December 09, 2009

Political correctness run amuk.

posted by jjzucal at 09:19 AM on December 09, 2009

I don't see the publicity benefit to having your tribe used as a sports mascot. I've lived in Florida for 12 years. I can't tell you a single thing about the Seminole tribe in spite of hearing about Florida State constantly over that period. How did the mascot help that tribe be less obscure to the public?

posted by rcade at 09:45 AM on December 09, 2009

"Amuk" ain't a word. Wait, ain't ain't either. In any event, "amuck" is.

posted by manics21 at 10:06 AM on December 09, 2009

Stop already.

An organization that thinks highly enough of a group / race of people to want to use their name and attempt to achieve the standards they have set should be considered honoring their heritage.

Do we need to get to the point where all sports teams need to be named after plants ?

posted by cixelsyd at 10:33 AM on December 09, 2009

And no one knows the origin of "hoya" as the Georgetown school mascot.

posted by yerfatma at 11:10 AM on December 09, 2009

All those brainy people at Stanford and they end up naming their teams the Cardinal? WTF? That's just one lousy bird. (Or one archbishop). We're talking about team sports. You can't name 80 guys after one bird. Put a freakin' "S" on the end of that name, will ya?

Cardinal as in red, the colour.

posted by tommybiden at 01:05 PM on December 09, 2009

Let's call them the Vikings. No one has sued over the use of that name. Drop the name Seminoles, too. Then those who know nothing about them can completely forget they exist.

posted by sandskater at 01:53 PM on December 09, 2009

This thread may prove to be good. Perhaps some popcorn is in order.

Are you kidding? We've already seen about 2/3 of the same "arguments" in favor of native mascots that we've seen roughly 23,648 times before, including:

a)It's an HONOR if we caricature your ethnic group, so there, dammit, no matter how you feel about it.

b)If we ban Native mascots, we must also ban any other team mascot that is named after anything human or human-like, because it's equally pejorative.

c)Oh this is all PEEEEE CEEEEE (and no I don't have to read any goddamn article, I already know what it says, magically, because I'm a genius).

We already had this discussion a gajillion times, most recently here -- not even a month ago -- and I'm a wee bit tired of members who were here for those discussions trotting out the same tired and trite pseudo-arguments that have already been refuted a gajillion times. Intellectually honest grownups do not behave like that.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:07 PM on December 09, 2009

Drop the name Seminoles, too. Then those who know nothing about them can completely forget they exist.

How could we forget when it gets brought up incorrectly every time one of these threads pops up? And I'm sure the Seminoles will appreciate a defense from the same person who tried to argue away the implicit meaning of "white pride". Your interest is just in the pride of Native Americans, right?

posted by yerfatma at 02:20 PM on December 09, 2009

correct me if I'm wrong

You're wrong. The school asked two Sioux tribal councils to OK the continued use of the name. One did but the other didn't (and dithered about giving any response at all), so the state board decided to stop fighting and drop the mascot.

The backers of the Fighting Sioux mascot had their chance. All they had to do was convince both councils to OK the name.

posted by rcade at 02:28 PM on December 09, 2009

Ahh, so the Standing Rock tribe was still unsure. My mistake. I still stand by my previous statement, though; this does seem to be rather ironic... The "offensive" name and logo are changed, and people are still pissed off.

posted by Goyoucolts at 02:41 PM on December 09, 2009

I love how the "it is an honor" crowd doesn't actually care about the opinions of the group supposedly being honored.

Those who insist it's not an honor don't care about the opinions of the group that is actually honored either.

Anyone who thinks these mascots were chosen to honor American Indians is bullshitting themselves.

"I am full blood and I grew up on this reservation," said Eunice Davidson, 57, who wore a Fighting Sioux sweatshirt on a recent afternoon. "I have to tell you, I am very, very honored that they would use the name."

Sorry, Eunice. You are just bullshitting yourself and naive.

Is it just too simple to immediately attack anyone's motive for disagreeing that it's dishonorable?

As to this particular issue, I would never expect a large group of people to have one mind about anything.

Exactly, and here we have a group in which some are offended and some are not.

What argument could be made for those who aren't offended to keep the mascot, that's not "trite," or "intellectually dishonest."

Or are the Sioux who wish to keep the mascot just screwed because by default if something is offensive to someone it must be changed? I think that is the type of thing that some people just don't buy into.

I mean my question is, "is there an acceptable argument for the Sioux who are suing?"

posted by tselson at 03:03 PM on December 09, 2009

I'm a wee bit tired of members who were here for those discussions trotting out the same tired and trite pseudo-arguments that have already been refuted a gajillion times. Intellectually honest grownups do not behave like that.

Yet, it seems that these items mostly get posted by those who are on your side of the argument, i.e. that such mascot names should be banned. The mere posting of these items is essentially trolling. So, if such posts are to be allowed, then I see no reason why both sides should not be expressed. Isn't that really the purpose of such posts anyway - to bring out the non-ban arguments whether we believe in them or not?

posted by graymatters at 03:04 PM on December 09, 2009

I mean my question is, "is there an acceptable argument for the Sioux who are suing?"

Yeah, they think that it gives their tribe positive publicity. The argument for nicknames that use a specific tribe are more complex than those with names like Redskins. But, it is hard to run away from the negative depictions from the other team and the trite depictions by the actual school in any event. I think FSU is one of the schools that tries hard to work with the local tribe to be respectful, but it can only go so far. The fight song is pretty outrageous. The names of school organizations involve spears and feathers. The opposing teams t-shirts involve every negative Native American stereotype imaginable. What can you say about the tomahawk chop? The school is fighting a losing battle to maintain a respectful image for the tribe.

posted by bperk at 04:03 PM on December 09, 2009

Are you kidding? We've already seen about 2/3 of the same "arguments" in favor of native mascots that we've seen roughly 23,648 times before, including:

Hell no, I 'aint kidding. I love watching people get their panties in a bunch even if it is about the same old stuff. Never underestimate the power of people to say something outrageous and stupid where matters of race are concerned (myself included). Besides, it can be like a car wreck. And NASCAR still seems to have fans.

Plus, too, what's more:

With all the fodder for protestation, I'm the one that get's yer attention?

posted by THX-1138 at 04:29 PM on December 09, 2009

it would be nice if these stories did not attract so many knee-jerk opinions

And after all this time and all the postings, you really expect any different?

it is hard to run away from the negative depictions from the other team . . .The opposing teams t-shirts involve every negative Native American stereotype imaginable.

Yet, it is not that opposing team that gets the criticism. Instead, it is the team with the native mascot that gets criticized as though the opposing team's negative use is justified in some way.

posted by graymatters at 05:05 PM on December 09, 2009

I don't know what you're all blabbering about.

irunfromclones won this fucking thing hours ago.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:20 PM on December 09, 2009

Yerfatma. I don't equate the term "Redskin" with Seminole. Apparently you do. One is a slur, the other a legitimate name. You choose to read the politically incorrect nuance into "white pride". I don't. Your agenda is showing again. What caught my attention here was rcade's lack of curiosity for the 12 years his attention was drawn to a group he knew nothing about save they were the name of a college team. A little intellectual curiosity could have brought him up to speed. Apparently exercising some cultural awareness and learning about them wasn't important enough. That lacks the thrill of righteous indignation that comes from whaking the politically correct "Easy button". Like I said, call them the Vikings. Just don't tell the Swedes.

posted by sandskater at 10:33 PM on December 09, 2009

I feel you are belittling those who claim to feel it's an honor, you are asking me how honored I would feel, but I sense you are more trying to tell me that the Eunice's of the tribe are just ignorant.

I challenge you to find a comment where I've called Eunice or other Sioux tribal supporters of the name ignorant or questioned their motives. You continue to misread my original comment, which was about when the names were chosen.

What caught my attention here was rcade's lack of curiosity for the 12 years his attention was drawn to a group he knew nothing about save they were the name of a college team. A little intellectual curiosity could have brought him up to speed. Apparently exercising some cultural awareness and learning about them wasn't important enough.

You seem to think it's some big gotcha that I don't know anything about the Seminole Indians. I'm not clear on why that matters. The issue is whether the sports use of the Seminoles brings any beneficial publicity to the tribe. Here, if you talk about the Seminoles people think you're talking about FSU. The tribe is completely invisible. That's some honor.

I asked my kids about the Seminoles tonight. They knew about the Timucua and Wampanoag, but nothing about the Seminoles.

In the conference I follow because of my alma mater, the Arkansas State Indians became the Arkansas State Red Wolves and the Louisiana-Monroe Indians became the Louisiana-Monroe Warhawks. It didn't take long for people to adjust. These are just sports mascots. If the name in North Dakota is changed, in five years the Fighting Sioux will matter as much to them as the mascot it replaced -- the Flickertails.

posted by rcade at 11:31 PM on December 09, 2009

The Seminoles are actually an amalgam of the original indians found in Florida(can't remember the name), some black slaves, and the Creek Indians. They're the only tribe to never sign a peace treaty with the federal government and were never subdued by federal forces. They now own and run numerous casinos and bought the Hard Rock Cafe chain of restaurants. The Seminoles negotiated and approved the use of their name and any asssociated images with FSU. The history of these people is a testament to their resilency, adaptability, and tenacity and is worth knowing. You won't read about them in the media because they don't fall into the "victim" category so cherished by the left. They're strong, independent, and no one can claim them as their "cause". Probably the same reason they're not a priority in the public schools that Yerfatma insists are not politically left. They don't need your righteous indignation about matters you don't understand and clearly haven't taken the time to find out. They've gotten what they wanted from FSU and the fact that you don't know that is not seminal to them. Pardon the pun.

posted by sandskater at 12:40 AM on December 10, 2009

I don't equate the term "Redskin" with Seminole.

Then why bring them up every time we have a post about other groups of Native Americans who aren't happy about being used as a mascot?

posted by yerfatma at 09:04 AM on December 10, 2009

No, I'm trying to ask why you insist it should matter to her.

Giving my opinion on American Indian mascots is not the same thing as insisting that others share my opinion. I don't need to defend myself over things I didn't say, so I'm just going back to your original question: Is there an acceptable argument for the Sioux who are suing?

Most people -- even on the anti-mascot side -- accept the NCAA's current position that the mascots can continue being used if the tribes involved support them.

The Sioux's problem is that a tribal council wouldn't agree to support the mascot. If we accept that the Seminole tribe in Florida has the right to sanction (or not sanction) that mascot, why would we deny the same right to the Sioux in North Dakota?

posted by rcade at 10:40 AM on December 10, 2009

The Seminoles negotiated and approved the use of their name and any asssociated images with FSU. The history of these people is a testament to their resilency, adaptability, and tenacity and is worth knowing. You won't read about them in the media because they don't fall into the "victim" category so cherished by the left. They're strong, independent, and no one can claim them as their "cause". Probably the same reason they're not a priority in the public schools that Yerfatma insists are not politically left. They don't need your righteous indignation about matters you don't understand and clearly haven't taken the time to find out. They've gotten what they wanted from FSU and the fact that you don't know that is not seminal to them. Pardon the pun.

OK. I won't beg the obvious question of who is actually suggesting that the Seminoles have to change their name, but isn't this exactly what the Sioux nation has decided? One tribe doesn't like it, it has to be unanimous in the eyes of the university and it isn't. That's self determination. Same deal.

Oh wait, sorry - I didn't get to all the liberals-are-weak shit. I see. My mistake.

I enjoyed your Seminole history lesson. As of 2005, only three actual Seminoles had ever graduated from FSU. The school's president set up a Seminole scholarship program after the NCAA went after its name and they needed to pretend they had been honoring the tribe all these years.

Here's some more history of the honor: For 40 years, FSU's boosters were called the Scalp Hunters. The school once had a Chief Fullabull mascot who acted drunk at basketball games and another big-nosed buffoon named Sammy Seminole.

Wait - why didn't you mention this part, sandskater? I thought you were an authority on the subject? Why'd this stuff change? Don't the Seminoles like these honours?

cough, *owned,* cough...

Spoke too soon, huh?

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:52 PM on December 10, 2009

The University went ahead and voted for the name change without waiting for the input of both tribes.

You make it sound as if this was rushed. The Board of Higher Education announced in October 2008 that if it could not reach an agreement with the two Sioux tribes this year, UND should begin phasing out the mascot and logo in January 2010. Proponents of the name had more than a year to win approval from the tribes. That didn't happen.

According to Indianz.Com, the new chairman of the Standing Rock tribe won't be pushing for a vote on the name because it is "very, very divisive" for them. So the "waiting for input" argument is moot.

posted by rcade at 09:28 PM on December 10, 2009

It's interesting that some of the people claiming the Fighting Sioux complaints are political correctness also believe that "Redskins" is an unacceptable mascot. How do you think Redskins became unacceptable to many sports fans, if not for people making it an issue?

Believe it or not, there are still public schools in the U.S. using Redskins as their mascot, according to AISTM. Does the anti-PC crowd think it's acceptable for these schools to use a patently offensive racial slur as their mascot? What message does that send to American Indian children in those districts?

posted by rcade at 08:26 AM on December 11, 2009

Given these threads are rarely productive, I'll make an attempt to be honest and open about my take. Given these threads are a constant re-hash of the same positions with new people, here's a roadmap to how I see them:

1. Post is made about Native Americans not caring for a team name.
2. Someone jumps in to declare this the product of "PC police" or similar. Thread falls apart right here as it create such a rift no one listens to anyone else.
3. We get the recurring Insensitive Guys . . .

Insensitive Guy #1: "Hey, what about the Vikings? Why don't the Swedes complain about that?"
Insensitive Guy #2: "High five, brah! Even better, what about the . . . 'Fighting Irish'?! LOL101!!"

No we're really off the rails. The thread began with a post about a minority group that's been historically oppressed in this country to this very day, people who sit on government-assigned land, many with no hope of a job. They suffer from unemployment, alcoholism and various other Very Bad Things at rates way beyond the norm for the rest of the US population.

So you've got that on one hand. And then someone compares it to Notre Dame. Irish-Americans. An ethnic group that was oppressed in this country, but given they were white and it was never explicitly legal to kill them, were able to pull themselves up to such a point they took over much of the workings of the country (specifically politics and the public service sectors). "Redskins" is a demeaning insult turned into a team name by people who aren't members of that ethnic group. "Fighting Irish" is the early 20th-century equivalent of "YOU GOT SOMETHING TO SAY, ASSHOLE? I DIDN'T THINK SO. YEAH, YOU BETTER WALK AWAY" applied by members of that famously pugilistic ethnic group to their "own" team. It's not an equivalence and anyone suggesting so is either impressively dim-witted or being purposefully obtuse.

4. The next character in our threadroom drama is The Professor. He takes the Insensitive Guys by the hand and leads them to a smarter place: history. The Professor pulls out his showstopper, the Florida Seminoles, a tribe everyone know of, but not so well that people aren't fuzzy on the details. So you can bend, hammer and shape the Seminoles into anything you like. Use them as a synecdoche for all Native Americans to show how these poor, misguided protesters could find a better solution to this problem by simply coming to grips with the fact some white people like to use a term they find offensive to refer to a bunch of adults playing a game.

Now we've got a hundred car derailment because this nonsense is exactly the shit people are upset about: acting as though one fairly unique Native American tribe can stand in for various different Native American tribes is insulting. Unless you all feel that it would be ok to assume I can get a decent measure of your opinions by driving down to Cambridge and stopping at a coffee shop near Harvard and asking the nearest latte sipper what his opinions on the infield fly rule are.

The real speed bump in these threads for me is what I perceive as willful obtuseness, an absolute refusal to walk a mile in the other person's (authentic!) moccasins. This makes me unconscionably rude, but whenever your feelings get hurt by something I say in these threads, remind yourself that my insult is the result of my high opinion of you all, that in spite of your poor spelling, atrocious grammar and fuzzy logic, I assume none of you are so stupid as to honestly not see the other side of the Buffalo Nickel.

posted by yerfatma at 11:48 AM on December 11, 2009