Race and Ethnic Relations
I'm taking a sociology class this semester called "Race and Ethnic Relations." It's really a combination of this sociology class and a history class called "Native American History." The classes are combined and only meet for the last half of this semester.
I started reading the text handouts in the Race and Ethnic Relations portion of the class the other day. I got disappointed with the content before I finished reading the second page.
I'm not a racist. I love people. I love all people. Politically, I don't really know where I stand. I'm a registered Republican voter, but I consider myself to be very near the center. When I vote, I don't vote consistently for one party or the other. I vote for a person rather than the party they represent in most cases.
Anyway... In the first few pages of the sociology text, some statements were made with which I totally disagree. I don't know the title of the book or the name of the author(s) because all I have is photocopies of the first chapter, provided by the instructor. Here is the excerpt that got me off on the wrong foot with this text:
The incident shows the heights that racial and ethnic hatred in the United States can reach today, but the reaction to the expression of prejudice also shows some bitter irony: the team for which Rocker played was the Atlanta Braves. For many years tribal groups have objected to "Braves" as a name for the mascot of a professional team and everything that goes with it: the sale of rubber tomahawks, the incessant chanting by fans trying to immitate a war chant, and the appearance of the faithful in "war paint." Yet the team and organized baseball have remained supportive of "Braves" as a mascot, as have other sports about the "Redskins" and "Blackhawks." ... "Largely unmetioned was the corporate-backed name that makes the earliest inhabitants of North America a mascot like some nonhuman animal.
This text is discussing the Atlanta Braves' John Rocker and the trouble he got into with some racially slanted comments in a December 1999 published interview. His comments were inappropriate and he was sent to thearapy. The problem I have with this excerpt is the subject of mascots that represent native Americans. I can obviously see that the author believes that the use of these mascots is racial in some negative way. The part I disagree with is that professional sports has chosen mascots that make the earliest inhabitants of North America a mascot like some inhuman animal.
Let's look at the mascots of Major League Baseball:
The Diamondbacks, Braves, Orioles, Red Sox, Cubs, White Sox, Reds, Indians, Rockies, Tigers, Marlins, Astros, Royals, Angels, Dodgers, Brewers, Twins, Mets, Yankees, Athletics, Phillies, Pirates, Cardinals, Padres, Giants, Mariners, Devil Rays, Rangers, Blue Jays, and Nationals should cover of all Major League Baseball teams.
When I consider these team mascots, I see a couple of themes. Some teams are simply using mascots that represent where they are located. A few teams are using mascots with historical themes related to their location. Some teams are using animals and people that represent topics such as strength, speed, agility, beauty, cunning, and aggression. The Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians are the only two teams in Major League Baseball using Native American mascot themes, and I believe those certainly do fall into the representative categories I listed. Why would a sports team want to be represented by a negative theme? We don't seem to have any teams using Junkies, Gangsters, Murderers, Pimps, Lynchmobs, vigilantes, or poachers. By the same token, we probably won't see any teams called the Pansies, Geeks, Nerds, Cotton Balls, or Kissers. Team mascot choices ultimately intend to project strength, power, and/or a sense of identity.
I have read stories in the past regarding mascots being protested for various reasons. I don't understand why a Native American would be upset with a professional sports team for identifying with these characteristics by choosing an Indian reference as a team mascot.
This may be one of those issues that I'm just not capable of understanding since I'm not a member of the offended group. However, the way the author of my text presents his ideas does show me that I can expect certain agendas that I don't agree with. I'll have to take extra time to consider what I'm reading to separate facts from editorials. I suppose sociology, however, is editorial to a large extent anyway. Dictionary.com defines sociology as:
the science or study of the origin, development, organization, and functioning of human society; the science of the fundamental laws of social relations, institutions, etc.
We have to accept certian ideas at face value. In my Psychology class last semester, I did learn that I have to watch out for cultural biases when I'm trying to make decisions and formulate opinions.
I'll probably follow up on this post in a few days. I'm thinking about it enough that I'll probably bring it up in class when the opportunity presents itself :)