NCAA bans American Indian mascot names in the postseason

[Saulbadguy]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2125735

NCAA American Indian mascot ban will begin Feb. 1
Associated Press

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 by teams on their 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, he said.

Guidelines were not immediately available on which logos and nicknames would be considered "hostile or abusive."

The NCAA two years ago recommended that schools determine for themselves whether the Indian depictions were offensive.

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.

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

C'mon... San Antonio will never have a football team.

In 2024, it will be the East New York team vs the West New York team. There will be 4 Divisions. New York, Washington DC, New Jersey, and the rest of them.

[ptlyon]

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

What the hell is a 'sooner' anyway?

I think it's slang for "Husker beater"

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

What the hell is a 'sooner' anyway?

Land thief.

"SOONER." Sooner is the name first applied about six months after the Land Run of 1889 to people who entered the Oklahoma District (Unassigned Lands) before the designated time. The term derived from a section in the Indian Appropriation Act of March 2, 1889, which became known as the "sooner clause." It stated that no person should be permitted to enter upon and occupy the land before the time designated in the president's opening proclamation and that anyone who violated the provision would be denied a right to the land.
Illegal claimants were initially called "moonshiners," because they entered the area "by the light of the moon." Sooners or moonshiners hid out in brush or ravines, then suddenly appeared to stake a claim after the run started, giving them clear advantage over law-abiding settlers who made the run from the borders.
So-called "legal sooners" had permission to enter before the designated time but nonetheless had the same unfair advantage. Legal sooners included employees of the government (deputy marshals, revenue agents, mail carriers, land officials) or railroad company (trackmen, section hands) or those with special permits (Indian agents, teamsters, traders).
As might be expected, the clamor against sooners resulted in numerous contests and appeals to the General Land Office and in unclear title to some claims for many years. The United States Congress gave the Department of the Interior the ultimate power to make final determination in the contests. The complex case against sooners, legal or otherwise, was first elucidated in Townsite of Kingfisher v. Wood and Fossett (1890) and later in Smith v. Townsend (1893).
The problems with sooners increased with each successive land run. In the 1895 opening of the Kickapoo Reserve, some officials estimated that sooners filed on approximately 50 percent of the available tracts. The government eventually overcame the problem of illegal entry by using methods such as a lottery and sealed bids to open former Indian reservations.
As might be expected, the early legal settlers of Oklahoma Territory held a very low opinion of sooners. That began to change by 1908 when the University of Oklahoma adopted the name for its football team. By the 1920s, the term no longer carried a negative connotation, and Oklahomans adopted the nickname as a badge of pride and progressivism. Although apparently never officially designated as such by statute or resolution, Oklahoma has since been known as the Sooner State.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

The sportscast in 2024:

"And we had a big day on the gridiron today. The Kansas City Football Players beat the Cincinnati Football Players today 24-20. They now have a two-game lead on the Denver Football Players, who lost badly today, 66-24, to the San Antonio Football Players. In another key matchup, the New York Football Players..."

Never happen.

The term "football" is offensive to amputees.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

I always thought it meant brian was a commie.

If that were the case, he would be "pinkbrian".

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by ENDelt260

While I agree that Redskin is a slur and is inappropriate for an NFL team name, a recent survey of American Indians showed that a vast majority weren't offended by it being Washington's mascot.

So, just who is offended?

What would be a good enough number? Common sense says you don't use a race of people as a mascot or logo. Steps to discourage isn't "PC", its common sense. I guess not using the term 'colored' is just PC. As I said, this "honor" is largely reserved for animals and and quirky characters to sell hats (see minor league baseball). It must be quite an honor to be in that group. You agree Redskin is inappropriate, so why dismiss that other names are as well?

[redbrian]

Originally Posted by ptlyon

Nah, they'll never bitch because they know how stupid it would make them look.

It will be the sensitivity police who go after these schools, you know the squawking hippies who will be on the warpath to stamp all insensitive acts on humanity, and other living things, and probably a few dead things (they have feelings to you know).

[Bearcat]

The reason that the Washington Redskins are called the Redskins is that they were originally in Boston and first played at Fenway Park. Since the other team playing at Fenway Park was called the Red Sox, and because of the Boston Tea Party with the Sons of Liberty dressing up like Indians, they decided to call the team the "Boston Redskins".

So the name itself is historic and refers back to their roots in Boston and to a significant historical event which is why it should remain as the Redskins. The Redskin logo isn't some crazy looking logo like Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians, it is a very dignified looking Indian.

This is from a search on Yahoo, that brought up their message boards... the reference to the Red Sox and not the Braves has me worried that this might not be the most legit source... So, they're named after white people dressing up like Indians

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

My father is a postal worker that listens to Bob Dylan and CCR... I'm his son, but do none of the 3.

Ignoring that this is... wow... um, there was a little bit of an assumption that those who named the Chiefs the Chiefs knew the history behind the nickname, and there was perhaps a feeling of "carrying on the legacy".

I wasn't there, nor do I shed a tear for American Indians when I do the tomahawk chop, but maybe we all should. Maybe we should.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by ENDelt260

That's the most ridiculous cracked out explanation I've ever read.

I'm pretty sure the half-explanation I gave earlier came from a reputable source at the time. Unfortunately I've been unable to locate it at this time.

Oh, come on... it's from a message board that has other enlightening topics such as "Washington Redskins suck the big one!!!", "Giants Rule", and "Why Daniel Snyder Licks Balls".

From one of the real sources I looked at, it said it was to seperate the baseball Boston Braves & football Boston Braves... but your reason why the actual name was selected is good enough for me.

[Mile High Mania]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I wasn't there, nor do I shed a tear for American Indians when I do the tomahawk chop, but maybe we all should. Maybe we should.

Maybe we should all hold hands and sing.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

Maybe we should all hold hands and sing.

****, you're queer.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

What would be a good enough number? Common sense says you don't use a race of people as a mascot or logo. Steps to discourage isn't "PC", its common sense. I guess not using the term 'colored' is just PC. As I said, this "honor" is largely reserved for animals and and quirky characters to sell hats (see minor league baseball). It must be quite an honor to be in that group. You agree Redskin is inappropriate, so why dismiss that other names are as well?

As stated before, there's no line between "We're offending some American Indians" and "We're offending some Irish" and "We're offending some Ichabods".

I think it's common sense to take the name of a sports team for what it's worth. After all, it's just a sports mascot, right?

[Chest Rockwell]

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

Maybe we should all hold hands and sing.

That might fly at Incestco, but we don't cotton to that gay stuff 'round these parts, savvy?

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

Maybe we should all hold hands and sing.

We sing "Home of the CHIEFS", clearly recognizing that this great land was once the home to Native Americans.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

We sing "Home of the CHIEFS", clearly recognizing that this great land was once the home to Native Americans.

Oh horse hockey, it's home of the KC Chiefs. To get to the opposing teams.