Go "Noles"

Bee,
You are silly, didn't you know I was referring to college and university logos!?!

Itsinthegame says:

quote:

If American Indians dont mind a particular mascot - in fact - actually support it and dont want it changed - some clown that lives an entirely different existance can come in and spout his views and usurp the very people that are the subject of the "offense".
Political correctness run completely amok.

I don't claim to know what all American Indians do or don't "mind". I do know that

quote:

Joely De La Torre, an American Indian activist, said the Seminole Tribe of Florida was entitled to its position. But she said many members of the nation's more than 550 tribes are insulted when Chief Osceola enters Doak Campbell Stadium on horseback before kickoff and throws a flaming spear into the ground as 80,000 fans roar.

"It's ridiculous that in 2005 you have institutions of higher learning wanting to hold on to stereotypes and images that are offensive," said De La Torre

And TRHit, thank you for the link to the commentary which included:

quote:

As expected, many wise guys of sports reporting have rolled out the big guns of cleverness in their reactionary spin.

What about people of Irish descent who may feel insulted by Notre Dame's "Fighting" description? Fine, says the NCAA. Lodge a formal protest.

The severely clever are wondering about animal lovers opposed to the use of nicknames such as Wildcats and Bears.

Sounds vaguely familiar....

P-Dog,

Well then - I guess if Joely the Activist wants it changed - it must be changed. It offends her.
I have no doubt Joely will get it changed.
And it is awfully kind that she admits that the Seminole tribe is entitled to their opinion. I am sure they are very grateful for her endorsement. LOL

I may rail against this nonsense - but I am also a realist - and even I realize political correctness has yet to run its course.

The only question I have is - where and when does this spolied rotten baby boomer nonsense stop?

My guess is as good as yours. And hopefully my guess wont offend anyone - or perhaps I might be banned from making guesses in the future.

Its, I'd be more impressed with your opinions if you didn't rely so much on name calling - "spoiled rotten baby boomer", etc. Has it occurred to you that you haven't exactly bent over backwards to try to understand the other people's point of view in this situation? I don't have a dog in this fight - I'm not an Indian, didn't go to a school with an Indian mascot - it doesn't really affect my life one way or the other. I just try not to blow off the opinions of other people - especially where things that do directly concern them is involved. I can see where a Native American would feel that his or her ethnic heritage is being disrespected by some of the silly shenanigans college mascots do. (I didn't know that "Chief Osceola" threw a flaming spear into the turf before football games, for example - kinda cheesy, don't you think?) I can also see that others might not care one way or the other. But considering that the total actual value of any particular college mascot is about the same as a pitcher of warm spit, I don't see a basis for getting all worked up over the NCAA rule requiring those that are based on Indians to be changed. It's no big deal. It's got nothing to do with "political correctness" - it's just simple respect for people.

I am not here to impress you. But lets not digress.

I understand what you are saying now.
If I dont agree that all mascots with any hint of Indian heritage be eliminated immediately- I have no respect for other people.
That is actually the ultimate in name calling - in a PC sort of way. But lets disregard that and move forward a bit - because it is really a boring exercise that we suffer through every night on the evening news and talk shows. IMO.

Here is what I want to see - and lets see if you can get my point - despite my horrific lack of sensitivity.

When my son makes an error or strikes out - and the fans call him a bum - or a POS - or some other name - I am offended.

I want all fans muzzled from now on. Full scale Hannibal Lechter type muzzle masks.
All of them.
Hopefully - you will be sensitive to my point of view. I am offended by this activity - and it must stop. It isnt fair and it is insensitive and offensive.

Muzzling all fans is the only way to stop this terrible activity.

What do you think? Can I get my needs met on this one?

Simple answer: the price you demand to avoid the possibility of someone hurting your feelings is too high. I agree, no one should call a high school baseball player a POS just because he makes an error (I assume we're in agreement here.) If it were the school policy to do that - say, if they had an announcer to do it over the PA system, I'd say that that policy should be changed. Do you disagree? But to muzzle every spectator at every game your son plays in just to avoid the possibility that somebody might say something which hurts your feelings; hmm, no. The remedy you demand is too high a price, even though I agree that no spectator should say the things you refer to about your son.

And if there was a serious loss of some kind involved in changing a mascot's name, then it would be something that would require more thought, weighing the disrespect people feel to their heritage against the cost. But the cost of changing a mascot's name is trivial. It's kind of like making a policy that the announcer at your son's games is directed not to announce that your son is a POS everytime he makes an error - pretty easy to do, no real loss to anyone, and probably a good idea.

Just simple common sense in my opinion.

I do not think it is too high a price to pay for the fans. You do - but I dont.

You are not being sensitive to my needs.

We are offended - we need a remedy.

Sound familiar?

BTW - I think at a few schools - calling him a POS was policy - especially when he had a good game. LOL

P,
I don't know about the other schools, but as far as FSU, I hope they don't lie down and give in to the fight. I have been living in FL, land of the Seminoles, for almost 30 years, I have NEVER, EVER heard any seminole complain. And FYI, we don't find the logo (mascot) offensive but I do find the HUGE, 100 FOOT HIGH SEMINOLE CASINO SIGN down the road from my neighborhood very much so.

If anyone is offended at Chief whoevercoming into the stadium, if that is the issue, fine, then deal with that issue.

This is an economic issue as well for many. It also affects the conference FSU is in, the licensing, etc. it trickles down. You are not talking about Pudunk U.

Let me add - if we are going to do this - then do it across the board.

"Giants" - no good. Offensive to very tall people who are sensitive about their height.
There are thousands of football and baseball teams with that name.

"Vikings" - no good. Offensive to people with a Nordic heritage. Lots of high schools with that name.

"Pee Wee and Midget Football" - no good - short people are offended.

Little League - no good. Just call it league. Little implies inferiority to some people.

Minor league - no good. Same as above.

Cowboys - no good. Lots of people in the southwest are offended.

Twins - no good. The Olson girls hate it.

And on and on we go with this silliness.

Serious question: Will PETA get involved and try to get animal names removed next?

And last question - when will this craziness end?

As Forrest Gump said (no offense to Forrest):
"And that is all I have to say about that"

quote:

And TRHit, thank you for the link to the commentary which included:

The severely clever are wondering about animal lovers opposed to the use of nicknames such as Wildcats and Bears.

I know, Its, sarcasm is sooooooo hard to express in writing, but still.....

Its ...

quote:

Serious question: Will PETA get involved and try to get animal names removed next?

Some may think you are trivializing this subject by asking such as question but you aren't far from reality. Here on the Left Coast, animal rights' activists tried to get a fast food commercial off the air because it made fun of chickens (the tone of the commercial had to do with lab scientists looking ALL over a chicken for her nuggets). The gal that started the campaign said that chickens have feelings and that the commercial was humiliating to them when the scientists appeared to look in private areas. Another group has tried to get commecials off the air which feature cattle in California who live a charmed life on grassy sunny hills because the commercials do not reflect the TRUE picture of our dairy cattle in California.

For P-Dog and yankeeclipper ...
I do understand what you are saying and I also think that we need to be considerate of the sensitivities of other cultures and ethnicities. And I honestly don't think anybody here is interested in being disrespectful. However, there are several questions I would like to ask the powers that be at NCAA:
(1) Why is football exempt? If the mascots are offensive, are they any less offensive to football fans? Or could it be that football is the money maker for NCAA and they wouldn't want to bite the hands that feed them?
(2) Why only in post-season play? Is it not offensive the rest of the season? Or is this like their policy of removing any reference to alcoholic beverages at college fields (such as advertisements and including the sale of beer) during post-season play? [After all, it is allowed the rest of the year. I can understand possible advertising conflicts when the games are televised but that doesn't happen at all the regionals so why there?]
(3) Is there nothing more important on their agendae than this? There are so many important issues they could deal with that involve the safety and health of our young men ... steroids, smokeless tobacca (which is more prevalent than many people are aware of), metal bats, etc. If this is the way it has to be, fine. But does it have to be at this scale?

Just some thoughts ...

The decision does not affect football because there is no NCAA tournament! How convenient.

To me, this is their own version to compromise and make some PC people happy WITHOUT biting the hand that feeds them.

Actually the answer to both 1 and 2 is that those things are outside of the NCAA's jurisdiction, so they have no ability to enforce. (Although I think only Div. 1 football has its own sanctioning bowl organization. I assume that the new rule would apply to Div. II and III postseason play as well.) As to No. 3, that's a valid point. Team mascots are not the biggest deal in the universe. I'm a little surprised that the NCAA saw fit to take action on this issue when there's a lot of other stuff worth looking at. Maybe its because it is such a trivial thing that they felt it could be done without spending a lot of time agonizing over it.

This issue bothers myself, and others I think, for reasons unrelated to much of what has been discussed here. Simply put, I see the tail wagging the dog.

I live around the University of Illinois even though I didn't attend that school except for a couple of classes many years ago. I don't live and die with Fighting Illini sports. But I do see firsthand the ongoing battle.

The people making all the noise are a small minority. Oh, they yell loudly enough to try and convince the rest of us otherwise, but it just isn't so. A recent example: some of the U of I faculty long advocated for a referendum by the student body as to whether they supported the use of Chief Illiniwek. When the vote was finally held, the student body overwhelmingly supported the Chief and his continued use. After the vote, and the devastating loss, the Chief opponents decreed that since only about half the student body voted, that must mean that the other half opposes the Chief! Victory after all!

This example sums up the problems that bother me. First, a very small minority is making the fight. Nothing wrong with their expressing their opinions just as there is nothing wrong with the majority rejecting them. Second, the lack of logic and rational thought, as in most things dealing with political correctness, is astounding and bothersome. Third, we the majority better wake up and fight back or we will find our lives being dictated by that small but vocal minority. The minority knows this which is why they yell louder after each defeat. The old adage that the squeaky wheel gets the grease is too true in this instance.

We are a country where the majority is supposed to rule but with concern for the minority. If the issue is so significant that a ruling should be in favor of the minority, such as with voting rights and segregation issues, then that's what we do. But this issue is not significant except in the minds of a few. (There aren't even any indians of the Illinois federation of tribes left to complain; they were wiped out long ago by other indian tribes.)

The claim that the minority is offended is irrelevant. That's not said out of disrespect; it's simply true. We don't govern this country based on what offends people. Or at least we shouldn't.

Here's the final problem. So long as the minority keeps yelling, they are likely to win. There will come a time, maybe it's already here, when the vast majority will wash their hands of the issue and give in because they don't want to waste any more time on a trivial issue. And that will be wrong. Because the issue isn't about Indian mascots (which issue is trivial), but about how we are going to govern this country in the future.