Jump to content

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


stumpygremlin

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, WavePunter said:

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....

I can certainly fault the argument that it was meant to honour the Sioux people when a neo-Nazi liked it so much he ingrained the logo into the hockey rink, ensuring that any attempt to change the name would be a major pain in the ass for everyone involved. And he's not just some "a-hole." He was a major donor. The hockey rink's named after him. Ralph Engelstad is as wrapped up in the Fighting Sioux name as anyone else is.

 

3 minutes ago, WavePunter said:

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?

 

Does the NCAA then have to back off?

You're getting too hung up on the IP thing, and you're conflating the NCAA with the United States government. Two separate but interconnected issues here.

First off. The NCAA. The NCAA is not the government. They're a private voluntary organisation. They're allowed to set their own rules that their membership is required to abide by. They don't have to "back off" of anything.

As for IP rights expiring...I don't think anyone is suggesting that tribal names are actually on the same level of trademarks and copyrights. Just that the NCAA would treat them as such by requiring their member schools to get tribal permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 412
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Yeah, that's it.  I have no idea if a tribe can actually apply for and be granted a trademark and/or copyright over their name and symbols, but I'd tend to doubt it.  They're sovereign nations, after all. 

 

It's just that treating this as a matter of IP is the fairest and most respectful way.  I'm with you - I don't see how many of these depictions are offensive (just as I see how some of them are), but that's really not up to a white guy from Brooklyn to determine. 

 

As far as "changing their minds", I would suggest a fixed but substantial term of the agreement.  Say, 25 years.  That way the university knows that this is a settled issue for a quarter-century, and can proceed without worrying that they'll need to take down their symbols in a few years.  Having a fixed term also forces the schools to remain engaged with the tribes, preparing for and negotiating a new agreement in the years leading up to its renewal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I can certainly fault the argument that it was meant to honour the Sioux people when a neo-Nazi liked it so much he ingrained the logo into the hockey rink, ensuring that any attempt to change the name would be a major pain in the ass for everyone involved. And he's not just some "a-hole." He was a major donor. The hockey rink's named after him. Ralph Engelstad is as wrapped up in the Fighting Sioux name as anyone else is.

 

You're getting too hung up on the IP thing, and you're conflating the NCAA with the United States government. Two separate but interconnected issues here.

First off. The NCAA. The NCAA is not the government. They're a private voluntary organisation. They're allowed to set their own rules that their membership is required to abide by. They don't have to "back off" of anything.

As for IP rights expiring...I don't think anyone is suggesting that tribal names are actually on the same level of trademarks and copyrights. Just that the NCAA would treat them as such by requiring their member schools to get tribal permission.

I wasn't conflating the two, I was simply implying that the NCAA has essentially created this situation where it treats people and identities as IP, the same as other branding and marketing issues.. The correlation I was making to the expiration of the rights was to suggest that when/if a tribal name becomes "public domain" in the same sense as other copyrighted material, and the tribe can no longer officially claim ownership of it, it could weaken the NCAA's argument/stance against using the nickname.. The NCAA only exists because of its member institutions, so although they technically govern them, they are also dependant upon them, so they may not be able to bully the schools much longer, and if the perfect storm existed, it could at least force them into an awkward position.. Which goes back to my preference to not treat these sovereign nations like marketable branded products

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WavePunter said:

The correlation I was making to the expiration of the rights was to suggest that when/if a tribal name becomes "public domain" in the same sense as other copyrighted material, and the tribe can no longer officially claim ownership of it, it could weaken the NCAA's argument/stance against using the nickname..

That's silly. Gothamite is right when says the tribes, at least as far as the US is concerned, are sovereign nations. Could the US "lose the rights" to the name "United States of America"? No. You can't trademark the name of a nation. And you can't lose it to "public domain" either. 

 

Again, you're getting hung up on terms. The tribes can't "lose" the rights to their names because they're not actual trademarks. The NCAA is just using the licencing process trademark holders use as a template for their member schools when negotiating with tribes.

 

1 hour ago, WavePunter said:

The NCAA only exists because of its member institutions, so although they technically govern them, they are also dependant upon them, so they may not be able to bully the schools much longer, and if the perfect storm existed, it could at least force them into an awkward position..

NCAA membership is voluntary. I have to think that schools would have left already if the Native name policy was going to be the line in the sand. Why didn't UND walk away when the NCAA told them they had to lose the Fighting Sioux name? They didn't walk away because UND athletics needs the NCAA FAR more than the NCAA needs UND athletics.

 

Legally speaking? There's no stopping a school from using a tribal name as a team nickname. It's just that they need permission from the tribes in question if they want to compete in the NCAA. The NCAA can make those rules because NO school is going to try and break away over a nickname.

 

1 hour ago, WavePunter said:

Which goes back to my preference to not treat these sovereign nations like marketable branded products

Please.

I don't know how many times I have to explain this, but I suppose one more won't hurt. The names of these tribes aren't actual trademarks or copyrighted. It's just that the NCAA has decided to use the trademark/licencing process as a template for negotiations. No one (except you, perhaps) is trying to equate tribal names with branded products. What the NCAA is doing is using the trademark/licencing process as a means to ensure that the schools that use tribal names have the consent of the tribes being represented.

You can go on about how you don't understand why a tribe wouldn't want to be "honoured" all you like. At the end of the day? A tribe shouldn't have to put up with a school "honouring" their identity if they don't want it to. And that's all the current arrangement  does. Ensure that tribes are on board with their names being used.

I really don't see what there is to object about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 12, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Gothamite said:

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.

 

I hadn't seen that. All I saw was they didn't approve it. I stand corrected.

 

However that article (and I could be mistaken) suggests that FSU could have made up an amendment that would exempt them somehow and the NCAA would consider it?  Seemed confusing but that's what I'm talking about. 

 

I mean they they approved Carthage changing from Redmen to Red Men for the love...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pcgd said:

 

I hadn't seen that. All I saw was they didn't approve it. I stand corrected.

 

However that article (and I could be mistaken) suggests that FSU could have made up an amendment that would exempt them somehow and the NCAA would consider it?  Seemed confusing but that's what I'm talking about. 

 

I mean they they approved Carthage changing from Redmen to Red Men for the love...

Which coincided with the university dropping Native imagery. Same thing McGill did in Montreal...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2016 at 1:32 AM, Ice_Cap said:

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.

Germans were actually big admirers of Native Americans, going back to the 1800s.  They ascribed the "noble savage" ideal to them, which isn't all that much different than what schools are doing today when they name their sports teams after tribes.  The Nazis used Native American imagery in their propaganda, and went so far as to declare Native Americans to be part of the Aryan race.  It's not a stretch that a neo-Nazi would have a sincere respect for Native Americans, as opposed to a racist naming a team something because they were going to fight like crazed, sub-human, wildmen on the field.

 

tl;dr Nazis still bad, but they liked Native Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Yes, but there's s very good argument that the "noble savage" is a racist and Infantilizing construction.  Such a sentiment is hardly a thing itself worthy of praise, whether it comes from the Nazis or the local university. 

The "noble savage" bit was something I tacked on to get the idea across, but I don't think it applies in its totality. The Nazis declared Native Americans to be part of the Aryan race, so I don't think they considered them subhuman the way that settlers in the West or more modern racists might have. They celebrated an idealized version of Native American identity, which I don't think is too far off from most of the teams with NA-inspired identities.  The idea could be seen as infantilizing, I agree, but the point was that a card-carrying Nazi wouldn't necessarily have any ill will towards Native Americans. Just because someone is a Nazi doesn't necessarily mean they supported the Sioux name in a malevolent or racist way. Infantilizing (in that way, at least) is fairly high up on the pyramid of Maslow's Hierarchy of Racism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

The "noble savage" bit was something I tacked on to get the idea across, but I don't think it applies in its totality. The Nazis declared Native Americans to be part of the Aryan race, so I don't think they considered them subhuman the way that settlers in the West or more modern racists might have. They celebrated an idealized version of Native American identity, which I don't think is too far off from most of the teams with NA-inspired identities.  The idea could be seen as infantilizing, I agree, but the point was that a card-carrying Nazi wouldn't necessarily have any ill will towards Native Americans. Just because someone is a Nazi doesn't necessarily mean they supported the Sioux name in a malevolent or racist way. Infantilizing (in that way, at least) is fairly high up on the pyramid of Maslow's Hierarchy of Racism

 

The Nazis considered all manner of other peoples "honorary Aryans" if it met their political needs.  From the Japanese to the Sioux.  I don't think that would have stopped the Germans from turning on their imperial allies as they did all the others, nor did it mean they considered Native Americans anything but their inferiors.

 

Many Nazis fetishized Native Americans, to be sure.  But that's not incompatible with racism. 

 

Not that we necessarily have to look to the Nazi connection to explain Engelstad's devotion to the name. But he does tend to hurt that cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

The Nazis considered all manner of other peoples "honorary Aryans" if it met their political needs.  From the Japanese to the Sioux.  I don't think that would have stopped the Germans from turning on their imperial allies as they did all the others, nor did it mean they considered Native Americans anything but their inferiors.

 

Many Nazis fetishized Native Americans, to be sure.  But that's not incompatible with racism. 

 

Not that we necessarily have to look to the Nazi connection to explain Engelstad's devotion to the name. But he does tend to hurt that cause.

That's all true, but I just think it more or less circles back around to the larger debate, instead of the guy being a neo-Nazi automatically meaning he had the worst intentions regarding the Sioux name. It certainly doesn't help their cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cosmic said:

The "noble savage" bit was something I tacked on to get the idea across, but I don't think it applies in its totality. The Nazis declared Native Americans to be part of the Aryan race, so I don't think they considered them subhuman the way that settlers in the West or more modern racists might have. They celebrated an idealized version of Native American identity, which I don't think is too far off from most of the teams with NA-inspired identities.  The idea could be seen as infantilizing, I agree, but the point was that a card-carrying Nazi wouldn't necessarily have any ill will towards Native Americans. Just because someone is a Nazi doesn't necessarily mean they supported the Sioux name in a malevolent or racist way. Infantilizing (in that way, at least) is fairly high up on the pyramid of Maslow's Hierarchy of Racism

The Nazi infatuation with Native Americans stems from two sources. The first being Hitler's love of pulp western novels. The second was the belief that the Native population would be sympathetic to Nazi Germany in the event of war with the United States (which the Nazis saw as inevitable regardless of whether the US entered the European war or not). As Gothamite said, the Nazis would throw the "honorary Aryan" title around when it suited their cause, but it was never an indication that they felt that the people it was applied to where in any way close to being their racial equals.

The fact that the Nazi infatuation with Native Americans ended with the near universal condemnation of Nazism by Native tribes indicates that the Nazis were ultimately only interested in them as potential short-term allies. Once that didn't pan out? They had no use for them.

 

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

I think the neo-Nazi thing is really a red herring, anyway.  There are plenty of people who support native nicknames yet don't have a single SS uniform in their closets, much less whole Nazi trophy rooms.

I never said liking Native nicknames made one a neo-Nazi. I'm saying that Ralph Engelstad, one of the nickname's most prominent cheerleaders, probably didn't have the best of intentions regarding the Fighting Sioux name given the fact that he was a neo-Nazi.

Considering how far he personally went to ensure that the school never abandoned the nickname? I wouldn't call him or his neo-Nazi connections a red herring in regards to this discussion at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's where their private association's rules and trademark law overlap and even conflict. 

 

I can understand wanting to hang on to the trademark even if they can't use it now; the Standing Rock tribe might someday have a change of heart (or the university might offer them enough for their IP).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multiple batches of throwback stuff per year seems like a bit of overkill.  Sports teams have all kinds of logos that get trotted out very rarely; I don't recall any arguments that the trademark has lapsed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.