HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » JonLP24 » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »

JonLP24

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Arizona
Home country: USA
Member since: Wed Jul 16, 2008, 08:35 PM
Number of posts: 22,557

Journal Archives

Ending the Era of Harmful "Indian" Mascots

Latest News from ChangeTheMascot.org

Change the Mascot Calls on NFL Owners to Stand Against Washington NFL Team’s Use of R-word Racial Slur

Visit ChangeTheMascot.org

NCAI is a partner of the "Change the Mascot" website - visit the site to learn more about the campaign and to get involved.


Would You Call Me a Redsk*n to My Face?

NCAI President Brian Cladoosby addresses the issue


NCAI Position Paper on Harmful "Indian" Sports Mascots

Ending the Legacy of Racism in Sports & the Era of Harmful "Indian" Sports Mascots


Recent NCAI Resolutions on Harmful Mascots in Sports

View list of NCAI resolutions outlining organzation's position.

NCAI's Anti-Defamation Policy Work

Learn more about NCAI's work to end the defamation of American Indian and Alaska Native people.

NCAI's Long Standing Opposition to Harmful "Indian" Sports Mascots
As the nation’s oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native advocacy organization, NCAI has long held a clear position against derogatory and harmful stereotypes of Native people—including sports mascots—in media and popular culture. In 1968 NCAI launched a campaign to address stereotypes of Native people in popular culture and media, as well as in sports. Since this effort began, there has been a great deal of progress made and support to end the era of harmful "Indian" mascots in sports.

NCAI's position is clear, longstanding, and deeply rooted in our seventy years as a leading voice for Indian Country - we advocate for and protect the civil rights, social justice, and racial equity of all Native people in all parts of American society.

About "Indian" Sports Mascots & Harm
Born in an era when racism and bigotry were accepted by the dominant culture, "Indian" sports brands have grown to become multi-million dollar franchises.

The intolerance and harm promoted by these “Indian” sports mascots, logos, or symbols, have very real consequences for Native people.

Specifically, rather than honoring Native peoples, these caricatures and stereotypes are harmful, perpetuate negative stereotypes of America’s first peoples, and contribute to a disregard for the personhood of Native peoples.

As documented in a comprehensive review of decades of social science research, derogatory "Indian" sports mascots have serious psychological, social and cultural consequences for Native Americans, especially Native youth. Of today’s American Indian and Alaska Native population, those under the age of 18 make up 32 percent, and Native youth under the age of 24 represent nearly half, or 42 percent, of the entire Native population.

Most concerning in considering negative stereotypes of Native people, are the alarmingly high rates of hate crimes against Native people. According to Department of Justice analysis, “American Indians are more likely than people of other races to experience violence at the hands of someone of a different race.”

These factors together indicate a very real need to take immediate action in a number of areas, including the removal of harmful images as well as the education of the general public, to diffuse additional hateful activity against Native peoples.

Widespread Support in Indian Country & Beyond
Proud to Be Video and Photo Campaign

Along with the success of the "Proud to Be" viral video, NCAI launched a photo campaign. Join the effort and submit your photo.

Social Media: #NotYourMascot

Started as a trend via a "Twitter Storm" during the 2014 NFL Superbowl, the hashtag #NotYourMascot continues to illustrate Native and non-Native opposition to harmful "Indian Mascots"

Twitter Updates from
Change the Mascot

@ChangetheMascot

Over the last fifty years, a ground swell of support has mounted to end the era of racist and harmful “Indian” mascots in sports and popular culture. Today, that support is stronger than ever.

Hundreds of tribal nations, national and regional tribal organizations, civil rights organizations, school boards, sports teams, sports and media personalities, and individuals have called for the end to harmful “Indian” mascots.

Rooted in the civil rights movement, the quest for racial equality among American Indian and Alaska Native people began well before NCAI established a campaign in 1968 to bring an end to negative and harmful stereotypes in the media and popular culture, including in sports.

As a result there has been significant progress at the professional, collegiate, and highschool levels to change once accepted race based marketing practices.

Since 1963, no professional teams have established new mascots that use racial stereotypes in their names and imagery. In 2005, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) established an extensive policy to remove harmful “Indian” mascots.

As a result of ongoing education and advocacy, in total, two-thirds or over 2,000 “Indian” references in sports have been eliminated during the past 35 years. Nearly 1,000 still remain today.

The Origins of the NFL's Washington Football Team Name
& Culture - A Legacy of Racism
The NFL's Washington football team name “Redsk*ns” is a dictionary defined racial slur. The slur's origin is rooted in government bounty announcements calling for the bloody scalps of Native Americans in the 1800's. From the early 1900's up until today, the term has been carried on as a racial slur in popular culture. For much of the 20th century the term was used interchangeably in movies and books with the word "savage" to portray a misleading and denigrating image of the Native American.

This derogatory term was selected by team owner George Preston Marshall for use by the team in 1932 at a time when Native people were continuing to experience government and social policies to terminate tribes, assimilate Native people, and erase Native human and civil rights. In 1932, the federal “Civilization Regulations” were still in place, confining Native people to reservations, banning all Native dances and ceremonies, confiscating Native cultural property and outlawing much of what was traditional in Native life.

Marshall's reputation as a segregationist and racist was only just beginning to make a mark on society and sports. In 1933, Marshall was the self appointed leader amongst NFL owners to institute what would become a 13-year league-wide ban on African-American players from the NFL. The Washington football team did not integrate until 30 years later, when Marshall was forced to do so. While the team has moved on from Marshall's segregationist policies, it has refused to close the chapter on Marshall's ugly use of race-based marketing at the expense of Native people and communities.

At the local community level, 28 high schools in 18 states that have dropped the “R” word as their mascot’s name in the last 25 years.

Contrary to calls for name changes by tribal nations, Native peoples, former players, civil rights organizations, media outlets, and a sea change at the youth, amateur, collegiate, and professional sports levels, the Washington football team has opted to retain its harmful “Indian” brand. Rather than truly honoring Native peoples, the organization has carried on its legacy of racism and stubbornly holds on to its ugly past.

Read more about the team's history - download NCAI's comprehensive report for more background information.
Read more
http://www.ncai.org/proudtobe

http://www.changethemascot.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/DrFriedmanReport.pdf

Native Americans are the only group in the United States subjected to having a
dictionary-defined racial slur as the mascot of a prominent professional sports team. In the case
of Washington, this involves a football team in our nation's capital that has spent billions of
marketing dollars spreading this racial slur throughout the world. To define this behavior
accurately, consider that in addition to the "R-word" being a dictionary-defined racial slur, over
100 Native American organizations including the National Congress of the American Indian
(NCAI) have publicly declared that the use of Native American images as mascots is offensive
(NCAI, 2013; National Museum of the American Indian, 2009). Further, the use of this racial
slur has been conducted above the repeated objections of the Native American community who
have described this term as a harmful racial slur for 40 years (NCAI, 2013).
Objections to the use of Native American mascots by the Native American population
have been echoed by professional, civil rights and religious organizations. The American
Psychological Association (2005), American Sociological Association (2007) and American
Counseling Association (2001) have all passed resolutions recommending ending the use of all
Native American mascots in sports, citing the damaging effects of this practice on Native
American people. Further, civil rights organizations including the United States Commission on
Civil Rights (2001) and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP,
1999), educational organizations such as the National Education Association (1992) as well as
religious organizations such as the United Methodist Church (1996) and athletic organizations
such as The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) have called for ending the use of
Native American mascots.
There is widespread acknowledgement that the Washington mascot is particularly
dangerous because it not only utilizes an outdated, unrealistic image of Native Americans, but
also is a dictionary-defined racial epithet that is being promoted worldwide. Acknowledgement
of the specifically damaging effects of the use of the "R-word" can be seen in a letter sent to the
Washington organization by a coalition of Native American groups including the NCAI and the
American Indian Movement (AIM) explaining the disparaging nature of this term. "The term
R*dskin has been perpetuated through such media as western movies and television. Most often,
the term is coupled with other derogatory adjectives, such as "dirty R*dskin" or "pesky R*dskin"
which is used interchangeably with the word "savage" to portray a misleading and denigrating
image of the Native American" (NCAI, 2013).
At least two public statements have been made by Native American individuals that
directly challenge the assertion that Native Americans do not take issue with the Washington
football team's racist name. Sportswriter Rick Reilly authored a column quoting his father in law Bob Burns, an elder of the Blackfeet Nation, as saying that the "R-word" is not an offensive
term. In response, Bob Burns publicly stated that he was misquoted, and his opinions were
misrepresented. Burns described how the "R-word" has repeatedly and consistently been used as
a slur against him personally and Native Americans in general and that the term "…demeans
Indians, and historically is insulting and offensive.” Similarly, Washington’s team owner Daniel
Snyder wrote a letter to season ticket holders defending the Washington football team's name
that included an assertion that the Red Cloud School was consulted about, and subsequently
approved, the use of the "R-word." In response, the Red Cloud School made a public statement
denying any involvement in determining the Washington football team name and stating that it
also considers the “R-word” a demeaning racial slur.
Echoing the 40 years of specific protest to the use of the "R-word" by Native American
groups, a number of organizations have publicly protested or questioned the use of the "R-word."
These sentiments of the specific harm by the Washington mascot have been echoed by
organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, as well as a range of religious groups
including the United Methodist Church and the United Church of Christ in Washington, D.C.
Further, individuals across the political spectrum with a range of professional backgrounds have
labeled the "R-Word" as offensive, including President Barack Obama, Republican U.S.
Representative Tom Cole, U.S. Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia, U.S.
Rep. Betty McCollum, sports journalist Bob Costas, NFL announcer Chris Collingsworth,
sportscaster Mike Francesa, and conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer. The harmful
nature of using a dictionary-defined racial slur has been recognized among school-aged children;
over the past 25 years, 28 high schools in the country have stopped using the "R-word" as their
mascot (NCAI, 2013).
The 40 years of opposition to the use of the “R-word” helps illustrate how the ongoing
use of the Washington football mascot can be understood as a harmful form of prejudice and
discrimination. Specifically, part of the perception that the use of the "R-word" is a "victimless
crime" is based on it being de-contextualized from a direct interpersonal interaction. The picture
looks different when considering the use of this term in the presence of someone who is Native
American, particularly if that individual has registered protest against the "R-word."
When considered from this perspective it is easier to understand the potentially damaging
effects of the use of this mascot as forms of harassment or bullying. Specifically, The United
States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines harassment in the
workplace as including, "racial slurs, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's race…or
the display of racially offensive symbols." Repetition of the offensive act is critical to the
definition of harassment; "harassment is illegal when it is so frequent…that it creates a hostile or
offensive work environment." Further, the Department of Justice includes as part of its definition
of bullying "repeated harmful acts" including "name-calling" (Sampson, 2002). Thus, in a direct
interpersonal context, using a dictionary-defined racial slur, in combination with a response such
as Daniel Snyder’s response to calls from Native groups to stop using the racial slur: “We will never change the name of the team…It’s that simple. NEVER- you can use caps” would be
considered harassment in the workplace and bullying in a school.

Thus, the Washington football team is contributing to prejudice and discrimination again
Naive Americans in this country by persistently using a dictionary-defined racial slur that
has been formally protested by over 100 Native American organizations and other groups.
This behavior not only increases exposure of Native Americans to harmful stereotypes, but
implicitly condones behavior that if performed by Non-Native Americans would constitute
harassment or bullying.

II. Experimental Studies Demonstrating Causal Effects and Mechanisms by
Which Native American Mascots Influence Native American Mental Health
Experimental studies demonstrate that the Washington organization is contributing to
prejudice and discrimination that harms Native Americans in two ways. First, simply by
aggressively marketing a stereotypical and outdated caricature of Native Americans, the
organization is creating a "threat in the air" that risks offending and harming the self-concept of
Native Americans (Ahmed, Mohammed & Williams, 2007; Steele, 1997). Second, these
stereotypical images are being marketed to non-Native Americans, which threaten to perpetuate
stereotypes of and negative attitudes towards Native Americans (Banks, 1993). The combination
of these two factors increases the risk of creating "racially hostile environments" for Native
Americans (American Psychological Association, 2005).
The negative effects of presenting stereotypical images have been previously
demonstrated in other groups. For example, studies demonstrate that stereotypical images have
resulted in poorer academic performances for women and African Americans (Steele, 1997).
Further, studies have demonstrated that children are vulnerable to the negative effects of
stereotyping on academic performance (Ambady, Shih, Kim, & Pittinksy, 2001). Additional
studies have demonstrated that stereotypical images are associated with body image
dissatisfaction among women (Lavine, Sweeney, & Wagner, 1999) as well as children and
adolescents (Morris & Katzman, 2003).
Importantly, these experimental studies also demonstrate that even if the Washington
mascot is a benign image that "honors" Native Americans the effect of spreading this
stereotypical view can be damaging. Psychological theory and research demonstrate that even
positive stereotypes can be damaging by increasing risk of being conceptualized by self or others
in a limited and narrow way. For example, when reminded of their athletic identity, student
athletes subsequently exhibit poorer self-regard and do poorer on academic tasks (Yopyk &
Prentice, 2005). Similarly, exposing Asian American students to positive stereotypes of
intelligence results in poorer test performance (Cheryan & Bodenhausen, 2000), anxiety (Son &
Shelton, 2011) and can evoke negative reactions towards the individual making the stereotypical
statement (Siy & Cheryan, 2013).
These experiments demonstrate that regardless of intent, and regardless of whether these
stereotypical images are considered offensive, they have the effect of lowering self-esteem and
mood among Native American adolescents and young adults, and of facilitating negative
associations towards Native Americans by other racial groups.

A. The Psychological Effects of Native American Mascots on Native Americans
The work of Stephanie Fryberg and her colleagues among adolescents and young adults
has been crucial for demonstrating the causal relation between Native American mascots and
negative psychological consequences for Native Americans. In their first study of the effects of
Native American mascots, Fryberg et al. (2008), asked Native American high school students if
American Indian mascot images have positive or negative associations for Native Americans,
and whether these images are more or less positive than other images or information about
Native Americans. In this study, two social representations were presented: "stereotypically
negative outcomes represented by statistics about social problems (e.g. dropout rates) of Native
Americans and "positive" images as represented by Pocahontas, and Chief Wahoo, a Native
American sports mascot of the Cleveland Indians. Analyses showed that following exposure to
Chief Wahoo and Pocahontas, 80% and 81.8% of all associations, respectively, were positive.
Conversely, after exposure to the negative outcomes, only 8.3% of associations were positive.
Thus, the Native American mascot, Chief Wahoo, was regarded in a positive light by Native
Americans.
The positive reaction to Chief Wahoo made the results from the group's next three studies
more surprising. In the next study, American Indian high school students residing on an Indian
reservation participated in a study to determine the effect of the three conditions (Chief Wahoo,
Pocahontas, and negative outcomes) on self-esteem. Analyses revealed that the priming
conditions, Chief Wahoo, Pocahontas, and, marginally, Stereotypically Negative Outcomes, all
depressed self-esteem relative to the control condition. In fact, exposure to Chief Wahoo
depressed self-esteem more than the negative outcomes condition. Thus, stereotypical
representations of Native Americans resulted in lower self-esteem, even if the images were
labeled as positive by a previous Native American group
These findings were replicated in two other studies using slightly different methods. The
first replication examined the effect of the same primes on sense of community worth. The
sample was American Indian high school students residing on an Indian reservation in Arizona
(a different reservation than the previous study). The procedure replicated the methods of the
previous study, but the dependent variable was a scale measuring community worth (e.g., ‘‘I
respect people in my community.’’ ‘‘People in my community have a number of good
qualities". Analyses revealed that compared with the control condition, each of the primed
social representations, Chief Wahoo, Pocahontas, and marginally the Stereotypically Negative
Outcomes, depressed community worth among Native American participants. No differences
were found between the experimental conditions, suggesting that an image of a "positive" Native
American mascot is as damaging to sense of community as a reminder of native outcomes
among the Native American community.
Finally, Fryberg et al. (2008) expanded these findings to examine different aspects of
self-concept across a wider range of perceived representations of Native Americans with a wider

age range of participants. In this study, 179 American Indian undergraduates (52% who reported
living on an Indian reservation and 48% who reported never living on an Indian reservation)
from a predominantly American Indian university were primed with a wider range of Native
American mascots (Chief Wahoo, Chief Illiniwek, Haskell Indian, American Indian College
Fund) and control condition. Participants were then administered a "possible selves"
questionnaire designed to assess flexibility of self-concept. As compared with the control
condition, all three Native American mascots resulted in lower levels of sense of achievement.
Thus, this study with a different population, wider range of representations of Native American
mascots and different assessment of self-concept found the same result.
An independent study by Larocque, McDonald, Weatherly, and Ferraro (2012) showed
that among college students, Native Americans may be more likely than non-Native Americans
to find images of Native American mascots distressing as compared to other groups. In this
study, 36 participants were classified as non-Native American and 33 were classified as Native
American. Participants completed a measure of negative affect, the Multiple Affect Adjective
Checklist-Revised (MAACL-R) before viewing two different slide presentations of Fighting
Sioux-related images. Participants then completed the MAACL-R after each presentation.
Results showed that Native Americans experienced higher negative affect following both slide
presentations than did non-Native American participants.
Overall, these findings demonstrate that Native American students may experience a
worsening of self-concept and an increase in psychological distress when viewing even neutral
images of Native American nicknames/logos. These results suggest the causal role of exposure to
Native American mascots in explaining the findings that Native Americans report significantly
lower self-esteem than Caucasians (Twenge & Crocker, 2002)
B. The Effects of Native American Mascots on Non-Native Americans
In addition to causing negative self-concept in Native Americans, studies demonstrate
that exposure to stereotypical, outdated Native American mascots is also associated with
negative attitudes towards Native Americans by others. Further, these effects exist regardless of
whether the image of Native Americans portrayed is considered non-offensive or even
"positive."
In an experimental study, Freng and Willis-Esqueda (2011) examined whether exposure
to an American Indian mascot activated American Indian stereotypes in a predominately
European American sample. In this study, 119 predominantly Caucasian students were primed
with either an image of Chief Wahoo, or images of Yankees or Pirates. Reaction time was
measured following the prime to a series of words that included stereotypically positive terms
associated with Native Americans (e.g., noble, proud) as well as stereotypically negative
stereotypes of Native Americans (e.g., savage, primitive). The results found that the Chief
Wahoo image, compared to other images, activated negative, but not positive, American Indian

stereotypes. Thus non-Native Americans are more likely to develop biases in automatic
processing regarding Native Americans from stereotypical Native American images such as
Chief Wahoo.
In the second study, the investigators wanted to eliminate the possibility that the effect
seen in their initial study was the result on negative attitudes towards controversy, as the
University of Illinois had experienced recent debate about the use of a Native American mascot.
Thus, for the second study, the "Native American mascot" prime was not an image of the
University mascot, but rather a reading of a flattering historical portrayal of Chief Illiniwek from
the university library. The comparison group was a description of an arts center. The same
results were found from the first study in that reading about even a positive portrayal of the
Native American mascot was associated with increased anti-Asian stereotypes. Thus, the effects
of stereotypical Native American mascots not only occurs if the stereotype is positive, but the
harmful effects in the form of creating negative stereotypical attitudes apply not only to Native
Americans but other groups as well.
The implicit associations specifically towards Native Americans can directly translate
into changes in behavior of Non-Native Americans towards Native Americans. Chaney, Burke
and Burkley (2011) examined implicit biases toward Native American people and mascots using
an Implicit Association Test (IAT) (Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003), and the relation
between Native mascot IAT performance and race-biased behaviors toward Native Americans.
In the first study, 22 Caucasian undergraduate psychology students were given information
processing tasks that included words associated with Native Americans (e.g. Cherokee, Navajo)
as compared to words associated with European nationalities (e.g., English, Irish), "pleasant"
words (e.g. love, beauty) and "unpleasant" words (e.g. hatred, rotten). Results indicated that
participants were more likely to associate pleasant words with European terms as compared to
Native American terms, indicating an implicit bias towards the concept of "European." Next,
participants completed an IAT task that examined implicit attitudes towards Native American
mascots as compared to other mascots. Native American Mascot terms included the "R*dskins"
as well as other Native American mascots such as "Warriors." In contrast, non-Native American
mascots included terms such as "Vikings" and "Fighting Irish." Similar results were found,
whereby participants were more likely to implicitly associate the Native American mascots with
"unpleasant" terms. Further, responses to information regarding native Americans was highly
correlated with responses to Native American mascots, indicating a similarity in how participants
processed information regarding Native Americans and associated Native American mascots.
In a second study, the investigators sought to determine if implicit attitudes towards
Native American mascots would then predict conscious attitudes towards Native Americans. In
this study, 42 Caucasian participants engaged in two separate testing sessions two weeks apart.
In the first session, participants completed a different IAT task. This task included the mascot
categories described above (Native American vs. European) but examined their association with
positive (e.g., "smart," "healthy" or negative (e.g., "dirty," "lazy" stereotypes of Native

Americans as determined by a written survey of 125 student participants. Further, participants
who indicated that they disapprove of Native American mascots were eliminated from the study,
thus including only participants with neutral or positive opinions.
In session two, through an experimental manipulation the subjects were asked whether
their potential Native American partner would enjoy participating in academic tasks (math,
verbal) as compared to non-academic tasks ("culture" and "environment". Results indicated that
implicit biases against Native American mascots as determined in session 1 predicted increased
tendency to consciously assume that Native Americans would not enjoy academic tasks. These
results support the notion that even if someone consciously does not find Native American
mascots offensive, the implicit attitudes that an individual has towards those mascots predicts
prejudicial attitudes among non-Native Americans towards Native Americans.
Further, viewing stereotypical Native American mascots appears to result in more
widespread prejudicial attitudes. Kim-Prieto, Goldstein, Okazaki, and Kirschner (2010)
conducted two experimental studies that examined the effects of viewing a Native American
mascot (Chief Illiniwek) among college students at the University of Illinois. In the first study,
students were randomly primed with images of either the Native American mascot, the Illinois
symbol "I" and school colors, or a neutral prime. Students were then administered a self-report
measure of anti-Asian stereotypes. Students primed with the Native American mascot were
significantly more likely to endorse anti-Asian attitudes, indicating a facilitation of prejudice and
stereotyping by viewing the Native American mascot.
Results from two studies examining the University of North Dakota "Fighting Sioux"
support these findings. In a University setting in which the school's mascot in theory "honors"
Native Americans, qualitative analyses by Steinfeldt et al. (2010) showed that individuals who
indicate support for Native American mascots actually express ignorance of and disdain toward
Native Americans. Further, a study by Gonzalez (2006) found that White students at the
University of North Dakota demonstrated negative attitudes towards Native Americans,
particularly against Native American students who do not endorse the school's Native American
mascot.
Thus, overall, images of Native Americans mascots, even those that are deemed by Native
Americans as neutral or positive, result in harmful psychological effects. Not only do
mascots have a direct effect on Native American self-esteem, mood, community confidence
and sense of achievement, but they also perpetuate negative associations of and attitudes
towards Native Americans among non-Native American groups.

New Research Shows How Native American Mascots Reinforce Stereotypes

Perhaps it’s due to the Washington Post survey from last spring that found 90% of Native Americans polled weren’t offended by the Redskins name. Since then, defenders of the name — including team owner Daniel Snyder — have considered the controversy over and done with. The “sticks and stones” argument suggested by the poll makes complete sense from a self-preservation standpoint; after all, Native Americans have had to persevere through worse offenses than mascots.

But that stance ignores the dangerous possibility that such ethnic names and imagery affect how other people view Native Americans — possibly in subtle and damaging ways.

Our research has shown that incidental exposure to Native American sports mascots can reinforce stereotypes in people. Perhaps more disturbingly, people aren’t even aware that this subtle reinforcement is taking place.

How a name strengthens a bias
In our lab, we showed participants an unfamiliar mascot; some were shown a Native American image while others were shown an image of an animal. We then measured how strongly all participants associated Native Americans with “warlike,” a stereotype leveraged by many sports teams that use Native mascots (like “Braves” and “Warriors”). When asked directly, participants, regardless of the mascot they saw, reported no differences in how warlike they thought Native Americans were.

But when participants completed an indirect — or implicit — stereotype measure, those who’d viewed the Native American mascot were more likely to associate warlike qualities with Native Americans.

This difference in results represents something called implicit bias, which often takes place when asking people about socially sensitive subjects such as race or gender. Our participants were either unwilling to admit or unaware of the mascot’s influence on their views of Native Americans; their bias was implicit, either hidden or incognizant.

Implicit bias can influence decisions ranging from hiring practices to jury preferences and criminal sentencing. And it’s all the more pernicious because the people making these biased decisions are unlikely to be aware they’re doing so.

Interestingly, the liberal participants in our studies were more affected by Native American mascots than were their conservative peers.

Because liberals often think of themselves as being less susceptible to racial bias, this might seem counterintuitive. But liberals also have been shown to have more malleable worldviews and be more open to new information. And in our study, we found a stereotypical mascot could significantly degrade liberals’ attitudes toward Native Americans.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports.good.is/articles/native-america-mascots-research/amp

Al Jazeera's "Fault Lines" documentary series has done some fine work in covering Baltimore police-c

Police corruption



Al Jazeera’s “Fault Lines” documentary series has done some fine work in covering Baltimore police-community relations with such reports as “Baltimore: Anatomy of an American City” in 2012 and “Baltimore Rising” in 2015.

Add “The Gang Within: A Baltimore Police Scandal,” which premiered today online and is embedded above, to that list.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bs-fe-zontv-aljazeera-baltimore-police-20181001-story,amp.html (Baltimore Sun)

ACLU Highlights 'Disturbing Trends' in Arizona's Criminal Justice System

No other state in the country imprisons Latinos at such a high rate. Only in three other states are greater percentages of the population behind bars. To top it off, far more of Arizona's prisoners are incarcerated for possessing or selling drugs than for any other crime, like assault, burglary, or driving under the influence. These are among the key findings from a report released today by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona.

The 17-page report, Blueprint for Smart Justice, (below), suggests that Arizona's criminal justice system is expensive, discriminates unfairly against minorities, and doesn't keep communities safer or reduce recidivism. Phoenix New Times received an advance copy of the report.

"We believe that the Arizona criminal justice system needs to be radically changed," said Alessandra Soler, the executive director of ACLU Arizona, in an interview on Tuesday. "We wanted to highlight the bigger picture, disturbing trends, and why Arizona is such an outlier, why we're at the top of the list."

The report homed in on two factors. One is Arizona's lack of early-release programs, stemming from Arizona's 1993 "truth-in-sentencing" law, which requires prisoners to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. The other reason is mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/aclu-arizonas-prison-system-latinos-drugs-10789981

ACLU Arizona's New Report on the Criminal Justice System

https://images.phoenixnewtimes.com/media/pdf/blueprint_for_smart_justice.pdf (PDF)

K&R for that article

I heard a lot about the Gangster Disciples on a lot of true crime stuff but not so much about Chicago after.

Reading it is a lot like the preferred approach to go after high end targets rather than street dealers.

FBI releases Carter Page surveillance warrant documents

CNN)The FBI on Saturday released a redacted version of its previously classified foreign surveillance warrant application on Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page, which has been the subject of a heated partisan debate over the FBI's tactics investigating members of the Trump campaign.

The FBI released the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant application after news organizations and advocacy groups like Judicial Watch sued for its disclosure.
The warrant, which was approved for Page in 2016, allowed the FBI to conduct surveillance on Page. It's been one of the key moves that Republicans have charged is evidence of a pattern of abuse by the Justice Department and the FBI targeting the Trump campaign.

The release itself is significant as it marks the first public disclosure of a highly sensitive FISA request. Information included in the request had been largely reported through two declassified memos released separately by Republicans and Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, but Saturday's disclosure puts the FBI's own argument in black and white for the first time.

The more than 400-page document released Saturday, which includes the initial October 2016 FISA warrant on Page and three subsequent renewals, is heavily redacted.
It states that the FBI "believes Page has been the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian government."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/21/politics/fbi-carter-page-surveillance-warrant/index.html

https://vault.fbi.gov/d1-release/d1-release/at_download/file

I'm voting for Deedra Abboud

I voted for Synema over the Bill Clinton and Obama endorsed candidate in a primary for her first congressional race and I won't make that mistake again. She has moved too far to the right after winning an election and too far to the right(voting record) for this district which Clinton won by +16.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/house/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Abboud says enough is there to impeach Trump and that is good enough for me. With stuff like this https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/18/trump-russia-browder-mcfaul-questioning-731616 we need to move faster sooner or later so I'm all for those ready for impeachment for the emoluments clause at the very least.

They were inside the DNC as early as 2015

Here's that original David Corn story on the dossier: October 31, 2016: A Veteran Spy Has Given the

Here's that original David Corn story on the dossier: October 31, 2016: A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump

https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/939321000688340992?s=17

Comey set off a political blast when he informed congressional leaders that the bureau had stumbled across emails that might be pertinent to its completed inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s handling of emails when she was secretary of state. The Clinton campaign and others criticized Comey for intervening in a presidential campaign by breaking with Justice Department tradition and revealing information about an investigation—information that was vague and perhaps ultimately irrelevant—so close to Election Day. On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid upped the ante. He sent Comey a fiery letter saying the FBI chief may have broken the law and pointed to a potentially greater controversy: “In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government…The public has a right to know this information.”

Reid’s missive set off a burst of speculation on Twitter and elsewhere. What was he referring to regarding the Republican presidential nominee? At the end of August, Reid had written to Comey and demanded an investigation of the “connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” and in that letter he indirectly referred to Carter Page, an American businessman cited by Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers, who had financial ties to Russia and had recently visited Moscow. Last month, Yahoo News reported that US intelligence officials were probing the links between Page and senior Russian officials. (Page has called accusations against him “garbage.”) On Monday, NBC News reported that the FBI has mounted a preliminary inquiry into the foreign business ties of Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chief. But Reid’s recent note hinted at more than the Page or Manafort affairs. And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him.

Does this mean the FBI is investigating whether Russian intelligence has attempted to develop a secret relationship with Trump or cultivate him as an asset? Was the former intelligence officer and his material deemed credible or not? An FBI spokeswoman says, “Normally, we don’t talk about whether we are investigating anything.” But a senior US government official not involved in this case but familiar with the former spy tells Mother Jones that he has been a credible source with a proven record of providing reliable, sensitive, and important information to the US government.

In June, the former Western intelligence officer—who spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters and who now works with a US firm that gathers information on Russia for corporate clients—was assigned the task of researching Trump’s dealings in Russia and elsewhere, according to the former spy and his associates in this American firm. This was for an opposition research project originally financed by a Republican client critical of the celebrity mogul. (Before the former spy was retained, the project’s financing switched to a client allied with Democrats.) “It started off as a fairly general inquiry,” says the former spook, who asks not to be identified. But when he dug into Trump, he notes, he came across troubling information indicating connections between Trump and the Russian government. According to his sources, he says, “there was an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit.”



http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump/

Kiwi spies knew of Donald Trump's 'collusion' with Russia as it unfolded book

New Zealand spies knew about Donald Trump colluding with Russia in the lead-up to the extraordinary 2016 US election, an investigative journalist says.

Luke Harding is a Guardian journalist and author of Collusion, a new book exploring the US president's longstanding ties with Russia.

It was the evidence of European spy agencies and, according to one source, the Australians, that helped nudge an initially reticent FBI into investigating the Trump-Russia ties that continue to unfold.

Five Eyes intelligence partners, including the New Zealand Government Communications Security Bureau, were monitoring the meetings between Trump associates and "known and suspected" Russian agents in the year preceding the US election, Harding says.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/99411726/kiwi-spies-knew-of-trumps-collusion-with-russia-as-it-unfolded--guardian-journalist

BALTIMORE POLICE OFFICER KILLED BEFORE TESTIFYING AGAINST FELLOW COPS, FOUL PLAY SUSPECTED

Sean Suiter, a Baltimore detective with 18 years of experience, was going to testify before a grand jury against a group of indicted officers on the day after he was killed, Baltimore Police Commissioner Kevin Davis told the press Wednesday evening.

Suiter's murder on November 15 has jolted the city and the police department, following the indictment of eight members of the gun task force who are accused of conspiring with drug dealers, filing false affidavits and claiming fraudulent overtime, according to CNN.

Davis noted that Suiter was conducting a follow-up investigation on a killing in West Baltimore’s Harlem Park neighborhood, when he noticed someone acting suspiciously. When asked if there was a connection between Suiter’s pending testimony and his killing, Davis said that “the BPD and FBI do not possess any information that this incident…is part of any conspiracy” adding that the shooting occurred spontaneously, according to The Baltimore Sun. But some believe that there are indications of foul play.

Shaun King, a prominent journalist, tweeted about the killing: “This is dirty. Baltimore Police officer who was just murdered was scheduled to testify AGAINST other corrupt cops on the force. I believe they had this man killed.”

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/baltimore-police-officer-killed-testifying-against-fellow-cops-foul-play-720574%3famp=1
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »