« | »

WI Bill Would Protect Racist Names Like ‘Indians’

From an apoplectic Associated Press:

Wis. bill aims to guard race-based school nicknames

September 26, 2013

MADISON, Wis. –  Republican legislators in Wisconsin introduced a bill Thursday that would make it harder to strip public schools of race-based nicknames and allow schools already ordered to drop such monikers to keep them.

The proposal stems from a Milwaukee-area school district’s refusal to follow a state order to drop its "Indians" name. It comes amid a rekindling of the national debate over race-based nicknames, including a push to get the Washington Redskins to change names.

The bill, which one Native American official described as racist, would require anyone seeking to change a school nickname to get enough petition signatures from district residents to equal or exceed one-tenth of the number of district students. The complainant would then have to prove that the name promotes discrimination, student harassment or stereotyping. The state Department of Administration would make the final call on whether the district would have to drop the name.

Wow, that sure is racist.

The bill also would erase all existing name-change orders from the state Department of Public Instruction, including its order to the Mukwonago Area School District to drop its "Indians" nickname.

The proposal would dramatically change Wisconsin law, which currently allows a single person to file a complaint, places the burden of proof on a district to show the nickname isn’t discriminatory and allows the Department of Public Instruction to order name changes…

Yes, heaven forbid we see a common sense change like that. If one person is offended, the entire world must cater to them.

Barbara Munson, an Oneida Indian who chairs the Wisconsin Indian Education Association’s Indian Mascot and Logo Task Force, called the measure racist.

"That’s terrible. That’s anti-educational. It’s racist," she said. "For 21 years I’ve avoided that term. But it’s almost impossible to … describe this particular action in any other way."

The state has ordered three school districts — Mukwonago, Osseo-Fairchild and Berlin — to change their names since Democrats put the current law in place in 2010.

Osseo-Fairchild complied, changing its nickname from the "Chieftains" to "The Thunder." Berlin has until July 2014 to drop its "Indians" nickname.

Because ‘Chieftains’ and ‘Indians’ are clearly racial slurs.

Mukwonago officials have openly defied the order to drop "Indians," arguing that the district has used it for more than 80 years and that changing it would cost district taxpayers as much as $100,000. The DPI has given the district until Oct. 8 to comply or to risk daily fines…

The bill’s prospects look good. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Burlington, called it reasonable in a joint press release with Craig on Thursday. Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, said in statement that the measure could get a floor vote this fall. A spokesman for Gov. Scott Walker said only that the governor would evaluate the measure if it gets to his desk.

The Oneida Nation in upstate New York launched a national campaign last month pressing the Redskins to change their nickname. North Dakota’s Higher Education Board decided last year to drop the University of North Dakota’s "Fighting Sioux" nickname rather than face NCAA sanctions.

Because ‘Sioux’ is also a racial slur.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, September 27th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

13 Responses to “WI Bill Would Protect Racist Names Like ‘Indians’”

  1. Mithrandir says:

    ONE PERSON WHO IS OFFENDED….. –you know who that one person is? A liberal. It’s a school admin, or a principal, or some liberal bureaucrat, THAT’S who’s offended.

    Take down the American flag because someone might be offended? The person ordering the take down is the one who is offended!–figure it out America!

    Speech codes on campus are only designed to STOP SPEECH from people liberals don’t like, it’s not against liberals. All RED TAPE is designed to fluster and frustrate liberal opposition (IRS scandal of 2013) and create WAIVERS for their buddies.

    This B.S. argument that we must listen to the extreme minority IF that person also happens to agree with our viewpoint, is something Conservatives don’t seem to have much of a rebuttal about. The NFL Commissioner said we must cater to the extreme minority over the Redskins name, PUH! Majority rules buddy, it’s called the rules of Democracy.

    I’M OFFENDED! Lets see if any liberal cares about that……….nope!

  2. Noyzmakr says:

    I read a recent news story that some busy body was offended by the shape of concrete posts because she thought they looked like male genitalia. If you ask me, she should get her mind out of the gutter or get laid or something, but what I found most appealing about the story was the question posed by a town official wondering what would happen if they replaced the posts. He said “What’s to say the next replacement isn’t going to offend somebody else?” I love this guy. He actually has a brain that does more than regulate his heart rtate.

    We can’t go around trying to appease every idiot just because they claim to be offended. Their stupidity offends me.

  3. Astravogel says:

    Hmmmmm. How about “Washington Foreskins”
    in honor of all those dickheads at the Capitol and
    the National Association of Always Complaining
    People that some folks still pay attention to?

  4. canary says:

    We are all stones in a soup.

    I’m still trying to understand that Spanish and Mexicans are no longer considered a race but an ethnic. And who would have guessed that a Chicano was once considered derogatory and an insult. Perhaps black rappers are trying to embrace a derogatory name as acceptable towards an ethnic group within a race.

    I could be the present administration wanted to do away with Hispanics so they can’t be counted in any form. Not even the census bureau. I’m sure this law will spread and we will all be called stones soup.

    Interesting that Arizona passed a law that English teachers had to speak fluent flawless English.

    Only they did not pass the law so that American children soup stones will learn better English and understand the accented teacher, but so the Spanish stones will learn impeccable English instead of poor English.

    If only we could get middle-eastern and Indian Asian professors with thick accents to teach difficult subjects like Math and Science. They compensate their poor English by nodding a lot, and waving their arms and pantomiming with their body parts.


    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      As I understand it, back in the 50’s, the term was “colored”. But that fell out of favor as being derogatory.

      Then it became “negro”. But that fell out of favor as being derogatory.

      Then it became “black”. But that fell out of favor for being derogatory.

      It is currently “African American” which will also fall out of favor for being considered derogatory.

      Why, you ask?

      Because the people who devise these things fail to recognize that the people with an extra melanin chromosome behave poorly and give themselves a bad name.

      It’s not the news reports that are using the words…which, interestingly they just avoid doing anymore which has allowed “African American” to be used longer than the others, but it is still losing ground because of its very design feature which is to carve out exceptions and special recognition. That special recognition is always intended for good but the national socialists forget that the bad comes right along with it.

      So in the 50’s, “a gang of coloreds” did X

      In the 60’s, it was “a gang of negros”

      In the 70’s, “a gang of blacks”

      And so it goes.

      But as I said, the news entities, perhaps because they’re just tired of constantly having to identify perps as Colnegackicans just gave up. Actually, of course, it’s part of the word-game where if you don’t use it, it didn’t occur at the hands of a Colnegackican.

      However, “whitey” has endured for a a century and a half now, owing to its credibility as a descriptive term and how proud we are to “own it”. As has “cracka” and the lesser used but still popular “honky”.

      Thank you for letting me provide a small lesson in etymology.

    • Noyzmakr says:

      An excellent lesson Sir. I would only note that for about a year they refered to themselves as Afro-Americans.

      It is as you say, the news media doesn’t even mention race anymore, especially if there are pictures unless the person is white or white-hispanic.

      A recent example was this nut-job that was hunting whites at a Wal-Mart in Greenville, NC some months back. I was listening to Rush on the local radio station, and the news comes over the air about the attack. They decribed his clothing, hairstyle, the gun he was carrying and what he might be driving, all in great detail, but not once did they ever mention he was black. A small detail I only found out days later when I saw his picture.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      To say nothing of this curious conundrum:

      I work in an industry that attracts people from different lands, who came to the US for better opportunity. Aside from the joke that’s been had on them, here’s one for the books.

      Said employee was sitting at the round table at work, discussing this “African-American” nomenclature. He, himself is white but born and raised in Johannesburg, South Africa. So, he was discussing the potential argument that might arise.

      “Excuse me, but I thought, when I saw your paperwork that you were black.”

      “And what gave you that idea?”

      “Well, it said you were African-American”

      “Yes, I’m a naturalized citizen from South Africa”

      “So, you’re from Africa?”

      (hilarity ensues as the person’s brain overloads, revealing a lack of world demographic history and general knowledge)

      “But….you’re white”.

      “Yes. Is that a problem?”

      “Um, no…I uh, um….just assumed…”

      “Assumed what?”

      “Well, everyone KNOWS that African-Americans are black.”

      “They do? Is that a law? I mean, I had to study the laws pretty hard to pass my citizenship test and I didn’t run across that.”

      “Um, no…I mean that blacks, er, African-Americans use this term to define their race.”

      “They do? Why?”

      “Um…..cuz….the government needs to know who they are.”


      ——and the conversation could be considered comical if it wasn’t so pathetic.

      But really, he’s from South Africa, born and raised in Johannesburg, moved to the US for better jobs. So he is actually, an “African-American”

      But the damned government, I’m sure can’t have it that way. By the way, I have put down, “Scottish-American” as my race when such forms come my way. Or…”Other”.

  5. GetBackJack says:

    Just in time to save Negro Bill Canyon just outside Moab, UT

  6. yadayada says:

    hmmm… well when they start arming the teachers in Idaho we can change the team’s names from Fighting Sioux to the Firing Rifles.
    how about the Carbines. the Ol’ Henry’s. the Ma Deuces. the Thompsons. the Derringers. Snipers. Blackhawks, Commandos, we could go on for ever.
    it would be fun to sit back and watch the libs go apoplectic.

  7. captstubby says:

    thanks Rusty for a great example of Rhetoric caught in a trap of its own design.

    In Default Semantics, the explicit content of an utterance is its most salient meaning. This is so even when this meaning does not bear any resemblance to the logical form derived from the syntactic structure of the uttered sentence.

    If something stands out in a very obvious way, it can be called salient.

  8. Astravogel says:

    “Higamus Hogamus
    Marcus Antonius
    What do you think
    of the African Queen?

    Gubernatorial duties
    require my presence
    in Egypt, ya’ know what
    I mean.”

« Front Page | To Top
« | »