DU Women I have to apologize....

[Wetzelbill]

With all of my heart, for any flippant comment I have ever made that could have offended you. If I cracked a sex quip that was too over the top or came off condescending in any way. I know I can be like that, lots of us can. I know I have gotten much better over the course of the last month or so, even on making little mistakes. But, sometimes I screw up, make a crude comment or two when I think nobody will notice, or more than likely I do not think at all.

Because after reading this frustrating thread and the perplexing result of the poll, I understand somewhat of the anguish you all go through when us men just don't "get it." I will know that when you are offended then you really are offended and no justification of any sexist or dehumanizing remark will ever come from me. No way. I will not tell you that you shouldn't be offended by something just because I know other women who are not. No way.

Right now, I'm mad enough to go through the roof.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4306936

[madeline_con]

1. "... you shouldn't be offended ..."

"... just because I know other women who are not ..."

Telling us that you KNOW other women who are not is stiil o.k. It's not the same thing. :)

[knowbody0]

2. i love that you try so hard to understand

it makes you vulnerable and beautiful to me.

[Wetzelbill]

14. wow thank you

:)

[fishnfla]

3. Like when you said that one woman was "your fan" ?

Is that how it went?

I got news for you brother, paternalism SUCKS!!

[Wetzelbill]

16. I get your point

but she actually is a fan. Of my work. I had a book out, etc. She also just ended up being a good friend too.

[u4ic]

4. That's why we all need a voice

Many need to be - shall we say, 'enlightened' - on certain issues. And there's no shame on being at either end of that spectrum. (unless, of course, one DOESN'T want to understand) :-)

[Wetzelbill]

18. the not trying is frustrating

instead of listening and trying to understand, people will already have their mind made up and try to argue their narrow point of view. It makes you just want to go nuts, I mean who are these people to try to lecture someone on a topic about themeselves? Sometimes, maybe women or minorities are a little oversensitive about stuff. But all too often others will argue over something hurtful and inane. It's foolish.

[Floogeldy]

5. You can act like a man!

[Wetzelbill]

52. ok now that nobody is around

I can ogle that pic. :)

[Mutley]

76. perv

:P

[ugarte]

6. I'm not a woman but I am Hispanic and mestizo (part Native American)

and I saw the link to the mascot poll. I must say I feel like you and am dismayed by certain people's ignorant attitudes, or perhaps it is simply willful ignorance on many ethnic and feminist issues. It is as though the rightwingers have turned (some) so-called liberals into "political correctness bashers" who consistently post tripe that would be perfectly at home on FreeRepublic.

I can guarantee you Hispanics and African Americans would never stand for being team mascots. Why should indigenous people have to put up with it?

[knowbody0]

7. it absolutely rips my sack

when i see them dancing at half time.

[ugarte]

12. It's just wrong, period.

I get sick and angry about people comparing Native American mascots to the "Fighting Irish". The Irish are not an oppressed minority that I am aware of, nor were they subjected to genocide. After everything else that's been done to Native Americans, it boggles my mind that so-called liberal-thinking people can stll want to perpetuate racist caricatures.

Maybe this place is not as liberal as some pretend.

[Kali]

25. actually

yeah they were

[ugarte]

31. Not by the United States government

Big difference. This is the kind of claptrap I'm talking about.

[Kali]

59. Sorry I responded before I finished reading all of the other

related posts - been doing some local activism with a couple local "Irish" and so was a bit more sensitive to that than usual. You are correct there was no oficial US oppression, though they certainly were discriminated against and the British policy was(is?)"official".

My personal take is ALL organized sports could be banned and I could care less!

[Gormy Cuss]

70. It's claptrap to dismiss the "Fighting Irish" question without discussion

Yes, Irish are not subject to official discrimination in the U.S. Yes, the historical discrimination against Indians and other groups was longer tenured and has considerable residual effects today. Having said that, the lack of understanding on why Americans of Irish-American descent continue to raise the issue is extraordinary. There is a strong memory of just how badly they were treated by the British at home and abroad. The large waves of Irish immigrants to this country were treated as poorly as Latinos are today. The stereotypes and barriers to success were everywhere. The "Fighting Irish" moniker reinforced these stereotypes yet today has no power. How did that happen? That's why it's a valid topic.

Trying to assign the same current weight of insensitivity to "Fighting Irish" and "Redskins," on the other, is not going to result in any meaningful discussion.
On edit: as in, there is no defense for hanging on to mascot names based generic stereotypes of Indians especially those using derogatory terms.

[ugarte]

74. Agreed. I love the Irish and identify with their struggle

My problem is people using the 'Fighting Irish' as a strawman argument to justify derogatory Native American mascots.

I think we agree.

[Gormy Cuss]

78. We agree then. n/t

[Wetzelbill]

23. yeah do you think

that if a hispanic group let some college team use a racist caricature for a mascot, that people on DU would tell other hispanics that it should be up to that specific group and their leaders to do that? That other hispanics should stay out of it because it's not their business? It's ridiculous. Ok, a new sports team is named the Miami Cubans and the mascot is a bunch of Cubans in a pontoon floating on the ocean. Hey, but all you other Hispanics better not speak up, because it has nothing to do with you. How foolish.

[ugarte]

33. I couldn't agree more

See post #25 above. This shit drives me up a wall.

[ghostsofgiants]

38. Or what if there was a team called "The Negroes"...

And their mascot wasa dude doing a Blackface routine? Would the debate even exist on this board in that case?

Side note: That quote from enigmatic in your sig is hilarious.

[Wetzelbill]

39. oh I nearly died when

I read that the other day. Just the fact alone that a guy who wants to be a curler would base his prowess on being like Mick Foley is uproariously funny.

[ghostsofgiants]

40. Does he plan to bring thumbtacks and barbed wire to the rink?

[Wetzelbill]

51. I think he plans on bringing Mr. Socko nt

[ghostsofgiants]

36. I was going to post something about that actually...

About how Hispanics and African Americans would never stand for being team mascots. But the potential for flame eruption made me shy away from actually posting it.

And there's a difference between "political correctness" and being sensitive to issues of this sort.

[ugarte]

48. The very fact that this issue should be divisive at DU

is itself a sad commentary.

[usedtobesick]

73. I see your point here

and agree but I think it's part of the education about who we are. There are so many of us from all walks of life and different stages of personal growth. I think a lot of this proves just how far we need to go to get healthy as a movement and a group of humans. If we were having these discussions 40 years ago it would be much different. I came here because I could not stand Bush and company anymore but what I got when I came here was so much more. I'm different today then I was in November. Learning simple things like using Humanity instead of Mankind is a process and a change in a very old thought process for me. Not an excuse just a comment. You need to be exposed to these thoughts and challenged to change your thought processes. Coming here should do that. It should incite us to learn and grow and become more of what is good and right and less of what is bad and ignorant. it's kind of what church or school is supposed to be. We are supposed to be presented with a truth that makes us look at our hearts and minds and causes us to evaluate our lives, thoughts, and motivations and incite change. Change is proof of growth, and a static group is a dead group. We need these talks to force us to evaluate our selves and change too be better. Some people are just being smart asses and are trying to be funny ir even cause hurt. Some of this is really heart felt disagreement and I think time and talking can bring about a change and understanding. But there is never going to be total agreement in everything. So we listen and learn and change or reconfirm our beliefs. Or we realize the person is an ass, just different, just doesn't get out point of view and we try and change them, ignore them or hope for a change. I love to see this in process here. Do I hate the strife? Yes but it shows hope for real change of heart and mind. Probably too over simpified but it's a small space...

[KitchenWitch]

53. Part of why that is, is that the Native Americans have been so cowed

into compliance that they do not often protest.

Case in point, A few years ago there was a situation where the Minneapolis Police allegedly dropped two drunken homeless Native Americans off in the parking lot of a housing project, urinated on them (it was found later that the urine was not from the police), and basically left them to freeze to death (it was about -20 degrees F). A small march was organized by AIM and Clyde Bellecourt, to go from the housing project to city hall. Simultaneously, the African American community organized a march from a church in north Minneapolis to city hall.

The mayor and some high mucketymucks from the police department held a meeting with the people who participated in the march (both marches) and the meeting was intended for the Native American community to air their grievances with the police, but the African American contingent basically bullied their way in and took over, so many of the less outspoken Native Americans present did not get to speak. Granted, they could have chosen to be more assertive, but assertiveness has been categorically exterminated from their culture.

[grace0418]

45. I totally agree. Plus it's SPORTS for cliff's sake.

Why is it so distressing to people that their team of choice should have to change names? Does it change the game itself? Does it suddenly make them not alumni anymore? What is it?

I'd really like one of the people rabidly opposed to changing the racially insensitive mascots of various schools to explain to me why it matters to them so damn much. What critical part of their lives is going to change for the worse because the mascot of their favorite team changes? Being forced to buy new sweatshirts and baseball caps DOES NOT count as a hardship by the way. Being forced to endure continuing disrespect and having your culture trivialized by a bunch of college sports teams DOES count.

[ugarte]

46. What is surprising also is that this debate began back in the 1960s

Many colleges changed their nicknames in the 1970s...Dartmouth and Stanford just to name a couple...but it's taken 30+ years for the NCAA to address the issue, and even that's too soon for some of these non-enlightened schools...an attitude I would expect coming from mainstream America, but not from DU. I'm surprised to find these reactionary attitudes here.

[grace0418]

66. I know, it's so bizarre to me. I can't wrap my mind around why it's

so important to keep these racist mascots.

To me it's just common sense to look at the situation and realize the right thing to do. So some universities will have to pay for some new logos on their football fields and basketball courts. So fans will have to buy new sweatshirts and baseball caps. Is that really such a big deal in the grand scheme of things? Isn't human dignity a little more important than that?

By the way, I was a Fighting Illini and was always uncomfortable with some white frat boy dressing up as "Chief Illiniwek" and doing flips on the field. If that same guy had come on the field in black face he would've been beaten to within an inch of his life, so someone tell me the difference.

[ismnotwasm]

8. I just try to remember where we come from

And how far we have to go. It's only been 40 years since the civil rights movement. A century or so since this land was conquered. And centuries for women to get any kind of equality. Much has changed, but some bullshit has gone underground and some old nasty ideas are right in front of our noses with new packaging. We can use love and humor to shine the light.

[bliss_eternal]

10. Such a good point!

Thank you for making it...

:hi:

[bliss_eternal]

9. Hi Wetzelbill--

I can only speak for myself. I haven't been offended by anything you've written--but I haven't read everything you've ever written either. ;) I've only known you to be respectful and kind. But I do appreciate that you have said this to all of us. It is very considerate of you.

I just looked at that other thread. Un-be-lievable. I am SO sorry.

When will people realize that if something offends even one person, they need to think about that and take it into consideration.

:hug:

Take care,
Bliss

[In_The_Wind]

11. hey ~ Bill

You're OK in my book.


That link is enough to make a lot of us mad!

[Wetzelbill]

13. well, I know you're on my side

that goes without saying! :)

[In_The_Wind]

15. Actually Bill Wetzel, some things must be said.

Honest words which are spoken in support are never misplaced.

[Wetzelbill]

27. touche

[KitchenWitch]

17. You have never offended me

But it does take a lot to offend me...like telling me that I am intolerant of diversity (I am interracially married - three races represented), and that Paul Wellstone would not approve of me...but I digress.

I am, however, very dismayed at some of the attitudes on that thread. If each Indian Nation is polled and asked whether their particular Nation's name can be used, and they acquiese, then cool, that name can be used. But that is so obviously not the case. :grr: (I am part Ojibwe)

[Floogeldy]

21. You are intolerant of diversity and Paul Wellstone would not approve of U.

Sorry! Couldn't resist.

:scared:

[KitchenWitch]

22. Go fuck yourself

and I mean that in the friendliest way possible :rofl:

[Floogeldy]

26. I'm loved!

[KitchenWitch]

29. But of course you are

:loveya:

[Heidi]

32. Sorry to break the news to you, Floog . . .

but we only love you for your tiara.

[Floogeldy]

42. Thank you.

[Wetzelbill]

35. see there may be room to work

on names. But as for mascots, they virtually all are stereotypes and offensive. Some tribes approve of their use, but that should never be condoned. Mascots are often used by opponents in rallies to mock Indians and so on. It's dehumanizing. That just doesn't work out. Another option needs to be exercised there. See and also, individual tribes are still part of a related confederacy, so it gets into pretty touchy territory on just where the line is drawn and who gets to give authority.

Such as you and I. We're related. The Ojibwe and Chippewa Cree - one of the three kinds of Indian I am- are part of the same confederacy. :)

[Heidi]

19. Hey, 'bill:

:hug:

[shockra]

20. Prejudice against Indians is deeply ingrained in America.

The whole cowboy/beef-eating tradition in this country sprung up in large part to create a new mythology to bury Indian origins, IMO. Taking their land then covering it with cattle and ranchers, and making an American romance tale about the whole thing. Keeping that alive keeps the Indians "losers" and their culture trivial.

Americans would sooner go vegetarian than give up prejudice against Indians.

[jobycom]

37. Founders myths

Every society creates founders' myths to justify their existence, and usually those myths give a clue to the values of those societies. Our own founders' myth began in the mid 1800s, with stories about George Washington and the cherry tree, to point out our honest, hardworking roots.

But the myths also created stories about Columbus, and many still stand. People were aware of where the land was coming from, and what was happening to the original inhabitants. So myths were created to make people feel better. Columbus--so forgotten a figure that the continent wasn't even named after him--was revived, and his story was transformed. No longer did he come to America seeking land and plantations and cheap slave labor. He came to America as an explorer, and discovered a new land. He was was brave and bold, and battled many obstacles (most of them fictional) to even reach America.

What he really did when he reached America is a more appropriate founder myth than the one we've all been taught. He enslaved the Native Americans, and purposely slaughtered whole towns that rose against him. When he found that the indiginous slaves could flee into the lands they knew so well, he traded these slaves with African slaves, who could not escape as easily. Sailors claimed they could navigate from the Canaries to America without instruments, by following the bodies of slaves tossed overboard when they died in the cargo holds of the slave ships.

All that was forgotten in our creation myth, because white Americans wanted to forget where the land came from. Instead, Columbus "discovered" this empty land, and then he disappears once he hits the shore, and the Pilgrims emerge, complete with Thanksgiving and the welcoming Indians. Those were good Indians. The Cowboy myth developed to explain the bad Indians.

These myths are so much a part of white culture we don't understand them, and don't see them. We don't realize that Hitler modeled, consciously, his Final Solution on what Europeans did to the Native Americans. To him, he was following historical precedent, set by us.

Perhaps telling our history the way it really happened would destroy some of these myths, and might make us more hesitant to invade other lands. Or perhaps we are just so spoiled as a nation that we will never learn, until something truly horrible makes us understand what we do to the world.

I don't know this nation. Our ideals are so beautiful, but we are so far from trying to live up to our ideals that we shouldn't even use the name "America" anymore. But we will, until the name, like the dream, is ruined.

[Wetzelbill]

50. again, just great nt

[alarcojon]

24. Hey Bill

As a Latino, I feel a strong affinity to the indigenous AND african descended peoples of the Americas. I am certainly pissed off at that thread and the poll "results" (I hope it was indeed freeped - what kind of losers would do that?).

I think my own taste of other people's ignorance has led me to the point Bliss Eternal has made so well: When will people realize that if something offends even one person, they need to think about that and take it into consideration.

[jobycom]

28. You should be mad

I ventured in to the other thread, typed a long response answering someone claiming they wouldn't be upset by a "fighting whites" name, and then found the thread was locked when I tried to post. Guess we should stick to kitten threads, and pandas and the like, so as not to offend anyone with a real discussion.

Sickens me, too, that some people only get an issue when it bites them in the butt. DU seems too much like Texas at times. Actors bashed because of their religions. "Who's hottest?" polls, complete with misogynist defenses of those polls. Anti "political correctness" rants that sound more like Bill O'Reilly than any DUer should ever sound.

I'm mad, too. I feel like I'm running low on places where I'm not mad.

[Heidi]

30. Thank you, Joby.

:loveya:

[jobycom]

43. You're welcome, and

Minnie says hi!

[Heidi]

44. Geez, she looks soft!

:hug: my friend.

[Wetzelbill]

34. I typed a long response too

and it was locked. That really jerked my chain, haha.

[jobycom]

41. Well, I saved mine

Here it is:

None of those names carry the same racial degradation as names such as Redskins, for instance. Because those are all names thought up by white people to amuse themselves and make false comparisons. You have to think as a minority. You have to find the one trait you identify yourself most closely with, and then have it turned by an oppressive majority--preferably one who has helped wipe out generations of your people and are clearly mocking you--into an insult. That's a closer parallel.

Who are you? A liberal? How about a team named "the whining liberals?" Gay? How about a team named "the faggots," complete with a mascot of a cross-dresser tied to a post with flames licking at his feet?

I realize this isn't a parallel to team names like the Seminoles, which aren't meant in the same mean spirit. But even so, the stereotypes are white stereotypes, like the black-faced vaudeville acts that, even when not meant to be degrading, still were degrading.

As for asking Native Americans which of our insults least offend them, that's all nice and good, and many would politely respond that they aren't really offended, I'm suspect. What they might really mean is they are just words, and changing the words doesn't change the reality of the poverty on reservations, of the history of slaughter and grief that we have not in any way tried to come to grips with--unless you count Dances With Wolves. It doesn't change the current reality of casinos on reservations being white political footballs, to be debated endlessly without a thought to the real problems behind the issue.

My own opinion is that the NCAA should ban all Native American names, and it is about time. Long past time. Sure, the ban will offend in the other direction in some cases. Sure it will do no good, really, for anyone. But it's at least a step in the right directions, towards a statement, if not a reality, that we are a nation that values equality, and human dignity. It's better than not taking the step.

My father owned a service station in Mississippi in the 60s. I remember going through the shed where he kept the stuff he took when he sold the station. He had a "COLORED" plaque that went over one of the water fountains in the station. He had the decency to be ashamed of it. One day I hope we all have the decency to be ashamed when we look at the old Atlanta or Washington sports emblems. That would be progress.

As for schools on reservations or with a heavily Native American population using tribal or Native American related names to show pride in their identity--that's up to them. But Florida State can hardly claim they are showing pride in the heritage of their students. At best, they are stealing someone else's bragging rights. At worst, they are mocking.

Just my opinion. I guess it's a minority opinion, but as a Democrat in the south, I'm used to that.

[ugarte]

47. Very eloquent

Your #37, too. I wish more people had your sense of perspective.

[jobycom]

61. Thanks.

[Wetzelbill]

49. damn that is awesome

nicely said. Just for future reference, you also should know that "Redskin" is the Indian equivalent of "Nigger." That is the exact equivalent. So, imagine a team called the "Washington Niggers" and see how long that would last. That's the sort of thing we're dealing with. Anyway, well done, I really enjoy it when you bust out these long replies and posts.

[jobycom]

56. Glad you enjoy the long ones

because it's the short ones I have the most trouble with. :-)

[hfojvt]

54. nice post

except that "I realize this isn't a parallel to team names like the Seminoles, which aren't meant in the same mean spirit."

I do not believe the Washington Redskins was so named out of a "mean spirit". Just out of the same insensitivity as if a team was named the Buffalo Boches or some such. A person does not name their team the "whining liberals" unless they expect people to be as intimidated by a whining liberal as they are by a tiger or a falcon.

Also, is it not a little bit absurd to be upset by the results of 134 votes or by the comments of half a dozen posters on a 53,000 member board as if that somehow reflects badly on the entire group? Even the factual comment that the Irish have, in fact, been historically oppressed is somehow extremely annoying. How dare anyone deviate from the progressive party line with trivial things like facts?

[jobycom]

55. Thanks

The term Redskin could not in any context be seen as a tribute, whereas Seminole could be. It would be the difference between calling a team "N***" word (I won't type it, even in quotes), or the African Americans. Both would be insulting, but for different reasons.

You're right, I suspect, that the names were chosen to intimidate opponents, not as insults, but the word redskin is a racial slur, and those who chose the name could not be unaware of that. Different eras, different sensibilities. Progress is about moving forward.

And I never said anything one way or the other about the Irish, but since you brought it up--the Irish were oppressed in America for a while, and that oppression was tragic and sad. It pales in comparison to the millions of Native Americans exterminated by government action, and the many millions more murdered, enslaved, raped, robbed, and forced to live on the poorest lands in their former nations. Where many of them still are, in poverty. The Irish were never dehumanized to the point that Native Americans were, and as you probably know, that dehumanization was just a way to justify killing them. By the millions. The biggest complaint I have to naming teams "Redskins," "Braves" and "Seminoles" is that it is more of the dehumanization process that allowed such slaughter. The Irish have never--in America--faced anything like that.

[XemaSab]

64. Your point about intimidation

and the intimidating power of mascot names brings up the thought that teams are named after Native Americans as a perpetuation of the "savage" myth.

[jobycom]

71. Yes, good point. Why are NA names intimidating? Why don't they

invoke images of democratic governments, of federalist style governments, of spirituality and respect for the earth? For that matter, why not images of parents and children and people trying to live and let live?

Great point.

[Pithlet]

63. Oh, I hate it when that happens.

That's why I type fast and furious when I know it's a thread likely to be locked. Then, after I've posted, I go back and proof read. :)

I read your post below, and it's too bad it didn't make it in in time.

[One_Life_To_Give]

65. Sorry I offended you

But I guess it was poorly written by me.

No one else can tell you how to feel, or what should or should not offend you. Nor can a white man like me tell Native Americans how to feel about names and caricatures used. Just as a Native American probably can't say what does or does not offend a white man.
But I also object to blanket characterizations.

[jobycom]

72. No one's trying to tell anyone how to feel, or what to be offended by

The question is simply do we continue to use names that we know offend a large group of people? Seems like good manners and decent human behavior.

Manners and civility always get labelled political correctness. Which actually gives me a strong fondness for the phrase, since that's exactly what PC was supposed to be.

(edited because I can't type worth a flip, not for content)

[One_Life_To_Give]

75. Not asking to continue offensive names

In fact we should require that names, mascots and logo's which are offensive to significant numbers of people be changed. But I don't assume that any Native American reference can only be offensive. Perhaps it's just a philisophical point or I am an optimist. To assume that someone might have or create a positive Native American, Name, Logo or Mascot.

[NMMNG]

57. Hey WB

I myself have never been offended by any of your posts, though I haven't read every last one.

I am disgusted by the debate in your linked thread. The idea that it is perfectly acceptable to keep stereotypical Native American mascot/team names is abhorrent. Just imagine the furor if the team lineup included the following:

The Atlanta Rednecks: The mascot would be a grungy three-toothed man in a "wife beater" tank top and baseball cap, holding a beer in one hand and a shotgun in the other.

The New York N*****s: The mascot would be a black man with a gold tooth in front, a bag of crack in one hand and a "'ho" hanging off the other arm.


The South Carolina Fundies: The mascot would be a clean-cut white male wearing a cassock. At the beginning of each play he would kneel and pray for the Fundies to make the play. If they won he would shout out "Praise Jesus". If not he would decry the evils of Satan's doings on the field.


And for fans of women's sports:

The San Francisco Bull-Dykes: The mascot would be a drag-king who went around singing K.D. Lang songs and entertained the crowd by making passes at the players warming the bench.

[bridgit]

58. i'm just here waiting for my husband...

but thank you all the same

[JimmyJazz]

60. It's nice to know that people can continue to "grow up" even when

they are considered to be an adult. Thanks for your post. You and I have had this discussion, so I know that you are sincere in what you posted. :)

:loveya:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

62. Wonderful post and thanks. I note that it appears some men can

barely STAND that another man gets it. It's already showing up in this thread.

To quote Ruth Bader GInsberg, our differences should be cause for celebration not denigration.

[eyepaddle]

67. It seems that the mascot discussion is the equivalent of the

one loose thread which will unravel the whole sweater.

On the whole I am against Indian themed mascots. The town I live in (althoug I did not attend high school here) changed their name from the Braves to the Blaze, I approved of that, just as an example. However the Seminoles DO have a point. One DUer suggested tradmearking Tribal names and then licensing them if they so decide. Perhaps a ban on generic or unlicensed mascot names which would allow the Seminoles to continue, but change the Illini--this may be a productive avenue to explore.

I've always thought team nicknames should reflect the community they are located in--for example the Vikings reflect MN's well documented Scandinavian population, and the Chicago Bulls reflects Chicago's past with its huge stockyards. What do the Redskins reflect? Or the Atlanta Braves? I've always thought Atlanta could just drop the "s" on the end and be the Altanta "Brave" and could be some kind of uber-patriotic flag waving uncle-sam kind of a team.

So much of the animosity to changing team names stems I think from not wanting to admit you may have been in the wrong. Nobody LIKES to admit they made a mistake, or were thoughtless.

The Native American Activist (she was Menomonee) I most recently worked with didn't personally see this as a top priority, but I still think discussion among all sides is worthwhile.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

68. Here's the thing about the Seminoles and individual tribes

This is the same as saying that the Log Cabin Republicans represent Gay people as regards equal rights. While the Seminoles may like the licensing of products, they STILL reinforce that fighting image and stereotype.

[eyepaddle]

69. Fair enough, like I said, I am against the nicknames myself,

but put yourself in their position--an outside party is once again telling them "no no no--you don't feel that way--you feel this way instead." As I understand it they want to control their own image.

While none of us like to admit fault, chances are we hate being ignored more.

Shouold all Original Americans get together and decide if this needs to stop? Perhaps each nation get's to make that call individually? I don't know.

This next suggestion is not at all flippant--perhaps there should be guidelines towards historical accuracy in nicknames, then it's not stereotyping it's education. I don't know how far you wanna take that, though. Ragnar would have to lose those horns and maybe have to sack a monastery and murder some monks and priests every once in awhile.

[Mutley]

77. Bill, I'm sorry you have to deal with this racism on DU.

Of all places this should be one where you don't have to encounter that sort of thing. :hug: I agree completely, that if most, or even a few, Native Americans are offended by those mascots then those mascots should not be used. I never understood the point of naming sports teams after Indian tribes anyway.

Also, as a person of mostly Irish descent, I'd like people to stop using the "Fighting Irish" as a straw-man in this argument. So, most Irish people are not offended by that team, myself included. However, most Native Americans are offended. Those are two different groups of people and they do not need to be compared in this way, because one has nothing to do with the other. Not to mention, it's just a very weak argument anyway.

I think most of us ladies here on DU know that you're a good guy. We didn't need that nasty thread to prove it. :hug: