State of North Dakota will sue the NCAA over Indian mascot ban.

[JW]

Good. We have a small group of Native American activists and politically correct puritans at the NCAA driving the mascot ban, with polling data showing most real Native Americans -- as opposed to the Ward Churchill variety -- actually like Native American mascots and logos. Someone should challenge the NCAA.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_sp_co_ne/indian_nickname_ncaa_lawsuit;_ylt=AgoISLfWhyukqxG4sdaFTjUkybQF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

WILLISTON, N.D. - State officials voted Thursday to sue the NCAA for penalizing the University of North Dakota over its "Fighting Sioux" nickname and Indian-head logo.

Following a meeting with state Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, the North Dakota Board of Higher Education voted 8-0 to authorize the lawsuit, which would be handled by Stenehjem.

[clintl]

Do you have a source that documents polling data among Native Americans showing that most like the mascot names and logos? Because I have never seen data at all on this question. And the article clearly says that there's a split among the Sioux themselves within the state of North Dakota. I'm assuming this split is the reason the NCAA is sticking to its ruling.

[wade moore]

William and Mary has written a strong letter to the NCAA that includes similar language to this as far as "inconsistencies". They are considering sueing also, in particular is a point about the fact that our name is trademarked, and you are not allowed to trademark anything that is offensive.

Our legal experts letter - http://www.wm.edu/news/?id=5975

Our Presidents Cover Letter - http://www.wm.edu/news/?id=5972


William and Mary's Mascot is the Tribe. They have no problem with the name, but our "offensive" logo is a WM with two feathers coming out of it. Apparently the feathers are inexpensive.

William and Mary was founded in large part as an indian school. We have had much positive Indian involvement in our history and the local indian tribes have endorsed it.

So, we can't have our feathers but long live the tomahawk chop.

[illinifan999]

I'm still highly offended and disgusted that the Notre Dame Fighting Irish are allowed to use their nickname.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I'm still highly offended and disgusted that the Notre Dame Fighting Irish are allowed to use their nickname.

Really?

[st.cronin]

I've said this before, but there is a high school here in Santa Fe owned and operated by a conglomerate of reservations, called Santa Fe Indian School. It's nickname is the Braves, and it's logo is similiar to North Dakota's.

[JW]

Do you have a source that documents polling data among Native Americans showing that most like the mascot names and logos? Because I have never seen data at all on this question. And the article clearly says that there's a split among the Sioux themselves within the state of North Dakota. I'm assuming this split is the reason the NCAA is sticking to its ruling.

I hesitate to use National Review, since MrB would tell you it is all lies, but this is the first source I found when googling that has a good summary of the results of the Harris Poll sponsored by SI. Let me note that I have read elsewhere that some Native America activists have questioned the validity of the poll.

http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr030802.shtml

The Peter Harris Research Group polled 352 Native Americans (217 living on reservations and 134 living off) and 743 sports fans; the results are published in SI's March 4 issue.

Here's the most important finding: "Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81 percent of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83 percent of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters, and symbols."

The poll also found that 75 percent of Native Americans don't think the use of these team names and mascots "contributes to discrimination." Opinion is divided about the tomahawk chop displayed at Atlanta Braves games: 48 percent "don't care" about it; 51 percent do care, but more than half of them "like it." The name "Redskins" isn't especially controversial either; 69 percent of Native Americans don't object to it. As a general rule, Indians on reservations were more sensitive about team names and mascots, but not to the point where a majority of them ever sided with the activists on these questions.

Sports Illustrated writer S. L. Price reaches the obvious conclusion: "Although Native American activists are virtually united in opposition to the use of Indian nicknames and mascots, the Native American population sees the issue far differently."

This is the only scientific poll I am aware of ever conducted on the subject.

Of note, my wife is a card-carrying 'bone fide' Cherokee Indian. All the newsletters and the such we get from the tribal leadership are very Indian-activist oriented. Based on that and some other reading, I believe that tribal leadership often speaks loudly on issues that most tribal members could care less about.

[TroyF]

Really?


Probably not, but it's an inconsistency and it should also be dealt with.

The "it doesn't matter, most Irish people aren't offended" doesn't wash. It's an ethnic logo and it's stereotypical. All Irish people aren't all little people who walk around with their fists up.

Either treat everyone with consistency or stop policing mascots. Don't go in between.

I'd love to see what would have happened had the NCAA attempted to force ND to change their name and logo.

[illinifan999]

Really?

As someone with Irish descent, I find the little guy jumping up and down highly offensive.

[illinifan999]

dola

that and i hate notre dame

;)

[Glengoyne]

Really?

I'm actually pretty sure he isn't, but isn't that name, and logo, certainly more offensive than some of these we're discussing?

[wade moore]

Probably not, but it's an inconsistency and it should also be dealt with.

The "it doesn't matter, most Irish people aren't offended" doesn't wash. It's an ethnic logo and it's stereotypical. All Irish people aren't all little people who walk around with their fists up.

Either treat everyone with consistency or stop policing mascots. Don't go in between.

I'd love to see what would have happened had the NCAA attempted to force ND to change their name and logo.

Well, it's even worse than that with their inconsistencies within native american mascots. As stated by both UND and W&M, the idea that the Seminoles (who happen to be a big $$ school for the NCAA) are ok and other schools like UND and W&M (who hmmm, make little to no money for the NCAA) are not is just silly...

[Honolulu_Blue]

dola

that and i hate notre dame

;)

This, I understand.

[Honolulu_Blue]

As someone with Irish descent, I find the little guy jumping up and down highly offensive.

Alrighty.

[Mustang]

All Irish people aren't all little people who walk around with their fists up.

How about the Fightin' Crowes?

http://index.hu/cikkepek/0506/velvet/crowe2%20re.jpg

[WSUCougar]

Are they going to sue them or Sioux them, or both?

[JW]

My local university, Louisiana-Monroe, was forced to give up its Indian mascot after deciding not to fight the issue. There was a search and vote for a replacement mascot. The winner was Warhawks. Several people said they voted for that choice because it was the most politically incorrect replacement among the choices. And Warhawks generated some publicity because a ULM professor and some other people squawked loudly about the possibility of a warlike, violent mascot and even held one of those campus forums on the issue, to no avail. In fact they probably hurt their own cause.
Warhawks, btw, does have a tenuous connection to Monroe and ULM, since the Flying Tigers of WWII fame use P40 Warhawks in China against the Japanese, and Gen. Claire Chennault, commander of the Flying Tigers, is from the area and once lived in Monroe. The idea is to use the hawk and also use the airplane in various logos. Additionally, many folks thought Warhawks sounded vaguely Indian. I wonder when the NCAA will ban warlike mascots?

[Franklinnoble]

My local university, Louisiana-Monroe, was forced to give up its Indian mascot after deciding not to fight the issue. There was a search and vote for a replacement mascot. The winner was Warhawks. Several people said they voted for that choice because it was the most politically incorrect replacement among the choices. And Warhawks generated some publicity because a ULM professor and some other people squawked loudly about the possibility of a warlike, violent mascot and even held one of those campus forums on the issue, to no avail. In fact they probably hurt their own cause.
Warhawks, btw, does have a tenuous connection to Monroe and ULM, since the Flying Tigers of WWII fame use P40 Warhawks in China against the Japanese, and Gen. Claire Chennault, commander of the Flying Tigers, is from the area and once lived in Monroe. The idea is to use the hawk and also use the airplane in various logos. Additionally, many folks thought Warhawks sounded vaguely Indian. I wonder when the NCAA will ban warlike mascots?

That's pretty cool.

UTC changed theirs under pressure. Now they have a totally meaningless, artificial mascot name. It's stupid.

[SnDvls]

Pretty soon all the "evil" mascots will be banned too if the NCAA has their way.

good bye Blue Devils...hello Blue Elves
so long Sun Devils...hello Solar Winds
adios Demon Decons...

[Honolulu_Blue]

My local university, Louisiana-Monroe, was forced to give up its Indian mascot after deciding not to fight the issue. There was a search and vote for a replacement mascot. The winner was Warhawks. Several people said they voted for that choice because it was the most politically incorrect replacement among the choices. And Warhawks generated some publicity because a ULM professor and some other people squawked loudly about the possibility of a warlike, violent mascot and even held one of those campus forums on the issue, to no avail. In fact they probably hurt their own cause.
Warhawks, btw, does have a tenuous connection to Monroe and ULM, since the Flying Tigers of WWII fame use P40 Warhawks in China against the Japanese, and Gen. Claire Chennault, commander of the Flying Tigers, is from the area and once lived in Monroe. The idea is to use the hawk and also use the airplane in various logos. Additionally, many folks thought Warhawks sounded vaguely Indian. I wonder when the NCAA will ban warlike mascots?

Warhawks is a pretty cool name. I like it. I have a hard time seeing it as a "politically incorrect" name. I also don't see any connection between that name and Native Americans.

Not sure what the old nickname was, but I have a hard time believing it was any cooler than Warhawks. Perhaps it was all for the best.

I think this whole mascot thing is retarded. There are far more important and real, pressing issues facing Native Americans than this. It really does nobody any favors.

[JW]

A discussion of the evil fighting Irish stereotype:

http://www.authorsontheweb.com/features/0203-irish/irish-q4.asp

Malachy McCourt: At times I find myself bristling at some of the blatant taunts at the Irish but then I realize my own life at times has been the ultimate stereotypical example of the wild drinking, fighting, singing Mick or Paddy. So I need not be so thin-skinned when teased.

So if the NCAA standard on offensive mascots is that some people must be offended by the mascot, then I submit that some people are offended by the stereotypical image of a fighting Irishman.

As an aside, I think the Indian tribal leadership missed a golden opportunity here. I've suggested this before. Rather than seeking to ban such mascots, Indian activists could have pressured universities through the NCAA for a cut of the sales of logo/mascot items and worked to modify mascots in ways more acceptable to the activists. But the activists are too busy trying to build more casinos to think objectively on the matter. They just saw a chance, with the help of the NCAA, to get a 'win.' They should have hired Jesse Jackson. He knows how to go for the money.

[Warhammer]

I'm still highly offended and disgusted that the Notre Dame Fighting Irish are allowed to use their nickname.

Preach it, since I am 1/8th Irish, I am outraged that I am portrayed as a drunken sot who fights a lot. Damn, I try to stay drunk 1/4th of the time!

[Abe Sargent]

EMU changed their mascot name from Hurons to Eagles. Feh.


-Anxiety

[JW]

Warhawks is a pretty cool name. I like it. I have a hard time seeing it as a "politically incorrect" name. I also don't see any connection between that name and Native Americans.

Not sure what the old nickname was, but I have a hard time believing it was any cooler than Warhawks. Perhaps it was all for the best.

I think this whole mascot thing is retarded. There are far more important and real, pressing issues facing Native Americans than this. It really does nobody any favors.

The old mascot was Indians, chosen when the university was founded, and the official depiction was of a Ouachita Indian, a tribe that no longer exists but was kept alive in memory at ULM, until now.

As for your last point, issues like these bring attention to Indian activists. That is their major purpose.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The old mascot was Indians, chosen when the university was founded, and the official depiction was of a Ouachita Indian, a tribe that no longer exists but was kept alive in memory at ULM, until now.

As for your last point, issues like these bring attention to Indian activists. That is their major purpose.

But not in a good way. Like I said, there are far more important and real, pressing issues facing Native Americans than this. This kind of nonsense only be-littles these issues and ends up hurting "Indian activists'" causes. Not all attention is good attention.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The old mascot was Indians, chosen when the university was founded, and the official depiction was of a Ouachita Indian, a tribe that no longer exists but was kept alive in memory at ULM, until now.

As for your last point, issues like these bring attention to Indian activists. That is their major purpose.

Warhakws > Indians.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The old mascot was Indians, chosen when the university was founded, and the official depiction was of a Ouachita Indian, a tribe that no longer exists but was kept alive in memory at ULM, until now.

http://www.oldmencrying.com/images/cody.jpeg

[ChiMatt]

No one is forcing them to be a part of the NCAA. If they dont like the rules why don't they just leave the organization?

[JW]

But not in a good way. Like I said, there are far more important and real, pressing issues facing Native Americans than this. This kind of nonsense only be-littles these issues and ends up hurting "Indian activists'" causes. Not all attention is good attention.

I agree. What I meant was it helps the activists, and only the activists, by giving them exposure and sometimes some more money in fundraising due to their visibility. It is a Jesse Jackson type scam. It does nothing to help real Native Americans and their real problems, though. You are right.

[JW]

No one is forcing them to be a part of the NCAA. If they dont like the rules why don't they just leave the organization?

And go where? There is no viable alternative. Not yet.

[King of New York]

I'm still highly offended and disgusted that the Notre Dame Fighting Irish are allowed to use their nickname.

As someone who is three quarters Irish-American, I, too, am outraged. In fact, every time I see someone wearing "Fighting Irish" paraphenalia, I feel like beating the holy bejezus out of them right then and there.

Wait...

[Karlifornia]

I feel that, after a genocide on par with Hitler's holocaust, if even one person of Native American descent finds the mascots offensive, they should not be used.

[Grammaticus]

Well, they could always be the North Dakota NAMBLA's.

[Karlifornia]

Dola, what if a German football club had a nickname "The Honorable Jews". I've used this example before, and some have derided me for it, but I do feel it's applicable. These nicknames are in poor taste, but then again, this country elected Dubya to two terms, so I guess there's no accounting for taste.

[wade moore]

Dola, what if a German football club had a nickname "The Honorable Jews". I've used this example before, and some have derided me for it, but I do feel it's applicable. These nicknames are in poor taste, but then again, this country elected Dubya to two terms, so I guess there's no accounting for taste.

If this was the argument across the board, I might be on the NCAA's side more. The complete inconsistency of it makes the NCAA lose any moral high-ground though.

[Franklinnoble]

I feel that, after a genocide on par with Hitler's holocaust, if even one person of Native American descent finds the mascots offensive, they should not be used.

Do you feel that way about the losers in every war? Or just the ones who aren't of anglo descent?

[Karlifornia]

Pick up a book about the trail of tears.

I like that Simpsons episode with the Christmas parade. It has a float of Cleveland mascot "Chief Wahoo" as "A tribute to native americans". One of the commentators chimes in with "This float was made entirely out of broken treaties".

[Young Drachma]

And go where? There is no viable alternative. Not yet.

No, but there needs to be. The NCAA is a joke. Not as much as their inconsistencies with this, as their ignorance in other issues.

[clintl]

http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr030802.shtml

[B]The Peter Harris Research Group polled 352 Native Americans (217 living on reservations and 134 living off) and 743 sports fans; the results are published in SI's March 4 issue.

Here's the most important finding: "Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81 percent of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83 percent of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters, and symbols."



Thanks. I just had never seen such a poll.

[WVUFAN]

I feel that, after a genocide on par with Hitler's holocaust, if even one person of Native American descent finds the mascots offensive, they should not be used.

That's a silly statement. Someone, somewhere, is gonna be "offended" by virtually any kind of mascot they select.

Political correctness is the bane of this country.

[MrBigglesworth]

Do you feel that way about the losers in every war? Or just the ones who aren't of anglo descent?
That's something of a strawman. I think it's more than a fine line between 'losing a war' and 'nearly being slaughtered out of existence'.

[MrBigglesworth]

What standing does the state of ND have to sue a private business over their rules? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm really asking. I feel like it is the NCAA's job to determine what they want associated with their product, even if I disagree with a lot of what the NCAA does.

[WVUFAN]

Is the NCAA considered a private business, or is it federally funded in some way?

[sovereignstar]

It's private.

[Grammaticus]

It's private.
It also does not sanction a Division I Football Champion. In other words, there is no NCAA National Champion in Division IA Football.

The state would have a right to sue a private business over their rules. In this case, the merit may be not equally applying the rules as other posters have pointed out.

Best course would be for schools being singled out and the conferences that support them to pull out of the NCAA, eliminating that organizations relevance and value altogether.

Although I do not know enough about how the NCAA is run. Can schools and conferences exert enough influence to eliminate this nonsense without pulling out of the organization?

[Wolvendancer]

I see a lot of bluster in this thread and not a lot of thought.

Yes, the First Nations face a lot of other trouble. But 'things are worse over there' has never been a good reason to continue bad things happen over here.

That aside, can anyone honestly answer this question: Why do racially-charged , -derived, or abusive names belong in sports at all?

The etymology of the word 'redskin' is pretty clear, and its use has been consistent over quite a number of years. The Cleveland Indians logo is obviously a racial caricature. Yet some people equate love of their team to love of anything their team does, which is always a bad idea, whether you're loving a team or a human being.

This issue drags up almost everything I hate about sports, and none of the good. Is the purity of The Catch, or that kid shooting 7 threes in a row, or some guy right now working out to run the marathon at 40, lessened by their team changing its name from The Fighting Endangered Americans? Please.

Just get rid of it.

(love the name Warhawks)

[Crapshoot]

Do you feel that way about the losers in every war? Or just the ones who aren't of anglo descent?

You're right Franklin - I take it you have no problem with the Honorable Jews nickname ? I don't particularly care for the NCAA (can't stand them - if college sports comes crashing down because of these idiots, I will be thrilled), but the idea that the Native Americans were simply "losers" of a war is absurd.

[Franklinnoble]

You're right Franklin - I take it you have no problem with the Honorable Jews nickname ? I don't particularly care for the NCAA (can't stand them - if college sports comes crashing down because of these idiots, I will be thrilled), but the idea that the Native Americans were simply "losers" of a war is absurd.

Just because we had larger numbers, better technology, and made the land grab over hundreds of years doesn't mean it wasn't a war. America exists as the result of the Western European civilization imposing its will over a less advanced population.

I really don't even see it as that unfair. It's no different than what the Roman Empire did earlier in history. But somehow, we're all stuck with this "white man's burden" complex... because in recent history, the only time we've been on the receiving end of any real slaughter is when we've done it to ourselves (from a racial perspective).

Personally, I'm a little tired of being told I have to apologize for it. The great nation I am proud to call home wouldn't exist if we'd decided to get back on the boat and leave the place to the natives.

[Wolvendancer]

Just because we had larger numbers, better technology, and made the land grab over hundreds of years doesn't mean it wasn't a war. America exists as the result of the Western European civilization imposing its will over a less advanced population.

This is one of the 'great lies' about the entire sordid affair.

The story is actually about Europe, through deception, trickery, and even occasionally outright warfare, stealing land from an indiginous population who had lost or was in the process of losing 90 to 95% of its population to disease.

It wasn't in any important way a military thing, and it didn't have anything to do with technology. Most tribes adapted their methods of fighting very, very quickly. They wre brought down by lies, diseased blankets, and sheer weight of numbers.

[st.cronin]

You're right Franklin - I take it you have no problem with the Honorable Jews nickname ? I don't particularly care for the NCAA (can't stand them - if college sports comes crashing down because of these idiots, I will be thrilled), but the idea that the Native Americans were simply "losers" of a war is absurd.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are several soccer clubs in Europe (Tottenham is one) with nicknames like The Honorable Jews.

Yes, obviously if a nickname/logo is offensive or racially charged, it should not be used. But a lot of these nicknames/logos, like the one in South Dakota in particular, are quite popular among the tribes. Thats what some of you aren't getting - it's not just that they're not offended, they LIKE them.

[Franklinnoble]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are several soccer clubs in Europe (Tottenham is one) with nicknames like The Honorable Jews.

Yes, obviously if a nickname/logo is offensive or racially charged, it should not be used. But a lot of these nicknames/logos, like the one in South Dakota in particular, are quite popular among the tribes. Thats what some of you aren't getting - it's not just that they're not offended, they LIKE them.

I've seen this happen at Redskins games.

When I lived in Arizona, and the Cardinals were still in the NFC East, I'd go every year to see the Redskins at Sun Devil Stadium. Every year, substantial groups of Native Americans from the surrounding reservations would turn out, not to support the Cardinals, or to protest the offensive name, but because they LIKED the team, and they liked the logo, nickname, etc.

[ChiMatt]

I think many of you are missing the point. Just like Augusta National doesn't have to accept women, the boy scouts don't have to accept gay scout leaders, many private golf clubs do not accept jewish members, etc. the NCAA as a private organiztion has made a decision (right or wrong) about mascots at their sanctioned events. If so many schools feel it is wrong they should band together and start a new organization, join the naia, or just compete without an affiliation. How could a lawsuit work here and not in those other situations?

[MrBigglesworth]

Personally, I'm a little tired of being told I have to apologize for it. The great nation I am proud to call home wouldn't exist if we'd decided to get back on the boat and leave the place to the natives.
Apparently your view is that they aren't offensive, but even if they were they would have to get used to it because they lost so fuck 'em. I'm kind of on the fence about the offensive names, but your argument that not having nicknames that are offensive to people we have killed in the past equates to apologizing is absurd.

[Karlifornia]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are several soccer clubs in Europe (Tottenham is one) with nicknames like The Honorable Jews.

Yes, obviously if a nickname/logo is offensive or racially charged, it should not be used. But a lot of these nicknames/logos, like the one in South Dakota in particular, are quite popular among the tribes. Thats what some of you aren't getting - it's not just that they're not offended, they LIKE them.


So, where exactly in Germany is Tottenham? I don't think that Great Britain was responsible for the holocaust, but maybe my history books were innacurate.

Franklinnoble....don't bring that white guilt rubbish into this. I'm half "anglo", went to 95% anglo schools, and was raised by a 100% anglo parent. I just figured out how to look at things on a rational level, rather than sticking with the pre-adolescent mentality of "Go America! You have never done wrong to anyone." Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

I can almost handle people who look at the treatment of the native americans neutrally, with no feeling one way or the other, but actually defending it? Are you completely sociopathic? "Yeah, Indians, get a bible, motherfuckers, then we'll talk about not killing your women and children!"

God, please try to look outside of yourself and attempt to empathize with someone else's pain. Please.

[Franklinnoble]

So, where exactly in Germany is Tottenham? I don't think that Great Britain was responsible for the holocaust, but maybe my history books were innacurate.

Franklinnoble....don't bring that white guilt rubbish into this. I'm half "anglo", went to 95% anglo schools, and was raised by a 100% anglo parent. I just figured out how to look at things on a rational level, rather than sticking with the pre-adolescent mentality of "Go America! You have never done wrong to anyone." Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

I can almost handle people who look at the treatment of the native americans neutrally, with no feeling one way or the other, but actually defending it? Are you completely sociopathic? "Yeah, Indians, get a bible, motherfuckers, then we'll talk about not killing your women and children!"

God, please try to look outside of yourself and attempt to empathize with someone else's pain. Please.

So, what, exactly, was America supposed to do? Get back on the boats and return to Europe? Seriously... explain the alternative to me.

[st.cronin]

So, where exactly in Germany is Tottenham? I don't think that Great Britain was responsible for the holocaust, but maybe my history books were innacurate.

Franklinnoble....don't bring that white guilt rubbish into this. I'm half "anglo", went to 95% anglo schools, and was raised by a 100% anglo parent. I just figured out how to look at things on a rational level, rather than sticking with the pre-adolescent mentality of "Go America! You have never done wrong to anyone." Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

I can almost handle people who look at the treatment of the native americans neutrally, with no feeling one way or the other, but actually defending it? Are you completely sociopathic? "Yeah, Indians, get a bible, motherfuckers, then we'll talk about not killing your women and children!"

God, please try to look outside of yourself and attempt to empathize with someone else's pain. Please.

There is also Ajax (The Jews), which is associated with a region which was notorious for collaboration with the Nazis. Is that offensive?

[MrBigglesworth]

So, what, exactly, was America supposed to do? Get back on the boats and return to Europe? Seriously... explain the alternative to me.
This needs to be saved for posterity. This is the perfect defense. It can work for anything. Consider:

So, what, exactly, was Germany supposed to do? Let the Jews kick them out of Germany? Seriously... explain the alternative to me.

So, what, exactly, was the Jeffrey Dahmer supposed to do? Let those other guys eat him? Seriously... explain the alternative to me.

So, what, exactly, was America supposed to do? Let Iraq destroy us with their nuclear weapons? Seriously... explain the alternative to me.

Airtight. Your logic is flawless.

[st.cronin]

I have decided that neither Karlifornia nor FranklinNoble remotely understands the history of this continent.

Back to the topic: If every team with a logo/nickname that referenced the aboriginal tribes of North America changed their names to the Ocelots, it would make zero difference in anybody's lives. It's a silly thing for the NCAA/tribal activists to get worked up about, and it's a silly thing to defend.

[panerd]

I think it would be funny if every NCAA school changed their name to something generic like the Tigers or Eagles. Or even better they all change their name to the winners. Everyone is a winner!

[Franklinnoble]

I have decided that neither Karlifornia nor FranklinNoble remotely understands the history of this continent.


I love it when people say that "You clearly don't know what you're talking about," rather than take the time to argue the subject. Condescending intellecutal laziness seems to be all the rage around here.

[st.cronin]

I love it when people say that "You clearly don't know what you're talking about," rather than take the time to argue the subject. Condescending intellecutal laziness seems to be all the rage around here.

ok

short explanation: There was no "clash of cultures." That is a myth, a fantasy.

long explanation: I'm too lazy to give a long explanation.

[JW]

I have to wonder how many people must think something is offensive before it is banned. There are some people who think football itself is too violent and should be banned. Should we listen to them? The view that Native American mascots is offensive is a decidedly minority view. Why in this case bow to the will of the minority?

Because Indians were mistreated in our past and continue to be mistreated on reservations, we have to follow the will of a MINORITY of Indians who want something changed? That doesn't make sense to me.

Consider the word "brave" itself, with its meaning of courageous. The word has come to be synonymous with an Indian warrior. What is so offensive about that? Universities obviously did not give themselves Indian mascots with the idea of denigrating Native Americans. It was out of admiration of the romantic idea of the brave American Indian warrior. How that is offensive, I don't know.

Finally to the idea that the NCAA is a member institution, and members who don't like its rules can just leave. As a member institution, members can also lobby to change rules and fight against rules they don't like. Leaving is not the only option.

[wade moore]

I love it when people say that "You clearly don't know what you're talking about," rather than take the time to argue the subject. Condescending intellecutal laziness seems to be all the rage around here.

Franklin...

You really seem to either lack a knowledge of what happened to the indians, or a handy case of selective memory...

There's a big difference between "a war we won" and the massacre that happened to the indians. Read up on the "Trail of Tears" if you haven't.. it is MUCH more akin to what Hitler did than your standard "we won the war"...

[Franklinnoble]

Franklin...

You really seem to either lack a knowledge of what happened to the indians, or a handy case of selective memory...

There's a big difference between "a war we won" and the massacre that happened to the indians. Read up on the "Trail of Tears" if you haven't.. it is MUCH more akin to what Hitler did than your standard "we won the war"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_tears

Even the most generous of estimates suggest that, maybe, 8,000 died. Less than 50,000 were relocated.

Trying to compare that figure to the holocaust is a bit of a stretch.

[st.cronin]

Franklin...

You really seem to either lack a knowledge of what happened to the indians, or a handy case of selective memory...

There's a big difference between "a war we won" and the massacre that happened to the indians. Read up on the "Trail of Tears" if you haven't.. it is MUCH more akin to what Hitler did than your standard "we won the war"...

It's a lot more complicated than that. It's more like what the collective states of Europe did to the Jews throughout history. Even that's a bit of a stretch.

[RendeR]

Wow, this whole topic just keeps going and going.

My take:

1: There is nothing to feel guilty about, what was done was done over a century ago by people who are dead, buried, and gone to dust. Today's society and people are NOT responsible for it and anyone wanting retribution or resolution from then should get a hobby because they have too much time on their hands. There are more important things in life than feeling better about your history by attacking people for past injustices.

2: The NCAA can keep pushing this but in the end they'll rescind it because sooner or later the large market schools are going to tell them to fuck off.

3: I say this with all due respect Karlifornia: You have no pain to feel, get over yourself. Nothing about this happened to you or anyone you've ever laid eyes upon. The "can;t you feel someone's pain" comment is the largest load of bullshit I've read this week.Would it be great if history was different and everyone got along and lived a happy happy joy joy life? sure, but you know what? it didn't, so called activists and those supporting them should get on with their lives and stop mucking around in other peoples affairs.

4: If you are offended by a mascot, DON'T ATTEND THE GAMES, then get over yourself, its a fucking dressed up dork there to entertain you with his moronic activities during the game, nothing more.

God I hate the PC bullshit this world puts up with from people with overblown senses of self importance.

[sovereignstar]

2: The NCAA can keep pushing this but in the end they'll rescind it because sooner or later the large market schools are going to tell them to fuck off.

From what I'm aware of, FSU is already in the clear.

[RendeR]

Yes, the seminole nation supposedly wrote the NCAA telling them to leave FSU alone or face litigation. The Seminoles actually support FSU monitarily ina HUGE way.

[Cards4ever]

I've seen this discussion for quite a while now, especially with Gopher and UND fans. The simple thing to do is for UND to pay off the tribes like FSU did or change the nickname. I'm not Indian, so, for me to say that the nickname should not change IMHO is not really fair. I think it's easy to say as a white man that there is nothing offensive about the nickname or logo and that Indians should be proud of the logo.

Another thing that fuels the whole UND debate in these parts is that Englestad(who was a prime benefactor to UND) was busted for throwing parties on Hitlers B-day and that certainly rubs people the wrong way.

[duckman]

What I find funny about those in an uproar over this is that only 15% of Native Americans object to the use of these mascots/nicknames. People need to get over this extremely overdone PC bullshit.

[Bad-example]

I don't think a blanket ban of all team names based on Native Americans is a good idea. But the Redskins have the most fucked up name in the history of sports. The word is a racial slur and has never had any other meaning.

[Cards4ever]

It's only "PC Bullshit" until it touchs a nerve close to home usually.

Sioux is not even the original nickname, so it's not like it hasn't been changed before, I would think it would just be easier to change than go through the cost of a legal fight.

[Surtt]

I would just like to point out there is nothing sacred about UND's "Fighting Sioux" nick name.
The school's original nick name was "The Flickertails" (a gopher) but was changed in 1930 to the current one.


hxxp://www.und.nodak.edu/org/bridges/annis.html

[WVUFAN]

I would just like to point out there is nothing sacred about UND's "Fighting Sioux" nick name.
The school's original nick name was "The Flickertails" (a gopher) but was changed in 1930 to the current one.


hxxp://www.und.nodak.edu/org/bridges/annis.html

So, we're supposed to have all teams named something that cannot possible be offensive to anyone, anywhere. Where is the line drawn of what is deemed "offensive"? If 1000 people deem it so, 100 people ... 1 person? When do we stop catering to the people who have nothing better to do with their lives the bitch about a team's mascot name?

BTW -- 1000 POSTS! Does that make me a "elitist" yet? :-)

[MrBigglesworth]

So, we're supposed to have all teams named something that cannot possible be offensive to anyone, anywhere. Where is the line drawn of what is deemed "offensive"? If 1000 people deem it so, 100 people ... 1 person? When do we stop catering to the people who have nothing better to do with their lives the bitch about a team's mascot name?

BTW -- 1000 POSTS! Does that make me a "elitist" yet? :-)
You make an interesting point: where do we draw the line and who draws it? As a conservative, don't you think that private businesses should have the ability to determine for themselves what is the appropriate level of offensiveness to tolerate in their organization?

[WVUFAN]

You make an interesting point: where do we draw the line and who draws it? As a conservative, don't you think that private businesses should have the ability to determine for themselves what is the appropriate level of offensiveness to tolerate in their organization?

No, with a caveat: it depends on what you're calling "offensive". Also, if you're looking at this from a business perspective, I would called the NCAA a monopoly and look to split it up, since it's virtually impossible for any competitor to have a reasonable opportunity to compete. But, even though it is, I don't consider the NCAA a business, as it has the power to tell publically funded universities how they conduct themselves. There isn't a viable alternative for universities to choose.

So what's happening is a "company" is telling universities what is offensive in THEIR organizations. That's what I have an issue with. The universities have two choices; comply or sue, since they can't leave the NCAA and still have a sports program. The NCAA is a monopoly.

[Grammaticus]

Apparently your view is that they aren't offensive, but even if they were they would have to get used to it because they lost so fuck 'em. I'm kind of on the fence about the offensive names, but your argument that not having nicknames that are offensive to people we have killed in the past equates to apologizing is absurd.
Speak for yourself, I have not killed any Indians.

[sabotai]

Speak for yourself, I have not killed any Indians.

I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die.

Don't know if we was a native american or not, though....

[MrBigglesworth]

Speak for yourself, I have not killed any Indians.
I'm not sure how your response adds to, detracts from, or in any way follows my comment that you quoted.

[Franklinnoble]

I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die.

Don't know if we was a native american or not, though....

I have been at work since the wee hours of this morning, and my office happens to be in Folsom, California... so, I've kinda had this song in my head all day anyway.

[Glengoyne]

Wow, this whole topic just keeps going and going.

My take:

1: There is nothing to feel guilty about, what was done was done over a century ago by people who are dead, buried, and gone to dust. Today's society and people are NOT responsible for it and anyone wanting retribution or resolution from then should get a hobby because they have too much time on their hands. There are more important things in life than feeling better about your history by attacking people for past injustices.

2: The NCAA can keep pushing this but in the end they'll rescind it because sooner or later the large market schools are going to tell them to fuck off.

3: I say this with all due respect Karlifornia: You have no pain to feel, get over yourself. Nothing about this happened to you or anyone you've ever laid eyes upon. The "can;t you feel someone's pain" comment is the largest load of bullshit I've read this week.Would it be great if history was different and everyone got along and lived a happy happy joy joy life? sure, but you know what? it didn't, so called activists and those supporting them should get on with their lives and stop mucking around in other peoples affairs.

4: If you are offended by a mascot, DON'T ATTEND THE GAMES, then get over yourself, its a fucking dressed up dork there to entertain you with his moronic activities during the game, nothing more.

God I hate the PC bullshit this world puts up with from people with overblown senses of self importance.

Finally a RendeR rant I can get behind.

[st.cronin]

ditto, RendeR wins the thread imo

[Grammaticus]

I'm not sure how your response adds to, detracts from, or in any way follows my comment that you quoted.
See RendeRs point number One. It pretty much says the same thing. You obviously feel guilty over something someone else did. I do not, so when you say "we", lumping all Americans (although apparently not Indians) into the sentence, I disagree. That is how it adds to, detracts from and follows what you said.

[MrBigglesworth]

See RendeRs point number One. It pretty much says the same thing. You obviously feel guilty over something someone else did. I do not, so when you say "we", lumping all Americans (although apparently not Indians) into the sentence, I disagree. That is how it adds to, detracts from and follows what you said.
My apologies, I see it now. That's just a semantic thing though. Changing it to "your argument that not having nicknames that are offensive to people the country has killed in the past equates to apologizing is absurd" is just as true.

[Cards4ever]

If it's just a mascot and it's no big deal, it should be no big deal to change it then either, right?

I think it's a waste of money to fight the issue, just change the nickname and be done with it. Or if you insist on coughing up the cash, pay off the tribes, either way I'm glad I'm not paying for it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Wow, this whole topic just keeps going and going.

My take:

1: There is nothing to feel guilty about, what was done was done over a century ago by people who are dead, buried, and gone to dust. Today's society and people are NOT responsible for it and anyone wanting retribution or resolution from then should get a hobby because they have too much time on their hands. There are more important things in life than feeling better about your history by attacking people for past injustices.

2: The NCAA can keep pushing this but in the end they'll rescind it because sooner or later the large market schools are going to tell them to fuck off.

3: I say this with all due respect Karlifornia: You have no pain to feel, get over yourself. Nothing about this happened to you or anyone you've ever laid eyes upon. The "can;t you feel someone's pain" comment is the largest load of bullshit I've read this week.Would it be great if history was different and everyone got along and lived a happy happy joy joy life? sure, but you know what? it didn't, so called activists and those supporting them should get on with their lives and stop mucking around in other peoples affairs.

4: If you are offended by a mascot, DON'T ATTEND THE GAMES, then get over yourself, its a fucking dressed up dork there to entertain you with his moronic activities during the game, nothing more.

God I hate the PC bullshit this world puts up with from people with overblown senses of self importance.
I agree somewhat, but this is what keeps me on the fence: when a certain steotype is done and redone, it becomes almost fact. For example, the bumbling Amos and Andy type black stereotype was perpetuated forever, and to this day black people are looked at as being unintelligent. That is a stereotype that has real world consequences for black people. If the mascot was a black minstrel instead of a dancing Indian, a lot more people would be upset. Or if it were 'the Idiot Pollacks" instead of 'the Fighting Irish'. But at the same time, who decides if it is offensive or not? So I think it has to be up to the private institutions and the NCAA to figure it out. If there is enough people offended that they can presuade the NCAA to change it, then maybe that is a good cut-off point.

[Abe Sargent]

I agree somewhat, but this is what keeps me on the fence: when a certain steotype is done and redone, it becomes almost fact. For example, the bumbling Amos and Andy type black stereotype was perpetuated forever, and to this day black people are looked at as being unintelligent.


I think today's thinkers go beyond Amos and Andy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton


-Anxiety

[wade moore]

If it's just a mascot and it's no big deal, it should be no big deal to change it then either, right?

I think it's a waste of money to fight the issue, just change the nickname and be done with it. Or if you insist on coughing up the cash, pay off the tribes, either way I'm glad I'm not paying for it.

It's not that easy necessarily.

For instance, my alma mater. William and Mary. We are the "William and Mary Tribe". The only use of indians we have is that our WM logo has feathers coming off of the M. We do not use Indians in any ads, mascots, logos, ANYTHING. The local tribes support us, and told the NCAA this, especially because W&M was initially opened as an Indian school.

But, since we're not a BCS school, non of that mattered.

[HerRealName]

And then there's the Fighting Illini... The Illini were almost completely wiped out by more powerful tribe from the East, a perfect representation of Illinois' football program. How can the NCAA take that away?

[Ryan W.]

The University of North Dakota faces a tough choice. The choices were: A) Sue the NCAA and try to save the Fighting Sioux mascot which they have had for years or B) Return the hundreds of millions of dollars that Ralph Engelstad left to the University. A little background on the situation: Englestad played on the UND hockey team in the 50's and built a nice fortune running the Imperial Palace in Vegas. He contributed over $110 million to UND to build Engelstad arena, which (IMHO) is nicer then most NHL arenas. The problem (if it can be called a problem) is that Engelstad arena is not just a tribute to Engelstad himself, but to the Fighting Sioux logo. The logo is EVERYWHERE (imbedded in marble, carved into the woodwork, logos on the seats, etc) and the arena would basically need to be rebuilt to get all of the remnants out. Engelstad also said that the arena and the other money that he donated (I believe it was more than $200 million) was contingent on UND keeping the Sioux nickname.

Though Engelstad is dead, I believe the worry is that his lawyers will still follow through and pull the remaining money that is being donated away, leaving the university in a lurch.

Coming from ND and attending UND for 3 years, I have mixed feelings about this. A number of the Sioux tribes do not mind having UND use the Fighting Sioux name, some of them are majorly against it. I tend to like the name, but I was raised with it and couldn't imagine another name for them.

[gstelmack]

And then there's the Fighting Illini... The Illini were almost completely wiped out by more powerful tribe from the East

That's an interesting bit of Native American history that always seems to get overlooked in these debates. Granted, we treated them horribly (much like some of the current Iraq debate, as the "good guys" we should have been above all this junk, although for early settlers it was a matter of survival), but frankly the settlers of that time weren't doing anything to the natives that they weren't already doing to themselves. The evil we perpetrated was playing the game by their rules, which just happened to fit nicely with European rules of empire-building. There was a lot of back-and-forth fighting until the colonists built up sufficient numbers and technology to finish the war.

[MrBigglesworth]

That's an interesting bit of Native American history that always seems to get overlooked in these debates. Granted, we treated them horribly (much like some of the current Iraq debate, as the "good guys" we should have been above all this junk, although for early settlers it was a matter of survival), but frankly the settlers of that time weren't doing anything to the natives that they weren't already doing to themselves. The evil we perpetrated was playing the game by their rules, which just happened to fit nicely with European rules of empire-building. There was a lot of back-and-forth fighting until the colonists built up sufficient numbers and technology to finish the war.
Shorter gstelmack: The Indians fought wars amongst themselves, which makes it perfectly reasonable to kill them all.

[gstelmack]

Shorter gstelmack: The Indians fought wars amongst themselves in which they committed numerous atrocities and practiced genocide

Corrected that for you as being what I said. I intentionally deleted the last part as I explicitly said that this did not excuse our actions one little bit (in fact went to great lengths to explain that), a quite obvious sign of your affectation for twisting what people said.

My "point" is that the Native Americans were not this pristine victimless ideal society everyone likes to paint them as.

[Abe Sargent]

Shorter gstelmack: The Indians fought wars amongst themselves, which makes it perfectly reasonable to kill them all.


Gotta admit, that was a really bizarre reading of the guy, because in the very part you quote, he says that we treated them horribly and we shouldn't have.

-Anxiety

[st.cronin]

That's an interesting bit of Native American history that always seems to get overlooked in these debates. Granted, we treated them horribly (much like some of the current Iraq debate, as the "good guys" we should have been above all this junk, although for early settlers it was a matter of survival), but frankly the settlers of that time weren't doing anything to the natives that they weren't already doing to themselves. The evil we perpetrated was playing the game by their rules, which just happened to fit nicely with European rules of empire-building. There was a lot of back-and-forth fighting until the colonists built up sufficient numbers and technology to finish the war.

Also, the various tribes broke more treaties (a lot more) than were broken by European colonies. And in terms of environmental impact, the Native Americans are largely responsible for the Great Plains being plains, and not forest - they repeatedly burned down the forests until they stopped growing back. So, there's a lot of myth out there.

[HerRealName]

Also, the various tribes broke more treaties (a lot more) than were broken by European colonies. And in terms of environmental impact, the Native Americans are largely responsible for the Great Plains being plains, and not forest - they repeatedly burned down the forests until they stopped growing back. So, there's a lot of myth out there.

This is a joke, right? The Great Plains a forest? This has to be a joke.

[st.cronin]

This is a joke, right? The Great Plains a forest? This has to be a joke.

It's not a joke, although there is some debate. Most historians think it used to be a forest, and was systematically burned down by native americans.

Google turned this up as the first link for "native americans burning down forests", I'm sure if you're interested you'll do more reading.

http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/Change/native_fire.htm

[HerRealName]

It's not a joke, although there is some debate. Most historians think it used to be a forest, and was systematically burned down by native americans.

Google turned this up as the first link for "native americans burning down forests", I'm sure if you're interested you'll do more reading.

http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/Change/native_fire.htm

Most historians certainly do not believe that the Great Plains went from forest to grassland because of the native population. After googling around, this seems to come from a claim by Jonah Goldberg in a speech and an article the followed in the National Review when he was ridiculed.

Here's a better reference: http://www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/govdocs/text/greatplains/text.html

"The general lack of trees suggests that this is a land of little moisture, as indeed it is. Nearly all of the Great Plains receives less than 24 inches of rainfall a year, and most of it receives less than 16 inches. This dryness and the strength of sunshine in this area, which lies mostly between 2,000 and 6,000 feet above sea level, create the semiarid environment that typifies the Great Plains. But it was not always so. When the last continental glacier stood near its maximum extent, some 12,000-14,000 years ago, spruce forest reached southward as far as Kansas, and the Great Plains farther south was covered by deciduous forest. The trees retreated northward as the ice front receded, and the Great Plains has been a treeless grassland for the last 8,000-10,000 years."

[JW]

In his book 1491, about the Americas before the Europeans arrived, Charles Mann says among other things that the Indians greatly altered the environment and landscape. He says the Americas were much more thickly populated than older histories say, and the environmental changes were significant and persistent. He says agriculture took place in as much as two thirds of the continental United States, the the Southeast and Midwest were full of maize fields on raised terraces, that the eastern forests were not 'primeval' but managed forest preserves, and that the eastern coast was lined with farms and not forest.

He doesn't talk about a deforestation of the Great Plains, and I don't think that is correct.

But he does make the point that Indians were not pastoral environmentalists who believed no one owned the land.

They managed the land intensely and believed very much in private or tribal ownership.

Most of this was wiped about before the Americas were significantly populated with Europeans, with diseases decimating Indian populations and destroying those advanced cultures at the very onset of contact with Europeans. We know, for example, that the Pilgrims settled in an area of recently abandoned Indians settlements and farms.

This probably has nothing to do with the original topic.

[Abe Sargent]

This probably has nothing to do with the original topic.


You should know, you started it!


-Anxiety

[st.cronin]

Actually, it is known that the Great Plains were, at one time, forested. The geological evidence is, afaik, very clear. It is also known that the Indians engaged in controlled burning. What is debated is whether this led to the demise of the forests, or whether there was some other cause, such as lightning, or some combination of causes.