| User | Post |
Wurl 4.0
Posts: 79/244 |
The local tribe has been dead for hundreds of years. If I remember correctly, the Illiniwek (Illini) tribe lived by current day Chicago when the French first explored the area. When the French came back on another expedition, the Illiniwek tribe had been wiped out from a disease outbreak and tribal warfare. One group claims to be related to the Illiniwek, but they have little proof of this. |
drjayphd
Posts: 1350/1477 |
Originally posted by Wurl 4.0
I live next door to the Univerity of Illinois, a school affected by this debate. We have Chief Illiniwek as our mascot. At half time he dances around. It's exciting, but I can easily see how that could be taken as racist. Our name, the Fightin' Illini, is not all that offensive. It is not an outright racial slur like the Redskins, or as a nearby school was called until 1985, the Chinks. You canmake a reasonable argument for a name being reasonable, but with a mascot dancing around and the like, it's easy to see how people get offended.
Does the tribe/local Native American population generally think it's okay? If so, it is reasonable. This came up around my coverage area (if you'd read the article, you'd know what I mean) and it turned out that while the mascot was the Indian (and still is) it was done as historically accurately as possible. The natives were primarily farmers, and any logos et al. reflect that.
Now, the Red Raiders, on the other hand... (shoots Derby in its metaphorical head) |
Wurl 4.0
Posts: 58/244 |
I live next door to the Univerity of Illinois, a school affected by this debate. We have Chief Illiniwek as our mascot. At half time he dances around. It's exciting, but I can easily see how that could be taken as racist. Our name, the Fightin' Illini, is not all that offensive. It is not an outright racial slur like the Redskins, or as a nearby school was called until 1985, the Chinks. You canmake a reasonable argument for a name being reasonable, but with a mascot dancing around and the like, it's easy to see how people get offended. |
Arwon
Posts: 484/506 |
There's a large realm of difference between the name Seminoles and the name Redskins. The latter is akin to having a team called the Predatory Faggots (they'll beat you so bad you're bound to feel violated).
Also at issue is the way the mascot is presented... an offensive caricature making the stereotypical mouth noise and brandishing a comical hatchet versus, well, not doing that.
Of course, these points have already been made. Continue. |
drjayphd
Posts: 1286/1477 |
Good for them. No reason for them to be on there.
Oh, uhm, also: I win at life. |
Luigi-San
Posts: 536/736 |
The NCAA has taken Florida State off the list. |
Heian-794
Posts: 849/896 |
The idea -- particularly in the Florida State Seminoles case -- that the NCAA considers itself to be more perceptive and sensitive to offensiveness than the actual people who may or may not be offended (and have claimed not to be) is itself more offensive than any nickname that any school has.
Did that make sense? |
drjayphd
Posts: 1238/1477 |
Kind of near and dear to my heart; my alma mater used to be the Braves, but changed to the Bobcats.
Allow me to say this: Not all Native American nicknames are offensive. How can you tell?
* Washington Redskins: Since it doesn't involve potatoes, OFFENSIVE.
* Cleveland Indians: Named in honor of a former great player, but Chief Wahoo is OFFENSIVE.
* St. John's: Do I even have to say it? OFFENSIVE.
* Quinnipiac University: Name's a word from one of the tribes native to the area. Logo was two crossed arrows. NOT OFFENSIVE.
* Florida State Seminoles: Not passing judgement yet, but if the Seminole tribe in FL is okay with it, then I say NOT OFFENSIVE.
Although I didn't know Wisconsin and Iowa had that policy. That's a good way to smoke 'em out, as long as it's big-time programs that do that. Let's see USC, Oklahoma, and LSU not schedule teams with these monikers. |
DoTheEvolution
Posts: 8/27 |
Case-by-case is definitely the way to go, especially if the NCAA is going to use words like "hostile" and "abusive" for a team nickname like "Seminoles". Maybe if they were the Florida State Depressed Alcoholics or something obscenely racist like that, I could understand, but hostile and abusive just doesn't seem to go hand in hand with a team name that shares its name with a tribe.
Of course, I don't know enough about Native Americans as I should, so maybe there's something between the lines of this article. |
Lenophis
Posts: 628/830 |
Originally posted by Baron NSNick
This has nothing to do with the BCS.
I know, I just felt like being a wise-ass... 
And I think these things should be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
Not a bad idea, although the NCAA isn't known for logic... |
NSNick
Posts: 3370/3875 |
This has nothing to do with the BCS.
And I think these things should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. |
Lenophis
Posts: 626/830 |
The NCAA is, once again, avoiding the issue. Becasue, everybody knows that the BCS is a pile of shit, and will do anything to avoid fix it (by making a playoff tournament).
As for this basketball move, I'm neutral about it. |
Anya
Posts: 5167/5337 |
Heh...is there no end to shit (bans) like this:
INDIANAPOLIS |
