Dartmouth AD apology

marty
Not completely. The AD at Dartmouth apologized for the pain caused. That implies someone was hurt. And that is why I have a problem with her (the AD's) statement more than if we just brought up the old Cowboys and Indians argument or whatever the argument is....if it is still OK to call them Indians...

The exagerated response by calling it pain causes me pain. She is over the top.

I just read last month's Dartmouth alumni magazine and their lead story this month was about how the college founders owned slaves and many of the older buildings were probably built by slave labor. Maybe the NCAA should refuse to let colleges play in their tournaments until they demolish all pre-1865 buildings.

schoaff

marty
Not completely. The AD at Dartmouth apologized for the pain caused. That implies someone was hurt. And that is why I have a problem with her (the AD's) statement more than if we just brought up the old Cowboys and Indians argument or whatever the argument is....if it is still OK to call them Indians...

The exagerated response by calling it pain causes me pain. She is over the top.

I just read last month's Dartmouth alumni magazine and their lead story this month was about how the college founders owned slaves and many of the older buildings were probably built by slave labor. Maybe the NCAA should refuse to let colleges play in their tournaments until they demolish all pre-1865 buildings.

Brown spent a lot of effort the last couple years digging into Brown's and its backers' slave-owning, keep-'em-down-on-the-farm past lives. At the time, it sounded IMO like much teeth-gnashing about stuff that's long, long ago when Brown has other more urgent issues to confront ... but once the report came out, it was pretty eye-opening. (There's also talk of reparations.) If Brown and Dartmouth self-examine, it begs the question of when the other Ivies do the same. And do you start and stop with blacks or also look into discrimination against women, Jews, Asians, and the Irish?

billhoward

schoaff

marty
Not completely. The AD at Dartmouth apologized for the pain caused. That implies someone was hurt. And that is why I have a problem with her (the AD's) statement more than if we just brought up the old Cowboys and Indians argument or whatever the argument is....if it is still OK to call them Indians...

The exagerated response by calling it pain causes me pain. She is over the top.

I just read last month's Dartmouth alumni magazine and their lead story this month was about how the college founders owned slaves and many of the older buildings were probably built by slave labor. Maybe the NCAA should refuse to let colleges play in their tournaments until they demolish all pre-1865 buildings.

Brown spent a lot of effort the last couple years digging into Brown's and its backers' slave-owning, keep-'em-down-on-the-farm past lives. At the time, it sounded IMO like much teeth-gnashing about stuff that's long, long ago when Brown has other more urgent issues to confront ... but once the report came out, it was pretty eye-opening. (There's also talk of reparations.) If Brown and Dartmouth self-examine, it begs the question of when the other Ivies do the same. And do you start and stop with blacks or also look into discrimination against women, Jews, Asians, and the Irish?

And we're back to Notre Dame.

Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa will only play schools without Indian mascots? I guess that means they'll never play Ilinois in football again either. What if they wind up in a bowl game against Florida State?

C'mon, it's posturing. That's it.

ugarte

KeithK

billhoward
Wisconsin's refusal to play Indian-name teams but the ban applies only outside the conference (eg North Dakota games are okay) and probably the NCAAs (in case the Florida Seminoles suddenly take to the ice) rings hollow. If they really had stones, they'd declare the Wisonsin-ND series a no-play forfeit. That'd be a meaningful and attention-getting gesture.

While such a gesture might make some folks at Wisconsin (or wherever) feel good, it would do very little to change minds at NoDak. The Sioux would laugh all the way to the bank with their free victories. (And rightly so...)

More significantly, I'm not even sure it is hypocrisy. Not everything that falls short of complete ideological purity is hypocrisy.

Wisconsin has to balance a lot of interests. .

Maybe PETA will weigh in here. Badgers are maligned by the inference that they are nasty little creatures. I propose the Nutmeg as the new Wisconsin mascot. (Goes well with their institiutional drink - Leinenkugel.)

I don't know. That might upset people from Connecticut. The "Constitution State" is also known as the "Nutmeg State". Of course, "Nutmeg" may also cause consternation since it is often associated with spiked eggnog.

marty

ugarte

KeithK

billhoward
Wisconsin's refusal to play Indian-name teams but the ban applies only outside the conference (eg North Dakota games are okay) and probably the NCAAs (in case the Florida Seminoles suddenly take to the ice) rings hollow. If they really had stones, they'd declare the Wisonsin-ND series a no-play forfeit. That'd be a meaningful and attention-getting gesture.

While such a gesture might make some folks at Wisconsin (or wherever) feel good, it would do very little to change minds at NoDak. The Sioux would laugh all the way to the bank with their free victories. (And rightly so...)

More significantly, I'm not even sure it is hypocrisy. Not everything that falls short of complete ideological purity is hypocrisy.

Wisconsin has to balance a lot of interests. .

Maybe PETA will weigh in here. Badgers are maligned by the inference that they are nasty little creatures. I propose the Nutmeg as the new Wisconsin mascot. (Goes well with their institiutional drink - Leinenkugel.)

Yeah, and maybe the Nature Conservancy will weigh in because the Stanford mascot is a tree. And maybe the Anti-Defamation league will object to the many schools that use Crusaders as their nickname. We get it.

Not to pick on you marty becuase I like a good joke at someone's expense as much as the next guy and you are just the last in a long line. But this is getting a bit tiresome. You can take cultural sensitivity to an extreme and make it rediculous and even funny. But that does not mean it is rediculous to listen to the reasonable concerns of reasonable people and take reasonable action. Even if the NCAA is hypocritical. Even if sometimes people take it too far. Also, becuase we don't know whwere to draw the line in addressing past injustices does not mean that it is rediculous to try to address those concerns.

There also seems to be the false impression that only certain minorities get offended and benfit from "political correctness". Believe me, if you publically offend a group, they will let you know. Many folks point to the Fighting Irish as proof that only certain minorities (i.e. non-white) are offended. Imagine if the Notre Dame Leprechaun were holding a whiskey bottle in their logo. Would that logo still be around today? If you don't believe that the Irish community can be offended by mocking the Irish then just ask the Stanford Band. They got in major doo-do and accusations and aplogies were flying after the band mocked the Irish people in their totally meaningless goofy halftime show a few years back.

Please feel free to keep the jokes coming. (Heck, I even have a good one that I am saving for just the right occasion). Just letting you know that there are plenty of us whiny bleeding heart liberals out here who don't think that caring about the concerns of others is really all that funny.

Roy 82

marty

ugarte

KeithK

billhoward
Wisconsin's refusal to play Indian-name teams but the ban applies only outside the conference (eg North Dakota games are okay) and probably the NCAAs (in case the Florida Seminoles suddenly take to the ice) rings hollow. If they really had stones, they'd declare the Wisonsin-ND series a no-play forfeit. That'd be a meaningful and attention-getting gesture.

While such a gesture might make some folks at Wisconsin (or wherever) feel good, it would do very little to change minds at NoDak. The Sioux would laugh all the way to the bank with their free victories. (And rightly so...)

More significantly, I'm not even sure it is hypocrisy. Not everything that falls short of complete ideological purity is hypocrisy.

Wisconsin has to balance a lot of interests. .

Maybe PETA will weigh in here. Badgers are maligned by the inference that they are nasty little creatures. I propose the Nutmeg as the new Wisconsin mascot. (Goes well with their institiutional drink - Leinenkugel.)

.....There also seems to be the false impression that only certain minorities get offended and benfit from "political correctness". Believe me, if you publically offend a group, they will let you know.....

But just who are "they"? Take Armenians. There is continued interest in their actions toward the government of Turkey. They seem to want the current government to apologize for what happened at the turn of the 20th century. I say seem because I don't pay that much attention to it. It bores the hell out of me at this point. But "they" want this!

Why does this matter? Why does Marty's point of view matter? Because 3 of my 4 grandparents emigrated from Armenia. My opinion is that "they" are perpetuating hatred. I don't comment so I don't count. "They" set the rules.

I don't let this bother me. (It used to, but I'm getting too old to be pissed at things like this). I think it's foolish to perpetuate hatred against all Turks, so I don't. But if the Armenian down the street wants to that's OK by me.

Now, take the Sioux. We are told that some are hurt and some aren't. But the Seminoles are one happy monolith of pride.

So tell me, how many Armenians does it take to talk for my ethnic group? And how many Armenians are too busy watching hockey and otherwise having a life, to care?

Roy 82
There also seems to be the false impression that only certain minorities get offended and benfit from "political correctness". Believe me, if you publically offend a group, they will let you know. Many folks point to the Fighting Irish as proof that only certain minorities (i.e. non-white) are offended. Imagine if the Notre Dame Leprechaun were holding a whiskey bottle in their logo. Would that logo still be around today? If you don't believe that the Irish community can be offended by mocking the Irish then just ask the Stanford Band. They got in major doo-do and accusations and aplogies were flying after the band mocked the Irish people in their totally meaningless goofy halftime show a few years back.

Please feel free to keep the jokes coming. (Heck, I even have a good one that I am saving for just the right occasion). Just letting you know that there are plenty of us whiny bleeding heart liberals out here who don't think that caring about the concerns of others is really all that funny.

Do you have a URL of the Stanford band's insult-to-the-Irish show?

What's the occasion you're saving up for?

[abclocal.go.com]
The band's controversial antics over the past decades include a 1986 incident in which some band members exposed themselves and urinated on the field during a football game against the University of Washington. In 1991 at a football game at prominent Catholic university Notre Dame, a band member dressed as a nun and conducted the band with a crucifix instead of a baton. In a 1997 football game against Notre Dame at Stanford Stadium, the band parodied the Irish potato famine and a band member portrayed a Catholic cardinal as advocating the idea that the Earth is actually flat.

cth95
I don't know. That might upset people from Connecticut.

Funny you should mention this. Apparently some groups of Dartmouth have decided that Connecticut is an offensive term and want to start referring to the Connecticut River (which runs by the campus) by the name of a local tributary.

billhoward
Do you have a URL of the Stanford band's insult-to-the-Irish show?

Sorry, I couldn't find any video but I do remember it and as you found out yourself, there are still plenty of stories about it on the web.

billhoward
What's the occasion you're saving up for?

SELF-CENSORED (sorry folks)
(Well it seemed funnier when I though of it. But did you see how I cleverly made a joke but actually used that joke to argue that making such jokes is wrong?)

Are you serious? If so, why is "Connecticut" offensive?

According to a couple sites, it's just a Mohican/Algonquin name from "quonehtacut" and just means "long, tidal river" or "beside long tidal river". Wikipedia has---name "Connecticut" originates from the Mohegan Indian word "Quinnehtukqut" meaning "Long River Place" or "Beside the Long Tidal River."