adamb0719

this was in widipedia. Not sure if that really answers your question or not. Does anyone know about Wikipedia. I am not sure if it is considered to be reliable or not. I know some of my professors have not allowed it to be used a sources for papers, but it seems to have alot of info. I think the fact that you can edit any entry takes away from its credibilty (yet I still continue to use it :-k )

No, I am not kidding. I don't know where the hell I have been. :oops: I also have a very deeply dislike the FSU football team, (sorry any FSU fans) so keep them coming if you can remember.

I have never heard that before. That's hilarious! :lol:

Does anyone know the record for most runs walked in during an inning?

I just looked in one of my text books (not that it is a definitative source). It stated the first source of the word Redskin was used in 1699, in reference to the stability of a home (it was built well enough to withstand the attack of the redskins). Now I am not sure why a house would have to built well enough to withstand the attacks of scalps but... Also I just found a poll from 2004, done by the University of Pennsylvania in which only 9% of the American Indian population polled found the term Redskin to be offensive. It did not give the size of poplulation polled or anything like that. Man, I have way to much time on my hands.

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

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...

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 they liked it better than the Iowa Daniel Day Lewis'

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

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!

"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

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

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

Is this speculation or fact? I am not trying to start a whole new debate on this situation, just curious if this has been proven/discussed at any point.

Does anyone know how many Yankees came up in the Yankee farm system? I am pretty sure Jeter did, and maybe Posada and Rivera, but I really don't know. It just seems that every year instead of having a new prospect that is going to do good for them they just buy whichever FA had a good season. I know they have the money to do it, and it has been successul for them :evil:, but it just seems odd that I never hear about a new promising young player in the orginization.

That is what I thought but was not sure if it was his choice alone or if there was some one else who had any say in it. Not sure who the someone else would have been, some kind of committe or board...the upperlevel business aspects of baseball is something that I know very little of.

I just read on Cubs.com that Hendry and Bakers contract are both up in 2006. This may have already been discussed on this board but... Does anyone feel that there is a possibility of Hendry not returning? I spend alot of timing thinking that Baker has to go, but is it possible Hendry will go too? (I'm assuming Baker will) Also...this one I should probaby know the answer to...Who makes the final decision on Hendry? Thanks to anyone who answers, and sorry if this has all already been discussed.

I am on a leave of absence from work this weekend (I work Weekend 2nd shift.) The best part about it was that I was gonna be able to watch every game live. I would have rather been at work.

I think the NCAA got in a little over their heads on this one. This may be incorrect but to me it seems like they spent to much time listening to (and being influenced by) the people who were complaining and not enough time listening to those who agreed with and supported many of these schools. Just from what has been said by Seminole, Chippewa, and I believe Choctaw (not sure if they have said anything officially or if that is just OleMissCub's educated guess as to what their response will be); it sounds like for everyone who disagrees with the mascots there is someone who agrees. By someone I mean someone of Indian descent who's opinion counts a hell of a lot more than mine on this situation. I just feel that the NCAA got to involved in something they did not know enough about. Like I said, just my opinion and could be wrong; feel free to correct me.

I could not have said that any better. I also just read that the North Dakota fighting Souix's logo was designed by a Native American artist, and SDSU is allowed to keep using Aztec since there were no Aztec tribes residing in America. Interesting.

I just got this quote from an ND message board I read. This is one point of view I have never heard about this whole thing (and I feel is quite a stretch) "The whole reason behind it is that it harms our children. It's different if its a city, school or street. A sports team creates a division because one team wins and one team loses." --Cindy La Marr (member of the steering committee of Alliance Against Racial Mascots) Also had this quote regarding Central Michigan: Joseph Sowmick, spokesman for the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, said Central Michigan has a "rich relationship" with the tribe that "cannot be determined by an outside entity without contacting the institution and the government involved. Any arbitrary decision made from an outside source regarding university-tribal relations is not acceptable and certainly the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe would welcome a dialogue to discuss this further."

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990.- an act which was requested by Native Americans to protect the artifacts of their graves (along with many other things) Illinois Native American Bar Association (INABA)- group of Native Americans that brought up a lawsuit against U of I. I have never personally heard an Indian call himself Native American but alot of the groups who bring up numerous grievances (i.e. mascots) use the title of Native American in their name.

http://jss.sagepub.com/cgi/rapidpdf/28/1/79.pdf If anyone cares to read it; an interesting essay of Indians as mascots.