yells out "prairie nigger" to a
person with
dark skin and long hair is elusive. Some Native people don't see
the use of
the moniker as an acceptance of these racist remarks when it is.
Connecting
the dots between the "Sioux per dogs" sign at the local arena and
stereotyping
and making fun of Native people is difficult, because very few
reservation
people enter the arena.
In order to help the young people and children - to keep them
from becoming
the butt of jokes at the local sports bar - the advocates need to
stay the
course and turn toward the reservations to educate people and
find the
support that will be there.
Advocates need to respond to this challenge - and as much as it
hurts to talk
about racism, discrimination and being the butt of jokes, tell
Native people
the truth about names such as "Redskins" and "Fighting Sioux."
Yellow Bird's column appears Tuesday and Saturday. Her e-mail
address is
dyell...@gfherald.com, or she can be reached at 780-1228 or
(800) 477-6572
ext. 228 or dyell...@gfherald.com.
JRWolf
addresses the polling issues that was posted to another newsgroup
and sent to SI and Harris Research Group via e-mail:
JRWolf
****************************
I read this statement about the Peter Harris Research Group poll
on Indian
mascots conducted for Sports Illustrated:
"The pollsters interviewed 351 Native Americans (217 living on
reservations
and 134 living off) and 743 fans. Their responses were weighted
according to
U.S. Census figures for age, race and gender, and for
distribution of Native
American on and off reservations."
The statement raises a number of questions:
* Given that federally enrolled Indians are scattered among some
560
recognized tribes, how did Harris select the tribes and people
within tribes
at random? Are the tribal membership rolls publicly available
somewhere, or
did the tribes provide them? What did Harris do if tribes
declined to
provide their membership rolls?
* Did these membership rolls include addresses and phone numbers
for the
Indians living off-reservation, or did Harris identify these
people another
way? How, exactly?
* Given the logistics of visiting 560 tribes in person, I imagine
Harris
contacted people by phone. What did Harris do to compensate for
the known
conservative bias in phone-polling? The poorest Native people
are unlikely
to have phone service even in this modern era.
* According to 1990 Census figures, only 22% of Indians live on
reservations
or trust lands. (Source: "We the...First Americans" from the
Census
Bureau.) I don't think the Census Bureau has released data on
where the
population lives in 2000, but I doubt the proportion has risen
from 22% to
61% (217 of 351) in only ten years. What did Harris base its
on/off-reservation breakdown on?
* The US Census now provides a range for the number of Native
Americans (2.1
to 4.1 million) because there's no precise way of defining them.
How did
Harris define "Native American"?
* At least half the people who are Indian or part-Indian aren't
enrolled in a
tribe. Did Harris include these people? How did it identify
them?
* Is a sample of 351 people large enough to estimate the opinions
of the 4.1
million Americans who identify themselves as Indian or
part-Indian? Are the
subsamples of 217 and 134 large enough to estimate the opinions
of the on-
and off-reservation groups that are 1.5-2.5 million in size?
* Many people think the Census Bureau missed large numbers of
Indians because
of the aforementioned problems in visiting or contacting people
in remote
locations. At best Harris used Census data secondhand. How did
Harris
compensate for the known shortcomings in the Census data?
* On its website the Harris Field Center touts its expertise in
doing
business studies" and interviewing "business executives and
managers." What
is its expertise in dealing with the skeptical, hard-to-reach
Native American
population?
* Native people are known for not trusting Anglos and not
speaking openly to
them in initial encounters. What steps did Harris take to
overcome this
propensity? Can Harris assure us the Native people questioned
said what they
really think? That they didn't say mascots are okay to avoid
"making waves"?
Because of these methodological problems, I don't think I've ever
seen a
survey purporting to present the Native American opinion on any
subject. The
problem of developing a truly random sample of an amorphous group
is a huge
one by itself. It's hard to believe Harris had more resources
than the US
government to accomplish this task. But if its sample wasn't
random, the
results are probably biased.
Until Sports Illustrated provides information on this poll's
methodology, I'd
say the Native community should take these results with a large
grain of
salt. They appear to confirm nothing more than the fact that
Native opinion
on the mascot issue isn't unanimous--which Native people already
knew.
Rob Schmidt
Culver City, CA 90230
JRWolf
JRWolf
****************************
Copyright 2002 Time Inc. Sports Illustrated
March 4, 2002
SECTION: SPECIAL REPORT; Pg. 66 LENGTH: 2568 words
HEADLINE: The Indian Wars; The campaign against Indian nicknames
and mascots
presumes that they offend Native Americans--but do they? We took
a poll, and
you won't believe the results
BYLINE: S.L. Price
Solve this word problem: Billy Mills, the former runner who won
the gold
medal in the 10,000 meters at the 1964 Olympics, is on a
commercial airliner
hurtling somewhere over the U.S. It is August 2001. Because
Mills's father
and mother were three-quarters and one-quarter Native American,
respectively,
he grew up being called half-breed until that was no longer
socially
acceptable. As sensibilities shifted over the years, he heard a
variety of
words and phrases describing his ethnic background, from Indian
to Sioux to
Native American to the one with which he is most comfortable, the
age-old
name of his tribal nation: Lakota.
Mills is sitting in first class. A flight attendant--the words
steward and
stewardess are frowned upon today--checks on him every so often.
The man is
African-American, the preferred designation for his racial
background; before
that, society called him black or colored or Negro. The man is
friendly,
doing his job. Each time he addresses Mills, he calls him Chief.
Mills
doesn't know if the flight attendant realizes that he is Lakota.
Maybe he
calls everyone Chief. Maybe he means it as a compliment. Mills
motions him
over.
"I want to tell you something," Mills says. The man leans in.
"I'm Native
American, and you calling me Chief, it turns my stomach. It'd be
very similar
to somebody calling you Nigger."
The flight attendant looks at Mills. He says, "Calling you Chief
doesn't
bother me...Chief."
Who is right and who wrong? Whose feelings take precedence? Most
important,
who gets to decide what we call one another?
If you've figured out an answer, don't celebrate yet. The above
confrontation
Is only a warmup for sport's thorniest word problem: the use of
Native
American names (and mascots that represent them) by high school,
college and
professional teams. For more than 30 years the debate has been
raging over
whether names such as Redskins, Braves, Chiefs and Indians honor
or defile
Native Americans, whether clownish figures like the Cleveland
Indians' Chief
Wahoo have any place in today's racially sensitive climate and
whether the
sight of thousands of PAGE 2
Sports
Illustrated, March 4, 2002
non-Native Americans doing the tomahawk chop at Atlanta's Turner
Field is
mindless fun or mass bigotry. It's an argument that, because it
mixes mere
sports with the sensitivities of a people who were nearly
exterminated, seems
both trivial and profound--and it's further complicated by the
fact that for
three out of four Native Americans, even a nickname such as
Redskins, which
many whites consider racist, isn't objectionable.
Indeed, some Native Americans--even those who purportedly object
to Indian
team nicknames--wear Washington Redskins paraphernalia with
pride. Two such
men showed up in late January at Augustana College in Sioux
Falls, S.Dak.,
for a conference on race relations. "They were speaking against
the Indian
nicknames, but they were wearing Redskins sweatshirts, and one
had on a
Redskins cap," says Betty Ann Gross, a member of the
Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux
tribe. "No one asked them about it. They looked pretty militant."
Gross's own case illustrates how slippery the issue can be. She
grew up on a
reservation in South Dakota and went to Sisseton High, a public
school on the
reservation whose teams are called the Redmen. Gross, 49, can't
recall a time
when people on the reservation weren't arguing about the team
name, evenly
divided between those who were proud of it and those who were
ashamed. Gross
recently completed a study that led the South Dakota state
government to
change the names of 38 places and landmarks around the state, yet
she has
mixed feelings on the sports issue. She wants Indian mascots and
the tomahawk
chop discarded, but she has no problem with team names like the
Fighting
Sioux (University of North Dakota) or even the Redskins. "There's
a lot of
division," Gross says. "We're confused, and if we're confused,
you guys
should be really confused."
Indeed, a recent SI poll (charts, above) suggests that although
Native
American activists are virtually united in opposition to the use
of Indian
nicknames and mascots, the Native American population sees the
issue far
differently. Asked if high school and college teams should stop
using Indian
nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no. As for pro
sports, 83%
of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using
Indian
nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols. Opinion is far more
divided on
reservations, yet a majority (67%) there said the usage by pro
teams should
not cease, while 32% said it should.
"I take the middle ground," says Leigh J. Kuwanwisiwma, 51,
director of the
Hopi Cultural Preservation Office in Kykotsmovi, Ariz., and an
avid devotee
of the Atlanta Braves. "I don't see anything wrong with Indian
nicknames as
long as they're not meant to be derogatory. Some tribal schools
on Arizona
reservations use Indians as a nickname themselves. The Phoenix
Indian High
School's newspaper is The Redskin. I don't mind the tomahawk
chop. It's all
in good fun. This is sports, after all. In my living room, I'll
be watching a
Braves game and occasionally do the chop."
Native American activists dismiss such opinion as misguided
("There are happy
campers on every plantation," says Suzan Harjo, president of the
Morning Star
Institute, an Indian-rights organization based in Washington,
D.C.) or as
evidence that Native Americans' self-esteem has fallen so low
that they don't
even know when they're being insulted. American Indians--unlike,
say, the
Irish Catholics who founded Notre Dame and named its teams the
Fighting
Irish--had no hand in creating most of the teams that use their
names; their
identities were plucked from them wholesale and used for
frivolous purposes,
like firing up fans PAGE 3 Sports
Illustrated, March 4,
2002
at ball games.
"This is no honor," says Michael Yellow Bird, an associate
professor of
social work at Arizona State. "We lost our land, we lost our
languages, we
lost our children. Proportionately speaking, indigenous peoples
[in the U.S.]
are incarcerated more than any other group, we have more racial
violence
perpetrated upon us, and we are forgotten. If people think this
is how to
honor us, then colonization has really taken hold."
Regardless, the campaign to erase Indian team names and symbols
nationwide
has been a success. Though Native American activists have made
little
progress at the highest level of pro sports--officials of the
Atlanta Braves,
Chicago Blackhawks, Cleveland Indians and Washington Redskins,
for example,
say they have no intention of changing their teams' names or
mascots--their
single-minded pursuit of the issue has literally changed the face
of sports
in the U.S. Since 1969, when Oklahoma disavowed its mascot Little
Red (a
student wearing an Indian war bonnet, buckskin costume and
moccasins), more
than 600 school teams and minor league professional clubs have
dropped
nicknames deemed offensive by Native American groups.
What's more, the movement continues. On Jan. 9 the Metropolitan
Washington
Council of Governments, which represents 17 local governments in
D.C.,
southern Maryland and northern Virginia, voted 11-2 to adopt a
resolution
calling the Redskins name "demeaning and dehumanizing" and asking
team owner
Dan Snyder to change it by next season. A week earlier former
Redskins
fullback Dale Atkeson had been told by the California Department
of Motor
Vehicles to remove his vanity plates reading 1 REDSKN. The word
Redskin was
banned on plates by the DMV in 1999.
"We consider ourselves racially sensitive," says D.C. council
member Carol
Schwartz, who introduced the resolution against the Redskins,
"yet in this
one area we are so hypocritical. Since when is a sports team's
name more
important than the sensitivities of our fellow human beings? For
decades we
had the Washington Bullets, and [owner] Abe Pollin on his own
changed the
name [in 1997, because of the high murder rate in D.C.]. Guess
what? The
world did not stop spinning. Why we would keep this racist term
is beyond me."
While those who support names such as Seminoles (Florida State)
and Braves
can argue that the words celebrate Native American traditions,
applying that
claim to the Redskins is absurd. Nevertheless, Redskins vice
president Karl
Swanson says the name "symbolizes courage, dignity and leadership
and has
always been employed in that manner"--conveniently ignoring the
fact that in
popular usage dating back four centuries, the word has been a
slur based on
skin color. Swanson trots out research that traces the term
redskin to
Native Americans' custom of daubing on red paint before battle.
Many experts
on Native American history point out that the red paint was used
not for war
but for burial, and that the word redskin was first used by
whites who paid
and received bounties for dead Indians. "If you research the
origin of
redskin, no one would want that associated with his team," says
pro golfer
Notah Begay III, who is half Navajo and half Pueblo.
"Trading-post owners
used to offe!
r rewa
rds for Indian scalps. Signs would say something like, 'Redskin
scalps, worth
so much.'"
However, what's most important, Swanson counters, is intent:
Because the
Redskins and their fans mean nothing racist by using the
nickname, it isn't
racist or offensive. "This has been the name of our organization
for 70
years," PAGE 4 Sports Illustrated, March 4,
2002
Swanson says. "We believe it has taken on a meaning independent
of the word
itself--and it's positive."
Not so, says Harjo: "There's no more derogatory word that's used
against us,
about us, in the English language. Even if it didn't have such
heinous
origins, everyone knows that it has never been an honorific. It's
a terrible
insult."
Harjo is not alone in her thinking. A slew of dictionaries agree
that redskin
is contemptuous, and so do Native American academics, nearly
every Native
American organization and three judges on the U.S. Trademark
Trial and Appeal
Board. In April 1999, responding to a lawsuit brought by Harjo
and six other
Indian leaders, the board stripped the Washington Redskins of
federal
protection on their seven trademarks. If the decision stands up
under appeal,
the team and the NFL could lose an estimated $ 5 million annually
on sales of
licensed merchandise.
Even though no team name is under more sustained attack, there's
evidence
that for the Redskins, a name change would be good for business.
In 1996,
after much pressure from alumni threatening to withdraw their
financial
support, Miami (Ohio) University acceded to the Miami tribe's
request that it
change its team names from Redskins to Redhawks. The following
year alumni
gave a record $ 25 million to the school. "Someday it will
change," Miami
spokesman Richard Little says of the Washington Redskins name.
"And you know
what? There'll still be a football team there, and there'll still
be those
ugly fat guys in dresses cheering for it."
Swanson says the vast majority of Redskins fans like the name,
and indeed,
beyond the protests of politicians, there's no groundswell of
outrage against
it in D.C. In a city so racially sensitive that an aide to mayor
Anthony
Williams was forced to resign in 1999 for correctly using the
nonracial term
niggardly, there's nothing hotter than the mass pilgrimage of
80,000 fans to
Landover, Md., on Sundays in autumn to sing Hail to the Redskins
at FedEx
Field. Williams mentioned changing the name at a press conference
once, but
"no one really paid attention," says his aide Tony Bullock. "It's
not
something that anyone is really talking about." Nevertheless,
Bullock says,
"the mayor believes it is time to change the name."
That the name is offensive to Native Americans is easy for
non-Natives to
presume. It resonates when an Olympic hero and former Marine
Corps captain
such as Mills, who speaks out against Indian names and mascots at
schools
around the country, insists that a team named Redskins in the
capital of the
nation that committed genocide against Native Americans is the
equivalent of
a soccer team in Germany being called the Berlin Kikes. Says
Mills, "Our
truth is, redskin is tied to the murder of indigenous people."
Somehow that message is lost on most of Mills's fellow Native
Americans.
Asked if they were offended by the name Redskins, 75% of Native
American
respondents in SI's poll said they were not, and even on
reservations, where
Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most
intensely, 62%
said they weren't offended. Overall, 69% of Native American
respondents--and
57% of those living on reservations--feel it's O.K. for the
Washington
Redskins to continue using the name. "I like the name Redskins,"
says Mark
Timentwa, 50, a member of the Colville Confederated Tribes in
Washington
State who lives on the tribes' reservation. "A few elders find it
offensive,
but my mother loves the Redskins."
PAGE 5 Sports Illustrated, March 4, 2002
Only 29% of Native Americans, and 40% living on reservations,
thought Snyder
should change his team's name. Such indifference implies a near
total
disconnect between Native American activists and the general
Native American
population on this issue. "To a lot of the younger folks the name
Redskins is
tied to the football team, and it doesn't represent anything more
than the
team," says Roland McCook, a member of the tribal council of the
Ute tribe in
Fort Duchesne, Utah.
The Utes' experience with the University of Utah might serve as a
model for
successful resolution of conflicts over Indian nicknames. Four
years ago the
council met with university officials, who made it clear that
they would
change their teams' name, the Running Utes, if the tribe found it
objectionable. (The university had retired its cartoonish Indian
mascot years
before.) The council was perfectly happy to have the Ute name
continue to
circulate in the nations' sports pages, but council members said
they
intended to keep a close eye on its use. "We came away with an
understanding
that as long as the university used the Ute name in a positive
manner that
preserved the integrity of the Ute tribe, we would allow the use
of the name
and the Ute logo [two eagle feathers and a drum]," says McCook.
Florida
State, likewise, uses the name Seminoles for its teams with the
express
approval of the Seminole nation.
Like the Ute tribe, most Native Americans have no problem with
teams using
names like Indians and Fighting Illini--or even imposed names
like Sioux.
"People get upset about the Fighting Sioux, but why?" Gross says.
"We're not
Sioux people, anyway. The French and the Ojibway tribe gave us
that name, and
they're our hereditary enemies. We're not braves, and we're not
really
Indians. I know the history. For me those names are not a
problem." Many
Native Americans are offended, however, by mascots such as
Illinois's Chief
Illiniwek and others that dress up in feathers and so-called war
paint. "Just
do away with the imagery--the dancing, the pageantry," says
Gross.
Which brings us to the point at which the word problem becomes a
number
problem. Say you are a team owner. You kiss Chief Wahoo goodbye.
Stop the
chop. Dump the fake Indian garb, the turkey feathers and the war
paint. Get
rid of, say, the Redskins name because it's got a sullied history
and just
sounds wrong. Rename the team the Washington Warriors--without
the
Indian-head logo--and watch the new team hats and jackets hit the
stores.
Money is going to pour in, you see, and someone will have to
count it.
Mike
> Here is the Sports Illustrated article:
>
> JRWolf
>
I think you said it better than I could have thanks
Mike
JRWolf
was the Sports Illustrated article.
JRWolf
"Mike" <MikePu...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5e0d76a8.0203...@posting.google.com...
Mike
> Here is an analysis of the Sports Illustrated article that
> addresses the polling issues that was posted to another newsgroup
> and sent to SI and Harris Research Group via e-mail:
>
> JRWolf
>
Sorry this is the one I thought I was responding to. Serves me right
for not looking where I'm typing. Anyway thanks for posting it. Even
if I don't like the guy that wrote it.
Mike
JRWolf
> "JRWolf" <JRW...@barefootxxNOSPAMxxcreations.com> wrote in message
news:<u91ouk3...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Here is an analysis of the Sports Illustrated article that
> > addresses the polling issues that was posted to another newsgroup
> > and sent to SI and Harris Research Group via e-mail:
> >
> > JRWolf
> >
> Hi JR
>
> Sorry this is the one I thought I was responding to. Serves me right
> for not looking where I'm typing. Anyway thanks for posting it. Even
> if I don't like the guy that wrote it.
>
> Mike
>
LOL...I wish I could take credit for this one, but it was also not mine. It
was written by Robert Schmidt (his name is at the end of the analysis). I
should have made that clear at the top of the post.
JRWolf
Captain Infinity
In <u93v1l9...@corp.supernews.com>
JRWolf wrote:
>Thanks Mike, but none of this is mine. The entire post past my signature
>was the Sports Illustrated article.
>
>JRWolf
Special thanks to both you and Mike for posting the entire thing a
second and third time. I just can't read it too many times.
Post it all again real soon, okay? Daily, if you can.
**
"Captain Infinity"
..."Mrmee. Mrmee. Mrmee. Mrmee."
--"Repent, Harelequin!" Said the Ticktockman
JRWolf
news:q0b59usknkn0ge6d6...@4ax.com...
>
> In <u93v1l9...@corp.supernews.com>
> JRWolf wrote:
>
> >Thanks Mike, but none of this is mine. The entire post past my signature
> >was the Sports Illustrated article.
> >
> >JRWolf
>
> Special thanks to both you and Mike for posting the entire thing a
> second and third time. I just can't read it too many times.
>
> Post it all again real soon, okay? Daily, if you can.
>
Okay...if you insist. Do you want all three posts daily, or should I rotate
them one each day? Or perhaps you would just like me to e-mail them to you
each day?
I left the entire text in quite specifically, fellow smartass, so that Mike
would know quite specifically which post I was referring to, which of
course, why he also did the same when replying to me, since I posted three
*different* articles on the subject with the same basic introduction from
me. Geez, if it hurts that badly, either learn to download specific
messages or get something than a 2400 baud modem.....
JRWolf
ggull
Just Lori
>for that huge flamewar and Tyler's subsequent leaving, eh?
> ^^
>(Sorry, that was my 11% Canadian coming out.)
Just for fun, how do you get to be 11% Canadian (or any particular thing)?
That would take a geneology back at least what, eight generations? seven?
Just Lori
I took a test and it told me so: http://absolutek.com/canadiantest/