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

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

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?

This is as relevant as if I told an Asian person "I don't know what you're angry about! I know a bunch of Asians and they laugh at my 'slanted eye' jokes."

Does it matter that 100% of the population doesn't agree since everyone has different brains and not everyone attends the weekly (insert racial group) meeting? No.

Outsiders cannot tell insiders whether something is offensive to some insiders.

[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 IrishLake

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.

Just curious about opinions on this... I don't want it to get lost.

Contrary to my Grandma's feelings, if the Cleveland Indians did away with Chief Wahoo, I would be okay with that. I can understand the sensitivity to the logo. I wonder if the organization did away with the logo and truly embraced the honor intended by the team name if that would make more or all parties satisfied.

[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.

[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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by 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.

Climates didn't necessarily change. We're talking about organized groups deeming things offensive. It's not as if all of the Sioux Tribes got together and had some sort of discussion and decided they all should condemn this name. Nope. Just a few "concerned citizens" and years and years of tradition are out the window.

[ASTalumna06]

Ironically, I JUST saw this story on the news, then found it online:

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...ns-5403772.php

The Houston school district announced new names Tuesday for four school mascots with Native American or historically insensitive ties, noting that the costs of the switch could exceed $250,000.

The Lamar High School Redskins will become the Texans. The Welch Middle School Warriors will become the Wolf Pack. The Huskies will replace the Westbury High Rebels and the Hamilton Middle School Indians.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Climates didn't necessarily change.

Yes, they did.

Originally Posted by Kevin

We're talking about organized groups deeming things offensive.

And?

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's not as if all of the Sioux Tribes got together and had some sort of discussion and decided they all should condemn this name.

You are repeating what I said.

I don't expect white people to have a monthly meeting in which they reach a consensus. Why do many white people expect nonwhites to have monthly meetings and consensus in order for a concern to be deemed valid? Rhetorical question.

[KDCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Climates didn't necessarily change. We're talking about organized groups deeming things offensive. It's not as if all of the Sioux Tribes got together and had some sort of discussion and decided they all should condemn this name. Nope. Just a few "concerned citizens" and years and years of tradition are out the window.

You are aware that there are Lakota, Dakota and Yanktoni Sioux in ND who have weighed in on this, aren't you? If the Standing Rock Sioux tribal council approved the use of the UND Sioux mascot, the NCAA would have granted UND a waiver. They didn't. Clearly the Standing Rock Sioux don't like it.

When a group of people say "We don't like the way you are using our name" then the polite thing to do is to stop.

The voters of ND agree. UND's mascot was subject to a ballot initiative. The voters of North Dakota voted it out. It wasn't a few concerned citizens. It was a majority (67%) of voters.

I don't like the way Notre Dame uses the Fighting Irish, but it's not really the same. Irish Americans don't have the poverty rates and general dispossession that Native Americans have faced. Irish Americans are currently integrated as fully white and enjoy the privileges that go with being white in America. Meanwhile, Pine Ridge is the poorest place in the US. It's just not the same.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by KDCat

I don't like the way Notre Dame uses the Fighting Irish, but it's not really the same. Irish Americans don't have the poverty rates and general dispossession that Native Americans have faced. It's just not the same.

Like MC said, the Irish themselves created that as a big F.U. to everyone. THAT'S why it's ok. It's not ok because the Irish were less oppressed. I'm sure there are still Irish people who even knowing that don't like it.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Like MC said, the Irish themselves created that as a big F.U. to everyone. THAT'S why it's ok.

Right. It's one thing if schools and student bodies choose a nickname and mascot that reflects their own heritage—say, the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame; the Fighting Scots of Edinboro U, Monmouth College or the College of Wooster; or the Terrible Swedes of Bethany College. It's another thing when they appropriate someone else's heritage—especially when they've already appropriated just about everything else once belonging to that particular someone else.