FanDuel - WFBC

August 05, 2005

NCAA bans Indian mascots for postseason : but will not prohibit their use otherwise.

posted by lil_brown_bat to culture at 10:09 AM - 121 comments

The story is incomplete -- there are a lot of missing details, and it's not 100% clear whether this targets Indian mascots exclusively or any "nicknames or mascots deemed 'hostile or abusive'." Interestin' development, though. (and don't whine at me about Yahoo, no one else has picked it up yet!).

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:11 AM on August 05

As longs as the kind line are clear, I have no prolbem with this. I'll be waiting for the complete details with high expectation!

posted by daddisamm at 10:20 AM on August 05

I don't like Indian mascots. However, I also dislike the NCAA strong-arming individual schools. Schools like FSU regularly host NCAA regionals and now will be forced to change their name in order to do so in the future.

posted by bperk at 10:35 AM on August 05

FSU President is threatening a legal fight.

posted by bperk at 10:40 AM on August 05

So in post season FSU will be known as the Semi-noles ?

posted by evil empire at 10:44 AM on August 05

Or Semen holes?

posted by bperk at 10:50 AM on August 05

Will the NCAA brass have to stop meeting in Indian-apolis? Maybe the city can change its name to Native American-apolis!

posted by tanuki11 at 11:07 AM on August 05

Will fans be arrested for doing the tomahawk chop ? How about the indian riding in on a horse planting the spear in the middle of the field ? Lets suck out all traditions and homoginize sporting events to the point no one has any fun anymore . Unless the native american mascot is acting like a buffoon in order to put down the race , where is the hurt ?

posted by evil empire at 11:27 AM on August 05

The NCAA banned the use of American Indian mascots by sports teams during its postseason tournaments, but will not prohibit them otherwise. The NCAA's executive committee decided this week the organization did not have the authority to bar Indian mascots by individual schools. Isn't this really the first step in banning Native American mascots altogether? Maybe the organization did not have the authority to bar Indian mascots by individual schools now, but by banning the use of the mascots during postseason tournaments the NCAA is, in effect, forcing the individual schools to change their mascots year 'round. It seems to me the NCAA have found a loophole and are charging right through. I metioned in another NA mascot thread recently that I am part NA and really don't see what all the fuss is about. I just don't see how this a battle chosen wisely, but that's just one person's opinion. If it's offensive to certain people, change the names, for fucks sake. Who or what will a change hurt?

posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 11:49 AM on August 05

Somebody is always going to find something offensive. Once you start where do you stop?

posted by volfire at 12:02 PM on August 05

You know my heritage is Irish. I think I want Notre Dame to change their name. It offends me. This whole concept is ludicrous. BTW I am also 1/8 Pawnee and the use of Indian (I'm also native american because I was born in Kansas) mascots doesn't offend me in the least. Political Correctness does however.

posted by scottypup at 12:03 PM on August 05

If the NCAA doesn't want to host championships at Indian-mascot schools, this new rule seems like a reasonable exercise of its power. It's a pretty huge change if it withholds championships from all of the schools with Indian mascots. Noles fans in Florida will be on the warpa-, er, up in arms about this.

posted by rcade at 12:08 PM on August 05

Somebody is always going to find something offensive. Once you start where do you stop? It seems like there's a natural stopping point: When there aren't any more mascots that depict a particular race or ethnicity, because historically those mascots have leant themselves to inappropriate racial stereotypes. It's beyond debate that a considerable number of Native Americans find these mascots -- and the surrounding trappings like the Braves' tomahawk chop -- offensive. As much as I've grown accustomed to the Redskins, how can I put my arbitrary sports traditions over the interests of people who are harmed by them?

posted by rcade at 12:13 PM on August 05

Explain to me exactly how someone is harmed by a mascot? Oddended maybe, but no one is harmed. PC gone wild is all it is.

posted by scottypup at 12:17 PM on August 05

I hate political correctness!

posted by melcarek69 at 12:20 PM on August 05

From the news story: The NCAA plans to ban schools using Indian nicknames from hosting postseason events. I don't know if this is an error. But it says that it will ban schools with Indian nicknames, not just schools with Indian mascots or that are offensive. This means the Seminoles, the Illini, the Utes, etc. So, I guess that any Indian reference is now forbidden. In other words, Indian tribe names are now dirty words? Why not eliminate all reference to Indian heritage from our history books as well? Oh, and we need to change some state names also: Illinois, the Dakotas, Utah.

posted by graymatters at 12:23 PM on August 05

I'm waiting for birds, bears, cats and pirates to begin the complaining process. After all, they have rights too!

posted by melcarek69 at 12:23 PM on August 05

The NCAA Press Room includes the audio of the conference call at which this policy was announced. Throughout the new rules, the language affects "institutions with hostile or abusive racial, ethnic, national origin mascots, nicknames, or imagery." There's no clarification on whether it covers all Native American mascots, or just the use of ones that are deemed "hostile or abusive." Listening to the call, it sounds like the NCAA wants anything involving a mascot with racial connotations to be removed, even something like FSU's adoption of the nickname Seminoles. A list of affected schools has yet to be released.

posted by rcade at 12:27 PM on August 05

OMG!!!!! Here we go again. If you really think about it, someone can complain about any team mascot in the county. Duke Blue Devils for example. All the Baptists can complain about that one. Maryland Terrapins: Turtles bite and can cause harm. Fear the Turtle. Panthers, Lions, Tigers, and any other animal you can think of can be complained about by someone. You can't even have an Angel for a mascot. The Devil worshipers can complain about that. We are a country of complainers. It's just a name and a guy in a costume.

posted by dbt302 at 12:27 PM on August 05

Good call dbt. It's also one of the biggest reasons why most other countries don't like us. With a land so plentifull, why do We always have to find things to bitch about? Indians, Devil worshippers and Angels alike need to get over it.

posted by melcarek69 at 12:30 PM on August 05

Explain to me exactly how someone is harmed by a mascot? Here's one attempt by Native Americans to make that explanation. Here's another, which I excerpted previously on SportsFilter, from a Native American:

... a man I know took his son to a high school football game. His son was only five the team was called the Indians. The opposing team took a life size doll and dressed it up like an Indian. They put a noose around this doll's neck they hung it from tree and began screaming and chanting kill the Indians, anhilate the Indians, scalp the Indians, Kill all the Indians, this boy, who was native american began to cry looking up at his father he said daddy they are going to kill us. Daddy we are going to die, daddy we need to get out of here. Some people say that they honor Native American's by naming sporting teams after them. How is this an honor? And if you treat every race equally in this state then what other race would this State Board of Education choose to honor in such away?
I'll bet many people here share my experience of attending a school that played against teams with a Native American-themed mascot. Every pep rally was filled with that "scalp the Indians" stuff. As much as I like some of these mascots, when you make a race or ethnicity a sports mascot, it inevitably leads to negative stereotypes of that group. I don't see how sports fans can hold our sentimental attachment to a sports mascot more important than the feelings of the people like those I've quoted. (As an aside, my wife was attending Pekin, Illinois, High School when it changed its mascot from Chinks to Dragons in the '80s. There's still Chinks memorabilia in restaurants and bars around town.)

posted by rcade at 12:35 PM on August 05

You know my heritage is Irish. I think I want Notre Dame to change their name. It offends me. Except that from your tone I'm betting it really doesn't offend you (if I read that wrong, then sorry). Its beyond all of that now and its escalated into a power struggle also really. Its offensive to many people, its not to some, and others I'm sure just want to force the schools using them to change it because it would be a victory in the sense that they got powerful entities to give in to their cause. There are all kinds of reasons for all kinds of people to take their respective positions on this. If you've ever seen Kill Bill Vol. 2, there is a part in there about how Superman's Clark Kent persona is a critique of the human race as bumbling, inferior, etc. Indian mascot can be seen the same way by many people: as white folks' critique on what it is to be Indian. Like an exaggeration or caricature of what they see Indians as, which in (at least some of) these cases amounts to big nosed big smiley teeth, war like screaming and yelling, and so on. The same could be said of any humanoid racial/ethnic based mascot (like the Fighting Irish mascot is a critique of what "Irish" is or represents). And when they say things like: "were using (whatever mascot) to honor you" some people are going to hear: "fuck you were going to use it anyway." That is my take on the nicknames and mascots. I wonder if UND Fighting Sioux is on there, probably is. And comparing animal mascots to ones based on racial/ethnic groups is just being ridiculous.

posted by chris2sy at 12:36 PM on August 05

There are 18 schools whose mascots are considered hostile or abusive no matter how they are used, according to an NCAA official answering reporters during the call. They haven't released the list of schools yet.

posted by rcade at 12:40 PM on August 05

At a meeting once I asked a group of people who were all of Indian heritage if they were offended by the use of these mascots and other references. I think there was one fo maybe 25 who was. A couple others only said they were offended when it was associated with a terrible program. The association with a powerful and winning program in no way demeans someone. Shoot Hawaii changed there name to Warriors because it is a powerful image. Warriors are winners. As far as the way mascots are beaten up and destroyed, I've seen this done to pirates,bears, birds. So now should PETA get involved? Is that promoting cruelty to animals? As I said before I am 1/8 Pawnee. So my posts are not the white man not understanding how Native Americans feel about it. We are a nation of whiners and this is another thing to whine about. But your energy into bettering the poverty on reservations. Eliminating the high unemployment and high alchoholism. If people who spend all their tiem complaining about sports mascots would spend half the time on real issues it might actually make the world a better place.

posted by scottypup at 12:45 PM on August 05

I think colleges, pro sports, etc. should just go the corporate route. Name the team after the highest bidder. Washington Windows XP's USC Imacs Florida Minute Maids Miami Epcots

posted by graymatters at 12:45 PM on August 05

A direct quote from NCAA official Myles Brand during the call: "Florida State is one of the schools that we find hostile and abusive." Sounds like the list of 18 includes every school with a nickname that's unmistakeably a reference to Native Americans.

posted by rcade at 12:47 PM on August 05

This is a problem with my old high school in Georgia. The team has been called Blue Devils since day one. It has been 52 years. As we all know, Georgia is filled with Baptists. Every once in a while they get a wild hair up their ass and try to get the name changed to the Blue Elephants. It's bad enough we can't have prayer in school or even before a HIGH SCHOOL football game in Georgia. You go to the game for the game. Not complain about the mascots. Daddy we are going to die, daddy we need to get out of here. That is where the father or mother has to explain what is going on to the child so he understands. Bad parenting.

posted by dbt302 at 12:49 PM on August 05

... with one exception: UNC-Pembroke because 20 percent of its student body is Native American and the mascot's a historic reference to that (paraphrasing the NCAA).

posted by rcade at 12:51 PM on August 05

I'm curious if the Haskell Fighting Indians will have to change their name?

posted by scottypup at 12:51 PM on August 05

I can see it now. "Tonight on ESPN, The Maryland Crabcakes verses The Florida State People with Paint on their face and feathers on their head.

posted by dbt302 at 12:54 PM on August 05

I went to a high school who's mascot was a minuteman {no digs on viagra please!} I'm sure our founding fathers wouldn't give a damn that part of their memory is tied up in a sports program. As far as the college side, I attended DePaul for nearly 2 years and never heard a complain from any Blue Demons.

posted by melcarek69 at 01:01 PM on August 05

Ok Mr. and Mrs. 'Tradition' - if the name has no meaning or importance, so people shouldn't get upset about it, then why do you care if they change it? As you say - it's just a name. In fact, teams change names all the time - where was the big cry for tradition when the Bullets became the Wizards? Or the Blue Jays became the Jays? It was nowhere - because the real reason is people like the racist stuff. They think it's just fine.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:03 PM on August 05

The reason Washington changed their name to the Wizards is because there are more "bullets" in DC than people. That was a crime issue. Blue Jays to Jays? Oh come now. Isn't the bird still blue on their uniform? Yes, the name has meaning and importance. It has meaning and importance to the people who go to these schools. I don't want my high school to change their name to the Blue Elephants. The name Blue Devils has meaning and importance to me. Do you think it meant nothing to all those diehard Bullet fans to have the name changed? You change a name and a small part of you dies.

posted by dbt302 at 01:11 PM on August 05

No one has stepped up to defend the Chinks yet. Why could that be? What's ludicrous is comparing Indians to "birds, bears, cats [or] pirates."

posted by wood at 01:27 PM on August 05

I'm glad we can have these discussions about native American mascots. It gives everyone a chance to go absolutely nuts in one single discussion, instead of spreading it across a bunch of other threads. It's like a pressure release valve for SpoFi.

posted by grum@work at 01:27 PM on August 05

I have noticed that every time there is a complaint like this, everyone comes out with an opinion. Makes for good reading.

posted by dbt302 at 01:29 PM on August 05

When you change all the hate words and phrases as well as these names mentioned...what is left? People will always find things to hate on. It's what We do in this country. I'm not going to even start on Washingtons name change. Let me ask, since they changed it several years ago now, has the gunplay ended in D.C.? How about the east coast? For that matter, the country? Answer is, not on your life. The world is not going to change because a bullett turns into a wizard or a blue jay turns into a jay. With all of the real and important issues We face in this world everyday, why can't We just put the focus where it belongs and quit paying attention to those who think they're intelligence reigns? Right now, people are dying in the middle east. Do you really think the last thing they were thinking was too bad I'm not going to survive to see what FSU is going to do about this injustice? I'm Polish! You want to call me a freakin Pollack or ask me the millions of how many Pollacks does it take jokes you can think of, go right ahead. See, while I am proud of who I am, I still have the intelligence to know reality from overblown and uncalled for bitching!

posted by melcarek69 at 01:32 PM on August 05

Birds can be dangerous. Wasn't a golfer attacked by one not long ago? We all know how dangerous Bears are. They raid your camp and eat your food. Not to mention eating innocent salmon as they swim upstream to spawn. Pirates? They are pretty calm here in Pittsburgh. Last in their division. We might be able to let them off.

posted by dbt302 at 01:34 PM on August 05

AMEN melcarek69

posted by dbt302 at 01:35 PM on August 05

You change a name and a small part of you dies. dbt...you've got to be kidding...a small part of you dies? Is this your response to the question: Who or what will a change hurt? A small part of you will die if your high school changes the name of its mascot? You're joking, right? Was high school that important to you?

posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 01:36 PM on August 05

You are lost Texan. I didn't miss a high school football game for the better part of 25 years. Close to 300 games if you count playoffs. The team and name are a part of my life. In my eyes, Elbert County will ALWAYS be the Blue Devils. You change the name to Blue Elephants and the Blue Devil era had died. When that dies, a small part of me dies with it. Just the same as having a pet. You keep it long enough and it is family. When that family member dies, a part of you dies with it. http://www.elbert.k12.ga.us/ecchs/granitebowl/granitebowl.html/a>

posted by dbt302 at 02:04 PM on August 05

http://www.elbert.k12.ga.us/ecchs/granitebowl/granitebowl.html

posted by dbt302 at 02:05 PM on August 05

You change a name and a small part of you dies. A small part of me died when The Ballpark in Arlington became Ameriquest Field.

posted by rcade at 02:19 PM on August 05

OK...I have no conception of that sort of attachment...but OK.

posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 02:21 PM on August 05

When you change all the hate words and phrases as well as these names mentioned...what is left? People will always find things to hate on. Not that that approaces a cogent argument, but let me try to respond: I understand your point about the relative merits of labels and what a speaker means being more important than what a speaker says, but how are you missing the point that these specific labels hurt a certain set of people? If we "simply" change them to something arbitrary, who's being hurt then? In a more reductive fashion: how come the Klan is still using the same words 100 years later?

posted by yerfatma at 02:30 PM on August 05

Being in NY, you should understand. The new Yankee Stadium will never take the place of the one they have now. You can move all the monuments and anything else from one place to the new place but when they close Yankee Stadium down for good, it is going to hurt a lot of people. Just like Three Rivers in Pittsburgh and old Memorial Stadium in Baltimore. I watched Johnny Unitas play in Baltimore. I watched Brooks Robinson play there. It killed me to see them piece by piece tear that stadium down. The people here in Pittsburgh cried when Three Rivers came down. It is a matter of what you hold true in your heart.

posted by dbt302 at 02:34 PM on August 05

If we "simply" change them to something arbitrary What is an arbitrary name that someone won't complain about?

posted by dbt302 at 02:36 PM on August 05

When I went to Florida State, some of the names of the "spirit" organizations were just offensive (e.g. scalphunters, spearheads). FSU was unable or unwilling to rein in that sort of imagery, so it spiralled out of control in my opinion. On the other hand, the name Seminoles is supported by the local Seminole Indian tribe and seems like a tribute and is respectful. However, I don't see how they schools can separate one from the other. I have always thought that FSU should transition away from the name, but I do not like the NCAA forcing that decision down our throats.

posted by bperk at 02:43 PM on August 05

I'm from the syracuse area and the Orangemen were not always represened by a stupid looking orange with arms and legs but instead a native american known as the saltine warrior (they used to call syracuse the salt city) . This was replaced by a roman style warrior , ok that was acceptable but again that was changed to otto the freakin orange . Noooooooooooow they have dropped men from the name to make noooooo reference to the indians who are native to the area and run the big tax free casino , and want to be given money for their ancestors land being taken from them hundreds of years ago (i guess they wanna play the craps tables too ) . So maybe the intention is to keep progressing downwords till every team ends up with silly looking fruit as the mascot .

posted by evil empire at 02:47 PM on August 05

I wanna be your kingpin, living in Pekin. I wanna be your bigwig, living in Pekin.

posted by holden at 02:48 PM on August 05

dbt, I understand the Yankee Stadium/Memorial Stadium/Three Rivers/Colts references...I get that...I just don't see how changing the name of a high school mascot can cause a part of you or anyone else to die. Don't mistake my opinion for telling you how to feel because this issue probably runs much deeper for both of us; we seem to have had very contradictory high school experiences...hell, I didn't even bother with a reunion until number 25 rolled around 4 years ago...and I was one of the "popular" kids. So...like I said...I don't understand that sort of attachment.

posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 02:51 PM on August 05

Let's face it folks. Someone is going to complain about any name that any team has now or is changed to.

posted by dbt302 at 02:51 PM on August 05

What's next, those with prostatitis telling this guy he's got to change his name?

posted by holden at 03:00 PM on August 05

holden...looks like a sperm bank commercial waiting to happen.

posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 03:02 PM on August 05

DBT: You're arguing that your emotional attachment to a stadium is more important than someone's emotional attachment to his race. The NCAA has released the list. People keep using the word forced here, which seems more apt in the other direction: Why should the NCAA be forced to allow Native American mascots at its championship games?

posted by rcade at 03:28 PM on August 05

Someone is going to complain about any name that any team has now or is changed to. No. That's simply not true and I won't accept it as evidence for your argument. Plenty of teams have gone to bland, boring nicknames that don't cause anyone any trouble. I would mention them, but you'll all jump back in to tell us some haha about an imagined group that would get upset to the level of Native Americans being reminded of genocide. So before you jump back in, realize I'm saving you from exposing what ofay, white-bred haystacks you are. Sorry: irony intentional. Find some other fatal flaw.

posted by yerfatma at 03:31 PM on August 05

Let's face it folks. Someone is going to complain about any name that any team has now or is changed to. Yeah - right. I'm sorry but that is unmitigated bullshit. We're not talking about 'someone' - but an ethnicity. This is not crazy wacko number 613 walking down the street complaining, but an orgainized, identified and recognized minority. No complained about the Bullets or Blue Jays because it wasn't offensive. However, my point was (abley demonstrated by you, thank you) that tradition is a hollow defence, since their clearly isn't much of a tradition with sports teams - See Cleveland Spiders - sorry, Indians. Let me ask, since they changed it several years ago now, has the gunplay ended in D.C.? No, of course not. So, by that argument, we should be able to call a team the Spics, because whether we do or do not has nothing to do with the level of racism in America. Of course there is the small idea of compasion and taste. So let's think about this for a second - I'm a Native guy, who knows about the nice quaint history of the Europeans coming over to my side of the pond - ya know, the one where they kick my ancestors ass, cheat and steal them out of their land, and generations later I have to be reminded of this legacy, and my complete lack of a voice within the society, by a bunch of drunk yahoos cheering for a Redskins, or whathaveyou and refusing to change it because of 'tradition'. Yeah. Fuck you. If it is tradition, it's not acceptable (like other traditions we decided we grew out of) and should be changed. If it's 'just a name' then it can easily be changed. If it's a holy convenant between people and professional sportsteam (read: A fucking corporation) that can't be changed because 'we die a little inside' than WE need to be changed.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:31 PM on August 05

Let's face it folks. Someone is going to complain about any name that any team has now or is changed to. Actually, no one seems to (seriously) complain (or feel offended) about 90% of the professional sports team names. Just those that use ethnic or neo-religious imagery. (Indians, Devils, Fighting Irish) And by complain, I don't mean saying "That's a pretty stupid name." (*cough*MightyDucks*cough*) Who is (honestly) offended by "Red Sox", "Maple Leafs", "Dolphins", or "Suns"?

posted by grum@work at 03:36 PM on August 05

Why should the NCAA be forced to allow Native American mascots at its championship games? The NCAA is a voluntary organization of schools that have come together to organize their athletics. The NCAA is in effect exercising power over the operations of individuals schools on a matter that has little to do with governing the competition between schools. Schools who are members of the NCAA are supposed to retain their autonomy. They are using a back-handed way to control something of which they admit they do not (and should not) control.

posted by bperk at 03:49 PM on August 05

the only mascot i ever thought looked offensive was the wahoo indian that cleveland used on their uni's smiling with the big teeth .

posted by evil empire at 03:56 PM on August 05

An organization that governs competition between schools has no authority to decree what participating teams can and cannot wear at those competitions? To me, this is no different than the NCAA rules regarding alcohol or alcohol advertising at their events. It's their organization. If schools don't want to play by their rules, they can take their tomahawk and go home.

posted by rcade at 04:08 PM on August 05

well argued, pro-name-changers

posted by garfield at 04:09 PM on August 05

Mascots are one thing; but names are another. I'm not even sure that the tribal names used today are even the real names of the tribes. I've read that the Sioux and the Utes never called themselves those names until the white man came up with the name. I even heard that some of the tribal names actually started out as derogatory terms. It's just names that were given to them by settlers, just like Indian is a name that was given but has nothing to do with what Native Americans called themselves. However, the tribes then chose to adopt the white man's names.

posted by graymatters at 04:19 PM on August 05

Let's face it folks. Someone is going to complain about any name that any team has now or is changed to. This is the same argument given to keep blacks in their place decades ago...if we let them drink out of our water fountains, they'll want to sit with us in restaurants; if we let them ride in our buses, they'll want to attend our schools; if we given them jobs other than sweeping the floors and scrubbing urinals, they'll want office jobs just like us. Utter bullshit.

posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 05:28 PM on August 05

The best answer that I can come up with for all of this that if anyone is offended by any of these team names, or mascots is, you have the right in this free society (just as teams have the right to names and mascots) to not buy tickets, not buy merchandise, turn the channel, teach your children it is bad if you want to. Who are we to tell people what they can and can't do. This is a FREE country, with FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, if you don't like it don't buy it, don't support it. I just don't believe you have a right to make anyone else change it, because you don't like it. that is the best part about freedom not everybody has to like what everybody else does, but it is each persons right to express themselves, and be heard. Now that we've all been heard. Hopefully FSU will win against the NCAA asses on their bullshit ruling.

posted by jojomfd1 at 07:53 AM on August 06

Why is it you can watch a old movie with an indian depicted as a murderous , cold-blooded savage, killing , raping and torturing the white man or in later days as a drunken boffoon ,yet there's no protests or boycotts against the tv stations or theaters showing this . Yet a mascot , which usually is chosen to represent part of a heritage from that teams particular area, is the most offensive injustice ever done to their race ?

posted by evil empire at 08:47 AM on August 06

Because the Injun is played by Rock Hudson.

posted by yerfatma at 09:40 AM on August 06

This is a FREE country, with FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, if you don't like it don't buy it, don't support it. The NCAA isn't a FREE country or any other kind of country, jojo, and it has the same right to regulate conduct or expression within its purview as Father Flanagan has to tell you not to express yourself by screaming, "THE POPE IS A CHILD MOLESTER!" in catechism class.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:46 AM on August 06

FSU Blasts NCAA Ruling On 'Hostile' Nicknames

posted by tommysands at 10:57 AM on August 06

Somebody is always offended.

posted by tuffy_earl at 11:03 AM on August 06

Could someone explain whats offensive,hurtfull, or abusive about the Illini, Chippewas of Seminoles? Ok I get Braves, Redmen, and savages. The others leave me a little puzzled.

posted by volfire at 11:40 AM on August 06

Given the state of the Catholic priesthood, I'm surprised the Pope ISN'T a child molester.

posted by wfrazerjr at 11:47 AM on August 06

Could someone explain whats offensive,hurtfull, or abusive about the Illini, Chippewas of Seminoles? Ok I get Braves, Redmen, and savages. The others leave me a little puzzled. Good point, "vol". This is just another pc way of trying to aplease everybody's sensitivities no matter how illogical. Somebody is always offended I agree, "Tuffy"

posted by tommysands at 11:48 AM on August 06

There was this town next to where I grew up where a huge majority of the population was native american. Their school mascot was the braves, yet they complained about it all the time. I still dont understand why, I mean if it was a mascot name for a school full of white kids, then I can understand them being so sensative. But you would think they as native americans would be proud of it being called braves. People are just too damn sensative. Its sports, get over it.

posted by tina at 12:03 PM on August 06

Could someone explain whats offensive,hurtfull, or abusive about the Illini, Chippewas of Seminoles? Imagine a team named the Gambinos. And their mascot is a dark-haired guy in a tuxedo, who carries around a baseball bat and mimics smashing other people's heads in. And all he says is "Hey! Badda-boom, badda-bing!" Imagine how the Gambino families would feel about something like that. Now, instead of a family name, make it an historical tribal name, and instead of possibly 20 or 30 people, it reflects on hundreds or maybe thousands of people. People are just too damn sensative. It's amazing that it's always the people who aren't offended that tell the other people they are "too sensitive".

posted by grum@work at 01:03 PM on August 06

this whole thing is probably my fault. Ive been calling NCAA leadership "boneheads" for years. This is their way of getting even.

posted by infosoaker at 01:24 PM on August 06

This is obviously a higher priority than fixing the BCS mess. Then again, maybe it's the only one the NCAA can think they can fix. Grum, that "Gambino" analogy was perfect. I hope it gets through to a few that just don't get it.

posted by smithnyiu at 01:28 PM on August 06

My point is that everyone is sensitive about something. Therefore, taken to the extreme, we would have to legislate against almost all human conduct if we want to please everyone. Example was the City of SF a few years back debating a law that would outlaw offensive odors. Unfortunately, the legal standard now is not what's offensive to the "average person" but what's offensive to an "individual person". But we're talking about sports. What if I said that spitting and scratching are offensive to me. Should we outlaw those activities on the field? How about in the dugout?

posted by tommysands at 01:35 PM on August 06

There was this town next to where I grew up where a huge majority of the population was native american. Their school mascot was the braves, yet they complained about it all the time. I still dont understand why Did you ever ask them? What did they say?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:38 PM on August 06

Ok maybe you misunderstood where I was going. With the situation I was explaining I was trying to say that since they were really proud of their heritage that it made sense to no one in the surrounding towns that they would be so sensative. We all thought since everyone from that town would get off on being "braves" that it was odd that they didn't want their mascot to be the brave. I wasn't implying that people cant be sensitive. Just in that situation it was a little hard for us to understand.

posted by tina at 01:42 PM on August 06

My point is that everyone is sensitive about something. Therefore, taken to the extreme, we would have to legislate against almost all human conduct if we want to please everyone. tommysands, you're utterly derivative. This nonsensical piece of hyperbole, or close variants of it, has been stated so many times in the course of the three Native American mascot discussions that SportsFilter has had in the last month, that there's absolutely nothing new you could possibly say about it. I mean, it's so last year! It's been done to death! And it's also been addressed quite sufficiently. So, unless you want to gain a name as a bandwagon-jumper or you have something new to say in response to those who have refuted this slippery-slope claim, maybe it would be best to stay away from this particular line of "argument".

posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:42 PM on August 06

fraze, I don't have an opinion, but if I did have that opinion, I sure wouldn't be saying it in front of that ex-boxer priest, Father Flanagan.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:44 PM on August 06

Tommy, I think you're missing the point in Grum's comment--you're not in a group that's being offended. But it's more than being offended because the nicknames and mascots in this instance are perpetuating past barbaric behavior. I can't tell from your profile or past comments what nationality/ethnicity you are but as a Jew I can tell you that any school calling itself the Nazis, Hebes or dressing up the mascot with that type of outfit would piss me off. There's a difference between offending someone and perpetuating (celebrating?) past atrocities. Saying there isn't, as you and others in this thread and many past ones, doesn't make it so.

posted by billsaysthis at 01:46 PM on August 06

yeah I asked a couple and they just said that it was because we were insulting them because they were the braves, and we were being racist. I still dont get it. I dont think that anyone in the surrounding town and schools were insulting them. In fact its a cool name to have because it represents them and their heritage. Oh well I dont live their anymore so it doesnt really matter.

posted by tina at 01:46 PM on August 06

Oh and to get it straight, I dont condone past atrocities and celebrating them. i was just trying to explain why that particular situation was so baffling to everyone when it came to a mascot. But to each their own right? Everyone will always be split on this subject, its just one of those things that no one can agree on.

posted by tina at 02:10 PM on August 06

Imagine a team named the Gambinos

What about a team called the Fighting Irish? The Mountaineers? The Rebels? Are those offensive? Oh, no wait, we have all those and no one complains...

When was the last time you saw a rowdy group of Irish protesting that the Notre Dame leprechaun was offensive? Oh, never? You know why? It's not a big deal.

The NCAA is just a bunch of limp-wristed liberals trying to force their political views on all the colleges in the country. This is the same type of crap with the Confederate battle flag a few years back. The NCAA ought to stick to making basketball eligibility rules and that's all--better yet, it ought to just go away forever.

posted by Viva la Dixie at 02:12 PM on August 06

Sodomizing little boys ... yeah, that's the ticket! Image hosted by Photobucket.com Sorry, wrong FlaNAYgan.

posted by wfrazerjr at 02:16 PM on August 06

That "Gambino" thing--I mean, there's a show called The Sopranos that contains every vile Italian stereotype you'd care to name. And many, many Italian-Americans love it. The same thing with the Fighting Irish. Many, many Irish people embrace an ethnic caricature on par with Chief Wahoo for loathsomeness. So--at least in the case of the Chippewas and Seminoles (possibly the Utes and Fighting Sioux as well)--we have these schools that have nicknames that are endorsed and supported by the native people in question. Why is it all right for the NCAA to be more offended than the Seminole and Chippewa tribes? I can't see any way to support what the NCAA's doing here; they're basically saying 1. we know better than you what offends you, Native tribes, and 2. it's okay to caricature Irish people, though. It's a mindbogglingly crappy decision.

posted by Justin Slotman at 02:29 PM on August 06

When was the last time you saw a rowdy group of Irish protesting that the Notre Dame leprechaun was offensive ? But how many leperchauns do you see running around to protest . An indian is an indian , but irishmen are not leperchauns .

posted by evil empire at 02:34 PM on August 06

Hey JoJo, in addition to lbb being absolutely right about the difference between the NCAA, Catholic Church and any level of government, have you heard of libel and slander? Trade secrets and executive privilege? So, First Amendment or no, even the government can--constitutionally, according to the Supreme Court--put limits on free speech. No shoes, no shirt, no service, same deal.

posted by billsaysthis at 02:34 PM on August 06

No surprise that grum rhymes with dumb. The analogy that an Italian crime family and an historic "Indian tribe" name have anything in common is absurd. First of all, one of the great semi-pro baseball teams of all-time were named the Hebrew Oilers! Are Norsemen offended when they see the mascot of the Minnesota Vikings, NO! Are people from Ireland offended when they see that ugly leprechaun repping the "Fighting Irish" NO again. When I was a child I participated in YMCA sponsored "Indian Guides" which tried to teach us about Native Americans. Everybody was white was that okay?

posted by tanuki11 at 02:38 PM on August 06

yeah I asked a couple and they just said that it was because we were insulting them because they were the braves, and we were being racist. I still dont get it. I dont think that anyone in the surrounding town and schools were insulting them. I can believe that no one intended to insult them; however, if you walk counterclockwise around a Buddhist stupa, some Buddhists will see that as offensive. If you're doing something that offends other people, and that costs you absolutely nothing to stop doing, what is more important: that you understand fully and agree with totally every nuance of the reasons why they're offended, or that you simply discontinue an offensive action? Should they have to explain all the details of Buddhist beliefs to you -- something that you could very well go and learn on your own, if you were so inclined -- before you stop walking the wrong way around the stupa? Likewise, should Native Americans have to explain every detail of their history to you -- a history that's in books, in libraries, that you have access to -- before you stop doing something that they find objectionable? In fact its a cool name to have because it represents them and their heritage. Does it really? Is that why the mascot was created? "Hey, let's call ourselves the Braves because we think Indians are cool! Let's celebrate their heritage!" Fine. Give 'em a pop quiz. Ask them exactly what they know about this "heritage" they're celebrating. I mean, for god's sake, my local high school's name is Mohawk and the teams are called the Warriors...and their mascot, painted on the gym wall, is a Plains tribe chief. That's some celebration of heritage, that is. In reality, tina, I doubt anyone at your high school knew the first thing about these Indians whose "heritage" they were purporting to represent, and misrepresenting someone else's heritage is a disrespectful thing -- period.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:40 PM on August 06

An indian is an indian , but irishmen are not leperchauns

And Utah's mascot, a hawk, IS an Indian? Either ethnic names are offensive or they aren't. The NCAA just doesn't care to take on Notre Dame and its massive alumni base. It would lose. NCAA hypocracy.

posted by Viva la Dixie at 02:58 PM on August 06

Um actually I grew up around their heritage aand I have many indian friends. So for you to say that is bullshit. And yes they were the ones that started that mascot back it the 50's so you can understand why we were wondering why they suddenly wanted to change it. Did i not just say that basically the whole pop. was native american? They chose it. Oh and I have indian in my family so dont sit there and chatise me on it.

posted by tina at 03:01 PM on August 06

And Utah's mascot, a hawk, IS an Indian? No you missed my point , an indian is a real human being where as a leprechaun is a fairy tale legend .

posted by evil empire at 03:04 PM on August 06

Ok, Irish are real human beings that have certainly been subjected to negative stereotypes over the years. Why is the Irish nickname not offensive but "Ute" is? It can't be because of its mascot, since Utah doesn't have an Indian mascot any longer. What is it, then?

posted by Viva la Dixie at 03:08 PM on August 06

Like I said earlier, not everyone is going to agree on this subject. Its actually kind of funny to see you so damn worked up about it. When it comes down to it, it should be about the sport not the mascot. When I watch sports I could care less about the mascot, I just want to sit, relax and watch the game.

posted by tina at 03:09 PM on August 06

Or Mountaineers? Or Rebels? Were I a West Virginia resident, for instance, I might be offended that we are all stereotyped as rifle-toting, coon skin capped wearing hillbillies. As a Southerner, should I be offended that we are portrayed at Ole Miss as julep-sipping, plantation owners?

posted by Viva la Dixie at 03:12 PM on August 06

White men gave them their names (the tribal names and even the name Iindian are not what Native Americans called themselves). And now the white man, backed by a few Native American activists (or possibly the other way around), want to eliminate references to their names. It is one thing to complain about mascots (Chief Wahoo or whatever); it is a totally different thing to complain about the nickname. The Seminales, the Utes, the Illilno. Where is the offensiveness in those names. Simply, because they are "Indian" names. Then, the same with the Irish. Forget the damn leprechaun, the attack is not only on the mascot but on the use of the nickname as well. I think this is really a plot to eventually eliminate all reference to Native American heritage. If we don't hear their name, then maybe we want have to remember they exist.

posted by graymatters at 03:13 PM on August 06

I dont know Viva, but apparently we are wrong to have our opinions according to some. I have never seen so many people get so crazy over mascots.

posted by tina at 03:14 PM on August 06

No surprise that grum rhymes with dumb. Wow. When you run out intelligent things to say, I guess you are only left with name calling. Very mature. That "Gambino" thing--I mean, there's a show called The Sopranos that contains every vile Italian stereotype you'd care to name. And many, many Italian-Americans love it. Sorry to do this, but you walked right into the trap. I deliberately chose "Gambino" and Italian sterotypes because I knew someone would bring up the Sopranos. First of all, a large organization of Italian-Americans do not like it. Secondly, that is art. Movies, television shows, books, music...those are art. Team mascots, team names, for schools that receive public funding, those are not art. If you want to have a private organization that is as racist and derogatory as possible, there is nothing to stop you (see: the Klan). However, if you receive any funding from another organization (government or otherwise), and you have a name that offends them, they have the right to impose restrictions (tied to the funding) to ask you to change the name. You don't like the restrictions, don't ask for the money. Or Mountaineers? Or Rebels? Were I a West Virginia resident, for instance, I might be offended that we are all stereotyped as rifle-toting, coon skin capped wearing hillbillies. As a Southerner, should I be offended that we are portrayed at Ole Miss as julep-sipping, plantation owners? Are there people called "Mountaineers"? Have they, in fact, complained about the name? And it's the name of a profession, not a people. Are there people called "Rebels" in the south? Are they identified as "rebels"? Have they complained about the name? If not, then the name really isn't that offensive, is it? Again, I ask. Why bring up other examples where people aren't actually offended? How does that support your argument? Unless you are one of those people that are being used as a mascot/team name, I don't understand where you are coming from. Also, in case anyone forgot, the "Fighting Irish" mascot wasn't always a leprechaun. The Leprechaun wasn't always the official mascot of Notre Dame - for years the team was represented by a series of Irish terrier dogs. The first, named Brick Top Shuan-Rhu, was donated by one Charles Otis of Cleveland and presented to Irish head coach Knute Rockne the weekend of the Notre Dame-Pennsylvania game Nov. 8, 1930. A number of terriers later took the role of the school mascot, which usually took the name Clashmore Mike. The Clashmore Mike mascot last made an appearance on the cover of the 1963 Notre Dame Football Dope Book with coach Hugh Devore and captain Bob Lehmann. The Leprechaun was named the official mascot in 1965. (from here) So don't get all sentimental about how "Fighting Irish" and the pugilistic mascot have some "long time" history. It ain't true. Where is the offensiveness in those names. You just aren't reading anyone else's postings, are you?

posted by grum@work at 03:39 PM on August 06

Sorry, grump, I couldn't hear you over all the whining. Did you say something?

posted by graymatters at 03:51 PM on August 06

Where is the offensiveness in those names. Simply, because they are "Indian" names. I'm guessing, but I think the NCAA's logic is that any Native American mascot -- even if a nickname with no imagery -- encourages negative stereotypes of a race from the school and its opponents. It's commonplace in sports for a mascot to be the focus of abuse from the fans and cheerleaders of opposing teams. When that mascot's a race, separating the playful stereotypes from the ugly racist ones is not easy, and fans embrace these stereotypes. Look how invested the fans of the Cleveland Indians are in Chief Wahoo, an unmistakably racist caricature of a "red man" that should have been retired decades ago. I don't think the NCAA will be able to refuse the use of the nicknames Seminoles and Illini. Some politicians from these schools will use leverage on the NCAA that trumps the leverage the group is putting on schools. However, I applaud the effort. I hope a few of the schools singled out by this rule will drop the Native American mascots or put as much thought into them as Florida State has attempted to do with "Seminoles" over the past decade.

posted by rcade at 03:56 PM on August 06

grum said: "Sorry to do this, but you walked right into the trap. I deliberately chose "Gambino" and Italian sterotypes because I knew someone would bring up the Sopranos." Trap? Sports are art. They're not science. ;) And the public funding thing--I mean, again, why does the NCAA think they can tell Florida State and Central Michigan that the relationships they have with the Seminole and Chippewa tribes--both of whom support the nicknames--that they have derogatory nicknames? Are the Florida Seminoles and Saginaw Chippewas not acting in their own interests, and it's up the the great white NCAA to set them straight about what their interests should be? Because that's certainly what it looks like.

posted by Justin Slotman at 04:51 PM on August 06

tina: Um actually I grew up around their heritage aand I have many indian friends. So for you to say that is bullshit. And yes they were the ones that started that mascot back it the 50's so you can understand why we were wondering why they suddenly wanted to change it. Did i not just say that basically the whole pop. was native american? They chose it. Oh and I have indian in my family so dont sit there and chatise me on it. So "they" chose it. Now maybe "they're" choosing to change it. That's allowed. Do you know that the change was sudden? Were you part of the discussion or debate? What, exactly, did they say were their reasons for wanting to change it? If they just said to you, "This felt good then but it doesn't feel so good now, our kids are going to grow up to be software engineers and not half-naked primitives, and it's time to move on," would you still object? I dont know Viva, but apparently we are wrong to have our opinions according to some. You're not wrong to have your opinions. You are wrong if you believe that you should be able to put them out in a public forum and no one should be allowed to challenge or counter them. As for the Irish/Colonel/Mountaineer/whatever argument, as I pointed out the last time we discussed this issue, human mascots have a tendency to become problematic. I don't like the Irish caricatures any more than I like the Native American ones; that dumbass Celtics leprechaun is just plain stupid and yes, demeaning. And "Colonels"? If you were a female athlete at a school whose sports teams were called the Colonels, wouldn't you feel pretty stupid being represented by a mascot who's a white-haired man? What's the "Lady Colonels"' mascot, Colonel Sanders in a dress? The WNBA, a league that's only a few years old, is an interesting source of team names that don't involve any references to humans. In the WNBA, they've got the Sun, the Storm, the Lynx, the Shock, the Sparks, the Silver Stars, the Comets, the Liberty, the Mystics, etc. Plenty good names, as far as I can tell, providing plenty of metaphor-fodder without gratuitously insulting entire populations of human beings. (And the Sun rises in the east!!!)

posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:51 PM on August 06

I personally would love to be represented by Colonel Sanders in a dress.

posted by Justin Slotman at 05:52 PM on August 06

Ok, Irish are real human beings Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I think the real problem with these threads is the folks on the "this is political correctness gone MAD" side are all idiots. Honest. I think you can argue the other side of this particular fence, but the folks doing so seem . . . a little dim. "[L]imp-wristed liberals"? Stop grinding your sorry-ass axes and make a point. A point besides a team mascot you don't give a shit about should keep on keeping on because the alternative (which would make a bunch of limp-wristed, candy asses happy) is too horrible to contemplate. If you're doing something that offends other people, and that costs you absolutely nothing to stop doing, what is more important Can someone in this thread come up with an answer to lbb's point? What's the value in defending Chief Wahoo and his ilk? Bonus points for getting through two sentences without a misspelling, grammatical whoopsie, personal insult or a fallacy so reductive I need Lasix before I can choke on dinner.

posted by yerfatma at 06:55 PM on August 06

Sorry, grump, I couldn't hear you over all the whining. Did you say something? *yawn*

posted by grum@work at 07:14 PM on August 06

Thumbs up to Yerfatma. The other differences that the so-called anti-PC crowd miss, as usual, is that (a) there are enough Native Americans (or Irish-Americans) that not all of them will agree on this issue and (b) nicknames like Vikings and Fighting Irish are positive celebrations (of imperfect groups, no doubt) selected by members of that group. Notre Dame is a historically Irish school so I don't question that name but I don't recall any owner or GM of the Indians being a Native American.

posted by billsaysthis at 07:35 PM on August 06

What grum, fatty, and bill(y) said. I'll add this: When someone invades Scandanvia, Ireland, or Virginia, and not only spreads terrible diseases, makes pacts and treaties that are constantly broken with terrible effects, rapes, pillages, plunders, and forces any of those nations, at gunpoint, to either convert to their religion, language, lifestyle, and moral code, and then, less than one hundred years later, has the gumption to implant a team that plays a game that makes light of said culture, we can talk. Until then...deal with it.

posted by Ufez Jones at 08:40 PM on August 06

To add to what yerfatma said: when people say, "this is political correctness [or whatever] gone MAD," they are generally arguing that a particular instance exemplifies a trend. And as anyone who didn't just fall off the cabbage truck knows, if you want to argue that an instance exemplifies a trend, you damn well better know a thing or two about the instance. You better be able to cite details of the instance and explain how they indicate a trend; you better be able to know a thing or two about the actors and the motives. It has been painfully clear in these threads that in most cases, the people crying, "PC!" have been sorely lacking in knowledge of the basic facts of the examples that they claim support their proclamations of woe. It's like watching someone chatter on while they've got a big piece of spinach stuck in their front teeth, and the emotion it produces -- in me, at least -- is a lot less anger, and a lot more sympathetic embarrassment. yerfatma's right: make a point. Marshal your facts, and make a point.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:46 PM on August 06

Wow lil brown bat, let it go!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't you have better things to do in your life than having to put down others opinions? I put out my damn opinion, you said what you had to say. Get over it. It wouldn't be so bad if you wouldn't harp on me so fucking bad. I respect yours and I addressed you and tried to explain myself. You are thinking that I am being disrespectful of native americans and I am trying to tell you I'm not. By the way did you grow up where I did? No, so you dont know the situation fully. And I think I understand more than you, like I said, I've known them all my life. I would never do anything to disrespect them. If they want me to stop calling them "braves" I will. I was just wondering why they want to change it. I dont have a problem with their choices, it was just me telling a story that was similiar to what the forum subject was about. And yes I still think it is "cool" to be called braves, its a hell of a lot better than the gophers which is what my school had.

posted by tina at 09:19 PM on August 06

Wow lil brown bat, let it go!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't you have better things to do in your life than having to put down others opinions? tina, I'm looking at the last half dozen posts in this thread, and wondering why I in particular deserve your no doubt heartfelt concern about the state of my life. "Let it go" is good advice, I think, for those who have a death grip on their Indian mascots -- not so much for those who are trying to persuade them of the wisdom of turning it loose.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:43 PM on August 06

Oh god.... lets just call it a truce and move on. Look you think its wrong, thats fine. I am more interested in the actual sport anyway. ok? :) Besides disagreeing on the same subject for I dont know how long gets old.

posted by tina at 10:55 PM on August 06

tina, FWIW, I don't think we really disagree. You're saying -- my paraphrase -- "I don't get why they want to change the name." I'm saying that I think I get some of the reasons, but that I don't think it really matters why, because the name change doesn't do any harm, while leaving the name as is apparently does. It's also worth noting, I think, that the NCAA isn't exactly a wild radical foaming-at-the-mouth organization. The organization's quite conservative, not in the sense of a political neocon, but in the original sense, meaning that they want change to happen slooooooowly if at all. Remember that they put up quite a spirited opposition to Title IX. So something that the the NCAA puts forth is not exactly going to represent the bleeding edge of radical progressive change.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:35 PM on August 06

Ok......... now are we done with it? I get where your coming from, and like I said earlier, to each their own. I am just tired of you refering to me all the time. lol. Just smile, take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts.

posted by tina at 12:11 AM on August 07

I hate ending on a bad note.........

posted by tina at 12:12 AM on August 07

I hate ending on a bad note......... Tina, I for one, loved your posts. Please don't go...

posted by tommysands at 08:04 PM on August 07

Sure, tina, we're done with it. But it ain't me "referring to you" like some kind of insane stalker -- if you post comments on SpoFi, people will respond. It's just how the thing works.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:33 PM on August 07

"but I don't recall any owner or GM of the Indians being a Native American" They got the nickname when they hired the first Native player (Sockalexis). As for Atlanta, theirs traces back to the use of "brave" as a rank in Tammany Hall (!)--the rank of an early owner back when they were in Boston. The old "Moccasins" nickname here at Tennessee-Chattanooga was only an indirect Indian reference--Moccasin Bend is a (shoe-shaped) major natural feature of the city.

posted by silverpie at 10:43 AM on August 09

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