[NU Sports] No more Sweet Sioux Tomahawk

[John Labbe]

Without ranting one way or the other, I just have a few observations  
about this whole discussion:

1) First, Illinois is still the "Fighting Illini," and they're not  
changing that.  They're just getting rid of what some consider  
condescending and patronizing symbols of Native Americans such as a  
man who runs out on the field and performs a ridiculous dance while  
wearing a Native American outfit.  Perhaps they're keeping the  
"Illini" name only because it doesn't actually refer to Native  
Americans, but if that's the case, then the Native American symbols  
are even more ridiculous because they don't even correspond to the name.

2) Does anyone really care that the Sweet Sioux trophy is going away?   
I always thought it was a little dumb.  Hopefully we can invent a new,  
better trophy.  I can see why some might find it offensive as it  
associates Native Americans with a violent weapon that was sometimes  
used to kill and scalp people.  Personally, I wouldn't want my culture  
to be defined by such a symbol, much less made into a trophy.

3) With respect to the point that many other teams have groups of  
people for their nickname or mascot, I think Evan makes a good point  
that in most of those instances, the groups represented don't have any  
objection and represent a majority group.

I can't analyze every single example cited, but I'm familiar with  
one.  The "Ragin Cajuns" of the University of Louisiana-Lafayette  
essentially refers to drunken Cajuns.  But seeing as the people in  
south Louisiana are a bunch of Cajuns (and stereotypically  
alcoholics), at some point in the mid-1990s they decided that maybe  
using the image of a little drunk Cajun man perhaps wasn't the best  
reflection for the local culture.  So, without changing the name, they  
essentially rebranded.  Now, the mascot is Cayenne the Pepper, and the  
image of a little Cajun man is seldom seen.  Indeed, according to the  
current spin, a "Ragin Cajun" isn't even a person, but rather "a  
feeling that describes [their] unique way of life."  (See http://www.ragincajuns.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=15400&KEY=&ATCLID=858011)

In this case, the symbols weren't changed to be PC, but rather because  
the controlling group didn't want to project itself anymore as a bunch  
of drunks.  Does a minority group not deserve the same degree of  
respect as the majority group?

4) Suppose Northwestern was still the Fighting Methodists.  Maybe the  
name would be OK, but would it be OK if a bunch of people dressed in  
stereotypically Methodist clothing (whatever that might be) came out  
at halftime and performed a mocking ritual?  With respect to the  
Illini (and the Ragin Cajuns), the names haven't been changed, just  
the symbols and and some of the customs.


On Nov 22, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Evan Bradley wrote:

> I was going to let this entire conversation go without joining in, but
> this has passed the point of absurdity.
>
> The reason no one objects to the Sooners, Irish, etc. are because they
> don't represent downtrodden minorities (that wasn't always so for the
> Irish, but I digress...), and because the imagery and the groups using
> it are both members of the majority culture.  It shouldn't be
> surprising that some Native Americans might object to Anglo Americans
> using elements of their culture (perhaps inaccurately) to 'honor' the
> heritage of peoples who were removed from their state to make way for
> 'real' Americans.  I'm sure a few of you would take offense to a
> mostly-white school calling their team the Negroes or the Japs, or a
> HBCU the Whiteys or the Jews.
>
> Of course, not all Native Americans were benevolent, helpless victims;
> of course, some groups might not mind their culture being used by
> teams; of course, books shouldn't be banned; my point is that it seems
> to me that those who complain most vociferously about how 'Policial
> Correctness' is cramping *their* style simply don't recognize their
> own privilege - privilege which gives them the ability to demand that
> they get to put their enjoyment of some silly sports mascot above
> another's culture and be taken seriously.  I know it's hard, but try
> taking someone else's perspective once in a while.
>
> rant off
>
> go 'cats
>
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Randy Wilson <randy at 1702.org> wrote:
>> Why did the Lakota have to move?
>> -Randy
>>
>> Dennis W. Brandt wrote:
>>>> Interesting note, the "Sooners" were folk who were cheating to  
>>>> claim
>>>> land previously given to the Indians after they were kicked off  
>>>> of their
>>>> own land.
>>>> -Randy
>>>
>>> And the Lakota Sioux lived where they did because in the early 19th
>>> century, they drove off at least sixteen other tribes and took their
>>> land.  You can reduce anything to absurdity by viewing it
>>> anachronistically.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nwu-sports site list
>>> nwu-sports at tssi.com
>>> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nwu-sports site list
>> nwu-sports at tssi.com
>> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nwu-sports site list
> nwu-sports at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports