"Fighting Sioux" gets a fighting chance

[winghaz]

Nobody has commented about my question: If Standing Rock were to have a vote on this issue, should votes from South Dakota count since this deals with the University of North Dakota, not any South Dakota institute? I'm curious what others think on this issue.

Also, since Standing Rock is a two-state entity, one could argue that the NCAA is wrong in allowing Standing Rock to have a say, and that the Spirit Lake tribe, since it is the only Sioux tribe completely in North Dakota, would have the only say. (I'm not agreeing with this statement, but I am throwing it out for discussion.)

So far, the early feeling is that this will pass. It's still too early, of course. But UND should make plans as to if it does pass.

I think there are some in here who have no understanding of why North Dakotans are so angry about this.

Someone who does seem to understand is David Moulton, who wrote the following in the online edition of the Naples (Fla.) Daily News (taken from The Forum of Fargo):

"Sometimes political correctness doesn't win. The NCAA likely will penalize UND sports teams if the vote is to keep the nickname and log past this summer. But North Dakotans and much of the UND family will not and cleary do not care. They have spoken and delivered a simple message: They will decide this matter, not the NCAA.

"Don't let the home of Lawrence Welk and Phil Jackson fool you. North Dakota may be the Peace Garden State -- unless you're an outsider trying to tell them what to do."

[aci]

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.

In all honesty, though, the Sioux name controversy is probably one of the larger issues Standing Rock has to deal with. When it comes to major issues on public opinion, referendums aren't out of the question. In this case, a Standing Rock referendum would end a major controversy that is affecting both the state of North Dakota and the band itself. If they vote in favour, it's over. If they vote against, it's over. The proper thing to do is vote, because the elected officials avoiding the situation is causing more problems, and the referendum is the proper way to deal with it in this case. It is a tool at their disposal, and they are wilfully avoiding its use.

[chriscj83]

Not to get into the whole politics side of the issue- but it is a shame the Standing Rock tribe wasn't represented at all, seeing how there wasn't a vote. If there was a vote and it was against what the people want, there could have been a petition that actually mattered, instead of the petition now that just seems like "too little too late".

I don't agree with the prior statement of "dictatorship", though I do feel like the people weren't properly represented. The NCAA should have just demanded a simple "yes" or "no" from the tribe that didn't vote just to have some sort of definitive answer.

[Joshawaggie]

The biggest thing I have an issue with in regards to the vote and the NCAA, is that by not voting is an automatic "No". I think there should be a yes or no on both sides. If you don't vote, you forfeit your say. If they say no, I can accept that better than them just ignoring it.

[Big A HG]

The biggest thing I have an issue with in regards to the vote and the NCAA, is that by not voting is an automatic "No". I think there should be a yes or no on both sides. If you don't vote, you forfeit your say. If they say no, I can accept that better than them just ignoring it.

Standing Rock did have a say. Their tribal leaders said no to the nickname, despite the overwhelming majority of the tribe's members being in favor of it. That's where the issue is bothersome. The tribal leaders of Standing Rock are going against what the will of the people is. Yes, the members of Standing Rock did elect those people into the positions they are in, but that doesn't mean the tribal leaders aren't doing wrong in this case.

If they just held a vote and did what the members of their tribe want, this issue would be over by now. The fact that the majority of Standing Rock members are not being represented properly is an issue. Almost everyone I know with ties to the unversity or the tribes themselves would drop the issue if Standing Rock members voted against the nickname.

[-kj]

How is it that we know the will of the majority of the members?

[Big A HG]

How is it that we know the will of the majority of the members?

No one can say for sure without an official vote. But, unofficial votes, sampling, and an overall general consensus.

If they do have a vote and they vote against the nickname, as a supporter I can back that, as would most others.

[winghaz]

Again, the vote in Sioux County in June will give an indication of what the Standing Rock tribe really wants. About 85 percent of Sioux County is American Indian, and just about all of the American Indians there are Sioux.

This would only be a gauge of what tribal members believe. It would still be up to the tribal council to call for an official tribal vote or to not have an official tribal vote.

By the way, it's not correct to refer to tribal council members as elders. Council members are voted in. The elder label is something that's earned.

[Big A HG]

Again, the vote in Sioux County in June will give an indication of what the Standing Rock tribe really wants. About 85 percent of Sioux County is American Indian, and just about all of the American Indians there are Sioux.

This would only be a gauge of what tribal members believe. It would still be up to the tribal council to call for an official tribal vote or to not have an official tribal vote.

By the way, it's not correct to refer to tribal council members as elders. Council members are voted in. The elder label is something that's earned.

Like when the Standing Rock Elders gave UND their blessing to use the nickname in July 1969 to use the name during a peace pipe ceremony?

Keep in mind that Peace Pipe Ceremonies cannot be undone, but the current dictatorship at Standing Rock doesn't care.

[IceCap]

Again, the vote in Sioux County in June will give an indication of what the Standing Rock tribe really wants. About 85 percent of Sioux County is American Indian, and just about all of the American Indians there are Sioux.

This would only be a gauge of what tribal members believe. It would still be up to the tribal council to call for an official tribal vote or to not have an official tribal vote.

By the way, it's not correct to refer to tribal council members as elders. Council members are voted in. The elder label is something that's earned.

Like when the Standing Rock Elders gave UND their blessing to use the nickname in July 1969 to use the name during a peace pipe ceremony?

Keep in mind that Peace Pipe Ceremonies cannot be undone, but the current dictatorship at Standing Rock doesn't care.

[crashcarson15]

Again, the vote in Sioux County in June will give an indication of what the Standing Rock tribe really wants. About 85 percent of Sioux County is American Indian, and just about all of the American Indians there are Sioux.

This would only be a gauge of what tribal members believe. It would still be up to the tribal council to call for an official tribal vote or to not have an official tribal vote.

By the way, it's not correct to refer to tribal council members as elders. Council members are voted in. The elder label is something that's earned.

Like when the Standing Rock Elders gave UND their blessing to use the nickname in July 1969 to use the name during a peace pipe ceremony?

Keep in mind that Peace Pipe Ceremonies cannot be undone, but the current dictatorship at Standing Rock doesn't care.

So, Congress is a dictatorship because they don't let Americans vote on decisions?

[Big A HG]

I'm on the side of the members at Standing Rock (and Spirit Lake). You can call me what you like, I won't be offended, I'm just calling it as I see it. The tribal leaders are not allowing their members to voice an opinion. I don't care what the result is, I just want them to be heard.

[IceCap]

Look, I don't how many more times I have to say this before it sinks in. Having an elected, representative democracy means the elected leadership, in this case the tribal Council, makes decisions for the people without consulting them on every single issue. Nothing they did was dictatorial or illegal or underhanded. Again, does the US Congress ask the American citizenry to vote en mass on every issue that comes before the Senate or House? No. So why should the Council of the Standing Rock Tribe waste time and money on such an unnecessary exercise when the entire point of having an elected council means they have to make the decision on behalf of the people who elected them anyway?

If what you say is true, and the people of the Standing Rock Tribe are ok with the UND using the Sioux name then they can either petition their elected leadership within the Tribe to change its stance or they can vote for new Council members who will grant UND permission to use the name in their next election. That's how democracy works. You elect people to make decisions on behalf of the nation, and if they make decisions you don't like you vote in new people in the next election. You don't stomp your feet, whine, call the elected representatives dictators, and waste North Dakotan tax dollars on a referendum that will accomplish exactly nothing.

[STL FANATIC]

Ice, you're correct to ride on him as long as he continues to refer to that government as a dictatorship. It's obviously not. It's, as you say, an elected representative democracy.

HOWEVER, it's not uncommon at all for such governments to also hold referenda votes for the entire population to express their opinion. It's an extreme rarity for the US national government, but it happens ALL THE TIME on the state level in the United States. So I'd say you're incorrect to suggest it'd be strange or that it would be a waste of time. It's in fact very common.

Nothing, apparently, is holding them to do so, and as such there's no legal right to call them a dictatorship or to say they're doing something (legally) wrong. But it wouldn't be anything weird if they did have a tribe-wide vote. In fact, amongst these kinds of governments at smaller population levels, it's fairly normal.

The best way to make it happen probably is for the tribe to petition their government to have a referenda. That seems to be the way that the North Dakotans are getting there's on the ballot.

[Big A HG]

Look, I don't how many more times I have to say this before it sinks in. Having an elected, representative democracy means the elected leadership, in this case the tribal Council, makes decisions for the people without consulting them on every single issue. Nothing they did was dictatorial or illegal or underhanded. Again, does the US Congress ask the American citizenry to vote en mass on every issue that comes before the Senate or House? No. So why should the Council of the Standing Rock Tribe waste time and money on such an unnecessary exercise when the entire point of having an elected council means they have to make the decision on behalf of the people who elected them anyway?

If what you say is true, and the people of the Standing Rock Tribe are ok with the UND using the Sioux name then they can either petition their elected leadership within the Tribe to change its stance or they can vote for new Council members who will grant UND permission to use the name in their next election. That's how democracy works. You elect people to make decisions on behalf of the nation, and if they make decisions you don't like you vote in new people in the next election. You don't stomp your feet, whine, call the elected representatives dictators, and waste North Dakotan tax dollars on a referendum that will accomplish exactly nothing.

I read what you wrote the first time, thank you. I know how it works.

[IceCap]

Ice, you're correct to ride on him as long as he continues to refer to that government as a dictatorship. It's obviously not. It's, as you say, an elected representative democracy.

HOWEVER, it's not uncommon at all for such governments to also hold referenda votes for the entire population to express their opinion. It's an extreme rarity for the US national government, but it happens ALL THE TIME on the state level in the United States.

Nothing, apparently, is holding them to do so, and as such there's no legal right to call them a dictatorship or to say they're doing something (legally) wrong. But it wouldn't be anything weird if they did have a tribe-wide vote. In fact, amongst these kinds of governments at smaller population levels, it's fairly normal.

The best way to make it happen probably is for the tribe to petition their government to have a referenda. That seems to be the way that the North Dakotans are getting there's on the ballot.

My whole point in riding him on the dictatorship stuff is that he doesn't seem to get it. You do, however.

My position is that a referendum, while open as a possibility to the council leadership, isn't required. So the fact that they didn't hold one can't be considered dictatorial. If the people of the tribe would like a referendum they can gather signatures to petition the tribal council for one, or they can vote for leadership who will promise to hold a referendum in the next election. Yay democracy!

At the end of the day the tribe's elected Council chose not to hold a referendum. That's their choice, and within their rights as the elected governing body of the Standing Rock Tribe. Elected governments make choices like that all the time. Like any other choice elected governments make we sometimes disagree with them. We don't (well those of us who are mature enough at any rate) stomp our feet and call elected governments dictatorships because they make a choice we disagree with.

So I'd say you're incorrect to suggest it'd be strange or that it would be a waste of time. It's in fact very common.

I think you're confusing two referendums.

I said that a referendum held by the Tribal Council isn't necessary, I never said a hypothetical one would be a waste of time. They're under no obligation to hold one, but if they did, that would be fine too. That referendum, if it did happen, wouldn't be a waste of time because its results would have meaning.

What is a waste of time, however, is the state wide referendum that's attempting to force the University of North Dakota into re-adapting the Fighting Sioux name and logo. That one is a waste of time because its results would be meaningless. The NCAA's a private, voluntary organization. A public vote can't force them to change their stance on the issue. All it would do is waste tax payer money on a meaningless exercise.

I read what you wrote the first time, thank you. I know how it works.

Then stop calling an elected representative government a dictatorship. It holds as much intellectual weight as when people call the US Government "fascist," "communist," or "socialist" whenever it does something they don't like.

[illwauk]

Gotta love the ethnocentricity in this thread. i.e. "Well if they'd just have a vote on it..." as if they're abstaining from voting for no other reason than to be dicks to (mainly) white people. Standing Rock is a sovereign nation with its own set of customs and norms and if they see voting on this issue as a violation of such customs, we should respect that and move on with our lives... frankly, I feel sorry for the people who can't.

[IceCap]

Don't you get it illwauk? The NCCAA robbed the good people of North Dakota! Robbed them of the ability to exploit a culture that's not their own without permission from the people who's culture it actually is! It all makes sense when you drink the green and black Kool-Aid.

[JQK]

"WHITE PEOPLEZ IZ EVILZ!!1"

[illwauk]

"WHITE PEOPLEZ IZ EVILZ!!1"

I wouldn't go that far, but much of this thread is made up of great examples of why no one likes us