At 2:07 AM -0400 7/27/96, Jim Baines wrote:
> Funnier how we've become over-sensitized to other positive Native
> American names.  I admit that I prefer River Hawks to Chiefs, but there
> was nothing wrong with the name Chiefs.
 
My understanding is that Lowell wished to be able to use positive mascots
and images that would go in line with their nickname, and they did not feel
they were able to do this with the name Chiefs.
 
Merrimack, on the other hand, feels they can promote the ideal of the
Warrior in a positive manner through their logo and literature, and they
have worked to prevent negative uses.  This has meant the rejection of
requests for mascots that would have resulted in a negative portrayal of
the Warrior.  They should be applauded for this and for their efforts in
representing the Warrior as the honorable and respected individual he was -
efforts that, as I have said, have resulted in no serious challenge to the
school's use of the name and image.
 
Two different schools, both with similar names, and they chose to handle
the situations differently but equally well based upon their own
circumstances.
 
This is something that needs to be decided by each school.  As long as
attention is paid to being sensitive to the underlying issue, I believe
people will make the right decision.
 
> If you're going to change your name, please change it to something better.
> UMass-Lowell did this; St. John's did not.  In fact, UMass was known as
> the Redmen at one time, but changed it to a Minutemen, which is a better
> reflection on the state of Massachusetts.
 
If my knowledge of this is correct, UMass's use of the nickname did indeed
clearly refer to Native Americans.  Given that, it was a wise decision to
change.  I can't say I know enough about how St John's used its name, i.e.
whether it was clear or not that "Redmen" meant simply "someone who wears
red" a la Syracuse and "Orangemen", rather than the negative connotation
with regard to Native Americans.  I'd need to know that first.  Since it
was clear in the case of UMass, I agree with the decision to change.
 
And as I am sure I made clear, I felt that Miami's nickname was one that
was offensive and needed to be looked at.  If the tribe really desired a
change, I would have supported it because of the name itself.  But they
seemed to okay it under the agreement that they reached with the
university, and I was willing to support that decision because they were
involved in it.  That makes the current reversal of opinion one I have big
questions about, questions that I think need to be answered before I'd
weigh in with my opinion.  Again, it goes back to treating each situation
on its own merits.
 
Deron suggested that perhaps the new tribal leadership more accurately
reflects the actual feelings of the people.  That's very possible, and if
true, I would say that casts an entirely different light on things.
Changes in leadership occur now and then when the elected leaders are not
doing the will of the people.  Some would say that maybe this will happen
someday in the United States. :-)
 
BTW, discussion of this topic is in some ways only peripherally related to
college hockey, so it's probably good that it takes place here in the
offseason.  Yet, it is also a topic that is a concern in collegiate
athletics, so that does make it relevant.  As with many other discussions
that have taken place here, I don't know that change will be effected, but
I believe it is good to see the different opinions that exist.
 
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                   [log in to unmask]            *HMM* 11/13/93
*****       Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at:       *****
*****   http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html    *****
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.