NCAA bans "hostile" Indian mascots in Post-Season

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

"Other Seminole tribes are not supportive," said Charlotte Westerhaus, the NCAA vice president for diversity and inclusion.

On a side note, anyone see the Penn and Teller show on colleges (which really was just an expose on "diversity" training in colleges)? Good stuff.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

the NCAA vice president for diversity and inclusion.

[Ryno]

So is it only a matter of time before we have to change the name of our state (Illinois)? If the "Fighting" part of the name is offensive, I wouldn't be too choked up about dropping it.

As far as the Chief's dance goes, it's not some cartoonish mocking of the tribe. It's in honor of a part of our state's history and, from what I understand, is reasonably accurate.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

I'm glad that they only banned hostile indian mascots to make way for less hostile ones like the "Gambling Injuns." As a cajun I am not so offended by the Ragin Cajun mascot name, enough of us are raging alchys that its appropriate.

Did you know the Lafayette area NAACP once sued to get the name changed, saying it was exclusionary? One statement I remember from the time was, "Blacks can't be Cajuns." But then that isn't entirely true. Anyway, the suit was dropped or just allowed to die after the laughter died.

[Ksyrup]

Florida State University President T.K. Wetherell released this statement after the NCAA decision was announced:

"Florida State University is stunned at the complete lack of appreciation for cultural diversity shown by the National Collegiate Athletic Association's executive committee, which announced today a policy banning schools using Native American names and symbols from hosting NCAA championship events. That the NCAA would now label our close bond with the Seminole people as culturally "hostile and abusive" is both outrageous and insulting.

"On June 17, the Tribal Council of the Seminole Tribe of Florida spoke unequivocally of its support for Florida State University in its use of the Seminole name and related symbols. Accordingly, I intend to pursue all legal avenues to ensure that this unacceptable decision is overturned, and that this university will forever be associated with the 'unconquered' spirit of the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

"National surveys have shown in recent years that an overwhelming majority of Native Americans are not offended by the use of Native American names and symbols. In making its decision, the executive committee has been swayed by a strident minority of activists who claim to speak for all Native Americans. It is unconscionable that the Seminole Tribe of Florida has been ignored.

"The rules as we understand them would have us cover the Seminole name and symbol as if we were embarrassed, and any committee that would think that is a proper and respectful treatment of Native Americans should be ashamed."

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Florida State, for example, has received permission from the Seminole tribe in Florida to use the nickname. That, however, will not suffice.

"Other Seminole tribes are not supportive," said Charlotte Westerhaus, the NCAA vice president for diversity and inclusion.

If people are worried about "Florida State Seminoles" being offenseive, wouldn't the Seminoles in the State of Florida be the ones to answer that question?

The whole big deal about Marquette changing their mascot from Warriors to Golden Eagles (and possible again to just Gold) came about because one area tribal leader complained. This one leader is considered by pretty much every area tribal leader to be a crackpot and has since become not a tribal leader.

In non-biased surveys (at least the intention was to have as little bias as possible visible in the makeup of the questions) of local native american tribes, there was overwhelming support to changing the mascot back to Warriors. The reasons given were mainly that it did honor to their heritage.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by JW

. . . And to me it makes no sense for Native Americans to be offended at something that honors their ancestors. (With the exception of that dance that the Illinois mascot does, which actually made me and other LSU fans cringe or laugh when we saw it at the 03 Sugar Bowl --was it 03? - sorry illinifan, just joking.) . . .

I know you were just joking, but it got me to do a little research. I graduated from the University of Illinois and never really knew the origins of the dance. Here is a link to some of the history behind the tradition:

http://www.chiefilliniwek.org/illino...tion-roots.htm

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Radii

ugh. Put me in the same camp as Glen, Skydog and JiMG, I agree with everything each of them has said so far. This is stupid.

what he said

[Wolfpack]

Hmm...in a contest between the NCAA on one side and Florida State, Illinois, and a whole raft of other money-making schools on the other...I'm not picking the NCAA....

[JW]

This is just another example of a small but vocal minority driving the entire agenda. That is what America is like these days, rule by the perpetually offended. Link and excerpt:

http://start.earthlink.net/article/t...805-1974938028

Vernon Bellecourt, president of the National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media, was pleased with the postseason ban but had hoped for even stronger action.

"We would have hoped the NCAA would have provided the moral leadership on this issue, but obviously they've chosen to only go halfway," said Bellecourt, a member of the Anishinabe-Ojibwe Nation in Minnesota.

The what? National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media? They know better for example than the Seminole Nation of Florida what offends Seminoles in Florida?

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by JW

Did you know the Lafayette area NAACP once sued to get the name changed, saying it was exclusionary? One statement I remember from the time was, "Blacks can't be Cajuns." But then that isn't entirely true. Anyway, the suit was dropped or just allowed to die after the laughter died.

Thats interesting, although stupid. Would they prefer Ragin Creoles? Doesn't quite have the same ring to it. And as you imply there is nothing to say that Cajun is all that concrete of a group, its often more cultural than ethnic these days. Whats weird about that is that its not like ethnic cajuns have been keeping the black man down or anything. Historically they have been a discriminated minority even if not on the level of African-Americans.

As an aside, ULL's new Cayenne pepper walking mascot looks like a giant penis.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I'd like to see the Seminoles in Florida announce that they are offended by the regulation and demand that the NCAA rescind it.

[JW]

I am offended by these NCAA member school nicknames. I am particularly offended by the Viking nicknames since my last name is of Norman (Norse, i.e., Viking) origin. I want these names banned! BTW, this is just the A's. Link below.

Agnes Scott College Scotties

University of Alaska Fairbanks Nanooks

Albion College Britons

Alfred University Saxons

Alma College Scots

Alvernia College Crusaders

Anderson College (South Carolina) Trojans

Arkansas Tech University Wonder Boys

Augustana College (Illinois) Vikings

Augustana College (South Dakota) Vikings

Aurora University Spartans


http://www.ncaa.org/hall_of_champion...kname_list.htm

[Buccaneer]

This is just another example of a small but vocal minority driving the entire agenda. That is what America is like these days, rule by the perpetually offended.

How have we come to this?

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

How have we come to this?

Simple. Racism. No one likes to be called a racist. Unfortunately, if you don't agree with those who have this sort of an agenda, they scream it as bloody loud as they can and hope the TV cameras are on them.

[JW]

I am offended by these religiously oriented NCAA member institution nicknames.

Saints and Quakers, several.

North Carolina Wesleyan College Battling Bishops

Whitman College Missionaries

Wake Forest University Demon Deacons

St. Joseph's College (Maine) Monks

Providence College Friars

University of the Sciences in Philadelphia Devils

Ohio Wesleyan University Battling Bishops

Northwestern State University Demons

North Carolina Wesleyan College Battling Bishops

New England College Pilgrims

Mississippi Valley State University Delta Devils

University of the Incarnate Word Cardinals (somehow I think this is not the bird)

I am also offended in general by these nicknames

Long Island University-Brooklyn Campus Blackbirds

Heidelberg College Fighting Student Princes

Erskine College Flying Fleet

Rhode Island College Anchormen Anchorwomen

Pittsburg State University Gorillas

Centenary College (Louisiana) Gentlemen Ladies (Here come the Ladies! The lady what? Just the Ladies!)

And I am wondering if this nickname is on the NCAA hit list

San Diego State University Aztecs

Finally, I am extremely impressed by this nickname

University of California, Santa Cruz Banana Slugs

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

How have we come to this?

Squeaky wheel gets the grease. Look at how a very small, but vocal, wing took complete control of the Republican party. Believe it or not there used to moderates and liberals in the party--but the Christian conservative wing was better organized, and had mouthpieces in the media (Rush, Robertson, etc.) that advocated while the rest of the party remained silent. The silent ones lost their power within the party...

[clintl]

Originally Posted by JW

Finally, I am extremely impressed by this nickname

University of California, Santa Cruz Banana Slugs

The best nickname in sports.

[VPI97]

I applaud this decision for one and only one reason. I am 100% certain that this will lead to the end of the NCAA. Time to start fresh and create a new governing organization that will show an ounce of fucking sense every once in a while.

[Buccaneer]

A small but vocal minority is not a bad thing necessarily. We would not have had a revolution if it weren't for the very vocal propaganda of the Sons of Liberty. However, in many recent incidents, I wonder if the motives are not noble? One can argue that the revolution was spurred on by the hatred of the Crown but it looking toward a better goal of liberty. One can also argue that such these as above is yet another small step in erasing racism, prejudice or stereotypes but is it really? Would it affect behavior or is it just window dressing?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Squeaky wheel gets the grease. Look at how a very small, but vocal, wing took complete control of the Republican party. Believe it or not there used to moderates and liberals in the party--but the Christian conservative wing was better organized, and had mouthpieces in the media (Rush, Robertson, etc.) that advocated while the rest of the party remained silent. The silent ones lost their power within the party...

I very much disagree with this, esp living in a city that is 75% conservative and the center for the "Religious Right". Local surveys, polls and political actions even in this type of city are not at all dominated by this squeeky wheel. If it is not in this most conservative of cities, how can it be elsewhere? But then again, people only wants to see what they want for the purpose of demonizing.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

A small but vocal minority is not a bad thing necessarily. We would not have had a revolution if it weren't for the very vocal propaganda of the Sons of Liberty. However, in many recent incidents, I wonder if the motives are not noble? One can argue that the revolution was spurred on by the hatred of the Crown but it looking toward a better goal of liberty. One can also argue that such these as above is yet another small step in erasing racism, prejudice or stereotypes but is it really? Would it affect behavior or is it just window dressing?

My main point was that all groups, conservative, liberal, and everything in between pursue advocacy and PR. There are no doubt groups forming right now to publicly pressure University presidents into not giving in to the NCAA. PR goes both ways...

[JW]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Would it affect behavior or is it just window dressing?

Window dressing, but it gets publicity and probably draws donations to advocacy groups. It does nothing to help the problems of Native Americans.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I very much disagree with this, esp living in a city that is 75% conservative and the center for the "Religious Right". Local surveys, polls and political actions even in this type of city are not at all dominated by this squeeky wheel. If it is not in this most conservative of cities, how can it be elsewhere? But then again, people only wants to see what they want for the purpose of demonizing.

I'm not demonizing anybody, I am talking specifically abou what happened to the Republican Party in the last 25 years--there really is very little room for dissent if you aspire to prominence. Remember that George H. W. Bush was your typical northeastern liberal Republican, but after the triumph of the grassroots organization of people like Reagan and Falwell in the early 80s, Bush had to completely revamp his political belief system in order to stay in the good graces of the powers that be in the party.

[WrongWay]

Why didn't the NCAA name names?

Would the Army Black Knights make the list? That is the most racist team name I have ever heard.

I personally would like to the add the Oklohoma Sooners to the "Banned" list. I do not like the fact that I have to be reminded that my relations from the plains were a bunch of low down, double dealing, cheats that snuck in a day early.

[Chubby]

boy good thing the NCAA is wasting their time with this and not rooting out recruiting violations are that pesky issue o f not paying their athletes while they make billions off of them...

[John Galt]

I agree with NoMyths and the NCAA. And as usual, JW shows he couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag.

[JW]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I agree with NoMyths and the NCAA. And as usual, JW shows he couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag.

This is one of the things I've always enjoyed about this forum. The people are so friendly here.

And I will ask you, what is the threshold of offense here? Who exactly has to be offended for the action to be proper? What percentage of Native Americans? And what percentage of any group would have to be offended for similar action to be taken against other mascots? Or do we just accept the verdict of the most vocal?

The moral high ground is not with those wanting to get rid of Indian mascots, for as I've said, this is just window dressing.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by JW

This is one of the things I've always enjoyed about this forum. The people are so friendly here.

And I will ask you, what is the threshold of offense here? Who exactly has to be offended for the action to be proper? What percentage of Native Americans? And what percentage of any group would have to be offended for similar action to be taken against other mascots? Or do we just accept the verdict of the most vocal?

The moral high ground is not with those wanting to get rid of Indian mascots, for as I've said, this is just window dressing.

JW, I would be happy to answer your questions if you can explain one thing in a coherent argument:

How is the name Mississippi Valley State University Delta Devils (which you listed) at all analogous to a name like the Fighting Illini? It takes a warped closed mind to even see those as comparable.

[JW]

Originally Posted by John Galt

JW, I would be happy to answer your questions if you can explain one thing in a coherent argument:

How is the name Mississippi Valley State University Delta Devils (which you listed) at all analogous to a name like the Fighting Illini? It takes a warped closed mind to even see those as comparable.

LMAO. I looked at my other post and realized I forgot to preface it. I'm sorry. I'll go back and edit it. I was really just trying to inject some humor by wondering if some people might be offended to religiously oriented mascots, but I messed that up. While that post is not to be taken entirely seriously, it does relate to my threshold question. How many people have to be offended by something before we act on it? And do we really know that most Native Americans object to these mascots? Someone very close to me is a "card-carrying" member of an official Native American tribe. She thinks this whole uproar is ridiculous, and so do all the other members of her particular clan. Does she have no say?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by JW

LMAO. I looked at my other post and realized I forgot to preface it. I'm sorry. I'll go back and edit it. I was really just trying to inject some humor by wondering if some people might be offended to religiously oriented mascots, but I messed that up. While that post is not to be taken entirely seriously, it does relate to my threshold question. How many people have to be offended by something before we act on it? And do we really know that most Native Americans object to these mascots? Someone very close to me is a "card-carrying" member of an official Native American tribe. She thinks this whole uproar is ridiculous, and so do all the other members of her particular clan. Does she have no say?

You still haven't answered my question. How do you find Delta Devils at all comparable to Fighting Illini?

[SFL Cat]

I think ALL schools that use ANIMAL nicknames need to change them immediately. This is just another prime example of how evil humans exploit and mistreat animals.

[Ryno]

Originally Posted by JW

Does she have no say?

No. It's not about how Native Americans feel. It's about assuaging white guilt, or more specifically liberal white guilt.

You're right about the window dressing. It's like giving someone a band-aid after shooting them in the head. We slaughtered 90% of your people, but we'll make it all better by changing a few sports team's names.

If we really want to help, we can set up scholarship funds and similar things that will actually help people.

[Buccaneer]

JG: Fighting those that are historically oppressed on paper instead of deed again?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by WrongWay

Why didn't the NCAA name names?

Would the Army Black Knights make the list? That is the most racist team name I have ever heard.

I personally would like to the add the Oklohoma Sooners to the "Banned" list. I do not like the fact that I have to be reminded that my relations from the plains were a bunch of low down, double dealing, cheats that snuck in a day early.

Always laughed about this when I attended OSU. Why the hell would you want your mascot to be a bunch of cheats? Never made any sence to me at all.

As for the issue, it's an idiotic decision. I hate slippery slope arguements, but where do we go here? Cowboys, Vikings, Norseman (our rival HS), Trojans, Nanooks, Fighting Irish. . . we can list off teams named for certain types of people all day long.

Do we force everyone to change because a few people dislike it?

[Easy Mac]

I think the Ole Miss Rebels are making fun of the US as a whole and somewhat treasonous.

[JW]

Originally Posted by John Galt

You still haven't answered my question. How do you find Delta Devils at all comparable to Fighting Illini?

I apologize, John Galt, for not being entirely serious. I really should have written WEAK ATTEMPT AT HUMOR at the top of that post. So just chill. I was not attempting to construct a precise analogy there. I promise.

But I will answer your question anyway, lol. There are religious people who are offended by the use of what might be called satanic images as mascots. I found this out while an officer on the division staff of the 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized) "Red Devils." Some people objected to the nickname and devil-with-a-pitchfork mascot. So the comparison would be that the Delta Devils nickname offends some people. I am sure the number is tiny, but what is the threshold?

Likewise, some people, both religious and otherwise, object to religious symbology in general in public institutions. Some of the institutions named are public,some private. But the private ones bring their religious symbology to public playing fields for NCAA-sanctioned games. Considering how hyper some people get about religion, I will guarantee you we could find some people offended by this. The number would probably be very small. But then what is the threshold of offense that lights off the alarms in NCAA headquarters.

Likewise, there have been some limited, small protests against the use of live animal mascots by NCAA institutions. What would happen if PETA started showing up at NCAA games to protest? What is the threshold there?

[JW]

Originally Posted by Ryno

No. It's not about how Native Americans feel. It's about assuaging white guilt, or more specifically liberal white guilt.

You're right about the window dressing. It's like giving someone a band-aid after shooting them in the head. We slaughtered 90% of your people, but we'll make it all better by changing a few sports team's names.

If we really want to help, we can set up scholarship funds and similar things that will actually help people.

How do Native Americans feel about this? There is some polling data. Link and excerpt:

http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr030802.shtml

(In 2002) 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."

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JW

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."

Although I've said my piece on the topic, I would like to point out a subtlety to this kind of logic that sometimes escapes note. Until the wealthy & educated in the new British colonies convinced a majority of people that it was necessary to revolt, the majority weren't looking to do so. Until the publication of the Federalist Papers, the majority of people weren't supportive of the Constitution. In almost every era, it's been the educated and committed (and frequently the wealthy, or those wanting to become so) that have driven reform. I should then point out that the vast majority of Native Americans are not highly educated nor wealthy--reservation life being, put nicely, fairly bleak--and the most visibility that your average Native American has comes through such names as the Fighting Illini or the Red Warriors. Needless to say, from an everyman standpoint, there's little incentive to rock that particular boat.

[SFL Cat]

Wow, NM, very racist sounding statement there. As an English-Irish mutt with 1/32 Native American blood (great grandmom was a half), I'm offended.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Wow, NM, very racist sounding statement there. As an English-Irish mutt with 1/32 Native American blood (great grandmom was a half), I'm offended.

Being as how I've got quite a bit more Native blood than you, I'm sorry that you're taking it that way. I'm just pointing out that while using the "average man" argument has a certain weight, there are other aspects to the argument that can be overlooked. For an example that has a less ethnic component, merely ask yourself why the Founding Fathers argued for a representative democracy, rather than a pure one.

[JW]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Although I've said my piece on the topic, I would like to point out a subtlety to this kind of logic that sometimes escapes note. Until the wealthy & educated in the new British colonies convinced a majority of people that it was necessary to revolt, the majority weren't looking to do so. Until the publication of the Federalist Papers, the majority of people weren't supportive of the Constitution. In almost every era, it's been the educated and committed (and frequently the wealthy, or those wanting to become so) that have driven reform. I should then point out that the vast majority of Native Americans are not highly educated nor wealthy--reservation life being, put nicely, fairly bleak--and the most visibility that your average Native American has comes through such names as the Fighting Illini or the Red Warriors. Needless to say, from an everyman standpoint, there's little incentive to rock that particular boat.

So every reform driven by the educated and committed is good?

I would suggest that a better meaning of the poll data is what I've been saying, that the elimination of Indian nicknames and mascots makes zero difference in the lives of most Native Americans. It is window dressing driven by a small, vocal, well-financed, activist minority. That minority would better serve its supposed constituents devoting its efforts to things that could actually improve the lives of poor Native Americans, particularly those languishing in our disastrous reservation system. This is a feel-good action that gives the illusion of actually helping people.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

JG: Fighting those that are historically oppressed on paper instead of deed again?

Huh?

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JW

So every reform driven by the educated and committed is good?

I reserve this for only the very inane, but:

I would suggest that a better meaning of the poll data is what I've been saying, that the elimination of Indian nicknames and mascots makes zero difference in the lives of most Native Americans.

This, however, is something with which I agree.

It is window dressing driven by a small, vocal, well-financed, activist minority. That minority would better serve its supposed constituents devoting its efforts to things that could actually improve the lives of poor Native Americans, particularly those languishing in our disastrous reservation system. This is a feel-good action that gives the illusion of actually helping people.

I would argue that the "activist minority" would say that they are attempting to improve the lives of their constituents in many ways, and this is one of them. This definitely brings more national attention to Native Americans than just about anything since the Peltier case, and in that way perhaps it will help move things forward.

[Tigercat]

The uneducated opinion should have just as much weight as the educated one. This isn't politics, this is "Is something offending you?" If those who's lifestyle and history are primarily affected by these symbols are not offended by a decisive majority then it should be a dead issue. Protecting a small minority of a small minority who are offended by something that is not in their face in every day life is obsurdly different than protecting the actual rights of an entire(or majority of a) small minority.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Being as how I've got quite a bit more Native blood than you, I'm sorry that you're taking it that way. I'm just pointing out that while using the "average man" argument has a certain weight, there are other aspects to the argument that can be overlooked. For an example that has a less ethnic component, merely ask yourself why the Founding Fathers argued for a representative democracy, rather than a pure one.

Guess I should've used a smiley.

So, you on the rolls?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by JW

I apologize, John Galt, for not being entirely serious. I really should have written WEAK ATTEMPT AT HUMOR at the top of that post. So just chill. I was not attempting to construct a precise analogy there. I promise.

But I will answer your question anyway, lol. There are religious people who are offended by the use of what might be called satanic images as mascots. I found this out while an officer on the division staff of the 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized) "Red Devils." Some people objected to the nickname and devil-with-a-pitchfork mascot. So the comparison would be that the Delta Devils nickname offends some people. I am sure the number is tiny, but what is the threshold?

Likewise, some people, both religious and otherwise, object to religious symbology in general in public institutions. Some of the institutions named are public,some private. But the private ones bring their religious symbology to public playing fields for NCAA-sanctioned games. Considering how hyper some people get about religion, I will guarantee you we could find some people offended by this. The number would probably be very small. But then what is the threshold of offense that lights off the alarms in NCAA headquarters.

Likewise, there have been some limited, small protests against the use of live animal mascots by NCAA institutions. What would happen if PETA started showing up at NCAA games to protest? What is the threshold there?

You will notice a big difference between "Devil" and "Illini" - one is a word that describes a group of people - the other is a word that some people ascribe a special meaning to. Names like "Illini" have no function independent of naming an ethnic group.

This is NOT about offending people, IMO. It is about using names which by their nature can only keep alive racist stereotypes. This is not about a simple majoritarian survey. The question is what possible reason is there for a team to be called "Redskins?" What positive can come from that? What redeeming value does it hold? People being offended is not a sufficient or even an important condition - it is about using language that perpetuates racism.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

This definitely brings more national attention to Native Americans than just about anything since the Peltier case, and in that way perhaps it will help move things forward.

I really don't think it'll cause any noticeable movement of any sort, but if anything does shift, I'd say the odds are more toward being negative rather than positive.

I believe most everybody who will actually notice understands that this is noise is coming from a very small minority. I hope that's the case anyway, because IMO the most likely reaction will be quite a bit of animosity toward those who get the blame for any changes. While that's not the goal, I sincerely believe that's a lot more likely outcome than any sort of "increased sensitivity" or whatever.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I really don't think it'll cause any noticeable movement of any sort, but if anything does shift, I'd say the odds are more toward being negative rather than positive.

I believe most everybody who will actually notice understands that this is noise is coming from a very small minority. I hope that's the case anyway, because IMO the most likely reaction will be quite a bit of animosity toward those who get the blame for any changes. While that's not the goal, I sincerely believe that's a lot more likely outcome than any sort of "increased sensitivity" or whatever.

I think there is so truth to this to some extent. There will be some animosity early on towards all of it. I remember when one of these waves hit about 10-15 years ago and the Eastern Michigan Hurons were forced to change their name to the Eastern Michigan Eagles. While Hurons still sounds cooler (to me) because it's more unique and there was some bitterness back in the day, I think it's pretty much all forgotten now. No one really cares anymore. This kind of stuff fades...

As to the whole debate, I am not outraged at the NCAA is banning the mascots. It's fine. I don't buy the slippery slope arguments against it. You can pretty easily distinguish these cases from others. That said, I don't think it's critical to our society. There are bigger/more important battles the NCAA or whoever could be fighting.

[Buccaneer]

People sitting in their ivory towers away from the realities of others thinking they can make a difference in such lives.