By Douglas V. Gibbs
I was in a group discussion a couple weeks ago over the film, "In Whose Honor?", which is a documentary that follows Charlene Teters in her battle with the University of Illinois, and their mascot, "Chief Illiniwek." The film discusses how Teters, a Spokane Indian, challenged the University of Illinois over their dancing mascot, which became a national movement against mascots that depict Native American culture. Ms. Teters' primary argument was that the mascot clad in Indian dress, with paint on the face, and dancing a made-up dance, was offensive because the dance of the Native Americans was a spiritual thing not to be treated in such a trivial manner.
The discussion after the film among my group drew a variety of opinions. Though most of the members of the group could empathize with Charlene, many were not sure she went about her crusade the right way.
What I found fascinating was how the discussion centered only around whether or not the mascots and team names are offensive to Indians, so I brought up the Boston Celtics, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, New Orleans Saints, San Diego Padres, and various teams that go by the name "Crusaders."
The response is, "but those people don't find it offensive, so it's okay."
"But what if any of those names did offend someone?" I asked, just to test the waters.
One person said, "That's different. WASPs have never been the downtrodden minority."
That's like saying that only whites can be prejudice against others.
How about the teams named after Indians for valid reasons. For example, the Cleveland Indians were originally the Cleveland Spiders, and the Cleveland Naps after Nap Lajoie. Searching for a new name, they decided upon the "Indians" to honor a past Cleveland great, Louis Sockalexis, a Native American that played in Cleveland from 1897 to 1899. So the Indians weren't named such as an insult to Native Americans, but as a tribute to a Native American player.
"But that's not the point," I was told. "What's important is how it is perceived today."
The discussion's tone then led me to my next line of reasoning, which is basically that groups, through the claim of needing "retribution," play on the whole "that's offensive" thing, and even secure preferential treatment in the name of their group's supposed plight - while acting hostile against other groups.
"My problem," I said, "is that we get so caught up in being fair to Native Americans, or Muslims, or blacks, that we fail to recognize when hostility is being pointed at a different group that may not necessary fit into the downtrodden mold. For example, a student in one of our local schools was told by a teacher to tuck her crucifix necklace into her shirt, and out of sight, because it may be offensive. This very same teacher had a statue of Buddha on her desk, and a peace symbol tacked to her cork board."
Before I could finish my point, a number of folks, in unison, shouted at me, "How would you like it if the mascot for a team was a bleeding Jesus with scantily clad girls dancing around him?"
Though a valid point, their outburst had nothing to do with what I was trying to say.
Later, I was also accused of being insensitive to something I don't understand.
I suppose the fact that my grandmother was 3/4 Black Foote wouldn't matter to these people.
My point is simply that while we are so worried about political correctness and being fair to this group, or to that group, we fail to realize how ridiculous it all really is. I get that Charlene Teters was offended, and I feel for her. Perhaps, after she made the university aware of her feelings, if they decided to change their program, that would have been fine. But in life, we not only have the right to free speech, or free expression, but also the right to be offended. It happens. Such is life. If the University of Illinois decided not to change their ways, my advice to Charlene would have been, "Then don't go to the games anymore, or change universities."
As I was once told by a very wise person not long ago, "I was glad to leave the reservation and leave that scene of self-pity behind. I am an American, and I am proud of it. Without America, the Indian tribes would still be tribes, and we would not live as well as we do. Thank God for the White Man, for I have a refrigerator."
After being reminded in that discussion about how many Indians were killed by the settlers (the word genocide got thrown around quite a bit), I reminded the group around me that Syphilis was given to Europe by the Indians, as was tobacco. How many people has that killed?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment