Another Idiotic Decision by NCAA

[OleMissCub]

You dont see whats offensive about injun, redskin or redman?

 

are you talking to me? cuz i point out that they are the ones that are most likely offensive

[Electron Blue]

You dont see whats offensive about injun, redskin or redman?

 

are you talking to me? cuz i point out that they are the ones that are most likely offensive

 

A bit off topic, but according to the forum index, this is the 100,000 post in teh Social forum. :D

[OleMissCub]

You dont see whats offensive about injun, redskin or redman?

 

are you talking to me? cuz i point out that they are the ones that are most likely offensive

 

A bit off topic, but according to the forum index, this is the 100,000 post in teh Social forum. :D

 

HECK YA!

[adamb0719]

Just found this about the Washington Redskins

 

"The name "Redskins" was chosen to honor the team's coach, William "Lone Star" Weitz, whose mother was Sioux."--Wikipedia

 

So Redskin, which is defined earlier in the same entry as "pejorative" was used to honor the coach whose mother was Souix. If I am interpreting this correctly then the name was chosen to honor the coach from Indian ancestory, even though it was known to be a derogatory statement? Or was it not derogatory back when it was used as an "honor," and was later viewed as derogatory, as the article later made me believe. This just keeps getting more confusing :-k

 

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

[adamb0719]

Injun's, Redskins, and Redmen

 

good call

 

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=red+man

[imb]

You dont see whats offensive about injun, redskin or redman?

 

are you talking to me? cuz i point out that they are the ones that are most likely offensive

 

No, I was talking to JC. We're just both geniuses, and we picked the same three.

[JC]

You dont see whats offensive about injun, redskin or redman?

 

are you talking to me? cuz i point out that they are the ones that are most likely offensive

 

No, I was talking to JC. We're just both geniuses, and we picked the same three.

 

Honestly, I stuck Injun in there to see what kind of responses I would get. To my knowledge, there is no team or mascot named Injuns, although Injun Joe from Bugs Bunny comes to mind.

 

When it comes to St. Johns Red Men, indians never crossed my mind. Perhaps it was just because they played in the same conference as the Orange Men, so I never thought twice about it. But, to be brutally honest, I don't see what the big deal is about Red Men or Redskins. Of course, I immediately think about a bit that Chris Rock did in reference to these teams (not for message board consumption). While I understand that public correctness dictates I should feel badly, I simply don't. Seemingly for each person offended, you can find others who are not.

 

Where does it end, though? Does Indiana change its name? Shouldn't the NCAA move its headquarters out of the City of Indians posthaste?! I mean, how offensive that they dictate these Native American honoring edicts from the city of Indianapolis! Inquiry! Inquiry!

 

What I would like to see is categorizing my list of mascots from most offensive to least offensive, with a point indicating where people think the cutoff should be for team names/mascots.

 

Most Offensive

Injun

<----------------Cut off for mascots

Red Men

Redskin

Indian

Indiana

Brave

Chief

Warrior

Illini

Seminole

Blackhawk

Least Offensive

[dalgreen]

Just found this about the Washington Redskins

 

"The name "Redskins" was chosen to honor the team's coach, William "Lone Star" Weitz, whose mother was Sioux."--Wikipedia

 

So Redskin, which is defined earlier in the same entry as "pejorative" was used to honor the coach whose mother was Souix. If I am interpreting this correctly then the name was chosen to honor the coach from Indian ancestory, even though it was known to be a derogatory statement? Or was it not derogatory back when it was used as an "honor," and was later viewed as derogatory, as the article later made me believe. This just keeps getting more confusing :-k

 

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

 

From what I was told by a Native American is that the term "Redskin" is deemed like a racial slur. The term "Redskin" was first used back in the late 1800's when they were scalped. And the scalping was not just related to the head, but their skin would be "scalped". I'm just telling you what was told to me.

 

Once again, people are using the George Bush school of thought - tell something that's not the truth, but close enough to it so that people will believe you. Once again, it's the mascots that many Natives and non-Natives find offensive not the nicknames. The nicknames are a tribute, but when you have some ridiculous stereotypical depiction of Native American people, that's where people get offended. What Native American do you know who looks like the logo on the cap of the Cleveland Indians? Washington Redskins helmet? The Blackhawk painted on center-ice at the UC? Again, it's not the nicknames that are offensive it's the minstrel characters.

[JC]

Once again, people are using the George Bush school of thought - tell something that's not the truth, but close enough to it so that people will believe you. Once again, it's the mascots that many Natives and non-Natives find offensive not the nicknames. The nicknames are a tribute, but when you have some ridiculous stereotypical depiction of Native American people, that's where people get offended. What Native American do you know who looks like the logo on the cap of the Cleveland Indians? Washington Redskins helmet? The Blackhawk painted on center-ice at the UC? Again, it's not the nicknames that are offensive it's the minstrel characters.

 

Nicknames or mascots deemed "hostile or abusive" would not be allowed on team uniforms or other clothing beginning with any NCAA tournament after Feb. 1, said Harrison, the University of Hartford's president.

 

Nicknames, however, are part of the ban, as quoted above from the link in the original post.

 

As far as the Cleveland Indian goes, I deem it as a characiture. Nothing more. As such, I likewise don't deem every Latino priest as a fat, round cleric running around in a brown tunic a la the mascot of the Padres. Similarly, I don't think all Irishmen look like Leprechans, I don't think all pirates have one eye, and I don't think people who fabricate boilers carry around sledgehammers. Common sense isn't suspended just because someone flaunts a mascot out in front of you.

[adamb0719]

Once again, it's the mascots that many Natives and non-Natives find offensive not the nicknames.

 

 

"The NCAA plans to ban schools using Indian nicknames from hosting postseason events"

 

Nicknames or mascots deemed "hostile or abusive" would not be allowed on team uniforms or other clothing beginning with any NCAA tournament after Feb. 1, said Harrison, the University of Hartford's president

 

 

These are both from the ESPN article. It seems to clearly state nickname, as well as mascot.

 

EDIT: JC yours must have posted while I was writting. Sorry to repeat the same quote

[adamb0719]

The term "Redskin" was first used back in the late 1800's when they were scalped. And the scalping was not just related to the head, but their skin would be "scalped". I'm just telling you what was told to me.

 

There is a myth that the term originates from the fact that In the past there was a going rate for the scalps or hides of indigenous men, women, and children often referred to as "Redskins". The myth states that these "redskin" trophies could be sold to most frontier trading posts. However, as was pointed out by Geoffrey Nunberg on the June 14, 2005 episode of NPR's Fresh Air, the historical evidence provides little or no support for this theory. His commentary states, "as best I can tell there's no historical record that connects redskin to the bounties for scalps, and in fact nobody seems to have mentioned the connection until about a dozen years ago." (Source: Redskin Blues, Geoffrey Nunberg.)

[biittner77]

Once again, it's the mascots that many Natives and non-Natives find offensive not the nicknames.

 

 

"The NCAA plans to ban schools using Indian nicknames from hosting postseason events"

 

Nicknames or mascots deemed "hostile or abusive" would not be allowed on team uniforms or other clothing beginning with any NCAA tournament after Feb. 1, said Harrison, the University of Hartford's president

 

 

These are both from the ESPN article. It seems to clearly state nickname, as well as mascot.

 

EDIT: JC yours must have posted while I was writting. Sorry to repeat the same quote

 

Isn't this a huge loophole? FSU doesn't host the Fiesta Bowl. Illinois doesn't host NCAA tournament games. They get invited. So this policy is essentially meaningless except for the NIT or AA or AAA playoffs.

[JC]

 

There is a myth that the term originates from the fact that In the past there was a going rate for the scalps or hides of indigenous men, women, and children often referred to as "Redskins". The myth states that these "redskin" trophies could be sold to most frontier trading posts. However, as was pointed out by Geoffrey Nunberg on the June 14, 2005 episode of NPR's Fresh Air, the historical evidence provides little or no support for this theory. His commentary states, "as best I can tell there's no historical record that connects redskin to the bounties for scalps, and in fact nobody seems to have mentioned the connection until about a dozen years ago." (Source: Redskin Blues, Geoffrey Nunberg.)

 

You must be burning up some bandwidth. Interesting find.

[JC]

Once again, it's the mascots that many Natives and non-Natives find offensive not the nicknames.

 

 

"The NCAA plans to ban schools using Indian nicknames from hosting postseason events"

 

Nicknames or mascots deemed "hostile or abusive" would not be allowed on team uniforms or other clothing beginning with any NCAA tournament after Feb. 1, said Harrison, the University of Hartford's president

 

 

These are both from the ESPN article. It seems to clearly state nickname, as well as mascot.

 

EDIT: JC yours must have posted while I was writting. Sorry to repeat the same quote

 

Isn't this a huge loophole? FSU doesn't host the Fiesta Bowl. Illinois doesn't host NCAA tournament games. They get invited. So this policy is essentially meaningless except for the NIT or AA or AAA playoffs.

 

That is just a portion of the article, Bittner. Actually, schools are banned from participating with nicknames or mascots on their unis in any NCAA sanctioned, postseason event. Here is more from the link in the original post:

 

INDIANAPOLIS -- 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, committee chairman Walter Harrison said Friday.

 

Nicknames or mascots deemed "hostile or abusive" would not be allowed on team uniforms or other clothing beginning with any NCAA tournament after Feb. 1, said Harrison, the University of Hartford's president.

 

"What each institution decides to do is really its own business" outside NCAA championship events, Harrison said.

[adamb0719]

Isn't this a huge loophole? FSU doesn't host the Fiesta Bowl. Illinois doesn't host NCAA tournament games. They get invited. So this policy is essentially meaningless except for the NIT or AA or AAA playoffs.

 

It will not apply to any football team in DI since they do not have an official postseason. The BCS has to be the one do decide a ban, not the NCAA. Also I just read in si.com that Iowa and Wisonson do not schedule teams that have Indian nicknames or mascots. Anyone else know of this? It was news to me!

[JC]

Isn't this a huge loophole? FSU doesn't host the Fiesta Bowl. Illinois doesn't host NCAA tournament games. They get invited. So this policy is essentially meaningless except for the NIT or AA or AAA playoffs.

 

It will not apply to any football team in DI since they do not have an official postseason. The BCS has to be the one do decide a ban, not the NCAA. Also I just read in si.com that Iowa and Wisonson do not schedule teams that have Indian nicknames or mascots. Anyone else know of this? It was news to me!

 

Isn't "Hawkeye" a tribute to the white man turned indian character in Last of the Mohicans?

Edited August 10, 2005 by JC

[adamb0719]

You must be burning up some bandwidth.

 

Two weeks off class leaves me WAY to much freetime. :lol:

[adamb0719]

Isn't "Hawkeye" a tribute to the white man turned indian character in Last of the Mohicans?

 

I think they liked it better than the Iowa Daniel Day Lewis'

[dalgreen]

Once again, people are using the George Bush school of thought - tell something that's not the truth, but close enough to it so that people will believe you. Once again, it's the mascots that many Natives and non-Natives find offensive not the nicknames. The nicknames are a tribute, but when you have some ridiculous stereotypical depiction of Native American people, that's where people get offended. What Native American do you know who looks like the logo on the cap of the Cleveland Indians? Washington Redskins helmet? The Blackhawk painted on center-ice at the UC? Again, it's not the nicknames that are offensive it's the minstrel characters.

 

Nicknames or mascots deemed "hostile or abusive" would not be allowed on team uniforms or other clothing beginning with any NCAA tournament after Feb. 1, said Harrison, the University of Hartford's president.

 

Nicknames, however, are part of the ban, as quoted above from the link in the original post.

 

As far as the Cleveland Indian goes, I deem it as a characiture. Nothing more. As such, I likewise don't deem every Latino priest as a fat, round cleric running around in a brown tunic a la the mascot of the Padres. Similarly, I don't think all Irishmen look like Leprechans, I don't think all pirates have one eye, and I don't think people who fabricate boilers carry around sledgehammers. Common sense isn't suspended just because someone flaunts a mascot out in front of you.

 

Thanks. I stand corrected. I read the original story on some other site and it said the same thing, but I didn't see how the NCAA would view a nickname as "hostile or abusive" so I kind of ignored that and paid greater attention to the mascot issue. I understand you deem some things as characitures, but I also understand, equally, that there are those who find it offensive and I just don't question their sensitivity. You will always find people who think some things are fine where other things are offensive. There's a poster who finds Blue Collar TV offensive. Should I just ignore their view as being over sensitive? As an Illinois alum, getting rid of Chief Illiniwek will have no bearing on the success of our sports teams.

[dalgreen]

 

There is a myth that the term originates from the fact that In the past there was a going rate for the scalps or hides of indigenous men, women, and children often referred to as "Redskins". The myth states that these "redskin" trophies could be sold to most frontier trading posts. However, as was pointed out by Geoffrey Nunberg on the June 14, 2005 episode of NPR's Fresh Air, the historical evidence provides little or no support for this theory. His commentary states, "as best I can tell there's no historical record that connects redskin to the bounties for scalps, and in fact nobody seems to have mentioned the connection until about a dozen years ago." (Source: Redskin Blues, Geoffrey Nunberg.)

 

You must be burning up some bandwidth. Interesting find.

 

Interesting find. So I guess the term "Redskin" comes from the skin color of Native Americans? I'm guessing, I don't know. All I know is that I know of no Native American who looks like the one depicted on their helmet. And I'm not about to tell them they shouldn't be offended by that logo or any other logo just as I wouldn't tell an Arab American they shouldn't be offended if several depictions of them on tv shows have them as terrorists. Ultimately, what are people really afraid of if all Native American nicknames and mascots were eliminated? Would sports as we know it cease to exist?

[dalgreen]

The term "Redskin" was first used back in the late 1800's when they were scalped. And the scalping was not just related to the head, but their skin would be "scalped". I'm just telling you what was told to me.

 

There is a myth that the term originates from the fact that In the past there was a going rate for the scalps or hides of indigenous men, women, and children often referred to as "Redskins". The myth states that these "redskin" trophies could be sold to most frontier trading posts. However, as was pointed out by Geoffrey Nunberg on the June 14, 2005 episode of NPR's Fresh Air, the historical evidence provides little or no support for this theory. His commentary states, "as best I can tell there's no historical record that connects redskin to the bounties for scalps, and in fact nobody seems to have mentioned the connection until about a dozen years ago." (Source: Redskin Blues, Geoffrey Nunberg.)

 

Just as I suspected, I found a site that says that the term Redskin does come from the scalping of Native Americans. Not saying your quote isn't accurate, but just that I'm sure on this issue there are two sides. I would hope the person who told me way back in college wasn't making it up. Who knows. If I were more computer literate I'd have listed the site, but it's one of the first ones I found when using the search engine for the term "Redskin". It's still interesting how the term "Redskin" came to being.

[adamb0719]

You will always find people who think some things are fine where other things are offensive

 

I agree with you totally and that is the issue I have with the NCAA ban. Yes to some it is offensive, yet to others it is not. So now that the NCAA has sided with those who find it offensive, where do they draw the line? I have read alot about the Fighting Irish. Is that next? What is to stop the Irish who are offended from getting a ban on that? (I am not Irish so that may be a bad example since I really don't know how true Irish people view it) There were always be some group offended by something, but there has to be a line drawn (much like JC's little chart). The NCAA has now set a precedent and I just feel there may be a huge flood of people coming out of the woodwork to see to it that they are not offended by mascots and nicknames that have been in existance for nearly 100 years. I don't think that changing nicknames will affect (effect?) a teams performance, but if that team wants to keep what it has had it's school tradition set in, it should be allowed to. Likewise if a schools mascot/nickname is deemed offensive it should be up to them to change it, not the NCAA. Of course this is all my opinion and I could be way off base in other minds.

[adamb0719]

Just as I suspected, I found a site that says that the term Redskin does come from the scalping of Native Americans

 

Ahh, the internet. I have many debates still unsettled due to two sides of every story...and the internet always having both. I got my info from an online encyclopedia, but it was quoting a historian. Being a history major myself I know that not what every historian says is true, and is very open to interpretation. The orgin of Redskin probably has a million diffent orgins, none of which are correct. We may never know...

[dalgreen]

You will always find people who think some things are fine where other things are offensive

 

I agree with you totally and that is the issue I have with the NCAA ban. Yes to some it is offensive, yet to others it is not. So now that the NCAA has sided with those who find it offensive, where do they draw the line? I have read alot about the Fighting Irish. Is that next? What is to stop the Irish who are offended from getting a ban on that? (I am not Irish so that may be a bad example since I really don't know how true Irish people view it) There were always be some group offended by something, but there has to be a line drawn (much like JC's little chart). The NCAA has now set a precedent and I just feel there may be a huge flood of people coming out of the woodwork to see to it that they are not offended by mascots and nicknames that have been in existance for nearly 100 years. I don't think that changing nicknames will affect (effect?) a teams performance, but if that team wants to keep what it has had it's school tradition set in, it should be allowed to. Likewise if a schools mascot/nickname is deemed offensive it should be up to them to change it, not the NCAA. Of course this is all my opinion and I could be way off base in other minds.

 

I think it's a bad analogy whenever anyone uses Notre Dame as an example. When Notre Dame made the decision on the nickname there weren't Asians or Native Americans at the table making the decision, it was Irish Catholics. I know there were no Native Americans at the table when Illinois chose to have Chief Illiniwek as its mascot, nor were they present when Washington's football team decided to call itself "Redskins" or Atlanta or Cleveland, etc. After all there must be something to it, Stanford changed its name almost thirty years ago, and then later St. John's, Marquette, Miami (OH) and others. I think people go way, way overboard when they bring up stuff like PETA will find nicknames of animals offensive. They might if they were whipping them or treating them cruelly, but when people say PETA will then say they find animal nicknames offensive I think they're grasping for straws.

[adamb0719]

I think it's a bad analogy whenever anyone uses Notre Dame as an example. When Notre Dame made the decision on the nickname there weren't Asians or Native Americans at the table making the decision, it was Irish Catholics. I know there were no Native Americans at the table when Illinois chose to have Chief Illiniwek as its mascot, nor were they present when Washington's football team decided to call itself "Redskins" or Atlanta or Cleveland, etc. After all there must be something to it, Stanford changed its name almost thirty years ago, and then later St. John's, Marquette, Miami (OH) and others. I think people go way, way overboard when they bring up stuff like PETA will find nicknames of animals offensive. They might if they were whipping them or treating them cruelly, but when people say PETA will then say they find animal nicknames offensive I think they're grasping for straws.

 

I was hesitant to use ND. I was referring more to the fighting part. I keep reading that people find the fighting part of nicknames to portray certain groups in certain ways, violent and such. And PETA never crossed my mind. I do not see how anyone could view an animal mascot as offensive. That is absurd. Also ND did not really sit down at a table and make up a nickname. It was used in derogatory way against them and they embraced it. One of the fathers there made it the official nickname in the early 1900's. (Don't quote me on that, but I think that is right. Don't really feel like looking it up)

In a post earlier I quoted the Washington Redskins orgin as being in honor of their coach, who had a Sioux mother. So maybe there was some input by an Indian in that (assuming the info I found was right.) I doubt a coach would like to have a team named in honor of him in a derogatory way.

As far as the schools changing their names (stanford, miami, etc) that is part of what I was saying when I said it is up to the school. The NCAA did not force it onto them, they felt their could have a less offensive name, so they changed it. I applaud them for doing that. If just a few more schools did do that then there would probably be no need for the NCAA to step in. Instead schools that can easily be viewed as a tribute are being forced to change. And that is the line that needs to be drawn IMO