Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
jimdahl

Indian nicknames in the news

Recommended Posts

I've always supported the Sioux nickname, even though I understand that it can't be used anymore because UND was put in a position by the NCAA where they had to abandon the name. For the 35+ years I was a Sioux fan, I never saw a tomahawk chop done, never saw a person of another color dress as a native american. When they brought back Sammy Sioux, I was among the students that protested and got rid of it. We used the name with respect and had the best logo in all of college sports. The Spirit Lake tribe supported the name, and I have no doubt that if a vote would have been allowed, the Standing Rock tribe would have overwhelmingly supported the name.

However, when it comes to the name "Redskins", I have to say it is offensive and crosses the line. It should be retired. I'm actually glad that GF Central got rid of it. I could never look at a group of Native Americans and say, "Hey, look at those Redskins!". That would be offensive. So, why would the name not be considered offensive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the NFL and the NCAA related in any way? Do they work the same in any other way? They are different types of organizations. They can make different decisions based on different criteria.

The NCAA made rules, which they were legally allowed to do. The NFL may be able to do something more on the subject if they chose, I'm not sure what their limits might be. But so far they have chosen to let Washington make their own decision. That may or may not change in the future. And the NCAA has absolutely no control over the NFL, so their policy has no bearing at all on the NFL policy.

The Washington Redskins are a "member" of the NFL, they can do whatever inside the organization but big things like moving has to be approved by the NFL. Now if the NFL came out and said Indian names have to go (like the NCAA did) what says the Redskins or Chiefs team can say No. I would think the Chiefs have a better chance at keeping their name since its not offensive like Redskins is. Just wait in time pro sports will join college in the Indian name debate. I am surprised Chief Wahoo has lasted this long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Washington Redskins are a "member" of the NFL, they can do whatever inside the organization but big things like moving has to be approved by the NFL. Now if the NFL came out and said Indian names have to go (like the NCAA did) what says the Redskins or Chiefs team can say No. I would think the Chiefs have a better chance at keeping their name since its not offensive like Redskins is. Just wait in time pro sports will join college in the Indian name debate. I am surprised Chief Wahoo has lasted this long.

The NCAA is a true membership organization. The NFL is set up a little differently. Legally, the 2 organizations are not set up exactly the same. I haven't done any research on the topic, so I'm not sure exactly what power the NFL would have over something like a nickname. Just because one organization (the NCAA) made one decision doesn't mean that the NFL could do exactly the same thing. I'm sure that the NFL could do something more than they have. The NFL may do something more in the future. At this point they are leaving it to the individual teams (although they are probably putting some pressure on Washington because of the negative or potentially negative PR).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://nfl.si.com/20...t2_a3&eref=sihp

So according to Roger Goodell now, we're back to the standard of 'if something offends ONE person, it must be examined...'. Great.

As long as Goodell can make money for the NFL with "Redskins", he'll continue to do so regardless if somebody's "offended". He's a lawyer by trade, so I doubt he's serious about "listening" to a few offended bed-wetters. Frankly, Snyder or a subsequent owner would need to pull the trigger on any moniker and I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NCAA is a true membership organization. The NFL is set up a little differently. Legally, the 2 organizations are not set up exactly the same. I haven't done any research on the topic, so I'm not sure exactly what power the NFL would have over something like a nickname. Just because one organization (the NCAA) made one decision doesn't mean that the NFL could do exactly the same thing. I'm sure that the NFL could do something more than they have. The NFL may do something more in the future. At this point they are leaving it to the individual teams (although they are probably putting some pressure on Washington because of the negative or potentially negative PR).

I just hope the NFL, MLB or other pro sports don't join the NCAA in the whole PC nickname crap. If a group is hurt is one thing, but a pissed off stadium, city, and nation of fans of the team is another thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll know the precise minute that "Redskins" has become a net negative for the franchise and the NFL.

That will be the precise minute that the moniker will change.

(Note: I said the same about "Sioux".)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite lines from that article.

"The name just doesn't bother me much. It's an issue that shouldn't be an issue, not with all the problems we've got in this country."

"it seems like it's just people who have no connection with the Native American culture, people out there trying to draw attention to themselves."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite lines from that article.

"The name just doesn't bother me much. It's an issue that shouldn't be an issue, not with all the problems we've got in this country."

"it seems like it's just people who have no connection with the Native American culture, people out there trying to draw attention to themselves."

Sounds familiar, hmmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, The University of North Dakota Veterans. Not bad.

Soooooo offensive to the military-hating extreme left-wing...nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, I think any concern over a protest of "veterans" is being way to sensitive. I realize MafiaMan may have been joking, so I don't want to make too much of it, but at some point you have to draw the line and go for it. I think Veterans would be plenty safe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, I think any concern over a protest of "veterans" is being way to sensitive. I realize MafiaMan may have been joking, so I don't want to make too much of it, but at some point you have to draw the line and go for it. I think Veterans would be plenty safe

I was joking...but one "Code Pink" protest outside of REA is all it would take...

Besides...I've brought up this one before...

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-400_162-3573855.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yikes, I guess you never know. I suppose the difference here is that, while unanticipated, a certain segment of the population was called by that name, apparently. Seeing a mascot, which I'm sure would not be a flattering one, and hearing that name associated with it might drive home the associating that that's what people thought of "me". While I think that's overly sensitive, I guess I can kind of see that perspective.

"Veterans" on the other hand, seems to me to be fairly innocuous due to the changing images of veterans (fortunately much improved since the Vietnam War, no fault of the veterans) in society. Even ultra liberal anti-war zealots would be hard pressed to find much support for a public stance denouncing the respect given to the nation's defenders of freedom.

I get the point of view. I just think this one is in the safe zone. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yikes, I guess you never know. I suppose the difference here is that, while unanticipated, a certain segment of the population was called by that name, apparently. Seeing a mascot, which I'm sure would not be a flattering one, and hearing that name associated with it might drive home the associating that that's what people thought of "me". While I think that's overly sensitive, I guess I can kind of see that perspective.

The 'hot dago' sandwich is popular on menus here in St Paul to this day. In 1992, I took my grandparents to a restaurant in the city and my grandpa absolutely blew a head gasket over the 'outrage' of that word being printed on a menu. He was 100% Italian and very familiar of the days of signs around business in Providence and Boston reading 'WOPS need not apply' and 'no Dagos'.

If the standard is 'it can't offend anyone,' we're going to have moniker-less and logo-less sports teams across the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'hot dago' sandwich is popular on menus here in St Paul to this day. In 1992, I took my grandparents to a restaurant in the city and my grandpa absolutely blew a head gasket over the 'outrage' of that word being printed on a menu. He was 100% Italian and very familiar of the days of signs around business in Providence and Boston reading 'WOPS need not apply' and 'no Dagos'.

If the standard is 'it can't offend anyone,' we're going to have moniker-less and logo-less sports teams across the board.

Like European football...club names and corporate sponsorships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×