redskin name can be challenged

[yoMAMA]

Redskins Name Can Be Challenged
Appeals Court Ruling Keeps Trademark Battle Alive

By Karlyn Barker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 16, 2005; B01

Native American groups won another chance yesterday to challenge trademarks covering the name and logo of the Washington Redskins, which the groups say disparage millions of people.

The football franchise had appeared to prevail in the longstanding trademark fight when a federal judge ruled in its favor nearly two years ago. But yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals said the case deserves another look because one of the plaintiffs might have been unfairly denied the right to pursue it.

"This keeps the case alive," said John Dossett, general counsel for the National Congress of American Indians, which represents 250 tribes.

The dispute involves six trademarks owned by Pro-Football Inc., the corporate owner of the team. The oldest is "The Redskins," written in a stylized script in 1967. Other trademarks were registered in 1974, 1978 and 1990, including one for the word "Redskinettes." The Native Americans said the trademarks should be taken away because they insult them and hold them up to ridicule.

The appellate ruling hinged on the question of whether the Native Americans waited too long to file their challenge. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled in October 2003 that the seven plaintiffs had no standing to complain because they did not formally object until 25 years had elapsed since the date of the first trademark.

But the appellate judges found that one plaintiff still could have standing because he was only 1 year old in 1967. They sent the case back to Kollar-Kotelly for review.

The outcome ultimately could affect millions of dollars in sales of Redskins paraphernalia. With a federal registration for trademarks, team owner Daniel M. Snyder holds exclusive rights to use the team name and logo on T-shirts, caps and other items, worth an estimated $5 million a year.

Cancellation of the trademarks would not force the Redskins to stop selling those products, but it would limit the team's ability to take action against merchants who infringed on the trademark.

The Redskins have argued that the name, dating to 1933, is meant to honor Native Americans. Robert Raskopf, an attorney for Pro-Football Inc., said the organization disagrees with the appellate ruling and is considering its options for challenging it.

"We look forward to ultimately prevailing," he said. Asked whether the Redskins might consider changing the team's name, he replied, "Absolutely not."

The legal battle began 13 years ago when the Native Americans, led by Cheyenne activist and District resident Suzan Shown Harjo, filed a complaint with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The complaint cited a 1946 federal law that prohibits the government from registering a trademark that disparages any race, religion or group.

The agency's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sided with Harjo in 1999 and canceled the highly lucrative trademarks. But Pro-Football Inc. challenged the board's decision with a lawsuit filed at the federal courthouse in Washington.

Kollar-Kotelly cited other factors in ruling in favor of the football franchise. She said the trademark board relied on dated, incomplete and irrelevant evidence. The appellate court did not address those issues yesterday, focusing only on the issue of timing -- a concept known as laches.

The appellate ruling instructed Kollar-Kotelly to reevaluate the claim of the youngest plaintiff in the case, Manteo Romero. It was issued by judges David B. Sentelle, A. Raymond Randolph and David S. Tatel.

"Why should laches bar all Native Americans from challenging Pro-Football's 'Redskins' trademark registrations because some Native Americans may have slept on their rights?" the judges asked.

Romero, 38, an artist who lives in Pojoaque Pueblo, N.M., near Santa Fe, called the ongoing legal battle "a moral issue. . . . The use of the mascot is damaging to Native American peoples, who need to be respected for who they are instead of being stereotyped," he said.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[moser]

Oh thank God. Ugh.

Off topic: I hate it when people say that the name "Redskins" is to honor Native Americans.

[yoMAMA]

Oh thank God. Ugh.

Off topic: I hate it when people say that the name "Redskins" is to honor Native Americans.

yeah, nothing says that your action is to "honor" native americans when they are the ones feeling insulted.

some logic there....

[grimfan]

Thank god. The Redskins moniker was always disturbing. If some people cry PC foul, as they inevitably will, I propose changing the Tennessee Titans to the Tennessee Crackers, or the Tennessee Rednecks, just to balance things out.

[nonamerasian]

yeah, nothing says that your action is to "honor" native americans when they are the ones feeling insulted.

some logic there....

For real.

That always cracks me up.

I hope the Native Americans win. And since they can't stop the team from using the name, anyone who wants to should be encouraged take advantage of the team losing their trademarks and make big bucks with replicated paraphernalia.

All in honor of Daniel Mofo Snyder, of course. :wink:

[hooligan]

Yeah, we honor racism all the time in the US. Woo hoo.

[chikkachikka]

to clarify, i believe the preferred term by the actual "redskins" themselves is american indian, not native american.

i was in washington, dc last fall for the opening of the american indian museum. it was a huge smithsonian-sponsored festival with a parade and events, booths, etc. covering the whole mall. it also coincided with the previous battle to shoot down the name. i thinkt he post ran an editorial about the ridiculousness of having such a large celebration in a city that can't see the hypocrisy of having their only major sports team named the redskins. i soooo agree.

tennessee crackers ain't good enough, it has to be equally offensive as redskins. rednecks are actually proud of being called rednecks (most of the time), so how bout the texas warmongers (it would be to HONOR them for giving us bush!), or the kentucky pasty asses? or the idaho whiteboys? west virginia cousin-marryers, or alabama sister-fuckers? the mississippi white trash? the utah bible thumpers?

the Washington Bigots? I like that one.

[BeTheReds]

Oh, but somehow Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Noles, and Blackhawks is okay?

Look at their silly logos! You're gonna tell me that Cheif Wahoo and the Braves' Tomahawk are worse than the Redskins logo?

What about all the pirates who's heritage is mocked daily by sports teams names and logos?

http://eugene.whong.org/pirate/

[nola]

^They're all unaccceptable and very disrespectful to American Indians.

[chikkachikka]

i agree nola, they are all disrespectful and a number of them have all come under fire at one point or another - remember the hoopla over jane fonda doing the tomahawk chop?

in DC, however, i think locally it has taken on some more significance cos it's so much more obviously hypocritical - it's the nation's capital and the seat of the huge behomoth that is the smithsonian, which is always running various american indian festivals, parades, celebrations - recently they held a folklife festival that also included some american indian booths. imagine purchasing american indian tea at the folklife festival, and then heading down to RFK stadium to watch the redskins.

and last time i checked, pirates were not a living modern day ethnic group with centuries of oppression and genocide in their history.

[grimfan]

Oh, but somehow Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Noles, and Blackhawks is okay?

"Indian" just doesn't have the same derogatory ring as "Redskin".

[BeTheReds]

"Indian" just doesn't have the same derogatory ring as "Redskin".
http://eugene.whong.org/pirate/logos/indians.gif http://eugene.whong.org/pirate/logos/redskins2.jpg

Which is more racist?

Oh, and also now people are saying different things... you're saying that "Indians" is okay, but someone else said all Native American mascotism is bad.

[chikkachikka]

again, they are all racist, doesn't matter to what degree they are racist. if your point is that the opposing side is not being consistent cos they are calling out redskins and not the indians, you're wrong. like i said before, all of those teams have been under controversy before, and it tends to ebb and flow in cycles - the latest controversy is with the redskins, but certainlu the indians and other teams have come under fire in the past.

[BeTheReds]

and last time i checked, pirates were not a living modern day ethnic group with centuries of oppression and genocide in their history.

I know, I made that page as a joke. But how about the fighting irish, the celtics, the vikings?

They are all stereotypical caricatures of ethnic groups, some of which have gone through centuries of oppression.

I understand wanting to change the redskins name. What I don't understand is the opposition to using a native american warrior as a mascot.

Afterall, how many places use Trojans or Spartans as their mascot? Isn't it a little stereotypical to think of Greeks as spear toting armor clad morons with funny helmets? Many of you will say no, because in school we learned a lot about Greek Civilization and that war and warriors were only one facet of their society in addition to science, philosophy and lots of other great stuff.

And what do we learn about Native Americans in school? Certainly more than that they were a group of murderous savages. In fact, I think from 5th to 7th grade, we did nothing but study Native Americans in social studies. In addition to what we learned about their societies, we also learned plenty about the injustices that our government is responsible for. A lot has changed since the cowboys and indians movie era, so I don't think that everyone's image of native americans is an axe toting feather headed guy who sucks at english.

[hooligan]

Hey look at that, the Fighting Chinese is great for a school logo isn't it?

Isn't it enough that a group of people find it offensive because they had no decision in the decision for the name?

[Craig]

To anybody that doesn't take offensive at 'redskin', how would you feel about your family being called 'yellowskin'. I remember being called 'yellowskin' by one of my neighbors as a child. Certainly this person was trying to be cute, definitely she was also trying to be offensive.

[Arex]

I know, I made that page as a joke. But how about the fighting irish, the celtics, the vikings?

They are all stereotypical caricatures of ethnic groups, some of which have gone through centuries of oppression.

I understand wanting to change the redskins name. What I don't understand is the opposition to using a native american warrior as a mascot.

Afterall, how many places use Trojans or Spartans as their mascot? Isn't it a little stereotypical to think of Greeks as spear toting armor clad morons with funny helmets?Why not do away with all of 'em? If a group is offended, particularly one that didn't have a say in the creation of the team/mascot, what's so wrong about showing a little cultural sensitivity?

RX

[nonamerasian]

But how about the fighting irish, the celtics, the vikings?

But just because there aren't Viking-Americans protesting a derogatory team name, insultive mascots, and the belittling of their traditions doesn't mean that other people can't or shouldn't be listened to if they do.

[BeTheReds]

Why not do away with all of 'em? If a group is offended, particularly one that didn't have a say in the creation of the team/mascot,
RX


Well, in actuality, the Redskins were formerly called the Braves, and they played in Boston. They were a tribute to the Boston tea party in which colonists dressed up as Indians and destroyed British Tea. Being that there was a baseball team called the Boston Braves at the time (now known as the Atlanta Braves), the owner, who was partially native American decided to change the name to Redskins, at a time when Indians themselves were using that to describe themselves.

While at the time the word wasn't as un-PC as it is now, I agree that it should be changed. Something such as the Warriors, or just calling them the Washington Football Club, really wouldn't hurt that much to the fanbase.

I disagree completely with the opposition of using an indian warrior as a mascot. Certain mascots are derogitory. Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians is pretty messed up.

The guy on the side of the Redskins' helmet is not.

[hooligan]

Well, in actuality, the Redskins were formerly called the Braves, and they played in Boston. They were a tribute to the Boston tea party in which colonists dressed up as Indians and destroyed British Tea. Being that there was a baseball team called the Boston Braves at the time (now known as the Atlanta Braves), the owner, who was partially native American decided to change the name to Redskins, at a time when Indians themselves were using that to describe themselves.

While at the time the word wasn't as un-PC as it is now, I agree that it should be changed. Something such as the Warriors, or just calling them the Washington Football Club, really wouldn't hurt that much to the fanbase.

I disagree completely with the opposition of using an indian warrior as a mascot. Certain mascots are derogitory. Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians is pretty messed up.

The guy on the side of the Redskins' helmet is not.

I don't think racism is conditional. Bruce Lee vs. Ching Chong Chinaman? When it's used without consent and representation, that's when it's wrong.

[Arex]

I disagree completely with the opposition of using an indian warrior as a mascot. Certain mascots are derogitory. Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians is pretty messed up.

The guy on the side of the Redskins' helmet is not.I'd agree that the Indians' logo/mascot is clearly more problematic than the Redskins' logo. But ultimately since we aren't the ones being depicted, we should defer to those that actually are. After all, since when have we ever taken to outsiders dictating what we should and shouldn't be offended by?

[draconisz]

I disagree completely with the opposition of using an indian warrior as a mascot. Certain mascots are derogitory. Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians is pretty messed up.

The guy on the side of the Redskins' helmet is not.

Well, I think some here have said. . ."let us defer to American Indians". Since they are the only ones who can understand the nature of the offense.

As it was told to me by a Cherokee and an Apache Indian who at the time was a Director for AIM, the name "redskins" is offensive. Because it was originally used to describe the bloody Indian scalps, "White" folks would pay bounties for. The term has a terrible history and we should not "honor" it by naming a football team after the term.

[nonamerasian]

As it was told to me by a Cherokee and an Apache Indian who at the time was a Director for AIM, the name "redskins" is offensive. Because it was originally used to describe the bloody Indian scalps, "White" folks would pay bounties for. The term has a terrible history and we should not "honor" it by naming a football team after the term.

That origin of "redskin" is being debated. Now it's thought to have derived from the hue of skin or reddish paintings on skin.

But the origins don't really matter. It's a slur today.

[BeTheReds]

I'm in total agreement that the Redskins name should be changed, however, for arguments sake, how is Redskin a slur? How is it any more a slur than Black or White? Is it because the word "skin" is attatched? Would removing "skin" make it any less of a slur? Or is it the case that it's simply one of those borderline words like Oriental or Negro, neither of which originated as slurs, but have become un PC as of late? (the above discussion is out of context, not related over how it is or isn't wrong to name the team as such.)


As for naming a team after an entire race with no respect for individual cultures of the people who comprise that race, hell yeah, that's pretty messed up. If I owned the skins, I'd change the name to either a local tribe (the potomacs for example), a profession (warriors), something more inclusive (such as Americans), or just drop the name completely and call it the Washington Football Club.

I'd never drastically change the logo other than changing it to be more historically accurate.

I'd also make every effort to make the fanbase aware of the tragedy that was conducted by our government in the genocide of great peoples and donate lots of cash to American Indian charities. There is a salary cap, so it's not like I'd need money to stay competitive, and I'd still have plenty left over for profit.

Finally to all the people who seem to be so totally against the Redskins team in this case, or in other issues concerning the use of Native American mascots , you assume too much thinking that all Native Americans are in unision in their thoughts about the issue. On practically every Asian-American issue, we aren't 100% unified, but people arguing seem to think that it's Asian duty to side on their particular side. Are all teams using Native American Mascots at fault? Are some okay and others not? There isn't any concensus.

[>:^|]

Finally to all the people who seem to be so totally against the Redskins team in this case, or in other issues concerning the use of Native American mascots , you assume too much thinking that all Native Americans are in unision in their thoughts about the issue. On practically every Asian-American issue, we aren't 100% unified, but people arguing seem to think that it's Asian duty to side on their particular side. Are all teams using Native American Mascots at fault? Are some okay and others not? There isn't any concensus.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Did anybody here assume that First Nations people all share the same opinion? Why would there ever be any consensus?

[yoMAMA]

those noble savages!

[sarcasm]

[hooligan]

those noble savages!

[sarcasm]

I guess you've read Hobomok?

[yoMAMA]

I guess you've read Hobomok?

actually, never heard of it.

[draconisz]

Well. . .that's true.

:smile:

That origin of "redskin" is being debated. Now it's thought to have derived from the hue of skin or reddish paintings on skin.

But the origins don't really matter. It's a slur today.

[draconisz]

I'm in total agreement that the Redskins name should be changed, however, for arguments sake, how is Redskin a slur? How is it any more a slur than Black or White? Is it because the word "skin" is attatched? Would removing "skin" make it any less of a slur? Or is it the case that it's simply one of those borderline words like Oriental or Negro, neither of which originated as slurs, but have become un PC as of late? (the above discussion is out of context, not related over how it is or isn't wrong to name the team as such.)

Wouldn't these be better questions to ask of an American Indian? I mean. . .I'm "Black" and other folks here are Asian, etc.. It's not like the name "redskins" bothers us personally.



Finally to all the people who seem to be so totally against the Redskins team in this case, or in other issues concerning the use of Native American mascots , you assume too much thinking that all Native Americans are in unision in their thoughts about the issue. On practically every Asian-American issue, we aren't 100% unified, but people arguing seem to think that it's Asian duty to side on their particular side. Are all teams using Native American Mascots at fault? Are some okay and others not? There isn't any concensus.

Well, I am sure that American Indians do plenty to try to educate the public about their history and their plight. But right now this country is at a crossroads. There are folks who claim recognizing the history and struggle of groups such as American Indians is divisive and racist. If you don't believe me, I can point you in the direction of the crowd. Their numbers are swelling. . .because there is one thing that racists can't stand. That is folks choosing to believe differently.

As for the "unity" issue with American Indians, maybe they could explain it better. Check out a few forums, or better yet get in contact with an organization near you. I have contacted many Asian-American organizations to get a better understanding of the issues and concerns that some/many Asian-Americans have.

I talk with an NDN online now and again. He talked about one issue that many American Indians are concerned about. There is a dirty word among many tribes. It is called "assimilation". He said that I could mention that term to any NDN and they would have something similar to say about "assimilation".

When you get to talking about cultural experiences. . .not everything is shared. . .but there are a few things that are common.

[BeTheReds]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Did anybody here assume that First Nations people all share the same opinion? Why would there ever be any consensus?

Well then if there isn't any concensus, why should the team bend over backwards and jump through all these pc hoops to please what might be an insignificant minority of the native american population?

[>:^|]

Well then if there isn't any concensus, why should the team bend over backwards and jump through all these pc hoops to please what might be an insignificant minority of the native american population?

Dude, that's the same argument people use on us all the time.

[Shogun Empress]

LOL@the thread starter! I never heard a Native American complain about the name of the Washington Redskins. It's always some other race...

[Arex]

^--- Have you ever even met an American Indian? 'cause that might explain why you've never heard one complain.

[nola]

^Ohhh man they're mad.

[Arex]

Here's a link with some interesting info about Indians as mascots: http://www.racismagainstindians.org/UnderstandingMascots.htm

According to the page, "Over 81% of respondents to a poll in Indian Country Today, 500 Native organizations, hundreds of tribes and petitions with signatures in the tens of thousands have called for the retirement of these mascots." Assuming the majority of readers of Indian Country Today are American Indians, and assuming that those native organizations actually represent the interests of American Indians, I'd say that a good number of American Indians probably would prefer that Indians not be used as mascots.

Of course, I've never personally heard an American Indian complain either so maybe it's all imagined.=)

[shane]

There was a Sports Illustrated poll of different American Indians (yes, most prefer to be called American Indian rather than Native American) back in 2002 which found that most don't mind the use of even the most "offensive" terms like Redskin. A Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22sports+illustrated%22+poll+native+american+ma scot&btnG=Search) will get you decent information on this particular poll. I'm not a statistician, but I'm sure there are flaws to the methodology of this poll (probably not fatal flaws, however).

Similarly, The Tribal Council of the Seminole Tribe of Florida has endorsed the usage of the Seminole name at FSU.

I think the American Indian population and its activists have bigger things to worry about - poverty and high rates of drug abuse on reservations, for example - than a bunch of insensitive athletic teams.

EDIT: The SI poll has been criticized by activists as inaccurate or misleading. It was actually conducted by the Peter Harris Research Group, not SI itself. It is clear that most Indians don't object to the use of mascots, but merely the caricatures by fans irreverently mocking what they believe are Indian cultural practices.

[nola]

A Sports Illustrated poll wouldn't seem reliable.


It's about time:

NCAA Bars Colleges' Indian Mascots in Tournaments

Aug. 5 (Bloomberg) -- The National Collegiate Athletic Association banned the use of American Indian mascots by sports teams during its postseason tournaments, a ruling the president of Florida State University called ``outrageous and insulting.''

The NCAA's executive committee said the organization, which governs college sports, is limiting the prohibition to tournaments it controls. It doesn't have the power to institute an outright ban, said University of Hartford President Walter Harrison, chairman of the committee.

Effective immediately, nicknames or mascots that are determined to be ``hostile or abusive'' can't be shown on uniforms or other team-related clothing, Harrison said. He wasn't specific about which nicknames or logos would be affected.

Florida State President T.K. Wetherell, whose school uses the Seminoles as a nickname and Chief Osceola as a mascot, said in a statement that he would pursue ``all legal avenues'' to overturn the rule.

``The executive committee has been swayed by a strident minority of activists who claim to speak for all Native Americans,'' Wetherell said. ``That the NCAA would now label our close bond with the Seminole Tribe of Florida as culturally `hostile and abusive' is both outrageous and insulting.''

Florida State Tradition

Before each home football game, a Florida State student dressed as Osceola rides a horse onto the field and throws a flaming spear into the turf at midfield. The school's media guide says Osceola's attire was approved by the Seminole Tribe.

Tom Hardy, a spokesman for the University of Illinois, nicknamed the Fighting Illini, in a statement said the school would review the NCAA's ruling. Dan Benson, a spokesman for the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux, said the school is working on a statement.

Several universities, including Marquette and St. John's, recently changed their American Indian nicknames. Marquette went to Golden Eagles from Warriors, while St. John's became the Red Storm after being known as the Redmen.

Harrison said the NCAA would bar schools with such nicknames or logos from hosting postseason events. In addition, Harrison said any school with such a nickname that has already been chosen to host an NCAA event must cover the logos. The school would be responsible for the cost, Harrison said.

Such logos also will be banned from the uniforms of cheerleaders, dance teams and band members beginning in 2008, Harrison said.

The NCAA will be accepting comment from schools on the new rule until Feb. 1, Harrison said.




I was at FSU for a while as a grad student after visiting my brother who teaches there and learned from a friend in the AIM movement that it has been an issue for years. American Indians are people not mascots for American fun and games. The mascots are racist stereotypes and caricatures like the Sambo black caricature or the frito bandito Latino. Incidentally it hurts American Indian children the most. FSU paid seven figures to use representations of the Seminole tribe so essentially they bought the right. I went to a panel discussion about racist stereotypes and the Seminole Indian panelist said that in the entire history of FSU only one Seminole has attended. President TK Wetherall is clueless about alot of issues.


http://www.aimovement.org/ncrsm/index.html

[draconisz]

LOL@the thread starter! I never heard a Native American complain about the name of the Washington Redskins. It's always some other race...

http://www.aimovement.org

http://forums.delphiforums.com/aim/start

http://forums.delphiforums.com/nativesignals/start

I frequent these places. I hope to meet the Host of "All Natives" in person in October. He is Cherokee.

[nonamerasian]

Similarly, The Tribal Council of the Seminole Tribe of Florida has endorsed the usage of the Seminole name at FSU.

That council is made up of a little more than a handful of representatives.

There are other Seminole councils are disgraced with the usage of the Seminole name at FSU.

[nola]

Yeah and they were paid seven figures to sellout their culture and people.

[Faithless]

Oh, you'll love this guy's tone.

Redmen, Seminoles, and Savages: The Scourges of Academe (http://www.americandaily.com/article/8648)

By John David Powell (08/09/05)

Honchos with the National Collegiate Athletic Association (www2.ncaa.org) announced last week a rather bold, yet strange step to eliminate “hostile and abusive racial/ethnic/national origin mascots, nicknames or imagery” by banning such public displays at all of its 88 NCAA championships.

Bold, because the Executive Committee named names and pointed fingers. Strange, because the NCAA did not ban the practice during the regular season.

...

I also have quite a bit of Chinese blood, and I admit to being a bit miffed at the folks in Pekin, Ill. This little Central Illinois town used to call its high school the Pekin Chinks. That’s right. Chinks. Because some nutcase told them Pekin (short for Peking) is directly opposite the earth from the former Peking, China, now Beijing.

Of course, that begs the question of why town leaders don’t changed the name to Beijin.

The Chinks changed their mascot to the Dragons about 20 years ago. That move led to a thriving underground economy dealing in all kinds of contraband, from Chink t-shirts to Chink letter jackets, proudly worn by former Chinks and Chinklettes.

...


The 1926 Pekin Chinks! Wait! They look like crackers...

http://www.pekinhigh.net/classroom_links/english/vala/vm/local/05lemonk/MVC-001S.JPG

[nola]

Geez I didn't know this was going on in central Illinois though I'd heard of Pekin, Illinois. That's really obnoxious.

Hopefully, NCAA teams, colleges, high schools and middle schools will eventually no longer use American Indian mascots.

[haplesshobo]

I understand the outrage over using 'redskins' as a team name, and why that's controversial.

But, I think the NCAA went overboard and overreacted with its recent move. It sounds really patronizing that we criticize native american groups for not being outraged over these symbols and tell them that they should be outraged when they're not.

That's a pretty insulting attitude to tell the Seminole tribes that shouldn't take pride in the local college team using a historic native american image. Shouldn't we let them decide what they find abusive and respect their wishes? Why is it hostile and abusive to use a local tribe as a nickname for their college? And, once we abolish those, should we then move on to scrub Indiana, Miami, Dakotas, etc.. because they were named after NA tribes? Where should it end? How about getting rid of Cal State Humbolt's Lumberjack because this is sexist, exploitative, and anti-enviornmentalist? (I'm not shitting you, but there was actually controversy for those exact reasons).

I get the sense that this issue is something that probably outrages native american activists and self appointed community leaders, but something that most native americans really care about, much less take offense to.

Before we start saying that native americans are mostly outraged, has anybody talked with a non-activist native american? Go to Oklahoma, with its large native american population, and ask them if they're bothered by the high number of high schools that use native american imagery.

And, let me point out some of the contradictary claims in this thread:

You criticize SI poll as not being unreliable. So, when SI hands the polling over to a professional group to make sure the polling is done correctly, you criticize the SI poll as misleading since it wasn't done by SI itself. Sure, sampling might not always be perfect, and there might be room for error, but it seemed like an overwhelming majority of NA didn't have a problem with it.

Here's some of the findings from the poll:

“Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81 percent of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83 percent of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters, and symbols.”

The poll also found that 75 percent of Native Americans don’t think the use of these team names and mascots “contributes to discrimination.” Opinion is divided about the tomahawk chop displayed at Atlanta Braves games: 48 percent “don’t care” about it; 51 percent do care, but more than half of them “like it.” The name “Redskins” isn’t especially controversial either; 69 percent of Native Americans don’t object to it.

You criticize the Tribal Council of the Seminole Tribe for endorsing FSU's usage of the seminole imagery for being only a handful of represenatives. Yet, I wouldn't be surprised if we could also level the same accusations at the highly vocal activists who
are protesting it, and not representing the beliefs of the larger NA community.

And, if anybody actually lead Chottamatte's link, this is what the guy who found Pekin Chinks offensive also wrote that:

"I have some Native-American blood pulsing through my veins, yet I pitch my tent with the overwhelming majority of Native Americans cited by FSU who are not offended by the use of Native-American names and symbols.

Well, except for that goofy logo used by the Cleveland Indians professional baseball team."

Obviously, the guy isn't an insensitive bastard as he was offended by Chink name, and even though he was part NA, he didn't find the Seminole thing to be a big deal.

Or, let's look at the Anneberg Poll which found that around 90% of NA weren't bothered by the Washington football team being named the Redskins. Instead, only 9% found it offensive. Here's the link that explains the methodology of the poll:
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

[BeTheReds]

Of course, that begs the question of why town leaders don’t changed the name to Beijin.

No it doesn't. Peking is still an accepted name for the Chinese capital.

[nola]

ooh i just found this tim wise essay on counterpunch:


Reflections on Indian Mascots and White Rage
By TIM WISE

All I wanted was a lousy beer. OK, a few lousy beers. Is that too much to ask?

Of course, I suppose it was partly my fault. After all, I had taken my laptop with me into the bar, having just come from the library, where I'd spent the day doing research for a new book. Computer in hand, and being a writer and all, I naturally flipped it open to type in a few random thoughts for a column: not this column, actually. This one emerged from what happened next.

Computers in brewpubs are like steaming piles of shit in a field full of flies: guaranteed to attract attention from the regulars. And so it happened, when a guy who'd gotten a four or five pint head start on me, asked what I was working on.

I could have lied. Maybe shoulda.' Didn't, though.

"I'm a writer, just making a few notes," I answered back.

I hoped that might be the end of it, but I sorta' knew it wouldn't be.

"You a songwriter?" he asked. Made sense, seeing as how this was a bar in the heart of Nashville, just four or five blocks from Music Row: a street lined with recording studios and record label offices.

Once more, I could have lied. Maybe shoulda.' But then again, tell someone you're a songwriter in this town and you'll have to listen to their latest song, which they'll whip out, on an already recorded demo, hoping you know someone to whom it can be passed along.

I didn't have time for that bullshit, so I just told the truth.

"Nope, I'm a political columnist. I write mostly about racism, economics, a few other social issues."

Now here's the thing: Up to this point, I've remained purposely vague, not tipping off my newfound bar mate as to my political stripes, or where I might be coming from when it comes to race.

But here's the thing too: I'm white, and so is he. And there is an unspoken understanding among white folks, especially white men, it seems-and especially, perhaps, in the South-and that understanding goes roughly like this: when people of color aren't around, it's perfectly acceptable to talk badly about them.

As such, I knew what was coming, or at least that something was, though the form it would take was to remain a mystery-at least, that is, for the next three or four nanoseconds; that being the time it would take for the guy on the neighboring stool to formulate his next thought. And here I am using the term "thought" generously.

Apparently, ESPN had just announced that the NCAA had decided to sanction schools that continue to use demeaning, stereotype-laden mascots of American Indians for their athletic teams.

This, as it turns out, was not sitting well with the aging frat boy here, and he figured, I guess, that I would agree with him. It never crossed his mind that I might support the decision; indeed, think the NCAA had let the dozen or so schools in question off lightly. After all, they had only barred them from hosting NCAA tournament games, or displaying their logos at such events, in the latter instance not even until 2008, and all of this, only in basketball.

"What's the big deal?" he huffed. "There's nothing racist about a mascot. Talk about some oversensitive bullshit!"

Easy for him to say, I thought. Folks like us rarely have to worry about being objectified, and turned into dehumanizing caricatures. When people like you run the country and every institution therein, "sticks and stones" takes on a much more truthful ring than it does for anyone else.

Knowing I had an obligation to respond, yet wanting to do so in a way that wouldn't get me thrown out of the bar, I asked if he thought it was really appropriate for those of us who weren't Indian to say what was and wasn't offensive to those who were.

"What?" he replied, clearly not expecting to have been challenged in such a way.

I repeated the question, at which point he suggested that not all Indians found mascots offensive. He even had some Indian blood, he insisted, way back in his family line: a claim that single-handedly proved what little he knows of indigenous culture. After all, the notion of "Indian blood" and blood quantum, were largely concepts created by the white ruling class to limit the scope of land settlements with Indian nations. Indians were not, with a few notable exceptions, biological determinists.

"Take the Seminoles," he thundered. "They actually support Florida State calling themselves that!"

True enough, the official Seminole nation of Florida is on record as supporting the use of their name at FSU. But of course, there are other Seminoles in the region who feel differently, not to mention the black Seminoles who have been all but disowned by those who consider themselves "true" representatives of the tribe. Indian politics are complicated, as it turns out. Much more so, in fact, than the average white guy at a bar, who is nothing if not predictable.

"Understood," I replied. It was at that point I offered what seems, to me, the only logical compromise on the matter: one which, if this guy really felt as though Indians supported mascots, he'd be quick to accept.
"So," I said, "How about we just let Indian folks vote on it. But just Indians, and just those who are either tribally enrolled or otherwise clearly identified and active in Native communities, culture or politics? In other words, let's stay out of it, you and me, and let those who are directly affected make the call."

He didn't like that much, as was made evident by how quickly he changed the subject.

"What about Notre Dame?" he shot back. "The Fighting Irish. What about that? My ancestors were Irish," he continued (ah yes, one of those Irish Indians), "and it doesn't bother me one bit!"

Of course, the comparison was utterly unconvincing. To begin with, to be called a fighter is not the same as to be called, or typified visually as a "savage." There is a qualitative difference, made all the more evident by the history of this nation: a history in which fighting Indians were slaughtered, and for whom their willingness to fight back at those who sought to exterminate them, provided their murderers with what the latter thought the ultimate justification for the perpetration of a Holocaust. Fighting Irishmen, meanwhile, got to be viewed as perfect candidates for the Union Army, or for your local police force.

In other words, one group of fighters had to be eliminated, the other, assimilated. If we can't discern the yawning chasm between these two things, well, we really should stop drinking, be it at the local brewpub, or anywhere else.

Secondly, indigenous persons, unlike Irish Americans, continue to be marginalized in the United States. A substantial percentage have been geographically ghettoized and isolated on some of the nation's most desolate land, while those off the rez have largely been stripped of the cultures, languages and customs of their forbears by a boarding school policy implemented against their families, which policy's stated purpose from the 1800s through much of the twentieth century was to "Kill the Indian and save the man."

To be Irish American is to be a member of the largest white ethnic group in the nation, and one of the most accepted and celebrated at that. It wasn't always that way, to be sure, but it is now. For Irish folks to be stereotyped as fighters simply doesn't have the same impact-given the power and position of the Irish in this society-as when stereotypes are deployed against subordinated groups. Objectification only works its magic upon those who continue to be vilified. For those on top, it can become a source of amusement, laughter-a good time.

"Yeah," I responded. "But when Notre Dame chose to call themselves the Fightin' Irish, the school was made up overwhelmingly of Irish Catholics. In other words, it was Irish folks choosing that name for themselves. How many Indians do you think were really in on the decision to call themselves 'redskins,' or to be portrayed as screaming warriors on someone else's school clothing?"

Again, silence, and again a changing of the subject.

"Yeah but what really galls me," he continued, "is that a bunch of these schools are just trying to honor Native Americans. They're just trying to pay respect to the spirit of the Indians. It's like nothing we can do is ever enough for those people."

Aside from how calling indigenous folks "those people" jibes with a true desire to honor them (let alone his claim to be one at some remove), this particular nugget-offered by far more than just one drunk guy at a Nashville bar-has always struck me as especially vile.

If schools wanted to honor first nations people, after all, they could do it in any number of more meaningful ways. They could establish Native American studies programs and fund them adequately. They could step up their recruitment of Indian students, staff and faculty, rather than retreating from such efforts in the face of misplaced backlash to affirmative action. They could strip the names off of buildings on their campuses that pay tribute to those who participated in the butchering of Native peoples. Here in Nashville that process could begin by renaming, without delay, any building named after Andrew Jackson, of which there are several.

Perhaps most importantly, we could begin by telling the truth about what was done to the indigenous of this land, rather than trying to paper over that truth, minimize the horror, and, once again, change the subject. You know the kind of people I'm speaking of: the ones who refuse to label the elimination of over ninety-five percent of the native peoples of the Americas "genocide."

Folks like conservative author Dinesh D'Souza, who, in a debate with me at Western Washington University in May, insisted that terming the process genocide was absurd. It was, to him, merely an emotional appeal on my part, devoid of content; calculated to gain applause at the expense of honesty. To Dinesh, genocide was an inappropriate term because most of the Indians who perished died from diseases, not warfare waged by whites.

That Dinesh has never read the definition of genocide, readily available in the United Nation's 1948 Genocide Convention, certainly was no surprise. But had he done so, he would have seen that in order to qualify as genocide, one does not have to directly kill anyone per se. Rather, genocide describes any of the following acts, committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the group's destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, or forcibly transferring the children of the group to another.

In fact, each of these categories has been met in the case of American Indians. And had it not been for conquest, those diseases to which Indians had no resistance-and which colonists praised as the "work of God," clearing the land for them-wouldn't have ravaged the native populations as they did. To imply that such deaths were merely accidental or incidental would be like saying the Nazis bore no responsibility for the 1.6 million or so Jews who died of disease and starvation in the camps, rather than having been gassed or shot. But try saying that at your local neighborhood synagogue and see how far you get-with good reason.

Once again I suggested that if Indians thought mascots were a form of flattery and tribute, then surely they would vote that way in an Indian-only plebiscite. So, I repeated, why not just let them vote on it, and keep out of their way? After all, that would be honoring them too: trusting the wisdom of Indian peoples to prevail, one way or the other.

"But this is America," he shot back. "And I've got a right to my opinion too! I shouldn't be disallowed from having my say on it, just because I'm white. That's reverse discrimination."

Ah yes, reverse discrimination. Not being able to turn other people into a cartoon for your own enjoyment is now to be seen as a form of oppression. One wonders, indeed, how white folks can stand such a burden placed upon our shoulders.

Just as I was about to respond, he pulled out some money to pay his bar tab. And as he slapped down his bills upon the bar-twenties as it turns out-and I had the occasion to glance down, my eyes fixing on the eternal gaze of this nation's pre-eminent Indian killer, I wondered out loud, why it is that white folks get more upset about taking offensive Indian imagery down, than we do about the normalization of white male imagery like that on this particular greenback. Why do we not find that image, on one of our most common monetary denominations enraging: an image that we're supposed to revere; a man we're supposed to praise; a "hero" we're supposed to view as a national role model of sorts.

In other words, why do we allow ourselves, as white men, to be turned into a caricature too-into a stereotype?

I'd like to think that most white guys are better than Andrew Jackson.

I'd like to. But on days like this, I just don't know.

Tim Wise is the author of two new books: White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (Soft Skull Press, 2005), and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Routledge: 2005). He can be reached at: timjwise@msn.com


http://www.counterpunch.org/wise08102005.html

[BeTheReds]

I'd like to let them vote about it. That would be great. However there would probably be a lot of people who simply claim to be native american without having much connection to native american-ness. Afterall whatever you put on your census is what you are, and I guarentee that there are non-indians writing that they are indians.

[haplesshobo]

"So," I said, "How about we just let Indian folks vote on it. But just Indians, and just those who are either tribally enrolled or otherwise clearly identified and active in Native communities, culture or politics? In other words, let's stay out of it, you and me, and let those who are directly affected make the call."


Oh, I agree that we should let NA determine this issue. But, that's really dishonest for him to say that only NA who are active in community, culture, or politics should decide this matter. What he's doing is carefully selecting the participants to the very activists who are the ones opposed to nickname even though that may not reflect the larger NA opinion. Its kind of like saying that an asian issue should be determined only by participants on yellow world, and that the opinion found here might not necessairly match the larger asian community. He's doing this cause two national polls found that NA community at large didn't have a problem with these issuses. Or, that OK, with a large NA population, you'll find plenty of NA mascots. Why is he so afraid to simply let those who identify themselves as NA to determine whether or not they find it offensive?


Of course, the comparison was utterly unconvincing. To begin with, to be called a fighter is not the same as to be called, or typified visually as a "savage." Fighting Irishmen, meanwhile, got to be viewed as perfect candidates for the Union Army, or for your local police force.

well, we really should stop drinking, be it at the local brewpub, or anywhere else. To be Irish American is to be a member of the largest white ethnic group in the nation, and one of the most accepted and celebrated at that. It wasn't always that way, to be sure, but it is now.

Actually, only of the names banned used 'savage'. Some of the other ones were more innocous like simply the name of a tribe. If we have problems with that, should we also get rid of Miami, Illinois, etc.. which are also named after NA tribes.

And, he also needs to do some further research into Fighting Irish. It was chosen in the early 1900s, when that term was still used as a slur and it was co-opted by the irish americans themselves.

He decides to treat the whole fighting sterotype as if its a positive sterotype for irish americans, but he's really pushing his luck here. I always thought the one of the underlying things about the Fighting Irish was drunkness and how they get so liquored up, they start to fight.


Perhaps most importantly, we could begin by telling the truth about what was done to the indigenous of this land, rather than trying to paper over that truth, minimize the horror, and, once again, change the subject. You know the kind of people I'm speaking of: the ones who refuse to label the elimination of over ninety-five percent of the native peoples of the Americas "genocide."

Folks like conservative author Dinesh D'Souza, who, in a debate with me at Western Washington University in May, insisted that terming the process genocide was absurd. It was, to him, merely an emotional appeal on my part, devoid of content; calculated to gain applause at the expense of honesty. To Dinesh, genocide was an inappropriate term because most of the Indians who perished died from diseases, not warfare waged by whites.

That Dinesh has never read the definition of genocide, readily available in the United Nation's 1948 Genocide Convention, certainly was no surprise. But had he done so, he would have seen that in order to qualify as genocide, one does not have to directly kill anyone per se. Rather, genocide describes any of the following acts, committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the group's destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, or forcibly transferring the children of the group to another.

In fact, each of these categories has been met in the case of American Indians. And had it not been for conquest, those diseases to which Indians had no resistance-and which colonists praised as the "work of God," clearing the land for them-wouldn't have ravaged the native populations as they did. To imply that such deaths were merely accidental or incidental would be like saying the Nazis bore no responsibility for the 1.6 million or so Jews who died of disease and starvation in the camps, rather than having been gassed or shot. But try saying that at your local neighborhood synagogue and see how far you get-with good reason.


And, this is the part where its pretty clear the guy is a idiot and has no idea what he's talking about.

For whatever reason, he's bringing up the genoicide card and using the UN defintion.

However, if you actually read it, its pretty obvious the guy has no idea what he's talking about: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/gncnvntn.htm

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"

He actually uses a definition which disproves his argument! NA were wiped off primairly due to diseases, yet nobody at that time knew that was going to occur so its not really intent. Read Jared Diamond's book which explains why NA were wiped out, but the europeans weren't by NA diseases although NA did give them syphillis. The largest NA civilization in what is now america was wiped out by diseases before colonists even had a chance to conquer it. When they first saw it, all they were large mounds and all the NA were already dead.

[nola]

Totem or taboo?
After decades of controversy, the National Collegiate Athletic Association is considering a total ban on sports teams’ use of Native American nicknames and mascots. How did these names come to be considered objectionable?
7/22/2005

How did Indian nicknames arise?
It started back in the 1920s, with the convergence of two social trends. The final and complete subjugation of Native American peoples around the turn of the century had led, predictably, to a wave of nostalgia for the noble simplicity of their way of life. People flocked to “Wild West” shows featuring lasso-twirling cowboys with taciturn Indian sidekicks—direct precursors of the Lone Ranger and Tonto. At about the same time, colleges—once attended primarily by a small, aristocratic elite—began to attract ambitious students from the middle-class masses. Between 1917 and 1937, U.S. college enrollment tripled. For the wealth of new colleges looking for names for their sports teams, as well as established colleges looking to expand their regional fan bases, the values of the fierce yet honorable Indian warrior seemed a perfect fit.

How many colleges adopted Indian nicknames?
Eventually, more than 100. Most went the generic route, calling themselves the Redskins, Redmen, Warriors, Chiefs, Indians, or Savages, while other colleges adopted the names of local tribes, such as the Seminoles, Hurons, Chippewas, and Fighting Illini. High schools followed the colleges’ lead: There are currently about 2,500 whose sports teams have a Native American theme. Pro teams also went native: the Boston (later Milwaukee and Atlanta) Braves, the Cleveland Indians, the Golden State Warriors, the Kansas City Chiefs, and the Washington Redskins. Many of these teams expanded on their native themes by adopting colorful mascots, such as the Atlanta Braves’ “Chief Nokahoma,” who would emerge from a teepee behind the outfield fence to do a war dance every time a Brave hit a home run.

How did Native Americans react?
They said very little about it for decades. But in the late 1960s, the American Indian Movement began challenging the use of Indian names and mascots. “Redskins” and “Savages,” activists said, were racial slurs that reduced a complex culture to a stereotype of bloodthirsty warriors—no different, really, from calling a team the “Darkies,” “Coolies,” or “Dagos.” The activists—and, over time, a growing number of pale-skinned sympathizers—also pointed out that ethnic-themed mascots such as the Michigan State Spartans or the Minnesota Vikings are modeled after cultures that no longer exist. The use of Indians as mascots thus sends the same message about Native American culture—that it is foreign, quaint, and, worst of all, over.

How did colleges respond?
At first, by insisting that their teams’ nicknames were a tribute to—not an exploitation of—Native American culture. “No athletic team chooses a name or mascot in order to bring contempt or disrepute on itself,” said Charles Barnes, who heads a group of alumni supporters of the Florida State Seminoles. “We selected the triumphant human spirit as our symbol. That unconquered spirit is perfectly characterized in the Seminole tribe of Florida.”

Is that accurate?
It sounds nice, but no. At nearly every college, the nuance and diversity of actual Native American culture has been generally ignored in favor of the whooping, tomahawk-chopping, face-painted cliché. Real Seminole Indians who attend Florida State football games, says Jason Edward Black in American Indian Quarterly, find themselves bewildered by unfamiliar “war chants, tomahawks, crooked noses, smoke signals, teepees, leather-fringed pants, and Western movie-style war drums”&3151;none of which have any basis in historical fact.

Have any colleges relented?
Many. In recent years, with students and faculty applying strong pressure, dozens of colleges have reluctantly decided their nicknames were indefensible. The St. John’s University Redmen, for example, became the Redstorm. Multiple teams of Redskins have rebranded themselves Redhawks. Kentucky’s Cumberland College exchanged Indians for Patriots. But 28 universities are holding out, including such heavyweights as the Florida State Seminoles and the Illinois Fighting Illini. Most of them are trying to answer the critics by making their portrayals of Native Americans and individual tribes more accurate and culturally sensitive. Central Michigan University—home of the Chippewas—has taken the spear tips and Indian head off its football helmets, banned fans from doing the tomahawk chop, and now even requires its student-athletes to tour a Native American museum and give sports clinics at tribal high schools.

Is this tactic working?
Not very well. Authenticity brings its own problems. At the University of Illinois, for example, experts have been enlisted to ensure the historical accuracy of the school mascot, the flaming-spear-waving Chief Illinewek. The Chief’s buckskin jacket and halftime dance moves have been brought into accordance with the Illini tribe’s customs. But the Illini have not been appeased. The eagle feather in Chief Illiniwek’s headdress is a sacred Indian symbol, and some are understandably upset to see it reproduced on ashtrays, shot glasses, and even University of Illinois toilet paper. As Clem Iron Wing, a member of the Illini tribe, put it: “We would like to know how many persons of faith would like their religious symbols used to wipe human excrement?”

So why not just change nicknames?
Money is at stake. Team logos and identities have, in many cases, become powerful brands in their own right, generating millions in merchandising revenues every year. Colleges are also under tremendous pressure from their alumni, who tend to be deeply attached to the symbols of their college years. When a University of North Dakota alumnus heard the school was dropping its “Fighting Sioux” nickname, he threatened to withdraw his offer of a $100 million hockey arena. Still, change may be inevitable. After reviewing reports from each of the 30 colleges still with Indian-themed sports teams, the NCAA is due to make a ruling at the end of August.

What is a redskin?
The word “redskin” is often thought of as the Indian N-word, but most historians say the term actually has nothing to do with skin color. Some believe “redskin” originated as a reference to the bloody scalps Indian warriors used to take as souvenirs from their victims; others say it comes from the Plains Indian custom of smearing warriors in red river mud before riding into battle. Whatever its original meaning, the NFL’s Washington Redskins are fighting hard to keep the name, insisting that it’s no racial slur. The Redskins claim they were named in honor of their original coach, “Lone Star” Dietz, a supposed Oglala Sioux who in the 1930s prowled the sidelines in an eagle feather headdress, deerskin jacket, and buckskin moccasins. But Indian activists aren’t appeased. Dietz, they say, was a fraud, inventing his Indian background as a cynical marketing tool.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/article.asp?id=1037

[nonamerasian]

And, this is the part where its pretty clear the guy is a idiot and has no idea what he's talking about.

For whatever reason, he's bringing up the genoicide card and using the UN defintion.

However, if you actually read it, its pretty obvious the guy has no idea what he's talking about: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/gncnvntn.htm

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"

He actually uses a definition which disproves his argument! NA were wiped off primairly due to diseases, yet nobody at that time knew that was going to occur so its not really intent. Read Jared Diamond's book which explains why NA were wiped out, but the europeans weren't by NA diseases although NA did give them syphillis. The largest NA civilization in what is now america was wiped out by diseases before colonists even had a chance to conquer it. When they first saw it, all they were large mounds and all the NA were already dead.

How wrong is he?

There were the forced sterilizations of American Indian women.

American Indians have been punished for taking part in cultural practices. For speaking their languages.

Families were split and children were removed to be "civilized."

There were episodes of the deliberate spread of diseases.

Tribes were relocated to blighted areas unable to sustain them.

And there were massacres.

[haplesshobo]

NCCA Lifts Ban

The NCAA will allow Florida State to use its Seminoles nickname in postseason play, removing the school from a list of colleges with Native American nicknames that were restricted by an NCAA decision this month.

The NCAA said it was recognizing the relationship Florida State has long enjoyed with the Seminole Tribe of Florida, which assists the university with its pageantry and celebration of its culture and supports the school's use of its name.

The staff review committee noted the unique relationship between the university and the Seminole Tribe of Florida as a significant factor," NCAA senior vice president Bernard Franklin said in a statement Tuesday. "The decision of a namesake sovereign tribe, regarding when and how its name and imagery can be used, must be respected even when others may not agree."

Florida State President T.K. Wetherell had threatened to sue the NCAA immediately after its Aug. 5 announcement that the school's highly visible nickname, Seminoles, was defined as "hostile and abusive" by a committee.

The NCAA said it would handle reviews from other schools on a case-by-case basis.

Under the NCAA restrictions, teams with Native American nicknames would not be able to display them on uniforms or have their mascots perform in postseason tournaments.

[nola]

How was he wrong? The definition of genocide according to the UN below and, of course, Dinesh D'souza:

Perhaps most importantly, we could begin by telling the truth about what was done to the indigenous of this land, rather than trying to paper over that truth, minimize the horror, and, once again, change the subject. You know the kind of people I'm speaking of: the ones who refuse to label the elimination of over ninety-five percent of the native peoples of the Americas "genocide."

Folks like conservative author Dinesh D'Souza, who, in a debate with me at Western Washington University in May, insisted that terming the process genocide was absurd. It was, to him, merely an emotional appeal on my part, devoid of content; calculated to gain applause at the expense of honesty. To Dinesh, genocide was an inappropriate term because most of the Indians who perished died from diseases, not warfare waged by whites.

That Dinesh has never read the definition of genocide, readily available in the United Nation's 1948 Genocide Convention, certainly was no surprise. But had he done so, he would have seen that in order to qualify as genocide, one does not have to directly kill anyone per se. Rather, genocide describes any of the following acts, committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the group's destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, or forcibly transferring the children of the group to another.

In fact, each of these categories has been met in the case of American Indians. And had it not been for conquest, those diseases to which Indians had no resistance-and which colonists praised as the "work of God," clearing the land for them-wouldn't have ravaged the native populations as they did. To imply that such deaths were merely accidental or incidental would be like saying the Nazis bore no responsibility for the 1.6 million or so Jews who died of disease and starvation in the camps, rather than having been gassed or shot. But try saying that at your local neighborhood synagogue and see how far you get-with good reason.

[haplesshobo]

How wrong is he?


I just found it funny that he attacks Denesh over the the definition of genoicde and then uses the UN def. to define genoicde which disproves the very definition he's trying to use. He states that Denesh must have never read the UN def, but then its pretty clear that he hasn't read it carefully himself. You could argue that the UN def. is incomplete and needs to be changed, but why use that to prove your argument when it disproves the very argument you're trying to make? Why not use another source with a different definition? How can I take this guy's arguments seriously when he does something as stupid as that?


American Indians have been punished for taking part in cultural practices. For speaking their languages.

Families were split and children were removed to be "civilized."



Look, nobody denies that some horrible shit happened to NA in this country, but that doesn't mean it was necessairly genoicide,
with the defintion of genocide he was using.

This guy is the one who uses the UN's definition of genoicde to prove his point, and that definition does not include the concept of cultural cleansing of a culture.


There were episodes of the deliberate spread of diseases.


This guy must have no idea about how diseases. His point is that the NA were killed off by diseases because of the european conquests. But, NA would have been killed off by any contact with the europeans, irregardless of the intentions of the europeans. Look at the black plague or other diseases from asia that wiped off large numbers of europeans. No conquests were behind those diseases, but trade and simple contact. Even if Europeans came here to help the NA, NA would have been killed off by contact.

In what is now USA, I don't think there's evidence of repeated, or mulitple dileberate acts of infection. There's no evidence that the Spanish tried to dilebrately infect indigenous tribes in america. There's only been one documented case, by the British in 1763 at Fort Pitt. I can only think of another alleged incident suggested by the controversial professor Ward Churchill (the one who's been accused of supporting 9/11) concerning the Mandan Indians in 1837. However, Churchill's cited sources do not support this claim. And, during that time period, the US gov. had implemented a program for small pox vaccinations for indians during the period of the alleged Mandan incident so that would seem counterproductive. Why try to infect them with small pox after you've innoculated them against it?


There were the forced sterilizations of American Indian women.
And there were massacres

Again, some bad shit has happened to NA. But, there were other groups targeted for forced sterilization in america as well. Do we then make the claim that there was a genoicide against those groups as well?

What happened were war crimes or crimes against humanity. But, you can't pick out a few war crimes, and then try to argue that genocide occured. It would be like americans accusing the british of genocide for the boston massacre.

This guy is more or less blaming the 95% reduction in NA population on genocide. The logical error I've seen made by others is that there were all these NA, now there isn't, so they must have been 'killed' by europeans. However, the vast majority of the numbers wiped out were due to disease from small pox, measles, influenxa, etc.. which the indigenous tribes had no immunity to. This is widely accepted by most scholars, and some have suggested that it was up to 80% of deaths were due to diseases. The Mound Builders of the lower Missiplly valley which had one of the most advanced civ. in the united states and which could have supported a large population had already been wiped out from disease before the first white settler ever saw it.

Killing and genocide is a crime of intent, and the Europeans had little understanding of how their germs were going to devastate the indigenous tribes. A tragedy, yes. But, to call these deaths 'killings' or genocide seems irresponsible. It would be like holding the indigneous tribes responsible for all the cases of syphyllis in Europe, and suggesting that the indigenous tribes intended to do that.

[nola]

...Graduate race professor (he's Jewish) said the most successful genocide in history was of NAs in the United States...95% of NAs were exterminated... 80% of Jews were exterminated during the Holocaust...

[DragonKnight]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b363/rcaviteno/050902_MikeMyers_hmed.jpg

"haplesshobo...doesn't care...about Native American peoples..."

[haplesshobo]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b363/rcaviteno/050902_MikeMyers_hmed.jpg

"haplesshobo...doesn't care...about Native American peoples..."

So, instead of addressing my argument whether or not genocide has to premediated, you take a cheap shot about something you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm saying that we should listein to NA about whether or not they are actually offended by this issue. In cases where NA tribes have come out and say that they don't have a problem, then I say we shouldn't push our own agenda onto them.

[DragonKnight]

So, instead of addressing my argument whether or not genocide has to premediated, you take a cheap shot about something you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm saying that we should listein to NA about whether or not they are actually offended by this issue. In cases where NA tribes have come out and say that they don't have a problem, then I say we shouldn't push our own agenda onto them.
Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?q=native+american+complaints+about+redskins&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)

Oh c'mon, should I even mentioned the television programs, news reports of various NA speaking passionately on how much it sucked being made into a 'mascot', a footstool in so-called 'American history'? Get out more, read more...you really are a haplesshobo. Har, har!

...now that's a cheap shot btw. :wink: :rolleyes:

[hooligan]

Heck, if you all think having a name like Redskins is ok for sake of historical argument. We MUST support a team called the Fighting Yellowskins!

Fuck yeah, it'll be a soccer team, or maybe a greek wrestling team.

[DragonKnight]

Heck, if you all think having a name like Redskins is ok for sake of historical argument. We MUST support a team called the Fighting Yellowskins!

Fuck yeah, it'll be a soccer team, or maybe a greek wrestling team.
I was thinking Genocidal-Happy Euro-Mutts would be a better team name.

[hooligan]

I was thinking Genocidal-Happy Euro-Mutts would be a better team name.

Haha, nice.

[deez nuts]

keep the redskins name. but, let the native americans open and operate a casino resort next to fedex field and name it cracker's casino.

this way they'll be even. tradition is preserved. everybody makes money. win-win situation.

[haplesshobo]

Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?q=native+american+complaints+about+redskins&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)

Oh c'mon, should I even mentioned the television programs, news reports of various NA speaking passionately on how much it sucked being made into a 'mascot', a footstool in so-called 'American history'? Get out more, read more...you really are a haplesshobo. Har, har!

...now that's a cheap shot btw. :wink: :rolleyes:

Do you even read other people's posts before you respond? Reread this thread.

I was never arguing about how appropriate it was to use 'Redskins'.

Instead, I was talking about NCAA's ban on ALL Indian names and imagery.

Do you think the NCAA should have banned FSU from using Seminoles even though the Seminole tribe has no issue with it? That in effect, we should tell them what should outrage the Seminole tribe or not? To me, that seems awfully paternalistic and patronizing.

And, you do understand that just cause something's on TV doesn't make it true? That we might be only hearing from a vocal, but small fringe group within the larger NA community. And, that perhaps, this issue isn't that much of a concern to most NA. Do you understand that one person's beliefs does not necessairly reflect his community? There were earlier posts that showed how national polls have already shown that this isn't a issue to most NA.

[DragonKnight]

keep the redskins name. but, let the native americans open and operate a casino resort next to fedex field and name it cracker's casino.

this way they'll be even. tradition is preserved. everybody makes money. win-win situation.
Well, with Chinese like haplesshobo around (or at least he claims to be Chinese) we might as well get some other teams around. Like your fighting "Asian Sellouts". Or "Dumbasses That Should Fucking Listen To Native American Activists Instead of Relying on National Polls Often Skewed By White Man." I'm sure some tribe has a really kickass word for that. :biggrin:

[deez nuts]

Well, with Chinese like haplesshobo around (or at least he claims to be Chinese) we might as well get some other teams around. Like your fighting "Asian Sellouts". Or "Dumbasses That Should Fucking Listen To Native American Activists Instead of Relying on National Polls Often Skewed By White Man." I'm sure some tribe has a really kickass word for that. :biggrin:


you fucker don't use my post as a lead in to take a dig at haplesshobo. lol.

come on, be a man.

[DragonKnight]

you fucker don't use my post as a lead in to take a dig at haplesshobo. lol.

come on, be a man.
But it's sooooo easy...like haplesshobo's...nah, I won't go there. :biggrin:

[haplesshobo]

Well, with Chinese like haplesshobo around (or at least he claims to be Chinese) we might as well get some other teams around. Like your fighting "Asian Sellouts". Or "Dumbasses That Should Fucking Listen To Native American Activists Instead of Relying on National Polls Often Skewed By White Man." I'm sure some tribe has a really kickass word for that. :biggrin:

Again, instead of taking cheap shots at me like that introduction thread, why don't you answer my question and finally add something to a debate instead of 'yeah! i agree!'

So, let me repeat myself: Should we allow the Seminole tribe to decide for themselves what they may find offensive, and respect their wishes? So, if they don't find it offensive, should we not recognize that and instead impose our own values and beliefs on them?

And, you never answered my question if you understand that native american activists may not really reflect the larger beliefs or concerns of the community they're supposedly representing.

Instead, we have two national polls that suggest that this may not be that big of a deal to the NA population, and why I gave the link about the methodology in case anybody had doubts about the validity of the poll.

[DragonKnight]

Again, instead of taking cheap shots at me like that introduction thread, why don't you answer my question and finally add something to a debate instead of 'yeah! i agree!'

So, let me repeat myself: Should we allow the Seminole tribe to decide for themselves what they may find offensive, and respect their wishes? So, if they don't find it offensive, should we not recognize that and instead impose our own values and beliefs on them?

And, you never answered my question if you understand that native american activists may not really reflect the larger beliefs or concerns of the community they're supposedly representing.

Instead, we have two national polls that suggest that this may not be that big of a deal to the NA population, and why I gave the link about the methodology in case anybody had doubts about the validity of the poll.
Aww, did I hurt your feelings in that on intro thread I made for you? Speaking of which you never did introduced yourself. Granted I'm betting you just wanna play coy here and fuck around on a message board built around activism with your little conservative punk ass self.

Tell you what, introduce yourself. Post a pic, let us know your true self, what your purpose here in this community is all about...then I'll answer your question. Otherwise, I don't deal with faceless trolls that do nothing but hide behind a computer screen.

BTW, if you're local to the Los Angeles area I'll be more than willing to meet up with you. I'll even buy you a fucking beer.

[nola]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b363/rcaviteno/050902_MikeMyers_hmed.jpgGeorge Bush and Haplesshobo don't care about people.

[deez nuts]

haplesshobo, you are truly helpless.

feel free to use my kick ass avatar and go get yourself a free beer courtesy of dragonkinight.

[haplesshobo]

Aww, did I hurt your feelings in that on intro thread I made for you? Speaking of which you never did introduced yourself. Granted I'm betting you just wanna play coy here and fuck around on a message board built around activism with your little conservative punk ass self.

No blood, no foul. But, I understood the swarmy tone in that intro thread and that you didn't want to really know anything, just like you refuse to recognize any facts that I may present, so that's why I never responded.

Besides, I don't necessairly consider myself to be conservative. I call them like I see it, and do not pledge allegegiance to any idealogy except to the truth as I see it. I must be doing something right when nola calls me a nazi here and in another forum, all the bush apologists think i'm a left wing liberal.

Tell you what, introduce yourself. Post a pic, let us know your true self, what your purpose here in this community is all about...then I'll answer your question. Otherwise, I don't deal with faceless trolls that do nothing but hide behind a computer screen.

See now, there must be some misunderstanding. I never realized that this forum was soley for left wing radicals like yourself, and not for all asians of all political leanings. To clear up any future cases like mine, this forum really should warn all potential members of this. Maybe, when they register, they need to check a box that says that they can only express radical left wing views, and not any moderate or conservative views.

BTW, if you're local to the Los Angeles area I'll be more than willing to meet up with you. I'll even buy you a fucking beer.

If I was local to the LA area, I wouldn't really want to meet any other members as I wouldn't want to self-censor myself in case I ever met them.

My theory is that there must be a really hot female member who lives in LA and who is really, really left wing. And, that all the guys in the LA region are trying to impress her by trying to show that they're more sensitive and caring and to the left than all the other guys. Cause you otherwise don't really see too many guys like that in LA, much less asian guys.

[deez nuts]

lol. you turned down a date with dargonknight and he offered free beer to boot!

[nola]

If I was local to the LA area, I wouldn't really want to meet any other members as I wouldn't want to self-censor myself in case I ever met them.

My theory is that there must be a really hot female member who lives in LA and who is really, really left wing. And, that all the guys in the LA region are trying to impress her by trying to show that they're more sensitive and caring and to the left than all the other guys. Cause you otherwise don't really see too many guys like that in LA, much less asian guys.It happens that dragonknight and hooligan have wonderful, serious relationships. If you had one, maybe you'd see things differently too.

Besides, I don't necessairly consider myself to be conservative. I call them like I see it, and do not pledge allegegiance to any idealogy except to the truth as I see it. I must be doing something right when nola calls me a nazi here and in another forum, all the bush apologists think i'm a left wing liberal.You probably are the same there and they probably think you're an extremely dim asshole there too.

[DragonKnight]

lol. you turned down a date with dargonknight and he offered free beer to boot!
Fawk, my heart's been broken. The ungrateful lout. Screw it, gonna chug this 40 all by my lonesome. *chug, chug*


I call them like I see it, and do not pledge allegegiance to any idealogy except to the truth as I see it.
Calling it as you see it is one thing. Not seeing the whole picture is another. The way you supposedly see it screams closed mind and aren't willing to accept the other possibilites (and generally your own idealogy swings towards the right in my perception). For myself, I personally would love to see both sides. Except one or the other presentations tend to piss me off with their superior attitude and the uncompromising, self-centered bullshit they post here. Strangely enough, right-wingers and so-called moderates tend to do that the most on this board.

In short, I would be more than willing to listen to the 'other side' if they didn't come off being such jackasses. In fact, I've been in discussions with conservative moderates lately to see their end. Especially since they don't come off being self-righteous assholes. I actually agree with some of them.


If I was local to the LA area, I wouldn't really want to meet any other members as I wouldn't want to self-censor myself in case I ever met them.
What and figure out that liberals are actually fucking human? Not that all members of the LA area are liberal. I'm actually seen as a bit more moderate, tho the conservatives of this site tend to make me swing to the left when they get too self-righteous or religious. Granted I tend to get more moderate when left-wingers get a bit too extreme for my taste, but then I'm less harsh on them since they're actually people I met on YW that were willing to discuss things reasonably instead of going overboard like some extreme right-wingers here do. Funny enough there are some more moderate right-wingers on YW that I listen to.

My theory is that there must be a really hot female member who lives in LA and who is really, really left wing. And, that all the guys in the LA region are trying to impress her by trying to show that they're more sensitive and caring and to the left than all the other guys. Cause you otherwise don't really see too many guys like that in LA, much less asian guys.
Actually I am in a serious relationship with a wonderful girl. She's more of a moderate than a left-winger. Tho she says she calls it how she sees it as well. Just that unlike some stubborn jackasses, she's more than willing to get into an actual discussion and debate.

Oh and I don't let my sexual drive affect my political views. Does your sexual drive affect your political views? I could always theorize that some fine-ass right-wing, conservative chick is giving you a great blowjob everytime you post here on YW to piss off the liberals. Of course, that's just a theory and I don't want to make conclusions on half-assed theories like you just did. I rather hear it from the 'horse's mouth'.

So speak horsey. That and the Introduction Forum is there for you. I'll keep a cold one in the fridge if you ever visit LA. :wink:

[nola]

Calling it as you see it is one thing. Not seeing the whole picture is another. The way you supposedly see it screams closed mind and aren't willing to accept the other possibilites (and generally your own idealogy swings towards the right in my perception). For myself, I personally would love to see both sides. Except one or the other presentations tend to piss me off with their superior attitude and the uncompromising, self-centered bullshit they post here. Strangely enough, right-wingers and so-called moderates tend to do that the most on this board.

Oh and I don't let my sexual drive affect my political views. Does your sexual drive affect your political views? I could always theorize that some fine-ass right-wing, conservative chick is giving you a great blowjob everytime you post here on YW to piss off the liberals. Of course, that's just a theory and I don't want to make conclusions on half-assed theories like you just did. I rather hear it from the 'horse's mouth'.Theres a great deal of assholitude here.

It's called sexual frustration. Sexual frustration drives alot of political views here.

[deez nuts]

Theres a great deal of assholitude here.

It's called sexual frustration. Sexual frustration drives alot of political views here.


i've always thought it was people not taking their meds i.e. not making it to the abilify cocktail happy hour.

[haplesshobo]

What and figure out that liberals are actually fucking human? Not that all members of the LA area are liberal. I'm actually seen as a bit more moderate, tho the conservatives of this site tend to make me swing to the left when they get too self-righteous or religious.

Um, I never said that liberals weren't somehow human. I have many liberal and conservative friends, so that's why I don't buy into some of the threads which call conservatives racist or whatever.

Its just LA guys aren't really as radical as some of the views expressed on this forum. Maybe, in NoCal, you would see that, but not really in SoCal.

Let me explain it again, and perhaps I can be clearer this time. Its my fear that when people know each other outside the internet, they're sometimes less reluctant to break with the pack. If you're going to meet with someone face to face, then you're more reluctant to express your true beliefs as we've been raised not to talk about politics or religion. And, so, its much easier to be true to one's own beliefs if you're not going to meet those people later on. I don't want to get into the trap where I start saying things that I know will be popular just for the sake of popularity, especially since I know that certain members will read it and that I will probably be meeting up with them later on that night.


Granted I tend to get more moderate when left-wingers get a bit too extreme for my taste, but then I'm less harsh on them since they're actually people I met on YW that were willing to discuss things reasonably instead of going overboard like some extreme right-wingers here do. Funny enough there are some more moderate right-wingers on YW that I listen to.

That's the difference between us. I give no quarter to either left wingers or the right wingers. I'll call it like I see it to both Ye11owman and Kasia.

I agree with Kasia that a woman should have the right to an abortion, but I fundamentally disagreed with her scare tactics. I want to win the debate on the strength of the ideas, but not by cheating. So, yes, I did point out that the votes weren't there to overturn it. And, that even if that happened, it would become a state issuse, and so CA women would still retain that right. And, that with recent advances in technology, it would be much safer than what it was 40 years ago, and that you wouldn't see the return of coat hangers.

And, I've also held ye11owman's feet to the fire as well, concerning stem cell research and the need for sex education in high school. Even with regards to rent control in NYC, which I think has been grossly misused, I still argued against his assertion that it was responsible for the housing problems witnessed in NYC. There was also the time he posted a thread defending big pharm, and I tore apart his numbers even though I later defended some of the practices of big pharm as eventually in the long run helping the most amount of people.


Calling it as you see it is one thing. Not seeing the whole picture is another. The way you supposedly see it screams closed mind and aren't willing to accept the other possibilites (and generally your own idealogy swings towards the right in my perception). For myself, I personally would love to see both sides. Except one or the other presentations tend to piss me off with their superior attitude and the uncompromising, self-centered bullshit they post here. Strangely enough, right-wingers and so-called moderates tend to do that the most on this board.

In short, I would be more than willing to listen to the 'other side' if they didn't come off being such jackasses. In fact, I've been in discussions with conservative moderates lately to see their end. Especially since they don't come off being self-righteous assholes. I actually agree with some of them.

Well, I'm open to any data about this issue, but I just haven't seen anything that has really convinced me otherwise. People criticized the national poll and so I linked the methodology of it, but yet nobody has said what was wrong with the methodology. Too often, I find there's too much emotionalism expressed, and not enough rationalism.

Instead, all I've seen in answer to my questions and points, were some unneeded attacks accusing me of being insensitive or unaware of the tragic history of NA in this country. And, nola calling me a dim asshole. The strange thing is that in other sites, we will disagree about ideas and yet not need to resort to such name calling. We will vigorously attack the other person's ideas, without attacking that person.

Oh and I don't let my sexual drive affect my political views. Does your sexual drive affect your political views? I could always theorize that some fine-ass right-wing, conservative chick is giving you a great blowjob everytime you post here on YW to piss off the liberals. Of course, that's just a theory and I don't want to make conclusions on half-assed theories like you just did. I rather hear it from the 'horse's mouth'.

I'll admit that I end up watching FOX news because I just find Mona Charen to be the most beautiful newswoman on TV, even though I find that channel to be slanted and biased. I've always suspected that all those conservative blonds, with those amazing legs, played a small factor in the rise of conservatism.

Don't you realize that was the reason why so many Christian girls in high school wore the shortest skirts. It was all a devious plot to snare unsuspecting, but horny teenagers into bible study and a lifetime of christainity.

So speak horsey. That and the Introduction Forum is there for you. I'll keep a cold one in the fridge if you ever visit LA. :wink:

Well, I knew that if I responded, there were only going to be snarky, swarmy comments attacking me and why I didn't choose to answer. I know there are certain posters that are trying to bait me, and I try to ignore their posts.

[SunWuKong]

ok people. keep the discussion on the topic itself instead of attacking each other. otherwise i'll be closing this thread and warning members.

[power puff girl]

i'm confused about this issue because i thought those schools with offensive names or mascots were prohibited by the ncaa from using them, but i turn on the tv, and i still see those schools using the same old, offensive imagery.

[power puff girl]

well, it seems this is finally starting to gain some traction when illinois finally dropped its racist mascot. ah, yes, tradition. you can carry out the most vile, racist acts under the guise of protection.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/16/national/main2486475.shtml