[NU Sports] No more Sweet Sioux Tomahawk

Sun Nov 23 09:00:02 CST 2008

The question will become 'what is the new trophy ?'  and can it be as  
memorable as

- a bronze statue of a pig that was originally a bet between the two  
governors,
- a pottery jug that Fielding Yost left behind in Minneapolis

There are also a turtle and a cannon that I don't know the back stories on,  
although I hear that the turtle replaced a slab of bacon.

The two schools need to come up with a great looking, totally  inoffensive 
trophy (better than the obviously invented 'land grant trophy'  between Penn 
State and Michigan State), and an interesting back story.

Did Bob Zuppke ever leave anything in Evanston ?

Did Pappy Waldorf ever leave anything in Champaign ?

Did an Evanston kid ever swipe Red Grange's helmet/blanket/football cleats  
when he wasn't looking ?

The schools can even claim the back story turned up after new research (the  
kind that has produced some new wins in the early days, but hasn't quite  
clarified the exact number of ten win seasons yet)

Both schools have marketing types (though you might not know that we did  
from the way our teams are marketed) - put them to work on designing this  thing.

And make it very photogenic, so countless Sun-Times/Tribunes can be adorned  
(as this morning's Sun-Times was) with a full-page shot of purple warriors  
lifting it skyward (anything should photograph better with royal purple than  
with gaudy orange...)

Chuck Herron   Tech '85

In a message dated 11/22/2008 7:29:28 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
johnl at mac.com writes:

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

_______________________________________________
nwu-sports  site  list
nwu-sports at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports

**************One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, 
and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com 
today!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212962939x1200825291/aol?redir=http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp
%26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001)