[OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames

[David Grassi \'02]

If a team is named after a particular group (exapmple:  Fighting Sioux) then by all means the name should be changed if that group is offended.  I don't think, however, that it should be changed because outsiders are offended "on behalf of" the group (as appears to be the case here, if previous postings are correct.)

[ugarte]

[Q]David Grassi '02 Wrote:

 If a team is named after a particular group (exapmple:  Fighting Sioux) then by all means the name should be changed if that group is offended.  I don't think, however, that it should be changed because outsiders are offended "on behalf of" the group (as appears to be the case here, if previous postings are correct.)
[/q]I agree that the Native American team names should not be changed because I find them offensive. On the other hand, I didn't start the protests. They were started by Native American groups and I certainly think that I have the right to join them in calling for name changes. Support of people from outside the directly affected community is important for any change to occur. The assistance of sympathetic whites certainly played a substantial role in the civil rights movement.

[Mike Nevin]

One very real question here is whether there is a group which is truly offended.  I was skating some this winter at the Onondaga Nation Arena in Syracuse.  Several of the Native kids were wearing Fighting Souix jerseys.  I thought that was kind of interesting and cool.  

What about the "Fighting Irish" -- Would they have to change their name too ?  

[Jim Hyla]

[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:

 [Q2]Jim Hyla Wrote:

 [Q2]Ken '70 Wrote:

 [Q2]krose Wrote:

 How about people stop looking for ways to be offended, and just live their lives?  

Kyle[/Q]
I would hope that first we all try and understand the feelings of others, then try and help each other to work to a common understanding. I actually think Bill Moyers is quite good at that. [/Q]
You're kidding, right?

[/Q][/Q]Just in case anyone misunderstands this quote:-}as it wasn't formatted correctly, I wrote that "I would hope that we first all try and understand...". I assume Ken was replying "You're kidding, right?"

The Preview pane is a  good way to prevent these problems. The problem was there were not enough end quotes to separate the quotes from Ken's statement.

[Tub(a)]

[Q]krose Wrote:


Perpetual victimhood doesn't correlate well with success; nor is it particularly attractive.

Kyle[/q]

Which is exactly why stereotypes and offensive team names are wrong. Minority groups are victims specifically because people discount their beliefs or struggles (oh, get over it, it's just a name) and prevent them from attaining any real equality with the dominantly white male power structure.

What happens when a white businessman is caught with cocaine? He spends far less time in jail than a poor black man with a joint, if he is even prosecuted to begin with.

What happens if a minority group wants a name changed because it is offensive and racist? The white men say that it isn't offensive to them, and that the minority group should suck it up.

[Rosey]

[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:
Which is exactly why stereotypes and offensive team names are wrong. Minority groups are victims specifically because people discount their beliefs or struggles (oh, get over it, it's just a name) and prevent them from attaining any real equality with the dominantly white male power structure.
[/q]
I'm sorry, but this doesn't follow from the existence of teams called "Indians" or "Braves" or "Red Raiders" or "Fighting Irish" or whatever.  I admit that real racism still exists, but (a) I assert without proof or evidence that actual racism is responsible for very little of the existing disparities between the achievements of white males and the achievements of minorities (that is: disparity in connections, bootstrap capital, educational opportunity, attitude of surrounding culture toward learning and achievement, etc. *are not racism* and are a much better explanation for this, especially when you take into account the fact that most colleges and businesses bend over backward to attract minority candidates) and (b) some teams names may have racist origins, but the names themselves are not racist (i.e., no one thinks of the origins of these names except the people complaining about how racist they are: they are simply labels associated with an evolving tradition).
[q]What happens when a white businessman is caught with cocaine? He spends far less time in jail than a poor black man with a joint, if he is even prosecuted to begin with.[/q]
What exactly does this have to do with a team named "The Red Raiders"?  Maybe if there were a team called "The Niggas" you'd have a case, but to reverse course and use an example actually related to this thread, I don't think the existence of a team with a name related to American Indians has any causal effect on the habits of prosecutors or the attitudes of individuals: it can easily be argued to be the result of racism (as I said above), but to argue that it feeds back into the persecution of minorities is completely unsubstantiated and, I would argue, hysterical.
[q]What happens if a minority group wants a name changed because it is offensive and racist? The white men say that it isn't offensive to them, and that the minority group should suck it up. [/q]
I fail to see the point you're making: this isn't an argument.  This is just a restatement of the discussion we're having.  But I don't think I'm being particuarly clear, so let me try a little harder.

Of course these names aren't offensive to white men.  That's not the point.  And I never said they weren't offensive to members of the associated race or culture: that's besides the point as well.  What I am saying is that (a) teams should have the liberty of using whatever name they see fit, no matter how offensive it is to others (modulo of course their ability to exist given potential damage to their profitability resulting from the choice of a name that is offensive to lots and lots of people) and (b) those who are offended can continue to bitch all they want, but should stop short of abusing what is essentially monopoly power (the NCAA's fairly impenetrable monopoly over management of intercollegiate athletics) to force a change in an unrelated area (a school's autonomy in choosing its teams' name and mascot).

(Just to be clear on my actual opinion: the NCAA should have the power to impose whatever stupid rules they want on their member schools regardless of their status as a monopoly, but technically having the power and using that power are two entirely different things, especially when this is clearly not a settled ethical question.  Calling people names (e.g., "racist!") is the fastest way to get them to dig in their heels and oppose your every move.  It's not a particularly good way to make friends or influence people.)

Kyle

[Tom Lento]

[Q]krose Wrote:

 (a) I assert without proof or evidence that actual racism is responsible for very little of the existing disparities between the achievements of white males and the achievements of minorities (that is: disparity in connections, bootstrap capital, educational opportunity, attitude of surrounding culture toward learning and achievement, etc. *are not racism* and are a much better explanation for this, especially when you take into account the fact that most colleges and businesses bend over backward to attract minority candidates)[/q]

There's a lot of debate about this one in the social inequality literature.  The available evidence indicates that racism is probably responsible for the existing disparities between whites and African-Americans.  Check out Massey and Denton's _American Apartheid_ for an example of such an argument.  William Julius Wilson's _Declining Significance of Race_, on the other hand, presents a controversial argument that race is no longer a *limiting* factor in socio-economic advancement.  He has since revised his position, but even in the original work he argues that racism has a lot to do with existing inequality.  It's not a limiting factor now (i.e. blacks do not get passed over for jobs etc. due to race), but it did lead to the structural disadvantages, including lack of educational opportunities and lack of available capital, facing certain minority groups.  It is these structural factors, which are the legacy of racism, that explain much of the inequalities between blacks and whites (e.g. less educational opportunity in poor inner-city neighborhoods, where blacks were concentrated due to racial tension, white flight, etc results in lower earning potential for blacks).  In short, the evidence indicates that your assertion, at best, fails to account for historical circumstances, and at worst is simply flat wrong.

Now, what this has to do with team names, I don't know.  I do agree that calling a team the Fighting Sioux or the Braves does not, in and of itself, reproduce social inequality.  If the team was called the Alcoholic Reservation Bums he might have a point - that's a name that is both *extremely* offensive and ties into stereotypes with the potential to affect socio-economic performance - but with the current team names I don't think you can make this argument.

The real argument is cultural - are these names reinforcing inaccurate cultural stereotypes, or are they celebrating the culture of the people represented by the names?  The NoDak folks, and many of the Sioux in that area, will tell you that the Fighting Sioux fits into the latter category - their mascots, logos, etc. are tasteful, and the school is respectful of the Sioux heritage.  But other teams do not fit into that category, and the line is far from clear.  If the teams were all named the Bloodthirsty Indian Savages or something like that, then it would be easy, but that just isn't the case for the NCAA schools in question.

Maybe the problem with this whole debate is that it originated in an era when naming a team Bloodthirsty Indian Savages wasn't that far out of the realm of acceptable practice, and as a reaction to that era many people seem to think it's impossible to name a team after a Native American group while maintaining respect and admiration for the culture and history of the people represented on the jersey.

[DeltaOne81]

I'm not gonna be nearly as long winded, but I will say, krose, look at your first quote of Tuba's there and your first response. You went off about how racism isn't responsible for all the problems. But Tuba never once in his quote said anything about racism. You attacked a point he wasn't making.

[Q]Minority groups are victims specifically because people discount their beliefs or struggles (oh, get over it, it's just a name) and prevent them from attaining any real equality with the dominantly white male power structure.[/Q]

While nothing in this topic is obvious, undebateable or universally agreed upon, but that quote says nothing about racism. It talks about how people discount the struggles of other people that they don't understand. People don't understand the true barriers and therefore oppose anything to help knock down barriers they don't admit exists. I, well, I wouldn't really know personally, but I did take a class which talked about the social structure in corporations and the unintentional bias and problems it presents (and many other aspects of corporate and social culture), so I am familar with the topics, theories, and discussions.

Anyway, my point is that no one is saying that this is from modern racism, or that modern level racism is causing the problems, which you so strongly argued against. But he was saying that we should try to consider the impact and barriers that people have before we tell them how to feel about things. And we should be sensitive to the point of view of others and not expect their life experiences and sensiblities to always be in line with ours.

[marty]

[Q]David Grassi '02 Wrote:

 If a team is named after a particular group (exapmple:  Fighting Sioux) then by all means the name should be changed if that group is offended.  I don't think, however, that it should be changed because outsiders are offended "on behalf of" the group (as appears to be the case here, if previous postings are correct.)
[/q]

What does this mean?  Who are the Sioux in 2005?  Will we have a vote based on the heritage of every person of Sioux descent that can be tracked down?  What if only 1/16th Sioux, do I still get a vote?  Suppose 30% of the Sioux are upset - what will we do?  How about 20%, 10%, etc.

There is an unknown here with regard to whether these nicknames really offend Native Americans or if this debate is manufactured by professional trouble makers.  Some people make careers out of whining and this debate strikes me as such.

I'd rather see the NCAA worry about running their regionals in such a way that the Big Red isn’t punished for using the damn cowbell.

[Tub(a)]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 I'm not gonna be nearly as long winded, but I will say, krose, look at your first quote of Tuba's there and your first response. You went off about how racism isn't responsible for all the problems. But Tuba never once in his quote said anything about racism. You attacked a point he wasn't making.

[Q]Minority groups are victims specifically because people discount their beliefs or struggles (oh, get over it, it's just a name) and prevent them from attaining any real equality with the dominantly white male power structure.[/Q]
While nothing in this topic is obvious, undebateable or universally agreed upon, but that quote says nothing about racism. It talks about how people discount the struggles of other people that they don't understand. People don't understand the true barriers and therefore oppose anything to help knock down barriers they don't admit exists. I, well, I wouldn't really know personally, but I did take a class which talked about the social structure in corporations and the unintentional bias and problems it presents (and many other aspects of corporate and social culture), so I am familar with the topics, theories, and discussions.

Anyway, my point is that no one is saying that this is from modern racism, or that modern level racism is causing the problems, which you so strongly argued against. But he was saying that we should try to consider the impact and barriers that people have before we tell them how to feel about things. And we should be sensitive to the point of view of others and not expect their life experiences and sensiblities to always be in line with ours.[/q]


Thanks, you saved me a lot of writing ;-)

It's very difficult to tell someone not to worry about something when you don't have an idea or experience of what they are worrying about.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]marty Wrote:
There is an unknown here with regard to whether these nicknames really offend Native Americans or if this debate is manufactured by professional trouble makers.  Some people make careers out of whining and this debate strikes me as such.

I'd rather see the NCAA worry about running their regionals in such a way that the Big Red isn’t punished for using the damn cowbell.
[/q]
Funny, seems to me there's a whole lot more whining going on here about the supposed 'whiners' than there was on the original topic. Things that make you go hmmmmm

I think we can all agree that the latter point should be the NCAAs priority though :-D

[ugarte]

[Q]krose Wrote: (b) some teams names may have racist origins, but the names themselves are not racist (i.e., no one thinks of the origins of these names except the people complaining about how racist they are: they are simply labels associated with an evolving tradition).[/q]So my gay friends shouldn't be upset with the way "fag" is now a catchall derogatory remark because the person using it isn't implying actual homosexuality, just a general undesirability? Or because it is just a joke? "But I don't mean it that way" isn't an excuse when people will reasonably hear it that way for valid historical reasons.

You can't separate action from context.  Even though I'm sure the antebellum South was full of constitutional scholars with a uniform belief in the importance of a federalist system of government, and therefore were steadfast in their defense of states' rights, the confederate flag is a symbol of slavery.

[q]What I am saying is that (a) teams should have the liberty of using whatever name they see fit, no matter how offensive it is to others[/q]This is not a serious argument. Nobody is opposing the use of Native American team names on grounds that require a First Amendment defense. Everyone knows that they should be allowed to use any name (in a legal sense); the question is whether demanding a change on moral grounds is reasonable. [q](modulo of course their ability to exist given potential damage to their profitability resulting from the choice of a name that is offensive to lots and lots of people)[/q]We'll get back to this and I forgive the pretentious use of "modulo." [q](b) those who are offended can continue to bitch all they want, but should stop short of abusing what is essentially monopoly power (the NCAA's fairly impenetrable monopoly over management of intercollegiate athletics) to force a change in an unrelated area (a school's autonomy in choosing its teams' name and mascot). ... (Just to be clear on my actual opinion: the NCAA should have the power to impose whatever stupid rules they want on their member schools regardless of their status as a monopoly, but technically having the power and using that power are two entirely different things, especially when this is clearly not a settled ethical question.[/q]You are wrong structurally and economically. First, the NCAA doesn't impose most of its rules from on high through representative government. They typically come from referenda voted on by all of the institutions. The NCAA may have a monopoly, but it is something of a participatory monopoly. In that circumstance, it isn't necessarily just Colgate who gets to look at economic or social effects. The entire institution gets to say "How does it reflect on us if Colgate uses a name that many consider racist."

[q]Calling people names (e.g., "racist!") is the fastest way to get them to dig in their heels and oppose your every move.  It's not a particularly good way to make friends or influence people.)[/q]Nice answer. "Even if you think it is racist, you shouldn't call me a racist because people will be offended." Why should I care if you are offended? Suck it up.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]ugarte Wrote:
Nice answer. "Even if you think it is racist, you shouldn't call me a racist because people will be offended." Why should I care if you are offended? Suck it up.[/q]
lol

[David Grassi \'02]

[Q]marty Wrote:

 [Q2]David Grassi '02 Wrote:

 If a team is named after a particular group (exapmple:  Fighting Sioux) then by all means the name should be changed if that group is offended.  I don't think, however, that it should be changed because outsiders are offended "on behalf of" the group (as appears to be the case here, if previous postings are correct.)
[/Q]
What does this mean?  Who are the Sioux in 2005?  Will we have a vote based on the heritage of every person of Sioux descent that can be tracked down?  What if only 1/16th Sioux, do I still get a vote?  Suppose 30% of the Sioux are upset - what will we do?  How about 20%, 10%, etc.

There is an unknown here with regard to whether these nicknames really offend Native Americans or if this debate is manufactured by professional trouble makers.  Some people make careers out of whining and this debate strikes me as such.

I'd rather see the NCAA worry about running their regionals in such a way that the Big Red isn’t punished for using the damn cowbell.
[/q]

Keith K mentioned that he thought the Fighting Sioux nickname was approved by the local Sioux tribe, that is what I was referring to.  I doubt every Sioux has the same opinion but if the tribe's official stance is supportive of the nickname, then I think it is okay to retain it.

[Rosey]

[Q]ugarte Wrote:

So my gay friends shouldn't be upset with the way "fag" is now a catchall derogatory remark[/q]
You cann't even go 20 words without setting up a straw man.  Bzzt.  I don't think "Red Raiders" or "Redskins" are used derogatively at games involving those teams, at least outside of "Redskins.... SUCK!"  Next.
[q]You can't separate action from context.  Even though I'm sure the antebellum South was full of constitutional scholars with a uniform belief in the importance of a federalist system of government, and therefore were steadfast in their defense of states' rights, the confederate flag is a symbol of slavery. [/q]
In the case of existing teams with American Indian names or states with the confederate flag as part of their shield/flag/whatever, they should change only if that change comes from within, and they shouldn't be forced (coerced, blackmailed) into doing so by outside forces.  Given the furor over these things, I don't think there will be many *new* team names/flags that incorporate these elements.
[q]This is not a serious argument. Nobody is opposing the use of Native American team names on grounds that require a First Amendment defense. Everyone knows that they should be allowed to use any name (in a legal sense); the question is whether demanding a change on moral grounds is reasonable.[/q]
Demanding a change because you find it offensive is perfectly fine.  Getting the NCAA to do your dirty work for you by implementing what amounts to sanctions is not, especially since there is another constituency here that has more at stake than the groups who (falsely, IMO) claim damage from these names.
[q]You are wrong structurally and economically. First, the NCAA doesn't impose most of its rules from on high through representative government. They typically come from referenda voted on by all of the institutions. The NCAA may have a monopoly, but it is something of a participatory monopoly.[/q]
Sounds suspiciously like democracy, which Ben Franklin described as "Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
[q]In that circumstance, it isn't necessarily just Colgate who gets to look at economic or social effects. The entire institution gets to say "How does it reflect on us if Colgate uses a name that many consider racist."[/q]
Sorry, but this is just crap.  No reasonable person is going to blame Stanford because Colgate has a name some people consider offensive.  Sure, lots of people will make this leap; but they are unreasonable, so IMO the rest of us shouldn't really care what they think.

The attitude more likely responsible for these decisions is, "I don't want to look like a racist, and I couldn't give two shits if the jackasses from Colgate or NoDak have to rename their team."
[q]Nice answer. "Even if you think it is racist, you shouldn't call me a racist because people will be offended." Why should I care if you are offended? Suck it up.[/q]
Just offering a little advice.  If you care about this issue (I honestly couldn't care less whether these teams change their names or not; I'm only interested in the reasons for the change) then you should go about it in the most productive way possible, instead of issuing sanctimonious pronouncements from atop Mount Olympus that make everyone roll their eyes and go about their business.

Reading some of the earlier replies to my postings, I've actually gotten quite a lot of insightful feedback (Tom's reply stands out) even if most of it seems to be arguing points I'm not making; but honestly, you've got nothing.  Then again, this is hardly the first time you've demonstrated yourself to be an empty suit, so I don't expect anything to change soon.

Cheers,
Kyle