ChanelC wrote on Oct 12, 2007 12:05 AM:
" I'm an American Indian, I feel offended especially when there is this great debate as to whether or not schools/sports should reconsider the mascot issue, when there are bigger issues concerning Native Americans. Do we go around calling teams any derogatory names?
Just because we are the smallest population, doesn't mean that we should not receive the same amount of respect that everybody else seems to want. What happens when the population of Native Americans is completely wiped out? are you going to continually say that "we're using the name out of respect"? if anything, this whole thing makes me sad, when really the bigger issue should be, why is the population getting smaller and smaller? Why are there higher suicide and depression rates? but there's no concern... just if a mascot should stay "redskin", real nice. "
DutchBoy wrote on Oct 11, 2007 9:40 PM:
" Actually, Paul Krause, full-bloodied Indian and scholar, published a piece that took issue with so-called "tribal polls." The bottom line, tribal pollsters "cooked the books," calling tribal members who participated in anti-choice activities, as they related to Indian mascots. The referenced Harris poll and the Ingraham/Dartmouth polls are a more accurate gauge of Indian opinion on the matter. And, by the way, reservations have cell service, internet and hope. Despite what the "Indian minimalists" want to say. "
Uncommon Sense wrote on Oct 11, 2007 2:32 PM:
" If I were an American Indian I would be more offended by people like Andy K assuming most of us were living without the modern communication device found in 98% of homes in America. I don't see smoke signals being used anymore. "
thethinker wrote on Oct 11, 2007 1:53 PM:
" andyk - one more thing, except for the Flambeau reservation and the one in FLA (2 years ago), I have been to the rest of them in the past 6 months. I am sure they still have phones today. "
thethinker wrote on Oct 11, 2007 1:51 PM:
" andyk-lets see...I lived in Hayward for 10 years and the LCO Band of Ojibwas have a reservation there. Oh yeah, and they had phones. Shocking, I know. I've been to the Flambeau reservation east of Hayward (in the 80's), and they, too, had phones. Hmmm...I've been to reservations in Mahnomen, MN, Thief River Falls, MN, HoChunk in WI, one down in FLA (a seminole reservation? not certain of the tribe)-all had phones. Can't think of the name but there is one near Grand Forks, ND (Lakota tribe) - yup, they have phones. Startling isn't it? Modern technology on a reservation. You do know that over 98% of homes in the USA have phones, don't you? This includes tribal homes. "
andy k wrote on Oct 11, 2007 12:44 PM:
" Dutchboy, that's a total whitewash. (Get it? Dutchboy? Paint? Whitewash?) But to seriously address your point, I will reiterate that, for many reasons, the sport illustrated survey (which was not done by Gallup, but by the Peter Harris Research Group) is fatally flawed. I will also point out that surveys done by the tribes have revealed that about 80% of native americans think the nicknames and mascots are offensive. But you're right, they aren't unanimously opposed to the nicknames, just overwhelmingly so. "
andy k wrote on Oct 11, 2007 12:09 PM:
" thinker: Think now: when was the last time you visited an indian reservation and which one was it? "
thethinker wrote on Oct 11, 2007 11:15 AM:
" andyk-what is wrong with names like: Indians, Braves, Sioux, or Seminoles? I'd agree Redskins is a bit derogatory. But most other names are not offensive in ANY WAY. It's as absurd as being offended beacuse someone calls you a Minnesotan or Iowan. I also know that every poll I have read shows most indians do not object to the names above-they object to actions (tomahawk chop, ex.). It seems a few people complain and, typical of this nation, we coddle the minority at the expense of the majority. Tyranny by the minority. Hmmm, thought it was a democracy. Also, how do you find that most indian reservations don't have phones? That is simply not true. "
DutchBoy wrote on Oct 11, 2007 7:04 AM:
" First off, Paul Krause is a full-blooded Indian (Hochunk) and I have taken classes and attended workshops where he has presented. Secondly, the "Sports Illustrated poll" was actually a scientific survey administered by the Gallup organization. (I assume some of you might have heard of them.) The results were almost identical to a survey of done of tribal chairs and chiefs done by Laura Ingraham while she was at Dartmouth. Finally, if you're ever had the chance to hear Hochunk elders Alvin Blackdeer or Lyle Greengrass speak, you know mascots aren't a big deal to Indians. "
Big Bad Kirb wrote on Oct 10, 2007 9:01 PM:
" There are too many things to bring up about this subject and obviously I am against indian mascots. As a Tomah resident and seeing that the school has accepted and have the school spirit it should have with thier new mascot, is good to see. The Football Team has taken it up a notch and have come out on top of the MVC as the TIMBERWOLVES. The community has not lost a step with their school spirit because I've witnessed most of the home games. Especially the announcer likes his "First Down TimberrrrWolvvvves!!!!!" So many comments to respond to but I guess I'll just remain silent till I met kvnmcg and share my comments with this individual. "
Groucho wrote on Oct 10, 2007 8:34 PM:
" UW-L changed to the Eagles, and Central High changed its logo a few years ago. Nobody looked back. It was painless, and yet it pleased those who were offended by the original mascots. If a group says they are offended, who is to question them? Move on, people ... they're only mascots. "
DJ: wrote on Oct 10, 2007 8:30 PM:
" MM, the sad part is he wasn't even a native American, but of eastern european ancestry. So much for stereotyping, but I guess perception is everything. "
Concerned Citizen wrote on Oct 10, 2007 8:17 PM:
" To PicklesPlease: Go outside and get some fresh air. There is more to life than computers. Well maybe for some people.... "
andy k wrote on Oct 10, 2007 7:37 PM:
" Interesting Newt. What tribe do you work with and where is this reservation? "
newt wrote on Oct 10, 2007 5:49 PM:
" Not saying where I weigh in on this debate, as I really am not certain. I can say that I deal with many in the Native American population daily. Nearly 100% of them live on (in) a reservation and 100% of them have phones, including landlines and or cellphones. "
andy k wrote on Oct 10, 2007 5:10 PM:
" One of the main objections scholars had to the study was its claim that many of the respondents were living on "reservations". You see, most true reservations are isolated rural areas without phones. Since phones are necessary to conduct surveys, the survey could not have not been done mainly on reservations. Maybe that's why the research group was so secretive about its methods. In academic circles, the failure to release the methodology is fatal to the study. It "doesn't count". "
andy k wrote on Oct 10, 2007 4:43 PM:
" uncommon: Why would you accept an unscientific straw poll done by a sports magazine and mock all other research on the subject? If you're really interested, here's a good summary of the effect these nicknames have on real native americans. http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resolution_american_indian_mascots.pdf "
Uncommon Sense wrote on Oct 10, 2007 4:31 PM:
" Harmful to the self esteem of indian youth? The mascots are not made fun of, they are honored. They are symbols of school pride. How on earth would hurt anyone's self esteem? You are kidding, right? And in that survey, over 60% of those surveyed live on reservations. I doubt many white people are living on the reservations, so I can't subscribe to your theory that the survey was tainted by a bunch of white people pretending to be American Indians. Keep telling them they should be offended, though, and perhaps they will listen. "
OldFogey wrote on Oct 10, 2007 4:29 PM:
" Oh please... do NOT take away my Leinie’s beer!
"
newt wrote on Oct 10, 2007 4:22 PM:
" I'm thankful we have the right to "free speech." "
andy k wrote on Oct 10, 2007 4:21 PM:
" thethinker: What you seem to be asking is: Why don't other groups object to their names being used as mascots? Imagine it this way: Would you accept a nickname like the New York N-words? A texas team adopting the derogatory word for hispanics. A California team adopting the g-word, used to offend asians? We don't have schools (you know - the places where native american, black, asian kids go to learn) with those nicknames. Why do you think that is? "
thethinker wrote on Oct 10, 2007 4:08 PM:
" No more offensive nicknames whatsoever should be allowed in this "tolerant" nation. No Vikings(offends the norwegians), Bandits(offends criminals), Timberwolves(offends non forest wolves), Bluejackets(what if I don't wear jackets?), Lumberjacks(offends trees), tigers-bears-eagles-badgers any animal(offends PETA), Cowboys(offends cows), Twins(offends single children), Brewers(offends non drinkers), Spartans(offends the Athenians), Trojans(offends the Spartans), etc. Only inanimate objects can be used. How about the Westby Fighting Dirt? Onalaska Mighty Rocks? Holmen Blades of Grass? Viroqua Valleys? "
andy k wrote on Oct 10, 2007 3:58 PM:
" I think what they did was survey a bunch of white people who claim their great great grandpappy was a sioux warrior. I know 3 people who make those claims, and they're about as indian a I am. "
andy k wrote on Oct 10, 2007 3:55 PM:
" I'm aware of that survey (published in that reputable academic journal, Sports Illustrated), and I find it somewhat laughable. First of all, the methods of the study have never been published or revealed. Why not? To make it impossible for anyone to conduct their own research or attack the results. Second, it's impossible to identify "indians" unless you have access to tribal member rolls, which tribes don't release. Finally, the "study" ignores legitimate academic research showing that Indian mascots promote misunderstanding and discrimination against Indian people and are harmful to the self-esteem of Indian youth. "
kevin wrote on Oct 10, 2007 3:51 PM:
" I did read the article, and I have to disagree with Dan Green. I do not know the native americans by leine's, landolakes, mutual of omaha. I would know them by reading biographies of people such as Geronimo, Cochise, history books, creative literature and so on.....As for stealing land, everybody stole it from somebody else....at sometime. Give it a rest and let's move forward from here. To the victor go the spoils, tribes, families and nations have been practicing that premise since the beginning of time. Quit flogging the european settlers. Over half of european americans weren't even here when those events occurred. "
Uncommon Sense wrote on Oct 10, 2007 3:32 PM:
" Bottom line is, Andy K, in the survey reported in the link below, over 80% of polled American Indians were not offended by use of the mascots. That's 8 out of 10 are fine with it. Evidently its not nearly as upsetting to most of them as it is to people like you. Society has gotten way to thin skinned. This PC crap has gotten out of hand. "
PicklesPlease wrote on Oct 10, 2007 3:12 PM:
" but andy, don't forget, animals are people too...now they have rights remember...thanks an effing bunch PETA "
Andy k wrote on Oct 10, 2007 2:46 PM:
" VOR and uncommon sense: Your point is that mocking native americans is the same as mocking animals? Sorry. I don't see it that way. "
V.O.R. wrote on Oct 10, 2007 2:46 PM:
" Haha! Tony the Tiger! Got me laughing here. Seriously though, I think I'll head home now. Gonna play cowboys and indians with my son today. "
PicklesPlease wrote on Oct 10, 2007 2:42 PM:
" And for the people who like victim blaming, imagine your ancestors lived in a beautiful land--they respected the creatures, the wildlife, and only took what they needed to survive. They fought bravely to defend their communities and livlihood. They (most) were not the violent, bloodthirsty savages that whites (mainly) have made them out to be. They are a people in my opinion more worthy of respect and dignity than any other people that have ever existed. We owe them more than removal of derogatory mascots...let's try to remember the land we stole from them and the deserted worthless reservations we have left them to. It's time to help end the oppression, not write it off as being overly-sensitive! Change your effing mascots people--it's not that hard, trust me. "
PicklesPlease wrote on Oct 10, 2007 2:41 PM:
" I actually took Dan Green's class, and let me tell you, he doesn't mess around. He is a commendable and respectable man who also happens to be Native American and if you read the article you will see how much these mascot charicatures offend him--yes they actually seriously offend him as a Native American. So why are people arguing that it is only the whites and other ethnicities that are offended? Well FYI, it's not. "
Uncommon Sense wrote on Oct 10, 2007 2:39 PM:
" That's right, VOR, but as long as it is a true portait of a wolf, and not a characture, then maybe it is okay by the squirels. By the way, the monkeys are forming a protest line outside of Kellogs to protest the use of Tony the Tiger. "
V.O.R. wrote on Oct 10, 2007 2:19 PM:
" Hello Tomah School District. I'm a wolf and I'm very disappointed you are using me as a mascot. Actually, to be more specific, I really don't mind, but some squirrels are getting together to protest against wolves being used as mascots. Sorry for the trouble. "
andy k wrote on Oct 10, 2007 2:12 PM:
" In general, uses of tomahawks, spears, headdresses, warpaint, totem poles, etc. at sporting events should be avoided. If you're offended by religeous or ethnic stereotypes being applied to you, you should speak out (I hear lots of christians who say that their religeon isn't respected). I don't share your view that life without the likes of Chief Nockahoma (knock a homer, get it?) is dreary and dull. We're talking about the difference between a caricature and a realistic portrayal. It's hard to do the realistic portrayal at a sporting event, especially after 50 years of caricature. "
Uncommon Sense wrote on Oct 10, 2007 2:09 PM:
" Get Real...you are absolutely right...but it has already happened. There was a group about a year or so ago that was protesting the name of the Packers because it referred to the meat packing industry which is cruel to animals. "
kevin wrote on Oct 10, 2007 1:36 PM:
" So then every image and use of a tomahawk, spear, arrow, arrowhead, feather, headress, individual likeness, etc...unless used in an absolute realistic setting or depiction is insulting and should be avoided? And then we should apply that to every other nationality and all their symbols...we are going to have one sorry, sterile environment. When are we going to start renaming all the cities and landmarks that carry native american names? Who gets to determine whether a person/group is being disrespectful....I have always thought drunk people were more damaging to their own image than their subject matter. This stuff makes for great reading entertainment? "
Get Real wrote on Oct 10, 2007 1:34 PM:
" I see some ridiculous arguments in here. At the time these schools named their teams after Indians, Norsemen, Vikings or Cheesemakers I am sure that it was done because the community was proud of their heritage. Is that offensive? I don't think so but obviously some do. We live in society that is way too hung up on political correctness. Next PETA will think we are disgracing animals by using them as mascots. There probably isn't a drop of Native American blood in one poster on this issue. The whole issue was started by a salesman who wanted to sell all the schools new sports uniforms. Lighten up people there a lot more important issues in the world than this. "
bearcat25 wrote on Oct 10, 2007 1:06 PM:
" wow pickles you must have like a Ph. D righteousness or something....you sure do have alot of time to post here and call everyones opinion stupid that doesn't agree with yours... "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 10, 2007 12:46 PM:
" I also think the Irish ought to stop 'fighting' -- especially each other... "
banger wrote on Oct 10, 2007 12:31 PM:
" I am an Irish American and am organizing a group to put pressure on Notre Dame University to drop their "Irish" nickname. "
Michael Welch wrote on Oct 10, 2007 12:07 PM:
" American Indians are generally 'not amused' by being cartoonized as 'mascots' but then they've endured the great swings of being seen as either vicious savages or drunken jokes; they've been called 'Hey Chief!' maybe one (million) too many times eh? It's not necessary is it to forever and ever 'force' this 'honor' of serving as these 'mascots' for mainly white suburban high schoolers who couldn't tell you zip say about the Madoc war or even of Black Hawk though they were born and raised in Prairie Du Chien? Indian mascots should be the uh 'LAST of the Mohicans'... "
andy k wrote on Oct 10, 2007 12:04 PM:
" Tomahawks, spears, etc. are considered sacred in native american culture and religeon, as are feathers, "headdresses", etc.. That's the whole point. If you could limit the display to an authentically portrayed native american, there would be no problem (note the indians playing la crosse on Rose Street, which was done in consultation with the Ho Chunk nation, and without protest). But that's impossible when dealing with drunk college students and other rabid sports fans. You're always going to have the "tomahawk chop" and other caricatures. "
Uncommon Sense wrote on Oct 10, 2007 12:03 PM:
" I missed something. How is an indian cheif a religious symbol? And again, why is it never the Naitive Americans who are offended by being portayed by mascots as stoic, brave warriors. Perhaps its because that is a part of their heritage and culture that they are proud of? "
andy k wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:57 AM:
" Kevin,you may recall the "christ in urine" art display was widely (and correctly) criticized and protested as offensive to christians and to american culture. It was condemned on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Could you see it today? Absolutely not. It hasn't been displayed since 1989. Compare that to the way native american religeon is degraded at every illini, redmen, redskin, sporting event, without protest for the most part. "
kevin wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:42 AM:
" Andy K: Your response made me chuckle. Though I am a christian, it must have been the reference to being Irish that made you pull the cross/religion card. Also, I believe the cross has been placed in a jar of urine, elephant dung, and put on display to the masses, it has not made me call for an elimination of art....Since when has the image of a warrior, tomahawk(sp), warrior on a horse, etc... been considered religious? Also, there is/was a sports team named the fighting whites, it generated considerable interest and revenue by the way from all sides of this discussion. Still seems like alot of hot air and thin skinned, pc hugger types to me. "
Uncommon Sense wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:34 AM:
" Again...its not the Naitive Americans who are protesting this, nor was it the Naitive Americans who protested the statue at Riverside or the UWL Idians. "
RanDomino wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:31 AM:
" kvnmcg: Eliminating negative sterotypes IS a self-improvement issue. Sports team mascots are usually one of two things: An animal, or an indian. I.E., indians are equated to animals when they are used as mascots. Not cool. "
andy k wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:30 AM:
" To Kevin: Of course, you've never had to deal with having the symbol of your religeon(christ, I assume) mocked and turned into a caricature at a sporting event (notre dame's leprauchaun isn't the same thing - neither is a viking or a noreseman, etc.). Would you feel the same way about a drunk college student brandishing a crucifix (you know, the kind with the dead jesus right on it) as a sex toy at a game? It's fine if you're not offended by this, but consider the possibility that others might have more respect for their religeous symbols. "
PicklesPlease wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:27 AM:
" one imbicile, er excuse me, uneducated, irrational, arrogant poster (to be politically correct) wrote= "put half as much effort into self improvement as they put into "mascot" issues they would be more furthered along." well a good chuckle for sure but as they say in english class, learn to use grammar before you speak your mind...i think i just lost 16 IQ points by reading that... "
kvnmcg wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:13 AM:
" If the Indians, (oh, excuse me "Native Americans" must maintain political correctness), put half as much effort into self improvement as they put into "mascot" issues they would be more furthered along. Yea, they got a raw deal years ago, but you can't turn back the clock and you can't wallow in self pity. Get over it and move on! "
DutchBoy wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:12 AM:
" To see a real Indian's opinion, just read this column from a few years back:
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2002/03/24/stories/opinion/02community24.txt
Refreshing honesty, indeed! "
Kevin wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:10 AM:
" I happen to be one of the Fighting Irish, Drunken Irish, Lucky Irish, etc.....and I don't think I have ever been insulted by those labels. Each one of those labels I enjoy at different times of my life....I think we are getting too thin skinned, and we have lost the fact that we are Americans first and foremost in our quest to save each of our ancestoral heritages. If we would spend a little more time thinking of ourselves as Americans and not splinter groups, perhaps our divisive culture could grow together more. Diversity without tolerance gets us no where. There's also a little Polish, German, Norwegian in there as well....But as my grandfather told me, you're American first and last. "
PicklesPlease wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:04 AM:
" wow uncommon sense, it seems i spoke too soon..and i am glad to see that "
PicklesPlease wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:02 AM:
" uncommon sense (true to your name) i think it is interesting that you find the assumption that minorities should be able to relate to each other being stereotyped as offensive--yet you have no problem with bobo's comment "an indian holding cards in one hand and booze in the other? That's the real image if you look at what their culture has evolved to." selective offensiveness brings up many questions, the main one being why does our culture see it as ok to discriminate and offend native americans but not ANY OTHER MINORITY denomination....interesting. "
andy k wrote on Oct 10, 2007 10:47 AM:
" To get real: By your logic, I have no right to be offended by the N word, because I'm not black. Understanding this issue and why it's offensive to native americans involves understanding american history, and the ability to look at the issue from another person's perspective. Bigotry against another person's culture and religeon is offensive to me, no matter whose the target is. "
andy k wrote on Oct 10, 2007 10:42 AM:
" How about this: Notre Dame fans protraying Jesus as a drunken, sex-crazed lunatic at a basketball game. Offensive? You'd be silly to argue that it's not. The portrayal of native americans by drunk college students (which is never authentic) is the same thing. It's shameful that we're not equally offended. "
Get Real wrote on Oct 10, 2007 10:40 AM:
" So if having your image use as a mascot is so negative why is it only the Native Americans are offended. Why aren't Norsemen, Vikings, Cheesemakers, Papermakers, Midgets, Cubans, Truckers, and Hillmen all offensive? These are all highschool football mascot names and you never hear anyone complain about them. I think the Native Americans should face the much more important problems such as the drop out rate and the alcoholism of Native American students.
I bet not one Native American student has ever dropped out because of the school mascot.
"
Philly wrote on Oct 10, 2007 10:39 AM:
" I think it is imperative of the school, team, etc. to get feedback from the Native Americans that are local. If they find it offensive, go in another direction out of respect. If they endorse the idea, educate your school, team....and carry your name, logo, etc. with respect. Different areas and different tribes have different opionions about this. In Florida, the Seminole nation takes an enormous amount of pride with Florida St. being the Seminoles. A couple of years ago the NCAA tried to ban all use of Indian names, logos, etc. and the Seminole nation took legal action to preserve that Florida St. remains the Seminoles. "
Uncommon Sense wrote on Oct 10, 2007 10:31 AM:
" But on the same hand...Pickles does have a point about the "cards in one hand booze in the other" comment. "
Uncommon Sense wrote on Oct 10, 2007 10:19 AM:
" Just like when UWL went through this, and when the protesters wanted the Riverside statue removed, it was not naitive Americans doing the protesting. Its white people who are telling the Naitive Americans that they should be offended. Just like PicklesPlease telling Bobo that he should find it offensive because he is African American and should be able to "relate". "
andy k wrote on Oct 10, 2007 9:27 AM:
" Not too long ago, right here in La Crosse, there was a controversy resulting from a cheer at a local basketball game involving the catholic school's team. The other team's fans did cheers suggesting that catholic priests were child molesters. Of course, everyone was up in arms about that cheer, indicating how offensive it was to catholics. I applaud catholics for speaking out about that. But those kinds of insults have been directed at native american culture and religeon for decades, and all we can do is to tell them to keep their mouths shut and take it? They've taken it long enough. It's just a mascot, and it's offensive. Change it already. "
nolyow wrote on Oct 10, 2007 9:13 AM:
" Land O’Lakes butter, Leinie’s beer, Mutual of Omaha — when I think of these logos I see a proud Native American looking out over our beautiful land, not screaming blood and murder. If we got rid of every Indian image today, will we hear 10 years from now how we ignore the Native American culture, you bet. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it. "
PicklesPlease wrote on Oct 10, 2007 8:47 AM:
" a masked character (not authentically accuarate of actual native american culture/lifestyle) waving a tomahawk and screaming for blood is not a compliment to native americans, as many of the ignorant flocks seem to be arguing. it is turning a spiritual people who had a beautiful culture and harmonious way of life into some kind of animalisitc beast-- NO THANK YOU! i am glad someone is fighting to end this disgusting campaign. "
PicklesPlease wrote on Oct 10, 2007 8:39 AM:
" another question, if it's ok to have an "Indian" mascot and put him in a boiling pot of water, I wonder what we would hear if we were to have jew mascots for banks "pinching your pennies for you!" or asian condom commercials "yes, even if she can't feel it, you still need it" or maybe a black mascot representing watches "it may not get you to work on time, but you sure look fine." yeah stereotyping is the best don't you think? I agree bobo, no one gets hurt at all, it's all just fun and games. "
earl wrote on Oct 10, 2007 8:28 AM:
" I applaud any team/city that has the fortitude to stand up and fight gor their rights. Congratulation to GET for keeping their schools tradition. Also Florida State, Washington Redskins, etc. American Indians take notice it is far better to be known as a warrior than what some of your tribes have become. Casino operators and alcohol statistics. "
BoBo wrote on Oct 10, 2007 12:54 AM:
" As an african american, I can understand the degradation issue, but I don't see how the native americans were or are being degraded. When white men landed in this country and everyone couldn't get along, they just had a war plain and simple. The native americans lost and the whites won. As in any war, you have a winner and a loser. Just about every mascot I have ever seen was an honor to the native americans. Would you rather the image be an indian holding cards in one hand and booze in the other? That's the real image if you look at what their culture has evolved to. Degradation would be for the white man to enslave them and use them as weapons in a war against their enemies. Like my people had happen to them. " "
BoBo wrote on Oct 10, 2007 12:12 AM:
" As an african american, I can understand the degradation issue, but I don't see how the native americans were or are being degraded. When white men landed in this country and everyone couldn't get along, they just had a war plain and simple. The native americans lost and the whites won. As in any war, you have a winner and a loser. Just about every mascot I have ever seen was an honor to the native americans. Would you rather the image be an indian holding cards in one hand and booze in the other? That's the real image if you look at what their culture has evolved to. Degradation would be for the white man to enslave them and use them as weapons in a war against their enemies. Like my people had happen to them. "
Uncle Ted wrote on Oct 9, 2007 11:41 PM:
" What a waste of time this is. So much energy and money is wasted on political correctness and making sure nobody's "feelings" are hurt - It's getting out of hand and mainstream American doesn't really care. "
Avery Wehrs wrote on Oct 9, 2007 11:04 PM:
" Concerned Citizen:
You claim that the use of American Indians as mascots stands as a symbol of the Americna people's admiration. Perhaps we should consider the other ways this "admiration" has shown itself. Review your history: the Indian Removal Act, the Trail of Tears, the massacre at Wounded Knee, the Black Hawk War, and thousands of other similar occurances stand to exemplify the American attitude toward the original peoples of this land. Taking into consideration the atrocities these people have endured, is it too much to ask that they be allowed to hold on to their dignity? "
Concerned Citizen wrote on Oct 9, 2007 10:58 PM:
" " I believe that with all the problems that we have in this country that it is a HUGE waste of time trying to ban Native American mascots, I mean really.. These mascots and team names were chosen out of admiration of the Natives not to exploit them. Why don't you people volounteer your time more productively such as working for a non-profit group that feeds the hungry or assists the homeless. It's probably just an excuse to go to Lambeau!!! " "
Advertisement
