Jump to content

NCAA won't ban Indian nicknames in regular season


officeglenn

Recommended Posts

Political correctness is destroying America, and this is the latest sign.

OMG America is going to suck if we can't have teams named after Native Americans. The dollar will fall, jobs will be lost and we might actually have to work to keep our status as the best country in the world.

Please.

So far none of you have answered the basic question: What's so bad about changing the names? You all give these reasons about how it's not fair, double standard, tradition, etc. But why? Where's the harm in changing them?

But if you sheep must keep bleating on about two-facedness, I'll tell you I had no problem when my community college changed it's mascot. It used to be the Shoreline Samurai, not necessarily a derogatory term, and in reality used the name in a positive light indicating to their opponents that the team was full of warriors and ready for battle. They changed the name to Dolphins after some protests by the asian-american student body. Did the school close? Did they lose money? Did the world end? No. It still continues to be what it was even with the name change. Did I care? No. I was no less proud to be a student there because the name was Dolphins than I was when it was Samurai. Last I checked, prosepective employers didn't care what mascot represented the school that was on my degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Hey, OMMF- you should do YOUR homework. FYI the name "Indiana" means "land of the indians" and "Indianapolis" literally means "city of the indians." The only thing Greek about the name is "polis," as in "Minneapolis." And don't forget Superman's home of Metropolis.

My point is if there wasn't this preoccupation with making everything "PC" that this wouldn't even be a topic.

Did you know that St. Johns' nickname of "Redmen" came about because the teams originally dressed in all-red uniforms and the name was hung on them by sportswriters? There was no connection with Native Americans.

But if a school has permission from a tribe or a group of Native Americans and the usage is handled with respect, then it's none of the NCAA's business.

I cited other related issues to help put into perspective this whole issue and how hypocritical the NCAA is.

It has been said they moved to Indy for tax breaks. That's great. Move to a city named after indians so you can make mo' money.

You've got to look at all factors. Too bad you can't see that. I pity people like you.

:mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you know that since St. John University switched from the Redmen to Red Storm in 1995, alumni funding endowments dropped by 60% in the first season?

That in itself looks like a good reason not to change. I'm sure Marquette lost money. I KNOW Illinois will lose money if they don't handle this right.

You are right, nobody is going to die, but alot of places could lose money. Like I said, there is a place for some of these changes. My School was the Redmen, but it was based on the High School that played in the same town being known as the Blueboys. I think because of what it now means however that is should be dropped. But again, why should a place like florida state who has permission be forced into changing? Plus where does it stop? PETA seriously doesn't want animal mascots. You can find a group of people against anything if you try hard enough. And once again, Native Americans in general probably aren't all up in arms about this because I'm sure they have bigger problems to deal with. The majority of complaints are by white people with 10% Souix in them or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's so bad about changing the names? You all give these reasons about how it's not fair, double standard, tradition, etc. But why? Where's the harm in changing them?

Because it's just the start. Where does it end? It's a shame that these days, if one person gets offended, everyone else has to change to make them happy. It's a monster that will just gain strength as time goes on. Soon there will be no tradition anymore because two people are offended by something. Watch the very first X-mas episode of South Park. You'll see what I mean.

"...and you want to be my latex salesman."

vandelay.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In OMMF's school's case, it's the high school that made it's own decision and they have every right to do that. Which is fine, but the NCAA, the head body is making the decision for these universities. That's my biggest beef about all this.

I agree that if a certain group allows the university to allow their name(s) to be use to honour them then the university should be allowed to use them.

But if not then it's a different story. If a group within the university feel that they are directly offended because some of the actions, related to the name, by some in the student body are considered mocking, then the university should consider looking at a name change. But it should up to the university, not the NCAA.

But to fair to OMMF, a name of a sports team, as important as it is, should not define the university. You could say that the name shows the overall character of the university, but answer this: Did any of you choose a university just because of the name of their sports teams? I seriously doubt it.

As for people talking about PETA: I don't think they really have a problem with a university naming a team after an animal. Maybe they do, but I just don't have the time to do research on that. But what they most likely have problem with is using real animals as mascots as opposed to a person in a costume, or names that depict cruelty to animals.

EDIT: One more thing. Why do I get a feeling that this is a white vs. white battle because many of these decisions and all these PC/non-PC arguments are predominantly being made by white people?

I saw, I came, I left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for people talking about PETA: I don't think they really have a problem with a university naming a team after an animal. Maybe they do, but I just don't have the time to do research on that. But what they most likely have problem with is using real animals as mascots as opposed to a person in a costume, or names that depict cruelty to animals.

I believe I've heard that they are really against it. although you may be right and it may be using them as the mascot itself instead of the nickname.

Also found this article about how the Ute Tribe DOES NOT object to the Utah Utes name:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2919084

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: One more thing. Why do I get a feeling that this is a white vs. white battle because many of these decisions and all these PC/non-PC arguments are predominantly being made by white people?

You are 100% right, which is why I don't give two hockey sticks about this whole issue.

On January 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, NJTank said:

Btw this is old hat for Notre Dame. Knits Rockne made up George Tip's death bed speech.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for people talking about PETA: I don't think they really have a problem with a university naming a team after an animal. Maybe they do, but I just don't have the time to do research on that. But what they most likely have problem with is using real animals as mascots as opposed to a person in a costume, or names that depict cruelty to animals.

I believe I've heard that they are really against it. although you may be right and it may be using them as the mascot itself instead of the nickname.

Also found this article about how the Ute Tribe DOES NOT object to the Utah Utes name:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2919084

Well they are upset about one name in particular: Gamecocks

I have not found anything or their website that explicitly states that they want all animal names banned from sports teams

But I still think it's how the animals are used that they are most concerned about.

http://www.peta.org/alert/automation/AlertItem.asp?id=869

I saw, I came, I left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what i dont understand why did they go after warriors... like really a warrior could be anything... hell i find the Golden State logo offensive to ambious guys with helmets holding lightning bolts but you dont see me kicking up a stink

GDB... Brothers from other Mothers

www.pifflespodcast.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what i dont understand why did they go after warriors... like really a warrior could be anything... hell i find the Golden State logo offensive to ambious guys with helmets holding lightning bolts but you dont see me kicking up a stink

So.... does that mean you are an ambigous guy with a helmet holding lightning bolts?

---

Chris Creamer
Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net

 

"The Mothership" News Facebook X/Twitter Instagram

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what i dont understand why did they go after warriors... like really a warrior could be anything... hell i find the Golden State logo offensive to ambious guys with helmets holding lightning bolts but you dont see me kicking up a stink

So.... does that mean you are an ambigous guy with a helmet holding lightning bolts?

1/10 :D

GDB... Brothers from other Mothers

www.pifflespodcast.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what i dont understand why did they go after warriors... like really a warrior could be anything... hell i find the Golden State logo offensive to ambious guys with helmets holding lightning bolts but you dont see me kicking up a stink

So.... does that mean you are an ambigous guy with a helmet holding lightning bolts?

1/10 :D

Must come from your mothers side

---

Chris Creamer
Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net

 

"The Mothership" News Facebook X/Twitter Instagram

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: One more thing. Why do I get a feeling that this is a white vs. white battle because many of these decisions and all these PC/non-PC arguments are predominantly being made by white people?

Because white people are the dumbest in the world? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far none of you have answered the basic question: What's so bad about changing the names? You all give these reasons about how it's not fair, double standard, tradition, etc. But why? Where's the harm in changing them?

OMMF, you raise a great point. And it's a hard one to argue, because there are no good reasons not to change names.

Instead, we argue and fight for names we've grown-up with and love. Like me. I love cheering for the Fighting Sioux. I like the name. I find it unique. And i'm proud of it. But is that a good reason to keep it? Probably not. But it's how I feel.

For universities, it's much the same reason as why the NCAA won't go to a tournament system for football: money. None of them want to run the risk of alienating alumni and, more important, their significant financial contributions. Nor do they want to risk losing merchandise sales or credibility in the eyes of their many fans.

All of the other arguments we make seem silly because they are. They're signs of desperation in an attempt to stop change we just don't want to see.

There's nothing wrong with that. There's no fault in wanting to keep something as is. Just as there's no fault in being offended by a nickname.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From today's Wall Street Journal:

Today's Puritans Attack the Indian Mascots

By KENNETH L. WOODWARD

August 11, 2005; Page D8

European intellectuals have long complained of excessive moralism in American foreign policy, politics and attitudes toward sex -- the lingering effect, as they see it, of our Puritan heritage. But if they want to spot the real Puritans among us, they should read our sports pages.

Last week, the National Collegiate Athletic Association announced that it would ban the use of Native American team names and mascots in all NCAA-sponsored postseason tournaments. If a team turns up wearing uniforms with words like "Indians," "Braves" or similar nicknames the association deems "hostile and abusive," that team will be shown the locker-room door. Surely I was not the only reader who noticed that this edict came out of the NCAA's headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana.

What's in a name? The NCAA thinks there's quite a lot. It intends to ban Florida State's nickname and its mascot, Chief Osceola, from the postseason.

Already, one university president, T.K. Weatherall of Florida State, one of 18 colleges and universities on the Association's blacklist, is threatening to take legal action -- and I hope he does. Florida State's athletic teams are called the Seminoles, and the university says it has permission from that tribe in Florida to use that name. Not good enough, counters Charlotte Westerhaus, the NCAA's new vice president for "diversity and inclusion." "Other Seminole tribes," she claims, "are not supportive."

One might suppose that any organization with an Office of Diversity and Inclusion would welcome mascots and team names reflecting the Native Americans among us. But no, the NCAA is on a moral mission -- the less sensitive might call it a warpath -- to pressure colleges and universities to adopt its standards for iconic correctness. Cheered on by moralizing sportswriters like George Vecsey of the New York Times, Jon Saraceno of USA Today and the entire sports department of the Portland Oregonian, which will not print "hostile" nicknames of teams (e.g., it calls the Washington Redskins "the football team from Washington"), several member schools have already caved in.

Stanford was the first major university to drop Indians as its athletic moniker; that was 30 years ago, when group identities and sensitivities were the most inflamed. Stanford's teams are now the Cardinal, presumably for the color of their jerseys. But who can tell? -- it may have hidden ecclesiastical connotations. Marquette changed from Warriors to Golden Eagles, despite continuing complaints from alumni who find it as difficult as I do to imagine why the Warrior image would offend any Native American. After all, their forefathers weren't wimps.

Perhaps the most craven decision was that of St. John's University, which changed from the Red Men to the Red Storm. In both its former and current names, "Red" referred to the color of the St. John's uniforms -- not to Native Americans, of which there are very few in Queens, N.Y. The change is reminiscent of a decision by Cincinnati's pro baseball team, which changed its name from Reds to Redlegs during the McCarthy hearings in the 1950s.

Interestingly, the NCAA has made an exception for the Braves of the University of North Carolina-Pembroke because the school has a tradition of enrolling Native American students. Maybe this will clear the way for Dartmouth's Big Green to restore its Indian mascot and team name, Indians, which the school dropped in 1969. After all, Dartmouth was founded by Eleazar Wheelock, a Puritan minister, for the purpose of providing "Christianization, instruction and education" for "Youth of the Indian Tribes of this Land...and also of English Youth and any others." The college still offers a major in Native American Studies and since 1970 has graduated some 500 American Indians.

The NCAA, thank God, has no control over pro sports teams and their chosen totems. But among sportswriters there are voices that echo the same faux moralizing by demanding name changes from the Atlanta Braves, Golden State Warriors, Kansas City Chiefs, Chicago Blackhawks and Cleveland Indians. In a typical column, Mr. Saraceno recently lamented the abject failure of "activists" to get Cleveland's baseball team to drop its logo, Chief Wahoo, which, he opined, "is probably the most outrageous, blatant symbol of racism in sports today."

I don't know where Mr. Saraceno was in the early '60s, when racism wore a human face. I was a civil-rights reporter in Nebraska then and remember visiting American Indian reservations where I saw kids wearing caps festooned with the Milwaukee Braves' logo and -- yes -- with Chief Wahoo. In 2002, Sports Illustrated published a survey of American Indians living on and off reservations. More than eight in 10 approved the use of Indian names and mascots for college and pro teams; a slight majority even approved of the clearly questionable "Redskins."

Moralistic sportswriters need to distinguish between Native American activists and paternalistic surrogates. In Cleveland, for example Mr. Saraceno's unnamed activists are primarily officials of the United Church of Christ, an ultra-liberal Protestant denomination that moved its national headquarters there from New York in 1990 and immediately began a campaign against the Indians and Chief Wahoo. As it happens, the church is the denominational descendent of the old New England Puritans, now committed to diversity and inclusion. I was raised in Cleveland, and these interlopers don't seem to know or care that the baseball team took its current name in 1915 to honor popular outfielder Louis Sockalexis, a Penobscot Indian from Maine who batted .313 lifetime. His teammates called him "Chief."

As a matter of policy, the NCAA now encourages schools to imitate the University of Iowa, which won't allow its Hawkeyes to compete against nonconference schools that "use Native American nicknames, imagery or mascots," although "Iowa," itself, is a tribal name. Where does that leave the University of Illinois -- a school in the same athletic conference, the Big 10 -- whose teams are called the Fighting Illini and whose gridiron mascot is Chief Illiniwek? Illiniwek -- the word signifies "man" -- was the name of an Indian confederation that the French called Illinois. If "the Fighting Illini" is "hostile and antagonistic" in the eyes of the NCAA, must the university, too, change its name? And the state as well? What about North and South Dakota? Or community colleges in Miami, Cheyenne, Pueblo and Peoria -- Indian names all -- not to mention a city named Sioux? Where do embedded history and folkloric iconography end and negative stereotyping begin?

Here's a suggestion: If the NCAA and other latter-day Puritans are concerned about social prejudice, they ought to investigate Notre Dame. Surely the name for its athletic teams, the Fighting Irish, is a slur on all Irish-Americans. The label derives from anti-Catholic nativists who reviled the poor and mostly uneducated Irish immigrants who came to these shores in the mid-19th century -- a drunken, brawling breed, it was said, who espoused the wrong religion. When the fabled Four Horsemen played football for Notre Dame, the team was called the Ramblers. In 1927, the university officially adopted the Fighting Irish, thereby transforming a pejorative nickname into something to cheer about.

If there are Native Americans who feel that Indians or Warriors or Braves is somehow demeaning, they might reflect on the Notre Dame experience. And if the NCAA really cares about diversity and inclusion, it ought to establish an office of Indian Affairs to help Native American athletes with collegiate aspirations. Meanwhile, all paleface Puritan surrogates, beginning with the NCAA, should butt out.

Mr. Woodward, a contributing editor at Newsweek, is writing a history of American religion and culture since 1950.

Packers-2.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2002, Sports Illustrated published a survey of American Indians living on and off reservations. More than eight in 10 approved the use of Indian names and mascots for college and pro teams; a slight majority even approved of the clearly questionable "Redskins."

This, I say, is the most important part of the argument in that article. At least regarding the Native American naming issue....

I saw, I came, I left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.