Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's a lot of issues in educational administration:
Educating children where there's little support at home;
Assisting special needs students;
Keeping gifted students interested;
Ensuring school safety both from internal fights and shootings; and
Almost anything you can think of.
So, what is the New York State Board of Regents focusing on? See NY Regents vote to ban Indian mascots at schools. Here's what it will mean (link), excerpt below:
Now, I wonder, were any actual Native Americans offended? Are the Regents bored? Why the focus on this non-issue?
I doubt very much that a great deal of time was spent on the issue. I'm sure they could multi-task during the current school year.
It's not a non-issue. Many tribes find the issue of Indian mascots offensive. And many Indian individuals within those tribes do not.
Personally, I find SOME Indian mascots very offensive.
I agree. But you have to remember that to some people they're 'just Indians'.
We went through this same issue when I lived in the D.C. area. What exactly was the big whoop to most white Americans is calling the team "the Redskins"?
I addressed that in my next post, post number three. There are good reasons not to cancel history. there are also good reasons for the New York Board of Regents to concentrate on its educational mission. The education situation in New York is not good.
Why the need to throw in an attack?
The name of a school basketball team is an important part of American history?
Maybe you can explain how calling a football team “the Mohicans“ is an insult. If some team will hypothetically, cold, the “wild Indians“ you may have a point. The Indians are part of American history. Why do you want to erase that?
What has a high school basketball team in (just to pick a New York State village) Palmyra really got to do with the Mohican Indians?
I understand your concern. However, I do see this as an issue.
There is a way to deal with it though. I'll give an example. My alma mater university is the University of Utah. The team calls itself the "Running Utes". The Ute tribe is quite happy to have the University football team use their name. The University went to the Ute Tribal Council and worked out a financial arrangement and one where some recognition was given the tribe in return for the use of the name. It satisfies all parties involved. Cultural sensitivity is important. I think it is all the more important in situations where a group--native Americans--have been mistreated for many years. Doing the right thing in these situations is respectful, cultural sensitive, and good for everyone involved.
Good example. Let me add some more perspective on this. I live in South Dakota where we (I believe) have the 2nd most Native Americans per capita. With that knowledge alone you can pretty much understand that I know several Native American people. Back when the U. of North Dakota was going through all the issues about their Fighting Sioux name I asked a couple of my Native American friends if this was offensive. ALL of them said they liked the name.
Now, what happened to make the University to change their name? Some leaders of ONE of the reservations in ND took offense to it. The residents of the various reservations in ND really should have voted on whether it was determined to be offensive, but that never happened. Had this vote occurred and the majority said it was offensive, EVERYONE would have been on board to change the mascot. Instead, it was only a few that forced the name change.
If U. of North Dakota had the BIG money to pay to the Indian people, like the Florida State Seminoles did to the Seminole tribe, I can GUARANTEE you that the U. of ND would still be known as the Fighting Sioux and not the Fighting Hawks. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. AGAIN!!!!!
Conclusion? Most Indian people could care if a school's mascot was Indians, Warriors, Braves, or the name of the local tribe. However, there are a few names that, to me ARE really dicey. Such as Scalpers (a college in SD once was named this) or (yes) Redskins. Then who IS responsible for all this crap? It's the overly offended white liberal suburbanites who want everyone to know how caring and (here we go again) WOKE they are.
Good example. Let me add some more perspective on this. I live in South Dakota where we (I believe) have the 2nd most Native Americans per capita. With that knowledge alone you can pretty much understand that I know several Native American people. Back when the U. of North Dakota was going through all the issues about their Fighting Sioux name I asked a couple of my Native American friends if this was offensive. ALL of them said they liked the name.
Now, what happened to make the University to change their name? Some leaders of ONE of the reservations in ND took offense to it. The residents of the various reservations in ND really should have voted on whether it was determined to be offensive, but that never happened. Had this vote occurred and the majority said it was offensive, EVERYONE would have been on board to change the mascot. Instead, it was only a few that forced the name change.
If U. of North Dakota had the BIG money to pay to the Indian people, like the Florida State Seminoles did to the Seminole tribe, I can GUARANTEE you that the U. of ND would still be known as the Fighting Sioux and not the Fighting Hawks. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. AGAIN!!!!!
Conclusion? Most Indian people could care if a school's mascot was Indians, Warriors, Braves, or the name of the local tribe. However, there are a few names that, to me ARE really dicey. Such as Scalpers (a college in SD once was named this) or (yes) Redskins. Then who IS responsible for all this crap? It's the overly offended white liberal suburbanites who want everyone to know how caring and (here we go again) WOKE they are.
This was not my experience when I lived in South Dakota. "Sioux" isn't a great term considering it's a derogatory term assigned to the Lakota by the Ojibwe.
Obviously not all Lakota people are going to have the same view but ultimately nothing of value was lost, what we call a football team isn't important.
This was not my experience when I lived in South Dakota. "Sioux" isn't a great term considering it's a derogatory term assigned to the Lakota by the Ojibwe.
Obviously not all Lakota people are going to have the same view but ultimately nothing of value was lost, what we call a football team isn't important.
I'm not too affected by the names myself. Not my hill to die on. I am probably only more Native American than Elizabeth Warren. I am aware of the term Sioux as being something to do with snakes in the Ojibwe language from 100 plus years ago when discussing the Sioux Indians. However, as I mentioned, NO ONE I talked with found it offensive to them.
As I mentioned, having schools called Indians, Warriors, Braves etc. is a nothing to most Native Americans. I'm part Irish and could care that Notre Dame says that my ancestors are always fighting.
I'm not too affected by the names myself. Not my hill to die on. I am probably only more Native American than Elizabeth Warren. I am aware of the term Sioux as being something to do with snakes in the Ojibwe language from 100 plus years ago when discussing the Sioux Indians. However, as I mentioned, NO ONE I talked with found it offensive to them.
As I mentioned, having schools called Indians, Warriors, Braves etc. is a nothing to most Native Americans. I'm part Irish and could care that Notre Dame says that my ancestors are always fighting.
But if a significant number (whatever that means) find it offensive, what's so great about keeping it?
In my high school, we were the Pal-Mac Raiders. What did that even mean? I doubt that if we took a hundred high school graduates from my era, that not a single one could tell us why that name was chosen.
We changed our school's mascot when I became principal because people kept making jokes about us being the Longfellow Trojans (do I have to explain that?). Why were we the Trojans? We talked about it. No one had the foggiest idea why we were the Trojans. So why did it matter?
I just read an article about why the Washington Redskins were the Redskins. It's not even clear why they were named that.
There's a lot of issues in educational administration:
Educating children where there's little support at home;
Assisting special needs students;
Keeping gifted students interested;
Ensuring school safety both from internal fights and shootings; and
Almost anything you can think of.
So, what is the New York State Board of Regents focusing on? See NY Regents vote to ban Indian mascots at schools. Here's what it will mean (link), excerpt below: Now, I wonder, were any actual Native Americans offended? Are the Regents bored? Why the focus on this non-issue?
It's very definitely an issue in the Native American community in general. "Why the focus" by the regents is, that it's an important gesture toward the Native American community, and it costs nothing, except for the cost involved in changing team uniforms. What's not to like?
Good example. Let me add some more perspective on this. I live in South Dakota where we (I believe) have the 2nd most Native Americans per capita. With that knowledge alone you can pretty much understand that I know several Native American people. Back when the U. of North Dakota was going through all the issues about their Fighting Sioux name I asked a couple of my Native American friends if this was offensive. ALL of them said they liked the name.
Now, what happened to make the University to change their name? Some leaders of ONE of the reservations in ND took offense to it. The residents of the various reservations in ND really should have voted on whether it was determined to be offensive, but that never happened. Had this vote occurred and the majority said it was offensive, EVERYONE would have been on board to change the mascot. Instead, it was only a few that forced the name change.
If U. of North Dakota had the BIG money to pay to the Indian people, like the Florida State Seminoles did to the Seminole tribe, I can GUARANTEE you that the U. of ND would still be known as the Fighting Sioux and not the Fighting Hawks. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. AGAIN!!!!!
Conclusion? Most Indian people could care if a school's mascot was Indians, Warriors, Braves, or the name of the local tribe. However, there are a few names that, to me ARE really dicey. Such as Scalpers (a college in SD once was named this) or (yes) Redskins. Then who IS responsible for all this crap? It's the overly offended white liberal suburbanites who want everyone to know how caring and (here we go again) WOKE they are.
Florida State doesn't pay the Florida Seminoles for the usage of their name. Never have. The controversy on that was that the tribe in Florida was behind the University using the name. The Oklahoma Seminoles were against it.
Oh, and South Dakota is fourth in NAs per capita behind Alaska, Oklahoma, New Mexico.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am aware of the term Sioux as being something to do with snakes in the Ojibwe language from 100 plus years ago when discussing the Sioux Indians. However, as I mentioned, NO ONE I talked with found it offensive to them.
