Flipper wrote:The nivkname debate is interesting. The words themselves aren't the issue...they're just words. It's the "meaning" attached to them in the past by idiots that tend to rile people up. If there'd never been slavery and segregation and a denial of civil rights to black people in this country would anyone care if a school called their teams the "Darkies". If the concept of manifest destiny had been laughed at instead of embraced the US government might not have slaughtered thousands of native americans and stolen their land. Would we then care if the Miami Redskins existed?
This is a great point Flip, and you've made several good ones in this thread.
It's also worth saying, I think, that without history and context, it would never have occurred to many sports teams to name themselves after American Indians.
Miami decided it needed a new name because its "Big Red" were getting confused with Denison's "Big Red." The athletic department's publicity guy rolled out "Redskins" for the 1930-31 season.
The first reference to "Redskins" actually occurred a couple of seasons earler. A 1928 Miami Student article includes a reference to the "Big Red-Skinned Warriors."
And I think, with that reference, we really get to the real reason why these nicknames can be so bothersome for American Indians.
If we are honest with ourselves, we know that, more often than not, we give our sports teams names that sound fierce and are an attempt portray ourselves as bigger, better, tougher, fiercer warriors than our opponents.
After all, that's how we hit about "Falcons" here at Bowling Green. Sure, our normal college is small, the thinking went, but we can take down much bigger prey.
A 1982 study concluded that these were top ten nicknames in college sports at the time:
1. Eagles
2. Tigers
3. Cougars
4. Bulldogs
5. Warriors
6. Lions
7. Panthers
8. Indians
9. Wildcats
10. Bears
You've got nine bad ass, meat-eating animals on that list -- and "Indians."
I think that list shows, more than anything else, the spirit in which the nickname was conceived.
To use "Indians" in the sports context is to mostly use the word as a euphimism for war -- to emphasize that part of these societies at the exclusion of all the others.
(It probably implies savagery and a few other things, but I won't dwell on that)
While a lot of people prefer to see these nicknames as recognizing and honoring qualities like "strong willed," "survivor," "looked up to," "respected," "pride" (hey to Falcons52) -- I'm not sure we being honest with history when we say that.
Go back and look at that list. Look at that Miami Student quote. Or go to my high school, home of the "Warriors," with an Indian head logo on the floor of the lobby.
To portray Indians as warriors in this one-dimensional way is troubling in much the same way war protestors tick many of us off by going on and on about "American imperialism."
"American imperalism" gets under our skin because we don't see America that way.
Most Americans see ourselves as a nation that only goes to war when we have to. We don't see "war" as a defining quality for American culture. We would much rather be defined by our continuing aspiration to the idea that all men are created equal, that ours is a government of, by and for the people -- that sort of thing.
A lot of American Indians will say sure: We went to war. But we only did it when we figured we had to. it wasn't what we were about.
Bottom line: If Central Michigan fans ever start doing tomahawk chops at their football games, the Saginaw Chippewa would probably ask for the plug to be pulled on that nickname.
Hopefully it will never ever come to that.
) person, you need to recognize the handicap, but you shouldn't talk about it. I need to recognize someones ethinicty, but I can't talk about it. Its a fine line and I find myself on the wrong side of it most of the time.
