On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Mike Machnik wrote:
 
> When the situation first arose a few years ago, I thought it would have
> made sense to change the nickname, because certainly there needs to be some
> sensitivity in these matters.  This was a nickname that I could understand
> being offensive and I would have probably sided with the tribe back then if
> they had held to the goal of having the name changed.  But they worked out
> an agreement at the time that was acceptable to both sides.  If the school
> lives up to its end of the bargain, but the tribe is allowed to come back
> anytime they wish and demand a change when new leaders come to power, then
> that is really not an agreement or a compromise.
 
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.  To call a change of mind a "whim" as Mike did
elsewhere in his post disappoints me.  Contexts change, and awareness of
this issue (fortunately or not depending on one's point of view) has been
changing.  I agree that changing the name so that it does not refer to
natives would be a good long term strategy.  Citing costs of changing
uniforms is a spurious argument since so many schools change their
uniforms merely to collect more in souvenier revenue.  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.  Coming from Jewish
origins myself I think I am particularly sensitive in this area myself.
I would not want any team to be called the Jews, to use an example
already cited, unless there were *a lot* of Jews on that team.  This has
never been true of natives in hockey.
 
> I come from a school (Merrimack) where both the name of the school and the
> nickname have Native American origins.  However, there has not been much in
> the way of complaints about the use of either.  And unlike some others who
> shared the nickname (Warriors), the school has steadfastly refused to
> change it when occasional complaints have arisen, citing its origin as a
> term of respect.  Indeed, the school has officially only put forth a
> positive image of the Warrior as it relates to its sports teams, from the
> use of the name to the logo, and as far as I have seen, this has tended to
> defuse any attempts to force a change.
>
> IMO, this is the best way to handle it, and I'm glad they have dealt with
> the matter in this way.  And while other schools have stopped using the
> nickname Warriors (Marquette), I don't expect you'll see Merrimack follow
> the trend anytime soon.
>
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.  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.
 
Arthur Berman, [log in to unmask]  (obviously still annoyed).
GO BU!!! GO ICE!!!
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.