Captain's Quarters -

Actually the game most commonly played by the tribes to the west was a lot closer to Jai Lai

I think the "Fighting Sioux" is the coolest college mascot in the country.

The "Banana Slugs" is pretty good too.

So the U of M will take a stand on principle unless it takes a toll on their pocketbook, in which case their high-minded ideals get sold the the first bidder.

I've never really understood the depth of objections to team names. Every team hopes to be a winner so they pick a name that inspires. Isn't that a compliment? Remember the Baltimore Bullets basketball team? When you think basketball and then bullet it isn't much of a leap to come up with speed and precision but, no, people might think death and destruction so we've got to change the name. They picked the Wizards. So, do they use trickery and magic spells when they play? Too silly by far.

I think that being in the same conference for hockey as North Dakota (the WCHA) might have something to do with the decision too. Not playing them in hockey would be akin to deciding not to play Purdue in Football -- awfully hard to do while still a member of the Big 10.

Wait till PETA has them try to abolish animal names.

Actually, lacrosse was brought west by the Ojibway and was the dominent game of the plains Indians, other than stealing horses and counting coup.

It's an honor, not a slur. Besides, bad things happen to teams that discard this heritage. I point to Syracuse Orange Football as an example.

An Orange.

There are way too many people looking for grievances in this world. Our laughable Congress and the Armenian Genocide resolution come to mind. On the heels of the Japanese Comfort Woman resolution. Let's just pass the "I condemn everything bad ever, even if we weren't involved" resolution.

We pay these people.

Glad to hear they no longer play in the Big Ten then, which also includes the University of Illinois Fighting Illini.

Oh wait, you mean that might cost then two nickels? They might stay in the Big Ten then.

Retread:
"I've never really understood the depth of objections to team names."

How would you feel if a soccer team in Germany was named the "Fighting Jews"?

Sorry, Dave, but our Minnesota pro team is the Vikings, and there are hundreds of high school team using the same team name/mascot. I'm a full-blooded Norwegian, and I'm proud of the salute. Most folks with Irish roots are darned proud of the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame. Don't get your shorts in a bunch about nearly everything.

pro football team, that is

You folks don't understand how hurtful it is to have sports teams named after your people.

Night after painful night my family shed tears on our pillows when we think about the egregious wrong the Minnesota Vikings is inflicting on my culture.

Vikings? We're Lutherans, darn it!!

We invented fruit suspended in jello (you're welcome).

On behalf of all flaxen-haired Scandinavian Americans, I beseech you to consider our precious, delicate feelings and stop this shameful practice.

Mark F and Swede:
If you think that the history between the Europeans that came to North America and the Norwegians or Irish is comparable to the history between those same Europeans and Native Americans, then you should start reading some more history books.

Dave,

You are missing Captain's point. The University of Minnesota agrees with you, except where it may cost them money. Where it might cost them money they throw their ethics aside and go for the dough.

You should be mad at them. Why aren't you?

dave,

Agree, but complaining about the name of a college sports team isn't exactly placing oneself at Wounded Knee, either.

I wonder if the college tried to gain the cooperation and approval of the tribe. Worked for the Florida State Seminoles.

And Fighting Sioux isn't even in the same league (literally or figuratively) of my local team, the Washington Redskins.

That's really beyond the pale(face).

Yompkee:
In my first post, I was addressing Retread, not the University of Minnesota. I agree with the U of M's decision not to use Native American references for team names. Most people that visit this site, including Retread, Mark F, and Swede, probably do not, and I was addressing them. I would also disagree with German using Jews as a mascot, but I try not to by hypocritical.
I do disagree with the U of M decision to make an exception in hockey, but unfortunately, besides our country being totally devoid of compassion and empathy, we are also dominated by the pursuit of money.

NoDonkey:
I don't know about the Seminole case. If the corresponding tribe agrees to something in a democratic way by reaching some sort of agreement, I would probably feel differently.

CE. Not just successfull at Hockey...How about Grapplin'? IIRC didn't U of Minn win the NCAA Championship?

While I think the "Indians" or worse, the "Redskins" are really crass and should be changed, what is wrong with the "Fighting Sioux"? Yeah Native Americans were treated very poorly in the past Dave, thanks for a moralizing history lession in the obvious. But so what? The Irish were treated pretty damn bad too. What does that have to do with anything? The team name, like the US Army's naming of it's helicopters, is an honor, not an insult.

"besides our country being totally devoid of compassion and empathy"

Right...and how much money did Americans donate to charity after 9/11, the Indian Ocean Tsunami, and Katrina?

Google "charitable donations by country" and please spare you self further beclownment by making such asinine statements.

Dave,

So, if the teams are named after whitey, it's A-OK.

If they're named after injuns, that's bad and reflects how "totally devoid of compassion and empathy" our nation is.

Gotcha.

I bet you're a blast at parties.

NoDonkey, am I the only resident (former) of DC who remembers that the small hamlet (well, small once upon a time) where the present Washington football stadium now sits is Savage, Maryland? Perhaps they should change their name appropriately to the "Savage Redskins?" :-)

Wonder if USC will have to dispense with the Trojan Helmet -- seems the Trojans were part of present-day Turkey, thus guilty by extension of being part of the Armenian Massacre. Perhaps, in order to be more PC, and more in line with the California liberal agenda, USC should dispense with the helmet and have their mascot dress up as a giant prophylactic instead?

BTW Shyster, You can knock off the hypocritical flow of crocodile tears. Nobody here is buying it.

By any definition of “country”, the USA is not “yours”. You and your commie pals are not part of this country: You are her enemies. I only regret the “dogs of war” will not be unleashed on you and your kind before I retire…when they are, though, I’d gladly volunteer to come back to active duty for the privilege. Even broken down, grey and with cane this swabbie could still take out you and any two or three of your commie pals…when I run out of canes, I’ll gum you to death.

Perhaps you didn’t realize that Minnesota was a member of the WCHA? If you had known that, you (hopefully) wouldn’t have made the accusation you made about money driving the decision. The Universities of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa all have the same policy of not voluntarily scheduling any non-conference games with teams having race-based ‘Indian’ team nicknames. Both Wisconsin and Minnesota are in the same hockey league (WCHA) as North Dakota and therefore play North Dakota only in that one sport just as they play Illinois (“Illini”) only in those sports where they share Big Ten membership. Iowa canceled a non-conference baseball game with Bradley (“braves”) a year ago when it discovered a coach had erred in scheduling the game. A new Wisconsin coach did similarly regarding track with Arkansas State University (“Indians’); upon discovery, Arkansas State was informed it would not be invited as long as it kept its racial nickname and was turned down for a football game request. A news article in an Arkansas newspaper said “Another ‘W’ for Wisconsin” after Arkansas State announced that ASU was eliminating their race-based nickname.
If money drove the decision, then Minnesota would play UND in most sports because costs are lower due to close proximity and higher fan attendance (and revenues) for games against neighboring states.
You referred to this as being “political correctness” but it’s really a matter of “ethical correctness” and “educational correctness” from the standpoint that these race-based sports nicknames have been determined to be psychologically harmful to American Indian students. Empirical research has determined that they lower the self-esteem, reduce community efficacy, and reduces the number of future-selves that American Indian students have upon exposure to these race-based sports representations. Research has determined that psychological impact is at the subconscious level as indicated by the fact that American Indians who support ‘Indian’ sports nicknames actually suffer the greatest psychological harm, even more than those who oppose these racial nicknames. This is why the rationalization that “some American Indians support the nickname” is meaningless since they actually are harmed the most and don’t realize it.
Research also has determined that exposure to ‘Indian’ nickname/logos actually raises the self-esteem of European Americans. This helps explain why so many European Americans have difficulty understanding why American Indians oppose these race-based sports representations because the self-esteem “boost” experienced by European Americans makes it hard for them to understand how American Indians could have a different experience.
Moreover, the fact that the race-based policy targeting American Indians benefits the majority race (higher self-esteem for European Americans) while harming the targeted minority group (lower self-esteem for American Indians) is de facto evidence that the race-based policy is a discriminatory university policy based on race. All public schools are required by law to have and enforce a policy of non-discrimination based on race, national origin, etc. Yet, here we have a government agency (UND is a state university) with an official policy based on race (i.e., their “Fighting Sioux” athletic nickname policy) targeting a particular protected minority group (American Indians) where there’s established empirical evidence (that has even been replicated and has never been contradicted) documenting that this race-based policy harmfully discriminates against the targeted minority group.
Most people have become desensitized to using American Indians for sports nicknames due to almost daily exposure on the sports newscasts (Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, the high school ‘Indian’ nicknames). Even some American Indians have become desensitized by the constant media exposure. There is no way American society would tolerate a race-based North Dakota nickname of the “Fighting Zulus” with the profile of a Black person as the logo. While most people don’t give second thought to the many predominately-White high school teams with an Indian head logo and called “chiefs” or “chieftains”, those same people immediately see the inappropriateness of that school using a Hmong head logo or a Zulu head logo for their race-based “chieftains” nickname. How long would the Kansas City Chiefs get by using African Americans or Asian Americans for their race-based nickname? How long would we tolerate the Washington Blackskins or Washington Yellowskins?

Captain Ed - As I recall, hockey is the ONLY sport that North Dakota competes at Div I level, all other sports are Div II. In other words, about the only opportunity that Minnesota would compete against North Dakota, in any sport, would be in hockey.

Makes the pronouncement toothless, doesn't it?

dave,

"In response to the NCAA's proclamation that Native American names and logos will not be permitted by its member institutions unless the namesake tribe concurs, both the 3,100-member Seminole Tribe of Florida and the 6,000-member Seminole Nation of Oklahoma have officially approved the relationship and the details of the images used."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminole_(tribe)

So the Seminoles tribes themselves agreed to Florida State's use of the Seminole name, which is why there will always be a Florida State Seminole team.

I'm not sure why the school wasn't able to make a similar agreement with the Sioux. The story doesn't say.

Bah. Alabama-Huntsville will wipe the ice with both of 'em.

"these race-based sports nicknames have been determined to be psychologically harmful to American Indian students. Empirical research has determined that they lower the self-esteem, reduce community efficacy, and reduces the number of future-selves that American Indian students have upon exposure to these race-based sports representations."

Jesus Christ. Do you get light headed from being that big of a bleeding heart?

Oh and the whole bit about how "Research has determined that psychological impact is at the subconscious level as indicated by the fact that American Indians who support ‘Indian’ sports nicknames actually suffer the greatest psychological harm, even more than those who oppose these racial nicknames."

That's a load of psuedo-scientific twaddle. False-consciousness is and always was an ideology designed to rationalize away empirical reality.

The "Fighting Zulus" bothers you?

Is it because Zulus are black?

And black people shouldn't be sports mascots?

I bet you're the kind of person who walks into a room and sees a (fill in your favorite minority person) and the first thing you think of is "I hope I don't say or do anything that might offend this person".

Of course, when that same (fill in your favorite minority person) sees you, the first thing he (yes, I'm a sexist, too) thinks is "I hope that waiter comes over here to take my order".

Jason:

"But so what? The Irish were treated pretty damn bad too."

Again, the analogy that fits the situation of Native Americans more closely than the Irish is the Jews. If the Germans names a team the "Fighting Jews", would you object or not?

"and how much money did Americans donate to charity after 9/11, the Indian Ocean Tsunami, and Katrina?"

As a percentage of income, Americans give less to charity than just about every other nation in the world. I have shown this fact very clearly before at CQ. Here is the analogy: If you give $100 to charity in a year, and Bill Gates gives $200, who is being more generous and compassionate? When comparing charitable donations between countries, statistics are usually given as a percentage of GDP. In that case, the US comes out last. I know you will disagree, so pick a table, or event, whatever, and I will show you. Also, the same is true for classes within a country. As a percentage of income, poor people are always more generous than rich people.

Swede:
If there was a team was named "whitey", it still would not be a comparable situation, and you should be able to see that. Things like this are about power. White males are in power. If white males choose to call themselves names, that is wholly different (although still wrong) than white males calling African Americans "niggers". In the same way, an African American calling another African American a "nigger" is also different than a white male doing so. This might be hard for you to understand, because you are in the position of power, and also have no empathy.

Swabjockey:

"I only regret the “dogs of war” will not be unleashed on you and your kind before I retire."

Who says you're going to retire? What about "stop loss"? We are in a war that will not end in our lifetime. Who says you will retire in yours?

NoDonkey:
Thanks for the info, but Gunderso changed my mind. Even if there is an agreement, as in the case of the Seminoles, I do not agree with their name being used. (Nice post, Gunderso).

coldwarrior,

I believe the Burgandy and Gold (as many PC individuals in this town refer to them as), currently occupy a reservation in Landover, Maryland. But that could be Savage, Maryland.

Besides the fact that the late Jack Kent Cook put that stadium in a really unpleasant area of Maryland, rather than in the District (his swatting the butt of then Mayor Sharon Pratt soured the deal for the RFK Site), FedEx Field is an ugly stadium.
Which you have to slog through two hours of traffic each way to get to.

So the Burgundy and Gold are perhaps cursed by their unfortunate moniker. Which would explain being saddled by an owner like Dan Snyder.

NoDonkey,

..."reservation" in Landover...

Pun unintended, right?

Dave,

How's your back doing?

Carrying around all of that burdensome guilt has GOT to be heavy.

But SOMEBODY has to do it, right?

coldwarrior,

At the Landover, Maryland Reservation, Chief Dan Snyder scalps palefaces 30 wampum to park, 10 wampum for a large cup of warm firewater and at least 75 wampum for entry to see the great battle.

So it's good to see that the Native Americans are finally getting theirs.

Swede:

"I bet you're a blast at parties."

If your parties are all about comparing the history of Native Americans to the history of Norwegians, they don't sound like much fun to me. I go to different kinds of parties than you do.

"Carrying around all of that burdensome guilt..."

I do not feel guilty about what happened to Native Americans. I was not part of that. I feel empathy. Do you know what the differences are between different emotions? Do you have any? (Besides anger, that is).

Actually, if it somehow makes you feel better, I do feel a lot of guilt about what the US is doing in the world today, because in that case I am responsible, and I know I will never do enough to stop it.

Swede:
Besides anger, I should have mentioned fear as well. You can't be a good patriot or Republican without fear. I am sure you know that emotion.

"Again, the analogy that fits the situation of Native Americans more closely than the Irish is the Jews."

No I was referring to the way the Irish were treated in America idiot. They called them paddy-wagons for a reason.

As for your continuing ignorance about American generosity:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm

Americans give more than twice as much as any other country in the world AS A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR GDP.

Lefty fantasies dies hard, don't they?

Dave,

Unfortunately, I don't throw a lot of parties. And since I'm not Norwegian, if I did throw a party I would not compare the history of Native Americans to the history of Norwegians.

We can both agree that doesn't sound like a lot of fun.

" Do you know what the differences are between different emotions? Do you have any? (Besides anger, that is)"

No and no. Could you explain them ALL to me? Please? C'mon, you know you're dying to!

I'm filled with anger, Dave, because..you see..my mommy and daddy didn't show me any affection..and it makes me..feel sad inside. I'm a..a victim, Dave..and I need your empathy. You're all about victims, right Dave?

And Dave, I know you don't like yourself very much right now, because of all the awful things America is doing in the world today. And on that I agree with you. I don't like you very much, either.

Mark F and Swede:
Mark, you wrote “I'm a full-blooded Norwegian, and I'm proud of the salute.” I’m sorry to inform you that you shouldn’t feel too honored about that. First, you’re not a Viking. And you never have been. The Vikings no longer exist. The Viking era ended in 1100 a.d., 900 years ago. While you may be a descendant of Vikings, the Viking culture is no longer practiced. The Minnesota team is named after an extinct culture, not a living culture. If the team was called the Minnesota Norwegians, then your comments would have some relevance. In contrast, American Indians still exist with their various cultures.

Swede, if the team was called the Minnesota Swedes, then your comments would have some relevance, but it just makes you look like you don’t realize the history of your own people for you to facetiously claim offense. I also am a proud flaxen-haired Scandinavian (but of 100% Norwegian heritage), and I’d think you’d realize that you are many generations removed from being a Viking. Shocking! Also, your use of a racial slur toward American Indians says much about you.

To Coldwarrior415, the Trojans are also extinct (as are the Spartans) like the Vikings.

To Mark F, as Notre Dame acknowledges, the Notre Dame’s “Irish” nickname differs because it represents “self-naming” based on the ethnicity of the University’s early football team and student body. Naming a team after your own ethnicity (like the Boston Celtics based on Boston’s Irish population) is quite different from predominately non-Native communities which adopt ‘Indian’ nicknames when few or none of the community or team members are American Indians.

"Besides anger, I should have mentioned fear as well. You can't be a good patriot or Republican without fear. I am sure you know that emotion."

Say, isn't this the part where you tell me I should enlist or something?

Gunderso, you completely discredited yourself with you comment about how Native Americans who don't object to such team names are the ones hurt worst by them. That is so much more degrading and offensive than a sports team name could ever be. You are denying them autonomy and intelligence as individuals. You are saying that they don't know, the can't know what they are talking about. Only white academics know what's best for them, despite their protestations to the contrary.

"Swede, if the team was called the Minnesota Swedes, then your comments would have some relevance, but it just makes you look like you don’t realize the history of your own people for you to facetiously claim offense. I also am a proud flaxen-haired Scandinavian (but of 100% Norwegian heritage), and I’d think you’d realize that you are many generations removed from being a Viking. Shocking! Also, your use of a racial slur toward American Indians says much about you."

Well, at least you got the facetious part right. Thanks.

And the fact that you are standing in the saddle of your high horse on Mount Holier-than-thou says much about you.

Gunderso, you must have a Ph.D., because you surely Piled it High and Deep. I just ran your post by my Ph.D. clinical psychologist cousin, who has Native American relatives, and he's still laughing. So, just how does that work, Indian team names raising the self-esteem of European-Americans? And does the negative impact of the Minnesota Vikings severely traumatize Swede and me, and maybe you, if your name is Gunderson? And is there a positive effect on the self-esteem of Indians, Hispanics and Asian-Americans when a team is named for Europeans, such as Vikings, Fighting Irish, Celtics?

When you attack the opinions held by those Indians/Native Americans who are either proud of Indian team names, or not opposed to them, you are patronizing them. You are saying they aren't smart enough to know what is good for them. Of my Indian friends (and they prefer the term Indians), only one agrees with you on Indian team/mascot names.

I used to hold opinions much like yours. Then I spent some time with an Anishinabe (Ojibwa/Chippewa, if you prefer) elder. He taught me to cut and polish gemstones, and craft settings for them. He also shook some sense into me. He had no time for bleeding hearts. He was fiercely proud of his heritage, and he resented the patronizing.

Gunderso, I should have addressed your suggestion about using the Zulu Nation for a team symbol. And let us call them symbols or totems, which properly addresses the respect involved, not a diminuition of. My kinsman, Bishop Hans P.S. Schreuder, was the Norwegian missionary who opened the Protestant missions in the Zululand. You can read about him in the stories of the Zulu War, and about the Zulu Nation. Schreuder loved that proud people and they loved him. I know a great deal about the Zulus, and I am certain they would be honored if a team were named IN THEIR HONOR.

dave,

actually, you are right. The Fighting Jews is a really bad team name, isn't it?

Think Warsaw ghetto, the Resistance, Israel. Who lost in the end? Last I saw, it was Germany.

Remember, team names always are of those who seemingly lost the battle, not those who won. Think trojans, lions, devils (well, in some cases, the devil still wins, right?), ducks, cubs, bears, bruins, anteaters, banana slugs, pirates, spartans, irishmen, scotsmen, vikings, packers, dodgers, boars, patriots.

Gunderso, I'm reminded of "The Princess Bride" with regards your use of the word "empirical."

"I do not think it means what you think it means."

In science, we reserve the term "empirical" for hard data, ie measurements. You show me a consistent, accurate, quantitative measurement of self-esteem and I'll start petitioning Stockholm for your Nobel. Until then, could you please kindly knock it off with wrapping pseudoscientific pap in the mantle of that which measurably extends lives on a daily basis? Thanks in advance.

Gunderso:

First you say that Indians who don't oppose the use of Indian names for team mascots are irreperably damaged. Then you say it's okay if they choose to use the names themselves. Could you at least make up your mind?

I can't believe that Dave hasn't taken Jason to task for using the phrase "Indian Ocean Tsunami." How offensive! It obviously should be referrred to as the Native American Ocean.

I used to live near a large Indian reservation and worked with a lot of Indians. Many preferred to be called Indians. Some preferred Native American. A lot didn't really care. But most found the liberal white obssession with the issue of what Indians should be called amusing.

One need look no farther than the Carlisle Indian School to see what happens when liberal do-gooders make decisions regarding Indians. And also show that one can actually get back at the liberals.

The US Army Cavalry Post at Carlisle was ordered closed in the late 1800's because the locals protested that the military exercises causes noise and dust and interfered with local church activities, and the presence of a military post was an affront.

When approached by a former Indian Agent, a devout Baptist, who had been involved in the St. Augustine imprisonment of Plains Indians, the locals, mostly Quaker, agreed that an Indian School at Carlisle would be a better use of the military post.

That school, the first Indian School in America, forever changed the American Indians.

The children taken from their families and tribes, were required to get civilized haircuts, were punished for singing Indian songs, forced to wear surplus army dress uniforms, required to polish their brass buttons or face severe punishments, were required to engage in in a host of activities that were far removed from their traditions, and were thusly "civilized."

Under the the theme of Carlisle, "Kill the Indian, Save the Man," Indians at Carlisle had to throw away their traditions, be indoctrinated by Quakers, Baptists and other do-gooders in Carlisle, and punished if they exhibitied any sort of Indian pride.

Funny thing, though, and "a propos" to this thread, the students at Carlisle re-named their school newspaper from "Indian Helper" (circa 1879) to "The Red Man." (circa 1900) and their sports teams in the earliest days of the 20th Century actually did more than any other school in America to popularize collegiate sport.

The games between Carlisle and a host of eastern "white schools" to include West Point, gained their enormous national popularity across America as pitched battles between the savages and the civilized, and advertised as such.

Their strongest coach who guided them to victory after victory against almost all opponents?

Pop Warner.

The official name of the school's team, chosen by the players?

The Carlisle Indians.

And based on the popularity and success of Pop Warner's team, colleges across America adopted Indian names, not to be derogative, but to show pride in accomplishment or hoped for prowess on the football field of battle.

Jason:
The data that you cite from USA Today relates to personal contributions, most of which is aid given to charities which aid people within the respective countries. Comparing aid of this type between the US and European countries is misleading. Citizens of European countries pay very high taxes compared to the US, who in turn operate as welfare state, and do much charitable work that the US government does not. I may give $10 in a bar to pay for little Jimmy’s operation because the US government will not. This counts as “philanthropic” charity for Charities Aid Foundation. Europeans do not give this $10, and don’t have to, because their government pays for the operation, and the citizen’s end up paying more than the $10 through their taxes. The Economist prints a table similar to the USA Today’s stats, but notes that “…the extra percentage point of its GDP that [American] individuals deposit in rattling tins hardly reflects the much lighter taxes they pay. Most in Europe already show solidarity by financing reasonably comprehensive welfare states…”

economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8706286

Statistics can be deceiving to those who do not pay attention.

Looking at foreign aid is a more fair way to judge charitable giving. In that case, you find the US at the bottom (see 2nd graph here, with orange bars):|

globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs

As I said, the poor give more than the rich. Within the US this translates into the red states being more charitable than the blue, since the blue states have more money. You can be happy about that:

csmonitor.com/2004/1222/p15s01-ussc.html

The best player for the Fighting Sioux this year is an Ojibway Indian named TJ Oshie. Apparently he isn't too bothered by the nickname.

Dave, I'd stipulate that if Gov't is robbing me blind (you seem to dignify it with the name "taxation;" maybe I'm just old-fashioned) and then using its ill-gotten gains to alleviate poverty elsewhere, that is no charity. That's Billy the Kid trying to be Robin Hood so's to salve a guilty conscience.

Kindred spirits?

You know, all this sounds very familiar. UND had a dust-up with NCAA last year over the "Fighting Sioux". I seem to recall reading that UND had the permission of the local tribe to use the name (I remembered a letter from UND to NCAA that hit the blogs last year). The letter is here

A relevant excerpt:

Although we thought it strange – perverse actually – to assume guilt until innocence was proven, or at least objectively indicated, we offered the facts that (1) our nearest Sioux Tribe gave us written permission (which still stands despite repeated attempts by the NCAA staff itself and other nickname opponents to ask the Tribal Council to rescind its resolution) to use the name; (2) we have overfour hundred American Indian students going to school here, many of whom are just fine with the nickname and none of whom would be here if the environment were really hostile and abusive; (3) it was reported to you, directly by the Chair of the Tribal Council Judicial Committee that, at the only other Sioux Reservation based in North Dakota, a district-by-district referendum resulted in nearly unanimous support for UND’s use of the Sioux nickname; and, (4) the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education spent a week here investigating earlier “hostile environment” charges made by our local nickname opposition group – and made no such finding – as clear indications that our handling of the nickname is in no way hostile and abusive.

I don't know if anything has changed since then, but if not, it sounds as though UND has permission.

I tell ya...what he needs is a good "gumming to death".

"and then using its ill-gotten gains to alleviate poverty elsewhere, that is no charity."

Foreign aid doesn't "allieviate poverty" even, it overwhelmingly enables corrupt and incompetent governments to purchase Mercedes, build palaces and hand out bribes.

Which is why Americans would rather give to charities they know and trust, rather than send tax money to Washington, where it's filtered through dimwitted bureaucrats, before it ultimately reaches third world thieves.

Mark F:

"I just ran your post by my Ph.D. clinical psychologist cousin, who has Native American relatives, and he's still laughing. So, just how does that work, Indian team names raising the self-esteem of European-Americans?"

My wife is a Social Psychologist, and she had a much different response than your cousin. The response of laughing shows a lot about both his education and his character. Your cousin must not have read a lot about social efficacy and social hierarchy. Have him read Sidanius or Pratto.

"The response of laughing shows a lot about both his education and his character"

For those of us who aren't Social Psychologists or aren't married to one, please explain what this means. And please use small words so that we can understand.

"Your cousin must not have read a lot about social efficacy and social hierarchy"

Let's hope not.

We have a term for people who oppose the use of Indian names for sports teams:

Idiots.

Teams are generally named after examples of fighting prowess, be it human (Spartans, Trojans, Indians, Vikings, for example) or animals (Lions, Tigers, Bears). Other examples are whimsical names (Red Sox, White Sox) or locally themed names (Yankees, Steelers, Saints). Sometimes, you will have names fit in more than one category (Patriots, Buckeyes).

The common thread is that the name is an honor. People don't name sports teams after things they don't like or respect. This is why, in spite of their fighting prowess, you don't see a team named, for example, the Washington Wehrmacht with a giant swastika for a logo. If there was, the same people calling the use of Indian team nicknames racist would be calling the use of Wehrmacht for a team name racist.

Straw man? I think not. The team name "Rebels" causes such a controversy already. You can't have it both ways.

The depictions of Indians for sports teams is done with stylization in mind. The Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo logo, for example, is not intended to look like an actual Indian or to represent the culture and history of the American Indian. It is intended to be a stylized logo recognizable as an Indian for a baseball team. And it is treated as such by anyone with more thna three active brain cells. No one thinks it represents an actual American Indian, except the people protesting it. Anyone claiming to be "hurt" by it is either disingenuous or is actively looking to be hurt.

It's not about "power" or "sensitivity." It's about a logo for a sports team that everyone can recognize.

Take your liberal guilt and grow up.

Dave, my cousin received his doctorate from Hofstra University. He is also a very highly regarded pastor and seminary professor. Your comment is a very uncivilized one. He focuses more on behavior pathology than on social psychology, therefore he is trying to help people with problems, rather than hypothesize abstract and obtuse interactions and hierarchies.

Gunderso and Dave, my major was psychology, and I've got half the credits for a masters degree in the same area. Life took me in a different direction. But I did well enough in the subject to be offered a teaching position, which I turned down. And I can recognize academic flim-flam when I see it.

Mark F:
"Your comment is a very uncivilized one."

Laughing at a reasoned and serious statement, even if you disagree, is uncivilized. Calling attention to this response is not.
If your cousin does not specialize in Social Psychology or the areas that Gunderso brought up, that's fine. Nobody knows everything, even within their field. But if that is the case, then laughing is probably not appropriate. Asking questions might be better.

"And I can recognize academic flim-flam when I see it."
I brought up the work of Sidanius and Pratto in relation to the subject you referred to. Since Psychology is more your field than mine, you probably know more about their work than I. What is it about what they say that you consider "acedemic flim-flam"?

Gunderso, you make too technical a point on the Vikings name. Of course we are not vikings, nor were many generations of our ancestors. But most of us Scandinavians identify with, and take pride in, that raiding sub-culture of the Norse that is called viking. We do have something emotionally invested in that identification. As a matter of fact, most authorities like to peg the end of the Viking Age at 1066, when Harald Hardraade of Norway was killed, and his forces defeated, at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. Not long after, the victorious Harold Godwinsson, lost his crown to William of Normandy. I happen to descend from all three men who contested for the throne of England, and I can trace my roots to actual vikings. For me it is a living heritage. I have a minor in history and a minor in Scandinavian Studies, and I was for a while a professional genealogist specializing in Scandinavia. I'm well aware of fraud in this field, and I've weeded out the problems. You don't need to challenge me on this.

Dave, I'll take that up with Gunderso. You were the one who called my cousin's credentials and character into question, and I gave back what was deserved. I've butted heads with you before, and right now I'm a bit too upset to write much more. I sense that there are many others in this thread who called BS on Gunderso's big post.

Each American Indian tribe is a distinct race gunderso?

Who knew!

Mark F:
The APA is participating in the "academic flim flam":

apa.org/releases/ResAmIndianMascots.pdf

Good thing you got out of that field. The statement cites many refs on the impact on self-esteem...

Dave, your snark really needs some polishing. It is even below your standards.

Mark F:
"Dave, your snark really needs some polishing."

Maybe. My content is just fine, however. Which is reflected in your lack of substantive response.

FWIW, I'd like to second what Dave F. said about Scandinavian history with respect to the end of the Viking Age being pegged at 1066 with the Battle of Stamford Bridge, in which Harald Hardrada was defeated, largely because his troops went in without their armor, and killed with an arrow to the throat according to tradition. Hardrada (his original name was Harald III Sigurdsson) is usually called the Last of the Viking Kings. The Scandinavian countries were major players on the European stage at that time.

Correction: Mark F.

Pro Cynic, thanks for the correction, and no apology needed. Actually, the contempt for the English army that was behind ignoring the armor, a decision that may have changed the history of England, and Europe, is a precursor of what happened to Custer. He opted for speed and left his supply train behind, which included mortars and gatling guns, not to mention extra soldiers and the wagons (which could have helped to fortify their embattled positions). Custer also greatly underestimated the size, skill, courage and motivation of the Sioux/Cheyenne opposition. Vainglory, rather than glory.

Funny you should mention Custer. Military History Magazine had a piece on Little Bighorn a few months ago, claiming Custer was undone by his officers' insubordinate conduct. I can't remember the specifics, however. It may have included the supply train, but I think it had to do with the timing and routes of Benteen's and Reno's troop contingents. I need to dig it up.

Rename them "The Fighting Pacifist Vegan Gay Popular Front for the Liberation of South Dakota" and be done with it.

A bit off topic. One of my cousins, while he was managing some businesses that had been bequeathed to his particular mission field, found it necessary to go to the headquarters of the World Council of Churches in Geneva. He sat down on the only available seat in the waiting room. The man next to him was a friend of his from Washburn High School in Minneapolis, who had become one of the most famous leaders of the American Indian Movement. He didn't recognize my cousin, and their chit-chat turned to the subject of European food. The AIM leader said he didn't like the rich food, that he greatly missed his steady diet at home, wild rice, cattail roots, nuts, berries, deer and bison. My cousin burst out laughing and said that he knew better. The AIM leader was puzzled. My cousin told him that he knew that White Castle hamburgers were his favorite food. The fellow was stunned. Then my cousin told him that they had gone to that restaurant many times together when they were in high school. All of a sudden the fellow's eyes widened, and he said: "Tom, is that you?" The Sioux Indian was acting. Actually, he did wind up acting in a few films, and he did a masterful job.

White Castle? WHITE Castle? That's racism. RACISM, I tell you!!!

And lack of diversity.

White Castle fries only come in one size.

I can't believe that the University of Minnesota, a Sioux name meaning cloudy water, which, coincidentally resides next to the Mississippi river, another Sioux name meaning waterfalls (not laughing waters as most people believe), would object to any school that uses Sioux names and mascots. Does hypocrisy know no bounds? I guess that's to be expected from a university that uses a rodent for a mascot.

Correction. The AIM leader was Anishinabe, which is known to most people as Ojibwa or Chippewa.

Oh, guys, "sliders", "Castles", "gutbombs", whatever you call them, don't discriminate. They are cheap enough for everyone, they are bland enough for anyone to gulp, and the onions in them will give anyone gas, regardless of race, creed or color. It's the American Way!

White Castle is soooo European! I'd rather eat at Pizza Hut. It's a lot more, well, tribal.

Gutbombs are gourmet delights compared to the Wimpy's burgers I had on my first trip to Europe. I haven't heard anything about that chain for years, certainly didn't see one of the chain on my second trip. I hope someone put a stake through the heart of that lousy franchise.

A cousin in Florida brings frozen White Castles back home whenever he's visiting Minneapolis. The cousin mentioned in the tale about the AIM leader brings frozen gutbombs to Europe on almost every business trip there.

Now I understand why the NY Yanquis' payroll is so inflated. Got to hand it to the likes of Rivera, Veras, Vizcaino, Molina, Posada, Rodriguez, and Cabrera; they sure know how to play a guilt-ridden Anglo ex-shipbuilder from the home of the Browns.

dave - Grow up. There is no right to not be offended - and that's a good thing, becuase evertything offends someone.

If someone has a problem with their own group's name being used, or some likeness or characiture being depicted by a sports team, they ought to contact the sports team and work it out (or maybe sue as a group for infringement - or perhaps take a few scalps, that would make someone sit up and take notice).

If the Soiux do not have a problem with UND, then you and U of M have no right to butt in and ought to just mind your own business.

I find the old Cleveland Indians characiture offensive, as well as the Washington Redskins name. Well boo-hoo, no one cares what I find offensive. But if those of that group find it offensive as well - they should address it with the team.

km:
"...they ought to contact the sports team and work it out..."

What "work it out" means in the real world is that the sports team will pay-off the group involved. So the Souix, even though they might not like the idea, will accept it anyway if paid enough money. In many cases I would agree with this line of argument, but it depends on who is affected by the arrangement. For instance, some prostitutes might not like what they do for a living, but if they think the money is enough to compensate for this, then I think they should be free to do it. In that case, it should be her decision, because she is the one who suffers any negative effects of doing something she may not feel 100% good about. But in the case of the Souix, who is deciding, and who is affected? Maybe a small group of Souix make the decision, and do so for the money. But as the APA statement I linked to shows, the people who are affected by this decision are overwhelmingly children. They have no say in the matter, do not receive any benefits from the decision, and they suffer all the consequences in terms of psychological effects.

"...you and U of M have no right to butt in..."

As in most matters concerning the rights and well-being of children, people usually do have the legal right to butt in, at least they should.

Ray in Mpls: White Castle is soooo European! I'd rather eat at Pizza Hut. It's a lot more, well, tribal.

I prefer Roundtable Pizza even though that restaurant's connection to the Christian crusades sometimes makes it hard for me to enjoy all the fennel-ey, sweet onion, mozzarella, provolone, and cheddar nuance of their sausage and onion with extra sauce and parmesan sprinkles, crunchy, thin crust pizza.

So it's all about "the children" . . .

Who by the way, have inadequate health care, live on a polluted planet that's doomed to extinction, will someday be exploited by capitalist running dogs and who probably should have been aborted in the first place, if their parents had the remotest sense of responsibility.

But since the little environmental nuisances exist, #1 on their legions of woes and tribulations, is that a local, piddly college, brandishes the moniker of the Sioux tribe on their sweaty jerseys.

A lot of people obviously have too much time on their hands.

Why are you wasting your time taking offense to the actions of others?

NoDonkey:
I agree that issues such as capitalism killing the planet are more important than the one on this thread. Addressing the issue of this thread, however, would take a minimum of effort, and would do some good. Even though capitalism killing the planet is a more dire threat to children (along with the rest of us), it will also be much more difficult and time consuming to eliminate it. Until that time, I am in favor of taking out 30 minutes to write a law banning these type of team names. I don't think it would be that big of a sacrifice for poor Americans to make. You think the kids should just "tough it out", since there are bigger problems. And I am uncivilized.

dave - I don't put much stock in any agenda driven psychological studies. Victimology is a big con game in academia, and ginning up studies to support one's grant structure is a great racket, but we shouldn't let it affect anything inthe world outside of the Womyn's and Ethnic Studies Departments. The "children" wouldn't have a problem with these things if they weren't taught to be offended by everything.

The tribe might work a deal. The tribe might force changes which they find otherwise acceptable. The tribe might force a change. It is the tribe's businesss - not yours or U of M's.

And in the event something "offensive" happens, well, life is some times tough so remember to wear your helmet.

DAVE:

Is that the same APA that said that homosexuality was a mental disorder until it became politically unpopular to call it that?

You say it's "uncivilized" to laugh at a well-reasoned argument. Why? Because you say so? Guess that makes us uncivilized savages. Uh, oh -- do you really want to go there in a thread about treatment of Native Americans???

By the way, I reject your premise (that your ridiculous argument is well-reasoned).

Oh, and I bet the Sioux would really appreciate if you figured out how to spell Sioux before purporting to speak for them.

re: dave October 11, 2007 3:10 PM comment

translation: First, kill off the idea of American exceptionalism.

So there's obviously a couple of leftists on this thread who don't have any real work to do.

A LAW banning team names? For someone who claims to be educated, you apparently have never heard of a little thing called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

I believe that if the schools would crack down on the idiotic ways that frat houses, etc., symbolize their rivalry on T-shirts, etc., we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

The schools themselves usually treat the name with respect, it is when you have a rivalry and they T-shirts and posters are derogatory in a very coarse and ugly nature, then the Native Americans (or Indians, I'm not sure what is PC now)have a right to be angry.

The schools have every right to stop the frats and other organizations from making offensive things like that. I don't believe in censorship, just in appropriateness, and it should be part of the rules of being an organization on any campus.

Otherwise, it seems to me to be political correctness run amok.

This is the way it is throughout the U.S.A. If we all treated each other with some kindness and respect, we wouldn't have the social problems that we have, but that is another topic totally.

dave,

I consider you very civilized. Perhaps over-civilized, if such a thing is possible.

km:
"The 'children' wouldn't have a problem with these things if they weren't taught to be offended by everything."

So if your kid is overweight, I'm sure you'd have no problem with his teachers calling him a fat-ass, or if he is not attractive, calling him an ugly SOB. You would have no complaints, correct? Because you teach your kids not to be offended by everything.
"...we shouldn't let [academia] affect anything in the world..."

So where do you think your medicines come from, or the technology for your cars, electronic toys, computers, and even your beloved military weapons? I guess you'll accept knowledge from academics that you find useful.

HOOHAW:
Your free speech comment is the only one that deserves a response. If exposing children to the psychological effects of degrading mascot names can be considered equivalent to exposing them to harmful speech, which sounds reasonable to me, then I think it is within the first ammendment.

"The Court has also decided that the First Amendment provides less than full protection to...speech that may be harmful to children..."

fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

Dave,

It is worse that you thought in this terrible country and much work remains to be done. Did you know Oklahoma means "Red People"! The horror! We're not talking about a piddly sports team anymore, but an entire state. Come on Okies, your state name has got to go...it's hurtful. Worse yet, peoples from all over the world are trying to get in to this greedy, racist, awful country. Spread the word man...in person.

Via Infoplease:

Many American places have been named after Indian words. In fact, about half of the states got their names from Indian words. The name of Kentucky comes from an Iroquoian word (Kentahten), which means "land of tomorrow." Connecticut's name comes from the Mohican word (Quinnehtukqut), which means "beside the long tidal river." And the word "Podunk," meant to describe a insignificant town out in the middle of nowhere, comes from a Natick Indian word meaning "swampy place."

Alabama: may come from Choctaw meaning "thicket-clearers" or "vegetation-gatherers."

Alaska: corruption of Aleut word meaning "great land" or "that which the sea breaks against."

Arizona: from the Indian "Arizonac," meaning "little spring" or "young spring."

Chicago (Illinois): Algonquian for "garlic field."

Chesapeake (bay): Algonquian name of a village.

Connecticut: from an Indian word (Quinnehtukqut) meaning "beside the long tidal river."

Illinois: Algonquin for "tribe of superior men."

Indiana: meaning "land of Indians."

Iowa: probably from an Indian word meaning "this is the place" or "the Beautiful Land."

Kansas: from a Sioux word meaning "people of the south wind."

Kentucky: from an Iroquoian word "Ken-tah-ten" meaning "land of tomorrow."

Massachusetts: from Massachusett tribe of Native Americans, meaning "at or about the great hill."

Michigan: from Indian word "Michigana" meaning "great or large lake."

Minnesota: from a Dakota Indian word meaning "sky-tinted water."

Mississippi (state and river): from an Indian word meaning "Father of Waters."

Malibu (California): believed to come from the Chumash Indians.

Manhattan (New York): Algonquian, believed to mean "isolated thing in water."

Milwaukee (Wisconsin): Algonquian, believed to mean "a good spot or place."

Missouri: named after the Missouri Indian tribe. "Missouri" means "town of the large canoes."

Narragansett (Rhode Island): named after the Indian tribe.

Nebraska: from an Oto Indian word meaning "flat water."

Niagara (falls): named after an Iroquoian town, "Ongiaahra."

North Dakota: from the Sioux tribe, meaning "allies."

Ohio: from an Iroquoian word meaning "great river."

Oklahoma: from two Choctaw Indian words meaning "red people."

Pensacola (Florida): Choctaw for "hair" and "people."

Roanoke (Virginia): Algonquian for "shell money" (Indian tribes often used shells that were made into beads called wampum, as money).

Saratoga (New York): believed to be Mohawk for "springs (of water) from the hillside."

South Dakota: from the Sioux tribe, meaning "allies."

Sunapee (lake in New Hampshire): Pennacook for "rocky pond."

Tahoe (lake in California/Nevada): Washo for "big water."

Tennessee: of Cherokee origin; the exact meaning is unknown.

Texas: from an Indian word meaning "friends."

Utah: from the Ute tribe, meaning "people of the mountains."

Wisconsin: French corruption of an Indian word whose meaning is disputed.

Wyoming: from the Delaware Indian word, meaning "mountains and valleys alternating"; the same as the Wyoming Valley in Pennsylvania.

Source: O Brave New Words! Native American Loanwords in Current English, by Charles L. Cutler.

*Dedicated to nattering nabobs of negativism everywhere.
(that was very long, I'm sorry)

Excellent post, Gregory.

And, to wind up l'il dave further:

Separation of church and state, dammit! Do you know how many names of towns are *Christian*, and the government pays money to them?

Corpus Christi, Texas. (Say it ain't so, Joe!) Providence, Rhode Island. Saint Louis, Missouri. And on and on...

Did you know that all the "San" and "Santa" names in California mean "Saint", and they were named for Catholic saints? Yes! San Francisco, that seething mass of godless liberalism, is named for Saint Francis. San Jose: Saint Joseph. (Imagine, there are Catholic *missions* in these places - some still active churches (spit!) -, where the poor Native Americans were exploited, and the evil White-man government is paying money to preserve them as historical landmarks!)

How on Earth can we allow this? There are people in Berkeley, of all seven purported genders, who are losing their cruelty-free vegan non-oppressive sleep over this!

Methinks Dave is not what he appears. I suspect he is having a little fun at our expense, i.e., that his posts are exceptionally dry satire lampooning the left. My first clue was the reference to capitalism killing people. The cincher was the "it's for the children" justification for trampling the First Amendment. I hope I'm right. Otherwise I'll have to worry about child protective services taking away my two year old because I exposed her to the harmful phrase"Go Indians!" while watching the tribe thump the Yankees last week.

Dave:

Whenever anyone deems only one of my points "worthy" of a reponse, it's a sure sign of surrender on the rest. Appreciate that you were "civilized" enough to concede.

Oh and speaking of city names and their relgious origin, please do not abbreviate the name of my home town. It makes the more sensitive residents here weep to hear the original name of this place El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula (The Village of Our Lady, the Queen of the Angels of Porciuncula) truncated to just plain old, secular-sounding, insensitive L.A.

Hoohaw may be right about our chains being pulled. I hate when that happens. I would stay to find out but I gotta head out to the Rez and hit the Casino...named after the local indian tribe. Maybe stop off at the smoke shop...also named after the local indian tribe, and pick up some tax-free cigarettes.

hoohaw:
" sure sign of surrender on the rest"

Yes. I surrender that I made a spelling mistake. Wow. If that's your best critique of my post, I know I've made my points well.

NoDonkey:
You submitted a quote from Wikipedia saying that both the Florida and the Oklahoma tribes had “officially approved the relationship and the details of the images used.” As most of us know, Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable and this is another example of why you are at risk when using it to try to back up your arguments. In fact, only the Florida tribe “officially approved”. The larger Seminole tribe in Oklahoma didn’t give “official approval” as claimed by Wikipedia. While one tribal official was quoted as saying he did not object, that person cannot speak for the whole tribal council, but some media outlets erroneously reported that FSO obtained approval from the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.
In fact, as a member of the Five Civilized Tribes on July 26, 2001, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma joined in the Inter-Tribal Council with the other four tribes (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Muscogee (Creek)) in a 24-0 vote with no abstentions, and co-signed by Seminole Principal Chief Jerry Haney, to approve the following resolution:
"Now therefore, be it resolved, that the Intertribal Council of the Five Civilized tribes joins the United States Commission on Civil Rights call to eliminate the stereotypical use of American Indian names and images as mascots in sports and other events..."
In terms of the U of North Dakota, there are seventeen federally recognized Sioux tribes and no one Sioux tribe can speak on behalf of all the others, so UND will face protests as long as even one Sioux tribe objects. In other words, UND better face the fact that their nickname problem will go away only when they eliminate their race-based nickname.

Mark F:
Well, Mark F, your comments prove the old saying that “a little education is dangerous thing”. Wow, you got within a few credits of a masters degree in psychology and you still aren’t able to comprehend some fairly basic social psychology and research concepts? You really should go back and take some of those courses over again – - and this time, try to pay attention! Or ask for some of your tuition money back! What school did you attend? I'd like to know so I can avoid that school!

Anyone know where the Kansas City Chiefs got their name?

Anyone know where the Cleveland Indians got their name?

Some of you will ignore dozens of researchers, many organizations, and the Native American tribes themselves, and diminish the entire issue on top of it all. All for what? To protect your precious right to name your sports teams whatever you want. The evidence that this practice is harmful to many people is very clear, but this is unimportant compared to your right to name your sports teams as you see fit. This is not a PC issue, and it has real effects on real people. Is there any inconvenience small enough that you can bear in order to do some good in this world? Would it really change your life to have to call the Washington Redskins the Washington Sharks? Or the Washington Brussel Sprouts?(Or whatever esle you can think of).

What the hell is wrong with you people?

The reason I pose those two questions is to point out that in all our willingness to accept political correctness and our instilled fear to not ever, never, offend anyone, we are well engaged in Orwellian newspeak and revisionist history and today about a matter as simple as sports.

Along the way we are taught to ignore history and accept the conventional politically correct "wisdom."

Were it not for student anger and a protest about earlier injustices, such as being forcibly prevented from engaging in traditional Indian customs, there would have been no Carlisle challenge to West Point, and Carlisle would not have taken on their own name "Carlisle Indians."

Doesn't sound like the Indians at Carlisle were willing to forget their past, no matter how stridently their white masters tried.

And without the Carlisle Indians? Pop Warner would never have entered our sports lexicon. Dwight Eisenhower's very short varsity career would have been just like any other cadet's at West Point. Jim Thorpe would never have been more than another Indian student forced to learn the white man's ways at Carlisle. Both faced each other in 1912. And college football as a mass spectator sport would have taken quite a few more years to become nationally popular.

But, there are many still who want to erase the noble origins of many college sports teams names, because they are offensive, cause harm, allegedly denigrate a portion of the population, and heaven forbid, according to some today, irreparably harm children.

The entire idea of a mascot came from the desire to have a talisman (check out the origins of "mascot") a talisman that would bring them luck, prowess, and victory. The names chosen when collegiate sports first started to acquire the shorthand of names and adopt mascots had everything to do with respect and nothing to do with denigration.

But, it is politically inexpedient to mention that. Someone might take offense.

As one poster said a while back, in this thread, one needs to learn history. Maybe we all need to learn history. Maybe we all need to put ourselves in the shoes of those earliest collegiate athletes, in their frame of mind, and look at why they chose names for their teams. And how and why the tradition continued as a mark of excellence, a desire for excellence, before Orwellian newspeak and political correctness came along and tried to shield everyone from the most remote possiblity of being offended.

Jim Thorpe was not offended calling himself a Carlisle Indian. He was darned proud of it, especially after leading the Indians 27-6 rout of West Point. And other teams picked up the talisman.

"Would it really change your life to have to call the Washington Redskins the Washington Sharks? Or the Washington Brussel Sprouts?(Or whatever esle you can think of)."

Personally, I'd much prefer the name "Washington Raging Jackasses", to commemorate the activities of the 110th Democrat Congress.

But the owner of the Redskins, a billion dollar franchise, probably has a problem with it.

Which is unfortunate. I really think if he changed the name of the team, the value of the team would remain the same and the moniker "Redskins", is really indefensible.

"If exposing children to the psychological effects of degrading mascot names can be considered equivalent to exposing them to harmful speech, which sounds reasonable to me, then I think it is within the first ammendment."

That theory only works if the children are taught that the names in question are actually degrading. If people accepted them for what they really are, just a name, they wouldn't be considered degrading and there wouldn't be any "psychological effects of degrading mascot names". For example: Is it degrading to the Native Americans (or yourself) that I live in a city called Minneapolis? After all, it's an Indian term and we all know what the white man did to the Indians. Should I or my children feel degraded for living in a city that takes it's very name from the language of the Indian Nations which our founders destroyed? Since nether me or my kids have been taught that the name of my city (and state for that matter) is degrading, I don't see how anyone will suffer adverse psychological effects.

BTW, why isn't there a big outcry from PETA for the use on animal manes for sports teams. I mean, how DARE the U of M use the name Gophers! How many gophers do you know that run around and smash into each other into the ground for fun? How degrading!

If we allow ourselves to become offended by names of sport teams, how long before someone is offended by a sir name? Isn't it an insult to call an African American by the sir name of Brown, even though it happens to be his name?

When people become offend simply by a name, then society has a real problem. It's called intolerance and that is NOT a healthy way to interact. Intolerance is one of the main reasons that societies self-destruct.

Some of you will ignore dozens of researchers, many organizations, and the Native American tribes themselves, and diminish the entire issue on top of it all. All for what? To protect your precious right to name your sports teams whatever you want. The evidence that this practice is harmful to many people is very clear, but this is unimportant compared to your right to name your sports teams as you see fit. This is not a PC issue, and it has real effects on real people. Is there any inconvenience small enough that you can bear in order to do some good in this world? Would it really change your life to have to call the Washington Redskins the Washington Sharks? Or the Washington Brussel Sprouts?(Or whatever esle you can think of).

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Why should we give up something we care about to indulge someone else's unreasonable sense of victimhood and moral superiority, as explained by people who have little if any personal knowledge of it?

You do not have a right not to be offended. Personally, I am offended by the thought of replacing the Chief Wahoo logo, one of the best in sports. But I won't question the right of thos epeople who oppose Chief Wahoo to offend me. I'll just call them out for what they are:

Idiots.

ProCynic, or whoever else:

You go on and on defending your position, but no one has yet answered my original question. What if a German soccer team named themselves the Jews, or, better yet, the Fighting Kikes. Would you defend it? Do you think we would hear from the "bleading heart" ADL? After all, they're just words. In Europe, if you say the 4 words "the Holocaust never happened", you will end up in jail. If you say the word "Apartheid" in relation to Jews, you'll get a thousand E-mails and phone calls. Why do you never whine about the bleeding heart Jewish victim whiners?
If they're just words, what about the "Filthy Niggers" for a team name? Can you please just answer these questions? Is there ever a line that can be crossed that goes too far? If so, define that line for me. I know you cannot.

Well, dave, you have crossed that line.

Gunderso, I have no problem with "fairly basic social psychology and research concepts", but I do recognize the principle of garbage in/garbage out and the agenda motivating much current alleged research. As another poster mentioned, provide some idea of how to rigorously quantify self esteem and you're on the way to a Nobel Prize. More damage is being done to children by teaching them to be offended and anxious about nearly everything than could possibly be done to them by those names we choose to honor by attaching them to sports teams.

You can't even advertise for beer without the ADL freaking out:

ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=2423

But it's the Native Americans that are too sensitive.

Coldwarrior:
Please tell me how I have "crossed the line". Can you define this line? Why is being offended by the word "Kike" or "Nigger" acceptable? Aren't these just words? Aren't people being "taught" to be offended by these words? What's the difference? Why can't you explain it to me?

"Why can't you explain it to me?"

Perhaps I chose not to. A waste of time and bandwidth.

dave, you are amply demonstrating that you are very capable of hating people/groups. It's just that you seem to feel justified in such racism. Please stop projecting your shortcomings on the rest of us.

I'm still a Viking and if you knew the maintenance on our drop-dead gorgeous wives you'd be plundering France too. Hon, I'll get you that emerald necklace and Champagne as soon as the sail gets mended...

Did the Sioux fight? How about the Apache or the Creek or the Mohicans? Many tribes amused themselves by kicking the keisters of neighboring tribes. Way back before video gaming and television. Some waged war. Some didn't. Some probably arranged flowers. The Fighting Florists? Maybe not.

Consider the native game lacrosse where (despite Nifong's fantasy) the objective is to pass the ball effectively while not getting your clock cleaned by a hardwood stick. To not offend Maya traditions should there now be a human sacrifice after certain soccer games? Talk about putting your heart into the game.

Some go through life living to be offended. Remember when the DC pol used the term "niggardly" (frugal) and all the race-baiters in the audience suddenly got the vapors? When a southwestern high school decided on the "Fighting Whities" the white population was quick to accept the mascot! No chip on their shoulder was threatened.

The perpetual phonies always trying to be offended, even if it requires synthesizing an offense to be taken, can be summed up by a quote from Larry the Cable Guy: "They sound angrier than Jesse Jackson being paged to answer the white courtesy phone."

I'm back from the injun Casino where they were not offended to have their name on the marquee but more than happy to raid pale faces bankroll. Cold tables tonight. Time to settle in with a cold one and watch the team with the offensive indian name play the satanic church elders. I'll bet James Dobson wishes Wake Forrest would change their mascot but I'm done betting till next week. To answer your question Dave, there are no teams named the Fighting Jews or Filthy Negros, and there never will be. Instead of offering a hypothetical you left a hyperbole. "What if..." is pointless. Example: What if Oklahoma changed it's name to Dave.

dave

If the Sioux havea problem with the way UND usestheir name, then itshould be worked out (I said this before, consistently). I've watched a fair bit of UND hockey and I've never seen anything less than a dignified depiction from them. If the Sioux don't have a problem, you shouldn't either.

If my kid was a fat-ass and got called a fat-ass, I'd tell him the truth: that people say some mean things - andthatheshouldn't get all bent about it (andtotheextent itistrue, the way to stop it is to lose the excess weight).

I have a son and a daughter that were both elite athletes, through their own hard work and perserverence. My son, the hockey player, also learned that sports are full of trash talk and that only losers let anything anyone else says get him down (the three responses to talk you don't like are to run the score, lay on some hard hits, and give them more cleaver replies).

Its no wonder that this country is in decline, we're turning ourselves into a bunch of candy-asses.

Oklahoma? Nebraska? Illinois? Minnesota?
Dakota? (take your pick North or South)
Utah? Delaware?
Good heavens people, shall we change these State names because they're based on "Native tribe" monikers? What idiocy!

Well, it turns out there actually was a "Fighting Jew" His name was Samuel Dreben. Google this name, truly amazing story.

"His last battle had been fought. Now Samuel Dreben, "the fighting Jew", could rest in peace.

Newspapers from coast to coast -- including The New York Times -- carried his obituary. Nationally syndicated columnist, Damon Runyon, eulogized him with a poem, The New Yorker magazine with a two-page profile. The Texas State Legislature, upon learning of his death, lowered its flag to half-staff and recessed for the day.

In what has to be a tribute without parallel, General Pershing, commander of over a million American fighting men in World War I, wrote to Sam's widow: "Your husband was the finest soldier and one of the bravest men I ever met."

Dave?

You've got some hyperbole on you chin, just to the left there.

You might want to wipe that off.

dave,

The most popular beer in Israel (as it seemed to me when I visited there back in '93), is Goldstar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstar_beer

Which is a Munich style beer, ironically enough. I'm glad the Israelis don't carry a grudge against German beer.

Goldstar is kosher.

Not sure if it's brewed according to the Reinheitsgebot (German purity law which has actually been superseded by the Provisional German Beer Law), but it's very tasty, as I recall.

I believe it would go down well while watching a Fighting Sioux hockey game.

You go on and on defending your position, but no one has yet answered my original question. What if a German soccer team named themselves the Jews, or, better yet, the Fighting Kikes. Would you defend it? Do you think we would hear from the "bleading heart" ADL? After all, they're just words. In Europe, if you say the 4 words "the Holocaust never happened", you will end up in jail. If you say the word "Apartheid" in relation to Jews, you'll get a thousand E-mails and phone calls. Why do you never whine about the bleeding heart Jewish victim whiners?
If they're just words, what about the "Filthy Niggers" for a team name? Can you please just answer these questions? Is there ever a line that can be crossed that goes too far? If so, define that line for me. I know you cannot.

Sure, I can. For one thing, the term "nigger" was always intended to be offensive and is justifiably treated as such (though many in the black community use it among themselves). if the term was always intended to be a slur or offensive, that is a very clear line. Are you saying the term "Indian" was always intended to be offensive? Or the term "Sioux," "Illini," etc. Certainly you cannot.

Secondly, you create your own ridiculous hypothetical. The Jews are not objects of respect or affection in Germany or much of Europe, and never have been, which is how you end up with the Holocaust, which had the express purpose of ridding the world of Jews. There was no plan to exterminate the American Indians, no genocide commited against them (there were two purported incidents of "attempted genocide" that have been debunked by historians). There simply was a series of battles and wars, and the Indians lost. But their fighting prowess came to be respected, admired and even copied in some instances.

Third, you seem to not understand the term "reasonable." Just because someone is "offended" doesn't give them veto rights over everything that "offends" them. Offense is subjective. It generally cannot be defined objectively. Most sports fans -- and probably most of America -- finds your standard of "offense" unreasonable. If it was taken to its logical extent, we couldn't name sports teams after anything. To be perfectly blunt, for every one "offended" by an Indian logo, there are thousands who love the logo and want to keep it. And we will fight to do so.

Dave and gunderso's arguments are so bad and their arrogance so great I find it hard to believe that either one is older than about 17 (emotionally at least). Dave's in particular are just terrible.

Indians aren't above using their tribe's name or symbols like the profile with the headdress when it comes to making them money, but apparently the white man can't do the same because it's racist, or insensitive, or whatever.

We are living in an age where using a name or an image to evoke thoughts of good, desirable qualities like loyalty, bravery, and perseverance is considered morally indefensible. One wonders how people who hold such views have the brainpower to tie their shoes or dress themselves in the morning.

The most obvious conclusion here is that it is the position of Dave and gunderso that is racist. You cannot behave in a certain way or use certain words based on the color of your skin.

The next most obvious conclusion is that people like dave and gunderso really need to understand that there are better uses for testosterone than ill-reasoned internet rants. Really, the internet is an energy sink like nothing. Go out and do something productive little trolls.

Something about this reminds me of Al Capp's lampoon of the student protesters of the Sixties in Li'l Abner. He featured on group named Students Wildly Indignant over Nearly Everything, or S.W.I.N.E.

Nearly twenty years ago I visited the Buffalo Bill museum in Cody, Wyoming. They had a display up about this very subject of sports and other commercial uses of Indian "mascots". One of their "smoking gun" exhibits was a collection of Texaco Fire Chief gasoline ephemerata. The problem, of course, is the gasoline blend was named for the chiefs of fire departments, and it had absolutely nothing to do with Native Americans.

I hold three degrees from UND (BS, MS, MD) and spent eight years at the main campus in Grand Forks. I challenge anyone to go to the University and find a single instance of these terrible wrongdoings. The last I had heard, UND had more Native American programs on it campus than any other University in the country. They have trained more Native American physicians than any other program in the nation through their INMED program. The integration of native culture into sporting events and academics is outstanding. Go there, see for yourself before you speak about things you do not know.

Coldwarrior:
“A waste of time and bandwidth.”

BS. You can’t explain because there is no logic to your viewpoint.

Procynic:
Thanks for the answer. It only took about 100 posts to get one.

“no genocide commited against them”

First, we see that you are a Holocaust denier. That offends me, but let’s not go into that. The key to this debate is to be found in the third part of your answer. The key is how do we determine what is offensive and what is not? At one point, you say that it is a contest, and whoever can find the greatest number of supporters decides. So if you can find more people that like a sports logo than I can find people who are harmed by it, then we keep the logo. Those who don’t care either way don’t affect the decision. At another point you say it should be more of a democracy, and maybe everyone should have a say, and you think that my view is in the minority, so we should therefore keep the logo.
In my view, things like this should not be democratic. If I can find more people in my workplace that want to grab female employees asses than the women can find that object to it, that should not give the men the right to start groping women. Causing harm, physical, emotional, or psychological, should not be a process that should be voted on. If harm is occurring, it should be stopped, even if many people do not think so.
The second is that most people do not know all the facts regarding situations like this. Even after being shown otherwise repeatedly on this thread, most people continue to frame this issue as something that Native Americans are being “offended” by. The issue, however, is much deeper than that. This is not the equivalent to a mild insult that is forgotten in a few hours. This is part of a social dynamic that has effects on children that last a lifetime. This has been shown repeatedly by dozens of psychologists, but people like you find it far too easy to ignore information, due to your own psychological issues. I agree that society should not change every time an individual or even a few individuals say that they don’t like something. But in this case it is thousands of people, backed up by psychologists nationwide. But you don’t care, because you’ve become accustomed to seeing a certain logo on a helmet. It’s pathetic.
I would be very happy if this question could be decided in a court by a jury picked at random nationwide. On one side would be the testimony of thousands of people saying that they are being harmed by this, along with dozens of psychological studies and expert witnesses explaining exactly how this happens. On the other side would be people telling the Native Americans to get over it, toughen up, because they like their sports logos. I think I know who Americans would side with. The people on this site are fringe lunatics, and any random jury would have no more than one, and probably zero, people that could be so efficient at ignoring facts and at the same time have no empathy or compassion whatsoever.

Dave,

First, it's called "reading comprehension." Look into it. It's clear you read what you wanted in my post, not what I actually said. So let's start:

First, we see that you are a Holocaust denier. That offends me, but let’s not go into that.

I said no such thing. The Holocaust most certainly occured. I said there was no genocide against the American Indians. I would hope your conflation of the two is unintentional.

At one point, you say that it is a contest, and whoever can find the greatest number of supporters decides.Um, no, I never said that, either. I merely pointed out for all your pewling and mewling about how all these people are being "hurt" by the use of the Indian logo, you don't seem to care that there are far, far more people who derive a benefit from it, even if only an emotional benefit that far exceeds any "hurt."

If I can find more people in my workplace that want to grab female employees asses than the women can find that object to it, that should not give the men the right to start groping women. Ever heard of the concept of "personal space?" I don't like people touching me, either. And this has to do with an Indian logo how ...

Causing harm, physical, emotional, or psychological, should not be a process that should be voted on. If harm is occurring, it should be stopped, even if many people do not think so.
The second is that most people do not know all the facts regarding situations like this. Even after being shown otherwise repeatedly on this thread, most people continue to frame this issue as something that Native Americans are being “offended” by. The issue, however, is much deeper than that. This is not the equivalent to a mild insult that is forgotten in a few hours. This is part of a social dynamic that has effects on children that last a lifetime. This has been shown repeatedly by dozens of psychologists, but people like you find it far too easy to ignore information, due to your own psychological issues.Well, frankly, we don't trust your psychologists. Even assuming the psychologists went into your "studies" without a predetermined result, their accuracy is open to question, to say the least. There was a reason that a criminal justice study found psychologists the least accurate in predicting which witnesses were lying. It's also an open secret that you can pay a psychologist to say whatever you want on the witness stand.

Further, we don't believe there has been any "hurt" here, and none of your psychologists can point to any quantifiable hurt. It's more of a wish to be a victim to further the cause of white guilt. A far better analogy would be to Muslims feeling "insulted" over the Danish cartoons.

It comes down to the fact that we feel the logos are important to us, and you cannot reasonably claim to be "hurt." You tell us you're hurt, but you cannot actually point to anything. Advantage: us.

Finally, in my 36 years of existence I've talked to my share of American Indians (note: I will not use the term "Native American" because by definition anyone born here is a Native American, including myself). I've met exactly one person who was offended by an Indian logo. The rest don't have a problem with it and think people who hold your position are insane. Of course, this fits the stereotype you have created. But your telling them they should have a problem with it is not solving a problem, it is creating a problem simply to feed your sense of moral superiority.

Grow up.

Dave?

If the straw in your double skim goat milk tofu frappucino were to puncture your cheek, would the hyperbole gush forth from the wound or just bubble then coagulate?

Holocaust denier?

If you're what passes for educated and informed in the "reality-based community" then it's no wonder Algore won an academy award and the Nobel Peace Prize for his propaganda.

And that wasn't an invitation for you to start dry-humping his leg on this thread.

Cynic:

OK, you are a genocide denier. Same as Holocaust deniers who are denying a particular genocide. Fine.

“…even if only an emotional benefit that far exceeds any "hurt."”

So even though psychologists nationwide have shown through dozens of studies that this issue has major effects on large numbers of people, this is “far exceeded” by the fact that some people like to see a particular logo on a helmet. Unbelievable.

“I don't like people touching me, either.”

Oh, poor baby. Why don’t you toughen up a little? How can you walk through a crowd? Did your parents teach you to not like being touched? Maybe you should grow up and start living in the real world. Why should other people respect your personal space, when you find it impossible to respect other peoples psychological well-being? Why is personal space more valuable than psychological well being? I can find as many psychologist as you want that will tell you that verbal abuse can have far greater effects on someone than having their ass grabbed. But I guess when you don’t like something, everyone should stand up and take notice. Can you “quantify” the hurt that you feel when someone touches you? What if the person touching you enjoys it in a way that “far exceeds” the amount that you don’t like it?

“Well, frankly, we don't trust your psychologists.”

You don’t trust them because they don’t say what you want them to say. If they said that Native Americans are not harmed psychological by these mascots, you would be pasting the study up everywhere. This is not considered rational thought.

“and none of your psychologists can point to any quantifiable hurt”

This is BS. They certainly do show effects. Psychological effects can be measured just like any other, or the field would not exist as it does today. And if this is how you look at it, what about the name “Fighting Kikes”. What “quantifiable hurt” can you point to that says this is offensive to Jews? You're talking like a sausage.

And for your earlier statement that Kike was always meant as a negative statement, and Native American mascots are used with respect, I think that is also BS. When an Atlanta Braves crowd is swinging their tomahawks and chanting, what is going through their mind is a deep respect for Native Americans? Be serious. Regardless, the point is not what is meant by something, but how it is received. If you tell a woman that she has a nice ass, and mean it as a compliment, is it OK? Does it matter if she tells you she is hurt by comments like that, and thinks it is demeaning towards women and has negative effects on women as a whole? Using your logic, this would not matter, because what matters is how you mean it. So since you mean it as a compliment, you will continue to tell her she has a nice ass. Right? You say Native Americans don’t care, but I think you are wrong. The web is full of organizations, statements, etc that are either run by Native Americans or supported by them that address this issue. I am not going to ignore all of that because you say you have met people that say otherwise.

Here is the difference between us. You want to be the judge for everyone on the planet as to what is harmful or offensive, and what is not. If you can't find something harmful in an act, maybe because you have never been in a similar situation, then you should have the right to tell someone it is not harnful, even if they think it is and psychologists support them. I think this is the thinking of a child.
In my view, the personed harmed by an action should be the judge. This evaluation should be shared among a significant number of people, and not just one or two, and should be supported by experts. In that case, I will accept that the action is harmful and will support proportionate steps to correct it. This is the thinking of an adult.

NDDoc:
Whatever the University does that is positive for Native Americans is great, but this has absolutely nothing to do with an issue about whether or not they are committing an act that is harmful to Native Americans in addition. One does not cancel out the other. If I send in a thousand dollar donation to the National Organization for Women, does that mean I can then go around grabbing women's asses, and then show them the cancelled check as proof that I have the right to do so, because I also help women?

Oh, my. Where to start with this one.

OK, you are a genocide denier. Same as Holocaust deniers who are denying a particular genocide. Fine.

Evidence, please? Particularly evidence of intent to commit genocide. You don't have it.

So even though psychologists nationwide have shown through dozens of studies that this issue has major effects on large numbers of people, this is “far exceeded” by the fact that some people like to see a particular logo on a helmet. Unbelievable.

What "major effects?" If one's self-esteem is destroyed by the Chief Wahoo logo, they have far, far larger psychological issues at play that have nothing to do with Indian logos.

“I don't like people touching me, either.”

Oh, poor baby. Why don’t you toughen up a little? How can you walk through a crowd? Did your parents teach you to not like being touched? Maybe you should grow up and start living in the real world. Why should other people respect your personal space, when you find it impossible to respect other peoples psychological well-being? Why is personal space more valuable than psychological well being? I can find as many psychologist as you want that will tell you that verbal abuse can have far greater effects on someone than having their ass grabbed. But I guess when you don’t like something, everyone should stand up and take notice. Can you “quantify” the hurt that you feel when someone touches you? What if the person touching you enjoys it in a way that “far exceeds” the amount that you don’t like it?

I wasn't the one who brought up touching; you did. I wasn't the one complaining about it; you did. I wasn't the one who actually considered being "offended" to be on the same level as battery; you did. What part of this progression escapes you?

You don’t trust them because they don’t say what you want them to say. If they said that Native Americans are not harmed psychological by these mascots, you would be pasting the study up everywhere. This is not considered rational thought.

And you trust them only beause they say what you want them to say.

This is BS. They certainly do show effects. Psychological effects can be measured just like any other, or the field would not exist as it does today. And if this is how you look at it, what about the name “Fighting Kikes”. What “quantifiable hurt” can you point to that says this is offensive to Jews? You're talking like a sausage.

That's kosher sausage to you. And, again, I ask, what effects?

And for your earlier statement that Kike was always meant as a negative statement, and Native American mascots are used with respect, I think that is also BS. When an Atlanta Braves crowd is swinging their tomahawks and chanting, what is going through their mind is a deep respect for Native Americans? Be serious.

Um, no, what is going through their mind is supporting the Atlanta Braves. Only people like you think anything resembling Indians is going through their minds. Here is a simple truth: they don't equate the Atlanta Braves with actual Indians. Nor does anyone with more than three active brain cells.

Regardless, the point is not what is meant by something, but how it is received. If you tell a woman that she has a nice ass, and mean it as a compliment, is it OK? Does it matter if she tells you she is hurt by comments like that, and thinks it is demeaning towards women and has negative effects on women as a whole? Using your logic, this would not matter, because what matters is how you mean it. So since you mean it as a compliment, you will continue to tell her she has a nice ass. Right? You say Native Americans don’t care, but I think you are wrong. The web is full of organizations, statements, etc that are either run by Native Americans or supported by them that address this issue. I am not going to ignore all of that because you say you have met people that say otherwise.

Most of those organizations are run by people with no Indian blood whatsoever, but guilt-ridden white liberals. And you think intent does not matter at all. If you tried to make a court case of this, which you seem wont to do, guess what? You need to show intent.

Here is the difference between us. You want to be the judge for everyone on the planet as to what is harmful or offensive, and what is not. If you can't find something harmful in an act, maybe because you have never been in a similar situation, then you should have the right to tell someone it is not harnful, even if they think it is and psychologists support them. I think this is the thinking of a child.

Not really, everyone should be their own judge of what is harmful or offensive. It is you who seek to impose your own view of what is hurtful and offensive on the rest of us, through legal coercion if necessary.

In my view, the personed harmed by an action should be the judge. This evaluation should be shared among a significant number of people, and not just one or two, and should be supported by experts. In that case, I will accept that the action is harmful and will support proportionate steps to correct it. This is the thinking of an adult.

Um, no, it is the thinking of a Marxist who does not accept that the marketplace of ideas will sometimes contain ideas with which they will disagree. Rule of law demands objective definitions for crimes. You would create a subjective crinme of "offense." A free society cannot function like this, a fair legal system cannot function like this, which seems to be perfectly fine with you.

Hmmm. The formatting in my response didn't come out quite right. The following should have been italicized:

Oh, poor baby. Why don’t you toughen up a little? How can you walk through a crowd? Did your parents teach you to not like being touched? Maybe you should grow up and start living in the real world. Why should other people respect your personal space, when you find it impossible to respect other peoples psychological well-being? Why is personal space more valuable than psychological well being? I can find as many psychologist as you want that will tell you that verbal abuse can have far greater effects on someone than having their ass grabbed. But I guess when you don’t like something, everyone should stand up and take notice. Can you “quantify” the hurt that you feel when someone touches you? What if the person touching you enjoys it in a way that “far exceeds” the amount that you don’t like it?

fyi: dave's entire interest in this topic has centered on bringing up a so-called American holocaust. Topics don't interest dave unless there's an anti-American angle. Since Americans aren't yet ready for the sweeping political changes dave has in mind they need to be worked on, shamed into giving up their belief that America is somehow a special place. American exceptionalism has to die.

Has he explained how a term like the "Fighting Sioux" is derogatory? No. But dave does say that he doesn't trust a majority of Americans to decide what's right. Trust him, after all dave knows a psychologist. The important decisions should be left to dave and his friends.

You're all wasting your time arguing with this person.

Milquetoast liberals like dave don't think.

They FEEL.

It's so much easier for them.

Not really. I don't expect to win him, but others could read the exchange. Arguments like his cannot go unchallenged.

Dave, you can go around grabbing as many asses as you want. The difference being, you will be arrested for it as it is illegal. I happen to work on a reservation and have thousands of friends that are truly Native Americans. Whether they be Sioux or Chippewa, Mandan, Hidatsa, or Arikara. I know of only two that find this offensive. They are both related to the members of the campus group that has raised such a stir. Show me any damage that has been done. Any damage. Any. Enough said.

BTW -- for anyone interested, here is a piece from George Mason's History News Network discussing genocide with respect to the American Indians.

http://www.hnn.us/articles/7302.html

Pro Cynic, you are absolutely right. People like dave need to be confroned, or they will win converts by default. I will admit that it does feel like beating one's head against the wall.

Someone earlier brought up the case a few years ago of a D.C. bureaucrat (liberal) who got his butt in a sling over the use of the word "niggardly", and when it was all over, the fool was babbling apologies and mea culpas. The left was howling for his head (one of their own!) because someone who was unbelievably stupid or poorly educated might think the "n-word" was being used and be catastrophically wounded in their psyches. Of course, "niggardly" is an ancient word meaning "tight" or "parsimonious", and it has no etymological relationship to the "n-word". The so-called offender in that case wasn't using it as a too-clever taunt either, banking on someone catching a perceived similarity to the slur. But someone, regardless of justification, might have been offended, so off with the head of the "offender".

Several years ago, I was taken to task by a handful of lefties who were outraged when they heard me describe some Pacific salmon that I had caught that were far up their spawning streams. I said that the fish were brightly colored and their jaws had developed the distinctive "kype", or hooked feature that characterized fish that were ready to spawn. These leftist loons, none of whom were Jewish, knew nothing of fishing and were convinced that I was using an anti-Semitic slur. I finally gave up arguing with them when they refused to check a dictionary.

Cannoli:
"But dave does say that he doesn't trust a majority of Americans to decide what's right."

That's not what I said. I don't trust Americans to decide if they are uneducated about the issue, but if they are, I do trust them. That it why I said I would be in favor of a court case. Pick any set of Americans at random, and then let those on both sides of the issue give their case. I know who would win. Only extremist, closed-minded idealogues such as yoursleves have the unique ability to ignore evidence, and you are in the finge minority. I think most people would see the issue clearly once presented with all the information. It would be hilarious. One Native American after another for weeks explaining how this affects them, and the defense replies with: "Toughen up", "people like you are making this country wimpy", "can you quantify your pain?", "does you pain compare with the pleasure gained from people looking at these mascots?". Hilarious. Then the experts come up. One APA psychologist after another for weeks, explaining their studies. The defense, one after another, says "we don't trust you", "what about the APA/homosexuality issue?", "can you quantify their pain?", "the defense doesn't think that academic knowledge should affect anything in the real world outside of ethnic and women's studies". This would be the funniest court case of all time.

“Evidence, please? [of Native American genocide)”

This is way too big of a question for a blog post, and I don’t want to go into it. And why do I have to have evidence when I am the person calling you a genocide denier? The accuser in these types of issues is not the one who needs proof or evidence. If someone comes on this site and denies that the Holocaust happened, will you engage him in a discussion on the evidence, and discuss your proof? Or will you call him names and dismiss him? I thought it would be enough to simply call you a genocide denier and scoff at you. I thoght that is how it's done

“What "major effects?" If one's self-esteem is destroyed by the Chief Wahoo logo, they have far, far larger psychological issues at play that have nothing to do with Indian logos.”

You are deliberately trivializing the issue. None is these things occurs in a vacuum. It is a part of larger trends within social dynamics. If you really want to understand, read the papers and authors I mentioned.

“I wasn't the one who brought up touching; you did”

But you said you don’t like it. What if you really didn’t like it. What if you were touched in a certain way as a child that made you feel inferior, outcast, etc? What if it bothered you a lot, and subtly effected your actions throughout your life? Would you have preferred that there was an adult around at the time that would have stopped this person from touching you in a way that made you feel this way? Even if the person touching you in this way did not have any intent to make you feel this way?

“And you trust them only beause they say what you want them to say.”

Absolutely wrong. And that will always be the biggest difference between myself and every closed-minded imbecile on this site. If the psychologists said something that I didn’t agree with, I would certainly scrutinize their work very carefully, but if it checked out, I would accept it. I have never, ever lived my life with a pre-conceived world view and made reality fit to it. That is what the people on this site do, and its pathetic. As a result, I change my mind often, and my world-view as a whole has changed radically throughout my life. I allow facts to change what I think. The people on this site have not changed an opinion or their world view one iota throughout their life. You people pick a worldview that you are comfortable with, and ignore everything that does not fit it. You are projecting.

“And, again, I ask, what effects?”

There are over 30 papers referenced in the APA report I linked to. Read those. Better yet, read some work by Sidanius or Pratto. I have read some of their stuff, and it related to this issue directly. Reading this stuff would only matter if you read it with an open mind. You will not read anything that is not pre-determined by you to already fit your world view, and even if you did, you would not read it with an open mind, because you don’t have one. So just skip it.

“It is you who seek to impose your own view of what is hurtful and offensive on the rest of us, through legal coercion if necessary.”

No, not my own view, but the views of the people who make up the society. This is not a view that matters to me personally. I have never tied my personal identity to groups in the way most people do. If I were a Native American, this issue would not bother me in the slightest. Remember, I am an American, and I think American culture is pathetic. This is not my issue. But I do understand that it is important to others, and I respect that. Why the hell should I care if my team name changes? I have the ability to remember a new name.

"You would create a subjective crinme of "offense.""

No. I would couch it in terms of free speech. AS the ref I gave showed, free speech is limited in cases where it is "harmful to children". I believe it would be a very easy task to prove to a jury that this issue is harmful to children.

" A free society cannot function like this"

We can't swear on the radio, I assume because it is offensive to some. We can't scream obscenities in public for the same reason. We can't show nudity in public or on TV. We can't have sex in public or on TV. We already do all kinds of things because people get offended.Are we living in a dictatorship?

Challenged, confronted, sure, but you do see that you're arguing with someone who has no interest in helping native Americans? This story just happens to suit his political purpose is all.

dave's words: "And why do I have to have evidence when I am the person calling you a genocide denier? The accuser in these types of issues is not the one who needs proof or evidence."

Okay, so we now throw out the tradition of innocent until proven guilty? Anyone can hurl any accusation against a person and it is the responibility of the accused to defend against crap? Has dave never heard of the classic paradigm of "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no!"

cynic:
Similar issues have already been tested in the courts. The Utah Supreme Court in the case of "McBride v. Motor Vehicle Division" disallowed the use of the word "Redskin" on a License plate because the law does not allow plates that are offensive:

wyom.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=247083

I know your response already:

"We don't trust the Utah Supreme Court"

I just read a law review article claiming that in general Native Americans will have a hard time eliminating these mascots through existing laws. I guess the issue will remain the same unless public pressure makes more and more schools make changes voluntarily. If a school does this, challenges from people such as yourself to reverse the change have also proven fruitless in the courts. Sounds like public pressure one way or another is the deciding factor. I believe the trend is in my direction at the moment.

That's not what I said. I don't trust Americans to decide if they are uneducated about the issue, but if they are, I do trust them. That it why I said I would be in favor of a court case. Pick any set of Americans at random, and then let those on both sides of the issue give their case.

Social engineerng via the courts. A good lawyer can convince a jury that Phil Spector and O.J. didn't kill anyone. I expect lawyers could convince a jury that it's wrong to teach that George Washington was a great American, rather he was a bigoted slaveholder who attacked native Americans.

You're confident that you'd have a better chance at convincing 7 of 12 captive jurors if you could present your propaganda and I agree -- much easier to convince 7 out of 12 than persuading a simple majority of American adults.

"This is way too big of a question for a blog post, and I don’t want to go into it. And why do I have to have evidence when I am the person calling you a genocide denier? The accuser in these types of issues is not the one who needs proof or evidence"

Dave?

Are you still molesting little boys at rest stops? Please provide evidence to the contrary.

That loud, windy sound you hear above you, dave, is a vortex of stupidity opening up. They only appear when the conditions are perfect.

Congratulations!

You are deliberately trivializing the issue. None is these things occurs in a vacuum. It is a part of larger trends within social dynamics. If you really want to understand, read the papers and authors I mentioned.

Damn right I'm trivializing it. And I intend to continue trivializing it.

But you said you don’t like it. What if you really didn’t like it. What if you were touched in a certain way as a child that made you feel inferior, outcast, etc? What if it bothered you a lot, and subtly effected your actions throughout your life? Would you have preferred that there was an adult around at the time that would have stopped this person from touching you in a way that made you feel this way? Even if the person touching you in this way did not have any intent to make you feel this way?

Like I said, you're actually saying an "insult" is the same as "battery." Didn't anyone ever teach you "Sticks and stones ...?" Like I said earlier, two words: "Danish cartoons."

There are over 30 papers referenced in the APA report I linked to. Read those. Better yet, read some work by Sidanius or Pratto. I have read some of their stuff, and it related to this issue directly. Reading this stuff would only matter if you read it with an open mind. You will not read anything that is not pre-determined by you to already fit your world view, and even if you did, you would not read it with an open mind, because you don’t have one. So just skip it.

A psychologist doing a study is like giving a prosecutor a grand jury and a ham sandwich. And if I had the money, I could fund 30 separate studies that say precisely the opposite. If I had the money, I could fund 30 separate studies that say red high-heeled shoes have a negative effect on American Indians. In that case, should we just get rid of red high-heeled shoes? I mean, we don't want to hurt anyone.

And since you can't be bothered to asnwer the question, I will ask again: Precisely how is anybody hurt by an Indian logo? Don't tell me there are 30 studies. Don't tell me authors. You are making the claim that the status quo needs to be changed. You back it up. If there are 30 studies saying this, as you claim, it should be easy.

No, not my own view, but the views of the people who make up the society. This is not a view that matters to me personally. I have never tied my personal identity to groups in the way most people do. If I were a Native American, this issue would not bother me in the slightest. Remember, I am an American, and I think American culture is pathetic. This is not my issue. But I do understand that it is important to others, and I respect that. Why the hell should I care if my team name changes? I have the ability to remember a new name.

Technically, I suspect you are a Native American, as is just about everyone who posts here. A Native Ameircan is by definition anyone born in America. The fact is it does not bother the American Indians. It probably does not actually bother you, at least not by itself. You betray your true agenda when you say American culture is "pathetic." I suppose that "cu;ture" prmoted by the Taliban is so much better.

I would couch it in terms of free speech. AS the ref I gave showed, free speech is limited in cases where it is "harmful to children". I believe it would be a very easy task to prove to a jury that this issue is harmful to children.

So, let me get this straight. In the same post, you have said: A. we need to promote freedom of speech by restricting it by some subjective standard; and B. American Indians need to be protected like children do. And you say I am the racist here?

We can't swear on the radio, I assume because it is offensive to some. We can't scream obscenities in public for the same reason. We can't show nudity in public or on TV. We can't have sex in public or on TV. We already do all kinds of things because people get offended.Are we living in a dictatorship?

Airwaves are public property. There is no right to be on the air. Go to Sirius or XM or cable and you can do what you want. Actually, you can scream obscentiies in public under constitutional law. Freedom of speech doesn't just cover the speech you like, nor was it meant to.

dave "If I send in a thousand dollar donation to the National Organization for Women, does that mean I can then go around grabbing women's asses, and then show them the cancelled check as proof that I have the right to do so, because I also help women?"

Bill Clinton amply proved that the answer to this question is a resounding yes! Ifyou were ensconsed well enough with NOW female journalists would also publicly offer to orally service you after the scandal broke.

You have not brought up a single instance of UND doing anything less than dignified in its use of the Indian logo (the same logo as the Chicago Blackhawks, by the way - a team which also has had zero Indain-sourced protest or complaint about the logo).

Atlanta behaving badly is not cause to punish UND for not behaving badly.

"Precisely how is anybody hurt by an Indian logo?"

This question cannot be answered in a few paragraphs on a blog. You have to do some actual reading. If you are unable to understand something that cannot be explained within 2 minutes, I am not surprised you have the views that you do. If I win the lottery, I'll buy a baseball team and name it the "Fighting Kikes", and then when you whine about it, I'll ask you to prove how Jewish people can be harmed by a word and we'll see if you can prove it to me in a few paragraphs.

"I could fund 30 separate studies that say precisely the opposite."

So for you science is about organizations with an agenda paying off scientists to find what they want them to find. At least in the case where you don't like the findings. If you do like the findings, I am sure it is good science. Why is everything a conspiracy theory with you people?
Most research within psychology is funded by the government. So why do you think our government is paying off scientists to claim that Native American mascots are harmful? Is the government trying to create controversy within topics like these to draw attention away from the fact that they are responsible for 9/11? What do you think the reason is?
My wife does government funded research all the time, and finds results that I don't think the government would be happy about. So why isn't she getting paid off? Or is she, and she is socking the money away somewhere without telling me?
She is about to start a study with some people at Harvard looking for implicit bias in people towards Muslims. I am sure the government woul not want her to find this bias, since I would expect the government to want AMericans to bee seen as tolerant and not discriminatory. So why are they funding this study in the first place? If the don't want her to find a bias, when can I expect my payoff money?

Still here dave?

You must think you have something really, really important to say.

Turn off the light when you're done.

"Precisely how is anybody hurt by an Indian logo?"

This question cannot be answered in a few paragraphs on a blog. You have to do some actual reading. If you are unable to understand something that cannot be explained within 2 minutes, I am not surprised you have the views that you do. If I win the lottery, I'll buy a baseball team and name it the "Fighting Kikes", and then when you whine about it, I'll ask you to prove how Jewish people can be harmed by a word and we'll see if you can prove it to me in a few paragraphs.

I'm not making the argument, Dave. You are. I'm not going to do your research for you. You say it's hurting them. You prove it. Right now, you are doing nothing to disprove the assumption that you simply think they should be hurt by it and are making it up as you go along, without giving any thought to the possibility that they might not actually be hurt.

Dammit. It did not italicize his comments again. My second paragraph should have been italicized as they were Dave's comments.

So for you science is about organizations with an agenda paying off scientists to find what they want them to find. At least in the case where you don't like the findings. If you do like the findings, I am sure it is good science. Why is everything a conspiracy theory with you people?

With us people? Name one study debunking the eminently debunkable anthropogenic global warming theory that wasn't criticized by people like you as being funded by "Big Oil." And this was acutal physical science, not the social sciences, which are largely about politics.

Most research within psychology is funded by the government. So why do you think our government is paying off scientists to claim that Native American mascots are harmful? Is the government trying to create controversy within topics like these to draw attention away from the fact that they are responsible for 9/11? What do you think the reason is?

You think the US government is responsible for 9/11? You've just gone beyond idiocy into insanity.

My wife does government funded research all the time, and finds results that I don't think the government would be happy about. So why isn't she getting paid off? Or is she, and she is socking the money away somewhere without telling me?

I don't know. Is she?

She is about to start a study with some people at Harvard looking for implicit bias in people towards Muslims. I am sure the government woul not want her to find this bias, since I would expect the government to want AMericans to bee seen as tolerant and not discriminatory. So why are they funding this study in the first place? If the don't want her to find a bias, when can I expect my payoff money?

They probably want her to find bias so they can justify not profiling on the basis of country of origin (as in, a predominantly Muslim country), which is the most rational approach to security. Our government is infected with politicla correctness at the expense of our liberty and security.