Political Correctness

[Jennifer]

California may outlaw American Indian team names and mascots.

We're becoming a much to sensitive society. If we keep on banning/barring/protecting certain sub-groups for fear of offending someone, we're going to become a very boring society indeed!
http://www.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/05/16/indian.mascots.ap/index.html

[35TangoTango]

Just to make sure we don't inadvertantly offend, why don't we outlaw any reference to indians or indian tribal names anywhere in our society - no more references to tribes, reservations, special government programs or anything! Then there would be no groups to be offended.

My rant

[Daddo]

Sorry, folks, I gotta disagree, a lot.
First off, a personal rant...I LOATH the term "politically correct." We all have basic manners, to know that if we're doing something that offends others that should concern us. Yet somewhere along the way that damn term was invented and suddenly it became OK to say offensive things so long as WE weren't offended, and to make fun of those who DID respect others by calling them "P.C."
There's two levels on the mascot issue. One is obviously racist stuff, like the name of the Washinton NFL team. "Reds***s" is the equivelant of "Nig--r" or any other racial slur and should be permitted in any setting. The same is true of the Cleveland Indians mascot, a Sambo-like grinning idiotic redfaced Indian head. I don't think there's any way someone could argue that those aren't terribly offensive. Any other group treated in this way and things would have changed 40 or 50 years ago. Why Indians seem to be one of the few groups that it's still OK to mistreat like this is a mystery. And many HAVE changed...the funny thing is that it's viewed as the bastion of political liberalism, yet the first example I can think of from the 70s came from one of the most conservative states in the USA...the University of Oklahoma dropping a tomahawk swinging loin cloth and headdress wearing grinning "Cleveland" type Indian named "Little Red." They dropped him ages ago with very little argument...if that happened today, I'm sure there'd be a huge uproar and cries of "Oh, you're just being politically correct!"
Now, the other issue is a little tougher, which is: Is ANY Indian mascot or team name offensive? I'm not nearly as frustrated with this one, but can see the point of those who say that making these people into mascots IS insulting, and wouldn't happen to other minorities. It also leads to activities that make fun of very important aspects of Indian life. Seeing drunken morons in "war paint" doing War Whoops and imitating (poorly) other things that are for Indians religious acts is pretty wrong. Can you imagine a team in some Muslim nation that called itself "The Christians" and had cheerleaders in choir robes (trimmed down to be very revealing, of course) and crossing themselves after touchdowns? Selling "communion wafers" at the consession stands? I'd be pretty unhappy about that.
Change occurs as we mature. Stuff that we thought was no big deal not so long ago like blackface minstril shows and Aunt Jemima and Amos and Andy has gone to the scrap heap of our culture, with good reason.
I'm hoping that Indian mascots, especially the worst of the lot, join them. Soon.

[NormanGlenn]

I must take exception to the reference to "Little Red". There was no resemblance to the Cleveland Indians mascot. Little Red was an actual Native American OU student dressed in authenic dress and dancing authenic indian dances. His performance met the approval of the leadership of all the Oklahoma tribes.

[Daddo]

The "Little Red" I recall was the design mark, not the actual human mascot, and it really was pretty bad, very similar to Chief Wahoo in Cleveland.
Here's by far the best article on the subject which tells the full story of "Little Red" and other mascot issues and even includes a picture of Little Red.
http://www.nativepeoples.com/np_features/np_articles/1999_summer_article/su99-mascots.html

[35TangoTango]

Daddo:

I have to agree with you about "Little Red". Neither word is very flattering, and it is better gone. I think it is a shame, however that the state which has more indians than all the others put together, can't in any way make that heritage part of their sports.

Why aren't all real cowboys complaining about the ridiculous cartoon characterization that is Pistol Pete? Why aren't all Irish up in arms about that stupid Notre Dame mascot? And the very nickname "Fighting Irish" - surely an unacceptable image for a proud people.

What is different about Indians? Well, actually (at least according to polls I've seen) nothing is different about Indians. The vast majority aren't particularly offended at all, even by the name "reds***s". What we have (in my opinion) is a militant minority wielding their sensitivity like a club in order to demonstrate power.

IMHO, they should get their wish. Indians or anything refering to Indians should never be mentioned again in American Society. (If we have to differentiate at all, we could call them "American Americans").

[NormanGlenn]

The link info is totally incorrect regarding Little Red. I saw him in person many occasions as I have been OU football games since the early 1950's. At no time were "garishly clad white boys" used. All were Native American OU students dressed in authenic attire and dancing authenic indian (Native American) dances. As stated in my prior message, he had the approval of all the Oklahoma tribes for his performance but not the activists.

[NormanGlenn]

My mistake. My last post should have said "I have been attending OU football games since the early 1950"s."

I am going to research this and furnish some names of the young men who performed as Little Red.

[NormanGlenn]

Here is the link to the OU sports web page with info abou OU mascots.
http://soonersports.fansonly.com/trads/mascot.html

Also in the link in the opening post by Jennifer, there are some interesting comments by David Yeagley, a Comanche indian and adjunct professor at OU about indian mascots.

[Daddo]

The information about students who were Little Red going from being white guys to Indian students came from OU itself. I have a certain amount of sympathy to the opinion "Who cares what the white students think." It was obvious that most of the Indian students were very offended by the whole thing, and that ought to be good enough. Who are WE to tell THEM what should and shouldn't offend them in how WE portray THEIR culture. Dumping Little Red was a very good move, and the fact that Oklahoma led the way sorta puts the kibosh on this being some "political correctness" thing. Oklahoma's about as non-PC as it gets.
As for Pistol Pete...he WAS a real Cowboy. Pete is based upon a drawing of Frank "Pistol Pete" Eaton who was an old west lawman who spent a lot of time around Stillwater until his death in the 50s or 60s. Cowboy is a profession, not a race, and that comparison doesn't stand up.
I've never heard an Irish person complain about Notre Dame...if they did, I'd listen and it'd be something to consider...BUT...
only if Notre Dame made fun of the type of religious acts and symbols that Indians see mocked with the "Tomahawk Chop" type crap. I kinda doubt Notre Dame is going to do that. If the schools with Indian mascots had real live Indians as their president and chancellor and most of the players, I think you'd see some changes in presentation.

[TXSNOS]

Then, of course, there's St. Johns University that changed its team name from Redmen to Red Storm even though the derivation of the name Redmen had nothing to do with Native Americans.

TXSNOS

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by Daddo:
the type of religious acts and symbols that Indians see mocked with the "Tomahawk Chop" type crap.

The tomahawk is a religous artifact? Little did poor Custer suspect....

[KSUron]

Originally posted by Daddo:

(1) First off, a personal rant...I LOATH the term "politically correct." We all have basic manners, to know that if we're doing something that offends others that should concern us. Yet somewhere along the way that damn term was invented and suddenly it became OK to say offensive things so long as WE weren't offended, and to make fun of those who DID respect others by calling them "P.C.".

(2) Why Indians seem to be one of the few groups that it's still OK to mistreat like this is a mystery.

Daddo in most respects I agree with you about Indian names and symbols. BUT!

(1) I could not disagree with you more about this business of "politically correct". If I take any position that is not P.C. I am ridiculed and put into a labled group. I am sure you will join right in as evidenced by your reference to liberal and conservative with the obvious inference that conservatives are not nice or considerate of others. And you can do that because.

(2) The Indians are not alone. Among P.C. folks its quite OK to bash Christians and/or conservatives. After all they are not as sensitive and worthy as the more liberal P.C. crowd.

P.C. folks are not somehow constrained by manners when it comes to dealing with conservatives so please don't intimate that sensitivity and gaciousness is the rule in the P.C. crowd. Its clearly not. I am a pretty mild guy politically and quite liberal in some ways but I have found that I am classed as a "right wing extreemist" because of two things. I belive in God and I oppose abortion. Never mind that I respect folks with other opinions and would never think of calling someone a "left wing extreemist" if they were an atheist and pro-choice. If I don't hold "politically correct" views, and obviously I don't, then I am fair game for ridiclule and disparagment by the P.C. crowd. There are more un-P.C. people than P.C. people and that is why the term was invented and why it has stuck. If I use the term it does not mean that I have no manners and think that its OK to mistreat people. Far from it, I respect other opinions. I just wish it was reciprocated. Instead, the vocies of "tolerance" are often the most intolerant and disrespectful.

I do not mean to say that you hold the views I have ascribed to the "P.C. crowd". You probably don't, especially if you read how P.C. attitudes are viewed from an un-P.C. person like me. I'm sure you don't mean to offend, and I hope I have not offended you. You seem like a good man and on top of that you are a concerned Dad who cares about giving his daughter the right guidance, and besides that, you are a Big 12 WBB fan.

We disagree about "P.C." but we don't disagree much about the use of Indian symbols. I think its way too easy to blow off objections to their use without really thinking it through. My daughter's highschool used the nickname "Savages" with an Indian logo. It was defended as being a reference to "NOBLE" savages but please, can you imagine its day to day use by a school and how it was treated by other schools? It was not appropriate and has been changed. Indians who were asked about the name did not publicly object. To do so would have made them bad sports, but really, they should not have to be in the position of objecting. In my opinion most other Indian symbols for teams should also be changed.

(On the other hand I'm a "right wing extreamist' so no one should listen to my opinions.) http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif

Sorry for the spelling errors and my "rant".

[Daddo]

Christians are NOT being discriminated against. I'm a Christian and nothing you said changes my mind a bit..."P.C." is a nonsense term used to excuse rude offensive behavior. Point it out, and it's "Oh, you're just being 'P.C.'"
The mascot thing is a PERFECT example. The name of the Washington NFL team is a racist slur equal to the n-word. But by gosh, point that out, and it's "Oh, you're just being politically correct!"
Yeah, people can go overboard in being too sensititve. I'm not much for "sanatation engineer" or "follically challenged" instead of garbageman and bald. But the term's badly misused when it's applied to legitimate complaints about racially insensitive behavior. This qualifies.

[KSUron]

Get real Daddo. In many school settings its ok to have any club except a Christian club meet on campus. Don't tell me thats not discrimination. I could give you many similar examples.

I didn't expect to change your mind. I only hoped to let you see that there is another point of view to this P.C. term. P.C. may be a term to excuse rude offensive behavior to you. To me it is a term that describes the attitude that if you and I think differently about an issue, its because I am inferior in my thinking or, as you put it rude. I think the imposition of one's views by intimidation and ridiclule is the point of being P.C. not the other way around. It can be exemplified by your attitude that to oppose changing traditional team symbols and mascots is rude and offensive and even racist. That is an attitude that, surprise, surprise, does not win lots of new converts to agree with you.

Don't you think its weird that you are disputing with the only poster on here who agrees with you about Indian symbols. Why? Is it because its more important to be P.C. about P.C. than it is to try to convince people of the merits of changing the symbols?

By the way you didn't change my mind either, however I will concede that any tool (and words are tools) can be misused or abused. I might include the word "racist" in that category.

I don't think there is any chance of us getting anywhere worthwhile with this so I will just give this up and move on. There are, no doubt, lots of things we can agree on or at least have more fun disagreeing about. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif

[Daddo]

Originally posted by KSUron:
Get real Daddo. In many school settings its ok to have any club except a Christian club meet on campus.

That's a problem with the individual schools not interpreting law correctly. It is not illegal for a Christian club to meet in a school. I was an active member of FCA in my day.


Don't tell me thats not discrimination. I could give you many similar examples.


And I could give you far, far MORE examples of people getting discriminated against because they're NOT Christian. Hand in hand with much of the complaining about "PC" I hear is this whining about how discriminated against and put upon men, and white people, and Christians, are in this society. Hogwash. If it's not against the rules of the board to talk about women's hoops on this board (joke) discussion of Title IX is a perfect example, where we hear about how it discriminates against men. What a bunch of baloney.


I didn't expect to change your mind. I only hoped to let you see that there is another point of view to this P.C. term. P.C. may be a term to excuse rude offensive behavior to you.


I said MOST times. Like I said, the business of calling bald people "follically challenged" qualifies. Title IX, Indian mascots, racism and homophobia...do not.


To me it is a term that describes the attitude that if you and I think differently about an issue, its because I am inferior in my thinking or, as you put it rude.


In many of the situations I can think of, the shoe fits. If someone's saying women belong in the kitchen and "Chick hoops sucks" or who cares that Indians don't want team names with racist slurs or what baseball player wants to shower with a fag or whatever...they ARE being rude and that thinking IS inferior and dumb. I'm not tying that to you personally at all. But a person who makes bigoted comments like that IS dumb...and they're liable to say "Oh, you're just being PC" when that's pointed out.

I think the imposition of one's views by intimidation and ridiclule is the point of being P.C. not the other way around.


Sorry, but we're talking about FIGHTING AGAINST people being ridiculed and intimidated here. If someone is intimidated by being surrounded by people with the sensitivity and decency to not respond well to bigoted comments or attitudes, I have very little sympathy.
All ideas and views are NOT equal. I don't believe in laughing off bigotry with "well, everyone's entitled to their opinion!"


It can be exemplified by your attitude that to oppose changing traditional team symbols and mascots is rude and offensive and even racist. That is an attitude that, surprise, surprise, does not win lots of new converts to agree with you.


Tough. It is, and if people don't like it, that's their problem. That is not an opinion on my part, it is FACT that the name of the Washington NFL team is a racial slur. If people don't want to agree with me in saying calling black people ni---- is wrong then they have the problem, not me.


Don't you think its weird that you are disputing with the only poster on here who agrees with you about Indian symbols. Why?

Merely attempting to explain the reasons (because I was asked) that I find that term so ridiculous. I'm perfectly aware it's not a widely held opinion. Most moves for social justice started as distinct minority views with those following them thought of as weird at best.

Is it because its more important to be P.C. about P.C. than it is to try to convince people of the merits of changing the symbols?


I doubt seriously my views on the semantics of the issue will change anyone's mind on the symbols issue. Two totally different topics.


By the way you didn't change my mind either, however I will concede that any tool (and words are tools) can be misused or abused. I might include the word "racist" in that category.

I wouldn't argue a bit with that.


I don't think there is any chance of us getting anywhere worthwhile with this so I will just give this up and move on. There are, no doubt, lots of things we can agree on or at least have more fun disagreeing about. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif

[TXSNOS]

Saw this in the paper today:

Legislation that would make California the first state to ban American Indian team mascots from public school was defeated in the Assembly amid strong opposition from Republicans and some Democrats who called it an example of excessive political correctness.

TXSNOS