A quick check of Webster's Twentieth Century Unabridged Dictionary defines 'mascot' as Cheap True Religion Jeans 
  'any person, animal or thing supposed to bring good luck by being  
present.' So, it would seem that a team mascot is an honorable title.  
Most mascots in American sports had their origins in the early 1900s.  
Back then, teams fumbled around with quaint monickers until they  
gradually realized the tremendous marketing value they carried. The New 
 York Highlanders became the more regionally-identifiable Yankees, for  
instance, and the Chicago Cubs took their nickname so newspaper editors 
 could more easily fit it into headlines. Distinguished symbols like  
Tigers and Giants appeared. Unique features like White Stockings and Red
  Stockings evolved into the more headline-friendly and spelling-special
  White Sox and Red Sox.
 
 One of the earliest attempts at humor 
in mascot-anointing was made by  the Brooklyn nine of baseball's 
National League. Urban legend wasn't a  known phrase back then, but it 
farily describes the allusion to fans who  'dodged'  Click to view  
  trolley
  fares to get a free ride to Ebbetts Field and watch the game. Those  
'bums' were called Dodgers, and their favorite team became christened as
  such.
 
 Ironically, that drift toward the whimsical --- 
probably intended to  portray sports in its proper context as a 
divertissement of life --- may  have been the root of indignation two 
generations later.
 
 The social upheavals of the 1960s and early 
1970s were certainly  justified, in my view. Civil rights needed to come
 to the fore, and the  resultant improvement in how all peoples were 
perceived was a great step  forward for mankind. Still, there's a 
difference between significant  awareness and pedantic perception in any
 movement. Thus, in my view,  when certain Native Americans first raised
 the mascot controversy in  headlines of the time, the attention 
afforded was only due to its
 
 being sucked into the backdraft of searing human rights campaigns.
 
 Personally, I've always thought the issue had as much relevance to their legitimate True Religion Jeans concerns as bra-burning did for women's rights.
 
 Think about it. Native Americans aren't alone in being designated as  
mascots. In accordance with Webster's Dictionary definition, other  
persons given the distinction include the Irish (University of Notre  
Dame) and Scandinavians (Minnesota Vikings). Both of these ethnic groups
  endured their moments of discrimination in the annals of American  
history, too. So far, neither has mounted a protest about being  
characterized as a good luck symbol for a sporting organization.
 
 Don't even try to broach the 'caricature' argument as a reason why the 
 Native American situation is different. Perhaps Notre Dame uses a  
leprechaun logo now, but the term 'Fighting Irish' was a clear reference
  to barroom brawlers, a stereotypical low-life trait at which 
immigrants  from the Emerald Isle were perceived to be quite proficient.
 As to the  Scandinavians, there is no evidence that even one Viking was
 ever so dim  as to go into battle with a set of heavy horns on his 
helmet; why would  any warrior charge into a kill-or-be-killed scenario 
wearing anything  that could directly impede his ability to win? (The 
image of horns came  from priests' drawings of Viking attacks, 
attempting to equate them to  the Devil incarnate, and it was Wagner who
 popularized this image when  he staged his epic Ring of the Niebelung.)
 
 Cleveland's baseball team sorted through a number of mascots in their  
early days. 'Spiders' just didn't have that 'je ne sais crois' of  
marketing sizzle. They were the 'Naps' for a while, in honor of their  
star player-manager, http://www.jeansuksales.co.uk/   
  Napoleon Lajoie. So, when they finally settled on 'Indians' in  
correlation to one of their first star players --- Louis Sockalexis, a  
Native American --- the monicker may not have begun as a tribute to him,
  but it has since memorialized his legacy. The evidence indicates the  
term was derogatorily applied to all members of the Cleveland team in  
the 1890s because it dared to have the fortitude to allow an Indian to  
play for them. Since then, Sockalexis has been recognized as being as  
much of a pioneer for minority involvement in major sports as the great 
 Jackie Robinson was fifty years later.
 
没有评论:
发表评论