"Fighting Sioux" gets a fighting chance

[pcgd]

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

If that's the case why did Chief Illinwek have to go? There is no Illiniwek federation or decendents anymore to give permission. Were SDSU's lawyers better at BS than Illinois'? I could be missing the details of SDSU's process.

I've never had a problem with the NCAA doing this. In all honesty, a lot of these could be insensitive and although I loved the Chief growing up, it haven't missed it that much. I've come around on my thinking on that as I realized what was holding me to it was nostalgia. When I looked at it objectively it had to go. You could defend it but the counter arguments were too great for me to get fully behind the Chief after it all went down.

However I just have a issue with the uneven enforcement. Redmen can't be used but Red Men can? (Carthage) Aztecs are fine cause we can't find any but illiniwek isn't? A guy riding in on a horse and throwing a flaming spear into the ground is ok but a authentic dance isn't just because a tribe said it was ok, but another can't be found? (FSU/Illinois)

The whole thing seemed to me that if a school could come up with an good BS reason they were ok, (Red Men is cause the high school where we were was the Blue Boys, Aztecs aren't around, Illini is a combination of Illinois and Alumni, etc ) but if you couldn't BS the NCAA it had to go.

Just stupid. Either everything should go or nothing should.

[Hontas]

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.

Intent is very important. It is a key question in any charge of being offensive. What you call the important points may only be important to you. What you think is most important may not actually have any importance to anyone else.

It would be better to try to build consensus over the issue, but that is too long and hard so it's just easier to step in and ban what you don't approve of.

EDIT: When I say 'you' I don't mean any specific individual. I am using a generic 'you.'

[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

If that's the case why did Chief Illinwek have to go? There is no Illiniwek federation or decendents anymore to give permission. Were SDSU's lawyers better at BS than Illinois'? I could be missing the details of SDSU's process.

...

However I just have a issue with the uneven enforcement. Redmen can't be used but Red Men can? (Carthage) Aztecs are fine cause we can't find any but illiniwek isn't? A guy riding in on a horse and throwing a flaming spear into the ground is ok but a authentic dance isn't just because a tribe said it was ok, but another can't be found? (FSU/Illinois)

The whole thing seemed to me that if a school could come up with an good BS reason they were ok, (Red Men is cause the high school where we were was the Blue Boys, Aztecs aren't around, Illini is a combination of Illinois and Alumni, etc ) but if you couldn't BS the NCAA it had to go.

Just stupid. Either everything should go or nothing should.

As I've alluded to, the NCAA more or less arbitrarily handed the power over Chief Illiniwek to a tribe. An extremely small number of Illiniwek Confederations Indians survived the confederations demise. That was the Peoria and Kaskaskia tribes. They moved west to Missouri, then to Kansas. Their number shrunk further. Ultimately they moved south to Oklahoma and merged with other displaced tribes, the Wea and the Piankesaw of the Miami tribes. The current Oklahoma Peoria claim to the original Illiniwek confederation is a large stretch, but the NCAA has never been accused of being fair, rational, or logical.

I think one of the saddest parts of this, is that I would never have known what I do about the American Indians that once inhabited the region I'm from if it were not for Chief Illiniwek. His supporters and those that have continued the tradition do an admirable job promoting American Indian education, but the support of a small student group is a far cry from that of what a large university is capable.

Whether the use of these symbols and names is right or wrong, the ironic twist is that without them, these cultures are lost to history that much more.

I've never had a problem with the NCAA doing this. In all honesty, a lot of these could be insensitive and although I loved the Chief growing up, it haven't missed it that much. I've come around on my thinking on that as I realized what was holding me to it was nostalgia. When I looked at it objectively it had to go. You could defend it but the counter arguments were too great for me to get fully behind the Chief after it all went down.

But what is culture if not nostalgia of the past and its continuing traditions? Isn't the supposed motivation for the American Indian groups that oppose these things essentially little more than nostalgia for their past culture?

That's not to say there can't be good nostalgia for good things and nostalgia for bad things, but I think my attachment to the Chief and their attachment to their culture both largely boils down to nostalgia and protecting it.

Afterall, that was the culture I grew up in. I know the uninformed like to perpetuate ignorant statements full of (what another member so aptly called) buzzwords to suggest that it was just some rich, white, drunk fratboy prancing around randomly making fun of indians while a crowd of rich, white, drunk admirers giggled and clapped their hands laughing at the stupid indians. But for me it was a part of growing up. Being with my family. Not caring about the score for 10 minutes. Feeling not just apart of my family, but like a close member of the 50,000 person family in attendance. Like a close member of the hundreds of thousands of people who had come through the university. Driven by certain principles. The Chief was a very real part of the culture of the university and the community, and a positive part. He had evolved to something completely different than just someone dressed up as an indian. He belonged to this specific community, not to one 100 years long gone or one 100s of miles away. He was inspired by them. He served as a gateway to learn about them. But he wasn't there's anymore. And I took and take a lot of pride in who he was and what he stood for. And when he was removed, it was MY culture that was stolen.

But hey, I'm just a white kid.

[Gothamite]

And going to minstrel shows used to be part of some white people's culture. Didn't make it right.

Those people didn't necessarily mean to mock black people. Didn't make it right.

I often find myself at odds with the NCAA, but I think they're 100% right with this policy. I'm sorry for those who miss the way things we were (at the time, I rather liked my exaggerated and flat-out racist screaming Indian high school logo too). But I still think the policy is correct.

[STL FANATIC]

They actually did mean to mock black people. And that's why comparing it to a minstrel show is incorrect.

[Gothamite]

I disagree. The intent was not necessarily to be mean or abusive. Most people who sat in the audience would have said just the opposite, actually.

I don't know what else you'd call it, when a white kid dresses up in an ethnic costume and performs stereotypical ethnic dances for the entertainment of crowds.

[STL FANATIC]

I'll argue the minstrel show part sometime tomorrow. But you're second sentence is just wrong.

The Chief was portrayed by various races including American Indian. It was not a stereotypical dance but in fact an Authentic Sioux dance (which can draw criticism in it's own right, but the point is it was not just some made up let's pretend to be an Indian and jump around dance).

[Gothamite]

Okay, a white kid in costume doing an authentic native dance for the amusement of a crowd.

Still a minstrel show...

[pcgd]

Is Florida State's a minstrel show? It's usually a white student, the real Osceola wasn't a chief, never wore war paint, never performed for non native Americans, never used a war lance (which isn't authentic Seminole btw, it's plains Indian) and never rode a Appaloosa horse.

Yet cause one segment of Seminoles signed off its instantly ok?

Uneven enforcement. If illinois authentic dance is" hostile and offensive" what is Florida States?

[Gothamite]

Florida State's is approved by the people it's supposedly "honoring". That makes all the difference in the world.

I personally find the display to be in very poor taste. But it's not up to me, any more than ND using the name "Sioux" is up to me.

The tribes have the right to control their own images when they are specifically named.

[Varsity Blue]

STL is correct, minstrel shows were intended to mock. There's a lot of literature about that. Chief Illiniwek is not a mockery. But even when the mascot is a native American, like Kirke Mockingbird at Oklahoma or Stanford's last mascot, opponents attack them. So the argument shifts to accomodate the pro-ban desire to ban depending upon the situation.

I also have problems with fencing off a section of American life and having one group decide what is allowed in and what is not based on ethnic/racial preferences.

[FiddySicks]

The thing I wonder is did the tribe itself put up a complaint about the use of the name, or we're things fine untill the NCAA stepped in? If the tribe has taken issue with the use of the name, then that's one thing, and the name should absolutely be banned. End of conversation. But if the tribes basically said they don't care one way or the other, or at least hasnt put up any objection, but one sector can't put it to vote because it's against their cultural beliefs, then that is absolutely the NCAA sticking their noses in where they don't belong. In fact, by being so rigid on an issue that wasn't a problem before they stepped in, they're intentionally putting the tribe in a bad situation by requiring them to give something that they culturally cannot. It's essentially the NCAA asking the Souix tribe to go against their cultural beliefs to appease this crazy idea of political correctness they're trying to enforce. It just seems so petty on the NCAA's part.

[Gothamite]

There have been native groups trying to change mascots for decades. The NCAA didn't invent this on their own, they just decided to let each individual group decide on their own whether this was an honor or an insult.

[FiddySicks]

And I understand that. But I'm talking about this particular instance. And if the Souix tribes haven't objected, what's the problem?

[Lee.]

The problem is, and remains, by the terms of the NCAA's by laws, the tribe(s) in question must give their express permission for a school to use their name; their Intellectual Property, if you will. UND simply hasn't gotten the necessary approval to continue to use the name Sioux.

Regardless of anyone's personal opinion on "how it should be," that's what it is. Anyone continuing to argue against this particular bylaw is going out of their way to be willfully ignorant about the situation.

[Gothamite]

Exactly.

By refusing to license the name, the Standing Rock Sioux are registering their objection.

[STL FANATIC]

Regardless of anyone's personal opinion on "how it should be," that's what it is. Anyone continuing to argue against this particular bylaw is going out of their way to be willfully ignorant about the situation.

1. You can certainly argue against a bylaw while acknowledging it is indeed currently a law. That's just part of personal expression.

2. As has been stated by me and a few others in this thread, UND can indeed choose to violate the NCAA's bylaws. They will face consequences. But the NCAA cannot force them to abandon use of the name. (They could, ultimately, say you abandon it or you're out, but up to this point the consequences are slightly less severe than that.)

[Gothamite]

They absolutely can force the university to drop the unlicensed name, if the university wants to remain a member of the purely voluntary organization.

The NCAA's power to regulate its member schools obviously extends solely to schools which are members.

If the name is so important to North Dakota, they have a very clear choice. I just hope that the people behind this farcical vote will be honest enough to admit that realty.

[STL FANATIC]

They absolutely can force the university to drop the unlicensed name, if the university wants to remain a member of the purely voluntary organization.

The NCAA's power to regulate its member schools obviously extends solely to schools which are members.

If the name is so important to North Dakota, they have a very clear choice. I just hope that the people behind this farcical vote will be honest enough to admit that realty.

Yeah that's what I said. The NCAA could choose to tell them they're out unless they change. So far the NCAA has threatened other slightly less severe penalties, but they could always amp it up if they chose to.

[Gothamite]

Nobody's come close to pushing the NCAA on this.

And I'd respect any decision to leave the organization.