In 1994, Marquette University joined the ranks of schools that were performing their political sensitivity by abandoning their mascots. Fearing that if it continued to call its athletes "warriors," Marquette would offend (or continue to offend) Native Americans, Marquette shelved the name and began a search for an acceptable nickname that, more than a decade later, is still going on today. At first, Marquette replaced "warriors" with "golden eagles." All was quiet--if also uninspired--until last spring, when two trustees offered the university $2 million to bring back the "warriors" moniker. Marquette declined the offer, stating that "we had to be guided by conscience, not emotion." But the university did poll alumni and fans, who agreed that "golden eagles" was "boring," "weak," and "common." Earlier this month, Marquette announced that henceforth, its nickname would be "gold," thus reflecting "our desire to be champions." But that name has met with hostility, too--students who were angry at not having a say in the decision protested, facetiously suggesting that the new mascot be a golden piece of toilet paper or a golden whoopee cushion. And so Marquette is caught, wedged tightly between the competing requirements of political correctness and anti-autocratic inclusiveness. The next phase: a vote that will include students, professors, alumni, and staff. The results of Marquette's attempt to arrive democratically at a name that is something other than dully inoffensive will be revealed on July 1.

It is interesting to note that 'Warriors' isn't in one of the approved choices up for a vote even though it is preferred by most everyone, except the trustees of course.

I find it revealing that they are going for the precious metal. Puts the real motive of most college decisions in perspective.

It's interesting that Erin reduces the real offense caused by sports mascots to some overly-sensitive desire for "political correctness." I love it when this blog shows its true colors.

Compare the Cleveland Indians' cartoon mascot to golliwog and other racist images of African-Americans.

Or, better yet, imagine a team called The New York Hebes. The mascot would be a caricatured Hasidic Jew with a fistful of diamonds in one hand and the blood of a Christian child on the other.

Or The New York Paddys, with a drunken Irishman mascot. The whole crowd at the stadium does its trademark "Paddy Shuffle" dance, where they sway around pretending to be drunk, tossing fake bombs at Protestants, and complaining about condoms.

If a team offended Jews or another caucasian ehtnicity, the offense wouldn't be called "political correctness" -- it would be called racism.

I'm surprised that Luther doesn't recommend the Marquette Honkies.

Did maybe Luther bother asking someone that a "tribal leader" with an axe to grind and some money to extort from the government for minority entitlements whether any actually "Native Americans" really objected to "Warriors"? Methinks that most of the PC stuff is drummed up by people from NGO's who want to get funding so they come up with these PC solutions to problems that don't exist and then we are supposed to be shamed into giving them money. I am just surprised that PETA doesn't object to using animal names for sport teams and get the ACLU to sue the universities.

Next thing will be another department where students will have to study animal rights and ho useing the names of animals for sports teams are ruining their self-image and that the students will have to study the history of mis-use of the names and how this hurts the psyche of wildcats or eagles or mighty ducks or some such nonsense. Reading will be required in how to understand the sounds of animals and the student cannot get a degree without completing this course satisfactorally. The department head will be Ward Churchill who has just found that he has a strain of duck DNA in his family so that he is an honorary bird.

Luther is absolutely correct. In 1999 The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled that the Washington Redskins trade-mark violated the 1946 Lanman Act governing trademarks. That act "forbids registration of, inter alia, a mark which "consists of or comprises immoral ... or scandalous matter" or "matter which may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute." The Redskins appealed, and the case is still up in the air. But it would appear that the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians have something to fear. Here is a fine argument calling for the repeal of this part of the act (published in the Federal Circuit Bar Journal, Fall, 1996). But beyond racial sensitivity, keep in mind that these names have become a real dollars and cents issue as well.

Mr. Blisset's comments might have some persuasiveness if "Warriors" were as demeaning as, say, "Hebes." But it's not.

Some words with ethnic denotations have demeaning connotations, and others do not. "New York Kikes" is surely offensive; but I submit that "New York Sabras" (for a female team) is not -- even though both have Jewish referents. That's why no one gets bent out of shape by a team named, say, "Vikings" -- because it's used with admiration, and modern Scandinavians know it.

Mr. Blissett achieves what little persuasiveness he does by tossing in admiring ethnic terms with demeaning ones, and then assimilating the former to the latter as though they were all of a piece.

The really racist thing here is the idea that "warriors" automatically connotes American Indians.

Actually, Mr. O'Bedlam, the case remains the same for the Cleveland Indians, for example. Or how about the Crown Heights Accountants, with a nerdy Jewish mascot?

Ultimately, any mainstream American appropriation of Native American culture is offensive. Saying that "Warriors" is somehow respectful is nonsense. It would be like a team called the Kansas City Cakewalkers: the reduction of an entire culture to some white myth about that culture.

The fact that a team called "The St. Louis Teachers" wouldn't have a Pueblo mascot gives the lie to your argument. To the mainstream culture, Native Americans aren't teachers, doctors, lawyers, mechanics, artists, carpenters, etc. They are feathered, shirtless warriors, brave perhaps, noble perhaps, but savage nonetheless.

Mr. Blissett:

I don't know what else to say except that I disagree. I think your argument relies on -- requires -- stereotyping to be persuasive. You pin the stereotyping on someone else and then condemn them for the attitudes you have put in their head.

No doubt many of the affected group -- the group out of which any given mascot arises -- will find a mascot offensive, no matter how designated, pictured, or described. But I suspect (as other commenters have suggested) that many of the affected group do not, at least when the designating, picturing, or describing is not demeaning in the sense I described in my first post. Which suggests to me that (1) the "offensiveness" is not inherent to the word or the mascot itself, but merely a matter of individual sensitivity; and (2) that those claiming a blanket "offensiveness" have no particular right to speak for the whole affected group.

I don't understand your "Teachers" argument. Of course "Teachers" wouldn't have a pueblo for a mascot; they'd have something relating to teachers, preferably something suggesting aggressiveness or fighting quality if that could be found. That's what team names, symbols, and mascots are all about. And that's why you find names and symbols (or used to find names and symbols, before the current blandification) like Warriors, Vikings, Spartans, Trojans.

In sum, I just don't buy your argument that ethnic reference, in and of itself, is offensive or demeaning, and I am skeptical of your claim to speak for all members of an ethnic group when you claim that because you find it "offensive" everyone does, or should.

Oddly enough, nobody seems to have a problem with the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame. I'm part Irish, and happen to think it's a great nickname/mascot. But why is that somehow less inherently offensive than the Warriors?

Well, Nick and Tom, it has to do with class, with whiteness, with a whole variety of issues. When a group of white folks latch onto a mythic image of some other race after years and years of abusing that race, that's offensive. As far as "The Warriors" go, there's a long history of white culture co-opting certain mythic notions of native america once they could comfortably see native culture "on the decline." Gerald Vizenor has written brilliantly on the myth of the vanishing indian, the one last, brave member of a dying race. It's easy to finally admit the "humanity" of that race once you're convinced they are disappearing -- and once you're convinced that act of disappearing is a historical inevitability and not the effects of your own violence against them.

As far as a team called "The Teachers" goes, rest assured that the mascot would be a white person, perhaps a fierce white old maid with glasses perched on her nose. That's the American myth of "teacherness," just as a professor is an old white dude with a corduroy jacket with patched elbows. These aren't inherently offensive; but they are symptoms of gender, racial, and class assumptions in the wider culture. At a time when many native americans are fighting to be seen as more than once-feathered once-noble savages, as more than drunk deadbeats, these long histories of racist representation need to be combatted.

Just as Irish-Americans combatted such stereotypes when they were struggling for wider acceptance in American culture. Their current ease before stereotypical mascots shows us the relative success of that culture (just as black artists are beginning to play more and more with stereotypical images, from Ishmael Reed to Spike Lee's *Bamboozled*).

Your arguments about being a member of the offended ethnicity miss the point. It's not about making some individual native americans or irish or af-ams feel bad. When any member of humanity is demeaned we *all* should feel the offense. The first step toward removing a group's rights is to remove their humanity.

I still don't get your point, Luther. I agree with arguments that the Cleveland Indians (because of the mascot, and to a lesser extent the name) and Washington Redskins (name) are probably offensive. I don't know what Marquette's old mascot looked like, but assuming that it wasn't something patently offensive, I fail to see the harm in "Warriors."

I would imagine that a name like Warriors would not have been chosen when whites and Native Americans were in armed conflict with each other. It is probably because the Native Americans no longer pose a threat to whites that we are comfortable with some names. But that simply doesn't make them wrong.

I, for one, have committed no violence against Native Americans, and think we should be doing more to help them, given the impoverished state of so many reservations. That said, I refuse to buy the "white guilt" argument that I should feel bad because of what other whites have done. I simply fail to see the connection between further marginalizing Native Americans and the use of the word "Warriors," especially given what I see as a positive connotation.

Since when did the word "warrior" become the exclusive domain of Native Americans? Its etymology come from Norman French and has been applied to soldiers throughout history regardless of nationality or ethnicity.

Certainly, the Washington "Redskins" show an appalling lack of sensitivity, but the objections to the use of warriors is a bit hyper-sensitive.

American Heritage: Warrior:
1. One who is engaged in or experienced in battle. 2. One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict: neighborhood warriors fighting against developers.

Perhaps it is offensive to the rest of the world to think that Native Americans are the only soldiers.

http://www.e-budokai.com/articles/weapons.htm

http://www.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/elejeune/mulan.htm

http://www.cnmat.berkeley.edu/~ladzekpo/Warriors.html

http://www.shambhalasun.com/Archives/Features/2000/Sep00/anipachen.htm

http://www.lone-star.net/literature/beowulf/

http://www.defendamerica.mil/fallen.html

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art17911.asp

http://phwibbles.com/sagas/

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/warriorchallenge/vikings/time.html

http://www.amazonation.com/AncientAmazons.htm

jlc

See, this is the trouble with the blogs vs. news debate. You all can't rely on Erin O'Connor to supply all the information needed to think through these issues!

Marquette U did not just have a team named "the Warriors." Their mascots have included "Chief White Buck" (1954-60), Willie Wompum (1961-71), and The First Warrior (1980-87 -- this was an attempt by Native American students to transform the mascot at least into a more historically accurate image).

As David Driscoll has written: "Until a deeper understanding of white privilege prevails among the majority of Wisconsin residents, this issue is likely to remain controversial and bitterly contested." See

http://www.wisconsinstories.org/2002season/sports/closer_look.cfm

for more info.

Of course no one would have a problem with some general "warrior" mascot; but the issue here is that historically, Marquette has associated themselves with native american "warriors" -- and the issue, of course, has more to do with native rights in Wisconsin and at the university than simply the discomfort felt over the mascot.

This has nothing to do with "liberal guilt" or any other conservative "spin" of the issue. As I wrote before, EVERYONE should feel disgusted when ANYONE is demeaned. This isn't about assigning blame or feeling guilty. It's about those who deny people their full humanity versus those who would fight for the full humanity of everyone. I'm amazed that people can come to a blog dedicated to turning conservatives into maligned victims in the academy and feel no outrage about these issues.

[And don't give me the "I never hurt a native american" argument. The majority of Americans themselves never lynched a black man, but people all over the world used to be outraged at such lynchings. Conservatives would reduce politics to emotion and then write them off as "hysteria."]

Enough with the nasty personal remarks, Luther. Debate the issues or don't post comments. If you don't like either option, don't read the site.

Sorry but I should have previewed. I meant fits rather than first.

Of course, an organization could use a Native American logo and in a long course of treating it with great dignity and respect never run afoul of the ethnic cruscaders (e.g. the Chicago Blackhawks, were there is never anything cartoonish of demeaning down with the Native American theme).

This has nothing to do with "liberal guilt" or any other conservative "spin" of the issue. As I wrote before, EVERYONE should feel disgusted when ANYONE is demeaned.

This might be true if there were some absolute sense of "demeaned" which applied no matter how anyone actually felt about the situation. Mr. Blissett seems to think that there is some Platonic form of "demeanedness" that is exemplied by some mascots regardless of whether anyone in the group allegedly demeaned FEELS demeaned or offended, or not.

Sorry, but it seems to me that "demeanedness" and "offensiveness" are just as much in the eye of the beholder as beauty is. That's why I look to the members of the affected group to determine whether something is demeaning, because they're the ones who have the right to make the claim. And it's why I am not particularly persuaded by Mr. Blissett's ipse dixits about what's demeaning or offensive and what's not, and further why I think he has no right to speak for the members of the affected group to claim that such-and-such is "demeaning" to them, or to all of us.

When a group of white folks latch onto a mythic image of some other race after years and years of abusing that race, that's offensive. Well, maybe it is -- to Mr. Blissett. But his claim that it is universally "offensive" in some metaphysical sense is unimpressive and unpersuasive, and amounts, in my mind, to his arrogating a right to speak for others who have given him no license or privilege to do so.

"That's why I look to the members of the affected group to determine whether something is demeaning, because they're the ones who have the right to make the claim. "

Tom, much of what you say makes sense, but do you really mean that? Seems to me there are too many ideologues out there who are all too wiliing to pounce on any percieved slight to advance their own agendas.
Common sense might be a better guide.

Tom, much of what you say makes sense, but do you really mean that?

I have to admit that's the weakest part of my position. It's my provisional answer. Even when Mr. Blissett's absolutisms are set aside, this is (or can be made into) a complicated issue, and I'm not entirely sure where I stand. It gets into issues like the descriptive vs. the prescriptive use of language, as well as the problem you allude to about whether some notional "majority vote" of the affected group is the proper -- or the best, or the only -- way to determine offensiveness.