NCAA deems Chief Illiniwek Hostile

I just read the same story and it really pisses me off. I don't understand how a Native Ameican in a feather headress is insulting and degrading to Native Americans. Have you ever been to Pow Wow? Many still wear traditional garb. I'm part Cherokee (albeit only 1/8) and find it ridiculous that people are offended. Now the Cleveland logo, I can somewhat understand how people might find it degrading. It's cartoonish and stereotypical. But I also think those same people might take themselves a little too seriously.

posted by willthrill72 at 04:16 PM - reply - flag:

In a land infested with lawyers, get ready for the class action suit on behalf of all the birds and animals used as logos and mascots. I'll bet it's not too far off. And what about the "Patriots". Liberals have to be looking for ways to shoot this one down...

posted by STLCardinalfan at 06:19 PM - reply - flag:

cardsfan, willthrill72, and STLCardinalfan, we've had this thread multiple times, including at least once that was specific to the NCAA ruling, which is not news. Perhaps you might want to search the archives.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:26 PM - reply - flag:

And what about the "Patriots". Liberals have to be looking for ways to shoot this one down... This gets my vote for stupidest thing I've heard this week. Way to make an immediate impact.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:29 PM - reply - flag:

Oh goody. It's been a while since we've had this argument on SpoFi. Pass.

posted by grum@work at 06:40 PM - reply - flag:

I'm part Cherokee (albeit only 1/8) and find it ridiculous that people are offended. I'm 1/8 Scottish yet, unfortunately, I am no more in tune with the Scottish people and customs than the average American. Do you think having a great-grandparent who was Cherokee authorizes you to speak for the Illinois Confederacy of Native American tribes? I'm not saying you must to be Native American to have an opinion on the subject, just that if you aren't, don't try to legitimize your opinion by halfassedly claiming you are.

posted by cl at 06:48 PM - reply - flag:

/checks woodpile, finds nothing ...

posted by yerfatma at 07:18 PM - reply - flag:

Black Hand - Stupedist thing? Tell it to your ACLU

posted by STLCardinalfan at 07:29 PM - reply - flag:

Tell it to your ACLU You make it sound like the ACLU is a bad thing. You really don't think the ACLU is a bad thing, do you? And how coincidental is it that "STLCardinalfan" defends "cardsfan"? Just about as coincidental that "STLCardinalfan" happen to join SpoFi on the very day that the FPP was made? And really, STLCardinalfan, it shouldn't be too hard to spell stupidest, should it? I mean, The_Black_Hand did spell it correctly for you in his post.

posted by grum@work at 07:41 PM - reply - flag:

Black Hand - Stupedist thing? Tell it to your ACLU Really? How about if you provide us with a cite of the ACLU is trying to get rid of the New England Patriots' name? If you still have any vim and vigor left after that fruitless search, you might try doing some research on the NCAA ban, and them come back and tell us all what the ACLU had to do with that. As I said before, we have had this discussion here in the not-so-recent past, so if you're feeling inclined to make silly assertions like the ones you've been making here, you really better do your homework first. You've got some catching up to do.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:08 PM - reply - flag:

I don't understand You could have stopped there. I mean really, the Chief Illiniwek thing is only one of the most offensive examples. But you were probably absent for this thread.

posted by chris2sy at 08:39 PM - reply - flag:

Wow..cl, you know next to nothing about me yet you presume I am not "in tune" with my Native American heritage. That's a pretty bold statement. It's too bad you are not in tune with your own lineage. And why would I would I feel like I'm speaking for the Illinois Confederacy of Native American Tribes? I'm stating my own opinion and feelings. Isn't what this forum is for? And why must someone legitimize an opinion? An opinion is someone's pesonal feelings. I don't need to legitmize my own feelings to someone who doesn't know me form Adam. I'm also half German. Does that mean I speak for all Germanic people? Give me a break! I have friends and relatives who are Native Amercan, some whom still reside on a res. Do I feel I speak for them ...no. But am I more "in tune" with my Native American heritage than you are with your Scottish heritage. Apparently so. lbb- as far as beating a dead horse, I apologize. I'm a relatively new member and was just commenting on the post.

posted by willthrill72 at 08:57 PM - reply - flag:

No worries, but shouldn't 12.5% of you be using every part of that dead horse? We did go through about 800 discussions of this subject a few months ago. I too am waiting for the explanation of how to use "ACLU" as an insult. Unless you were just using it because "fag" is unacceptable nowadays.

posted by yerfatma at 10:33 PM - reply - flag:

I too am waiting for the explanation of how to use "ACLU" as an insult. I think it's supposed to be synonymous with "liberal commie pinko cheese-eating surrender monkey fag". Oops. Forget that last bit.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:40 PM - reply - flag:

Let's just make some glue out of the dead horse, put this topic in an envelope seal it up , and send it to the "ACLU". And wait for them to get back to us on it?

posted by palange51 at 11:37 PM - reply - flag:

A merican C ivil L iberties U nion Please tell me what's wrong with any of these words.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 11:57 PM - reply - flag:

Nothing....... Good point

posted by palange51 at 12:08 AM - reply - flag:

LBB, sorry I haven't been posting on here for years and I have better things to do than search the archives. I'm sure your comment wasn't personal at all, right? If a post bothers you, just ignore and let those who want to discuss do so. (Don't worry there will be some boring ass discussion about curling for you tomorrow!) Scrappy observation there grum, but I'm not sure what you are getting at. The are lots of different "cards" out there in the sports world, do you have some stats to prove that anyone with cards in their user name is part of a secret society that gets on the internet to defend one anothers opinion? And while you are crunching numbers go back and actaully READ the post. STL gave an opinion on the post. H/she didn't "defend" anything. You old timers sure do know how to welcome new people.

posted by cardsfan at 04:25 AM - reply - flag:

What the "F$@#" ever happened to the simple life and people were not affraid of what they said? This crap about team names is a flippen JOKE! ACLU Get over it already and all you other people offended, big deal...it's a team sport and a team name?

posted by uzdoug at 05:10 AM - reply - flag:

LBB, sorry I haven't been posting on here for years and I have better things to do than search the archives. That's a shame; you might learn something. Along with the heat, there was a good bit of light in those discussions. But you seem more after the former than the latter, anyway. You old timers sure do know how to welcome new people. "New people"? Thought you just said you'd been here years ago.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:59 AM - reply - flag:

ACLU Get over it already Aaaand another one...uzdoug, may I suggest you step back from the tee, put that driver back in the bag, read the article in the link, find where it makes any reference to the ACLU, and then get back to us.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:01 AM - reply - flag:

I like the part where Grum gets called scrappy...just like little David Eckstein. He'll probably love that.

posted by chris2sy at 08:24 AM - reply - flag:

LBB, I wouldn't have posted the thing if I didn't think there was some merit to the discussion/ posts that would ensue. (You seem to accuse a good number of people of fanning flames, but you do a good deal of it yourself sometimes.) The thing about the article that interested me most was the NCAA took a punitive approach to how schools were selected to host postseason events and I believe the detail I gave did elude to this. I was hoping the post would lead to a discussion of how what the NCAA bases its decisions on because I really don't know: just assumed it was the typical money and media market. (And I never said I have been posting on here for years. You seem to be real involved in the board so how about talking to the powers that be to make it so that one has to search the archives prior to posting a link?)

posted by cardsfan at 09:26 AM - reply - flag:

Interesting comments defending the ACLU. If they havn't gotten around to this subject/suit yet (and you can bet they will) they must be too busy trying to kill Christmas and/or God or something. Tis the season after all. Or maybe all their lawyers are tied up supporting NAMBLA or other worthy pursuits. As for the acronym, ACLU, that's a ridiculos point since they can choose any words they want regardless of how descriptive they may or may not be. I could think of many the fit better...

posted by STLCardinalfan at 11:24 AM - reply - flag:

Scrappy observation there grum, but I'm not sure what you are getting at. The are lots of different "cards" out there in the sports world, do you have some stats to prove that anyone with cards in their user name is part of a secret society that gets on the internet to defend one anothers opinion? You'll have to accept my apologies for that comment I made. We've had a couple of instances where people have created multiple accounts and used them to support their own posts/previous comments. I shouldn't have jumped to that conclusion right away, and I apologize for insinuating it. You old timers sure do know how to welcome new people. It's probably a combination of a "dead-horse" topic and recent posts by other new individuals that have led to some "old timers" to look suspiciously at people who join and then post (on the same day) in controversial subjects. We're probably over-protective of our little sports haven. I like the part where Grum gets called scrappy...just like little David Eckstein. He'll probably love that. The funny part is that my baseball skills would definitely fit into the "scrappy" category. Sadly, I don't have a team of FOX baseball analysts to follow me around and tell everyone how I made a "scrappy" sandwich for lunch and put out a good "scrappy" effort into getting the garbage out last night. Interesting comments defending the ACLU. If they havn't gotten around to this subject/suit yet (and you can bet they will) they must be too busy trying to kill Christmas and/or God or something. Tis the season after all. Or maybe all their lawyers are tied up supporting NAMBLA or other worthy pursuits. Aaaand that's the end of me being nice. Please keep your Free Republic clap trap to yourself. It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject in hand (since, as l_b_b points out, the ACLU isn't involved in any way), and is just inflamatory. If you want to be greeted warmly by the "old timers", posts like this make it very difficult to do.

posted by grum@work at 03:23 PM - reply - flag:

Please keep your Free Republic clap trap to yourself. Indeed! May I suggest it might be easier and far less stressful to ignore posts from people with whom you disagree. And excuse me if this subject reminds me of certain self-appointed keepers of our liberties.

posted by STLCardinalfan at 05:00 PM - reply - flag:

May I suggest it might be easier and far less stressful to ignore posts from people with whom you disagree. Not speaking for grum, but I strongly suspect disagreement was the least of it; it was the damn-fool irrelevancy that you got called on.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:12 PM - reply - flag:

damn-fool irrelevancy Thank you for deciding what's relevant to me. Obviously I'm at fault for not seeing the article your way.

posted by STLCardinalfan at 09:55 AM - reply - flag:

Thank you for deciding what's relevant to me. Obviously I'm at fault for not seeing the article your way. You saw the ACLU in the article, and they weren't involved at all. You decided to make some false claims ("Patriots") and you got called on it. You tried to throw in some more silly accusations against the ACLU, and got called on that again. None of it had to do with the article at hand. It was strictly a rant from your mind. It's pretty easy to see why people would find most of what you write to be classified as "irrelevant".

posted by grum@work at 08:08 PM - reply - flag:

I'm part Cherokee (albeit only 1/8) and find it ridiculous that people are offended. Now the Cleveland logo, I can somewhat understand how people might find it degrading. It's cartoonish and stereotypical. How is Illiniweek not cartoonish and stereotypical? The Illini were primarily farmers and traders who lived in settled villages. Illiniwek's wearing a Plains Indian war bonnet and the military regalia of a Sioux warrior. He's about as respectful and accurate a representative of the Illini as an Irishman depicted in a Scottish kilt with a half-empty whiskey bottle in one hand. The Peoria Tribe, the only descendants of the Illini, asked the school to dump the character in 2000. In addition, putting a non-Native American in Sioux military dress is like putting a real Purple Heart on his chest. There's a genuine accomplishment recognized by the right to dress in that manner, and they're approprating it for a caricacture. The University of Illinois has been backing away from the character for 15 years, pulling him off the stationery and reducing his use to halftime of football, basketball and volleyball games. The Faculty Senate and many other groups on campus have called for its ouster. I love how sports fans in places like Illinois and Florida State fight like hell to save the team traditions they grew up with, but they don't respect the cultural and ethnic tradition that Native American tribes grew up with. Which is more important?

posted by rcade at 11:09 PM - reply - flag:

rcade- point taken

posted by willthrill72 at 08:30 AM - reply - flag:

None of it had to do with the article at hand. It was strictly a rant from your mind. Once again I will defer to your amazing ability to monitor the relevancy of other peoples posts. And as an aside, your defense of the ACLU I think speaks volumes. As for "false claims", I think not but certainly you may disagree.

posted by STLCardinalfan at 10:19 AM - reply - flag:

Once again I will defer to your amazing ability to monitor the relevancy of other peoples posts. There's nothing amazing about being able to read an article and determine that there is no reference to the ACLU in it. And as an aside, your defense of the ACLU I think speaks volumes. To paraphrase a pretty good movie, the ACLU is an organization that is committed to upholding the US Constitution. Why aren't you a member and why should grum, or anyone, be ashamed to defend it?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:40 AM - reply - flag:

To paraphrase a pretty good movie, Probably one of the most underrated movies out there. Every performance was excellent, and it launched a couple of decent TV shows ("West Wing" and "Spin City") based on those performances.

posted by grum@work at 11:20 AM - reply - flag:

And as an aside, your defense of the ACLU I think speaks volumes. Any time I see someone dismiss the ACLU, I'm amazed they are so proud of their own cowardice. Thousands of Americans gave their lives to protect the constitutional freedoms that we enjoy in this country. You'd give them up without a fight.

posted by rcade at 11:31 AM - reply - flag:

not to be dense (or off topic), which movie is being quoted?

posted by willthrill72 at 11:35 AM - reply - flag:

The American President

posted by grum@work at 11:59 AM - reply - flag:

thanks

posted by willthrill72 at 12:11 PM - reply - flag:

Although the linked article didn't mention it, there is new news--Illinois did get a partial win, with the committee holding that the (Fighting) Illini nickname ties not to the tribe but to the state, and is therefore OK.

posted by silverpie at 01:19 PM - reply - flag:

LBB- Why do you get so upset when someone brings up a subject that's already been discussed(I've seen 2 or 3)? Not all of us have been here forever and probably missed the conversation(and you can't have a conversation reading archives) the first time around. If you don't like it ignore it, or are you flaunting your seniority?

posted by tron7 at 01:20 PM - reply - flag:

ACLU- Way to let a dumb joke get out of hand everybody...

posted by tron7 at 01:33 PM - reply - flag:

LBB- Why do you get so upset when someone brings up a subject that's already been discussed(I've seen 2 or 3)? tron - why do you assume that I'm "so upset" simply because I pointed out that this topic has been overdone, underdone, and done done? Not all of us have been here forever and probably missed the conversation(and you can't have a conversation reading archives) the first time around. I'll point out what I pointed out at the top of the thread. This is not a news item. The NCAA ruling on Chief Illini et. al. happened some time ago. The only "news" is that, after listening to U of Ill whine, the NCAA said, "Sorry, the answer is still no." As for the archives, the value of looking at the archives is that you would see what's already been said on the subject, what arguments have been made and so on -- and you might notice that a point that you feel a need to make has already been made and answered with great finality. Forget archives, say it's a current thread -- you've been away for the weekend, you come back on Monday and read the FPP (maybe you read the article it's linked to, maybe you don't bother), and you make a comment. Only, well, it turns out that six other people made the same exact point already in the thread, raised the same question, and ten other people already answered them. That being the case, is it helpful for you to raise the same point again? If you don't like it ignore it, or are you flaunting your seniority? "If you don't like it ignore it" applies only partly to a forum that has posting standards, and while repeating the same point over and over again is not verboten, neither is commenting that this is the same old recycled crap showing up yet again. As for flaunting seniority, it doesn't take much. You joined SpoFi on September 13; on August 12 dbt302 started a thread on the news that some schools were considering appealing the NCAA ruling. As I've said several times now, it ain't exactly ancient history.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:13 PM - reply - flag:

LBB- Brevity is the best recommendation of speech, whether in a senator or an orator. -cicero :)

posted by tron7 at 02:29 PM - reply - flag:

My main point is that you can't have a discussion and voice your opinion to an archive. If you want to add something to the conversation you need to start a new thread. I'm all for reading the archives(which I did and found I had nothing important enough to add to the arguement), and I exaggerated when i said "so upset", and there isn't much news in the article which begs the question; why did the AP post it? As for flaunting seniority, it doesn't take much. You joined SpoFi on September 13 Ok... so?

posted by tron7 at 02:46 PM - reply - flag:

My main point is that you can't have a discussion and voice your opinion to an archive. If you want to add something to the conversation you need to start a new thread. Agreed; however, in this case nothing was added. which begs the question; why did the AP post it? Your guess is as good as mine (and I bet we'd both guess "slow news day/let's get a controversy going", and we'd both be right). The only thing that "happened" to occasion the article was that the NCAA said, "We listened to you, and we're still not convinced, and we have nothing further to add." Ok... so? Just that the latest iteration of the thread was just a short time before that (when UofI and others announced that they might appeal).

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:44 PM - reply - flag:

Friday, November 11, 2005

Comments