North Dakota to Drop Fighting Sioux Moniker

[Shmee]

What about Purdue's mascot and logos? What, all white people are blue collar mill workers? Well maybe that offends me a little bit. I understand the Notre Dame logo is a fictional leprechaun, but what about this guy??

This is why we can't have nice things.

[-kj]

I wonder what happens now with the rich blowhard who threatened to take back his shiny new hockey arena if the school ever changed its nickname.

He's dead... but I'm sure his estate will have something to say about it.

[gosioux76]

Back on topic, I think the University of North Dakota CFL Colts has a lovely ring to it. I endorse this.

This. A thousand times this.

The letter seeking approval from all Canadian football-playing horses has already been drafted.

[whitedawg22]

I am familiar with the situation.

The second tribe did not agree to license the name. The why or how is not particularly relevant.

ND couldn't get a license to use the name, so they can't use the name. Simple as that.

I'm in a similar situation right now; I've been trying to option a novel for years. The author's estate has decided that they don't want it optioned, so no go. Doesn't matter that my adaptation will be good, that I've solved the question of how to translate the literary conceits into a different medium or that my version would only help the author's reputation. Doesn't matter that I'm offering cash money. I'm not competing with anyone else for the rights; they're just not interested in an adaptation. They won't even hear my pitch. My hard luck, but entirely within their rights.

Maybe in the future, things will change. For ND and for me.

The school is not be precluded from using the nickname "Sioux" or "Fighting Sioux" for its sports teams by U.S. trademark law. The requirement to get approval of the tribes is a NCAA requirement, not a legal one.

Unlike a novel or other creative intellectual property, I'm fairly sure that a trademark - whether registered or not - applies only within a given industry or area of business. You can search U.S. trademarks at uspto.gov. Here is a screenshot of a search I did for the word "Sioux" (unfortunately, I can't link directly to the search results). As you can see, all kinds of businesses have trademarked the name "Sioux," including ones in the areas of:

• Multi-purpose steam cleaners and high pressure washers
  
• Fabric-covered metal-reinforced buildings
  
• Goods made of leather and imitation leather
  
• Metal bottomless utility and containment tanks
  
• Power tools
  
• Metal buildings, tanks and accessories for use in the agricultural industry
  
• Water heaters
  

I don't see how it would be a legal problem to use the word "Sioux" for a college football team. However, if you wanted to start a steam cleaner business, or a new American Indian tribe, you probably shouldn't call it "Sioux."

Since neither Sioux tribe can legally preclude ND from using the name, ND doesn't need to get a license from the tribe. It's only the NCAA that is forcing them to change.

[CGL77]

Because the name "Fighting Sioux" is accompanied by a graphic depiction of a Native American, while the name "Fighting Irish" is accompanied by a graphic depiction of a fictional creature - namely, a leprechaun.

Huh? They're both caricatures of ethnic groups.

[Gothamite]

whitedawg22, I must not have expressed my thoughts clearly. I didn't mean that it was a legal problem for the university to use the name, but that the NCAA has required them to license it from the team (as Florida State has done with the Seminoles).

The Sioux name is controlled in this instance by two organizations, one of which declined them permission to use it. As is their right, which was my only point.

[TheOldRoman]

North Dakota should be more than willing to change their nickname. After this debacle, and seeing that the Sioux tribe wants NOTHING to do with the school, why would they want to continue to be associated with the them? I say just move on and begin a new tradition that the school, and everyone, would be proud to be a part of.

That's not true at all. Read the thread. They got approval of one out of two tribes. The second tribe wouldn't allow a vote. I can think of several green reasons why they wouldn't allow a vote to use their name. At Illinois, the one tribe which had a connection (admittedly loose) to the Illini Confederation had long supported the University and the use of Chief Illiniwek and the logo. The head of the tribe gave a speech about "How could we be offended by something which respectfully pays homage to our strong heritage?" Well, a few years later, some people rolled in with lots of money telling them to be offended and that same guy was blaming alcoholism and suicide among Indians on the school, poor Native Americans were bussed to U of I and promised a warm meal if they held a protest sign, and so on.

I have said before that the real losers in this are, once again, Native Americans. The schools will get new team names and will move on, even if they lose some donations. The PC thugs will still have the sense of accomplishment for "sticking it to the man." Meanwhile, the Natives get nothing afterwards. The "interest groups" cared nothing for the Indians to begin with and have no need for them to be offended anymore, so the money stops. Of course, the Universities have/had a duty to reach out to these groups and provide support (both financial and otherwise), and in most cases that wasn't done. However, eliminating Indian names and images eliminates opportunities for further relationships between the tribes and Universities. Having talked with several Indians about it, their leadership is every bit as shameful and corrupt as Washington. They don't care at all for the will or welfare of their people, and these proud people continue to suffer because of it.

[Brian in Boston]

Huh? They're both caricatures of ethnic groups.

No, they're not. One is a graphic depiction of a member of an ethnic group. The other is a graphic depiction of a fictional creature that figures in the folklore of an ethnic group.

[illwauk]

The PC thugs will still have the sense of accomplishment for "sticking it to the man." Meanwhile, the Natives get nothing afterwards.

Rhetoric like this really doesn't help your cause. A lot of people spent a lot of time, money and effort organizing those protests and you have to be incredibly naive to think it was for the reasons you're implying. I don't even see the school using the Illini nickname as being inherently worse than the state itself being called Illinois, but the university brought it on to themselves by allowing a minstrel show to take place so long after such "entertainment" became socially unacceptable.

[TheOldRoman]

The PC thugs will still have the sense of accomplishment for "sticking it to the man." Meanwhile, the Natives get nothing afterwards.

Rhetoric like this really doesn't help your cause. A lot of people spent a lot of time, money and effort organizing those protests and you have to be incredibly naive to think it was for the reasons you're implying. I don't even see the school using the Illini nickname as being inherently worse than the state itself being called Illinois, but the university brought it on to themselves by allowing a minstrel show to take place so long after such "entertainment" became socially unacceptable.

Using rhetoric like minstrel show really doesn't help your cause. It's just another buzz phrase like "mocassins" and "frat boy". I was on the inner workings of the movement to keep the Chief at my time on campus. I dealt with the anti-Chief people and knew what they represented. It was a cause for professors and kids from Evanston, nothing more. Sure, they bussed in starving people and paid them to hold signs (which they didn't believe anyway). Sure, they made the pitch to the BOD of "we fully understand that the majority of Native Americans are not offended by it. But we know better than them." Sure, they even broke federal laws by barricading a government administrative building and not letting anyone in until they got their way. But it was a cause for a group with lots of causes. The same kids who screamed on the quad about the Chief changed their shirts and screamed about Isreal moments later. It was about taking down an establishment.

Believe me, I have talked with many Indians over the years. Their leadership ran to the bell whenever a group called saying "you need to be offended by this." The leadership wasn't working to provide its people with jobs or food like it's supposed to, but they jet out to California because it was discovered that a middle school had the Blackhawks' logo in its marquee. The reason is that the people who supposedly cared so much about the Indians actually didn't give a about them. The Indians weren't their cause, winning was. Those tribes only got money by complaining to support the movement. After the movement ends and the tribes are no longer useful to them, they stop getting money. There was no altruism whatsoever coming from the do-gooders.

[Gothamite]

Even if true in one case, it does not follow that it must be so in all.

Again, you do your argument no credit by sinking to personal insults.

[TheOldRoman]

Even if true in one case, it does not follow that it must be so in all.

Again, you do your argument no credit by sinking to personal insults.

I find thug to be the best descriptive term here. They came in and bullied until they got their way, manipulating a group of people and tossing them aside afterwards. But fair enough about your first point. As I said, I have talked extensively with Indians from a handful of tribes on the issue, and of course they provide stories from their interaction with other tribes. The prevailing element is that the tribes are used as needed and then discarded. Also, the majority of the people within those tribes, as supported by a few national scientific surveys, approve of Indian names, imagery and mascots in most cases. I have spoken to Indians to told me of the pride they felt watching Chief Illiniwek, how they cherished the Illini shirt they had because it represented their heritage. However, the will of the people is overlooked in favor of money.

[gosioux76]

The same kids who screamed on the quad about the Chief changed their shirts and screamed about Isreal moments later. It was about taking down an establishment.

That may have been the case at Illinois, but during my time at UND some of the biggest name-change champions were Native American students and administrators. This wasn't a take-down-the-establishment movement, at least not from my first-hand experience of the situation.

[TheOldRoman]

The same kids who screamed on the quad about the Chief changed their shirts and screamed about Isreal moments later. It was about taking down an establishment.

That may have been the case at Illinois, but during my time at UND some of the biggest name-change champions were Native American students and administrators. This wasn't a take-down-the-establishment movement, at least not from my first-hand experience of the situation.

Fair enough.

[illwauk]

The PC thugs will still have the sense of accomplishment for "sticking it to the man." Meanwhile, the Natives get nothing afterwards.

Rhetoric like this really doesn't help your cause. A lot of people spent a lot of time, money and effort organizing those protests and you have to be incredibly naive to think it was for the reasons you're implying. I don't even see the school using the Illini nickname as being inherently worse than the state itself being called Illinois, but the university brought it on to themselves by allowing a minstrel show to take place so long after such "entertainment" became socially unacceptable.

Using rhetoric like minstrel show really doesn't help your cause. It's just another buzz phrase like "mocassins" and "frat boy".

It was a ceremony that involved a mock ritual dance in full costume... that's pretty much what a minstrel show is.

I was on the inner workings of the movement to keep the Chief at my time on campus. I dealt with the anti-Chief people and knew what they represented. It was a cause for professors and kids from Evanston, nothing more. Sure, they bussed in starving people and paid them to hold signs (which they didn't believe anyway). Sure, they made the pitch to the BOD of "we fully understand that the majority of Native Americans are not offended by it. But we know better than them." Sure, they even broke federal laws by barricading a government administrative building and not letting anyone in until they got their way. But it was a cause for a group with lots of causes. The same kids who screamed on the quad about the Chief changed their shirts and screamed about Isreal moments later. It was about taking down an establishment.

Believe me, I have talked with many Indians over the years. Their leadership ran to the bell whenever a group called saying "you need to be offended by this." The leadership wasn't working to provide its people with jobs or food like it's supposed to, but they jet out to California because it was discovered that a middle school had the Blackhawks' logo in its marquee. The reason is that the people who supposedly cared so much about the Indians actually didn't give a about them. The Indians weren't their cause, winning was. Those tribes only got money by complaining to support the movement. After the movement ends and the tribes are no longer useful to them, they stop getting money. There was no altruism whatsoever coming from the do-gooders.

Most of your argument seems to hinge on your personal feelings about the protestors and their supposed lifestyles. I'm not even sure what your point is aside from maybe that people who have opinions on more than one issue are apparently insincere because of it. Chief Illinwek's existence and the fact that so many are still complaining about his retirement... right or wrong... makes the U of I look like a backwoods institution with a culturally insensitive alumni base. That's not a good look for a university that's supposed to be "World Class" and a "Public Ivy."

[Gothamite]

illwauk, I think that tangent has actually run its course.

[TheOldRoman]

It was a ceremony that involved a mock ritual dance in full costume... that's pretty much what a minstrel show is.

It didn't mock anything and wasn't a ritual dance. It was representing a native dance, but the dance was a secular style of dancing used for inter-tribal functions, which often included non-Indian (read: white) people. It was a celebratory dance with no religious or otherwise cultural overtones.

Most of your argument seems to hinge on your personal feelings about the protestors and their supposed lifestyles. I'm not even sure what your point is aside from maybe that people who have opinions on more than one issue are apparently insincere because of it. Chief Illinwek's existence and the fact that so many are still complaining about his retirement... right or wrong... makes the U of I look like a backwoods institution with a culturally insensitive alumni base. That's not a good look for a university that's supposed to be "World Class" and a "Public Ivy."

The reason I posted to begin with was to give perspective and a timeline. I merely pointed out the nature of these things. In the case of U of I, it was one student who got upset and started a small movement which was backed by professors and other people with money for reasons other than them being genuinely offended and sincerely caring about the native people. I pointed out, once again, that although a percentage of Native Americans are offended by any imagery, the large majority of them are not. Therefore, it's a little silly when the "purse" for the fight comes out and calls everyone who doesn't agree with them racist or too stupid to understand. And no, it doesn't make U of I look "culturally insenstive" other than to the small group of people who were outraged to begin with.

But as Goth said, we will leave it at that.

[illwauk]

The reason I posted to begin with was to give perspective and a timeline. I merely pointed out the nature of these things. In the case of U of I, it was one student who got upset and started a small movement which was backed by professors and other people with money for reasons other than them being genuinely offended and sincerely caring about the native people. I pointed out, once again, that although a percentage of Native Americans are offended by any imagery, the large majority of them are not. Therefore, it's a little silly when the "purse" for the fight comes out and calls everyone who doesn't agree with them racist or too stupid to understand. And no, it doesn't make U of I look "culturally insenstive" other than to the small group of people who were outraged to begin with.

Let me put it another way... as an outsider with no real attachment to the U of I, it genuinely makes me wonder what type of institution would have neglected to put a stop to a ceremony such as Chief Illinwek long before it happened as well as what type of cultural environment would produce so many vocal supporters so long after the Chief's "official" retirement to the point that an "unofficial" version of the Chief still exists. Maybe that doesn't/didn't bother the U of I administration, but that's definitely not what I'd want people to think about an institution that I was a part of.

illwauk, I think that tangent has actually run its course.

It's a thread about Native American nicknames, what tangent hasn't run its course?

I know a lot of folks feel certain ways about megathreads, but I really think we could use one for this debate. Maybe then the conversation could actually progress past the same wheel-spinning that happens whenever something like this comes up.

[Gothamite]

Oh, and we were doing so well.

Can we all at least agree that TheOldRoman has some hard feeling about the circumstances surrounding Illinois' dropping its mascot, but the same circumstances were not present during the corresponding time at North Dakota?

[TheOldRoman]

Oh, and we were doing so well.

Can we all at least agree that TheOldRoman has some hard feeling about the circumstances surrounding Illinois' dropping its mascot, but the same circumstances were not present during the corresponding time at North Dakota?

From what gosouix posted, that is correct. Of course, whether those Indian students and faculty at UND were an accurate representation of the Souix population is another matter. As I said, the fact that one tribe approved of it and the other didn't allow a vote speaks volumes, and that was my original point. It wasn't the Souix people as a whole said "no way, that's racist."