I think that the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian does a more acceptable job at portraying the “Indian” than the Washington Redskins does. I believe that most people would agree with me, if not feel free to comment and tell me otherwise. I have talked to a ton of people who did not like the Museum of the American Indian at all. They all tell me and try to convince me on why this museum is inaccurate, and how I should not listen to half the things in there. Personally, I do not know if they are true or just paranoid. In school, we never really learned about the Indians. We learned about Christopher Columbus, and all the other European settlers, but growing up my teachers never taught me about the lives of Indians. The only times Indians were brought up were when we were talking about the Pilgrims, during Thanksgiving, and once when we went to a Native American festival for a field trip (which consisted of archery, tribal dances, and gift shops—so nothing too informational). So going into the museum, and even now I do not really have a “vast” knowledge of Native Americans and their culture. But I found that the museum was pretty informational. Even if it was inaccurate, I am sure some of the facts in there are legitimate and portray the Native Americans history pretty well.
The Washington Redskins definitely does not do a more acceptable job portraying the “Indians” at all. First of all the Indian, is red and featured with a headdress. I am sure that this is not the portrayal Native Americans want at all. When reading the blog question, I showed my friend who is a Native American, and she laughed at this question, asking if the answer was a joke. She said she definitely would not want to be represented by the Washington Redskins mascot. First of all, if you go to a sporting event, the Indian mascot is portrayed as uncivilized, and definitely not supposed to be seen as an equal as us. Even when you look at the teams name—the Redskins, which is not acceptable. Really you would think Washington DC of all places would have a politically correct football team name, than the Redskins. Most (not all I know) mascots are animals, so one could argue that by using the Indian as a mascot they are comparing the Native American to an animal, once again degrading the Native American race yet again. Is there really anything good that the Washington Redskins representation of the American Indian proves?
So in the end my decision is that the Museum of the American Indian does a more acceptable job at portraying the “Indian” than the Washington Redskins. Even though the museum may be inaccurate in some ways, at least it is able to tell a little about the history and times of the American Indian, more than the Redskins do that’s for sure… (But I am sure one of you can argue this the other way)
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!! (Safe travels home! J)
Katie,
ReplyDeleteNot having ever been to the Native American museum before I did not know what to expect. When we received Professor Jackson’s questions about looking for words like “genocide” in the museum I became even more skeptical about what to expect at this museum. I definitely agree with your point that you made about the Native American museum portraying the culture of their people stronger than the Washington Redskins of DC. I think the hardest challenge that I saw was the way the creators of the museum chose to tell the story of the Native Americans. I remember a comment said in class about America not being ready to accept the cruel way we treated the Indians. Unfortunately, I think the museum had an opportunity to address that issue but it chose not to. Instead, the museum historians chose to show the story of the Native Americans through their artwork and cultural traditions. While I am not saying this is bad, it is unfortunate that such a large part of the Native American history was bypassed. I hope one day America can come to a cultural understanding and acceptance of our mistakes in the past.