Thursday, February 16, 2006

NCAA Mascot Ban

To kick off the online celebration of J-79, I’m going to revisit to a subject I addressed last August, the NCAA mascot ban. It’s in the news again, but J-79 had this pegged from the get go.

A few months ago the NCAA bowed to the gods of political correctness when they made the decision that any university with a Native American mascot would not be allowed to host postseason NCAA events, effective February 2006. February is here, and just last week Miles Brand came out in defense of this policy, saying, “One of the values we hold dear is respect for everyone.” How sweet.

What you read in the next three paragraphs was written by J-79 five months ago when this mascot ban was first made public.

Excuse me, but I missed the sensitivity seminar that declared naming a sports team after a native culture was disrespectful. Personally, I think it is an honor to have a symbol of your heritage adopted by a pro or college team. To me it reflects admiration and respect. What higher honor can you bestow upon a group of people than to name something in their memory? In every American institution except sports we have what amounts to a religious ceremony whenever a city, park, street, dam, school, building, forest, interstate or monument is dedicated to or renamed in the memory of an Indian tribe or ethnic group. Hell, in Chattanooga you can’t sling a dead cat without hitting something named after a Cherokee (Cherokee Hills, Cherokee Heights, Cherokee Forest, Cherokee Lane, Cherokee Road, Cherokee Street, Cherokee Apartments, Cherokee Middle, Cherokee High, Cherokee Liquors), but by damn UT-Chattanooga better think twice before they name themselves the Cherokees…makes no sense. Why are sports teams somehow different?

Of course this makes no logical sense whatsoever, but let’s dive a little deeper into this issue and see it for the danger that it is. First of all, anyone born in America is by definition a Native American. Webster defines “native” as, “belonging to a particular place by birth; grown, produced, or originating in a particular place or in the vicinity.” I’m not just simply dissecting semantics here. On the surface we interpret this rule as a ban on tribal symbols, but there’s a difference in the word “native” and “tribal”. The Law is all about language, and if you word your laws or rules vaguely you open the door for the future expansion of the law. The use of the word “native” gives the NCAA (or whacko civil action groups) the wiggle room to expand this into other areas beyond what the rule appears on the surface to prohibit. Allow me to elaborate…

The Seminoles, Aztecs, Braves, Chippewas, Illini, Indians, Redmen, etc., aren’t the only ones who fall under the language of this legislation if you go by the definition of the word “native.” Does the word “Volunteer” not suggest a “native” heritage, according to the definition? What about Corn Husker, Ragin Cajun, Mountaineer, Sooner, Rebel, Flying Dutchmen, Fighting Irish, or Yankee? You see where we’re going here. This rule is the beginning of removing any sort of cultural, ethnic, or regional identity from sports teams for the sake of not offending someone. This ruling opens the door to all sorts of garbage, and all it takes is for some crackpot lawyer or activist to act on the literal definition of the word “native”. You probably wouldn’t have to look far to find someone who would contend that the Volunteers killed Mexicans at the Alamo and that Davey Crockett owned slaves, thus the name “Volunteer” should be banned. Ole Miss Rebels?…they’ve been fighting this battle for years. Fighting Irish? What’s the difference between that and the Fighting Illini? If you don’t see this coming you better wake up.

What you read in the last three paragraphs was written by J-79 five months ago when this mascot ban was first enacted.

What I said would happen is happening. The wheels are turning. This mascot ban is dangerously close to expanding beyond Indian mascots into the territory of cultural and regional identity. Just last week, someone asked Miles Brand, “Why is Fighting Irish acceptable?” To which he responded, “We've never had any Irish people come to us and say they find that offensive.” STOP THE PRESS!!! Lets take a close look at Miles Brand’s choice of words, particularly the word, “offensive”.

If the honest end goal of this legislation was to eliminate “Native American” mascots, why didn’t Miles Brand simply answer this question by saying, “There’s nothing Native American about the Fighting Irish, and thus they don’t fall under the jurisdiction of this ruling.” Yet he chose the word, “offensive”. THAT’S WHERE THIS IS HEADED! He has opened the door to the expansion of this rule into the realm of anything deemed to be “offensive”. He said it himself, and I told you five months ago this would happen. I know how these people work. If left to run its natural evolutional course of political correctness, this rule will be the end of any mascot with cultural, regional, ethnic, or religious identity.

This is liberalism and political correctness at work here, folks. These people are absolute moonbats. In their world you can portray cowboys (no less “native” than Indians) as a couple of poo-stabbers, but by God you better not offend an Indian by waving a tomahawk at a Florida State game. Give me a break. By the way, does anybody know how many Academy Awards Humpack Mountain got? I heard it was a “butt-load”.

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What do you mean there will not be much activity until football season? It's official, Tennessee is now a BASKETBALL school!

10:26 AM  
Blogger Stroup said...

Its a noble appeal not to offend people and certainly should be given a best effort, but free speech often includes offense.

Check out these books Jonathan Ruarch Kindly Inquisitors http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226705765/103-4305765-1567051?v=glance&n=283155 and Diane Ravitch The Language Police http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375414827/103-4305765-1567051?v=glance&n=283155

Fact is, these mascot debates are about to fall right off the radar. A few years after they change it won't make any difference to anyone but the most easily offended people.

This is a good article on offense language (cartoons), too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/opinion/17Wright.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

11:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home