Eastern Michigan University changed their name from Hurons to
something less memorable (Eagles, I had to look it up.)  The Huron name
probably had as much to do with the Huron Hotel where the person who
submitted the name worked as it did the Huron tribe, also noting that the
Huron River flows through the area.

The only complaint from Native Americans I am aware of came after the
name change.  It came from a Huron tribe who complained about the
change.  They were fine with it as the Hurons and weren't particularly
happy about someone (the University) chosing to speak for them
unrequested.

Doug Peterson

On 6 Aug 2005 at 0:42, Bob Griebel wrote:

Clay Satow wrote:

> I´m of two minds on this issue.


Clay, I think you raise excellent points. I don't know whether you
read the NYT piece that talked about Florida State's reaction and also
mentioned that the NCAA had passed on criticizing a school that used
"Braves" as its mascot because the enrollment had traditionally been
about 20% American Indian. I think that makes sense. I also don't know
whether "Seminole" or "Sioux" should be off limits because I don't
know who speaks for all the Seminoles or all the Sioux with one voice
to tell us whether they are offended or pleased. Is there still a
native Illini ("Illinus"?) anywhere in the country? According to my
local paper, the Florida Seminole tribe gave Florida State approval
and Seminole tribes elsewhere objected. Perhaps they could just have
an Indian war to settle their differences, but I think the general
rule for an academic institution, which should be setting the
educational example, should be to voluntarily refrain from using terms
which stand a good chance of being genuinely offensive to a
significant segment of any group for ethnic reasons. The weight of
consideration for my enjoyment of my favorite school mascot name
shouldn't be in the same ballpark with the weight of consideration for
what can be genuinely offensive to another.

I don't know whether the NCAA has handled it the "best" possible way,
but I think they've handled it reasonably. They suggested that schools
take the lead and left it to them for a couple years to take the step.
Now they're saying some schools' failures reflect unfavorably on the
whole academic world and college sports and the NCAA is stepping up to
apply pressure. I think the best outcome would be if that forces a
process in which Seminoles and Sioux supporters are allowed to present
their case to the NCAA, argue for why their use is a bona fide
exception, and have the NCAA give valid credit if that's due. I'm
disappointed to read that FSU's initial action will be to head to the
courts. They could save that as a later resort.

Frankly, my peave is with the use of discriminatory mascot names that
mock professions merely because they add nothing especially useful to
society, and after they do away with "Engineers" I think they should
go after schools that exploit naked, non-fur-covered animals.

Bob Griebel



Clay Satow wrote:

>I´m of two minds on this issue.  First, I think that the NCAA´s
>statement is disingenuous.   They use the term "hostile and abusive
>racial/ethnic/national origin mascots" but to me, it´s fairly clear
>from the follow-up statements that "hostile or abusive" is
>meaningless.  The list that´s published with the announcements
>includes "Savages" and "Redmen," a couple of nicknames that I
>personally object to (though I don´t think "hostile or abusive" are
>the right words to describe them).  But the list also includes
>"Choctaws" and "Seminoles," names that are not inherently hostile or
>abusive.  Apparently, the NCAA is taking the position that any
>reference to Native Americans as a mascot is inherently hostile or
>abusive.   If that´s what they meant, why don´t they say it?
>
>Also, they don´t specify "racial/ethnic/national origin" but it´s
>apparent that the only racial/ethnic/national origin they care about
>is Native American.  If that´s the case, why not say so?  I can see
>no difference between "Fighting Irish" and "Fighting Sioux."
>
>On the other hand, I think that there is a germ of legitimacy to the
>NCAA´s position.  I´m very surprised that there is still a nickname
>like "Savages" that has historically been used as a highly derisive
>term, and "Redmen" that has a clear racial connotation.  And, while I
>realize that they aren´t NCAA issues, I´m bothered that there is a
>football team in the Nation´s Capital called the "Redskins" and that
>Major League Baseball has a team that uses a caricature of a Native
>American as its logo.
>
>My personal view is that nicknames that are on their face neutral are
>OK, but pejorative or mocking nicknames or logos aren´t.  So I would
>strongly disagree with the NCAA on "Chocktaws" and "Seminoles."  I
>think "Indians" and terms that add "Fighting" are at least
>discussable, but I´d also disagree with the NCAA´s position.  I think
>that "Savages" and "Redmen," the "Redskins" of the NFL and the
>Cleveland Major League Baseball team´s Chief Wahoo caricature have no
>place in modern American society.
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>