what is really behind this aversion to p.c.?

[ron]

this knee jerk reaction to call anyboy concerned with respecting a group of people or rectifying a group relationship between the powerful and powerless marked by inequity "pc", in a derisive way?

lets call it what it is guys...its a desire to maintain "power" in a society. some white guys feel as though they have been assinged a god given right to say and do anything they want, when it comes to a group of people who historically have been powerless.

the native americans are an example. they were almost exterminated, and thus have no real political/social/monetary positon in this society. consequently, there are white males (and some females) who feel empowered by belittling them, or at the very least resisting the logical and respecful gesture of changing negative, hate inspired insignia or names. or names that characterize a group of people in a myopic, gnerally combative manner.

why don't we see the new york n-words (those big strong n-words sure have been known to battle, right?) ...or the jacksonville h-bombs (those players sure have exhibited shrewd and heady behavior, right)? how about the houston h*nk*es (those wild, viscous settlers tamed a nation of savages, right)?

we dont see that because blacks, jews, and whites, while not equal in social standing here, are powerful enough, or at least visible enough to highlight the wrong. native americans are not.

then to butress their case, individuals trot out some "study's" or "polls" or even real life people who are ambivalent to the use of say seminoles, and broadly state that it should apply to all uses.

so what is some seminoles don't object. 1) it doesn't apply to all of them - some do, and 2) they are still operating in an environment of powerlessness, and as such are wise enough to know that not overtly objecting to the nickname could have real world political benefits. its almost like signing a contract under duress.

lets call it what it is...some white cats are clinging onto their position of power, real or percieved. they don't want to respect other people, because they don't think they have to. ignorance and disrespect is not a right, its a problem that needs to be addressed. at least it should be in a civilized society.

[SaxaCD]

ron said:

this knee jerk reaction to call anyboy concerned with respecting a group of people or rectifying a group relationship between the powerful and powerless marked by inequity "pc", in a derisive way?

lets call it what it is guys...its a desire to maintain "power" in a society. some white guys feel as though they have been assinged a god given right to say and do anything they want, when it comes to a group of people who historically have been powerless.

That's always the way that people who can only see every single situation through a lens of victimhood view the topic.

My aversion to PC is that it ignores either the truth or common sense in order not to offend someone. I am all for equal rights for all, but I'm NOT for legislating away hurt feelings.

by the way, some Seminoles not only don't object, they strongly encourage the affiliation.

I hate the "Al Sharpton" view of who speaks for what view -- in other words, the loudest, most obnoxious guy or group speaks for everybody else. In more than one poll, the results have shown most American Indian groups either don't object or actually like the Indian team names. Why do you always ignore them and only take the loudmouth attention-mongers' word as the definitive say.

I don't see this staying on this board too long, because it doesn't belong. But always fun taking a swing at your wacky outlook, Ron!

[kchoya]

The problem is that the NCAA handed down this blanket ruling without looking at the circumstances of each case/school. It's PC to say that any and all uses of native american mascots/imagery/terms are hostile and offensive.

When the University of Utah uses the nickname "Utes," doesn't have an indian mascot, and has the blessing of the Ute tribe, it's PC for some white cat in INDIANapolis, INDIANa to ban the use of the nickname. For god's sake, the name of the state is Utah. Do we need to change the name of the state too?

I'm sure there are offensive situations out there that should be addressed. But for a rich, powerful, white cat at the NCAA to tell everyone else what is offensive, that's where a lot of people have a problem.

[ron]

hurt feelings??? what the hell!? damn what your ignorance does to somebody huh? if thats the case, why don't you openly support the fighting broads or the savage dames or something such as that? you'd be hurting their feelings. but you wouldn't dare, because women (white included) wouldn't have it. damn their feelings...be consisitent...publicly.

what group has embraced it? how do they relate to all seminole people? what polls? don't spout them, if you cant answer these salient questions. sounds like your grasping for staws to justify some b.s.

and again, given the inequity of power between those who want to ignore peoples "feelings", and those who are being disrespected and marginalized thru that disrespect, creates an environment where there are real world benefits to going along with said disrespect..it is akin to entering into an agreement under duress.

how should the al sharpton's of the world go about identyifying inequity. suggesting, non publicly that this or that exists? and you really believe that works? if so, give me an example where social inequity relented or lessened, without a fight. you can't do it.

[Jack]

Personally, I think the Dunkin Donut Center is a hole and the fans there are jerks, most of whom have no affiliation to Providence College. The last few times the Hoyas have played there have been awful, and I still have nightmares about Billy Donovan and Pop Lewis bombing 3's in 1987. That is my aversion to PC.

Oh, we are not talking about college basketball at all in this thread? My mistake, I must be on the Blue and Gray board.

[ron]

jack, did you say that when supporters of the right to utilize many times ugly depictions of people as sports mascots and the team names waxed ad nauseum to the tune of 6+ pages below?

if you did, then i stand corrected, but ill do what they did, and ignore your pleas. i bet you didn't though. why not?

[SFHoya99]

Ron, you looking for a discussion or a fight? Cause you're typing like you just want a fight.

First problem I have with your commentary is the ludicrous idea that us white folk consciously look for ways to maintain power over minorities. Yes, after work, instead of taking a beer with my friends, calling my family or catching a Padres game on tv, I plan on how I can keep other folk down.

Second problem is equating all knicknames with something like the n-word. If you actually read the whole six page thread, you'll find zero people defending "Redskins." Isn't that the only knickname out there that truly equates to the n-word? I don't see you protesting the Sacramento Kings -- but is there any difference between them and the KC Chiefs?

There is a severe difference in intent. When someone refers to someone as an n-word, they are clearly intending to denigrate the person. When Utah named their sports teams after the Utes, I think it was most likely done as a sign of respect.

As for feelings, etc., if again, you bothered to read the whole thread before accusing us all of being racist, you'd see I brought up the same point. The problem with banning "offensive" things is where do you draw the line. How may people must object to something to be offensive?

Frankly, when you decided to come on this board and accuse people of wanting to maintain power, you offended me. I'd appreciate it if you never said that again.

Or does my opinion not count?

[Jack]

Oh, so you did see that other thread, a discussion about the NCAA ruling that turned into a debate about political correctness and then died the death it deserved? But rather than commenting on that thread when it was active, or resurrecting it now that you are interested in the subject, you started your own thread with an attack on white people who complain about political correctness and barely mentioning college basketball.

You are correct that I did not comment in the prior thread, or I do not recall doing so. It was because I did not care too much about the issue. I guess your thread raised my ire because it was even less connected to the purpose for this forum and designed solely to provoke people. I am also once again frustrated by the repetitive and improperly placed threads here- I could just as well have complained about 3 different threads fragmenting the discussion of Duke Crews, so I am sorry for my selective crankiness. I will now refrain from further comment in the hope that this thread will be moved or ignored as it should be.

[SaxaCD]

From the Boston Globe:

"In a 2002 survey published by Sports Illustrated, 81 percent of Native Americans responding disagreed with the suggestion that schools should stop using Native American mascots. As the NCAA continues its analysis of this issue, it would be wise to consider such data and to listen to voices other than just those of the activists pushing for a total ban. Increased scrutiny of school mascots cannot hurt, but following that examination with a reaction that does not take into account common sense can."

From University of Illinois website:

"In September 2004, the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey reported the results of a year-long poll which showed that the vast majority of American Indians say that calling Washington’s professional football team the “Redskins” does not bother them (90% of Indians took that position, while 9% said they found the name “offensive”)"

However, the professional race-baiters object. Sure they do! Gets them on TV, and lines their pockets with contributions from guilt-ridden libs.

Talk about "overblown controversy"!

[FromTheBeginning]

I'm still waiting for the little people to do something about that Notre Dame Leprechaun guy. And when are the Brits going to stand up and do something about Jack the Bulldog? So many wrongs to be righted-----

[kchoya]

sfhoya99 said:

I don't see you protesting the Sacramento Kings -- but is there any difference between them and the KC Chiefs?

Two factoids:

1. The Kings came from KC. There must have been a power/oppressor fetish with the Royals, Chiefs and Kings all residing in Kansas City.

2. The Chiefs nickname is based, in large part, on former KC Mayor H. Roe Bartle, whose nickname was The Chief. He was a big figure in Kansas City history, and also a big figure in the Boy Scouts in the midwest. There is the H. Roe Bartle Scout Reservation in the ozarks (where I spent many a summer). Bartle founded the Mic-O-Say honor society for boy scouts based on his time on an Indian Reservation in Wyoming.

[wildhoya]

yes ron. lets mandate a mascot limitation to inanimate objects (Rockies, Hurricanes), types of music(Jazz), pure monikers such as our beloved hoyas (see inigos thread) and animals (except that, even there, those USC Cocks probably offend some). lets do that. now!


hoya saxa

[EasyEd]

I'm always amused by people who want to change other people's things, as in change the Redskins to something else, rather than examining themselves. I do not know ron but I ask him a question: do you ever tell or laugh at jokes about rednecks or blondes?

[FromTheBeginning]

I don't think the people waiting for Rita to hit Galveston or the poor souls in Louisiana, Mississippi & Alabama would consider "hurricanes" inanimate objects. Won't be long before they are after UM ot get rid of that nickname. And look out Iowa State with that cyclone business.

[the_way]

When it comes to race relations, there will never be a happy medium. You can't discuss it because everybody has their own view that they cling tight to emotionally. Maybe in 2 more lifetimes things will get better, but I doubt it.

[DFW HOYA]

One web site defined political correctness the elevation of sensitivity over sense. Another notes that PC is "motivated more by the desire to conform to prevailing social standards rather than a genuine respect for the rights of the individual or the group." Both apply to the NCAA.

For example, for the NCAA to actually suggest that UNC-Pembroke should change the name Braves is an insult to the Lumbee tribe. It was as non-sensical as the North Carolina minister who once attempted to force Duke to change its "satanist" name--never mind that the nickname refers to a French air squadron in World War I.

PC is not exclusively an ethnic issue. When Harvard president Larwence Summers openly wondered why fewer women are drawn to elite science careers, he was nearly run out of Cambridge on a rail. The subject is certainly worthy of discourse and debate but the PC movement attempts to place discussions it does not agree with as morally out of bounds.

And "out of bounds" is certainly an important point. When 70% of Marquette alumni favored the Warriors nickname (even without an Indian), Marquette officials declared that any ballot with that name would be invalid. The name Warrior is not exclusive to any ethnic group and has a tradition even within the Catholic Church (the "warrior saints"). Verboten, said the administration. In the PC mindset, all ideas are supposedly equal, but some ideas are more equal than others.

Notre Dame doesn't need the Hibernian Clubs to validate its nickname, nor does Texas A&M approach the Future Farmers of America for approval. A school's identity is its own, and plenty of schools have changed nicknames that did not involve the NCAA's legislative arm. If the NCAA declares some words "better" than others, what would they say about holding activities in a state whose very name means "red people"?

Of course, we know it better as Oklahoma.

[MCIGuy]

I'm not surprised that there are many Native Americans out there who don't have a problem with these team names. Considering that their people are mostly invisible in modern day America (politics, mainstream media and just in general numbers in the population) those team names and mascots often represent the only well known symbols that speak of their culture and history. And that's a shame because I do not believe that, as the vocal pro-mascot supporters suggest, that those names were given to university teams as some form of tribute. We can argue forever about the level of racism in today's society, but 70 years ago, 100 years ago, 120 years ago, the level of prejudice aimed at "minorities" was terribly high (and the laws of this country virtually encouraged it). So I can't imagine there were all those enlightened people out there who were coming up with Native American nicknames for their school teams because they saw it as a symbol of respect (that was probably the exception, not the rule).


That being said something can start off as negative and end up being turn into something positive. If the majority of Seminoles left over in Florida think the team name Florida State uses doesn't offend them so be it. But please don't dismiss what Seminoles in places like Oklahoma have to say about it. If my grasp on history isn't too off wasn't most of the Seminole Nation chased out of their original territory by the US Government and as a result many of them ended up in locations such as Oklahoma where their descendants have remained to this day, right? Well, maybe they aren’t too comfortable or don’t feel all that honored by Florida State’s “gesture”. However as I mentioned above I guess one can argue they shouldn’t necessarily as much of a right to speak on this matter as those members of the Seminole tribe who do reside in Florida. If the members of each tribal group whose name is used as a team nickname do a legit vote, and those members end up voting that they don’t object to the university in question continued use of the name, then by all means keep it and the NCAA, in response, should go along with their wishes. That being said I didn’t have a problem with the NCAA trying to do the right thing. Maybe the NCAA screwed up again, maybe it foolishly went past its reach. But its intentions were at least honorable IMO.

There's a point or two on this topic that I disagree with Ron wrote, but I concur with most of what he wrote. If people want to go around crying that accusations of racism are over baked and overused, the same can be said of people who fall back on the “that’s just being PC” line.

Last of all in these discussions someone always bring up the Notre Dame angle and how the expression the “Fighting Irish” can be seen as a slur towards the Irish. Okay. Can someone tell me if people of Irish descent had anything to do with the forming of Notre Dame and if they had anything to do with the creation and approval of the team nickname? Because seriously I don’t know, I can only guess. If the answer is yes then that would make that situation different from those of Native Americans who did not start these state institutions and had zero say in the decision to use Native American figures as mascots.

[rccoleon]

if Haskell Indian Nations (a college in Lawrence, KS) has the nickname the Indians and the school was created for Native Americans, why should any one else have a problem with it? obviously a school where it directly affects them does not have any kwams with it.

ncaa needs to give up on their annual ridiculous changes

[JohnnyTwoTimes]

dfw said:

PC is not exclusively an ethnic issue. When Harvard president Larwence Summers openly wondered why fewer women are drawn to elite science careers, he was nearly run out of Cambridge on a rail. The subject is certainly worthy of discourse and debate but the PC movement attempts to place discussions it does not agree with as morally out of bounds.

Sorry, but as to the particular circumstance of Summers, it is ridiculous to think that Harvard faculty members "nearly ran him out" because of some PC crusade. First, he didn't "wonder" but actually suggested that innate differences among men and women are the cause of the discrepancy. Second, when you are the president of a university, where part of your job is to help attract a) women professors to work there; b) women students to attend; and c) women alumnae to contribute, such irresponsible suggestions, with no supporting proof, are very good evidence that you are not fit for the job. Furthermore, this was only the final straw of many actions that Summers had done to antagonize a large majority of the Harvard faculty.

[DFW HOYA]

johnnytwotimes said:

First, he didn't "wonder" but actually suggested that innate differences among men and women are the cause of the discrepancy. Second, when you are the president of a university, where part of your job is to help attract a) women professors to work there; b) women students to attend; and c) women alumnae to contribute, such irresponsible suggestions, with no supporting proof, are very good evidence that you are not fit for the job.

I think this supports the point that even the discussion was judged out of bounds by the academic community, despite ongoing research into cognitive differences between men and women.