[JRutledge]

Originally posted by M&M Guy
I really like these kinds of discussions. Juulie, Jeff, you both make great points. There still are major problems, and I'll be the last one to say there aren't. Of course, like any human being, I don't like being told I'm wrong, or I don't get it. And maybe for some things, I really don't. But watching this Chief Illiniwek issue really drives home the point, for me at least, that there really are two sides to almost every issue, and both sides are right about some or most points. But, at the same time, both sides feel so strongly about their position, that they refuse to listen to the other side, or come up with a compromise. In my simplistic way of looking at things, there should be an answer that both sides can hang their hat on, even though both sides will have to give up something. Chief supporters, for example, will point to such facts as when the person is selected for portraying the Chief, they go through many hours of training and education about the history of the symbol and the Illiniwek tribe from where the name is derived. Chief detractors of course point out there has never been an actual Indian person that has portrayed the Chief; it is, in fact, usually a white male. That doesn't seem right to me. But, both sides feel so strongly that their position is the right one, that both sides have stated publicly that a compromise is out of the question. My little mind says, "Huh? Why not?" Why does something have to banned or legislated out, instead of coming to a conclusion where both sides agree? Why do the student atheletes have to be the ones to pay (by being banned from post-season) because the ones in charge (the NCAA) say the other people in charge (the schools) are wrong?

I personally do not care what any people think except what the Native Americans think about the Chief issue. Most of the people I have seen in favor of the Chief are largely white and largely do not have any Native American background or education. That says it all for me.

Originally posted by M&M Guy
Racism is not an inherited gene, it is taught. Kids don't have racist tendancies unless they are taught that through their parents and other adults in their life. But are those issues taught on both sides? I certainly can't say I know how someone else feels, no matter how long I've walked in their (patent leather?) shoes. But again, in my simple mind, it works both ways. So, shouldn't both sides - whether black/white, Arab/Jew, Cub fan/Cardinal fan, be able to co-exist without problems? Or is it human nature that people who are different will not get along, and we need to find a way to work around that?

No one is saying racism is inherited in anyone. Most people of color that I know do not really care if white people or any other race likes us. To state the truth there are a lot of Black people that hate or despise white people all over the place. It is one thing to hate someone; it is another to have policy to discriminate. I have talked about this many times here. I have gotten ripped many times for speaking what I truly feel. What I say is not just confined to this forum or to officiating. All these sides exist now. But those that are not white and are not male want the same opportunity as anyone else. We are looking for special treatment. But I just find it funny when someone goes ballistic when someone who has never taken away an opportunity to a group is all of a sudden wrong or racist if they say they do not approve of a policy that is not considered moral. If it is not right to have a lawn jockey on a front line, it is not right to have a white kid dancing around in a dance he knows nothing about, all for the entertainment of people that look nothing like the people the mascot portrays.

Peace