U. of North Dakota nickname - Have they announced one yet?

[pcgd]

On February 4, 2016 at 0:56 AM, Big A HG said:

Second, UND was the ONLY school out of all those with a Native American nickname that needed two tribes approval.  All other schools only needed one tribe.  Why was that?  A bunch of idiots in the State Board of Higher Education (who don't work for UND, rather the entire state's public education system) decided that was an OK agreement with the NCAA (they should have either known better, or were out to make sure the nickname was removed).  

[pcgd]

Ok the quoting feature seems to be broke...all I wanted to say was Illinois had to get the approval from an extinct tribe for Chief Illiniwek. 

[Almighty]

AH-64 Apache attack helicopter

BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile

RAH-66 Comanche attack helicopter

CH-47 Chinook  helicopter

 

wonder why no one had a problem with those names, bringers of death and destruction is cool ?

Well, I think it´s cool, just amazed that others didn't get their panties in a bunch, must have named them before the PC/easily offended age ?

[Gothamite]

yeah, really sucks when you have to actually give a damn what Native tribes think.  So much better when white guys could just take from them whatever they wanted, right?

 

[Almighty]

3 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

yeah, really sucks when you have to actually give a damn what Native tribes think.  So much better when white guys could just take from them whatever they wanted, right?

 

Pretty sure the military also had/have plenty of black folk. High ranking officers too, why are you  saying white guys?

[Gothamite]

I'm saying it's a good thing that universities can't just steal the intellectual property of tribes.  It's a good thing the tribes need to be consulted and compensated when their name is used.

 

Once the Army starts raking in merchandising money from its missiles and helicopters, then we'll talk about them too.

[IceCap]

On 2016-02-04 at 0:56 AM, Big A HG said:

UND was the ONLY school out of all those with a Native American nickname that needed two tribes approval.  All other schools only needed one tribe.  Why was that?  A bunch of idiots in the State Board of Higher Education (who don't work for UND, rather the entire state's public education system) decided that was an OK agreement with the NCAA (they should have either known better, or were out to make sure the nickname was removed). 

Then take it up with the North Dakota State Board of Education. They made the deal.

 

Quote

Despite a few above posts saying that UND didn't get permission from a tribe, that is false.  It was something like 71% of tribe members from the Spirit Lake tribe voted to keep the nickname.  The tribe then gave it's consent.  Why UND didn't get to keep the nickname was because of that stupid two tribe rule that was "negotiated".  Standing Rock, the other tribe in the state, didn't have a vote because their tribal leaders didn't allow it.  They knew their members would vote the same way as Spirit Lake, and the few tribal leaders wanted to make sure that UND didn't get to keep the name.

I really don't feel like digging through EVERY UND Fighting Sioux thread from the past five years or so, but I distinctly remember one conversation on this subject. I believe it was with you. My apologies in advance if I've got the wrong person.

A Fighting Sioux proponent claimed that that the Standing Rock tribe's refusal to grant permission shouldn't be binding because as a Native tribe its leaders were all elders who didn't feel it was their place to comment on the white man's business. I found that argument particularly interesting, as it basically boiled down the Standing Rock government to a bunch of Native stereotypes. So I spent about thirty seconds on Google and discovered that the Standing Rock tribal government is, in fact, a fully functional representative democracy. There is no "council of elders" or any other stereotypical nonsense.

What that means, in this case, is that the government of the Standing Rock tribe acted entirely within their purview. They were elected to make decisions on behalf of their constituents, and they did just that by refusing to grant UND the right to use the Fighting Sioux name.

You (I'm fairly sure you did say this) then claimed that, despite that, the Standing Rock tribal government was acting dictatorial. Even though nothing they did (or didn't do, in this case) overstepped their authority in any way.

 

In short? The elected leadership of the Standing Rock tribe made a decision on behalf of their people. Which is exactly what an elected representative government is supposed to do.

 

On 2016-02-04 at 0:56 AM, Big A HG said:

There is overwhelming support on both tribes to keep the name.

Is there? The Standing Rock tribe hasn't reversed its decision. Which means the elected government's decision to not grant UND the right to use the "Sioux" name was either popularly supported or not deemed important enough to reverse. Either way? The people of the Standing Rock tribe have spoken, via representative democracy, to not grant UND the right to use the Sioux name.

 

Quote

 However (and understandably) there are often-times bigger issues on the reservations than UND's nickname that take precedence over our concern of a nickname.  

You're incorrectly assuming that the Standing Rock government can only focus on one issue at any one time. Governments, even ones on a smaller scale, are quite capable of multi-tasking. The idea that the tribal government didn't grant UND the right to use the nickname because it would have taken time away from other issues is absurd.

[pcgd]

On February 9, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Gothamite said:

yeah, really sucks when you have to actually give a damn what Native tribes think.  So much better when white guys could just take from them whatever they wanted, right?

 

 

Just to be clear, I was only saying that North Dakota wasn't the only one that had more "difficult" approval processes. While I don't disagree with the NCAA's policy per say, I disagree with their uneven application of it. (Florida State only had to get approval from the smaller florida Seminole tribe vs. the larger Oklahoma Seminoles which don't want it, while others had to get approval from all tribes with that name)

 

[Gothamite]

But the university did get the approval of the Oklahoma tribal council.  That's how they were allowed to retain the name in the first place.

 

Now, I have read that the tribe may have reconsidered since then, but I'm not aware that they've actually gone to the NCAA.  If that changes, and they want to revoke the permission given before, then it's a different story.

[OnWis97]

On 2/9/2016 at 4:55 PM, Ice_Cap said:

Despite a few above posts saying that UND didn't get permission from a tribe, that is false.  

Yeah...this quote (attributed to the wrong person in this quote box) is what's false...

 

...piggy-backing on Ice Cap, in no way, shape, or form did the Standing Rock tribe not do what we said they did.  You don't have to like the decision.  Nor do all of the members, but they did it in a way that is quite similar to how most governments in the US work.  It is in no way inappropriate that one tribe used a popular vote and the other used representative democracy.  And it certainly is not the NCAA's job (nor anyone else's) to try to get involved in how  the tribes reach their decision.

 

--

 

But, taking at face value that 71% of the members of the Spirit Lake tribe supported the name, I think there is another potential issue at hand, not only for UND, but for other schools...Could we see a time when a tribe will waffle on their decisions.  Will, for example, Florida have to drop "Seminoles" from 2022 to 2024, then be allowed to use it after a different vote, then have to drop it again in 2029?  I am not on top of any nuance here, but to me it does not seem too far-fetched that Standing Rock would flip on their decision some day...at which point, I assume popular opinion would bring the name Sioux back for the next academic year.

[Gothamite]

That is a good question.  I would hope that there's a provision in the licensing agreements which would account for that - say it has to be renewed at certain intervals, at which time the tribe has the right to cancel.  Like any other contract.

[IceCap]

27 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

That is a good question.  I would hope that there's a provision in the licensing agreements which would account for that - say it has to be renewed at certain intervals, at which time the tribe has the right to cancel.  Like any other contract.

That's what I was thinking. The tribe(s) and school in question could come to an agreement that lasts for, say, twenty-five years. Then they renegotiate. If the tribe changes their mind? The school has to drop the name. They can even work in provisions to allow the school to continue to use the name for a year or two afterwards so the proper steps can be taken to debrand. 

 

I think most would be surprised how reasonable other people can be during negotiations when you treat them with a proper degree of respect

[Gothamite]

Indeed.  If nothing else, it would encourage the university to keep offering reasonable royalties.

[BBTV]

Could the opposite situation ever happen, where a tribe actually pays a school to use its name for the mascot?  I'm not sure why this would ever happen, but say the Chukchansi tribe payed Fresno State to change their name to the Chukchansis as a way to indirectly promote their nearby casino that is named for the tribe - would that be allowed by the NCAA?  You see where I'm going with this.

[WavePunter]

That's a good question.. It would be very interesting to see how that one would go.. I'm admittedly a bit ignorant on the topic of intellectual property rights and the legalities of such, but that's kinda been my main gripe with treating tribal names as the same sort of intellectual property as perhaps other goods our corporate marketable entities.. If you want to talk about dehumanizing them, then treat their entire people like a brand name.. To me, drawing that similarity is akin to saying they're the Coca-Cola tribe or something along those lines.. I may very well be looking at this is entirely the wrong way, but I've felt like the steps taken to protect the intellectual property of the tribes can be arguably as insensitive as those wishing to use them.. 

[Seadragon76]

Fighting Hawks might sound like a simplistic nickname, but I personally think that by keeping the 'Fighting' in the title, there is a link between this new era of North Dakota athletics and the old days of the Fighting Sioux.

[Gothamite]

4 hours ago, WavePunter said:

That's a good question.. It would be very interesting to see how that one would go.. I'm admittedly a bit ignorant on the topic of intellectual property rights and the legalities of such, but that's kinda been my main gripe with treating tribal names as the same sort of intellectual property as perhaps other goods our corporate marketable entities.. If you want to talk about dehumanizing them, then treat their entire people like a brand name.. To me, drawing that similarity is akin to saying they're the Coca-Cola tribe or something along those lines.. I may very well be looking at this is entirely the wrong way, but I've felt like the steps taken to protect the intellectual property of the tribes can be arguably as insensitive as those wishing to use them.. 

 

I totally see that argument.  

 

But if that's the case, then you can never use native names at all under any circumstances. And I don't think that's a very satisfactory answer either. 

 

I really think treating this as an IP issue is the best way to go.  It's respectful, appreciative of the inherent value of their culture, and it empowers the tribes to make the determination as to whether its use is cultural appropriation or a respectful honoring of that culture. 

 

And they're really the only ones who have the right to make that determination.  That's my bottom line. 

[WavePunter]

26 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

I totally see that argument.  

 

But if that's the case, then you can never use native names at all under any circumstances. And I don't think that's a very satisfactory answer either. 

 

I really think treating this as an IP issue is the best way to go.  It's respectful, appreciative of the inherent value of their culture, and it empowers the tribes to make the determination as to whether its use is cultural appropriation or a respectful honoring of that culture. 

 

And they're really the only ones who have the right to make that determination.  That's my bottom line. 

I don't disagree.. And as things currently stand, that may be the best option, but I think an ideal situation would be to finalize an agreement up front, with stipulations set, so that as long as each side holds up their end of the bargain, things remain status quo.. It would be incredibly unfair to the institution for a tribe to have the option to simply "change its mind".. I still fail to comprehend how being honored in such a way (so long as it's done tastefully and respectfully) can be offensive, or in any way negative, but that's a discussion for another day..

[IceCap]

3 minutes ago, WavePunter said:

I still fail to comprehend how being honored in such a way (so long as it's done tastefully and respectfully) can be offensive, or in any way negative, but that's a discussion for another day..

On the topic of the Fighting Sioux...

 

I find it hard to sympathise with the "it was honouring the Sioux!" excuse when one of the nickname's biggest proponents was a known neo-Nazi.

[WavePunter]

You can't fault the nickname or those who took pride in it simply because some a-hole also liked it.. But I get the point....

 

Counterpoint to the issue in general...

(Again, I'm admittedly ignorant on the legalities of these issues) IP rights have an expiration correct? What's the situation going to look like if/when these tribes lose the rights to their intellectual property? Is it all public domain then? Does the NCAA then have to back off? I Truly have no idea, but things could get interesting unless I'm just way off base