Gamma Phi Beta University of North Dakota Punished for Showing School Pride
 

Sorority Punished for Showing School Pride
North Dakota sisters sentenced to sensitivity training for banner mentioning former mascot

A University of North Dakota sorority is on double-secret probation after putting up a banner obliquely referring to the school’s retired mascot.
Although UND got rid of its “Fighting Sioux” nickname less than two years ago, Gamma Phi Beta sorority has come under fire for even alluding to the former mascot, which has been deemed offensive. Members of the campus chapter are being condemned by UND’s president for mentioning the controversy over the Fighting Sioux — though without naming the mascot itself — in a banner cheering on the men’s hockey team.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...andrew-johnson

In a perfect world, the sorority would turn around and "condemn" the school for its craven stance. Do individuals of nordic origin condemn the Minnesota Vikings? Do steel workers condemn the Steelers? Do cattlemen condemn the Dallas Cowboys? Do Texans condemn the Houston Texans? The Seattle Seahawk logo is clearly an Indian design or borrowed from northwestern Indian tribal art. Notre Dame's depiction of their mascot, "Clancy" is at least as bad as Oklahoma's former Little Red mascot.

Suddenly turning around and deeming things offensive because some thin-skinned individuals are offended doesn't mean the rest of us have to care about their feelings.

The NCAA's position has been ridiculous from the beginning.

Kevin is serious. How unfortunate.

You're comparing working professions (e.g. steelworkers) to a race of people. No.

And it's not just the NCAA taking this position. Have you not seen the press about the Cleveland Indians lately?

http://www.freep.com/article/2014040...-wahoo-protest

To say nothing about the uproar that seems to be following around the Washington Redskins everywhere they go. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...9e1_story.html

^^^ Indeed @ the last two posters

Are we in the mood for yet another Intro-level discussion of race, ethnicity, and culture? In what reality is Kevin and some GCers living?

DrPhil, you are entitled to your opinions on the subject. I know pretty much where you stand, I just find your positions to generally be a load of horseshit.

The Sioux isn't a race. It's a tribe or rather a collection of tribes with similar culture.

And it's not as if that was the only example I gave.

Where are the aggrieved Scandinavians?

Slight lane swerve, but will someone tell this old lady what in the world is "double-secret" probation?

DaffyKD

Says the person who lacks even an introductory level understanding of race, ethnicity, and culture.

You are pathetic.

Where are the hundreds of years of systematic discrimination and denial of opportunity against the Scandinavians? Where are the Scandinavian reservations provided by the government where the rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, and poverty are sky-high? Could the Scandinavians somehow better their lives if people stopped using racist caricatures of them as sporting mascots?

What is your point? Any group that opposes a mascot in its name has a right to oppose. As always, your white male privilege believes you need to agree and sign off on everything in order for it to be legitimate and substantiated.

Your constructs of race, ethnicity and culture are entirely artificial as is the amount of deference you think the rest of us should give them.

This isn't about good manners, this is about schools facing serious sanctions if they name their mascots after native Americans. There's a point where it has gone from asking that people be polite and respect each other to forcing your views on other through extortion.

Oh, you have to have been discriminated against to deserve deference? NEW RULE.

So we have Notre Dame's mascot the drunken' fightin' Mick. No one cares.

No.

I don't care about this school and sorority. I care about your cluelessness. This isn't about differing opinions. You truly seem clueless.

Not really clueless, I just don't accept your premises as being any more than artificial constructs.

That said, I'm from Oklahoma. I'm surrounded by Native people. They aren't discriminated against at all. In fact, they get free food, healthcare and even stipend checks from their enormously profitable operations which operate behind "sovereign" governments that don't compete on a level playing field with our other businesses.

But Native Americans are a distinctive group of people who, as clemsongirl perfectly stated, have faced hundreds of years of systematic discrimination, denial of opportunity, and cultural erasure.

Really.

http://i62.tinypic.com/2n0qz9k.png

You know, you used the traditional argument of "I'm not racist--my best friend is black!" Doesn't work.

That's hilarious. You probably don't know many native people, then. I'm in OKC. My grandfather was an honorary chieftan of the Sac and Fox tribe. We are awash in Indians and the only difference between them and me is a BIA card. Nearly 1:10 people in Oklahoma are American Indian.

Legally speaking, "Native American" really isn't even a racial categorization. It's a political one.

Agree with your statement (in red).

There are so many Native Americans in Oklahoma in part because they were forcibly removed from their homelands and relocated there by the American government, or did you fall asleep in history class when they covered The Trail of Tears?

Racial categorizations aren't even truly biological, but sociological and society-based. Italians and Irish used to not be considered "white", but were gradually assimilated into the majority. Every racial categorization is a political one because race has no biological basis, but is assigned by the group with the majority of power in a society.

Congrats to Oklahoma. You obviously don't understand anything outside of white privilege. Congrats on missing the entire point of this thread.

http://cdn.business2community.com/wp...esized-600.png

Steelers =/= steelworkers. Steeler is a word that does not exist except as the name of the football team. Indian/Redskin/etc is. We also do not and never have used a human figure on helmets or uniforms. The closest we got was that awful Steely McBeam mascot from a few years ago, which was incredibly poorly received and quickly discontinued.

Privilege: when something isn't a problem because it isn't a problem for you.

Back to the topic of the sorority -- I think the school was right to drop the mascot, and wrong to sanction the sorority for this banner. The change in mascot is now a fact. People should be allowed to discuss it. I agree that a university-sanctioned group should not be allowed to use an image or name that the university has dissociated itself from. But student groups can't even acknowledge the fact that a change occurred? I'm completely against Indian mascots, yet I still think this is misguided.

I am not powerful enough to create my own constructs of race, ethnicity, and culture. Thanks for the compliment, though.

All racial categorizations can be viewed as political categorizations. Thus is the nature of social construction (pun intended).

My sincerest condolences to the schools/teams that are unable to use groups of people who have expressed discontent as a mascot. Next thing you know people will be told not to have racially, ethnically, and culturally themed parties.

Wow! How did I miss this train wreck?

And not one person alive to day is still being injured by that. I can't even say there was anything wrong with it. It was the 19th century and then and prior to then, other countries conquered other countries and relocated populations. Looking back at my own genealogy, my various ancestors could claim aggrieved status on many occasions. We're hundreds of years removed from those actions though, so it's water under the bridge.

And around here, Natives have for the most part been fully assimilated. We don't have reservations as such. We have some really wonky jurisdictional rules, but the "Indian land" stuff doesn't really work here.

At the very least, the new 2015 school mascot will not be taking the name of or shape of a Crescent. Their new cheer will not be, "Our Crescents will ROLL over your team!"

I think there is a place for using Indian themes as mascots. The Sioux are a strong part of the history of that region (otherwise pretty bland in the upper Midwest), and naming a team the Sioux, the Chiefs, etc. doesn't bother me personally (but, you know, I'm as Middle America white as they come). It goes over the edge for me when it's comical or unquestionably negative. Redskins? Really? I think the correlation between Vikings and Sioux could be made. On the other hand, if the Sioux in the area are offended, then I can see the school changing the mascot. But saying people aren't allowed to talk about it? That's ludicrous. A healthy discussion about race and the words/images we use every day that are racist (but maybe we didn't even realize it), can only expand our world view. The problem is those discussions are uncomfortable and there's usually no way to come out of it without looking like a douche.

I just thought of a name for them that made me chuckle. Would they see The Frackers as offensive?

Oh yay, the Oppression Game. Always fun.

I'm done.
 

You're kidding. You're absolutely kidding. Water under the bridge? REALLY? You really don't think that the negative actions of white people have literally any lasting impact?

I'll remember that everyday since I live in the most segregated city in the country, but it's not a big deal. Water under the bridge.

Here's a question I have about this, since I'm a Tribe fan and have been paying attention to what's going on. I legitimately don't know.

Do the few accurately represent the whole? At what point does the objections and voices of the few count for the whole? What if the majority don't feel the same as the vocal minority, but just aren't as vocal? Does the opinion of vocal minority trump that of the indifferent majority just because it's what we deem as "right?"

I guess I'm playing Devil's Advocate. I KNOW members of the First Nations (Canada) who do not care that their images/history/ideology are used as school/team mascots. I have a friend who married into a First Nation family in Ontario, and another who is a biological FN Member in BC. This is something we've talked about years ago. My own great-grandmother is a full blooded Shawnee (Kentucky) woman. My Grandma's opinion is that the vocal minority of her mother's clan do it for attention. My grandma is a die-hard Indians fan, and told me once when I was a kid that she would shun all of major league baseball if they took away Chief Wahoo. (Granted, I have no idea what great-grandma's thoughts would be on the matter).

While I would be sentimentally sad if Cleveland did away with the "Indians" and renamed them something else, I would understand.

I always thought "The Eries" would be a cool team name. But Erie was a tribe of Indians themselves... so I suppose that wouldn't work, even though the lake shares the name?

Which brings me to a new thought, though it's extreme. Does that mean businesses that are named for Native tribes should change their name? What about cities and geological features? If they have Native based names that the Native people themselves didn't designate, should they be changed? Should Miami Valley Plumbing change its name? Miami University? Cuyahoga Valley National Park? What about the Chillicothe Paints baseball team? (The Paint is a breed of horse that is commonly associated with Natives)? Tecumseh Serveying? Is the naming of a place or business acceptable, the line is crossed only when it's depicted as a mascot?

Just thinking aloud at this point.

I like this sentiment.

The Frackers is only offensive to Battlestar Gallactica sensitive. ;)

I should put a disclaimer to my above post before I'm attacked, yes I realize my first hand experience with people who aren't offended by the use of Native based mascots do not stand for everyone and that they skew my view.

IrishLakes, I couldn't imagine any of those things being offensive to anyone. But 50 years ago, I doubt there was any but a small minority of natives who thought Oklahoma's Little Red was offensive (I know no Indians who wouldn't fully support a return of Little Red). So really, yes, the towns of Tecumseh and Shawnee and Arapaho and many of our Oklahoma counties and indeed our state might have to change our names lest we be accused of cultural appropriation.

I am surprised that apparently even "Warriors" is now deemed culturally insensitive: New Houston ISD Mascots

Who said it is "a few"?

Even if it was "a few," racial ad ethnic groups (including whites) don't have to prove their offense. They don't have to form a team to prove they have a numerical value of offense in order for it to be deemed worthy.

Within-group, yes, people can debate whether something is truly offensive. Across-group, no, members of another group don't need to "sign off" on something in order for something to be deemed "truly offensive".

Marquette became Golden Eagles due to this "problem". They were Warriors.

Sidenote: That 70's Show tv program used the name Marquette Golden Eagles even though Marquette did not change their mascot name until 1994.

Actually, I'm totally over the anti-Irish sentiment in the U.S. and the basic genocide perpetrated upon my people by England. My Germanic and Frankish ancestors are certainly over the servile conditions we lived under with serfdom. Life is good. It's water under the bridge.

There are a few natives alive (not many) with a real axe to grind when their culture and language were denied to them by the Indian schools. Those were done away with some tim ago, however, and I doubt there are many, if any natives who would trade their current way of life an aboriginal one.

[/quote]I'll remember that everyday since I live in the most segregated city in the country, but it's not a big deal. Water under the bridge.[/QUOTE]

It's 2014. Move if you don't like it.