(Go to Emergency Broadcast screen)
Okay, okay, I get it, I get it. You've been hitting refresh every day, like 30 times an hour, waiting for like three weeks for a new blog post. I didn't realize I was that popular. I'm so sorry- it'll never (but probably will) happen again. So while you're popping my shoulder back into place, can you remind me where I waOW OW OW OW OW!!!!!
(Go to commercial break)
Aaaaaaaand we're back.
So I was reading the newspaper the other day- like I said, not something I do very often. Mostly because I get my news straight from HCRealms.com and Stephen Colbert. Partly because I don't read the local paper. They cover the Packers like they were a local team and they once did a story on the front page of the sports section about the new scoreboard at Marquette Senior High School. I can't be bothered with that noise.
But I did read a little bit of the paper earlier this week, and tucked away there on the bottom of page 2 of the sports section was this little piece of information (not linked from the Mining Journal site- it's not even on there. They must have had to delete it to make room for their feature piece on the Flying Pick-Axe man).
So Dave- can I call you Dave? I just LOVE your yellow pants. Tell me more about those bright yellow pants.
A little backstory here- in 2005, the NCAA contacted somewhere between 18 and 20 schools with Native American mascots/logos were told that they had to get rid of the hostile/offensive nicknames or else risk sanctions (such as being unable to host conference tournaments). Some schools, such as the Florida State Seminoles and the CMU Chippewas, got permission from their local tribes to carry on business as usual. Others, like the University of Louisiana-Monroe, changed their mascot to comply with the NCAA.
And then there's the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux.
Now, I'm not going to get into a big history here- suffice it to say that the gist of what I've found is that the Fighting Sioux asked the state's two Sioux tribes for permission to continue to use the mascot/logo. The Spirit Lake Sioux tribe gave their permission. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe did not. So the University complied with the NCAA and changed the mascot, and the world became a place of equality and peace. The end.
Of course, that's not how it really ended- there is so much more behind the scenes than we realize, eh? For starters, I have to be honest- it wasn't a slam dunk that the Standing Rock tribe denied permission (to be equally fair, I didn't look into Spirit Lake at all, so their decision might have been equally polarizing). There were a number of members of the tribe that wanted UND to continue to retain the Fighting Sioux moniker. In the end, though, the tribal council voted against the name (in essence), and a petition to take the matter to a tribe-wide vote was denied by Chief Judge William Zuger. So now, the issue is decided. The university complies, peace, equality, flowers, the end.
Except no.
Apparently the lawmakers of the state of North Dakota (with nothing better to do?) decided in their infinite wisdom that they should pass a law so that the University of North Dakota would be legally obligated to keep the name 'Fighting Sioux'. So despite a ruling by the NCAA that was confirmed by the State Board of Higher Education and in keeping with the wishes of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the system of checks and balances decided it would be better for everyone if they just went ahead and made House Bill 1263.
Here's the thing, folks. I don't want to pretend that I know why this bill was passed (money). I just know that this thing reeks of traditional Caucasian know-better-than-you. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a white person. And I know better than you.
Here's some quotes from the article that highlight why I think this resolution is preposterous. Quotes are in italics and sarcastic commentary is in this color.
-"North Dakota lawmakers say hundreds of constituent emails substantiate tremendous public support for the current nickname". And I'm sure that none of those e-mails were sent from wealreadytoldyouno@standingrocksiouxtribe.sovereignnation.gov
-"Some legislators have said they resent the nickname being characterized as hostile and abusive because they believe the name and logo are treated with respect." Of course, these legislators know all about how to treat Indians with respect, and are the resident experts about what should be considered hostile and abusive to people who had their whole way of life ripped away from them by an invasion of the faux friendlies.
-"Others have said the change is being rammed down their throats by the NCAA and think the higher education board should have done more to adhere to residents’ wishes." Ah, right. Residents wishes. You mean like the residents of the Sioux Tribe that voted to get rid of the name?
Aside from shooting the university in the foot (UND would not be allowed to use the nickname/logo in postseason tournaments and could possible lose out on getting into the Big Sky conference which could "lead to a broad decline in athletics"), this seems to be getting back to the old days, when the US Government paid lip service to the idea that Indian nations were sovereign. "Oh sure, sign this treaty, give us your land, we'll give you some blankets and trinkets. That should tide you over until the next time we decide we want more land". Sure, why not? And hey, while we're at it, let's just introduce alcoholism and smallpox too?
We have quite a history of justifying mistreatment of others in the name of our laws. Maybe this Fighting Sioux thing is 'just a nickname'...but the deeper issue I see is that, once again, we are marginalizing the wishes and desires of an outlying group for the sake the majority. It's like Dooh Nibor- feed the rich with what you steal from the poor.
Who are we as white people to say if the logo is being treated with respect? How can we know that it isn't hostile or abusive? And sure, it doesn't really come off as all that believable for me to tell you that they are. But unfortunately, we haven't really done a good job of listening to the Native American population. We tend to talk loud and long and just minimalize their issues and concerns.
Again, in full disclosure, I have to admit that I am largely ignorant of a lot of this. By and large, I've been content to sit in my own little corner of my own little bubble. It's only because my wife is taking a Native American experience class that I even really read the article. So the finger I point is also at myself (actually, I'll point two fingers- one at everyone else, and one at me. You have to trust me, it looks pretty sweet).
Think about how marginalized that the First Peoples are in our country. When was the last time you heard a Native American song on the radio. Or saw a Native American in a movie that wasn't about Native Americans? Shoot, we just watched Last of the Mohicans the other day, and the main character isn't even an Indian. We watched another movie about the Code Talking Navajo in WWII, and the main guy was Nicholas Cage. Nicholas Cage. If I wanted to see a movie with Nicholas Cage, I'd watch Valley Girl.
You don't think that Native American mascots, even if they do have the best of intentions, play in to that? Even a little bit? Seriously, what better way to call into the question the legitimacy of an existence than by making that existence into a cartoon- a caricature of what it really is. To us, Redskins, Chiefs, and Fighting Sioux are just different names in a mascot sea of full of Lions, Tigers, and Bears. So of course we think they're being handled with dignity and respect- because they're mascots!
Super Bowl XXVI was the first time I heard about the mascot controversy, and back then I thought it was stupid. But that was back when I was stupid. Now I'm less stupid, and I do believe that these mascots, when not supported and backed by the Native population, are harmful and abusive.
I can't (and usually try not to) tell someone what they should or shouldn't find offensive, and Lord knows I've offended my share of light-weights. I also acknowledge that this story has more facets than a blood diamond. I don't know why some Indians are for it and some against it. I don't know the money side- who will make the money, who will lose the money. And who knows the mind of the NCAA?
I just believe that the people who make the laws of the state of North Dakota have overstepped their bounds. I believe that they are acting not in the best interests of the people who are being represented as picture on the front of a jersey. I believe that their actions demonstrate a severe overestimation of the worth of a mascot at the expense of the lives of a race of human beings.
And no sports team is worth that.
Pic- http://lschockey.com/images/Negaunee.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment