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

[DubaiSis]

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?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

Oh yay, the Oppression Game. Always fun.

[pshsx1]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

[IrishLake]

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.

[IrishLake]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

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?

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[thetalady]

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

[DrPhil]

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".

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by thetalady

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

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by pshsx1

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?

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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".

Just as much as across-group individuals and groups can deem other groups to be a bunch of whiners who they don't have to pay attention to.

[IrishLake]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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".

My thoughts of "a few" are base solely on my experiences and conversations of those who know first hand in their own home environments that the offensive stance is owned by "a few." So if one culture deems it offensive, and another culture says it's not, the first has more valid feelings? Who is right? Which Nation should the mascot's organization honor? Spare the feelings of one, shun the feelings of the other?

[DrPhil]

It has historically been less difficult for assimilated white ethnicities to "get over it" but don't tell that to ethnically Jewish whites in the U.S. and abroad. Shhhhhhhhhh....

Schools and teams that chose people/groups mascots generations ago SHOULD rethink that when "climates" change. What was considered appropriate 50+ years ago is often no longer appropriate. If idiots can't handle that, select an animal or other nonhuman as a mascot.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Just as much as across-group individuals and groups can deem other groups to be a bunch of whiners who they don't have to pay attention to.

And those groups can tell your cluelessly insensitive ass to fuck off because they don't give a damn about your outsider opinion.

[maconmagnolia]

Originally Posted by Low D Flat

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 agree completely. I think that the sorority (and all of the university's students) has a right to discuss the issue and protest it if that is what they want to do.