The thing with headdresses is that from what I understand, they are considered regalia and it is insulting when they are degraded into being a "costume".
To be honest, I am not sure that I quite understand how it makes aboriginal people feel as it is difficult to apply the same thing to my culture. Sure we have traditional clothing and dances, but they aren't really exploited in the same way.
I just trust the fact that they are insulted by it and no further explanation or defense from aboriginals is really needed IMO.
The way I understand it being honoured with an eagle feather is a big deal, maybe a religious honour. Maybe something of a similar example would be a service medal. So, as a weaker example it may be like somebody parading around with medals you didn't earn just for fun.
The Following User Says Thank You to Vulcan For This Useful Post:
Our cultural equivalent to the war bonnet would be someone buying some military medals and wearing them around at public events. It's pretty much a guaranteed way to get punched in the nose by someone who had served.
The wearing of war bonnets was a very contentious issue at music festivals this summer. People love the aesthetic of the bonnet and they were gaining popularity as fashion over the last few years. Native groups responded by stating that the War Bonnet was a sacred object to them and that it was never acceptable for someone to wear one who hadn't earned the right to.
Things like Arrowhead, the Chiefs and Native American imagery in general is understandably a mixed bag of valid points and over-reactions.
I'm a huge supporter of the Redskins changing their name, but just that the name 'Redskins' is downright offensive.
It's been said over and over, but it bears repeating. There is a 0% chance anyone would find this acceptable:
And refering to them as 'black' isn't even offensive at it's core and we wouldn't use it. However, 'Red Skin' in and of itself, is mind-blowingly offensive. Where people will refer to their skin as 'black' there is no Native American that would refer to themselves as 'red' (maybe someone naive, but a little history lesson would change their mind). Red is referring to the freakin' SCALPING of their people:
There is no way we won't look back on this and all agree that the Washington Redskins was a mindblowingly embarrassing time for racial equality. The fact that it's even a debated topic is blowing my mind.
The USE of imagery is still tricky though. Is a sacred headdress REALLY offensive? Or are we just being hyper sensitive? Honestly, I wish we just focused on the Indians and Redskins and stopped watering down the whole debate with fuzzy issues. There should be zero question that the Redskins should be changed, and SLIGHT reasonable debate against the Indians being changed.
Last edited by Split98; 10-01-2014 at 08:48 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Split98 For This Useful Post:
If we are really so worried about the Redskins name.... how is this not offensive and not a big topic?
If we want to use the whole 'blackskins' argument here - I'm sure if a crowd was dressed up like this and doing this type of dance/chanting it would go over well:
If we are really so worried about the Redskins name.... how is this not offensive and not a big topic?
If we want to use the whole 'blackskins' argument here - I'm sure if a crowd was dressed up like this and doing this type of dance/chanting it would go over well:
Here's the thing, and I'm torn myself. I think we are being overly sensitive to using imagery of any Native American culture in sports. But the reason we are sensitive at all is because we have used it negatively by calling teams racial or arrogant slurs. No one is offended if we call Obama black, because it is referring to the pigment in his skin. If the States had a North American President, we most certainly would not be calling him 'red', because that is incredibly racist. We also wouldn't be calling him 'Indian', because it is arrogant.
But the opening kick-off at Arrowhead is only offensive if you are mocking their traditions. But they aren't, I would argue the KC fans love the culture and are celebrating it. They think it's really cool. I get that Aboriginals aren't going to be happy that the headdress and warpaint are a mis-representation of their culture, but it is taking a theme and paying homage to it in sports. Mock the fans for getting it wrong, but being offended about it really is overly sensitive. As an Irishman, I'm not going to stomp around Notre Dame in a huff... I chuckle at the fun they have had with a stereotype. And I think we'd mock any Irishman who really is shaken up over the Fighting Irish rituals and logo.
In the comments on that video, someone is upset that they are #NotYourMascot, but again... watering down the ACTUAL issue by attacking benign and misunderstood representations of your culture just blanked the entire problem in obscurity. That person also asks " If we would not manufacture and wear as an accessory the “purple heart,” or “merit stripes,” cause it looks cool, then why wear chicken feather’d headdress, and fake braided wigs at the game?" yet... the Columbus Blue Jackets are cool. They use the civil war theme and no one has absolutely any issue with it. So a team were a Purple Heart and merit stripes would be a part of the fan base shouldn't be offensive to anybody. As a culture, we are able to celebrate the meaning of the Purple Heart despite having a shirt with one printed on it; in the same way we can appreciate the honour of the headdress despite a Chief's fans getup. I'm really not going to confuse the two or have any kind of devaluation of their culture because of it.
The Washington Zulu would be cool! Why not? And why not integrate a Zulu dance into the teams celebration? The Washington N-words doing a Zulu dance? That would be wrong.
But again, I just wish we would stop watering down the whole debate. Every time I see it come up and people start bringing up College teams, the Blackhawks, the Chiefs, etc... it just ruins what needs to be fixed. If the question is "is the use of Native American imagery in sports offensive?" (which is all you are asking if you involve all teams), then the answer is no. If you ask "should we be using arrogant or otherwise offensive terms in team games?", then obviously the answer is no.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Split98 For This Useful Post:
Redskins name is fine. I'm quite tired, or especially tired of things being politically incorrect. The name has been around for years, engraved on a superb bowl and if you want to be politically correct, had the first black qback win it all. Leave bloody things as they are and worry about things that really matter.
Redskins name is fine. I'm quite tired, or especially tired of things being politically incorrect. The name has been around for years, engraved on a superb bowl and if you want to be politically correct, had the first black qback win it all. Leave bloody things as they are and worry about things that really matter.
If you're not native I'm not sure you get to make that call
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
I could care a less if I'm white black aboriginal or from planet Mars
Whether you can or can't care less doesn't really matter.
The n word doesn't offend me. That doesn't mean it's ok to use as a sports team name.
For the record, I think using something like Cataractes, Chiefs or Braves is fine. I liken that to Celtics, Kings or Knights. Using an image of a Native chief as a logo when you're named after a tribe or something I think is also fine.
Names like Indians and Redskins are not fine. They are derogatory and/or ignorant and outdated terms. Logos like Cleveland's are not fine. Not because it's a depiction of a native person, because it's a caricature of a native person with bright red skin. The only way it would be worse is if he had a big peace pipe in his mouth.
Ironically, I think the logo of the Redskins is fine, its the name that makes everything about it racist. If they were called the Braves, and had the logo they currently have, I don't believe it would be a problem.
I could care a less if I'm white black aboriginal or from planet Mars
Your dismissal of this racism as a (presumably) white person is incredibly irrelevant.
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to metallicat For This Useful Post:
This will always be an argument as long as the name stands. Someone is always going to be upset about the name and as long as that person keeps complaining it'll be an issue. You'll never have 100% buy in. Some will be upset if the name isn't changed and some will be upset if it is changed. Personally, I think it should stay as is because if a team is forced to change their name over something like this, you're going to see groups of people complaining about any team name they can. Because of partial Nordic ancestry, I'm going to raise a huge stink over how the Vikings are portrayed in Minnesota and how Montreal calls their team the Canadians but the province of Quebec wants to separate from Canada. Those arguments don't make much sense but you're going to hear people making them if you change names of teams now.
The teams weren't named as a sign of disrespect or to make fun of any specific groups, if anything they were named as an homage to those groups. I honestly think this is just a case of people complaining for the sake of complaining. Some people aren't happy unless they're miserable.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
Redskins name is fine. I'm quite tired, or especially tired of things being politically incorrect. The name has been around for years, engraved on a superb bowl and if you want to be politically correct, had the first black qback win it all. Leave bloody things as they are and worry about things that really matter.
Hear Hear!!!
If only previous generations had done the same with the women folk, and those pesky blacks.
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
This will always be an argument as long as the name stands. Someone is always going to be upset about the name and as long as that person keeps complaining it'll be an issue. You'll never have 100% buy in. Some will be upset if the name isn't changed and some will be upset if it is changed. Personally, I think it should stay as is because if a team is forced to change their name over something like this, you're going to see groups of people complaining about any team name they can. Because of partial Nordic ancestry, I'm going to raise a huge stink over how the Vikings are portrayed in Minnesota and how Montreal calls their team the Canadians but the province of Quebec wants to separate from Canada. Those arguments don't make much sense but you're going to hear people making them if you change names of teams now.
The teams weren't named as a sign of disrespect or to make fun of any specific groups, if anything they were named as an homage to those groups. I honestly think this is just a case of people complaining for the sake of complaining. Some people aren't happy unless they're miserable.
I have no doubt that the Cataractes will take a lot of heat for those posters, and I have no doubt that I will take a lot of heat for my opinion, but I think the posters are awesome.
And I think they honour Native Americans.
But I am not Native American so my opinion is irrelevant.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
I have no doubt that the Cataractes will take a lot of heat for those posters, and I have no doubt that I will take a lot of heat for my opinion, but I think the posters are awesome.
And I think they honour Native Americans.
But I am not Native American so my opinion is irrelevant.
I agree. I think there is a very stark difference between something like those posters and something like the Indians' logo (and name), or the Redskins name.
