Cultural Appropriation, part N

[ravan]

Which of these sports team names is *not* cultural appropriation?

A. Minnesota Vikings
B. Cleveland Indians
C. Washington Redskins
D. Boston Celtics
E. Golden State Warriors

If you guessed A, D and E, you are biased toward Native Americans. The best answer is E, since multiple cultures and tribes from Europe, America and Asia have warriors, although using "warriors" along with native american caricatures is still offensive.

My point? Just because the culture in question is a so called "white" culture doesn't mean that it's symbols can be misappropriated for trivial purposes that they weren't intended. European culture is not monolithic, and many of us are trying to reclaim the pre-christian cultures from the bland hodgepodge that passes for "western" culture.

By the way, if there's so much equal opportunity borging going on in the sports world, why aren't teams names Samurai, Sikh, and other things?

Comments

[treecat]

If you look around my neighborhood, you'll Sikh's becoming quite a part of American culture. More than half of my apt building and the one next door at least.

But yeah, if a group names the team after themselves, it may be stereotypical still, but slightly different than naming it after someone else. Though generally - despite silly stereoptypes in the portrayals - the naming is meant to be a compliment to what it's named after.

I'll probably always be annoyed though that while I was at Sonoma State, there was vote and 'Cossacks' won. We came here to get away from Cossacks! Again it was probably meant as a regional nod to the pre-American Russian settlements in the area (hence Sebastopol and the Russian River).