Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just read an article about why the Washington Redskins were the Redskins. It's not even clear why they were named that.
Hi.. I don't think a clear history of a team name is required, to understand the spirit of choosing a mascot. Lions, Tigers, Eagles, Patriots, 49ers, Wildcats, etc. Over and over team mascots are chosen as tributes to powerful animals & people.. or tributes to local heroes & icons. Indian mascots were chosen because the teams wanted to honor and channel their warrior spirit.
This is the obvious flaw (& projection) from the erasers of Indian mascots. These critics assume there was malice in choosing Indian names. At worse, the Indian names and mascots were unawarely inconsiderate of Indian cultural nuances, but not malicious. And even when modern day American Indians were polled (2016), the majority (90%) of respondents were ok with the 'Redskins' name. Aspiring to ban all Indian allusions has been overkill.. and who are the name erasers really appeasing if most Indians aren't actually offended or insulted?
I'm not too affected by the names myself. Not my hill to die on. I am probably only more Native American than Elizabeth Warren. I am aware of the term Sioux as being something to do with snakes in the Ojibwe language from 100 plus years ago when discussing the Sioux Indians. However, as I mentioned, NO ONE I talked with found it offensive to them.
As I mentioned, having schools called Indians, Warriors, Braves etc. is a nothing to most Native Americans. I'm part Irish and could care that Notre Dame says that my ancestors are always fighting.
I'm not saying you are lying. I am saying that when I was living in the area, and especially when I spent time on the rez, I met a lot of people who DID have an issue.
I see this as a walking-and-chewing gum issue for the Regents. Also kinda surprised they didn't do this years ago.
BTW my local working-class college, East Stroudsburg University, changed their mascot while keeping their name a few decades ago. They're still the Warriors but the "Indian brave" is gone, replaced by a Greco-Roman guy with a helmet, sword, and skirt.
But if a significant number (whatever that means) find it offensive, what's so great about keeping it?
In my high school, we were the Pal-Mac Raiders. What did that even mean? I doubt that if we took a hundred high school graduates from my era, that not a single one could tell us why that name was chosen.
We changed our school's mascot when I became principal because people kept making jokes about us being the Longfellow Trojans (do I have to explain that?). Why were we the Trojans? We talked about it. No one had the foggiest idea why we were the Trojans. So why did it matter?
I just read an article about why the Washington Redskins were the Redskins. It's not even clear why they were named that.
Re-read my first post. All the Native American residents of North Dakota SHOULD have voted on this. Only a relatively small group were involved in forcing the change, with NON-Indian people leading the way AS USUAL as they're the most offended.
So, YOU changed the school mascot because of a few people making fun of it? When "WE" talked about it, who were we? Thus, like my U. of N.D. example, it sounds like you and a few others with power forced the move. Was there a vote in the school district community? IF you did have a vote and the name change was agreed upon, that's great. That's what should have happened. It is after all, just a mascot. If not, YOU overstepped your bounds and voted yourself God.
Gotta agree on one thing, Longfellow Trojans is pretty funny. In your position, recommending a school district wide vote wouldn't have been a bad idea.
Hi.. I don't think a clear history of a team name is required, to understand the spirit of choosing a mascot. Lions, Tigers, Eagles, Patriots, 49ers, Wildcats, etc. Over and over team mascots are chosen as tributes to powerful animals & people.. or tributes to local heroes & icons. Indian mascots were chosen because the teams wanted to honor and channel their warrior spirit.
This is the obvious flaw (& projection) from the erasers of Indian mascots. These critics assume there was malice in choosing Indian names. At worse, the Indian names and mascots were unawarely inconsiderate of Indian cultural nuances, but not malicious. And even when modern day American Indians were polled (2016), the majority (90%) of respondents were ok with the 'Redskins' name. Aspiring to ban all Indian allusions has been overkill.. and who are the name erasers really appeasing if most Indians aren't actually offended or insulted?
Re-read my first post. All the Native American residents of North Dakota SHOULD have voted on this. Only a relatively small group were involved in forcing the change, with NON-Indian people leading the way AS USUAL as they're the most offended.
So your problem is how a sovereign nation operates.
In 2005 the NCAA decided that any college that references living people is bad. ALL schools had to change unless they got approval.
Central Michigan retained the Chippewa mascot because the Saginaw Chippewa Nation gave them approval.
Mississippi College retained the Choctaws because the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians gave approval.
Utah retained the Utes but retired the mascot. And now they have to give every incoming student information about the Utes tribe to keep the name to have approval.
Florida State retained the Seminoles because of a lot of politics! The Seminole Tribe of Florida said OK, but the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma also has rights to the name and said no. But they were eventually voted down by the Seminole National General Council.
SDSU got to keep the Aztecs as the NCAA thought there were no living Aztec.
Illinois got to keep the Illini as the NCAA bought the argument that it refers to the demonym for Illinois, but they got rid of the mascot.
North Dakota fought the NCAA and got to keep the Sioux name for 3 years. One tribe didn't agree to renew. The state fought that and lost. The state of North Dakota DID vote on it in 2012 to remove the name from the school: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/...sioux-nickname
I grew up on a cul-de-sac whose roads are named Colonial, Continental, Black Hawk and Mayflower. The inclusion of an American Indian name is a leavening. My sleepaway camps had bunk and team names were Indian tribes. Some or all of the Finger and Great Lakes names are of Indian derivation.
Do I think we should educate about current and past mistreatment of Indians? Of course. But why erase history?
You brought up mascots. Are we discussing mascots, or are we talking about all things Indian?
Florida State doesn't pay the Florida Seminoles for the usage of their name. Never have. The controversy on that was that the tribe in Florida was behind the University using the name. The Oklahoma Seminoles were against it.
Oh, and South Dakota is fourth in NAs per capita behind Alaska, Oklahoma, New Mexico.
I looked up what you stated and MONITARILLY, you are right. Apparently, there's a lot workability between the University and the Tribe benefitting both.
Like I posted, I BELIEVED that SD had the 2nd most Native Americans per capita. OK, maybe we're 4th out of 50. I was pretty clear that I didn't look this up as it was as a set up for my comment. You have to agree, my POINT stays exactly the same.
So your problem is how a sovereign nation operates.
In 2005 the NCAA decided that any college that references living people is bad. ALL schools had to change unless they got approval.
Central Michigan retained the Chippewa mascot because the Saginaw Chippewa Nation gave them approval.
Mississippi College retained the Choctaws because the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians gave approval.
Utah retained the Utes but retired the mascot. And now they have to give every incoming student information about the Utes tribe to keep the name to have approval.
Florida State retained the Seminoles because of a lot of politics! The Seminole Tribe of Florida said OK, but the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma also has rights to the name and said no. But they were eventually voted down by the Seminole National General Council.
SDSU got to keep the Aztecs as the NCAA thought there were no living Aztec.
Illinois got to keep the Illini as the NCAA bought the argument that it refers to the demonym for Illinois, but they got rid of the mascot.
North Dakota fought the NCAA and got to keep the Sioux name for 3 years. One tribe didn't agree to renew. The state fought that and lost. The state of North Dakota DID vote on it in 2012 to remove the name from the school:https://www.espn.com/college-sports/...sioux-nickname
The Native American people in North Dakota should have been the ones voting. It's THEM that were supposed to be so offended. Once again, it's the NON-Indian people sticking their nose into things that really don't affect them.
Don't get me going on how sovereign nations operate. They're the only "SOVEREIGN NATIONS" in the world that depend on another nation almost exclusively for their existence. Everything about this is screwed up. Many of these tribal governments, with the Federal government's intervention, make Chicago's politics look honest.
There's a lot of issues in educational administration:
Educating children where there's little support at home;
Assisting special needs students;
Keeping gifted students interested;
Ensuring school safety both from internal fights and shootings; and
Almost anything you can think of.
So, what is the New York State Board of Regents focusing on? See NY Regents vote to ban Indian mascots at schools. Here's what it will mean (link), excerpt below:
Now, I wonder, were any actual Native Americans offended? Are the Regents bored? Why the focus on this non-issue?
Spot on! The Board of Regents knows perfectly well that they can't solve the REAL issues, so they'll create some smaller, irrelevant issues that they might be able to tackle, and then crow about how they're solving "problems"......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am aware of the term Sioux as being something to do with snakes in the Ojibwe language from 100 plus years ago when discussing the Sioux Indians. However, as I mentioned, NO ONE I talked with found it offensive to them.
