August 12, 2005

Schools consider appeals to NCAA: Even PETA is involved. This is turning out to be a huge mess.

posted by dbt302 to football at 09:53 AM - 81 comments

I don't see how the courts could force the NCAA to accept Native American mascots at its competitions. The only solution I can see for schools like Florida State is to find a way to exert pressure on the NCAA to change its mind, either because of something the NCAA needs or a credible threat to split from the association.

posted by rcade at 10:00 AM on August 12, 2005

Wait a minute, if Utah is supported by the Ute nation, then what is the big deal? If the people who are supposed to be offended aren't, and in fact supprt them, then why must things change? It should be between the schools and the tribes whether or not the name should be changed, shouldn't it?

posted by tina at 11:13 AM on August 12, 2005

This entire situation is going to get out of hand if the NCAA isn't careful. Maybe someone should complain about every team name in the country. Then what do they do? You know things are getting out of control when PETA gets involved.

posted by dbt302 at 11:32 AM on August 12, 2005

This whole thing is getting absurd (90 some percent of the Seminoles in a recent survey said they are not offended) but thatís what happens when some people try to foist their politically correct ideas on others. The PC crowd pretty much has done in the smokers, now on to sports. (Iím probably going to take bighit for that one.)

posted by tommysands at 11:43 AM on August 12, 2005

The Notre Dame and the PETA angles are interesting. Maybe Christains should arise and say that are offended by the Knickname "Bluedevils"?

posted by daddisamm at 11:50 AM on August 12, 2005

I would bet that some Irish-American Florida State fans will now be complaining to the NCAA. By making a decision of this magnitude, without providing a clear definition of "offensive", they opened up the door to this sort of thing.

posted by bperk at 11:56 AM on August 12, 2005

Here is even more silliness.

posted by dbt302 at 12:14 PM on August 12, 2005

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=woodward/050811

posted by dbt302 at 12:14 PM on August 12, 2005

It's not about the groups being offended (or not), it's about white guilt and ivory towers.

posted by mick at 12:15 PM on August 12, 2005

I personally don't feel guilty at all MICK, I was not here to fight against an Indian, steal their land or own a slave, for that matter. I kinda feel guilty about not living in an ivory tower though. But I think PETA will complain because that poaching an endangered species.

posted by volfire at 12:35 PM on August 12, 2005

I would bet that some Irish-American Florida State fans In a theoretical world where race traitors such as those weren't strung up by lampposts, sure.

posted by yerfatma at 12:45 PM on August 12, 2005

I still think on balance that the NCAA has the right idea by refusing to recognize Native American mascots at its competitions. The willing participation of some tribes gives me pause, but on the balance, I think collegiate institutions with policies against discrimination should not actively encourage negative racial, ethnic, or national stereotypes. One thing that bothers me about the NCAA stand is that it makes exceptions -- a school with a large Native American population is allowed to continue using its mascot, the Irish are overlooked completely, and the Aztecs are also allowed. It would be clearer just to take a stand against all such mascots, whether or not they have provoked complaints. When this all sorts out, I have trouble believing FSU will ever be anything but the Seminoles. College sports runs pretty deep around here.

posted by rcade at 01:02 PM on August 12, 2005

Okay maybe its just me, but what is so offensive about names like, the fighting Illini, Seminoles, and Braves? The native american heritage is part of America. In some cities it is a big deal, so why not use the name if its not hurting anyone (native americans included). I can understand if they were using the name to be racist towards native americans, but I haven't seen that. Look if it is the native americans who want us to stop, ok, but if their fine with it, then just let it go.

posted by tina at 01:39 PM on August 12, 2005

The NCAA should have first sought to ban those things that are actual negative stereotypes (not just the entire name of a tribe of Native American). They could have discouraged cheers, uniforms, etc. that engender stereotypes. A less drastic move would have been wise. The NCAA provided no reasons why they decided that the mere name of a tribe is offensive. This move came off as paternalistic toward the Seminoles Tribe of Florida and the other tribes that support schools. The NCAA is saying "we know what is offensive to Native Americans even if Native Americans do not."

posted by bperk at 01:40 PM on August 12, 2005

at least there's some foundation and history linked with the colleges and there choices of nicknames, in most cases. Some of theses institutions go back 100+ years. I'm more offended by professional teams that choose to use a person's heritage, or ethnicity, i.e. Washington Redskins, with no regard to how Native Americans feel or if they are offended. once again, the NCAA has missed the boat.

posted by gr8czrsgost at 01:46 PM on August 12, 2005

The NCAA is saying "we know what is offensive to Native Americans even if Native Americans do not." I completely agree with you on this.

posted by tina at 01:49 PM on August 12, 2005

One thing to keep in mind. Here in South Dakota, The majority of the High School teams left with Indian names are the Native Amercian high schools. Some of these names are the same that has been changed. protested on a higher level. Names like Braves and Warriors. Of course some Native Aemrican High shools have names that help bridge the gap between the races. IE it teaches something of Natice Amercians culture.

posted by daddisamm at 02:03 PM on August 12, 2005

The NCAA is saying "we know what is offensive to Native Americans even if Native Americans do not." If the NCAA believes that Native American mascots perpetrate negative stereotypes, why should it defer to the opinion of some Native Americans who feel otherwise? Every one of these mascots draws strong opposition from some Native Americans. Even Florida State:

It is shameful that the mighty Osceola is portrayed as a mascot. He is represented with fakey ''war paint,'' which he never wore; on an Appaloosa horse, which he never rode; with a Plains Indian war lance, which he never used; acting the fool, which he never was; and performing for non-Indians - which he never, ever did.

posted by rcade at 02:26 PM on August 12, 2005

Well I'm pretty vehemently for not using any kind of racial or ethnic group as fodder for sports team names, however I think a few lines can be drawn in places. The Seminoles don't seem to mind (which is the whole reasoning behind the exclusion of Aztecs in the ruling - no Aztecs to offend anywhere), and it's not like the use of Native names isn't prevalent in other aspects of American life - see the state of Illinois. So I'm not suggesting that there isn't an appropriate setting for any of this - but these are fucking college sports teams - remember college? Where we all tried to figure out how drunk we could get, and who would we fuck? Not exactly a legacy of grandeur. Bluedevils is a bad example because it is not denominationally specific, has no reference to a group of people and my last argument - 'c'mon, let's have some perspective here'.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 02:27 PM on August 12, 2005

My old high school is named the Blue Devils. The Baptists get their panties in a wad now and then and want to change the name to the Blue Elephants. You're right weedy, it is only college and in this case, high school.

posted by dbt302 at 02:36 PM on August 12, 2005

Seminoles don't seem to mind (which is the whole reasoning behind the exclusion of Aztecs in the ruling - no Aztecs to offend anywhere) Huh? I think the Seminoles actually endorse FSU's use of their name. And they're not a good comparison for the Aztecs. The Aztecs may be gone, but far as I know the Seminoles are still technically at war with the US.

posted by yerfatma at 02:54 PM on August 12, 2005

If the NCAA believes that Native American mascots perpetrate negative stereotypes, why should it defer to the opinion of some Native Americans who feel otherwise? The NCAA should not get to decide that a mascot is offensive without any basis for that decision, except that a vocal minority is against it. The link you provided even says that FSU has gained the support of both Oklahoma and Florida Seminole governmental leaders. If there is absolutely no consensus among Native Americans that these mascots are offensive, then the NCAA needs to provide the information on which it made the decision. FSU, the state of Florida, and the Seminole Tribe like the tradition and believes it honors the Seminoles. What information does the NCAA have that led them to this decision? If it is offensive, why is it only offensive in the post-season? Why are schools that have large Native American populations exempt? Why is Notre Dame exempt? If they had provided the basis for their decision, maybe people would have been able to understand the logic of it. Now it just seems arbitrary and inconsistent.

posted by bperk at 03:17 PM on August 12, 2005

That's what I meant. If the group that the team references is without offence, then the name could still stand. Hence the association with Aztecs - they aren't offended either. They're dead.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:19 PM on August 12, 2005

The NCAA is saying "we know what is offensive to Native Americans even if Native Americans do not." Anybody find this statement offensive by saying the Native Americans are not smart enough to know what is offensive ?

posted by evil empire at 03:19 PM on August 12, 2005

Yes, I find the NCAA offensive. That is what you mean, right?

posted by graymatters at 03:24 PM on August 12, 2005

I don't know it still pisses me off when I hear the term 'PADDY WAGON". Fighti'n Irish does'nt bother me though.

posted by volfire at 03:37 PM on August 12, 2005

I have come to see the error of my ways. When I was a little boy growing up in Texas, I used to play cowboys and indians. Even if I played an indian, it was clear to me and my young playmates that the cowboys were the good guys. I can no longer put up with the stereotypical depiction of cowboys as good guys because my indoctrination by the media has shown me how offensive this is. Cowboys are offensive because of what they did those many years ago to the indians. Thus, we must petition to change not only the nicknames of teams using indian names, but also cowboys. Let's start with that Dallas team; move north to Oklahoma State; then spread this throughout the nation through the auspices of the NCAA (or congress since I am sure they will want to get their share of publicity as well).

posted by graymatters at 03:37 PM on August 12, 2005

Didn't ever play gunfight at the OK corral did ya? Sometimes there are bad cowboys too.

posted by volfire at 03:52 PM on August 12, 2005

As a Native American of the Cherokee Nation I can tell you that Native Americans have fought for many years to change names and images that are offensive to us. The terms braves, redskins, squaws to name just a few are as offensive to us as n*gger is to blacks, ch*nk to asians, or sp*c is to Hispanics. You would not think to use Aunt Jemima for a mascot, so why do you think a white kid on a horse with a feathered headress, covered in paint and waving a spear is OK? Do we need to riot in your streets before we too are finally accorded the same civil rights as all other minorities? I am an alumni of the University of Illinois, and I boycotted every game that the mascot "Chief Illiniwek" was present at. The "Chief" was and is a white boy in a feathered headress, loincloth, warpaint, and hatchet who jumps up and down and hoops and hollers. University officials contend to this day that this mascot and his behavior is meant to honor the now extinct Illinois Nation. They also "honor" the Illinois nation on t-shirts and coffee mugs. As long as intelligent people with advanced degrees can still delude themselves that this offensive activity honors Native Americans, then I can see why the NCAA has no choice but to impose bans. The NFL and MLB don't tolerate any racism at all except when it comes to the Redskins, the Indians, and the Braves. Native Americans just do not have the economical clout to make a difference- yet.

posted by irunfromclones at 03:59 PM on August 12, 2005

This entire situation is going to get out of hand This whole thing is getting absurd thatís what happens when some people try to foist their politically correct ideas on others Here is even more silliness I said this before, but clearly it needs to be said again. The NCAA is not some kind of cutting-edge progressive political organization. It is, in fact, quite conservative and rather averse to change; it fought Title IX tooth and nail. So those of you who are clearly trying to portray the NCAA as the ACLU* with whistles and uniforms are not only barking up the wrong tree, you're not even in the right forest. *Or, rather, what you imagine the ACLU to be; you're almost certainly wrong about that one too.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:31 PM on August 12, 2005

The plan is to take all the money from the casinos and buy the Clevland Indians, Atlanta Braves, and Washington Redskins and change thier names to the Clevland Steamers, the Atlanta Bottlers and the Washington Lobbyists.

posted by mick at 04:32 PM on August 12, 2005

I would totally get me a Cleveland Steamers jersey.

posted by chicobangs at 04:34 PM on August 12, 2005

Well put irunfromclones, hopefully your comments will help some others on this forum see things from a different perspective.

posted by curlyelk at 04:35 PM on August 12, 2005

So when you boycotted every game was this because of the symbol of the Chief or what? Cherokee are native to the Oklahoma area. What do you have to object with a tribe from Illinois? AND IF you were that offended I would think you would have gone to a college that does'nt make it's reputations on the backs of an Indian name? What's the story there? Ad if we erase all mention of tribal names, how do you expect to stay relevant as a people(in general), let alone wield enough economic clout to make yourselves relevant? If you lose this publicity, it just alows all the tribes to fade away IMO.

posted by volfire at 04:40 PM on August 12, 2005

volfire, If you lose that publicity, then it gives these tribes and people the opportunity to recast themselves as something other than the stereotypes we've given them. They don't have to fit into the pigeon holes of the bloodthirsty savage or the drunken gambling addict or the spaced-out mystic in the woods/mountains/desert. They can become, y'know, human beings. That'd be really cool. Instead, the first image many people think of about natives involves war paint and attacking people with spears and hatchets. A century ago, these very same traits were attributed to blacks in this country. (Look it up.) It's time we lost them for natives too. Someone has to not pass the buck on this. Good on the NCAA for putting their foot down, at least in their own jurisdiction.

posted by chicobangs at 04:49 PM on August 12, 2005

Alright the only person who can possibly sway me on this is irunfromclones, so congrats.

posted by tina at 04:54 PM on August 12, 2005

By the way, let's get rid of the Oklahoma Sooner nickname. To claim a lot of land, prospective settlers had to participate in a land run. They lined up and waited for the blast of a shotgun to signal the beginning of the run, at which point they would race eagerly to claim a homestead. A "Sooner" was someone who snuck past the territory markers ahead of the gunshot to get an early start. So Sooner really means Cheater. What kind of message does this send to our children? PS I still stand my comment in an earlier post. Let's just scrap all the nicknames and sell them to the highest corporate bidder.

posted by graymatters at 04:54 PM on August 12, 2005

If you lose that publicity, then it gives these tribes and people the opportunity to recast themselves as something other than the stereotypes we've given them. You mean, like operators of gambling dens?

posted by graymatters at 04:58 PM on August 12, 2005

ifunfromclones, did you honestly go to the University of Illinois? Because Chief Illiniwek doesn't have an axe, nor does he "hoop and holler" as you suggest. I know this has a 1994 alum that went to sporting events at the University. I don't mean to downplay your opinions and your viewpoint, but I also don't think it's fair to portray your perception (did you see him perform, since you boycotted the events?) as reality. I also hate when people call the Chief a mascot, like he's dressed up in a big furry costume and doing cartwheels after each touchdown. He's only on the field during halftime to perform the 3-in-1 with the Marching Illini. I consider him a symbol of the University and a reminder of the origins of Illinois and the midwest. Unfortunately, it is a white guy dressed up in traditional garb (donated by Native Americans to the University) because there are no Illiniwek left. Sometimes a symbol is just that - a symbol - not something that should be deconstructed into "white boy with costume". I have a tremendous amount of pride being a U of I alum, and a lot of it has to do with the tradition and history of the school and Chief Illiniwek plays a great deal into that. I don't know if I would feel the same way if it was the University of Illinois Fuzzy Bunny Slippers. It made me want to learn more about Illinois and its Native origins. Maybe that's just me, but I look at Illiniwek with pride and reverance.

posted by vodkinator at 05:00 PM on August 12, 2005

Cherokee are native to the Oklahoma area. Well, since the Trail of Tears, anyway. Interesting definition of "native"...

posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:00 PM on August 12, 2005

You mean, like operators of gambling dens? I love the way this keeps coming up. How is this so much more outrageous than buying Manhattan for beads and blankets? Now that the shoe's (to a very slight degree) on the other foot, just hear the outrage!

posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:02 PM on August 12, 2005

Chico I hear where you're coming from. I was not trying to rip on anybody. But I do believe there are statistical facts that will back up the fact that NA will not or generally do not leave there reservations. The School shooting last year was commited on a reservation. And I most certainly did not catagorize anyone into a stereo type. I guess I was trying to state how ironic it is that a NA would attend a college known for Indian heritage, and complainn(BAD WORD) about it. And what other"publicity" does the nation get as a whole? I honestly have to apologize to irunfromclones as there was no disrespect meant whatsoever.

posted by volfire at 05:07 PM on August 12, 2005

Cudos vodkinator> I knew someone could find it!And lbb if you bought Manhatten for beads and blankets, how come your not on TV with the "YOURE FIRED" line?.

posted by volfire at 05:17 PM on August 12, 2005

How is this so much more outrageous than buying Manhattan for beads and blankets? As I recall the research, there were no beads; the actual purchase was in something called guilders(?). And the $24 purchase price would now probably be half a billion dollars. I think it was calculated at $200 million in the early part of this century. Also, as I recall, the Dutch bought it from a tribe that did not even live there, but were just passing through. So, it was really the Dutch that got shafted, not the Indians. Other than the fact, that the Dutch took the land anyway. But then, I might recall wrong.

posted by graymatters at 05:34 PM on August 12, 2005

Ad if we erase all mention of tribal names, how do you expect to stay relevant as a people(in general) Uhm, when did we go from talking about stopping using Native American names as team mascots to erasing them from history books? Also, you're treading pretty close to lunk-headed here in my opinion. If you want to complain about the NCAA's actions, fine, but the whole casino angle your chasing is not germane. Nor is it cute.

posted by yerfatma at 05:35 PM on August 12, 2005

So Sooner really means Cheater. What kind of message does this send to our children? The OU Sooner is more than just a college mascot, it's a deeply ingrained part of Oklahoma in general. The official state nickname is the Sooner state. In elementary school (early 80's) we had a mock landrun to celebrate something or other. We were all told to bring blankets and run out on to the playground to 'claim our land', where we ate, I dunno, fruit rollups or something. Pretty nauseating in hindsight, although I'm sure I enjoyed it at the time. Trust me, I'd really rather that my former home state drop the whole idea of celebrating anything "Sooner" related, but that would have to start a level much higher than a football team. PS I still stand my comment in an earlier post. Let's just scrap all the nicknames and sell them to the highest corporate bidder. It'll probably happen, eventually. After all, Fox turned into a hardcore porn channel so gradually I hardly even noticed.

posted by Ufez Jones at 05:42 PM on August 12, 2005

The OU Sooner is more than just a college mascot, it's a deeply ingrained part of Oklahoma in general. U do know I was kidding, right?

posted by graymatters at 05:53 PM on August 12, 2005

Oh , I thought when settlers headed west to California they said " we'll get there Sooner or later ", then by the time they got to Oklahoma they said "screw it , Sooner ." joke

posted by evil empire at 06:01 PM on August 12, 2005

First off I was not chasing a casino angle. Secondly I was not trying to be cute. H ow does a culture remain relevant when it is out of the limelight? That was the point I was trying to make. If there isn't this to argue, (not that this is good) How do the Native Americans bring their issues to the table? And be recognized with any credibility( again no offense intended). Are they to be bannished to their lands, as before, and thus forgotton? As bad as this sound will we still remember the ILLini? Chepewas? Ute? What they stood for? I don't think so.

posted by volfire at 06:09 PM on August 12, 2005

How does a culture remain relevant when it is out of the limelight? See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Diversity through assimilation. We are Borg.

posted by graymatters at 06:17 PM on August 12, 2005

YERFATMA, ever looked up just how many tribes of The American Indian there are? If we lose the team names and every thing that goes along with it, how will the fat guy in the chair learn about Native Americans? I don't mean this in any disrespect by any means. Names like Sedmen , savages. OK I get that. Are our guy's in Iraq, warriors? What's is the deffinition of a warrior? A Brave was supossed to be the best out of the warriors. I really don't see what harm it can do to an educated people. Are we not supposed to play Axis and Allies anymore? Germans were the bad guy's right? Or am I now going to be charged with a hate crime?

posted by volfire at 06:27 PM on August 12, 2005

Redmen not sedmen DAMNIT!

posted by volfire at 06:28 PM on August 12, 2005

Not all Germans....................

posted by tina at 06:58 PM on August 12, 2005

U do know I was kidding, right? Obviously not, heh, but I still wish OK would end the glorification of the Sooner. There's a lot of other things I'd change about that state first, though. Lotta shit I'd change about TX too, though. vote kinky!

posted by Ufez Jones at 07:08 PM on August 12, 2005

God I love relativism. If you all keep it up with the moving targets, I'm going to fight fire with fire. Or do you not we should exterminate the salmon before they spawn in our very homes?

posted by yerfatma at 07:09 PM on August 12, 2005

H ow does a culture remain relevant when it is out of the limelight? For heaven's sake, volfire, a little perspective please. Human cultures existed for thousands of years before the advent of the sports team mascot, and managed to remain "relevant" despite the lack of inebriated frat boys getting themselves up in caricature and acting out poorly understood stereotypes of said cultures. Just what on earth do you think the fat guy in the chair learns about Native Americans from watching that silly shit? Are our guy's in Iraq, warriors? What's is the deffinition of a warrior? I don't particularly care myself, but you can find one perspective on it in, much more educated than mine, in S. M. Stirling's very well-written military SF Raj Whitehall series. The title character, an extremely successful general, owes his many lopsided defeats to the fact that his army is made up of soldiers, not warriors. The remainder is left as an exercise for the student. Do get the books if you're interested in military SF; they're a great read.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:16 PM on August 12, 2005

The Chief Illiniwek that I knew in the early to mid 70's was exactly as I described him. I went to Illinois because that is where I got a scholarship. I have a tremendous amount of pride being a U of I alum, and a lot of it has to do with the tradition and history of the school and Chief Illiniwek plays a great deal into that. Funny, but your comment is almost verbatim of the response from the university's board when asked to discontinue the Chief as a mascot. Never mind what the Native Americans thought, it was the memory of your tradition that you clung to. It's a tradition of a white stereotypic perception of indians. It is only whites who think they "honor" Native Americans in this fashion. There are many Native Americans who live off of the reservations, and many who stay. The darker the skin, the more likely you are to remain on the reservation. We still have to deal with a cowboy mentality many of you will never know. The lighter skinned Cherokees are in every state, but their roots were in the Carolinas before being forcibly removed to Georgia, then Oklahoma. The Trail of Tears makes the Bataan Death March look like a walk in the park, and that my fellow citizens, was an act passed by congress. The irony here is that most historians will agree that the first white men in this country would never have survived without the aid provided to them by the aborigines. Native Americans are now for all practical purposes wards of the US government, a situation without parallel anywhere else on the globe. When will you allow us the same dignities afforded to every other human being?

posted by irunfromclones at 07:29 PM on August 12, 2005

Does anyone see the irony of this NCAA nonsense coming out of a meeting held in INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA?

posted by kodisadog at 08:28 PM on August 12, 2005

Ok no irunfromclones, this is not to be insulting. But why don't the native americans just move off the reservations and try to make it on their own instead of being wards of the government? Plus growing up near a resevation all my life, we treated native americans like "human beings", but whenever I tried to be nice to them, they acted like they didn't have the time in the day for me. I am not saying every native american is like this, I do have alot of native american friends I grew up with outside the reservation. I do mean this as a question, not a bitchy remark, honestly.

posted by tina at 08:40 PM on August 12, 2005

Yes the irony is noted kodisdog......................

posted by tina at 08:40 PM on August 12, 2005

Well gee, as a white kid from Rhode Island, I'm going to make a wild guess here and say those folks don't move off the reservation because: A.) Their families and support and people who can relate to them live there. B.) Why would things get better if you just move out with no prospects, no job, no contacts? I'll give you that kind of world can be insular and self-perpetuating, but it's not some grand conspiracy by Native Americans to suck up your tax wampum.

posted by yerfatma at 09:38 PM on August 12, 2005

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA? Good catch, kodi. Maybe we should change the name of that city and state too?

posted by tommysands at 09:43 PM on August 12, 2005

I never implied that they are trying to suck up taxes, but as for no contacts or jobs, someone has to leave in order to make contacts and get a job. Seriously people do it everyday. Coming from a white kid in Minnesota to a white kid in Rhode Island, we both know all about that.

posted by tina at 09:43 PM on August 12, 2005

"People do it everyday"? Guess what -- most of them don't. Most white kids who grow up in going-nowhere towns don't go anywhere either. You may be your generation's Horatio Alger, but don't assume that everyone of your complexion is the same.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:06 PM on August 12, 2005

Yeah well I was one of those kids who grew up in a crappy little town of 630 people and scratched tooth and nail to succeed. A place where no one went anywhere, so I know what the hell I am talking about. Those who look at accomplishments and say they will never succeed dont because they dont try. Just try it before you go crying about it.

posted by tina at 10:17 PM on August 12, 2005

I am done with the discussion and with people whining about stupid shit. It doesn't matter your age, your race, whatever it may be. If you want it, GO FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh yeah, how many discussions are we going to have about this mascot subject? Its like an everyday thing, and we all say the same shit.

posted by tina at 10:20 PM on August 12, 2005

Oh and yes countless people move out on their own each day lbb. Its a fact of life.

posted by tina at 10:29 PM on August 12, 2005

Yeah well I was one of those kids who grew up in a crappy little town of 630 people and scratched tooth and nail to succeed. A place where no one went anywhere, so I know what the hell I am talking about. You're always telling us that you know what the hell you're talking about, as if no one else who doesn't share your experiences or attitudes could possibly know what they're talking about. Well, guess what? I was one of those kids who grew up in a crappy town too, and I feel no need to pat myself on the back over whatever I've accomplished. I'm humble enough to recognize that I didn't do it all on my own -- nobody does -- and observant enough to realize that when people don't get out of that crappy little town, it's not just because they're too scared or lazy or stupid to GO FOR IT!!!!!!!! I am done with the discussion and with people whining about stupid shit. Clearly, you ought to be done at this point. People have explained the issues involved with Native American mascots to you several times, they've answered your objections, and without responding to any of those arguments, you still persist in seeing it as "whining about stupid shit". You ought to be done, and yet you keep coming back, no matter how many times you've told us you're "done with the discussion". If it churns your guts so much, perhaps you should just do as you say you're going to do and ignore it.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:31 PM on August 12, 2005

OK, folks, no more kool aid tonight.

posted by tommysands at 10:47 PM on August 12, 2005

You know, I am so glad I went outside instead of staying home and getting angry reading this stuff. Miz Bat, I owe you a drink when next we meet.

posted by chicobangs at 11:46 PM on August 12, 2005

tina, here's the problem you're having with some of us: you're a bit younger. In all honesty, I no longer have any patience for kids in college or kids just out of college. It's not your fault, but it's not really my fault either. People that age tend to think they have all the answers. Worse yet, they think they've discovered Hard Truths every single person that lived before them has missed. It's not true. You just don't have all the pieces of evidence to start assembling The Questions yet, much less providing the world with Answers. Put simply, you are not a unique snowflake. It's an important lesson. If you think you can tell people on reservations the way to success sin this world, you're off the rez yourself.

posted by yerfatma at 09:43 AM on August 13, 2005

fatma, I generally agree with you but we (I) don't know for sure that tina is "a bit younger". And, even so, I'd vote for continuing to allow the "young" their passion and enthusiasm. Hell, even though I'm long past that stage, I still love to watch it in action.

posted by tommysands at 12:08 PM on August 13, 2005

Yeah, I am definitely jealous of the passion (makes me think of Terrence Mann in Field of Dreams: "I admire your passion, Ray."), but it would be better focused as a laser by listening to others rather than scattering until it difuses.

posted by yerfatma at 12:29 PM on August 13, 2005

Does anyone see the irony of this NCAA nonsense coming out of a meeting held in INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA? I am afraid you are missing the point here.

posted by curlyelk at 12:35 PM on August 13, 2005

but it would be better focused as a laser by listening to others How condescending! I suppose they have to listen to the right people also?

posted by graymatters at 06:33 PM on August 13, 2005

Did someone hear something? No?

posted by yerfatma at 09:28 PM on August 14, 2005

Holy shit - we've gone through this a hundred times now, actually been visited by a member of the offended party (irunfromclones) and you two (graymatters and volfire) still insist on arguing from every possible, inconsistent angle on why we should continue to offend by keeping stupid names for fucking SPORTS TEAMS. These aren't your capitals or states. Ya know - I had a huge four paragraph rip at you guys in this space, but I did a yerfatma - walked outside, took a couple fo deep breaths, came back in and erased it. I feel much better. Browny - your shouting at the ether - neither of these guys are actually listening, cause they sure as shit aren't responding to your points.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:17 AM on August 15, 2005

Browny - your shouting at the ether - neither of these guys are actually listening, cause they sure as shit aren't responding to your points. I dunno. My post was to tina, and it sort of seems like she's decided to take her own advice and give it a rest, given that she just don't get it. Who knows, maybe graymatters and volfire will follow suit.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:26 AM on August 15, 2005

I'm just happy my name has become associated with patience and thoughtfulness. Not sure how though.

posted by yerfatma at 11:14 AM on August 15, 2005

There is a striking similarity between people who have spent nearly their entire lives in prison, and Native Americans who have spent their entire lives on the reservation. They are both institutionalized to a point beyond dependency, making life on the outside very difficult. Thanks to all who have responded in this forum for allowing me to share. I only speak for myself and not the nations, but your responses have in the majority been helpful.

posted by irunfromclones at 12:09 PM on August 15, 2005

Well, irunfromclones, I can't say you've changed the way I FEEL about Chief Illiniwek. I'm still proud that he is a symbol of the University, and I can honestly say it's not because of some white guilt or that it's "cool" or whatever, but because I do honor and respect those who made this country their home far before my ancestors left Poland and Czech for the U.S. And not because the university told me that this is their reason behind the Chief. How do you believe people are perceiving these Native American symbols and what is incorrect about these perceptions? Is it not up to us to honor Native Americans? Does it matter if I'm black, white or whatever? Can only Native Americans appreciate their history and do it due justice? I kinda get the feeling that nothing a non-Native could do would ever be good enough. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm just trying to see what it's like from the other perspective. And you know what, if you say "there ain't SHIT a white man or woman can do that dignifies or respects us," I can completely understand that. It would make perfect sense to me.

posted by vodkinator at 05:08 PM on August 15, 2005

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.