Let’s Be Sensitive

The NCAA is right for being strict about the use of Native American nicknames and mascots. There is a greater need for sensitivity among human beings for the people they offend.

Native American activists have complained to the NCAA about the disrespectful use of such imagery and it’s good that they responded.

I agree that it is definitely a major inconvenience to the schools on the “hostile” list but it’s even worse to keep degrading the names and culture of a particular group of people.

Why allow one group of people to continue to have fun at the expense of another? Something had to be done about that!

Regards, Donnell Duncan, Founder and President, The Cracked Door, “If the Door is Cracked, the Door is Open”

Donnell, Civil Engineering (Structures) Graduate at Georgia Instititute of Technology, at 8:20 am EDT on October 21, 2005

Once again, where does this end?

The argument that these school mascot names degrade cultures is purely a matter of perspective. Mascots are not chosen for their comedic value. They are chosen because the school is looking for an image that conveys things such as strength, pride, fierceness, competitiveness, and (sometimes) honor. It is only because mascots are treated as humiliations by others that they are interpreted as such. If we treated the person who wore the costume as though they were being accorded an honor instead of treating them like a dork, I’m sure that mascots would have a better reputation among their namesakes.

That being said, if we cannot use “Indians” or “Braves” as mascot names because they are insensitive, I suppose that it will not be long before ALL names referring to people are removed:

1) No more “Vikings". Offensive to Nordic people. 2) No more “Mongols". Offensive to Mongolians. 3) No more “Aztecs". Offensive to Hispanics. 4) No more “Warriors". Offensive to pacifists. 5) No more “Fighting Irish” because it perpetuates a stereotype that all Irish are drunken fighters.6) No more “Trojans". Offensive to people in Asia Minor. (Oh, wait...that will probably be accepted because of the marketing potential)

I hate using a slippery slope argument, but where does this end? Are we headed toward a place where we are only able to use abstract concepts, random objects, and cartoon designs as mascots because we otherwise risk offending someone? Before long, even animal mascots will be challenged by PETA as being degrading to the animal kingdom.

I really want to know how far is too far.

Garic, at 12:10 pm EDT on October 21, 2005

Chuck:

Actually, there are a significant number of people who would argue that my statement is correct.

A number of resources state that no one really knows for certain how the “Fighting Irish” mascot originated. However, there is some credence to the story that, originally, Notre Dame was referred to as the “Fighting Irish” as a slam against the Irish immigrants who came to the US and attended Notre Dame. Anti-Irish sentiment led to the stereotype that all Irish immigrants were drunken people who were looking for a fight.

Notre Dame decided to create a positive connotation for the moniker so that they could take take pride in it. Their efforts have been successful, as the general public never even considers that people might have disliked the Irish for being, well, Irish. However, that does not disprove that American culture from the 1900s has a number of unfortunate examples of anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment.

This leads to a question. If it could be irrefutably proven that Notre Dame’s mascot was originally an ethnic insult, would it then merit being banned by the NCAA?

Garic, at 3:02 pm EDT on October 21, 2005

Where did the Pride of this Issue Go?

I can appreciate both sides of this dialogue, but I tend to agree with Garic and Chuck’s comments above, “how far is to far.” I can remember, and not so long ago, when mascot’s were specifically used because it was a University’s (teams) way of showing pride. How did we take “mascot” ..."one that is thought to bring good luck” (Webster’s Dictionary) and turn it into something offensive? I realize that a specic Native Americans have voiced their opinion in regard to stereotyping, but if you use that as reasoning I suppose you could say their are an equal amount of Native Americans that do like the fact that it is a positive and pride-full recognition and appreciation of their culture. How did we let something so good become so complicated?

Robin, at 7:57 am EST on November 10, 2005