Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Slinger
It is an argument. Not to put words in anyones mouth but the argument is basically:
The Redskins name is offensive and should be changed. The Chiefs, Indians, Blackhawks, Braves, Seminoles, Scouts, Fighting Sioux, etc are not necessarily offensive but rather an homage to the culture and don't need to be changed. However, the logo of the Cleveland Indians and other similar logos is a negative racial stereotype and should be changed.
So, it's neither A nor B, hence it is C.
|
I would like to point out that none of A, B and C are
arguments. They are
opinions or
positions on the issue which might or might not be
based on arguments.
Arguments are something to back up your position with. They are generally based on logic ("hiding the warrior imagery of native Americans from sight does not make native Americans richer or whiter, and not necessarily one bit less stomped up") analogies ("it's basicly glorifying genocide") or defeasible facts ("This poll says x", "these panelists here are an example of natives taking offense").
Now, to clarify my position.
I think "mystification and glorification of historical native American warriors" might be more accurate. I mean it's not like those teams have a very clear connection to true native American culture. Hard to really "pay homage" if you don't know the thing you're supposedly honoring.
Is that kind of mystification a bad thing? That's kind of hard to say. Glorification propably is not, and it's propably the part which some native Americans enjoy. You know, like the guys who thought it was cool to identify as "wagon burners". Badassery.
At least "is mystification of native Americans a bad thing?" is a more precise question than "is this offensive?".
I don't like decisions that are based on someone being offended. It's such an arbitrary concept that it does easily lead to a slippery slope. Like the history of political correctness does show. While a good thing in itself, it's difficult to tell when is the time to leave something alone.
Also, someone is always offended. Many sports fans are propably offended by the idea that their team would need to change it's name against it's will. How do you compare offense A vs. offense B fairly? Does being native American give your personal feelings more weight? I don't see that it does.
But "mystification serves to marginalize native Americans" changes the discussion to actual harm.. Sports fans might be offended, but they will not harmed. So now we are talking about two clearly unequal positions, potential harm vs. personal offense.
Next I'm looking at each type of name from that point of view; is this mystification
harmful?
Aztecs: Actual tribe from history, but not really even connected to people living today, from what I understand. Not really different from, say, Romans. Free domain I'd say, but possibly should be dealt with like "seminoles".
Scouts - Chiefs - Braves: Positive terminology, and the associations are not limited to native American culture. Hard to see how getting associated with these words would be harmful, but I'd still look at the imagery they use. We are still sort of talking about native Americans. Sort of, the connection to actual people is a little hazy.
Seminoles - : Well, since we are talking about an actual living group of people, it would seem obvious that the seminole should be the ones deciding if it's okay or not for use. (Although asking "the seminole" can be kind hard to do.)
Blackhawks: Mystification and glorification of an actual sauk leader and his troops. Hmm... So really we are talking about sauk history here. Asking the sauk seems like the right thing to do.
Indians - Redmen - Eskimos - Redskins : These are all "names that the whiteman has given". Clearly relates to perceived inferiority, and that's pretty obviously a terrible thing to mystify. "Mysterious subhumans." I can't imagine there being a counter-argument to topple the problems.
Okay, I've got my position.
Quote:
C: These team names generally come in three categories which should be handled differently.
- Names associated to a specific group of native Americans living today. These should be considered the "property" of the people in question, but can be used with their approval. Examples include Fighting Sioux, Seminoles and Blackhawks.
- Positive or neutral names associated to native Americans in general. These don't belong to anyone (especially since native Americans are not one group of people). The imagery these teams use should however be under constant scrutiny. It's the price you pay for using those names. Examples include Chiefs, Braves and Scouts.
- Derogatory names or names given to native Americans by whites. Not okay to use. Examples include Eskimos, Redskins and Indians.
|
So there. Now that I've put some thought into this, that's my new and improved personal opinion on using native American imagery in sports.
Whew.
To get more into detail, I think in category 1 a definitive expression of approval is required, there is no need to prove general objection or disapproval. Also, could the people in question be given partial ownership in these franchises? Possibly more trouble than it's worth, but worth thinking about at least.
