(07-18-2016 06:43 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote: Do you see no difference in stereotyping/summarizing classical Greeks and Romans as wearing togas, and in stereotyping/summarizing generic "Indians" as taking the scalps of their enemies? (Serious question for all who are reacting strongly to the idea that that old stAte logo could be racist.)
I'm glad you guys changed mascots because this is some pretty racist stuff. Not that I can talk. I shudder at the fact that I used to be an YMCA "Indian Guide" as a kid..
Racist ? How about reality. Indians were known to take scalps of the people they killed. Not just white settlers, but opposing tribes. Guess we need to strike that from the history books as well. This PC stuff is getting hard to swallow.
Lol. Considering the atrocities committed by those poor white settlers against natives, I would say they were well within their right to scalp them.
(07-18-2016 06:43 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote: Do you see no difference in stereotyping/summarizing classical Greeks and Romans as wearing togas, and in stereotyping/summarizing generic "Indians" as taking the scalps of their enemies? (Serious question for all who are reacting strongly to the idea that that old stAte logo could be racist.)
Chances are...white people took more Indian scalps than the other way around.
As for your question....a lot of the rules seem pretty unclear to me and applied inconsistently. That always makes me question rules.
ULM Indians was offensive....Florida State Seminoles...is not. Fighting Sioux is offensive. Fighting Illini is not. Not consistent.
The old white guy at Ole Miss being a mascot was "honoring".....the Indian mascot is "slurring". Not consistent.
I don't think I'm "reacting strongly" It's a historical mascot, not a current one. It's not in any danger of losing its historical status or anything or being brought back.
I'm actually just poking the rules with a stick to see how they react.
(07-18-2016 06:43 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote: Do you see no difference in stereotyping/summarizing classical Greeks and Romans as wearing togas, and in stereotyping/summarizing generic "Indians" as taking the scalps of their enemies? (Serious question for all who are reacting strongly to the idea that that old stAte logo could be racist.)
Chances are...white people took more Indian scalps than the other way around.
As for your question....a lot of the rules seem pretty unclear to me and applied inconsistently. That always makes me question rules.
ULM Indians was offensive....Florida State Seminoles...is not. Fighting Sioux is offensive. Fighting Illini is not. Not consistent.
The old white guy at Ole Miss being a mascot was "honoring".....the Indian mascot is "slurring". Not consistent.
I don't think I'm "reacting strongly" It's a historical mascot, not a current one. It's not in any danger of losing its historical status or anything or being brought back.
I'm actually just poking the rules with a stick to see how they react.
Names like Indians, Redskins, and Savages are offensive because they just lead to stereotypical and demeaning mascot representations. This is usually not the case with teams possessing nicknames of actual tribes, such as the FSU Seminoles and the Utah Utes. For instance I know that FSU has the full support of the Seminole Tribe. Probably because their logo isn't of a red man holding a scalp...
(07-14-2016 04:10 PM)ericsaid Wrote: Is he holding a scalp?
Yes
I'm glad you guys changed mascots because this is some pretty racist stuff. Not that I can talk. I shudder at the fact that I used to be an YMCA "Indian Guide" as a kid..
Racist ? How about reality. Indians were known to take scalps of the people they killed. Not just white settlers, but opposing tribes. Guess we need to strike that from the history books as well. This PC stuff is getting hard to swallow.
Lol. Considering the atrocities committed by those poor white settlers against natives, I would say they were well within their right to scalp them.
Well we went on to create the most powerful economy in human history and save the world from the Nazis, so I'd call it a net win.
(07-18-2016 06:43 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote: Do you see no difference in stereotyping/summarizing classical Greeks and Romans as wearing togas, and in stereotyping/summarizing generic "Indians" as taking the scalps of their enemies? (Serious question for all who are reacting strongly to the idea that that old stAte logo could be racist.)
Chances are...white people took more Indian scalps than the other way around.
As for your question....a lot of the rules seem pretty unclear to me and applied inconsistently. That always makes me question rules.
ULM Indians was offensive....Florida State Seminoles...is not. Fighting Sioux is offensive. Fighting Illini is not. Not consistent.
The old white guy at Ole Miss being a mascot was "honoring".....the Indian mascot is "slurring". Not consistent.
I don't think I'm "reacting strongly" It's a historical mascot, not a current one. It's not in any danger of losing its historical status or anything or being brought back.
I'm actually just poking the rules with a stick to see how they react.
Names like Indians, Redskins, and Savages are offensive because they just lead to stereotypical and demeaning mascot representations. This is usually not the case with teams possessing nicknames of actual tribes, such as the FSU Seminoles and the Utah Utes. For instance I know that FSU has the full support of the Seminole Tribe. Probably because their logo isn't of a red man holding a scalp...
(07-18-2016 06:43 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote: Do you see no difference in stereotyping/summarizing classical Greeks and Romans as wearing togas, and in stereotyping/summarizing generic "Indians" as taking the scalps of their enemies? (Serious question for all who are reacting strongly to the idea that that old stAte logo could be racist.)
Chances are...white people took more Indian scalps than the other way around.
As for your question....a lot of the rules seem pretty unclear to me and applied inconsistently. That always makes me question rules.
ULM Indians was offensive....Florida State Seminoles...is not. Fighting Sioux is offensive. Fighting Illini is not. Not consistent.
The old white guy at Ole Miss being a mascot was "honoring".....the Indian mascot is "slurring". Not consistent.
I don't think I'm "reacting strongly" It's a historical mascot, not a current one. It's not in any danger of losing its historical status or anything or being brought back.
I'm actually just poking the rules with a stick to see how they react.
You're right, you didn't react strongly to it...I wasn't really referring to your comments and may have chosen my words poorly in phrasing the question (although I tried, dammit!).
And I agree that the lines are very blurry when it comes to determining what is an appropriate mascot (Sioux vs. Illini being a very good example). A team called the Indians probably isn't a big deal...but a logo that represents said "Indians" with a goofy, big-nosed caricature holding a scalp (thus emphasizing one of the more "savage" aspects of their history) seems unnecessary, and quite different from Greeks in togas. That's my take as an outsider on all counts, anyway. I really am interested in knowing if others think of those "stereotypes" (as well as others that folks might list here) as essentially falling into the same category.
(This post was last modified: 07-18-2016 10:22 PM by Pounce FTW.)
(07-18-2016 06:43 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote: Do you see no difference in stereotyping/summarizing classical Greeks and Romans as wearing togas, and in stereotyping/summarizing generic "Indians" as taking the scalps of their enemies? (Serious question for all who are reacting strongly to the idea that that old stAte logo could be racist.)
Chances are...white people took more Indian scalps than the other way around.
As for your question....a lot of the rules seem pretty unclear to me and applied inconsistently. That always makes me question rules.
ULM Indians was offensive....Florida State Seminoles...is not. Fighting Sioux is offensive. Fighting Illini is not. Not consistent.
The old white guy at Ole Miss being a mascot was "honoring".....the Indian mascot is "slurring". Not consistent.
I don't think I'm "reacting strongly" It's a historical mascot, not a current one. It's not in any danger of losing its historical status or anything or being brought back.
I'm actually just poking the rules with a stick to see how they react.
You're right, you didn't react strongly to it...I wasn't really referring to your comments and may have chosen my words poorly in phrasing the question (although I tried, dammit!).
And I agree that the lines are very blurry when it comes to determining what is an appropriate mascot (Sioux vs. Illini being a very good example). A team called the Indians probably isn't a big deal...but a logo that represents said "Indians" with a goofy, big-nosed caricature holding a scalp (thus emphasizing one of the more "savage" aspects of their history) seems unnecessary, and quite different from Greeks in togas. That's my take as an outsider on all counts, anyway. I really am interested in knowing if others think of those "stereotypes" (as well as others that folks might list here) as essentially falling into the same category.
I agree with you. Love the Red Wolves mascot and I think it's WAY more marketable than Indians so I'm glad we changed. That being said, I think Indian and tribal based mascots can be done respectfully. If a mascot is of a specific tribe and that tribe has given consent, there is no problem. I like the ASU logo with the profile view of a chief's head and not the goofy looking caricature that would clearly be (in my opinion) offensive to anyone of native ancestry even before these PC times we live in. It isn't a flattering look for them. I do really enjoy the Indian touches that remain on campus and in the "culture" of the fans. You still see Indians merch in stores sometimes and students enjoy the "throwback" styles. It all has to do with tact.
(This post was last modified: 07-18-2016 11:07 PM by HowlForAState.)
(07-18-2016 06:43 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote: Do you see no difference in stereotyping/summarizing classical Greeks and Romans as wearing togas, and in stereotyping/summarizing generic "Indians" as taking the scalps of their enemies? (Serious question for all who are reacting strongly to the idea that that old stAte logo could be racist.)
Chances are...white people took more Indian scalps than the other way around.
As for your question....a lot of the rules seem pretty unclear to me and applied inconsistently. That always makes me question rules.
ULM Indians was offensive....Florida State Seminoles...is not. Fighting Sioux is offensive. Fighting Illini is not. Not consistent.
The old white guy at Ole Miss being a mascot was "honoring".....the Indian mascot is "slurring". Not consistent.
I don't think I'm "reacting strongly" It's a historical mascot, not a current one. It's not in any danger of losing its historical status or anything or being brought back.
I'm actually just poking the rules with a stick to see how they react.
You're right, you didn't react strongly to it...I wasn't really referring to your comments and may have chosen my words poorly in phrasing the question (although I tried, dammit!).
And I agree that the lines are very blurry when it comes to determining what is an appropriate mascot (Sioux vs. Illini being a very good example). A team called the Indians probably isn't a big deal...but a logo that represents said "Indians" with a goofy, big-nosed caricature holding a scalp (thus emphasizing one of the more "savage" aspects of their history) seems unnecessary, and quite different from Greeks in togas. That's my take as an outsider on all counts, anyway. I really am interested in knowing if others think of those "stereotypes" (as well as others that folks might list here) as essentially falling into the same category.
lol...I never equated Jumpin' Joe with savagery...scalp or no scalp. He's just a goofy cartoon. In fact, he was so over the top that I barely associated him with actual Indians at all. He was just...Jumpin' Joe.
I can watch an old western movie with the hordes of Indians attacking the circled wagons and they are just movie Indians....not actual Native Americans. I certainly don't confuse the two. One is fiction, one is real.
Part of that may have to do with taking an interest in the actual Native American history and in their modern issues. If you are aware of that, you can't really conflate the two. And honestly, without our Indian mascot and growing up with all the Indian references I probably would never have been drawn into getting that awareness.
(07-18-2016 06:43 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote: Do you see no difference in stereotyping/summarizing classical Greeks and Romans as wearing togas, and in stereotyping/summarizing generic "Indians" as taking the scalps of their enemies? (Serious question for all who are reacting strongly to the idea that that old stAte logo could be racist.)
Chances are...white people took more Indian scalps than the other way around.
As for your question....a lot of the rules seem pretty unclear to me and applied inconsistently. That always makes me question rules.
ULM Indians was offensive....Florida State Seminoles...is not. Fighting Sioux is offensive. Fighting Illini is not. Not consistent.
The old white guy at Ole Miss being a mascot was "honoring".....the Indian mascot is "slurring". Not consistent.
I don't think I'm "reacting strongly" It's a historical mascot, not a current one. It's not in any danger of losing its historical status or anything or being brought back.
I'm actually just poking the rules with a stick to see how they react.
You're right, you didn't react strongly to it...I wasn't really referring to your comments and may have chosen my words poorly in phrasing the question (although I tried, dammit!).
And I agree that the lines are very blurry when it comes to determining what is an appropriate mascot (Sioux vs. Illini being a very good example). A team called the Indians probably isn't a big deal...but a logo that represents said "Indians" with a goofy, big-nosed caricature holding a scalp (thus emphasizing one of the more "savage" aspects of their history) seems unnecessary, and quite different from Greeks in togas. That's my take as an outsider on all counts, anyway. I really am interested in knowing if others think of those "stereotypes" (as well as others that folks might list here) as essentially falling into the same category.
lol...I never equated Jumpin' Joe with savagery...scalp or no scalp. He's just a goofy cartoon. In fact, he was so over the top that I barely associated him with actual Indians at all. He was just...Jumpin' Joe.
I can watch an old western movie with the hordes of Indians attacking the circled wagons and they are just movie Indians....not actual Native Americans. I certainly don't confuse the two. One is fiction, one is real.
Part of that may have to do with taking an interest in the actual Native American history and in their modern issues. If you are aware of that, you can't really conflate the two. And honestly, without our Indian mascot and growing up with all the Indian references I probably would never have been drawn into getting that awareness.
I think these guys don't understand that we out Joe away 30 some years ago. Heck, the one I posted was probably more like 40 years ago. It's not like we used him in 2007.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#WolvesUp
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2016 06:58 AM by WolfBird.)
(07-18-2016 06:43 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote: Do you see no difference in stereotyping/summarizing classical Greeks and Romans as wearing togas, and in stereotyping/summarizing generic "Indians" as taking the scalps of their enemies? (Serious question for all who are reacting strongly to the idea that that old stAte logo could be racist.)
Chances are...white people took more Indian scalps than the other way around.
As for your question....a lot of the rules seem pretty unclear to me and applied inconsistently. That always makes me question rules.
ULM Indians was offensive....Florida State Seminoles...is not. Fighting Sioux is offensive. Fighting Illini is not. Not consistent.
The old white guy at Ole Miss being a mascot was "honoring".....the Indian mascot is "slurring". Not consistent.
I don't think I'm "reacting strongly" It's a historical mascot, not a current one. It's not in any danger of losing its historical status or anything or being brought back.
I'm actually just poking the rules with a stick to see how they react.
You're right, you didn't react strongly to it...I wasn't really referring to your comments and may have chosen my words poorly in phrasing the question (although I tried, dammit!).
And I agree that the lines are very blurry when it comes to determining what is an appropriate mascot (Sioux vs. Illini being a very good example). A team called the Indians probably isn't a big deal...but a logo that represents said "Indians" with a goofy, big-nosed caricature holding a scalp (thus emphasizing one of the more "savage" aspects of their history) seems unnecessary, and quite different from Greeks in togas. That's my take as an outsider on all counts, anyway. I really am interested in knowing if others think of those "stereotypes" (as well as others that folks might list here) as essentially falling into the same category.
lol...I never equated Jumpin' Joe with savagery...scalp or no scalp. He's just a goofy cartoon. In fact, he was so over the top that I barely associated him with actual Indians at all. He was just...Jumpin' Joe.
I can watch an old western movie with the hordes of Indians attacking the circled wagons and they are just movie Indians....not actual Native Americans. I certainly don't confuse the two. One is fiction, one is real.
Part of that may have to do with taking an interest in the actual Native American history and in their modern issues. If you are aware of that, you can't really conflate the two. And honestly, without our Indian mascot and growing up with all the Indian references I probably would never have been drawn into getting that awareness.
I think these guys don't understand that we out Joe away 30 some years ago. Heck, the one I posted was probably more like 40 years ago. It's not like we used him in 2007.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#WolvesUp
It's interesting how often a third party decides that something is offensive to one group or another. I'm not sure they are always an actual spokesman for the group. an example is when there was a move afoot at uta years ago to change the mascot and one of the statements going around was that the rebel theme was of course offensive to the black athletes yet everyone of them said it didnt matter to them and only one I think said he would prefer something else. I think it has been much the same case with all the "native american" themes. actually it has been proven that the so-called native americans came to america from across the bering sea and just got here before the caucasians.
While we're on the subject of mascots, I want someone from UTA to tell me how you got the head of a horse as you logo yet you call yourselves the Mavericks.
I though a maverick was an unbranded, motherless calf that won't stay with the herd. I didn't know it had anything to do with a horse.
Some may find the Mountaineer offensive, at times some play up the moonshine, pipe, overalls, etc that really don't upset me. I look at him as a symbol of the working class people of one of the most beautiful parts of the country.
We don't pick mascots because they're cute and cuddly, we pick mascots that are strong. Native Americans were great warriors that respected the land/nature and a symbol of strength. I see using them as mascots the right way (now "right" is a degree you can argue) as a tribute to courage and strength they personified.
(07-19-2016 07:48 AM)Peachie Wrote: While we're on the subject of mascots, I want someone from UTA to tell me how you got the head of a horse as you logo yet you call yourselves the Mavericks.
I though a maverick was an unbranded, motherless calf that won't stay with the herd. I didn't know it had anything to do with a horse.
(07-19-2016 08:33 AM)Saint3333 Wrote: Some may find the Mountaineer offensive, at times some play up the moonshine, pipe, overalls, etc that really don't upset me. I look at him as a symbol of the working class people of one of the most beautiful parts of the country.
We don't pick mascots because they're cute and cuddly, we pick mascots that are strong. Native Americans were great warriors that respected the land/nature and a symbol of strength. I see using them as mascots the right way (now "right" is a degree you can argue) as a tribute to courage and strength they personified.
Exactly. You pick a mascot because there is something you admire about it. You'll never see a team call itself the wimps or the cowards.
I'm sure ULL wasn't trying to denigrate Cajuns or Notre Dame the Irish when they piked those symbols.
(07-19-2016 11:22 AM)AppManDG Wrote: Guess you chose to ignore the"opposing tribes" part. They were taking scalps long before the white folks showed up.
I'm not sure why the scalp thing is an issue.
White people were cleaving each other apart with swords and lopping off heads and drawing and quartering people and breaking them on the wheel.
Scalping seems tame in comparison.
But it gets an upvote on savagery for some reason.
I'm not embarrassed about Henry VIII so not sure why modern era Indians would be worried about what people think about any ancestral scalpings. At some point its just history.
As for your question....a lot of the rules seem pretty unclear to me and applied inconsistently. That always makes me question rules.
ULM Indians was offensive....Florida State Seminoles...is not. Fighting Sioux is offensive. Fighting Illini is not. Not consistent.
The old white guy at Ole Miss being a mascot was "honoring".....the Indian mascot is "slurring". Not consistent.
I don't think I'm "reacting strongly" It's a historical mascot, not a current one. It's not in any danger of losing its historical status or anything or being brought back.
I'm actually just poking the rules with a stick to see how they react.
You're right, you didn't react strongly to it...I wasn't really referring to your comments and may have chosen my words poorly in phrasing the question (although I tried, dammit!).
And I agree that the lines are very blurry when it comes to determining what is an appropriate mascot (Sioux vs. Illini being a very good example). A team called the Indians probably isn't a big deal...but a logo that represents said "Indians" with a goofy, big-nosed caricature holding a scalp (thus emphasizing one of the more "savage" aspects of their history) seems unnecessary, and quite different from Greeks in togas. That's my take as an outsider on all counts, anyway. I really am interested in knowing if others think of those "stereotypes" (as well as others that folks might list here) as essentially falling into the same category.
lol...I never equated Jumpin' Joe with savagery...scalp or no scalp. He's just a goofy cartoon. In fact, he was so over the top that I barely associated him with actual Indians at all. He was just...Jumpin' Joe.
I can watch an old western movie with the hordes of Indians attacking the circled wagons and they are just movie Indians....not actual Native Americans. I certainly don't confuse the two. One is fiction, one is real.
Part of that may have to do with taking an interest in the actual Native American history and in their modern issues. If you are aware of that, you can't really conflate the two. And honestly, without our Indian mascot and growing up with all the Indian references I probably would never have been drawn into getting that awareness.
I think these guys don't understand that we out Joe away 30 some years ago. Heck, the one I posted was probably more like 40 years ago. It's not like we used him in 2007.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#WolvesUp
It's interesting how often a third party decides that something is offensive to one group or another. I'm not sure they are always an actual spokesman for the group. an example is when there was a move afoot at uta years ago to change the mascot and one of the statements going around was that the rebel theme was of course offensive to the black athletes yet everyone of them said it didnt matter to them and only one I think said he would prefer something else. I think it has been much the same case with all the "native american" themes. actually it has been proven that the so-called native americans came to america from across the bering sea and just got here before the caucasians.
Don't mean to drag this on but this is hilarious. You make it seem as though they got like 6 months prior to white people. In reality, tribes in the Americas were here for thousands of years before settlers came. By your reasoning, with all humans originating on the African continent, we are not natives to anywhere but Africa.
![[Image: 2034a78e41bd655bcfa8cd52b290c457.png]](http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160713/2034a78e41bd655bcfa8cd52b290c457.png)
