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.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

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?

Here's a line--Notre Dame was founded by Irish, and they NAMED THEMSELVES. If someone's offended by that, I suppose they should take it up with the school. If an Indian college wants to name itself something related to its heritage, that's up to them. But I don't think its the place of a college or professional team to claim a race of people as its mascot. There's a difference.

[Saulbadguy]

Football will NOT be affected by this ruling

At least Division 1 NCAA FB. They do not have a tournament, and this ruling only affects NCAA sanctioned post-season tournaments.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Here's a line--Notre Dame was founded by Irish, and they NAMED THEMSELVES. If someone's offended by that, I suppose they should take it up with the school. If an Indian college wants to name itself something related to its heritage, that's up to them. But I don't think its the place of a college or professional team to claim a race of people as its mascot. There's a difference.

A lot of it is based on a group, not a race of people.... there's not that big of a difference between a non-Cowboy dressing up like one and a non-Illini dressing up like one.... they're both just portraying a group of people that is associated with their respective location.

If a group is okay with that, which it has been shown on this thread that some tribes are okay with it, does it matter if it's tribal owned?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by ENDelt260

Wait... what happened to...



Now common sense tells us that you don't name a team after a race unless it's your team and you are a part of said race?

I'm to assume that you still object to the Minnesota Vikings using this "common sense"?

Further, must all fans of Notre Dame be Irish? All players? Would it be demeaning for a non-Irishman to wear a Fighting Irish t-shirt? Or, is it okay because the Irish said so?

If founder's identity and intent is all that matters, you must be the person that the "the Chiefs are named for Roe Bartle" people are talking to.

Why is it the Irish are allowed to honor themselves, but a third party, say the state of Florida, is not allowed to pay homage to a local tribe?

Its not a good idea in any regard, but there is a difference between a group bestowing a name upon itself and someone else doing it. Your last question answers itself.

I don't think intent matters at all, its basically irrelevant. Afterwards, no one knows the intent, all you are left with is a name like Redskins.

I think the Roe Bartle/Chiefs thing is ridiculous. There might be some sort of coincidence with the name, but I highly doubt that the team was directly named for him. If it was, its not much of an honor, seeing that 99% of the people aren't aware of it. The Chiefs are a minor offender. "Chief" isn't necesarily Indian-related, and they don't play up the image.

I'm not saying all of this is a crime. Its just ridiculous to say what other people should and shouldn't be offended by. If you were part of a small, essentially oppressed population, you might feel different about your race being held up as a charicature or a mascot.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

A lot of it is based on a group, not a race of people.... there's not that big of a difference between a non-Cowboy dressing up like one and a non-Illini dressing up like one.... they're both just portraying a group of people that is associated with their respective location.

If a group is okay with that, which it has been shown on this thread that some tribes are okay with it, does it matter if it's tribal owned?

A "Cowboy" is the same as a race of people? OK...
How has it "been shown on this thread that some tribes are ok with it"? Because someone said so?

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

A "Cowboy" is the same as a race of people? OK...

Um, no

A lot of it is based on a group, not a race of people

they're both just portraying a group of people that is associated with their respective location.

"Illini" is a group of Indians that settled assumingly around that region... same for Sioux, Seminole, etc. Those names aren't races. They are groups. Just like Cowboys, Patriots, etc; aren't races. They are groups.

How has it "been shown on this thread that some tribes are ok with it"? Because someone said so?

That, and the references to articles stating surveys that say tribes are okay with it... 100%? Probably not... but we have plenty of issues that aren't 100% not offensive.

[keg in kc]

I'm part Cherokee FWIW. Not that I really think it matters.

Redskins I don't like; I think blatant ethnic slurs should be out. I don't think using Redskins is any better than, say, the Newark Negroes or the Saskatoon Spics or the Iowa Cowtipping Potheads.

I've never considered "Chiefs" to be a slur. Same for Seminoles or Illini, etc. I believe team names like that to be an honor more than an insult.

I do think mascots need to be policed. Make sure they show respect for a culture or an ethnic group, and not ridicule.

But, all-in-all, I won't lose any sleep over any of it until they name a team the "Whisky-sucking Smallpoxed Syphilids."

That would be taking it too far.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by ENDelt260

I still must be overlooking your judgement on the Minnesota Vikings. Is their name offensive or no? Or, are you still doing research to determine if they were actually founded by descendants of Vikings to make your determination?

Heh... "For 50 years the tribe of [insert tribe] has been highly offended of the [school's mascot] that has been their mascot for 120 years. However, in a bizarre turn of events, old documents have been found showing that the founder of the school was part of [tribe]."

Says the head of the tribe, who has led the fight for the banning of the mascot: "Oh, in that case, I'm cool with it"

[OldTownChief]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

"Chief" isn't necesarily Indian-related, and they don't play up the image.

And my personnal favorite.

[Hydrae]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Its not a good idea in any regard, but there is a difference between a group bestowing a name upon itself and someone else doing it. Your last question answers itself.

I don't think intent matters at all, its basically irrelevant. Afterwards, no one knows the intent, all you are left with is a name like Redskins.

I think the Roe Bartle/Chiefs thing is ridiculous. There might be some sort of coincidence with the name, but I highly doubt that the team was directly named for him. If it was, its not much of an honor, seeing that 99% of the people aren't aware of it. The Chiefs are a minor offender. "Chief" isn't necesarily Indian-related, and they don't play up the image.

I'm not saying all of this is a crime. Its just ridiculous to say what other people should and shouldn't be offended by. If you were part of a small, essentially oppressed population, you might feel different about your race being held up as a charicature or a mascot.

***UN-PC response below***

I have felt for a long time that Native Americans are the best treated conquered people in history. I am sorry, I have little sympathy for them at this late date. They are still getting compensation for things that happened 100+ years ago before any of the current members of this group were even born. I am not aware of any other conquered people getting reparations a century after the fact.

Prove that the names were done with the intention of being offensive or even belittling and maybe we can talk. In the meantime, please stop assuming what the namers of these teams meant or where thinking. You have no idea that their intentions were malicious any more than we can prove they were benign. However, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. I think that should relate to this situation as well.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

"Illini" is a group of Indians that settled assumingly around that region... same for Sioux, Seminole, etc. Those names aren't races. They are groups. Just like Cowboys, Patriots, etc; aren't races. They are groups.

To be absolutely specific, they are tribes -- geo-political social groups. Very similar to the city-states of ancient Greece.

[Delano]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Since I'm putting minority stats up in the DC forum, I thought I'd add this here:

Counties in the U.S. that are more than 50% Native American or Alaska Native

Geography	Percent Native American
Shannon County, South Dakota	93.68%
...

I'm not sure of the usefulness of this, other than the general dissemination of knowledge.

I didn't know that Shannon County had the highest percentage. My uncle is actually the sheriff in that county. Wow, some of the stories I hear from him out of that area are insane. Those Natives treat the white ranchers like shit. It's also interesting to hear how the tribal government bullies anyone that isn't a member of the tribe. My uncle and those clowns butt heads daily.

I also hunt whitetail in that county and it's amazing how when we try to spend money in their towns (other than in the casino), they do everything to prevent it. God forbid you get a flat tire in the middle of nowhere. Lazy **** mechanics won't come out to help you.

[Delano]

Originally Posted by Hydrae

***UN-PC response below***

I have felt for a long time that Native Americans are the best treated conquered people in history. I am sorry, I have little sympathy for them at this late date. They are still getting compensation for things that happened 100+ years ago before any of the current members of this group were even born. I am not aware of any other conquered people getting reparations a century after the fact.

Prove that the names were done with the intention of being offensive or even belittling and maybe we can talk. In the meantime, please stop assuming what the namers of these teams meant or where thinking. You have no idea that their intentions were malicious any more than we can prove they were benign. However, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. I think that should relate to this situation as well.

Well said. It's frustrating to see how often times they even waste the compensation they get from the government.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by Hydrae

***UN-PC response below***

I have felt for a long time that Native Americans are the best treated conquered people in history. I am sorry, I have little sympathy for them at this late date. They are still getting compensation for things that happened 100+ years ago before any of the current members of this group were even born. I am not aware of any other conquered people getting reparations a century after the fact.

Prove that the names were done with the intention of being offensive or even belittling and maybe we can talk. In the meantime, please stop assuming what the namers of these teams meant or where thinking. You have no idea that their intentions were malicious any more than we can prove they were benign. However, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. I think that should relate to this situation as well.

That's pretty much my feeling. Good post.

[Zebedee DuBois]

IF I get the gist of this thread correctly, Team names that refer to groups of people are gradually being phased out - starting with the more offensive names like Redskins, but extending to occupational names like Steelers and Packers. Some are indicating that this movement will be extended to animals like the oppressed Dolphins and Cardinals, not to mention the nearly exterminated Buffalos and Bears.

The problem remains as to what teams will be called. Team name should evoke some fear or respect. The name should give opponents pause, and the feeling that they will not be easily defeated.

Since, human and animal references are no longer acceptable, I believe that leaves us with concepts, ideas, and situations as candidtates.
Here are a few trial names.

Names for School Teams:
The Difficult Story Problems
Trigonometry
The Extended Essays
The Doctoral Thesis

Names for Non School Teams:
The Visiting In-Laws
The Impending Deadline
The Performance Reviews
The April Fifteenths
The Audits
The First Time Mortgage Applications
The Neighbors Vacation Slideshow




Really, the possibilities are endless.