Fighting Illini fighting for own name

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:29 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2313521

Another school put on the ropes for having an 'offensive' nickname.

I am getting so tired of the NCAA and their bullshi* power trips over teams and their "offensive" mascots. The teams with names in conjunction with American Indians are more of a tribute to the Indian heritage than anything else. The name 'fighting' that is coupled with the actual mascot has been around forever and is a symbol of the school's strength in game battle. The same thing goes for the NCAA wanting to change the name of the University of Miami and Tulsa's team name, the Hurricanes. This all came in wake of Hurricane Katrina.

It is all a load of crap and it doesn't need to be done. Hell, the Seminoles of Florida St. actually 'rent' their nickname. If these are so offensive, then how is the name 'griz' any different? I can go out and say that I know of a guy who was killed by a grizzly bear and I find that offensive, so they should change their name. The same goes for 'bobcat' or anything else for that matter. This all needs to stop and people need to stop being so PC about every damn thing that there is in this nation and take it for what it is. A school name and tradition. Let it be and quit pissing and moaning about every damn thing that will draw attention.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:44 pm

Illini Indian, Griz, Bobcat ... they're all the same thing, right? I guess if you are a strong supporter of PETA, you might take that view, but most of us place more respect in the dignity of human beings over dumb animals.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the tribes whose names are being used by these schools have some input into the matter. If they think the nicknames are not a "tribute" to their heritage, there's probably a good chance that they're right.

Segregation was a tradition as well. Tradition alone isn't a good reason to keep doing something. Sometimes it's okay to take a step back and look at things from a fresh perspective and determine whether it is really right or not.

If you want to expand your perspectives on this particular issue, there is a book written specifically about the Illini mascot issue titled "Dancing at Halftime." After you've read that, you might have more appreciation for the first-person implications of this issue to complement the anti-PC knee-jerk "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore" perspective.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081478 ... e&n=283155

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:47 pm

Well I'm part Irish, I'm gonna sue Notre Dame, who's with me?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:53 pm

CelticCat wrote:Well I'm part Irish, I'm gonna sue Notre Dame, who's with me?

You should have heard the Irish scream when the Stanford band did an "Irish" themed halftime show a few years ago when they were hosting Notre Dame. There were forced apologies, supsensions, and the whole bit. It really did reinforce the notion that if anyone takes someone else's ethnic heritage and caricatures it, that ethnic group generally won't like.

College Indian Mascot = caricature of someone else's ethnic heritage (just to bring it back to the beginning)

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:01 pm

I'm in NO way in ANY support of PETA. I was making a point with the first analogy that came to my mind. I just get tired of EVERYTHING being offensive these days. Someone could very well say that a grizzly is offensive to them. I don't, but I was making the point that someone could say that and get away with it.

I'm part Irish as well, but I think I will shy ayay from suing Notre Dame. I'm also American too, but I'm not going to go sue the NFL's AFC.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:11 pm

longhorn_22 wrote:I'm in NO way in ANY support of PETA. I was making a point with the first analogy that came to my mind. I just get tired of EVERYTHING being offensive these days. Someone could very well say that a grizzly is offensive to them. I don't, but I was making the point that someone could say that and get away with it.

I'm part Irish as well, but I think I will shy ayay from suing Notre Dame. I'm also American too, but I'm not going to go sue the NFL's AFC.

You really just need to read more on the topic (like the book I suggested -- it might be in the MSU library).

For starters, it's not merely the use of the name (so toss out the AFC references). You also have to throw out the comparisons to fictional creatures and animals. Even mentioning them in the same breath as an Indian tribe is in itself insulting.

You need to learn more about how the mascots are used, how the mascot portrays the tribe, and what input the tribe has as to the ways the mascot is used. Either you don't view these tribes as being comprised of real people (thus mixing them in with animals), or you fail to see how someone dressing up like a fake Indian and prancing around doing all sorts of things that have nothing to do with your culture, and are rather born out of stereotypes, could offend someone.

It really is an interesting and complex issue, and one that people need to learn more about before they can really make up their minds or discuss rationally.

Example: Do you think an Indian would take offense if you put on brown-face, threw on some war paint, and then hopped around doing a mock rain dance while patting your hand over your mouth making the waa-waa-waa-waa-waa sound? This is the equivalent of the Illini mascot in the eyes of the Illini tribe.

Would you feel comfortable writing the word "Blackfeet" on your paint and doing that dance in a crowded place in Browning?

There is a right way and a wrong way to depict an ethnic group. And, generally, the right way is never accomplished by people who aren't of that ethnic group.

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:15 pm

Even if a NFL team named themselves the Montanans and paraded around like cowboys or had a bull for a mascot, I wouldn't care. I'm far too laid back to let other peoples ignorance affect me.

Do you feel the Minnesota Vikings should be banned as well?

fyi - I was joking about Notre Dame. I just think people get offended way too easily these days and it has become so bad that people are afraid to talk to different ethnicities because they don't know what is PC or what isn't.

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:16 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
longhorn_22 wrote:I'm in NO way in ANY support of PETA. I was making a point with the first analogy that came to my mind. I just get tired of EVERYTHING being offensive these days. Someone could very well say that a grizzly is offensive to them. I don't, but I was making the point that someone could say that and get away with it.

I'm part Irish as well, but I think I will shy ayay from suing Notre Dame. I'm also American too, but I'm not going to go sue the NFL's AFC.
You really just need to read more on the topic (like the book I suggested -- it might be in the MSU library).

For starters, it's not merely the use of the name (so toss out the AFC references). You also have to throw out the comparisons to fictional creatures and animals. Even mentioning them in the same breath as an Indian tribe is in itself insulting.

You need to learn more about how the mascots are used, how the mascot portrays the tribe, and what input the tribe has as to the ways the mascot is used. Either you don't view these tribes as being comprised of real people (thus mixing them in with animals), or you fail to see how someone dressing up like a fake Indian and prancing around doing all sorts of things that have nothing to do with your culture, and are rather born out of stereotypes, could offend someone.

It really is an interesting and complex issue, and one that people need to learn more about before they can really make up their minds or discuss rationally.

Alright, my AFC comment was a joke. Sorry for not including the

. And as far as the animal refernces go, they were more inresponse to the Hurricane fiasco.

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 pm

CelticCat wrote:Even if a NFL team named themselves the Montanans and paraded around like cowboys or had a bull for a mascot, I wouldn't care. I'm far too laid back to let other peoples ignorance affect me.

Do you feel the Minnesota Vikings should be banned as well?

fyi - I was joking about Notre Dame. I just think people get offended way too easily these days and it has become so bad that people are afraid to talk to different ethnicities because they don't know what is PC or what isn't.

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:21 pm

I guess one thing that does bother me is the hypocrisy of all this.

A Native-American wants to be treated equally as a citizen but clearly wants it to be well known that that he is a different culture by making sure we have the "Native" in front of American? Chinese-American, Asian-American, African-American - if they want to be treated equal they could start by just wanting to be called Americans.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:22 pm

CelticCat wrote:Even if a NFL team named themselves the Montanans and paraded around like cowboys or had a bull for a mascot, I wouldn't care. I'm far too laid back to let other peoples ignorance affect me.

Do you feel the Minnesota Vikings should be banned as well?

fyi - I was joking about Notre Dame. I just think people get offended way too easily these days and it has become so bad that people are afraid to talk to different ethnicities because they don't know what is PC or what isn't.

Well, since the Viking ceased to exist as a people about 1,000 years ago, there doesn't seem to be anyone left to really care one way or another.

How about if the team named the Montanans paraded around as inbred shotgun-totin' hillbillies with holes in their britches and a jug of moonshine under their arm and no teeth, with a belt made out of squirrel skins? In other words, they didn't even bother to represent Montanans in a way that was accurate at all? We all know how much people in Montana enjoy it when some liberal makes a remark that suggests that people in the red states are uninformed or otherwise inferior, so I am guessing that a caricature of this kind wouldn't go over well, either.

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:25 pm

CelticCat wrote:I guess one thing that does bother me is the hypocrisy of all this.

A Native-American wants to be treated equally as a citizen but clearly wants it to be well known that that he is a different culture by making sure we have the "Native" in front of American? Chinese-American, Asian-American, African-American - if they want to be treated equal they could start by just wanting to be called Americans.

Once again, good post. I agree. I think that a lot of people need to look past the singling themselves out of the rest of America and instead of pushing their race upon everyone, be American as a whole.

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:25 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
CelticCat wrote:Even if a NFL team named themselves the Montanans and paraded around like cowboys or had a bull for a mascot, I wouldn't care. I'm far too laid back to let other peoples ignorance affect me.

Do you feel the Minnesota Vikings should be banned as well?

fyi - I was joking about Notre Dame. I just think people get offended way too easily these days and it has become so bad that people are afraid to talk to different ethnicities because they don't know what is PC or what isn't.
Well, since the Viking ceased to exist as a people about 1,000 years ago, there doesn't seem to be anyone left to really care one way or another.

How about if the team named the Montanans paraded around as inbred shotgun-totin' hillbillies with holes in their britches and a jug of moonshine under their arm and no teeth, with a belt made out of squirrel skins? In other words, they didn't even bother to represent Montanans in a way that was accurate at all? We all know how much people in Montana enjoy it when some liberal makes a remark that suggests that people in the red states are uninformed or otherwise inferior, so I am guessing that a caricature of this kind wouldn't go over well, either.

Well since there are plenty of people in the country who still think we use the pony express, I couldn't care less. Personally I'm of the opinion that I like Montana the way it is, and if they think we're a bunch of redneck idiots, well then they won't be moving here anytime soon, which is a plus.

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:26 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
CelticCat wrote:Even if a NFL team named themselves the Montanans and paraded around like cowboys or had a bull for a mascot, I wouldn't care. I'm far too laid back to let other peoples ignorance affect me.

Do you feel the Minnesota Vikings should be banned as well?

fyi - I was joking about Notre Dame. I just think people get offended way too easily these days and it has become so bad that people are afraid to talk to different ethnicities because they don't know what is PC or what isn't.
Well, since the Viking ceased to exist as a people about 1,000 years ago, there doesn't seem to be anyone left to really care one way or another.

How about if the team named the Montanans paraded around as inbred shotgun-totin' hillbillies with holes in their britches and a jug of moonshine under their arm and no teeth, with a belt made out of squirrel skins? In other words, they didn't even bother to represent Montanans in a way that was accurate at all? We all know how much people in Montana enjoy it when some liberal makes a remark that suggests that people in the red states are uninformed or otherwise inferior, so I am guessing that a caricature of this kind wouldn't go over well, either.

What mascot is portrayed unfairly right now?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:28 pm

CelticCat wrote:I guess one thing that does bother me is the hypocrisy of all this.

A Native-American wants to be treated equally as a citizen but clearly wants it to be well known that that he is a different culture by making sure we have the "Native" in front of American? Chinese-American, Asian-American, African-American - if they want to be treated equal they could start by just wanting to be called Americans.

What does this have to do with the mascot issue?

And since my fiance is Asian, and her parents are immigrants, I can tell you that they have more pride in being American than virtually any of us. At the same time, they are treated differently in our culture, and they do have parts of their Asian culture that are still important to them.

They DO call themselves American. However, when somebody asks them what their ethnicity is, they say, "Chinese," and then stress "AMERICAN."

The -American designations are not indicators of diminished pride in being American, it is rather a way to stress their pride in being American, and to stress to people who might assume they don't belong here that they are, in fact, proud Americans, even if they aren't white (which, sadly, is still a measure of "real" Americans in the minds of some people in this country).

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:29 pm

longhorn_22 wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
CelticCat wrote:Even if a NFL team named themselves the Montanans and paraded around like cowboys or had a bull for a mascot, I wouldn't care. I'm far too laid back to let other peoples ignorance affect me.

Do you feel the Minnesota Vikings should be banned as well?

fyi - I was joking about Notre Dame. I just think people get offended way too easily these days and it has become so bad that people are afraid to talk to different ethnicities because they don't know what is PC or what isn't.
Well, since the Viking ceased to exist as a people about 1,000 years ago, there doesn't seem to be anyone left to really care one way or another.

How about if the team named the Montanans paraded around as inbred shotgun-totin' hillbillies with holes in their britches and a jug of moonshine under their arm and no teeth, with a belt made out of squirrel skins? In other words, they didn't even bother to represent Montanans in a way that was accurate at all? We all know how much people in Montana enjoy it when some liberal makes a remark that suggests that people in the red states are uninformed or otherwise inferior, so I am guessing that a caricature of this kind wouldn't go over well, either.
What mascot id portrayed unfairly right now?

Well, the one you started this thread complaining about, for one. Again ... the book.

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:31 pm

Eh, I already exhausted myself on the UND message board about this. I'm spent.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:32 pm

longhorn_22 wrote:
CelticCat wrote:I guess one thing that does bother me is the hypocrisy of all this.

A Native-American wants to be treated equally as a citizen but clearly wants it to be well known that that he is a different culture by making sure we have the "Native" in front of American? Chinese-American, Asian-American, African-American - if they want to be treated equal they could start by just wanting to be called Americans.

Once again, good post. I agree. I think that a lot of people need to look past the singling themselves out of the rest of America and instead of pushing their race upon everyone, be American as a whole.

"Pushing their race upon everyone?"

You need to do some reading about our country and its history with race. Quickly. As a quick synopsis ... white people are the ones who have made race an issue by screwing everyone else over every step of the way.

Every minority in the history of this country (outside of the Indians that we took by force) wanted to be nothing more than "American as a whole." It is only because they weren't allowed to by whites that race is still an issue in this country.

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:56 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
longhorn_22 wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
CelticCat wrote:Even if a NFL team named themselves the Montanans and paraded around like cowboys or had a bull for a mascot, I wouldn't care. I'm far too laid back to let other peoples ignorance affect me.

Do you feel the Minnesota Vikings should be banned as well?

fyi - I was joking about Notre Dame. I just think people get offended way too easily these days and it has become so bad that people are afraid to talk to different ethnicities because they don't know what is PC or what isn't.
Well, since the Viking ceased to exist as a people about 1,000 years ago, there doesn't seem to be anyone left to really care one way or another.

How about if the team named the Montanans paraded around as inbred shotgun-totin' hillbillies with holes in their britches and a jug of moonshine under their arm and no teeth, with a belt made out of squirrel skins? In other words, they didn't even bother to represent Montanans in a way that was accurate at all? We all know how much people in Montana enjoy it when some liberal makes a remark that suggests that people in the red states are uninformed or otherwise inferior, so I am guessing that a caricature of this kind wouldn't go over well, either.
What mascot is portrayed unfairly right now?
Well, the one you started this thread complaining about, for one. Again ... the book.

How do you campare the Fighting Illini to the "Montanans paraded around as inbred shotgun-totin' hillbillies with holes in their britches and a jug of moonshine under their arm and no teeth, with a belt made out of squirrel skins?" There is no way you can lichen that absurd description to the Illini. How is an Illini portrayed unfairly?

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:58 pm

Why are some tribes ok with the mascot's using there tribal name ie. Seminoles while other's don't. Illini Sioux. I don't get it. I get not liking the caricatures, but not the names. That is the question I have, and have a hard time understanding but of course I am not a Native of any of these tribes so probably wouldn't.

And for the record and I am a full blooded Viking.