Home (Post) Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Sunday, November 12, 2006

A moral question

Cross-posted from Rob B. at fileitunder.com:

Consider this: The NCAA, in an effort to be PC has declared that schools that have Indian mascots should change their names because it could be considered harmful, or wrong to native Americans.

*snip*

My question is, does the NCAA have the right to mandate what is acceptable in a schools name over the quasi-judgment over what “might be” offensive to native Americans?

Read the rest.

Comments

I’ve said it before on this blog. To have a team named “The Fighting Sioux” would seem to honor the Sioux, not insult them.

I could understand someone taking umbrage if the name were “The Chicken Sioux” or “The Girly-Men Sioux” or “The Too Fat To Fight Sioux” or the “If You Hit Me I’ll Sue Sioux”. That could be a problem. But, “The Fighting Sioux?”
How can that be insulting?

If MIT had a team would it be all right to call them the “MIT Fighting Lab Rats?”

Just asking.


Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Pilgrim on November 12, 2006 at 09:05 pm

All the NCAA is looking at is that a couple of Sioux tribes say that with the nickname, the opposing temas make fun of the name and that they don’t want anybody using their tribe’s name.  Why don’t they talk to the sioux tribes that want the nickname to stay?

bak72 on November 12, 2006 at 09:11 pm

the opposing temas make fun of the name

Some more proposed alternate names:

“The Let’s Talk This Over Sioux”
“The John Kerry “I Was For Fighting Before I Was Against It Sioux”
“The I’ll give you SUCH A Pinch Sioux”

Seriously....this whole political correctness bullshit has gotten completely out of hand. The Sioux were a horse culture warrior society. There is absolutely no reason for them to be sensitive about a name like “The Fighting Sioux”. In fact, I’d wager that the majority of them aren’t.

The beef with this probably came from some Gladys Kravitz little busy-body who just decided that they would stick their face in the issue and speak for everyone in this matter.


Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Pilgrim on November 12, 2006 at 09:26 pm

My question is, does the NCAA have the right to mandate what is acceptable in a schools name over the quasi-judgment over what “might be” offensive to native Americans?

They absolutely do, and if the schools don’t like it, they can join another league. (This is probably for the best. I hate the NCAA, and would love to see a new league for college athletics.)

Colleges willingly decide to join the NCAA, as they believe it will make them more money. By joining it they are agreeing to abide by the NCAA’s rules.

The NCAA makes the schools that decide to join follow (let’s say) exactly 2 rules: 1) You cannot name your team after an Indian tribe, and 2) The free throw line must be 15 feet away from the center of the basket.

If Duke wanted to move the free throw line up to 10 feet, would you be on their side? Because that’s what UND is doing here: they don’t like the rules of their organization, so they’ve decided to bitch about it. Very mature.

If you really want to stick it to the NCAA, quit it and form your own association of college athletics--and let your colleges use whatever mascots they wish. Don’t pray for activist judges.

Dave_Comet on November 12, 2006 at 09:50 pm

I’ll cross post my comment from FIU.

“For that matter, why stop with the Indian names? Shouldn’t we ban the “fighting Irish” or “The USC trojans” or the Purdue “Boilermakers.” I’m sure some Utahn hates the “demon deacons” or the “Blue Devils.” Where does the identity specialization end? Who has the final say?”

The potential slippery slope that this argument endangers itself to puts me in the same camp as Rob B. on this issue.

In Oklahoma, the term “Sooner” was used to describe somebody who illegally settled on land during the Oklahoma Land Run of 1889. You could make the argument that it carries a negative conotation and thus should be banned.

And just for the record, I’m a die-hard Sooner fan whose using this for illustrative purposes only.

Personally, I think the NCAA has bigger fish to fry than this.

Brandon on November 13, 2006 at 07:38 am
Rob
Rob
18558 comments
Send a private message

Personally, as someone of Scandinavian descent, I’m offended by the Vikings mascot.  I’m tired of my ancestry being depicted as a bunch of raping, pillaging, pirating barbarians.

I now expect that the NFL will force the Minnesota Vikings to spend millions of dollars changing their name, logos and merchandise to satisfy my outrage.

/moron

By the way, ignore Dave who apparently doesn’t understand the nuances of anti-trust litigation.  Which isn’t surprising, given that he doesn’t understand the difference between humans and animals too.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on November 13, 2006 at 08:05 am

The NCAA does not have a right to tell us how to run our athletic department. 

Their duty is to provide for the best competition possible.

This is as ridiculous as the NCAA telling the schools what they may serve in their cafeterias.  Oh wait, Dave would like that.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on November 13, 2006 at 08:19 am

This is as ridiculous as the NCAA telling the schools what they may serve in their cafeterias.

Does this have anything to do with athletics?

If UND named themselves the Motherfucking Warmongering Kikes, it’s still your position that the NCAA shouldn’t do anything to stop them, right? Because--in Bizarro World--an organization has absolutely no control over what any of its members do.

Dave_Comet on November 13, 2006 at 09:46 am

Actually, the NCAA didn’t “tell” any school they ahd to change thir nickname.  What they did was tell them that any school with an offensive nickname will not be eligible to participate in road playoff games or host post-season play.  It’s the money off those gates and television contracts that the NCAA controls that gives them the leverage.


"Although I can accept talking scarecrows, lions and great wizards in emerald cities, I find it hard to believe there is no paperwork involved when your house lands on a witch.”
- Dave James

Steve L. on November 13, 2006 at 11:21 am

Now we can see what racist ideas Dave has.  Why should we take him seriously.

Steve, the NCAA’s decree was a bit weaker than what you said.  We could compete if we referred to ourselves as North Dakota “something elses”.  (the UND athletic department is developing an alternative name “Force of the North” as a fallback position).

You also can’t display the Sioux name or logo if you host a home playoff game.  In the city owned Alerus center where the football team plays we could do it.  It’d be hard to host a hockey or basketball game in the fabulous Ralph Englestad Arena as there’s 4000+ logos built into the center.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on November 13, 2006 at 11:28 am

Whistler: Your feigned outrage constituted, among other things, a very lame question-dodge. Try again. Can the NCAA tell the UND Warmongering Kikes to change their name?

Dave_Comet on November 13, 2006 at 11:36 am
Rob
Rob
18558 comments
Send a private message

Can the NCAA tell the UND Warmongering Kikes to change their name?

Not after the NCAA has already allowed said “Warmongering Kikes” into the league for several years.

Did you know that an employer cannot fire an employee for something he/she did before employment?  Say you hire a guy to drive a truck for you.  Six months into the employment you discover that six years earlier he was arrested and convicted for assault.  Can you now fire him?  No.  Because “buyer beware.” You purchased his services.  If you weren’t diligent in learning everything about him before you hired him you’re stuck.

Now I’m not entirely certain I agree with that particular labor law, but this is the same sort of thinking I apply to the UND/NCAA situation.  UND has participated in NCAA events as the “Fighting Sioux” for decades.  Why does the NCAA now get to suddenly and arbitrarily change the rules?

It is an unfair business practice, though I don’t expect you to comprehend that Davey.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on November 13, 2006 at 11:42 am

Dave, you’re comparing apples to hand grenades.  I find it interesting that you choose to use a racist slur to make your point.

As Rob said they gave up their right to call the Sioux name offensive since they accepted it for 70-80 years.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on November 13, 2006 at 11:47 am
Rob
Rob
18558 comments
Send a private message

I should clarify my comment above a bit.  An employer can fire an employee based on something he/she did prior to employment, but it’s not a “with cause” termination.

You can always refuse to hire someone based on something they’ve done in the past (like a crime, etc.).


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on November 13, 2006 at 11:48 am

A lot of terms we once considered acceptable are no longer--"negro", for example. But if the NCAA accepted it once, they can never, ever change their mind? Says who? What if they’ll make more money by having a school change their mascot?

Dave_Comet on November 13, 2006 at 12:05 pm

And… got it. A school that used a swastika as its mascot before the rise of the Nazis. There was nothing offensive about a swastika in 1910, so the NCAA would have no reason to ask the school to change it. Now, of course, a swastika is very offensive. But you’re still maintaining that the NCAA couldn’t force one of its members to change it? If I were the NCAA, I’d just kick those schools out of my league.

Dave_Comet on November 13, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Rob
Rob
18558 comments
Send a private message

Nice strawman, Dave.  UND doesn’t have a swastika for a logo, it has Sioux warrior.

You can’t win arguments by setting up absurd examples and then attacking them.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on November 13, 2006 at 12:13 pm

Rob: You were the one who said that if the NCAA accepted a logo in the past it could never change its mind. I’m seeing if you’re consistent.

BTW, you aren’t.

Dave_Comet on November 13, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Rob
Rob
18558 comments
Send a private message

Dave, you can’t compare two situations that are different.

The Sioux logo is not equivalent to the swastika.

And I am being consistent.  Consider my employee/employer example.

If I hire someone who was found guilty of assault before I employed him I cannot justly fire him/her after I’ve already hired them.  Now, if I hire them and the commit assault while in my employ, I can with cause.

The way that translates into this situation is that nothing changed about the Sioux nickname.  No world events have made it more or less offensive.  The only thing that has changed is the NCAA’s mind.

So I am perfectly consistent.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on November 13, 2006 at 12:40 pm

And… got it. A school that used a swastika as its mascot before the rise of the Nazis.

If a school had used a Swastika they likely would have changed it when it became offensive.

Such a thing never happened in the instance of the Sioux.  Dave just can’t stick to the argument, has to make up wild things for us to defend.

Interesting sideline is that there’s an old apartment building in town that had flooring done with a Swastika.  Of course there’s nothing offensive about it as it never represented the Nazi’s when it was built or anytime since.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on November 13, 2006 at 01:36 pm

If a school had used a Swastika they likely would have changed it when it became offensive.

But if they didn’t, you’re saying the NCAA couldn’t make them. The NCAA would be coerced--yes, this is coercion--into supporting a nickname (financially and otherwise) that they find offensive.

If sports leagues (like the NCAA) can’t regulate the actions of their teams, then why do they exist?

UND should simply join a new league if they don’t want to follow the rules. This is an easy solution. This is like bitching about your workplace’s dresscode. Deal with it, or work for someone else.

Dave_Comet on November 13, 2006 at 07:47 pm

Rob B writes:

The NCAA, in an effort to be PC has declared that schools that have Indian mascots should change their names

What makes him say it’s in an effort to “be PC”? I think it’s in an effort to increase profits.
Dave_Comet on November 14, 2006 at 06:21 am

The University of North Dakota pre-dates the formation of the NCAA.  The lack of any type of grandfather clause to this ridiculous rule also adds to the frustration.


Fileitunder.com

Hoodlumman on November 14, 2006 at 09:31 am

Why’d the UND agree to join the NCAA if not to agree to follow their rules?

Dave_Comet on November 14, 2006 at 09:38 am
Avatar for Rob B.

Probably because they wanted to get in that first league with the “warmongering kikes.” You know, the ones that had swastikas as their logo but it was taken so they switched to the Fighting Sioux and just went with that new fangled NCAA.

Rob B. on November 14, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses. Confirm your email address here.