Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't see ethnic stereotyping in mascots as racist. The distincyion is subtle, but important.
Racism, as I understand it, is the classic "blacks should be separate" or "whites are more advanced than blacks, etc..." attitudes. It is an offshoot of slavery and the prevailing attitudes that made slavery acceptable in its time. Nobody is saying that Native Americans are less human than anyone else when they use the Seminole mascot. In fact, having read about what warriors, the Seminoles were (fucking up all sorts of Union Troops sent to kill them), its kind of a nod to state heritage, and a bit of a compliment. I mean, here's a school of drunk white kids who have an Indian as their mascot. But that's sort of an aside. My real point is that racism shouldn't be confused with ethnic insensitivity. I think the black/white base of racism is unique, and using the term "racism" to cover things like bad choice of mascots degrades the very specific and ongoing issue of racism that still exists today. I guess, simply put, racism to me is a black/white thing.
I get ticked when I hear people refer to anything as a "new racism" or a "modern Holocaust." I just don't think the two can be used as analogies to ethnic insensitivity. Perhaps I'm being too narrow in my definitions... You could say its nothing more than a semantic objection on my part - that "ethnic insensitivity" and "racism" are interchangeable. But I don't think so.
|
Although I see where you're trying to go with this post, I don't think it makes much sense at all.
I don't understand where you get the idea that racism only exists as a "black/white thing." Asians were interned. Native Americans were slaughtered and removed from their land. Blacks were enslaved. All of these things were done, at least in (large) part, because of the colors of the victims' skin and the attitudes of whites towards them. One can argue that slavery is different, as an institution than these other problems, but that doesn't somehow change the definition of racism as it is applied to people who aren't black. And I'm not going to address "new racism" or "moderen Holocaust" because I don't really know how you are applying either here. To me, racism is racism.
This idea that you can be ethnically insensitive without looking at the root of such insensitivity is bullshit. The type of attitude that is behind someone saying, "Injuns are no good, lazy drunks (and I ain't gonna hire one, my daughter ain't gonna date one, etc. -- and I believe this is the type of "real" racism of which you speak)," is the same as, or is the foundation for, the attitude where one finds it okay to turn a race of people into a mascot for one's amusement.
The fact is, when you look at people that way, you perpetuate stereotypes and attitudes towards a group who is fighting hard to be recognized as people and not some image that has been thrust upon them by those in power. If you don't want to be viewed as some kind of savage, being labeled a "Redskin" and caricatured to the point of being reduced to a mascot of some fucking football team, ain't gonna help.
I guess my point is, a society that can tolerate something like that (over the objection of the very people being caricatured) is the type of society that will tolerate the many more tangible (for lack of a better word) types of racism towards Native Americans (among others).
If you watched the old Looney Tunes when you were a kid, like me, you were probably bombarded with savage or sambo images of blacks. You can argue that they're harmless because "they're just cartoons, after all." Or you can look deeper and ask yourself how that affects people (white, black, hispanic, whatever). I don't see a difference between that and the "Me scalp 'em, and then smoke peace pipe" mindset of "the drunken white kids" running around in full Native American dress at these games. And if you think that any (there are exceptions to everything, of course) of the fans think of it as a "nod to state heritage," then we shouldn't even be arguing.
TM
