No Native American mascots in the postseason:

http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/3864772

Thoughts?

That's going to be a big story around here in Champaign. Now, who gets to decide what's considered "hostile and abusive"?

And, aren't you quaking in your boots if you're waiting to play the University of Illinois Fightin' Raccoons?

Dan, I saw that article, but it didn't say that a decision has been reached. So I got the most recent one I could find. Interesting background, tho. Thanks for posting the link.

Here's another article that does say Illinois and Florida State are on the list of "hostile and abusive" mascots.

http://cbs.sportsline.com/general/story/8706749

Can't be any more frightening than here in Oregon where you face Ducks and Beavers.

BTW - when is the NFL going to wisen up and change the name of the Washington team? That's the most offensive name in pro sports.

Hmmmmm.....

That doesn't sound too bad at all imo. I think maybe I'd like to be one of them when I grow up- "a hostile and abusive mascot".

What? You aren't already? (I meant hostile and abusive, not the grown up part...) :D

I ain't <b>ever</b> gonna grow up.

Faith, trust and pixie dust........

It's About Time!
 

Bravo to the NCAA! Why did it take so long?


[img]file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/My%20Documents/My%20Pictures/LOGOcartoon.lalo.honoring.jpg[/img]

Why not just change their mascot name to the Florida Abusers and the Illinois Hostiles? It's not any worse than the Illini, or the Hoosiers or all the other meaningless mascots.

I still think the worst mascot in the world is the Tillamook Cheesemakers...

Now Chuck, do you care more about this mascot thing or the google search engine for the site being back up?

The First Amendment; govern by freedom of speech and artistic expression. I do not see what is so racially, hostile and abusive about any college Mascot. Does it offend who and why? If everything that is offensive had to be changed, then why not start with the English language that degrades women with derogatory words? If I were any of those schools prohibited to use offending Mascots, I would sue the NCAA. Who determines what is offensive? The court of law, is this correct? What perception of a Mascot gives everyone a problem of being portrait as powerful from the history of Native American culture? Hey there could be those who are offended about the name of Bears or the fighting Irish Mascots, then ban the use of all Mascots. Change everything that is offensive, even if it is so cool and honors history. I think the NCAA is being overly sensitive and too politically correct in their latest decision.

The problem I have with this ruling is every school is not equal. Florida State got their nickname after an actual tribe that not only gave their blessing, but they encouraged a lot of the chants and other things that are used in football games as an example. Illinois uses a mascot with no connection to a tribe or any real Native American culture. There is a big difference between the Seminoles and a team called the Indians or Redskins.

Just an opinion.

Peace

Let me just state for the record that I do not like the University of Utah. However, I think it is patently absurd and effusively self-righteous for the NCAA to attempt to ban the Utes' mascot. The school has the blessing of the Ute tribe to use their name, and by all accounts they, the tribe, consider it something of an honor to be represented by such a successful university.

This is just one more shining example of the supposedly enlightened thinking of the self-appointed elite intellectual class seeping from academia and the fringes of society into the mainstream via some respectable but misguided benefactor.

It is unsurprising that it's the governing body of college sports. This is just the latest example of the intellectual fallout from allowing our institutions of higher learning to be overrun by successive generations of liberal intellectuals far more concerned with instructing America's youth about what to think rather than how to think.

After all, we can't be trusted to think for ourselves, we might come to the wrong conclusions. :rolleyes:

See BITS's post above in which he makes a very similar point with far more eloquence and elegance.


[Edited by Nevadaref on Aug 6th, 2005 at 06:23 AM]

It's kind of funny to me that when someone complains about violence or profanity or negative portrayals of women on TV, the response is always "If you're offended, then just change the channel." Like, duh!

But on this issue, someone complains about negative portrayals of Native Americans and the response is "You may not use that anymore."

Is that a contradiction? Do those responses come from the same groups? Seems so to me.

Sheez, BITS, do you suppose you could quit being so specific and generalize a little?

Isn't it at least possible that there are some people somewhere who ARE offended and that they have expressed this opinion, and that they deserve to have their feelings considered? This whole issue was begun not by "the self-appointed elite intellectual class seeping from academia" but by Indians themselves who found that the stereotypes and prejudices of "mainstream" people were promoted and reinforced by the mascots.

I'm not surprised that some Indians don't object to their own tribe's name being used. That doesn't change the fact that many are hurt by the practice of 10,000 fans doing the Tomahawk" and that false stereotypes are reinforced by pictures of "indian heads" with "war bonnets" who are chanting in a minor key.

The fact of the matter is that those "on the fringes of society" deserve to be treated with respect, and their wishes deserve to be considered. Virtually everyone in the "mainstream" today was once on the fringes of society. They are now in the mainstream only because our constitution and set of laws give those "on the fringes" the same privileges, rights, and responsibilities as those "in the mainstream". You know that holds for the Mormons, and there have been numerous other groups who have prospered and succeeded in life because of our respect for decent law-abiding citizens, regardless of which group they belong to.

For us to take the names and drawings of Indians, and use them in ways that they find offensive is arrogant and self-serving. Basic human dignity should include the right to control, at least to some extent, my image and my name. Why doesn't that seem reasonable?

I am an alumni of the University of Utah.

With the exception of the name UTES and two feathers that hang on the logo there are no references to the tribe. The tribe gives its permission and I if I recall right has royalties paid to them.

The mascot is a hawk...

FSU and UU (dont know about the others) have been extremely politically correct in working so that it is not offensive. Is the name Utah next since it is a Ute word?

I am in the Army and I am referred to a Chief...

I am extremely offended that the term "warrior" is one that people are offended by... I guess the US Army and some of us are NOW offensive as well.


The Soldier's Creed


I am an American Soldier.

I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.

I will always place the mission first.

I will never accept defeat.

I will never quit.

I will never leave a fallen comrade.

I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.

I am an expert and I am a professional.

I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.

I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.

I am an American Soldier.


I agree that there are terms that ae offensive (Redskins) Can you see a professional football team called the (insert City) Black Guys but Aztecs is ok and Utes is not...

Oh well I am off my soap box.

Juulie, I know from other conversations that have taken place here on the forum that you feel pretty strongly about issues like this. But I have to ask, who exactly is hurt by a tomahawk chop? Who is injured? Whose property is damaged? Whose person has been assaulted?

Yes, these images and words have connections to unflattering stereotypes and outright historical fabrications. But don't we pretty much know that at this point? Does anybody really think that Native Americans scalp their enemies or smoke'em peace pipe?

Do the words and images cause some mental pain to some Native Americans? Maybe. And to those people, I can only say, 'get over it'. I know that's callous, I know you probably think I'm a jerk for saying it, but that's the reality. What the heck ever happened to "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me?" If I learned that lesson in kindergarten, anybody else can learn it too.

Chief Wahoo and the tomahawk chop have absolutely no affect on anybody -- unless they let them. Do I think those are great images? No. Do I think anyone should dictate whether they can be used? No.

Not that anybody really cares, but I'm of Lebanese descent. You know how many raghead/camel jockey jokes/rants I heard after 9/11? More than I could count. You know how many of them hurt me? Not a single one. Sticks and stones worry me. Redskin logos don't.

I'm not trying to be more-enlightened-than-thou. Just my opinion, that's all.

Very interesting. I suppose the NCAA is entitled to do this, however, it will not be very well-received, I believe.

At least one school here that uses native american name/mascot (the Chippeawa) has been doing everything it reasonably do in the past 10 years to ensure the Chippewa image is promoted in an appropriate way.

And last night on the local news, a local school named the Warriors was mentioned. Their mascot looks like a green and yellow bug, something I'd hardly find offensive.

When the whole Native American logo issue started to become more of an issue ~20 years ago, my mom asked a relative-by-marriage who is native american what his opinion was. He rather bluntly stated that the tribes need to worry more about the poor education, joblessness, and drug abuse that is prevalent among native americans and not some stupid logo or cheer.


A lot of schools are more mindful of the need to promote their mascots appropriately, so why punish the schools that are taking those measures?

The problem with this issue is Native Americans are as different a box of candies. Each tribe had their own customs and backgrounds. If a specific tribe has no problem with their image and customs being used, I really think no one has the right to tell them how to portray their tribe. I do have a problem with names that are arbitrary like the Indians or Warriors if there is no backing from a tribe or customs are not taken into consideration. FSU has done that as well. It appears that Utah has done the same thing. If a specific tribe is represented, I cannot see how the NCAA can decide what is offensive. Maybe the Fighting Irish should be banned as well. It seems like most people that are Catholic and Irish seemed to support Notre Dame or any other school that has that mascot. Why are the Fighting Irish OK and a specific tribe not OK? As I said, I have not problem with getting rid of names like the Redskins, Braves or Red Men. Those are racial slurs. But the Seminoles or the Utes, that is another story all together.

Peace

SOme random thoughts not in response to any particular post...

Why is the NCAA including "Warriors" at all? It is most certainly NOT a native american term, people, or reference. Nearly every culture to have existed on the earth has had warriors. It is a job/function/position, not a racial or ethnic reference. Since I'm sure they had cooks, craftsmen, and farmers, the NCAA will have to ban those sorts of names too! ;)

There is someone somewhere that is offended by just about everything. Guess we ought to lock ourselves in our houses and never tune into any media lest we be offended.

I think the NCAA should have focused on the use of specific native american references without the explicit permission of group being referenced.

This entire debate is based on generalizations, Juulie. All uses of Native American images, names, nicknames, stereotypes, etc. by non-Native Americans are bad. All Native Americans are always demeaned by war whoops, tomahawk chops, and other caricatured references to Native American culture. All Native American-based team names must be abolished. All American's who don't agree with this are unenlightened, bigotted, tomahawk chopping racists. And apparently all Native Americans who don't agree with the NCAA's ruling are irrelevant.

It is becoming clear that Native Americans themselves are all over the map on how they feel about this. So how is it that the NCAA has appointed themselves as the steward of this issue when they are not directly affected and why have they chosen sides where no consensus exists?

Because this isn't about the Native Americans, as usual it's all about us us us. It's about how the self-described enlightened thinkers of our society believe that we should all feel about this issue. One part of our society is trying to force another part of our society to adhere to what they have decided is best for the Native Americans' society. So the University of Utah may be forced to drop the Ute as its mascot over the objections of the Ute tribal elders, the very people who are supposedly being so offended and demeaned, because we have decided what's best for them. :rolleyes:

Don't step in the enlightenment.

Ray, this just isn't true. Although not all Native Americans' individually are offended, many have been, and they were the ones who started the issue many many years ago. I don't know where this thing about the "self-described enlightened thinkers" comes from. It was Indians themselves who were concerned about this to begin with, and it has been Indians who have pushed it as far as they have. Others have joined in the effort, because they feel that they want the offense to end, but the core drive has been primarily Native American.

Chuck, I feel strongly about this, because I have listened to many many Native Americans express their opinions and I feel that they should get more respect than to just say, "Get over it." I know it's sappy and touchy-feely to say, but I prefer to relate to people on a more positive basis, than to dismiss their feelings out of hand. Does that mean they can just wallow in self-pity? Of course not! But why should I contribute to the problem if I can do something to make it less difficult? Who gains if I take the attitude, "The heck with you, I'm doing it my way."?

Whoever said something about the homelessness, alcoholism and lack of education that Indians tend to suffer under, I'd just like to note that it's generally the people who are doing the most to address these issues who are also making an issue of the stereotypes and offensive mascots. And those are usually Native Americans themselves, not "self-described enlightenment thinkers," by the way.

It's obvious that I'm not going to win a lot of converts, so I'm not going to keep arguing about this, but I gotta admit, it always surprises me to find that such nice guys as y'all are so dense about some of these issues. Now you can argue with each other about whether that was an insult or a compliment.

Nobody's asking you to contribute to the problem. And I'm not saying it's not a problem. I'm not saying that you (or I) should join in with the tomahawk chop.

I think you missed the most important part of what I said in my post. Maybe I didn't make it explicit enough. But this is literally a cornerstone of my personal philosophy: No one's words or opinions about me can ever hurt me, unless I allow those words to hurt me. It's completely within my control whether I am hurt by somebody else's comments. Completely.

My advice to "get over it" is in no way a lack of respect. Rather, it is a plea to people to empower themselves; to realize that it's entirely within their own power to be offended or not. Take control of your perceptions and outlook and realize that the tomahawk chop is NOT a comment on you, your tribe, or your heritage. If anything, it is a comment on the amount of alcohol that has been imbibed at a sporting event.

If a person is upset over a stereotype or comment, it's entirely because that person allowed the stereotype to upset him/her. Entirely. So "get over it" simply means "control your own thoughts and don't allow it".

And the amazing thing is, it's not that hard. Sticks and stones.

Why is it always people with the most privilege telling others to get over it? If the term "sticks and stones" applies, it surely only works when it does not apply to them. I have said many things over the years and I did not hear many in you situation talking about "sticks and stones." I guess I just find this part of the discussion interesting. If someone just mentions someone that is not of color the first thing many here will accuse me or others of is being a racist. Sounds to me like a huge contradiction.

Peace

These statements are interesting to me. One definition of ignorant is "Unaware or uninformed." I don't want this to come off in the negative way this word is often used. Sometimes we, all of us, just don't know which means we are ignorant to some things. It isn't and shouldn't always be used in a "name calling" manner.
It seems like you are just automatically assuming the NCAA is an organization that is not of color. By saying the NCAA isn't affected means you know for certain there are no Native Americans or others of color within the NCAA. Furthermore, it seems like we all know there is a supreme overlord that tells us what we should think.

If we still have to talk about these and other things like this, WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM!

As many of you know, Juulie and I are friends, but I must take a slightly different tack on this issue other than hers.

I think that if a mascot is chosen to honor a particular group of people, and the representations of that group are not offensive to them, then not only is there nothing wrong with it, but it should be complimented. I'm talking about situations in public instutitions, of course.

However, if that group has a legitimate objection, such as being portrayed as negative stereotypes, then the mascot should be changed. Public funds should not be used to further prejudice.

I'm sure none of us would want to have a school mascot that "made fun of" an ethnic group to which we belonged.

That being said, I can't wait for Juulie's take on a school that calls it's team the "Fighting Quakers". ;)

You mean Karl Rove? :p

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

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?

Otto.

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

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?

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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 :D) 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.

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?

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.

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

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 person’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."

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.

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.

YIt 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.

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

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.

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.

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.)

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

What leap of faith would that be? I don't understand your point.

This is a great idea, in theory. How can anyone with any rational thought process disagree?[/QUOTE]

C'mon, MM, you know people that disagree. "It's not my problem." "I'm not gonna hire 'em" "As long as they stay away from my daughter." There are lots and lots of people out there who just don't care, and who actually profit from having the wall in place.



The whole point is that it's not something individuals have any choice about. The "non-victim" victims can't decide they want the wall to be still there for themselves, just like the power elite can't choose to knock it down or keep it up by themselves, individually. That's part of the definition of racism -- it's built into the institutions, and the cultural expectations of the larger society and it can't be managed one person at a time.

Enlightening individuals won't do it. People have to actively seek to understand and be accountable for the ways that racism is built into the very fabric of this country. We need to address the structure, not just our own individual opinions.

The trick isn't to convince everyone, but to see the structure clearly, and address issues that way. When you can focus on the "infra-structure", you'll see a lot more what can be done and how to go about it.

I don't understand what makes you the authority on black people. Part of the problem is this information comes from the those who wish to keep things as they are.

I'm a 49er fan so my favorite players are Rice and Montana.
My favorite athlete of all time is Magic Johnson. Watch him on tape and tell me anyone ever played the game like him.

I said it before, who do you think makes rappers rich? It isn't me because I don't listen to it!

I don't think you are very open to understand. You already have your opinion formed and that is pitiful. I'm so thankful that I don't have that burden weighing me down. People are equally mean, racist and ignorant.

Has there been any talk of the colleges suing the NCAA to continue the use of their logos and continue their eligibility to host post season events?

I could just see this being a court battle for years to come.

I am not a very sensitive guy, it takes a lot to get under my skin, but quoting black comedians to make a point about black people as a whole rubbed me the wrong way.

I am a tall white Indiana boy, but don't quote David Letterman to me and assume that is how I feel.

The talking legal heads who have been interviewed so far seem to come out on the side of no - the NCAA is a voluntary, member-run association - any school who doesn't like its policies is free to leave at any point.

That said, the monopolistic nature of the NCAA (think baseball's anti-trust exemption) is the one thing that could make this interesting.

Juulie -

I was going to do the whole quote/unquote thing to go back over the points, but I think I will just confuse myself (yes, even more than I am now!).

I'm confused over who you feel causes the problem, and who is responsible for fixing it - individuals or society? One one hand, you say to join you, as individuals, to tear down that damn wall. But in another point, you say we can't do it as individuals. But isn't society a collection of individuals? To me, blaming "society" for my problems is just another way to relieve myself from my personal responsibilty. I can't change society, I can only change my little corner of the world. But if more people change their own little corners, pretty soon that wall becomes a curb. I don't know if you're familiar with the song, "Alice's Restaurant" by Arlo Guthrie. It's an old song that deals with his experience with the draft during the Vietnam war. In one part of the song, he's talking about what would happen if someone started singing the song during the induction interview process. "You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement." That's how things get changed - as individuals, one brick at a time. There is no "society" entity that will do it for us, just us lowly individuals. On those same lines, there is no society holding back individuals, just individuals being held back. And, I think in most cases, they are just holding themselves back. Maybe, in a lot of cases, they don't know they are holding themselves back. They need to become informed. But, there are others who don't wish to become informed, because it's easier to blame others rather than do the necessary things to get where you want to go. Am I not a D-1 official because the "society" of D-1 assignors has decided a middle-aged white male is not who they want? Or, is it more likely that I am a little over-weight and a little under-talented to actually be a D-1 official? I can blame the "society" for holding me back, or I can take personal responsibilty and realize sometimes it's a combination of my fault and the fact that life isn't fair and everyone isn't going to get everything they want.

Going back to my "leap of faith" argument - hopefully I can articulate what I mean. Usually in a logical progression, you might say, "if point A, then point B", and you can also say, "if point B, then usually point C", and "if point C, then point D". But that doesn't always translate into being able to say, "if point A, then point D". Racism is still, simply put, advantage/disadvantage because of intent. But I'm not sure you can get to the direct connection that our current society is inherently racist without going through a couple of point B's, then point C's, then there it is. Sometimes that logic works, but we have to be careful in assuming it works all the time. I get up in the morning. The sun comes up in the morning. The flowers open when the sun comes up. Therefore, I get up because the flowers open? That's why I asked if there is a specific example of a policy or law that is directly racist, or directly intends to hold back a certain race or group of people. (Well, maybe some people might count affirmative action policies, but that's another discussion altogether.)

The thing that bothers me about the NCAA action, as well as the people against the symbol of the Chief here at the U of I, is the relativly small group of people telling the majority that what they know what's right and what the majority is doing is wrong. Of course, majorities aren't always right (acceptance of slavery), but that doesn't always mean minorities are right as well (Nazis' views about Jews). What happened to the discussion, thought, introspection, more thought, more discussion, etc.? To me, it's following the "leap of faith" logic to say that these mascots and symbols are "hostile and abusive". There is not one school on the list that discriminates against Indian students. None of these mascots were designed to be hostile to Indian culture. Yet, because some Indians are offended by the symbols, and the ones that protest the symbols are met with hostility, therefore the symbols are hostile.

It seems as though there are 2 basic types of people - the idealists and the realists. Some people may call them by other names, such as liberal and conservative. Idealists have the grand, overall view of how society, the world, life in general should be. Realists have the view that life isn't fair, we should just "get over it", human nature is what it is. These are by far gross generalities, but my point is we need both, in balance. The danger lies in one view becoming too prominent.

All I can be responsible for is my own little corner of the world; how I treat people and how I teach my kids how to treat people. Hopefully, others will do the same and those bricks will slowly disappear.

So, do I win the prize for the longest damn post?

Although you make some good points I still think you don't understand. You might not be able to make it based on ability and your weight. What if you didn't make it because the color of your skin? What if you could flat out ref but there wasn't "room" for you? Don't be so naive to think it doesn't happen.

I think each of us as individuals must do what we can to fight prejudice. Please don't take the following as bragging, but as examples of what a single person can do. All of this is true.

When I came to Portland from the south side of Chicago (after living one year in Vegas), I ran into culture shock like you couldn't believe. This was 1971. I grew up in an ethnically mixed neighborhood where the main criteria for being liked by the rest of the group was whether or not you were good at sports - period. Here, it was a lot different. The town was pretty much segregated as to housing and schools. I went to work for Montgomery Ward. The following year, I was a department manager and we had an opening in my department (mens clothing) for a salesperson. One of the guys working in the stockroom applied. After interviewing a bunch of people, I made the decision to hire him. I had no idea he would be the first black man to work in a position meeting the public in the entire Ward's Portland district. Notice I don't use "African-American" even though some would say it's PC. I feel that we shouldn't hyphenate "American" and we should always treat all citizens as just "Americans", since they are.

I took a lot of flack from some of the other managers. In fact, I was told by some that my career was over and I would never advance. I couldn't believe this attitude. Of course it turned out that the guy was a terrific salesperson and mostly because of his performance, the color line was broken.

I didn't think I did anything "noble" or "brave" because I was just acting within the cultural behavior with which I had been raised.

In the late 60s, I was in Vegas visiting my grandparents. My grandfather took me to see a movie downtown. When we went in, there was a sign on the doors leading to the main floor that said "White" and a sign on the door leading to the balcony that said "Colored". Growing up in the Chicago area, I had never seen this before. I asked my grandfather about it and he said he was surprised also. We left the theater after getting our money back.

A final note - I had some guys tell me they thought it was strange when I got married that both my best man and the judge were black. I still don't get how some people look at the world that way. Unfortunately, I may be in the minority.

Prejudice sucks.

It not about being PC, it is about being correct.
 

Mark, everyone that is Black is not an American. Pele is Black, but he would never be African-American. That also applies to many Latin players from other countries. Sammy Sosa is clearly Black, he is not an African-American.

Peace

M&M,

I really do not know what to tell you. You also said I am in a position of power and privilege, but to get there I had to be better than most to even get noticed. Guys that are just as good as other people never get certain opportunities. I also think you make some good points and I understand why you feel the way you do. But you also need to know that everyone does not see the world through your eyes. Just because you are not offended, does not mean others do not have the right to be offended by something that deals with them. The last time I checked I do not see stereotypes about white males and mascots that represent those stereotypes in mass media or by universities. Of course there are examples that many have given, but the problem is you have so many images that counter balance any negativity that is out there. Unfortunately most people know of Native Americans through mascots and other images that are very negative and stereotypical. I think neither you nor I are in a position to tell them how to feel about it. I do not have kids but if I did something to insult your kids not only would that be your right that would be understandable.

Peace

Re: It not about being PC, it is about being correct.
 

This is just one example of different ways of thinking. Rut has no problem with the term African-American while I think it is a load of crap! There is no ill will because of this, just two different ways of thinking. I don't think I, nor anyone who looks like me, chose that term and I don't accept it. I could be wrong about this and if I am I would like to ask the person who made this decision "why." We should be classified as Americans and then when my color is information that someone thinks they need we should ask why that is. Is it about affimative action? Something else that is sad. Should we have it? No! BUT, the fact that it was ever needed is a problem. End of ramble. :D

Who came up with the need to put this information on applications and the like anyway?

[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't understand what makes you the authority on black people. Part of the problem is this information comes from the those who wish to keep things as they are.

I'm a 49er fan so my favorite players are Rice and Montana.
My favorite athlete of all time is Magic Johnson. Watch him on tape and tell me anyone ever played the game like him.

I said it before, who do you think makes rappers rich? It isn't me because I don't listen to it!

I don't think you are very open to understand. You already have your opinion formed and that is pitiful. I'm so thankful that I don't have that burden weighing me down. People are equally mean, racist and ignorant. [/B][/QUOTE]

The same reasons that makes you an authority on Americans.

Pitiful would be when you post your hypocritical feelings.

There is nothing wrong with listening to rap/hip-hop music. Not all rap music degrades women and different races.

Do you have to write or verbally use a color when describing a person?

Re: It not about being PC, it is about being correct.
 

Are you implying that people from the Domenican Republic (Sosa) or Brazil (Pele) are not "Americans"? Or that they do not have African Heritage and bloodlines?

Hmmmm,

I thought Sosa was just a baseball player.

Wouldn't it be nice if this were true?

Like Mark, I find this discussion interesting, and educational.

I worry that the biggest obstacle our country faces isn't liberal/conservative or rich/poor, but rather our tenuous race relationships.

Race relationships in America remind me of the scene in "Men in Black" where Tommy Lee Jones is explaining to Will Smith why there's a need to keep the public in the dark about the presence of alien creatures on Earth. Will Smith responds by saying something along the lines of "but people are rational, sane, and understanding". And, Tommy Lee Jones rebuts, "A PERSON is rational, sane and understanding. PEOPLE are irrational..."

On a person-to-person level, I think race relationships are pretty healthy. We work and play with people of other races. But, when we talk about problems, its the grander scale "them" we have issues with. That's why its so important for discussions like this. The more we know about each other, and the more we can discuss these things in a respectful way, the better things will get.

As for prejudice, for most right thinking people, our prejudices are more subconscious. It reminds me of a management case I heard once, where a consultant was asked to review the structure of the senior management group of a company, which was all white, all male. As the consultant spoke to each of the executives, he discovered most had attended the same alma mater as the CEO. Without consciously realizing it, the CEO had surrounded himself with people he was "familiar" with. We all have to be willing to step outside our comfort zones.

Last - and this is off the subject - someone mentioned "Red States" in passing. I hate that term. Hate it. Many of the states pigeonholed as Red/Blue were closely contested. The media's obsession with categorizing everything once again causes conflicts that needn't exist.

"You cannot make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position you can make a crowd of men."
-- Max Beerbohm

Re: Re: It not about being PC, it is about being correct.
 

What? Are you seriously asking this question?

Peace

I don't understand what makes you the authority on black people. Part of the problem is this information comes from the those who wish to keep things as they are.

I'm a 49er fan so my favorite players are Rice and Montana.
My favorite athlete of all time is Magic Johnson. Watch him on tape and tell me anyone ever played the game like him.

I said it before, who do you think makes rappers rich? It isn't me because I don't listen to it!

I don't think you are very open to understand. You already have your opinion formed and that is pitiful. I'm so thankful that I don't have that burden weighing me down. People are equally mean, racist and ignorant. [/B][/QUOTE]

The same reasons that makes you an authority on Americans.

Pitiful would be when you post your hypocritical feelings.

There is nothing wrong with listening to rap/hip-hop music. Not all rap music degrades women and different races.

Do you have to write or verbally use a color when describing a person?
[/B][/QUOTE]

I'm an authority on being a black American. My point is you claim to know what it feels like to be someone like me when you don't. On the other hand, I don't need to know what it feels like to be you because I don't need to pass judgement. If someone is purple and they want to tell me what it is like I will listen.

How am I being hypocritical? I would really like to know. You seem to be the main one in this discussion with a closed mind.

I know all rap music doesn't degrade women and different races. I'm not the one who ever mentioned rap, if I'm not mistaken it was you. I only wanted to point out who it is that really makes these rappers millionaires. I don't think you addressed that one.

I don't have to write someone's color down. Color has never been a big issue with me. I think people of all colors have the ability to get on my nerves equally. :D

Re: Re: Re: It not about being PC, it is about being correct.
 

Since you were arguing semantics, I thought I'd ask. Why would you exclude people of African descent who reside in other American countries from the definition of African American? Don't you consider them Americans?

I think I'm way too old to be naive anymore. I certainly understand that it does still happen. But, in the absence of a direct reference, how would I know that it's actual racism and not just stupidity? Or, that there was a real, legitimate reason I didn't get that opportunity? I'm not pretending to know what it's like to be discriminated against on a regular basis. And certainly any type of discrimination or racism is just flat-out wrong. And there may be times where it is more subtle than direct. But, is there a chance, in your experiences, that certain events transpired that you were conditioned (based on past experiences and culture) to feel that it was a result of direct or indirect racism, when in realty it might not have been? A simple example: you're driving down the highway, and a white guy in a pickup truck with a gun rack passes you. You look over and see that he sees you as well, and he's not smiling. A few seconds later, he swerves in front of you and cuts you off, forcing you to slam on your brakes. I know I'm going out on a limb, but my guess is you're initial response would be Johnny Redneck just cut you off because you're black. And if he flipped you off while yelling out some racial slur, that would make it obvious. But, what if what really happened was he just got off the cell with Daisy Duke, who just dumped him. Now he's pissed, and he's headin' towards the bar to drown his sorrows with his friends. He's completely forgotten about you from the moment he turned his head away. He did something stupid, but it certainly wasn't racially motivated. Now, is there a chance that there are some of these types of experiences you have faced that you might instinctively write off as just another example of discrimination, when perhaps it might not be? The only reason I mention that is because in my experiences and in the people I know, racism is a non-factor in how people interact; much less so than what I remember while growing up. So, in a similar situation where I'm cut off by the tricked-out Escalade with the 20" rims, my initial reaction is the driver's an idiot. My past culture and history and current experiences might lead me to different conclusions than you might in the exact same situation. That could make me naive, that could also make you overly-sensitive. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

Maybe my little corner of the world is not representative of the world at large. But, at least in my corner, I'm working at making sure people are treated with respect and that my kids learn the same things. It's good to see in Mark's corner he's doing the same. And I know others are as well. There will always be bad people, or just ignorant people. But as long as more of us do the right thing, there will be less ignorant people, and those bricks will disappear.

Oh my god, I'm turning into an idealist. Next thing you know, I'll be thinking it's the Cubs turn to win the World Series, just because Boston did it last year.

Re: Re: Re: Re: It not about being PC, it is about being correct.
 

I do not recall that I was arguing anything. I was simply pointing out that there is a difference between race and ethnicity. You can be Black and be Cuban, Porto Rican, Dominican, Brazilian, European and even Australian. Considering that scientists have concluded that all people originated from the continent of Africa, of course you can say they are descendents from Africa. Considering where slaves resided in this part of the world, of course many of the Caribbean countries had slaves and were colonized by the French and Spanish I would say yes these individuals have are descendents from the continent of Africa. Considering the lack of "real" history in our school systems, I can see how you would actually think there was no difference. :rolleyes:

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It not about being PC, it is about being correct.
 

Huh? I believe you're jumping to conclusions. I did ask why you wouldn't consider Sosa or Pele an African American, based on your comments to Mark below:

So, once again... Why aren't Sosa or Pele considered African Americans? It really was a simple question. Care to answer, or do I have to endure yet another reply peppered with veiled insults?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It not about being PC, it is about being correct.
 

Hey cougar, let's keep this civil. We've never gotten this far into the race discussion without it descending into a flame war, and I hope we can get at least another page or two!

People that aren't from the US aren't called Americans as a rule, are they? They're Brazilians, or Dominicans, or Cubans, or Peruvians, or whatever. Isn't that right? Folks from Canada don't call themselves Americans.

Sosa isn't an "American" because his citizenship is elsewhere. Same for Pele. That doesn't make them less than amazing -- it's just a fact.

What's a Porto Rican?

I think it's like a Portly Rican.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It not about being PC, it is about being correct.
 

I think Juulie answered the question perfectly. I just have a feeling you were not asking the question to be serious. You were asking the question to be a smart aleck. That of course is your right to do so, but I really do not know why that would be a hard concept to understand. I guess everyone to you is American.

Peace

M&M, I understand you point. Pretty good.

Some kind of wine?

That's what I'm thinking...half Port & half Sangria in a tall glass of ice. Maybe add a cherry, an orange peel & a splash of 7-up.

Either that or it's something Archie Bunker might have said.

The best opinion I have heard on this whole matter came from a representative of the Seminole Tribe (who, by the way, is backing FSU's suit against the NCAA). His comment was something along the lines of, "it's just another case of the white man telling the American Indians what is good for them."

Perhaps the NCAA should worry more about graduation rates and illegal recruiting as opposed to mascots. I'm not really sure how they think they are helping advance collegiate athletics with this rule. If the mascots are offensive, then it should be up to the schools to get something done about it. FSU is a good example-- the Seminole tribe actually supports the school and maintains a very good relationship, from all accounts.

Doesn't the NCAA have something better to do, like say, figure out how to make more profit on bowl games, merchandise, and March Madness without owing the athletes anything?

This has been a very interesting and enlightening discussion. If nothing else the whole controversy has an enmormous impact as far as shining the spotlight on the issue and getting people talking about it. But I still think the NCAA went too far in imposing a blanket ban without due consideration of some of the schools' working agreement with the tribes in question.

Well, it's not.
 

"Why is it always people with the most privilege telling others to get over it?"

Malcolm (not in-the-middle) did. Bill Cosby is.

Hang Jeff Davis from the sour apple tree
 

Go Penn!

Lay, Lady, Lay
 

"Having teams named the "Lady" X's is certainly sexist and offensive, but the NCAA isn't banning them from post-season play."

This does bring up a fine kettle of fish - if I may say fish. Around here we have a high school whose nickname is the Rams. The gentially female teams use the nickname Lady Rams. Oh boy.

I'm still going after Notre Dame. This is pretty offensive.

<img src="http://www.teamhitchcover.com/notredame2.jpg" border=0>

http://aistm.org/cartoon.lucy.ganje.gif

I don't necessarily agree with this new policy, but they are definately concerned with graduation rates and recruiting violations.


FYI - the NCAA has nothing to do with the I-A Bowl Games. Unless the BCS (or individual bowl sponsors) adopt a similar policy, anyone can wear anything in December and January.

Re: Lay, Lady, Lay
 

On an interesting side note, the mascot of the high school I attended was the Knights. The girls' teams were often called the "Lady Knights," but one teacher (who had extensive knowledge in the history of the medieval period) always said that they should be known as the "Dames."

The change was never made. :-p

Having read the entire discussion, I thought I would add a couple of points (my opinion), some of which has been touched upon. Incidentally, it has been a good discussion.

As long as people are separated, defined, categorized into groups, there will be bias and prejudice against those groups. The "offenses" may be blatant and obvious, others will be subtle. Other offenses may be perceived by the group - a circumstance where no offense was intended yet offense was taken. It is a shame for people to purposefully give offense and it is a shame for people to take offense when none is intended. Intentional offense can be fought through education, laws, etc.

Unintentional offense is a grayer matter. Who gets to judge whether the action is really offensive? For example, my daughter can't stand to hear any sort of chewing noise, unless she is doing it also. To her, eating chips or popcorn in her presence is offensive, and we do that to irritate her. We chew with our mouths closed, we try to be respectful of her wishes. My wife and I think normal eating habits with minimal noise is acceptable, unfortunately my daughter does not. My point is that everyone has a different opinion as to what is offensive and many take offense when none is intended. How is the unintended offense fought? In my opinion, some education to the offender, but more importantly, the greater responsibility lies with the person or group perceiving the offense. Is the "offense" really a huge issue? What is offensive to one is not offensive to another. Who gets to "win" on the issue? If something bothers you, let the other person know, but at the same time and inward look must take place. Self esteem goes along way to getting beyond offenses. As said in song the greatest love of all is the love of self. I know I have been on the wrong side of prejudice and discrimination during my life. Some of it has been intentional and obvious. But, it is my personal philosophy not to let others determine my actions. I try always to act for myself and not react to the actions of others. Has it frustrated me? Yes. Has it got me down? Momentarily. Many things can be fought with a sound family environment where self esteem is developed. In my opinion, this is one of them. Yet, I know what I have gone through has not been as severe as others have experience.

In this case with the NCAA, some feel that school nicknames are offensive and degrading. Some feel that the schools mock things sacred to offended group. Others think the Indian tribes are being petty by taking offense. Who is right? It is a tough question and the NCAA has reacted by mandating certain actions. Some feel the NCAA has not gone far enough with their mandates while other feel that NCAA has overstepped their boundaries.

Now, for my opinion: If the actions of a group do not infringe upon the rights of another, then it should be legal. What right is being violated by a school adopting a nickname? We live in a country of freedoms and rights. I am unaware of any freedoms or rights of an Indian tribe being violated by these nicknames or mascots. Therefore, I think the issue is a silly one. Just my opinion.

[Edited by Ref in PA on Aug 11th, 2005 at 11:34 AM]

I think the comparison of your daughter's dislike of chewing noises to the offense taken by Native Americans to the mascots is specious. 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.

Re: Re: Lay, Lady, Lay
 

My HS teams were the Trojans. In those days, we didn't have girls teams. I guess if we did, they would have been the "Lady Trojans". That's really weird.

BTW - the best sign I ever saw at a basketball game was at a game I saw on TV at a UCLA - USC match. Some UCLA students had a sign that read, "Flush Used Trojans".