http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/PN-G-alumni-plan-warrior-statue-but-some-6455325.php
You know, I will never understand some people.
My great grandfather was illegitimate, half-white and half-Cherokee. He grew up with his father, a blacksmith from Alabama that relocated to north Texas around the turn of the century, so he could learn the blacksmithing trade. According to family legend, he was looked down on by his half-siblings, all white, and suffered severe discrimination from the community around him as a child. As a young man, his father made the decision to list him as white on the census rolls to conceal his Cherokee heritage from the government - a decision he clung to as an adult for fear of persecution, especially as an illegitimate, half-breed bastard child. Aside from a family Bible that references his lineage and some handwritten notes from a conversation my mother held with him shortly before he died, there's no written record of his true ancestry, just old memories of conversations from decades past passed down from older members of the family.
My great grandfather left Texas for Oklahoma as soon as he could to find work; employment opportunities were virtually nonexistent for American Indians in Texas at that time, and he hoped to find better prospects in a state that had just recently been given a name other than "Indian Territory." He was able to find work, although not as a blacksmith; he became a carpenter instead, and remained in that profession for the rest of his life. He raised two sons, my grandfather and my great uncle, in Oklahoma during the dust bowl days of the depression. Having a white mother and being able to pass more easily as white, they would later bring the family back to Texas. Although my great grandfather eventually reversed his approach, tried very hard to reconnect with his Cherokee ancestry later in life and even requested a Cherokee burial ceremony shortly before his death, my grandfather never relinquished the secrecy, going to his deathbed without discussing his lineage with anyone outside of the family for fear, I suspect, of the same reprisal his father had suffered as a young man.
Neither of them, to my knowledge, held any resentment for using the team names "Indians" or "Redskins" or anything of the like. I know that my grandfather hated PN-G, but that had nothing to do with ancestral history and everything to do with your typical Southeast Texas high school football rivalries. Similarly, neither my father nor I, nor my aunt nor any of my cousins to my knowledge, bear any such resentment; indeed, my various posts on this board and others, if anything, serve as strong evidence to the contrary.
I've been asked several times - more often by the typical white, elitist liberal types that always get really offended by things they have no actual right to be offended about, to be honest - how I can tolerate these team names despite my family's history - how I'm not outraged, insulted or offended. I've been asked on a few occasions how I could continue to support my high school team knowing what my ancestors went through. Normally, to kill the conversation quickly, avoid another argument and save time that could be used doing better things, I'll come back with some quip about how I'm not offended by the Notre Dame Fightin' Irish, despite my mother's side of the family carrying a hefty amount of Irish blood. I might change it up every now and then. As a Texan that proudly claims his home state, shouldn't I be offended by the Houston Texans, too? Doesn't that franchise portray all Texans as drunken sports fanatics? My paternal grandmother's family line included some of the first white pioneers in Texas, who owned and operated a working ranch near Waco. One strain of the family still owns and works that ranch. Should I be offended by the Dallas Cowboys? My mother's side of the family made a multi-generational stop in Louisiana before reaching Texas that brought some Cajun blood in the mix. Should I call for ULL to drop the Ragin' Cajuns thing?
The truth, which I'm only willing to get into with people I think might be receptive, is that it simply makes no sense. This opposition to the use of the American Indian likeness in the sports arena is more reactionary than it is intellectually sound, in my opinion, and is ultimately self-defeating.
Most, if not all, of the opponents to this practice claim that it "makes a mockery" of a people that have suffered innumerable and immense injustices throughout the history of the United States. I won't quibble with the argument that American Indians have been severely mistreated in America - that is a historical fact - but this idea that using a team name like "Indians" somehow mocks those same people makes no sense at all. Mascots are celebrated in the United States, not ridiculed. Animal mascots, for example, often receive better treatment from the athletic programs that love them than they would in other forms of captivity and certainly the wild - think Mike the Tiger at LSU, a member of an endangered species that's preserved for posterity in part because of the pride and sincerity of the LSU fanbase.
That same level of reverence, pride and endearment is focused on human mascots as well. In the same way that animal mascots are most often chosen because the teams and fanbases the mascots represent wish to emulate the characteristics and attributes of that particular species, human mascots and team names are chosen because those teams and those fanbases wish to emulate the spirit, values, qualities, histories, and cultures they represent. For cases like PN-G, where the community the particular team calls home has a direct historical link to the people that team has chosen to emulate, that's doubly true. I don't understand how anyone could take issue with that; as the old saying goes, imitation is the highest form of flattery.
That brings me back to my second point about how this reactionary position is ultimately self-defeating. In my opinion, having the American Indian on the forefront of American sports culture is, if anything, beneficial to the memory of the American Indian. In part, that's based in my rationale regarding emulation explained in the earlier paragraphs of this post, but that's not only point to be made here. Often times, the same people who call for an end to this practice simultaneously call for heightened awareness of the plight of the American Indian.
If heightened awareness is the goal, what better way is there to shoot yourself in the foot than to eliminate the most common, modern context in which the American Indian likeness is viewed, born in mind and discussed?
Conversely, what better way is there to raise awareness than to have some of the actual American Indian tribes partner with these schools and sports franchises to teach people their history?
If anything, this practice shouldn't be abhorred by American Indians or those with sympathies for them, it should be embraced. This is a golden opportunity. Most sports franchises have small exhibits dedicated to the most outstanding teams in franchise history located somewhere in their stadium. What if the Washington Redskins put up a similar display that briefly expounded on American Indian History in their stadium? How many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of NFL fans would see that display every year? Even if only a fraction of them stopped to read anything, is that not significantly heightened awareness? What if the Braves did something similar down in Atlanta? How many more people would have a heightened awareness of American Indian history then? What if they ran a brief commercial on the jumbotrons in the stadium to accompany it, that had a new historical fact or maybe a few historical facts about American Indians for each game? What if a portion of the proceeds from each game went to help some of the poorer tribes out west like the Navajo?
For the schools that use the likeness, would it honestly be that hard to ask some of the tribes to send historical information that the history teachers could incorporate into their curriculum? How awesome would it be for PN-G to mandate a special American Indian history unit conceived in direct partnership with the Cherokee tribe up in Oklahoma for its students? For universities in the same situation, how much would it take to have a special course added through their history departments?
And most importantly, how much more effective would those efforts be at raising awareness than raising hell about a couple of mascots?
I get the sentiments - I really do. American Indians and their descendants comprise the only segment of the American populace that can honestly claim treatment as bad or worse than that of black Americans - we've been beaten, betrayed, rounded up into small, unwanted plots of land, driven halfway across the country, subjugated, infected, and annihilated by the millions. But none of that is undone by making a few sports teams change their name. Perhaps the best way to honor the ancestors who suffered those horrific experiences - my ancestors - is to embrace a positive spotlight created by constructive cooperation rather than inviting another negative experience created through confrontational protests.
You know, I will never understand some people.
My great grandfather was illegitimate, half-white and half-Cherokee. He grew up with his father, a blacksmith from Alabama that relocated to north Texas around the turn of the century, so he could learn the blacksmithing trade. According to family legend, he was looked down on by his half-siblings, all white, and suffered severe discrimination from the community around him as a child. As a young man, his father made the decision to list him as white on the census rolls to conceal his Cherokee heritage from the government - a decision he clung to as an adult for fear of persecution, especially as an illegitimate, half-breed bastard child. Aside from a family Bible that references his lineage and some handwritten notes from a conversation my mother held with him shortly before he died, there's no written record of his true ancestry, just old memories of conversations from decades past passed down from older members of the family.
My great grandfather left Texas for Oklahoma as soon as he could to find work; employment opportunities were virtually nonexistent for American Indians in Texas at that time, and he hoped to find better prospects in a state that had just recently been given a name other than "Indian Territory." He was able to find work, although not as a blacksmith; he became a carpenter instead, and remained in that profession for the rest of his life. He raised two sons, my grandfather and my great uncle, in Oklahoma during the dust bowl days of the depression. Having a white mother and being able to pass more easily as white, they would later bring the family back to Texas. Although my great grandfather eventually reversed his approach, tried very hard to reconnect with his Cherokee ancestry later in life and even requested a Cherokee burial ceremony shortly before his death, my grandfather never relinquished the secrecy, going to his deathbed without discussing his lineage with anyone outside of the family for fear, I suspect, of the same reprisal his father had suffered as a young man.
Neither of them, to my knowledge, held any resentment for using the team names "Indians" or "Redskins" or anything of the like. I know that my grandfather hated PN-G, but that had nothing to do with ancestral history and everything to do with your typical Southeast Texas high school football rivalries. Similarly, neither my father nor I, nor my aunt nor any of my cousins to my knowledge, bear any such resentment; indeed, my various posts on this board and others, if anything, serve as strong evidence to the contrary.
I've been asked several times - more often by the typical white, elitist liberal types that always get really offended by things they have no actual right to be offended about, to be honest - how I can tolerate these team names despite my family's history - how I'm not outraged, insulted or offended. I've been asked on a few occasions how I could continue to support my high school team knowing what my ancestors went through. Normally, to kill the conversation quickly, avoid another argument and save time that could be used doing better things, I'll come back with some quip about how I'm not offended by the Notre Dame Fightin' Irish, despite my mother's side of the family carrying a hefty amount of Irish blood. I might change it up every now and then. As a Texan that proudly claims his home state, shouldn't I be offended by the Houston Texans, too? Doesn't that franchise portray all Texans as drunken sports fanatics? My paternal grandmother's family line included some of the first white pioneers in Texas, who owned and operated a working ranch near Waco. One strain of the family still owns and works that ranch. Should I be offended by the Dallas Cowboys? My mother's side of the family made a multi-generational stop in Louisiana before reaching Texas that brought some Cajun blood in the mix. Should I call for ULL to drop the Ragin' Cajuns thing?
The truth, which I'm only willing to get into with people I think might be receptive, is that it simply makes no sense. This opposition to the use of the American Indian likeness in the sports arena is more reactionary than it is intellectually sound, in my opinion, and is ultimately self-defeating.
Most, if not all, of the opponents to this practice claim that it "makes a mockery" of a people that have suffered innumerable and immense injustices throughout the history of the United States. I won't quibble with the argument that American Indians have been severely mistreated in America - that is a historical fact - but this idea that using a team name like "Indians" somehow mocks those same people makes no sense at all. Mascots are celebrated in the United States, not ridiculed. Animal mascots, for example, often receive better treatment from the athletic programs that love them than they would in other forms of captivity and certainly the wild - think Mike the Tiger at LSU, a member of an endangered species that's preserved for posterity in part because of the pride and sincerity of the LSU fanbase.
That same level of reverence, pride and endearment is focused on human mascots as well. In the same way that animal mascots are most often chosen because the teams and fanbases the mascots represent wish to emulate the characteristics and attributes of that particular species, human mascots and team names are chosen because those teams and those fanbases wish to emulate the spirit, values, qualities, histories, and cultures they represent. For cases like PN-G, where the community the particular team calls home has a direct historical link to the people that team has chosen to emulate, that's doubly true. I don't understand how anyone could take issue with that; as the old saying goes, imitation is the highest form of flattery.
That brings me back to my second point about how this reactionary position is ultimately self-defeating. In my opinion, having the American Indian on the forefront of American sports culture is, if anything, beneficial to the memory of the American Indian. In part, that's based in my rationale regarding emulation explained in the earlier paragraphs of this post, but that's not only point to be made here. Often times, the same people who call for an end to this practice simultaneously call for heightened awareness of the plight of the American Indian.
If heightened awareness is the goal, what better way is there to shoot yourself in the foot than to eliminate the most common, modern context in which the American Indian likeness is viewed, born in mind and discussed?
Conversely, what better way is there to raise awareness than to have some of the actual American Indian tribes partner with these schools and sports franchises to teach people their history?
If anything, this practice shouldn't be abhorred by American Indians or those with sympathies for them, it should be embraced. This is a golden opportunity. Most sports franchises have small exhibits dedicated to the most outstanding teams in franchise history located somewhere in their stadium. What if the Washington Redskins put up a similar display that briefly expounded on American Indian History in their stadium? How many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of NFL fans would see that display every year? Even if only a fraction of them stopped to read anything, is that not significantly heightened awareness? What if the Braves did something similar down in Atlanta? How many more people would have a heightened awareness of American Indian history then? What if they ran a brief commercial on the jumbotrons in the stadium to accompany it, that had a new historical fact or maybe a few historical facts about American Indians for each game? What if a portion of the proceeds from each game went to help some of the poorer tribes out west like the Navajo?
For the schools that use the likeness, would it honestly be that hard to ask some of the tribes to send historical information that the history teachers could incorporate into their curriculum? How awesome would it be for PN-G to mandate a special American Indian history unit conceived in direct partnership with the Cherokee tribe up in Oklahoma for its students? For universities in the same situation, how much would it take to have a special course added through their history departments?
And most importantly, how much more effective would those efforts be at raising awareness than raising hell about a couple of mascots?
I get the sentiments - I really do. American Indians and their descendants comprise the only segment of the American populace that can honestly claim treatment as bad or worse than that of black Americans - we've been beaten, betrayed, rounded up into small, unwanted plots of land, driven halfway across the country, subjugated, infected, and annihilated by the millions. But none of that is undone by making a few sports teams change their name. Perhaps the best way to honor the ancestors who suffered those horrific experiences - my ancestors - is to embrace a positive spotlight created by constructive cooperation rather than inviting another negative experience created through confrontational protests.
