Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Indian Mascot Name that is Staying for Now...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: One Indian Mascot Name that is Staying for Now...

    Originally posted by SoCalSiouxFan View Post
    California has enacted legislation prohibiting Indian logo's and Mascots in K-12 schools, with a few exceptions for some Native American schools.
    This I don't get. Why is okay for a Native American to call himself "Chief", "Warrior", "Fighting Navajo" or anything else...... but a white guy can't call him the same thing?

    Reminds me of a current word that is a racial slur if I say, but if someone else says it, its a fraternal greeting.
    Bentley University Hockey
    On-campus arena: Build it, and they will come...

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: One Indian Mascot Name that is Staying for Now...

      Originally posted by schiegs View Post
      This I don't get. Why is okay for a Native American to call himself "Chief", "Warrior", "Fighting Navajo" or anything else...... but a white guy can't call him the same thing?

      Reminds me of a current word that is a racial slur if I say, but if someone else says it, its a fraternal greeting.
      In our new climate of political correctness reverse predjudice is acceptable and even funny

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: One Indian Mascot Name that is Staying for Now...

        Originally posted by Tom Naeger View Post
        I wonder if North Dakota is regerting not taking legal action to keep their mascot name now that the US Supreme Court decided not to hear an appeal from a group who claims the NFL's 'Redskins' name is offensive. This legal battle been going on 17 years...

        Story link below...

        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...est=latestnews

        Hoping any comments to this are civil...
        Of course, even if Pro Football, Inc. had lost that suit, the Redskins name itself was not in any danger. The suit only sought to have its trademark revoked, and the issue was over the legal doctrine of laches (basically, undue delay), not the substance of the case itself.

        They are the only real option for college's to compete in sports at a high level. But even if you accept that arguement that they are a "voluntary" association one could argue that they do not have the right to infringe on a members first amendment right as a matter of membership. That could be consider discriminatory. I am not a lawyer, and I am not sure even a lawyer could answer those questions for sure.
        As others have said, the 1st Amendment only applies to gov't actions. The NCAA can discriminate in choosing its membership as much as Augusta National, the local order of the Shriners, or the D.A.R.. The only thing NoDak could really rely upon would be breach of contract regarding the NCAA charter and/or its membership rules; there isn't really a constitutional arguement in play. North Dakota may have a first amendment right to pick its own nickname, but that doesn't mean the NCAA has to provide it with a platform to actually do so.
        Last edited by unofan; 11-17-2009, 02:14 PM.

        Comment

        Working...
        X