The Ethnic Mascot is a trend among Professional and collegiate
sports teams. Teams such as the Cleveland Indians of the MLB, or the Washington
Redskins, or the former mascot of the University of Illinois Chief Illniwek are
all examples of how athletic organizations use the ethnic identity of different
people to help portray a strong, empowering message for their school while
belittling the identity of that ethnic group. For example the most recent case
of this demeaning depiction of a group of people is the controversy over if the
Washington Redskins should consider a name change. While acknowledging that
their mascot has strong ethnic ties to the Native American group, the CEO Dan Snyder
supports and defends the name even in the face of protest and other critics. Does this team have any real connection to this name other than a long history of football games? When does the ethnic identity of the Native American group become more important than the image of a football team? Even with a endorsement from President Obama the team still has failed to change their name of has made any plans too. “If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team — even if it had a storied history — that was offending a sizeable group of people, I’d think about changing it,”
It is very interesting to see how the people of these organizations always seem to fight that these mascots and names are empowering when the cultures that they represent usually fight that it is demeaning. It is the true battle between money and voices.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting how these teams spend so much on marketing, portraying these ethnic mascots as almost superstars, but people still feel that they are degrading to the culture. Interesting to see which teams can still hang on to their names the longest.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Corey. I don't understand why people portray an empowered version of a ethnic symbol as offensive. I guess it may just be a question of whether or not someone has a thin or thick tie to their ethnicity. Someone with a thick ethnic mindset may find something as the Kansas City Chiefs to be degrading because the symbolism behind an Indian shouldn't be rooted in a football team. However, If is is something that a team and a city is truly proud of, I do not see the problem.
ReplyDeleteI remember when this was a much talked about topic in the news, and it really is an interesting issue to talk about. If these teams do feel some sort of pride for their mascot, and see it as an empowering figure, why is that necessarily a bad thing? If they were running around degrading and being offensive towards an ethnicity it would be a whole different issue. Personally I think it's a good thing that a team can be represented by a figure such as this, for they are proud and loyal to their mascot, and they want this symbol to represent their team as a whole. What could be so bad about that? As Corey said, it will be really interesting to see which team can hang on to their identity the longest, and see what it will finally take to change the mascot.
ReplyDeleteI find it very frustrating how we objectify racial groups in the form of mascots. It puts them in line with lions and tigers, suggesting that they are more of a motto than an actual race. The other thing is that in the case of the Redskins, they are not celebrating a rich culture that is still struggling to be heard. Instead, it is silencing them by marketing a stereotype that is being consumed by millions of Americans.
ReplyDelete