Dartmouth AD apology

[www.thedartmouth.com]

"I am writing to strongly denounce the historical and recent affronts to the Native American community at Dartmouth and to offer the support of the athletics department in playing a leading role to combat racial, ethnic and sexist ignorance and intolerance on our campus.

At the same time, I must offer a sincere apology to the Native American community, and the Dartmouth community as a whole, for an event that will understandably offend and hurt people within our community. In late December, we will host a men's ice hockey tournament that includes the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux. UND is one of 14 colleges or universities that continue to maintain a Native American name and image to represent their athletic teams.

Let me state clearly that UND's position is offensive and wrong. When we scheduled UND nearly two years ago to participate in our tournament, we did so without considering their team's nickname and symbol. Perhaps we should have, but I deeply regret that we didn't.

On Friday, as I was traveling on College business, a member of my staff met with the Native American Council to discuss our hockey tournament and to offer our apology for the pain that it will cause. In the days and weeks ahead, I will develop a specific and continuing plan to address issues of respect and tolerance within the athletic department as well as considering a policy for scheduling athletic contests against institutions that support offensive nicknames and symbols."

This statement makes me want to fly to Hanover and cheer for the Sioux and the Dartmouth Indians.

KeithK
This statement makes me want to fly to Hanover and cheer for the Sioux and the Dartmouth Indians.

Yeah, yeah, I know the NCAA is hypocritical blah blah blah but why do you want to get all kramer* on Native Americans?

*Is this officially a new word yet?

KeithK
This statement makes me want to fly to Hanover and cheer for the Sioux and the Dartmouth Indians.

Why not the Miami Redskins for good measure?

Luke 05
http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=20061121023c

"I am writing to strongly denounce the historical and recent affronts to the Native American community at Dartmouth and to offer the support of the athletics department in playing a leading role to combat racial, ethnic and sexist ignorance and intolerance on our campus.

At the same time, I must offer a sincere apology to the Native American community, and the Dartmouth community as a whole, for an event that will understandably offend and hurt people within our community. In late December, we will host a men's ice hockey tournament that includes the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux. UND is one of 14 colleges or universities that continue to maintain a Native American name and image to represent their athletic teams.

Let me state clearly that UND's position is offensive and wrong. When we scheduled UND nearly two years ago to participate in our tournament, we did so without considering their team's nickname and symbol. Perhaps we should have, but I deeply regret that we didn't.

On Friday, as I was traveling on College business, a member of my staff met with the Native American Council to discuss our hockey tournament and to offer our apology for the pain that it will cause. In the days and weeks ahead, I will develop a specific and continuing plan to address issues of respect and tolerance within the athletic department as well as considering a policy for scheduling athletic contests against institutions that support offensive nicknames and symbols."

So, so... lame. Have we come to apologizing for our opponent's nickname? Get a grip.

(we being anyone... I feel bad as a human)

Luke 05
I will develop a specific and continuing plan to address issues of respect and tolerance within the athletic department as well as considering a policy for scheduling athletic contests against institutions that support offensive nicknames and symbols."

Betcha it doesn't include kicking the Sioux out of the tourney and taking a chance on the courts. I love empty rhetoric. "We will do everything in our power, except the one thing that's in our power."

Trotsky

Luke 05
I will develop a specific and continuing plan to address issues of respect and tolerance within the athletic department as well as considering a policy for scheduling athletic contests against institutions that support offensive nicknames and symbols."

Betcha it doesn't include kicking the Sioux out of the tourney and taking a chance on the courts. I love empty rhetoric. "We will do everything in our power, except the one thing that's in our power."

If they're somewhat serious about it, they could not use the nickname over the PA or in any promotional material. I'd say also make UND wear uniforms without the Sioux logo, but they'd probably have all the players get Fighting Sioux tatoos.

Luke 05
"I am writing to strongly denounce the historical and recent affronts to the Native American community at Dartmouth and to offer the support of the athletics department in playing a leading role to combat racial, ethnic and sexist ignorance and intolerance on our campus.

Anyone know anything about these recent affronts? If there have been issues with racist behavior or racial slurs this semester, I certainly understand the AD's position and agree with his decision.

LOL. Leftist guilt is sometimes so over-the-top, it's actually funny instead of just sad.

Kyle

Liz '05

Luke 05
"I am writing to strongly denounce the historical and recent affronts to the Native American community at Dartmouth and to offer the support of the athletics department in playing a leading role to combat racial, ethnic and sexist ignorance and intolerance on our campus.

Anyone know anything about these recent affronts? If there have been issues with racist behavior or racial slurs this semester, I certainly understand the AD's position and agree with his decision.

She's the AD:

I think Liz got the possessive pronoun right the first time.

I find the AD's statement offensive. I want an apology.

Too bad we've already played Dartmouth at Lynah. There's material here.

I went to the Cornell volleyball game at Dartmouth this year and they had a Native American group sing the National Anthem in their tribe's native language (I forget which tribe it was). I usually am the sole person yelling red at the volleyball games... well when they saw the Native American singing group I first got a look from the Assistant Coach, then my girlfriend, and then a nudge from the woman sitting next to me. They clearly didn't trust me, even though I knew better than to do it. I waited until after the song was over and threw in a big RED before play started.

Anyways, my point is this: Isn't it kind of ironic to be having a group of people singing the national anthem of a country that nearly extirpated them in a language that had also almost vanished. In a way it seemed kind of offensive to the people singing to it.

I believe the reason they had the group singing was that Dartmouth's Assistant Coach is Native American.

Anyways, just an experience with Dartmouth's ideas on Native Americans.

So is that why the official seal of Dartmouth College depicts a pair of Native Americans coming out of the woods to be "educated and cultured" by the white man?

And is that why Buddy Teevens (Dartmouth's football coach) has a tattoo of an indian on where the sun don't shine (that's a pretty well documented thing up there).

Why not force their own college to get rid of their own offensive images? Why not force the football coach to have that offensive tattoo removed? (Personally, I'm offended he would put an indian on his ass - he's sitting on indians every time he parks his rear someplace, and that's offensive to me)

Buncha hypocrites....

What about the "Fighting Irish"? How come Irish people don't make a stink? Is is because:

a) They like being identified as a strong, proud, self-reliant people;
b) Their sense of pride and responsibility won't let them capitalize on being victims;
c) They're sensible enough to realize it's just a freakin' name!

To me, the height of hypocracy is singing, in your native language, the national anthem of a nation that murdered, betrayed and disposessed your ancestors. In your native language??

This is just too sick....

Townie
What about the "Fighting Irish"? How come Irish people don't make a stink? Is is because:

a) They like being identified as a strong, proud, self-reliant people;
b) Their sense of pride and responsibility won't let them capitalize on being victims;
c) They're sensible enough to realize it's just a freakin' name!

To me, the height of hypocracy is singing, in your native language, the national anthem of a nation that murdered, betrayed and disposessed your ancestors. In your native language??

This is just too sick....

How dare they sing our national anthem in their native American language. Let's send them shameless stupid lazy injuns back where they came from.

jtwcornell91

KeithK
This statement makes me want to fly to Hanover and cheer for the Sioux and the Dartmouth Indians.

Why not the Miami Redskins for good measure?

If it's the University of Miami, that was changed to the Miami Redshirts.

The one-side nature of the Dartmouth missive may not go down well with older alumni who've finally adjusted to the (1970s?) changeover to Big Green. It could have added something along the lines of "we recognize the right to choose nicknames, understand there's controversy, blah blah, and in the meantime we register our concern about friction caused by the nicknames and the pain it may cause."

Not sure what happens were Dartmouth to wind up playing a school that has approval of their local Indian group. Does Dartmouth substitute its wisdome and declare them to be misguided?

redhawks I thought?

billhoward
The one-side nature of the Dartmouth missive may not go down well with older alumni who've finally adjusted to the (1970s?) changeover to Big Green. It could have added something along the lines of "we recognize the right to choose nicknames, understand there's controversy, blah blah, and in the meantime we register our concern about friction caused by the nicknames and the pain it may cause."

The changeover to "Big Green" was in the early 90s.

And there are plenty of older alumni who are still ticked at Dartmouth for going co-ed in the 1970s. Something tells me this particular missive isn't going to ruffle any older alumni feathers that aren't already pretty ruffled.

billhoward
The one-side nature of the Dartmouth missive may not go down well with older alumni

Well, that's pretty much the reaction in my household. My wife is Dartmouth '90 and when she heard about this she sent Dartmouth a nastygram and started telling her alumna friends about it.

This year Dartmouth was so concerned that non-politically correct candidates (i.e. people who run businesses for profit) for their board of trustees were winning that they tried to change their constitution so candidates for trustee had to be approved by the current board. (Currently they can "force" their way onto the ballot by collecting enough signatures.) Well after a long campaign where we got nightly calls from the "Vote Yes for the New Constitution" organizations the new constitution was rejected. We've heard that some of the supporters of the new constitution have been acting a bit petulant and this may be related to that.

According to the World Wide Web, so it must be true, the Dartmouth changeover from Indians to Big Green was 1968-69, 1972, or 1974. It may be the various dates relate to the name change vs. the logo change.

Dpperk29
redhawks I thought?

*whoosh*

In a related story, today the Dartmouth AD apologized for the hockey team's performance from 1980-2000.

jtwcornell91

Dpperk29
redhawks I thought?

*whoosh*

yup... I shouldn't post until I am fully awake

Beeeej
The changeover to "Big Green" was in the early 90s.

I'm 100% sure they were already the Big Green when I (and you!) arrived on the Hill in 1987.

jtwcornell91

Beeeej
The changeover to "Big Green" was in the early 90s.

I'm 100% sure they were already the Big Green when I (and you!) arrived on the Hill in 1987.

So it would seem. Not sure why it seemed such a good idea, then, when I was P.A. announcer for the marching band 1991-93, to base most of the halftime show announcements for one game on proposed alternatives to "Big Green."

Could've just been the booze.

To quote jtwcornell91:

*woosh*

jtwcornell91

Beeeej
The changeover to "Big Green" was in the early 90s.

I'm 100% sure they were already the Big Green when I (and you!) arrived on the Hill in 1987.

Yep, and by '78 as well.

Dpperk29

jtwcornell91

Dpperk29
redhawks I thought?

*whoosh*

yup... I shouldn't post until I am fully awake

Next time, tell us when that is so we know when to read and reply.

Roy 82

KeithK
This statement makes me want to fly to Hanover and cheer for the Sioux and the Dartmouth Indians.

Yeah, yeah, I know the NCAA is hypocritical blah blah blah but why do you want to get all kramer* on Native Americans?

Perhaps because I don't find the team nicknames "Fighting Sioux" and "Indians" to be offensive?

KeithK

Roy 82

KeithK
This statement makes me want to fly to Hanover and cheer for the Sioux and the Dartmouth Indians.

Yeah, yeah, I know the NCAA is hypocritical blah blah blah but why do you want to get all kramer* on Native Americans?

Perhaps because I don't find the team nicknames "Fighting Sioux" and "Indians" to be offensive?

But then again it really doesn't matter whether you find them offensive. I don't find them offensive either, but people don't call me by those names. What matters is whether the people to whom it's directed find them offensive. And that is where all the controversy begins.

Jim Hyla

KeithK

Roy 82

KeithK
This statement makes me want to fly to Hanover and cheer for the Sioux and the Dartmouth Indians.

Yeah, yeah, I know the NCAA is hypocritical blah blah blah but why do you want to get all kramer* on Native Americans?

Perhaps because I don't find the team nicknames "Fighting Sioux" and "Indians" to be offensive?

But then again it really doesn't matter whether you find them offensive. I don't find them offensive either, but people don't call me by those names. What matters is whether the people to whom it's directed find them offensive. And that is where all the controversy begins.

I think folks who are offended by these names are over reacting. Sticks and stones and all that... I think people should stop being so thin skinned about names in general. Why take offense when none is intended? Anyway, I have as much right to express my opinion as "the people to whom it's directed". Thus my comment about rooting for the Sioux and Indians,

I'd ahppily root for the Redskins of Oxford as well, except they weren't invited to the Dartmouth tourney.

KeithK

Jim Hyla

KeithK
Perhaps because I don't find the team nicknames "Fighting Sioux" and "Indians" to be offensive?

But then again it really doesn't matter whether you find them offensive. I don't find them offensive either, but people don't call me by those names. What matters is whether the people to whom it's directed find them offensive. And that is where all the controversy begins.

I think folks who are offended by these names are over reacting. Sticks and stones and all that... I think people should stop being so thin skinned about names in general. Why take offense when none is intended? Anyway, I have as much right to express my opinion as "the people to whom it's directed". Thus my comment about rooting for the Sioux and Indians, I'd ahppily root for the Redskins of Oxford as well, except they weren't invited to the Dartmouth tourney.

The only problem that I have with this line of thought is that it's hard to appreciate how someone else feels when you haven't experienced it yourself. The idea that "words can never hurt me", is of course not true. Words, or rather what those words mean, can hurt alot. Have you ever broken up with someone that you felt strongly about? Have you ever had someone tell you that someone you love has died? Yes these may be extreme, but extreme to get the point across. If someone feels offended by something I say, then I think I have to think I hurt them. That may be what was needed, as in the breakup, but to say I didn't do it because I didn't feel offended, is not really the point.


I guess my feeling is I won't disregard someone's perceived pain, until I have thoughtfully tried to understand it from their point of view. From a medical point of view I like to use the example of a patients pain. I have had people describe a patient's pain as "all in their head", meaning they are crazy. But of course all pain is in your head, it's my job to try and understand their pain and help them through it. It's not my job to deny that they feel that way.

Ok, so I think Dartmouth should start calling their teams the Roundeyes.
Does that bother anybody here?

KeithK
I think folks who are offended by these names are over reacting. Sticks and stones and all that...

Jim already addressed it in much ore detail, but you realize the "sticks and stones" saying is sarcastic, right? At least that's how I always understood it < thinks of that Reading Rainbow episode > . Words can and do hurt significantly.

You're entitled to think and respond however you want, but based on my understanding, you picked a pretty bad example, is all.

Not me.

I actually kinda like "Honky". "Cracker" I don't really understand. "Paleface" might be good.

TimV
Not me.

I actually kinda like "Honky". "Cracker" I don't really understand. "Paleface" might be good.

I like Paleface. But where the heck does Honky come from, anyway?

DL
But where the heck does Honky come from, anyway?

Take this with the usual wikipedia grain-of-salt:

[Q]The word "honky" as a pejorative for caucasians comes from "bohunk" and "hunky". In the early 1900's, these were derogatory terms for Bohemian, Hungarian, and Polish immigrants. According to Robert Hendrickson, author of the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, Black workers in Chicago meat-packing plants picked up the term from white workers and began applying it indiscriminately to all Caucasians.[/Q]

Although, I learned it from "The Jeffersons."

DeltaOne81

KeithK
I think folks who are offended by these names are over reacting. Sticks and stones and all that...

Jim already addressed it in much ore detail, but you realize the "sticks and stones" saying is sarcastic, right? At least that's how I always understood it < thinks of that Reading Rainbow episode > . Words can and do hurt significantly.

You're entitled to think and respond however you want, but based on my understanding, you picked a pretty bad example, is all.

I have to agree with Keith on this one - words only hurt you as much as you allow them to. If someone's using racial slurs, they're obviously speaking from (at best) a myopic perspective. Ignore them, remind yourself that you're lucky to have been brought up to think for yourself, and move on.

Of course, if those words lead to "real" harm - discrimination in hiring, college admissions, housing, salary differences - then those are of course wrong (and illegal), should be brought to light, and remedied.

Robb
words only hurt you as much as you allow them to.

I agree you should never allow words to hurt your self-esteem, make you think less of yourself, have any impact on your life or actions, etc. That is in your control. But the topic of this discussion wasn't about being 'hurt' (although I admit the saying was), it was about being offended.

You absolutely have the choice in how you *respond* to the words.

You can (and should) say, 'he/she/they is/are just (a) myopic, uninformed jerk(s)', but that doesn't mean the words still aren't offensive to you. It doesn't mean the saying of them doesn't bother you, offend you, or hurt your feelings.

Words can and do hurt. Which is why we need to learn to respond appropriately (i.e. not at all, or positively) to hurtful words, and be mindful of how we treat others. There would be no need to discredit the source if they didn't. I've always considered, and still consider, the saying to be sarcastic.

Anyway, I feel like I'm writing an episode of sesame street now, so that's quite enough from me

Robb
I have to agree with Keith on this one - words only hurt you as much as you allow them to. If someone's using racial slurs, they're obviously speaking from (at best) a myopic perspective. Ignore them, remind yourself that you're lucky to have been brought up to think for yourself, and move on.

That is a perfectly valid suggestion when someone on a street corner calls after you using what you perceive as a racial slur.

What if the racial slur is permanently institutionalized? Harder to ignore, no?

TimV
I actually kinda like "Honky". "Cracker" I don't really understand. "Paleface" might be good.

[www.littlefivers.com]

(See #1.)

Robb
I have to agree with Keith on this one - words only hurt you as much as you allow them to.

Agreed. But I'd expand on this a bit to talk about consequences. The way I look at these sorts of problems is simple:

How you interpret my actions is not under my control. It may become my problem, in the sense that if I use words in a socially unacceptable way I may be shunned by some people whose validation I want or need; but if you are offended and it doesn't affect me negatively in any substantial way, then it's entirely your problem and you should figure out how to deal with it. In other words: tough.

Cheers,
Kyle

DeltaOne81

KeithK
I think folks who are offended by these names are over reacting. Sticks and stones and all that...

Jim already addressed it in much ore detail, but you realize the "sticks and stones" saying is sarcastic, right? At least that's how I always understood it < thinks of that Reading Rainbow episode > . Words can and do hurt significantly.

Not at all. When I learned that expression as a kid it was quite clearly meant seriously. Yes, it tended to be used as something of a defense against insults, names or whatever. But the point is that words can only harm you if you let them.

DL

TimV
Not me.

I actually kinda like "Honky". "Cracker" I don't really understand. "Paleface" might be good.

I like Paleface.

"Where Paleface and Redskin both turn chicken."

(Random, I know. But I was just watching this. Reference anyone?)

krose
but if you are offended and it doesn't affect me negatively in any substantial way, then it's entirely your problem and you should figure out how to deal with it. In other words: tough.

This is, unfortunately, not the logic of a . It is the logic of an . You aren't saying that the other side is wrong to be offended you are saying that you don't care that they are.

Hope you aren't offended but I don't see how it could negatively affect me if you are.

Beeeej

Robb
I have to agree with Keith on this one - words only hurt you as much as you allow them to. If someone's using racial slurs, they're obviously speaking from (at best) a myopic perspective. Ignore them, remind yourself that you're lucky to have been brought up to think for yourself, and move on.

That is a perfectly valid suggestion when someone on a street corner calls after you using what you perceive as a racial slur.

What if the racial slur is permanently institutionalized? Harder to ignore, no?

OK, maybe. But I still fail to see how "Fighting Sioux" or "Indians" are in any way racial slurs.

KeithK

Beeeej
That is a perfectly valid suggestion when someone on a street corner calls after you using what you perceive as a racial slur.

What if the racial slur is permanently institutionalized? Harder to ignore, no?

OK, maybe. But I still fail to see how "Fighting Sioux" or "Indians" are in any way racial slurs.

And some people disagree with you on both the names and the symbology, including (I gather) some Sioux and some Indians. Your failure to see how they are slurs does not mean their failure to be slurs.

If a school in Germany were idiotic enough to name their sports team "die Juden," I might think it's stupid, but I might not consider it a slur. If on the other hand the insignia of die Juden were a caricature - a guy with an enormous, hook-like nose counting money and trying to cover up the horns on his head - I'd have a serious problem with it.

KeithK

Beeeej

Robb
I have to agree with Keith on this one - words only hurt you as much as you allow them to. If someone's using racial slurs, they're obviously speaking from (at best) a myopic perspective. Ignore them, remind yourself that you're lucky to have been brought up to think for yourself, and move on.

That is a perfectly valid suggestion when someone on a street corner calls after you using what you perceive as a racial slur.

What if the racial slur is permanently institutionalized? Harder to ignore, no?

OK, maybe. But I still fail to see how "Fighting Sioux" or "Indians" are in any way racial slurs.

Fans of using Native American iconography say the names are used as homage - meant to convey traits like bravery or indomitability. This, alas, is 80% bullshit (or is at least tainted by a past of being 80% bullshit.)

Are Tigers brave? Lions? Bears? No, they are chosen because they are savage and dangerous and that is the context in which teams selected names like "Indians" or "Redskins".

Even if you want to take the assertion that positive characteristics are the rationale behind the name at face value, attributing positive characteristics to a race is also racist. Does North Dakota call its math team the "Asians"?

[news.yahoo.com]

Germane to the topic.

Lots of cases where people take offense too easily. This may or may not be the case with Native Americans unhappy with Indian mascots / logos / nicknames.

There are arguments that much of the Middle East (the part that dislikes us, which should qualify as "much" would rather blame others for their state rather than look within to their own lack of progress.

billhoward
There are arguments that much of the Middle East (the part that dislikes us, which should qualify as "much" would rather blame others for their state rather than look within to their own lack of progress.

Maybe so. I still don't think calling a team the Jihadists would be appropriate.

ugarte
This is, unfortunately, not the logic of a . It is the logic of an . You aren't saying that the other side is wrong to be offended you are saying that you don't care that they are.

That's right. Out of common decency, I don't go out of my way to offend people; but if I happen to offend someone in the course of doing something I and most of my neighbors think is completely innocuous... oh, well.

Hope you aren't offended but I don't see how it could negatively affect me if you are.

But I can still call you an asshat, even if it doesn't hurt.

Kyle

krose
Out of common decency, I don't go out of my way to offend people; but if I happen to offend someone in the course of doing something I and most of my neighbors think is completely innocuous... oh, well.

Many people consider it part of the aforementioned "common decency" to reconsider what we previously thought to be completely innocuous once we are informed that it offended someone. Not necessarily change our behavior every time someone gets bent out of shape, but at least reconsider our own views on the subject. Which I think goes a little bit beyond "oh, well."

krose
But I can still call you an asshat, even if it doesn't hurt.

But... it... does!

ugarte
I still don't think calling a team the Jihadists would be appropriate.

Cool mascot, though.

Trotsky

ugarte
I still don't think calling a team the Jihadists would be appropriate.

Cool mascot, though.

And fight song.

ugarte

Trotsky

ugarte
I still don't think calling a team the Jihadists would be appropriate.

Cool mascot, though.

And fight song.

Does each fan get 72 virgins for participating in the annual overnight season ticket line-up?

Beeeej
Many people consider it part of the aforementioned "common decency" to reconsider what we previously thought to be completely innocuous once we are informed that it offended someone. Not necessarily change our behavior every time someone gets bent out of shape, but at least reconsider our own views on the subject. Which I think goes a little bit beyond "oh, well."

No, I think that's about right. I may simply be less inclined to change my behavior unless I see a really good reason to do so.

Usually my opinion, whether stated aloud or with rolling eyes, is that people should grow thicker skins. Taking offense at almost anything that isn't a personal insult directed at you specifically is a sign of immaturity and/or low self-esteem. Big Pharma makes drugs to help with that.

You know, I'd love for someone to start a team called "The Nerds" or "The Midgets": I'd be happy to be a fan of either.

Cheers,
Kyle

krose
Usually my opinion, whether stated aloud or with rolling eyes, is that people should grow thicker skins.

Oh well, too damn bad for you.

krose
You know, I'd love for someone to start a team called "The Nerds"

"Engineers" doesn't count?

krose

Beeeej
Many people consider it part of the aforementioned "common decency" to reconsider what we previously thought to be completely innocuous once we are informed that it offended someone. Not necessarily change our behavior every time someone gets bent out of shape, but at least reconsider our own views on the subject. Which I think goes a little bit beyond "oh, well."

No, I think that's about right. I may simply be less inclined to change my behavior unless I see a really good reason to do so.

But of course you will only ever see a good reason to do something if you have an open mind to consider actions for someone's point of view other than your own. If you don't then of course behavior change is never needed, from your point of view.

To go back to my prior medical analogy, I try to do it myself and I'm happy that my own physicians are willing to try and understand what I may be experiencing, and then to try and help with finding a solution. I'm glad I don't go to someone who thinks, even if he doesn't speak it, that it's my problem and that's too bad.

Beeeej

krose
Out of common decency, I don't go out of my way to offend people; but if I happen to offend someone in the course of doing something I and most of my neighbors think is completely innocuous... oh, well.

Many people consider it part of the aforementioned "common decency" to reconsider what we previously thought to be completely innocuous once we are informed that it offended someone. Not necessarily change our behavior every time someone gets bent out of shape, but at least reconsider our own views on the subject. Which I think goes a little bit beyond "oh, well."

I agree that it's appropriate and decent to reconsider your actions/words when someone is offended and see if their offense is reasonable. Thing is, this act of reconsideration doesn't always mean that you'll agree that the offended were in the right. Having thought about the issue of Indian team names manmy times over the years I have come to the conclusions that being offended by "Indians" or "Fighting Sioux" is not reasonable. Having come to this conclusion, I find it easy to laugh at some over-sensitive college official who feels the need to apologize for the nickname of an opponent. Returning to my original response, rooting for the Sioux and Green nee Indians when I'm not a fan of either seems to me a suitable way of making fun of something that I find entirely silly (the Dartmouth AD's statement).

KeithK
I find it easy to laugh at some over-sensitive college official who feels the need to apologize for the nickname of an opponent.

I'm with you here. On the other hand, after reading the article that RichH linked to, I think Dartmouth might be an exception to that general rule.


Or they would, if not for this excerpt from the article:

Dartmouth, founded in 1769 as a school for American Indians, graduated fewer than 20 American Indians during its first 200 years (emphasis added to accentuate hilarity)

Way to stick with the program! In light of that amazing theft of endowment money, perhaps Big Green is the more appropriate name anyway.

Dartmouth, founded in 1769 as a school for American Indians, graduated fewer than 20 American Indians during its first 200 years (emphasis added to accentuate hilarity)

Way to stick with the program! In light of that amazing theft of endowment money, perhaps Big Green is the more appropriate name anyway.

True enough but we have a kettle and pot situation here. Do you really think that Cornell has a long and proud tradition of admitting ANY PERSON?
Not too mention the fact that we still don't admit people with low academic intelligence - unless they have a wicked slappah

DeltaOne81

Robb
words only hurt you as much as you allow them to.

I agree you should never allow words to hurt your self-esteem, make you think less of yourself, have any impact on your life or actions, etc. That is in your control. But the topic of this discussion wasn't about being 'hurt' (although I admit the saying was), it was about being offended.

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.

marty

DeltaOne81

Robb
words only hurt you as much as you allow them to.

I agree you should never allow words to hurt your self-esteem, make you think less of yourself, have any impact on your life or actions, etc. That is in your control. But the topic of this discussion wasn't about being 'hurt' (although I admit the saying was), it was about being offended.

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.

Don't mistake anything I say on here for defense of the Dartmouth AD. It seems pretty silly, although I do admit I don't know the entire story at Dartmouth. But it seems like it'd be well overdone just about anywhere else.

North Dakota may not have a team called The Asians, but (as was mentioned earlier) another ND school does have a fighting race as a mascot. But i guess that's ok, because we all know that the Irish are savages like bears and sharks.

DL
North Dakota may not have a team called The Asians, but (as was mentioned earlier) another ND school does have a fighting race as a mascot. But i guess that's ok, because we all know that the Irish are savages like bears and sharks.

The difference is that a bunch of Irish Catholics in Indiana named the school after themselves. There is a huge difference. I wish Elon College still called themselves the Fightin' Christians.

ugarte
The difference is that a bunch of Irish Catholics in Indiana named the school after themselves.

Except the University of Notre Dame was actually founded by Frenchmen. Their teams officially competed with the names "Catholics" and "Ramblers." The "Irish" nickname has fuzzy origins, but most likely started as a slur. "Fighting Irish" became the official nickname in 1927.

Several links:
[www.college-football--tickets.net]
[www.nd.edu]

There is a huge difference. I wish Elon College still called themselves the Fightin' Christians.

And I wish Penn's official team name were really "The Oxymoronic Fighting Quakers."

KeithK
"Where Paleface and Redskin both turn chicken."

(Random, I know. But I was just watching this. Reference anyone?)

Since, you didn't get any takers, It's from "F Troop."

Gotta love the Heckawis.

RichH

ugarte
The difference is that a bunch of Irish Catholics in Indiana named the school after themselves.

Except the University of Notre Dame was actually founded by Frenchmen. Their teams officially competed with the names "Catholics" and "Ramblers." The "Irish" nickname has fuzzy origins, but most likely started as a slur. "Fighting Irish" became the official nickname in 1927.

I appreciate the correction but I think my point still stands. Other people used "Irish" as a slur but as the man said,

Fr. Charles Carey
In narrow, little New England, it began as a slur -- a term of opprobrium. But we took it up and made of it a badge of honor -- a symbol of fidelity and courage to everyone who suffers from discrimination

Notre Dame reappropriated a slur against all Catholics into a rallying cry for Catholics. Calling a team the "Indians" takes a caricature of Native American culture and turns it into a rallying cry for those who created the caricature. It would have been equally offensive if, say, Harvard or Wesleyan had called themselves the "Fighting Irish."

ugarte
I appreciate the correction but I think my point still stands.

Well, that's all it was: a friendly correction. But I think it did change your point slightly, which is fine given your clarification in this context.

ugarte
Notre Dame reappropriated a slur against all Catholics into a rallying cry for Catholics. Calling a team the "Indians" takes a caricature of Native American culture and turns it into a rallying cry for those who created the caricature. It would have been equally offensive if, say, Harvard or Wesleyan had called themselves the "Fighting Irish."

That is a significant difference. To contribute to this line of thinking, I can think of three other examples of a group adapting a perjorative.

"Yankee." Probably the best parallel for the Notre Dame nickname. While the origin is most likely based on Dutch names, there's no question that the British used it as a term of derision for the colonists. By the Revolution, what had been an insult had become a boast by those on this side of the pond. The US South flipped it again to be an insult (I still don't understand how it's an insult today...baseball jokes aside). We still use it with pride in the context of international war ("The Yanks are coming" in "Over There", but when talking to a Southerner (Damn Yankee) or in Latin America (Yanquis go home) it's still a term of contempt. It's a pretty interesting word when you look at the history. Certainly innocuous enough to name a sports team after this historically "ethnic" phrase.

"Queer." Quoth Homer Simpson: "Yeah, and that's another thing! I resent you people using that word. That's our word for making fun of you! We need it!"

The N-word. um...I'm not going there. Ask Michael Richards if it's a hot button in race relations today. The point is that the African-American community adapted this hate term in various ways and degrees, and now there's a movement to reject it.

For the record, I don't have a strong stance one way or the other on the mascot controversy. I personally don't get offended easily. I just wish the NCAA would be consistent, if they're going to have a policy at all.

Oh, and "opprobrium" is my new favorite word. I'll give five bucks to anyone who comes up with a cheer that the entire crowd participates in using "opprobrium."

As in,

"Hey Tobe, we consider you to be an opprobrium to the Cantabridgian hockey tableau...upon further investigation, the Cantabridgian hockey tableau is indecorously execrable!!"

No, you can't use that one.

RichH
when talking to a Southerner (Damn Yankee) or in Latin America (Yanquis go home) it's still a term of contempt.

This is the central point. A term is an insult if... it is used as an insult. The common thread of Southerners and Latin Americans using "Yankee" as a term of derision, while others simultaneously used it as a compliment, is that the former group despises the people they are using it against, while the latter does not. A word is a word is a word -- only intent makes it mean anything, and X can't tell Y what she means when she uses a word. When X tries to control Y's speech, X is an officious prick. X can cluck all she wants, but she can't censor.

Imagine if the energy put into the attack on unfashionable nicknames was channeled into something that actually mattered. But in order to do that, the "reformers" might have to get off their asses.

Trotsky
A term is an insult if... it is used as an insult.

False.

I can't say the n-word in a friendly manner, even if I didn't mean it as an insult.

An insult can be turned around when used by those who it was intended against, but that doesn't mean its still not an insult when used by others.

DeltaOne81

Trotsky
A term is an insult if... it is used as an insult.

False.

I can't say the n-word in a friendly manner, even if I didn't mean it as an insult.

An insult can be turned around when used by those who it was intended against, but that doesn't mean its still not an insult when used by others.

And now it should be more painfully clear than ever why the side of the argument that ends up resorting to nursery rhymes even has a foothold. That those objecting to something 1)object for different reasons, and 2)offer little clarity as to why they're objecting only facilitates the cause's dismissal as merely the efforts of "whiny, liberal, PC pussies" by the obstinate. Way to let the supporters of the "I and most of my neighbors"-as-measure-of-reason test frame the debate.

RichH
Oh, and "opprobrium" is my new favorite word. I'll give five bucks to anyone who comes up with a cheer that the entire crowd participates in using "opprobrium."

As in,

"Hey Tobe, we consider you to be an opprobrium to the Cantabridgian hockey tableau...upon further investigation, the Cantabridgian hockey tableau is indecorously execrable!!"

No, you can't use that one.

Speaking of which, when the hell are the good people of Cambridge going to rise up to take back their (good?) name from those straght A students at Sucks.

RichH
Ask Michael Richards if it's a hot button in race relations today. The point is that the Afro-American community adapted this hate term in various ways and degrees,

Fixed your post.

My favorite parts of the article RichH posted:

[q]There also have been accusations that...the crew team held a party with a "Cowboys and Indians" theme.[/q]

(At the risk of sounding insensitive and racist myself Seriously? As if a Ghetto party isn't similarly offensive. It's just a theme party, with bad timing, considering recent events on campus.

[q]At the rally, Kohn, a member of both the Crow tribe and of the student group Native Americans at Dartmouth, urged administrators to pursue disciplinary action against offenders.

"We're not reaching for something that's just a temporary cosmetic fix," he said. "We're calling for a lasting solution from the Dartmouth administration."[/q]

I find this an interesting "lasting solution." I think punishing offenders is a pretty cosmetic fix. The Dartmouth administration looks like they're accomplishing something, but they aren't really getting to the root of the problem - the underlying insensitivity and racism. It would take a much more concerted effort to eliminate these attitudes on campus.

The President of UND has written to the President of DC asking that the players be treated well and inviting the AD to come see how they treat Indians out there:
[www.dartblog.com]

More coverage from Dartmouth at: [www.dartblog.com]

ugarte

RichH

ugarte
The difference is that a bunch of Irish Catholics in Indiana named the school after themselves.

Except the University of Notre Dame was actually founded by Frenchmen. Their teams officially competed with the names "Catholics" and "Ramblers." The "Irish" nickname has fuzzy origins, but most likely started as a slur. "Fighting Irish" became the official nickname in 1927.

I appreciate the correction but I think my point still stands. Other people used "Irish" as a slur but as the man said,

Fr. Charles Carey
In narrow, little New England, it began as a slur -- a term of opprobrium. But we took it up and made of it a badge of honor -- a symbol of fidelity and courage to everyone who suffers from discrimination

Notre Dame reappropriated a slur against all Catholics into a rallying cry for Catholics. Calling a team the "Indians" takes a caricature of Native American culture and turns it into a rallying cry for those who created the caricature. It would have been equally offensive if, say, Harvard or Wesleyan had called themselves the "Fighting Irish."

a) The Kennedy boys were probably the only Irish admitted to Fair Harvard the first three hundred years. A lot of schools had more than just a Jewish quota. (Isn't there an argument that the rise of schools such as Cornell, Chicago, and Michigan were helped by their relative willingness to admit Jewish students? I've heard that said but also have heard that Cornell carried some sort of quotas into the 1950s.)

b) [www.imdb.com]

Blazing Saddles
Olson Johnson: All right, we'll give some land to the niggers and the chinks, but we DON'T WANT THE IRISH.

c) [old, old joke] Q: What do you call 11 guys with Polish and Italian names? A: The Fighting Irish of Notre Dame.

But ... good point that Notre Dame turned Irish from slur into rallying cry. Perhaps the other difference is Notre Dame had lots of Irish, most colleges with Indian nicknames didn't have many Indians.

billhoward
But ... good point that Notre Dame turned Irish from slur into rallying cry. Perhaps the other difference is Notre Dame had lots of Irish, most colleges with Indian nicknames didn't have many Indians.

Kupichella is fond of pointing out that UND does have a large American Indian population. Less fond of pointing out that they're among those protesting the nickname.

jtwcornell91
Kupichella is fond of pointing out that UND does have a large American Indian population. Less fond of pointing out that they're some of them are among those protesting the nickname.

FYP - don't over generalize.

Robb

jtwcornell91
Kupichella is fond of pointing out that UND does have a large American Indian population. Less fond of pointing out that they're some of them are among those protesting the nickname.

FYP - don't over generalize.

Obviously, not every American Indian student on campus is protesting. But it's my understanding that many American Indian organizations have objected:

[www.und.edu]

I'm not aware of any American Indian organizations at UND that have supported the nickname.

jtwcornell91
I'm not aware of any American Indian organizations at UND that have supported the nickname.

Isn't it usually the case that only those who feel oppressed bother to organize? I wouldn't take the lack of organization on the other side to mean there are no people on the other side.

Kyle

krose

jtwcornell91
I'm not aware of any American Indian organizations at UND that have supported the nickname.

Isn't it usually the case that only those who feel oppressed bother to organize? I wouldn't take the lack of organization on the other side to mean there are no people on the other side.

Other schools fighting the NCAA's current push against similar nicknames put in serious time and effort to gather Native American groups who were willing to throw their support behind the nickname. My assumption would be that if there are no such groups organized or vocal in favor of it at ND, it's because ND couldn't find any.

Beeeej
Other schools fighting the NCAA's current push against similar nicknames put in serious time and effort to gather Native American groups who were willing to throw their support behind the nickname. My assumption would be that if there are no such groups organized or vocal in favor of it at ND, it's because ND couldn't find any.

Touche.

Kyle

jtwcornell91
Obviously, not every American Indian student on campus is protesting. But it's my understanding that many American Indian organizations have objected:

[www.und.edu]

I'm not aware of any American Indian organizations at UND that have supported the nickname.

That link is to a letter from faculty members in the year 2000. I wouldn't make the leap to assume that the Native American students who are enrolled in the year 2006 feel the same way. I certainly held very different beliefs from many of my professors, in spite of their attempts to brainwas.., er, teach, me.

[www.boston.com]

No protests are planned for tonight's game, according to Michael Hanitchak , director of Dartmouth's Native American Program, although he said some students wanted Dartmouth to cancel the game.

I'm guessing these would be students who don't give a flying fig about hockey at any other time?

Section A Banshee

No protests are planned for tonight's game, according to Michael Hanitchak , director of Dartmouth's Native American Program, although he said some students wanted Dartmouth to cancel the game.

I'm guessing these would be students who don't give a flying fig about hockey at any other time?

Probably. Because the protest is about <i>hockey</i>. I'm sure if it were the North Dakota swim team they wouldn't care.

From the Globe article
Several universities, including the University of Iowa and the University of Wisconsin, decline to compete against teams with Native American symbols, Williams said

So does that mean the WCHA is no more, or just that the reporter didn't know what he was talking about?

Jim Hyla

From the Globe article
Several universities, including the University of Iowa and the University of Wisconsin, decline to compete against teams with Native American symbols, Williams said

So does that mean the WCHA is no more, or just that the reporter didn't know what he was talking about?

As I understand it, Wisconsin no longer schedules games against schools with Indian nicknames but will play conference games against those schools.

>>> Dartmouth, in Hanover, N.H., has decided to set up a committee that will consider whether the school should refuse to compete against teams that use Native American nicknames and mascots.

There's precedence. Don't the Iraq or Iran Olympic teams forfeit if they advance far enough to meet an Israeli wrestler or boxer?

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.

KeithK

Jim Hyla

From the Globe article
Several universities, including the University of Iowa and the University of Wisconsin, decline to compete against teams with Native American symbols, Williams said

So does that mean the WCHA is no more, or just that the reporter didn't know what he was talking about?

As I understand it, Wisconsin no longer schedules games against schools with Indian nicknames but will play conference games against those schools.

Similar news from the Twin Cities, and a similar unexplained hypocrisy:

[wcco.com]

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...)

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. Refusing to schedule new games while not withdrawing from a hockey conference or throwing away earned postseason appearances is a reasonable compromise for a large institution that has multiple stakeholders and agendas. It may earn them cheap shots from defenders of Native American team names and garment-rending from the most self-righteous campaigners for change but middle-of-the-road is not an empty gesture. The current policy is more culturally sensitive than the "who cares?" crowd and more realistic from people who think it is realistic for a school to sacrifice millions of dollars every time a principle is impinged upon.