Have we become oversensitized in this country?

[MadDevil]

NCAA Bans "Hostile, Abusive" Nicknames from Postseason

INDIANAPOLIS -- The presidents and chancellors who serve on the NCAA Executive Committee have adopted a new policy to prohibit NCAA colleges and universities from displaying hostile and abusive racial/ethnic/national origin mascots, nicknames or imagery at any of the 88 NCAA championships.
The Executive Committee, meeting Thursday in Indianapolis, also approved recommended best practices for schools who continue to use Native American mascots, nicknames and imagery in their intercollegiate athletic programs.

"Colleges and universities may adopt any mascot that they wish, as that is an institutional matter," said Walter Harrison, chair of the Executive Committee and president at the University of Hartford. "But as a national association, we believe that mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin should not be visible at the championship events that we control."

The policy prohibiting colleges or universities with hostile or abusive mascots, nicknames or imagery from hosting any NCAA championship competitions takes effect February 1, 2006.

"The NCAA objects to institutions using racial/ethnic/national origin references in their intercollegiate athletics programs," said NCAA President Myles Brand. "Several institutions have made changes that adhere to the core values of the NCAA Constitution pertaining to cultural diversity, ethical sportsmanship and nondiscrimination. We applaud that, and we will continue to monitor these institutions and others. All institutions are encouraged to promote these core values and take proactive steps at every NCAA event through institutional event management to enhance the integrity of intercollegiate athletics related to these issues."

Other elements of the policy approved Thursday require that institutions with hostile or abusive references must take reasonable steps to cover up those references at any predetermined NCAA championship site that has been previously awarded, effective February 1, 2006.

Institutions displaying or promoting hostile or abusive references on their mascots, cheerleaders, dance teams and band uniforms or paraphernalia are prohibited from wearing the material at NCAA championships, effective August 1, 2008.

Last, and effective immediately, institutions with student-athletes wearing uniforms or having paraphernalia with hostile or abusive references must ensure that those uniforms or paraphernalia not be worn or displayed at NCAA championship competitions.

Harrison stressed that institutions affected by the new policy can seek further review of the matter through the NCAA governing structure.

The committee also strongly suggested that institutions follow the best practices of institutions that do not support the use of Native American mascots or imagery. Model institutions include the University of Iowa and University of Wisconsin, who have practices of not scheduling athletic competitions with schools who use Native American nicknames, imagery or mascots........


Full Story (http://www.ncaasports.com/story/8706763)

[Daryl Shilling]

I suppose that it matters whether or not you think that "mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin" SHOULD be used at games, regardless of whether or not they offend people. If you're not sensitive about such things, I say, open it up all the way.

I'm sure there's a school out there that dearly love to change their name to The Negroes, and have a mascot featuring a caricature of a black man, with gigantic lips and nose, wearing plantation slave clothing, eating a nice big slice of watermelon. Or perhaps they could make one with Zulu clothing, a bone through his nose, and carrying a spear. I think it would be pretty sensitive on a person's part to be bothered about that.

Thankfully some schools already have mascots of Indians, with big noses, loin cloths, tomahawks, and mohawk haircuts. It's a damned shame the NCAA is weeding them out.

Or perhaps there's a chance that some people, for very fair reasons, don't like to have their race caricatured.

Daryl

[MadDevil]

Okay, maybe this was a bad title for this thread.:laughing:

I have no problem with them getting rid of something that is truly offensive, but I don't think Fighting Sioux (as an example) is that offensive. If they're going to ban these things, why don't they go ahead and ban the Dallas Cowboys? Couldn't that be considered derogitory towards cowboys? How about the Washington Redskins? Atlanta Braves? Cleveland Indians? Should we just change all of those because a few people may find them offensive? It just bothers me that we have to get rid of logos and/or mascots that have been around for years and nobody has had a problem with them. So, why is it suddenly such a problem? Oh, that's right we have to be "politically correct" these days don't we?:rolleyes:

[KB in Kelowna]

What about the Fightin Irish of Notre Dame. Makes all of us whose ancestors are from the Emerald Isle sound like a bunch of bar brawlers, no wait..... Moving on. :nod:

[Mel]

What about the Fightin Irish of Notre Dame. Makes all of us whose ancestors are from the Emerald Isle sound like a bunch of bar brawlers, no wait..... Moving on. :nod:

You know it's strange. "Fightin Irish" is one of the more blatantly offensive stereotypes directed from the world of sports towards one culture. But I've yet to meet a single Irish person who thought twice about it (myself included). I's not the worst thing in the world... it is just the most blatant. Chist couldn't they beat around the bush a little bit? Did they have to say "Irish" right in the name?

George Carlin did an interesting bit on that, and reeled off a few equally blatant stereotypes aimed at other cultures and ethnicities... but I won't repeat them here. ;)

[Daryl Shilling]

Okay, maybe this was a bad title for this thread.:laughing:

I have no problem with them getting rid of something that is truly offensive, but I don't think Fighting Sioux (as an example) is that offensive. If they're going to ban these things, why don't they go ahead and ban the Dallas Cowboys? Couldn't that be considered derogitory towards cowboys? How about the Washington Redskins? Atlanta Braves? Cleveland Indians?

I think the comparison between cowboys and Indians is a bit off the mark. Being a cowboy is a job choice, and naming a team after a certain profession isn't deragtory. The Pittsburgh Plumbers isn't an offensive name (though it wouldn't exactly be great. heh) because it's a job choice.

Should we just change all of those because a few people may find them offensive? It just bothers me that we have to get rid of logos and/or mascots that have been around for years and nobody has had a problem with them. So, why is it suddenly such a problem? Oh, that's right we have to be "politically correct" these days don't we?:rolleyes:

Let's stay with the Indian example, because they are obviously the clearest example in North American sports. You say that "nobody has had a problem with" team names like this, but apparently discount the people that may have had the biggest problem with sports franchises named after Indians: Indians.

You seem mystified that a segment of the population that has been segregated into isolated and impoverished communities, now "suddenly" has a problem with caricatures of them being used for money making purposes, yet make no note of the fact that there are so few Indians left alive in America to complain about it? Then you make the point that there are so few people that even complain about these names. Perhaps if most of them weren't wiped out they could raise a bigger stink, and there would be more people to find it offensive.

I suppose you could say that we disagree on this issue. :)

Daryl

[MadDevil]

I suppose you could say that we disagree on this issue. :)

I would say so, but hey, that's what makes it worth talking about.:laughing:

The thing I don't get about this is that it's banning the use of these logos/mascots only during playoff events. What about the rest of the season? Are teams supposed to have a regular season name, and then change it when they go to the playoffs? Besides, isn't the regular season usually longer than the playoffs in whatever sport that's being played? Wouldn't it make sense to ban them during the regular season too? I understand what they're trying to accomplish, I just don't get the way they're going about it.

As for the comments about the Native Americans, I'll admit that I'm biased on that, based on my personal experiences, so I'm not going to get into that issue. I'd probably sound like an ass to some people, so I won't start.:D

[LiAmTrAnSdEmOn]

I don't like the fact that team names or mascots are changing because of people feeling offended by them but I guess I could understand. One thing that really bothered me a couple years ago was the changing of the Syracuse Orangemen to the Syracuse Orange because it was demeaning to women I guess. What the hell is that??? How is the color orange supposed to strike fear into your opponents??? Or maybe they're supposed to be giant oranges, I don't know. I just find it stupid how everyone can be so offended by everything they see or hear about.

[Leafs_Fa_Life]

What was wrong with Orangemen anyway :confused:

[grim]

One thing that really bothered me a couple years ago was the changing of the Syracuse Orangemen to the Syracuse Orange because it was demeaning to women I guess.

Nope.

[a4l]

What was wrong with Orangemen anyway :confused:

HINT: Study Irish history.

[charlio lemieux]

My Pa was an Orangeman. The Catholics are just as bad a4l. Personally anything to do with religion is kept at arms length. This situation in Ireland only drives that feeling home. According to what's going on over there I should be fighting my best friend who is Irish Catholic. I have no issue with removing any religious references in any area of society.

As for the Native American nicknames, it is silly. The teams were obviously named as tribute to strength and determination of the Native Warriors, early settlers encountered. Now my in-laws who are Metis do not like the use of such terms unless they use them themselves. Kind of like a certain distasteful word and another visible minority. As a person of Irish descent, should I be offended that Notre Dame depicts my ancestors and their countrymen as a bunch of short violent people who wear funny hats? You know what I say?

Lighten up, and f*** you if you can't take a joke! :razz2:

[a4l]

You misunderstood what I said. My response to "What is wrong with orangemen" was meant to indicate that in some parts of Ireland they are seen as "the enemy."
I wasn't putting them down at all. Why would I? I am part Irish RC and part English C of E. By rights I should be having a personal uprising.

[charlio lemieux]

My background is half Irish and the other half is a Scottish/English Mix. It's like a revolution in my head. :box: :hammer2: :confused: :hammer2:

[TimmyTabasco]

I have no issues with nicknames :nod: