Let’s Spread The Fun
In his essay, Ward Churchill presents a couple good points about why the Indian mascots and names of sports teams have proven to be an issue of controversial discussion. As Ward Churchill goes on in his essay, he looks at both sides of the argument, trying to explain to both sides why he views things the way he does. Personally, I think that the Indian mascots and names can be sometimes considered racist and inappropriate as Churchill says. However, I also think that these names were made for the teams to honor the Native Americans that once used to control much of this land. For example, the Kansas City “Chiefs” and the Florida State University “Seminoles” have mascots that represent a group of Native Americans that represented that particular region some time ago. I don’t think that their names are used in a way to disgrace the tribes. Ward Churchill also mentions that anyone can make a team with whatever name they want, for example, Richmond “Retards”, because he says that way the physically and mentally impaired won’t be excluded from being honored in the games. Of course he is sarcastic here, but he comes across with a point that says that Native Americans are dishonored through being names of sports teams. Personally, I agree with some of what he says and if people use their names just for fun, then it is wrong. Still, I think some teams named themselves to show some respect for the tribes that once lived in that region. I think that this issue is quite controversial and each side can present some type of valid argument. For me, this essay shows how people should find other names for teams and stop referring to the Indian tribes’ names so that the Native Americans won’t feel offended, yet still, I think that the tribes’ names are honored and represented through teams being named after them. Furthermore, The express purpose of all this was to facilitate a U.S. governmental policy to bring about the "assimilation" (dissolution) of indigenous societies. In other words, Indian cultures as such were to be caused to disappear. Such policy objectives are directly contrary to the United Nations 1948 Convention on Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide, an element of international law arising from the Nuremburg proceedings. The forced "transfer of the children" of a targeted "racial, ethnical, or religious group" is explicitly prohibited as a genocidal activity under the Convention's second article. Article II of the Genocide Convention also expressly prohibits involuntary sterilization as a means of ''preventing births among" a targeted population. Yet, in 1975, it was conceded by the U.S. government that its Indian Health Service (IHS) then a subpart of the Bureau of Indian Affairs was even then conducting a secret program of involuntary sterilization that had affected approximately 40 percent of all Indian women. The program was allegedly discontinued, and the IHS was transferred to the Public Health Service, but no one was punished. In 1990, it came out that the IHS was inoculating, Inuit children in Alaska with Hepatitis-B vaccine. The vaccine had already been banned by the World Health Organization as having demonstrated a correlation with the HIV-Syndrome which is itself correlated to AIDS. As this is written [March, 1993], a "field test" of Hepatitis-A vaccine, also HIV-correlated, is being conducted on Indian reservations in the northern plains region. In my opinion, we must know that it causes real pain and real suffering to real people. Know that it threatens our very survival. And know that this is just as much a crime against humanity as anything the Nazis ever did. It is likely the indigenous people of the United States will never demand that those guilty of such criminal activity be punished for their deeds. But the least we have to expect - indeed to demand ­is that such practices finally be brought to a halt.