North Dakota to Drop Fighting Sioux Moniker

[BBTV]

My undergrad alma-mater the Indiana University of PA Indians (now Crimson Hawks) went through all of this a few years ago. I am not certain if the NCAA made them change, or if they just listened to local pressure, but they first gave up the name, then changed the mascot (but tried to bring back the name), then everything. If this was the NCAA's doing, then it shows how they treat NA themed names that don't have a specific group to get approval from. If not, then it doesn't really mean anything.

[winghaz]

Holy crap! KVLY TV in Fargo reported that the Spirit Lake tribe, which wasn't part of the original agreement with the NCAA and voted for UND to keep the Fighting Sioux nickname, might sue the NCAA.

Too little, too late? Maybe. Who knows? Stay tuned

[Gothamite]

No, they couldn't keep the imagery. Unless teams have the approval of specific tribe, they are not allowed to use any imagery, including feathers.

But what if there is no specific tribe?

So a non-tribe-specific name can stay, but there cannot be imagery since there is no tribe to approve?

If there is no specific tribe mentioned, they can't seek permission. So it's no go.

Indian-specific names are out. "Tribe" is apparently okay because it's not limited to that meaning of the word. W&M can't use anything that would point to a meaning of "tribe" as "Indian" in any way.

[IceCap]

and as much as i know everyone here hates the notre dame argument... it makes sense to me. why is fighting sioux offensive, with a logo that positively and accurately represents a sioux warrior... when the notre dame fighting irish use a logo and mascot that depicts a cartoon leprechaun, as if that is a respectful and dignified way to portay ireland and people of irish descent? it just seems silly. it's like saying that chief wahoo is fine, but the minnesota vikings have to get written permission from multiple scandinavian nations to continue using it.

the only discussion that makes even a tiny bit of sense is the intellectual property case, which while i don't agree with it, i can at least understand where it's coming from. but even then, i'd think that the NCAA and UND would need to wait for a cease and desist letter or something, at least.

and yes, i know this is a private organization and membership is voluntary and blah blah blah. my argument isn't based on if i think the ncaa has a right to do this or not, because they obviously do. my argument is simply that it's ridiculous for them to force this issue here, when they have just as much right to NOT push it. they're well within their rights to do what they please, but i don't have to like it, and there's nothing wrong with a healthy debate over if their choice was the right one or not.

it's not as open and shut as people on either side of this issue choose to believe... but this site always has had a problem with tunnel vision.

Collectively Caucasian American culture has roots in every European country from Ireland to Russia, from Scandinavia to Sicily. That's why Fighting Irish is ok and why Fighting Sioux isn't. With the Fighting Irish it's a case of a Euro-centric culture using a Euro-centric identity.

With the Fighting Sioux name it's a case of a Euro-centric culture adopting a non-European identity and claiming it as the basis for their sports team. That's not the same thing as the Fighting Irish situation. Seeing as this kind of scenario has led to the widespread acceptance of racist terms and imagery, the NCAA is demanding that Euro-centric academic institutions that use Native names and imagery get permission from the appropriate tribes. It's a fair compromise.

Time for another collection of comments:

* I put in the part about Standing Rock, and what happened there, merely as a footnote because some people in don't have all the facts right. I included the whys, but some people in here seem to think the whys don't matter. Boy, if the whys don't matter, then that's a slap in the face to the Standing Rock people.

It takes a brave man for someone on your side of this argument to claim he's standing up for the rights of natives to be turned into mascots for sports teams in a Euro-centric culture.

Why the Standing Rock tribe decided to not vote on the issue DOESN'T matter, and that's not me saying that their voices don't matter. So stop saying it is, it's a cheap tactic to try and move the goal posts.

They were asked whether or not they were ok with UND using the Fighting Sioux name. They refused to vote on it. Therefore UND failed to get permission. Simple as that. You're the one saying their refusal to vote should be overlooked and counted as a "yes." I'm the one recognizing that while their refusal to vote doesn't mean "no," it doesn't mean "yes" either. It is, essentially, a draw. And the way the NCAA's rules work, a draw practically denies UND from continuing to use the Fighting Sioux name.

* Is the NCAA a private organization? Of course. But it's also a monopoly, and that makes it a different ballgame for the NCAA. And if you don't think it's a monopoly, then please tell me a viable alternative for UND had UND chosen to just chuck the NCAA.

It is a monopoly, and that doesn't matter. UND could shut down their entire athletic program and their central function as an institute of higher learning wouldn't be impacted. They choose to have an athletic department, they don't need to have one. Likewise they choose to participate in the NCAA, they don't have to.

* If a name is "hostile and abusive," then it's hostile and abusive regardless if it's sanctioned by a group of people. Don't go telling me Fighting Sioux is hostile and abusive but Seminoles isn't because it got the support from the Seminole tribe. If I said, "F--- you," to a guy, but that guy's wife said it was OK, those words are still hostile and abusive. Call it unsanctioned. Call it going against NCAA rules. But don't call it hostile and abusive.

I think you need to stop getting hung up on particular phrasing and look at the big picture. The NCAA's position is that a tribe's name cannot be used by a NCAA athletic program without the tribe's permission. FSU succeed with regards to the Seminoles name. UND failed with regards to the Sioux name.

* Yes, I'm trying to move on. I'm deeply disappointed, though. But, at the same time, I am looking forward to a new nickname. I just hope it's a good one.

Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I don't find the nickname of my school's athletic team all that vital. The important identity is that of the school itself. The colours, the name, the initials, and the like. The colours purple and white, the name Western Ontario, and the initials UWO are all a bigger part of the athletic team's identity then the name Mustangs is.

Again, maybe things are different in the States, but as long as the University of North Dakota keeps the colours green, white, and black, the UND initials, and the ND logo their central identity will essentially remain unchanged.

[winghaz]

Ice_Cap, I realize in the eyes of the NCAA, it didn't matter why Standing Rock didn't have a vote on this issue. But it's important for debate in this forum to understand Standing Rock, why it does things, why it doesn't do things, its history, its geography, its culture, etc. Not caring to understand the whys truly is a slam to the people at Standing Rock.

You also need to understand that nickname issues really are strong, especially here in North Dakota. So let me tell you about Dickinson, N.D., in western North Dakota, and Dickinson High School. Dickinson's team nickname is the Midgets. A few years back, the majority on the Dickinson board of education decided the nickname was offensive, and voted to get rid of it. Almost as soon as the vote was taken, recall petitions were passed out on those who voted against that nickname, and a recall election was held. Guess what -- those who voted against the nickname were voted out of office. So, yes, nickname issues can get quite heated.

Another thing you need to understand is the NCAA came across as a bully from far away trying to dictate how we should handle things. That, more than anything, is the reason for the state law that was pushed through the legislature that states UND must keep the Fighting Sioux nickname. That state law is basically us thumbing our noses to people and forces who don't represent North Dakota. That's also the biggest reason why I'm so vehement about the subject and why I've become so anti-NCAA. I don't want the NCAA, or any other outside force, bullying my state around.

[Gothamite]

Ice_Cap, I realize in the eyes of the NCAA, it didn't matter why Standing Rock didn't have a vote on this issue. But it's important for debate in this forum to understand Standing Rock, why it does things, why it doesn't do things, its history, its geography, its culture, etc. Not caring to understand the whys truly is a slam to the people at Standing Rock.

You've made that claim several times, and it's been nonsense each time.

The tribe has the right to refuse permission. It's not up to us to judge their internal process.

But in the end, the "why" really is immaterial. The NCAA, quite reasonably, gives schools a process for retaining their names. ND was unable to do it. The reasons for their failure don't really matter, only the failure itself.

If the members of the tribe were upset at the result, they would have recourse with their leaders. Have the members taken action against their leaders for refusing permission, as your citizens did with their naming controversy?

[Tygers09]

The Nokotas... named after the native horse that once roamed the in southwest part of the state, in the Badlands area.

[winghaz]

I like Nokotas. It would be a fine name. But it would be awkward saying North Dakota Nokotas. Or maybe not.

[Joshawaggie]

I always liked the Nokota option. It's unique and could have a nice imagery. However, North Dakota Nokotas sounds terrible. I still like Rough Riders the best myself.

[winghaz]

I, too, think Roughriders would be best. The problem, though, is Grand Forks already has the Roughriders with Grand Forks Red River High School. Maybe Grand Forks is big enough for two Roughriders teams. Or maybe Red River would be grand enough to change its name to something like the Red Raiders.

[Joshawaggie]

I, too, think Roughriders would be best. The problem, though, is Grand Forks already has the Roughriders with Grand Forks Red River High School. Maybe Grand Forks is big enough for two Roughriders teams. Or maybe Red River would be grand enough to change its name to something like the Red Raiders.

Screw Red River :-)

Red Raiders would work for them. That's a good compromise.

[gosioux76]

I always liked the Nokota option. It's unique and could have a nice imagery. However, North Dakota Nokotas sounds terrible. I still like Rough Riders the best myself.

Nakota or Nokota might still be problematic, considering it's also the name of one subset of the Sioux Nation.

But I agree on Rough Riders, especially considering Teddy Roosevelt's ties to the state.

[IceCap]

I always liked the Nokota option. It's unique and could have a nice imagery. However, North Dakota Nokotas sounds terrible. I still like Rough Riders the best myself.

Nakota or Nokota might still be problematic, considering it's also the name of one subset of the Sioux Nation.

But I agree on Rough Riders, especially considering Teddy Roosevelt's ties to the state.

UND will have dropped the ball if they fail to take advantage of this. You just don't get an opportunity to name yourself after the greatest US President of all time every day

[no97]

No, they couldn't keep the imagery. Unless teams have the approval of specific tribe, they are not allowed to use any imagery, including feathers.

But what if there is no specific tribe?

So a non-tribe-specific name can stay, but there cannot be imagery since there is no tribe to approve?

I think I remember that W and M ("The Tribe") had to eliminate their feathers. I think they kept the name, so perhaps I just answered my own question.

That's a good question. I would assume schools with non tribe-specific Native American names are still forced to comply. They just don't have the work around granted to schools like UND and Florida State, which had regional tribes from which to get approval.

It seems that most major programs with names that weren't tribe-specific changed on their own. I'm thinking specifically of Miami of Ohio and St. Johns, though I'm sure the list is longer.

Bradley had to change their logos if they wanted to keep the Braves nickname when this whole situation started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_University#Controversy

They used to have a chief dance (like Illinois) and had a feather on their logo. If North Dakota switched to "Indians," or "Tribe," they still couldn't use the logo.

[ctk]

Ice_Cap, I realize in the eyes of the NCAA, it didn't matter why Standing Rock didn't have a vote on this issue. But it's important for debate in this forum to understand Standing Rock, why it does things, why it doesn't do things, its history, its geography, its culture, etc. Not caring to understand the whys truly is a slam to the people at Standing Rock.

You've made that claim several times, and it's been nonsense each time.

The tribe has the right to refuse permission. It's not up to us to judge their internal process.

But in the end, the "why" really is immaterial. The NCAA, quite reasonably, gives schools a process for retaining their names. ND was unable to do it. The reasons for their failure don't really matter, only the failure itself.

If the members of the tribe were upset at the result, they would have recourse with their leaders. Have the members taken action against their leaders for refusing permission, as your citizens did with their naming controversy?

just a thought, i don't think in a society like that, people don't take action against their leaders because their leaders are generally the tribal elders and arguing with your elders is seen as disrespectful. so in this instance i do believe the why really is material. did they not vote because they don't care, or there are more important issues to worry about, or they formally have no opinion? no one here knows the dynamics of this tribe. to presume otherwise is improper and unfair. until they issue an opinion the fighting sioux should stay.

btw, i agree with winghaz. no outside group has the right to tell any other group what they should or shouldn't call themselves.

[IceCap]

Ice_Cap, I realize in the eyes of the NCAA, it didn't matter why Standing Rock didn't have a vote on this issue. But it's important for debate in this forum to understand Standing Rock, why it does things, why it doesn't do things, its history, its geography, its culture, etc. Not caring to understand the whys truly is a slam to the people at Standing Rock.

You've made that claim several times, and it's been nonsense each time.

The tribe has the right to refuse permission. It's not up to us to judge their internal process.

But in the end, the "why" really is immaterial. The NCAA, quite reasonably, gives schools a process for retaining their names. ND was unable to do it. The reasons for their failure don't really matter, only the failure itself.

If the members of the tribe were upset at the result, they would have recourse with their leaders. Have the members taken action against their leaders for refusing permission, as your citizens did with their naming controversy?

just a thought, i don't think in a society like that, people don't take action against their leaders because their leaders are generally the tribal elders and arguing with your elders is seen as disrespectful. so in this instance i do believe the why really is material.

Your "assessment" of the inner workings of the Standing Rock tribe is delightfully stereotypical.

did they not vote because they don't care, or there are more important issues to worry about, or they formally have no opinion? no one here knows the dynamics of this tribe. to presume otherwise is improper and unfair. until they issue an opinion the fighting sioux should stay.

No one know the dynamics of the tribe? Have you tried checking the tribe's website?

http://www.standingrock.org/tribalGov/

http://www.standingrock.org/news.asp?ID=114

They're not governed by "tribal elders." They have an elected government, headed by a Chairperson. The people of the Standing Rock tribe, if they're truly ok with the University of North Dakota keeping the Fighting Sioux name, are free to vote in new leaders who will grant the university permission.

As it stands the Standing Rock tribal government has decided not to vote on whether or not UND should be allowed to keep the Fighting Sioux name, thereby denying UND of the permission they need to keep the name in accordance with the rules of the NCAA. Therefore the Fighting Sioux name should go, until the Standing Rock people vote in a government that's willing to grant UND use of the Sioux name.

[winghaz]

There is another issue about Standing Rock that always bothered me: A large part of Standing Rock is in South Dakota. Should South Dakotans decide on a North Dakota issue?

Also, there is another Sioux tribe in North Dakota, the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate. It covers a small part of North Dakota, with most of it in South Dakota, and is often overlooked within North Dakota. I'm curious why this tribe never was considered in the decision about the Sioux nickname.

[IceCap]

There is another issue about Standing Rock that always bothered me: A large part of Standing Rock is in South Dakota. Should South Dakotans decide on a North Dakota issue?

Also, there is another Sioux tribe in North Dakota, the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate. It covers a small part of North Dakota, with most of it in South Dakota, and is often overlooked within North Dakota. I'm curious why this tribe never was considered in the decision about the Sioux nickname.

So you're not ok with the Standing Rock tribe getting a say because part of that tribe's reservation is located in South Dakota, but you want the Sissenton-Wahpeton Ovate tribe to have their voices heard, even though the vast majority of that tribe's reservation is located in South Dakota? I'm sorry, but at this point is seems like you're swinging blindly, desperately hoping to hit something.

The Standing Rock tribe live in large quantities in both states. They have a significant enough presence in North Dakota to be considered a Sioux tribe of North Dakota. Therefore they get a say in the UND naming controversy.

The Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate tribe, on the other hand, is primarily a South Dakota Sioux tribe. Their reservation only falls in parts of two North Dakotan counties. Their presence in the state isn't enough to consider them a Sioux tribe of North Dakota.

Trying to define a tribe by a state is tricky, often times a tribe's reservation overlaps a border between two states. You have to create some kind of criteria to decide if a tribe has a significant enough presence in a state for matters such as this. It's never going to be perfect, but you have to do something. The NCAA felt that the Standing Rock's presence in North Dakota was significant enough to give them a voice in the matter, while the Sisseton-Wahpetn Oyate tribe's presence wasn't. Looking at where these tribes are located, it's hard to argue with the NCAA's logic on this one.

[winghaz]

Ice_Cap, you seem to think I know very little about Standing Rock. I've spent countless times at Standing Rock. My mom grew up five miles north of Sioux County in North Dakota, and all of Sioux County is in the Standing Rock Reservation. The mailing address for where my mom grew up is Morristown, S.D., which is in Standing Rock. I have spent countless times at Standing Rock and have many friends from there. I also have spent some time on the Lake Traverse Reservation, although not nearly as much as on Standing Rock.

My contention has always been that North Dakotans should decide what is North Dakotan, and the Fighting Sioux nickname is North Dakotan. The NCAA, not being North Dakotan, shouldn't decide.

I also believe, as the state law declares, that the tribes should have the right to veto the Fighting Sioux nickname, but that the veto should come through negative votes by votes of tribal members, not tribal councils. That's what the state law says, and I agree with it. But I would go further -- I would want only tribal members who are North Dakota residents to have that vote. Again, only North Dakotans should decide what is North Dakotan. Further, I believe North Dakotans who are tribal members of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate who are North Dakota residents should have a say on this.

I know I'm spitting into the wind on this, but these are my beliefs.

I'm also trying to move forward and look to a new nickname. It needs to be a nickname North Dakotans can be proud of, like Fighting Sioux is. That's why I want Roughriders as the new nickname because it would be the best representation of North Dakota and its history. Fighting Norse would be my second choice. And, again, no more Flickertails.

[IceCap]

Ice_Cap, you seem to think I know very little about Standing Rock. I've spent countless times at Standing Rock. My mom grew up five miles north of Sioux County in North Dakota, and all of Sioux County is in the Standing Rock Reservation. The mailing address for where my mom grew up is Morristown, S.D., which is in Standing Rock. I have spent countless times at Standing Rock and have many friends from there. I also have spent some time on the Lake Traverse Reservation, although not nearly as much as on Standing Rock.

I know enough about the Standing Rock tribe to tell you while your mom's childhood mailing address may have been in South Dakota, a large portion of the Standing Rock tribe's reservation exists within North Dakota's state borders, making it a prominent Sioux tribe within the State of North Dakota.

My contention has always been that North Dakotans should decide what is North Dakotan, and the Fighting Sioux nickname is North Dakotan. The NCAA, not being North Dakotan, shouldn't decide.

The University of North Dakota participates in NCAA events, and is thus forced to follow any rule that NCAA comes up with. They gave UND three years to get approval for the name, and they failed. It a very fair compromise, and the university fell short.

I know it's not as nice sounding as "North Dakotans deciding what's right for North Dakotans," but it's how the world works.

Further I would say that Native tribes should have the right to a little agency and should have the right to maintain ownership of their names and culture. They should have final say over this nickname issue, not white North Dakotans. In addition to the Standing Rock tribe refusing to grant permission, 21 Native organizations in connection with the University of North Dakota also took issue with the name.

At the end of the day the Sioux name doesn't belong to Caucasian North Dakotans or the University of North Dakota. It belongs to the Sioux peoples, and the university failed to get permission to use it from the two prominent North Dakotan Sioux tribes.

I also believe, as the state law declares, that the tribes should have the right to veto the Fighting Sioux nickname, but that the veto should come through negative votes by votes of tribal members, not tribal councils. That's what the state law says, and I agree with it. But I would go further -- I would want only tribal members who are North Dakota residents to have that vote. Again, only North Dakotans should decide what is North Dakotan. Further, I believe North Dakotans who are tribal members of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate who are North Dakota residents should have a say on this.

Representative democracy does not work that way. The whole point of it is so that you don't have to poll every member of the community. The Standing Rock people are represented by their Tribal Council, a body they voted for. It's a government that represents the people. What they say is understood to be the will of the people who voted them into office.

It seems as if you're only troubled by how this was decided because it didn't come out in your favour. Had the Standing Rock tribal council voted to allow UND the use of the Fighting Sioux name I doubt you would have much of a problem with the fact that the entirety of the tribe wasn't polled, or that part of the tribe exists within South Dakota, or that the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate tribe's small population in part of two North Dakotan counties weren't counted.

As I said, I think at this point you're just swinging wildly.

I know I'm spitting into the wind on this, but these are my beliefs.

And it's admirable you're so passionate about them. In this case though, you're just on the wrong side of history. You say you're trying to move forward. Ok then. Can we let this issue rest?