Let's examine Shweder's take on Natives. First, the problem as Shweder and Brown see it:
'Who Owns Native Culture?': The Gatekeepers
Here, I'll make it for him:
One could argue just as convincingly that these petty insults actually promote cultural survival by bringing blacks together in solidarity against the dominant culture. I guess blacks are just too stupid to realize how white people have helped them by insulting them. I guess that's what happens when you try to raise a bunch of mud people from the pit they come from. I.e., when you try to civilize a bunch of savages.
Compromising on mascots
The mascot case is instructive. Native advocates aren't protesting every use of Indian team names, logos, and mascots with equal fervor. They've naturally focused on the worst cases: the Washington Redskins, Chief Wahoo, Chief Illiniwek, and so forth.
The compromise is implicit in the advocates' actions. Eliminate the worst examples of stereotyping--especially the logos and mascots with archaic images of Indians. But if schools want to use relatively innocuous names such as Indians, Warriors, or Raiders--without the stereotypical logos and mascots--let them. If they get permission from the Sioux, Chippewa, or Seminole tribes, let them use those names too.
Some Indians may protest until the last "Indians" name is gone, but many won't. Many are concerned mainly about the racist or stereotypical imagery associated with these names. The names aren't the biggest problem; the images are.
There's your compromise for you. So why are you defending the offensive "Redskins" name? Because you don't recognize your own racism while Indians do. I bet they'll compromise with you as soon as your abandon your preference for an ugly ethnic slur.
Below: Monty Montezuma, former mascot of the San Diego State University Aztecs. Indians protested this stereotypical mascot much more than they protested the name "Aztecs," if they protested it at all.