NCAA ban on mascots

[TigerBball]

My problem with this decision is "where does it end"?

Hostile and abusive


I got on a web site that listed colleges and their nick names, I would like to add the following to the banned list.

Aggies (Farmers might be offended)
Archers (portrays guys with bows and arrows in a neg light)
Beavers (for obvious reasons)
Belles (Southern women)
Black Knights (African Americans for lack of a better term)
anything with Devil in it (Christians)
Boilermakers (Factory workers offended by "big dope" mascot)
Bombers (Too violent)
Buccaneers (portrays Pirates in a neg light)
Celtics (offends the celts)
Cornhuskers (offends corn farmers)
Comboys (belittles what a real cowboy is like)
Demon Decons (Portrays church leadership as evil)
Gamecocks (Sexually suggestive)
Giants (Slang for big people)
Hurricanes (Might haunt Florida residents resently hit by storms) Add Cyclones to this one.
Hilltoppers (Could offend those that dwell in hills)
Hokies
Irish
Loggers
Lumberjacks
Mountainers.


Is there even any mascot or name that wouldn't offend someone?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by TigerBball


Is there even any mascot or name that wouldn't offend someone?

Otto.

http://www.suathletics.com/sports/gen/2001/mascot.asp

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I guess I will never understand why mostly people of privilege can never just say, "my bad."

What, or who is a "person of privilege"? Who gets to make that determination? Is it strictly based on skin color? I'm not asking these things to be confrontational, but to try and understand the overall picture, because I'm a relatively simplistic person. Do you see me, as a white, middle-aged guy, as a person of privilege? From what I've read, you have a sales position, which the odds are you make more money than me, and you hold some positions in both your local official's associations and the IHSA. Doesn't that put you in a position of privilege over me? So, if I feel uncomfortable by your words and actions based on my skin color, would you feel comfortable taking your own advice and saying, "my bad"?

Remember, I'm a simplistic person in a complicated world. When I grew up, racism was the intentional putting down of a person or group based on their heritage or skin color. It seems as though racism has evolved, however, from intent to perception. The intent to put someone down no longer is the sole criteria for racism, but whether someone feels put down or held back. That's the basic idea behind the Chief Illiniwek issue here at Illinois. The Chief supporters fell the intent of the symbol is a positive portrayal of an honored tradition. The Chief opponents feel ashamed the mascot uses a religious dance in a way that degrades Indians and their traditions. The reason this issue continues is both sides are right, to some extent. The Chief supporters' intent is positive, but the Chief opponents' perception is negative. So, who's more right?

I went to a funeral this weekend for a neighbor of mine who was also the father of one of my daughter's friends. We were one of the few white families at this all-black Baptist church. I felt a little uncomfortable, which (I know I'm making an assumption) is probably not much different than what JRut feels going to ref at an all-white suburban school. Uncomfortable because I was not around people "like me". So, it got me wondering: how come people didn't come up and talk to us? Were they ignoring us because we were different than them? The more I thought about it though, the more I wondered if it was because I was a little over-sensitive. After all, if I had been in the same situation in an all-white church, no one would've come up and talked to us simply because we didn't know anyone there, except the immediate family. I could take my experience and feel slighted and perhaps a victim of racisim, or perhaps look at it in a more realistic light and not feel victimized, because there was no clear and obvious intent to ignore us or put us down.

I with Chuck for the most part - if you feel like a victim, you are a victim. And that is the trend in society today. But it seems that is as though if you take away a lot of the victim mentality, a lot of the so-called racism will go away. That's not to say it's gone, but I wonder how much is victim-mentality and how much is genuine, ugly intent? Isn't intent the main issue?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by M&M Guy

I with Chuck for the most part - if you feel like a victim, you are a victim. And that is the trend in society today. But it seems that is as though if you take away a lot of the victim mentality, a lot of the so-called racism will go away. That's not to say it's gone, but I wonder how much is victim-mentality and how much is genuine, ugly intent? Isn't intent the main issue?

It's so tempting to apply simplistic answers, as you say you are inclined to do. I understand that urge, I really do. Complications involve thought, thought, experimentation, more thought, failure, more thought, introspection, discussion and more thought. It's easy to say "they should..." and easy to feel that there's a one size fits all answer.

Unfortunately, life just isn't like that. You're right about "the victim mentality" being over-used in our culture today, but that doesn't mean that there aren't true victims. My point still holds that there are people who are true victims of racism, and that they will need the help of others to help them "get over it." Part of that help should include the cooperation of others in not adding to the victimization.

Racism isn't just when I intend to hurt you or judge you based on race. It's also the structure of society that's set up to perpetuate a class system based on race. There's almost nothing the lower class people can do to break out of that. Yes, it's possible. People do it. But it's 100 times more difficult for blacks and indians than for others. For people who have the support and background to break out of that, it can happen. But part of racism is that the support and background are much reduced for certain folks based on their race (and gender).

It's not any individual person's fault. That's what makes it so hard to address. But it still must be unpacked and tidied up. Someone has to continue to chip away at the bricks that were used to build the wall. On the side of the wall that is toward the blacks and the indians there are almost no tools. There are a few wooden sticks, but they break more often than the wall does. The people who can tear down the wall are the people with the tools -- you and me. We have the resources, the power and the authority to do it. We need only the inclination.

I don't care who built the wall. And I don't care whose job it is to tear it down. I have friends, loved ones and neighbors on the other side, and I intend to do everything I can to see that it is severely damaged in my lifetime. If you would join me, it would go a lot faster.

Instead of blaming the folks over there, let's just get the darn thing demolished! Then it will be easier to see how much is caused by the victim mentality, and how much really is true victimization.

[Edited by rainmaker on Aug 8th, 2005 at 03:05 PM]

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by M&M Guy


What, or who is a "person of privilege"? Who gets to make that determination? Is it strictly based on skin color? I'm not asking these things to be confrontational, but to try and understand the overall picture, because I'm a relatively simplistic person. Do you see me, as a white, middle-aged guy, as a person of privilege? From what I've read, you have a sales position, which the odds are you make more money than me, and you hold some positions in both your local official's associations and the IHSA. Doesn't that put you in a position of privilege over me? So, if I feel uncomfortable by your words and actions based on my skin color, would you feel comfortable taking your own advice and saying, "my bad"?

Actually no I am not. There is only one of me in most of the positions I sit. I am usually the only African-American in many of the association positions or even in the IHSA Committee position I hold. There is only one prominent African-American in the IHSA office. When I received a high assignment in baseball, one of the first things people claimed was I got their only because I was an African-American. So did all the white males get their high level assignments because they were white males? Even in IACAO I am pretty much the only African-American speaking at clinics or playing a prominent role. Of course everything is not about race, but when it comes to opportunity and those that seem to get those opportunities in many areas, officiating in our state it is not a secret who gets those opportunities on a large scale. It is not a secret that many women are getting and opportunity in basketball in our state and around the country in basketball. But for some reason when they get those opportunities, most of the officials question their "qualifications" but seem to rarely make that same claim about the many white males that work the sport. I just find that interesting when the tables are turned how many react to who got a shot at the State Finals or to go deep into the playoffs.

Originally posted by M&M Guy
Remember, I'm a simplistic person in a complicated world. When I grew up, racism was the intentional putting down of a person or group based on their heritage or skin color. It seems as though racism has evolved, however, from intent to perception. The intent to put someone down no longer is the sole criteria for racism, but whether someone feels put down or held back. That's the basic idea behind the Chief Illiniwek issue here at Illinois. The Chief supporters fell the intent of the symbol is a positive portrayal of an honored tradition. The Chief opponents feel ashamed the mascot uses a religious dance in a way that degrades Indians and their traditions. The reason this issue continues is both sides are right, to some extent. The Chief supporters' intent is positive, but the Chief opponents' perception is negative. So, who's more right?

Racism is not always intentional or openly condoned. Racism is often not simple and easy. The problem with racism in this country is we all think it is about the KKK, and the south. Well some of the biggest race riots in this countries history happen in northern and urban cities throughout this country. Racism is not about lynching and burning crosses either. Racism and discrimination is also about institutional structure and policies. I am not Native American and I cannot tell you why or why not specifically the Chief Illiniwek is a good symbol or not. This is not my culture. But if someone says that it is offensive to them and that the images of a white kid in red face running around with a dance that is a stereotypical, I think I would tend to take their point of view over my point of view.

Originally posted by M&M Guy
I went to a funeral this weekend for a neighbor of mine who was also the father of one of my daughter's friends. We were one of the few white families at this all-black Baptist church. I felt a little uncomfortable, which (I know I'm making an assumption) is probably not much different than what JRut feels going to ref at an all-white suburban school. Uncomfortable because I was not around people "like me". So, it got me wondering: how come people didn't come up and talk to us? Were they ignoring us because we were different than them? The more I thought about it though, the more I wondered if it was because I was a little over-sensitive. After all, if I had been in the same situation in an all-white church, no one would've come up and talked to us simply because we didn't know anyone there, except the immediate family. I could take my experience and feel slighted and perhaps a victim of racisim, or perhaps look at it in a more realistic light and not feel victimized, because there was no clear and obvious intent to ignore us or put us down.

Here is the myth that most people do not understand. I grew up around mostly white people my entire life. I am very used to being the "only one" in most circles I used to run with in HS. Actually there are many African-Americans all over this country that work, socialize and deal with people that do not look just like them on a regular basis. The difference is many white people can completely avoid a Black community. If I wanted to officiate a Black school, I personally would have to go out of my way to do so. When most of the time I officiate (drive somewhere, go to a restaurant or go to the store) I am surrounded by people that are not of color. So Black people (I have more than one friend) of us are used to that fact. I also understand that in many cases I will get looks and get asked "stupid questions" based on what my race is. It comes with the territory of being who I am. White people remind me every day what race I am. I do not have to worry about it; someone that is white will make a comment or say something that clearly signifies my race. That does not mean that is a bad thing, it just means that it clearly seems that most white people I come in contact with assume I live in a certain place or that I know certain people.

Originally posted by M&M Guy
I with Chuck for the most part - if you feel like a victim, you are a victim. And that is the trend in society today. But it seems that is as though if you take away a lot of the victim mentality, a lot of the so-called racism will go away. That's not to say it's gone, but I wonder how much is victim-mentality and how much is genuine, ugly intent? Isn't intent the main issue?

Here is my problem with your point of view and Chuck's point of view. Why do you have to be a victim to be against a stereotype that you feel is inaccurate or should not be perpetuated? I listen to a Catholic radio station every now and then and I hear all these comments about how the media portrays Catholics and they way people of faith are treated in the media. Considering that most people in this country that call themselves Catholic are not people of color, I do not hear anyone talking about that they should "get over it" about what offends them. You make a joke about a Catholic Priest and mostly white people come out of the woodworks and talk about how offended they are. I do not see anyone telling Catholics to "get over it." Maybe you do not see that feeling because the issue is not about race and the issue might affect them. So when we bring this back to how stereotypes affect people, I think that any stereotype is very bad and we should get beyond them. As I stated I make a huge distinction between the Seminoles and the Utes than I do when it comes to Chief Illinawek. If tribes sign off on their culture being used, especially when the tribe is used and has regional significance, I can agree with FSU and Utah for their position. Illinois is not endorsed by any regional tribe or group to use that image. There is a big difference in my mind. It would be no different if some school decided to use the Zulu Tribe as a mascot. If there were some Zulu tribal members that lived in a particular region and the images used were accurate to the tribe, I personally would not have a problem with that imagery. I would have a problem if they took some very stereotypical images and did not represent the culture or tribe accurately. The problem is in America there is no such area and there would not apply to specifically the Zulu Tribe.

"Everyone has their own truth"--Peter Jennings

Peace

[tomegun]

Wow! Rut's and Juulie's posts are very, VERY good! I grew up in a similar situation as Rut. When I wanted to play wiffle ball (one of my favorite things growing up ) it didn't matter what color my friends were. I just wanted to play. The amount of black people I went to school with wasn't really significant until middle school. I just didn't know any better. As an adult it affects me too much. It is sad but true.

With the right money and platform Juulie could give a speech like she just posted and make a difference. The sad part is she would probably get assasinated or at least death threats.

M&M, you are showing ignorance on this subject. I don't mean that in a harsh way, I just don't think you know. One visit to a church or 1,000,000 lifetimes in your shoes will NOT allow you to understand if you don't allow yourself to learn from someone who is an expert. I'm sure you've listened to an official who went through game situations. Didn't that help you learn? It is different but the same concept. It is almost like the stance you take, which is common (unfortunately), belittles how it can impact lives. The same opportunities are not there pure and simple.

I'm kind of blown away. I know Rut has it in him because he lives it while Juulie has to be very open to speak on this subject.

[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?

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?

[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

[johnny1784]

Originally posted by M&M Guy

What, or who is a "person of privilege"? Who gets to make that determination? Is it strictly based on skin color? I'm not asking these things to be confrontational, but to try and understand the overall picture, because I'm a relatively simplistic person. Do you see me, as a white, middle-aged guy, as a person of privilege? From what I've read, you have a sales position, which the odds are you make more money than me, and you hold some positions in both your local official's associations and the IHSA. Doesn't that put you in a position of privilege over me? So, if I feel uncomfortable by your words and actions based on my skin color, would you feel comfortable taking your own advice and saying, "my bad"?

Remember, I'm a simplistic person in a complicated world. When I grew up, racism was the intentional putting down of a person or group based on their heritage or skin color. It seems as though racism has evolved, however, from intent to perception. The intent to put someone down no longer is the sole criteria for racism, but whether someone feels put down or held back. That's the basic idea behind the Chief Illiniwek issue here at Illinois. The Chief supporters fell the intent of the symbol is a positive portrayal of an honored tradition. The Chief opponents feel ashamed the mascot uses a religious dance in a way that degrades Indians and their traditions. The reason this issue continues is both sides are right, to some extent. The Chief supporters' intent is positive, but the Chief opponents' perception is negative. So, who's more right?

I went to a funeral this weekend for a neighbor of mine who was also the father of one of my daughter's friends. We were one of the few white families at this all-black Baptist church. I felt a little uncomfortable, which (I know I'm making an assumption) is probably not much different than what JRut feels going to ref at an all-white suburban school. Uncomfortable because I was not around people "like me". So, it got me wondering: how come people didn't come up and talk to us? Were they ignoring us because we were different than them? The more I thought about it though, the more I wondered if it was because I was a little over-sensitive. After all, if I had been in the same situation in an all-white church, no one would've come up and talked to us simply because we didn't know anyone there, except the immediate family. I could take my experience and feel slighted and perhaps a victim of racisim, or perhaps look at it in a more realistic light and not feel victimized, because there was no clear and obvious intent to ignore us or put us down.

I with Chuck for the most part - if you feel like a victim, you are a victim. And that is the trend in society today. But it seems that is as though if you take away a lot of the victim mentality, a lot of the so-called racism will go away. That's not to say it's gone, but I wonder how much is victim-mentality and how much is genuine, ugly intent? Isn't intent the main issue?

You were not confronted for a conversation probably because Black American's are considered the most non violent prejudice race towards other ethnic groups, while White American's are the most violent when prejudice (those radical extremist Muslims may want to challenge these statements).

Ask yourself this, when was the last time a black person spoke of their most favorite role model in any sport and that personÂ’s race was white?

You might be surprised how often the lyrics in most songs reflect the true feelings black's have among their peers involving whites.

Quote;
As Chris Rock says:

"Yes, black people are more racist than white people....you know why? Because they hate white people AND black people."

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by M&M Guy
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?

IANAL, but from what I can tell from reading the policy, no teams will be banned from post-season play. Their uniforms, however, will not be allowed to display the 'offensive' mascots or names. Almost every D-I program orders new uniforms every year, and in the worst case scenario, they put athletic tape over the offending marks.

The only potential loss here is to schools that were contenders to host championship events.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by johnny1784


You were not confronted for a conversation probably because Black American's are considered the most non violent prejudice race towards other ethnic groups, while White American's are the most violent when prejudice (those radical extremist Muslims may want to challenge these statements).

Ask yourself this, when was the last time a black person spoke of their most favorite role model in any sport and that personÂ’s race was white?

You must not talk to a lot of Black people. Steve Young was one of my favorite players all time in football. I admired Doug Williams because of what he had to go through, but he was not my favorite. I even was not a big MJ fan and I live in Illinois. I admired Joe Dumars for the way he played the game and the way he handled himself. Dumars was in the NBA and there were not many white players to look up to when I was in HS. I also was a huge Montana fan and love the way he played the game. So I am not really sure what you are talking about.

Y

Originally posted by johnny1784
ou might be surprised how often the lyrics in most songs reflect the true feelings black's have among their peers involving whites.

It is? I did not realize that all Black people listened to wrap. My girlfriend is younger than I am by more than 5 years and she hates rap music. She also grew up on the South side of Chicago as well in some pretty bad "hood" to boot. You need to talk to more people than that one Black friend you have.

Originally posted by johnny1784
Quote;
As Chris Rock says:

"Yes, black people are more racist than white people....you know why? Because they hate white people AND black people."

Chris Rock also said, "If it is white, it must be right." Chris Rock is a comedian trying to get a laugh based on some truth. He is not the only Black person on this earth that has an opinion about race and issues of race.

Peace

[jbduke]

Juulie,

I'm interested to get you feelings on this thread after putting so much into with so little validation from your peers (I'm sorry I'm so late to the party; I wish I could have closed ranks with you earlier). When I was in college at one of those "liberal elite institutions" as BITS is so fond of writing, I lived for these battles. Now, living in one of the reddest of red states, which happens to be one of the most poorly educated (coincidence? you decide), I have fewer kindred spirits around when such discussions arise. I thus end up feeling angry and then depressed, then angry again when the inevitable happens: "you know, there's a reason you're outnumbered." [Running fallacy count in discussions such as these: 1 (ad populem)]

The NCAA has not exercised the best of judgment, and has certainly not exhibited good PR, but principally, they are correct. The problem as I see it is what it always is, and that happens to be where the NCAA is weakest here: PR.
This is about rhetoric, which in this case means that the NCAA is behind the eight-ball from the start, because theirs is not the popular position (they have to win over lots and lots of people), and theirs is not the simple position (they have to make a very complex argument to lots and lots of people).

Allow me the rhetorical ploy of repetition: this is a very complicated set of questions we're dealing with. Imagery and the way it shapes a collective and individual consciousness, how those consciousnesses manifest themselves concretely in how we as individuals, families, communities and nations interact with each other and the world; these are very difficult things to describe, more difficult to understand, and more difficult still to explain to others (especially those who reject the notion that these are important questions, or questions without simple answers).

For those who haven't even a vague sense that imagery is impactful, the glib responses to the NCAA hold sway:
1)What about Notre Dame?
2)What about Texas A & M?
3)Well, why don't they just decide not to be affected/offended?

There are long (not necessarily difficult) answers to all three of these questions, as there are to all of the silly, inch-deep questions blithely asked to try to mock the thinking behind the NCAA's decision. The answer to all of these questions lies in understanding the dynamics of individual and societal power.

Nobody here has paid tuition to read my lecture on this, but I'll give the condensed, two-minute version of the semester-long class here, understanding fully that there are those who don't care what I write, their minds are made up, and those who will quibble with points that I cannot possibly develop fully given my constraints here. Nevertheless...

Whenever you find yourself listening to a so-called "PC debate," and you knee clocks your jaw as you exclaim, "Why are people so sensitive!", try to deprogram yourself for a moment and actually attempt to understand why it is that some people are offended about things that do not bother you. Notice I'm not asking you to side with them, simply to try to understand them.

Ask yourself how the imagery in pop culture of the Native American might affect how you think about Native Americans. How might the perceptions that such imagery engenders shape what students of 18th- and 19th-century American History bring to the table? What questions are they not asking? Why are they not more concerned with the abysmally incomplete picture they're given of what the US government has done to Native Americans in the history of this country? What questions would change if the imagery changed? What could we do if we changed the framework of debate?

------------
Look at Notre Dame. No one can reasonably say that the Notre Dame mascot has any appreciable impact on the way the Irish are viewed in this country. Actually, the game is actually given away on this point by the very people who ask, "What about Notre Dame?" These people don't believe the Notre Dame mascot makes a difference, so we shouldn't even waste our time on that question. These people may in fact believe that none of the Native American mascots makes a difference, either, but that is a question that can be responded to with evidence both concrete and inductive.

(For concrete evidence of how imagery matters, read Chief Justice Warren's opinion for the unanimous court in Brown v Board).

Well, I'll quit there because that was way over two minutes.

I'll close with an answer to 'glib question #3," in the form of a respone to a previous poster's question about privilege and what constitutes it. Knowing that Chuck will rightly criticize me for begging the question, here it is: if you believe that "sticks 'n' stones" isn't a crock, you're a person of privilege.

[Mark Padgett]

I'd just like to kick in that this has been one of the most interesting and intelligent discussions I have ever seen on this or any other board. Thanks everyone for giving me an enlighting way to spend some of my spare time.

And no - there's no joke here.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by jbduke
Juulie,

I'm interested to get you feelings on this thread after putting so much into with so little validation from your peers (I'm sorry I'm so late to the party; I wish I could have closed ranks with you earlier).

JB -- My thoughts and feelings come out of my religious convictions, so I'm not sure I can really go into them too deeply here. If the mascot issue is this delicate, imagine a discussion of the meaning and outworking of the Will of God?!! I think I can say that it is a long-standing Quaker belief that in every person there is something of God. And that we squelch that or injure it at our peril. That is, both individuals and institutions need to carefully nurture the God-sliver in each person.

I've tried to live my life accordingly, and after nearly 50 years, I am beginning to be able to be gentle. I used to get angry and upset,like you, in discussions like this. But I have learned to see that God-sliver in not only the person or group being talked about, but also in the person I'm disagreeing with. I should say, I'm learning. I still don't pull it off all the time. As you all know very well. (I did apologize to Gordon, but BushRef will definitely need to wait years before I finally see God in him! I'll get there eventually.)

Originally posted by jbduke
if you believe that "sticks 'n' stones" isn't a crock, you're a person of privilege.

Now JB, that's just another generalization that needs to be looked at carefully. I wonder who can point out the two logical fallacies in this arguement?

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by rainmaker
It's so tempting to apply simplistic answers, as you say you are inclined to do. I understand that urge, I really do. Complications involve thought, thought, experimentation, more thought, failure, more thought, introspection, discussion and more thought. It's easy to say "they should..." and easy to feel that there's a one size fits all answer.

Unfortunately, life just isn't like that.

Exactly. Isn't that what the NCAA is doing? The "one size fits all" answer of saying Indian mascots are wrong. What thought, introspection, discussion, etc. went into the decision that these specific mascots were "hostile and abusive"? Was it the view of a few, or the result of a consensus of the many?

Originally posted by rainmaker
You're right about "the victim mentality" being over-used in our culture today, but that doesn't mean that there aren't true victims. My point still holds that there are people who are true victims of racism, and that they will need the help of others to help them "get over it." Part of that help should include the cooperation of others in not adding to the victimization.

Agreed. I hope I've never implied the problem has gone away. But, who gets to decide who are the true victims and who aren't?

Originally posted by rainmaker
Racism isn't just when I intend to hurt you or judge you based on race. It's also the structure of society that's set up to perpetuate a class system based on race.

This is where I disagree; not with the general idea, but with the implication that our current society is set up that way. It seems as though the argument starts to to depend on "leap of faith" logic to make the point. Racism is still, IMO, in terminology used on this board before, based on advantage/disadvantage. Did one race/heritage/skin color unfairly benfit at the expense of another race/heritage/skin color? In the past, that was certainly the case. But what about now? What specific examples of policies or laws in this country are directly responsible for holding back certain races?

Originally posted by rainmaker
I don't care who built the wall. And I don't care whose job it is to tear it down. I have friends, loved ones and neighbors on the other side, and I intend to do everything I can to see that it is severely damaged in my lifetime. If you would join me, it would go a lot faster.

Instead of blaming the folks over there, let's just get the darn thing demolished! Then it will be easier to see how much is caused by the victim mentality, and how much really is true victimization.

This is a great idea, in theory. How can anyone with any rational thought process disagree? But I'm not sure it's a practical roadmap to a solution. Sure, we can say we are going to tear down that damn wall. But what if the "non-victim" victims don't want it torn down? If it is, they would have to take personal reponsibilty for their position in life, rather than being able to blame someone else, or society. Many of the bricks have indeed disappeared over time; that is why things like slavery have disappeared in this country. And, as more people become enlightened, more bricks will disappear. But making the entire wall vanish will be the hardest, because human nature dictates that some people don't want the wall gone.