More crap out of the heartland....

Here's where we start:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...9?OpenDocument


OK, several things that piss me off about this from many different directions:

1) to the opponents of the change- spare me the "This is political correctness gone amok" routine. Not every name change is "politically correct." Legally, a child born out of wedlock is known as a "bastard," and the laws regarding such children are known as "bastardy laws." Well, over time, that word became derogatory, hence we no longer use it, such children are known as, well, children born out of wedlock. It was not "PC" to change the name, it was the proper thing to do. Also, spare me the "tradition" argument; at Dartmouth University, it was a "tradition" to hold a "cake walk" (similar to a minstrel show) for many years, until they finally stopped (I believe in the late 60s or early 70s).
2) to the proponents of the change- obviously, there's not much going on these days in the Champaign-Urbana area. The logo on that helmet is dignified (as are the depictions of most Indian logos, perhaps the Cleveland Indians being an exception) and there is history in the name Illini and Illiniwek. In many cases, the universities honor (or honored) tribes that were native to their part of the country (another example would be the Florida State Seminoles). I've never heard too many Irish Catholics complaining about Notre Dame (and they use a leprechaun as their mascot). Now, they probably would if the leprechaun were shown passed-out in a pub, but he's not. Nor is the Seminole, nor are the Illini, nor were the Eastern Michigan Hurons. If you play the "it offends me" game, then animal mascots could be offensive to animal-rights activists. The "Stars" could offend the astrology set, "Reds" should offend the wing-nuts (oh wait a second, in the 50s, the Reds changed their name to "Red Legs"), Buckeyes should offend those who are allergic to nuts, I could go on and on. I think the worst example of this was when St. John's changed from "Redmen." Turns out, the origin of that name, they were the "Redmen" because they wore the color red (like the Cincinnati Reds), not because it was in reference to Indians. Well, some people could interpret it that way and, well, they're now known as the "Red Storm." All the crap in the world, and we're worried about a name someone could (mistakenly) be offended by?
3) to the students who are suing- kiss my a##. No "due process"? I'm sorry, I forgot about the part where you had an inherent right to have a university utilize a logo/mascot of your choosing. That would be like me suing Burger King (as a stock holder of their's) to force them to bring back their old logo. Let me guess- you only chose to attend UI because of the mascot, otherwise you'd have gone to Bradley and been a??OOPS??they're the BRAVES!!!! Disrespect alert!
4) There should be no shame in a tribal nickname, assuming it's historically accurate. There really shouldn't be any shame in Braves, Warriors, or Chiefs, because they have a generic connotation. OK but there is one clearly wrong, clearly racist name, and I don't see it going anywhere, and that's the Washington Redskins. There was no "Redskin" tribe, that was a racial term, it would be no different than calling a team "The Coloreds." No, their logo is not disrespectful, but the name is. Miami U was right in changing it, but the NFL won't ever make Daniel Snyder change it because of??you got it??$$$$$$$.


So really, everyone can go F-off on this one; everyone ranging from the goody-goody white liberals at the colleges who think they know what is and isn't racist, to the right wing-nuts who think there is no such thing as racism and that any attempts to fix a situation are automatically "this is just political correctness out of control," to plaintiffs who sue for pathetic, unfounded reasons, and finally (and most of all) to Daniel Snyder, hands-down the most disgraceful human being ever to own a sports team.

So condoms should have a problem with USC?

"American Indian groups and others have complained for years that the mascot, used since 1926, is demeaning."

Of course this carries no weight - caucasians decide what is demeaning and what isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LanDroid:
"American Indian groups and others have complained for years that the mascot, used since 1926, is demeaning."

Of course this carries no weight - caucasians decide what is demeaning and what isn't.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, so it's only the "white guy" that gets to decide. Well, guess what smart guy, here the opinion of David Yeagley, an Indian. (that is what he prefers to be called.)

It?s A Warrior Thing. You Wouldn?t Understand.
By David Yeagley

WE INDIANS are supposed to hate the white man. Everyone tells me this. I?ve heard it from whites, blacks and even from Indians.

Well, folks, I hate to disappoint you, but I like white people just fine. To tell the truth, I rather admire them and their fascinating history.

Oh, I know what you?re thinking. "Yeagley! How can you say that? How can you admire a people who slaughtered your ancestors, gave smallpox to those left alive, herded them onto reservations, made them all drunks, and as the final indignity sold their turquoise mines to the Japanese?"

Well, the way I figure it, anyone who could whip our Indian behinds like the white man did deserves our highest respect. And anyone who can whip a Comanche (my tribe) deserves the Medal of Honor.

I admire a man who can beat me. I dare say, deep inside all Indians at least those who are still warriors at heart there is a special admiration for the white man.

When the Comanches first encountered the white man, his behavior didn?t shock them. They saw that he took what he wanted by force. And they understood. Because the Comanches did the same to their weaker neighbors.

If my ancestors had been strong enough, they would have taken the white man?s land, instead of the other way around. And they wouldn?t have felt guilty about it afterwards. You wouldn?t have seen any defeated white people getting affirmative action from Comanches.

When one general surrenders to another, they salute each other. It doesn?t mean that there?s no bitterness between them. It just means that a warrior respects his foe.

White people understand this, because they too come from a warrior culture. The white man has great respect for the Indian. I?m not saying he always treats us the way we want to be treated. But he respects us for putting up a good fight.

Have you ever noticed how cowboyandIndian movies always focus on the same tribes? It?s either the Sioux, the Apaches or the Comanches. White people remember those tribes, because they fought hard and were the last to surrender.

Why does the U.S. military have helicopters named "Apache" and "Comanche" but none that are named "Arikara" or "Ojibwa?" They name their weapons systems after the fiercest tribes, because they want some of that fierceness to rub off.

Back in the 1930s, the warrior spirit was still strong in Indians and white men alike. At that time, the Oceti Sakowin Hunkpapa Sioux elders of Standing Rock honored the University of North Dakota by giving them permission to use the name "Fighting Sioux" for their sports teams.

At that time, many old people, both whites and Indians, still remembered the last wars. Wounded Knee was more recent for them than World War II is for us.

Yet they saluted each other, warrior to warrior. Because one fighting people understands another.

Today, the leftists tell us that the "Fighting Sioux" name is an insult to Indians, and we must demand that the university change it. I guess that goes for the Apache and Comanche helicopters too.

I?ve written other columns on this issue. Everyone knows where I stand. I?m with the Sioux elders, who believe that a warrior can respect and honor his foe.

Some people get it. Some don?t.

Keith Rushing doesn?t. He?s a black man from Hampton, VA, who wrote to me February 22, in response to my February 13 column, "Don?t Walk the Black Man?s Path."

Mr. Rushing was "shocked" by my attitude.

"I?m sure you realize that the reference to the ?Fighting Sioux? is akin to calling Native Americans wild Indians," he lectured me. "I'm a black man but I've never quite understood why whiteowned athletic teams have this fantasy about fierce Indian warriors when they unfortunately decimated so many Indian people. There's some sick irony involved there."

In Mr. Rushing?s view, the "fierce Indian warrior" is nothing but a white "fantasy." We were not warriors, he implies, but poor, defenseless victims who were "decimated" without putting up a fight.

Mr. Rushing seems to feel that there is more honor in being pathetic. Perhaps he feels we should think of ourselves as alcoholic, diabetic, suicidal and unemployed.

No thank you.

The white man may have taken my land. But he took it like a warrior, fair and square. Yes, he treated my people harshly. But he never denied their bravery, never besmirched their memory as warriors.

But you did, Mr. Rushing. You did.

Don't Walk the Black Man's Path
By David Yeagley


By the black man's path, I mean the familiar strategy of black civil rights leaders, who bait, belittle, provoke and bully white people, then run for cover, screaming "racist" when their white victims react.

Sadly, more and more young Indians are following this path, thanks to the influence of leftwing college professors and media personalities such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Take the current disturbances at the University of North Dakota. The university has a mascot called, "The Fighting Sioux." Some Indian students have called it offensive and demanded that it be changed.

Not surprisingly, white students and alumni have fought back.

One alumnus currently building an $85-million hockey arena for the university has threatened to kill the project if the name is changed.

As a member of the Comanche tribe, my name is on all the Indian mailing lists. I recently got an e-mail calling for solidarity with the UND protesters.

It says that Indian students have suffered physical attacks, name-calling, slashed tires, and broken windshields.

Indian students at UND now face a "hostile environment," says the e-mail. Many are seeking to transfer to other schools, to escape their abusive classmates.

Physical attacks of this sort are deplorable. The culprits should be caught and punished.

At the same time, the Indian students have to accept their own responsibility for helping to create the "hostile environment" they now face.

I'm all for fighting when there's something to fight about. But, in my view, this is not the case at UND.

Why should any Indian object if a university has an Indian warrior as its emblem?

The purpose of a mascot is to inspire the school's athletes to fight hard and win. That the school chose an Indian to represent its fighting spirit is a sign of respect. It shows an admiration for the courage and manliness of the Sioux warrior, who laid so many whites in their graves just a few generations ago.

All of this seems perfectly obvious to me. But those who have chosen to walk the "black man's path" are experts at finding things to get offended about. Virtually everything that white people do, no matter how innocuous, can be cited as an excuse to cry "racist."

Take the name game.

Every few years, leftwing black academics announce to their people that they must now call themselves something different. At one time, it was colored, then Negro, then Afro-American, then black, then African-American and so on.

None of these names are better or worse than any of the others. Not long ago I was interviewed by black conservative talk show host Ken Hamblin. He told me that he's perfectly happy being "colored."

Yet many black Americans have been conditioned to treat the nuances between these words as matters of life and death. Try calling a black man a "Negro" nowadays and see what sort of reaction you get.

The name game creates new sources of friction out of thin air, for no good reason. As fast as white people get used to one name, black people change it. That way, no one ever quite knows what to call them, and everyone has to tippy-toe around on eggshells trying to figure out how to avoid giving offense.

I don't pretend to know why so many African-Americans go in for this sort of nonsense. But I do know that many blacks, such as Ken Hamblin, refuse to indulge in it, and for that I respect them.

What concerns me is that so many Indians nowadays - and especially the younger generation - seem to be following the worst examples.

Back in the late '60s, some Indians even started playing their own version of the name game, by calling themselves Native Americans. I don't know who started it. Maybe it was a white liberal.

To this day, most Indians still prefer to be called Indians. I know I do. But white people now have to tippy-toe around calling us Native Americans, for fear that we will take offense.

It's all about playing the victim. Frankly, I find it weak and undignified. It's not the way of our warrior ancestors.

Those young Indians at UND should end their needless fight with the university. The pursuit of academic excellence would be a far better testing ground for their warrior spirit.

Hew Lew!

Do you mind fixing your link using UBB code? I'd do it for you, but I'm white and I don't want to be accused of abusing my power.

Hurray for David Yeagley! That's one. All I'm saying is since it appears Native Americans are insulted by this mascot (<u>groups</u> have complained for years), then out of respect for fellow American citizens we should change it. If we don't, then once again it's because caucasians decide what is demeaning and what is not.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LanDroid:
Hurray for David Yeagley! That's one. All I'm saying is since it appears Native Americans are insulted by this mascot (<u>groups</u> have complained for years), then out of respect for fellow American citizens we should change it. If we don't, then once again it's because caucasians decide what is demeaning and what is not.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A name like "redskin" I will agree with you on. However, names like "Seminoles", "Illini", "Fighting Sioux", etc are being used with the PERMISSION of the tribe. How is it demeaning when the tribe has said that it is ok and consider it a sign of respect?

Some have changed ....
(examples)
Miami from Redskins to Redhawks
St Johns from Redman to Red Storm

But many still use names with native american conections (either with or without some sort of permission)
This has been going on for years, and mosr likely will continue to go on until all those who currently use Indian names or references as their team names or mascots either has that permission to do so or pays some kind of liscensing fee.

But that's my whole point-

the one name that should be changed (Redskins) isn't going anywhere. And it is a racist, derogatory term. And while "Cleveland Indians" is not a racist term, I can see why some people would object to Chief Wahoo. I mean, Mr. Red isn't a white guy, he's a baseball. Notre Dame doesn't use a caricature of a human being, they use a leprechaun. But Chief Wahoo, with his bug eyes and giant teeth, he's supposed to be an Indian. And when the Braves had Chief Noc-a-homa....I mean, yeah I get it and all, but we can do better than that.

But most of the logos (Blackhawks, Seminoles, Illini) are respectful. The Hurons lived around the Great Lakes, why couldn't Eastern Michigan have kept their name? I mean, in theory, a sports team nickname is supposed to connotate a positive....you know, team pride, all that.

I think part of it is, I give it more weight coming from actual Indians than I do some 18 yr-old freshman who's away from home for the first time and thinks it's hip to be an "activist."

Now one name I did struggle with is the Washington Bullets. At first, I thought the proposed name-change was ridiculous. I mean, a bullet is an inanimate object, it's not like the bullets had all gotten together and protested the degradation they had to endure with this nickname. And, a bullet represents speed and power, two virtues in the sporting world.

But after some thought, I began to see the point. I mean, we're talking Washington, D.C.; they go through bullets like Cincinnati goes through chili. So maybe it wasn't a bad idea to suggest a more positive name like......Wizards? Hello, isn't that offensive to certain religions? And let's not kid ourselves- the Bullets were a franchise that sucked and could have used a new image. If they'd had the success of the Lakers or Bulls or Celtics, there would have been no name-change discussion.

Because now liberals decide what is demeaning and what is not.