In 2016, when the main momentum of this started to come out, 9 in 10 Native Americans did not find it offensive [1]. But white people had already decided it was offensive, and white people have much more cultural influence than Native Americans, so in being perceived by white people as offensive it became offensive, to the point that just a few years later, a majority of Native Americans found it offensive [2].
But at all times through this, including today, a higher percentage of white people find the Redskins name offensive than of Native Americans. The Redskins changed their name because of pressure from white people, not because of pressure from Native Americans. More than a little ironic that even in this, Native Americans were barely listened to, while white people's feelings were considered very important.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-...
[2] https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/native-mascots-survey/
And, to be clear, I'm okay with presenting evidence one way or another, but I object to willy-nilly claims and crusades.
Let's rephrase this.
Many high schools are changing their team names because the study brought awareness to the generally ill-considered use of ethnic mascots.
The study may have been a catalyst, but the appropriation and the insensitivity to it was always a problem.
Why is it so important to you to continue to use caricature mascots that other people would find offensive over something benign like animals?
> Why is it so important to you to continue to use caricature mascots
I don’t give a shit about mascots at all. My complaint is specifically about people who concern troll on behalf of minorities that never asked for it (e.g. the Speedy Gonzales cancellation).
Whenever someone tells you something is “problematic” without giving concrete reasoning, they are likely just looking to be outraged and spread righteous indignation.
But I did ask you a question. I'll ask it again: Why is it more important to you to maintain racist mascots than it is to use something neutral in its place?
Did you have trouble understanding my answer?
I don’t give a shit about mascots at all.
They can change it to anything they want and I couldn’t care less.
My problem is purely with the moral outrage coming from people who are not in the group they are purporting is offended.
I've been following the efforts to have team names changed for quite some time and have never heard of this paper, but have heard of sustained lobbying over decades from a variety of native organizations.
And somehow you think that schools that have nothing to do with those people finally changing their very questionable names is due to a “conflict of interest of a psychologist”? Not because it was just racist?
It could also be argued that it dilutes the image/culture/history and probably a bunch more things by wrapping it up in american plastic. I wouldn't argue with that.
Broadly speaking, the symbolism being used is usually either an obvious caricature of the real thing (see: the former Washington Redskins), or uses cultural and religious elements that are at best kind of offensive in the context of being used as a sportsball logo (see: most uses of peace pipe or war bonnet imagery).
There are exceptions, but they're of the kind that generally come with either somebody actually doing the research or people of the given group actually participating locally.
As someone else mentioned most of the push against is not from American Indians/Native Americans but vicariously offended others.
Should Aztecas Stadium change their name? What about the MN Vikings, NY Yankees, TX Cowboys? Kaiser Chiefs of ZA, Ebusa dwarfs of ZA?
At least not until the reactionary media's outrage machine decides to make it their current hill to die on...
Also, this is America, where sports are taken far too seriously.
Changing a name in response to a conflicted and un-valid paper is a downside in itself.
In one you change the high school mascot from a native american cartoon to an animal or something. I'm assuming native americans were not consulted with the creation of the mascot to begin with.
In the other we change... what all the teams names? Is that a equivilent scenario?
To be honest I'm finding it hard to relate to someone would care enough about a high school mascot to even need a study at all. Low stakes B.S. But that's me.
Since this topic is probably of zero importance to anyone not native american who else is going to fund it, for that matter?
Seems like you are affirming the consequent and assuming it is harmful to native Americans.
You are ignoring the issue of the paper. If the decision is based on a scientific paper, but the paper is conflicted or unvalidated, that is harmful because of the misuse of the scientific paper.
If you want to change the mascot because of Native American’s preferences, that is a different matter.
If not it's kind of a catch 22 for the tribe, isn't it? Nobody wants to fund research on the topic, so when they fund research on it it's presumed invalid because of bias?
How does that address the harm done by basing decisions on bad science?
This may or may not be the case or may be true in some specific circumstances (Redskins, for example) but may not be true for all, however, many high schools are changing their team names based on this one study/conclusion which was funded by a tribe. Which is fine, but usually when there is a conflict of interest one wants to have additional independent studies that come to a similar conclusion.