Shouldn't NCAA ban "Fighting Irish" name?
With the Fighting Sioux nickname finally getting the axe (pun absolutely intended), shouldn't the NCAA look into banning the Fighting Irish name next? Stereotyping Native Americans as being aggressive and violent is just as bad as stereotyping Irish people as being aggressive and violent, right? We know this will never happen, but I think it is very interesting that people are always on a crusade about "offensive" Native American names yet the "Fighting" in ND's name is never questioned.
EDIT: I didn't get the point across that my beef is with the NCAA for changing North Dakota's name. I don't have a problem with the "Fighting Irish" name, I just have a problem with the double standard.
"caricature them and use their likenesses without their permission" but i made some fat cash doing exactly that.
April 13th, 2010 at 11:29 PM ^
Yeah but Indians got casinos and that sweet starring role in that commercial about not littering. So it's all square right???
The guy in that commercial was Italian! What a dong punch to us Indians...
April 13th, 2010 at 11:53 PM ^
Uh, if you'd watched hockey recently you'd know that the Fighting Sioux aren't a "shitty team."
April 14th, 2010 at 12:20 AM ^
You think the double standard is Ok??
What hypocrisy.
You apparently buy into all the politically correct victimology BS. You think the caricatures of Native Americans are racist but what about the caricatures of other ethnic groups??? Do you really think that all Irish-Americans are flattered by the caricature of a little Irish man with his dukes up?? Do you really think that all Scandinavian-Americans are flattered by the caricatures of war-like Vikiings with horned helmets and axes?? I suspect not. But they aren't easily offended by silly nicknames meant to HONOR them. They understand there are REAL issues to deal with. They also understand that being offended is a small price to pay for a free society.
As for all the BS about people taking Native American land to build Universities. Give me a friggin break. Do you really think that the entire hemisphere actually belongs to Native Americans and that other groups have no right to live here?? All throughout history, one group has invaded another group and taken land. Using your logic, all land is stolen and no universities should be built.
As for "attempted genocide," again give me a friggin break. There was no systematic attempt to completely eliminate Native Americans. Using your logic, almost all ethnic groups can claim "attempted genocide" at one point or another. The treatment of Native Americans was a huge atrocity but was not "attempted genocide." But that's beside the point. This history is not particularly relevant to the issue of school nicknames - they are meant to HONOR a group, not demean it.
Stop living in the past and start looking at people as individuals instead of racial groups.
April 14th, 2010 at 12:25 AM ^
Sigh...
April 14th, 2010 at 12:43 AM ^
that everything is so black and white to people like you.
context means nothing to you i guess. just that since two groups are represented by stereotyped mascots they are equally offensive.
yea the treatment of native americans was really comparable to that of irish people in this country.
maybe if you picked up a book once in a while you could read about such tragedies as the wounded knee massacre or the trail of tears. last i recall, millions of irish people weren't killed as the result of western settlers.
but go on with your "omg i'm tired of PC" bullshit
Have you been so utterly brainwashed by pc groupthink that you can't think for yourself?
How are the past misfortunes of different groups at all relevent to silly nicknames meant to HONOR these groups?
By the way, according to Wiki, about 45,000 Native Americans and 19,000 Whites were killed directly or indirectly in the Indian Wars over more than a century. The Irish Famine killed up to 1 million people over 5 years.
So please stop all the pc victimology BS.
calling their football teams ugly things these days?
I'm pretty sure that the potatoes are pissed about the Washington Redskins...
Oh wait...
people die due to man-made food shortages.
And you joke about it.
Ha, ha, ha....
I guess it's ok to laugh if it's not about a "disadvantaged minority."
April 17th, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^
that you're being completely disingenuous? you sound like you're 17 and have spent those years being vigorously lied to by people you trust.
And, of course, the Irish Famine was directed by the United States government, wasn't it?
your point is???
The US government fought a number of conflicts with Native Americans but did not have any formal policy to eradicate Native Americans. These conflicts were a natural and tragic result of a clash of different cultures, one nomadic and one agrarian, one more primitive and one more advanced.
90-95% of the decline in the Native American population was due to natural causes, namely infectious disease.
My point is that the Irish, and almost all other groups, have just as much right (probably more) to claim "victimhood" as Native Americans. But they don't live their lives as "victims."
"...but did not have any formal policy to eradicate Native Americans"
You mean EXCEPT for all the official formal policies to eradicate Native Americans? (http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide5.htm). SEE BELOW
"90-95% of the decline in the Native American population was due to natural causes, namely infectious disease."
Actually it was around 60%. The 90% figure is only for the area most hard hit by disease.
"The Americans:
In the early 18th century, the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey promoted a genocide of their local Natives by imposing a "scalp bounty" on dead Indians. "In 1703, Massachusetts paid 12 pounds for an Indian scalp. By 1723 the price had soared to 100 pounds." 10 Ward Churchill wrote: "Indeed, in many areas it [murdering Indians] became an outright business." 6 This practice of paying a bounty for Indian scalps continued into the 19th century before the public put an end to the practice. 10
In the 18th century, George Washington compared them to wolves, "beasts of prey" and called for their total destruction. 4 In 1814, Andrew Jackson "supervised the mutilation of 800 or more Creek Indian corpses" that his troops had killed. 6
Extermination of all of the surviving natives was urged by the Governor of California officially in 1851. 4 An editorial from the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, CO in 1863; and from the Santa Fe New Mexican in 1863 expressed the same sentiment. 6 In 1867, General William Tecumseh Sherman said, "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux [Lakotas] even to their extermination: men, women and children." 6 "
You're immune to reason.
You list a number of states which had policies encouraging the killing of Native Americans DURING a conflict with Native Americans. First of all, these are states not the US government as I indicated in my statement. Second of all, in most armed conflicts, there are policies which encourage the killing of adversaries.
You also list a number of statements by individuals but NO FORMAL US POLICY advocating the eradication of Native Americans.
You even admit that most of the decline (90-95% according to my sources) in the Native American population was due to natural causees.
These do not add up to "attempted genocide."
You even omit the barbarities committed by Native Americans. This included the uniform policy of murdering all prisoners who were not of value to them, the prolonged torture and even cannibalism of prisoners and the routine murder of women and children. These barbarities understandably encouraged anger toward Native Americans and even similar atrocities. This understandable anger included hateful anti-Native American declarations as you cited.
You omit instances where Whites were convicted and even executed for the murder of Native Americans. You also omit the attempts to assimilite Native Americans into US society - misguided and even grossly immoral efforts at times but not genocidal.
Were Native Americans victims of systematic cruelities and atrocities? Yes. But they weren't victims of genocide.
I would encourage you to use less arrogance and more balance and objectivity.
But I suspect this will fall on deaf ears.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
"...not the US government"
In the early 18th century there WAS no U.S. government, so yeah, they were silent on the issue at that time.
There is no better example of being brainwashed by groupthink than the argument that people who object to offensive and appropriated nicknames have been brainwashed by groupthink.
The truth is you don't want to understand the counterargument to your argument. You just want to discount any disagreement with your position as a simple case of PC victimology BS.
If you can't see why white people using white-invented names for and images of socially, economically, and forcibly subordinated dark skinned people is different from white people using names for and images of THEIR OWN GROUP, then I don't think anything I can say will change your mind.
would be impressed by your doublethink.
I'm advocating the non-pc independent view which is the exact opposite of pc groupthink. I think independently rather then spewing views that are spoonfed to me - unlike yourself.
To borrow a Jack Nicholson line, you can't handle the truth.
You're too caught up in your black and white, us versus them, view of the world to realize there are a lot of grays. It's not about "white people" and "dark skinned people." It's about human beings - whatever shade of tan they may be. Silly nicknames honoring any group of people are not inherently racist or wrong. Period. The small minority of people who are so caught up in "racial identities" that they are easily offended by these nicknames are ridiculous and society should not let their intolerance overrule the rest of society.
Thanks for the insight.
April 14th, 2010 at 10:34 AM ^
Maybe I shouldn't.... but what does the Irish potato famine have to do with any of this?
April 14th, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^
It was a few more than 45,000 all in all... you are off by a factor of 400. While the exact number is in dispute, it ain't 45,000.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide5.htm
Here's an academic analysis of the subject:
http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
90-95% of the decline in the Native American population was due to natural causes, most notable infectious disease. While there were conflicts between Europeans and Native Americans, the indirect and direct deaths from these conflicts numbered in the tens of the thousands (Wiki gives an estimate of 45,000 Native American deaths from American-Indian wars). At the same time, about 19,000 Europeans died in these conflicts - including many women and children and many horribly tortured or murdered when taken prisoner. This was a tragic clash of civilizations, with atrocities on both sides, but there was no "attemped genocide" and no formal US policy to eradicate Native Americans.
Available data doesn't even remotely support the labeling of these conflicts as "genocide" under the UN Genocide Convention.
in north dakota's case i think they should keep their nickname for the reasons most have mentioned.
i took issue with your comparison of scandanvian, irish, etc mascots with many native american mascots that some do find offensive, and your justifying that with saying that the treatment of irish people and native americans were comparable.
45,000? wow, just please properly educate yourself.
and yes the founders of this country were at fault for the irish famine
See my last above post and educate yourself.
Along with being Native American, I'm also an Historian. There was attempted genocide, you are wrong. Train of tears, blankets laced with small pox, 7th calvary killing all members of villages. Those are examples (ie proof). Why do you think they put bounties on buffalo? To take away our food supply, thus killing us!
Pssst... that's attempted genocide.
April 14th, 2010 at 10:47 AM ^
Ahem, "trail" of tears.
My second to last post above and educate yourself.
Or just read the following academic analysis:
http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
There were numerous atrocities on both sides. 90-95% of the decline in the Native American population was due to natural causes, most notably infectious disease.
A good historian tries to be objective.
The article you cite says:
"It is thought that between 75 to 90 percent of all Indian deaths resulted from these killers." (disease)
and
"Still, even if up to 90 percent of the reduction in Indian population was the result of disease, that leaves a sizable death toll caused by mistreatment and violence. Should some or all of these deaths be considered instances of genocide?"
Yet you continue to say 90-95%. Objective indeed!
There was another source that gave the 90-95% number. Incomplete data makes it impossible for any number to be precise. Whatever number one uses, it is clear that the decline in the Native American population was mainly due to natural causes and not genocide.
The article does go on to look at the accepted definition of genocide and concludes that genocide did not occur.
But we're splitting hairs here.
The historical treatment of Native Americans was criminal and heinous.
Going back to the original issue - it seems reasonable to routinely let students vote on whether to keep a disputed nickname. If it fails because it's stupid, silly or in poor taste (which most ethnic nicknames are), then change it. But don't let a vocal few intolerant individuals decide.
I think it would be more precise to describe the U.S. government's goal to have been "ethnic cleansing" rather than "genocide." The government was most interested in the land. Whether the Indians lived or died after the takeover was of secondary importance.
April 13th, 2010 at 11:57 PM ^
Tell me you don't see a difference in the portrayals here...
Plus, the decendents of nordic peoples in this country weren't hunted, slaughtered, and herded onto reservations. The Irish had a hard time getting a job... Indians had 97% of their land taken away. Methinks we're earned the right to be sensitive.
If a school wants to honor my (admittedly small percentage) ancestors in a respectful way in conjunction with the local tribe, then that's cool with me. But I don't think it's asking a lot that they not be mocked as savages.
Plus, the decendents of nordic peoples in this country weren't hunted, slaughtered, and herded onto reservations. The Irish had a hard time getting a job... Indians had 97% of their land taken away. Methinks we're earned the right to be sensitive.
If a school wants to honor my (admittedly small percentage) ancestors in a respectful way in conjunction with the local tribe, then that's cool with me. But I don't think it's asking a lot that they not be mocked as savages.April 14th, 2010 at 12:01 AM ^
thank you
April 14th, 2010 at 12:45 AM ^
examples does not prove a point. The Cleveland Indian mascot is goofy but so is the Fighting Irish mascot. Many Native American mascots are similar to the Viking mascot you chose. I also suspect some Viking mascots are not as dignified. Your examples suggest that some goofy mascots should be changed but does not suggest that all ethnic nicknames should be banned.
As for the Irish, they suffered terribly at the hands of the English who basically settled this country - the "potato famine" wasn't a natural event but an English-made event. Your claim that Indians had 97% of their land taken is pure BS unless you buy the idea that only Native Americans have a right to live in this hemisphere - they didn't even believe in land ownership. Sure, Scandinavians escaped attack for the most part - mainly because they lived in a frigid wasteland that nobody wanted to invade. But all this talk about victimhood is irrelevant. Whether one's ancestors suffered shouldn't confer any special rights. It especially isn't relevent when nicknames are used to HONOR a group - there's no mockery intended.
context, baby. after the Irish were done suffering at the hands of the English, many of them attended Notre Dame and participated in the creation of the mascot. it has evident acceptance amongst many of the Irish Catholics i've met and unless i'm very much mistaken there's almost no outrage from the Irish who immigrated here and their descendants. additionally, afaik, no one in Ireland cares at all what an American university's football mascot is named. aren't we agreed that an ethnic group can appropriate its own name however it pleases? and isn't that what's at issue? like Marlo says: my name is my name. there are plenty of actual Native Americans who take issue with the idea that who they are should be appropriated for profit. if we can't even own our names, what kind of property rights are there?
by the same logic, if nobody is taking issue, then there isn't a problem. but i'm guessing since there's a dude in this thread who takes issue and with sufficient anger, that's probably a decent indication of where things stand there.
as for this idea that it's done "in honor" of the group in question, doesn't the honoree have a say in what's in his honor? if you're really honoring something, you care about what they think of the honor. which is what makes the Cleveland Indians mascot so evidently not about honor. beyond that though, have you ever seen Peter Pan? have you ever read any Rudyard Kipling? where do you honestly think folks from 1850-1950 were on the scale of racist to not racist? "Noble savage" isn't the highest honor you can bestow on someone, believe that.
Thank you...
April 14th, 2010 at 10:49 AM ^
Agreed on all counts, but you're wasting your time.
I think most people are in agreement that the Sioux are not opposed to the mascot and the NCAA rules that force that particular mascot change are unfortunate. That said, please stop the stupid meme that most American Indian nicknames are used as an honor. The Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians were not named as an honor.
People who complain about political correctness seem to think that there's no common sense about respecting others opinions and that you have to change as soon as one person complains in order to be PC.
Here's how it works: for the Vikings--if Vikings were making a big stink about the nickname then I'd probably support changing the nickname as well. However, they're not so I don't care. Ditto the Fighting Irish. There are a decent number of American Indians who are offended by many of the mascots; fine, I think about it and judge that it's reasonable that they're offended, so I think that the mascots should be removed (in a reasonable way that allows the Seminoles to remain the Seminoles since apparently they're not offended).
I agree with you that we shouldn't have a double standard. But seriously dude, what hardships have Norwegian Americans endured? Of course you don't get offended, your people didn't experience life in the US the same way as somebody of, Sioux or Chippewa heritage.
April 13th, 2010 at 11:00 PM ^
and I couldn't care less. Kind of like how most Native Americans really don't care, and even prefer to be called Indians (Learned that one in History class when the GSI saw the obvious effort to use "Native Americans" in out essays).
Honestly, only a few people really care about most of these cases. I'm pretty sure that the Trojans wouldn't care if they found out that thousands of years later, their namesake would be a widespread mascot, and I don't think most modern groups, be it Seminoles, Irish, or whatever, really care that much either. There are obvious exceptions to this, but particularly in cases such as Florida State or North Dakota, I really don't see why there should be an upheaval over something like this.
Maybe I'm just not easily offended and don't perceive why other people are. I did grow up bullied, and I do make fun of French people despite part French. Honestly though, if I started a civilization, I would find it quite awesome to be mascotted so long as I wasn't made out like the Cleveland Indians (Which would be one of those aforementioned exceptions).
Edit: Also, for the record, I am part Native American as well as German. I have no idea what kind of ratios I have going or what else there is on due to my family's history of not caring about their spouses race, but at minimum I know that a couple generations up on my dad's side there were some German immigrants, a French explorer, and a Native American woman involved.
So, exactly what proof do you have that the people caricatured as mascots don't really care about these mascots? Besides your own opinion of course.
April 14th, 2010 at 10:18 AM ^
The fact that the tribes have, where they could do so, voted to allow them to keep their mascots, maybe?
April 14th, 2010 at 10:37 AM ^
Also, because as far as I'm aware, all of the tribes involved in the NCAA actions have actually wanted the name of the tribe used.
Shouldn't NCAA ban "Fighting Irish" name?
Works for me
It's true. As an american of Dutch descent, I am offended by the Hope College "Dutchman" mascot. The way he's tall and stingy and uses all kinds of coupons every time he goes to Aldi seems incredibly racist and insensitive.
/s, but as far as the Fighting Irish or native american mascots, shouldn't this just be taken on a case by case basis? Some are maybe more offensive than others, but I would think that most of the time people who hear one of these nicknames or attend of these schools rarely think about the implications of them. It's important to be careful, but it's also possible to be too careful. People are getting a little too sensitive these days.
Amen Block M. These people bitching about mascot names or some posters claiming they are offended because they are of irish,indian,nordic, whatever else American. Most if not all are at least 5 generations removed from their "mother" land and only claim to be whatever they are on holidays or when they are offended on behalf of their people. Let me get this straight because you are 15% indian you speak on behalf of all indian tribes? What does the other 85% of you think? So relax Chief He-Who-Sits-On-High horse and believe me when I tell you when I see an Indian mascot I don't think, look at that blood crazed indian,I see only the mascot of Cleveland's baseball team.
"relax Chief He-Who-Sits-On-High horse"
Yeah, we should all be as open-minded and grounded as you are. Clearly you have no racial/cultural biases directed at Native Americans. I love when the case for one side in a debate is made so clearly and unambiguously by the other side...
Honestly I don't and yeah I agree that was maybe a bit much. Both my parents were adopted so I honestly don't know my cultural background and everyone asks me don't I want to know what I am? My question is, is it that big of a deal? To me it is not but I guess had I known what I was from the start maybe there would be a stronger bond to that culture.
I am generations away from the "motherlands" but I take great pride in my ancestry and I don't think that is foolish or phony. I appreciate that it isn't important to you but that is you and you shouldn't assume that how you feel about something is how everyone should feel. I think if we all step back from the hyperbole we might be better able to accept that when someone says that they are offended by something, they just might genuinely and legitimately be offended.
I was hoping it wouldn't come to this. There are so many jacked up things about what you said. 1st) I am very much an Indian and involved in my native community. 2nd) your "chief he who.... is so ill informed it makes by want to break your face. 3rd) if all you think of is the Cleveland Indians mascot, does that not pose a problem to you?
Please talk about a subject in which you are more educated, because this 1 isn't your forte...