OT: North Dakota nickname change

Submitted by j-turn14 on
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news;_ylt=Aqjy4tAwbLVJobcxQaPF6ss5nYcB?slug… All thanks to the NCAA continuing to concentrate on only the most important things, like what a few middle aged white men and women need in order to feel less insensitive. One of North Dakota's Sioux tribes supports the Fighting Sioux nickname. The other tribe does not allow itself to take a vote on anything apparently, making it quite difficult for UND to officially gain support from both tribes, which is the only way the almighty NCAA will allow them to host postseason games.

BillyShears

April 9th, 2010 at 1:03 PM ^

While there are certain cases where such mascots should be kept (Florida State, North Dakota come to mind), there is a fair point to be made. Have you SEEN Chief Noc-A-Homa? It is a ridiculously insulting caricature. What about the Kinston Indians (Cleveland's High-A affiliate)? What about the Redskins? A slur considered offensive by native Americans. Eastern Washington University actually called their team "Savages" for many years. Southeastern Oklahoma State also used "savages" until 2006. What about the Saltine Warrior that Syracuse used? Look up a picture of that.

weasel3216

April 9th, 2010 at 6:19 PM ^

i agree that the Indians should probably consider retiring "Chief Wahoo" to avoid any future lawsuits. I know it takes away from the history of the team, but since teams are suppose to appear PC then i think they should just follow suit. I have noticed in the past few years the Indians have seemed to promote the "I" logo and the old fashioned "C" logos more. I mean the University of Illinois had to retire Chief Illiniwek why are the Indians still allowed to do it. I one that i am really surprised at is the Washington Redskins. That just sounds completely offensive but yet the NFL has said nothing, or at least made a big deal of it. They too have started to promote their new log with the "R" in place of the native american.

weasel3216

April 9th, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^

I know the NCAA has no say in MLB, but i was saying that the governing body of the select team would say something. For example, MLB would tell the Indians to retire Chief Wahoo and use their alternate logo. Another example, the NFL would tell the Washington Redskins to change the team name.

Seth

April 25th, 2010 at 5:41 PM ^

The problem with being tradition-rich: a lot of history was in really bad taste. I wish they would go after the Indians and Redskins before having "Fighting Sioux" and "Illini" shut down. A lot of schools with Native American nicknames have used that connection to become an excellent popular resource for getting in touch with our nation's pre-Columbian culture. What bugs me more is when people call this a "P.C." issue. It's such a complicated issue, like for example, should the Illini get permission and traditions from the local Sioux tribes or from the Peoria remnants who now live in Oklahoma (and didn't move there by choice, by the way)? It involves psychology (like how stereotypes get reinforced by symbology) and history, and pop culture, and the negative disassociate effect for the school when changing a mascot, not to mention the enormous cost to an athletic program and its fans for a mascot change. Point: it's way, way, way beyond Political Correctness. It's a super-complicated issue that is being fought in an arena where complexity is notoriously void.

jmblue

April 9th, 2010 at 1:27 PM ^

There's a pretty straightforward distinction to be made here. Nicknames based on specific tribal names (Seminoles, Chippewas, Hurons, Sioux) tend not to cause offense and may in fact be supported by the tribe in question. Nicknames based on tribal positions (Chiefs, Braves) are viewed as too generic to really affect anyone either positively or negatively. Nicknames based clearly on a white person's view of Native Americans (Indians, Redskins, Savages, Redmen) are offensive. Likewise, mascots based clearly from a white person's perspective (e.g., the Cleveland Indian logo) are offensive, whereas ones that attempt to accurately portray a tribal warrior do not cause offense. It's not that complicated, but the NCAA doesn't seem interested in thinking through this too seriously.

j-turn14

April 9th, 2010 at 1:27 PM ^

How is calling a team the Indians offensive? Are ranchers offended when teams are named the Cowboys? I understand the point with "Redskins" and "Savages", but Indians? In my opinion, the fact that people would nickname teams after certain people groups is a sign of respect. They're saying that they WANT to be associated with the ideals and characteristics of said people group. There's a reason you don't see any teams named the "Swiss" or "Hicks"... It's a double standard also. Look at the people that are mad about the Ole Miss mascot for example. By the PC rule that says native american nicknames are offensive, shouldn't they also think that the Rebel is actually mocking the old south plantation/slave owners? You can't have it both ways, either these nicknames are glorifying those they're named after or they're not.

jmblue

April 9th, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^

I'll grant you that "Indians" is more debatable than the others. Some people like it (and prefer it to "Native Americans"), some don't. But at any rate, it is a name originally bestowed by Europeans, which is part of the reason why it may cause offense.

CWoodson

April 9th, 2010 at 3:45 PM ^

Yeah, when I majored in early American history ~2 years ago now, the scholarly nonsense seemed to be trending back toward American Indian instead of Native American. I think it was because the "Native Americans" had migrated to the US, and thus the name wasn't really accurate (but again, 2ish years ago and surprisingly it wasn't my #1 concern).

Needs

April 9th, 2010 at 4:35 PM ^

No, it's because the vast majority of American Indians call themselves ... American Indians. And one of the most compelling objections against these naming practices (and there are a lot) has to do with the fact that actual Indians were completely robbed of power over their names and images.

BlueVoix

April 9th, 2010 at 3:42 PM ^

It isn't that simple when the team is named the "Savages." You could be glorifying the idea of a team being so strong and savage (and other related associations), but you would in turn be offending the group you are calling savages. It's possible to do both.

Needs

April 9th, 2010 at 4:38 PM ^

Not to mention consigning them to the past, as "civilization" is presumed to have overcome "the savage." Indians, in this vision, can never be part of the modern world, only destroyed by it or out of place in it (challenging this "Dances with Wolves" idea is one of the things that makes "Smoke Signals" a great film).

amphibious1

April 9th, 2010 at 4:02 PM ^

I don't like being a mascot. It is what it is. Some are offensive, others have tribal support. Redskin in tantamount to the "N" word. Why can't they pick a damn animal like everyone else. Better yet, if they want North Dakota to be highly associated with the Sioux tribes they can always give it back! ok, I'll chill now...

PackardChug

April 9th, 2010 at 12:42 PM ^

I noticed while at the CCHA tournament that the Miami (OH) students whoop and howl tapping their open palms against their mouth (Hollywood stereotype of native americans) during an opponent's penalty, as a hold-over from their days as the Miami Redskins. To me, that was ridiculously offensive. It'd be like a school mascot named after jews throwing coins around or school mascots named after african americans firing pistols in the air. It's just not representative of the culture, at all. Whereas on the other hand you had the University of Illinois and Chief Illiniwek. The student selected to be Chief Illiniwek was required to take course in Native American culture and history, as well as learn an authentic native american ritual dance from the Sioux (the closest living relatives of the Illini) and the garment he wore during his performances was made by the Sioux and given the University of Illinois. Obviously the intent here is to respect and honor the culture and tradition. Not stereotype it.

bluewave720

April 9th, 2010 at 12:59 PM ^

That's awesome. I remember when we got to be the team that played Illinois when he performed the ritual dance at halftime for the very last time. On ESPN news, they kinda made a light of it. But when they showed the crowd after he was done, you could see women and children crying. Not the Wade Boggs single-tear down the cheek. It was what I have heard described as "ugly crying." Convulsing, uncontrollable and it made me feel like I was seeing something intimate that wasn't supposed to be witnessed.

thesauce2424

April 9th, 2010 at 1:11 PM ^

So "Native Americans" whooping and hollering is a stereotype? I thought they actually did this sort of thing. Dammit. Seriously though. Why does everyone get their panties in a bunch over this? On a side note- Can you imagine what would happen if Notre Dame's name was The Fighting Africans? haha- I don't mean this to be racist..it's just ridiculous how sensitive everyone is.

dakotapalm

April 9th, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^

The amazing thing about this, is I wholeheartedly agree with the part you wrote about Chief Illiniwek, but my advisor at college was a huge activist for American Indian issues (being Italian-American himself) and REALLY celebrated when the Illiniwek mascot went away. He thought it was horribly inaccurate and offensive. I am part Osage, Choctaw, and Cherokee (in addition to English and German) and I thought he was nuts. Nice guy, though. Very kind and a good teacher.