Seadragon76 Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 I think that Cornhusker came from the fact the area is known for nothing else but corn.But, I agree with you cyandlux. It just doesn't make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 This is just the PC police run ammock. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VitaminD Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 Yankees was a negative term coming from a southerner. Check that, cyan...Yankee is a British slur directed at the Dutch settlers in and around what is now New York City. According to one legend, it is a rough corruption of "Jan Kaas", or "John Cheese", an anti-Dutch slur. It came to mean all colonists, especially those in the northeast. It was later "transformed by being adopted as a matter of pride by British-descended Americans who had fought on the frontier during the French and Indian War." Much in the same way that ethnic groups often refer to members of their same groups using ethnic slurs that would be offensive if said by someone outside that ethnic group. Turning negatives into positives, I 'spose. "Start spreading the news... They're leavin' today... Won't get to be a part of it... In old New York..."In order for the Mets' run of 12 losses in 17 games to mean something, the Phillies still had to win 13 of 17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamingboy Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 What I find stupid about this is that it's post season only. What, so it's politically incorrect to use it only in certain games?That's stupid. Make it all the time or none of the time. But by the way, I'm about to go through Logoserver and I'll tell you what ones are offensive in my opinion. Insert Witty Signature Here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamingboy Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 I couldn't find any that I would truly call offensive. Maybe a bit disturbing, but not genuinely offensive. Of course, I'm not a Native American or anything. But here's what my idea is:Get a panel consisting of political psychologists and Native American representatives to look over every logo, mascot, name and such. They decide whether it is offensive to their tribe or not. Insert Witty Signature Here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gashouser27 Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 The original Redskins were named by a group of Native Americans who played on the team (I think maybe including Jim Thorpe).The Fighting Sioux hockey team has had a number of Native Americans on the team and they like the name.Should we also change the names of American cities?Are there other offensive names in sports?Fighting Irish? I mentionedCeltics?How about the Reds? Do communists like that?Giants? Makes fun of people with birth defects?What if PETA gets into the act? We probably don't want animal names and logos either.Maybe a first step would be to get rid of some of the other-the-top logos and mascots..Like Wahoo the Indian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEAD! Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 What if PETA gets into the act? We probably don't want animal names and logos either. I would say PETA would only get into the act if there was a human mascot that kills or abuses animals. So a team named the "Whalers", "Slaughterhouse Men", "Fur Traders" or "Snake Skinners" would not sit well with them. I saw, I came, I left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VitaminD Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 I would say PETA would only get into the act if there was a human mascot that kills or abuses animals. So a team named the "Whalers", "Slaughterhouse Men", "Fur Traders" or "Snake Skinners" would not sit well with them. Didn't PETA (or the SPCA) ask the Packers to change their name a couple years back, because of its association with the meatpacking industry? Ugh... "Start spreading the news... They're leavin' today... Won't get to be a part of it... In old New York..."In order for the Mets' run of 12 losses in 17 games to mean something, the Phillies still had to win 13 of 17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhambruiser Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 Yankees was a negative term coming from a southerner. "Yankee" was a negative term refering to ALL Americans...it didn't originate from Southerners....it just so happens that Southerners during the Civil War refered to the Union as Yankees because to them the Union was a seperate country Millican StudiosMillican Studios Blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gashouser27 Posted August 13, 2005 Share Posted August 13, 2005 There was a poll just released that said 90% of Native Americans do not object to the "Redskins" nickname (which seems like it should be the most offensive of all) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korkie Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2141197Apperantly the NCAA has reversed its decision on Florida St.'s use of Seminoles, acknowledging the proud relationship between the school and the tribe. You'd think the NCAA would have done their research compiling the original list, but that's the NCAA for you. They look more and more like a mickey mouse organization every day. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."Dr. Kelso: My son is a big baseball fan. Not so much playing it, but more the designing and sewing of uniforms.Tyler: That's neat.Dr. Kelso: No, it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcgd Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Its a stupid decsion all the way.If the schools change, they are admiting their names were offensive when all along they were not.Why isn't the Fighting Irish being spotlighted?How can Illinois offend the Illinwek tribe...when it doesn't exist anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMMF Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Why isn't the Fighting Irish being spotlighted? Why do you ask the same question all the time?The NCAA has dealt with the Notre Dame question and it's answer can be found in almost any article about this situation.But since you probably wouldn't want to take the time to look it up and thus ending your ability to keep harping on the same tired subject: The NCAA says it has never questioned Notre Dame's Fighting Irish nickname or leprechaun mascot because it hasn't received a formal complaint."We have not gotten information from any group that represents Irish or (anyone of) Irish ancestry ... that they believe that image is hostile and/or abusive," said Charlotte Westerhaus, NCAA vice president for diversity and inclusion. "On the other hand, we had a lot of input from Native American tribes across the country that they believe the imagery at Florida State and other schools is (offensive)." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFoA Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I think that Cornhusker came from the fact the area is known for nothing else but corn. Cornhuskers are farmers. Lord knows if they get offended, the whole damn country's gonna go to the pits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcgd Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Why isn't the Fighting Irish being spotlighted? Why do you ask the same question all the time?The NCAA has dealt with the Notre Dame question and it's answer can be found in almost any article about this situation.But since you probably wouldn't want to take the time to look it up and thus ending your ability to keep harping on the same tired subject: The NCAA says it has never questioned Notre Dame's Fighting Irish nickname or leprechaun mascot because it hasn't received a formal complaint."We have not gotten information from any group that represents Irish or (anyone of) Irish ancestry ... that they believe that image is hostile and/or abusive," said Charlotte Westerhaus, NCAA vice president for diversity and inclusion. "On the other hand, we had a lot of input from Native American tribes across the country that they believe the imagery at Florida State and other schools is (offensive)." Do you think i'm being serious when I suggest that the Fighting Irish name is offensive? I'm using it as a point. My question is still why some of these names are "offensive" and others are not. Why is illini being spotlighted? No Illiniwek has filed a complaint.Just some crazy filed a complaint doesn't mean they should be forced to change something. I'm irish. I could complain about the fightin irish logo. No Aztecs have complained? I find that hard to believe.Just because an Irish person hasn't complained doesn't change the fact that now the NCAA has made a huge mistake in allowing the Seminoles to continue using their name. There are complains from the Oklahoma Seminoles but not the Florida Seminoles. Using this logic the illini can continue using their name because the complaints are not coming from Illiniwek native americans, because they don't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEAD! Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I think that Cornhusker came from the fact the area is known for nothing else but corn. Cornhuskers are farmers. Lord knows if they get offended, the whole damn country's gonna go to the pits. When that happens, someone's gonna get an earful..... I saw, I came, I left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMMF Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Why isn't the Fighting Irish being spotlighted? Why do you ask the same question all the time?The NCAA has dealt with the Notre Dame question and it's answer can be found in almost any article about this situation.But since you probably wouldn't want to take the time to look it up and thus ending your ability to keep harping on the same tired subject: The NCAA says it has never questioned Notre Dame's Fighting Irish nickname or leprechaun mascot because it hasn't received a formal complaint."We have not gotten information from any group that represents Irish or (anyone of) Irish ancestry ... that they believe that image is hostile and/or abusive," said Charlotte Westerhaus, NCAA vice president for diversity and inclusion. "On the other hand, we had a lot of input from Native American tribes across the country that they believe the imagery at Florida State and other schools is (offensive)." Do you think i'm being serious when I suggest that the Fighting Irish name is offensive? I'm using it as a point. My question is still why some of these names are "offensive" and others are not. Why is illini being spotlighted? No Illiniwek has filed a complaint.Just some crazy filed a complaint doesn't mean they should be forced to change something. I'm irish. I could complain about the fightin irish logo. No Aztecs have complained? I find that hard to believe.Just because an Irish person hasn't complained doesn't change the fact that now the NCAA has made a huge mistake in allowing the Seminoles to continue using their name. There are complains from the Oklahoma Seminoles but not the Florida Seminoles. Using this logic the illini can continue using their name because the complaints are not coming from Illiniwek native americans, because they don't exist. If you're not being serious then give it a rest. It has no merit as a "point" as you would see if you had even read the quote. It's not just "some crazy" but organized groups of people lodging complaints. As you can see, it also works both ways as an organized group of people have shown the NCAA that the name Seminole is not offensive to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcgd Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 No you are right, its not a good point and I don't know why I keep bringing it up. The only thing I really know about this situation where its coming from with regards to 2 colleges on there (Illinois and Carthage), and the rest is what I hear from news reports. I do agree that names such as Redskins, Redmen, Savages and those like should be changed. But the names that come from a specific tribe to honor them, whos names were currently approved or approved in the past by those groups should not be in this list. Florida state was correctly granted an ok to use the name. I just think it was a stupid ruling from the get go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj32 Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the directive banning Native American mascots came from an office in Indianapolis, Indiana? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMMF Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the directive banning Native American mascots came from an office in Indianapolis, Indiana? No. It's been pointed out many times.I'm also guessing you won't be the last to think they are the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.