In the comments to my previous post, Half Canadian reminds me of this 2002 John Miller piece, which references a famous (and now, evidently, ignored) Sports Illustrated poll gauging Native American opinion on the use of Indian nicknames, mascots, characters, and symbols by amateur and professional sports teams:
The Peter Harris Research Group polled 352 Native Americans (217 living on reservations and 134 living off) and 743 sports fans; the results are published in SI’s March 4 issue.
Here’s the most important finding: “Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81 percent of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83 percent of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters, and symbols.”
The poll also found that 75 percent of Native Americans don’t think the use of these team names and mascots “contributes to discrimination.” Opinion is divided about the tomahawk chop displayed at Atlanta Braves games: 48 percent “don’t care” about it; 51 percent do care, but more than half of them “like it.” The name “Redskins” isn’t especially controversial either; 69 percent of Native Americans don’t object to it. As a general rule, Indians on reservations were more sensitive about team names and mascots, but not to the point where a majority of them ever sided with the activists on these questions.
Sports Illustrated writer S. L. Price reaches the obvious conclusion: “Although Native American activists are virtually united in opposition to the use of Indian nicknames and mascots, the Native American population sees the issue far differently.”
Well, perhaps someone should remind Knight Ridder’s Jim Mashek of all this, as it seems to have slipped his mind. Writes Mashek, “It would be easy to blame the controversy on the tired term ‘political correctness,’ but the fact of the matter is nicknames such as Indians, Braves and Fighting Sioux are offensive to some, if not most, American Indians.”
“If not most”? Not surprisingly, Mashek doesn’t back up that assertion with any supporting evidence, preferring instead to suggest (without referencing the SI poll—or this far more damning Annenberg Poll) that the question is an open one—and that the NCAA’s decision, far from being a product of that “tired term political correctness,” is instead based on something far more noble, though one wonders how ignoring the will of over 80 percent of Native Americans is somehow considered more noble than taking seriously their ability to determine for themselves what is “hostile and offensive.” And really, what can be more PC than cowing to the will of a shrieking vocal minority, and in so doing, implying, self-righteously, that what you are really doing is attempting to protect the feelings of those whom you’ve essentially silenced?
Related: the Orlando Sentinel’s Alan Schmadtke and Emily Badger have compiled a useful Q&A. Some interesting excerpts:
How does the NCAA define “hostile and abusive”?
It hasn’t yet in full detail and, with the help of the courts, this may take years.
Do schools have any recourse?
Yes. They can sue the NCAA individually or file a class-action suit with other schools. However, Gary R. Roberts, director of the sports law program at Tulane, said he didn’t think such a challenge had “any serious chance of success.” . . . “The long-term effect will probably be the same as a ban on member schools having such symbols and mascots, but at least superficially the decision to abandon such mascots will then be the individual schools’, not [from] an NCAA mandate.”
I’ll be collecting other blogger reaction on this, so please send me any links on this subject.
The time to fight these irrational feints to “tolerance”—which have progressed to the point where we are now routinely airbrushing from our own history anything even remotely controversial, all for the benefit of minority self-identifiers vying for poltical control over a given identity group (a lucrative and quite powerful position to hold, as I’m sure Jesse Jackson can attest)—is now.
The slippery slope of politically correct linguistic accomodation has put us in the pathetic—and intellectually ridiculous—position of being afraid even now to identify our enemy in the “War on Terror”—which (as everyone knows but few will say publicly), is Islamic radicalism—particularly, the Wahhabist strain of Islam.
Words matter. And ceding control over language to special interest groups is a recipe for social disaster—particularly in a society supposedly designed around the rights of the individual. Edward Said and his academic ilk perfected this linguistic hijacking procedure, wherein political groups—under the guise of ethnic authenticity—laid claim to important terms of debate, then wielded control of those terms as a way to delegitimize critics. And the very same thing is happening here—a testament to how deeply rooted Said’s principles have become in the academy and on the policy level, and a running indictment on intellectual bankruptcy of our modern intelligensia.
Time to push back.
You can reach NCAA president Myles Brand at
****
others commenting: everything sports, odd bits, the flyover country, sounding off, Mac’s Mind, narcissistic views on news / politics, GM’s Corner, the Stokes’ kith and kin community blog, Scappleface, Reason’s Nick Gillespie, Opaque Lucidity, Doc’s Home, LoDaddy’s Ramblings, Debate 08, Random Thoughts, Just Another Blowhard, Rob Frankel Branding Expert, The Daily Brief, Kirt Manwaring, The Intangible Economy, trader rick’s last outpost, Wood Chips and Text Musings, Gator Trader, dustbury, and Right Wing Nuthouse.
Views from the left: mightcan (who, despite my several attempts to engage him in a congenial manner, continues to act like a total wanker; so I’ll relent, and begin treating him like one); and driftglass, Eclecticity, that’s my name, don’t wear it out, airlines and politics, when two wonderful things make one great one
****
see also, here.
****
update: additional thoughts from Charles Austin and Stephen Thomas.
****
update 2: Kate makes light of my pain—which, how typically Canadian is that bullshit; and Claude the Peacerebel weighs in.
****
update 3: more, from the Unpaid Punditry Corp. And Gail comments.
****
update 4: A more creative take here.
fwiw, from Kenneth Clarke – Civilisation
That was written about 35 years ago.
Holding beliefs that have been repudiated by the liveliest intellects isn’t a new thing. And, given the choice between sharing Kenneth Clarke’s beliefs or those of, perhaps, a livelier intellect, I’ll go with Sir Kenneths’s
Why stop at Amerindian-derived names? Consider the offensive New England Patriots or the UVa Cavaliers to name just two. And there are probably quite a few bears offended by the Bruins. Sometimes I hear cardinals tweetering up a storm. Could be exclaiming outrage at their name abuse in baseball. Not really sure but we shouldn’t take chances.
It’s funny how the lefty’s think that this ISN’T political correctness and all about the money! First, the teams that are banning are more likely to COST the NCAA revenue than make. Most importantly, the NCAA can get away with this because they are a MONOPOLY, one of the few things in a capitalist society that both people on the right and the left should be against.
The slippery slope of politically correct linguistic accomodation has put us in the patheticâ€â€and intellectually ridiculousâ€â€position of being afraid even now to identify our enemy in the “War on Terrorâ€Ââ€â€which (as everyone knows but few will say publicly), is Islamic radicalismâ€â€particularly, the Wahhabist strain of Islam.
Notwithstanding the merits of the rest of your post (with which I agree in spirit if not degree), who exactly is it that’s “afraid” to identify Islamic radicalism as the enemy in the WOT? You’re certainly not. I don’t know any other righties who are. I don’t know any mainstream liberals who are. And once you get further out on the left, you’re dealing with a completely different set of premises (whether war is ever justifiable and so forth), so they sort of get pushed into the “N/A” column on the question of who our enemy is.
Beyond that, please point out an example of one of these people (or preferably more than one, since based on your sentence, they are a large enough percentage of the population to justify use of the generic “we”) who are so afraid to voice this blindingly obvious consensus view.
Well, the administration, for one. I can see why they want to avoid religious labels, but we are not fighting a “war on terror” or engaged in a “struggle against violent extremism.” We are fighting a war against Wahhabi Islamists and their enablers / accomplices.
Then there’s that portion of the Western press afraid even to use the term “terrorist” for those they acknowledge are committing terrorism.
There’s a forest fire fighting crew made up of Chilcotin natives and they call themselves the “Fire Injuns”. When I helpfully suggested that they should change their name to oh say, the Fire Engines or the Native American Fire Crew or First Nations Spark Chasers they told me to “go fu*k myself! There is a law being broken here. Uppity assholes.
Turing word “own” as I’ll own up to the fact that “Aggressive Hunter- Gather Group” doesn’t have the panache of “Kiowa Killers”
Read Freund’s article and your notes. The academe needs to take that next step that you two quite brilliantly have: are you creating a discourse of equality or merely exchanging roles in the Other/Oppressor dyad? From what I can see and read, it’s the latter.
And if all versions of history are suspect and subjective, what makes Morrison’s version more true than, say, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s?
Jeff, I have a post up if you are interested. I believe my alma mater is one of the two most significant affected schools.
Turing Word: issue
I tell you, it keeps getting spookier by the minute.
Hmmmm.
Frankly the only reason some people give a shit about Indians, or “Native Americans” if you prefer, is *because* of the sports associations.
Without that, why should anyone really give a rat’s ass?
Ed – The Ho-Chunk Nation damn you with every radio commercial for “Pottawotamie Bingo” and Blackjack at the Ho-Chunk Casino in Wisconsin…
Man that driftglass bunch are sweethearts, ask a simple question and get threatened, lol. I probably won’t be able to sleep tonight. It was ridiculously easy to get to the real motives though.
Not to question anyones patriotism ^^
Here’s a bit of the ol’ reasonable discourse from the linked driftglass post:
There you have it, folks. My eyes have been opened, and from this day forward I intend to shame and villify those members of my family (and there are many) who are U of I alumni for their wrong-headed defense of Chief Illinewek.
Why, you may ask? Because, dear friends, until I read driftglass’s brilliant post, I never realized that Chief Illinewek was the moral equivalent of slavery.
An astonishingly apt analogy, no? No?
As a native Canadian I protest Markus Naslund.
Until you’ve walked a mile in my Sorel’s Goldstein…
Let’s BAN ALL offensive names:
Golden Gophers, just rubs in the fact that gophers are crappy athletes.
Hoosiers, sounds too close to hosers, can’t have that.
My parent’s dog is particularly upset with Huskies as it discriminates all other dogs.
Minutemen is so 18th century and hurts British fellings
Lobos makes anglos sad as many don’t know what a Lobo is.
Sooners is a reminder of evil land grabbing Europeans and makes everybody sad.
Cowboys is a racist slur as many (probably most) were black or indian.
Coyotes, makes the players feel mangy.
Sun Devils disriminates against moon dogs.
Trojans just make people think of dirty sex.
And while we are on the subject, Packers.
Stallions.
Mets offends opera buffs everywhere.
Well I think the fat lady pretty much sang, tah
By the way, about 20 (30?) years ago 48 big teams threatened to bolt the NCAA. I think the time is ripe for another revolt. Imagine March Madness when the Fresno Chickenhawks and the Socorro Rockies are playing in the finale. I am sure CBS would love to broadcast that.
Remember the hood emblems and embossed crests in chrome used on Pontiac cars?
These Native Indian likenesses were designed to show the strengths in the faces of Native leaders chiefs and braves and were made with obvious respect.
Native friends who lived across the Mercier bridge from the Lasalle area of Montreal never once complained about the *Chief Pontiac* hood ornaments.
If anything, they had a tendency to be proud of the recognition. There being so little representation of Canada’s natives otherwise.
Some sour pusses put a stop to General Motors use of these handsom emblems just because they could. [Idiots!]
Why do Canadian judges allow tight ass sour puses to rain all over everyone’s parade? There was never anything offensive or demeaning about any Pontiac emblem, ever.
It would be refreshing for Native leaders to encourage GM to come out with a brand new Pontiac line complete with proud *Chief Pontiac* emblems both front and rear.
They would probably sell like hot cakes in winter. 73s TonyGuitar. at BendGovt.blog.ca
“Sun Devils disriminates against moon dogs.”
Beautiful.
Driftglass folded like a cheap tent, by the way ^^
how dare you suggest that the NCAA doesn’t know what’s best for our poor little Indians?
I commented on this on my blog as well. The movies have appropriated and twisted the images in film as well, and it ain’t pretty.
Didn’t notice this post until today for some reason (even though I hit PW up for some bloggy goodness at 2 or 3 times over the weekend).
Nonetheless, here’s my [a href=”http://sportsblog.xtremeramblings.us/?p=435″ target=”_blank”]entry[/a] which includes a fisking of Kevin B. Blackistone’s [a href=”http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/kblackistone/stories/080605dnspoblackistone.2267dcdf.html” target=”_blank”]column[/a] in the Dallas Morning News.
As a 1/64th Cherokee warrior/brave I protest the arbitrary nature of school mascots. It took me many moons of sessions with my psychiatrist/medicine man to overcome the trauma of going to a University whose mascot was a Cowboy. I think all mascots should be representative of the flora of their states. For example the Georgia Tech Downy Serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea) would be a very fitting mascot. Think about it NCAA!
I cribbed liberally from you, Jeff, in crafting a letter of dissent to the NCAA’s wise and almighty abuse of power. Just another pip in the nation’s underwhelming tide of irritation at more monopolistic nannying from our intellectual and moral betters.
While I can’t directly withhold funds from the NCAA, I can (and do) refuse to contribute further to my alma maters, which remain complicit in the NCAA’s hegemony. Hopefully the NCAA feels the burn of its moral superiority when its member colleges and universities start seeing some decreased benefaction.
Or maybe I’m alone in this. But, on the bright side, this progressively activist NCAA crap is going to save me hundreds of bucks a year!
Let’s try this, again.
With the use of preview, of course.
My post on the topic at hand.