Arizona Daily Wildcat Online
sections
Front Page
News
Opinions
Sports
Go Wild
Live Culture
Police Beat
Datebook
Comics
Crossword
Special Sections
Photo Spreads
Classifieds
The Wildcat
Letter to the Editor
Wildcat Staff
Search
Archives
Job Openings
Advertising Info
Student Media
Arizona Student Media Info
UATV -
Student TV
 
KAMP -
Student Radio
The Desert Yearbook
Daily Wildcat Staff Alumni

OPINIONS
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Point/counterpoint

Mascots are symbols of oppression

Finally, someone got the call right.

In August, an NCAA Executive Committee policy banned the use of "mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin" from postseason play.

This policy was passed for good reasons - the messages that these icons send betray the heritage of American Indians.

No better example comes to the mind than Chief Illiniwek, the mascot for the University of Illinois. Originally developed by an eagle scout, the Chief emerges during halftime regaled in headdress and rawhide and proceeds to "fancy dance" (an obnoxious dance trivializing American Indian tradition). [Read article]

divider
Editorial: Thanks/no thanks

See if these ideas are worth being grateful for

Coping with the cornucopia

Aside from the crazy uncle who giggles every time someone mentions "stuffing the turkey" (hey, we've all got one), there are few Thanksgiving moments so awkward as declining a plateful of food that is, well, less than appealing. For all the perfectly cooked turkeys and expertly prepared potatoes, there's always one family member who thought it'd be a good idea to show up with turnips, steamed Brussels sprouts or some fatal combination of the two. On any other day, it might be easy to swat away this cursed cuisine, but on the holiday of familial togetherness, being polite is just the cost of doing business. To this perennial source of family conflict, we say No Thanks. [Read article]

divider
Mailbag

Equal rights angle a terrible argument

Tom Mosby ("Majority of Americans think homosexuality is wrong") points out that "every citizen of this country can get married, just not to somebody of the same gender" and concludes that "the way the law is now, everyone already has equal rights. " This is an extremely bad argument.

First, it works equally well against interracial marriage. Under anti-miscegenation laws, every citizen could get married, just not to somebody of another race. Would Mosby say that everyone had equal rights to marriage in those days? Second, it works equally well against homosexual sex. If we outlawed homosexual sex, every citizen could have sex, just not to somebody of the same gender. Would that count as equal rights? [Read article]

divider
Restaurant and Bar Guide
Housing Guide
Search for:
advanced search Archives

NEWS | SPORTS | OPINIONS | GO WILD
CLASSIFIEDS | ARCHIVES | CONTACT US | SEARCH



Webmaster - webmaster@wildcat.arizona.edu
© Copyright 2005 - The Arizona Daily Wildcat - Arizona Student Media