"Fighting Sioux" gets a fighting chance

[illwauk]

I don't think they own their name any less than the Fighting Irish. Did Notre Dame have to petition the government of Ireland for permission to use their name?

Apples and... light-tubes.

If we were talking about a name like Indians or Braves, the Fighting Irish analogy might apply. But we're talking about a name that's tied to two specific Native American societies... huge difference.

[STL FANATIC]

I don't think they own their name any less than the Fighting Irish. Did Notre Dame have to petition the government of Ireland for permission to use their name?

Apples and... light-tubes.

If we were talking about a name like Indians or Braves, the Fighting Irish analogy might apply. But we're talking about a name that's tied to two specific Native American societies... huge difference.

As far as specificity goes, you'll have to elaborate more on how Irish is any different than Sioux. (Indians and Braves are vague--I agree.)

[sportstar1212]

Good news. I love that moniker and was really dissapointed to see it go.

[Gothamite]

If we were talking about a name like Indians or Braves, the Fighting Irish analogy might apply. But we're talking about a name that's tied to two specific Native American societies... huge difference.

As far as specificity goes, you'll have to elaborate more on how Irish is any different than Sioux. (Indians and Braves are vague--I agree.)

That's an easy one. The Sioux are an organized, recognized sovereign tribe (or two, in this case). "Irish" are not.

"Sioux" is to "Indian" what "Republic of Ireland" is to "Irish". One is a specific legal entity, the other a vague descriptor for people who may or may not be a part of it.

[IceCap]

I don't think they own their name any less than the Fighting Irish. Did Notre Dame have to petition the government of Ireland for permission to use their name?

Apples and... light-tubes.

If we were talking about a name like Indians or Braves, the Fighting Irish analogy might apply. But we're talking about a name that's tied to two specific Native American societies... huge difference.

As far as specificity goes, you'll have to elaborate more on how Irish is any different than Sioux. (Indians and Braves are vague--I agree.)

You have to look at it from a social historical context.

White America is, well, a melting pot of different cultural backgrounds, Irish being one of the most predominant. A large number of white Americans claim to have Irish heritage and those that do not still accept Irish American cultural additions to the larger white American culture. So you can (and I do) make the argument that whites have "ownership" or "agency" over the name Fighting Irish because it represents a culture that's part of the broad white American ethnicity. The Fighting Irish name is a case of white Americans using part of white America's own ethnic background and using it as a basis for a sports mascot. You're allowed to do that when you're dealing with your own culture, images, and traditions.

A name like the Fighting Sioux, on the other hand, is a case of white Americans using part of a foreign culture as the basis for a sports mascot. The Sioux people have been denied the historical "agency" over their own identity. They're having their culture, images, and traditions usurped by a primarily white American institution. An institution that counted a neo-Nazi among its strongest supporters (who also happened to be one of the most outspoken supporters of keeping the Fighting Sioux name).

Basically Fighting Irish is ok because it's a case of white Americans using a name that reflects their own heritage and traditions. Fighting Sioux is not ok because it's a case of white Americans usurping another culture's heritage and traditions.

That's why I'm ok with the NCAA's decision to let the tribes decide. It allows native peoples to reclaim some of that lost agency over their identity and heritage.

The NCAA made a rule, and according to the rule the UND has to drop the Fighting Sioux name. The NCAA is a voluntary private organization. If the UND doesn't like the rule they're free to leave. If they want to remain in the NCAA they have to follow the rules.

As for the referendum? Pointless. Again, the NCAA is a private organization. A private organization is not subject to a public vote.

[oldschoolvikings]

If we were talking about a name like Indians or Braves, the Fighting Irish analogy might apply. But we're talking about a name that's tied to two specific Native American societies... huge difference.

As far as specificity goes, you'll have to elaborate more on how Irish is any different than Sioux. (Indians and Braves are vague--I agree.)

That's an easy one. The Sioux are an organized, recognized sovereign tribe (or two, in this case). "Irish" are not.

"Sioux" is to "Indian" what "Republic of Ireland" is to "Irish". One is a specific legal entity, the other a vague descriptor for people who may or may not be a part of it.

You have to look at it from a social historical context.

White America is, well, a melting pot of different cultural backgrounds, Irish being one of the most predominant. A large number of white Americans claim to have Irish heritage and those that do not still accept Irish American cultural additions to the larger white American culture. So you can (and I do) make the argument that whites have "ownership" or "agency" over the name Fighting Irish because it represents a culture that's part of the broad white American ethnicity. The Fighting Irish name is a case of white Americans using part of white America's own ethnic background and using it as a basis for a sports mascot. You're allowed to do that when you're dealing with your own culture, images, and traditions.

A name like the Fighting Sioux, on the other hand, is a case of white Americans using part of a foreign culture as the basis for a sports mascot. The Sioux people have been denied the historical "agency" over their own identity. They're having their culture, images, and traditions usurped by a primarily white American institution. An institution that counted a neo-Nazi among its strongest supporters (who also happened to be one of the most outspoken supporters of keeping the Fighting Sioux name).

Basically Fighting Irish is ok because it's a case of white Americans using a name that reflects their own heritage and traditions. Fighting Sioux is not ok because it's a case of white Americans usurping another culture's heritage and traditions.

That's why I'm ok with the NCAA's decision to let the tribes decide. It allows native peoples to reclaim some of that lost agency over their identity and heritage.

The NCAA made a rule, and according to the rule the UND has to drop the Fighting Sioux name. The NCAA is a voluntary private organization. If the UND doesn't like the rule they're free to leave. If they want to remain in the NCAA they have to follow the rules.

As for the referendum? Pointless. Again, the NCAA is a private organization. A private organization is not subject to a public vote.

Both reasonable responses. Both, I'm sure, will be ignored by posters wanting to know why we aren't worried about offending "Bears", or "eagles" or whatever.

[Spearhead]

You have to look at it from a social historical context.

White America is, well, a melting pot of different cultural backgrounds, Irish being one of the most predominant. A large number of white Americans claim to have Irish heritage and those that do not still accept Irish American cultural additions to the larger white American culture. So you can (and I do) make the argument that whites have "ownership" or "agency" over the name Fighting Irish because it represents a culture that's part of the broad white American ethnicity. The Fighting Irish name is a case of white Americans using part of white America's own ethnic background and using it as a basis for a sports mascot. You're allowed to do that when you're dealing with your own culture, images, and traditions.

A name like the Fighting Sioux, on the other hand, is a case of white Americans using part of a foreign culture as the basis for a sports mascot. The Sioux people have been denied the historical "agency" over their own identity. They're having their culture, images, and traditions usurped by a primarily white American institution. An institution that counted a neo-Nazi among its strongest supporters (who also happened to be one of the most outspoken supporters of keeping the Fighting Sioux name).

Basically Fighting Irish is ok because it's a case of white Americans using a name that reflects their own heritage and traditions. Fighting Sioux is not ok because it's a case of white Americans usurping another culture's heritage and traditions.

That's why I'm ok with the NCAA's decision to let the tribes decide. It allows native peoples to reclaim some of that lost agency over their identity and heritage.

The NCAA made a rule, and according to the rule the UND has to drop the Fighting Sioux name. The NCAA is a voluntary private organization. If the UND doesn't like the rule they're free to leave. If they want to remain in the NCAA they have to follow the rules.

As for the referendum? Pointless. Again, the NCAA is a private organization. A private organization is not subject to a public vote.

The first part of this is a rationale, that is highly presumptuous and something that I have never heard anyone else use. The actual argument is that the NCAA doesn't like universities to use Indian names and seeks to impose its tastes upon its members. The idea that the Sioux can copywrite the name "Sioux' -- which was, historically, applied to them and not by them -- is silly.

The referendum will likely go nowhere but I hope the pro-Sioux people win in a landslide.

[IceCap]

You have to look at it from a social historical context.

White America is, well, a melting pot of different cultural backgrounds, Irish being one of the most predominant. A large number of white Americans claim to have Irish heritage and those that do not still accept Irish American cultural additions to the larger white American culture. So you can (and I do) make the argument that whites have "ownership" or "agency" over the name Fighting Irish because it represents a culture that's part of the broad white American ethnicity. The Fighting Irish name is a case of white Americans using part of white America's own ethnic background and using it as a basis for a sports mascot. You're allowed to do that when you're dealing with your own culture, images, and traditions.

A name like the Fighting Sioux, on the other hand, is a case of white Americans using part of a foreign culture as the basis for a sports mascot. The Sioux people have been denied the historical "agency" over their own identity. They're having their culture, images, and traditions usurped by a primarily white American institution. An institution that counted a neo-Nazi among its strongest supporters (who also happened to be one of the most outspoken supporters of keeping the Fighting Sioux name).

Basically Fighting Irish is ok because it's a case of white Americans using a name that reflects their own heritage and traditions. Fighting Sioux is not ok because it's a case of white Americans usurping another culture's heritage and traditions.

That's why I'm ok with the NCAA's decision to let the tribes decide. It allows native peoples to reclaim some of that lost agency over their identity and heritage.

The NCAA made a rule, and according to the rule the UND has to drop the Fighting Sioux name. The NCAA is a voluntary private organization. If the UND doesn't like the rule they're free to leave. If they want to remain in the NCAA they have to follow the rules.

As for the referendum? Pointless. Again, the NCAA is a private organization. A private organization is not subject to a public vote.

The first part of this is a rationale, that is highly presumptuous and something that I have never heard anyone else use.

The concept of a people's "agency," or lack there of, over their own historical and culture identity is nothing new. I can assure you I'm not breaking new ground here. This kind of stuff, it's standard fare in historical and sociological study.

The actual argument is that the NCAA doesn't like universities to use Indian names and seeks to impose its tastes upon its members.

That's preposterous. You cannot prove that. At all. At best it's baseless speculation. At worst it's a strawman argument.

Besides, if the NCAA didn't like universities using Native names then they would have simply banned them. By giving the tribes the choice they've shown they don't have a problem with the idea of using Native-themed names, they just want to make sure that those names are used with the best of intentions.

The fact that they've let schools who've gotten permission from the relevant tribes keep the Native-themed names disproves your hypothesis completely.

The idea that the Sioux can copywrite the name "Sioux'

This has nothing to do with copyright. It has everything to the NCAA wanting to make sure the people the UND names their teams after are actually ok with it. It's not that unreasonable if you stop and think about it.

-- which was, historically, applied to them and not by them -- is silly.

Irrelevant. In this day and age the term "Sioux" is an accepted name for this particular group of Native American tribes.

The referendum will likely go nowhere but I hope the pro-Sioux people win in a landslide.

Huzzah for pointless whining that will cost the tax payers of North Dakota while accomplishing exactly nothing! Huzzah I say!

[Gothamite]

Yeah, this whole referendum has the stink of childish petulance, doesn't it? An expensive temper tantrum, but that's okay, because it's just taxpayer money.

The actual argument is that the NCAA doesn't like universities to use Indian names and seeks to impose its tastes upon its members.

That's preposterous. You cannot prove that. At all. At best it's baseless speculation. At worst it's a strawman argument.

Besides, if the NCAA didn't like universities using Native names then they would have simply banned them. By giving the tribes the choice they've shown they don't have a problem with the idea of using Native-themed names, they just want to make sure that those names are used with the best of intentions.

The fact that they've let schools who've gotten permission from the relevant tribes keep the Native-themed names disproves your hypothesis completely.

True enough. And while I would rather the Sioux had joined the Seminoles in licensing their name to the school, it's not up to me. It's up to the two tribes and their duly-elected representatives and no amount of empty political posturing will change that.

[IceCap]

It does. It has all the makings of a child stomping his feet angrily trying to get his way. The fact that a referendum is literally pointless only emphasis that fact.

[Spearhead]

I'm sorry if concepts such as a people's own "agency" over their own heritage and culture is foreign to you. I can assure you I'm not breaking new ground here. This kind of stuff, it's standard fare in historical and sociological study.

Well, presumptuous was a well chosen word on my part because you have presumed that I don't understand the concept of "agency." I can tell you that I am quite familiar with the idea, since it is part of my job to understand it. My problem is the sweeping way that you say whites can, generally, have acceptable ownership over "Fighting Irish" particularly since you assert it using an "historical" context for the argument. There are some real historic problems with such an interpretation.

It's not preposterous at all to say that the NCAA does not like Indian mascots. When they banned them for post-season tournaments, NCAA Exec. Committee Chairman Walter Harrison said, "What we are trying to say is that we find these mascots to be unacceptable for NCAA championship competition," because they were deemed "hostile or abusive" which is purely subjective. That's not a strawman argument at all; it goes to the heart of what is an effective NCAA ban. How can you ban a mascot name in post-season play but not ban it in the regular season? What is that ban all about?

The statement of copyrighting names like "Fighting Sioux" being silly is a general statement and the statement about the Sioux name being applied from without is about irony.

As for children stamping their feet, the people so intent on wiping out a whole category of names for team mascots strike me as "petulant" and "childish" to a great degree. It sounds like you fellahs don?t like people to disagree with you or try to do something about it.

Incidentally, a website for a UND group makes some interesting statements on the issue. It says this:

"By portraying Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota students on campus as the 'Fighting Sioux,' you are participating in a misconception of American Indians as being inclined towards particularly 'war-like' and 'violent' behavior. This denies the Native students on campus their sense of pride, integrity, and place in a unique cultural heritage. It transforms them into dehumanized 'things.'"

But, it also says this:

"First of all, 'Vikings', as an ethnic spin-off of Scandanavians (sic), did not directly populate Minnesota. The descendents of Swedes and Norwegians who presently live in Minnesota come predominantly from those countries directly, not through the Viking explorations nearly a millennium ago. Secondly, the Vikings were invaders and violent people; they conquered others-- they themselves were not conquered."

That's interesting, particularly the shift in emphasis in the first part from the Sioux in general to "Native students on campus." I guess it would be better (in their minds) to think of the Sioux as the "Pacifist Sioux" which kinda removes their agency, doesn?t it. You can call Vikings violent but not the Sioux?

Link to site

[IceCap]

I'm sorry if concepts such as a people's own "agency" over their own heritage and culture is foreign to you. I can assure you I'm not breaking new ground here. This kind of stuff, it's standard fare in historical and sociological study.

Well, presumptuous was a well chosen word on my part because you have presumed that I don't understand the concept of "agency." I can tell you that I am quite familiar with the idea, since it is part of my job to understand it. My problem is the sweeping way that you say whites can, generally, have acceptable ownership over "Fighting Irish" particularly since you assert it using an "historical" context for the argument. There are some real historic problems with such an interpretation.

No, I think I was right in the "sweeping" way I claim whites generally have acceptable ownership over the Fighting Irish name. Yes, Irish Catholics were discriminated against in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. History, however, is ongoing. As Irish Catholic immigrant families settled they were slowly but steadily accepted into white American society. To the point where they became just one of many Euro-centric cultures that make up modern white American culture. Americans of Irish descent are, in fact, among white America's most predominant ethnic groups and white Americans who don't have Irish ancestry still embrace the contributions Irish Americans have made to white American culture. Given the melting pot that is white American culture I think it's safe to say that white Americans in general have proper agency over the name Fighting Irish. More so then Native American Sioux tribes would have over the name Fighting Sioux if a primarily white American institution like the University of North Dakota used it without their permission.

It's not preposterous at all to say that the NCAA does not like Indian mascots.

Yes, it is.

When they banned them for post-season tournaments, NCAA Exec. Committee Chairman Walter Harrison said, "What we are trying to say is that we find these mascots to be unacceptable for NCAA championship competition," because they were deemed "hostile or abusive" which is purely subjective.

It's not subjective to say that a simplified caricature and an ethnicity's attributes for use as a sports logo, accompanies by a minstrel show halftime performance, is "hostile or abrasive."

Unless you think calling this or this hostile and abrasive is "purely subjective."

That's not a strawman argument at all; it goes to the heart of what is an effective NCAA ban. How can you ban a mascot name in post-season play but not ban it in the regular season? What is that ban all about?

Here's why it's a strawman argument.

If the NCAA really wanted to do away with Native themed names they'd simply ban them all together, no ifs, ands, or buts. They're a private organization. They'd certainly be within their rights to make such a ruling if that's what they truly wanted.

Instead, however, they've provided a means for schools with Native themed names to keep those names. I don't know about you, but if I wanted to ban something from my private organization I wouldn't give my members a means to keep doing it.

Furthermore those schools that have followed the NCAA's new rules regarding Native names and who have received permission to keep using their names, have been allowed to do so. Hardly the actions of an organization that just hates Native themed names all together, isn't it?

The statement of copyrighting names like "Fighting Sioux" being silly is a general statement and the statement about the Sioux name being applied from without is about irony.

It's also irrelevant. It's an accepted name for their ethnic group.

As for children stamping their feet, the people so intent on wiping out a whole category of names for team mascots strike me as "petulant" and "childish" to a great degree.

Except no one's trying to wipe out Native themed sports mascots. The NCAA isn't. I'm not. Goth's not. No one is.

You know what is childish though? Wasting tax payer dollars on a state wide referendum that's not going to accomplish a damn thing. The NCAA is a private organization. You can't force them to do anything with a public referendum.

It sounds like you fellahs don?t like people to disagree with you or try to do something about it.

You assume I'm against Native themed names. I'm not. I don't have a problem with the Chicago Blackhawks, Kansas City Chiefs, Atlanta Braves, or even the Cleveland Indians (the logo needs to go but the name itself is fine). I just think these types of names should be treated with as much respect as possible, because when a team uses them they're taking hold of an other culture's heritage and identity. You're taking some of their agency. When you do that you need to make sure you're being as respectful as possible.

I think the NCAA has come up with a great compromise on the issue. Get permission from the tribes in question, you get to use the name. I think it's fair to all the parties involved. The tribes get some of their agency over their own historic identities and culture back, and the schools retain the possibility of keeping identities they've used for decades.

[winghaz]

I will be voting for keeping the Sioux nickname. I won't go into the details as to why, lest I get a whole host of diatribes from Gothamite.

I will say that many people, including the UND president and most of the folks on the state board of higher education, didn't expect the backlash among the general population. No, it's not like a bunch of whiny kids not getting their way; it's about people who felt they were wronged, especially by the NCAA.

Yes, Gothamite, wronged by the NCAA. It's fair to say that most North Dakotans believe the NCAA stuck its nose where it didn't belong. North Dakotans see the NCAA as a big bully that overstepped its bounds. That's why the state legislature passed a law, keeping the Fighting Sioux nickname, before it was repealed.

The question now is if the voters are willing to deal with the consequences of keeping the nickname. I think it's going to be a very close vote. I won't make any predictions, at least not now.

[Joshawaggie]

As a native North Dakotan, this whole thing is embarassing to me. The NCAA is saying no, a million times no, so if you want to keep them happy... just move on. I grew up loving the Sioux, and the name will always be a favorite of mine, but it's been time for a few years now. Just do it.

[STL FANATIC]

I accept Goth and Ice's reasoning as well thought out. I don't accept it as accurate. Cultures do not have a say in what or how other cultures adapt from their own. America (screw this "white America" crap) is indeed a melting pot, and it's a melting pot of many, many different cultures that forms one large culture. Some of that mix is good things about other cultures. Some of that mix is bad things about other cultures. Some of that mix was voluntarily put forth by a culture. Some of that mix was borrowed without asking.

It doesn't matter. That's America.

If a university decides it likes the idea of a chief as a symbolic leader, that should be fine. It's an adaptation of another cultural to a new or different culture. That's sociological evolution. And I can't fathom why it's so frowned upon.

Making fun and demeaning other cultures should be frowned upon. Adapting them to a different one? It's not the same thing. And it shouldn't be treated as such.

But a separate point that I think people are missing. The referendum DOES matter. UND is a state university. Ultimately, at a broad level, the people of that state run the university. The referendum does not say the NCAA must overturn their rule (they'd have no power to do so), the referendum says the University of North Dakota should be referred to as the Fighting Sioux. This would then violate an NCAA rule, and the NCAA would issue their punishments (a lack of post-season hosting, etc., etc.) unless or until UND complied with the rule. But this referendum could absolutely decide whether or not the University decides to defy the NCAA's rule and face those penalties.

Many are acting like the referendum will have no effect, but it's entirely possible that it will. Not in overturning the NCAA's rule (one can only hope), but in whether or not UND will comply with it.

[WJMorris3]

A question. Would it violate NCAA bylaws for everyone but the university to call them the Fighting Sioux, and for the university to just not have a nickname?

[Gothamite]

Nope. The NCAA cannot control informal nicknames.

[matthew823]

I accept Goth and Ice's reasoning as well thought out. I don't accept it as accurate. Cultures do not have a say in what or how other cultures adapt from their own. America (screw this "white America" crap) is indeed a melting pot, and it's a melting pot of many, many different cultures that forms one large culture. Some of that mix is good things about other cultures. Some of that mix is bad things about other cultures. Some of that mix was voluntarily put forth by a culture. Some of that mix was borrowed without asking.

It doesn't matter. That's America.

If a university decides it likes the idea of a chief as a symbolic leader, that should be fine. It's an adaptation of another cultural to a new or different culture. That's sociological evolution. And I can't fathom why it's so frowned upon.

Making fun and demeaning other cultures should be frowned upon. Adapting them to a different one? It's not the same thing. And it shouldn't be treated as such.

But a separate point that I think people are missing. The referendum DOES matter. UND is a state university. Ultimately, at a broad level, the people of that state run the university. The referendum does not say the NCAA must overturn their rule (they'd have no power to do so), the referendum says the University of North Dakota should be referred to as the Fighting Sioux. This would then violate an NCAA rule, and the NCAA would issue their punishments (a lack of post-season hosting, etc., etc.) unless or until UND complied with the rule. But this referendum could absolutely decide whether or not the University decides to defy the NCAA's rule and face those penalties.

Many are acting like the referendum will have no effect, but it's entirely possible that it will. Not in overturning the NCAA's rule (one can only hope), but in whether or not UND will comply with it.

A couple quick points of fact that you're missing entirely. America is only a "melting pot" of cultures of those who chose to come here. Europeans moved onto the land where native tribes had lived for thousands of years and displaced and murdered them. There's no melting pot about that.

Furthermore, there is an extent to which members of the these native tribes are separate from Americans, as many native reservations and "nations" are semi-autonomous.

[BBTV]

The school would not be able to sell gear with the nickname or mascot though - that could hurt.

Newspapers would still be able to refer to them as the Sioux though (not school-sponsored papers though) which would harken back to the old days when teams didn't have nicknames but adopted them from newspaper accounts.

[STL FANATIC]

I accept Goth and Ice's reasoning as well thought out. I don't accept it as accurate. Cultures do not have a say in what or how other cultures adapt from their own. America (screw this "white America" crap) is indeed a melting pot, and it's a melting pot of many, many different cultures that forms one large culture. Some of that mix is good things about other cultures. Some of that mix is bad things about other cultures. Some of that mix was voluntarily put forth by a culture. Some of that mix was borrowed without asking.

It doesn't matter. That's America.

If a university decides it likes the idea of a chief as a symbolic leader, that should be fine. It's an adaptation of another cultural to a new or different culture. That's sociological evolution. And I can't fathom why it's so frowned upon.

Making fun and demeaning other cultures should be frowned upon. Adapting them to a different one? It's not the same thing. And it shouldn't be treated as such.

But a separate point that I think people are missing. The referendum DOES matter. UND is a state university. Ultimately, at a broad level, the people of that state run the university. The referendum does not say the NCAA must overturn their rule (they'd have no power to do so), the referendum says the University of North Dakota should be referred to as the Fighting Sioux. This would then violate an NCAA rule, and the NCAA would issue their punishments (a lack of post-season hosting, etc., etc.) unless or until UND complied with the rule. But this referendum could absolutely decide whether or not the University decides to defy the NCAA's rule and face those penalties.

Many are acting like the referendum will have no effect, but it's entirely possible that it will. Not in overturning the NCAA's rule (one can only hope), but in whether or not UND will comply with it.

A couple quick points of fact that you're missing entirely. America is only a "melting pot" of cultures of those who chose to come here. Europeans moved onto the land where native tribes had lived for thousands of years and displaced and murdered them. There's no melting pot about that.

Furthermore, there is an extent to which members of the these native tribes are separate from Americans, as many native reservations and "nations" are semi-autonomous.

I didn't miss those points at all, it's just not relevant. Culture is not something that can be controlled. It just is. And as such it's free to be evolved and adapted as other cultures see fit. Nobody owns culture.

I think we'd all agree that mocking other cultures is disrespectful. Mocking (and otherwise disparaging) other cultures should be looked upon with scorn and gotten rid of. But adapting and molding? It's the way of the world and it always has been.