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

[Noise Inside My Head]

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

We will not be violating the agreement by not changing the name.

Sure, it will not be 'violated' because UND never promised that it would stop using the name without the requisite approvals. But the Settlement Agreement will effectively be nullified and the NCAA will be free to impose whatever sanctions it was willing to forgo under the Agreement. Violation or not, that sure sounds like a bad outcome to me.

Of course, UND is stuck between the proverbial rock (NCAA) and hard place (newly passed state law). I think that the last chapter in this saga has yet to be written.

[Noise Inside My Head]

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

Fortunately DU allows law students to get a dual degree with the school of engineering and computer sciences.

On top of a doctorate, no less. Now THAT's a whole lot o' schoolin'. I say go for it, and good luck to you, FS23! (Chicks dig patent attorneys.)

The counselor is IN.

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

On top of a doctorate, no less. Now THAT's a whole lot o' schoolin'. I say go for it, and good luck to you, FS23! (Chicks dig patent attorneys.)

The counselor is IN.

Let me guess...you're a patent attorney?

[Siouxfaninseattle]

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

Burd's point is a good one. It's not "hostile and abusive" if the tribes agree to the use of the name, but it is "hostile and abusive" if they don't? I would like the NC$$ to clarify that point. So PC has no bearing on the nickname? I think it's all about PC. Just ask a DU fan what they think about the Boone issue.

[uaafanblog]

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

Whatever you think of the NCAA's intent to reduce or eliminate derogatory nicknames, its enforcment of the policy does not make a lot of sense. First, the NCAA determines that the logo/nickname/mascott is hostile and abusive. Then it allows the native people who are allegedly being abused to acquiesce to that treatment by vote or some other kind of affirmation. If the NCAA truly believes a logo or nickname is abusive, then how can it justify allowing the abused people acquiesce its use?

No disagreement from me on this. Name defenders on this board should elect you to argue for their side here.

If a tribe's government decides today that the use of a logo is OK, then I guess that means the NCAA must conclude either that it was wrong in believing the logo was abusive or that the tribe has agreed to the abuse and the NCAA is willing to wash its hands of any responsibility. It seems to me that if the NCAA truly believed the harm caused by some nicknames/logos was important enough to justify the policy in the first place, it would be wrong to sit back and allow the abuse to continue once it has been identified. It was the NCAA's paternalistic approach that started this whole thing in the first place, so it seems more than a little hypocritical for them to bail if the tribes consent. Tribal governments are notoriously, well, tribal and subject to change. And what if the new tribal government 5 years down the road changes its position? Does that mean the use of the logo was not previously offensive but has become so or that the prior use was offensive but the people must continue to suffer because the prior government was just too ignorant or corrupt to stop the abuse? By bringing the tribes' approval into the enforcement equation, the NCAA is actually treating use of nicknames/logos a property right--not a policy to protect native tribes from abuse.

It's a bit of a mixed bag for the NCAA in that there are varying degrees of commercialization tribal governments themselves directly or indirectly allow. The NCAA is morally correct (yes .. and POLITICALLY correct -- that phrase really terrifies people doesn't it?) but has implemented it's decision poorly. No big surprise that any institutionalized entity is prone to stupidity. Nevertheless, the original intent is nothing less than the "right thing to do". I'd support the removal of EVERY "Native American related or based" nickname within the NCAA's purview.

I apologize for the ramble. Not making a lot of sense. It would be nice to see the name stay, but for the right reasons.

It would be nice to see the name go ... also for the right reasons.

[bigmrg74]

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

No one is going after Central Michigan, and they aren't an NCAA cash cow. It is because they, like Florida State received the blessing of the tribes whose names they bear to use the names and logos.

Soaring Eagle in Mount Pleasent gets a nice bump every weekend when there's a Chips home football game. There was several other casinos that were in the works to pop up in Michigan. They was soon going to be in a total dogfight in getting those gamblers in their doors. Was the crowd that they get from Chips home football small potatoes really?? Most like it is, but hell, they was a group that had a reason to take the time to drive up to Mount Pleasant, and in need of some time to kill.

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

No disagreement from me on this. Name defenders on this board should elect you to argue for their side here.


It's a bit of a mixed bag for the NCAA in that there are varying degrees of commercialization tribal governments themselves directly or indirectly allow. The NCAA is morally correct (yes .. and POLITICALLY correct -- that phrase really terrifies people doesn't it?) but has implemented it's decision poorly. No big surprise that any institutionalized entity is prone to stupidity. Nevertheless, the original intent is nothing less than the "right thing to do". I'd support the removal of EVERY "Native American related or based" nickname within the NCAA's purview.


It would be nice to see the name go ... also for the right reasons.

Why is naming a team the Irish, Spartans, or Trojans better than the Sioux, Seminoles, or Chippewa? Sounds racist to me.

[Biddco]

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

Why is naming a team the Irish, Spartans, or Trojans better than the Sioux, Seminoles, or Chippewa? Sounds racist to me.

Because those groups were not a minority group that subjected to genocide and extermination in this country?

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Because those groups were not a minority group that subjected to genocide and extermination in this country?

You mean like the Illini?

[bigmrg74]

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

Because those groups were not a minority group that subjected to genocide and extermination in this country?

So, its ok if it happened elsewhere, but not here?? The Irish were invaded and dominated by the Britains. Troy didn't look that gift horse in the mouth and their walls fell, and heck, Sparta kept one of their neighbors as cradle to grave slaves for generations until about the rise of Rome.

[Biddco]

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

So, its ok if it happened elsewhere, but not here?? The Irish were invaded and dominated by the Britains. Troy didn't look that gift horse in the mouth and their walls fell, and heck, Sparta kept one of their neighbors as cradle to grave slaves for generations until about the rise of Rome.

Those are not a part of our shared past history, culture and collective conscious as a country.

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Those are not a part of our shared past history, culture and collective conscious as a country.

So it doesn't count because it didn't happen after 1492?

[Biddco]

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

So it doesn't count because it didn't happen after 1492?

Nope!*


*Unless you live in the Middle East (Israel/Palestine)

[Patman]

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

Because those groups were not a minority group that subjected to genocide and extermination in this country?

I think we can find plenty of cases of anti-Irish bigotry... the whole fighting irish thing is nothing more than a bigoted cultural stereotype anyhow. The thing is you know this. If you do know this, then why are you OK with it?

Patterns of offense should be universal otherwise its just a different form of ad-hoc tribalism... oh, sweet irony, how I love thee.

[Biddco]

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

I think we can find plenty of cases of anti-Irish bigotry... the whole fighting irish thing is nothing more than a bigoted cultural stereotype anyhow. The thing is you know this. If you do know this, then why are you OK with it?

Patterns of offense should be universal otherwise its just a different form of ad-hoc tribalism... oh, sweet irony, how I love thee.

We can. But can we find genocide?