First he wonders why Native Americans should be concerned about
the Redskin issue while the problems of alcoholism continue. Some
whites came up to me and asked a similar question. Those few
wondered by natives are making a big fuss over a 'symbolic' issue. I
recall a person saying something like, "Why do the natives allow
something symbolic affect who they are? Why shouldn't they just let go
of the epithet and just concentrate on themselves?" A long discussion
followed. In the end, I somewhat thought the same way. I was aware
of the Braves-Redskins issue but I did not consider it a threat to my
existence because the issue never bothered me. In my opinion, I don't
know if its right or wrong for a football team to carry the Redskin name.
I don't feel insulted by the mascot but if natives do feel insulted, I guess
its wrong.
In responding to Andy Rooney's opinion, I somewhat share the same
view that natives should concentrate more into ridding alcoholism than
debating over the mascot issues. However, Andy might have been
tricked into believing that natives have allocated their concerns from
the alcoholism issue to the Redskin issue. What is old news, the media
will not report it. What is news, will be in the news. So if the media
reports the Redskins issue more than native alcoholism, then eventually
somebody going to think that natives are thrusting more attention to the
Redskin issue than the alcoholism issue. Then again, are natives
forgetting that alcoholism is a problem?
I am not going to dispute whether Andy Rooney is racist or not, or that
he hates Indians or not. I have came across too many people who ask
the stupidest questions about natives and ending up to be good friends
of mine. What he wrote in the article could be something that these
people might have written as well.
- Dana Numkena
Internet: asdmn@asuvm.inre.asu.edu
Bitnet: asdmn@asuacad