CSNbbs

Did the Aztec tribe approve it? If not, why hasn't SDSU been forced to change its nickname?

(03-22-2015 02:45 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]Did the Aztec tribe approve it? If not, why hasn't SDSU been forced to change its name.

The Aztecs are in Mexico and their descendants still exist today and cling to some Aztec traditions. The NCAA only imposed restrictions on American Indian names.

If a tribe is in Canada, Mexico, or Central or South America, there are no restrictions.

And... what about the very concept of being forced to do something? If a school legitimately believes that their mascot name is offensive and needs to be changed, then I am all for it. But this crap about forcing people....well, it begins to grate on me. I just read a story about a baseball player being kicked off his college team for tweeting something negative about someone. My God! Where does the PC stupidity end?

They are an ethnic group and not a tribe. Same reason why Fighting Irish and Ragin Cajun can exist.

Wouldn't the NCAA then have leverage over SDSU in that case? Just like they forced St. John's and Miami University to change their nicknames, they should have had the power to do the same the SDSU since there was no tribe council to answer to? [I'm speaking to NoDak]

Not that I care. I like schools and teams being able to name themselves what they want, though I do feel the pain of the Sioux tribe and their feud with the University of North Dakota.

The difference is Redmen, and Redskins, and orangemen are actual derogatory terms for Native Americans and American Indian tribes. Names like The Chiefs, Braves, Aztecs, etc, are not only not offensive, they actually celebrate native heritage. I don't understand how one could not understan dthat difference?

No, Aztecs is no different than Sioux, Chippewas and Seminoles (and note I'm aware that they are okay with that name being used by FSU) except that the rest have tribal councils on the US while the Aztecs don't.

I understand that its not a generic, supposedly derogatory name like Redskins but it still is an Indian nickname and with no tribal council to okay or frown on it, what I'm saying is that I'd think the NCAA may have leverage to get them to change it.

And again, not that I really care all that much.

(03-22-2015 03:00 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]Wouldn't the NCAA then have leverage over SDSU in that case? Just like they forced St. John's and Miami University to change their nicknames, they should have had the power to do the same the SDSU since there was no tribe council to answer to? [I'm speaking to NoDak]

Not that I care. I like schools and teams being able to name themselves what they want, though I do feel the pain of the Sioux tribe and their feud with the University of North Dakota.

The Spirit Lake Tribe voted to keep the logo and name, but the leader of the Standing Rock Tribe won't bring it to a vote. Even though the people of that tribe wear the attire with the Sioux name and logo. Also the logo was designed by a Sioux tribe member.
Soon FSU will be force to change even though they have permission from the Seminole tribe. The momentum to not have a single native American name or logo in the NCAA is too much now to stop.

With all due respect to the atrocities that the Native Americans suffered, let's just change all of the ethnically or racially insensitive nicknames:

Notre Dame Fighting Friars anyone (an ode to their Catholic nature, though stealing from Providence)?

Louisiana Ragin' Aliens (closest I could get to a rhyme)?

Mississippi Rivers?

New Mexico Lobos? That's gotta to be offensive to Hispanic people, call 'em the Wolves or Wolfpack, the English name.

I see Hofstra in suburban New York did that, changing from the Flying Dutchmen to Pride.

There's a significantly large difference between naming your athletic team after the tribe like 'Aztec' 'Seminole' or 'Blackhawk' versus using a racist term like 'Redskin'. No real need to change it.

True, which is why I'm glad the Aztecs nickname has been left alone.

(03-22-2015 03:12 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]The difference is Redmen, and Redskins, and orangemen are actual derogatory terms for Native Americans and American Indian tribes. Names like The Chiefs, Braves, Aztecs, etc, are not only not offensive, they actually celebrate native heritage. I don't understand how one could not understand that difference?

Huh? No it's not. The orangemen were both white and European.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ora...+of+orange

However, Syracuse explicitly took the name because of an allegiance to the color and not to the protestant group in Europe. The name was changed because having "Orangemen" and "Orangewomen" was viewed to somehow be sexist.

Think and/or do a minimum amount of research before you post next time.

People from Syracuse should probably lighten up on telling someone to do research. We all know you all don't do your own research, and just get GA's or professors to do it for you.

The worst part is, I said they were offensive names. And you countered by... confirming they were changed because they were considered offensive names. Instead of telling me to do research, pay attention to what your posting guy writes you. Yes I could have spaced it out better (I merely added Orangemen after the fact labeling them as offensive terms, not intending to mean they were for Indian tribes ). But the fact remains, what I said, that the terms were offensive, you agreed with while telling me to do research.

You need to hire a new posting guy or something.


note this post is mostly sarcasm

Anyways, I hope the NCAA never forces them to change the Aztec name, I think it's unique and original. They almost should have made the schools colors red and green to try and capture some of the Mexican market.

(03-22-2015 03:37 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-22-2015 03:00 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]Wouldn't the NCAA then have leverage over SDSU in that case? Just like they forced St. John's and Miami University to change their nicknames, they should have had the power to do the same the SDSU since there was no tribe council to answer to? [I'm speaking to NoDak]

Not that I care. I like schools and teams being able to name themselves what they want, though I do feel the pain of the Sioux tribe and their feud with the University of North Dakota.

The Spirit Lake Tribe voted to keep the logo and name, but the leader of the Standing Rock Tribe won't bring it to a vote. Even though the people of that tribe wear the attire with the Sioux name and logo. Also the logo was designed by a Sioux tribe member.
Soon FSU will be force to change even though they have permission from the Seminole tribe. The momentum to not have a single native American name or logo in the NCAA is too much now to stop.

The Standing Rock Sioux Reservation has new tribal leadership that supposedly supports the name. Standing Rock is mostly in South Dakota, with the reservation capital in N Dakota. S Dakota Sioux are much more militant than their N Dakota tribesman because of their more severe treatment over the years.

The most offended peoples group, beyond University Presidents (lying bastards) were Obijwe/Chippewa and Mandan/Hidatsa/Arikara people, which are historic enemies of the Sioux. Memories live long. In North Dakota, the Siouan tribes are not the majority of Native people and don't have the voice the other tribes do.

(03-22-2015 03:52 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]With all due respect to the atrocities that the Native Americans suffered, let's just change all of the ethnically or racially insensitive nicknames:

Notre Dame Fighting Friars anyone (an ode to their Catholic nature, though stealing from Providence)?

Louisiana Ragin' Aliens (closest I could get to a rhyme)?

Mississippi Rivers?

New Mexico Lobos? That's gotta to be offensive to Hispanic people, call 'em the Wolves or Wolfpack, the English name.

I see Hofstra in suburban New York did that, changing from the Flying Dutchmen to Pride.

Let us not forget the Indians dealt out plenty of atrocities to whites and each other, not that excuses any atrocities they suffered. But it is hardly a black and white issue as some activists prefer to paint it.

Because butthurt and 'political correctness' is specific to modern American culture. The Mexicans don't care, nor should they, they have better things to do.

(03-22-2015 03:00 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]Wouldn't the NCAA then have leverage over SDSU in that case? Just like they forced St. John's and Miami University to change their nicknames, they should have had the power to do the same the SDSU since there was no tribe council to answer to? [I'm speaking to NoDak]

Miami wasn't forced by the NCAA to change our name. In the 60s or 70s, the Miami tribe of Oklahoma voted to keep the Redskin nickname; by the mid 90s they changed their mind and voted to pull the plug. The Miami admin didn't bother to try and keep it, especially with a name like Redskins. Instead of going through litigation like NoDak we just switched our name.

Besides the Redhawks, the other finalists were Thunderhawks and Miamis, as ridiculous as the latter sounds. I imagine we would've had to change our name again at some point.

(03-22-2015 05:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-22-2015 03:12 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]The difference is Redmen, and Redskins, and orangemen are actual derogatory terms for Native Americans and American Indian tribes. Names like The Chiefs, Braves, Aztecs, etc, are not only not offensive, they actually celebrate native heritage. I don't understand how one could not understand that difference?

Huh? No it's not. The orangemen were both white and European.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ora...+of+orange

However, Syracuse explicitly took the name because of an allegiance to the color and not to the protestant group in Europe. The name was changed because having "Orangemen" and "Orangewomen" was viewed to somehow be sexist.

Think and/or do a minimum amount of research before you post next time.

Regardless of why Syracuse became the Orangemen, the ficticious Saltine Warrior was used for over 40 years, so one could easily make that mistake...









I'm no champion of political correctness, but I can see how people would be uncomfortable with this.

(03-22-2015 05:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]People from Syracuse should probably lighten up on telling someone to do research. We all know you all don't do your own research, and just get GA's or professors to do it for you.

The worst part is, I said they were offensive names. And you countered by... confirming they were changed because they were considered offensive names. Instead of telling me to do research, pay attention to what your posting guy writes you. Yes I could have spaced it out better (I merely added Orangemen after the fact labeling them as offensive terms, not intending to mean they were for Indian tribes ). But the fact remains, what I said, that the terms were offensive, you agreed with while telling me to do research.

You need to hire a new posting guy or something.


note this post is mostly sarcasm

Parts of my reply may be referencing sarcastic parts of your post, as sadly there is no sarcasm font. If so, ignore those parts.

"People from Syracuse should probably lighten up on telling someone to do research. We all know you all don't do your own research, and just get GA's or professors to do it for you." To be fair, the professor had nothing to do with Fab. That silliness was the result of athletic staff who got canned.

You initially said that "the difference is ... orangemen [is an] actual derogatory term for Native Americans and American Indian tribes." You did not say "I said they were offensive names," as merely being an "offensive name" is a far more general statement than the original one because it also encompasses non-Native American-based offensive names.

"But the fact remains, what I said, that the terms were offensive..." No, you didn't (see the above quote). Your statement erroneously listed a specific type of offensive term (i.e. those that are anti-Native American).

"...you agreed [with the original statement]." No, I didn't. I said that "[t]he name was changed because having 'Orangemen' and 'Orangewomen' was viewed to somehow be sexist." In no way, shape, or form does that agree with your original statement that "orangemen [is an] actual derogatory term for Native Americans and American Indian tribes." Additionally, the tone of my statement conveys my belief that there is *nothing* sexist about using the terms "Orangemen" and "Orangewomen" to refer to a school's men's and women's sports teams. I personally think that it's ridiculous and the result of PC going off the deep end. However, as my statement said, some "viewed [the name] to somehow be sexist."

I realize that I'm coming off a little hard, but in my honest opinion, this issue is ridiculous. I can kind of see the reasoning behind the anger over the name "Redskins" and possibly "Redmen" (depending how the name came about - were they named that because they were Indians or was their mascot an Indian because they had that name?), but the rest of it is stupid. It really is. Unfortunately, however, this issue seems to be growing. For example, you're accidentally trying to anoint a bunch of white Protestant Europeans as Native Americans and someone else (in another thread) tried to claim that the name "warriors" was anti-Native American. I could go on, but I think you get my point that the level of PC has gotten so extreme that names with either no relation to Native Americans or a tangential relation to Native Americans are suddenly "anti-Native" and "should be banned."