| QUICK CLICKS: |
Table of Contents |
|
Speaking OutMisuse of Native American SymbolsOur silences often tell more about us than our most informed lectures. The silence of most faculty in our universities and colleges about the continued use of Native American images and sacred items as mascots for college and profession sports teams is telling indeed. A diverse coalition of Native American groups is demanding the elimination of Native images as mascots, but the typical reaction of too many faculty is to make light of the issue. Symbols are extremely powerful and convey complex messages. The use of Native American symbols---such as Chief Illiniwek at the University of Illinois or team names such as the Florida State University Seminoles or the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians, the Washington Redskins, and many others---conveys a message that is far from amusing. Oddly, those in favor of preserving these mascots and team names often argue that they seek to "honor" Native peoples. In reality, the practice is an exercise in power that disregards the sanctity of Native cultures and aspirations. These symbols are neither "compliments" to the Native American people nor acknowledgements of their "heritage." They are part of an old tradition-racism. One does not need to recall the murders of 18 Lakota men in South Dakota over the last year---none of which has been solved---to recognize that the life of a Native American person holds little value in our society. The systematic decimation of Native peoples during the U.S. colonial period-a population reduced from over 13 million in 1500 to fewer than 250,000 by the turn of the 20th century---was justified through racist depictions of Native peoples as "savages,"---exactly the image portrayed by the popular ballgame gesture, the "Tomahawk Chop." This colonial relationship is perpetuated by the use of Native American images as mascots. Raising our voices---on our campuses, in our classrooms, and elsewhere---against the use of Native American symbols as sports' mascots is only the beginning. What must follow is the clear recognition of the historical and contemporary oppression of Native peoples, as well as the recognition of how the dominant society benefits from that colonial relationship. From that recognition must come the willingness to take action to set things right.
|
I'd like to Say...With regard to "Debating our Mission" in the August and December issues of the Advocate, Rebecca Johns has it right, and Lawrence Franko misses the point. If justice, equity, and sustainability are indeed anti-business, then count me in the anti-business camp! We hear so much about preparing our students to "compete in a global economy." Wouldn't the world be a better place if, instead, we taught students to co-operate locally and participate democratically, being ever mindful of their global connections and responsibilities to other humans and the natural world? ---Charles J. Guenther, Jr. On the issue of merit pay, I must say that David Ellis (December Dialogue) has failed to support his position with any logic. Indeed, his article fails to even rise to the status of being specious. Options other than merit pay should be available to address those faculty members who fail to perform adequately. Cynthia McDermott reasons well and presents a positive case for avoiding pay rewards. She appears to possess a solid understanding of overall academic mentality and reality, which augur poorly for merit compensation proposals. ---Francis Teta |
|
We welcome your opinion. Join our talk back community discussion boards. |
|
