PDA

View Full Version : Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23

Shirtless Guy
04-23-2011, 12:31 PM
I have no idea how much money NDU grosses from "Fighting Sioux" sports gates and from "Fighting Sioux" logo merchandise, but I do have a pretty good idea how much is paid in royalties for the use of the name. There ought to be a law! Oh, wait. There is!

BTW: Ever wonder why Wake Forest is the Demon Deacons and not the Battling Baptists? It's because of what's in a name.So can you please prove that Chippewas, Choctaws, Seminoles, and Utes get royalties? Otherwise drop this stupid argument.

burd
04-23-2011, 01:30 PM
burd: I suggest you go into business using the name "The Fighting Mormons." You will shortly have more than the slightest.

But you forgot to cite the "U.S. law" you were relying on. I'm honest-to-Parise ready to be educated here.

MavsFan
04-23-2011, 02:52 PM
I have no idea how much money NDU grosses from "Fighting Sioux" sports gates and from "Fighting Sioux" logo merchandise, but I do have a pretty good idea how much is paid in royalties for the use of the name. There ought to be a law! Oh, wait. There is!

Really? Who holds the copyright? If there were royalties due anyone, they'd have been pursued in court long before now. The word "Sioux" cannot be copyrighted any more than the word "Irish" can.

PCM
04-23-2011, 03:04 PM
Well judge for yourself, here are the facts:
The fact is that every time American Indians are polled on this issue and have been allowed to vote on it, they overwhelmingly support sports teams using Indian nicknames. As for me, I don't support the minority of a minority dictating to the majority based on the non-existant right to not be offended. How about you?

Old Pio
04-23-2011, 03:21 PM
The fact is that every time American Indians are polled on this issue and have been allowed to vote on it, they overwhelmingly support sports teams using Indian nicknames. As for me, I don't support the minority of a minority dictating to the majority based on the non-existant right to not be offended. How about you?

Carol Moseley Braun just called, and she's p*ssed.

Patman
04-23-2011, 10:12 PM
Please revisit it. The NCAA does nothing without overall approval of American Universities.

Define "overall"..... no seriously, define it... because you know its crap.


Sorry but your conclusion is off again.

Alumni by definition are college educated. College educated are far more likely to be liberal than social conservative. So not only is university faculty both aligned with the majority of alumni...but also with the vast majority of its student enrollment.

I could provide example after example where this is patently incorrect. We could start with the Dartmouth Board of Trustees issue... I could then get out my copy of "Shadow University"... after that I can start lifting off the FIRE website... fact is that the alumni rarely ever exercise their voice on certain issues and generally since most alumni are moderate is not a little moderate left they will tend to sharply divide from their left-to-hard left professional class.

Hell, I'm sure I could find a half dozen situations from the Chronicle of Higher Ed and that's ostensibly a publication with an editing slant that favors the view of university presidents.

Athletics tends to be the strongest touchstone of disagreement... if you polled most of the college educated persons on the native american logo issue I would wager they wouldn't return a result in the favor of the NCAA's chosen position. In fact, it has been often the case that the universities have been taking power AWAY from alumni-based boards because of their disagreement with the university professional staff.

I'm rather comfortable in my conclusions... mostly as if there weren't issues then there wouldn't be conflict... and since there exists conflict, to the degree to which I perceive it, I have to take it that the alumni and school presidents tend to come from different stripes when they start voicing political opinions. Don't you even dare assume that since one group trends liberal and another trends liberal that they're even both of the same stripe and strength.

5mn_Major
04-23-2011, 10:16 PM
Actually, this is driven by the NCAAs and not disagreed to by the national universities... or shall we revisit our conversation about executive boards from 3-4 years ago?

Please revisit it. The NCAA does nothing without overall approval of American Universities. And regarding sensitivity re mintorities, the Universities are in full agreement with the NCAA. There is no way the NCAA would take any of these steps without university approval.


Further, the opinions of college presidents are far and away divorced from that of the alumni base.

Sorry but your conclusion is off again.

Alumni by definition are college educated. College educated are far more likely to be liberal than social conservative. So not only is university faculty both aligned with the majority of alumni...but also with the vast majority of its student enrollment.

5mn_Major
04-23-2011, 10:37 PM
Define "overall"..... no seriously, define it... because you know its crap.

Just a few local schools I know of that have come out against UND's use of Sioux...Wisconsin, UMD, South Dakota, St Cloud, Minnesota, Iowa, NDSU and Mankato. Note that they did not come out in favor of UND's position as you claim...but against it.

OK...now your turn...show your list of universities that support UND. Any?


I could provide example after example where this is patently incorrect. We could start with the Dartmouth Board of Trustees issue... I could then get out my copy of "Shadow University"... after that I can start lifting off the FIRE website... fact is that the alumni rarely ever exercise their voice on certain issues and generally since most alumni are moderate is not a little moderate left they will tend to sharply divide from their left-to-hard left professional class.

Hell, I'm sure I could find a half dozen situations from the Chronicle of Higher Ed and that's ostensibly a publication with an editing slant that favors the view of university presidents.

What?

49% of college graduates are liberal. 28% of college graduates are social conservatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideologies_in_the_United_States

HarleyMC
04-23-2011, 11:14 PM
The fact is that every time American Indians are polled on this issue and have been allowed to vote on it, they overwhelmingly support sports teams using Indian nicknames. As for me, I don't support the minority of a minority dictating to the majority based on the non-existant right to not be offended. How about you?

The problem is you are trying to superimpose a democratic form of government upon tribal government structures. Tribal governments are federally recognized sovereign entities based upon three parameters: external sovereignty, internal sovereignty and property rights. They form their government structures differently according to patterns of historical modes of elder leadership and ancestral/spiritual traditions. Tribes generally ascribe and entrust executive decision making power to the tribal councils as representative of the will of the people, especially on peripheral matters that do not directly affect tribal life. From their perspective, it's not wrong...it's different and it's often been difficult for Americans to grasp this concept for generations. Secondly in terms of opinion polls, other than the Spirit Lake vote, I'd be interested in learning which valid polls you are referring to.

Old Pio
04-23-2011, 11:34 PM
The problem is you are trying to superimpose a democratic form of government upon tribal government structures. Tribal governments are federally recognized sovereign entities based upon three parameters: external sovereignty, internal sovereignty and property rights. They form their government structures differently according to patterns of historical modes of elder leadership and ancestral/spiritual traditions. Tribes generally ascribe and entrust executive decision making power to the tribal councils as representative of the will of the people, especially on peripheral matters that do not directly affect tribal life. From their perspective, it's not wrong...it's different and it's often been difficult for Americans to grasp this concept for generations. Secondly in terms of opinion polls, other than the Spirit Lake vote, I'd be interested in learning which valid polls you are referring to.

Not to put too fine a point on it, and speaking only for myself, I'm really getting bored with your pompous posts providing us with the evidently endless minutiae of tribal governance. Your premise seems to be that by providing more mind deadening details, you will somehow prove the point that Indians should get to make this or any similar decision because, well, they're Indians. The point is not how Indians govern themselves or even if they govern themselves. The point is the desire by you and the other PC types to extend to Indians the right to control images and words ("coming soon, thoughts") that pertain to them. A "right" not afforded any other group of Americans (I know, you're working on it). I can see the day where middle school choirs will need a permission slip from Al Sharpton to render a version of John Henry, lord, lord.

As to polling on this issue, I'm a bit surprised that someone who holds himself out to be an expert on every jot and tittle of this debate is, evidently, totally unaware. To the best of my knowledge there have been two: one by Sports Illustrated the other, IIRC, by the Pew center.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1025046/index.htm

KnowItAll
04-24-2011, 10:43 AM
Not to put too fine a point on it, and speaking only for myself, I'm really getting bored with your pompous posts providing us with the evidently endless minutiae of tribal governance. Your premise seems to be that by providing more mind deadening details, you will somehow prove the point that Indians should get to make this or any similar decision because, well, they're Indians. The point is not how Indians govern themselves or even if they govern themselves. The point is the desire by you and the other PC types to extend to Indians the right to control images and words ("coming soon, thoughts") that pertain to them. A "right" not afforded any other group of Americans (I know, you're working on it). I can see the day where middle school choirs will need a permission slip from Al Sharpton to render a version of John Henry, lord, lord.

As to polling on this issue, I'm a bit surprised that someone who holds himself out to be an expert on every jot and tittle of this debate is, evidently, totally unaware. To the best of my knowledge there have been two: one by Sports Illustrated the other, IIRC, by the Pew center.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1025046/index.htm

I cannot understand how so many got so little out of reading Huxley's "1984" [wink]
did they all just skim the Cliff Notes, too?
I heard on the radio that a man was arrested over in the UK for sending an email that included a term that derided a protected class. (well, it was a word that rhymed with a word... and as it turned out, he did not even send the email. Are we close to that YET in the US?)

Can the thought police please be crushed, sooner rather than later? This is the "first they came for the communists, and I did nothing because I was not a communist... then they came for the trade unionists/Jews... ... and then there was nobody left"
oddly the communists/trade unionists/Jews are coming for the thinkers and nobody but Old Pio is saying anything about it.

KnowItAll
04-24-2011, 10:45 AM
Really? Who holds the copyright? If there were royalties due anyone, they'd have been pursued in court long before now. The word "Sioux" cannot be copyrighted any more than the word "Irish" can.

you are using facts and logic against the PC...
you know what that means? you are a racist/sexist/homophobe

KnowItAll
04-24-2011, 10:48 AM
Actually, this is driven by the NCAAs and not disagreed to by the national universities... or shall we revisit our conversation about executive boards from 3-4 years ago? Further, the opinions of college presidents are far and away divorced from that of the alumni base.

wishing does not make it so, Pat

KnowItAll
04-24-2011, 10:56 AM
burd: I suggest you go into business using the name "The Fighting Mormons." You will shortly have more than the slightest.

I thought you went to Brown?
you have NO idea what you are talking about "quoting" US Law. NONE
go to www.uspto.gov and look up as many trademarks as you can think of that refer to "people"
Now, make a cogent and logical argument for why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would EVER license the name "Jack Mormon" to a beer company.... oh wait a minute... the Church abandoned the mark a long time ago, because they had no way of enforcing their Mark.... and OOOPS again, they did not own the word, they owned a particular drawing of the word (kind of like how Coca-Cola does not own the word Cola, but owns cola spelled out in "that font")

Jesus... now i have 2 siblings who graduated from Brown and up until now, I always thought that they had accomplished something.

MavHockey14
04-24-2011, 11:17 AM
I cannot understand how so many got so little out of reading Huxley's "1984" [wink]
did they all just skim the Cliff Notes, too?
I heard on the radio that a man was arrested over in the UK for sending an email that included a term that derided a protected class. (well, it was a word that rhymed with a word... and as it turned out, he did not even send the email. Are we close to that YET in the US?)

Can the thought police please be crushed, sooner rather than later? This is the "first they came for the communists, and I did nothing because I was not a communist... then they came for the trade unionists/Jews... ... and then there was nobody left"
oddly the communists/trade unionists/Jews are coming for the thinkers and nobody but Old Pio is saying anything about it.


you are using facts and logic against the PC...
you know what that means? you are a racist/sexist/homophobe


wishing does not make it so, Pat


I thought you went to Brown?
you have NO idea what you are talking about "quoting" US Law. NONE
go to www.uspto.gov and look up as many trademarks as you can think of that refer to "people"
Now, make a cogent and logical argument for why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would EVER license the name "Jack Mormon" to a beer company.... oh wait a minute... the Church abandoned the mark a long time ago, because they had no way of enforcing their Mark.... and OOOPS again, they did not own the word, they owned a particular drawing of the word (kind of like how Coca-Cola does not own the word Cola, but owns cola spelled out in "that font")

Jesus... now i have 2 siblings who graduated from Brown and up until now, I always thought that they had accomplished something.

For future reference, there's a little button on the bottom right of every post like this: ["+] Then you can quote all four of those posts and make them one post.:)

Shirtless Guy
04-24-2011, 02:06 PM
For future reference, there's a little button on the bottom right of every post like this: ["+] Then you can quote all four of those posts and make them one post.:)Is that really necessary? First off, there is a lot of ground to cover on this thread sometimes, second USCHO's multiquote stuff sucks now and doesn't (last I checked) work properly and you're stuck with multiquotes the next time you try to reply with quotes.

TimP
04-24-2011, 02:22 PM
I'm honest-to-Parise ready to be educated here.

It's about time somebody from Wisconsin said that. If only more people from your state were open to education, you wouldn't have those idiots Scott Walkkker and Paul Ryan in charge.

burd
04-24-2011, 02:25 PM
It's about time somebody from Wisconsin said that. If only more people from your state were open to education, you wouldn't have those idiots Scott Walkkker and Paul Ryan in charge.

No quarrel from me on that statement.

Shirtless Guy
04-24-2011, 02:26 PM
It's about time somebody from Wisconsin said that. If only more people from your state were open to education, you wouldn't have those idiots Scott Walkkker and Paul Ryan in charge.You want to talk those politics, go somewhere else...

Osorojo
04-24-2011, 03:07 PM
The "Fighting Sioux" logo/nickname is protected by copyright, applied for and granted. Nobody can use the "Fighting Sioux" logo/nickname without written authorization - and maybe royalty payments?

Defenders of the "Fighting Sioux" logo/nickname claim that a proper noun denoting a unique tribe, culture, or religion (I believe that "Sioux" qualifies as all three) is public property.

These same defenders claim that any organization can take such a proper noun identifying an unrelated organization, affix an adjective with dubious connotations, a graphic representation, and copyright the whole shebang. Even people belonging to the named group are barred from using this logo bearing their own name without written permission, and presumably royalty payments.

Isn't this the actual state of affairs at UND? If not, please explain which statement(s) is (are) in error, and why. If you wish to discuss Florida State, Indiana, Utah, Seneca Falls, or other such things please remember, this is a hockey forum, and the topic is the "Fighting Sioux."