"Fighting Sioux" gets a fighting chance

[Gothamite]

Nobody owns culture.

Ah, but names. Names are something else.

I know that Ice Cap doesn't view it this way, but I maintain that this situation is different from other native mascots. We don't have to talk about the racial politics in this case because it's a simple matter of intellectual property.

Nobody owns the name "Indian" or "Brave", but there are two legally recognized entities that control the name "Sioux" in the state. Under the agreement the University voluntarily signed with the NCAA, the University has to secure permission from both those entities in order to use the name. They didn't, so they can't. Cut and dried, really.

Perhaps next the people of South Dakota will vote on a referendum for Marvel Comics to start publishing Superman, or Universal Studios to make a new Indiana Jones movie. That would make about as much sense, and would be just as binding.

[Gothamite]

nm dp

[gosioux76]

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.

It isn't likely the school paper would be forced to make any changes either. I was editor of the UND paper for two years. Though it gets a small portion of its funds from student fees, its content is controlled completely by the student staff. The university has never, to my knowledge, made an attempt to influence or restrict content. (Though, to be fair, I can't say whether that's changed in the past 10 years.) An advisory board made up of student government officials and a handful of faculty serve as publisher.

[IceCap]

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.

Sorry, I don't accept that premise. A culture is, ultimately, owned by its people. Or should at any rate. Native American culture has been usurped by white folks who want a mascot for their sports teams for decades upon decades. Centuries even. When you, someone who's not a Native, takes Native symbols and presents them to the public in a way that dictates how the public will view Native culture you've taken ownership over someone else's ethnic heritage.

And no, I won't cut out the "white American" stuff. You're extremely naive if you think Native American culture is simply part of a larger American culture. White American culture is a mixture of many things. Irish heritage, Scandinavian heritage, British heritage, Germanic heritage, and many other European ethnicities. Native American, however, isn't part of that.

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.

There's a fine line between "disparaging" and "adapting." A very fine line. The Cleveland Indians, with a generic but inoffensive name but an offensive logo are proof enough for that. Seeing as it's such a fine line I'm ok with letting the North Dakota Sioux tribes in question decide the matter themselves. Let them decide if they want their name and cultural imagery associated with an institution run by people who aren't them. Let them decide if the University of North Dakota is doing their culture justice.

[Gothamite]

There's a fine line between "disparaging" and "adapting." A very fine line. The Cleveland Indians, with a generic but inoffensive name but an offensive logo are proof enough for that. Seeing as it's such a fine line I'm ok with letting the North Dakota Sioux tribes in question decide the matter themselves. Let them decide if they want their name and cultural imagery associated with an institution run by people who aren't them. Let them decide if the University of North Dakota is doing their culture justice.

Which, it should be noted, is exactly what the NCAA requires them to do.

I have many problems with the organization, but I think they have this one absolutely correct.

[CrazyAnna]

I just hope the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe finally gives them permission and we can be done this.

[Spearhead]

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

Reductio ad Hitlerum or since I don't agree with you I'm a Nazi. Well, I get the $20 bucks cause you leapt to it in one post (pay up, Steve). This is the mindset of the anti-bigot bigot with student loan bill.

[Gothamite]

I just hope the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe finally gives them permission and we can be done this.

As do I.

But it's their right not to do so, and we ought to respect their wishes.

[IceCap]

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

Reductio ad Hitlerum or since I don't agree with you I'm a Nazi. Well, I get the $20 bucks cause you leapt to it in one post (pay up, Steve). This is the mindset of the anti-bigot bigot with student loan bill.

Actually, I don't owe anything in the way of student loans. Nice try though

[STL FANATIC]

Nobody owns culture.

Ah, but names. Names are something else.

I know that Ice Cap doesn't view it this way, but I maintain that this situation is different from other native mascots. We don't have to talk about the racial politics in this case because it's a simple matter of intellectual property.

Nobody owns the name "Indian" or "Brave", but there are two legally recognized entities that control the name "Sioux" in the state. Under the agreement the University voluntarily signed with the NCAA, the University has to secure permission from both those entities in order to use the name. They didn't, so they can't. Cut and dried, really.

Perhaps next the people of South Dakota will vote on a referendum for Marvel Comics to start publishing Superman, or Universal Studios to make a new Indiana Jones movie. That would make about as much sense, and would be just as binding.

This is an argument I can understand more. However, since this is owned by federal law, it's not a clear cut. Yes, the NCAA is a private entity and yes there's been an agreement signed. But agreements between entities are frequently broken. UND is a public institution and ultimately run by the people of North Dakota. This referendum could essentially be ordering UND to breach the contract it agreed to with the NCAA. I know the NCAA's original rule had set penalties associated with non-compliance. I don't know if there's set penalties to go with this specific agreement between the two. Regardless, it could be broken. UND would then simply be subject to those penalties.

Do I think it's likely that UND keeps the name in the face of penalties from the NCAA? I doubt it comes to that. BUT, if the people of North Dakota are steadfast in forcing the University to do just that, then they might. At least until the NCAA decides to up the anti and make the penalties so severe that the people of North Dakota have no choice but to allow the school to comply.

Of course, all of that COMPLETELY shatters the NCAA's stated mission of allowing schools autonomy, but hey... why follow your own rules when you can make them for others?

[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.

Sorry, I don't accept that premise. A culture is, ultimately, owned by its people. Or should at any rate. Native American culture has been usurped by white folks who want a mascot for their sports teams for decades upon decades. Centuries even. When you, someone who's not a Native, takes Native symbols and presents them to the public in a way that dictates how the public will view Native culture you've taken ownership over someone else's ethnic heritage.

And no, I won't cut out the "white American" stuff. You're extremely naive if you think Native American culture is simply part of a larger American culture. White American culture is a mixture of many things. Irish heritage, Scandinavian heritage, British heritage, Germanic heritage, and many other European ethnicities. Native American, however, isn't part of that.

Of course American Indian culture isn't a part of American culture. Irish culture isn't American culture either no matter how many times you say it is. Those are all separate and original (well actually even they probably came from something first) cultures. But American culture has adapting from all of them. You say "but the Irish were willing and the American Indians weren't!" Go find my that vote by the Irish that gave American's permission to adapt their culture. It's BS. It doesn't exist. No, people who were in America saw some things they liked about Irish culture. Some of those Irish people were happy to share. Adaption happened. And guess what? A lot of these American Indian identities stem from the sharing of culture BY AMERICAN INDIANS. Their tribe didn't take a vote on it, but American Indians shared it. It's nonsense that people who weren't even close to being on this earth when said adaption happened, can hold a vote and say "My great, great grandfather was a big screw up. You can't be inspired by our culture anymore."

I can't stand when people compare the Fighting Irish to American Indian identities. Not because it's wrong, but because none of these should be taken as a group but instead on their own. Nonetheless, I'm gonna do it. If Ireland held a vote today and passed a referendum asking Notre Dame to discontinue using the Fighting Irish as their nickname, would that hold weight? Because it's the exact same thing happening here.

Again, nobody owns culture and nobody should. It's organic. It's ever evolving. And any culture is subject to inspire and by adapted by other cultures. And there's not a damn thing wrong with that.

[Gothamite]

There's absolutely no conflict between encouraging autonomy and insisting on an established and clearly-defined set of minimum standards.

You have to graduate x percent of your players, make sure your boosters don't pay them, and by the way don't trample over anybody else's intellectual property. How you do all that is up to you.

The penalties, as I understand it, are pretty stiff. They'll lose scholarships and eventually the right to compete in NCAA-sanctioned events. If the people of North Dakota are okay with that, then fine.

Personally, I think the referendum should be about withdrawing from the NCAA, with everything that entails. That would at least have the benefit of being intellectually honest, unlike this one.

[STL FANATIC]

There's absolutely no conflict between encouraging autonomy and insisting on an established set of minimum standards.

Telling a school what can and can't represent them is not autonomy nor simply minimum standards.

Making subjective determinations about what is and isn't hostile and abusive instead of letting a university and all of those who make it up decide is not autonomy.

Subjectively determining that something is someone's intellectual property in the first place is not autonomy.

You can that Sioux maybe kinda sorta is the property of the surviving Sioux tribes. Now you explain to me how Chief Illiniwek was the Oklahoma Peoria Tribe's to control. The Illiniwek died. About six of them joined another larger tribe. That tribe has nothing to do with the Illiniwek beyond that. Under no circumstances should they have had control over what the University of Illinois does or doesn't do. The autonomous University should have been able to has out the issue for itself. The NCAA overstepped it's bounds and arbitrarily handed power to itself and a loosely related tribe in Oklahoma. That's not right. THAT's an infringement on other people's culture.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

Just wanted to drop in and give the OP kudos for the clever thread title.

[-kj]

Ah, I knew this would come back to white college kid minstrel shows.

I just fail to see how this is that difficult. The NCAA sanctions the competitions. As such, they set guidelines for their members. If the members do not wish to follow these guidelines, the members have the option to not associate themselves with the NCAA.

Easy.

[CrazyAnna]

Ah, I knew this would come back to white college kid minstrel shows.

I just fail to see how this is that difficult. The NCAA sanctions the competitions. As such, they set guidelines for their members. If the members do not wish to follow these guidelines, the members have the option to not associate themselves with the NCAA.

Easy.

Actually it isn't that easy when there is $$$$$$ involved. Never is.

[JQK]

One Side: "WHITE PEOPLEZ IZ EVILZ!!!"

Other Side: "NCAA AND LIBRHAALS IZ DESTROYING AMERICUH!!!"

I love American Indian mascot threads...

[TheOldRoman]

Ah, I knew this would come back to white college kid minstrel shows.

I just fail to see how this is that difficult. The NCAA sanctions the competitions. As such, they set guidelines for their members. If the members do not wish to follow these guidelines, the members have the option to not associate themselves with the NCAA.

Easy.

Likewise, I knew this thread would devolve into certain buffoons stomping their feet and tossing buzz-words out of intense ignorance and because they couldn't clearly make their point otherwise, I just didn't figure it would be you. You did say something intelligent in your second line, though, so you're batting .500.

[-kj]

Um... thanks?

[STL FANATIC]

Ah, I knew this would come back to white college kid minstrel shows.

Ignorance at it's finest.

Nothing about what's been discussed fits that description. It's baffling how people can't comprehend what a minstrel show was. It's also baffling that people so intent on walking a tight rope love to throw out "just some rich white college." Not only is completely counter to their cause, it's flat wrong.

But I didn't intend to turn this into a discussion about my specific relation to the issue, my point was that the NCAA has overstepped it's set bounds. It hasn't done anything it can't legally do, and because it's the only real option for schools, it can leverage that to do what it wants. But it violates what they're supposed to do. Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

One Side: "WHITE PEOPLEZ IZ EVILZ!!!"

Other Side: "NCAA AND LIBRHAALS IZ DESTROYING AMERICUH!!!"

I love American Indian mascot threads...

That'll probably happen in about 3 pages, but that hasn't happened yet.

This has been a pretty good discussion with well reasoned arguments on both sides. There's been very little if any "PC Police" mentions and that sort of crap.