PDA

View Full Version : Fighting Sioux name may change - Murphy's law



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Jockstock
11-03-2009, 02:22 PM
The new Standing Rock tribal leader, Charles Murphy (http://www.kxnet.com/custom404.asp?404;http://www.kxnet.com/News/Local/463486.asp), appears to have had a change of heart. The name is no longer a priority.

MinnesotaNorthStar
11-03-2009, 02:26 PM
The new Standing Rock tribal leader, Charles Murphy (http://www.kxnet.com/custom404.asp?404;http://www.kxnet.com/News/Local/463486.asp), appears to have had a change of heart. The name is no longer a priority.I wouldn't call it a change of heart, he's still pro-nickname. He probably just realizes that there are more pressing issues to the tribe then a nickname. A lot of the anti-nickname people could learn from this...

ScoobyDoo
11-03-2009, 02:28 PM
I wouldn't call it a change of heart, he's still pro-nickname. He probably just realizes that there are more pressing issues to the tribe then a nickname. A lot of the anti-nickname people could learn from this...

Really?

They've had ample time to deal with this issue. They could have come right out and said "absolutley not" or "go ahead". Instead they're waffling on levels that rival Brett Favre.

Now it appears instead of a yes or a no it's going to a deadline that does the name in? Preposterous.

Federal League
11-03-2009, 02:36 PM
Ron His Horse Is Thunder is a way cooler name for a tribal leader than Charles Murphy.

MinnesotaNorthStar
11-03-2009, 02:46 PM
Really?

They've had ample time to deal with this issue. They could have come right out and said "absolutley not" or "go ahead". Instead they're waffling on levels that rival Brett Favre.

Now it appears instead of a yes or a no it's going to a deadline that does the name in? Preposterous.Scooby...IIRC there has to be a month's notice of anything like the nickname issue being discussed at a tribal meeting. There are a lot of problems on the reservations that Murphy feels are more important. RHHiT wasn't voted out just because he was anti-nickname...

goldy_331
11-03-2009, 02:57 PM
"The University of North Dakota Murphy's Law"? :confused:

That's an odd choice of a nickname.

IrishWildcat
11-03-2009, 03:03 PM
Ron His Horse Is Thunder is a way cooler name for a tribal leader than Charles Murphy.

Rick James takes issue with Charlie Murphy as well...I believe a couch may have been involved. :D

Old Pio
11-03-2009, 03:23 PM
I don't have a dog in this hunt. But I am unable to understand why it's considered appropriate for one group of Americans (and a small group at that) to have veto powers over how another and much larger group of Americans expresses itself.

Balkanization of America is not in the best interests of the country or the groups we seek to "protect" from hurt feelings. Thanks to grandstanding Chicago politicians who threatened the university's revenue, Illinois was forced to cave in on the issue of Chief Illiniwek. Iconoclasts everywhere rejoiced, but what had they really accomplished other than ending a harmless tradition revered by tens of thousands?

Similarly, what will be accomplished by ending the Fighting Sioux tradion? Nothing. The iconoclasts, again, will delight in their success but will have destroyed something revered by tens of thousands. Nothing else.

brianvf
11-03-2009, 03:24 PM
They've had ample time to deal with this issue.

One month is ample time for the new tribal council to decide on the Fighting Sioux nickname? :p

:)

state of hockey
11-03-2009, 03:25 PM
One month is ample time for the new tribal council to decide on the Fighting Sioux nickname? :p

:)

Yes?

ScoobyDoo
11-03-2009, 03:27 PM
One month is ample time for the new tribal council to decide on the Fighting Sioux nickname? :p

:)

That's not really my point and you know it. And yes, they could have taken care of it 5 minutes after they were put in place, instead they're dragging their feet and drawing it to a ridiculous conclusion. The tribal leader appears in his whining about "timetables" and "preconditions" to "want something" out of the negotiations. It's comical at best.

brianvf
11-03-2009, 03:31 PM
That's not really my point and you know it.

:)

But know I will act mad and upset so that Jockstock thinks he got under a Sioux fans skin. :mad: :mad: :( :( :mad: :mad:

In reality, I accepted long ago that the Sioux name will eventually be gone. If it evades "retirement" this time around, the PC police will get it the next time...or the next time...etc. I will support my team regardless of the nickname on their jersey. :)

Dirty
11-03-2009, 03:39 PM
That's not really my point and you know it. And yes, they could have taken care of it 5 minutes after they were put in place, instead they're dragging their feet and drawing it to a ridiculous conclusion. The tribal leader appears in his whining about "timetables" and "preconditions" to "want something" out of the negotiations. It's comical at best.

The SBoHE has done exactly jacksquat in the two years since the settlement with the NCAA. It seems they haven't even tried to work something out with the two tribes. They sat around for an entire year before getting off their fat arses and even addressing this issue. What they did was form a committee of do nothings to discuss the issue and determine how they should try to retain the nickname. This committee sat around, discussed their favorite fishing spots, ate McDonalds and then disbanded having accomplished nothing. Then the SBoHE, having barely lifted a finger towards resolving this issue, set a deadline. The Spirit Lake Tribe met this deadline. The day before this deadline was to expire, the Standing Rock Tribe had elections and a pro nickname person was elected tribal chairman, so the deadline was pushed back a month. Now a month later, with no action from Standing Rock and the SBoHE is chastising them? Wow, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.

Since when do things ever get done quickly anywhere? Look at the health care bill. That has been discussed endlessly and where is it at now? At the rate you think the Standing Rock tribe should accomplish things, the health care bill should have been implemented in July. Now sure it would be great if the Standing Rock Tribe just did something one way or the other, but that isn't realistic after one month. That just isn't how things work.

If the SBoHE doesn't extend the deadline again, they are foolish. 95% of UND alumni are in support of the nickname and seemingly a majority of SR residents are as well. Ignoring all of these people just to meet an arbitrary deadline is idiotic.

25 N Countin'
11-03-2009, 03:40 PM
I don't have a dog in this hunt. But I am unable to understand why it's considered appropriate for one group of Americans (and a small group at that) to have veto powers over how another and much larger group of Americans expresses itself.

When that larger group of Americans is pretty much the reason that the smaller group is in fact so small, that kinda makes a difference, does it not?

I guess those pesky African Americans (12.7% a few years ago) should just shut up when the much larger white population calls them something inappropriate?

Siouxfaninseattle
11-03-2009, 03:44 PM
I don't have a dog in this hunt. But I am unable to understand why it's considered appropriate for one group of Americans (and a small group at that) to have veto powers over how another and much larger group of Americans expresses itself.

Balkanization of America is not in the best interests of the country or the groups we seek to "protect" from hurt feelings. Thanks to grandstanding Chicago politicians who threatened the university's revenue, Illinois was forced to cave in on the issue of Chief Illiniwek. Iconoclasts everywhere rejoiced, but what had they really accomplished other than ending a harmless tradition revered by tens of thousands?

Similarly, what will be accomplished by ending the Fighting Sioux tradion? Nothing. The iconoclasts, again, will delight in their success but will have destroyed something revered by tens of thousands. Nothing else.

Well said. You may not have a dog in the hunt, but given the history of Boone at DU, you have insight into the bigger picture. The writing has been on the wall for a long time - it looks like the nickname is just about gone. Too bad there isn't a reason other than being PC.

Dirty
11-03-2009, 03:51 PM
When that larger group of Americans is pretty much the reason that the smaller group is in fact so small, that kinda makes a difference, does it not?

I guess those pesky African Americans (12.7% a few years ago) should just shut up when the much larger white population calls them something inappropriate?

If 75% of those African Americans say it isn't inappropriate, should we base policies on the 25% who say it is inappropriate?

MinnesotaNorthStar
11-03-2009, 03:57 PM
When that larger group of Americans is pretty much the reason that the smaller group is in fact so small, that kinda makes a difference, does it not?

I guess those pesky African Americans (12.7% a few years ago) should just shut up when the much larger white population calls them something inappropriate?Show me an African American that would object to me calling them...African American.

The nickname is their tribal name, not something inappropriate so your example is not really a good one. When I lived up there no one got mad at me for asking if they were Sioux...

Happy
11-03-2009, 04:03 PM
I don't have a dog in this hunt. But I am unable to understand why it's considered appropriate for one group of Americans (and a small group at that) to have veto powers over how another and much larger group of Americans expresses itself.

Balkanization of America is not in the best interests of the country or the groups we seek to "protect" from hurt feelings. Thanks to grandstanding Chicago politicians who threatened the university's revenue, Illinois was forced to cave in on the issue of Chief Illiniwek. Iconoclasts everywhere rejoiced, but what had they really accomplished other than ending a harmless tradition revered by tens of thousands?

Similarly, what will be accomplished by ending the Fighting Sioux tradion? Nothing. The iconoclasts, again, will delight in their success but will have destroyed something revered by tens of thousands. Nothing else.

My Grandfather grew up in a different time, and used words that many now would consider racist, even though he did not mean it that way. He did not have a racist bone in his body, but if he was interviewed today on TV or radio, his use of those words would get him labeled as a racist. He did not know any better, they were what he was taught. I, on the other hand, know that some groups would consider these words to be ethnic or racist slurs, and since I do not wish to denigrate these people, I avoid the use of these words. My grandfather would argue that there is no need for him to change, since he means no harm, but as things in life change, so should we.

The battle over the name is stupid, but to drag these things out for years is even dumber. Using a living people as a mascot, without their permission, is probably going to lead to trouble sometime, for whatever reason some axe grinder wants to bring up.

goldy_331
11-03-2009, 04:03 PM
When I lived up there no one got made at me for asking if they were Sioux...

When you lived up there, I thought you were the only one who didn't get made... :p

25 N Countin'
11-03-2009, 04:04 PM
If 75% of those African Americans say it isn't inappropriate, should we base policies on the 25% who say it is inappropriate?

I wasn't even speaking on the nickname, I was speaking on the fact that that kind of logic that states, 'there's less of them, why should we listen to them' is pure idiocy in my mind.