I spent today getting ready for another week of school, which included watching a vido I'm using in class tomorrow called In Whose Honor? It's about the use of Native-American nicknames and mascots in sports. The film focuses on the University of Illinois and its Chief Illiniwek, but looks also at several professional teams, including the Washington Redskins, along with other college teams.
Have you ever thought about this issue before? I did, briefly. I remember going in to a baseball game in Tampa Bay. They were playing the Cleveland Indians. My father is a huge Cleveland fan. There was one demonstrator out front, if I remember correctly. I don't think he said anything; he was just holding a sign and/or handing out information. I may or may not have discussed it with my parents, but I guess I always felt it just wasn't that big a deal. I think political correctness has gone a bit far in some cases, and I suppose I thought this was another example. This was also, mind you, during my junior year of college, and my politics have shifted (I'd like to think matured) quite a bit since then.
After watching the video, I have to say I agree with those that oppose the use. It's not that I would have been bothered before if those mascots disappeared, but I wasn't bothered by it either. Now I am. Why does this stand? The Univ. of Illinois administrators, trustees, alumni, and students keep insisting that the use of the Chief at their school is done in an honorable way. They love the chief. He's authentic. And in the case of some, these "outsiders" (foreigners, as one man called them) have no right to overpower the will of the many supporters -- all of whom, he noted, are Illinois taxpayers (oooh, now you've won me over).
The reality is, few people would be offended who aren't affected. And thanks to the actions of some explorers a few hundred years ago and the policies of not a few American presidents, there just aren't that many Native Americans left to complain. It seems the least we could do is leave these remaining people with a shred of dignity at their request. This seems like a situation where the will of a few should overpower the desire of the many. It's not the first time it's happened. The truth is, we live in a nation that espouses equality and non-discrimination, and the use of these mascots is discriminating against Native Americans who have to live with these images. The University of Illinois is a public institution (I wouldn't really care if it were private, but it seems important that it's public). How can it get away with this?
It seems odd to me that in a country in which Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice is banned in many school for being anti-semitic, we still have the Braves. Note that the book wasn't banned for all those years that anti-Semitism was the norm. Post-Holocaust, we are a more sensitive people where the Jewish culture is concerned, and so the concern begins. As an English teacher, I don't agree with such a ban. It's a great piece of literature, and I feel that if the book is contextualized appropriately -- if the question of racism is raised and questioned -- then the book can be used without offending anyone. These mascots haven't been contextualized appropriately. In the case of Chief Illiniwek, the mascot is portrayed by a Caucasian undergraduate student. The dress, which is authentic, is from the Sioux tribe, though, not the Illini. The dance is completely fabricated. The scalping, scowling Chief put on the lawns of the frats during Homecoming is decidedly offensive. Perhaps it's a bit trite, but I do have a hard time believing that someone wouldn't take issue with the University of Pennsylvania Ragheads or the San Diego State Hicks, Spicks, or any other racial slur. To Native Americans, the term "Redskin" is on par with a word used to describe Blacks for many years, one so offensive I dare not even type it here. If a group chose to use the White Women as their mascot, and made fun of it in doing so, I'd be bothered. Why pick on me, I'd say. And that's what these protestors are saying.
The thing that clinches it for me, though, which is not addressed, is how inconsequential a college mascot is. My loyalty -- my affection -- for Davidson is with the school, not the Wildcat. We could have been the pussy cats for all I care. It's just so unimportant. I don't care how die-hard a fan you are -- surely this can't matter all that much. It's like some of these alum are religious fanatics, but instead of celebrating Jesus or Allah, it's their school mascot. Change is sometimes necessary. Any number of other schools have understood this issue and dealt with it. Why the hold-outs.
The University of Illinois claims that it will lose substantial alumni funding if the Chief goes. Maybe that's a reality that they need to live with. Davidson was originally a Presbyterian college, but over the years the relationship has become looser. Just last year, Davidson finally got the right group of people on the board of trustees to change the rule that said only practicing members of a Protestant Church could sit on the board. This at a school that had students from various religions. The school lost its single largest donor -- John Belk, of the Belk stores, who paid for the biggest dorm, the gym, the art center, and who funds an annual full scholarship -- because of this decision. But it was the right decision.
What the many poorly spoken representatives of the University weren't willing to say -- were in fact fumbling not to say -- is that they just don't care.
10 comments:
I can't/won't speak for the University of Illinois, but I can tell you why Florida State University continues to have the mascot of Chief Osceola and the name Seminoles. The Seminole Tribe of Florida (and I think the one in Oklahoma takes no issue either, with the exception of one person) endorses this use of their heritage.
That's interesting. I think FSU shows up on the video as one school who has an Indian mascot, but that's all. There are no members of the Illini tribe left living, as the tribe was decimated centuries ago. In this case, there are huge number of Native-Americans and non-Native-Americans who oppose the use, and there have even been court cases about it. It doesn't bother me if it's not offending anyone; it's when it offends the very people who are supposedly being honored that it seems odd to me.
I am a graduate of the U of I and a 22 year resident of Urbana. My father was a Chief supporting professor for 30 years. I am also part Black and my son is part Choctaw on his dads side. Neither of us “own” the image of Blacks or Native Americans in this country. Let expression through music and dance be what it has always been, creative. We allow for crativity in dance , movies, theater and no one freaks out because the portrayal of some group is not historical enough. Every group has had reason to complain about how they are portrayed but thats freedom of expression or it use to be. So, some people are offended. So what. Where are we given the legal right not to be offended? I thought being offended was part of life. I am offended every day by filthy music, people who butt up in line, and people who will not work to support themselves and then complain about their poverty. As a Christian, I was offended when Mr. Mellonthorps exhibition in a public museum of art included a crucifix in urine.What does not offend me is a non- intentional slight to my “disability problems” (Parkinsons disease) or my sex “female” or my minority status (part Black). Further, a fair assessment, even if it is unflattering, of any “group” I am a part of does not offend me or threaten me. Remember, Native Americans have a certain amount of autonomy on their own land. and the white man is told to stay out of their affairs. I wonder how many things that go on on a reservation would offend others. Maybe Native Americans should worry about their own business and let the University of Illinois have the mascott that those involved with the University have chosen.
Consider this: Maybe we as a society are too hyper-sensitive and maybe we spend too much time looking for slights, insults especially on the basis of our “victim-group” mentalities. Too often, this thinking leads to self-fullfilling prophicies. The energy and time would be better spent, bettering ourselves as individuals and buliding bridges between people based on our common attributes and history rather than our divisions. It is ironic to me that the very individuals that profess they are trying to “fix” problems and heal racial, religous, etc. hostility, are the ones that cant stop stirring the pot, dragging up old wrongs until all we can focus on is how much we cant stand each other
I agree that people can be hyper-sensitive. But I think there's a difference between an "unintentional slight" and an historic and widespread practice that offends a large group of people. I think what's odd to me in this situation, again, is that U of I claims that its use of the Chief is intended to honor, but I don't see how it can be honorable if the people they're supposedly honoring are offended. That's like my fifteen-year-old high school students saying they're not rude because they don't mean to be rude. It's rude because it's received that way, and they have to adjust their behavior so it's received in the right way. We don't have a right not to be offended in life, but we do have the right to air our griefs and, when appropriate, have them redressed.
To be frank the whole "Native Americans should worry about their own business" rubs me the wrong way. If the same were said to a Black American who was put off by an actor in blackface, the whole nation would be in an uproar. To me, this is simply no different, and an unwillingness to acknowledge the similiarity between the two cases by the representatives at the university is unbelievably blind and discriminatory.
Chief Illiniwek
June 15, 2006
Hi Liz,
My first disagreement with your statements is I don’t believe the only reason the Chief dances is to honor Native Americans. It is not all just about them. Chief Illiniweks “offense” as seen by the Chief haters see, as well as the admirable qualities perceived by those who love the Chief, are clearly in the eye of the beholder(s). Most supporters of the Chief see him as a symbol which goes beyond any particular race and personifies what is good in all humanity i.e. dignity, courage, purpose, determination, and a man interacting with his creator. The reason fans relate so powerfully to Chief Illiniwek is not because he is some “savage” historic figure that stirs up the fans for a fight (he doesn’t even wield a weapon) but because, he is the best in all of us. The haters of the Chief, on the other hand, see him as a Native American mascot personifying all the negative stereotypes of that group. On their websites they use words/phrases like “a white boy having a Powwow. Interestingly enough, the anti chief groups allege that the chief promotes racism but it is predominantly Native Americans who “see” The Chief in the negative way whereas the pro-chief websites talk about the good qualities personified by The Chief. Since the pro- chief groups are the accused racists, it must be these qualities (dignity, courage, celebration of life) that the anti-chief groups believe are promoting racism.
Another example of the “Alice in Wonderland- (things are not what they seem)” world of victim politics is that those who throw around the word” racism are the ones who constantly point out in a derogatory fashion that Chief Illiniwek is portrayed by a” white college kid’ as though that in itself demeans the Chief. Is the assumption that a “white college kid” can’t embody the good qualities of a Native American? People are forever dressing up and acting in roles. Straights play gays and gays play straights, sometimes women play men, Jews and Atheists play Christians and etc.etc. If a white actor puts on blackface to play martin Luther King in a dignified honest way, what’s wrong with that? That’s why they call it acting. So a white kid does a Native American portrayal and it becomes a federal offense. Is it because a white kid will tarnish the greatness that an American Indian symbolizes just by portraying him? Maybe it is because a white college kid cannot do justice to the dance. The anti-chief group can’t make up their minds on this…. complaining both that the dance is too authentic and that it is not authentic enough. The glaring evidence that the Chief haters have never really wanted to find a middle ground is their total lack of willingness to compromise or even entertain the possibility of keeping the Chief even with modifications of the Chief’s performance. For example if the dance is not authentic enough have a Native American instruct the dancer and if it is too close to a “sacred dance” give a disclaimer before he dances. But then we might still have the problem of the great offense of a white or (as has been the case an Indian from India) college kid doing the dance. The Pro-Chief groups have asked over and over again, “what can we do what do you (the offended) want?” The answer has been “we want him gone”. The nature of The Chief’s offense is apparently unrecoverable. (as they say in computer language.)
As for your comment on blindness and discrimination, I assure you I am not blind to the history of Native Americans. I have studied their history for 20 years. I will not attempt to defend the indefensible way the Native Americans were treated by the dominant European culture during the 1600s-1900’s. Watching Chief Illiniwek dance when I was a kid was one of the experiences that motivated me to read every book I could get my hands on written by and about Native Americans beginning when I was about 15.I have enormous respect for the very great attributes such as integrity, courage and self sacrifice that dominated their cultures. I was pleased when history classes, books and movies began to reveal the many admirable values, beliefs and practices of the Native American tribes. It was way overdue to tell the epic, heart breaking stories of the struggle and self sacrifices made by American Indians in their attempt to preserve their way of life. It was also overdue to admit to the unfair and inhumane way the dominant culture "dealt" with the Indians. Like most people, I am ashamed of the pervasive deceit, inhumanity and racism that dominated the government
However, I will say the inhumanity is not unique to American history. Man’s inhumanity to man is well documented since Cane and Able. But we are not dealing with genocide now (despite what some of the anti-chief websites say). We are dealing with the pathetically wimpy crime of “being offended”. There is not a Native American alive who fought in the Indian wars or was forced to stay on a reservation and there is not a white person alive who fought in the Indian Wars or placed a Native American on a reservation. Most of this unhappy “Native Americans” bare little resemblance to their forefathers in dress, daily activates social-economic status or language. How many ride a horse to work or live in a tepee? The Indian tribes themselves have degraded their sacred lands around Grand Marais, Lake Tahoe and throughout the country with casinos and the buses of white people and the inevitable trash and pollution that follow, all for the almighty dollar. I don’t hear the voices of the Native Americans being raised against that desecration. Why such a purist mentality about a fictional character, Chief Illiniwek?
I know the anti- chief crowd has with the help of the usual cast of characters NAACP, ACLU, American Psychiatric Assoc. etc. built this “offense” into a first class emotional calamity. Some have even gone so far as to say via the APA that the Chief’s performance is so offensive that it leads them to contemplate suicide. Tell the great Native American chiefs and warriors, who faced death and physical pain every day of their lives, that today’s Native Americans, are contemplating suicide over being “offended”? Crazy Horse, Chief Joseph, Cochise, Little wolf, Black Elk, Sitting Bull, Red Cloud all exemplified courage, integrity, leadership, self sacrifice and a strong spiritual life. I believe that many of these great chiefs, if they were alive today would look beyond race to see the character of the individual. I believe it’s very possible many of them would be honored by a symbol which attempts to lift up the human spirit and honor the good in people. Maybe the truth about the Chief is that people see in him what they want to see. Those that are looking for a racist or slight around every corner see racism. Those that, like Matrin Luther King, look beyond skin color see what is best in us all.
P.S. I made the comment about the reservation to point out that no group or individual is TOTALLY FREE of racism or stereotyping. Not even Native Americans or bleeding heart liberals. The “Im better than you because I am more sensitive to these issues” is right up there with the old “I’m better than you because I go to church” hypocrisy. Some of the biggest bigots walk around loudly bemoaning racism and because they point out bigotry in others, they deflect scrutiny from themselves. Others, because they see themselves as victims feel entitled to be bigots and do it without shame. This fight is not about bigotry, it is about freedom of expression within decent boundaries.
I definitely see where you're coming from with some of this, though I think it's safe to say we'll never agree on it. A few questions come to mind still, though. Of all the mascots that could have been chosen for the school, why does it have to be a Indian Chief that embodies all of these wonderful qualities you claim he stands for? If you look at sports' mascots as a whole, they include animals, trades, and even the occasional act of nature (Hurricanes?). None of these represent anyone or anything. None of them have suffered rather brutally at the hands of those who took over the country. There is beauty and dignity and elegance and courage in any number of things or kinds of people -- why this? I know I've made this parallel before, but given the history of the nation it's the easiest to make -- why not a famous slave who rose out the horror of that experience? I find it hard to believe that anyone would stand for Harriet Tubman or the like to serve as a sports' mascot. Why this one? And looking beyond this one use of the Chief, do you believe that all current uses of Native Americans as sports mascots is acceptable, or only in the way that U of I has done it? Do you find nothing inappropriate about the Washington Redkins, given the connotations of that word? And in a larger sense (and I mean this in a thinking out loud kind of way), since you brought up the idea that Native Americans don't "own" the Chief's persona, who does get to lay claim to it -- and to words -- if not the person being portrayed, the person being named? Who gets to decide that African-Americans (who are not necessarily descended from Africa) is more appropriate than black is more appropriate than colored is more appropriate than...and it goes down the line? What makes it acceptable for member of a group to use an otherwise derrogatory terms with another member of a group? One of the things I learned when I taught this unit is that a 1996 survey by the Census Bureau showed that more American Indians preffered that term than "Native Americans." But I still fumble when I speak or write to know what to say? I agree that there's a line at which political correctness and just ridiculousness gets blurred. I readily acknowledge that all of us -- myself certainly included -- harbors some level of racism and stereotyping. It's human nature. But I don't necessarily know that the character of the person pointing out the racism or bigotry in any way mitigates or negates the wrong being done. It's like my students who get upset with me for telling them to stop talking because other students are talking. It's like if they don't all get in trouble, none of them should.
And if time heals -- if not all then some -- wounds, as you seem to suggest, then where do we draw the line? What is the point in history when we can say, "Let's just stop tiptoeing around each other." When is it okay with slavery? With the Holocaust? With Rwanda and Bosnia and other acts of human cruelty?
Hi Liz, I thought you made some good points that I don’t disagree with> I never said we should forget about the Holocaust, Killing Fields, etc. But I do say we should remember that those whites who are alive today are not responsible for the Native American massacres and those Native American alive today were not the victims of the atrocities that occurred. Yes there is residual racism. If I go to Mexico to live I will experience that also. It does not make it right but it puts in perspective.
I thought the goal here is to build bridges between groups through an understanding of our differences but even more from an understanding of our common humanity. How can you get a Native American to see the common humanity of a white man when he is taught from childhood that the whites are evil, untrustworthy, etc? Every society has demonstrated the capacity of great good and evil just as we have as individual. The Native Americans perpetrated atrocities on each other long before the white man set foot on this continent. Their ability to match the later atrocities of the white man were limited mostly by their primitive technology. Does that mean the evil was less or just the opportunity?
It says in the Bible that you can tell a tree by its fruit and whether you are a Christian or not this is true. The fruit of the tree of political correct, over sensitivity, victim group politics, is increased racial tensions, angry impotent victim groups who are convinced they need special deals to make it, and angry radicalized non victim groups who are tired of being made to be villains while they watch the victim groups given special treatment and endless excuses. As exhibit A, I give you UCSC the most liberal, politically correct, victim sensitive campus in California if not the country. The day my son arrived as a freshman he was given 5 welcome to UCSC flyers. One was an essay supporting reparations for Afro Americans, two were about date rape (I later found out this was not a big problem at ucsc in comparison to other campuses.. I was glad to hear that as I guessed that with 2 out of 5 administration approved welcome memos it must be a BIG problem)), the fourth was about the campus computer system, and the last was a description of the crowning glory of liberalism at this school, a description of the definition and punishment for a “Verbal bias crime”. The memo explained that a bias crime occurred when someone was “offended” based on their race, sexuality, gender or disability status by what another student said. This is the kicker; the offense did not even have to be deliberate. It only had to offend. Sounds like the Chief. The offender would be reported and brought before a student tribunal.
The interesting thing was that while a man dressed in a Hawaiian skirt/dress was the schools representative at orientation and we did not dare bat an eye at that, my son who is an athletic straight looking guy, was verbally accosted twice in a rude way because he wore a Sigma Nu t- shirt. This is a place where republicans are spit on and there posters ripped down. Tolerance is a one way street run by bleeding heart liberals whose hearts don’t apparently bleed for all. The topper on this campus is that 90% of the student clubs are organized around race, gender, sexuality, disability status so you have clubs like the Black debaters not the UCSC debaters. The result of this is that the students are the most segregated student body I have ever seen, all walking around with their us against them victim group mentality. Paranoia and oversensitivity is big and so is the restrictions of freedom of expression in class and out. Students whisper when expressing “incorrect” ideas. If you look on campus dirt you will see that the graduates of this school have rated it as one of the most disliked schools in the nation and most would not go back.
I count many “bleeding hearts” among my best friends and I know most have their hearts in the right place. They do want harmony and fairness between all people. But they do not look and see what is actually happening with all of this focus on group mentality and grievances. Racial tension is increasing and if you don’t believe the two are related listen in on some conversations between the young” oppressors” and hear their resentment for having to have their noses rubbed in their sins in every history and sociology class from middle school on for things that happened before they were born. Mean while they watch as government programs, affirmative action programs in hiring, scholarships and admissions leap frog less qualified individuals over them. Meanwhile the victims can be heard like a broken record reciting the endless list of grievances and reasons why they can’t make it without special programs. We are not doing them any favors teaching them that they are victims in most areas of our society and that something like a dancing historical symbol is able to hurt them or affect their ability to thrive in life. Maybe we should show Native Americans working in casinos and therefore be more “true” to their image. I say again that the desecration of many Native American sacred lands by casino for $$$ is a contradiction to the outrage generated by Chief Illiniweks performance.
My best friends, black, Hispanic and Chinese agree and have all said” if this obsession with diversity, differences, injustices, wrongs, grievances, reparations, revenge and two wrongs make a right, continue we will someday have to sneak to each others houses to be friends.
Liz, as is often the case a written debate can often clarify issues in ones mind. In a nutshell, I know time doesnt heal all wounds but suffering as a member of a group is not greater and likely not as great as the suffering we all go through as individuals, because we are not attractive, athletic or smart enough, because people we love get sick and die, betray us, disappoint us, because we get sick and die , because life for many has no meaning, because parents hurt us etc. whether it is group or individual trials we must make something good out of it and move on or it will destroy us as individuals and as a society.
If we blame individuals and punish them for something their 'group" did and over which they had no control having not been born yet, and conversely if we reward and validate the special victim status of individuals becase they are a member of a group that was wronged , we multiply the wrong and create individual hatred and group mentality.two wrongs dont make a right and this is wrong. My Black friends mother use to say "every bump is a boost"... with that mentality she raised 11 children in a all white town prior to civil rights movement and everyone of them achieved a college eduation and is married to their original spouse. This was a woman who put the rape by a white man at age 17 and the incredible racism in the south behind her,went to live with her husband in an all white town in N california and taught her children that she never wanted to hear them use racism as an excuse as to why they couldnt succeed. She believed she was in control of her own destiny and that she and her family would be rewarded or punished based on being individuals as long as they refused to buy into victimhood. Her 3 boys were all president of their class and my friend was given a full scholarsip by the high school to college. That town loves every member or my friends family and to this day they return to their reunions and are welcomed as celebrities. wherever my friend goes, racism falls defeated because she does not acknowlege it, expect it or thrive on it. Her whole family *which now has reuinons" of over 150 people are the same. Many still live in the south but they are the most educated, decent, kind, honest,non bigoted hospitable family I have ever met. They dont care if you are green with two heads, they make you welcome. Time,their own effort and the wisdom of a courageous woman who chose to live in the light of hope, forgiveness and honesty rather than the darkness of anger, revenge and bitterness, made this possible.
All admirable, but where does that leave me to help aid in this process? I can't look at these people and say, "Well, just get over it. If you just ignore it, it doesn't exist." I am a white woman from a middle-class family who is married to a doctor. He grew up poor. His parents pushed him in his education, but neither of them had distinguished educational careers. He is bothered by the assumption of "white privilege" that follows him as now a white male doctor, and I do sympathize with him on that account. But that doesn't really help me when I'm on the possibly offending side. If we're going to say that this is being sensitive and appropriate, and that is cow-towing to people's own issues, where is the line between what is okay and what's not? And who gets to draw the line?
Further, I don't think simply "rising above the situation" is necessarily the appropriate or even an effective response to every situation -- like racism or sexual harrassment in the workplace, for example. Trust me, I've tried ignoring my students misbehavior -- it doesn't make it stop. It's great when it works, but there are just as many if not more examples of people who were simply beaten down by their life's circumstances. I believe in my heart of hearts in the American dream and determining your own destiny, but I also didn't have much to rise above.
Hi Liz, I think you can do what we all should do, treat people fairly and look beyond ethnicity to values and behavior. We can acknlowedge past wrongs without taking responsibility for them (unless we were personally responsible) and then we can expect that people will rise above their situtions by using their abilities, character,faith, courage to achieve their goals and dreams.You say"thats very admirable" about my friends mother, it is far more than that when thousands of people have been touched by this woman and the children she raised. That is a success story that few government social agencies nor victimhood scavengers can achieve.Sometimes our egos get caught up in "helping" people and we begin to believe they cant make it without our programs, pity and excuses. what they do need is our belief in them, our friendship, our commitment to fairness and our good example.
You are a teacher so im sure you are familar with the special education issues. That whole program is a perfect example of what Im saying. there are good intentions and some good outcomes but it has messed up as many kids as it has helped. My son started in a special day class. He had a performance IQ of 80 and a VIQ of 146. His subtests were either 19 or 6 and 7s. He was headed for a certificate of attendance rather than a dipolma. The bar was so low for him and so many excuses were made that whatever effort he put out was considered ok. I watched many kids go down the drain in special ed labeled as victims of genetics. I fought the teachers, counselors and administrtors and as a result Erik took the college prep classes, went to jr. college and is comopleting his degree at a 4 year. I told him some things were harder for him due to his ADDHAD and learning disabilities but that if he peristed he could do it. Other kids stayed in the special day classes protected from hurt and challenge and defeat and they lost the war.They see themselves as victims of their circumstances powerless to change their lives. We are doing people a favor when we tell them that wallowing in misfortune needs to end and yes they need to rise above the situation. We may feel sad because they then become our equals and we can no longer be the benefactor. But we are doing them a favor.
If the disciminimation is significant and curent and ongoing like sexual harassment in an office I say yes, complain and file a grievance but when its settled move on. I believe much of this kind of harrassment and predudice today can be overcome by not freaking out and not blowing it out of proprotion and by confronting it. It also sometimes helps not to be expecting it.My Black friend goes to the noted red neck neighborhooods for her work (she is a voc reh=ab.) and to dance to country wetern bands. She has never had any serious problem because she doesnt have a chip on her sholder and she is professional, friendly and honest.She doesnt look for a racist behind every action or statement. I work in an organization that is almost all engineers (men). Some women coworkers complain that they are not taken seriously becasue they are women. I and many other women have never seen that side of the engineers because we are competent, professional and we EXPECT to be treated that way.If the time comes that that doesnt work I will seek a resolution throgh the proper chanels.
The existentialists taught something about our world view and and our reality being tightly entwined one producing the other. It folows that relationsips are often a result of our expectations.
the Bible says thoughts create actions, actions beget habits, habits character and character detiny.lIt starts with thoughts. The greatest gift we can give those who have suffered discrimination or wrong treatment is the thought that they can overcome the past and create a good future and that they have the power to fullfill there dreams even if the whole world stands against them. This is what I told my son while the teachers were sitting in IEP meetings telling us both that we shouldnt set him up for failure and that we should recognize hsi limits. they clearly didnt know his limits.Ironically 40 years ago my parents told my brother and sister who were as adults identified as LD the same thing. Neither were ever in special ed because it didnt exist. They struggled and frequently failed throughout grammar shcool and Junior and senior high. it payed off as today one has a MS in psych. and the other a masters in nursing. I truly belive that they would not have achieved that in the lets not expect too much special education climate today.
Giving these "victims" or decendents of victims,pity, special programs and privileges to make up for the wrong doing only compounds the problem.The line I would draw is that current grievances be addressed, people can file civil rights violations, past grievances be acknowledged and then lets move on and see what we can do with our lives and encourage others to do so.
Post a Comment