NCAA ban on mascots

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by drothamel
I never understood the whole "Lady x" thing. Why is it necessary, why can't both teams have the same name?

One of my personal favorites is the "Lady Demon Deacons". I'm still waiting for a school to have the "Lady Geldings".

[TigerBball]

I have seen the "Lady Bulls", but I suppose this is better than the "Cows"

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Many Native Americans believe that their identity as people is diminished by the nicknames and mascots of Indians. My point of view -- and I recommend it to others -- is to not want to do harm. If someone tells me that my actions belittle and dehumanize them, I will stop, if possible. Then if they continue to be offended, that's another story. You think it's silly for the Indians to make a big deal out of the nicknames. But if you fight that request, then you're making a big deal, too.
But if you immdeiately change the nickname/mascot, then you get a lot of brownie points, and you get to spend your time on something more important, like graduation rates, and affirmative action.

One major problem I see in this is that the common arguments are lumping all "Native Americans" into one bucket with regards to thier views. However, there were hundreds (or perphaps thousands) of difference tribes on this continent and the only thing many of them had in common was the continent. The had different languages, customs, and practices. Just because some Indians are offended doesn't mean all are. Why should the the fact that an indian of the Illini tribe is offended about use of their image matter to the Seminoles or Utes who are apparently satisifed and supportive of the use of their image? This is no more right than saying all (fill in a race or ethnic group) are (fill in a word)?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

One major problem I see in this is that the common arguments are lumping all "Native Americans" into one bucket with regards to thier views. However, there were hundreds (or perphaps thousands) of difference tribes on this continent and the only thing many of them had in common was the continent. The had different languages, customs, and practices. Just because some Indians are offended doesn't mean all are. Why should the the fact that an indian of the Illini tribe is offended about use of their image matter to the Seminoles or Utes who are apparently satisifed and supportive of the use of their image? This is no more right than saying all (fill in a race or ethnic group) are (fill in a word)?

I don't think anyone did say that all are offended. The point isn't that this individual or that single tribe is trying to jerk the tiger around by the tail. It's also not the point that a few indians are off sulking in the corner because they got their candy taken away.

The point is that trivializing and belittling people because of their racial and cultural heritage is not a healthy thing to do. It hurts both the one who is misunderstood, and the ones who perpetuate the misunderstanding. You and I are dehumanized when we condone or ignore this, just as many indians are demeaned.

If it seems small and petty to us, but it's huge to the indians, then why would we not quickly change the mascot and get on to discussing more important things? If they keep telling us it's important, and we keep saying no it's not, then we're just being hypocritical -- by acting in a way that doesn't accord with our words.

There are lots of different types of psychological ways that people define themselves. Cultural and racial background are an important part of how children learn about their own foundations and roots. If some of those are repeatedly belittled by people around, children learn to believe that they aren't important and that others don't respect them. It's very damaging.

When children have loving, attentive, mature adults around them to help them counteract the effects of a negative society, it isn't a huge problem. I'd guess that most Amish children fall into this category. Although many outsiders treat them like they're not very bright, and tend to belittle their culture, still the adults can lead the children in learning to see themselves as solid people with worth and dignity.

But many many Indian adults have never received this, and barely know how to live it, much less pass it on. For many Indian children the self-respect that we all need to grow into mature adults isn't very available. Why should our society contribute to that downward spiral? Even if the only thing we do is to merely reduce the negative influence on children who are struggling to grow, that is still a huge difference. Why wouldn't we want to be part of the solution, instead of part of the problem, when the cost to ourselves is so small?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

When children have loving, attentive, mature adults around them to help them counteract the effects of a negative society, it isn't a huge problem. I'd guess that most Amish children fall into this category. Although many outsiders treat them like they're not very bright, and tend to belittle their culture, still the adults can lead the children in learning to see themselves as solid people with worth and dignity.

But many many Indian adults have never received this, and barely know how to live it, much less pass it on. For many Indian children the self-respect that we all need to grow into mature adults isn't very available.

So you're saying that Amish people as a group are in this respect better than Native Americans?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

So you're saying that Amish people as a group are in this respect better than Native Americans?

Well, I'm not sure whether I'm saying that or not. Better is a little bit of a judgment. I'm saying that the Amish culture hasn't been as devastated by outsiders as many of the Native American cultures have.

And I should also add, parenthetically, that I agree with the people who say that the NCAA should exempt mascots that use specific tribe names with the consent of those tribes. That doesn't seem "hostile and abusive" to me.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Well, I'm not sure whether I'm saying that or not. Better is a little bit of a judgment. I'm saying that the Amish culture hasn't been as devastated by outsiders as many of the Native American cultures have.

OK, let's pull on this a while.

You say that Amish families are able to surround their children with loving, attentive, mature adults. And because of this the children are able to maintin their dignity and self-worth in spite of the insults from outsiders. And this allows them to grow into mature adults who will in turn be able to surround their children with loving, attentive, mature adults. And so on.

Surely this is a good thing.

Next you say that this characteristic is not commonly found in Native American families. Causing Native Amrericans to have less self-respect than say, Amish.

Surely having self respect is 'better' than not having self respect.

So you're saying that Amish people as a group are in this respect better than Native Americans?

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by rainmaker

I don't think anyone did say that all are offended. The point isn't that this individual or that single tribe is trying to jerk the tiger around by the tail. It's also not the point that a few indians are off sulking in the corner because they got their candy taken away.

The point is that trivializing and belittling people because of their racial and cultural heritage is not a healthy thing to do. It hurts both the one who is misunderstood, and the ones who perpetuate the misunderstanding. You and I are dehumanized when we condone or ignore this, just as many indians are demeaned.

If it seems small and petty to us, but it's huge to the indians, then why would we not quickly change the mascot and get on to discussing more important things? If they keep telling us it's important, and we keep saying no it's not, then we're just being hypocritical -- by acting in a way that doesn't accord with our words.

There are lots of different types of psychological ways that people define themselves. Cultural and racial background are an important part of how children learn about their own foundations and roots. If some of those are repeatedly belittled by people around, children learn to believe that they aren't important and that others don't respect them. It's very damaging.

When children have loving, attentive, mature adults around them to help them counteract the effects of a negative society, it isn't a huge problem. I'd guess that most Amish children fall into this category. Although many outsiders treat them like they're not very bright, and tend to belittle their culture, still the adults can lead the children in learning to see themselves as solid people with worth and dignity.

But many many Indian adults have never received this, and barely know how to live it, much less pass it on. For many Indian children the self-respect that we all need to grow into mature adults isn't very available. Why should our society contribute to that downward spiral? Even if the only thing we do is to merely reduce the negative influence on children who are struggling to grow, that is still a huge difference. Why wouldn't we want to be part of the solution, instead of part of the problem, when the cost to ourselves is so small?

You completely missing my point. You (and the NCAA) treating the "indians" as if they were unified in their stance and that all portrayals are bad. They're not. While an Illini has every right to be offended by the use of their image, none of them have any right to say anything about the use of a Seminole image if the Seminoles approve of the use. Yet, they've placed enough pressue on the NCAA to have the use of the Seminole's also restricted. That, according to some, will actually harm the Seminole's or others like them who approve and benefit from it's use.

Why not extend the mascot ban so that only images of plants are acceptable. I'm sure there are people that are offended portrayal of animals or any group of humans. Isn't that Purdue mascot a bit of a humorus person...not exactly flattering...coudn't someone be offended.

If the group being portrayed is offended, then they image should not be used...but the "group" must be appropriately defined....all indians is too broad of a group.


[Edited by Camron Rust on Aug 11th, 2005 at 08:57 PM]

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by rainmaker

If it seems small and petty to us, but it's huge to the indians, then why would we not quickly change the mascot and get on to discussing more important things? If they keep telling us it's important, and we keep saying no it's not, then we're just being hypocritical -- by acting in a way that doesn't accord with our words.

It is far from small and petty to many non-Native Americans. The issue is one of identity, not national or racial identity, but of identifying with a particular team or institution.

Consider my brother-in-law Sean. Sean has spent the past six and a half years at the University of Utah, four as a student, the remainder as an employee. He is as avid a sports fan as you are ever likely to meet. His rabid support for the Utes is by turn both vastly irritating and embarassing (depending on who beats who) to a family composed mostly of BYU alums.

There are millions of Americans like Sean. We spend several of our most formative years at a college or university. For most students it's an all-consuming, coming of age experience. It's during this time that most of us discover our own identity, we start to become who we'll eventually become, we make most of the major decisions we'll make in our lives (career, marriage, family, etc.). We're exposed to new thoughts and ideas that will shape how we think and view the world. And we make some of the dumbest mistakes of our young lives and live to laugh at them later.

By graduation a "traditional" student has spent nearly 20% of his or her life at that school. It's no wonder that the "The world is our campus" sign at BYU is almost universally misquoted as "The campus is our world."

Many of us turn to college athletics for diversion, socialization and a celebration of sorts of the institution we're attending. Many become such devoted fans that they live and die with the fortunes of their team. Rivalries develop. And so do lifelong friendships.

Being an Illini or a Seminole or a Ute is a very powerfully meaningful identity for many people. Yes, it is a different meaning than for Native Americans. Nonetheless it has deep meaning for them and will for the rest of their lives.

Schools themselves face a similar identity crisis. If the University of Utah is not the Utes, then who will they be? They have invested millions of dollars in marketing and merchandising, all aimed at bringing vital monies in to their treasuries. If alumni lose that sense of identifying with the university, contributions vital for their success may diminish. Community support may diminish as well. And future progress in many areas of achievement may be derailed as the institution searches for a new identity.

I'm not suggesting that this sense of identity should trump that which has been discussed at length. It is, of course, less important. But to suggest that changing such an identity is a trivial matter, of little consequence, is patently absurd.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
I'm not suggesting that this sense of identity should trump that which has been discussed at length. It is, of course, less important. But to suggest that changing such an identity is a trivial matter, of little consequence, is patently absurd.

I didn't say it was trivial. I was responding to someone else who said it was. I understand that it's not trivial to your brother in law and to many others. I think you're right that it's less important to students and others who "identify" with a school, than it is to the indians who have made an issue of it.

[Edited by rainmaker on Aug 12th, 2005 at 12:34 AM]

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
You completely missing my point. You (and the NCAA) treating the "indians" as if they were unified in their stance and that all portrayals are bad. They're not. While an Illini has every right to be offended by the use of their image, none of them have any right to say anything about the use of a Seminole image if the Seminoles approve of the use. Yet, they've placed enough pressue on the NCAA to have the use of the Seminole's also restricted. That, according to some, will actually harm the Seminole's or others like them who approve and benefit from it's use.

I agree that some of the mascots should not have been lumped in with some of the others. I've agreed with that point three times, now. But some mascots, such as "Braves", "Indians", "Redskins" and so on do apply to the whole group. It may be that not every Native American is offended by these. But enough are that the effort to get them changed has been supported and encouraged by national groups over a long period of time.

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Why not extend the mascot ban so that only images of plants are acceptable. I'm sure there are people that are offended portrayal of animals or any group of humans. Isn't that Purdue mascot a bit of a humorus person...not exactly flattering...coudn't someone be offended.

C'mon, Camron. This kind of sarcasm is beneath you. Can't you find a more eloquent way to make your point?

[Edited by rainmaker on Aug 12th, 2005 at 12:33 AM]

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

OK, let's pull on this a while.

You say that Amish families are able to surround their children with loving, attentive, mature adults. And because of this the children are able to maintin their dignity and self-worth in spite of the insults from outsiders. And this allows them to grow into mature adults who will in turn be able to surround their children with loving, attentive, mature adults. And so on.

Surely this is a good thing.

Next you say that this characteristic is not commonly found in Native American families. Causing Native Amrericans to have less self-respect than say, Amish.

Surely having self respect is 'better' than not having self respect.

So you're saying that Amish people as a group are in this respect better than Native Americans?

Well, what happens if I say yes? I mean, is this a loaded question?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by drothamel

Changing from the Trojans to the Spartans doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Perhaps they should have read the Iliad. While the Spartans never exactly got along with Athens, they certainly could not be interchanged with Trojans.

I'm pretty sure I got this from SI.com's 10 Spot:

"USC -- The school's original nicknames were the Methodists and the Wesleyans, but when USC decided that wasn't quite fierce enough, the school picked Trojans in 1912. This, of course, was back when the name inspired odes to Greek history rather than cheap prophylactic jokes."

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Well, what happens if I say yes? I mean, is this a loaded question?

Loaded? Obviously it's loaded but not in a malicious manner. I ask the question simply because it is left, imo, begging for an answer.

But if you do answer yes don't we have an example of the pot calling the kettle black...errr...non-white...errr...Porto Rican?

[TigerBball]

[i]

C'mon, Camron. This kind of sarcasm is beneath you. Can't you find a more eloquent way to make your point?

[/B]

I don't think this point is all that out of line. How far will the ban go. Right now it is associated with Native American's, what's next, I think it is a fair and important question.

I am not against eliminating situations that are offensive, but letting governing bodies such as the NCAA mandate these actions bothers me.

And once we start heading down that path, its hard to pull in the reins and stop.

I really think "What's next" is a question we should all be asking ourselves.