The CardBoard
Controversial Mascot Names in the News - USPTO Takes a Stand - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Controversial Mascot Names in the News - USPTO Takes a Stand (/thread-7294.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Re: Saving Native Americans from Shame, Gov't Style - Rally - 06-25-2014

Yvonne, my "Figures" in no way implies the motive you ascribe to me nor do I hold that view and I resent your implication.  Also, I have said nothing regarding animal mascots so please keep your supositions and attacks on track.  You are welcome to your opinion and feelings but leave me out of your angst.  If you think the billions named in the suit are just compensation you need to rethink.  If you feel the dollar amount is for pain, suffering, and loss of property, the number ought to be trillions, not billions.  I hate to ascribe thoughts to you but you seem to have no qualms about doing the same to others.  Shame on you.

Re: Saving Native Americans from Shame, Gov't Style - stupac2 - 06-25-2014

A friend linked this to me today, and I think some of the people in here could stand to read it and think for a while on what it's saying: http://weeklysift.com/2012/09/10/the-distress-of-the-privileged/

Re: Saving Native Americans from Shame, Gov't Style - CornFed - 06-25-2014

(06-25-2014, 01:59 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:One of you is writing "figures," to imply "yet another uppity minority is is suing over using them as mascots. How dare they? That's so silly."
This is just the sort of thing that makes discussion so pointless these days.  Anywhere.  One word - ONE WORD - is taken and an entire set of meanings and character flaws is ascribed and leads to the accusation of being a Nazi.

Then a follow-up post, dripping with self-satisfied sanctimony instructs us to give ourselves a moment to find empathy where, apparently, there was none before. 

I had a feeling that this was where this thread was heading.  Perhaps its time to take it to Private Discussion or just s**tcan the whole deal.

Re: Saving Native Americans from Shame, Gov't Style - yvonne - 06-25-2014

Call it self-sanctimony if you will. I hope it makes you feel good. What happened to these people is WORSE than what happened in the gas chambers because the indigenous Americans are practically extinct. When Americans were protesting apartheid, many South Africans pointed out that Americans had no room to criticize South Africans' treatment of the indigenous Africans because Americans had killed off their indigenous residents.

These are not mascots. These are human beings.

And yes, Ferrari, it does feel a little different when we substitute words like nigger, spick, and kike for redskins, doesn't it?

Re: Saving Native Americans from Shame, Gov't Style - PrinceLightfoot - 06-25-2014

(06-25-2014, 04:15 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:Call it self-sanctimony if you will. I hope it makes you feel good. What happened to these people is WORSE than what happened in the gas chambers because the indigenous Americans are practically extinct. When Americans were protesting apartheid, many South Africans pointed out that Americans had no room to criticize South Africans' treatment of the indigenous Africans because Americans had killed off their indigenous residents.

These are not mascots. These are human beings.

And yes, Ferrari, it does feel a little different when we substitute words like nigger, spick, and kike for redskins, doesn't it?

I have no dog in this fight, but the expressed antagonism is something I have not seen on this board in my very short time here and if I find its manifestation extremely disappointing. Personally, I find the term "Chicano" highly offensive, but I could care less that I was asked to check the box that said "Chicano/Mexican-American" on most Stanford forms that requested my ethnicity. I laughed at it, checked the box, and went on my way...it's not what people call me; it's what I respond to...

Isn't EVERY country that exists today as well as every race guilty of atrocities at some point in their history? Every thing that exists today was at one point conquered with the indigenous people displaced or eradicated.  No one holds the moral highground.

The mascot argument I think ties into the slippery-slope argument that was previously stated. Given the way legalism works in this country, nothing surprises me.

Re: Saving Native Americans from Shame, Gov't Style - BostonCard - 06-25-2014

(06-25-2014, 04:58 PM)PrinceLightfoot link Wrote:[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=10129.msg91614#msg91614 date=1403738134]
Call it self-sanctimony if you will. I hope it makes you feel good. What happened to these people is WORSE than what happened in the gas chambers because the indigenous Americans are practically extinct. When Americans were protesting apartheid, many South Africans pointed out that Americans had no room to criticize South Africans' treatment of the indigenous Africans because Americans had killed off their indigenous residents.

These are not mascots. These are human beings.

And yes, Ferrari, it does feel a little different when we substitute words like nigger, spick, and kike for redskins, doesn't it?

I have no dog in this fight, but the expressed antagonism is something I have not seen on this board in my very short time here and if I find its manifestation extremely disappointing. Personally, I find the term "Chicano" highly offensive, but I could care less that I was asked to check the box that said "Chicano/Mexican-American" on most Stanford forms that requested my ethnicity. I laughed at it, checked the box, and went on my way...it's not what people call me; it's what I respond to...

Isn't EVERY country that exists today as well as every race guilty of atrocities at some point in their history? Every thing that exists today was at one point conquered with the indigenous people displaced or eradicated.  No one holds the moral highground.

The mascot argument I think ties into the slippery-slope argument that was previously stated. Given the way legalism works in this country, nothing surprises me.
[/quote]

No, I don't think we have to concern ourselves with a slippery slope argument here.  You stated that you find the term "Chicano" highly offensive.  Knowing that, as a matter of simple courtesy, I will do my utmost to avoid referring to you by that term.  It doesn't matter that other people of a similar heritage don't find that offensive (and may even find it a point of pride); you have your reasons, and it is not up to someone else to tell you what you should or should not find offensive.

Now, that appears to be a personal thing for you... but let's say that a substantial minority of Mexican-Americans started voicing the same concerns.  I think as a matter of respect and courtesy, it would be incumbent upon me not to use the term.

What I dislike about the situation is not that the term "Redskin" has persisted into modern times.  What bothers me is that a substantial proportion (depending on which poll you use, either a substantial minority or a majority) of Native Americans have said they find the term offensive and yet the team and its owner continue to use it.  The message they are sending is, "F--- you; we don't care about you".  To me the bigger issue is not using an offensive term, but continuing to use it after being asked to stop.

Yvonne's point, that Native Americans have every right to be offended by the term is true but irrelevant here.  It is not up to the rest of society to define what is and what is not acceptable terminology to be offended by.  Offense is a feeling, and therefore cannot be objectively determined.

BC

Re: Controversial Mascot Names in the News - USPTO Takes a Stand - 81alum - 06-25-2014

So much of all communication is based on context.  Words by themselves are but symbols for meanings, and the meanings change depending both upon the intentions of the speaker and the interpretation of the listener. 

The context of racially charged words like the mascot name in question is that this nation has a very long history of racial oppression of indigenous peoples.  Many believe that oppression continues.  The 1% of the population descended from the original inhabitants of this continent have (on average) incomes less than half of the average American, suffer from unemployment on reservations of as much as 70%, obtain bachelor's degrees at the rate of 13%, suffer from poverty at the rate of 28%, and have infant mortality rates not quite double that of whites.  On the Ogalala Sioux reservation, 25% of infants are born with fetal disorders related to alcoholism.  The indigenous peoples of this country are quite simply the poorest, sickest, least educated, most neglected demographic group we have.  The reasons for these appalling conditions are complex, and there are some signs they are beginning to change,  but it is nevertheless true that these conditions exist at this moment and are not restricted to the distant past. 

The context of people who have never faced these sorts of conditions and those who have makes a difference.  To those who have not personally experienced the residual effects of this nation's efforts to eradicate Indian culture, these mascots symbolize something positive about Indians.  To those who have suffered, however,  these mascots can symbolize the profound ignorance that most of the country has of their religion, culture, history, and especially their ongoing plight.  How can millions of people cheer for a Redskin mascot at something as trivial as a football game, when life expectancy at Pine Ridge is 48, lower than any country outside of Haiti? 

Thus it is that Indian mascots have one meaning to some people and a very different meaning to others.  The divisions on this board reflect this.

Our nation will have to change the social and material conditions of our most disadvantaged group, do a much better job of teaching their history and preserving their culture, and wait for the passage of time to heal our wounds more substantially before these mascots will have positive connotations for all people. 

Some conflicts over symbols in our society are unavoidable and must be tolerated.  But since sports symbols are particularly trivial and arbitrary, it seems especially unfortunate that a franchise cannot find a unifying rather than a divisive symbol.   

Re: Controversial Mascot Names in the News - USPTO Takes a Stand - 82 Card - 06-25-2014

(06-25-2014, 08:10 PM)ferrari link Wrote:It is so interesting that this thread has a new title.  Why is that?

Why not? For an off topic thread with opposing viewpoints, seems only fair to have a neutral title.

For the record, I had the same reaction to posts in this thread as Yvonne. However, I see no point in engaging with folks who see a slippery slope from respect for Native Americans to animal rights or a connection to new parent syndrome. 

Re: Controversial Mascot Names in the News - USPTO Takes a Stand - CowboyIndian - 06-25-2014

It's been my observation that this century is rife with folks who find some great satisfaction in getting their feelings hurt.
How 'bout we all shut up and play football?

Re: Controversial Mascot Names in the News - USPTO Takes a Stand - Leftcoast - 06-25-2014

My rural elementary school mascot (K-8) was the Chiefs, my high school mascot was the Chieftains and, well, you know the mascot history of my college choice.

Mascots just weren't an issue in my school district which had a high percentage of native Americans and included several small reservations.  I checked back once this thread started and found that my high school was still the Sierra High Chieftains although Auberry elementary school had closed. The high school mascot name is still not an issue.

I'm pretty sure there would have been BIG local issues if either mascot had been the Redskins.  Those were fighting words where I grew up and in a time and place where fist fights were common.







Re: Controversial Mascot Names in the News - USPTO Takes a Stand - CornFed - 06-26-2014

Teams from my high school were referred to as the Little Maroons.  The local college, Morningside, was the Maroons.  The depiction of the mascot was a comically drawn caricature of an Indian, but looked nothing like any of my Native-American teammates or classmates.  We in fact joked at times about how stupid the image was.  I felt at the time that he looked far too friendly and not nearly fierce enough to engender the proper fighting spirit.

It was not until I got to Stanford and read "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" that I gained a deep perspective on the injustice of the Native-American experience.  Further, in reading de Toqueville's "Democracy in America" I was amazed at his prescience in describing his vision for the outcomes he felt would ensue for the black population of America and the Indian population. 

The issue of Stanford changing our mascot generated great inner conflict.  I had quickly come to revere our tradition, primarily because of what I felt was the respect it manifested for the culture and traditions of at least one Native-American tribe.  I saw people spitting mad, like Yvonne, because of the trivialization of tragedy they felt was represented.  I knew others, like me, who were saddened and confused.  I saw others, sadly, who were angered and who dismissed the issue without much thought.  Of course, at Stanford, there were probably those who didn't know, or care, what or who our mascot was (LOL).

I do not pretend to comprehend the effect that these images have on Native-Americans.  My interactions with individuals with varying degrees of Indian ancestry gives me many different impressions of how it is perceived, but I don't know how it feels.  But I do not pretend to care more than you.  I do not denigrate your understanding of the facts of American history.  I have plenty of life experience to tell me I do not have the answers.  It rankles me to be pre-judged because I ask the questions.

Re: Controversial Mascot Names in the News - USPTO Takes a Stand - Red State - 06-26-2014

It is my understanding that "Redskins" was not something that people were, but rather something that they did. That the origin of term had to do with certain Indian tribes who painted their faces red before going to battle. Considering this current day controversy, it's a little ironic that the original owner of the team selected the name in honor of their coach, William Dietz, who was American Indian.

Re: Controversial Mascot Names in the News - USPTO Takes a Stand - Mick - 06-26-2014

(06-26-2014, 07:05 AM)Red State link Wrote:It is my understanding that "Redskins" was not something that people were, but rather something that they did. That the origin of term had to do with certain Indian tribes who painted their faces red before going to battle. Considering this current day controversy, it's a little ironic that the original owner of the team selected the name in honor of their coach, William Dietz, who was American Indian.


I thought that the Washington Redskins were once the Boston Redskins, and that prior to that were actually the Boston Braves, which was the same name as Boston's baseball team at the time (much like New York Giants for both baseball and football).  Dietz coached the Boston Redskins from 1933-1934 where he had an 11-11-2 record.

As far as Dietz goes, he claimed to be a Sioux but his parents were William Wallace Dietz and Leanna Ginder.  He did attend Chilocco Indian Agricultural School.  For the rest of his life, Dietz continued to promote himself as Lone Star Dietz, the son of W.W. and Julia One Star of Pine Ridge.  There was plenty of controversy about his supposed Indian heritage, it's on the 'net.

Re: Controversial Mascot Names in the News - USPTO Takes a Stand - washingtonismoney - 06-26-2014

(06-26-2014, 07:05 AM)Red State link Wrote:It is my understanding that "Redskins" was not something that people were, but rather something that they did. That the origin of term had to do with certain Indian tribes who painted their faces red before going to battle. Considering this current day controversy, it's a little ironic that the original owner of the team selected the name in honor of their coach, William Dietz, who was American Indian.

This is the origin of Redskins: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/true-redskins-meaning

Re: An ethnic mascot that we all love to hate - Bruce Wang - 06-26-2014

http://www.csnchicago.com/notre-dame/notre-dame-florida-state-catholics-vs-criminoles?p=ya5nbcs&ocid=yahoo

What a bunch of hypocrites. God I hate them.

Re: Controversial Mascot Names in the News - USPTO Takes a Stand - 97fan - 06-26-2014

Somehow I think the First Amendment is going to survive this little Patent Office kerfuffle:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-abortion-clinic-protests.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Re: Controversial Mascot Names in the News - USPTO Takes a Stand - martyup - 06-26-2014

(06-25-2014, 09:46 PM)82 Card link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10129.msg91627#msg91627 date=1403752236]
It is so interesting that this thread has a new title.  Why is that?

Why not? For an off topic thread with opposing viewpoints, seems only fair to have a neutral title.
[/quote]

I edited my title and the content of my first post because, in the process of reading the posts in this thread and articles on related topics, I have  changed my opinion on some elements of my initial post.  Also, I never intended for this topic to be a debate on the oppression of native americans.  My initial thought was directed toward the appropriateness of the USPTO decision.  I do think that this thread is not "off topic" in light of the fact that Stanford lost its own mascot based on related reasons.

Re: Controversial Mascot Names in the News - USPTO Takes a Stand - CTcard - 06-26-2014

(06-26-2014, 11:27 AM)martyup link Wrote:I edited my title and the content of my first post because, in the process of reading the posts in this thread and articles on related topics, I have  changed my opinion on some elements of my initial post. 

Now that is an internet first. Somebody has actually changed their opinion based on arguments offered.

Bravo.

Re: Controversial Mascot Names in the News - USPTO Takes a Stand - Extra Point - 06-26-2014

(06-26-2014, 11:34 AM)CTcard link Wrote:Now that is an internet first. Somebody has actually changed their opinion based on arguments offered.

No it isn't! It's a frequent occurrence on this board.

Re: An ethnic mascot that we all love to hate - Mick - 06-27-2014

(06-26-2014, 08:21 AM)Publius link Wrote:http://www.csnchicago.com/notre-dame/notre-dame-florida-state-catholics-vs-criminoles?p=ya5nbcs&ocid=yahoo

What a bunch of hypocrites. God I hate them.


I'd rather they stick to their illusions.  Keeps them out of trouble, relatively speaking.