Nonetheless, it still does not remove it (Fighting Irish) from the realm of
offensiveness for somone else not involved with Notre Dame.  This is part
of where I have the problem with what is going on.  The first way is that it
lumps every Native American image into the category of offensive and
abusive, with no distinction.  To me this is a form of intolerance as well
and I do not like the potential for unintended connections to any Native
American image, reinforcing a negative connection while trying to create a
positive one.

It also says that only this particular people group matters when it comes to
offensive images.  There are other people groups used as mascots and
so on.  The "Fighting Irish" is the one I personally have a problem with.  It
continues to perpetuate an image and stereotype that is over 150 years
old in the U.S.  That was certainly the image in the 1850s when Chicago
was passing discriminatory laws against the Irish (and German Catholics).
I recall from a PBS documentary on the history of Chicago a particularly
offensive commentary (in so many ways) that said when the Irish moved
into a neighorhod that they were so poorly thought of that even the free
blacks moved out.

Doug Peterson

On 6 Aug 2005 at 16:42, Bob Griebel wrote:

Am I missing something in understanding comments about "Fighting
Irish"?  I thought that was something Notre Dame adopted in reference
to themselves. Yes? No?  The Sioux did not establish UND and adopt the
namw to describe themselves.  That's the understanding that makes me
miss the parallel.  Am I wrong?

Bob


Matt Bigley wrote:

>Interesting that you used the word Nazi given the allegations of
>Ralph's fascination with Hitler and the Nazis.
>
>Personally, if Fighting Sioux is racially offensive then Fighting
>Irish should be as well. And just to make it clear, I am a Maine fan
>and not so much a UND fan, unless they are playing the Gophers.
>
>
>