Skip to main content

The NCAA announced today that it is contemplating how to manage the issue of college teams that continue to use nicknames taken from reference to Indian tribes (Redmen, Utes, Savages, Braves, etc.).

Native American coalitions have asked the NCAA repeatedly to ask its member schools to drop these nicknames. They are seen by Native peoples as derogatory and offensive. Schools, of course, claim that adopting these nicknames is a tribute to the spirit of Native Americans.

Ah, nothing like a little cultural appropriation after you've practiced genocide to try to make up for your actions. I'm sure there are colleges all over Germany with nicknames like "Jews," "Hebrews," "Gypsies," and "Slavs." Those nicknames would certainly honour the spirit of the murdered souls, don't you think?

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for school administrators to get. After all, Stanford made the change years ago, and there doesn't seem to have been a complete collapse of fan loyalty now that it's the Cardinal.

When the NCAA dealt with schools that continue to use the Confederate flag in their school flags, its decision was that schools could continue to participate in their conferences, but various levels of NCAA championships could not take place at those schools. That's quite a financial hit if you are not able to host a regional tournament in a revenue sport.

Now, faced with what is sure to be a hot-button issue, the NCAA is getting ready (after four years of study) to issue recommendations about how to change school mascots and names.

I know that one of the arguments is that no one is asking schools to change their names if they are called the "Spartans" or "Trojans." But those universities do not sit in the middle of conquered or stolen or swindled land, do not sit next to reservations where those native peoples live in some of the worst states of poverty in the country, are not seen as affronts to the people they are meant to honour.

It is time for the NCAA to deal with this matter firmly. There should be penalties attached to Indian nicknames. If you know, for example, that the name of your team hurts the people who are supposedly meant to be honoured by it, why would you resist changing the name?

Originally posted to lorraine on Mon May 16, 2005 at 09:49 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Not "Indian". (none)
    Native American.
    •  Sherman Alexie (4.00)
      One of my favourite writers, always refers to himself as an "Indian." He is Coeur d'Alene, and I'm taking my cue from him.
      •  Russell Means (none)
        has also commented on Native American versus Indian here:
        http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmterms.html
      •  terms (none)
        I tend to use the "old" and the accurate terms interchangeably.  It just comes from growing up hearing people use the old terms -- not disrespectfully I might add.  

        But I think the first point is interesting because I think people really, really don't think about what they're doing when they use people as symbols and then pit them against animals.  

      •  Ask someone from South Asia (none)
        how they like it before you use it.  "Indian" is derived from the Indus river, which last time I checked didn't come within 8,000 miles of the U.S.
        •  quotation from Russell Means: (4.00)
          "I abhor the term Native American. It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous prisoners of the United States. These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleuts, the original Hawaiians, and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are actually Upiks and Inupiats. And, of course, the American Indian.

          I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins . . . As an added distinction the American Indian is the only ethnic group in the United States with the American before our ethnicity . . . We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians, and we will gain our freedom as American Indians, and then we will call ourselves any damn thing we choose."

          I suppose that Indians and Indians can work this out between themselves.

          •  Indigenas (none)
            I agree that it's a tough issue lumping all the tribes together and giving them one name.  If you have to do that, I always liked "indigena", which is spanish for indigenous person.

            It literally means "native", but since we've made that noun pejorative (as in "the natives are getting restless"), we have to search for alternatives.

    •  I thought so too, Page, but that just shows (none)
      that we hadn't kept up with the discussion within the nations.  As the citation to Means shows, and as my many colleagues in Native American studies taught me just recently, when I needed to know this in research -- they accept either term.  

      A very accepting people in many ways, as so many of them so warmly accepted our newcomer forebears as much as four centuries ago and created a wonderful, almost lost, new culture.

      So I also learned another term that is gaining in usage for the people of two (or more) cultures in the northern areas, most often Native and French Canadian but sometimes Native and English, Native and Irish, etc.: the metis.  (That needs a backwards accent over the i -- I can't do it on email -- as the French word for mixed.)  

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:13:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nope. (none)
      Indian is a perfectly acceptable term.  

      More and more anthropologists are using Indian, because Indians are referring to themselves as Indians.  

      Please link to & visit my blog: Penndit

      by Newsie8200 on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:27:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Grew Up In Alaska (none)
      Eskimos hate being linked with Amerindians.

      Big time.

      Try telling someone from the former Leningrad (1000 day siege) that they are European, just like the Germans, and you will be spitting out bloody chicklets.

      The vast majority of the Indian population uses the term "Indian" too.

      I'll stick with Indian, and not the vocabulary police.

      The Dream involves 4 sets of identical twins, 2 gallons of Cool Whip, 5 quarts of chocolate syrup, 2-1/4 pounds of strawberries, satin sheets, a magnum of champ

      by msaroff on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:52:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's OK. One more error won't change history. (none)
      My Ojibway/Danish relatives call themselves Indian, or NDN, or 'Skins'.  Many prefer to be called as members of their own nation, rather than considered collectively with peoples thousands of miles away.  I like the sound of "First Nations" used in Canada.  I don't know anyone who likes the term "Native American".

      For the adults and alumni to cling to a racist team name out of 'tradition' is pathetic.  The real 'tradition' is for dominant whites to eradicate and disempower minority races; how should we honor that tradition?

       

  •  LOL (none)
    There was a story in the local newspaper today about a high school which is now voting on a new non-Indian mascot name.  "XXX High School searches for identity," the headline said.

    Oh, waaaaah.  Cry me a river.  

    The Onondaga Nation has a very nice page on the Indian mascot issue, and I find their first point to be a pretty compelling retort to the usual "We're doing it to honor you!" defense.

    Non-native peoples tend to view animals as beneath humans. Since most mascots are animals, people equivocate between teams and their mascots. Their mascot is just as good as the next. Or our mascot is better than your mascot and therefore you have the belief that the Bears are superior to the Indians.

    Can you imagine the outcry if a team was called the Pickanninies, with Stepin Fetchit as a symbol?

    The fact that schools and organizations have "always" been the Braves, Chiefs, Red Men, Warriors, or Indians, does not give the community the right to defame a culture.

    •  thanks for the link (none)
      Thank you for the link. More information that I can use--I've heard these arguments articulated, but it's nice to find them in one place.
    •  What about Vikings? (none)
      Or Roughnecks (a HS south of Houston, means oil well workers).
      49ers?
      Yankees?
      Trojans (The from Homer, not the condoms)?
      Packers (meat packers)
      Buccaneers?
      Swedes?

      The Dream involves 4 sets of identical twins, 2 gallons of Cool Whip, 5 quarts of chocolate syrup, 2-1/4 pounds of strawberries, satin sheets, a magnum of champ

      by msaroff on Mon May 16, 2005 at 11:36:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  However (none)
    I seem to remember that not all schools have the same relationships with the tribes that others do.

    (If I'm remembering this correctly) Florida State's symbol is the Seminole.

    The Costume and the way its used during games, etc. Was all approved by the Seminole tribe, in fact the costume was designed by them, when FSU asked them to.

    One Southern Blue Dog Democrat from the Sunshine State.

    by 1floridademocrat on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:09:50 AM PDT

    •  Update this is a copy n paste however (none)
      I found was I was talking about.

      In 1975, in consultation with Chief Howard Tommie, then chairman of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, FSU created Osceola, a portrayal of an Indian who charges onto the football field on horseback at the beginning of home football games. Osceola ends his charge by throwing a flaming lance at midfield. Osceola appears only at home football games and at the homecoming parade. The Seminole Tribe designed the costume worn by Osceola. Historically, Osceola was a Seminole leader who was captured by Federal troops in the battle to move the Seminoles from Florida to the unoccupied land west of the Mississippi. After dying while in captivity, he remains honored by the Seminoles to this day.

      The student who rides as Osceola is selected by the owner of the horse and not the University. In addition, to perpetuate the tradition after the owner's death, he has established a trust fund for the replacement and care of the horses.

      The Seminole Tribe participates in many University functions. The present Chief has given concerts at the University in his native language. Each year, a homecoming Chief and Princess are elected by the student body. At halftime of the homecoming football game, a Princess and Junior Princess from the Seminole Tribe crown the student Chief and Princess with headdresses designed and made by the Seminoles. A tribal chant has been presented to the University but has proven difficult for the crowds to perform

      One Southern Blue Dog Democrat from the Sunshine State.

      by 1floridademocrat on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:13:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Miami University used to be the Redskins... (none)
      Miami University in Oxford, Ohio,* used to be the Redskins. When I was there in the eighties they justified it by pointing to the existing relationship with the Miami tribe.

      In the nineties the tribe withdrew its support for the school's nickname. The new nickname (chosen in a contest) is the Redhawks.

      * For the curious, the city in Florida was a mosquito-infested swamp under the control of Spain when the university in Ohio was founded in 1809.

    •  Native American Mascots (none)
      I'm part Indian and am conflicted about Indian mascots.  For the most part, the mascots connote bravery and toughness but then no other ethnic group has to endure being a team mascot.  As far as Florida State's and their home games, the school could at least get a REAL SEMINOLE instead of a white man painted red as their mascot. FSU could start their search in Seminole, Oklahoma.
    •  How about that FSU Tomahawk chop? (none)
      Yeah, that's real complimentary.

      WoooOooOhhhOooOooWhooOoooOooo....

  •  Oh Come On (none)
    This is so counterproductive.
    If people want to do something for Native Americans they should get on Elliot Spitzer's case for screwing them out of their day in court with a great land rights claim in upstate New York.
    Enough with the PC BS already.
    •  Some of us ARE doing that. (none)

      See here.
    •  why is this counterproductive? (none)
      The land claim and this issue don't have to be at odds with one another. It's not like we can do one and not the other. So racist, derogatory nicknames is just another example of PC BS?
      •  What's Racist About "Braves?" (none)
        Is it anti-Scandinavian and exploitative to have a team named "Vikings?" How about "Mongols?" "Knickerbockers?" Is it satanic to have a team named "Devils?"

        I don't believe words are magic. I don't believe that our entire culture should be geared to an imaginary idiot for whom one cartoony mascot is going to make him or her a racist or a non-racist.

        •  As I said above (none)
          The Vikings aren't in the midst of a people who've had their land stolen from them.
          Words do matter. Ask an African-American how they feel about certain words. You'll notice we don't have any team mascots or names that make light of slavery, but we seem to have no problem making light of genocide in this country.
          •  I Happen To Believe (none)
            That the entire PC movement has done more to harm progressive politics in this country, and thus real effective "political correctness" than anything else.

            Why? Because it makes normal Americans vote against Democrats whom they see as a bunch of prudish killjoys. Seriously. The one-two punch of Fox TV (unapoletically politically incorrect) and Fox News has been devastating.

            This is a fight we can and should win. The Repubs are doing more, more plainly now, to make the USA un-fun. But ramping up an assault on the PC front right now could undermine that advantage.

            It's not a question of right and wrong for me. I just don't believe that applies in these matters; I think it's free expression. I think it's up to a community what team mascots they wish to have. If they have a problem with it they'll change it. Making very public and well-reported assaults on those from the "ivory towers of liberalism" not only inflames anti-Democratic sentiment, and pushes potential racists off the fence more onto the racist side than not (the predictable result of a push), but it creates non-news. We don't need more non-news. We need focus on real issues, real hurt, real ideas for change.

            •  Local solutions (none)
              I too think solutions are best when they are local solutions.  The Seminoles have obviously worked out a local solution.  So have other communities where Indian mascots have been withdrawn.  But then again, if you never have a top authority in charge setting the tone for an organization, does the organization ever magically reform itself?  After all, the hurt is real -- even if it hurts a relatively small group of people that most Americans don't really care or think about.

              This IS real hurt.  

        •  Respect (4.00)
          It's about respecting the feelings of people in our midst -- quite a sizable number of people in fact -- who don't like it, feel it diminishes their dignity, and have requested us -- their neighbors -- to stop it.

          Why do you need a hard-and-fast blanket standard?  Isn't your neighbors saying "This hurts us" enough of a standard?

        •  The slippery slope (none)
          is the thing that always comes up here.

          Are there lots of Devils running around dealing with the everyday bigotry that is only potentially reinforced by the mascot with the pointy horns?

          Nope.

          Are Scandinavians a group of people who still deal heavily with the results of a massive campaign of genocide against them?

          Nope. Though, I would also like to add that I would personally prefer we not name teams after any big group of people based at all on ethnicity, for precisely the reason that mascots are designed to be caricatures.

          Words aren't magic. But people have, IMO, every right to expect that the words of major cultural institutions in their areas won't be outright offensive. No, cartoony imagery in itself isn't going to magically make somebody a bigot. But it helps make the pre-formed bigotry acceptable, and it can be hurtful to a whole large set of people who have plenty of problems they're still dealing with and who are not, IMO, being as oversensitive as you want to paint them.

          There are a whole lot of layers to racism, and stuff like this may seem minor to you -- but it's another piece in the puzzle.

    •  Not counterproductive at all (none)
      look, when we start throwing fits over the speech of random people and trying to have their language controlled, then we've got PC problems.

      Trying to get official mascots of schools, many of which receive public funding, and all of which control the tone of the educational system, to not use blatantly offensive language and representations is hardly "PC BS", IMO.

      Representation does matter. And this is offensive representation through very "official" channels, and coming through a dominant culture and a government that practiced genocide against the groups of people we're discussing glibly here. These sorts of things serve to make bigotry okay to a large number of people. We can't control language and representation through all channels, obviously, but I don't think it's too much to ask that sports teams, through schools or otherwise, not take part in what is, at best, plain ignorance and at worst, outright bigotry.

      It's not the only thing that should get worked on, no. But oppression isn't any one thing or small set of things, and has to be fought on all kinds of fronts.

      •  For Every PCed Mascot (none)
        an exponential number of Joe Sixpacks turn up their hate radio even louder, and elections that should be won are lost.

        Unless the issue can march forward on its merry (and not completely inconsequential) way apart from the party.

        •  A while ago, they said, 'Don't criticise N-word' (none)
          Progress of any kind is always met with resistance. How many years did they tell Blacks that they would have civil rights soon, but not yet? How many years did blacks have to endure the n-work because of the fear of backlash from those who enjoy spewing their hate publically and vocally?

          Get a spine and stand up for what's right.

          •  I Do... (none)
            Frankly I'm a little more concerned with the fate of the planet than a few people's feelings.

            I don't consider the Democratic Party to be a vehicle for my radical environmental agenda, my radical anti-poverty wealth-redistribution agenda, my radical civil liberties and free expression agenda, my radical anti-war agenda, or my radical arts-funding agenda.

            Sorry if, because I do recognize the necessity to give a little bit in this one arena, the political arena, and because I do give...
            That I have no great sympathy for people getting bad vibes off cartoon characters, or who are concerned that others might get bad vibes off those cartoon characters. I mean, people who want to take this on have my support and all. But I am perfectly entitled to say I don't think the issue is what Democratic politics needs to be at the vanguard of just now.

            •  You can work on subject w/o being at top of list (none)
              I agree that this is not the subject of highest priority for the party right now. That said, you still respond sympathetically and appropriately when the subject comes up. In the grand scheme of things, people offended by what most agree is inappropriate IS more important than than the feelings of some sports fans about not wanting to change a sports team mascot. In the grand scheme of things, it is more reasonable to force all the inappropriate mascots to change to Rough Riders.

              In case you don't know the joke about Rough Riders, the Canadian Football League had two franchises nicknamed "Rough Riders" for decades. Nobody died as a result of multiple incidences of Rough Riders in the CFL. Nobody would die if U Illinois, the Washington NFL team, and the Cleveland and Atlanta MLB franchises were all simulataneously changed to Rough Riders tomorrow, either.

              •  Here's Why I Don't 100% Agree (none)
                While I am a Democrat and cringe at the thought of every being a Republican, I am a republican rather than a democrat. That is to say, I believe this is (or should be) a republic not a democracy. Now why would I want that?

                ...Because a republic protects the rights of minorities against the majority. Democracy serves the opposite purpose. I also believe that the freedom of expression trumps any supposed right to bar others from expressing their view.

                If you follow these principles faithfully you must often support things with which you do not agree.

                The definition of freedom is that people are going to use it in ways you do not approve of. Anything other is not freedom at all. And I think the relatively recent idea that there should be freedom from things, things which neither break ones arm or pick one's pocket in a physical, not "feelings" sense, is apocryphal... and wrong.

  •  Amen, Lorraine (none)
    I'm still surprised by the number of schools that have Indian mascots.  

    Michael Bérubé had a good post back in march about the University of Illinois' mascot, Chief Illiniwek, and the disturbing level of pride fans feel about a patently offensive figure.

    One other thought: Stanford is a kind of odd example of a successful transition away from an Indian mascot.  On the one hand, largely because Stanford dropped the Indians nickname in the early 1970s (it was one of the first schools to do so), one doesn't see much nostalgia for it among alums (as late as 1975, however, according to Stanford's own website many students wanted to change it back).  But Stanford actually spent nearly a decade trying to find another nickname.

    Moreover, Stanford largely decided to change its nickname due to internal pressure from Native American students.  This no doubt eased the process.  

    I guess my point is that getting schools to ween themselves off these racist and demeaning images will take a lot work.  I think it's worth doing, but nobody should expect the process to be an easy one.

    Finally, do you or anyone else know whether Native American groups would make exceptions for actual Indian universities (and historically Indian universities) with Indian nicknames? An example of the former would be the Fighting Indians of Haskell Indian Nations University in Lawrence, KS; an example of the latter would be the Redmen and the Lady Reds of Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, OK (Northeastern State was once the Cherokee National Female Seminary, and is located in Tahlequah, which is still  the capital of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma).  At least potentially, I can imagine that these names would have a very different connotation if the student body were actually largely Indian (though, to be honest, I have a hard time imagining that many Indians feel comfortable with the "Redmen" nickname being used by any institution).

    "Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

    by GreenSooner on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:12:41 AM PDT

    •  Chief Illiniwek (none)
      Here in Syracuse, SU had an Indian mascot back in the 50s and 60s, the Saltine Warrior.  (I can still remember a painting of the Warrior on one of the campus buildings.)  I can't remember exactly when it got retired, but there was nowhere near as huge a controversy as the one over Chief Illiniwek.  

      Well guess what.  SU got over it pretty quickly.  We now have our goofy, ridiculous and beloved Otto the Orange.  (And when the powers that be a few years ago were talking about replacing him with a sexy wolf mascot, people screamed bloody murder.)

      Ironically, the U of Illinois chancellor who stood out against Chief Illiniwek is now the chancellor of SU.  Go figure.

  •  Helps if the team is on a losing streak (none)
    I live in Washington, DC where we changed the name of our basketball team (from Bullets to Wizards) but appear very loath to change our football team from the horribly un-PC Redskins.

    The name change for the basketball team was not very controversial as I remember.  Bullets was bad PR for a city battling gun violence.  But it helped that, Wes Unseld notwithstanding, the Bullets were not so big on tradition or winning.  I suspect if the Redskins sucked for a few more years then the name change would be more palatable.  Same goes for college teams.

    If a team had the blessing of the Native American tribe in question and worked to promote accurate depiction of customs and traditions, it should be ok. But I can't imagine that's very common.

    •  the example upthread (none)
      Of the FSU Seminoles seems to have been some kind of working that out, but I know there has been huge resistance in DC, Atlanta, and Cleveland with pro teams. However, the NCAA would be able to impose some form of financial penalty for schools that didn't comply.

      It's not an easy issue, but it does seem to be a last hold-out. And I'm just curious as to why a fan of a team with a name that is derogatory toward people would cling to that name.

    •  Part of it is names (none)
      ...but part of it is mascots.

      I think 'slur' names like "Redskins" are offensive and should be changed. "Indians" and "Braves" can be dicey. But I don't see really anything wrong with names like Seminoles (and see a post above on that), Illini, or Utes. Those can be an honorable name. Where it becomes a problem is with cartoonish offensive mascots, as in the Illinois mascot, not with the name itself. It looks like Florida State did it correctly. U of Illinois could easily work with a representative of the Illini tribe and make the nickname an honorable one by reworking all the peripheral stuff-mascots and the like.

      I suppose I should get upset at Fighting Irish. Talk about a sterotype. And there's that stupid Leprechaun symbol the Boston Celtics use. <G>

      "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

      by ChurchofBruce on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:34:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Redskins and U Illinois are terrible (none)
      There's not much that can be said to defend the Redskins and U of Illinois. Those are just flat-out terrible. The Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves mascots aren't much better.

      I think all sports teams with Indians nicknames should be forced to change their mascot to the Rough Riders (or RoughRiders... or Roughriders) on the same exact same day.

      A point of clairification... St John's changed from the Redmen a few years ago... It's the Red Storm, I think now.

      •  The Cleveland Indians are named in honor of (none)
        an Indian ballplayer for the team in the early 1900s.

        I think that Chief Wahoo sucks though.

        The Dream involves 4 sets of identical twins, 2 gallons of Cool Whip, 5 quarts of chocolate syrup, 2-1/4 pounds of strawberries, satin sheets, a magnum of champ

        by msaroff on Mon May 16, 2005 at 11:38:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was thinking of Chief Wahoo, just like everyone (none)
          It's the grinning cartoon Indian Chief Wahoo on the ball caps that's famous. That's not a portrait of any ex-Cleveland player on those caps and on the logo. Claiming the ex-ballplayer in the current C-Indian team promotional environment is a lame afterthought.
  •  incidentally (none)
    there is a soccer team in the Netherlands that is somehow now associated with "the Jews" because the town where it's based used to have a large Jewish population (no longer). So fans of opposing teams call the team and its supporters "the Jews" in a derogatory way, while fans of the team have adopted being called "Jews" as some sort of status symbol--even having phrases in support of "the Jews" tattooed on themselves. In the meantime, there are pretty much no actual Jews among the players, owners, or fans, and I suspect that none of the people involved knows--or cares--much about actual Jewish people--bizarre, huh? Then again--maybe not so different from the situation here, either.

    Abortions go up under Republicans. Business is better under Democrats. Pass it on.

    by JMS on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:27:06 AM PDT

  •  Silly Pissing Match (none)
    Native American is just as pejorative as Indian, as it is only a new version of the same mistake made by Columbus.  The people who decided that Indians are actually now Native Americans are the same people who stole and renamed their land collectively as America.  It is a silly pissing match at best to argue over what to call the more than 500 tribes of indigenous people of this continent.  The best thing about the politically correct name is that it at least admits who are the original inhabitants.  But, in my opinion, it still fallaciously assumes the sameness of Sioux and Taino.  I'm not so sure hundreds of tribes all saw themselves as the same any more than anyone else does.  Let's stick to the pertinent, long overdue and obvious argument that the offensive names of both college and professional teams need to be changed.

    Sincerely,
    Political Correctness Is For Those Who Can't Think For Themselves, aka PC People Still Go To Redskin Games

    •  Onkwe honwe (none)
      Around here (Six Nations country), the term onkwehonwe is the Haudenosaunee term for what we call Indians (as opposed to non-Indians).  If I'm not mistaken, this term applies to ALL Indians, not just Haudenosaunee.

      However, I never use it; I'd feel kind of presumptuous, like I was affecting it.

  •  A tribute? (none)
    Schools, of course, claim that adopting these nicknames is a tribute to the spirit of Native Americans.

    This always strikes me as a really dumb and/or condescending claim.  If the people that you claim to be honoring with your "tribute" don't like it, how the hell can you continue to claim that it's a tribute?

    Granted, no doubt Native Americans aren't unanimous about how they feel about these "tributes".  But brushing aside the protests of those who do seems to be rather disrespectful of the people you claim to be honoring.

    Proud member of the reality-based minority

    by Bearpaw on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:49:06 AM PDT

  •  and then we wonder why people dont vote democrat.. (none)
    Political Correctness run amock. Yes I hear it, it's about respect, it's about what happenned to the Indians etc etc. But seriously people! There are far more pressing issues facing the country than things like this (IRAQ DEBACLE MAYBE??) and things like not using the term "Merry Christmas" anymore, and people being offended if one doesn't use "African-American" instead of "black" etc...it seriously has got to stop. It's this shit that turn many people off to the Democratic Party whether you want to admit it or not. Then we wonder why we are called the "liberal elite" and why rural voters don't vote for us when they should--Nobody wants to vote for a guy who belongs to a party that beleives he's a racist just because he doesn't want to see his school mascot name changed, or intolerant when he says Merry Christmas, or believes that young arab males should be profiled in airports and not granny...they don't wanna hear this shit. You can get all high and mighty and troll rate me, but PCness is definitely a reason why we have been in trouble. I realize this  is an NCAA issue and liberals have nothing to do with it, but we do engage in  overy PC behavior, and it doesn't serve us well.  

    I HATE REPUBLICANS, HATE HATE HATE THEM!!!!!!!!! UGHHHHH

    by michael1104 on Mon May 16, 2005 at 12:09:51 PM PDT

    •  PC until it's you (none)
      It all sounds like PC mumbo jumbo until it's you and your mother that they're making fun of. Until it's your brother that's being profiled.  Until it's your kid that comes home from school confused about why they are taking part in the dominant religion.

      "Political correctness" for me is about asking people to not be a-holes to each other.  It has very little to do with Democrats or Republicans.  I don't mind if people tend to think of Republicans as the a-holes and the Democrats as the ones who are respectful of each other.

Click here for the mobile view of the site