Bob, thank you for a reasoned reply.  I don't fully buy your argument,
but it is a rational one germane to the issue.  I appreciate your time
in formulating it and your sharing it with the list.

Tom Rowe 

-----Original Message-----
From: - Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Griebel
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 4:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Alaska now was UAF

Rowe, Thomas wrote:
>   Sports teams are supposed to be
> aggressive, to be fighters, and being aggressive (at least in sports) 
> has positive value in our society.  Hence, being called "fighting"
> anything is hardly an offensive use of the adjective.  This all boils 
> down to the term "Sioux" as part of their nickname.  Correct me if I 
> am wrong, but Sioux refers to a group of native American tribes and 
> isn't their name for themselves - its one the white man gave them.  
> Hence, can it be said they truly own exclusive rights to that name?  
> But I digress - I just don't see calling a sports team "The Fighting 
> [pick a term]" as pejorative.
>
>   


I think the observation that "fighting" has greater appropriateness for
sports teams than the term should otherwise enjoy is a good point.  On
the other hand, though this may seem like a fine distinction, cannot a
term which is not pejorative be legitimately offensive to those referred
to?  Doesn't determination of offensiveness reside in the eye of the
referred to so long as there's some legitimate room to question the
intentions of the referrer?  Does the act of coinage assign exclusive
rights to unlimited use of the term?  I doubt that American Indians
coined "Chippewa " or "Seminole" or "Redskin", but the source is
irrelevant.  Those referred to understand the reference.

It strikes me that whether we can distinguish the degrees of
pejorativity of "Fighting Irish" and "Fighting Sioux" might depend on
when we ask the question.  Let's go back 100 years and ask whether
there's justification for the Irish to feel offended while there's still
such a contemptuous attitude in much of American society that mere
mention of "Irish" carries widespread, unjustified contempt.  Then
return to today.  Do we have parallel histories of assimilation and
acceptance for the Irish and Native Americans?  Get in your car and
drive out to an Irish reservation maintained by the federal Bureau of
Irish Affairs and ask what the residents think.

There's one appropriate alternative for use of  the term "Fighting
Sioux" I haven't yet heard.  Like "Fighting Irish", "Fighting Sioux" 
might be appropriate when Native Americans have no likely reason to take
offense because they've been fully assimilated into our society and
actually enjoy the same rights and prosperity as everyone else.  Perhaps
use of "Fighting Sioux" should merely be suspended for, say, 50 or 100
years.  Of course, whenever the time comes to reinstate it, there'll
always be a few hard asses who'll fight tooth and nail to cling to
"Fighting NoDaks" or "Fighting Honkies from the Land of Barren Winter
Waste" or whatever serves in the interim.

Bob Griebel
Land of the Fighting Ottowas, Sauk, Hurons, Potowatomies, Chippewas,
Germans, Polish, and Irish  (till some were driven out or put on
reservations)