(Im sure the Zulus would not be offended)

Eh? When was America in the business of oppressing the Zulus? The apt comparison would be with British football.

As a comparison with the apparent compulsory need for a binominal title for sports teams in America, this is what the team names in the Premiership are:

Arsenal
Aston Villa
Birmingham City
Blackburn Rovers
Bolton Wanderers
Charlton Athletic
Chelsea
Everton
Fulham
Liverpool
Manchester City
Manchester United
Middlesborough
Newcastle United
Portsmouth
Sunderland
Tottenham Hotspur
West Bromich Albion
West Ham United
Wigan Athletic

That is totaly INACURATE! Alot of people LOVED this shirt when it came out. Of course, it was a stupid picture. But there is the fighting Irish (stereotype) leprechaun, the Vikings, Patriots….etc…

As stated earlier, when all the images are of white guys, (Im sure the Zulus would not be offended) then the aborigional americans, (Im NATIVE American) will cry to be put back on… good luck…

In classroom debates, as you’ve noticed, students sometimes impute assigned points of view to students who are only arguing a particular position because they were instructed to do so. A good way of defusing that is to make students argue both sides. I don’t know whether that fits into your format very practically, but it stops the self righteousness you often get, and, I think, lets people understand the issues a little better.

I have some mixed feelings about these issues, and to be honest, they’re not resolved enough to yield a clear answer. So, I’ll ruminate a moment.

Ok, so racist mascots which mock people, not a good thing.

What about nonracist mascots which refer to race? Is it even possible to have such a nonracist mascot? I sure hope so, because if thats literally not possible, then that spells bad things for any hope of racial reconciliation. Can a mascot employ racial stereotypes, but not actually be offensive? I’m looking at the Fighting Irish here. What if its offensive to some people, but not to others? How many people have to be offended before we care? Does it matter which people?

I am also aware that, politically, employing racial issues is a great way to win power in a minority subculture. The feeling that your culture is under threat from evil outside sources is a great unifier. Even if you’re not trying to cynically win power, its also a great way of reaffirming your ethnicity to yourself, and helping you create an identity. Its arguably why middle class young people of all ethnicities so frequently end up more racially radical than the rest of their culture/ethnicity. It would also explain why the surveys above suggest that this is an issue largely ignored by indians on reservations, but picked up by students on campus and by the indian “leaders” who are organizing the reform. So perhaps this is something of a manufactured controversy?

My area has a local radio show. Its got some really old italian guys who play old italian music, talk, sometimes in italian, and generally, well, be italian on the air. At one point, my mother was listening to this show, and related to me what she heard- the announcer was explaining to the audience that if only, if only italians could unite politically, they could run our state. There are so many italians here that our italian voting block would be completely unstoppable. He was lamenting our inability to mobilize. The flaws in his reasoning were obvious, I think- italians have no common ground on which to unite, for one, and in addition, while I may be italian, have italian grandparents, etc, I also have irish, german, english, scottish, french, etc, etc, relatives. Why should I self identify as italian? As a result, were an italian mascot created for a sports team, I honestly wouldn’t care, unless that mascot were blatantly offensive, and even then, I wouldn’t care very personally. I guess where I’m going with this is, which is a better world? One where my “italianness” was preserved, and I participated in italian rituals and cultural acts, or one where my italianness has dissipated to the point where mocking italians doesn’t even bother me, except in the same abstract sense that mocking indians bothers me.

I suspect that this talk of “who owns native american culture” is a red herring. Who owns any culture? Isn’t the word “ownership” being used in some sort of bizarre fashion here? Lets say that jewish people “own” the seder. If I have a seder, can they stop me? Should they be able to? Should left thinking people get angry at me for “stealing” the jewish seder? Maybe “own” is just not a good word for this.

The Boy Scouts have a number of ceremonies which are modeled after a grab bag of Indian ceremonies. I don’t think there’s any one to one comparison between boy scout ceremonies and specific tribal ceremonies, I think they’re kind of a composite. They were undoubtedly created during a time period when political correctness was not a concern. What factors should go into deciding whether these should be retained? Whether the Boy Scouts properly “own” these ceremonies? An abstract evaluation of “offensiveness?” Offensiveness to the general public? Offensiveness to actual, living Indians? Should we preference Indians who live in traditional manners? Do we want to get into the question of “who’s Indian enough that their opinion counts?” Do you need one of those cards? What about people from other ethnic backgrounds, who have married into an Indian tribe and now live as they do? What if the opinion polls change? Would we reevaluate, and put the ceremonies back in? Or take them out?

I’m sure the Jews would be honored.

[…]