The Native American Question

The United States, founded upon the rights and liberties of all men, has a historical backdrop that leaves us in confusion and question of our moral principles. The Native American Holocaust, as few regard it in history, is the ugly side of U.S. colonialism and expansionism that many Americans are quick to sweep under the rug. However, the history is there. Broken treaties, expanding white society and blatant disregard for life are common themes in the sad untold history of the Native American.

It's not wonder, then, why much opposition has been made against sports teams that bare the Indian icon. The Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Washington Redskins, Chicago Blackhawks, to name a few, are all professional teams that use the Indian image as mascots for their teams. Often used to show signs of bravery, strength, and honor, the Indian mascot for many professional, college and high school teams is something they hold with great pride, whether for the honor of Native Americans or just the unity in their community of fans.

Since the 1970s, moves have been made to do away with the Native American mascot. At both the high school and college level, it has actually been quite successful. However, the professional level remains untouched and unwilling to move, with too much already at stake. Many Native American activists argue that the Indian symbol is offensive simply because Native Americans are not getting the fair chance to represent themselves. Many of the "Rain Dances", Tomahawk chops, and logos with the Native American image use no historical context. Not every Native American wore feathers in their hair or rode on horses shooting bow and arrows. In fact, the horse, not native to North America, wasn't even introduced to Native American culture until much later in their existence.

Yet these arguments aren't made from Native Americans themselves. As a 2002 Sports Illustrated poll revealed, 81% of polled Native Americans had no opposition to the use of the Indian image as a mascot. The support was even stronger for professional sports team, with 83% having no opposition. The numbers clearly show a difference in opinion between Native Americans and those fighting for the rights or image of Native Americans. But why?

The disconnect is because activists are telling  Native Americans how the should feel about these images and how they should react to them. The opinions of activists do not align with the actual feelings of the Native Americans and when this does not occur, it is time for the activists to fade into the background and resume some other sort of cause. It is both insulting and dehumanizing to tell someone else how they should feel. One might argue that it's because the self-esteem of the Native American is low, as Suzan Harjo is quoted saying in the article. However, if an individual does not feel an emotional, knee-jerk reaction to a "racist" symbol, then the symbol is no longer racist and has simply become just a symbol of a sports team and nothing else.

Music Videos and Common Sense

Music videos have always created a controversy for as long as they have been in existence. From Lil Jon to Lady Gaga to Eminem, there a numerous music videos out there that have caused a stir for one reason or another. If you've never seen Call on Me, it is just another video some have said objectifies women and is semi-pornographic. It leads to the debate on what effect music videos have on people and whether it promotes violence, especially against women. It is important to distinguish between the video and the music or lyrics. If you listen to Call on Me, the only lyrics are exactly that: call on me. If you were to hear this, you would have no idea that women are dancing in tight spandex. Music videos are often used to create a shock factor that is not attained with listening alone. 

So should the music videos be allowed to show acts of violence and discrimination against minority groups? Yes because it is covered by the First Amendment. But in a practical sense, no. These videos might be described as art but are more likely just attempts to create publicity for the artist via controversy. A good amount of judgment is needed in creating a music video, which Hollywood seems to lack. Unfortunately a lack of judgment can lead to a lack of reality for the audience, mostly comprised of children and young teenagers.

What is needed more than good judgment the production of a music video is the need for parents to talk with their children regarding the topics addressed in today's music industry. For examples, rappers such as Jay-Z and Lil Wayne often portraying women as objects to be used and disposed of. If a child grows up and watches how their parents behave toward each other, nothing sends a stronger message. Not only do they see the proper way a relationship should function, but they see it in real life. Nothing is more powerful than a positive life message relayed by adults present and active in the lives of children.

Diversity or anti white?

We have learned thus far in our class how to be aware of certain stereotypes that we as the white majority media  put out there. I will be the first to admit that they are there. I'll also be the first to admit that you can find whatever message you want if you look hard enough at anything, so interpreting media messages is subjective and nowhere near an exact science.
However, I'm surprised (but not really) at the lack of leniency for white people versus the leeway given to minorities in the media. There is not a more perfect example than this story about Torii Hunter, an outfielder for the Los Angeles Angels. The article written in 2008 was about a panel discussion with USA Today in which Hunter was asked about his opinion on why there aren't more African-Americans in professional baseball. (The percentage of black players on opening day was 10.2%, up from 8.2% the year before.) Hunter responded saying that black Latin American players were "impostors" and not "real" black people. (In case you didn't know, Torii, black slaves were brought in to Latin America just like the British Colonies that later became the United States.) He went on insult black Latin American players even more saying, "Why should I get this kid from the South Side of Chicago and have Scott Boras represent him and pay him $5 million when you can get a Dominican guy for a bag of chips?' ... I'm telling you, it's sad," he said."


 Hunter has no room whether to decide who is black and who is not. The majority of African-Americans haven't stepped foot on African soil nor will they ever. So what room does someone have to decide? Are they culturally different? Yes. But so are white people. You have Russians, English French, Irish, Spanish, and the list goes on. But are they put into different racial groups. NO. They are all labeled as white because their skin is white. Same rule applies here. We are not discussing ethnic groups or cultural differences. Black is black. And the people who do these statistics need to rework how the categorize because it's giving people more reason to whine than they should. Is the NBA representative of the U.S. populations? No. There are 18% of the players that are white versus 77% black percentage of players. Should the NBA really get an "A" in diversity? *&!% no! That's not diverse by any means. If you are looking for what diversity really means according to the University of Central Florida's Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, it's how many white men can we kick out of the work place. So what if there are only 10.2% African-American players in the MLB? It's because they play football and basketball! I'll listen to the argument when people are concerned with the lack of white players in the NBA. 

Misleading women

We went over advertising today in class and how women are constantly subjected the idea of "perfection". One only has to watch TV for a short amount of time to realize how saturated we are with these images of flawless women. It's no wonder why so many young girls, and women in general, suffer from anxiety, eating disorders, and general dislike of their bodies. However, if women took more time to talk to men, rather than rely on media to tell them what is and isn't pretty, it wouldn't be nearly as severe.

I'm pretty sure that men in general are not looking for perfection. Especially with today's generation, which is increasingly sensitive, men are more likely to choose a female partner based on personality, rather than just looks. While physical appearance does have an effect on initial attraction, that is but a minor part of what attracts us to a partner.

For me personally, what I look for in a girl is a best friend, someone I can confide in.
Like any message that is put out there, it is important to analyze the source, whether that source is a magazine, TV, or even a teacher. Unfortunately, the majority of our society is unwilling to put in the time to research these sources, and thus become empowered to diffuse any message that paints an unrealistic reality.

Teaching to shoot down stereotypes?

So far in Race, Gender, and the Media, we have been taught to look at the media from a media literate standpoint. It has been eye-opening to see  the media and how it can influence us as a society to think about minorities, crime rates, etc. I also agree that the media has made tremendous strides to right the wrong, although subtle stereotypes still do occur and much more work is needed.

With this in mind, I find it interesting that in a class that teaches to be media literate, stereotypes are thrown around, often to without the knowledge of the class. Thursday night, September 15, I heard a comment that I found interesting and that if you really looked into it, you would find a clear stereotype that is both unfair and offensive, yet it was brushed aside.

The comment in question was in regards to a discussion about why women aren't allowed to be umpires in the NFL or MLB. The questions evolved into why women couldn't play in the NFL, because of obvious biological differences. Then this quote really caught my attention.

"Well women would probably have to take steroids just like all the other players anyway," said Tracy Everbach.

I find this to be just as stereotypical and unfair as any stereotype out there. And it should really bother a lot of people considering how many people are athletes, whether they are black, white or any other color. I take offense when athletes are labeled as "steroid-users", "meatheads", and "unintelligent", to name a few.

Do athletes from high school to professional levels use steroids? Yes. It is a known fact. Some of our greatest baseball players during the recent decade have tested positive for steroids, including Alex Rodriguez, Mark McGwire, and Manny Ramirez. 2009 Defensive Player of the year, Brian Cushing, a current linebacker for the Houston Texans, tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs, and was subsequently striped of his award and suspended for the beginning of the 2010 season. The evidence is there that steroids is used in sports. I firmly believe, however, that the MLB and NFL, among others, have taken significant strides to reduce the amount steroid use.

When you look at players, such as Josh Hamilton, you can see that weekly testing shows that he is consistently clean of both drugs and steroids. Many more players in the NFL and MLB don't use steroids. With the upcoming generation of players in the MLB living in the shadow of the Steroids Era, they realize the effects of steroids and are more educated about them than their predecessors.

In the Mitchell Report, it was reported that at least 1 player from each of the 30 MLB teams were using steroids in 2004. Yes, the use was wide spread. But when you consider that if each team has 25 players on the active roster alone, there are 750 players in a given time in the entire MLB combined. Those using steroids are are a significantly smaller percentage than those not using them.

So I find the phrase, "Well women would probably have to take steroids just like all the other players anyway," offensive, especially being a former high school and college athlete. From my personal experience, I weighed 140 lbs coming out of high school and now weigh 190 lbs. I gained 50 lbs. of muscle  in three years by solely working out one hour a day.

Now when you consider the athletic trainers, facilities, and the fact that today's athletes are paid to workout, there should be no surprise that they are able to put on 10 or 20 lbs in during the off season. This is why I feel like it is degrading to stereotype athletes and say they must be taking steroids. Steroids do NOT improve one's athletic ability. Extreme athletic skill is stilled needed to hit a 98-mph fastball. Extremely athletic concentration is needed to haul in a football while dragging your toes to stay in bounds. Steroids do not equate to athletic ability. They do not activate some athletic gene. No, they are just a cheaters way of getting a little stronger.

This is not attended to call anyone out. It is to demonstrate that people who are athletic are not meat heads, steroid users, or dumb. (Look at Sam Bradford, Ram's QB, or Andrew Luck, QB for the University of Stanford.) I simply looking for fair representation of  athletes that is also being asked by minorities, females, and the gay community. I just looking for a sense of fair.

A Hidden Past

I found it interesting after watching the video about the Black Newspapers was interesting. However, it is of no surprise that it is often left out of history classes. Maybe it is deemed "not important enough". This is not just a problem with Texas, but I think throughout the nation in history education.

For instance, people might not be aware that Texas, and Dallas specifically, used to be where the Ku Klux Klan based their operations out of.  Or that during the Texas Revolution, the Tejanos, Texas natives of Mexican descent, supported the Texas Revolution just as much as the white Americans that were moving into Texas. Or that the Mexican-American War was one of the most unjustified wars in American history and that it was completely racial.

Why is it this way? We often deem white history as the more important part of history while minorities often take a back seat. However, a more complete picture of history can be captured through studying accounts of minorities like the Tejanos. For example, the lynching of Jesse Washington in Waco in 1916 was one of the most gruesome lynchings of its time. Yet I never learned about it until taking a class about Texas history in college. It was these events that made NAACP choose Texas as the state to begin systematically attacking racial injustices.

We, in order to understand society as a whole, need to know these stories and events in history. And it is not only Texas that these stories remain hidden. The North was fighting for extinction of slavery in the Civil War but not because the cared about the welfare of blacks. They were concerned that if slavery were to extend North, that factory workers would be out of the job with an influx of unpaid labor.

It's also facts like this that need to be looked at to emphasize a point that the North was not this redeeming savior of blacks, like it is often portrayed. From Boston, Massachusetts to Dallas, Texas, blacks faced, and do currently face, prejudice and while Southern cities exhibited more physical acts of violence,  it should not go without notice that many Northern cities were just as prejudiced. Many Northern cities deal with racial tension, Cincinnati being a prime example.

All this evidence goes to show that both sides need to be looked at and ignoring facts just equates to ignorance.  

A Work in Progress

Racial and gender stereotypes exist in our world whether we like it or not. It is how humans, with a constant need for structure in their lives, quickly categorize and make sense of the information they are receiving about people. Stereotyping can and does often carry over into the media world, which is no surprise to anyone. The media is a human institution, so journalist have their own families, lives and experiences which they sometimes reflect into their work. The best journalist is the one that can consistently be objective in both their writing and which stories they choose to write about. 

While stereotypes do exist, no one can deny the fact that they have been significantly reduced since Civil Rights were enacted in 1965. The progress has happened and people are more aware of stereotypes that exist. However, it is our society, which often seeks instant gratification, that is loudly protesting against ideals much older than their selves or even our own country.

 With the settling of Jamestown, English immigrants brought racial ideas to the colonies that suppressed people of color, often degrading them as sub-human. When you think about how pervasive these ideas were, and consider that founding fathers also owned slaves, it is unrealistic to expect that an idea that has been ingrained in the middle and upper class to immediately disappear. More than 300 years of slavery and oppression cannot be erased in the 50 years since the Civil Rights Movement. 

So the only answer to this is to continue to encouragement minorities in America to pursue careers, maybe as journalist or maybe as business leaders, in order that they may gain hold of the socioeconomic ladder and begin to work their way up. Media, in the bottom line, is a business, and just like any business you have to cater to those who have money, as sad as that is. It would be ideal for journalist to purely report the news but our world doesn't work like that. Unfortunately, we can't all grow up to be astronauts or the president, nor can we be a child forever. We have to face the real world.