Ok, now I’m really confused. Does this mean that the University of Oregon needs the approval of ALL ducks or just the ducks in the state of Oregon to use their nickname?
You’re incorrect, but since the majority of your problems stems from a simple inability to actually read what I typed, I’m going to skip this for now. Pretend that I conceded, and I’ll revisit it later if I feel like it.
Now to the actual issue you seem to have a problem getting a handle on.
In response to:
I stated:
Let’s parse this, shall we?
Your initial quote is two parts, a statement and a question, and I’m pretty sure we can all agree that the question is just a continuation of the previous statement. So, the first issue is why does ‘warriors’ offend anyone. My response can best be summarized as “In this particular case, they are probably offended because the name warriors is used to denote an Indian.” You’ll note that I am quite clear in stating that I’m only referring to this specific instance of a team’s usage of “Warriors”, and in fact the second sentence of my response reiterates this fact quite clearly.
For whatever reason, you seem to think I’m stating that they are offended by the logo. I’m not, as it’s not even their logo anymore. That would be as stupid as someone being offended by Little Red dancing on the sidelines during OU’s football games, when Little Red hasn’t existed as a mascot for 35 years. Let’s parse the only part of the sentence where I can even imagine you get that impression: “…this logo probably shows why they find it offensive, as it’s pretty obvious that that’s an Indian caricature.” You’ll notice with a careful reading that I do not say “this logo probably is why they find it offensive”, but instead “this logo probably shows why they find it offensive.” The logo isn’t the particular offense in this case. It’s only proof of the actual offense, that in this case the name “Warriors” is referring to Indians, as noted by the second part of that statement: “…it’s pretty obvious that that’s an Indian caricature.” If the word caricature is what is throwing you, keep in mind that caricatures are not necessarily insulting, and that even if this one was (I’m betting they’d think it is), it makes no fucking difference whatsoever to the topic at hand, as it’s not their logo anymore. In other words, if someone in this thread was offended by the fact that the team used to have that logo, I’d be bitching about what idiots they were and you’d be patting me on the back. If the word “caricature” continues to throw you for a loop for some reason, after this entire post has been ingested, feel free to replace it with “drawing of an” “artwork of an”, or anything else of that nature.
Once again, the logo is simply proof of the original intent of the name’s usage, which was as a reference to Indians. The name itself is the only thing a reasonable person could find offensive today, as nothing else remains from the original. In other words, I answered your question.
Do you get it yet? If so, can we finally return to the actual argument, instead of this bizarre brain fart you seem to be having?
When ducks start complaining, then we’ll address this question, deal?
When a paddling of offended ducks is anything more than a canard, feel free to echo this question.
The curse of the edited double-post strikes again. 
What I get is that you have a Clintonesque ability to claim that you did not say what you in fact said, that " is" means “was,” that “probably” means “maybe,” that to “show” that something exists is to state norhing at all about whether it exists or not; in short, that you appear to be willing to got to great lengths to squirm your way out of an intenable position. Had you but admitted that your link to a 40 year old logo of a team emblem that *no longer exists * was in error, this brouhaha could have been avoided.
The question at hand is not and never was about whether any particular, arbitrary association with Indians is offensive, rather, why the term “warrior” is offensive, in and of itself. Of course, any symbol can be *forced * into a meaning that offends, but surely it is tiresome in polite society to belabor the obvious, don’yt you agree? My question concerns why the term itself is offernsive. Do you get it?
It seems to me rather common in casual speech to use “probably” to mean anything from “I have no idea, but here’s a wild guess” to “this is a completely sarcastic and factually untrue statement.”
Is Great Debates “casual speech?” Where does the true meaning of “probably” fit in your scale?
Please see my cite for “probably.” I assure you that attaching to it a meaning such as “I have no idea” strains credulity to the breaking point.
No deal since apparently most American Indians aren’t complaining about sports names either.
You can’t even decide what you’re going to have a problem with. Feel free to narrow it down, and I’ll address it. In the meantime, your arguments are full of shit. You can change my usage of the word “probably” to either “quite definitely” or “it’s a slim possibility” and the point doesn’t change. The offense is from the fact that in that one particular, fucking blindingly obvious to anyone but yourself, case, the term references Indians.That’s what you were originally asking, and what I answered. I only inserted the word probably as a notation that I don’t necessarily speak for all of the offended, which I don’t. I do know why they’re offended, but there might be one person among them that goes off on weird tangents of offense, for no reason whatsoever, thus not fitting into the standard pattern. That seems to be true in most endeavors.
If it was in error, I’d happily admit it. Since I used it to demonstrate that the term “warriors” in this case was an Indian reference, it wasn’t.
Well, then you should have asked the question that way. I was quite clear that the word is not arbitrarily offensive. It has various meanings, and its usage is only offensive under certain circumstances, and only to certain people. I’m not sure if that could have been made more clear, in fact.
Well that may or may not be a wonderful debate topic, but it has nothing to do with this thread. No one is forcing these words into offensive meanings. They’re being used in a manner that offends some people.
I answered your question quite well. The term itself is not offensive in all cases, but its usage sometimes is, and I do indeed get it.
Well, OK, I just got through with the article, and the only thing I was left thinking about was how lame it was.
So then it would no longer be insulting if Cherokees got some royalties out of the deal? Is this really about money somehow? I just don’t think so.
So, let me see if I understand. Is he saying that by removing one of the few connections today’s America has to the great Indian tribes of the past, Americans will know **more **about them instead of less?
I think this is called the “no real Scotsman” fallacy. Even if we do interview and even poll American Indians, those who say they are not offended by the mascots aren’t *real *Indians. Only those Indians who were especially badly mistreated are worthy of an opinion here.
You are reading a whole lot into it that is not there. Nowhere does he claim what you suggest he does.
I’m not sure what this question means. What is “removing one of the few connections”?
Once again you are reading something that is not there. He suggests that the majority of Indians feel the way he does, while conceding that a few may not.
I must confess, Contrapuntal, at least in part, I was having a bit of fun with building strawmen.
One of the remaining unknowns is what the rank and file Native Americans think about this. I know there is the Sports Illustrated poll which shows that over 80% are in favor of the mascots, but there seems to be some controversy over the fairness of it. I’ve not really looked at the study in depth, so I can’t comment. I expect that with the new national focus that the issue is undergoing there will be new polls from Gallup and others that will give us better insight.
In the meantime, I would hope that the schools in question would meet with some of the NA groups to see just what it is that they find insulting and perhaps work out a solution in which they could keep their mascots, but handle it in a way that truly honors the Indians.
Barring that I would recommend that the schools with Indian mascots change their names to the Pioneers. Then part of the pregame show would be to have a bunch of students dressed up as early farmers run on to the field, string up barbed wire, and chase off the locals. This would work especially well for the away games.
OK, OK, I’m being a dick again.
Still, that would be pretty cool.
El Zagna, have you heard of these guys? A Native American intramural team at the University of Northern Colorado called the Fightin’ Whities.
Just wanted to try and bring part of this discussion to a close…
NCAA Will Let Fla. St. Use 'Seminoles’
WOOT!
Whoops, forget to link the story! :smack:
Mascots and nicknames serve no useful purpose, other than branding. I propose that all team mascots and nicknames be abolished, because every logo is offensive to someone- the fans of the opposing team(s).
Just identify the team by a city or school name, and refer to them as “home” or"visitor."