That is funny...as long as she wasn't driving. From what I am gathering she was caught by rival Cal doing this during the game? My only question is, why didn't she hide the flask in her leaves?
maybe not everyone at stanford is that bright?? Sometimes they have all the book smarts but not so many street smarts.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
So if I had a team called the Ayn Rand's, and I had Ayn Rand toilet paper where I wiped shit on her face you'd be cool with that?
What do you mean "cool"? I'd think you were ridiculous and silly, but I wouldn't try to stop you. Neither would Ayn Rand, for that matter.
Actually you probably wouldn't have a problem with it b/c there are positive depictions of Ayn Rand in popular and general culture, so you had alternatives to go to.
Hehe...there aren't too many positive depictions of Ayn Rand in popular and general culture either.
Native American's simply don't have those alternatives, or very few anyway. Secondly, I'm not saying people are going to stop committing suicide in that community just because racist mascots are disbanded, I'm just saying that by removing these false and negative depictions of their culture we can create alternative, and more positive forms than we have now...which could then help change the culture.
Anyway, you're argument style is always the same, you see something you disagree with then simplify and stupidify the argument b/c you don't like it. In addition to just being wrong, you also frustrate people like me who actually take time and put thought into their posts. You aren't open to alternative views, and just cause fights. Conversely, I just had a great PM/Email convo with chopitdown, b/c even though he disagrees with me, and probably will continue to, at least is taking the time to read some of the evidence I've used to shape my opinion on Native American Mascots...to me that's respectable, and respectful disagreement - which is the aim of this board.
I'm always open to alternative views! What you meant to say is that I'm not convinced of your views, and I'm not going to find value in something just because it's "alternative". Nor am I going to be convinced by people who misrepresent their interests or attempt to mimc ideologies I don't have.
I'm sorry if this conversation wasn't to your liking, and I'm glad to here you've found satisfactory exchanges elsewhere.
no you cant. if you think chief illiniwek is offensive and/or abusive than you know nothing of the matter. end of story.
as i said to another poster, ryan 198 has explained to me in a PM about his knowledge on the matter. if you read this thread and the other one i cited, you will see that i know what i am talking about as well. once you educate yourself about the whole issue of the use of native american tribe names and offensive mascots, then you will also know something of this matter. it is not only this case that offends, demeans, and belittles those of us who are native and have native heritage. there are things that are sacred to us that have been taken away and used by others and that is wrong.
maybe not everyone at stanford is that bright?? Sometimes they have all the book smarts but not so many street smarts.
...
Some people believe that the Stanford Tree represents tres in a bad light... I believe trees act like this when we're not looking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeO7jvvTLg0
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I'd like to know if you think the Florida State Seminole is offensive or abusive? Because the NCAA doesnt.
In the case of Flordia State they actually went to a tribe of Seminoles in Florida which took a huge payday to alllow the continued usage of the mascot at FSU. Seminoles in Oklahoma hate the mascot, and have a deragatory name for the Seminoles of Florida. Surely, you can see that the depiction of Seminoles as warlike, and primitive, as in the pre-game flame toss is problematic. Particularly for a tribe that was never war-like, and, I believe, was one of the few surviving tribes that made it through the Trail of Tears. So yes, I do find FSU to be offensive and abusive, however the NCAA got permission from the Seminole tribe (however shady the deal was to secure the permission) so I can't really argue against it.
UofI, on the other hand, has no leg to stand on. They can't get permission because the Illinis have been eradicated. Moreover, nothing they use represents Illinis, it's all hollywood, make up, and FALSE.
as i said to another poster, ryan 198 has explained to me in a PM about his knowledge on the matter. if you read this thread and the other one i cited, you will see that i know what i am talking about as well. once you educate yourself about the whole issue of the use of native american tribe names and offensive mascots, then you will also know something of this matter. it is not only this case that offends, demeans, and belittles those of us who are native and have native heritage. there are things that are sacred to us that have been taken away and used by others and that is wrong.
Ok well the Seminole tribe gets paid millions of dollars by Florida State University to use their mascot. There is no more Illini tribe anymore for Illinois to pay. The Illini tribe has been extinct for years. They were killed off by another tribe with no white involvement. That claim is disputed but either way, I dont see how its offensive. If it was so offensive then the Seminole's wouldn't except money for it, they would want it banned. Its all about greed.
In the case of Flordia State they actually went to a tribe of Seminoles in Florida which took a huge payday to alllow the continued usage of the mascot at FSU. Seminoles in Oklahoma hate the mascot, and have a deragatory name for the Seminoles of Florida. Surely, you can see that the depiction of Seminoles as warlike, and primitive, as in the pre-game flame toss is problematic. Particularly for a tribe that was never war-like, and, I believe, was one of the few surviving tribes that made it through the Trail of Tears. So yes, I do find FSU to be offensive and abusive, however the NCAA got permission from the Seminole tribe (however shady the deal was to secure the permission) so I can't really argue against it.
UofI, on the other hand, has no leg to stand on. They can't get permission because the Illinis have been eradicated. Moreover, nothing they use represents Illinis, it's all hollywood, make up, and FALSE.
I see that, but then why is the name allowed to stay? If everything about it is fake and offensive, then why wouldn't they want to completely dissolve their affiliation with the university?
Ok well the Seminole tribe gets paid millions of dollars by Florida State University to use their mascot. There is no more Illini tribe anymore for Illinois to pay. The Illini tribe has been extinct for years. They were killed off by another tribe with no white involvement. That claim is disputed but either way, I dont see how its offensive. If it was so offensive then the Seminole's wouldn't except money for it, they would want it banned. Its all about greed.
in some cases it's about need. in others it's about corruption.
in some cases it's about need. in others it's about corruption.
ryan 198 explained it quite well above.
SI did an extensive story in the last three years in which they polled Native Americans who live in the general community as well as Native Americans who live on reservation lands. A significant majority of Native Americans in who were polled had no problem with the use of Native American mascots in sports. The only negative was the use of Redskins by the NFL team.
Also, the whole idea is to honor the chief and the tribe, not belittle it. When Chief Illiniwek does his dance, its not for people to poke fun at it, its for people to honor the tradition of the state of Illinois' past.
Edit: Also here's a quote from an NCAA official: "We not only have the right but also the obligation to ensure our NCAA championships are conducted in an atmosphere free of racial stereotyping[b/] and one in which all of our student athletes, athletic staff and fans feel comfortable."
So what about Fighting Irish, Seminoles (even though they are being paid, its still stereotyping), Fighting Sioux, etc. Its all hypocrisy.
Farfrom, all you've said is that you disagree with what I've posted...that's it. I've gone back through every post on this thread, and have noticed that you've never actually posted any evidence to support your opinion. Why is that? You say that you don't think that changing Native American mascots are going to do anything, but what sorts of research do you have that would support your opinion? Is this just your opinion, and that all you're offering me? I really want to know, because you have said that you are all for morally righteous exchanges of goods and money, and I feel as if I've presented some good arguments why disbanding Native American mascots would fit into your ideals. Somehow, of all people, you are resting on a belief in tradition, which makes no sense to me given that the tradition is steeped in falsity. Again your arguing style doesn't change, it's just arguing for arguing sake. Try presenting some evidence to support your opinion next time, rather than just stirring the pot with inane banter that makes you seem smarter than you really are.
I see that, but then why is the name allowed to stay? If everything about it is fake and offensive, then why wouldn't they want to completely dissolve their affiliation with the university?
Ok think of it this way...in New Orleans Tom Benson, a billionaire, got 500 million tax dollars to rebuild the superdome, while millions remain homeless. The people of New Orleans didn't balk because they knew they weren't getting shit no matter what, so why not take the Saints back if they weren't gonna get anything anyway. The same mindset works with the Seminoles. They know it's wrong ideologically, but if they refused, history has shown that US governing bodies could care less. So why not sell out?
Also I have read the S.L. Price Article in SI. Later that year another, peer reviewed article, came out which refuted his study. SI wouldn't take it, and neither would the New York Times. Not because it wasn't valid, but because it had the audacity to point out the obvious falsities in Price's article.
Farfrom, all you've said is that you disagree with what I've posted...that's it. I've gone back through every post on this thread, and have noticed that you've never actually posted any evidence to support your opinion. Why is that? You say that you don't think that changing Native American mascots are going to do anything, but what sorts of research do you have that would support your opinion? Is this just your opinion, and that all you're offering me? I really want to know, because you have said that you are all for morally righteous exchanges of goods and money, and I feel as if I've presented some good arguments why disbanding Native American mascots would fit into your ideals. Somehow, of all people, you are resting on a belief in tradition, which makes no sense to me given that the tradition is steeped in falsity. Again your arguing style doesn't change, it's just arguing for arguing sake. Try presenting some evidence to support your opinion next time, rather than just stirring the pot with inane banter that makes you seem smarter than you really are.
wheres your research? and who exactly did you poll? so sports illustrated isn't enough for you?
SI did an extensive story in the last three years in which they polled Native Americans who live in the general community as well as Native Americans who live on reservation lands. A significant majority of Native Americans in who were polled had no problem with the use of Native American mascots in sports. The only negative was the use of Redskins by the NFL team.
Also, the whole idea is to honor the chief and the tribe, not belittle it. When Chief Illiniwek does his dance, its not for people to poke fun at it, its for people to honor the tradition of the state of Illinois' past.
Edit: Also here's a quote from an NCAA official: "We not only have the right but also the obligation to ensure our NCAA championships are conducted in an atmosphere free of racial stereotyping[b/] and one in which all of our student athletes, athletic staff and fans feel comfortable."
So what about Fighting Irish, Seminoles (even though they are being paid, its still stereotyping), Fighting Sioux, etc. Its all hypocrisy.
You got it...so just b/c it's hipocracy we should not point it out?
Farfrom, all you've said is that you disagree with what I've posted...that's it. I've gone back through every post on this thread, and have noticed that you've never actually posted any evidence to support your opinion. Why is that?
Because my opinions are moral and philosophical. The evidence is my reasoning. If that's insufficient for you, please let me know what specific statements you'd like to see backed up further.
You say that you don't think that changing Native American mascots are going to do anything, but what sorts of research do you have that would support your opinion?
The host of teams that have already changed their names and mascots, with no known effects on racism or the positions of Native Americans within their sphere of influence, for one.
Is this just your opinion, and that all you're offering me? I really want to know, because you have said that you are all for morally righteous exchanges of goods and money, and I feel as if I've presented some good arguments why disbanding Native American mascots would fit into your ideals.
I am for morally righteous exchanges of goods and money. Free speech and free expression are key moral issues.
Somehow, of all people, you are resting on a belief in tradition, which makes no sense to me given that the tradition is steeped in falsity.
I'm not resting my belief on tradition. I'm resting my belief on freedom of expression. The only reason I mentioned tradition is in reply to you or someone else here who wanted to portray support for these nicknames as primarily racist, as opposed to simply primarily traditional.
Again your arguing style doesn't change, it's just arguing for arguing sake. Try presenting some evidence to support your opinion next time, rather than just stirring the pot with inane banter that makes you seem smarter than you really are.
Hehe...since all you have to go on is my "inane banter", how would know whether or not I'm smarter or less smart than it?
the original reason, in most of these cases that native heritage, custom and people have been turned into mascots is not to honour them, but to appease the predominantly white population's guilt for the degrading acts of their ancestors so that they may sleep well at night. it's also a way of holding a sense of "power" over a people. fifty years ago, what rights did native people have? do you think they would have been able to stand up and say that they disagreed?
having a person or people live on in a statue, a memorial, or a town name is one thing, but to have them "live on" in the form of a mascot is degrading. there is no place for native heritage as entertainment at halftime, as someone (usually white) dressed up in traditional garb and dancing on the sidelines, or as a symbol for a sports team.
some information on the hearings...you can click on the people to hear their statements...notice no native people were asked to speak, and only the african american speaker from the NCAA spoke out against the use of the native heritage in the hearing. the white student who used to "play" the chief was misleading in his statement.
December 15, 2006
They called it a "congressional field hearing" to examine Tim Johnson's and disgraced House Speaker Dennis Hastert's “Protection of University Governance Act of 2006” (HR 5289). It ended up being a stacked Republican attempt to shame the NCAA for pushing us closer to ending the use of a racist mascot at UIUC.
However, Bernard Franklin of the NCAA held his ground and received support from Professor Steven Kaufman and Democratic congressman, Danny K Davis (IL). Not one American Indian was present as an official witness despite ample representation available at UIUC's Native American House and American Indian Studies program. (See the below interview of Professor Debbie Reese for more on this subject).
The hearing was heavily policed and no one was allowed entrance who openly wore t-shirts with anti-racism messages. Police at the entrance made people remove their shirts or turn them inside-out - while crowd members with mascot emblems and "chief" written on their shirts passed right through with open arms.
This attempt to silence dissent was reinforced by Republican Chairman of the committee, Howard McKeon (CA) when he began the session by saying, "We will not have any response from the audience.. Please if you would just not respond to anything that is being said."
Chapin Rose (R)
Illinois State Representative
Mahomet, IL
"What is it that leads to the audacity of a quasi institution like the NCAA to ignore a resolution of one of the largest states in the nation? I think the answer is simple. As we would say down here in Southern Illinois, the NCAA has gotten too big for it's britches"
Bernard Franklin
Senior Vice President for Governance, Membership, Education, and Research Services
National Collegiate Athletic Association
Washington, DC
"The NCAA policy is fairly simple and straightforward. It was designed to align the core principles of cultural diversity, civility, respect and nondiscrimination with the practice of creating an educational environment at NCAA championship events. Its primary purpose is to maintain NCAA championships as an environment that promotes an atmosphere of respect for, and sensitivity to, the dignity of every person. These are core issues memorialized by the membership in the NCAA constitution that clearly are to be addressed and protected by execution of the duties of the Executive Committee."
Howard Wakeland
President
Honor the "chief" Society
Urbana, IL
"This Congressional hearing is not about "Chief" illiiniwek at the University of Illinois nor Indian imagery found in intercollegiate sports. This is about actions of a powerful private de facto monopolistic organization which controls most aspects of US intercollegiate sports activity. This is about an organization which by-in-large has provided strong positive leadership and control for intercollegiate athletics. This is about how this powerful organization has undertaken a Political Correctness initiative illegally, as defined by their own constitution, and by the terms of the contract they have with their institutional members."
Dr. Stephen Kaufman
Professor
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
"The University of Illinois Board of Trustees has claimed sole authority over the mascot issue, yet they refuse to engage in meaningful discussion and they have silenced the university's administration from speaking out. Likewise, coaches and student athletes have been silenced, and former chancellor Michael Aiken issued a directive prohibiting anyone in the university from informing potential student athletes about the mascot issue."
Brent Holmes
Attorney
Mattoon, IL
"Many Illinoisians with Native American blood have publicly stated that they are honored by the University of Illinois' symbol, "chief" illiniwek, which represents the loftiest principles of the human spirit-loyalty, wisdom, courage, strength, leadership, bravery and dignity."
John Madigan
Former "chief" illiniwek
St. Louis, MO
"To associate "chief" illiniwek with the terms "hostile and abusive" is incredibly appalling to me. As a major part of my role as "chief" illiniwek, I formally spoke and presented to thousands of people in hundreds of different civic groups and schools regarding the role and what it meant and symbolized to the University of Illinois."
from later interviews after the hearing...
Danny Davis
Congressman, IL
"I am somewhat amazed and disappointed that in the land of Lincoln, the home of our great president, Abraham, that the trustees of this great institution have not seen fit to eliminate as a mascot a name that is offensive to some people in our country ... especially to Native Americans who were in fact the first citizens that we know about in this country."
Debbie Reese Nambe-Pueblo
Professor
American Indian Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
"Neither Madigan or Johnson or Chapin Rose, any of the pro-"chief" people on that panel have ever - ever gotten in touch with me or come over to the Native American House, Native Studies program, nada."
Brenda Farnell
Professor
Anthropology
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
"I am very alarmed at the level of both mis-information and lack of information that the members of the inquiry displayed. They haven't done their homework. They misrepresented the lack of participation of the Peoria Tribe and tried to pretend that there was involvement from the Native point of view and there was none. And that's unforgivable."
The host of teams that have already changed their names and mascots, with no known effects on racism or the positions of Native Americans within their sphere of influence, for one.
I am for morally righteous exchanges of goods and money. Free speech and free expression are key moral issues.
For your first comment, what peer reviewed study do you have that shows this?
For your second comment, do you have anything for freedom from oppression or is it ok to use free speech to state/create false impressions of groups of individuals? For instance the term "Redskin" has been deemed offensive, and has prevented the Washington Redskins from securing a patent on their logo...are you against this? I actually think you might be.
so your saying if there was an Illini confederation currently who U of I could pay off, it would be ok if it stayed?
You cut down my argument to this one statement. The rest of my argument which provided the context for this statement was that if you aren't getting anything out of it why not sell out? I state above this that it was offensive and abusive, but if nothing was going to be done about it which has historically been the case, then what choice did they have? Because as I see it they had these two choices:
A. Get money, and be misrepresented
B. Get no money, and be misrepresented
For your first comment, what peer reviewed study do you have that shows this?
For your second comment, do you have anything for freedom from oppression or is it ok to use free speech to state/create false impressions of groups of individuals? For instance the term "Redskin" has been deemed offensive, and has prevented the Washington Redskins from securing a patent on their logo...are you against this? I actually think you might be.
You're pretty obsessed with your "peer reviewed" research, which you still have yet to link for me.
As a corollary, I have been made aware of many independant polls of Native Americans who don't find it offensive or abusive. And, most students at the U of I, by a 2:1 margin, are in favor of keeping the chief and see no harm in it. Does that mean that 2/3 of the fan base of Illinois is insensitive and abusive toward Natives?
For your first comment, what peer reviewed study do you have that shows this?
The point is that there is no study that reflects any change. Look, the burden of proof is on the people who want others to change. And when they justify the changes based on their projections of "bettering" Native American lives, they need to prove a) how those lives will actually get better and b) if and when those changes happen, that their contentions were correct.
For your second comment, do you have anything for freedom from oppression or is it ok to use free speech to state/create false impressions of groups of individuals?
Freedom from oppression is very much a moral issue. However, when others use free speech to create false impression of groups of individuals as you did when you referred to UofI fans as racists, the only person being oppressed is the speaker, by their own ignorance.
People who actively oppress others, as do some racist fans of these teams and others, are certainly immoral and deserve punishment. But I have a hard time blaming mascots for those issues as opposed to the actual perpetuators.
There's a reason why the statement is "take offense", rather than "give offense". If you're offended by mascots, that's entirely your right and it's your right to speak out about your offense. However, please do not pretend that it doesn't take two to tango in that exchange.
For instance the term "Redskin" has been deemed offensive, and has prevented the Washington Redskins from securing a patent on their logo...are you against this? I actually think you might be.
Not really, since I'm against patents all together. If whomever happens to be in control of issuing patents today decides that their logo is offensive, they have every right to withhold that patent assuming that it's within their defined rights to do so.
Perhaps you're misunderstanding me. I don't think it's great that teams like UofI or Washington have Native American mascots. If I were running a sports team, I'd much rather stick to the animal kingdom myself. However, I support Washington's right to call themselves the "Redskins", just like I would support Morehouse College's rights to call themselves the "Whities" or your right to call your team the "I hate farfromglorifieds".
seriously, why in the hell would anyone oppose changing the name of this mascot...? I really don't get it...the fact that it can be seen as offensive should be enough...
yeah, yeah, that's PC...but so what...we live in a country that should respect others...
You're pretty obsessed with your "peer reviewed" research, which you still have yet to link for me.
As a corollary, I have been made aware of many independant polls of Native Americans who don't find it offensive or abusive. And, most students at the U of I, by a 2:1 margin, are in favor of keeping the chief and see no harm in it. Does that mean that 2/3 of the fan base of Illinois is insensitive and abusive toward Natives?
I can send you an article through email if you PM me plus I would direct you to the work of Ellen Staurowsky, Lawrence Baca, C. Richard King, all of which is quite easy to find on the internet for more evidence. Evidence which does provide the burden of evidence farfrom is looking for.
seriously, why in the hell would anyone oppose changing the name of this mascot...? I really don't get it...the fact that it can be seen as offensive should be enough...
yeah, yeah, that's PC...but so what...we live in a country that should respect others...
it's not that hard....
or is it...?
it shouldn't be that difficult to respect people. it should be as simple as you say, inmytree.
seriously, why in the hell would anyone oppose changing the name of this mascot...? I really don't get it...the fact that it can be seen as offensive should be enough...
yeah, yeah, that's PC...but so what...we live in a country that should respect others...
it's not that hard....
or is it...?
because its been a tradition for almost 100 years. why should they have to change it when after they change it the lives of the Native Americans still around today WILL BE NO DIFFERENT.
and you bring up the idea of political correctness. PC sucks. im a jew and if you called me a K*ke or any other name i wouldn't get offended. now dont get me wrong, im very respectful of others, have many black friends, hispanic friends, chinese friends, and i NEVER use words such as the N word of the S word or anything like that. And even though I dont, i still think PC is ridiculous. If i call you retarted is that abusive and hostile towards mentally handicapped individuals?
because its been a tradition for almost 100 years. why should they have to change it when after they change it the lives of the Native Americans still around today WILL BE NO DIFFERENT.
and you bring up the idea of political correctness. PC sucks. im a jew and if you called me a K*ke or any other name i wouldn't get offended. now dont get me wrong, im very respectful of others, have many black friends, hispanic friends, chinese friends, and i NEVER use words such as the N word of the S word or anything like that. And even though I dont, i still think PC is ridiculous. If i call you retarted is that abusive and hostile towards mentally handicapped individuals?
tradition...? who gives a shit...? tradition, big deal...
I guess you could say slavery was a tradition...perhaps hitler was establishing a tradition...for some reason, I would think you would disagree...
by the way, nice backdoor "retard" move...feel free to call me what you wish...it's kinda sad that you'd want to call someone who disagreed with you "retarded"....what's that say about you...:rolleyes:
tradition...? who gives a shit...? tradition, big deal...
I guess you could say slavery was a tradition...perhaps hitler was establishing a tradition...for some reason, I would think you would disagree...
by the way, nice backdoor "retard" move...feel free to call me what you wish...it's kinda sad that you'd want to call someone who disagreed with you "retarded"....what's that say about you...:rolleyes:
are you fucking serious? way to read wayyy too much into something. i hadn't even thought of that "backdoor" way to call you a name. jesus relax.
and are you really comparing a halftime show to the institution of slavery? its not even worth debating with you if your going to make that link.
Comments
maybe not everyone at stanford is that bright?? Sometimes they have all the book smarts but not so many street smarts.
What do you mean "cool"? I'd think you were ridiculous and silly, but I wouldn't try to stop you. Neither would Ayn Rand, for that matter.
Hehe...there aren't too many positive depictions of Ayn Rand in popular and general culture either.
I'm always open to alternative views! What you meant to say is that I'm not convinced of your views, and I'm not going to find value in something just because it's "alternative". Nor am I going to be convinced by people who misrepresent their interests or attempt to mimc ideologies I don't have.
I'm sorry if this conversation wasn't to your liking, and I'm glad to here you've found satisfactory exchanges elsewhere.
as i said to another poster, ryan 198 has explained to me in a PM about his knowledge on the matter. if you read this thread and the other one i cited, you will see that i know what i am talking about as well. once you educate yourself about the whole issue of the use of native american tribe names and offensive mascots, then you will also know something of this matter. it is not only this case that offends, demeans, and belittles those of us who are native and have native heritage. there are things that are sacred to us that have been taken away and used by others and that is wrong.
Some people believe that the Stanford Tree represents tres in a bad light... I believe trees act like this when we're not looking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeO7jvvTLg0
Hail, Hail!!!
UofI, on the other hand, has no leg to stand on. They can't get permission because the Illinis have been eradicated. Moreover, nothing they use represents Illinis, it's all hollywood, make up, and FALSE.
in some cases it's about need. in others it's about corruption.
ryan 198 explained it quite well above.
Also, the whole idea is to honor the chief and the tribe, not belittle it. When Chief Illiniwek does his dance, its not for people to poke fun at it, its for people to honor the tradition of the state of Illinois' past.
Edit: Also here's a quote from an NCAA official: "We not only have the right but also the obligation to ensure our NCAA championships are conducted in an atmosphere free of racial stereotyping[b/] and one in which all of our student athletes, athletic staff and fans feel comfortable."
So what about Fighting Irish, Seminoles (even though they are being paid, its still stereotyping), Fighting Sioux, etc. Its all hypocrisy.
Also I have read the S.L. Price Article in SI. Later that year another, peer reviewed article, came out which refuted his study. SI wouldn't take it, and neither would the New York Times. Not because it wasn't valid, but because it had the audacity to point out the obvious falsities in Price's article.
um, ok, miss expert, enlighten us...please...:)
Because my opinions are moral and philosophical. The evidence is my reasoning. If that's insufficient for you, please let me know what specific statements you'd like to see backed up further.
The host of teams that have already changed their names and mascots, with no known effects on racism or the positions of Native Americans within their sphere of influence, for one.
I am for morally righteous exchanges of goods and money. Free speech and free expression are key moral issues.
I'm not resting my belief on tradition. I'm resting my belief on freedom of expression. The only reason I mentioned tradition is in reply to you or someone else here who wanted to portray support for these nicknames as primarily racist, as opposed to simply primarily traditional.
Hehe...since all you have to go on is my "inane banter", how would know whether or not I'm smarter or less smart than it?
having a person or people live on in a statue, a memorial, or a town name is one thing, but to have them "live on" in the form of a mascot is degrading. there is no place for native heritage as entertainment at halftime, as someone (usually white) dressed up in traditional garb and dancing on the sidelines, or as a symbol for a sports team.
some information on the hearings...you can click on the people to hear their statements...notice no native people were asked to speak, and only the african american speaker from the NCAA spoke out against the use of the native heritage in the hearing. the white student who used to "play" the chief was misleading in his statement.
December 15, 2006
They called it a "congressional field hearing" to examine Tim Johnson's and disgraced House Speaker Dennis Hastert's “Protection of University Governance Act of 2006” (HR 5289). It ended up being a stacked Republican attempt to shame the NCAA for pushing us closer to ending the use of a racist mascot at UIUC.
However, Bernard Franklin of the NCAA held his ground and received support from Professor Steven Kaufman and Democratic congressman, Danny K Davis (IL). Not one American Indian was present as an official witness despite ample representation available at UIUC's Native American House and American Indian Studies program. (See the below interview of Professor Debbie Reese for more on this subject).
The hearing was heavily policed and no one was allowed entrance who openly wore t-shirts with anti-racism messages. Police at the entrance made people remove their shirts or turn them inside-out - while crowd members with mascot emblems and "chief" written on their shirts passed right through with open arms.
This attempt to silence dissent was reinforced by Republican Chairman of the committee, Howard McKeon (CA) when he began the session by saying, "We will not have any response from the audience.. Please if you would just not respond to anything that is being said."
Chapin Rose (R)
Illinois State Representative
Mahomet, IL
"What is it that leads to the audacity of a quasi institution like the NCAA to ignore a resolution of one of the largest states in the nation? I think the answer is simple. As we would say down here in Southern Illinois, the NCAA has gotten too big for it's britches"
Bernard Franklin
Senior Vice President for Governance, Membership, Education, and Research Services
National Collegiate Athletic Association
Washington, DC
"The NCAA policy is fairly simple and straightforward. It was designed to align the core principles of cultural diversity, civility, respect and nondiscrimination with the practice of creating an educational environment at NCAA championship events. Its primary purpose is to maintain NCAA championships as an environment that promotes an atmosphere of respect for, and sensitivity to, the dignity of every person. These are core issues memorialized by the membership in the NCAA constitution that clearly are to be addressed and protected by execution of the duties of the Executive Committee."
Howard Wakeland
President
Honor the "chief" Society
Urbana, IL
"This Congressional hearing is not about "Chief" illiiniwek at the University of Illinois nor Indian imagery found in intercollegiate sports. This is about actions of a powerful private de facto monopolistic organization which controls most aspects of US intercollegiate sports activity. This is about an organization which by-in-large has provided strong positive leadership and control for intercollegiate athletics. This is about how this powerful organization has undertaken a Political Correctness initiative illegally, as defined by their own constitution, and by the terms of the contract they have with their institutional members."
Dr. Stephen Kaufman
Professor
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
"The University of Illinois Board of Trustees has claimed sole authority over the mascot issue, yet they refuse to engage in meaningful discussion and they have silenced the university's administration from speaking out. Likewise, coaches and student athletes have been silenced, and former chancellor Michael Aiken issued a directive prohibiting anyone in the university from informing potential student athletes about the mascot issue."
Brent Holmes
Attorney
Mattoon, IL
"Many Illinoisians with Native American blood have publicly stated that they are honored by the University of Illinois' symbol, "chief" illiniwek, which represents the loftiest principles of the human spirit-loyalty, wisdom, courage, strength, leadership, bravery and dignity."
John Madigan
Former "chief" illiniwek
St. Louis, MO
"To associate "chief" illiniwek with the terms "hostile and abusive" is incredibly appalling to me. As a major part of my role as "chief" illiniwek, I formally spoke and presented to thousands of people in hundreds of different civic groups and schools regarding the role and what it meant and symbolized to the University of Illinois."
from later interviews after the hearing...
Danny Davis
Congressman, IL
"I am somewhat amazed and disappointed that in the land of Lincoln, the home of our great president, Abraham, that the trustees of this great institution have not seen fit to eliminate as a mascot a name that is offensive to some people in our country ... especially to Native Americans who were in fact the first citizens that we know about in this country."
Debbie Reese Nambe-Pueblo
Professor
American Indian Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
"Neither Madigan or Johnson or Chapin Rose, any of the pro-"chief" people on that panel have ever - ever gotten in touch with me or come over to the Native American House, Native Studies program, nada."
Brenda Farnell
Professor
Anthropology
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
"I am very alarmed at the level of both mis-information and lack of information that the members of the inquiry displayed. They haven't done their homework. They misrepresented the lack of participation of the Peoria Tribe and tried to pretend that there was involvement from the Native point of view and there was none. And that's unforgivable."
http://iresist.org/
For your second comment, do you have anything for freedom from oppression or is it ok to use free speech to state/create false impressions of groups of individuals? For instance the term "Redskin" has been deemed offensive, and has prevented the Washington Redskins from securing a patent on their logo...are you against this? I actually think you might be.
A. Get money, and be misrepresented
B. Get no money, and be misrepresented
As a corollary, I have been made aware of many independant polls of Native Americans who don't find it offensive or abusive. And, most students at the U of I, by a 2:1 margin, are in favor of keeping the chief and see no harm in it. Does that mean that 2/3 of the fan base of Illinois is insensitive and abusive toward Natives?
The point is that there is no study that reflects any change. Look, the burden of proof is on the people who want others to change. And when they justify the changes based on their projections of "bettering" Native American lives, they need to prove a) how those lives will actually get better and b) if and when those changes happen, that their contentions were correct.
Freedom from oppression is very much a moral issue. However, when others use free speech to create false impression of groups of individuals as you did when you referred to UofI fans as racists, the only person being oppressed is the speaker, by their own ignorance.
People who actively oppress others, as do some racist fans of these teams and others, are certainly immoral and deserve punishment. But I have a hard time blaming mascots for those issues as opposed to the actual perpetuators.
There's a reason why the statement is "take offense", rather than "give offense". If you're offended by mascots, that's entirely your right and it's your right to speak out about your offense. However, please do not pretend that it doesn't take two to tango in that exchange.
Not really, since I'm against patents all together. If whomever happens to be in control of issuing patents today decides that their logo is offensive, they have every right to withhold that patent assuming that it's within their defined rights to do so.
Perhaps you're misunderstanding me. I don't think it's great that teams like UofI or Washington have Native American mascots. If I were running a sports team, I'd much rather stick to the animal kingdom myself. However, I support Washington's right to call themselves the "Redskins", just like I would support Morehouse College's rights to call themselves the "Whities" or your right to call your team the "I hate farfromglorifieds".
yeah, yeah, that's PC...but so what...we live in a country that should respect others...
it's not that hard....
or is it...?
it shouldn't be that difficult to respect people. it should be as simple as you say, inmytree.
and you bring up the idea of political correctness. PC sucks. im a jew and if you called me a K*ke or any other name i wouldn't get offended. now dont get me wrong, im very respectful of others, have many black friends, hispanic friends, chinese friends, and i NEVER use words such as the N word of the S word or anything like that. And even though I dont, i still think PC is ridiculous. If i call you retarted is that abusive and hostile towards mentally handicapped individuals?
tradition...? who gives a shit...? tradition, big deal...
I guess you could say slavery was a tradition...perhaps hitler was establishing a tradition...for some reason, I would think you would disagree...
by the way, nice backdoor "retard" move...feel free to call me what you wish...it's kinda sad that you'd want to call someone who disagreed with you "retarded"....what's that say about you...:rolleyes:
and are you really comparing a halftime show to the institution of slavery? its not even worth debating with you if your going to make that link.