North Dakota to Drop Fighting Sioux Moniker

[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?

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.

Yes.

And some natives were honestly offended by Chief Illiniwek.

[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.

Yes.

And some natives were honestly offended by Chief Illiniwek.

Correct.

[Spearhead]

The logic of this is perplexing. How could the First Amendment not apply? And how can a group of people, incorporated or not, own a name they did not create years after the name has been in standard usage for more than a century? If UND has to drop the name, do the cities of Sioux City and Sioux Falls have to change their names as well if the tribe objects?

None of this makes any sense and it sounds fishy, to say the least.

[Gothamite]

None of those things apply because there's no governmental action here.

This is a private, voluntary organization enforcing its own rules with regard to its members. Nothing more than that.

[BBTV]

Apparently the first amendment means I can just go around using racial slurs at work and my company can't choose to fire me. The first amendment is an amazing thing - it lets you do anything you want and nobody can do anything about it.

[Spearhead]

Apparently the first amendment means I can just go around using racial slurs at work and my company can't choose to fire me. The first amendment is an amazing thing - it lets you do anything you want and nobody can do anything about it.

Are you comparing the name "Fighting Sioux" to a racial slur?

Also, there is state involvement in this. The nickname change was court imposed, so there is state involvement.

I wonder when Sioux Falls and Sioux City will have to change their names?

Antonio Gramsci's fingerprints are all over this silliness.

[BBTV]

Apparently the first amendment means I can just go around using racial slurs at work and my company can't choose to fire me. The first amendment is an amazing thing - it lets you do anything you want and nobody can do anything about it.

Are you comparing the name "Fighting Sioux" to a racial slur?

Also, there is state involvement in this. The nickname change was court imposed, so there is state involvement.

I wonder when Sioux Falls and Sioux City will have to change their names?

Antonio Gramsci's fingerprints are all over this silliness.

No, just making fun of people who think the first amendment protects them from the rules of private institutions.

[-kj]

It is a state-run university, so I suppose you can say that's the case. However, the university opts into NCAA membership; it is not mandated. NCAA, being a private, non-governmental membership organization, has given the university three options:

1. Get proper permission to use the nickname and we'll allow you to continue using it in NCAA-sanctioned competitions; or

2. Stop using the nickname in NCAA-sanctioned competitions; or

3. Continue using the nickname without proper permission and not be allowed membership in NCAA, therefore forfeiting participation in NCAA-sanctioned competitions.

Since they've been unable to achieve the first option, they've chosen the second.

[jsb_0403]

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.

So, they could still be the Fighting Sioux if their graphic was of a horse or an arrowhead like the Chiefs?

[pcgd]

Although I understand people being upset about chief illiwek, I don't understand how the same thing isn't offensive at Florida state or Hawaii. Chief was never a mascot. He did a traditional dance at halftime in native American made costume. Florida state you have a guy run out and throw a flaming spear at mid-field. Hawaii is a mascot in every sense of the word.

I'm not trying to sound butt hurt, im not justifying chief illiwek or anything, and I understand that the Seminole tribe and Hawaiian people have given rights, bit those two mascots always seemes so much more offensive to me.

I grew up watching chief and I am upset I can't see that tradition. I'm also upset that his existence won't cause many young Illinois fans to find out more information about the federation of souix that he was named after. If Illinois was the fighting bears I'd know nothing of that history and I doubt many others would either.

However, I did realize pretty early in the arguement that i didn't have a leg to stand on. I'm zero parts native American. I can't tell them how to feel. And I'd they want it gone why should my childhood fandom keep offending them? Names and traditions die, I still support the university that was my "pro" team as a youth and that won't change.

There are some ways I'm embarrassed that I enjoyed the chief so much. Yes, it was based on a real dance and it was authentic clothing, but it was still a white kid from Philo doing a dance. It shouldn't have gone on as long as it did. I enjoyed it. I'm sorry. But it wasn't out of disrespect. I thought it was a great way to honor the original citizens of Illinois. It represented the team that I loved, one that has so few traditions like that. We don't have howards rock, or the 12th man, bevo, or the 5th quarter. That's what we had. And all too frequently it was the the only highlight of a game.

[gosioux76]

The logic of this is perplexing. How could the First Amendment not apply? And how can a group of people, incorporated or not, own a name they did not create years after the name has been in standard usage for more than a century? If UND has to drop the name, do the cities of Sioux City and Sioux Falls have to change their names as well if the tribe objects?

None of this makes any sense and it sounds fishy, to say the least.

Not that this point needs to be made any clearer, but the tribes haven't technically objected to anything. The objection comes from the NCAA. The tribes -- one, anyway -- just decided against giving the university permission to use the name. It's a big difference.

Sioux Falls and Sioux City can rest easy.

[gosioux76]

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.

So, they could still be the Fighting Sioux if their graphic was of a horse or an arrowhead like the Chiefs?

No. It isn't the logo alone that the NCAA objects to. The Sioux are a reference to a specific tribe, regardless of the imagery used. They could be called the Sioux and be completely logo-less and still violate NCAA policy.

[jsb_0403]

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.

So, they could still be the Fighting Sioux if their graphic was of a horse or an arrowhead like the Chiefs?

No. It isn't the logo alone that the NCAA objects to. The Sioux are a reference to a specific tribe, regardless of the imagery used. They could be called the Sioux and be completely logo-less and still violate NCAA policy.

Ok, then why doesn't this apply to the Fighting Irish? Or do they have approval?

[gosioux76]

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.

So, they could still be the Fighting Sioux if their graphic was of a horse or an arrowhead like the Chiefs?

No. It isn't the logo alone that the NCAA objects to. The Sioux are a reference to a specific tribe, regardless of the imagery used. They could be called the Sioux and be completely logo-less and still violate NCAA policy.

Ok, then why doesn't this apply to the Fighting Irish? Or do they have approval?

The NCAA's policy is specific to Native American mascots. Nobody has apparently stood up for the world's aggrieved Irish population.

[Lee.]

THE IRISH AREN'T BEING CONSIDERED AN ETHNIC GROUP BY THE NCAA.

We've achieved maximum density.

[OnWis97]

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.

So, they could still be the Fighting Sioux if their graphic was of a horse or an arrowhead like the Chiefs?

No. It isn't the logo alone that the NCAA objects to. The Sioux are a reference to a specific tribe, regardless of the imagery used. They could be called the Sioux and be completely logo-less and still violate NCAA policy.

So in theory they could keep the logos and change to "Warriors". OR if they really want to stick it to the "PC Thugs", change to "Savages". That'll show 'em.

As for "is Notre Dame getting permission from the Irish?", they don't need permission from the Irish any more than a school called Warriors, Indians, Tribe, etc. need permission. I don't think, for example, Marquette was forced to change*. It's more an issue of respecting the tribe's desire to not have their name used than it is of ethnicity.

*I know, I know, Marquette WAS forced to change by all the hysteric PC idiots who have nuthin' better to do.

[jsb_0403]

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.

So, they could still be the Fighting Sioux if their graphic was of a horse or an arrowhead like the Chiefs?

No. It isn't the logo alone that the NCAA objects to. The Sioux are a reference to a specific tribe, regardless of the imagery used. They could be called the Sioux and be completely logo-less and still violate NCAA policy.

So in theory they could keep the logos and change to "Warriors". OR if they really want to stick it to the "PC Thugs", change to "Savages". That'll show 'em.

As for "is Notre Dame getting permission from the Irish?", they don't need permission from the Irish any more than a school called Warriors, Indians, Tribe, etc. need permission. I don't think, for example, Marquette was forced to change*. It's more an issue of respecting the tribe's desire to not have their name used than it is of ethnicity.

*I know, I know, Marquette WAS forced to change by all the hysteric PC idiots who have nuthin' better to do.

Ok, I was just curious. So, it really just depends on how crazy PC people want to get.

[Spearhead]

Not that this point needs to be made any clearer, but the tribes haven't technically objected to anything. The objection comes from the NCAA. The tribes -- one, anyway -- just decided against giving the university permission to use the name. It's a big difference.

Sioux Falls and Sioux City can rest easy.

Of course, the point being how far out can this permission argument be carried.

The whole argument is 'we don't like your mascot/nickname and we will use our power to make you change it.'

[Gothamite]

No, the whole argument is "our private organization chooses not to use native names and mascots unless we can get permission from the tribes themselves."

It doesn't go any farther then that. You don't like the rules, don't be a member of that private organization.

[Perfect Zero]

The whole argument is 'we don't like your mascot/nickname and we will use our power to make you change it.'

No, the whole argument is "our private organization chooses not to use native names and mascots unless we can get permission from the tribes themselves."

Yeah, that's the same thing.