heres an idea for you goofy American kids.
No mascot, nada, zip, niet...name your team....... AFTER THE SCHOOL!!!!!
What a f***in novel concept.
heres an idea for you goofy American kids.
No mascot, nada, zip, niet...name your team....... AFTER THE SCHOOL!!!!!
What a f***in novel concept.
wow, good one. That was already brought up twice in this thread, but good one anyway.I am offended by the Oregon Beavers and Morehead...I mean, come on! What are those teaching our children....and UMASS 'cause I saw a guy that took the 'm' off of a hat so it said U ASS...Or Ball U. We can't have that kind of thing here.I say we start a crusade to get the UCSB Banana Slugs name changed. Lets start a petition that says we find it offensive and see if we can get anywhere with it.
Paddytheirishman wrote:
heres an idea for you goofy American kids.
No mascot, nada, zip, niet...name your team....... AFTER THE SCHOOL!!!!!
What a f***in novel concept.
He take em land and give nothing.
We no trust em white man.
He want to f*** em many squaw.
Bastards.
Tonto
First of all, as any of you know who have been following this story, the ban is only in the post-season. That alone is completely ludicrous. So Florida State are the Seminoles all season, but once they go to a post season Bowl Game they can't call themselves the Seminoles, have the mascot at the game, etc... Do they choose a back up, post season mascot? Does this NCAA decision make sense to anyone?
Last month the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma voted 18-2 AGAINST a motion to denounce the use of Native American nicknames and images in sports. Yesterday the principal chief of the tribe told the Palm Beach Post that they were not offended or humiliated by Florida State using the Seminole name as its mascot. So, clearly, not all Native Americans are offended by Native American mascots. I wonder if any reliable polling has been done among Native Americans at large on this subject.
PETA will be next demanding no animals be used as mascots. It's degrading and humiliating to use animals as mascots. We will soon be left with only inanimate objects as mascots, like the Tulane Green Wave. Where on earth did that mascot come from anyway?
It was in response to the lesser well known Crimson Tide?
What I want to see is more stats like you posted. I want to know what those with Indian blood think.
I was totally against changing the names but I heard a good arguement. If SOME of them are against it, some is a relative term though, then we should change it. The alternative should not offend anyone and really, do you need a mascot? You cheer for the school not the mascot.
I think political correctness is so out of hand and the annoying minority ruin it for the silent majority, but the name REDSKINS is an offensive term so if it causes problems then I say change it.
But again, I would want to know what true Indians feel.
Why would people from India give a shit about our sports teams?
I think that it is stupid. People are offended way too easily these days. And if they are going to ban indian mascots, why not for the entire season instead of just post season play. It was a dumb move by the NCAA. It should be all or nothing.
I would personally love to see this situation arise. I'm not a Florida State fan but I will be rooting for them to make a BCS bowl game now.
I envision the Seminoles going to a primetime bowl game and saying all the right things leading up to the game. Then, they show up in the tunnel before game time in full Seminole regalia with the guy on horseback and the flaming spear. Some NCAA bureaucrat tells Bobby Bowden that he can't let his team take the field and ol' Bobby says, "F*&K you NCAA!" and leads them out.
What's the NCAA going to do? Cancel a four hour long telecast? Not allow the Nokia Outback Cingular Mega Bowl presented by Chili's to be shown? Give Florida State football the "death penalty" for ignoring them?
To hell with the liberal PC agenda!
Fuck all those Indians, anyway. This is the year for the Brandeis U. Thieving Jews to represent!
someone wrote:
What I want to see is more stats like you posted. I want to know what those with Indian blood think.
I was totally against changing the names but I heard a good arguement. If SOME of them are against it, some is a relative term though, then we should change it. The alternative should not offend anyone and really, do you need a mascot? You cheer for the school not the mascot.
I think political correctness is so out of hand and the annoying minority ruin it for the silent majority, but the name REDSKINS is an offensive term so if it causes problems then I say change it.
But again, I would want to know what true Indians feel.
In my opinion there is a big difference between "Redskins" and "Seminoles". "Redskins" is offensive. We wouldn't tolerate a team being called the "Blackskins" or the "Brownskins." "Seminoles", however, are members of a prominent Native American tribe. The fact that the NCAA Gods can't make this distinction is mystifying, especially when the Tribe itself overwhelmingly supports being FSU's mascot.
The Utah Utes are also targeted by the NCAA despite the fact for the past 30 eyars or so the school has worked closely with the Ute tribe to ensure that they are portrayed respectfully. The tribe just recently reaffirmed its support for the use of the name.
If the Ute tribe isn't offended by the use of the name why is the NCAA?
I'd like to see Edinboro change their name from "Fighting Scots" to something a little less offensive!
As an aside, I really don't like Florida State, in fact, I cheer against them in almost ever circumstance. That being said, I've been to a lot of football games and seen a lot of crowds and I've never seen anything like when the Seminole rushes out onto the field and throws down the flaming spear into the 50 yard line while 65,000+ people all do that tomahawk chant in unison. There is absolutely no way they can replicate the "This-is-a-war-that-you-will-not-survive-if-you-come-into-our-house" feeling with anything but a war-painted indian and a flaming spear.
Actually PETA is getting involved in the mascot thing. PETA wants Jacksonville State and South Carolina to change their mascots b/c they are offensive. Their mascot? The gamecock. Holy Crap where is this country heading?
I strongly believe that the use of animals to be mascots is not appropriate. First you want to name your teams after them. Then you want to eat them and wear them. Where will it stop?
It may seem that a number of American Indians are not against the use of such mascots, but let's explore the reasons.
The Florida State Seminoles profit from their association from the football team. (Plus, the chief and others are treated like royalty.) If they were to sever their ties, the money the university passes their way would dry up instantly. There aren't many other options/government funds for American Indians in this country.
I know that some members of the Oklahoma Seminoles are against Florida State's use. In fact, the tribe signed a resolution in 2001 that condemned the use of such mascots by sports teams. I suspect that the reason many voted the way they did is because they don't want to create a rift with the Florida tribe. Some American Indians think, as do whites, that there are larger issues that Indians should be worried about--life on the reservation, et cetera.
This may be because many American Indians on the reservation don't understand what these images look like in context. It is difficult for them to understand why other Indians find them offensive. It is only after they see the Tomahawk Chop firsthand that they grasp the significance. From afar, it may seem like Florida State is honoring Indian traditions. But do any Florida State students know that Osceola was conned by US soldiers, arrested, and then beheaded? It is a dark period in US history.
Sports Illustrated ran an article a few years back that pointed out that most American Indians aren't opposed to the use of mascots. A number of professors who deal with the subject have pointed out the flaws in the poll that SI conducted and made some of the above points.
A few other random thoughts: if American Indians had any political power at all in this country, this issue would no longer be an issue. It would have been decided already.
Alumni who threaten to withhold funds if the mascot is changed at various colleges usually, it turns out, how never given money before. Changing to a new mascot is never as bad as a university might envision it to be. Part of Florida State's reluctance is undoubtedly the money it gets from merchandise.
There is evidence that American Indian children, as well as white children, are adversely affected by such images. They perpetrate stereotypes, as much as universities argue that they don't.
The example of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish as a parallel example (Isn't that offensive to the Irish?) seems flawed because it was the Irish Catholics themselves who adopted it, it does not include offensivce imagery (such as students dressed as the Pope carrying around crosses or holding up Holy Communion), no one is offended by the image or has raised a protest, and Irish Catholics are not a minority group facing the same obstacles as American Indians in 21st century America.
Finally, a university may say that he image is intended to honor, but it can't control the behavior of its students. Take a look at some of the stuff that has happened at North Dakota--images of Indians fornicating buffaloes printed on t-shirts, chants of Sioux suck, et cetera.
I truly belive that more people would want to see such imagery outlawed if they knew more about American Indian culture and understand just how ridiculous some of these characterizations are. I don't think you can argue, as some may, that the mascots are aan avenue for this kind of education. Again, I ask, how many Florida State students know that Osceola was beheaded?
Finally, to make this running related, excerpt of recent article:
Billy Mills, a U.S. gold medalist at the 1964 Summer Olympic Games, berated University of Illinois officials for succumbing to threats made by alumni to withhold donations should the Chief be eliminated.
"The universities of America should not ask for alumni money," Mills said. "Otherwise, it’s not educating, it’s prostituting. Instead, they should ask for the dignity, character, pride, and morality of the alumni."
Mills, who is convinced that the greatest problem facing the United States today is the corporate philosophy of "profit at all cost," argues that those who do not take the Chief Illiniwek controversy seriously because of its connection to sports are missing the real issue.
"If you’re told over and over again that you’re inferior, subconsciously, it becomes long-term memory," he said. "The mascot issue pollutes the minds of our young people. When our need to belong is violated, we react."
I agree there most definitely is a difference. But is this a case of one bad apple spoils the bunch?I honestly would not be offended if Notre Dame changed from fighting Irish to Drunken Irish. But thinking of that, will they go after Notre Dame? Fighting Irish seems to be a reference to the IRA????
RunDaddy wrote:
In my opinion there is a big difference between "Redskins" and "Seminoles". "Redskins" is offensive. We wouldn't tolerate a team being called the "Blackskins" or the "Brownskins." "Seminoles", however, are members of a prominent Native American tribe. The fact that the NCAA Gods can't make this distinction is mystifying, especially when the Tribe itself overwhelmingly supports being FSU's mascot.
Correct me on this, but I thought this only had to do with NCAA Championship events. College football at the Div 1A level does not have a championship so Chief Osceola can show up; he just cannot come to the NCAA basketball tourney (like FSU would ever make it to that).
http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/press_room/2005/august/20050811_brand_editorial.html
That said, it is pretty silly.
If you think the Green Wave is safe, just wait until those tsunami victims claim that it is hostile and demeaning and brings back horrific memories...
fdgfdgfdg wrote:
Sports Illustrated ran an article a few years back that pointed out that most American Indians aren't opposed to the use of mascots. A number of professors who deal with the subject have pointed out the flaws in the poll that SI conducted and made some of the above points.
There is evidence that American Indian children, as well as white children, are adversely affected by such images. They perpetrate stereotypes, as much as universities argue that they don't.
You make some fair points, but I think you lack some hard data to back up the argument. It's interesting that when one side's position (liberal or conservative, doesn't matter) is soundly rejected in a poll, it must be the polling methodology that is screwed up. Or, even worse, the members who took the poll didn't understand what they were doing. That's sort of condescending and racist on your part, isn't it? You are basically saying that white liberal elites know better than Native Americans themselves what's good for them. The Native Americans are just too stupid to realize these Universities are actually exploiting them and perpetuating negative stereotypes.
Flipping the whole argument around, let's assume for a second that there were NO Native American mascots in the NCAA. Then a university decides to change its mascot to Seminoles, but the NCAA says no. Wouldn't the Seminole Tribe have a legitimate grievance against the NCAA? Couldn't they legitimately argue that an animal, like a Gator, shouldn't get more respect than a more prominent group in American history? Couldn't they claim that the NCAA banning Native American mascots is just another chapter in 'keeping the Native American' down? After all, how much political power do Native Americans have inside the NCAA hierarchy?