"Fighting Sioux" gets a fighting chance

[STL FANATIC]

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

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

That's why I'm curious to see how this goes down. IF UND ultimately says they're keeping it, will the NCAA settle for a ban of hosting post-season events? Will they ban post-season participation? Or will they indeed threaten to kick UND out of the organization.

And if they do kick UND out, would that spur a reaction from other member institutions? So far member schools have allowed the NCAA heads to do as it pleases on these issues. But would kicking a school out, or threatening it, be supported by the members or would some of them step in and say "wait, wait wait, now you've gone too far."

I hope UND does push it. And I'd love it if they wanted to be the leaders in an exodus from the NCAA. I'm not sure who would follow them, though.

[Gothamite]

I hate the NCAA, but I don't see this as being an issue important enough to smash the organization.

[STL FANATIC]

I hate the NCAA, but I don't see this as being an issue important enough to smash the organization.

Certainly not. But I could see other schools being frustrated with the NCAA thinking it's important enough to kick a school out over, also. In that case I wouldn't expect other schools to leave, I'd just expect them to voice their concerns.

As far as any mass exodus goes... I suppose it's possible this could be the start, but it certainly would not be the primary issue that would cause it.

Starting to get off-topic here, but I could definitely see the NCAA falling apart if we ever went to the 4 or 5 super conferences. But then, a school like UND probably would be left out to dry in that scenario.

[Gothamite]

Honesty, I can't see ND letting it get that far. Kicked out? I think once they start losing a little of the NCAA money that'd do it.

Unless the state does something profoundly stupid like force them to break their contract with the NCAA, in which case I'm sure they'd be glad to make up the shortage with taxpayer funds.

[Mingjai]

I haven't really added my opinion to this but I'll chime in with this--the thing I don't like about the way the NCAA has handled this is where they've initially allocated liability. What I mean is, the current default rule is no school may use Native American imagery with approval of the relevant tribe. The NCAA should have allowed schools to use Native American imagery until the relevant tribe filed an official complaint with the NCAA, at which point it would be incumbent on the school to obtain permission for further use the imagery.

[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.

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....

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

So you know why I did something better then I did? Wow. You're good. Have you looked into taking your act to carnivals?

I used the Nazi example because that's what I had in my Photobucket account. I used the same two pictures, the Nazi poster of the Jew and the Jim Crow picture, in an earlier thread about Chief Wahoo.

Similar situation, both pictures applied here, I chose to simply go with what I already had on hand rather then search for alternate imagery.

You (and Spearhead) could have taken the time to evaluate the symbolism behind the images and how they related to my points regarding the use of Native American names in sports, and you'd certainly be free to post your own well thought out counter-points. Instead you saw Nazis and freaked out and jumped to snap judgments. Shame.

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.

Who are you to judge intent? Who are you to judge how the people being depicted by these images should react to them? I'll save you time on that one. You don't have the authority in either case. You seem hung up on the Nazi example, so lets run with that. Many people in Germany at the time wouldn't consider the Jud Süß picture offensive. They'd probably claim it was an accurate representation. Just like the supporters of the Fighting Sioux name are doing now.

Now before you jump the gun again, I'm not calling every pro-Fighting Sioux supporter a Nazi (well except Ralph Engelstad, he was a Nazi). What I'm saying is that the line between "accurate depiction"/"adapting"/"honouring" and "offending" is very thin. What comes off as ok to someone is offensive to someone else. If anyone's going to have the final say on these things it should be up to the people the image(s) is(are) attempting to portray. It's not up to us (white people) to decide if the Fighting Sioux name and logo are ok. It's not our heritage. It's not our culture. We don't understand it as much as the Sioux who were raised in it, who's people have practised it for generations upon generations. They're the people who really "get" what the culture being depicted is all about, so they should be the ones to determine if the University of North Dakota is doing the Sioux culture justice with the name and logo. To that end the NCAA has asked the Sioux of North Dakota to decide if the UND can use the name, and the Standing Rock tribe has denied them that approval. That should be the end of it.

[Gothamite]

Yes, that really should be the end of it.

The NCAA should have allowed schools to use Native American imagery until the relevant tribe filed an official complaint with the NCAA, at which point it would be incumbent on the school to obtain permission for further use the imagery.

I cannot agree.

The burden should not lie on the owner of an intellectual property. If the school wants to use somebody else's name, the burden really ought to lie on them to secure a license.

[Big A HG]

So many of you are so far off base with your claims it's pretty ridiculous.

[pcgd]

The penalty is clear isn't it? You can't wear the logo or name on uniforms in post season and you can't host post season events. Isn't that it?

[Lee.]

So many of you are so far off base with your claims it's pretty ridiculous.

Expand on this.

[Big A HG]

So many of you are so far off base with your claims it's pretty ridiculous.

Expand on this.

It's a waste of time and I shouldn't have even posted that to begin with. The thread is too deep and I'm not going to change anyone's opinion.

[Gothamite]

Thank you, then, for your valuable contribution to the thread.

[Big A HG]

Thank you, then, for your valuable contribution to the thread.

I've said nothing so far and added just as much as you have...if you get my drift.

This is all very simple. You have two Sioux tribes who the school needs permission from. One of them (Spirit Lake) has already given permission after an overwhelming vote. The other, Standing Rock, has not given permission because the tribal leaders won't allow a vote knowing that the members of their tribe would vote similarly. I think the shame in all this is the dictatorship style of government Standing Rock lives under.

Now, you have Spirit Lake...a Native American tribe the NCAA is "trying to protect"...suing the NCAA. How ironic.

The issue goes much deeper, but I'm not going to waste my time. I'm just disappointed to see so many false statements made on this thread from people who know nothing other than what mainstream media spews out on the subject...it's pretty evident considering the falsehoods stated here parallel those in the media.

[IceCap]

This is all very simple. You have two Sioux tribes who the school needs permission from. One of them (Spirit Lake) has already given permission after an overwhelming vote. The other, Standing Rock, has not given permission because the tribal leaders won't allow a vote knowing that the members of their tribe would vote similarly. I think the shame in all this is the dictatorship style of government Standing Rock lives under.

Now you're coming across as ignorant. The Standing Rock Tribe is governed by an elected council. That council made a decision on behalf of its constituency. That's the backbone of representative democracy. There's nothing dictatorial about it.

If the people of the Standing Rock Tribe are unhappy with their elected leadership's decisions they're free to vote in different leadership in their next election.

If what you claim is true, that the people of the Standing Rock Tribe are ok with the UND using the Fighting Sioux name and logo, then they're free to vote for council members who will grant the UND the permission it needs.

[Gothamite]

No, Ice. You're wrong

Representative democracy becomes "a dictatorship" when those elected officials don't do exactly what this one guy wants them to.

Quite simple, really.

[chriscj83]

Gah, as a native North Dakotan, and as a lifelong fan of UND Fighting Sioux sports, I just want closure. I thought I had it months ago when they said they were parting with the name. I was ok with it, yes I was disappointed, but really it isn't my call. But now it's just become a bigger circus than it was before.

I just feel like there's too much at stake for the university to risk any type of sanctions from the NCAA or the conferences the teams are in. I don't pretend to know exactly what type of sanctions or actions will be taken against the university if they keep the name. None of us do. We can speculate, but nothing is definite. If I were the university, I wouldn't call them out on it (essentially what they're doing now by keeping the name), I would expect the worst.

Like I said before, I'm a lifelong fan, and hate to see the nickname go. There's a sentimental attachment to that name for me (and the fans), but really is that worth risking your athletic programs? They will able to host playoff/championship games and bring in a good amount of money, not only for the university, but for Grand Forks businesses themselves.

I'd rather see the nickname go than the athletic programs themselves. Be smart about what you're doing, UND.

[Big A HG]

It's not in UND's court right now. UND is ordered to do what the SBoHE requires of them. The SBoHE is doing what the state law dictates. The times have certainly changed. Roughly 15 years ago the SBoHE was helping the nickname stay. Now, if it was up to the SBoHE, the nickname would have been gone already.

If you want to call me ignorant for calling Standing Rock a dictatorship, then fine. It's arguments like these that make the nickname look harmful to the Native Americans. Most members of the tribe would agree with me, not you...but you think you are doing them a favor by calling me ignorant. So be it.

What's so hard about holding an election. If the tribal council at Standing Rock believes their people are against the nickname, let a vote prove it. Hmmm, maybe that's why they won't let a vote happen.

There aren't many Fighting Sioux nickname supporters who would feel wronged if the majority of Sioux Indians didn't want the nickname. But, when an overwhelming majority of Sioux Indians, as well as other students, alumni, fans, etc. want the nickname, that's where people are angry.

This latest petition that got the name reinstated is helpful in a sense that it gives Spirit Lake's cases against the NCAA a chance to be meaningful. If a full name change took place, Spirit Lake would be fighting for nothing because there'd be zero chance that the Sioux name would return after a name change took place. If the large majority of Sioux fans want the name to stay, even if has the potential to do some harm to the athletics programs, then that's the way it is. Student-athletes have other options than UND if they don't like the situation and students/fans/alumni pay the bills of the athletic programs.

As an alum who spent 4 years there as a student, and longer as a resident, and have never seen anything harmful or derogatory towards the Sioux tribes...and when the logo was designed by a Native American...I find little case in the department of the name being "hostile and abusive". The "Fighting" part of the name can be debated, and I am on the fence if someone wants to argue that part. But, purely from a school representing the "Sioux" name, it does nothing but good.

When thousands and thousands of people can stand shoulder to shoulder and WANT to be labeled a Sioux when they have no ties to the tribes, I think it's a great, unifying thing. I'm proud to say I'm a Sioux, but respect and honor those who truly are in their bloodlines. For us to want to compete in their name, is a great honor. We wouldn't want to be called Sioux if we didn't believe it stood for something good.

[aci]

Solution: Rename the team the University of North Dakota Spirit Lake Fighting Sioux, and just put the 'Spirit Lake' part in very small print on the logos, and refer to it sparingly. Give them a kickback on merch sales as thanks for their support, and see how Standing Rock likes it that their band council cost them money by being bureaucratic d-bags.

The NCAA wouldn't really have a leg to stand on, because the team is named after a specific tribe that gave permission and the university continues using the name with very little hassle.

[Mingjai]

The NCAA should have allowed schools to use Native American imagery until the relevant tribe filed an official complaint with the NCAA, at which point it would be incumbent on the school to obtain permission for further use the imagery.

I cannot agree.

The burden should not lie on the owner of an intellectual property. If the school wants to use somebody else's name, the burden really ought to lie on them to secure a license.

I've been over this already--there is no intellectual property in this matter. The Sioux don't have any Federally- or state-recognized property right to exclude anyone to use the Sioux name an any context. And the NCAA has no authority to create intellectual property, so if anyone owns intellectual property, it is the schools. So I agree, the owners of the intellectual property--the schools--should not have the initial burden.

[IceCap]

If you want to call me ignorant for calling Standing Rock a dictatorship, then fine. It's arguments like these that make the nickname look harmful to the Native Americans. Most members of the tribe would agree with me, not you...but you think you are doing them a favor by calling me ignorant. So be it.

Calling the Standing Rock Tribal government a dictatorship is either ignorance, stubbornness, or stupidity on your part. It's a council who's members are from the Standing Rock Tribe and who are elected to the council by their fellow tribesmen. It's a representative democracy.

What's so hard about holding an election. If the tribal council at Standing Rock believes their people are against the nickname, let a vote prove it. Hmmm, maybe that's why they won't let a vote happen.

You know why they just don't hold a tribe wide vote on the issue? Because that's not how representative democracy works. Does the US Congress ask the American citizenry to vote on every issue that comes before either the Senate or House?

The whole point behind having a representative democracy is that a nation, in this case the Standing Rock Tribe, elect a government, in this case the tribe's Council, to make decisions on behalf of the people. The whole idea is that you elect representatives to make these decisions so you don't burden the entire nation with the decision making process. This is the basic ideal behind every democratic government in the world today. That you're calling it a dictatorship because they made one decision you don't like is laughable.