So this one has been on my mind for a full day now.
First the survey is heavily flawed. To survey less than 1,000 tribal members in 48 states. How were those that answered the question defined? Is a tribal member someone like Johnny Depp who says he has 1/8 Cherokee blood....as most white people in the USA claim? Or is tribal member defined as an enrolled member in a federally recognized tribe? There is a massive difference between the two! Second, to exclude a state which has the largest tribal population (of federally recognized tribal members) just in my mind invalidates the survey all together. Alaska has more federally recognized tribes than any other. In fact Alaska has more than 2/5's of all the federally recognized tribes! (www.ncai.org)
It is very difficult to find consensus among tribal governments, let alone individual tribal peoples. Keep in mind we are talking about 564 federally recognized sovereign governments within the boundaries of the USA. 564 "countries" or "states" who have the same legal rights as states. 564 nations who are immune to state laws and are equal in all legal and judicial way as the 50 states. To find consensus is difficult to get when 1/4 homes on tribal lands (on the Navajo it is closer to 2/3) have no phone or electricity, let alone a nearby cell tower. It is hard to gain opinion when the majority of tribal nations are in third world conditions.
The last thing on most tribal governments minds or tribal peoples minds is what a sports team has as a logo. Instead tribal governments and tribal peoples are dealing with disproportionate rates of health concerns/illness like diabetes, heart disease, asthma; they are dealing with substance abuse that at levels far greater than anywhere else in the USA; they are dealing with the realities of climate change, which will force at least 3 Native Alaskan Villages to be relocated in the next 10 years due to melting perma frost or rising oceans at a cost of over $200 million. I have close friends who live in these places, including Bethel and Kivalina. No money has been allocated to address the realities of climate change to any tribe. In fact, all 564 tribes get less than $12 million annually to administer Air Quality programs similar to those of states, as state DEQ has no jurisdiction on tribal lands. What monies the tribes do get or generate themselves in only a drop in the bucket to what states get....it does not do enough. And remember not all tribes have a Casino, nor could they if they wanted one. And its a fact that not all Casinos make a profit. In fact tribal peoples are still the poorest in the USA....always have been, and probably will be in my lifetime.
http://news21.jomc.unc.edu/index.php/stories/alaska.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/us/27newtok.htmlSo the reality is many tribes don't think about such an issue as they have bigger issues to solve and address. Running water, clean air, electricity, and substance abuse are just a few we all take for granted sometimes.
And yes like all races and cultures what might be a taboo for 'outsiders' to say is OK for the culture or race to use. An Indian, Native American, tribal member can often in small groups refer to themselves as a 'skin....but that doesn't mean its OK for the world to use it. Nor is it ok for a sports team to use it!
Only the race which a term to describe can truly state if a term is racist. Can a white man/women really know if 'skin is truly racist? I'd hope they could, but some comments I see prove otherwise.
Finally, one only needs to look at what the majority of colleges and sports teams have done over the past 20 years to realize if this is right or wrong. Only 4 NCAA Universities were allowed to keep a logo or mascot. All four of those where allowed to b/c they got the tribes approval (usually the tribes whose name was used or logo depicted or the tribes within that state or region). Those that did not or could not (like the Illini as no Illini tribe exists anymore) lost the right.
Like I said to assume that 564 sovereign Nations would agree on such an issue is like saying the UN would all agree on something. So won't just on principle.
But for your information, one organization exists that does give some weight to the issue.
The National Congress of Indians (www.naci.org) or NCAI. "The NCAI was founded in 1944 in response to termination and assimilation policies that the United States forced upon the tribal governments in contradiction of their treaty rights and status as sovereigns. NCAI stressed the need for unity and cooperation among tribal governments for the protection of their treaty and sovereign rights. Since 1944, the National Congress of American Indians has been working to inform the public and Congress on the governmental rights of American Indians and Alaska Natives." But even with such goals which would make one assume all tribes are members, in less than half of the federally recognized tribes are members. So even with the info provided, I'll admit it is tough to prove that "all" tribes feel this way.
http://www.ncai.org/About.8.0.htmlNCAI has passed resolution after resolution on this issue each year at their annual conferences. In fact, I'll bet that before today's deadline a resolution will or has been submitted on this very topic for NCAI's 2009 annual conference to be held in 3 weeks time.
Here is the official NCAI position on the subject.
"The National Congress of American Indians strongly condemns the use of sports team mascots that claim to portray Native Americans and Native cultures in a positive light...it is only with Native Americans that this practice continues. It is a national insult and does nothing to honor the Native peoples of this country."
http://www.ncai.org/ncai/resource/documents/governance/NCAIposis.htmhttp://www.ncai.org/ncai/resource/documents/governance/BCF349.htm
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
