3 ms·

So native Americans tribes have for the majority almost been wiped out and eradicated due to something not very far from genocide (or at the minimum, a very tar

So native Americans tribes have for the majority almost been wiped out and eradicated due to something not very far from genocide (or at the minimum, a very targeted policy of extermination) And somehow you think that schools that have nothing to do with those people finally changing their very questionable names is due to a “conflict of interest of a psychologist”? Not because it was just racist?

mc32 5y ago
I don’t mind changing names if it’s based on evidence, not just because someone has some crusade. Should Aztecas Stadium change their name? What about the MN Vikings, NY Yankees, TX Cowboys? Kaiser Chiefs of ZA, Ebusa dwarfs of ZA?
throwadogabone 5y ago
It could be argued that using that symbolism is more a form of respect than it is a form of racism. I don't think people who decided those names actively participated in the genocide, and objectively, they used those names and that symbolism as an ideal to look up to, they used it as a warrior symbol for their team. It could also be argued that it dilutes the image/culture/history and probably a bunch more things by wrapping it up in american plastic. I wouldn't argue with that.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- crooked-v 5y ago
  > It could be argued that using that symbolism is more a form of respect than it is a form of racism. Broadly speaking, the symbolism being used is usually either an obvious caricature of the real thing (see: the former Washington Redskins), or uses cultural and religious elements that are at best kind of offensive in the context of being used as a sportsball logo (see: most uses of peace pipe or war bonnet imagery). There are exceptions, but they're of the kind that generally come with either somebody actually doing the research or people of the given group actually participating locally.
  - mc32 5y ago
    And yet... on the other hand, Indian Casino logos (on Indian land) commissioned by tribes. As someone else mentioned most of the push against is not from American Indians/Native Americans but vicariously offended others.

mc32 5y ago

I don’t mind changing names if it’s based on evidence, not just because someone has some crusade. Should Aztecas Stadium change their name? What about the MN Vikings, NY Yankees, TX Cowboys? Kaiser Chiefs of ZA, Ebusa dwarfs of ZA?

throwadogabone 5y ago

It could be argued that using that symbolism is more a form of respect than it is a form of racism. I don't think people who decided those names actively participated in the genocide, and objectively, they used those names and that symbolism as an ideal to look up to, they used it as a warrior symbol for their team. It could also be argued that it dilutes the image/culture/history and probably a bunch more things by wrapping it up in american plastic. I wouldn't argue with that.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
crooked-v 5y ago
> It could be argued that using that symbolism is more a form of respect than it is a form of racism. Broadly speaking, the symbolism being used is usually either an obvious caricature of the real thing (see: the former Washington Redskins), or uses cultural and religious elements that are at best kind of offensive in the context of being used as a sportsball logo (see: most uses of peace pipe or war bonnet imagery). There are exceptions, but they're of the kind that generally come with either somebody actually doing the research or people of the given group actually participating locally.
- mc32 5y ago
  And yet... on the other hand, Indian Casino logos (on Indian land) commissioned by tribes. As someone else mentioned most of the push against is not from American Indians/Native Americans but vicariously offended others.