NCAA and Indian Insult

[volinbham]

Originally posted by jessiej86@Aug 10, 2005 8:37 PM
I personally don't know if it is offensive or not if teams use these names, but if it is, then well I guess we can't use the name Tennessee or any other state name that was derived from their language.  I guess we will have to rename a lot of rivers and towns too.

[snapback]125373[/snapback]​

PETA is already trying to get the name of "Fishkill" Pennsylvania changed.

I'm serious! :shakehead:

 

[milohimself]

kiddiedoc is my hero.

 

[Volstorm]

This move by the NCAA, has to be without a doubt the dumbest thing I have EVER seen. Like B-ham listed, there are numerous schools that could fall under their standard. Why do we all of a sudden find it offensive to celebrate the heritage of these people. But you knew it had to happen ever since people starting attacking Ole Miss. The Rebel flag issue is one thing (another time folks), but to make them change their mascot is ridiculous. For crying out loud, FSU has an agreement from the Florida Tribe of Seminoles allowing them to use the name and other tribal markings.

Where has common sense gone?

Next they want to take out Cowboys, because they are offensive to Indian tribes, or animal rights groups force the NCAA to ban all animal mascots. Our own beloved Volunteers were a group of Tennesseans who volunteered to go kill Indians and Mexicans. You don't think that won't ever come up? Point is that as long as the mascots are not done in poor taste, they should be left alone. These schools aren't doing this to demoralize these groups, they are CELEBRATING them. Wake up people!

 

[Z06Vol]

Originally posted by kiddiedoc@Aug 10, 2005 8:00 PM
My apologies for my historical ignorance.  As I remember, the "southern cross" was the most widely-used battle flag of the Confederate army.  The confederacy was formed after a collection of "cotton states" seceded (as promised) from the United States of America following Lincoln's election out of fear that he would threaten slavery and, in turn, the agriculture and commerce of the South.  Multiple documents, including the Constition of the Confederacy, the Declarations of Cessation, Davis's addresses to Congress, and the Emancipation Proclamation should serve as adequate evidence that slavery was, indeed, the central cause surrounding the division of our great union and the bloodshed that ensued.

This is not the time or place for a drawn-out debate over the civil war or whether or not I have been "mistaught."  In fact, all that is beside the point.  The central idea I stated is that the flag serves as a painful reminder (either directly or inferred) to many people of inhumanity, ignorance, hate, and inequality.

I was born in Tennessee, fly Orange and White, and speak with a touch of a drawl (or so I'm told by my Northern friends).  However, claiming "Southern Heritage" by no means excludes me (or any other person) from the necessary and rightful civil duties of sensitivity, respect, and empathy toward others.  To me, telling another racial or ethnic group that you don't care about how your actions or practices make them feel, especially when your choosing to maintain them or discard them will have no effect on your way of life, is downright selfish.  And as for selfishness, my Southern upbringing has taught me that there is no greater shame .

[snapback]125362[/snapback]​

You're right, this isn't the place for a flag debate but this doesn't mean I have to agree with your view. I'd would love to debate this in an off topic thread, but I will say that it's absurd to think that the war was fought for slavery. Seventy to eighty percent of southern people were not slave owners and most southerns volunteered to fight and die. Why would the vast majority of whom which were not slave owners go to war against a numerically superior foe and endure four long years of hardship, all in order to allow a few rich men to keep their slaves?

 

[KYVolFan]

Originally posted by kiddiedoc@Aug 10, 2005 9:00 PM
My apologies for my historical ignorance.  As I remember, the "southern cross" was the most widely-used battle flag of the Confederate army.  The confederacy was formed after a collection of "cotton states" seceded (as promised) from the United States of America following Lincoln's election out of fear that he would threaten slavery and, in turn, the agriculture and commerce of the South.  Multiple documents, including the Constition of the Confederacy, the Declarations of Cessation, Davis's addresses to Congress, and the Emancipation Proclamation should serve as adequate evidence that slavery was, indeed, the central cause surrounding the division of our great union and the bloodshed that ensued.

This is not the time or place for a drawn-out debate over the civil war or whether or not I have been "mistaught."  In fact, all that is beside the point.  The central idea I stated is that the flag serves as a painful reminder (either directly or inferred) to many people of inhumanity, ignorance, hate, and inequality.

I was born in Tennessee, fly Orange and White, and speak with a touch of a drawl (or so I'm told by my Northern friends).  However, claiming "Southern Heritage" by no means excludes me (or any other person) from the necessary and rightful civil duties of sensitivity, respect, and empathy toward others.  To me, telling another racial or ethnic group that you don't care about how your actions or practices make them feel, especially when your choosing to maintain them or discard them will have no effect on your way of life, is downright selfish.  And as for selfishness, my Southern upbringing has taught me that there is no greater shame .

[snapback]125362[/snapback]​

Sir:

Sensitivity and absurdity are quite different. Should we not be equally as sensitive to those heroes of the Confederacy who gave their lives and lands to protect the Constitution Guarantees of the US Constitution that existed at the time. Slavery and the ownership of slaves was wrong but it was a Constitutionally protected right and any law officer, soldier, or elected official who took any action to deny a citizens right to own slaves was a criminal, Federal Felon, until well after the Civil War.

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by kiddiedoc@Aug 10, 2005 8:00 PM
My apologies for my historical ignorance.  As I remember, the "southern cross" was the most widely-used battle flag of the Confederate army.  The confederacy was formed after a collection of "cotton states" seceded (as promised) from the United States of America following Lincoln's election out of fear that he would threaten slavery and, in turn, the agriculture and commerce of the South.  Multiple documents, including the Constition of the Confederacy, the Declarations of Cessation, Davis's addresses to Congress, and the Emancipation Proclamation should serve as adequate evidence that slavery was, indeed, the central cause surrounding the division of our great union and the bloodshed that ensued.

This is not the time or place for a drawn-out debate over the civil war or whether or not I have been "mistaught."  In fact, all that is beside the point.  The central idea I stated is that the flag serves as a painful reminder (either directly or inferred) to many people of inhumanity, ignorance, hate, and inequality.

I was born in Tennessee, fly Orange and White, and speak with a touch of a drawl (or so I'm told by my Northern friends).  However, claiming "Southern Heritage" by no means excludes me (or any other person) from the necessary and rightful civil duties of sensitivity, respect, and empathy toward others.  To me, telling another racial or ethnic group that you don't care about how your actions or practices make them feel, especially when your choosing to maintain them or discard them will have no effect on your way of life, is downright selfish.  And as for selfishness, my Southern upbringing has taught me that there is no greater shame .

[snapback]125362[/snapback]​

While I am not in the habit of hanging out the stars and bars, don't have a stars and bars in the rear window of my pickup truck, well, com to think of it, I don't even have a pickup truck, but I digress, I don't wave the stars and bars along side the stars and stripes, if you catch my meaning. I do grow believe the flag has its rightful place in its proper settings, i.e., confederate graveyards, memorials, battlefields and the like.

As an avid student of the Civil War, I would take issue with some of your historical perspective.

In regard to the original secession of the 6 primarily 'cotton states': South Carolina, which led the effort, pushed primarily by the Rhett family's holdings, then followed by the other deep south states, the question became less about slavery to the other seceding states, than it was about state's rights, and to many of the notables of the border states, it was about patriotism.

While it is true the first 6 states were driven by the rich slave owners, it was by no means the driving force that pushed more than half a million men to serve in the Confederate army.

Less than 6% of the army's men owned slaves, so that provides a different school of thought as to why they fought.

As I mentioned the 'notables', Robert E. Lee, who by the way had been offered the command of the Federal Army by his friend and mentor, Chief of the Army Winfield Scott and Lincoln, had already given his slaves, which were his by marrying into the Custis family, their free papers prior to the conflict.

Stonewall Jackson, arguably the most beloved Southern General, owned 2 slaves, but was against slavery. He started the first Sunday School for blacks in the South. His two slaves were purchased by him upon their pleading with him to buy them. In truth, Jackson was strongly opposed to slavery as was the majority of the Southern Generals, especially those from Virginia.

As I said, I think it's a tad 'redneckish' to display the stars and bars in your auto, on your porch, and the like. But, I do have paintings in my home of the flag in 'trappings of valor' settings.

Where I take issue is with the politically correct crowd that would like to take it from its proper settings, in effect, the places I previously named.

We can not eradicate the evils of slavery again. It has been eradicated.

Denying the history of the 94% of Confederate soldiers who fought for reasons that had nothing to do with slavery or bigotry is just as cruel as waving the stars and bars in a manner that is meant to evoke hard feelings.

Yes, without slavery there would probably not have been a war. But, without the jealousy, greed, and pervasive attitudes of the Northern industrialists, there probably wouldn't have been a war either.

Lincoln should have never raised troops to squash the rebellion by force. He made very little efforts to negotiate.

The schism of racism, prejudice, and bigotry would have been far better born without the death of more than 600,000 American lives. Had Lincoln and the radicals who longed for a bloody conflict sought an alternative to war the ugliness that was spawned by the war would never have existed.

I can't help but believe that the problems our nation faced would have been reduced in their scope and hatefulness had there not been such a rush to war by all those involved, at least at the highest level.

As it was; we faced generation after generation of hard feelings.

 

[kiddiedoc]

I'll end this and ask for peace by saying that neither of the above replies have anything to do with my point. What I attempted to emphasize was not a neglecting of heritage but a respect for my fellow man. There is nothing about a flag that is necessary to honor the fallen heroes who fought for this great nation -- on either side of the civil war. And, while you may call the idea "absurd," the civil war was, indeed, fought due to differences in opinion regarding slavery. Sure, it turned into a "states' rights" and "Constitution" debate, but what was the impetus behind that? Again, reference the historical documents I provided as examples. You may call me ignorant, mistaught, or absurd, but you cannot discount the written words.

Whenever I find myself on the fence in an issue like this, I always find it useful to put myself in the shoes of a person standing on each side. In this case, the "loss" Southerners would experience by letting go of this symbol doesn't even compare to the pain and racial inequality that it reminds many others of. Those feelings are real, whether you agree with the reference or not. Open your mind and your heart, and you'll end up on the right side, too.

eace:

 

[TBALLVOL]

If a person can be offended they will be offended. We strive to build community and consensus and unity by focusing on individual sensitivities and it will only lead to greater division. Most of us did not know we were oppressed until someone told us that we were. We are a nation that aspires to play the victim and if we are not feeling oppressed then we must obviously be the oppressors. We want everyone to come to our pity party. Americans use to have too much pride to admit a weakness, now we go about crying, "Feel my pain!" and hope some politician is listening so he can champion my cause and find me some easy money to end my suffering. What ever happened to the strength of the character that comes from not acknowledging our suffered wrongs? Before you know it it will be illegal to keep score in our sporting events because the weaker teams will feel oppressed and victimized. Grow up America and get a real life!

 

[Z06Vol]

Well said OldVol.

 

[SoCalVol]

Lincoln should have never raised troops to squash the rebellion by force. He made very little efforts to negotiate.

The schism of racism, prejudice, and bigotry would have been far better born without the death of more than 600,000 American lives. Had Lincoln and the radicals who longed for a bloody conflict sought an alternative to war the ugliness that was spawned by the war would never have existed.

I can't help but believe that the problems our nation faced would have been reduced in their scope and hatefulness had there not been such a rush to war by all those involved, at least at the highest level.

As it was; we faced generation after generation of hard feelings.

[snapback]125484[/snapback]​

I don't know how realistic a view this is. I'm not saying you are wrong (truth be told, I've never thought about this argument), but it seems to me that the idea of negotiation is not something that is entertained when it comes to civil rebellion. Whether it is the correct attitude to have or not, I believe that it would be very difficult to negotiate a return to being a whole country once two sides have split. Therefore, the government of said country must either subdue the rebellion or allow the secession. I think if Lincoln had tried to negotiate, I would be speaking to you from another country now. And whether that would be a good thing or not is a completely different argument.

Anyways, my point is that negotiation in times of conflict is usually reserved by two separate countries with the idea in mind that they don't have jurisdiction over each other. With civil rebellions such as what started our Civil War, the exact dispute IS whether or not the government has jurisdiction over the insurgents, and I fail to see how that can be negotiated.

This is an interesting enough topic that I had to post for the first time in a year. I do love a good debate.

 

[kiddiedoc]

For historical completeness, I must also add that I believe it was Gen. Beauregard who fired the first shots on Fort Sumter when an imminent peaceful surrender was at hand after Lincoln's supply chain was cut off. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not rehashing the debate -- as I've stated, this is all irrelevant to the issue at hand.

 

[KYVolFan]

Originally posted by KYVolFan@Aug 11, 2005 8:39 AM
Sir:

Sensitivity and absurdity are quite different.  Should we not be equally as sensitive to those heroes of the Confederacy who gave their lives and lands to protect the Constitution Guarantees of the US Constitution that existed at the time.  Slavery and the ownership of slaves was wrong but it was a Constitutionally protected right and any law officer, soldier, or elected official who took any action to deny a citizens right to own slaves was a criminal, Federal Felon, until well after the Civil War.

[snapback]125481[/snapback]​

Yes I am expanding my previous response. Arguments that Slavery was the issue of the war can be dimmed considerably when we consider that a significant number of Union Officers owned slaves. One such officer was none other than Ulysess S. Grant. Actually the slaves belonged to his wife but as such they were community property. Mrs. Grant, toward the end of the war, lived in Virginia and kept her slaves with her even on a trip to Richmond. This was a full 2+ years after the emmancipation proclamation that made slaver in certain states, including Virginia, illegal. General Grant was once quoted as saying "the war has nothing to do with slavery."

The individual who financed the formation and arming of the 9th KY Vol. Infantry, John Fraim, of Monroe County, KY had the largest inventory of slaves of any individual in that county. The Colonel of that Regiment, Benjamin Grider owned 25 slaves and his father, Henry Grider, the US Congressman from Bowling Green had a similar number. Erasmus Mottley, the Lt. Col. of the 11th Ky Vol. Inf., came from the largest slave holding family in his home county. I could go on and on but hopefully the point is made.

By the way, my family had about 12 members who fought in the Civil War from DeKalb, Putnam and White Counties in Tennessee( 5 of those were Officers). None of those families, Medlens, Jones, Dyers were slave owners. They, like me today, did not believe slavery was right but they understood that a US Citizen had the Constitutionally Guaranteed right to own slaves if he so chose.

 

[Z06Vol]

Originally posted by KYVolFan@Aug 11, 2005 3:44 PM
Yes I am expanding my previous response.  Arguments that Slavery was the issue of the war can be dimmed considerably when we consider that a significant number of Union Officers owned slaves.  One such officer was none other than Ulysess S. Grant. Actually the slaves belonged to his wife but as such they were community property. Mrs. Grant, toward the end of the war, lived in Virginia and kept her slaves with her even on a trip to Richmond.  This was a full 2+ years after the emmancipation proclamation that made slaver in certain states, including Virginia, illegal.  General Grant was once quoted as saying "the war has nothing to do with slavery."

[snapback]125613[/snapback]​

Anthony Trollope, a British citizen traveled extensively in the North and South during the first part of the war, he wrote...

"The South is seceding from the North because the two are not homogeneous. They have different instincts, different appetites, different morals, and different culture."

And to pigback on KYVol, Lincoln once said in a debate...

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever haven been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races..... I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Bet they don't teach that quote in our schools. Lincoln attacked the southern states to keep his empire intact. The only reason he freed the slaves was to keep Europe out of the war. And to think the vast majority call this guy a hero.

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by kiddiedoc@Aug 11, 2005 12:36 PM
For historical completeness, I must also add that I believe it was Gen. Beauregard who fired the first shots on Fort Sumter when an imminent peaceful surrender was at hand after Lincoln's supply chain was cut off.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not rehashing the debate -- as I've stated, this is all irrelevant to the issue at hand.

[snapback]125540[/snapback]​

Sumter was fired on after South Carolina had seceded. The new government had presented Lincoln with a deadline to remove federal troops from the South. At that point they were foreign territory. When the deadline passed, the troops present were to be treated as hostile, with hostile intent. Lincoln had already raised a large army prior to this though.

Many believe it was his haste in raising the volunteers that forced Robert E. Lee’s hand to resign his commission in the U. S. Army.

Lee came to realize that if he led the army he would be leading it against his state, his home, and his family.

I have long believed that a peaceful resolution could have been achieved.

Slavery, as an institution was on its last legs. Most of the educated Southerners opposed it. They just opposed federalism more.

Had the secession succeeded and no war fought to force the South back into the Union it is highly unlikely Slavery would have lasted more than another decade or two. The black population would have been far better situated if slavery had died a natural death. As it was there were great wounds that took generations to heal.

I believe the seeds of reconciliation would have paved the way for a far quicker course to Civil Rights.

It’s just my opinion, but I’ve studied it extensively and tried to keep an open mind while arriving at this conclusion.

If you study Lincoln’s life prior to his presidency you have to come to the conclusion that he was a bit of a radical. I think he had some pretty hardcore preconceived notions that hastened the rush to war once he was elected. It was probably because of this that the southern elitists threw all caution to the wind and proceeded headlong into secession. It had brewed for about 20 years and the election of Lincoln was just the final straw.

I guess my feelings about the flag are not in line with yours.

I just feel that everyone has a responsibility to be considerate. That means everyone on both sides of the issue.

It just seems like it is always one sided.

 

[milohimself]

Sorry to throw a monkey wrench in your guys' Civil War reenactment, but I think the original issue of this thread has been solved. The Oklahoma Seminole tribe that supposedly had the problem with FSU using their name has retracted that statement and said they're okay with it.

Seeing as said offended groups are now alright with the issue, the NCAA is now officially retarded. If it wasn't before, anyways.

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by SoCalVol@Aug 11, 2005 11:39 AM
I think if Lincoln had tried to negotiate, I would be speaking to you from another country now

[snapback]125533[/snapback]​

I think that is the least likely of all that would have happened.

Our people were far too interweaved for the nation to have existed divided for very long.

Families, business, and even our very culture was so joined at the hip that reconciliation would have been inevitable.

I can't imagine our differences being as complex as say; the two Germanys.

The division of Germany into East and West following the 2nd World War created the most glaring of dissimilarities of a civil and cultural breakdown imaginable. There were probably as many differences between them as there were between East Germany and France, or West Germany and Czechoslovakia. Yet, after the fall of the Iron Curtain the two nations merged into one at a faster pace than anyone ever imagined possible.

Once the old-guard of the southern secession movement had passed from the scene there would have been a rush to reunite the nations. Even Jeff Davis was originally an opponent of secession.

The old money in the South could not have held the rope for too long.

 

[wncvolfan]

Originally posted by Volstorm@Aug 10, 2005 9:17 PM
This move by the NCAA, has to be without a doubt the dumbest thing I have EVER seen. Like B-ham listed, there are numerous schools that could fall under their standard.  Why do we all of a sudden find it offensive to celebrate the heritage of these people.  But you knew it had to happen ever since people starting attacking Ole Miss.  The Rebel flag issue is one thing (another time folks), but to make them change their mascot is ridiculous.  For crying out loud, FSU has an agreement from the Florida Tribe of Seminoles allowing them to use the name and other tribal markings.

Where has common sense gone?

Next they want to take out Cowboys, because they are offensive to Indian tribes, or animal rights groups force the NCAA to ban all animal mascots.  Our own beloved Volunteers were a group of Tennesseans who volunteered to go kill Indians and Mexicans.  You don't think that won't ever come up?  Point is that as long as the mascots are not done in poor taste, they should be left alone.  These schools aren't doing this to demoralize these groups, they are CELEBRATING them.  Wake up people!

[snapback]125397[/snapback]​

Ask the Cherokee Indians in WNC what they think of the Atlanta Braves. They'll tell you they love it, It's good for business.
Also, the Seminole tribe appreciates Fla State using their tribal name.
Why don't the bleeding hearts ask the supposedly offended groups what they really think?

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by wncvolfan@Aug 15, 2005 6:08 PM
Ask the Cherokee Indians in WNC what they think of the Atlanta Braves.  They'll tell you they love it,  It's good for business.
Also, the Seminole tribe appreciates Fla State using their tribal name.
Why don't the bleeding hearts ask the supposedly offended groups what they really think?

[snapback]126955[/snapback]​

That's just it. It doesn't take an offended GROUP.

All it takes is one renegade. Excuse the pun please. But that's the whole problem with the problem of political correcntess. If one person cries and whines like the spoiled brat most of them are, then the PC crowd adopts their cause the the war paint goes on.

That is how far our society has degraded. If one person cries about a nativity scene, then the ACLU, true to the spirit of their charter, steps in to grab the publicity.

We have become a society that says, "Screw the simple majority, even screw the vast majority, we have to be sensitive to EVERYONE." The problem is, that philosopmy assumes that the majority is always wrong and therefore their feelings are not important, because the spirit of rebellion insists that everyone else's feelings get stepped on in order to placate the single complainer.

It's just nuts.

 

[bravevol]

they ask Indians all the time what they think about this and they usually say that its nothing that makes them mad, but they think it respects their culture