Last month, February 3-4, I was invited to speak in Nyack, New York, to advocate the value of the Indian name logo used by the Nyack High School. I witnessed the non-Indian professional race agitators condemning the use of any such Indian name. I witnessed the elected Nyack District School Board deny its Nyack community in the face. The community was in nearly 100% support of the Nyack name and logo.
The very next week, (during which I was terribly sick with a cold), something similar happened in my own state, in Tulsa. February 10, the Union High School Board met to discuss Union High's use of the name "Redskins." The Native American Times faithfully reports (February 15) that, although a number of Indians were there in protest to the name, most of the agitation came from white people, condeming the use of the name. White women like Linda Bolin and Cindy Hollings spoke out against the Indian name. Religious leader Russell Bennett protested.
I am happy to point out that the same article (by Gerald Wofford) cites the testimony of a Kiowa Indian, Martin Gragg, who has two children in the Union School system. "I think we've taken a negative name and made it very positive." A man after my own heart. Whatever negative connotations "Redskins" may have carried in the past, today it means fiery courage, initiative, and power--all the things a team needs to win.
Richard Grounds point about how opposing teams "dis" the mascot of their rivals was neither unique, significant, nor new, however. Sports rivalries expressed in dis-ing the opponent are not to be taken personally, or even seriously. People that do take it seriously seem immature and out of place.
Yet, these people are making the noise. J. Lawrence posted another article on the Tulsa controversy. Gretchen Haas-Bethell, Director of Communications for the Union Schools, made an all-to-revealing remark: the decision to keep or remove the Redskins name "will not be made by the many, but by the few.
Minority rule. But not really. The real minority, if we are to believe the generally distorted and fluffed figures of liberal media, is the Indians who like the Indian mascots, names, and logos. The news belies its own prejudice. According to the news, the Indians who see value in the Indian images are the minority. We are offended at their removal. We are offended at the white racial agitators who make us appear like juvenile cry-babies, stripping us of dignity or even maturity. We are offended!
But, we are not counted. The media will not let Indians be proud and strong. The communistic media wants us to be pitiful, abused, and deeply wronged, forever. The communistic media is the true minority, and they hold the power to misrepresent, distort, and ram-rod over any dissent, especially over those Indians who are offended at the removal of Indian names from schools.
To show just how desperate these agitators can be, look again at California. Remember Jackie Goldberg's campaign to outlaw all use of Indian names and logos? It failed, but, she's brought it back! This time she has support from the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, a 50-member lobby. Now's there's real, genuine Indian unity! Everyone knows how divided Indians are over the whole casino issue. The CNIA is just another misrepresentation of Indians ever so useful to the communist/liberal agenda.
Goldberg wasn't able to get the Hispanic vote, however. Assemblyman Jay La Suer is against it. La Suer was once the San Diego University's "Aztec" mascot. La Suer says the new bill is "political correctness taken 18 steps too far."
The LATimes has posted many articles on the issue, pretending to cover all sides, over course. What the media never points out is that Indian organizations do not represent Indian people. They only represent the Indians who are members of the organization. Once again, I remind everyone, there has been only one scientific poll ever taken of Indians on the mascot issue: Sports Illustrated, March 4, 2002. 83% of Indians don't mind the use of Indian names, logos, or mascots. To herd together a few Indians from a few organizations does not represent an honest approach to representing Indian people.
Posted by David Yeagley at March 02, 2003 10:17 AMCool site. Thank you:-)
behavior
pierre cardin
delsey
padfolio
brooks brothers
apple carrying case computer laptop
leecha
marware
sotc
this end up
tours
f1455a
snakeskin
mui mui
tandy brands
hotell california
zappos
belt
purses
wheeled
Cool site. Thank you:-)
behavior
pierre cardin
delsey
padfolio
brooks brothers
apple carrying case computer laptop
leecha
marware
sotc
this end up
tours
f1455a
snakeskin
mui mui
tandy brands
hotell california
zappos
belt
purses
wheeled
Nice site. Thank you!
horse porn with teen gratuit
gba rom cheats list
charles dera porno gallery
lunar eclipse feb 2008
emo surveys for myspace
aa autoroute
ds poke gotta catch em all
nylon women seeking men
old navy france
videos hilton
Cool site. Thanks!
peavey unity 1000
karaoken
taylor guitares
turntables
keyboard labels
guitar center
taylor guitars gs series
stratocaster cost
gretsch bass drum
gretsch snare
used guild guitar
vigier
how to play
electric piano
indoor
things to remember
syrinx
transverse
hohner old standby harmonica
eb3
Very good site. Thank you.
free
pokemon
free
free
pokemon
pokemon
free
free
free
free
Very good site. Thank you.
free
pokemon
free
free
pokemon
pokemon
free
free
free
free
Useful site. Thanks!!!
free
free
pokemon
pokemon
free
free
pokemon
free
pokemon
free
Useful site. Thanks!!!
free
free
pokemon
pokemon
free
free
pokemon
free
pokemon
free
"Oklahoma placed the statue of a 'generic' Indian atop the newly constructed capitol dome. Does this fall under your categories of 'nicknames, imagery, pageantries, logos and legends'? I'm curious about your opinion."
Hi Amerind. I remember when the state of Oklahoma did this and it created such an uproar in certain activist communities. To me it is not in the same category as the mascots and logos. It would be like the coin of Sacajewa, one did to honor and not dishonor. We have the first American Indian soldier along with other WWII soldiers in statue form in Pierre, SD. And I found pride in knowing that the state took the time to include American Indian soldiers. But again there was protests against the American Indian soldiers, but being from a WWII veterans I was proud. So I would say no.
Betty Ann
Posted by: Betty Ann on March 3, 2003 08:32 PMBetty Ann, you asked, "I am just curious, but how many Governors have passed laws or publicly showed support for American Indians in ending the use of nicknames, imagery, pageantries, logos and legends?"
Oklahoma placed the statue of a 'generic' Indian atop the newly constructed capitol dome. Does this fall under your categories of 'nicknames, imagery, pageantries, logos and legends'? I'm curious about your opinion.
On the issue of Mascot names and such, I tend to agree with Dr. Yeagley. I don't like for us to be seen as weak and overly sensitive. I don't want to be like the blacks who scream bloody murder at the use of the 'N' word by anyone EXCEPT themselves (such hypocrisy!) I have never been offended to be a Redskin. I am in fact proud to be a Redskin. In Europe and Asia, we are referred to a the 'Red Indians' to distinguish us from the East Indians.
Mr. Burnes, if the image of the Redskins mascot (or any 'Indian' mascot) is clownish, why not change the image rather than the name?
I am, however, offended by Indians mascots called 'savages', when in reality, the genocidal invaders who came here were perhaps more 'savage' than we were...the pot calling the kettle black, as it were.
Posted by: Amerind on March 3, 2003 11:27 AMI am just curious, but how many Governors have passed laws or publicly showed support for American Indians in ending the use of nicknames, imagery, pageantries, logos and legends?
How many Governors and their legislative bodies have publicly announced they support their individual states educational systems resolutions to stop using Indian nicknames?
Where is Frank Pallone at with his NATIVE Bill that everyone so heavily relied upon? Has it made it to the floor or was it floored?
And by the way where is that wonderful Indian woman Elsie Meeks and her white female activist who urged the US Commission on Civil Rights to release their national statement of stop using Indian nicknames? Why are they not still actively involved in removing all nicknames, imagery, logos, mascots and legends throughout America? Perhaps it is because they know there are no laws and that by continuing the pressure on the educational systems that one day the US Commission on Civil Rights will be facing their first lawsuit one of the violation of freedom of speech and freedom of expression of American students.
And to allow only 3 minutes to debate the pros an cons of this issue is absurd. For over 76 years plus these predominantly white schools have carried on these traditions and they feel the question can be answered in allotted minutes of three? To me this is still a form of totalitarianism, one of you talk, we talk and neither side listens. If you want this to end perhaps it is time to address the US Commission on Civil Rights and to encourage them to file that civil rights lawsuit like Meeks and Berry wanted in the first place.
If a majority of the answers are no, then we are still in trouble in not getting the message across where it needs to be addressed and that is right in each individual state without outside interference but between the schools, American Indians, Governor, State School Boards and communities.
Betty Ann
Posted by: Betty Ann on March 2, 2003 10:44 PMAlso, why didn't the Indian paper make more of the point that Indian people objected. Most of the article was about white people. This is most curious. I'm not sure it compliments Indians at all.
Posted by: David Yeagley on March 2, 2003 09:30 PMJim, I couldn't bring the Feb.15 article up on the internet, so there is no link. You are quite right, Indians spoke against it. I assumed everyone understood that.
But, what do you personally think about the Martin Gragg's remarks? I respectfully invite your interpretation. And I'm quite happy to see you posting again! I mean it.
Russell Means told me I'm only using half my brain when I say the Indian names are a great thing for everyone. Does this mean that half of the brain says the names are great, and the other half of the brain says they aren't? I mean, are both sides equally true? Then what is the truth of the whole matter? This is a curious metaphor.
Posted by: David Yeagley on March 2, 2003 09:28 PMNo, Dr. Yeagley,
Once again, I'd have to say to the readers: Go to the newspaper and read the article and set your own opinion.
I was there at the meeting, and was one of those who spoke against the use of the Redskins mascot clown. You highlighted the fact that white people spoke out, on behalf of the indians, as though we could not do so ourselves.
In fact, the minister you cite is the leading minister of a group of organizations. He spoke for the allotted 3 minutes, which allowed others to also speak. The school board had only so much time allowed to hear the pros and cons. This point is something you overlooked in your article.
As the minister spoke, the people of all races who were against this mascot stood up to show their support. This, as you know, but your non-indian readers do not know, is our way to show active support of a position being discussed. An important cultural point not included in your article.
The people who are against this racist, ugly use of human beings are indian and non-indian. School by school, state by state, the boorish abuse is coming to a stop.
Human beings are not to be abused as mascots.
Jim Burnes
Tulsa, OK