"Fighting Sioux" gets a fighting chance

[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.

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.

STL's right, this has been mostly civil. And while I don't see eye to eye with him on this (when do we ever ) I think we can agree this has been a relatively well thought out discussion.

Here's how I see it. There is no "pure" American culture. The US is a settler-based nation, not a nation state, that's to be expected. I would go one step further and say that there's no overall American culture either. Certainly cultures were "manufactured" or formed by various groups living in America over the centuries, but there has never been a single overriding American culture.

White American culture developed, from rather simple British settler origins to a more multicultural in nature as Scandinavians, Irish, German, and other Euro-centric settlers arrived. As those groups assimilated into white America parts of their cultural upbringing became infused in white American culture.

The Natives? Their culture existed before the arrival of Europeans, and Europeans had no desire to integrate. Their primary desire was to isolate or kill off Native peoples (and by extension their cultures). Claiming their culture is just as part of the "American" culture is to ignore the historical boundaries that existed between people descended from European settlers and Native peoples.

Both Notre Dame and the University of North Dakota are white American institutions. ND uses a mascot that draws on the melting pot that is white American culture and uses an image that whites themselves have ownership of.

UND draws on a culture not their own, however. They're taking symbols that aren't their own and claiming ownership over them, robbing the ethnic group they do belong to of that agency over their own culture.

Now as for this issue at hand, Mockba's right. Tear away the Native mascot part and all the baggage it carries and consider this. The NCAA is a private, voluntary organization. The UND is a member. The NCAA decided on a rule. The UND can either follow that rule or leave. Their choice. Same for the University of Illinois actually.

You keep saying the NCAA overstepped their boundaries. Well who decides that? The NCAA leadership, to be perfectly honest, has the right to run their organization however they see fit. They're a private organization, they're allowed to do that. Their club, their rules.

If you think something they've done is unfair then you have the right to petition that your institution leave the NCAA,. Unless you count yourself among the NCAA's leadership, however, you have no right to tell them when they've overstepped their bounds in the course of running their own organization.

[STL FANATIC]

Look. As I said before, I understand the NCAA has the ability to make these decisions. When I say they've overstepped their bounds, I mean they literally violate their mission and their constitution by doing this. They didn't AMMEND their mission. They simply created a rule that goes counter and off the path of it.

They're not the United States, so I don't get to sue them over being unconstitutional. But I can still call them out for losing track of what they're supposed to be doing.

I also understand I'm the tiny fish in the sea. One university is a bigger but still small fish in a sea of schools. We all understand the balance of power. The NCAA is a behemoth that will do what it wants when it wants to because any single institution is powerless to stop them, and the idea of pulling out is, at this point, athletic and financial suicide.

I understand all of those realities for why essentially nothing can be done (as sad as that is).

But that doesn't mean I'm wrong to say what they're doing is wrong. And it doesn't mean I'm wrong to point out that they've lost their own stated way. It just means all I'm doing is talking (because that's all I can do). If your argument is I should shut up because I can't win. Well that's probably true. But it's also kind of sad.

[Gothamite]

I can't believe he means you to think that, only that you haven't proved your assertions.

I haven't read the NCAA constitution - does it state that member schools have full and absolute autonomy? Because if not, they haven't violated anything.

[Hontas]

It was a civil discussion until Ice_Cap went for the Nazi button.

The classic loser's tactic.

[IceCap]

It was a civil discussion until Ice_Cap went for the Nazi button.

The classic loser's tactic.

I drew parallels to other cases of majorities using caricatures of minorities to illustrate the inherent dangers that arise when one group tries to claim they can use the imagery and symbolism of another group free of consequence.

[Gothamite]

An extreme example, though.

Minstrel show is more accurate, I think, and somewhat less inflammatory.

[IceCap]

But that doesn't mean I'm wrong to say what they're doing is wrong. And it doesn't mean I'm wrong to point out that they've lost their own stated way. It just means all I'm doing is talking (because that's all I can do). If your argument is I should shut up because I can't win. Well that's probably true. But it's also kind of sad.

No where did I suggest that was what I was getting at. At the end of my day my point is simply that you have no authority to declare that the NCAA has overstepped their bounds. They're a private organization. They can do whatever they please within the confines of that organization. You can claim that they've violated their own internal constitution, but I highly doubt there's a provision in there that says the NCAA cannot make rules regarding team nicknames and mascots. If there is such a provision I'd love to be proven wrong.

Sorry, it's just from my vantage point the NCAA hasn't violated any of its own internal rules by demanding that schools with Native themed mascots receive permission from the relative tribes to continue using the names. Seeing as none of their own rules have been violated, I don't see how you can say they've overstepped anything.

If any school is unhappy with the NCAA's ruling on the matter they can leave the NCAA.

I don't think you should shut up because you can't win. I think you should shut up (your choice of words) because you're wrong about the NCAA allegedly overstepping it bounds.

An extreme example, though.

Minstrel show is more accurate, I think.

Well I linked to two pics. Only one was Nazi related. The second was a poster of Jim Crow. Which would be considered a minstrel, or at least minstrel-related.

Hontas would have seen that if he had finished the sentence instead of seeing the Nazi poster and going haywire.

[IceCap]

gah dp

[Gothamite]

Yeah, but that's the problem with anything Nazi. It shuts the conversation right down.

Maybe a WWII-era Japanese cartoon would have been better.

[winghaz]

It will be interesting to see how Sioux County votes on this. That's the North Dakota side of Standing Rock.

Which brings up another point: Let's say the Standing Rock tribal members do end up voting on this issue, solely for the NCAA. Should South Dakotans in Standing Rock have a vote on this? Remember, Standing Rock covers parts of both North Dakota and South Dakota.

[STL FANATIC]

I once had a solid argument, complete with quotes from NCAA documents. I spent 5 minutes perusing some just now coming up with little, and frankly, I'm not willing to spend much more than that right now. Not for the sake of a message board discussion.

Besides, I'm sure there's vague caveats that can swing either way. That I'm plenty willing to admit.

All of that said, I think it's absurd that they're the ones making a judgment on an issue that is so split. And again I'll throw this out there, even though I'm trying not to make this discussion go specifically in that direction. The NCAA loosely at best and arbitrarily at worst handed control of Illinois' 80 year tradition to a tribe a group of people who had little if any affiliation to the Illiniwek confederation, the state, or the university. I'll argue the merits of handing that authority to the modern day tribes anyways. But that's a case where the NCAA absolutely swung and missed. There's simply nobody who fits the bill in that instance.

And unfortunately now, the Illiniwek history may be even further lost.

[Gothamite]

Well, I think that's a totally separate issue. There is no such problem with "Sioux".

It will be interesting to see how Sioux County votes on this. That's the North Dakota side of Standing Rock.

Which brings up another point: Let's say the Standing Rock tribal members do end up voting on this issue, solely for the NCAA. Should South Dakotans in Standing Rock have a vote on this? Remember, Standing Rock covers parts of both North Dakota and South Dakota.

That's a great point, and one I hadn't considered. It makes the vote even more pointless, if they had any intention of pretending this was a vote by Standing Rock tribal members on granting a license.

[STL FANATIC]

Well, I think that's a totally separate issue. There is no such problem with "Sioux".

It will be interesting to see how Sioux County votes on this. That's the North Dakota side of Standing Rock.

Which brings up another point: Let's say the Standing Rock tribal members do end up voting on this issue, solely for the NCAA. Should South Dakotans in Standing Rock have a vote on this? Remember, Standing Rock covers parts of both North Dakota and South Dakota.

That's a great point, and one I hadn't considered. It makes the vote even more pointless, if they had any intention of pretending this was a vote by Standing Rock tribal members on granting a license.

I dunno, maybe you could convolute that NCAA's own convoluted logic. Remember, the San Diego Azetcs got a pass, not because the Aztecs don't exist or because some descendants said it was ok. No, the Aztecs don't apply because Aztecs lived in Mexico. What a crock.

For the sake of full disclosure, I may have gotten the above a bit wrong. Seems that WAS indeed one of SDSU's primary arguments to avoid the ban. However, the NCAA did indeed factor in that it couldn't trace Aztec roots to any current tribe.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/aztecs/20050806-9999-1s6mascots.html

[winghaz]

That's a great point, and one I hadn't considered. It makes the vote even more pointless, if they had any intention of pretending this was a vote by Standing Rock tribal members on granting a license.

No, this isn't about that at all. The vote will be a North Dakota issue, not a Standing Rock issue.

This is good old-fashioned prairie populism. It's just like the old days when the North Dakota farmers felt they were unfairly treated by the millers in Minneapolis or the railroads. So they started a state mill and elevator and a state bank, both of which continue to be in existence.

This time, it's the NCAA playing the role of the millers and railroads. North Dakotans see it as the NCAA meddling in our affairs. And we don't want out-of-staters deciding things for us.

As I said before, the question is if voters want to live with the consequences of keeping the Sioux nickname. Is it worth it or isn't it? That will decide the outcome.

[Gothamite]

And fair enough, so long as they acknowledge the consequences and don't pretend that there won't be any. The coverage seems to avoid talking about those consequences, but I fully acknowledge that it could simply reflect a shallowness in the news coverage, not shallowness from the politicians involved.

You want to keep out-of-staters from "interfering" in your internal affairs? That's easy; don't join any out-of-state organizations.

If the vote is acknowledged to be "does the University play by the NCAA's rules or leave the NCAA," then I'll agree with you. But if it's just about forcing the University to violate those rules without a full acknowledgement of what that means, it's fundamentally dishonest. And agaln, from what I can tell, this is a singularly disingenuous political gesture.

Your state mill and state bank comparison falls down if the voters don't form their state athletics association.

[Hontas]

It was a civil discussion until Ice_Cap went for the Nazi button.

The classic loser's tactic.

I drew parallels to other cases of majorities using caricatures of minorities to illustrate the inherent dangers that arise when one group tries to claim they can use the imagery and symbolism of another group free of consequence.

Yeah, you went to the Nazis to demonize the other guy, the classic loser's gambit, because the Nazis are the nuclear weapon of examples. But you left out the idea of intent, as in the Nazis intended Jud Süß to be offensive while Fighting Sioux isn't intended to be offensive.

You were trying to intentionally characterize the other guy as a Nazi. That's why you specifically used a Nazi caricature.

[Gothamite]

I'm not sure that intent is really the alchemical elixr you consider it to be, automatically changing offensive images to benign ones.

"Redskins" is still indefensible, even though it was obviously never intended to be demeaning. Chief Wahoo is indefensible, even through he was obviously never intended to be offensive.

To my mind, intent is a side issue. It informs the discussion but doesn't really address the important points.

[Brian in Boston]

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.

Semantics, my friend... semantics. One man's "adapting and molding" is another man's "mocking", "demeaning", "disparaging" and "making fun of".

[ColeJ]

i've asked this in a different thread, but i don't recall ever getting an answer.

is there anything stopping UND from rebranding as the North Dakota Spirit Lake Sioux?

if i were in charge, that's the direction i'd go. sort of shun the sioux that are refusing to vote, while being specific enough to show love to the sioux that are proud to be represented by the team.

[Gothamite]

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.

Semantics, my friend... semantics. One man's "adapting and molding" is another man's "mocking", "demeaning", "disparaging" and "making fun of".

Which is precisely why you let the people in question decide.