<p>I guess it should all depend on how do you use the term. It's not the same to call your team "the Cherokee Murderers" or the "Black Junkys" than the "Brave Indians" or the "Lakota Chiefs"</p>
<p>Funkyfunnybunny - why do you assume the "list" refers to white males? Cowboys, swordsmen, shoremen, preachers & lumberjacks, etc. aren't all white males. Heck, Saints aren't all males, period. You might want to think about your own assumptions here.</p>
<p>are we seriously arguing about specifics? as a general rule, cowboys, swordsmen, shoremen, preachers & lumberjacks ARE white males.</p>
<p>90 some odd percent of INDIANS THEMSELVES are not offended/do not care about this issue. Why is the NCAACP such an idiotic piece of crap to even do this non issue. They should ban the Hawaii Rainbow Warriors because more Americans are offended by gay mascots. When will the madness stop. They could ban rodent mascots such as the Golden Gophers or the Michigan Wolverines because they offend extermintators.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I guess it should all depend on how do you use the term. It's not the same to call your team "the Cherokee Murderers" or the "Black Junkys" than the "Brave Indians" or the "Lakota Chiefs"
[/quote]
Agreed ... for example, the Utah Utes are named in honor of the tribe from which Utah got it's name ... as long as the images and mascot are respectful of the Utes (and not goofy like the Cleveland Indians logo) I would hope the name would be considered a positive (honoring the history of the area) ... but I'm not Indian so I don't get a vote.</p>
<p>
[quote]
90 some odd percent of INDIANS THEMSELVES are not offended/do not care about this issue. Why is the NCAACP such an idiotic piece of crap to even do this non issue. They should ban the Hawaii Rainbow Warriors because more Americans are offended by gay mascots. When will the madness stop. They could ban rodent mascots such as the Golden Gophers or the Michigan Wolverines because they offend extermintators.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not quite how I would word it, but I completely agree.</p>
<p>I went to a high school that changed its name from Indians to Cardinals (like Stanford). I dont think the change upset anyone really.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I went to a high school that changed its name from Indians to Cardinals (like Stanford). I dont think the change upset anyone really.
[/quote]
Did anyone contact the Vatican to see how they felt about this slur?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I went to a high school that changed its name from Indians to Cardinals (like Stanford). I dont think the change upset anyone really.
[/quote]
A fellow Lowellite?</p>
<p>Personally, my favorite is the intramural basketball team at Northern Colorado: The Fighting Whities. I'd go there just for that.</p>
<p>Go Honkies!</p>
<p>Wolverines are not rodents--they are the largest weasels.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Stanford Cardinal is the color, not the Catholic official. Hence at Stanford games there is a pine tree hanging about and on their football helmets, it just read "S" with cardinal (as in the shade of color) red surrounding the white letter. It doesn't refer to Catholics.</p>
<p>Secondly, some teams like the Florida State Seminoles have the seminoles supporting them. In fact, tribe elders work with the university in helping with a historically (NOT politically) accurate representation. With the San Diego State Aztecs, it's representation was deemed accurate by the NCAA and it was unable to note any Aztecs in the U.S. to be "offensive" to anyone. </p>
<p>However, some university mascots don't have the support of their namesakes. University of Illinois Illini's have a caricature running about (compared to the Seminole's actual seminole on a horse, throwing a flaming spear in the middle of the stadium). Of course, Illini as tribe, no longer exists. And what about the Southeastern Oklahoma Savages? It's downright disgusting, and not a matter of political correctness. </p>
<p>And as for Notre Dame's Fighting Irish, leprechauns (their mascot) aren't and weren't real. Sorry to disappoint you folks.</p>
<p>And as for animals? Animals don't quite fall into line with caricatures of Native Americans. Until science says that the California's bear's have expressed bitter anger over the use of "Bruin" at UCLA and Oski at UC Berkeley, animals are fair game.</p>
<p>Universities that use Native Americans as mascots as a reflection of their history and as a reflection of heritage should be able to draw inspiration from them. But using caricatures and outrageous antics does not reflect that heritage.</p>
<p>At this time, the ban only applies to post-season and is meant to have a healthy public discourse.</p>
<p>It should be noted that only the Seminoles of Florida have approved of the Florida State mascot. Seminoles in other areas continue to object to the mascot.</p>
<br>
<p>Fighting Illini is offensive but not Fighting Irish??? Yea that makes perfect sense. Not.</p>
<br>
<p>It strikes me as more than sensible because Notre Dame was/is an institution largely run BY Irish FOR Irish. It's a pretty well accepted standard that you can call yourself whatever you want, but politeness demands that we call other people what THEY want to be called.</p>
<p>Assume for the sake of argument that 90% of American Indians don't care, and 10% are offended. I'd rather have a name that didn't offend 10% of the members of the ethnic group I'm supposedly "honoring" with my sports team. And who is so terribly inconvenienced by changing the name? How is Dartmouth's legacy as a school for Indians affected by calling the athletic teams the Big Green? Big deal. Teams change names for all kinds of reasons all the time -- the Harvard Crimson used to be the Magenta. So what? In this case, it's such a small compromise to make in order to relieve an insult that a lot of people feel.</p>
<p>When/if organized groups of cowboys, knights etc. come forward with a coherent argument about how they have been marginalized and persecuted throughout American history and the athletic mascots are emblematic of and contribute to that marginalization, I'm prepared to listen to the argument. Until then, I'm not convinced that the comparison is anything other than a weak attempt at supporting the argument that white men are somehow under attack in this country.</p>
<p>"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". -The Bible</p>
<p>I'm sorry, which "needs" of the many are being served here? The need not to have to buy a new team hat? I don't think that's what the Bible was contemplating.</p>
<p>A good third off pirates were former slaves... a.k.a. black, also, take a stab at what percentage of cowboys the Museum of American History believe were black?</p>
<p>Occupational terms are too general to catergorize.</p>
<p>I also think this is a bit of an old issue, how long ago did Stanford change its mascot?</p>
<p>Award for stupidest comment of the discussion goes to...joev! I can't believe you actually said that, I'm still gagging as I type.</p>
<p>The needs of the many on this board are that joev, the few, never posts again. Thank you!</p>
<p>I suppose I should back up what I said rather than just use ad hominem. Saying the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, while technically maybe correct (though I wonder what book of the Bible that quote comes from?), applies 0% here. The desires of the many do NOT outweigh the RIGHTS of the few. And people, IMHO, have the right not to be stereotyped and ridiculed by supposed institutions of higher learning. Even if 90% don't care, if 10% are offended then inconvenience yourself enough to print new t-shirts.</p>
<p>...when someone tries to say the Bible makes mascots okay, we've lost all hope.</p>