This was an essay question I had to answer on an exam this morning. I really liked it (yeah, I'm that nerd who sometimes likes exams), and though it would make a good discussion with the most intelligent yet awesome online community out there ;)

Throughout North America, many sports teams use Aboriginal team names and mascots. Examples of this include:

The Chicago Blackhawks
The Edmonton Eskimos
The Cleveland Indians
and many more.

Many people, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, find these to be quite racist. Others don't agree with this and think it's outrageous that these teams and mascots might be renamed.

Do you find them racist, or do you think they are not? Why?

(I'm leaving out the part about supporting your answer with appropriate material, but if you want to, give 'er!)

*cough cough* You should give us your take, too! *cough cough*

I don't find them to be racist, but not that racist.

Keep in mind that Natives aren't the only group who gets trivialized and stereotyped in the realm of sports mascots - don't forget the Fightin' Irish! Okay, that's the only non-native example I can think of, but it's 1!

There are some I find more offensive and racist than others. I find the Cleveland Indians team name and logo really offensive, maybe it's because I'm part Cree but I like to think it's because I'm a sensitive, modern girl. Just think about how well it would go over if they were the Cleveland n****rs and their logo was a smiling black man. Why is it okay to trivialize one culture and not another? I don't know.

So, I guess I think they are racist to an extent, but some are definitely more so than others. While I'd like to see some teams renamed, I think the first step is bringing this to people's attention.

Political Correctness in Sports SUCKS.

(Actually it sucks everywhere, but it is particularly sucky in sports...)

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, racism is defined as:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

As I'm sure you will all agree, none of these mascots aligns with either of these definitions. I think the question SHOULD have been, "Do any of these mascots poke fun at racial stereotypes, and if so, is that socially acceptable?"

I think the answer to the first part is STILL no. Why would using a stereotype as evidence that I/my team is good at what I/we do be detrimental to the person whom that stereotype typically refers to? The only way I can see that happening is if your team PURPOSEFULLY sucks, and uses the mascot as an example of another thing that sucks.

Does that make any sense?

In my mind you choose a mascot based on something you want to emulate. That can be taken as a compliment. The stereotypical mascots may be a negative side effect that I would certainly advocate changing. But setting up a situation where potentially thousands of fans passionately scream out, GO BLACKHAWKS, and the players identify with that moniker and are inspired by it, seems like a way to honor the culture rather than trivialize it.

As there are exceptions to every rule let me be the first to point out that there are silly mascots and wtf? mascots in every sport that were probably chosen because they are silly. I don't think Native Americans fall into this category.

Actually, Yes. Yes it does.

There's a little town just east of here called Eaton. A few years back, some Native American activists were upset because Eaton High School's mascot was the Indians. The story didn't get much attention until two Denver deejays suggested that the high school change it's mascot to the Beavers.

The Native American activists didn't get the change they wanted. But to think, the high school could have been the 'Eaton Beavers.'

Florida State University has worked very closely with the Seminole tribe and has their complete support in using the Seminole name as their mascot, as well as the Seminole logos, chants, etc. How can it be racism when the supposedly offended party says "No problem. We like it and approve it"? Each instance needs to be taken on a case by case basis and decided on it's own merits.

The Philadelphia Eagles chose the Eagle as their mascott because it is a graceful and powerful bird.

The Minnesota Vikings chose their mascot because vikings were a fearful and powerful people.

The Washington Redskins chose their mascot because the "redskins" were a noble and pwerful people.

I don't understand why people get offended by this sort of thing. You don't see a lot of Mick's protesting the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. Why? Because they feel more pride that pain that they were selected to be the emblem of a team.

They chose the "Indian" or the "Eskimo" or whatever because they believe they percieve those people to be "tough". I don't see that as racist at all.

Actually, I don't agree, but I'd use a different definition of racism. The Mirriam-Webster dictionary states racism to be "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

Based on this, I think trivializing the hardships of an entire peoples, MY ancestors, into sports logos and telling me I should be honoured by it is racist.


Once again, if they were called the Cleveland Niggers, would you still say this isn't racist? How about the Cleveland Darkies? What if that logo was a black-faced man instead of a red one? Why might that be racist, but the current one isn't?

No, not to me. I think all stereotypes hurt a bit, but - to use the Indians again - does this mean that I'm supposed to believe that only RED Indians who wear feathers are worthy of attention or being represented? I don't see how the "Noble Warrior" stereotype is something to feel honoured about.


Chinookie, this thread is hitting a sore spot with me today.

Only if the word "Indian" equates.

Also, that would sound dumb.

Except "Cleveland Indians" doesn't contain a racial slur "Cleveland n****rs" does.

Fine. Some people find 'Indian' very offensive, I don't, but most of my cousins do.

How about the Cleveland Darkies, then? Darky is roughly equal to Indian when it comes to slurs. Cleveland Whities, maybe?

Why is it okay to stereotype my history in this manner, but not anyone elses?

Not to you...But 'indian' is not a popular phrase amongst many tribes. It's not their name for themselves, it's a label slapped on them by people who pushed them off their land, denigrated their way of life, killed them, and ultimately, herded them onto reservations.

Personally, I don't really care. I grew up being called unkind names, and I learned really early on that I don't give a damn what most people think of me. Names hurt when you give them the power to do so.

Who was trivializing the hardships of an entire people? They choose logo's based on what it stands for, bravery and courage and battle-prowess are common attributes that teams look for in selecting their logo. (I don't know what the Saint excuse is...)

I really don't understand your logic. You're focusing on the race and not what the selected logo stands for. The Cleveland n****rs? What would the logo be, an opressed man chained up and being whipped? It just wouldn't make sense.

Why is the current one not racist? I don't know. It doesn't say that only "red skinned" indians are worthy of praise, nowhere is that stated. They chose to draw him red-skinned, possibly because the jersey colors include red. Should they have four different logo's to represent each of the skin tones? That's ludicrous.

The Redskins... I could see that one being racist. I mean, that pretty much is the equivelant to "n****r". But Indians? I have native american friends that get pissed off when someone uses the term "native american".

And as far as stereo typing your history. Fighting Irish & Vikings. I've never met an irish man or scandanavian that was upset by these teams. (and don't even try to tell me that the Fighting Irish logo isn't a huge stereotpye or that the Irish people haven't been f**ked over by other people.)

I don't know about you Tundra but I grew up on an Indian Reservation from 6th-12th grades and had a lot of Indian friends. At least on this reservation Indian was not an offensive term so I wouldn't consider Darkie to be in the same league as Indian.

What I think is really sad is Indians who turn their negative stereotypes into a self fulfilling prophesy and end up druggies, alchys, teenage moms, drop outs, etc instead of following their dreams. Focusing on sports mascots that are revered in their region seems the wrong place for a relief effort.

It should be noted that there is a huge cultural difference between the US reservation population and the Canadian people. Just saying. It's (fruit analogy of your choice, see below) thing--stuff happened here that didn't happen up north, stuff happened there that didn't happen here.

I agree, though I wouldn't use the word 'apple' there :)

Oh crap...I'm sorry, I really didn't even think of that. Ummm....Bananas and pineapples! Mangos and pears! Cantaloup and kumquats!

I had a big long rant typed here about how I grew up next to a reserve, and that my parents are both "half-breeds" and how I spent as much time on the reserve with my grandparents as I did on the farm with my other grandparents and how I've worked in and around various northern Native communities for the last decade and how the terms Indian and Eskimo are viewed as being equal to n****r in many places....

... but Maven stated it best. We live on the same continent, yes, but in sometimes very different countries.

Corn syrup and maple syrup?

LOL