On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Mike Machnik wrote:
 
> 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.
 
At that time is the operable statement here.
 
>
> > 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.
>
Calling the native viewpoint a "whim" diminishes the seriousness of the
problem and is a form of rhetoric, which you deride below.
 
> > 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 care what the increased awareness stems from.  The real
disagreement we have, I think, stems from the fact that I don't think
white people should be the decision makers regarding this issue.
 
 
> > 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.
 
All white people on this continent benefit from the extermination of the
natives.  How one handles this complicity is up to the individual, your
choice seems to be denial.
 
 >
> 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.
 
I'm sorry Mike, but your IMO trivializing this issue is distasteful,
partially because it does reflect what is the majority view, which still
has not acknowleged that the very "civilized" society built on this
continent *was* founded in blood and murder.
 
 >
> 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.
 
To me this is the side issue.  What happens to Merrimack's mascot is just
one item in this debate, as is Miami's.
 
>
> 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.
 
Political correctness, as I've already said, is a handy way to dismiss
another's arguments without addressing them.  I don't believe that life
is black and white.  I *do* wonder why people cling to names that many
find offensive and find what IMO are the flimsiest excuses (supply of
stationary indeed) to keep them, ignoring historical context under the
guise of open mindedness and fighting "political correctness".
 
 >
> > 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.
>
Most natives are not pacifists, nor anyone in our majority culture.  I
was merely expressing my own subjective view--and it *was* an aside.
 
> > 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.
>
If that rational makes you feel better, so be it.  It is pretty clear
that most natives are offended by names referring to them as mascots of
sports teams.  The real issue for me is why the retention of these names
is so important to so many, and the vehemance of the "defence" of
retaining these names.
 
Arthur Berman [log in to unmask]
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.