11/21/24
January 31, 2006
U. of Ill. Appeals to Keep Indian Mascot : "This appeal is about the institutional autonomy of NCAA member schools," the university told the executive committee. "It is about flawed rules and process."
posted by irunfromclones to football at 11:46 AM - 60 comments
The flawed process is one where rich, white alumni fight to keep a racist caricature of a Native American nation exterminated by whites as a mascot, with the specious arguement that said mascot actually honors the now extinct Native American nation. How does a white boy with a painted face, loincloth, and chief's headdress, who yells and jumps up and down in imitation of a tribal dance "honor" the dead nation?
posted by irunfromclones at 12:01 PM on January 31, 2006
I know this subject has been beat to death here so I'm going to keep my mouth shut starting.......now.
posted by redsnare at 12:14 PM on January 31, 2006
The Illilni were not exterminated by the white man, they had been wiped out by other native Americans long before the white man showed up. But that misses the point. We stole their country, killed their men, raped their women and now somebody is complaining about The Chief? Get a life. Unless you want to get on the boat and go back to Europe and give the USA back to the natives,these complaints ring hollow.
posted by thechief at 12:27 PM on January 31, 2006
Until the NFL franchise in our nations capitol changes its nickname, there is absolutely no reason to bitch about this issue. "Redskins" is far more offensive in my opinion.
posted by wdminott at 12:46 PM on January 31, 2006
Until the NFL franchise in our nations capitol changes its nickname, there is absolutely no reason to bitch about this issue. That's a bit odd. Just because there is a far more offensive name out there, we should let the less offensive names off the hook? That's like saying "Since some white people still call black people 'n*****', we shouldn't worry about other white people calling those of east Asian decent 'gooks'."
posted by grum@work at 12:50 PM on January 31, 2006
I live in the South West and have many Native American tribes located near my city. For the most part the tribes support the local colleges that have mascots that reference the native americans and are proud to be associated with these institutions. There are a few radicals, on each tribe, that will use any excuse to "stir the pot" The reservation high school's mascots are in many cases in reference to their tribe or native americans in general. They are also being caught up in this mess and being told that they too must comply with the rules banning references to native americans. Just another case of the few dictating to the masses.
posted by JW123 at 01:03 PM on January 31, 2006
Florida State won its appeal with the NCAA for using Seminoles because they have a licensing agreement with the tribe. Its not the Uof I's fault that there are no Illini left to work out a licensing deal with.
posted by thechief at 01:05 PM on January 31, 2006
Hey I have an idea lets rename the state of Illinois in case some one is offended by a bunch of white folk naming the state after a dead tribe.
posted by thechief at 01:06 PM on January 31, 2006
...rich, white alumni fight to keep a racist caricature of a Native American nation... Way to stereotype. Non-rich and non-white alumni are fighting to keep the name too. We stole their country, killed their men, raped their women ... Whoa! What's this "we" shit? I didn't do any of those things. I fail to see what's offensive about the Illini name or the Chief symbol. I also fail to see who is offended, since it appears the Illini people are no more. What's more, I fail to see what business it is of the NCAA to meddle in the affairs of their member schools.
posted by rocket88 at 01:16 PM on January 31, 2006
What's more, I fail to see what business it is of the NCAA to meddle in the affairs of their member schools. You are probably correct with that statement. I'm not sure what ruling the NCAA has over the school itself. However, the NCAA could simply say "Fine. Don't want to change? Then you don't get to play any NCAA teams. Have fun filling your stadiums and getting TV exposure for your intramural sports. Ciao!" For the most part the tribes support the local colleges that have mascots that reference the native americans and are proud to be associated with these institutions. There are a few radicals, on each tribe, that will use any excuse to "stir the pot" The other way to look at it is: "For the most part, the tribes support the local colleges that have mascots that reference the native americans and are willing to dishonour their heritage for some money. There are a few honourable men, on each tribe, that will stand up and try and preserve that heritage and don't wish to see it sullied by a bunch of pimply-faced jocks."
posted by grum@work at 01:39 PM on January 31, 2006
I have not heard any of the PC complainers offer to give their homes back to the native americans and bug out to Europe. Unless you are native american or descendent of slaves, your family came here voluntarily and you are living on land stolen form the natives.
posted by thechief at 01:50 PM on January 31, 2006
I have not heard any of the PC complainers offer to give their homes back to the native americans and bug out to Europe. Unless you are native american or descendent of slaves, your family came here voluntarily and you are living on land stolen form the natives. That's an issue for natives to take up with the government. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Reparations does not equal offensive mascots. Like I said before, just because a bigger issue has still to be resolved does not mean smaller issues can't be resolved in the mean time.
posted by grum@work at 02:06 PM on January 31, 2006
How do you make reparations for stealing an entire country? Of course the Chief is offensive to some (heck, Illini football is offensive to many) but some one is offended by everything. Through out the centuries one of the perks of conquering another people (and this includes the French taking Canada) is that the winner gets the spoils, including the right to name states and/or provinces, towns, rivers, and college sports teams after the vanquished.
posted by thechief at 02:33 PM on January 31, 2006
Not everyone came here voluntarily. And a helluva lot of people who live here now moved a long time after said incidents occured. I know I'd be pissed if some university had a mascot called "The Emperor" or "Rice Picker." So I see the point of the American Indian groups. I think that the NCAA should be able to regulate this however they want. It's not like Illinois didn't get to play in the tourney last year. Their mascot just wasn't allowed to be present. Compromise? Any university that doesn't agree with the Mascot should just not schedule games with the offending university. Maybe a couple years of that would change pro-Chief Illiniwek minds.
posted by TarheelGirl at 02:40 PM on January 31, 2006
The Illilni were not exterminated by the white man, they had been wiped out by other native Americans long before the white man showed up. The new United States made relentless war against the tribes of the upper Ohio Valley. A steady stream of settlers had crossed the Appalachians to settle in Kentucky and along the Ohio River. Never mind that these lands had been granted "in perpetuity" to the First Nations-- the Shawnee, Miami, Piankeshaw, Wea, and Illiniwek. In spite of the clear aboriginal title (confirmed with due solemnity by the Northwest ordinance) of the First Nations to these lands, the fledgling U.S. government for some reason felt duty-bound to protect the newly arrived settlers from the people whose lands had been wrongly taken. A series of military campaigns followed. In 1832, the Peoria and Kaskaskia tribes met with United States officials in St. Louis. Also present were representatives of a united band made up of the remnants of the Cahokia, Michigamea, and Tamaroa. In exchange for lands in southeastern Kansas, near the Shawnee Reserve, the Illinois people gave up all of their lands in Illinois and Missouri. The Illiniwek were now removed from their ancient homeland and on their way to "Indian Country." The once mighty Illini would now be "Strangers in a strange land."
posted by irunfromclones at 03:26 PM on January 31, 2006
I know this subject has been beat to death here so I'm going to keep my mouth shut starting.......now. I'd have to agree with that also since I really don't have anything new to say, just what I said before...all found in the threads linked by Redsnare as far as I can tell.
posted by chris2sy at 03:35 PM on January 31, 2006
Through out the centuries one of the perks of conquering another people (and this includes the French taking Canada) is that the winner gets the spoils, including the right to name states and/or provinces, towns, rivers, and college sports teams after the vanquished. Much the same attitude and beliefs in vogue with the Nazi's when they opened the camps and started the extermination process. How many of you would not object to the New York Kikes, or Atlanta Niggers? Why are those terms not tolerated but redskins, braves, and other perjoratives for native americans are?
posted by irunfromclones at 03:37 PM on January 31, 2006
As I said originally, this is sooo far overboard. I guess this is why the Minnesota Vikings obliterated the Nordic profile at the 50 and replaced it with a slanted V. Maybe USC and Michigan State better rethink thier names too, seeing as we wouldn't want to offend the modern-day Greeks or Turks. Hey, what's a "Tar-Heel" anyway? Sounds like it could possibly be a slam on the Blackfoot Indians. ENOUGH ALREADY!!
posted by weeklyguy at 03:37 PM on January 31, 2006
someone is always going to be affended no matter what you do.I bet you there is money in it for some lawyer somewhere and you can bet your ass that they ain't in it for the good of good old family values.Which buy the way Americans seemed to have lost some time ago.
posted by bdc65l13 at 03:41 PM on January 31, 2006
Well, I do think it goes too far when someone objects to a name like: "Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys" but that is a whole other matter. someone is always going to be affended no matter what you do.I bet you there is money in it for some lawyer somewhere and you can bet your ass that they ain't in it for the good of good old family values.Which buy the way Americans seemed to have lost some time ago. Looks like you have it all figured out. I knew lawyers caused it by perverting family values.
posted by chris2sy at 03:47 PM on January 31, 2006
This debate is sooo far overboard, I wish it would just go away! Sadly for you, things that you don't like and can't really comprehend are never going to just "go away". Hey, what's a "Tar-Heel" anyway?" Google is your friend.
posted by grum@work at 03:48 PM on January 31, 2006
I would like to suggest to the U of Illinois that they change their mascot to the "Fighting Slovaks." My grandparents came to this country at the turn of the 20th Century and many of their peers were coal miners. So, the mascot can be a big Slovak miner with a carbide lamp on his head, running around the field or court -- I, along with other Slovaks, give the U of Illinois permission to do so. Leave the Native Americans alone so they can effectively run their casinos.
posted by math66 at 04:16 PM on January 31, 2006
Hey Grum, I guess you don't recognize sarcasm when you read it, but there are just so many more important, life-altering issues out there that could be resolved if humanity just spent HALF of the time and energy that is spent on this argument. Anyway, PETA is filing a lawsuit to eliminate any and all animals' names from being used as team names/mascots. That just goes to show you the lengths that zealots will go to impose their version of righteousness upon us all.
posted by weeklyguy at 04:24 PM on January 31, 2006
This whole mascot thing is stupid and past the point. I live near Cleveland and everyone with the last name BROWN is pissed off! Also, all elves are picketing outside the Berea facility protesting the old browns mascot. If you are of Indian decent, an animal, an insect, a midget or other..GET OVER IT! I'm Italian and I could give a shit less if a team wanted to be called the Pizza's or the Dagos or Wops. My wifes family is Irish and they arent pissed off at the Celtics or Notre Dame. There are too many things in this world more important than this crap.
posted by LiveWithIt at 04:33 PM on January 31, 2006
Well stated, yes indeed!
posted by weeklyguy at 04:37 PM on January 31, 2006
If you are of Indian decent, an animal, an insect, a midget or other..GET OVER IT Yes, that's right. I will be the one to decide if you are going to be offended by any racial epithets. My dominant culture will make the rules about racism and vilification. We have been doing it for hundreds of years and you wouldn't be where you are if it wasn't for us. Now go back to the rez where I don't have to think about you. /sarcasm
posted by owlhouse at 05:19 PM on January 31, 2006
I guess this kicked over a "cracker" barrel.
posted by irunfromclones at 05:25 PM on January 31, 2006
As many of you probably are aware, since 2002, a Colorado college has called its intramural basketball team the "Fightin' Whites," a protest against a local high school that used the name "Fightin' Reds." The protest featured kitschy t-shirts with a 50’s era clip art white man. Initially it was thought this would inspire introspection by offended Caucasians, but mostly the move had the opposite effect: Many of those who e-mailed asking about the Fighting Whites T-shirts are whites who think it is about time they had a team named after them, team member Jeff VanIwarden said. "It's obvious some of the people are taking it the way it's not supposed to be taken," VanIwarden said. "They think it's cool and we're honoring the white man." (snip) VanIwarden said the team will try to dissuade people from making light of the shirt by adding a message on the back condemning racial stereotypes. The argument is made that the selection of Indian mascots is racist and demeaning. Every time this subject arises, there are people who inevitably ask, "What if there was a team named the Coloreds, or the Jews, or something?" I think it's notable that there are no such nicknames/mascots now referring to black people (like yours truly) or Jews (with the exception of Yeshiva University’s Maccabees), but there are multitudes that are/were named after Native North American tribes as well as the remainders of the Grecian Empire (Trojans, Spartans), Scandinavians (Vikings, Flying Dutchmen), Germanic tribes (Vandals), and British Isle folk (Celtics, Celts, Scots, and, of course, the Fighting Irish). Now, THINK, people: what do all of those nicknames have in common? They appear to be have been chosen not to demean the namesakes, but to honor those peoples’ warriors and to inspire their fighting spirit in the athletes that wear the school's name. I submit that if blacks and Jewish people were admired throughout our nation’s history rather than feared and/or demeaned, there would be sports teams named after them. Here's a list of the nicknames and mascots of American colleges and universities. Mark my words: if the Indian nicknames go away, the eventual next target will be the 27 schools that cheer for the "Crusaders."
posted by L.N. Smithee at 05:31 PM on January 31, 2006
grum@work: Google is your friend. Google is your friend as long as you aren't Chinese.
posted by L.N. Smithee at 05:36 PM on January 31, 2006
Again, this whole honor those peoples’ warriors excuse is always used by everyone except the people supposedly being honored. Notable exceptions are tribes that have close contacts with or many children in a school, and that school has a level of approval from that tribe. Any Native American will tell you that the term redskin, brave, or an insignia like the Cleveland Indians is as derogatory to us as nigger or little black sambo is to blacks. Why one is OK while the other is not remains an amazing mystery. Perhaps you don't take us seriously because we do not riot and burn neighborhoods down, or have an anti-defamation league backed by the media.
posted by irunfromclones at 06:20 PM on January 31, 2006
Now, THINK, people: what do all of those nicknames have in common? They appear to be have been chosen not to demean the namesakes, but to honor those peoples’ warriors and to inspire their fighting spirit in the athletes that wear the school's name. Thank you great father, it all makes sense now. It really is the greatest of honors to for Indians to be a mascot for the Illini, incorrectly based on Sioux Indians, played by a white kid. How very stupid of me.
posted by chris2sy at 06:25 PM on January 31, 2006
chris2sy: Thank you great father, it all makes sense now. It really is the greatest of honors to for Indians to be a mascot for the Illini, incorrectly based on Sioux Indians, played by a white kid. How very stupid of me. I said, "THINK," not "spit out yet another sarcastic knee-jerk response."
posted by L.N. Smithee at 07:01 PM on January 31, 2006
On January 27th, in the Devil Rays thread, you just said: "I can almost hear some of you scoff at that, so let me ask you: is there a team name that you wouldn't just swallow and regurgitate? Would you stand up and cheer for the Chicago Cannibals? Would you wear the Starter jacket of the Green Bay Gestapo? Would you put a Seattle Serial Rapists bumper sticker on your car? Or buy a replica jersey of the Tennessee Terrorists? Would you be OK with your son tacking up a Pittsburgh Pederasts pennant in his room? Or hear him singing the fight song of the Nashville Nazis? Would you bring the family to the watch the Indianapolis Incest? Hopefully, you said "Of course not!" to at least one of the above. If you did, now you understand how I feel, because I believe demons and the Devil are worse than all of the above." And I'm the one not thinking?
posted by chris2sy at 07:19 PM on January 31, 2006
irunfromclones: Again, this whole honor those peoples’ warriors excuse is always used by everyone except the people supposedly being honored. Which brings me back to the quote from one of the guys behind U. Northern Colorado's "Fightin' Whites": "It's obvious some of the people are taking [the "Fightin' Whites" mascot] the way it's not supposed to be taken," VanIwarden said. "They think it's cool and we're honoring the white man." If VanIwarden wasn't so blinded by his zeal, he would realize he had just stumbled upon the reason people are so unyielding on this issue: They don't have the intention or belief that they are being discriminatory or bigoted, they think that it is an honor. As for your statement that "Any Native American will tell you that the term redskin, brave, or an insignia like the Cleveland Indians is as derogatory to us as nigger or little black sambo is to blacks," I personally know an Indian that doesn't care a whit. I suppose his opinion doesn't count because he's not a "real" Indian according to some people in the same way that in the eyes of jerks like Harry Belafonte, Colin Powell is not a "real" black man.
posted by L.N. Smithee at 07:20 PM on January 31, 2006
Hey math66 that's uncalled for
posted by autzenrocker123 at 07:25 PM on January 31, 2006
chris2sy: And I'm the one not thinking? That's right, Chris. Because if you were, you would have figured out that when discussing teams named "Devils" and "Demons," I was talking about how I could not bring myself to wear apparel which honors the intrinsically evil. Never did I suggest that the Tampa Bay ownership be pressured to change the name from "Devil Rays." I notice both you and irunfromclones left unaddressed my opinion on the reason there why there are countless Indian-themed mascots, but not black or Jewish.
posted by L.N. Smithee at 07:37 PM on January 31, 2006
Hey Smithee, thanks for the list of schools. I can't wait for the International Society of Trolls to come out and file a lawsuit against Trinity Christian! Maybe the Vatican will rail against the use of the names Angels, Cardinals, Friars, Deacons, Preachers, Prophets and Saints. Damn, I can't even call anyone a Wahoo anymore. Oh well, Bush is on. Gotta go listen to what this Devil-Demon is up to.
posted by weeklyguy at 08:18 PM on January 31, 2006
I've tried sarcasm, but some of you guys just don't get it, do you? It's as simple as asking the group of people in question "Are you offended by this term/depiction?" If the answer is yes, or even mostly yes, then no amount of justification along the lines of "Well, personally I don't find it offensive to call you that" or "Don't be so sensitive" or "It's our history/tradition" will work. It's about respect for other human beings.
posted by owlhouse at 09:59 PM on January 31, 2006
Nice list. Here are some matchups I'd like to see: Blueboys vs. Nads Rainbow Warriors vs. Flying Queens Black Squirrels vs. White Mules Mastadons vs. Camels Flames vs. Wonderboys Flying Dutchmen vs. Fighting Irish Minutemen vs. Minutewomen Little Giants vs. Jumbos Johnnies vs. Little Johns Wasps vs. wait I'm a WASP Jennies vs. Jimmies Get rid of Chief Wahoo, Redskins etc. If you want to get rid of honoring the names of tribes, be prepared to rename hundreds of cities. Ottawa, Cheyenne, Sioux City, on and on. What happened to "No offense," "None taken?"
posted by tselson at 10:50 PM on January 31, 2006
If you want to get rid of honoring the names of tribes, be prepared to rename hundreds of cities. If you honestly think naming a city (location, town, area, whatever) after the tribe that lived there is as equally offensive as having a white kid dressed up in fake Indian garb and prancing around the field, then I really don't think there is much room for discussion on this topic. [Regarding Fighting Whiteys] They don't have the intention or belief that they are being discriminatory or bigoted, they think that it is an honor. No, that's simply people looking at satire straight in the face and not comprehending it. Or, understanding the satire and being college-aged frat boys and thinking it would be funny to wear it in an ironic sense. Or, they are have some racial equality issues they need to work through.
posted by grum@work at 11:24 PM on January 31, 2006
i am so sick and tired of this crap everyone tryin to sue somebody, someone being offended by whatever. As a matter of fact i am going to complain tommorow at the local school that not only is their bulldog mascot offensive so is their athletics department, they stink, they wouldn't know what a victory was if it hit them in the face.
posted by chuy at 11:25 PM on January 31, 2006
It's as simple as asking the group of people in question "Are you offended by this term/depiction?" If the answer is yes, or even mostly yes, then no amount of justification along the lines of "Well, personally I don't find it offensive to call you that" or "Don't be so sensitive" or "It's our history/tradition" will work. I can't argue against someone being offended by something no matter how innocent(or bigoted) it is, but how many people have to be offended by a team name before it should be changed? Should we change a name because 10 people found it offensive? 1000 people? Where do you draw the line because there's always going to be some people who are offended by just about anything. I'm not saying it's wrong to feel offended but at what point should a university or the NCAA act on it? I have such mixed feelings on this. Personally I can't see the problem with having a team named after your nationality(go Flying Dutchmen/Vandals) but that's just my opinion and if someone is offended thats their right.
posted by tron7 at 12:31 AM on February 01, 2006
Now, THINK, people: what do all of those nicknames have in common? They appear to be have been chosen not to demean the namesakes, but to honor those peoples’ warriors and to inspire their fighting spirit in the athletes that wear the school's name. No matter how many times you tell other people to THINK, people, your argument will still be extremely weak. Chief Wahoo, the term Redskins and the caricature Chief Illiniwek were not chosen to honor anything. They were picked because it seemed harmless at the time -- they didn't consider the implications of depicting Native Americans in demeaning fashion, and now some sports fans think their traditions are more important than the traditions of these people. It's inexcusable. The NCAA has the right to decide where it will hold its own postseason tournaments. If it wants to exclude schools with racially inappropriate mascots, how is this not the organization's right? Illinois suing the NCAA to demand different tournament rules is like me suing all the kids who never invited me to their birthday parties.
posted by rcade at 08:15 AM on February 01, 2006
How is Illinois' mascot any more or less offensive than Florida State's? The message coming from the NCAA is now completely convoluted. "We find the use of Indian mascots offensive unless the offended tribe is not, in fact, offended or is able to make money off of the deal."
posted by bperk at 08:23 AM on February 01, 2006
This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. No where have I heard the Native American tribes all over the country complaining about the colleges. I would think that it would be an honor that an institution would want to use your heritage to personify their school. (As with Florida State, the Seminole Indians are proud for them to use their names.) If a tribe complains then the NCAA should take a look at THAT INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL, but a blanket ban is stupidest thing in the world. Where does it end??? Why doesn't NOtre Dame have to change their name to keep from offending Irish descendants OR what about Duke/Arizona State -- the "Devil" could offend the Christians, let's make them change their names. THis is absurd.
posted by mcstan13 at 08:59 AM on February 01, 2006
No where have I heard the Native American tribes all over the country complaining about the colleges. Really? "Members of the Spirit Lake Sioux tribe recently presented a resolution demanding modification of the University of North Dakota’s Fighting Sioux logo. Tribal members said the school’s Indian-head emblem is "dishonorable and an affront to the dignity and well being" of its community. Their formal opposition was issued on the same day North Dakota appealed to the NCAA to remove them from the list of schools with Native American mascots that have been deemed hostile and offensive." (from here) (In the same article, it's pointed out that the mascot representation of the Seminoles is inaccurate as well. The Seminoles never wore war paint, and probably didn't ride appaloosa horses.) How about an official policy statement from the National Congress of American Indians? Just because you haven't been paying attention or don't know anything about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
posted by grum@work at 09:45 AM on February 01, 2006
Hey the Seminoles have a LICENSING AGREEMENT with Florida State. If they are not representing the Seminlole's accurately then they have legal recourse and do not need the NCAA. Have any of you PC folk seen the Chief at a Uof I game? Who gave the NCAA the authority to issue PC utimatums to public universities? The U of I is governed by trustees elected by the citizens of Illinois. From a legal viewpoint the U of I is the State of Illinois. Can the NCAA tell the State of Illinois how to run the state's business?
posted by thechief at 10:14 AM on February 01, 2006
How is Illinois' mascot any more or less offensive than Florida State's? Could everyone who is going to jump in with their smoking gun in these Native American mascot threads do some reading/ research first? The Seminole Nation has made an explicit agreement with FSU to allow use of the mascot.
posted by yerfatma at 10:15 AM on February 01, 2006
Hey the Seminoles have a LICENSING AGREEMENT with Florida State. So, it's not really the FSU honouring the Seminoles, it's more of FSU paying the Seminoles to use them as mascots (albeit, incorrectly). That would probably be a point AGAINST using native logos/mascots. Who gave the NCAA the authority to issue PC utimatums to public universities? Actually, the universities gave the NCAA authority over almost all matters pertaining to sports. This is a sports logo/mascot, so I'm guessing they've got some authority on the matter.
posted by grum@work at 11:08 AM on February 01, 2006
If you honestly think naming a city (location, town, area, whatever) after the tribe that lived there is as equally offensive as having a white kid dressed up in fake Indian garb No, that's not what I said. I said get rid of the offensive, (Redskins), the stereotypical (Chief Wahoo) etc. It seems to me that political correctness seems to snowball. If you go to the Cherokee Ntl. Forest, for a few bucks you can have your picture taken with a real Indian dressed up in fake Indian garb. To me that's more disturbing than some school mascot. Note to self: To avoid legal problems, invite Rcade to all B-day parties.
posted by tselson at 12:24 PM on February 01, 2006
If you go to the Cherokee Ntl. Forest, for a few bucks you can have your picture taken with a real Indian dressed up in fake Indian garb. To me that's more disturbing than some school mascot. If it's a real native American, how is it "fake" garb? But if it's not a real native American, then I wholeheartedly agree. Nevertheless, you have to start somewhere (see previous comments about not ignoring smaller issues because bigger issues are unresolved).
posted by grum@work at 01:10 PM on February 01, 2006
Is it a real poncho, like a Mexican poncho or is it a Sears poncho?
posted by yerfatma at 02:05 PM on February 01, 2006
If it's a real native American, how is it "fake" garb? It was a true native American, this is him , guess by default his garb has to be real. The scene however, is surreal, note the bitchin' camaro as part of the ambiance. I was left with the impression that the people who paid for a picture, thought he actually slept in the teepee.
posted by tselson at 02:08 PM on February 01, 2006
tron7: I can't argue against someone being offended by something no matter how innocent (or bigoted) it is, but how many people have to be offended by a team name before it should be changed? Should we change a name because 10 people found it offensive? 1000 people? Where do you draw the line because there's always going to be some people who are offended by just about anything. I'm not saying it's wrong to feel offended but at what point should a university or the NCAA act on it? Exactly. I would like to see a group of Irish people hold a protest of Notre Dame's depiction of a jig-dancing leprechaun with a violent streak in front of NCAA HQ just to see the double-standard exposed.
posted by L.N. Smithee at 03:20 PM on February 01, 2006
grum@work: (In the same article, it's pointed out that the mascot representation of the Seminoles is inaccurate as well. The Seminoles never wore war paint, and probably didn't ride appaloosa horses.) Tell me why you think the Seminoles don't give a rip about such inaccuracies.
posted by L.N. Smithee at 03:22 PM on February 01, 2006
grum@work: (In the same article, it's pointed out that the mascot representation of the Seminoles is inaccurate as well. The Seminoles never wore war paint, and probably didn't ride appaloosa horses.) Tell me why you think the Seminoles don't give a rip about such inaccuracies. Huh? I'm not sure what you are asking me about here. I don't know if the existing Seminoles care about the inaccuracies. Maybe they do and FSU doesn't want to change them. Maybe they don't care because they want the licensing money instead. Or maybe they've only licensed the name, and have no control over the mascot/logo. I just wanted to point out the supposed "honouring" of the Seminoles wasn't very accurate to begin with.
posted by grum@work at 03:31 PM on February 01, 2006
Should we change a name because 10 people found it offensive? 1000 people? Where do you draw the line because there's always going to be some people who are offended by just about anything Agreed it's a judgement call, but ultimately it's a lot easier to change offensive nicknames for sporting teams than to change people's minds. i am so sick and tired of this crap everyone tryin to sue somebody, someone being offended by whatever. As a matter of fact i am going to complain tommorow at the local school that not only is their bulldog mascot offensive so is their athletics department, they stink, they wouldn't know what a victory was if it hit them in the face Logical fallacy alert!
posted by owlhouse at 03:49 PM on February 01, 2006
I notice both you and irunfromclones left unaddressed my opinion on the reason there why there are countless Indian-themed mascots, but not black or Jewish.: I submit that if blacks and Jewish people were admired throughout our nation’s history rather than feared and/or demeaned, there would be sports teams named after them. Are we talking about the same country here? Native Americans were feared as savages and demeaned as uncivilized from the very first contact with whites. How many "black or jewish "massacres" of white people have there been written about? The most you can say is that unlike the others, the native americans fought back with great skill and determination. If you honored that by calling a team the Washington Choctaw, or the Atlanta Cherokee, then we would have no problem with that.
posted by irunfromclones at 12:29 PM on February 02, 2006
If you honored that by calling a team the Washington Choctaw, or the Atlanta Cherokee, then we would have no problem with that. Are you native american or are you just speaking for them?
posted by tron7 at 11:24 PM on February 02, 2006
This debate is sooo far overboard, I wish it would just go away!