Have you ever been at the center of a media storm?
February 22, 2001 6:58 PM Subscribe
posted by fleener at 7:30 PM on February 22, 2001
For at least 20 years before that, they were known as the Pekin Chinks.
posted by rcade at 7:34 PM on February 22, 2001
If you don't understand why some Native Americans are offended by this, please read this statement before you pass judgment.
The parents of the protesting teenagers should tell their kids to get back in school, and sit down and talk with their children about racism, and stereotypes. There's plenty of great mascots out there that aren't demeaning or offensive to people.
(Rcade's example excluded.) :>
posted by gramcracker at 7:36 PM on February 22, 2001
I'm interpreting Lynsey's post as requesting comments on the press invasion more than the merits of the name change, so I'll stick mostly to that.
If TV crews are sneaking into the building, and your school has a no-unauthorized-visitors policy (as practically all schools do these days), call the cops and have them arrested. If you are approached, keep repeating the same mantra no matter what questions they throw at you: "Why are you in here illegally, threatening our children? How do we know you're really from Channel so-and-so?" Make sure every statement you make puts the reporter on the defensive. Treat them like as much of a threat as if some nutcase was running through the halls with an AK-47. Media arrogance should not be tolerated, period.
But if kids are being pulled out of class for interviews, well, what are the teachers and principals doing about it? Tell your students that if they want to talk to the press, they can do it after school.
The media have a right to cover the story, but they do not have the right to disrupt normal school operations in order to do so. And if your schools allows them to do so, it's your school's own fault as much as it is the media's.
As for the controversy itself, I find it rather creepy that some here, who would usually be celebrating student activism, are instead calling for ::cough:: "gentle persuasion" to get them to shut up since they're not agitating for the PC side. If the students are organizing to make a point, and not themselves disrupting daily educational activities in the process, they should be encouraged, no matter which view they're supporting. I would hope that a good teacher would find a way to make this entire conflict into an educational experience for his/her students. Talk about the effect of the news media on the situation, and how the students can influence it. Bring up the history of student activism; especially find examples of high-schoolers taking stands in the past and what resulted from their actions, etc.
The scariest thing about this whole brouhaha, however, is buried in the final sentence of that story. It not-so-subtly hints that some students want to force the entire school off to the auditorium to be "re-educated."
ObTrivia: There's a small town in West Virginia called Poca. I'll give you all one guess as to the name of the Poca High School team.
posted by aaron at 8:05 PM on February 22, 2001
posted by netbros at 8:21 PM on February 22, 2001
Can somebody interpret this quote for me? My "nonsense-speak" is getting a bit rusty. ;-p
posted by locombia at 8:57 PM on February 22, 2001
posted by netbros at 9:02 PM on February 22, 2001
As for the media attention, the tv coverage is not likely to damage the student body. Since when do kids hate to be pulled from class and given an interview? I used to skip class on my own accord just to read all the magazines in the library.
posted by xtrmntr at 9:12 PM on February 22, 2001
Speaking of offending Native Americans, and this belongs in the Grammys thread, but since I'm lazy: did anyone notice that the guys who won the Grammy for Best Native American music recording placed special emphasis on thanking the "greatest warrior" or something, "our savior Jesus Christ"? I find that really odd. The guys were wearing totally European-style clothing too, unlike the other nominees. Wacky.
posted by daveadams at 10:06 PM on February 22, 2001
Sidenote: If your feel like your current mental library of racial epithets is getting worn out and overused, why not try The Racial Slur Database? You're sure to pick up dozens of fresh, never-before-used xenophobic appellations!
posted by aaron at 10:46 PM on February 22, 2001
"Generals" is a term created by the very people who used it (as a signifier of rank) They controlled the meaning of the word and it's application(s).
"Braves" is a word created by the same dominant social structure to categorize a people they did (at that time) not even pretend to try and understand. They needed a few quick stereotypes to make the injustices they were imposing on them more palatable both to themselves and the rest of the (dominant) society.
It comes with a lot of baggage, which is often painful to Native Americans. They are trying to fight stereotypes and empower themselves and change the (limiting) ways in which they are still perceived by some people. They don't want to see a corny label like "The Braves" a label that reminds them of everything that historically has been imposed on them. They want a label that they too can be a part of and feel proud of, not something that sounds like it was taken from a b-grade "cowboys and injuns" movie from the 50's.
Any word that defines also limits particularly if you don't have control over it's meaning and applications.
I know there are a lot of assumptions made here, because I’m not a Native American. Actually I’m not even American. Just trying to imagine what I might feel like in their place.
There are certainly similarities in the way we treated indigenous Australians. Except our term was “Nobel Savages” and our “generals” sent letters back home to the motherland England, stating unequivocally that Aborigines were "child-like people of the land," who were rapt in the idea of having every decision made for them, their lands taken away from them. A few miscreants to spoil the fun naturally (what can you expect from children?) but they are (were) easily dealt with.
posted by lucien at 1:49 AM on February 23, 2001
However, then I hear the word "braves" or "indians" in connection with a sporting team, I think that the intent was to portray the team as fierce, possesing warrior-like qualities exhibited by that particular group. This is hardly, in my opinion, derogatory. On the contrary, it seems that this would be a sign of respect for these people. "Niggers" is wholly without such connotations and is therefore a different matter.
If a team wanted to name itself the Krauts, Diablos Tejanos or some other name applied to my particular ethnic background, I would not be offended. On the contrary, I would be proud that my ancestors were thought of as warriors and a strong people. I mean, you never hear of the Fighting Frenchies.
posted by CRS at 6:23 AM on February 23, 2001
Which is exactly as it should be -- how else would you determine whether something is offensive?
posted by sudama at 6:34 AM on February 23, 2001
Better than being a "Sajoac." Eesh. I'd rather be a dot. Or a "Lady Pope".....
posted by mimi at 6:51 AM on February 23, 2001
posted by brent at 7:06 AM on February 23, 2001
The word "Pope" isn't insulting, but if a team called itself the "Popes" and had a mascot with long robes and a papal hat who pretended to bless players and led cheers in Latin, do you think Catholics would be offended?
posted by rcade at 7:48 AM on February 23, 2001
posted by locombia at 7:54 AM on February 23, 2001
posted by uptowngrrrl at 8:37 AM on February 23, 2001
The "Lady Popes," btw, is the name of the girls' basketball team at Pius V High School in Milwaukee. MUST buy a sweatshirt. "Sajoac" was the completely lame team we had -- "SAint JOseph ACademy." Get it? Ugh. We had a small movement to change the team to the Amazons but we got nowhere.
posted by mimi at 8:43 AM on February 23, 2001
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:45 AM on February 23, 2001
Now, the Native American imagery that goes along with such a team, say the Kansas City Chiefs may be offensive, but the name itself isn't.
posted by daveadams at 9:13 AM on February 23, 2001
All Americans should react with horror to this trivialization of our noble history .
posted by Octaviuz at 9:34 AM on February 23, 2001
Orofino is the home of the state mental institution. As far as I know, that's still their mascot.
posted by Skot at 9:41 AM on February 23, 2001
I'd have loved it if my school had been the "Chinks" or "Gooks" or "Niggaz"
Kick ass.
posted by Capn_Stuby at 10:52 AM on February 23, 2001
posted by owillis at 11:03 AM on February 23, 2001
posted by Lynsey at 1:56 PM on February 23, 2001
posted by Dr. Boom at 8:02 PM on February 24, 2001
posted by sudama at 10:44 PM on February 24, 2001
Being Irish, I guess I should resent the Notre Dame nickname, "The Fighting Irish." After all, how long do you think nicknames like "The Bargaining Jews" or "The Murdering Italians" would last? Only the ironic Irish could be so naively honest. I get the feeling that Notre Dame came real close to naming itself "The Fuckin' Drunken, Thick-skulled, Brawling, Short-dicked Irish."posted by aaron at 11:39 AM on February 25, 2001
posted by iceberg273 at 10:33 AM on February 26, 2001
posted by kindall at 12:10 PM on February 26, 2001
posted by iceberg273 at 4:18 PM on February 26, 2001
« Older The End of Money | Zorch means it's edgar Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
2. "braves" is probably okay if there's not a cartoon "indian" as the visual symbol. "braves" could be reconceptualized as something that's not derogatory - like maybe a scout?
3. "indians" or "redskins" or "chiefs" are all out, in my book. just as "niggers" or "orientals" would be unacceptable as a team mascot.
4. those high school kids are not informed protesters, i would guess. they don't get why the mascot might be offensive. school spirit is all well and good, but, eh. can you give them some perspective? as a thoughtful member of the community?
posted by acridrabbit at 7:28 PM on February 22, 2001