This is Lucy and a piece of chicken meat that she wouldn't eat. She reminded me of my sister with her vegeteables when she was little, chewing and chewing but never could quite get them down. 
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Maybe she only likes white meat?
This is Lucy and a piece of chicken meat that she wouldn't eat. She reminded me of my sister with her vegeteables when she was little, chewing and chewing but never could quite get them down.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Just call me a bleeding-heart liberal
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)