Our View: Outrage at nicknames, logos not consistent
The most obvious example we can think of is the logo of Major League Baseball’s Cleveland Indians. The team’s “Chief Wahoo” logo—the name itself is ridiculous—is a tomato-red-colored Indian face contorted into a garish grin. There have been protests against it, but none that have produced a sustained, popular effort to banish it.
We’re not Indian, so we’re probably not qualified to judge Indian-inspired nicknames and logos. But if UND’s “Fighting Sioux” nickname and accompanying logo—featuring a rugged, steely jawed Indian gazing into the distance—can be considered offensive, we have to wonder why there isn’t a similarly persistent effort to get other, seemingly more offensive nicknames and logos consigned to history.
October 7, 1999
April 24, 2002
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Note the nasty implication of the Mitchell Republic's ignorant claim: that activists are hypocrites who really don't care about Indian mascots. Wrong, ignornamuses. I believe Indians have been protesting all the offensive mascots since the 1970s and 1980s.
My counter-question is: Is the Mitchell Republic so comically inept that it can't research a basic question before opening its metaphorical mouth? Or did the paper fabricate a straw-man argument to deflect attention from its losing "Fighting Sioux" position? Stupid or dishonest...you decide.