Rundaddy ... i think you have proven time and time again that you are prejudice against Native Americans. It seems that if can not find a thread to bash them, you create them. You must be a great, mature father.
Rundaddy ... i think you have proven time and time again that you are prejudice against Native Americans. It seems that if can not find a thread to bash them, you create them. You must be a great, mature father.
What about the part in the Consitution about civil rights? Freedom from discrimination? It's a good thing the people who thought Jim Crow was a good thing didn't win out, or was that just an unfortunate case of political correctness run amok?
fdgfdgfdg wrote:
What about the part in the Consitution about civil rights? Freedom from discrimination? It's a good thing the people who thought Jim Crow was a good thing didn't win out, or was that just an unfortunate case of political correctness run amok?
You will find nothing about "the freedom from discrimination" in either the constitition or the bill of rights.
maybe not, but the point still stands: there is federal civil rights legislation.
It amazes me that anyone can devote some much energy and effort in supporting or attacking such a topic.
I wonder what might happen if we put the same effort in finding ways to distribute the surplus foods in the U.S. to the hungry in our cities?
Hmmmm!
fdgfdgfdg wrote:
maybe not, but the point still stands: there is federal civil rights legislation.
Your point doesn't stand up to anything. It's a non sequitur.
the NCAA is not on that committee. I guess I fail to see what the NCAA has to do with feeding the needy but maybe they can start that.
Cherokee wrote:
It amazes me that anyone can devote some much energy and effort in supporting or attacking such a topic.
I wonder what might happen if we put the same effort in finding ways to distribute the surplus foods in the U.S. to the hungry in our cities?
Hmmmm!
Constitution wrote:
fdgfdgfdg wrote:maybe not, but the point still stands: there is federal civil rights legislation.
Your point doesn't stand up to anything. It's a non sequitur.
The freedom of speech is not an absolute right.
Homestar runner wrote:
Rundaddy ... i think you have proven time and time again that you are prejudice against Native Americans. It seems that if can not find a thread to bash them, you create them. You must be a great, mature father.
Point to one thing I've ever written that is prejudiced against Native Americans? In what way have I "bashed" Native Americans? I have absolutely nothing against Native Americans. I just happen to agree with the Principal Chief of the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma that FSU can use the Seminole as its mascot without offending the majority of the Tribe.
Time and time again?? The only other time I've ever written about Native Americans on this board, or anywhere else, was when I questioned whether what the US Government did to Native Americans, as horrible as it most certainly was in many ways, was actually genocide as the term is understood in international law. A case could be made that it wasn't genocide.
That's the problem with PC policemen like you. If someone disagrees with you, they're prejudiced. Case closed.
RunDaddy wrote:
That's the problem with PC policemen like you. If someone disagrees with you, they're prejudiced. Case closed.
Of course. There is not logic, no thoughtful opinions coming from the PC police. The use of mascots does not "discriminate" against anyone, nor will their nonsensical demands "feed the hungry."
fdgfdgfdg wrote:
It's not condescending and racist on my part. I brought up the SI poll because there was a large outcry after the story ran, and the controversy that followed gives an interesting glimpse into the issue. I can't find any links doing a quick internet search, but feel free to respond to the arguments made by those opposed to the poll instead fo simply dismissing their reaction out of hand.
Further, I am not the one saying that Native Americans don't know what's good for them; it is other leaders in the Native American community, the ones leading the fight, who have said that. In fact, there are members of the Seminole tribe in Oklahoma who have gone on record saying that about the tribe in Florida--that thye haven't explored the issue.
Finally, your last example falls flat because the issue centers around who it is that is doing the naming. The NCAA allowed UNC Pembroke to keep its mascot because the school was founded by American Indians and is largely American Indian. Your example also fails because none of these mascots, in the beginning, were intended to honor American Indians. That has been a recently adopted defense by these schools. Watch the film "In Whose Honor?" to find out more about Chief Illiniwek, for example.
Okay, you make some excellent points. You understand this issue very well. One of the reasons I post this is to hear from other folks and learn something.
But, I'm still thinking the NCAA has issued a very confusing policy. And if a tribe overwhelmingly, from the leadership to the average person, wants a University to use their name as a mascot, why should the NCAA say no? So waht if the tribe benefits financially from the relationship. Let them benefit, if that's what they want.
Constitution wrote:
RunDaddy wrote:That's the problem with PC policemen like you. If someone disagrees with you, they're prejudiced. Case closed.
Of course. There is not logic, no thoughtful opinions coming from the PC police. The use of mascots does not "discriminate" against anyone, nor will their nonsensical demands "feed the hungry."
That's the problem with conservative hacks like you. If someone disagress with you, they are automatically PC police making a knee-jerk response. There is no thoughtful response or opinions coming from you conservatives; just the labeling of others as "liberals."
At least Big Green and Cardinal are actually colors. St. John's changed its name from Redmen to Red Storm, and as far as I know, there is no such thing as a red storm.
fdgfdgfdg wrote:
Constitution wrote:Of course. There is not logic, no thoughtful opinions coming from the PC police. The use of mascots does not "discriminate" against anyone, nor will their nonsensical demands "feed the hungry."
That's the problem with conservative hacks like you. If someone disagress with you, they are automatically PC police making a knee-jerk response. There is no thoughtful response or opinions coming from you conservatives; just the labeling of others as "liberals."
I don't consider myself conservative. I'm a registered independent and I've voted Democrat more often than not.
Homestar thinks I'm prejudiced, a pretty unjustifiable accusation in my opinion.
Don't you think it's possible to be against the mascot ban and not be prejudiced?
I am an Illinois alum, and this was a huge issue on campus. Some comments/thoughts:
Caucasians and to a lesser extent Asians when arriving at U of I were neutral/in favor of the Chief. By the time they graduated, many had changed their minds and thought it would be best if the Chief were retired. I think the change of mind comes from hearing from many Native Americans who were offended by the Chief.
I always felt that if Native Americans were genuinely offended by the Chief, then there is reason to get rid of him. I saw the situation this way: Suppose some people came to the US, drove us off our land, killed most of us (via war or disease), and then wanted to use a likeness of an American (whatever that would be like) to parade around at football games. I can understand why a Native American might be offended.
On the other hand, some aren't. The Chief spends a week on an Indian reservation learning war dances and the like. And I think there is a reverence for the Chief that goes along with a reverence for the University. No one snickers at the Chief as people did Al Jolson in blackface.
I do think that people are too quick to play the "that's just PC" card. Until you do some serious thinking and reading about the issue and spend time talking to or hearing from Native Americans, you should reserve judgment.
RunDaddy wrote:
[quote]fdgfdgfdg wrote:
[quote]Constitution wrote:
[quote]RunDaddy wrote:
Don't you think it's possible to be against the mascot ban and not be prejudiced?
actually, i do.
Okie weighs in on it:
The names aren't so offensive, especially since none in the NCAA are flat out called "the indians" (cleveland) or "savages"...But the Seminole mascot and the Illini mascot are offensive: two white guys in stereotypical dress flopping around in stereotypical "dance" is akin to blackface. The logo for the Illini and Seminole arent demeening, and the North Dakota Sioux are actually respected by that tribe as well...I'm not sure about the "Warrior" names; i've never personally equated that with Native Americans for whatever reason.
Again, the names arent so bad but trying to dress up like an ethnic group and "do ethnic things"? Horrible.
Erbli wrote:
It was in response to the lesser well known Crimson Tide?
That is an affront to menstruation and I along with other OB/GYNs and stockholders in Kimberly-Clark (makers of [url=http://www.kotex.com/na/index.asp]Kotex hope the U. of Alabama wises up and changes its mascot to something else, like the Chlamydia Clowns or the Fightin' Furburgers or something. On second thought, I haven't polled NOW yet, but that's probably a bad idea too.
The school I attended (Lehigh) changed its team name from "Engineers" to "South Mountaineers" (I think that upset the West Virginians) to "Mountain Hawks." It screwed up fight songs and other stuff over what was essentially a marketing positioning issue (they felt the business school and arts & sciences got hurt by the name). In my opinion, it was an act of stupidity.
These issues are potentially more significant, but in general, in my opinion, what makes the names (potentially) offensive is the actions surrounding them, not the names themselves.
I think that it would be funny as hell to see the "whiteskins." Any white guys got a problem with that?