Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

Sioux Me

Don’t you get tired of thin skinned cry babies? Once again there is a big flap about the offensiveness of a certain Indian mascot. But this time, it is not the Indians, excuse me, Native Americans, who are offended. Instead, the group offended is the NCAA and are demanding the University of Dakota get rid of their 81 year old sports team name, the Fighting Sioux. Here is the bottom line: the majority of the members of the local Sioux tribes view the use of their name as a badge of honor. The NCAA needs to stop telling the Sioux that they are supposed to be offended. Once again, political correctness tries to reign.

Some claim that these Indian names perpetuate myths about their ancient ancestors being hostile, aggressive and warlike. Well, the truth is, a lot of early native American Indians were warlike against the invading palefaces who began claiming the land they had lived on for centuries. The Indians were not warlike without reason.

Mascots are named after certain people groups, animals, or forces of nature for a reason. Cowboys, Vikings, falcons and tornados are all aggressive and destructive. It’s all in keeping with the spirit of fighting, which is a part of competitive sports. Not all Native American Indians are offended, but a thin skinned, liberal minority of politically correct people claim to be offended, and sane thinking people are tired of liberals telling minorities to get offended. If they had their way, high schools, colleges, and professional teams would be known as the Westside Weeping Willows or the Pennsylvania Mighty Oaks or the Davidson Daises or the Washington Redwoods. But then, tree hugging EPA nuts might get offended. Of course we could then turn to lower forms of plant life like the Atlanta Algae or the Kansas City Kernels, until champions for these underclass groups arose for their defense.

In Philadelphia, Mississippi, on the Choctaw Indian Reservation, at the Choctaw High School, the mascot is the “Warriors” illustrated by a picture of an Indian brave. Someone needs to tell the Choctaws they are absolutely politically incorrect and should get with the times. I do not think, however, they would take very kindly to being told they need to become the Choctaw Acorns or Choctaw Chickens or some other non-aggressive, inoffensive name.

Apparently the Choctaws haven’t been approached by the PC Police. If they ever are approached, I hope the Choctaws will use good common sense and tell them to get real. Freedom of choice is important, even if it’s only over the issue of being able to choose a mascot that fits an aggressive athletic team. If people are not free to choose names, the only other option is to join the ranks of the insane and become politically correct.

Rich Mitchell is the Sr. Managing Editor of Conservative Daily News. His posts may contain opinions that are his own and are not necessarily shared by Anomalous Media, CDN, staff or .. much of anyone else. Find him on twitter, facebook and google+
Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , , ,

Previous Article

Comments (0)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. WillofLa says:

    Isn’t it funny that any attack on Christian’s is always something that White Christian’s are doing or not doing? And isn’t it funny that anytime some attack is aimed at the use of a American Indian name, that it was a White school that was using that name incorrectly?

    Why is it that banks are only doing bad things when it’s banks that are owned by White men? And in the case of the school using the Indian name, it was White man that was using it offensively. Isn’t it strange that liberals seem to be after only the things, freedoms taken advantage of, liberties that were trampled upon, and words misused towards another race, are being misused by White people and no one else misusing that word?

    Gee, you’d think that it was White people that liberals seem to have the biggest problems with being free, and creative, and that have liberties that liberals don’t think White people deserve to have, or that were stolen from some other race.

  2. WillofLa says:

    And for how many decades did the name of that mascot go without any Indian saying anything about it? A long time, we never heard from any Indian Council, or Indian Court that we weren’t allowed to use that name because it was sacred or something. But we never heard from anyone because the Indian’s saw that the way the name was being used was honoring it, and not making fun of it. Then liberals came along and all of a sudden they went about trying to find some Indian who was offended that their tribal name was being used by a White man to name a school mascot, and they didn’t like that. How did liberals find these people when for decades they didn’t say a word to anyone who could have brought their concerns to court and get a lawsuet to stop the school from using that name. They just didn’t do it. Why not? Who knows. But what matters now is liberals have found some Indian’s who are offended.

    I would like to check up on these so-called Indian’s and find out if they are real Indian’s and are from that tribe, and go to that tribe and ask the elders if they are offended by that school using that name as the mascot. And if they weren’t then it could be published against the liberals and their dumb judges who did’t have enough sense to ask that question themselves so they could see if the liberals had a case. And if they didn’t then the judge could throw that case out of court and tell the liberals not to ever bring that case to court again. Let’s see if liberals would be made to follow a judges opinion. I bet not. They haven’t yet.

  3. WillofLa says:

    All this touchy-feely crap that liberals are constantly putting on people is nothing but a distraction from what they are really doing and that is they are systematically taking all our freedoms and liberties away. They are taking out thinking about whether we are free to do what comes to mind that we shouldn’t have to think about. That is creativity, not having to think whether or not something we want to do is okay or not. Having to think that smothers creativity and freedom. Having to think whether or not we are free to do whatever we want breeds paranoia and fear.

    And what is it we are fearful of? We are fearful of somebody taking all that we have with judges and lawyers and opinions that smother freedom and liberty. And if we want to hang onto what freedom and liberty we have then we had better not do anything that might be “wrong”. “Wrong” with whom? “Wrong” with those people who don’t think twice about taking us to court and try to take everything we have away from us with law suets and charges against us, unfounded accusations that might give those around us the wrong idea about us and our innocent intentions to just be free to be creative whenever we want.

    Liberals don’t want us to think freely. They just want us to think what we might be allowed to do by the state. This is the root of Communism, and that is to be afraid to be free to be creative to do whatever comes to mind that would be fun, funny, or cool to do, something that would make us feel good. Liberals would rather us think about doing something like that might hurt somebodies feelings. And what that does is make us think about the feelings of others too much and not enough about what would make us feel good. See, doing that would be individualistic and not collective. Always feeling about the feelings of other is collective and not individualistic. Always feeling like we are hurting the feelings of others by NOT thinking about what we do might be hurting the feelings of others makes a person become paranoid and depressed because we have no way to make ourselves feel good.

    Liberalism screws people up to the point where you can’t think about what would make youself feel good, instead you have to always think about whether or not you are hurting someone else. And how would you know if you were hurting someone else? You can’t unless you ask, and you had not do that because you might find out that people really don’t care what you do. Liberals want you to believe that people do care, when the truth of the matter is, they really don’t. Liberalism is a lie, it’s message is a lie, and it’s intent is a lie. Liberalism is a lie.

  4. WillofLa says:

    Yeah, I’m sick and tired of liberals getting judges to pass an opinion or somekind of decree and everyone acts like it’s law. Since when did all that start happening? Back in the 60’s when environmentalists started making all these factories and companies doing things to the environment that liberals believed was wrong. They found themselves a leftist judge who would go against the Constitution and after hearing the suet would tell these factories to make the changes that these environmentalists wanted or else. Or else what? These judges had no authority to do anything to them whatsoever.

    If a factory was next door to you and they were emitting some kind of smoke or fumes or something in a cloud, and the stink was in your business and was running off people, or it started eating the paint of your walls, then you could get a judge and order the factory to stop emitting the fumes. See, whatever the environmentalists were claiming had to be hurting someone or something that was a legally tangible entity that could be legally defended and claim damages. But if it were some river, forest, or lake, or some dirt, or birds, or animals or some sort, or something like that, no judge could demand that the “defendent” be paid damages from some factory because the defendent could be defended because they couldn’t explain in their own words how they were being hurt.

    The claims that liberals were making were bogus and illegal because they were claiming objective damages to the environment to things that didn’t belong to anyone, the damage couldn’t be definitively explained as to exactly how it was harming the forest, or anything like that. The forest would have to bring evidence to the court showing that it was loosing birds who didn’t want to build nests there because the fumes were to strong and the birds feared for their young. Birds can’t talk like humans. They may have what could be described as some sort of language but it can’t be understood like English or some other human language.

    Liberals would go to the courts and claim that the river’s and lakes had been damaged by pollutants coming from the factory. Well, that was easy to see, and it could be said to be pretty bad, but so what? Who was it harming? What business was being hurt because of the factory wastes being dumped into the river’s and lakes? And accusations like that. The judges were making opinions against the factory, but on whose behalf? The river can’t speak, it doesn’t get sick and have to go to a doctor like people do from pollutants or wastes in the water.

    Other than real damage done to human’s from factory waste that could be proven was making human’s sick were the only cases brought before a judge that could be properly charged against the factory.

    But when a American Indian tribe is being used as a mascot you have to prove that real damage is being done to the tribe by the name of that tribe being used. How do you prove that? Is anyone so stressed out that they have to go to the tribal medicine man and get help? And how do you determine the help the Indian is getting from said medicine man? And how do you gage the help the tribesman is getting? All that cannot be successfully figured.

    Now, if you were using the name and it was derogatory like the Dumb A** Starving Apaches, instead of just the Apaches, then you might have a case. Otherwise, it’s the leftist judge and some weak kneed Indian whose feelings are being hurt by the school using the tribes name. But that’s where it ends, it doesn’t go any further than that. The name doesn’t go any further in like my example above. Then in that case anyone would be fully able to say “where is anyone being hurt? Show me where you were really hurt by someone saying that name.” None of it can be proven. So it’s just the sorry butt illegal judge doing something that is unconstitutional to the school and is trying to convince the school that it has to do what the judge says. And that’s just it, they don’t have to do anything and can just keep going like they were and the judge doesn’t have a leg to stand on, but all it really does it scare the school that the court might be able to do something.

    This unfounded fear that liberals have been able to conjure up against White, conservative, Christian’s was how liberals got away with doing all kinds of things to people when the liberals were doing things unconstitutionally against people and the people were to dumb to know that they didn’t have to do anything, but counter sue the liberals and the liberals would have had to stop doing what they were doing. But no one would stand up to them until now. And you see what power the liberals have without fear, they have no power.