Actually, since Joe Gibbs returned, they are one of the least "offensive" teams.

Ride 'em Cowboys!!!!

I agree with you, tomegun, there is a problem.

All I am really saying is that it really steams me when some governing body, like the NCAA, stands up and says in essense: We in our wisdom have decided for you what is right about this issue and you must comply. This despite some of the "offending" organizations having worked in good faith with those they are supposedly offending and use their name and image with their blessing.

In my experience, attempts to address complex issues like this with simplistic, one size fits all legislation ususally come from ivory tower ideologists. I realize that's an assumption on my part (there are certainly many causes of bad legislation). And yes, I am also assuming that Native Americans were under-represented in the process because the outcome doesn't appear to reflect the diversity of opinion that exists within their own society on this issue.

Now if the NCAA backs off their position enough to allow schools like Utah to keep their mascot, with the requirement of having the permission of the affected tribe, that would be a decision that respects both sides of the issue, and I would have no problem with it.

Like many Native American team nicknames, Fighting Irish was originally to honor a group of warriors, in this case the Fighting 69th from New York. However, seeing how much publicity (and presumably donations) is generated by these stunt protests, I've decided to start a movement to protest Notre Dame's use of patently offensive stereotypical images in their logo and licensed merchandise. Send your donations soon. (or I'll take a %5 royalty to settle).

Let's stop being so naive and stop falling for all these charlatans purporting to be ethnic spokesmen!

Whenever there's a Quaker student at that school, (which is about 4 years out of every 6) there's an editorial in the school newspaper about how inappropriate it is for the mascot to be Benjamin Franklin dressed in colonial garb. For one thing, although he was raised a Quaker, he wasn't very observant as an adult, and while most Quakers of his time were firm believers in Jesus, Franklin was a deist like Jefferson and others in the "elite" leadership. Furthermore, Quaker people don't feel honored when a group of rowdy football players get arrested for getting drunk and trashing someone's house (it happens about every 5 years or so). But most of us are too busy trying to stop the war and save the world to add another hopeless cause to our roster. So we keep sending one student to Franklin every so many years, and hope that someday, an historian of note will suggest that Benjamin Franklin's memory would be better honored by calling their teams the Lightning or the Patriots or the Almanac or something.

Chuck, I agree with the thing about people cant be made to feel inferior without their own consent or however it goes. I agree in theory. In practice, it appears as though if children are treated poorly from the beginning, they never learn how to "not-consent", and thus the principle isn't applicable. I guess you could say they don't have any consent to give. That goes for racial mistreatment, gender mistreatment (a mother who hates men, and belittles her son throughout his childhood), physical, sexual and emotional abuse and so on. A child has to be given the opportunities of learning to give consent, or she never learns that skill. To blame an abused child for his own inablility to stand up for himself is just piling on, it seems to me.

In talking about this psychology, I'm not saying that the Native Americans are abusing their own children, although I'm sure some do, as in every group. But Native Americans and African Americans have been uniquely abused in having their children taken away and "brainwashed" on a routine basis over a long period of time. African Americans do have a thread running through their culture of standing up against that and many have been able to keep up a cultural dignity in their families, churches and other groups.

Native Americans, however, for what ever reason, haven't been as able to pull that off. For about 75 years, in many, many tribes, ALL the children were forcibly removed from their families and required to live in mission schools for 8 to 12 years. They were not allowed to learn their own languages, they weren't allowed to wear their own clothes, they weren't allowed to accumulate possessions, or indeed to have any human individuality at all. If they didn't capitulate, they were beaten or starved. What chance did the children raised in that environment have of having any self-esteem, or any sense of how Indians ought to be viewed by others, or how to resist the damaging opinions of others? Or of teaching their children those skills, if they were fortunate enough to be allowed to raise their own children? How could those people learn to resist the negative stereotypes that appear to them to be "just the way things are?" For people whose entire self has been completely demolished from their infancy and on through their own children's childhoods, yea, it is too that hard. That's just basic psychology.

When someone finally did stand up and say, "Enough!" we should be big enough to say, "Wow, didn't realize we were so wrong. We sure won't do it again."

It may be that the NCAA is going too far in eliminating mascots like the Utes and the Seminoles who have given permission and have worked out amenable agreements with the schools involved. But just as an overall policy, I think it's civilized and polite for someone who is giving offense to stop it, and not pour salt into an open wound.

I also agree with the person who said the Redskins ought to change their name. I think that was one of the first teams to be protested, and they've been among the most recalcitrant in their reaction.

[Edited by rainmaker on Aug 8th, 2005 at 01:23 AM]

Juulie,

You are pretty much right on. I guess I will never understand why mostly people of privilege can never just say, "my bad." Why is it always the Black people and the women that have to "get over it?" Then when some Black school fans call them a "white boy," and all hell breaks loose. But African-Americans are supposed to turn the other cheek and get over it. I completely agree with your point on this. I guess I am a racist because I am point this out now. Then wait until the season starts and you hear all the socially privileged complaining because some Hispanic or African-American person called them a name. Oh the horror!!! It must suck to be them. I guess they will just have to go to the schools that have more people that look like them. If I tried to do that, I would never work any kind of game in any sport.

Peace

Rainmaker, is there a national Quaker organization that you belong to?

That was a pretty good post. I can tell right off the bat that you approach this situation from the standpoint of someone that does NOT know it all which allows you to consider others' feelings. Unfortunately that is rare these days. Respect.

I thought the topic was about banning derogatory Mascots after college football regular season and not about banning certain team nicknames.

Why not ban liberals from calling all blacks in the USA, African Americans?

I want to witness when an Ethiopian with African decent has the same ethnicity related to a Black American or an Algerian. There are no common characteristics of these cultures to each other. The skin texture, foods, customs, etc. are totally different.

White Americans are the ones who stripped Black Americans of their African culture during the slave era. Black Americans have developed their own identity and culture and it includes derogatory musical lyrics towards whites.

Mankind is known to have beginning roots in Africa. Are we all Africans? Not unless we rewrite history to keep humans from migrating to places were the sun don’t shine and ice is your beautiful front yard.

If I were a Mascot, I’d sue the NCAA. If hot coffee spilled on ones lap while driving through McDonalds can get you millions, why not get billions from the NCAA for first amendment rights.

Ok Chris Rock wannabes…. Go for it!

http://www.almani.com/articles/pgs/2218.htm

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

At least 18 schools have mascots the NCAA deem "hostile or abusive," including Florida State's Seminole and Illinois' Illini.

Florida State President T.K. Wetherell threatened to take legal action after the ruling.

"That the NCAA would now label our close bond with the Seminole people as culturally 'hostile and abusive' is both outrageous and insulting," Wetherell said in a written statement.

"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."
Not all schools with Indian-related nicknames are on that list. NCAA officials said some schools using the Warrior nickname do not use Indian symbols and would not be affected.

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.
Schools on the list could still appeal.

"I suspect that some of those would like to having a ruling on that," Brand said. "But unless there is a change before Feb. 1, they will have to abide by it."

Major college football teams also would not be subjected to the new rules because there is no NCAA Division I-A tournament or playoff.

Vernon Bellecourt, president of the National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media, was pleased with the postseason ban but had hoped for even stronger action.

"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.

The NCAA two years ago recommended that schools determine for themselves whether the Indian depictions were offensive.

Florida State has received permission from the Seminole tribe in Florida to use the nickname. The NCAA, however, made its decision based on a different standard.

"Other Seminole tribes are not supportive," said Charlotte Westerhaus, the NCAA vice president for diversity and inclusion.

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).

The NCAA plans to ban schools using Indian nicknames from hosting postseason events. Harrison said schools with such mascots that have already been selected as tournament sites would be asked to cover any offensive logos.

Such logos also would be prohibited at postseason games on cheerleader and band uniforms starting in 2008...

My, my, my, what a piece of work! Johnny, your comments seem to be totally different than Rainmaker's "I don't know it all but I'm compasionate and willing to learn" attitude. Those are my words Juulie and I hope they are accurate.

Johnny, I will spare you the official history lesson concerning inventions and landmark events. However, in my life there are normal, everyday changes I've noticed. Remember, when the word "cool" used to be slang only African American's used? How about wearing baseball hats backwards? Baggy jeans? Those things and many more "crossed-over" and were/are accepted by the masses. Are you getting the picture?

How would you like it if a new official thought themselves superior and came into your organization telling the officials who have been there what to do and how you are going to do it? WELCOME TO AMERICA! How can someone be the last to the party and make all the rules?

I'm no more African than most other people that look like me but you have to put African before American when you describe me? That is offensive to me! Native American is stupid because they are the only ones who shouldn't have anything before their names IF we are to use the PC system in place. They were here first! Where is the term European American? After all, the last people to come to America should surely have the same naming convention, shouldn't they? Mexican American (or Hispanic), Asian American (or just Asian). Oh, and Caucasian! Makes perfect (non)sense to me.

I could go on and on but I will end this particular post on point. There are a lot of us Black folk who think some or most of current rap music is stupid. How many different styles of 20" rims do I need to see in a video or how many different half-naked women do I need to see (well, I don't really get tired of that :D). Anyway, I don't say the things they say in those songs and I don't buy the CDs. Guess who buys the CDs which make these rappers money and allows them to make the next CD? Realizing that should make you slap your head and give a Homer Simpson "Doh!"

[Edited by tomegun on Aug 8th, 2005 at 08:37 AM]

I'm no more African than most other people that look like me but you have to put African before American when you describe me?

[/B][/QUOTE]Probably the wisest and truest thing imo that I've read so far in this thread was the statement "If we still have to talk about these and other things like this, WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM".

Yup, we certainly do still have a problem. And we will continue to have this problem until <b>everyone</b> can look at, say, Tomegun and see....Tomegun. And then describe Tomegun as...Tomegun. And then make a personal judgment on Tomegun based solely on....Tomegun.

Feel free to use any other name above in place of Tomegun.

I can dream, but I also know I ain't gonna see it in my lifetime. That's sad.

Jmo.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 8th, 2005 at 09:14 AM]

Two words - private organization.

I do think that the NCAA has gone a bit too far in this decision. I think most intelligent people can tell the difference between offensive names (like Redskins) and non-offensive names (Seminoles, Utes, Illini) - particularly when most of the offensive names are derived from derogatory racial or ethnic slurs. Simplified - there's a difference between the "Fighting Irish" and the "Drunken Micks."

If the NCAA is going to adopt this policy, however, why not look at all nicknames that are possibly offensive? Having teams named the "Lady" X's is certainly sexist and offensive, but the NCAA isn't banning them from post-season play.

That's a good point. I never had to deal with being belittled at home. (I got plenty of it at school, but who didn't?)

I honestly don't think, however, that the principle isn't applicable. It just means that people in this position have to be taught what their true value is, and the power they have within themselves. I have no idea how to do that, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.

I honestly believe that a person who recognizes his/her true value and power should not care one whit about what anybody else says about him/her.

I say that from my decidedly non-privileged position. :rolleyes:

Actually, your position is quite privileged -- I mean you know how to spell privilege, and that's something!

Yes, the people can and should be "taught what their true value is, and the power they have within themselves." How do we as a society do that? To start with, our institutions do what we can to avoid further damage. You see where I'm going with this. It is one thing that the NCAA can do to "teach what their true value is, and the power they have within themselves." To leave things as they are, is to say, "We don't care."

The reason certain people call themselves "African-American" in the first place is because their origin or heritage comes from Africa. Labeling yourself Black does not tell enough in my opinion. There are many Black people that are from South America, Brazil and even Europe. Brazil has the second most (at least a few years ago where I heard the statistic) Blacks in the world outside of the continent of Africa (America is third). So for someone like me that realizes that most Black people in this country came from descendants of slaves and are completely unaware what country, tribe, culture or language they spoke in Africa. I live in a large city where people of all different colors and backgrounds claim their heritage and they were born in America like me. Unlike me though, they usually know what country they came from or know which Grandparents came over on the boat or plane to come to America. I am just as American as anyone here. I grew up in rural America around corn fields most of my life. I still know that my last name is not the original name from my family. I do not know many African people with "Rutledge" as their last name. Especially considering my last name has a European background.

Several years I ago when I was in college, my mom had a couple of Kenyan students (sisters) stay with her for about 3 months. If you looked at them they looked no different than any Black person from America. Once they talked that was another story all together. They each spoke about 5 different languages and dialects in those languages. They would speak in their native tongue all the time.

Peace

http://www.nativetimes.com/index.asp...rticle_id=6827

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/...ncaa_0806.html

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...ot-issue_x.htm