Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

[omahasioux1]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

The UND program and their fans can go suck a nut, but let them keep the Fighting Sioux name.

The only cool thing you have ever said.

[omahasioux1]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

Oldpi:

Jerry Tarkanian is neither a long established human culture nor a nation recognized by United States treaties. The legal similarities between Tarkanian vs. the NCAA are closer to California vs. Lindsey Lohan than UND vs. NCAA/ Sioux. Enough nonsense, legal or otherwise.
Bottom line: It is illegal, unethical, or both to use the name of another discrete, long established organization of human beings for profit - without a contract. That's U.S. law, not Sioux law.

China is calling you.

[HarleyMC]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

As the referendum on the Spirit Lake reservation proved, the NCAA policy has "displeased" a large number of Sioux. If the Standing Rock Tribal Council would allow a similar referendum, we might learn that the majority of Sioux on that reservation are "displeased" as well.

Even without a vote, we know that there is an active and vocal group at Standing Rock that collected more than a thousand signatures in an effort to petition the tribal government to conduct a referendum on the Fighting Sioux nickname issue.

We also know that from the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux reservation in South Dakota and North Daktoa that friends and relatives of the late Woodrow Keeble -- the only Sioux to receive the Medal of Honor -- were pleased and honored to have his name enshrined as a Sioux warrior at Ralph Engelestad Arena.

Since it is not within the legal jurisdiction of the NCAA to stipulate how distinct tribal governments determine their representative view of the NCAA resolution, they are not liable for whatever tribal process is implemented to express that view. Therefore, I don't see how the NCAA has in anyway offended Native Americans regarding this issue.

The notion that all or even most Sioux approve of the NCAA policy is a myth.

Well judge for yourself, here are the facts:

Recently two major Native American organizations, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the National Indian Education Association (NIEA) reaffirmed their opposition to the use of Indian names and imagery by collegiate athletic teams.

The NIEA is the oldest Native American educational association in the United States. It seeks to promote the furtherance of educational and vocational opportunities throughout tribal constituencies in the US.

The NCIA is located in Washington D.C. as a major Native American governing body that provides broad-based leadership and offers protection on matters of tribal sovereignty throughout the US. Virtually every tribe on US soil is listed in it's directory including the northern Great Plains tribes, of which the Spirit Lake and Standing Rock tribes are a part.

More specifically, leaders (not the entire tribes) of 11 out of the 16 northern Great Plains tribes recently (this month) or 69% also voted to reaffirm their support of the NCAA's policy calling for elimination of American Indian nicknames, logos and mascots at member colleges and universities. Nine of them are Sioux tribes in the Dakotas and Nebraska; and the other two are the Omaha and Winnebago tribes of Nebraska.

Apparently Tex Hall, chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara) of North Dakota, who is also chairman of the NIEA missed the vote in Rapid City because of severe weather conditions but told a spokeswoman that but he would have voted for it as well had he been there

The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians told UND President Robert Kelley last week that they want the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo to pass into history.

"By a vote of 5-0, with two abstentions, the Tribal Council adopted a resolution last week stating that the band “is opposed to the ‘fighting Sioux’ nickname and logo” and they should be discontinued “immediately”...the Turtle Mountain resolution, noting that many members of the band are or have been students at UND, states that continued use of the nickname and logo “subjects all American Indian students … to racially insensitive discriminatory actions.” Use of the nickname and logo “sends a message to American Indian students that they are mascots.”

Keep in mind and as I stated in the past, tribal governments and their people are personified and embodied in the leadership of the tribal councils. It is atypical for tribal leadership to have a tribal vote on matters they feel are marginal issues that do not directly affect the welfare and future of the tribes themselves. They do not function with the same democratic philosophy and modality as US state and federal governments. The tribal councils are hegemonic, transcendent and hierarchical, and theoretically embody the will of the people on peripheral matters.

[Old Pio]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

Since it is not within the legal jurisdiction of the NCAA to stipulate how distinct tribal governments determine their representative view of the NCAA resolution, they are not liable for whatever tribal process is implemented to express that view. Therefore, I don't see how the NCAA has in anyway offended Native Americans regarding this issue.



Well judge for yourself, here are the facts:

Recently two major Native American organizations, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the National Indian Education Association (NIEA) reaffirmed their opposition to the use of Indian names and imagery by collegiate athletic teams.

The NIEA is the oldest Native American educational association in the United States. It seeks to promote the furtherance of educational and vocational opportunities throughout tribal constituencies in the US.

The NCIA is located in Washington D.C. as a major Native American governing body that provides broad-based leadership and offers protection on matters of tribal sovereignty throughout the US. Virtually every tribe on US soil is listed in it's directory including the northern Great Plains tribes, of which the Spirit Lake and Standing Rock tribes are a part.

More specifically, leaders (not the entire tribes) of 11 out of the 16 northern Great Plains tribes recently (this month) or 69% also voted to reaffirm their support of the NCAA's policy calling for elimination of American Indian nicknames, logos and mascots at member colleges and universities. Nine of them are Sioux tribes in the Dakotas and Nebraska; and the other two are the Omaha and Winnebago tribes of Nebraska.

Apparently Tex Hall, chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara) of North Dakota, who is also chairman of the NIEA missed the vote in Rapid City because of severe weather conditions but told a spokeswoman that but he would have voted for it as well had he been there

The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians told UND President Robert Kelley last week that they want the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo to pass into history.



Keep in mind and as I stated in the past, tribal governments and their people are personified and embodied in the leadership of the tribal councils. It is atypical for tribal leadership to have a tribal vote on matters they feel are marginal issues that do not directly affect the welfare and future of the tribes themselves. They do not function with the same democratic philosophy and modality as US state and federal governments. The tribal councils are hegemonic, transcendent and hierarchical, and theoretically embody the will of the people on peripheral matters.

You gotta hand it to somebody who can work "hegemonic" "transcendent" and "hierarchical" into one sentence. You really do. He quotes from a couple of organizations of professional Indians and their opposition to the nickname and suggests this is representative of all Indians. And for good measure throws in assurances from some dude who wasn't there that he would have voted against the nickname if it weren't for the weather (thus creating a new standard for future elections that would be very popular in Chicago). But the only scientific polling on the issue indicates Indians, in huge numbers, don't give a rip. In my business we have a saying: "less is more." He might consider this in future posts. Ponderous, leaden lectures designed to impress, in fact, don't.

However, I'm not prepared to concede that this is a matter that should be determined solely by Indians, whether Sioux or any other tribe. This is not South Africa. We do not (yet) have apartheid. These matters are in the public domain. As such, all citizens of North Dakota, even the white ones (gasp) theoretically have some skin in this game. There are racists in this debate all right, but not on the side of the Fighting Sioux. The racists are the ones using this issue as an excuse to get Whitey.

[Osorojo]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

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.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

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]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

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]

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]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

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]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

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]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

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]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

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]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

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/Politic..._United_States

[HarleyMC]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

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]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

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/vau...5046/index.htm