April 21

Blog #119 – Indian mascots – insult, honor, or something else?

In the February 2012 article, “Insult or Honor?”, the author examines reasons surrounding the controversy of using Indian names and tribes as mascots for athletic teams.  But first, a little history:

The Boston Red Stockings changed their team name to the Boston Braves in 1912 (which would then move to Atlanta to play baseball there), and the Cleveland baseball team changed their mascot name to the Indians in 1914, purportedly because one of their players was a Native American.  College teams had had Indian mascots for decades, but Stanford University became one of the first universities to change their name voluntarily in 1972 from the Indians to the Cardinal.  In the 1990s, the NCAA ordered all teams with Indian mascots to change their nicknames and logos unless the university got permission from the tribe associated with that school.  Only a few schools were able to keep their mascots: Florida State, University of Illinois, University of Utah were a few.  In 2005, the NCAA put 19 colleges on notice that their names were “hostile or abusive” to Native Americans, and apparently all of the schools have changed except for Alcorn State University in Mississippi.  The high school mentioned in the article, Mukwonago, was ordered by the Wisconsin legislature to change its name (Warriors) to something else.  The case ended up in court, and the state courts allowed the school to keep its mascot and nickname in 2015, but they haven’t decided to change it back to the Warriors.

Arguments for keeping the Indian mascots include tradition and honor to those tribes involved.  Another argument for keeping the mascots revolve around financial means.  Those schools affected would need to buy all new sports uniforms, change gym floors and paint over murals at stadiums and gyms.  The article estimated that there are 6,500 schools of all levels that use an Indian mascot.  As for pro teams like the Washington R____, Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, Chicago Blackhawks, and Cleveland Indians, they have argued that it would be too expensive to change their gear.  The Cleveland baseball team recently dropped its Chief Wahoo mascot and now just goes with a bright red C.

The primary arguments against using Indian mascots and names primarily rest with the thought that these are insults to Native peoples and engage in harmful and hurtful stereotypes.  Chief Wahoo can be found at the Ferris State Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia because it represents the “Red Sambo” character in Jim Crow iconography.  Stereotypes like this have been used to justify racist behavior and discriminatory laws.  An additional argument can be that when white fans of these teams dress as Indians, they are appropriating the Indian culture and making a mockery of it (kinda like when people dress like hippies for 60s day during Spirit Week).  The most egregious / extreme use of the Indian nickname that causes hurt is the NFL franchise found in Washington D.C.  In 2013, the owner of the team, Daniel Snyder, has said, “We’ll never change the name. … It’s that simple. NEVER—you can use caps.”  In 2014, 50 U.S. Senators (48 Democrats and 2 independents) sent a letter to NFL Commissioner, Roger Goddell, asking that the NFL not support racism and bigotry.  Supposedly, the name was chosen in 1933 to honor all Native Americans.  However, if this were done with any other group of people, including whites (The Detroit Blacks, for instance, or the Pittsburgh Whites – all made up names), many people might have an issue with that.  However, in a 2017 case that went before the U.S. Supreme Court, a band known as the Slants (made up of Asian Americans) won a case against the U.S. trademark office because by the government refusing a trademark for the Slants, that would be a violation of their free speech.  Snyder sees this victory for free speech as a victory for his team since the Trademark Office had recently voted to cancel his team’s trademark in 2014.

Here’s a commercial put together by the National Congress of American Indians about the mascot issue:

So what’s your position on the use of Native American nicknames as mascots for schools and college and pro sports teams?  Do these names show what the predominantly white  attendees say they do – courage, spirit, honor, and respect?  Should a school get the local tribe’s permission in order to use its tribal name (like the University of North Dakota or Eastern Michigan and Central Michigan)?  Or is it time to retire these relics of a racist past to the trash bin of history?

Your answer is due Tuesday (4/23) by class.  300 words total.  

A video from Fox News debating the issue below:

Category: Blogs | 55 Comments on Blog #119 – Indian mascots – insult, honor, or something else?
January 29

Blog #94 – “Prisoner of war camps” = Indian reservations?

As we study Andrew Jackson’s legacy with regards to the Native Americans, one thing to keep in mind is the long-term legacy that white Americans have to own with regards to Native Americans.  Jackson and Van Buren expelled the Indians, the Five “Civilized Tribes” of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Seminole, Choctaw, and Creek tribes – under the Indian Removal Act.  They were relocated to lands west of the Mississippi River where they would be allowed to roam free, the thinking went.  In the video we saw this week, Andrew Jackson: The Good, Evil, and the Presidency, Natives suffered tremendously.  But that was only one act in this long drama between white Americans (and previously before them, white Europeans) and Native Americans.

The Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress in 1830, in order to remove the five tribes from areas of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.  Historian and noted Jackson scholar Robert Remini said that the Indians were removed from the eastern United States because they presented a direct threat to the country, having been used as sabotuers by foreign invaders in the past three wars that America had fought (French and Indian War, the Revolution, and the War of 1812).  Remini saw this act as improving the homeland security of the nation.  Other historians see the act within the context of the grab for new farm land in the cotton-growing frenzy that gripped the nation – the Indians were moved because the land they lived on was coveted by white farmers so that they could add to the cotton kingdom.  This act was unconstitutional because the Indians were seen as sovereign nations living within the U.S. in Article IV, Section 3, and even the Supreme Court affirmed that the Cherokee couldn’t be moved in Worcester v. Georgia.  Historian H.W. Brands states that President Jackson felt that this removal policy was “humane” and saved the Indians from annihiation from the crushing forces of white encroachment.

From there, however, Manifest Destiny charged ahead, damn the torpedoes, so to speak, and the Indians were in the way again.  Whether it be farm land, gold and silver mines, railroads, or the destruction of the buffalo, Native Americans became an easy target for white Americans moving westward.  The tribes were pushed aside and put onto reservations, or as the speaker in the TED talk below, Aaron Huey, calls them, “prisoner of war camps”.  Some Indians like Red Cloud, Sitting Bull, and Crazy Horse, just to name a few, fought back and succeeded at slowing down the demographic tide.  A 1911 ad offering "allotted Indian land" for sale

For most American history books, we see that they talk about the Indians almost always when they are being pushed off of their land by Europeans (King Philip’s War, Powhatan War, Seminole War, Indian Removal Act) or when they fight back (Battle of Little Bighorn, Red Cloud’s War) or after being indiscriminately massacred (Sand Creek and Wounded Knee Massacres).  Few cover the decimation of disaeases that faced the Native Americans when the Europeans first arrived.  Even fewer touch on 20th Century issues and laws regarding education, reservation (and sale of Indian land), tribal recognition, citizenship, Termination policy in the 1950s or other Indian policies like the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934.  Our textbooks might talk about AIM or the standoff at Wounded Knee in 1973, but just as an inclusion of many minority groups in the chapter on the late 1960s / early 1970s. There might even be something about the seizure of Alcatraz Island by Native Americans. But rarely anything is heard after that.

 

In the following disturbing and moving video, photographer Aaron Huey lists the many things done (in the name of America) to the Lakota Sioux tribe.  He juxtaposes the litany of broken treaties and promises and horrific things with his own photos of the Lakota tribe at Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota.

Aaron Huey’s wish is that the American government honor the treaties and give back the Black Hills.  To atone for America’s sins, to use such a phrase, can anything truly be done?  Where, if anywhere, should Americans start to make up for what has been done to the Native Americans?   Is it right that we should speak in such manner as atoning for sins or asking for forgiveness?  Or do you feel that you have nothing to ask forgiveness for since these things had been done before you were born?  What responsibility do we have to Native Americans?

One major thing to consider is that though we may not have been personally responsible for oppressing the Native Americans, we benefit from the results of past policies of our government towards Native Americans (and even from past colonial practices).

Should we replace Columbus Day with Indigineous Peoples’ Day?

Should we push Congress to rescind the Medals of Honor distributed to the 7th Cavalry handed out after the Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890?

Should reservations be abolished? Or should those that exist still remain yet receive generous help?

Should the Washington football team, the Cleveland Indians, or Atlanta Braves be forced to take new mascot names?

What can we learn from Canada and the way they have treated and honored their Native Americans?

Should we continue to oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline (since President Trump has rescinded President Obama’s cancellation of it)?

Should Native Americans be given back their religious ceremonial artifacts, tens of thousands of which sit in museums, some on display, others locked in vaults? (for an upclose perspective, see the recent PBS film, What Was Ours here).

In finishing up the research for this blog (including reading chapters of the book, “All the Real Indians Died Off”: And 20 Other Myths About Native Americans by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz) I found that Congress passed, as part of an appropriations bill, a resolution called the Native American Apology Resolution in 2009.  Introduced by Republican senator from Kansas, Sam Brownback, he said the reason he did this was “to officially apologize for the past ill-conceived policies by the US Government toward the Native Peoples of this land and re-affirm our commitment toward healing our nation’s wounds and working toward establishing better relationships rooted in reconciliation.”

Furthermore:

The Apology Resolution states that the United States, “apologizes on behalf of the people of the United States to all Native Peoples for the many instances of violence, maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native Peoples by citizens of the United States.”

The Apology Resolution also “urges the President to acknowledge the wrongs of the United States against Indian tribes in the history of the United States in order to bring healing to this land.”

The Apology Resolution comes with a disclaimer that nothing in the Resolution authorizes or supports any legal claims against the United States and that the Resolution does not settle any claims against the United States.

The Apology Resolution does not include the lengthy Preamble that was part of S.J Res. 14 introduced earlier this year by Senator Brownback.  The Preamble recites the history of U.S. – tribal relations including the assistance provided to the settlers by Native Americans, the killing of Indian women and children, the Trail of Tears, the Long Walk, the Sand Creek Massacre, and Wounded Knee, the theft of tribal lands and resources, the breaking of treaties, and the removal of Indian children to boarding schools.

  1. Tell us your reactions to the Ted Talk;
  2. Discuss your thoughts / concerns about how to acknowledge the debt America owes Native Americans and why.

400 words minimum for both answers.  Due Wednesday, February 1.  

Extended quotes come from the blog: https://nativevotewa.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/president-obama-signs-native-american-apology-resolution/

 

Category: Blogs | 68 Comments on Blog #94 – “Prisoner of war camps” = Indian reservations?
September 4

Blog #89 – Columbus Day – keep it or pitch it?

Christopher Columbus is credited with having discovered the New World in 1492, not necessarily America.  How people interpret this fact is the subject of intense historical and cultural debate across the world.  The day honoring the discovery, October 12, is a national holiday, but for some historians and cultures, this day is marked as one when Spanish imperialism and genocide of the Native Americans began.

Those who want to discredit Columbus Day usually start with the wave of violence, slavery and genocide of the Native Americans that began after his “discovery.”  On the island of Hispanola (Haiti / Dominican Republic), the sailors left there after his first voyage were tasked with finding gold and silver and soon tried to put to work the natives of the island.  In subsequent voyages, he searched Central and South America for gold, and the communicable diseases like smallpox and measles that the Europeans had would also wipe out – intentionally or not – the Native populations.  Conquistadors Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro exploited divisions among the ruling tribes, Aztecs and Incas respectively, to conquer vast empires.  It’s estimated that something like 90% of the 100 million Native Americans who lived in the New World were wiped out by disease, war, and famine brought on by discovery.  Critics have claimed that the holiday should be renamed “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” to honor all the Native Americans past and present.

Here’s John Oliver’s take on Columbus Day:

But was this all Columbus’ fault?  His defenders say, of course not.  Diseases act in random ways and are influenced by many things including stress, food (or lack thereof), poverty and other cultural or economic factors.  Discovery could have brought some of these conditions on, but they weren’t necessarily the primary cause.  Columbus is also given credit for having been a visionary, having convinced the Spanish monarchs to provide him with three ships to sail the Atlantic in search of a newer, quicker route to Asia around the earth.  In fact, Columbus failed in his attempt to find that quicker trade route to Asia.  It would be Magellan who would circumnavigate the globe.  And, Columbus is being blamed for what came in his wake – the Spanish conquistadors, the destruction of Native peoples, and even the African slave trade since that was linked with the opening up of the New World.  Too much, much too much indeed, to put on one man’s shoulders.  Here’s an article in support of keeping Columbus Day: http://www.fordhamobserver.com/columbus-day-or-indigenous-peoples-day-keep-columbus/

Another way of looking at this is that when we celebrate Columbus Day, we celebrate America.  Should we acknowledge both the good and the bad that come with America / Columbus?  Or is it more patriotic to revel in America in a “Team America” way with unquestioning loyalty?

250 words minimum response.  Due 9/14 by class.

Sources:

Bigelow, Bill. “Zinn Education Project.” Zinn Education Project. N.p., 2003. Web. 19 Aug. 2012. <http://zinnedproject.org/posts/1497>.

Horwitz, Tony. A Voyage Long and Strange: On the Trail of Vikings, Conquistadors, Lost Colonists, and Other Adventurers in Early America. New York: Picador USA, 2009. Print.

Madaras, Larry, and James M. SoRelle. “New Worlds for All: Indians, Europeans, and the Remaking of Early America.” 1997. Taking Sides. 13th ed. Vol. 1. Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2009. 25+. Print.

Madaras, Larry, and James M. SoRelle. “Virgin Soils Revisited.” 2003. Taking Sides. 13th ed. Vol. 1. Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2009. 33-40. Print

Category: Blogs | 71 Comments on Blog #89 – Columbus Day – keep it or pitch it?
September 10

Blog #39 – Should we celebrate Columbus Day?

Christopher Columbus is credited with having discovered the New World in 1492, not necessarily America.  How people interpret this fact is the subject of intense historical and cultural debate across the world.  The day honoring the discovery, October 12, is a national holiday, but for some historians and cultures, this day is marked as one when Spanish imperialism and genocide of the Native Americans began.

Those who want to discredit Columbus Day usually start with the wave of violence, slavery and genocide of the Native Americans that began after his “discovery.”  On the island of Hispanola (Haiti / Dominican Republic), the sailors left there after his first voyage were tasked with finding gold and silver and soon tried to put to work the natives of the island.  In subsequent voyages, he searched Central and South America for gold, and the communicable diseases like smallpox and measles that the Europeans had would also wipe out – intentionally or not – the Native populations.  Conquistadors Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro exploited divisions among the ruling tribes, Aztecs and Incas respectively, to conquer vast empires.  It’s estimated that something like 90% of the 100 million Native Americans who lived in the New World were wiped out by disease, war, and famine brought on by discovery. 

But was this all Columbus’ fault?  His defenders say, of course not.  Diseases act in random ways and are influenced by many things including stress, food (or lack thereof), poverty and other cultural or economic factors.  Discovery could have brought some of these conditions on, but they weren’t necessarily the primary cause.  Columbus is also given credit for having been a visionary, having convinced the Spanish monarchs to provide him with three ships to sail the Atlantic in search of a newer, quicker route to Asia around the earth.  In fact, Columbus failed in his attempt to find that quicker trade route to Asia.  It would be Magellan who would circumnavigate the globe.  And, Columbus is being blamed for what came in his wake – the Spanish conquistadors, the destruction of Native peoples, and even the African slave trade since that was linked with the opening up of the New World.  Too much, much too much indeed, to put on one man’s shoulders. 

Another way of looking at this is that when we celebrate Columbus Day, we celebrate America.  Should we acknowledge both the good and the bad that come with America / Columbus?  Or is it more patriotic to revel in America in a “Team America” way with unquestioning loyalty? 

Your answer should be 250 words – due Thursday 9/13/12 by the beginning of class. 

Sources:

Bigelow, Bill. “Zinn Education Project.” Zinn Education Project. N.p., 2003. Web. 19 Aug. 2012. <http://zinnedproject.org/posts/1497>.

Horwitz, Tony. A Voyage Long and Strange: On the Trail of Vikings, Conquistadors, Lost Colonists, and Other Adventurers in Early America. New York: Picador USA, 2009. Print.

Madaras, Larry, and James M. SoRelle. “New Worlds for All: Indians, Europeans, and the Remaking of Early America.” 1997. Taking Sides. 13th ed. Vol. 1. Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2009. 25+. Print.

Madaras, Larry, and James M. SoRelle. “Virgin Soils Revisited.” 2003. Taking Sides. 13th ed. Vol. 1. Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2009. 33-40. Print.

Category: Blogs | 75 Comments on Blog #39 – Should we celebrate Columbus Day?
January 5

History Book Club – Empire of the Summer Moon

January 31, 2012 – Tuesday, 3 p.m. 

We’re getting together to talk about the epic story of the Comanche Indian tribe as described in the book, Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History by S.C. Gwynne. 

Excerpt from the first chapter here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/books/review/excerpt-empire-of-the-summer-moon.html?pagewanted=all 

Here’s a lengthy (but good) interview with  the author on C-Span. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/296792-1

 (just a pic, not embedded, sorry).

Category: FYI | LEAVE A COMMENT
December 7

Blog #7 – Which way would you have chosen in 1874?

In the battles of the West, the American government’s fight with the Native Americans included both forcing them onto reservations (and eventually assimilation into the larger white culture) or the destruction of those tribes that did not cooperate with the reservation concept. 

In the essay, “Sitting Bull and the Sioux Rebellion,” we read about how Sitting Bull refused to let his people join in the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) even though a series of Indian victories had forced the U.S. government to close the forts on the Bozeman Trail had led to this “favorable” treaty.  Almost all of South Dakota had been set aside by the treaty as the “Great Sioux Reservation” and that’s where Sitting Bull and many other Sioux remained until Colonel George Custer explored the area in 1874 for gold.  This discovery opened the flood gates and forced Sitting Bull and others to make a decision:

1. Fight to preserve their way of life – culture, religion, language – and remain free to hunt buffalo as their ancestors had, or;

2. Join the reservation system with the assurances of the U.S. government that there would be peace and plentiful supplies (for now, you’ll have to suspend your knowledge of the coming Dawes Severalty Act).

Each path has its own risks and rewards.  To flee and/or fight, you live in constant fear of attack from the Army, yet you are able to stay true to your peoples’ history.  To join the reservation system, there is peace, but there is also the dangers of boredom, the white man’s whiskey, and giving up your way of life.   In essence, you can preserve your people but at the possible cost of their way of life.  They’d now become either dependent upon government hand outs or have to learn to farm – neither of which the Sioux people done before. 

Please answer the following questions in a minimum of 200 words (total):

1. So which path would you chose and why? 

2. Do you think your choice would be different if you were older?  What about different gender?  Why or why not? 

Due Thursday, December 9 before class begins. 

Category: Uncategorized | 65 Comments on Blog #7 – Which way would you have chosen in 1874?