Regarding the great name controversy, some who know me (like Glenn)
might be surprised that I have relatively ambivalent feelings on the
topic. However, there are certain things that I feel the need to
address.
First off, if UML wants to change its name, so be it. Whose business
is it (besides those of the UML community) whether or not they change
their name? Some of us don't think the name 'Chiefs' is offensive, but
if UML people feel that it is, so be it. If they would feel more comfortable
with another nickname, who are we to say that they SHOULD keep this nickname.
What business of it is ours? I'm not offended by 'Chiefs', but I'm not offended
that UML wants to change it either.
Second, I don't have a particular fondness for political correctness but
is this (the UML case) an example of it? I doubt it. The type of PC that
fear is one where ideas are being censored. What idea is being advanced
by the name 'Chiefs' or any other nickname for that matter? None. Are
Knights inherently better than Saints or Engineers? On the ice, perhaps :),
but are administrators trying to convince us of some idea? No. Will the
lives or beliefs of UML students be changed if they refer to the teams
as Clippers or Tigers or something else? Of course not. A nickname is
merely a nickname. I don't think people should get offended by it; but
I don't think people should get offended if it's changed either. A nickname
is not meant to convey ideas. But if it does, and it conveys an idea
contrary to what the wants to convey, is it wrong for them to change it?
I do think 'Redskin' is offensive. It is comparable to 'nigger' to a black
person or 'bitch' to a woman. I'm not offended by 'Chiefs' or 'Warriors',
though. However, that's me looknig at it as a white person. As Glenn wrote,
"[We haven't] walked an inch (much less a mile) in their shoes." Then again,
that includes Glenn as well. Maybe Native Americans would be
offended by Fighting Sioux, Warriors, Chiefs, et al. Maybe they would
not. Or, perhaps most to the point, their opinions as a group is no more
homogeneous or monolithic than those of any other group!
Also, I think that when we're looking at what is offensive, we have to
look beyond names. Otherwise, we're being superficial. There are many
teams with Indian names that portray them in a stereotypical way. There
are many others who do not. I know that the University of Illinois
(nickname: Fighting Illini), if you want to be the mascot at sporting
events, the U actually brings in a member of the tribe to teach you how
to properly perform the ritual dance. But if you just look at it from
the surface ("They're nickname the Fighting Illini so it must be racist"),
you might come to the wrong conclusion. Many schools, including my high school,
take pains to devise logos with Indians that were actually indigenous to the
area, as opposed to the obnoxious mascot of the Cleveland Indians.
I have no problem with schools dumping Indian mascots. I have no problems
with those who keep Indian mascots. However, those that dump them should
be wary of self-congratulation. That does not make them any more sensitive
about anyone else. That doesn't mean they are necesarily contributing to the
demise of stereotypes about Indians. What do they teach about Native Americans
in their classes? Do they try to dispell the stereotypes portrayed in Hollywood
movies? Is there more than cursory mention of the virtual holocaust
performed on Native Americans by the US Government? Is there mention of
Indian culture? Is there mention of the role Native Americans played in the
evolution of that particular region? If not, the dumping of a mascot is
a truly empty gesture!
------ADIRONDACK RED WINGS-----CALDER CUP CHAMPS:---1981---1986---1989---1992--
| Bri Farenell [log in to unmask] |
| Clarkson Univ. '95 Glens Falls High '91 GO ERIN WHITTEN! |
| NCAA, AHL, ECAC and Boston Bruins contact for rec.sport.hockey |
| Join the AHL mailing list: [log in to unmask] |
------USA HOCKEY-------------OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALISTS----1960----1980----1994?---
|
