dakotadan Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Can somebody tell me how SDSU didn't make the list of "Hostile and Abusive"? If you ask me, Aztecs are considered Native Americans. And if our logo is so racist and stereo-typical, how is this not? As long as we never take Stanfords lead and end up with something like this, I'll be happy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 According to the NC$$ the Aztecs don't count because they are not U. S. American Indians. It's ok to be hostile and abusive to Mexican Indians. Another point briefly mentioed, was that the Aztecs are extinct (much like the Illini). Although (like the Illini), there are decendants in and around Mexico City who still speak the Aztec language and who number around 2 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Another point briefly mentioed, was that the Aztecs are extinct (much like the Illini). Although (like the Illini), there are decendants in and around Mexico City who still speak the Aztec language and who number around 2 million. Agreed. I've been to a few events around the MSP area that featured Aztecs/Mexicans who performed traditional dances, music, etc. However, they did not sacrifice a virgin to the gods, so I was disappointed and wanted my money back. To presume that the Aztecs are extinct is pretty arrogant ... oh, wait ... it is par for the course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Another point briefly mentioed, was that the Aztecs are extinct (much like the Illini). Although (like the Illini), there are decendants in and around Mexico City who still speak the Aztec language and who number around 2 million. Here's how "Illiniwek" started. This info is from one old fan long ago, so its hardly official. The word "Illiniwek" as originally coined is probably pretty close to what we mean when we say "the human race". Originally a few tribes in present-day Illinois used the term to refer to themselves and all the neighboring tribes of which they were aware at the time; so at that time, this was a word meaning "everyone on earth". These few tribes were generally cooperative-no longstanding wars as you might see among other Indians in other territories. Later, as these tribes found other Native Americans as well as white settlers from Europe, the meaning of "Illiniwek" morphed into what the way it is now commonly used: a word describing a loose confederation of perhaps five tribes. This is how it was translated by the early French explorers. There never was an individual tribe of Indians called "Illiniwek" or "Illini": this is totally dissimilar to the tribes of Navajos, Seminoles, etc. Today, of those peoples who identified themselves as part of the Illiniwek confederation perhaps the only identifiable descendents left are the Peoria Tribe. They are headquartered in Oklahoma; they are recognized by the Federal government in the same way as every other Native American tribe. Since the time of the French explorers, some of the other Illiniwek tribes were consolidated by treaty into the Peoria or other tribes; others drifted apart over the years and their members either joined other tribes on their own or assimilated in some other way. So the Illiniwek are technically not extinct-but then again, a tribe named Illiniwek never existed in the first place. This certainly complicates any effort to get NCAA-okayed permission: we'd essentially be asking for permission to use a word of their language, if you will. Nice that the NCAA only chooses to protect those people who originally settled within the borders of 20th Century America, isn't it? I wonder if NAFTA applies? And if the NCAA admits members from Canada, what's to stop them from admitting members from Mexico? Will the Aztecs be sanctioned at that point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 One more note on authenticity-did the original Aztecs use velcro on their sandals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 One more note on authenticity-did the original Aztecs use velcro on their sandals? I don't know, but that get up (especially the headgear) is just well... bad. I hope that guy is paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 I don't know, but that get up (especially the headgear) is just well... bad. I hope that guy is paid. Those velcro sandals are hostile and abusive on their own. EDIT- dang-it Chief, you beat me to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakotadan Posted October 11, 2007 Author Share Posted October 11, 2007 Can somebody tell me how SDSU didn't make the list of "Hostile and Abusive"? If you ask me, Aztecs are considered Native Americans. And if our logo is so racist and stereo-typical, how is this not? Anybody else notice that San Diego State University quietly changed their nickname and is now the Spartans? I noticed it earlier today on an ESPN ad for the SDSU/Hawaii game on ESPN this friday. The only thing I have really been able to find is this interesting article from Indian Country Today from October 18, 2000: San Diego State to decide fate of Mascot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggler Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 That's San Jose State. San Diego State is still the Aztecs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakotadan Posted October 11, 2007 Author Share Posted October 11, 2007 That's San Jose State. San Diego State is still the Aztecs. HAHAHA. Woops. Mixed that one up! I think it's time for bed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 HAHAHA. Woops. Mixed that one up! SDSU went thru this at least twice: committees, revised logos, sensitivity meetings, etc. They've laid out plenty of cash to placate the whiners. If they tried to reverse course now they'd run into a bit of opposition. Hey, there aren't any Spartans within the Continental United States, are there? I guess its okay to offend the Greeks as long as they weren't here before the Pilgrims. After all, they're thousands of miles away: the Aztecs are merely a few hundred miles from the border. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Hey, there aren't any Spartans within the Continental United States, are there? I guess its okay to offend the Greeks as long as they weren't here before the Pilgrims. After all, they're thousands of miles away: the Aztecs are merely a few hundred miles from the border. Does that include Vikings too? I guess you can offend Scandinavia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Does that include Vikings too? I guess you can offend Scandinavia. Ooops, my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. I should have said "before any nasty ol' European types" instead of saying Pilgrims. But that does bring up a question: how do you define "native American"? What if some of Leif Erickson's crew had stuck around and, uh, "married into" one of the native tribes? Would those descendents be just as "native" as the ones who have no European blood? Do they get to vote a la the Seminole and Ute "elections" for okaying a school name? Oh well. I'm sure the NCAA has someone working on that problem 24/7, 365. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverman Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Nice that the NCAA only chooses to protect those people who originally settled within the borders of 20th Century America, isn't it? Interesting that this Nakota web site doesn't have a problem with the "Sioux" word. The Great Sioux Nation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Interesting that this Nakota web site doesn't have a problem with the "Sioux" word. I've been talking about the "borders of the Continental United States" for a while since I know that Hawaii gets a pass with their "Warrior" nickname, but I did look up Alaska right now: Here's a link to their "Nanook" page-did anyone get a signoff from the Inupiaq Eskimo group??? http://www.uaf.edu/uaf/athletics/index.html After 1963, the Polar Bears and UAF's official mascot became known almost exclusively as "Nanooks," after the Inupiaq Eskimo word for polar bear "nanuq." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I've been talking about the "borders of the Continental United States" for a while since I know that Hawaii gets a pass with their "Warrior" nickname, but I did look up Alaska right now: Here's a link to their "Nanook" page-did anyone get a signoff from the Inupiaq Eskimo group??? http://www.uaf.edu/uaf/athletics/index.html I am sure they like to leave Alaska alone because I think Myles Brand has some oil rights up there so he gets his gas for free. So Nanooks are okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THETRIOUXPER Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I am sure they like to leave Alaska alone because I think Myles Brand has some oil rights up there so he gets his gas for free. So Nanooks are okay. He probably uses that gas to fuel up his PONTIAC, official NC$$ sponsor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.