logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Should the NCAA be allowed to dictate team names?, A discussion of how PC is too PC
Syfir
post Aug 13 2005, 12:35 PM
Post #1


****
Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 92
Member No.: 5,246
Joined: July-9-05

From: Idaho
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: None



http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2125735

QUOTE
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 [NCAA executive committee Walter] Harrison [...].

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

"What we are trying to say is that we find these mascots to be unacceptable for NCAA championship competition," he added.


The list of names the NCAA is banning includes the following:

Central Michigan Chippewas
Florida State Seminoles
Utah Utes
Mississippi College Choctaws
North Dakota Fighting Sioux
Illinois Fighting Illini
Southeastern Oklahoma State Savages
Carthage College Redmen

Also included in the list were 7 schools with "Indians" as their mascot/team name and 3 schools with "Braves."

Now I can see how the "Redmen" and the "Savages" could be construed fairly easily as "hostile or abusive" and I hear that some Native Americans object to the Illini, not as much as because it is used but because of how it is used. (This is hearsay though)

My stand is that it if it is done as a sign of respect and treated as an honor then what is wrong with it? If the Tribes in question give their permission, as is the case with the Seminoles and Utes did, what is the problem?

QUOTE
North Carolina-Pembroke, which uses the nickname Braves, will not face sanctions. NCAA president Myles Brand explained said the school's student body has historically admitted a high percentage of American Indians and more than 20 percent of the students are American Indians.
From the same article

So should Utah change it's mascot to the "Caucasians"?

For debate:

Should the NCAA block mascots names such as these even if the people being referred to have given their permission and do not have a problem with it and why or why not?

While I think most people would agree that "Savages" or "Redmen" are insensitive, is there a place for the "Indians" and/or "Braves"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 17)
Victoria Silverw...
post Aug 14 2005, 03:24 AM
Post #2


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,601
Member No.: 608
Joined: March-16-03

From: Chattanooga Tennessee USA
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Green Party



I have mixed feelings about this.

First of all, I would not just dismiss it as a trivial issue, or file it under "Political Correctness" (an easy way to end all discussion of a situation.) Words and images are important, and carry powerful emotional messages. Here's an editorial which dismisses this as silly. I can't agree.

Link

I accept the fact that nobody who is using these team mascots and nicknames is trying to offend anybody. The problem is that words and images can send unintended messages, and we need to be aware of that.

Not even the people who are most directly concerned with the use of these mascots and nicknames are in agreement about them. From the story you linked:

QUOTE
The Seminole Tribe of Florida passed a resolution in June supporting the school's use of the nickname and tribal images. Seminole tribes in other states have disagreed with the Florida group.


I have to admit that this ritual, from the same school, raises my eyebrows a bit:

QUOTE
According to the Tribune, the ruling likely won't affect Florida State's pregame football ritual in which a student dressed as Chief Osceola rides onto the field on a spotted horse and plants a flaming spear in the turf.


I can see how different people might react differently to this. Some might see it as a tribute to a great warrior of the past; some might see it as another example of the stereotype of the bloodthirsty Indian from old Western movies. I'm trying to imagine how I would feel if there were a team called the Banditos, and if they started each game with some guy in a sombrero shooting off pistols. I think I would be mildly offended, but not greatly offended. (Just to show that this is not limited to "minorities," I should also say that I don't care for the stereotype shown by things like the Fighting Irish.)

Here's an editorial which is pretty close to how I feel.

Link

It agrees with me that this is an issue to which we should be sensitive, but also points out that the NCAA's new policy is confusing.

To answer your questions directly:

1. I think the NCAA should allow this issue to be dealt with by the individual schools. What they are doing now isn't going to please anybody, as far as I can tell.

QUOTE
"I intend to pursue all legal avenues to ensure that this unacceptable decision is overturned, and that this university will forever be associated with the 'unconquered' spirit of the Seminole Tribe of Florida," Wetherell said.

. . .

"We would have hoped the NCAA would have provided the moral leadership on this issue, but obviously they've chosen to only go halfway," said Bellecourt, a member of the Anishinabe-Ojibwe Nation in Minnesota.


If I were a spokesperson for the NCAA, I would encourage schools to abandon any mascots and nicknames with ethnic origins, as some have chosen to do.

QUOTE
Among the schools to change nicknames in recent years over such concerns were St. John's (from Redmen to Red Storm) and Marquette (from Warriors to Golden Eagles).


2. Personally, as I think I have explained above, I am not fond of nicknames like "Indians" or "Braves." As I also said above, that decision should be left to each school. (If I were a student or a member of the staff of a school with an ethnic mascot or nickname, I would do whatever I could to try to have it changed.)

This post has been edited by Victoria Silverwolf: Aug 14 2005, 03:30 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VDemosthenes
post Aug 14 2005, 02:59 PM
Post #3


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 800
Member No.: 4,252
Joined: January-11-05

From: St. Augustine, Florida
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(Syfir @ Aug 13 2005, 08:35 AM)
Should the NCAA block mascots names such as these even if the people being referred to have given their permission and do not have a problem with it and why or why not?

While I think most people would agree that "Savages" or "Redmen" are insensitive, is there a place for the "Indians" and/or "Braves"?
*



1.) No, they have no right interfering. In Florida, the Seminoles have sold their team name and likeness to be used by the team The Florida Seminoles. If an agreement has been reached and money has changed hands for permission to use their name/likeness then the NCAA has no right to say anything.

2.) The only place is in history, which we happen to have a lot of despite being such a young country.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jaellon
post Sep 3 2005, 06:29 PM
Post #4


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 130
Member No.: 4,523
Joined: February-16-05

From: Idaho
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: None



Should the NCAA block mascots names such as these even if the people being referred to have given their permission and do not have a problem with it and why or why not?

It would have to be on a case-by-case basis. I really don't think it's a good idea to create one-size-fits-all policies, when the issue is controversial, and is composed of multiple sub-issues. We should address the sub-issues (in this case, each individual mascot name).

If the vast majority of Seminole Indians are honored and pleased to see their name on a school mascot, then the NCAA should not interfere on the grounds of "sensitivity".

If the vast majority of Native Americans are offended by the term "Redmen" (and I can hardly blame them), then the school should look for a new mascot, and the NCAA should be leaning on them to do so.

QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Aug 14 2005, 08:59 AM)
1.) No, they have no right interfering.  In Florida, the Seminoles have sold their team name and likeness to be used by the team The Florida Seminoles. If an agreement has been reached and money has changed hands for permission to use their name/likeness then the NCAA has no right to say anything.


I would think that the NCAA has the right to interfere, not by being able to force the school to change its mascot (laws and all), but by denying participation in the NCAA. The NCAA is a (semi-)private organization and can set its own policies, so long as they don't violate the law.

That being said, I think it is a very poor idea to interfere. Nobody is going to be happy with whatever blanket policy is adopted, including the Seminoles.

Legal ramifications may prevent the NCAA from forcing the schools to change their names. I do, however, approve of denying them participation in NCAA activities, on the sole condition that a significant percentage of the ethnic group in question (or their representatives) formally objects.

While I think most people would agree that "Savages" or "Redmen" are insensitive, is there a place for the "Indians" and/or "Braves"?

That would be a question to place before the entire Native American community. If their is a significant percentage who are offended, I don't think there's any place for the names.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VDemosthenes
post Sep 3 2005, 07:30 PM
Post #5


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 800
Member No.: 4,252
Joined: January-11-05

From: St. Augustine, Florida
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(jaellon)

QUOTE(VDemosthenes @  Aug 14 2005, 08:59 AM)
1.) No, they have no right interfering.  In Florida, the Seminoles have sold their team name and likeness to be used by the team The Florida Seminoles. If an agreement has been reached and money has changed hands for permission to use their name/likeness then the NCAA has no right to say anything.


I would think that the NCAA has the right to interfere, not by being able to force the school to change its mascot (laws and all), but by denying participation in the NCAA. The NCAA is a (semi-)private organization and can set its own policies, so long as they don't violate the law.

That being said, I think it is a very poor idea to interfere. Nobody is going to be happy with whatever blanket policy is adopted, including the Seminoles.

Legal ramifications may prevent the NCAA from forcing the schools to change their names. I do, however, approve of denying them participation in NCAA activities, on the sole condition that a significant percentage of the ethnic group in question (or their representatives) formally objects.



Your reasoning is sketchy at best, no one has yet to claim that anyone other than the NCAA has any qualms over sports teams using the name/likeness of their tribe. I shall reiterate: the Seminole tribe of Florida sold the right to use their name and likeness to the team- to do that they had to have had a majority in which to sell it. Now, if that is the case, it stands to reason that all teams have the same permission. The name and likeness were sold lock and stock- for an organization like the NCAA to step up after many years of using their name is absurd and appalling.

So, you are right to a point. The NCAA should be able to deny teams from playing if the tribe the name was acquired from does not agree- however, to have had sold their likeness to any team it would have required a majority vote. If you could prove any evidence to dispute that I would gladly admit my mistake.


QUOTE
That would be a question to place before the entire Native American community.  If their is a significant percentage who are offended, I don't think there's any place for the names.


For the sake of clarity I shall once again reiterate: the Native American tribes that you advocate would be upset if asked are simply not. The NCAA has acted of their own volition without the support, sanctioning, or question of the tribes in question. And neither has a single Native American stepped forward to claim any disquiet over teams using their name and likeness for any event, sports-related or not. The decision was reached a long time ago, the ink has dried and the ship has sailed. After years of silence the NCAA now should not be raising a stink over something that was agreed to by either a stunning majority or a unanimous among the tribe or tribal leaders.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ConservPat
post Sep 5 2005, 09:33 PM
Post #6


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,191
Member No.: 415
Joined: January-31-03

From: Boston
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Should the NCAA block mascots names such as these even if the people being referred to have given their permission and do not have a problem with it and why or why not?
No, not in any case, ever. A college who names itself something potentially offensive must live with it's consequences. If American Indians don't like it, then they shouldn't apply to the college or go to any of it's events. I'm not sure that I'm Cherokee "enough" to be offended by any of these names...But they don't bother me.

QUOTE
1.) No, they have no right interfering. In Florida, the Seminoles have sold their team name and likeness to be used by the team The Florida Seminoles.
Unfortunately, VDemosthenes, they do have the right to do that...legally speaking. Unfortunately because FSU is a member of the NCAA, it MUST abide by the organization's bylaws. If the NCAA is going to be annoying enough to do what it's doing, the colleges have to abide by the new rules...Or they can leave the NCAA.

QUOTE
While I think most people would agree that "Savages" or "Redmen" are insensitive, is there a place for the "Indians" and/or "Braves"?
Brave doesn't seem to offensive to me, and Indian is a noun...Again, not a problem. But then you know, I'm only 20% "Indian", so what the hell do I know?

CP us.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jaellon
post Sep 6 2005, 04:04 PM
Post #7


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 130
Member No.: 4,523
Joined: February-16-05

From: Idaho
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Sep 3 2005, 01:30 PM)
For the sake of clarity I shall once again reiterate: the Native American tribes that you advocate would be upset if asked are simply not.


Perhaps I should clarify my position. smile.gif I did not intend to imply that I felt the Seminoles (or any other tribe) were offended and the schools using them as mascots were refusing to change mascots according to their wishes. My point was that if they were offended, then action should be taken. It also seems that the NCAA should stay out of the mix until such an occasion. The schools should be the ones to deal with the situation, and only when no agreement could be reached should the NCAA step in - for that school only.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carlitoswhey
post Sep 6 2005, 04:19 PM
Post #8


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,094
Member No.: 3,059
Joined: May-8-04

From: chicago
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Since I hadn't seen it linked, I thought I would add this open letter to the NCAA from the president of the University of North Dakota, home of the Fighting Sioux. Some highlights:

QUOTE(CHARLES E. KUPCHELLA)
Not long ago I took a trip to make a proposal to establish an epidemiological program to support American Indian health throughout the Upper Great Plains. On this trip I left a state called North Dakota. (Dakota is one of the names the indigenous people of this region actually call themselves.) I flew over South Dakota, crossing the Sioux River several times, and finally landed in Sioux City, Iowa, just south of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The airplane in which I traveled that day was called a Cheyenne.

I think you should find my confusion here understandable, since obviously if we were to call our teams “The Dakotans,” we would actually be in more direct violation of what apparently you are trying to establish as a rule, even though this is the name of our state. This situation, of course, is not unlike that faced by our sister institution in Illinois.

Is it only when some well-meaning people object to the use of the names of tribes? If so, what standard did you use to decide where the line from acceptable to “hostile” and “abusive” is crossed? We note that you exempted a school with a certain percentage of American Indian students. We have more than 400 American Indian students here. Who decided that a certain percentage was okay, but our percentage was not? Where is the line between okay and hostile/abusive?

<snip>

Help me understand why you think “hostile and abusive” applies to us. We have more than 25 separate programs in support of American Indian students here receiving high-end university educations. Included among these is an “Indians Into Medicine” program, now 30+ years running, that has generated 20 percent of all American Indian doctors in the United States. We have a similar program in Nursing, one in Clinical Psychology, and we are about to launch an “Indians into Aviation” program in conjunction with our world-class Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences. I am very proud when I visit reservations in our state to see that a large number of the teachers, doctors, Tribal College presidents, and other leaders are graduates of the University of North Dakota.

Do you really expect us to host a tournament in which these names and images are covered in some way that would imply that we are ashamed of them?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Sep 6 2005, 05:13 PM
Post #9


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(ConservPat)
No, not in any case, ever. A college who names itself something potentially offensive must live with it's consequences. If American Indians don't like it, then they shouldn't apply to the college or go to any of it's events

That is pretending that market economics can do something it was never meant to do.

The free market can not be the solution to everything and any economist would tell you that right up front.

Dictating moral and political issues is entirely out of its purview.

Native Americans are less than 2% of the population they and even their supporters have no chance of organizing an effective boycott.

That does not mean than universities and especially those who receive government funding have any right to directly or indirectly disparage Native Americans in any way.

This sort of decision is in the realm of government not business and they have the responsibility to make sure colleges and universities refrain from embarrassing themselves and our nation with team names.

This post has been edited by turnea: Sep 6 2005, 05:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fontbleau
post Sep 6 2005, 07:20 PM
Post #10


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 34
Member No.: 5,217
Joined: July-3-05

From: southeast Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(turnea @ Sep 6 2005, 01:13 PM)

That does not mean than universities and especially those who receive government funding have any right to directly or indirectly disparage Native Americans in any way. This sort of decision is in the realm of government not business and they have the responsibility to make sure colleges and universities refrain from embarrassing themselves and our nation with team names.
*


Yes, but are they disparaging Native Americans or embarrassing themselves?

Should the NCAA block mascots names such as these even if the people being referred to have given their permission and do not have a problem with it and why or why not?
The NCAA’s rationale for banning the names was that they’re “hostile or abusive.” If Native Americans don’t find them “hostile or abusive” — and a recent Annenburg poll showed 90 percent do not http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:o5w_s...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
— then it’s beyond PC for folks like committee chairman Walter Harrison to police morals and declare them “hostile or abusive.” Hostile and abusive to what group?
The NCAA has no more basis for a ban in this situation than the movie industry would to intervene on my behalf to halt R-rated movies because I personally find them demeaning to women.

While I think most people would agree that "Savages" or "Redmen" are insensitive, is there a place for the "Indians" and/or "Braves"?

According to the NCAA, yes, there is: “North Carolina-Pembroke, which uses the nickname Braves, will not face sanctions” because it has a high number of Native Americans enrolled. sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2125735

Which means the NCAA is trying to persuade us that the nickname “Braves” is not “hostile or abusive” when it’s displayed on one set of jerseys, but the same nickname is “hostile or abusive” when it’s displayed on another set of jerseys. Please!

The real question for debate should be: “How much longer will universities tolerate the NCAA’s ridiculous edicts?”

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fife and Drum
post Sep 6 2005, 09:11 PM
Post #11


******
Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 480
Member No.: 2,098
Joined: December-30-03

From: Louie Ville KY
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Democrat



The thing that bothers me the most is where does this stop. PETA is now after South Carolina to change their mascot from “Game Cocks” (it does make for an interesting cheer). I know every time I go to the SC vs UK football game is just doesn’t feel complete if I don’t see a couple of spurred fowls gouging at one another.

And here’s some irony: the NCAA is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. They should put their money where their mouth is and move or change the name of the state and city where their headquartered. The NCAA has too much time on their hands, why don’t they work on getting their student/athlete graduation rate higher.

Should the NCAA block mascots names such as these even if the people being referred to have given their permission and do not have a problem with it and why or why not?

We can’t let the NCAA decide what’s politically correct and what’s not. From prior posts it’s obvious the rules they have in place for who gets to keep their name and who doesn’t aren’t based in sound reasoning. And if a tribe of people have given explicit permission, whether they’re paid or not, then the NCAA can pack their lawyers up and spend their time on more productive endeavors.

While I think most people would agree that "Savages" or "Redmen" are insensitive, is there a place for the "Indians" and/or "Braves"?

Not being a native American I can’t speak for the images or thoughts that these names invoke. Savages and Redmen step over the line with negative connotations. But on a personal basis Indians and Braves make me think of people who are proud and fierce. I’m almost willing to say that if a group is offended and can’t be bought out then change the name, but where does that end?

Last night we had the Seminoles vs the Hurricanes.

Should the University of Miami (Fla) change their names from the “Hurricanes”?

This post has been edited by Fife and Drum: Sep 6 2005, 09:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ConservPat
post Sep 6 2005, 09:43 PM
Post #12


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,191
Member No.: 415
Joined: January-31-03

From: Boston
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
That is pretending that market economics can do something it was never meant to do.

The free market can not be the solution to everything and any economist would tell you that right up front.

Dictating moral and political issues is entirely out of its purview.

Native Americans are less than 2% of the population they and even their supporters have no chance of organizing an effective boycott.

That does not mean than universities and especially those who receive government funding have any right to directly or indirectly disparage Native Americans in any way.

I don't have a problem with the NCAA, or even the gov't, going after public schools...But the government changing the name of private organizations? No, that's illegal. The NCAA has all the right in the world to do what it's doing...I just think that a bunch of white guys telling Indian tribes they are being offended is...offensive. In addition, as Fife and Drum said, what about the Hurricanes of Miami? How many Louisiana residents are going to want to say, "Go Hurricanes!" on Saturdays? I do think that Redskins is offensive, I do think that Savages is offensive, and I certainly think that Redmen is offensive, but it should be up to a private school to decide it's name, period. If it's a public school, okay, you've got a point...If American Indians are offended...If not, like the case of the Florida State Seminoles, leave it alone.

CP us.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Sep 6 2005, 10:15 PM
Post #13


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(fontbleau)
Yes, but are they disparaging Native Americans or embarrassing themselves?

I agree this is the operative question and it's something I would look at on a case-by-case basis.

My post was only concerned with pointing out that is should not be the market's job to decide the answer to that important question.

That's not how economics works, if doesn't determine right and wrong just profitable and unprofitable which are entirely different concepts.

QUOTE(ConservPat)
But the government changing the name of private organizations? No, that's illegal.

Not if these colleges signed up to join the NCAA. No one put a gun to their heads.

If the NCAA wants to make that call they have every right.

QUOTE(ConservPat)
I just think that a bunch of white guys telling Indian tribes they are being offended is...offensive.

I think it's a remarkably good sign that an organization is actually being proactive about race issues rather than waiting until outrage boils over. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I agree that things should be taken too far, I don't agree that's something the market can "decide".

This post has been edited by turnea: Sep 6 2005, 10:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ConservPat
post Sep 6 2005, 10:25 PM
Post #14


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,191
Member No.: 415
Joined: January-31-03

From: Boston
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Turnea)
Not if these colleges signed up to join the NCAA. No one put a gun to their heads.

If the NCAA wants to make that call they have every right.

I never said the NCCA didn't have that right, in fact I specifically said that the NCAA does have the right to censor schools who have joined it.
QUOTE
Unfortunately, VDemosthenes, they do have the right to do that...legally speaking.

I said the government doesn't have that right...Which is accurate and in response to this.

QUOTE
This sort of decision is in the realm of government not business and they have the responsibility to make sure colleges and universities refrain from embarrassing themselves and our nation with team names.


QUOTE
I think it's a remarkably good sign that an organization is actually being proactive about race issues rather than waiting until outrage boils over. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I agree that things should be taken too far, I don't agree that's something the market can "decide".
Sure it can. If 60% of Native Americans that would attend FSU don't, they'll know about it and respond, you would think. No matter how small a population of Indians is, they're boycott will be heard. Think about the media storm would be created if Native American tribes got together an issued an ban on FSU products or issued a statment discouraging Native Amerians from going there at all.

CP us.gif

This post has been edited by ConservPat: Sep 6 2005, 10:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
deal815
post Sep 9 2005, 10:17 PM
Post #15


*
New Member

Group: New Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 5,448
Joined: September-9-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: None



I sure hope PETA doesn't decide to represent all the wild animals that are mascots and demand the NCAA not allow those teams to participate too! Here are some more extremely offensive names not associated the Natives or wild animals:

Notre Dame (offensive to people from Ireland, but they're too drunk to care!)
Wyoming (offensive to our friends from the mountain region)
Duke and Wake Forest (offensive to satanists)
North Carolina (offensive to someone I'm sure)
Miami (will undoubtedly offend in the aftermath of Katrina)
Michigan State (offensive to anyone from Sparta - why are they portrayed as warriors? They weren't all warriors, were they?)
USC (offensive to people from Troy - same logic as above)

Looks like the NCAA playoffs are going to run a little thin this year if any of these minorities get mobilized in time.

If the small amount of Native running through my blood isn't boiling after all these years, I doubt it ever will.





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaime
post Sep 9 2005, 10:51 PM
Post #16


Group Icon

**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Admin
Posts: 5,941
Member No.: 4
Joined: July-25-02

From: Down where the River meets the Sea
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Welcome deal815. Please be sure that your responses are constructive and address the debate questions. Thanks. smile.gif

TOPICS:
Should the NCAA block mascots names such as these even if the people being referred to have given their permission and do not have a problem with it and why or why not?

While I think most people would agree that "Savages" or "Redmen" are insensitive, is there a place for the "Indians" and/or "Braves"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
UrbanNativeAmeri...
post Sep 29 2005, 08:04 PM
Post #17


*
New Member

Group: New Members
Posts: 5
Member No.: 5,503
Joined: September-29-05

From: Anadarko Oklahoma~
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Syfir @ Aug 14 2005, 01:35 AM)
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2125735

QUOTE
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 [NCAA executive committee Walter] Harrison [...].

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

"What we are trying to say is that we find these mascots to be unacceptable for NCAA championship competition," he added.


The list of names the NCAA is banning includes the following:

Central Michigan Chippewas
Florida State Seminoles
Utah Utes
Mississippi College Choctaws
North Dakota Fighting Sioux
Illinois Fighting Illini
Southeastern Oklahoma State Savages
Carthage College Redmen

Also included in the list were 7 schools with "Indians" as their mascot/team name and 3 schools with "Braves."

Now I can see how the "Redmen" and the "Savages" could be construed fairly easily as "hostile or abusive" and I hear that some Native Americans object to the Illini, not as much as because it is used but because of how it is used. (This is hearsay though)

My stand is that it if it is done as a sign of respect and treated as an honor then what is wrong with it? If the Tribes in question give their permission, as is the case with the Seminoles and Utes did, what is the problem?

QUOTE
North Carolina-Pembroke, which uses the nickname Braves, will not face sanctions. NCAA president Myles Brand explained said the school's student body has historically admitted a high percentage of American Indians and more than 20 percent of the students are American Indians.
From the same article

So should Utah change it's mascot to the "Caucasians"?

For debate:

Should the NCAA block mascots names such as these even if the people being referred to have given their permission and do not have a problem with it and why or why not?

While I think most people would agree that "Savages" or "Redmen" are insensitive, is there a place for the "Indians" and/or "Braves"?
*






Being a N8tive myself, I don't really mind, however yes Some people are okay with it. BUt until that "some" becomes "all", the names have to change. I do not consider my self indian or indian american indian....I am Native American, and most of oyu know in the dictionary native means natural inhabitant. So the indiaan thing, is not my issue. I can say this much...Elders in our culture are considered very precious! Being that they ahve to pass us the back in the day stories an what not. Alot of it is because of them. I respect that. However, how would a caucasion feel if I had a team called the "settlers" or the women an baby killers. Or the land thieves? Not so pretty so I keep an opened mind. I am not a civilzed tribe, I am Caddo and Kiowa from Anadarko Oklahoma, reppin this native thang.So all you natives,hit me up.Ehh hmmm...back to the question, I think it's cool myself to see a tomahawk on some hats and tee's but it's not up ta meh! I see where both sides are coming from....My family hates the thought of the mascots but me...I think for myself!




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Artemise
post Sep 29 2005, 10:25 PM
Post #18


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 668
Joined: April-15-03

From: Alaska
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



This is very close to my heart as Titus will tell, I have argued this topic long ago with verve and I truly hope I can get into some people to understand the value of a peoples dignity. Please keep an open mind as I explain:

It is Fabulous to see an Indian mascot riding around in full regalia (which is 'sacred' clothing and ritual objects btw, and that means 'religious' for natives) , the strong, valient warrior as 'indian' for us as whites, fierce, a force to be recond with. A mascot, a stereotype, an image of a 'character' long past (for us).
We forget that the American Native Indian is a real person, not this imagery. You would NEVER for example see an African Warrior, with bone in hair and nose, necklaces of lions teeth, in loin cloth riding around as the mascot for a sports team. It would not be tolerated for a minute. You would never see for example the 'NY Jews' or the 'LA Asians' or the 'GA Negroes'. This is a mindset which does not consider Native Americans, American Indians to be a people alive in the country today, but they are, real people, and we no longer make mascots of real people.

It is incredibly detrimental to native children, who have plenty of difficulty as is- to see themselves and their culture, and their sacred objects used as caricatures, almost cartoon images of themselves and their very history. A cartoon of themselves, not as a loving human being within the world, but a fierce bloodthirsty image, of times gone by, now dead, but revered in that form by the alien society that killed off those people and replaced them with demoralized people on reservations. To revere that which was eliminated and murdered as honored imagery, when the offspring of those vanquished are still alive is just cruel . It is NOT OK. No Matter how or who looks at it, no matter who SELLS that image for profit, it is not ok and no other race or sector of society would stand for it for a goddam minute.

QUOTE
Now I can see how the "Redmen" and the "Savages" could be construed fairly easily as "hostile or abusive" and I hear that some Native Americans object to the Illini, not as much as because it is used but because of how it is used. (This is hearsay though)

My stand is that it if it is done as a sign of respect and treated as an honor then what is wrong with it? If the Tribes in question give their permission, as is the case with the Seminoles and Utes did, what is the problem?


You heard 100% right that natives object to Illini ( a ridiculous character) and have been fighting this image and usage for years. It is no hearsay nor rumour, its a fact.
The problem with respect and honor is that one persons respect and honor (when subjected to almost total genocide by the 'honoring' populace) is not the others
view of the same. Especially with some crazy looking white guy dressed in Indian sacred regalia running around hooping and hollering and acting savage. Especially when others dress in native Sacred regalia and paint their faces in homage to a sports team.

The Seminoles long ago gave their permission for their name to be used as far as I know, but no imagery is allowed along with it.
Im not familiar with the Utes case, the Utes were mountain people , I dont know who they have allowed their name to be given.

What I DO know is that overall, natives are objecting, for their children and for good reason. Why should natives, living, breathing people almost dead, but not quite, be revered in these caricatures, as if they were a cartoon? Its Little Black Sambo and Aunt Jemima, but worse, because 50 years after black emancipation we are still screwing the indian in our, and their minds.

If you really think about it, its so insulting, so inhumane, so insane. If it were done to you youd throw a fit, but we dont have anything as regal to be made into imagery. After all we do not have Custers Last Team, all with uniforms.
Some wil bring up the Fighting Irish, thats a team that they decided upon as Irish in an Irish school and I suspect in 5 years that will be abolished as well, when the Irish get sick of that negative stereotype.

This post has been edited by Artemise: Sep 29 2005, 10:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: April 8th, 2020 - 09:36 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.