Is it time to say "goodbye" to the Skowhegan Indians? (Bangor: homes, school district)

[Northern Maine Land Man]

This political correctness foolishness is becoming just plain annoying. Should we ban team names like Vikings? Spartans? What about the defensive line called the Chinese Bandits from a generation ago? All the naysayers have the right to be offended if that is their hobby. Nobody wants to deny them that right. Conversely, those who choose to be offended cannot deny others the right to be offensive.

Go in peace.

[slyfox2]

Its easy to advocate the erasure of a group that is there to protect a certain group of human beings from discrimination and harassment , when you are not part of the group that experiences the discrimination.

Its easy to say that the protection group has outlived its usefulness, when its not of any use to you.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by Northern Maine Land Man

This political correctness foolishness is becoming just plain annoying. Should we ban team names like Vikings? Spartans? What about the defensive line called the Chinese Bandits from a generation ago? All the naysayers have the right to be offended if that is their hobby. Nobody wants to deny them that right. Conversely, those who choose to be offended cannot deny others the right to be offensive.

But names like Vikings, Spartans, Bears, Broncos, Patriots, Cowboys, etc., etc. are not derogatory. Names like Redskins, Coons, Chinks, etc. are derogatory.

Would you like it if the name of the local high school mascot was Inbred Hillbillies or Bucktoothed Whiteys?

[slyfox2]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

But names like Vikings, Spartans, Bears, Broncos, Patriots, Cowboys, etc., etc. are not derogatory. Names like Redskins, Coons, Chinks, etc. are derogatory.

Would you like it if the name of the local high school mascot was Inbred Hillbillies or Bucktoothed Whiteys?

Quite Right!

Recently I listened to an elderly and locally respected Jewish lady fail to understand in a public forum how the Name Washington Redskins could be derogatory. The very patient Native American speaker explained that it was the term used in the 17th century Maine/Mass for paying for Native American Scalps. A certain ancestor of a friend of mine who was the Governor of the MASS/Maine colony was offering a bounty on as many "redskins", which means the scalp skin and hair of a dead Native American, as could be brought in.

[The term has nothing to do with a generalized red color of skin. Its another way to say: "The only good Indian is a dead Indian". Perhaps people simply don't know. But now you do.]

I wondered if she would have understood in the framework of Auschwitz, or in a milder term in calling them the Washington Dead Kikes.

I have to say that I lost a lot of respect for the woman at that point. Racism practiced by those whose own race has been the target for centuries is especially heinous in my eyes.

[bangorme]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

But names like Vikings, Spartans, Bears, Broncos, Patriots, Cowboys, etc., etc. are not derogatory. Names like Redskins, Coons, Chinks, etc. are derogatory.

Would you like it if the name of the local high school mascot was Inbred Hillbillies or Bucktoothed Whiteys?

This is true, but unfortunately our country is cluttered with professional victims that think EVERYTHING is derogatory. They make a livelihood from making people into victims. They are often called "Community Organizers." Because these people exist, and profit, it is almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion about this kind of issue.

Anyway, my answer is to let the free enterprise system determine what is offensive and what isn't. Furthermore, it should be a crime to hustle (read strong arm) companies or individuals in order to get money from them. To me, Red Skin is offensive, but Indians isn't. But that's me.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by bangorme

Anyway, my answer is to let the free enterprise system determine what is offensive and what isn't. Furthermore, it should be a crime to hustle (read strong arm) companies or individuals in order to get money from them.

I'm confused. How can the "free enterprise system" determine what is offensive and what isn't?

And in one sentence you want the free enterprise system to fix it, then in the next you want it made a crime (meaning government enforcement). Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

In this case anyway, the tribe doesn't seem to want any money. They just want the mascot changed. Am I wrong?

Originally Posted by bangorme

To me, Red Skin is offensive, but Indians isn't. But that's me.

Me, too. But I'm only a teensy bit Indian, and not even a little Skowhegan, so I don't think my vote counts for much on this particular case.

[bangorme]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

I'm confused. How can the "free enterprise system" determine what is offensive and what isn't?

And in one sentence you want the free enterprise system to fix it, then in the next you want it made a crime (meaning government enforcement). Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

In this case anyway, the tribe doesn't seem to want any money. They just want the mascot changed. Am I wrong?

I think you need to reread my post. There are two issues raised within it. First, determining if something is "offensive" enough to change, and who determines that. The second concerns professional victims that try to profit from self-proclaimed victimhood.

To discuss the first, let's use the Washington Redskins. This is a commercial enterprise and if enough people get agitated, the name will change because commercial enterprises are in the business to make money. I think the name change is coming because the name is obviously derogatory and offensive. Very much like naming the team that always loses to the Harlem Globetrotters the New York Whiteskins. I'm not an Indian, but I'd NEVER wear anything that contained that team name.

The school is in a very similar situation. It's up to the voters to decide whether name of their team is offensive. It's not up to big brother or any special interest group. Because I'm of Celtic ancestry I don't get to rename the Boston Celtics, no matter how hard I struggle to find it offensive.

It's true that the tribe doesn't want cash, which is what separates the two points I made. However, victimhood status does have its benefits. Two examples I can think of are the land claims case many years ago, and the gambling casinos today. Those two examples involve a lot of cash.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by bangorme

To discuss the first, let's use the Washington Redskins. This is a commercial enterprise and if enough people get agitated, the name will change because commercial enterprises are in the business to make money. I think the name change is coming because the name is obviously derogatory and offensive. Very much like naming the team that always loses to the Harlem Globetrotters the New York Whiteskins. I'm not an Indian, but I'd NEVER wear anything that contained that team name.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by bangorme

Because I'm of Celtic ancestry I don't get to rename the Boston Celtics, no matter how hard I struggle to find it offensive.

"Celtic" has never been used as a derogatory term though. Now if they were named the Boston Micks or the Boston Cat-licks or Boston Bog-trotters, you might have a point.

Originally Posted by bangorme

It's true that the tribe doesn't want cash, which is what separates the two points I made. However, victimhood status does have its benefits. Two examples I can think of are the land claims case many years ago, and the gambling casinos today. Those two examples involve a lot of cash.

True. But American Indians are also most definitely victims, not to mention sovereign nations. That has to figure in to the equation.

[tcrackly]

Somehow I think it is the living, breathing object people of an insulting or divisive term that has to determine the degree of an insult, not the mainstream population at large. We can't tell Native Americans what they should or should not find offensive, no more than anyone here can tell me I shouldn't be insulted by the term, darkie.
Communities should embrace these calls to change as an opportunity to reinvent themselves in a positive , more inclusive way that inspires us far into our futures. Some traditons we have simply outgrown, whether we as individuals realize it or not.

[TopKick's Girl]

Originally Posted by slyfox2

Its easy to advocate the erasure of a group that is there to protect a certain group of human beings from discrimination and harassment , when you are not part of the group that experiences the discrimination.

Its easy to say that the protection group has outlived its usefulness, when its not of any use to you.

Nope, sorry I am an American Indian. My family was in the Kennebec River Valley for the past 300 year. Sometime about the War of 1812, we became "White". I am not offended by the Skowtown Indians. Or the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves etc. Frankly I experience more discrimination for being a conservative Republican than a Indian.
Actually, what I hate the worst is a bunch of liberals telling me what I should be offended by.