Proposed bill bans mascots deemed derogatory

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by *stRgrL*, May 10, 2002.

  1. *stRgrL* Kicks ass Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,495
    A bill introduced by Goldberg may prevent California public schools, community colleges and universities from naming their respective institutions the Indians or the Fighting Irish or anything else someone might find derogatory or discriminatory.

    AB 2115 would specifically prohibit schools from using the names redskins, Indians, braves, chiefs, Apaches, Comanches or any other tribal name. It would also give the state Board of Education and the California Postsecondary Education Commission the power to prohibit any school name or mascot deemed offensive.

    Full story here

    I think this is one of the stupidest things Ive heard. I may be upset because my high schools mascot will be changed from the Indians to the Anteaters but I still think the government could be worrying and spending time and money on more serious problems. Why do people see it derogitory? I would be proud if a team was named after my heritage or whatever. Everyone rants and raves about free speech but we cant name our mascots what we want to? Doesnt make any sense.

    Take care

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Shamoo Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    i wish they had the fighting welsh, that would be cool

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. *stRgrL* Kicks ass Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,495
    That would be cool - Im part Welsh!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Riomacleod Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    301
    Strgrl, i 100% agree. Miami University changed its name a while back from the Redskins to the Redhawks (a sacred bird of the Miami Indian tribe-how that is any better i don't know). the problem is that people have entirely too much time on their hands and we simply can't tell the difference between important and unimportant distinctions. I'd be willing to bet that there wasn't one American Indian involved in the process to begin with. That's usually how it works.

    We live in a soceity where we are terrified of being labelled racist. I live in Cincinnati, so I know how this is. If you disagree with the current boycott of downtown services in Cincinnati which stemmed from April '01 riots you get labelled a racist. If you think that the people who were rioting should go to jail you get labelled a racist. Fortunately, the city hasn't backed down to the organizations which are currently running it into the ground.

    We want to be thought of as caring people, and I think that we all recognize that racism-when it really exists-is a serious issue, and that all people are more or less equal to one another (given the vast distribution of the human race). But it's hard to deal with the actual causes of racism. The only option left is to go around, looking for anything that looks like it could offend anyone, and getting rid of it, logical or not.
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,047
    Did anyone ever notice?

    Did anyone ever notice that the Cleveland Indians' logo looks like a detail painted onto the shape of someone flipping you the bird? (Take all the detail out of it and look at the shape.)

    The problem with some names are the names: e.g. "Redskins", "Fighting Irish". Would we, for instance, appreciate the USC "Wetbacks", the Georgetown "Niggers", or the University of Florida "Lazy Mexicans"?

    Other problems come with the characterization of the names. The Atlanta Braves seems like an innocuous name, but given that the "Tomahawk chop" cheer refers to the act of scalping a human being, it seems an unfair characterization. I mean, there's a school in the northeast whose teams are named "Friars" (is it St. John's?) Would mock fellatio or sodomy be an appropriate characterization? I saw how much the Jesuits drank when I was in high school. How about a rally cheer where everybody raises an invisible bottle and then falls all over each other while screaming wildly for the home team?

    Vikings? Saxons? Celts? Get rid of them. Otherwise why not name schools by the smaller units, such as tribes or clans? Then we could have the Puyallup High Puyallups, the Forks High Humptulips, or the (South?) Salem High Micks (Mc's). (For the record, I believe there's the Utah State Aggies and the University of Utah Utes, the latter being a tribal name.)

    When I was in middle school, I played basketball against a Christian school whose team was called "Crusaders". The painting on the gymnasium wall was an elegant painting of a knight in shining armor. Why not put a picture of a Crusader raping a girl in Byzantium on the wall? It's more accurate.

    My brother's high school team was the Spartans; I always wondered why they didn't kill a baby before each game.

    To the other, my high school mascot was a Lion, and that was actually a bad mascot for a Catholic school, for after all, the Lion shall lay down for the Lamb.

    Of course, if we go too far, can we make the California Angels change their name? It's not like they're in the City of Angels, and therefore the name doesn't have any real application. So perhaps we should stop disparaging a religious concept or something?

    In the end, it's a sticky thing. I'm of the opinion that names like Indians, Redskins, Braves, Fighting Irish, and so forth shouldn't be used. After all, why not go with Europeans, Footsoldiers, or Bitchy Americans instead?

    Lastly, I always thought it would be cool if one of the tribes up here would buy a professional sports team so that we could name them the Tahoma Palefaces. Or the Lying Honkies. That would pretty much put an end to the team-naming controversy.

    But just for giggles, my favorite is linked below. I got it from an AP or Reuters' story. Somewhere in Colorado.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. *stRgrL* Kicks ass Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,495
    Thanks Tiassa, that was pretty damn funny! Not your post, just some of the things that you said. I can see where your coming from, really. Its just a name though. I mean, the sh*t people can raise a fuss about nowadays. There are more serious things the governor could be worrying about, like the hungry homeless people walking the streets - than a damn name on a t-shirt! And what if we change the names to animals - what if some animal activist start whining. I mean where does it end? Should we name them colors? Then colored people will start a fuss. How about naming the teams 1, 2, 3, 4, etc..... What about food? Im sure we couldnt use ethnic foods, and then if we didnt, we would be called prejudice. Ya get where Im going? I thought this was the country who pushes "Freedom of Speech" Where is the freedom in this? Sorry Angels - you have to call yourselfs the Ants from now on? Not very free if you ask me.

    Warning, Warning: New regulations of what you can name your kids! New regulations on what you can call your dog! No more colored cars - it offends some people - were sticking to basic white! Oh wait - were prejudice now!!!!
    (sorry couldnt help myself)

    Thanks for all your inputs

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,047
    Indeed ...

    I agree.

    Actually, and I've been reluctant to mention it since it's such a reliable source ....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But there was an episode of Arliss (HBO) in which an associate of ... well, the black guy who works with Arliss ... started raising a fuss about the Atlanta Braves. To make his point, the complaining party sent Arliss' office a video made up of other "racisms" that were "just for fun", including Al Jolson, Black Sambo dolls, and other pieces of Americana which catch our breath in the modern day.

    I still can't tell you what I got from that moment, but that's why I'm a fan of the ineffable.

    Given, however, the current controversy about "sports rage", I'm not sure ... well, yeah. We have to watch that carefully. But also, there's the notion that, especially as pertains to the public schools and state-financed ventures (there is public money in some professional teams, and in some private schools) it is inappropriate to give the appearance of endorsing ethnic-based division. I mean, if you're playing chess against a Jew, you wouldn't say you crushed him like World War II, would you? I make a joke that I would like to see hockey player Mario Satan be the hero of the Stanley Cup because the headline would be hilarious--All hail Satan!--but I would be lying if I said I've never seen the headline, Cowboys massacre Indians.

    The decency issue is easier to resolve, I think, than the legalistic issue. I think the only way you can force the names out of sports is through government involvement. The public schools, sports teams playing in public facilities, &c. From there it becomes a matter of the leagues. That's why the Paleface team would be so effective. What, can anyone believe that, say, Major League Baseball would accept such a name? The organizations don't want to be associated with it. However, they will accept those racisms that they just don't see.

    Take minor league hockey. There's a team called the Tri-Cities Americans. What if their mascot dressed up in Neo-Nazi gear and strutted around the arena with his arm in the air and screaming about white power?

    Maybe it shouldn't be legislated. But, to the other, just because people don't think it unfair doesn't mean it's fair, and what do we do, then, when we stop and think about the fact that nobody ever will name a team Palefaces or Honkies. And the story that goes with the picture I included goes approximately like this: It's an intramural college team, meant for play on campus only, that named itself as such in response to the controversy surrounding team names. The University itself has at least attempted to reject the name, and that caused some outcry. I didn't follow the story closely at the time.

    Perhaps it shouldn't be legislated. But in that sense ... ugh ... I'm not sure I like my neighbors in that case.

    Suspect team names:

    • Braves
    • Indians
    • Chiefs
    • Seminoles
    • Saxons
    • Vikings
    • Celts/Celtics
    • Quakers
    • Friars
    • Padres
    • Crusaders
    • Demon Deacons
    • Devils
    • Fighting Irish
    • Fighting Whities
    • Vandals
    • Pirates
    • Buccaneers

    and that's just the short list. Rather, the ones I could come up with off the top of my head.

    thanx ...
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,047
    Lolita & Tanqueray

    It just occurred to me to mention that, as bizarre as it is, there is currently a backlash in children's names. To describe it in common vernacular, "white" people are giving their kids "black" names.

    Now, I don't know how we qualify a name as black or white; some of the names do come from African tribal culture, but some of them don't.

    I knew a woman who named her kid "Haile", after a famous African. She knew the name from the news; I asked her. I decided not to tell her that "Haile" was Mengistu Haile Miriam, dictator of Ethiopia.

    Not so much as an issue of free speech, but there is a very clear correlation on this one. This black/white naming controversy (tavern talk) seems to be limited to white mothers who listened to hip-hop and rap.

    Of course, the numbers are in and "Madison" was the second most-popular name for girls in 2001, so I feel safe in saying that my own troubles with how people name their children go well beyond issues of race or ethnicity. I'm waiting to see the Seattle index the year after we finally get a world series. How many young boys will be named Ichiro, I can't even imagine.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Riomacleod Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    301
    As unpleaseant as it is, Strgrl, I think that you have a point. At some point things like that are going to happen. It's always going to be something with someone. Like I said, I bet you didn't see one American Indian at any of the protests in any of the colleges where this happened. All of this bullsh*t is the direct result of college students who have entirely too much time on their hands, have a hell of a rebellion culture to live up to (Which I'd like to point out while I was in college the 60's/70's protesters-turned-adults said that my generation doesn't believe in anything because we're not protesting. almost a slap in the face really), and couldn't recognise an important cause if it hit them in the face and started biting them.
    Maybe we should just get rid of mascotts all together? Maybe that would stop the bitching once and for all. we can just say the Baltimore Football Team played the New England Football team. The Seattle Baseball Organization played the Kansas City Baseball Organization.

    Here's a joke for you:
    Multiple things did something.

    as for cars I imagine that the actual one color we'll get will probably be that ugly-ass beige that sedans are all in anymore.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,047
    Scores from around the league

    In Asheville, the game went long as the Asheville womens' softball team, the Bellywarmers, went extra innings before losing at home to the Hobags with a final of 7-6. Talk about kicking that Ho to the curb!

    In NBA action, the Los Angeles Niggers thrashed the New York Kikes thanks to a fourth-quarter, 19-point outburst from Kobe Bryant. Check out the jam as the Nigger goes up and says, "Take that, you Kike!" Bryant was on fire, and that fourth quarter put the Kikes in the furnace, ending up with a 110-109 victory for the hometown Niggers.

    In baseball news, the Texas Wetbacks had a rough outing in interleague play against the San Diego Spics, and look at the break on this pitch ... what is that? That's his greaseball. Elsewhere in the majors, John Rocker and the Cleveland Krauts stuck it to the San Francisco Faggots. Watch Rocker's slider; how's that for nailing a Faggot through the back door?

    It should be noted that it's not always about the name itself. In the case of the Cleveland Indians, I would accept the team name if the mascot running around the ballpark was a confused Italian Jew wearing Spaniard livery. In the case of the Atlanta Braves, I'd say the conduct of the fans and reliance on racist stereotype speaks against the use of the name. Everything about Notre Dame's Fighting Irish is distasteful. I mean, Touchdown Jesus is just another example of Christians making an effort to be idiots, but the Fighting Irish thing just doesn't reflect the school's mission.

    For our international neighbors, the nearest I can equate this would be to call a team the "Fighting Aussies" and have the logo be Paul Hogan humping a kangaroo. Worse yet, having Hogan as the mascot running around the stadium, saying, "You call that a pitch? Now that's a pitch."

    I can just imagine the "Chicago Sicilians", with a mascot corps of five "legitimate businessmen" with suspicious bulges under their jackets, walking around the stadium and bitch-slapping everyone, saying, "You talkin' to me?"

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    Tiassa........Miroslav Satan. Not Mario. You're thinkin' of Lemieux. Sorry, but I know as much about hockey as, well, anyone knows about anything. (Interestingly enough, if you go the NHL.com page and find the player page for Satan, his 'player ID number' given by NHL.com is 666).


    "Take minor league hockey. There's a team called the Tri-Cities Americans. What if their mascot dressed up in Neo-Nazi gear and strutted around the arena with his arm in the air and screaming about white power?"

    But 'Indian' is not a derogatory name. And Indians know this. The world does NOT come from Columbus mistaking America for India (mainly, because India was NOT called India at the time). It comes from Columbus' poor spanish. He called Indians In Dios, which means a people in God. To me, that seems like a rather complimenting name. That's why there's no Indian-organized fight to ban the world 'Indian'.



    Tiassa, even if these words were derogatory a long time ago......we would have to ban a hell of a lot of English to right our old wrongs. For instance, the words Husband and Wife. Wife once basically came from a word which represented a piece of property. Like a wife once was. Should we ban this word? No. Know why? Because it has taken on a different meaning.


    And even if you want to get rid of derogatory team names, what the hell is wrong with 'Devils'?????


    Tiassa, I am sure you will agree with me when I say that people are FAR too easily offended in our society.




    "Maybe we should just get rid of mascotts all together? Maybe that would stop the bitching once and for all. we can just say the Baltimore Football Team played the New England Football team. The Seattle Baseball Organization played the Kansas City Baseball Organization."

    Oh no. Oh no no no. See, we can't have sports anymore because we can't have winners and losers. Everyone must be a winner. It's like all that bullshit about banning dodgeball in schools. Makes me sick.



    "In Asheville, the game went long as the Asheville womens' softball team, the Bellywarmers, went extra innings before losing at home to the Hobags with a final of 7-6. Talk about kicking that Ho to the curb!"

    Damn, I had money riding on the ho's.....




    And besides Tiassa, I don't believe in limiting our freedom to speech....even if offends some pussy yuppy.
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,047
    Tyler, I have no title for this post ....

    I stand corrected ....
    It's a fair enough point, but I'm of the inclination that such fundamental terms for people as we protect by law (e.g. race, gender, religion ...) should not be used as team names. Not all Irish fight--it's an ethnic slur; not all Indians scalped, and few ever acted as inane as fans or mascots.
    To be honest, Tyler, it took me all of twelve seconds to find this:
    And this:
    There's a couple others, but it would be best to simply refer you here, rather than reproducing the whole of the statements here. For what it's worth, 81% of the respondents in a survey by Indian Country Today magazine indicated that, predominantly, such mascots and team names are offensive.
    Well, what does Indian mean today? Beyond that, I would assert that what has changed about husband/wife is how we regard the wife. That the wife is the partner of the husband and vice-versa hasn't changed, has it?
    Well, people have objected to it before. I'm either way on it. On the one hand, if I was Christian, I wouldn't want my kid to be a Devil. To the other, since it's largely about representation, I can guarantee you that any representation of a Devil that has anything to do with sports is derogatory.
    Well, there is that. But I think you and I might also agree that people are, paradoxically, far too insensitive. Case in point, I had a discussion the other day with a guy who, after dissing the left for being unbathed, unkepmt, idiot fuckups, got pissed at me when I pointed out in my roundabout way that what he was arguing required the presuppostion of the propriety of greed and the acknowledgement that other people have less value. It was fair enough for him to dismiss people for his opinion, but when presented with reality, he went ballistic. Yes, some people are too sensitive about team names and other issues, but there are also a good number of people who are insensitive to the reasons why these names are distasteful. (See linked image below, for instance. I love that cartoon because it's essentially the problem.)
    As one who has actually broken a person's nose and witnessed ... three (I think) concussions and a broken wrist as a result of dodgeball, I'm not sure it's appropriate for schools. To the other, I did enjoy the game, and I won't deny it. And while football is an American institution (for comparison) I do have doubts about teaching children wargames. If you want to teach them wargames, teach them chess.
    I'm a Bellywarmer man, myself

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Whose rights are being violated?

    I make this counterpoint for a specific reason. I have a serious problem with lending free speech to institutions. To wit: in the United States we still have a criminal complaint called "false advertising". I don't know why we bother. As companies win more and more rights as individuals, the result is that they can flat lie to you in their adverts. Yet at the same time, for instance, Kim Basinger can get sued for breach of contract for simply agreeing to read a script. How do the two relate? All Basinger said was she would take a look at the script. She said she was interested in doing the film, and she backed out when they sent her the rewrite; several scenes she objected to had been written in. At this point, there was no written agreement for her to act. When she dropped the project, they scrambled, made a bad film, and blamed it on her. Breach of implied contract through verbal agreement. The film, incidentally, was Boxing Helena, and I have to say that Basinger's presence couldn't have saved it.

    So Kim B's spoken word is binding. But not an advertiser's spoken or written word. It's freedom of speech, man. How can you breach a contract when you have such license?

    So fundamentally, I suppose what's at issue for me with the counterpoint is that I don't think corporations should have full freedom of speech. Hell, you can't even tell the truth about a corporation in this day and age, so why should they be allowed to lie to you for profit and hide behind a fundamental, sacred right?

    How, for instance, are your speech rights violated if your high school is not allowed to name their team "Indians" or "Niggers"? I can say that I was proud to be a Lion in my day, but by no stretch of the imagination can I say I'm proud to be an Indian. Or an Aussie. Or a Canadian. Or a Celt, Vandal, Saxon, or Ute.

    And it is even-handed, in its own right. After all, the aforementioned "Fightin' Whities" aren't allowed. (Note, Colorado's "Fightin' Whities" are incidental to the article, which is an editorial from Indian Country Times.)

    In the end, though, laws can only be written to apply to public institutions. But that becomes an entangled mess, then, depending on how the laws are written. As a comparison, residents of Oregon were once asked to vote on homosexuality; yeah, I've talked about this one before. But it is in fact relevant. The way the law was structured was different than it was pitched. It was pitched as a "protect our children from deviants" law, but even the most casual perusal, much less a detailed reading, revealed the extent to which the law would go. Because of the way it addressed the state's responsibilities, it could have created a condition whereby the "acute homophobia" defense for murder would become acceptable by prohibiting the state from endorsing, encouraging, or promoting homosexuality. The state was obliged to take the stance that homosexuality was deviant and dangerous, and by that condition, what is a prosecutor supposed to say in response to a "self-defense" plea in what would otherwise be a senseless hate crime?

    Now, the parallel here is in the nature of the anti-mascot laws. Think of it this way: okay, fine ... go ahead and say that in this state no school or organization receiving public money can have an "offensive" team name (draw whatever limitations you like). Seems well and fine, right? But what are the school's commitments to their organizations? What, for instance, is Idaho State (I think that's the school--their team is the "Vandals", which name does appear in history) supposed to do about the NCAA? After all, they do have obligations, and state money does go toward the school's participation in the NCAA. Thus, state money might be going toward the renamed Vandals playing a game against the ______ (fill in the blank, I suppose). And that's where it gets really sticky.

    Personally, I think that if people can't play sports without ridiculing ethnicity or other such factors, they probably shouldn't be playing.

    As Richard Lapchick wrote in Sports Business Journal,
    I don't know ... is there a "Yoruba" or "Ibo" team out there? How about the "Kurds"?

    By the way ... in terms of Columbus and the people with God? That's because that's where he was sending them. Columbus murdered a half-million people by some estimates; . I have to admit that regardless of anything else, that's why I find the word "Indian" offensive in general, team names or not. Being "In Dios" means you're a savage, pathetic brute who's too lazy to be allowed to live.

    But in the end, I have to admit that what I want to do most is run down the street and scream, "Go Fighting Whities! Kill the Indians!" In this neighborhood, well, if I yelled "Fighting Whities", I think most of my neighbors would know what I was talking about. They'd probably wonder who I was trying to prove the point to.

    In principle, I'm a free speech person. But I don't think that any kid of indigenous blood in this country should have to play basketball for a high school team called "Indians", and I don't think he should have to watch a dipshit mascot,and I don't think he should have to get up in the morning and see "Cowboys scalp Indians" in the newspaper. I mean, at that point, why not allow teachers to call their students "nigger"? It's free speech, right? It causes a condition whereby participation is not offered equally to all; one cannot ask individuals to be subjected to racism at the hands of a school. It violates the principle of equal protection under the law. And without equal protection, there is no free speech.

    thanx much,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 17, 2002
  16. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    "It's a fair enough point, but I'm of the inclination that such fundamental terms for people as we protect by law (e.g. race, gender, religion ...) should not be used as team names. Not all Irish fight--it's an ethnic slur; not all Indians scalped, and few ever acted as inane as fans or mascots."

    Then why call a team the Avalanche? Not all avalanche are dangerous. It's a generalization. How about calling them the Panthers? Not all Pantehrs attack. It's a generalization. I realize this is a poor arguement, but I am generally against the banning of generalizations, as you'll notice later.



    "To be honest, Tyler, it took me all of twelve seconds to find this"

    All those sites were against the derogatory use of tribe names. Not once did I see a site with Indians not wanting to have their sect of people called Indians. They just didn't want teams named 'The Indians' or something.



    "Well, what does Indian mean today? Beyond that, I would assert that what has changed about husband/wife is how we regard the wife. That the wife is the partner of the husband and vice-versa hasn't changed, has it?"

    Can either refer to a Native American person or one from India.



    "Well, people have objected to it before. I'm either way on it. On the one hand, if I was Christian, I wouldn't want my kid to be a Devil. To the other, since it's largely about representation, I can guarantee you that any representation of a Devil that has anything to do with sports is derogatory."

    As I've said, people are far too easily offended. 'Devils' is just a sports name like any other for a sport like hockey; designed to insight fear and unsurity on the other team (just like jersey's and goalie masks are originally designed). It is in no way designed to represent actual Satanism. It's just able to be interputed that way. But so what, Shakespeare implies rape and we don't ban it. I would think rape is slightly more offensive than a giant cartoon stereo-typical demon.



    "Well, there is that. But I think you and I might also agree that people are, paradoxically, far too insensitive. Case in point, I had a discussion the other day with a guy who, after dissing the left for being unbathed, unkepmt, idiot fuckups, got pissed at me when I pointed out in my roundabout way that what he was arguing required the presuppostion of the propriety of greed and the acknowledgement that other people have less value. It was fair enough for him to dismiss people for his opinion, but when presented with reality, he went ballistic. Yes, some people are too sensitive about team names and other issues, but there are also a good number of people who are insensitive to the reasons why these names are distasteful. (See linked image below, for instance. I love that cartoon because it's essentially the problem.)"

    Presented with reality? The same reality which tells us a word is just a word, and interputations can be made either way? For instance, the Boston Celtics. You claim this name is questionable. Is Celtics derogatory? No. Why? Becuase it's just a word that represents a group of people. For a Celt to be hurt by the name Celtics would mean they are ashamed of their own heritage as the word Celtic carries no derogatory meaning. The name was put in place to honour and represent a founding group in the area. Are computer games like Pharoh insulting to Egyptians because they represent a past? I hope not. I hope no one is ashamed of their heritage to the point that the very name of their forefathers is offensive.



    "As one who has actually broken a person's nose and witnessed ... three (I think) concussions and a broken wrist as a result of dodgeball, I'm not sure it's appropriate for schools. To the other, I did enjoy the game, and I won't deny it. And while football is an American institution (for comparison) I do have doubts about teaching children wargames. If you want to teach them wargames, teach them chess."

    Good. Kids need to get broken in. I'm sure as hell not about to be one of those parents who make their kids wear every single safety precaution period. Kids need to learn what pain is before they get too old. A good concusion or two never hurt anyone.



    "I make this counterpoint for a specific reason. I have a serious problem with lending free speech to institutions. To wit: in the United States we still have a criminal complaint called "false advertising". I don't know why we bother. As companies win more and more rights as individuals, the result is that they can flat lie to you in their adverts."

    Good point. But false advertising is basically libel against yourself (well, in reverse), and that is why it should be illegal and does not break freedom of speech rights.



    "By the way ... in terms of Columbus and the people with God? That's because that's where he was sending them. Columbus murdered a half-million people by some estimates; . I have to admit that regardless of anything else, that's why I find the word "Indian" offensive in general, team names or not. Being "In Dios" means you're a savage, pathetic brute who's too lazy to be allowed to live."

    His first reference to them by this term was when he met them. I honestly can't say I know if he was using the term to stand for his future slaughter of them. Perhaps you know for sure?
    By that logic my friend, 'wife' should still be offensive, despite the new meaning it's taken on.



    "In principle, I'm a free speech person. But I don't think that any kid of indigenous blood in this country should have to play basketball for a high school team called "Indians", and I don't think he should have to watch a dipshit mascot,and I don't think he should have to get up in the morning and see "Cowboys scalp Indians" in the newspaper. I mean, at that point, why not allow teachers to call their students "nigger"? It's free speech, right?"

    Free Speech in educational situation is different from Free Speech in general, unfortunatly. A teacher would not use the word 'nigger' because it is offensive to the child. As I ahve shown, I do not believe the term 'Indian' is offensive. And I believe if it weren't for the popularization among the black culture of the world, 'nigger' could have come to be a rarely used and unoffensive word eventually. However, now we will not come to that level. Funny, as 'Jew' was often used in a derogatory manner in America, yet now Jews are more than fine with being called a Jew.



    "without equal protection, there is no free speech"

    I would argue the complete opposite. Without free speech there is not equality. Equality among people I believe must come from the people themselves, not from enforced rules. It must be a choice. To ban someone from saying the word 'nigger' does not mean you can stop them from harbouring racist feelings. In fact, I would assume that the repression of these feelings would only help to make them grow. Like the repression a parent forces on a child creates rebellious feelings. I believe equality can only come from a choice, that forced equality is not equality at all, just a repression of the will of the people.
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,047
    Equal Protection plan ...

    Well, neither an avalanche nor a panther are protected against discrimination in the public sphere.
    Never heard of "Turtle Island"? I'll dig up a couple of paper references I have, but in the meantime "Indian" equates largely to "Asian" or "European", and what similar generalizations could be made were a sports team called "Asians"? But like I said, I'll try to dig up the broader aspect, too.
    So the meaning has changed how? I would assert that it is not that the word isn't derogatory, but that we don't perceive it as such. There are people alive today who don't find "nigger" or "spic" derogatory. The difference isn't in the changing definition of the word, but in the perspective of the person regarding the word. For instance, most "profane" words are, to me, just words. It's how the word is used. There's a difference between telling someone you have a lot of shit to do and telling them that they are an unadulterated piece of shit, for example. Should I even get into the word "fuck"?
    It comes down to equal protection; I personally don't find a number of those names I've listed offensive, but rather I'm trying to be consistent. I mean, I had to make up a complaint about the Pirates and the Buccaneers: violence in general doesn't matter, but among the common public associations with each is the skin trade. I have nothing against prostitution per se, but I wouldn't want my daughter's high school years characterized by professional rapists ....

    In the case of Quakers, Friars, Padres, Crusaders, Demon Deacons, and Devils, it's merely a matter of keeping religion out of the public sphere. I suppose a Quaker school has every right to call a team "Quakers", but there are a number of aspects of equal protection that, in general, I think come into play. It's best to simply leave those issues out of sports altogether.
    As a term representative of a cultural movement, I always wonder why the warrior is the first image chosen for the Celt. Sure, there's the "fighting spirit" of the team, but the Celts were brutal warriors. Why not herald their myths and art, representative of the wisdom of the people, and thus represent the "working spirit" of the team? It's a simple difference, but the fact remains that a growing proportion of the population thinks of violence as increasingly barbaric. To represent a people with violence is, in the abstract, received as a slur. And this lends toward equal protection.
    You know, I understand if a kid gets hit in the head by a line drive playing softball in PE. But schools have an obligation (to their insurance companies, at least, if not to the public) to reduce the number of things like dodgeball, which carry a higher statistical risk of injury. "Red Rover" seems harmless enough, doesn't it? But seriously, watch kids play it. The split lips aren't a problem, but the concussions from smacking the ground after being clotheslined are. People get hurt. This is unavoidable. The schools should not be encouraging it.
    I think I get it.
    No, it's a cute irony. And there are groups of women out there who do find the word wife offensive. I think they're ... odd. But it's not like they don't have a point. I just think they take it a little too seriously and need to stop and take a look at the state of things today. We haven't necessarily raised the value of the word any, to judge by looking around. We've merely become more accepting of those aspects those particular women found offensive. I do, in fact, know women who realize what those feminists were saying when they charged that marriage equated to prostitution. But I do, in fact, know women who realize what that odd bit of logic said, and don't care, or else favor the situation. This is fine. But that this specific awareness and result is becoming more prevalent in the culture than it has been in the past, we're merely accepting the circumstance, and not necessarily changing them.
    Excellent point about the Jews. Of course, the expression, "He jewed me," has fallen by the wayside in recent years.

    But the educational forum in public schools equates to the public forum in terms of where money goes. The only way you can specifically object and force change with, say, a Major League Baseball team would be if there is public money invested in the team; establishing the alleged derogatory nature of the term, one can prohibit the public body from endorsing such enterprises. In Seattle, for instance, there has always been public money in our stadia. We could easily have named the team after one of the local tribes or something more specifically indigenous than a Seahawk (Amer. football), but what conflicts would that present with public funds going toward the accidental or otherwise offending of a specific ethnicity? Which comes down to:
    I am, in fact, referring to equal protection under the law. This is a little different from basic equality. It is a specific condition resulting from the US Constitution; everybody is equal before the law, and the public authority cannot impose unfair obstacles against any one person's progress without due cause and process.

    As such, consider Robbie Six-Thunders, who goes to Anytown Public School. Having been pushed around and even beaten in the schoolyard in childish, taunting exchanges, he is already self-conscious of who he is. After all, as South Park pointed out, and very poorly, "hate crime" has come to slightly ridiculous application in the US. Nonetheless, Robbie finds Anytown's "Indians" mascot, and the brutish, monkey-like "chief" who dances around at basketball games more than a little distracting and upsetting. Seriously, why not call the team the "Africans" and have a 1980's gold-toothed, gun-running, street gangsta thug break-dancing for the halftime show? Equal protection before the law demands that Robbie not be subject to such pressures specifically as having the state endorse an ethnic characterization for entertainment's sake.

    You can't ban people from saying words, but the Constitution, by what it guarantees the people, is obliged to prevent certain inequalities in circumstance. Watch people do battle with the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC). There's a reason they're so priggish at FCC--they have to be. Nobody working for that federal salary has been bright enough to figure out how to lighten up the agency. Mind you, I cannot think of a person in recent memory doing battle with the FCC who didn't get my support, but the day we go through "Nigger" and so forth again--and FOX will most likely be the network that takes us there, or else Howard Stern and MSNBC--it will be because of a sticky issue about whether the FCC endorses the manner in which stations use the licensed bandwidth. And every few years the courts have to step in and remind such agencies that, no matter how much people complain about this or that on the airwaves, no, the FCC does not endorse that material and has no authority to prevent it unless it meets the legal standard for obscenity (e.g. child porn). Sometimes I think the FCC steps in hoping to get knocked off in court so that people will leave them alone for a few years and stop calling to complain about this or that broadcast. I mean, take Bob Dole for example, in 1995 (heading toward the '96 election); after Clinton went foot-in-mouth about Sistah Souljah, Bob Dole rescued him. Dole, on national TV, said, "Well, if I was made president, I would make such materials illegal." Okay, now, Right, Bob. You can't. But it doesn't help the poor FCC to have people flooding them with email, phone calls, and letters about offensive broadcasts, but when presidential candidates are giving you shite-by-proxy (shitflak?), well, I would fo it, too. I would take my agency against a well-known public figure (e.g. Stern, &c) knowing I was going to lose just to remind the American people that it's out of my hands.

    You can't ban people from saying anything, but you can extend the public sphere to its most exacting degree to achieve what it needs to. People are right to be afraid of how scary government is, but think in terms of public money and sports teams. What happens if we pass such a law, and find that the county's association to the body of MLB equals a proxy endorsement of, say, the Braves and their ridiculous mascot?

    We have way too many lawyers in the US. I'm sure that I could, if I was so ridiculous as to want to, find an attorney to take that one in about four seconds if we were to have such a law up here. Not that I would ... I agree with the principle that certain team names should not be used, but it seems to be the will of the people, so instead of changing the law they ought to be changing the people. I could point out here that people are stupid and they suck, but that seems an inadequate perspective. Rather, I think it's just like certain other things about ourselves that we don't see.

    It's merely a matter of polishing the mirror.

    Oh, as to "Devils"--equal protection also says that no Christian should have to deal with that. And when you think about it, it makes sense. Let them worry about more important things than identity issues.

    I'll lift my objection, however, if two high schools in the midwest will change their names, one to "Faggots" and one to "Dykes".

    Identity issues ... why put people through it?

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    "Well, neither an avalanche nor a panther are protected against discrimination in the public sphere."

    And why the hell not? It seems just as ridiculous as not allowing the name 'Viking' to me. Actually, it seems more ridiculous. Panthers rarely attack humans. Where as Vikings consistently attacked other people.



    "Never heard of "Turtle Island"? I'll dig up a couple of paper references I have, but in the meantime "Indian" equates largely to "Asian" or "European", and what similar generalizations could be made were a sports team called "Asians"? But like I said, I'll try to dig up the broader aspect, too."

    So what of the Euro Dollar? Is that derogatory?



    "So the meaning has changed how? I would assert that it is not that the word isn't derogatory, but that we don't perceive it as such."

    Disagree. The word is not derogatory. They are Indians. In Dios. A people In God. And it's just an English word for them. People on your side of this debate have argued with me that it is derogatory because we should call them by their official names (their tribe names) and not by a modern English name. Bull. Is it derogatory to call a German a German? No. Would a German ever call himself a 'German'? No, he would speak in his own language. Would you call someone a Spaniard? Would they call themselves that? Would you call me a Canuck? Woudl I call myself a Canuck? Wasn't Canuck once a derogatory term.......



    "There are people alive today who don't find "nigger" or "spic" derogatory. The difference isn't in the changing definition of the word, but in the perspective of the person regarding the word. For instance, most "profane" words are, to me, just words. It's how the word is used."

    So then it all comes down to the fact that people are too easily offended.



    "Should I even get into the word "fuck"?"

    No.....Monty Python does it better

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    "it's merely a matter of keeping religion out of the public sphere."

    *cough* commie thug *cough*. Oh, excuse me there. Religion should be thrust on the public. All reality should be. But I understand what you mean.



    "Why not herald their myths and art, representative of the wisdom of the people, and thus represent the "working spirit" of the team? It's a simple difference, but the fact remains that a growing proportion of the population thinks of violence as increasingly barbaric. To represent a people with violence is, in the abstract, received as a slur. And this lends toward equal protection."

    First of all, in sports the concern is not with your intelligence but with your 'fighting spirit'. The NHL playoffs are currently on and more often than not, the team that wins a game/series is the team that plays harder and with more enthusiasm and 'fighting spirit'. The only popular sport I can name where 'fighting spirit' is not a huge factor would be baseball. I personally despise the game of baseball unless I'm playing it, and even then I don't really like it. To me, baseball seems to be more of a stats manager game the way everyone talks about it. ("And they're putting in Davis. He's 3-0 this season against left handed hitters with daughters under the age of ten and played their junior baseball on a high school team that went 33-12 who play for American League teams that have more than two vowels in their name. Smart move.")


    "You know, I understand if a kid gets hit in the head by a line drive playing softball in PE. But schools have an obligation (to their insurance companies, at least, if not to the public) to reduce the number of things like dodgeball, which carry a higher statistical risk of injury."

    I stand in a small group on this one, but I feel directly the opposite. I broke my nose playing foot-hockey in school in grade 6. Did it hurt? Like hell. Do I still think foot-hockey should be allowed to be played? You bet. Getting hurt brings a sense of reality to a kid. Knocks 'em into line. Teaches them that if you play something rough you can get hurt. And why not ban all sports with a reasonable possibility of injury in school? I say so-long to running. A kid can trip and hurt themselves, or sprain an ankle, or if they don't stretch right (which happens because not everyone follows the gym teacher during stretchs) they could ruin a muscle.



    "And there are groups of women out there who do find the word wife offensive. I think they're ... odd. But it's not like they don't have a point."

    Correct, they do have a point. However, they are morons. Odd is not the word, stupid is. At this point you're probably thinking I'm being offensive for calling a person stupid for finding the word wife offensive. This is not the reason though. Tiassa, how many people besides you and I know the history of the word wife? How many of the people you know would know the former derogatory meanings of 'wife'? Of the people I know, none. Interestingly enough I have a History teacher this year who's wife prefers that he use the term 'partner' and vice versa. So one day when a kid in my class asked why he refered to his wife by the term 'partner' he explained it. Now he has 14 extra kids (small class, eh) who know the former derogatory meaning of wife who, had they never met this teacher, in all likeliness would have lived through their life thinking wife simply meant female partner in a marriage (which it does, now). It is these idiots who feel they are doing good by not using the words that are keeping the term derogatory and allow the sexism in it to be in people's minds. Like I said, Jew is no longer derogatory because Jews never went around saying; 'Yes, I will go fetch my person-of-Hebrew-ancestory now'.



    "I am, in fact, referring to equal protection under the law."

    Oh, unless you're a Panther? Hehe.

    And then what of the Edmonton Oilers? Why is that not derogatory?????
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,047
    The rights of the kitty are a difficult matter

    In this case, "Euro" is a geographical distinction, and "dollar" is a unit of currency. It's an applicable term and I don't see how it characterizes Europeans in any derogatory way. If you can point one out, however, I'll give it some thought.
    Well, as far as "German" or "Spaniard" ... "Indian" equates to "European". The difference between the Makah and the Puyallup, for instance, is more along the lines of how there were different peoples in Italy. But is a Spaniard or German merely a European, or do they prefer the more specific distinction? There are nations among the tribes (e.g. Sioux Nation), but "Indians" is to any one of these people as "European" is to a Spaniard, at least. We could have the "Fighting Euros" and the mascot can be a shaking old man in a tall hat and ruby shoes. I'd say any question about "Canuck" is cleared up by the Vancouver hockey organization. Was "Yankee" ever derogatory?
    I don't know. I don't have to be reminded that my ancestors were, recently, slaves of the people calling the present generation "nigger". I would imagine it to be a sensitive spot with me, but, having no family tales to tell, little knowledge of, for instance, Bushido, and no knowledge whatsoever of the cultural issues of Norway and the Sami, I have no active associations of that kind that make me react specifically in that manner. I do know, however, that if it's a matter of being too sensitive at being "forgiven" Pearl Harbor while out drinking in a bar, then everyone in the world is too sensitive about a good many things. I mean, if putting up with the harassment of stupid people is a matter o sensitivity, think of how much that covers ....
    Alrighty, then ....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You know well the difference between hockey played and hockey played well. Why, for instance, does pro basketball suck so much right now? What of the Seattle Mariners, who upon losing their heavy artillery finally bust out and win 116 games based on smart baseball? The passing era of the superslugger is showing that even Sosa can't win the Cubbies a championship.
    Because at that point you've managed to shut down the schools entirely. The kids might get static shocks off the carpet

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It's just a matter of common sense. Kids should have plenty of opportunity to hurt themselves, but the curriculum shouldn't be that way. I wouldn't find tackle-football (American) appropriate. The thing is that while most broken bones heal, broken teeth require artificial compensation, and while most injuries can heal and be dealt with, a concussion is a permanent brain injury. Concussions happen. You can't be sending kids to prison for jostling each other on the playground, but just like schools need to prevent the deliberate beatings, so, too, should they work to reduce the number of teeth smashed out, number of noses broken, number of ribs cracked, and number of concussions handed out each year.
    Well, given, for instance, the moronic "Indian" mascots, I wonder what the Jew would think of a similar workover on the image.
    Because it's commercial? I don't know, did oil interests own the team originally, or was it in territorial spirit?

    Panthers aren't covered by the US Constitution. Nor is my own kitty-cat. I'd be upset about that, but few people challenge her right to free speech, since it's mostly, "Who the hell do you think you are?" and "Feed me, damn it!"

    Or something like that.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. nativikee Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    Whats up. I see alot of good points from everyones post. Fortanatly I want the indian mascotts to stop. In my point it aint right. Theres a college here named the mcmurry indians, and ive always wanted them to changed the name. To a certain extent its racism rather the creater of the mascotts realized it or not. For instant If a black man owned a team and named it Dallas warriors with a warrior indian as the mascott. It would be alright to alot of people., Its in the past, But it effects most native americans. But would if An indian had a team called the dallas slaves with a black man as the logo. All of a cuttan its racist. Am I right. But its the same situation. But alot of people dont realize it unless your part of native culture. Than it effects your pride. I was At my aunts house not to long ago. A 3 quarters native, born on the rez but didnt live there through her childs life, She lived in a little hick town. Always getting in fights in school because she was an indian in the city. But yet these same people who picked on them are the same type of people who came up with these mascotts. Is it there way of apalagizing. or there way of saying they hate indians. I aint full blooded native. but its in my culture.What Im trying to say is everything is in the past, This is 2005 and alot of natives are starting to stand back up. We wanna be treated like everyone else. Supposely its right to name a team indians, redskins, cheifs, etc. But it aint right to name a team niggers, wetbacks, slaves, honkeys, mexicans,whites,blacks, or any other name that refers to a race. Theres alot of points and everyone has a different point of view about it. But in my point it needs to be changed.
     

Share This Page