At 7:38 AM -0600 7/27/96, Arthur Berman wrote:
> IMO agreement or compromise is not what is needed. As Deron said
> better than I it is not up to white people to decide what is offensive
> for minority groups.
Apparently the former leaders of the Miami tribe do not agree with you,
because they hammered out an agreement with the university that was
partially decided by "white people" (I do not actually know the race of
those negotiating on behalf of the university). Compromise was apparently
quite acceptable to the tribe at that time.
> To call a change of mind a "whim" as Mike did
> elsewhere in his post disappoints me.
I don't make my comments with an eye towards whether readers will be
disappointed or not, thus I can't say that I am sorry you feel this way,
although you are certainly entitled to be disappointed. I believe my
comments to be more than fair with regard to this situation. It is not as
cut and dried as you make it out to be.
> Contexts change, and awareness of
> this issue (fortunately or not depending on one's point of view) has been
> changing.
This was an issue two years ago - not 20 or 100. Since then the tribal
leadership has changed, and with the change has come this new demand.
Contexts do not change that quickly. I find it difficult to believe that
the driving force behind this was a sudden increased awareness and not a
political motivation on the part of the new leaders, given the particulars
of the case.
> I don't think it
> is too much to say that white people who basically had a policy of
> extermination toward natives really should have no rights to dictate
> platitudes about "sensitivities" in that group.
Which white people at Miami University had a policy of extermination
towards Native Americans? I'm not aware of any.
Arthur, stop the rhetoric. I have no desire to get involved in that. I am
disgusted when my government wastes its time and my money on the
promulgation of such rhetoric, whichever side or group it comes from, and I
am not interested in having to deal with it here.
Rather than painting everyone and everything with a broad brush, I look at
each situation based on its own merits. This one seems quite fishy to me
because of the way in which it developed. I personally would place a great
emphasis upon the general feelings of the tribe with respect to this issue,
but I do not know whether to believe that the current leadership represents
the feelings of the tribe or that the former leadership did. If I felt
that the people in general disagreed with the agreement forged by the
former leaders, then I would certainly take this new demand much more
seriously.
I also do not choose to get caught up in the wave of political correctness.
I see no reason to live by blanket statements that cover every situation.
Life consists of shades of gray. I evaluate each situation by itself.
I actually do believe that in many of the cases involving nicknames, the
names should be changed. But each situation has to be looked at it on its
own.
> I think warriors is an unfortunate choice of nickname for reasons
> unrelated to the reference to natives. Warriors seek to kill their
> opponents, an action not to be admired under any circumstances--but I may
> be the only pacifist on the list.
This is certainly a side issue that I won't bother to get into here too
much. But suffice to say that just as human beings are capable of doing
good and bad things, so too are/were those characterized as warriors
throughout history - both those who were Native Americans and those who
were not. It is the positive characteristics of the warrior that we choose
to try to reflect, just as we emulate those positive characteristics of
other people. If you look at the warrior image and see only a killer, then
that is more due to your lack of understanding or willingness to
understand. Ask a Native American if that is the image he or she thinks of
when hearing the word.
> My germaine point, I hope, is that a
> dominant group should not be dictating what is and is not acceptable
> regarding terms and names referring to them.
Interesting, but not really relevant. What qualifies as a dominant group
dictating what is acceptable? The evidence shows that MU did not fit your
description, because rather than tell the tribe what they would do, MU and
the tribe worked together to decide on the best plan of action. Now we
have a new leadership who wants something different. We do not know
whether they represent the feelings of the people. If they do not, and are
merely trying to advance their own political interests, then is their
demand one that should be considered?
And how many offended people does it take for a nickname to be deemed
unacceptable? A majority? 25%? One? No group of people, be it social,
racial, or political, completely agrees among themselves. I hope it is not
your argument that even if a majority of the Miami tribe were happy with
the former agreement, a small group of people who are not happy with it
should take precedence over *both* the tribe as a whole and the university.
--- ---
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.
|
