Indian Chant/TOMAHAWK CHOP

At least on the surface, the names, “Braves”, “Indians”, and “Chiefs” would not seem to be as insulting to Native American as the “Redskins” mascot.   Why does Churchill argue that these other mascots, too, are examples of “blatant racism”, and to what extent do you agree or disagree with him?

1 page paper, with a cover page
Cover page to include your name, due date, Theatre 300,class hour.
1.5 line spacing

If you use any outside references, you must note them on a separate, bibliography page.

The Indian Chant
and the Tomahawk Chop
Formerly professor of American Indian Studies at the University
ofColorado, Ward Churchillis a writer and active member of
theAmerican Indian Anti-Defamation League.
The Indian Chant and the Tomahawk Chop” is from the longer essay “Crimes AgainstHumanity,” which appeared in Z Magazine (1993).The editors of
Z Magazine describe their journal as “an independent political magazine
of critical thinking on political, cultural, social, and economic life

In response, a number of players-especially African Americans and other minority athletes-have been trotted out by professionalteam owners like Ted Turner, as well as university and public schoolofficials, to announce that they mean not to insult but to honor nativepeople. They have been joined by the television networks and mostmajor newspapers, all of which have editorialized that Indian discomfortwith the situation is “no big deal,” insisting that the whole thingis just “good, clean fun.” The country needs more such fun, they’ve argued,and “a few disgruntled Native Americans” have no right to underminethe nation’s enjoyment of its leisure time by complaining.
This is especially the case, some have argued, “in hard times like
these.” It has even been contended that Indian outrage at being systematically degraded-rather than the degradation itself-creates “a
serious barrier to the sort of intergroup communication so necessary in
a multicultural society such as ours.”
Okay, let’s communicate. We are frankly dubious that those advancing such positions really believe their own rhetoric, but, just forthe sake of argument, let’s accept the premise that they are sincere. Ifwhat they say is true, then isn’t it time we spread such “inoffensiveness”and” good cheer” around among all groups so that everybody canparticipate equally in fostering the round of national laughs they callfor? Sure it is-the country can’t have too much fun or “intergroup involvement” -so the more, the merrier. Simple consistency demandsthat anyone who thinks the Tomahawk Chop is a swell pastime mustbe just as hearty in their endorsement of the following ideas-by thelogic used to defend the defamation of American Indians-shouldhelp us all really start yukking it up.
First, as a counterpart to the Redskins, we need an NFL team 5
called “Niggers” to honor Afro-Americans. Half-time festivities for
fans might include a simulated stewing of the opposing coach in a
large pot while players and cheerleaders dance around it, garbed in
leopard skins and wearing fake bones in their noses. This concept obviouslygoes along with the kind of gaiety attending the Chop, but alsowith the actions of the Kansas City Chiefs, whose team membersprominentlyincluding black team members-lately appeared on a
poster looking “fierce” and “savage” by way of wearing Indian regalia.
Just a bit of harmless “morale boosting,” says the Chiefs’ front
office.You bet.
So that the newly-formed Niggers sports club won’t end up too 6
out of sync while expressing the “spirit” and “identity” of Afro-
Americans in the above fashion, a baseball franchise-let’s call this one
WARD CHURCHILL
During the past couple of seasons, there has been an increasing 1
wave of controversy regarding the names of professional sports teams
like the Atlanta “Braves,” Cleveland “Indians,” Washington
“Redskins,” and Kansas City “Chiefs.” The issue extends to the names
of college teams like Florida State University “Seminoles,” University
of Illinois “Fighting Illini,” and so on, right on down to high school outfitslike the Lamar (Colorado) “Savages.” Also involved have been
team adoption of “mascots,” replete with feathers, buckskins, beads,
spears and “warpaint” (some fans have opted to adorn themselves in
the same fashion), and nifty little “pep” gestures like the “Indian
Chant” and “Tomahawk Chop.”
A substantial number ofAmerican Indians have protested that use
of native names, images and symbols as sports team mascots and the
likeis, by definition, a virulently racist practice. Given the historical relationshipbetween Indians and non-Indians during what has been
called the “Conquest of America,” American Indian Movement leader
(and American Indian Anti-Defamation Council founder) Russell
Means has compared the practice to contemporary Germans naming
their soccer teams the “Jews,” “Hebrews,” and “Yids,” while adorning
theiruniforms with grotesque caricatures of Jewish faces taken from
the Nazis’ anti-Semitic propaganda of the 1930s. Numerous demonstrationshave occurred in conjunction with games-most notably
During the November 15,1992match-up between the Chiefs and Redskinsin Kansas City-by angry Indians and their supporters.
the “Sambos” -should be formed. How about a basketball team called
the “Spearchuckers”? A hockey team called the “Jungle Bunnies”?
Maybe the “essence” of these teams could be depicted by images of
tiny black faces adorned with huge pairs of lips. The players could appearon TVevery week or so gnawing on chicken legs and spitting watermelonseeds at one another. Catchy, eh? Well, there’s “nothing to beupset about,” according to those who love wearing “war bonnets” to
theSuper Bowl or having “Chief Illiniwik” dance around the sports
arenas of Urbana, Illinois.
And why stop there? There are plenty of other groups to include. 7
“Hispanics”? They can be “represented” by the Galveston “Greasers”
and San Diego “Spics,” at least until the Wisconsin “Wetbacks” and
Baltimore “Beaners” get off the ground. Asian Americans? How about
the”Slopes,” “Oinks,” “Gooks,” and “Zipperheads”? Owners of the
latter teams might get their logo ideas from editorial page cartoons
printed in the nation’s newspapers during World War II: slant-eyes,
buck teeth, big glasses, but nothing racially insulting or derogatory,
according to the editors and artists involved at the time. Indeed, this
Second World War-vintage stuff can be seen as just another barrel of
laughs, at least by what current editors say are their “local standards”
concerningAmerican Indians.
Let’s see. Who’s been left out? Teams like the Kansas City “Kikes,” 8
Hanover “Honkies,” San Leandro “Shylocks,” Daytona “Dagos,” and
Pittsburgh “Polacks” will fill a certain social void among white folk.
Have a religious belief? Let’s all go for the gusto and gear up the
Milwaukee “Mackerel Snappers” and Hollywood “Holy Rollers.” The
Fighting Irish of Notre Dame can be rechristened the “Drunken Irish”
or “Papist Pigs.” Issues of gender and sexual preference can be addressedthrough creation of teams like the St. Louis “Sluts,” Boston
“Bimbos,” Detroit “Dykes,” and the Fresno “Fags.” How about the
Gainesville “Gimps” and Richmond “Retards,” so the physically and
mentally impaired won’t be excluded from our fun and games?
Now, don’t go getting “overly sensitive” out there. None of this is 9
demeaning or insulting, at least not when it’s being done to Indians.
Just ask the folks who are doing it, or their apologists like Andy
Rooney in the national media. They’ll tell you-as in fact they have
been telling you-that there’s been no harm done, regardless of what
their victims think, feel, or say. The situation is exactly the same
aswhen those with precisely the same mentality used to insist that
Step In’ Fetchit was okay, or Rochester on the Jack Benny Show, or
Amos and Andy, Charlie Chan, the Frito Bandito, or any of the other
cutsey symbols making up the lexicon of American racism. Have we
communicatedyet?
Let’s get just a little bit real here. The notion of “fun” embodied in 10
rituals like the Tomahawk Chop must be understood for what it is.
There’s not a single non-Indian example used above which can be consideredsocially acceptable in even the most marginal sense. The reasonsare obvious enough. So why is it different where American
Indians are concerned? One can only conclude that, in contrast to the
othergroups at issue, Indians are (falsely) perceived as being too few,
and therefore too weak, to defend themselves effectively against racist
and otherwise offensive behavior.
Fortunately, there are some glimmers of hope. A few teams and 11
their fans have gotten the message and have responded appropriately.
Stanford University, which opted to drop the name “Indians” from
Stanford, has experienced no resulting drop-off in attendance.
Meanwhile, the local newspaper in Portland, Oregon recently decided
its long-standing editorial policy prohibiting use of racial epithets
should include derogatory team names. The Redskins, for instance, are
now referred to as “the Washington team,” and will continue
in this way until the franchise adopts an inoffensive moniker
(newspapersales in Portland have suffered nodecline as a result).
Such examples !ire to be applauded and encouraged. They stand 12
as figurative beacons in the night, proving beyond all doubt that it is
quite possible to indulge in the pleasure of athletics without accepting
blatantracism into the bargain.

QUESTIONS
1. At least on the surface, the names “Braves,” “Indians,” and-
“Chiefs” would not seem to be as insultingto Native Americans as the
“Redskins” mascot.Why does Churchill argue that these other mascots, too, are examples of “blatant racism,” and to what extent do youagree with him?
2. How effective do you find the analogies that Churchill draws betweenIndian mascots and stereotypes of African Americans,
Hispanics, and other ethnic groups? How effective are the analogies
with other kinds of groups (those based on gender, sexuality, etc.)?
J;’

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT ??

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW