North Dakota retiring "Fighting Sioux" nickname

[stumpygremlin]

How about the Nokotas. Not only is it an acronym for North Dakota, but it is also a rare breed of horse that is now only found in ND. The breed is in the midst of being saved and by using them as a mascot it could help get publicity for the cause.

There was an old poll about this:

My link

I know that name has been floated about from time to time, and it makes perfect sense. However, it sounds bad: North Dakota Nokotas. Just say it, terrible. It's like naming your kid Bronson Johnson.

Not to mention that the similarly-named Nakota (spelled differently) is also the name of a division of the Sioux tribe, bringing us right back to where this story began.

Similar, but not the SAME. They ARE different, and refer to two different things.

[TopCat]

They will always be the Fighting Sioux in the minds of the fans. We'll keep wearing the gear, keep chanting the same chants, and keep calling them the Sioux.

[gosioux76]

How about the Nokotas. Not only is it an acronym for North Dakota, but it is also a rare breed of horse that is now only found in ND. The breed is in the midst of being saved and by using them as a mascot it could help get publicity for the cause.

There was an old poll about this:

My link

I know that name has been floated about from time to time, and it makes perfect sense. However, it sounds bad: North Dakota Nokotas. Just say it, terrible. It's like naming your kid Bronson Johnson.

Not to mention that the similarly-named Nakota (spelled differently) is also the name of a division of the Sioux tribe, bringing us right back to where this story began.

Similar, but not the SAME. They ARE different, and refer to two different things.

Obviously. But do you really think a university that's trying to move on from this decades-long debate would choose a name strikingly similar to an obvious Sioux reference? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

[Gothamite]

They will always be the Fighting Sioux in the minds of the fans. We'll keep wearing the gear, keep chanting the same chants, and keep calling them the Sioux.

Fair enough. Nobody can force you to respect the tribes' intellectual property.

[Red Wolf]

They will always be the Fighting Sioux in the minds of the fans. We'll keep wearing the gear, keep chanting the same chants, and keep calling them the Sioux.

Fair enough. Nobody can force you to respect the tribes' intellectual property.

I'm sure he'll get over it. People here at Arkansas State were all gung-ho about refusing to change anything they did and keep using the same chants. Some even said that if we changed the name they'd stop being fans (which is idiotic). But now we've set school attendance records in football (despite being as mediocre as usual) and I've seen far more Red Wolf merchandise floating around than I ever saw Indians.

[Gothamite]

I think a lot depends on what the University eventually settles on. I'm convinced that there would be no great lngering nostalgia for "Marquette Warriors" had they been able to come up with one single good replacement (instead of two lousy ones).

[Hontas]

This "intellectual property" argument is BS.

[Gothamite]

This "intellectual property" argument is BS.

Ah, a cogent argument.

I shall respond in kind - no it ain't.

What precisely is "BS" about it? Ought not the tribes have the right to control their name? NCAA rules certainly give them that right, which is why Florida State continues to use the name "Seminoles", under license from the owner.

[Hontas]

What precisely is "BS" about it? Ought not the tribes have the right to control their name? NCAA rules certainly give them that right, which is why Florida State continues to use the name "Seminoles", under license from the owner.

No, they don't have a "right" to control their name anymore than the United States has a "right" control "America" or Bob Dylan can control "Bob" or "Dylan." It's a ridiculous assertion. Where does this "right" come from? The NCAA does not define these things either. If FSU wants to pay some fee to "licence" the name Seminoles the loss is theirs.

IP is a con that seeks to monopolize intangable and unpatentable things like words and letters. In the case of North Dakota, it's a way for the PC cops to enforce their narrow vision through some BS idea called "intellectual property."

[Gothamite]

Bob Dylan absolutely has the right to control the words "Bob" and "Dylan" when used together in a musical context. Anywhere when the reasonable possibility of confusion exists. Try releasing an album called "Bob Dylan" and see what happens.

The NCAA also has the power to dictate rules to its member schools under the terms of its agreement with those schools.

Maybe you think such things oughtn't be, but they are.

Trademark law is an important part of intellectual property. Maybe you don't like the concept of likeness rights or IP in general. If you'd like to convince everyone to just throw out a few centuries' worth of legal precedent, more power to you. Until then, or until the University can secure a license, "Sioux" is out.

[Hontas]

Good move on your part to move away from a defense of IP in general to the basic argument of "well it is, so there." Purely utilitarian in nature, of course, but utility changes with time and circumstance.

The Bob Dylan Conspiracy released albums in the 1970s without any legal problems, probably because they sucked, but they didn't suck any less than Dylan himself.

The NCAA used to dictate the terms of its members' TV contracts by restricting them. That was overturned, so the NCAA as the ultimate arbitor of anything is tenious at best.

And using IP to restrict expression remains BS.

[Mingjai]

This "intellectual property" argument is BS.

Ah, a cogent argument.

I shall respond in kind - no it ain't.

What precisely is "BS" about it? Ought not the tribes have the right to control their name? NCAA rules certainly give them that right, which is why Florida State continues to use the name "Seminoles", under license from the owner.

I believe in intellectual property. But I don't think this is an IP issue.

I don't believe that the Native American tribes can control the use of their names any more than the Irish can control the name Irish. The difference is that under US trademark law, offensive, controversial, or insulting trademarks can be refused the protection of U.S. trademark law. It's not like the universities are infringing on someone's trademark, because they aren't. And according to the law, these trademarks are valid since no trademark examiner or judge has ruled them offensive--therefore they are legal trademarks under U.S. law.

But as a member of the NCAA, North Dakota is bound by NCAA rules. Since the NCAA has found the logos and nickname offensive, and the university has been unsuccessful in rebutting the NCAA finding by providing an agreement with the relevant tribes, then the university is bound by contract to give up the nickname/logos. The school could fight the NCAA's right under the contract to do this, but that's a contract issue, not a trademark issue.

[OnWis97]

But as a member of the NCAA, North Dakota is bound by NCAA rules. Since the NCAA has found the logos and nickname offensive, and the university has been unsuccessful in rebutting the NCAA finding by providing an agreement with the relevant tribes, then the university is bound by contract to give up the nickname/logos. The school could fight the NCAA's right under the contract to do this, but that's a contract issue, not a trademark issue.

If this is true, then I have a further-complicating question. If the NCAA is not enforcing IP issues (not that it would be their role) and are simply deeming the names/logos offensive, then where do they stand on "Braves", "Indians", etc.? I understand their willingness to accept those schools that have buy-in from the individual tribes (e.g., Seminoles) and I understand why they'd come down as they are if the tribe is not buying in (e.g., Sioux). But their is no tribe for "Indians."

I don't know whether there are any NCAA schools left with "Redskins" or "Savages", but those are far worse names than "Sioux" and UND, to the best of my knowledge (though I don't follow them too closely) does not do anything too caricature-ish or anything (I think FSU is worse, but they have tribe buy-in, so what do I know?).

So if there is no tribe, is the NCAA simply letting it go? If so, I am surprised there is no clamoring from this group for "Warriors", "Indians", or if you really want to stick 'em, "Savages" (all detractors can still be dismissed as "PC" anyway). In fact, I'd almost think UND would go for something that would allow their logos to be relevant..."Braves" might be the smartest one.

To the best of my knowledge, St. Johns, Marquette, Miami (OH) and others were not "forced" to change but did so on their own (I mean "officially", by the NCAA, so spare me "they were forced by PC pressure"). Am I wrong?

1. If all I assume is correct, then I guess the NCAA is simply basing it on what they deem offensive, then it appears that they want the tribes to be the bad guy and, therefore, refuse to have an opinion on "Indians", etc. Seems weird to me, particularly when some teams have more offensive rituals than ND.
   
2. If what I assume is correct, then is there a chance ND will take on a "general" Native American name, such as Braves? Not to "stick it" to the tribe, but to try to keep their identity consistent.
   

[The_Admiral]

Bob Dylan absolutely has the right to control the words "Bob" and "Dylan" when used together in a musical context. Anywhere when the reasonable possibility of confusion exists. Try releasing an album called "Bob Dylan" and see what happens.

This is bull:censored:. Nobody cares! These guys are from England and who gives a :censored:?

[hettinger_rl]

How about the Nokotas. Not only is it an acronym for North Dakota, but it is also a rare breed of horse that is now only found in ND. The breed is in the midst of being saved and by using them as a mascot it could help get publicity for the cause.

There was an old poll about this:

My link

I know that name has been floated about from time to time, and it makes perfect sense. However, it sounds bad: North Dakota Nokotas. Just say it, terrible. It's like naming your kid Bronson Johnson.

Not to mention that the similarly-named Nakota (spelled differently) is also the name of a division of the Sioux tribe, bringing us right back to where this story began.

Similar, but not the SAME. They ARE different, and refer to two different things.

Obviously. But do you really think a university that's trying to move on from this decades-long debate would choose a name strikingly similar to an obvious Sioux reference? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

It sounds as strange as Illinois Illini.

[Spearhead]

Hontas makes a good point about using IP to restrict expression.

The licence/IP requirement looks like a legalism constructed to cover the simple fact that somebody just wants to wipe out all Indian team names.

[dfwabel]

But as a member of the NCAA, North Dakota is bound by NCAA rules. Since the NCAA has found the logos and nickname offensive, and the university has been unsuccessful in rebutting the NCAA finding by providing an agreement with the relevant tribes, then the university is bound by contract to give up the nickname/logos. The school could fight the NCAA's right under the contract to do this, but that's a contract issue, not a trademark issue.

If this is true, then I have a further-complicating question. If the NCAA is not enforcing IP issues (not that it would be their role) and are simply deeming the names/logos offensive, then where do they stand on "Braves", "Indians", etc.? I understand their willingness to accept those schools that have buy-in from the individual tribes (e.g., Seminoles) and I understand why they'd come down as they are if the tribe is not buying in (e.g., Sioux). But their is no tribe for "Indians."

I don't know whether there are any NCAA schools left with "Redskins" or "Savages", but those are far worse names than "Sioux" and UND, to the best of my knowledge (though I don't follow them too closely) does not do anything too caricature-ish or anything (I think FSU is worse, but they have tribe buy-in, so what do I know?).

So if there is no tribe, is the NCAA simply letting it go? If so, I am surprised there is no clamoring from this group for "Warriors", "Indians", or if you really want to stick 'em, "Savages" (all detractors can still be dismissed as "PC" anyway). In fact, I'd almost think UND would go for something that would allow their logos to be relevant..."Braves" might be the smartest one.

To the best of my knowledge, St. Johns, Marquette, Miami (OH) and others were not "forced" to change but did so on their own (I mean "officially", by the NCAA, so spare me "they were forced by PC pressure"). Am I wrong?

1. If all I assume is correct, then I guess the NCAA is simply basing it on what they deem offensive, then it appears that they want the tribes to be the bad guy and, therefore, refuse to have an opinion on "Indians", etc. Seems weird to me, particularly when some teams have more offensive rituals than ND.
   
2. If what I assume is correct, then is there a chance ND will take on a "general" Native American name, such as Braves? Not to "stick it" to the tribe, but to try to keep their identity consistent.
   

For many of the questions you posed, Louisiana-Monroe may give you the most complete answers. Specifically, the "self-evaluation" and report to the NCAA.

In May 2006, after receiving the report from William and Mary, the NCAA told them that "Tribe" was OK as a nickname, but WM logo with feathers needed to go.

Webpage on the W&M Mascot Search (includes history)

[Gothamite]

The Bob Dylan Conspiracy released albums in the 1970s without any legal problems, probably because they sucked, but they didn't suck any less than Dylan himself.

Wait, who? I'm not familiar with them, and Google returns no results.

And using IP to restrict expression remains BS.

Until it's your intellectual property being stolen, that is....

This isn't like "Irish." "Indians" would be the closest correlary there, although since Irish refers to the proper name of a legal nation and not a people. The word "Sioux" refers to two specific tribes, who ought to have the right to control how people use their name. Just as U2 had every legal and moral right to kill Negativland's "U2" album.

However, this needn't be only about the law. Basic decency also comes into play. You want to use the name of an existing organization, then fine. Ask and see what they say. The Seminole tribe was asked for permission to use their name and granted it, free and clear. The Sioux tribes were asked for permission to use their name, and one tribe declined to grant it. How disrespectful would it be to go ahead anyway? You have to respect the tribe's decision, even if you don't personally like it.

[Gothamite]

Hontas makes a good point about using IP to restrict expression.

The licence/IP requirement looks like a legalism constructed to cover the simple fact that somebody just wants to wipe out all Indian team names.

That argument might hold water if the NCAA didn't have a procedure designed for teams to be able to retain those names. Florida State could and did, under that procedure. North Dakota came close to being able to keep theirs as well.

Generic names like "Braves," "Chiefs" and "Indians" are one thing. Nobody can own them. But when the name refers to a specific and extant organization such as the Seminole tribe of Florida or the Sioux tribes, then it's no different than any other organization protecting its brand.

If you wanted to say "somebody just wants to wipe out all infringing Indian team names", then I'd agree that you're right. And I fail to see the problem with that. I think the "PC" argument is a huge canard here, and it obscures the real issue.

I have a great deal of respect for intellectual property rights. Based on how many posters point out infringing or stolen logos, I don't think I'm alone in this. You may not have the same respect for those rights, and that is of course your prerogative. But you have to recognize that intellectual property rights do exist and have been recognized under our laws for centuries. As the old saw goes, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[The_Admiral]

they didn't suck any less than Dylan himself.

Are you stupid?