Oregon Bans Native American Mascots: Should More States Do the Same?
SodaHead News
2012/05/19 21:55:01
|
|
|||||
|
133 votes
|
|
18% | |||
|
624 votes
|
|
82% | |||
The Oregon Board of Education has spoken. Public schools in the state must discontinue the use of Native American mascots by July 2017—or risk the loss of state funding.
The new regulation, which bans the use of Native American names, symbols, or images as school mascots, is being described as the toughest and most far-reaching of its kind. According to Oregon officials, Wisconsin is the only other state with a similar ban, though their policy is far less stringent. In Wisconsin, if complaints are made, schools must prove that their mascots do not promote discrimination, harassment, or stereotyping.
Fifteen Oregon high schools, and an unknown number of elementary and middle schools, are impacted by the new policy. Names specifically prohibited include “Redskins,” “Savages,” “Indians,” and “Braves.” Schools that use the name “Warriors” will be allowed to continue doing so, as long as they abandon any graphics associated with Native American tribes, customs, or traditions.
The new regulation, which bans the use of Native American names, symbols, or images as school mascots, is being described as the toughest and most far-reaching of its kind. According to Oregon officials, Wisconsin is the only other state with a similar ban, though their policy is far less stringent. In Wisconsin, if complaints are made, schools must prove that their mascots do not promote discrimination, harassment, or stereotyping.
Fifteen Oregon high schools, and an unknown number of elementary and middle schools, are impacted by the new policy. Names specifically prohibited include “Redskins,” “Savages,” “Indians,” and “Braves.” Schools that use the name “Warriors” will be allowed to continue doing so, as long as they abandon any graphics associated with Native American tribes, customs, or traditions.
The state school board considered eight hours of public testimony and 700 written comments (400 in favor and 300 against) before voting 5-1 to accept the new policy. Individuals against the regulation argued in favor of maintaining longstanding community traditions and avoiding expensive changes in a time of tight public budgets. They also claimed that in some cases the mascots were intended as respectful tributes.
However, the state schools superintendent, Susan Castillo, argued that “intent is not enough.” She added, “We need to focus on what the impact is on our kids.”
And according to Se-ah-dom Edmo, an educator at Lewis and Clark College who testified in favor of the ban on behalf of the Oregon Indian Education Association, the impact is definitely not positive on Native American students.
“If you were like me and grew up here in Oregon and played opposing these schools that had Indian mascots, there was harm that was done there,” she said. “I think they were intending to honor native folks, but any time that you objectify a person or stereotype a group of people, which is really what the mascots did, it ceases to become a truth about them. The broader psychological impacts show lower self-esteem for native students and poor race relations.”
So SodaHeads, what do you think about Oregon’s ban on Native American mascots? Should more states do the same?
Read More: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na...
No wonder our young people are no longer testing as high as they once did scholastically, with stupid educators like that!
During the days of Manifest Destiny (stealing land from indians) these are the stereotypes that were used in order to make our Holocaust less immoral. No one was complaining because we were only killing savages that wanted to kill us. But the reality of Native American culture was very peaceful. So these mascots are the continuance of negative racist stereotypes... Imagine if a mostly white school decided to have "Tyrone" as a mascot and Tyrone was a huge black guy dressed in orange convict attire eating fried chicken and doing a jig.
However, I agree it should not be illegal. It should be discouraged, seen in a negative light, and corrected by the schools themselves by the justice of public opinion.
What? Did the non-stereotypical Indians dress in drag? Wear three piece suits? What DID they wear? No feathers? No bonnets? No beads? Guess not. That would be too stereotypical.
{During the days of Manifest Destiny (stealing land from indians)}
They lost, end of story.
{No one was complaining because we were only killing savages that wanted to kill us.}
You make is sound as if they were killed because of the way they dressed: stereotypical clothing.
{But the reality of Native American culture was very peaceful.}
Not really. They had wars among themselves and took other tribe members as slaves and kept their women. Hey!!! They sound just like Europeans!!!
They were not peaceful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In April 1876 the small CROW tribe was living under army control at the Crow Agency in Montana. The SIOUX and CHEYENNE were traditional ENEMIES of the CROW so at the beginning of the Great Sioux War, several Crow warriors ENLISTED to guide Custer's expedition to the Little Bighorn River.
Apache's were no better. They had their tribal feuds/wars also. You've watched "Little Big Man" too many times.
{Imagine if a mostly white school decided to have "Tyrone" as a ma...
What? Did the non-stereotypical Indians dress in drag? Wear three piece suits? What DID they wear? No feathers? No bonnets? No beads? Guess not. That would be too stereotypical.
{During the days of Manifest Destiny (stealing land from indians)}
They lost, end of story.
{No one was complaining because we were only killing savages that wanted to kill us.}
You make is sound as if they were killed because of the way they dressed: stereotypical clothing.
{But the reality of Native American culture was very peaceful.}
Not really. They had wars among themselves and took other tribe members as slaves and kept their women. Hey!!! They sound just like Europeans!!!
They were not peaceful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In April 1876 the small CROW tribe was living under army control at the Crow Agency in Montana. The SIOUX and CHEYENNE were traditional ENEMIES of the CROW so at the beginning of the Great Sioux War, several Crow warriors ENLISTED to guide Custer's expedition to the Little Bighorn River.
Apache's were no better. They had their tribal feuds/wars also. You've watched "Little Big Man" too many times.
{Imagine if a mostly white school decided to have "Tyrone" as a mascot and Tyrone was a huge black guy dressed in orange convict attire eating fried chicken and doing a jig.}
I draw a distinction between a "brave" figurehead and a convict's attire and eating habits, don't you? You mock "Tyrone" but "brave" was not mocked.
The average Indian was not a warrior and did not wear feathers and war paint everyday. They were very basic leather attire without all the ceremonial war attire that we put on Mascots.
"They lost, end of story."
I'm not claiming they won by any means. But if I were to look at the Holocaust and simply claim "the jews lost, end of story", I would be a monster.
"You make is sound as if they were killed because of the way they dressed: stereotypical clothing."
The average moral, caring individual did not mind our immoral treatment of Indians because they were perceived as savages with the same type stereotypes that exist today.
"Not really. They had wars among themselves and took other tribe members as slaves and kept their women. Hey!!! They sound just like Europeans!!! They were not peaceful."
They of course had wars. I'm not claiming they were hippies smoking peace pipes (not all of them anyway). Your statement that they were like Europeans is exactly my point. They were human beings. Some more aggressive than others, but as a whole they were much more peaceful than our stereotypes have led us to be...
The average Indian was not a warrior and did not wear feathers and war paint everyday. They were very basic leather attire without all the ceremonial war attire that we put on Mascots.
"They lost, end of story."
I'm not claiming they won by any means. But if I were to look at the Holocaust and simply claim "the jews lost, end of story", I would be a monster.
"You make is sound as if they were killed because of the way they dressed: stereotypical clothing."
The average moral, caring individual did not mind our immoral treatment of Indians because they were perceived as savages with the same type stereotypes that exist today.
"Not really. They had wars among themselves and took other tribe members as slaves and kept their women. Hey!!! They sound just like Europeans!!! They were not peaceful."
They of course had wars. I'm not claiming they were hippies smoking peace pipes (not all of them anyway). Your statement that they were like Europeans is exactly my point. They were human beings. Some more aggressive than others, but as a whole they were much more peaceful than our stereotypes have led us to believe... The early American's traded with and couldn't have survived without the Indians helping. We have a holiday dedicated to the peaceful and hospitable nature the Indians showed early Americans (Thanksgiving). They of course did have warriors and did sometimes go to war with other Indian tribes, but my point is that they were not a culture based on war as we are taught to believe. And in reality some of the tribes were, BUT MOST WERE NOT.
"I draw a distinction between a "brave" figurehead and a convict's attire and eating habits, don't you? You mock "Tyrone" but "brave" was not mocked."
NO THE BRAVE WAS NOT MOCKED, IT WAS FEARED. A much stronger and destructive type of racism. Maybe Tyrone should have been a gang banger that sells drugs and that would be a better analogy.... To claim that they were mostly war like is just wrong. They became much more aggressive after we started death marches and putting them into concentration camps (Indian reserves), but all accounts of early civilization of North America, Mexico, and South America all show a kind hearted peace loving culture. The main reason they "lost" as you say is that there kindness was viewed as weakness and Europeans took advantage.
These stereotypes were used to destroy multiple nations and group all humans living in the Americas as one ppl. Just like in Tyrone's case, some black ppl are gang banging drug dealers, but so are some white ppl. To make the claim that all black ppl are gang banging drug dealers or to represent them as such would be wrong. These stereotypes are misleading and would be offensive to any peace loving Native American that does not wish to have his heritage reduced to the propaganda of early European conquistadors.
I did not argue that these mascots should be illegalized.... do you really feel this strongly that all Native Americans were war like savages and should not be offended at all that we represent them as such.
Last things first. I don't feel as if they were war like savages.BRB
Last things first. I don't feel as if they were war like savages. That figurehead does not seem "savage" to me. It may be atypical dress for the average Indian from back in the day since it is warrior garb but not savage. They are not displayed by using images of scalping someone. To me, it shows a brave warrior who stood on principle and pride and would not be pushed around. Would you be happier with a portrayal of an Indian from the "Trail of Tears", bent over, fatigued and starving? IF it was an image of an American soldier wearing a helmet, would you say that they were savages? Come on. You are way to sensitive.
{The average Indian was not a warrior and did not wear feathers...}
So what? Do you really want the "average" Indian (or whomever) to be displayed as a logo for anything? These men were above average. They fought for their nations. That is something to be respected and admired and not simply dismissed because it doesn't show them as "average".
{...simply claim "the jews lost, end of story"}
The Jews were "murdered". The American Indians fought bravely but lost. There is honor in that but none in murder.
{NO THE BRAVE WAS NOT MOCKED, IT WAS FEARED. A much stronger and destructive type of racism.}
W...
Last things first. I don't feel as if they were war like savages. That figurehead does not seem "savage" to me. It may be atypical dress for the average Indian from back in the day since it is warrior garb but not savage. They are not displayed by using images of scalping someone. To me, it shows a brave warrior who stood on principle and pride and would not be pushed around. Would you be happier with a portrayal of an Indian from the "Trail of Tears", bent over, fatigued and starving? IF it was an image of an American soldier wearing a helmet, would you say that they were savages? Come on. You are way to sensitive.
{The average Indian was not a warrior and did not wear feathers...}
So what? Do you really want the "average" Indian (or whomever) to be displayed as a logo for anything? These men were above average. They fought for their nations. That is something to be respected and admired and not simply dismissed because it doesn't show them as "average".
{...simply claim "the jews lost, end of story"}
The Jews were "murdered". The American Indians fought bravely but lost. There is honor in that but none in murder.
{NO THE BRAVE WAS NOT MOCKED, IT WAS FEARED. A much stronger and destructive type of racism.}
What? SO what if the brave was feared in the 1800's? They are not feared today. No one is carrying this forward and saying, "Watch out. Indian braves. They may attack our settlements." That's crazy. If we measure fear as correlated by time, we have more to fear from the Japanese and Germans. They were once our enemies but no one is worried about them.
{Maybe Tyrone should have been a gang banger that sells drugs and that would be a better analogy....}
Again, the analogy fails. Tyron is a criminal, the "brave" is not. No one wants to emulate Tyron but people can admire bravery, even if they were on the other side, at the time.
{These stereotypes were used to destroy multiple nations...}
No. War is an extension of politics and economics. That's why the Japanese and the Germans went to war, not because of stereotyping people of other nations. That came later to justify killing those people, but not before.
Stereotypes, particularly in the Black community, to a degree, are not necessarily unwarranted. Extremely high crime rate, 70%+ illegitimacy rate, low education rate, about 80% dropping out of or not finishing high school, what are other supposed to think? Especially when they seem reluctant to do anything about it on a personal level.
Here is an example of stereotyping:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...
There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.... After all we have been through. Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating.
Jesse Jackson.
Why should I feel any different?
Nobody cares if you think the Indian mascot seems savage or not. Or if YOU could take pride in the warrior image. These images would hit a lot closer to home for a Native American. It isn't about weather or not the mascot is cool. These images have historical significance. I'm not saying we are in this day and age trying to scare ppl into murdering savage indians. I'm saying the continuance of the stereotypes that WERE used in that way would be offensive to Native Americans. They would be offended that the truth of Manifest Destiny is not understood today. They would want to be able to preserve the true history instead of continuing the propaganda. I;m saying a Native American trying to teach his son about the peaceful culture of his ppl would have to deal with his son only wanting to play cow boys and indians and acting like a savage. His son would be PROUD of the savage depiction as you say he should be.
I know you don't get it. You think his son should be proud of it. Talking to you is a complete waste of my time and I will not reply back.
{You even think blacks deserve the types of stereotypes that are out there }
No. It would seem that Jesse Jackson is the "racist" because of what he said. If HE doesn't feel safe and confident that he won't be attacked and robbed by a Black man in the neighborhood, why should anyone. This criminality, while not inherent in Blacks, is the sociological problem that they have to contend with. I'm sorry that this is happening to them but it is not my fault. I didn't put the gun into "Tyron's" hand nor compel him to sell drugs to whomever. That is his problem and that of the police.
If a Caucasian had said what Jesse said, there would be an uproar. He sys it...crickets. Or, "Oh, how sad." or "Tsk, tsk."
{I'm saying the continuance of the stereotypes that WERE used in that way would be offensive to Native Americans.}
WERE used? When? The 1800's? If those images were used (Mohawk haircut and feather - don't seem very menacing to me) they have lost all significance over 100 years later. In 1876, you may have had an argument...NOT in 2012.
{I;m...
{You even think blacks deserve the types of stereotypes that are out there }
No. It would seem that Jesse Jackson is the "racist" because of what he said. If HE doesn't feel safe and confident that he won't be attacked and robbed by a Black man in the neighborhood, why should anyone. This criminality, while not inherent in Blacks, is the sociological problem that they have to contend with. I'm sorry that this is happening to them but it is not my fault. I didn't put the gun into "Tyron's" hand nor compel him to sell drugs to whomever. That is his problem and that of the police.
If a Caucasian had said what Jesse said, there would be an uproar. He sys it...crickets. Or, "Oh, how sad." or "Tsk, tsk."
{I'm saying the continuance of the stereotypes that WERE used in that way would be offensive to Native Americans.}
WERE used? When? The 1800's? If those images were used (Mohawk haircut and feather - don't seem very menacing to me) they have lost all significance over 100 years later. In 1876, you may have had an argument...NOT in 2012.
{I;m saying a Native American trying to teach his son about the peaceful culture of his ppl}
He can teach both. The peaceful side and the "culture" of BRAVERY inherent within their people. The son could learn the good, peaceful side of his culture but doesn't have to be told he is a savage. They fought bravely, against all odds, to liberate and save their land. How is that savagery? That is war, and for a good cause.
They got screwed, I admit that but people in Europe got screwed for centuries in their wars of conquest and take overs, (Manifest Destiny) What makes them so special? It was simply the fact that their time came. It is too bad that it couldn't have been handled differently but I don't see an area where they could have compromised. All or nothing. They lost. I wish WWII didn't happen either. No compromise. They lost. Very good. Japan and Germany knew they could not conquer America. They want ed to sue for peace and end the war of attrition and each settle into the captured territories. No compromise, no matter who is right or wrong. It had to happen.
Ok, on a more sober note, NO! What should really happen, is the plaintiffs would lobby the actual school where the perceived harm is done, and the school would probably oblige.
If not, well, that's the idea behind states rights, county rights, etc... If the bad in that area outweighs the good, you move somewhere else! That's a fundamental aspect of free trade. It's also the reason I live in Texas, though I immensely enjoyed both Washington State and New York during my travel with the military. The bad things there outweighed the good, so I moved to Texas when I finished my time in the Navy.
Lips of fire are wanted to be given to the indian.
21The wise in heart shall be called prudent: and the sweetness of the lips increaseth learning.
This is talking directly to the legal legislators in the legal system.
1 Corinthians 3:19 ,King James Bible
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
Jesus would never no not ever be in the navy or any military army.
Enough fire to, perhaps, remind me that my past deeds are something so horrible that Jesus would never do it?
I will ask you kindly to read Matthew 7:2-4 (in reference to your above response) and also the entirety of Joshua 6, in reference to the Lord helping an army defeat it's enemies. (heed, that if I am to be bound by a passage that you have taken slightly out of context from the Old-Testament, should you not also?)
And finally, I welcome a personal message from you to discuss this further. I respect you if you are truly concerned for my spiritual well being, otherwise I can only love you....