"Fighting Sioux" gets a fighting chance

[Big A HG]

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.

This is a prime example of being out of touch with reality.

[oldschoolvikings]

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.

This is a prime example of being out of touch with reality.

As opposed to calling elected officials dictators?

[STL FANATIC]

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.

Unless I'm misreading, I think you did say that...

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?

Regardless, it's clear to me now what you meant, so no worries. In this very small subsection of the discussion, I think we're in agreement.

[STL FANATIC]

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.

This is a prime example of being out of touch with reality.

You're killing me, Bigs. (Yep, I went for it.)

You're arguments and reason actually sound really solid and informed. I mean that. I read your first post and welcomed it.

But then you keep undercutting yourself by calling it a dictatorship. You have to understand it's simply not a dictatorship. It's an elected government, that on this cycle of elections, may not be doing right by it's constituents. But it IS an elected government, and there are means for the people to get things done, even if it's a lengthier process than would be ideal.

You really are hampering the rest of your points, which are otherwise really solid. (I think most, even on the other side of the opinion, would agree that up until your dictatorship stuff you actually laid out some things that sounded reasonable, but maybe not.)

[IceCap]

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.

Unless I'm misreading, I think you did say that...

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?

Regardless, it's clear to me now what you meant, so no worries. In this very small subsection of the discussion, I think we're in agreement.

Ah. That was more theoretical in nature. Basically the theories that form the basis of representative democracy don't really call for referendums as being essential. If the whole point of having an elected representative government is so that few may make decisions in the name of the many why spend time and money burdening the many with something that's unnecessary by the very nature of the government in question? It's the response to the "why don't they just have a tribe-wide vote?" sentiment.

Now hypothetically if they were to have a referendum? That's the business of the Standing Rock Tribal government, and if that's the method they had gone with to solve the issue then I'd have gone along with whatever the results happened to be.

See, I'm not against Native themed nicknames in general. I just think that they should be handled with the utmost respect. I think the NCAA's rulings on the matter, having the tribes have the final say, is the best way to ensure that. So I'm really on the side of the tribal leadership. The Standing Rock's leadership made a decision, and that should be that. Had they approved UND's use of the name, or if they had set up a referendum I'd have been ok with that too.

[Big A HG]

I know it's not a "dictatorship", but that's how it's been run at times. I live less than an hour from Standing Rock and meet and know many people with ties to the reservation. There are many who would agree with me. Standing Rock is full of good people. It's their leaders that suppress their people's viewpoints and ideas and that's what bothers me.

There are good points to both sides of the argument, which is why this is a tough matter.

I respect the viewpoints of those who oppose the nickname, if they are valid points. The problem is, you see many false statements from people who have no connections to either the tribes or the university.

[IceCap]

If what you're saying is true then those leaders face losing their seats come the next election. Huzzah for democracy.

[Big A HG]

If what you're saying is true then those leaders face losing their seats come the next election. Huzzah for democracy.

That's always the bright side for them.

[illwauk]

Big A HG... serious question. You keep referring to false statements and misinformation, but my understanding is that the NCAA gave UND a few years to get approval from Spirit Lake and Standing Rock. Spirit Lake approved, but Standing Rock abstained from voting and therefore, UND has lost the right to use the Sioux name. Is anything in that statement incorrect? Because really, these are the only facts that matter here.

Now, if Standing Rock's leadership is indeed suppressing the voices of its constituents (which I don't deny could be the case, as I've lived in NE Wisconsin and know that the politics of Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin could be described very similarly), I'd say the tribe has much more pressing issues than whether or not a university's sports teams are using their imagery. Even then, they're still not under any obligation to give cloture to anyone connected to UND, nor should they be. And this is coming from someone who would rather see the Sioux name stay.

[winghaz]

A lot of people in here seem to forget that the people on Standing Rock, at least in Sioux County, are also North Dakotans. And they are very proud of that fact.

One of the many things North Dakota is proud of the referrendum process. It's very easy to get something on the ballot here. People here enjoy the fact that they have a direct say in the process.

It's not so easy, however, to have a tribal referrendum because the vote must first be OKd by the tribal council. That's what is happening right now on Standing Rock. The tribal council is preventing a vote.

That's why I say it will be interesting to see the results of the vote in Sioux County. Because the people of Sioux County are getting a vote, just not via a tribal vote. It will be an interesting gauge as to what could happen in the future.

But then, anything can happen on this issue. The latest news is that the State Board of Higher Education is suing to prevent the vote, claiming it would go against the state constitution. I don't know how that is so, but the state attorney general (an honorable man and, despite that, a friend of mine) says the Board of Higher Ed has a point. We shall see. Stay tuned.

[Eye]

If EA Sports puts Eli Manning on the cover of Madden without his permission, they are wrong because Manning did not agree to offer his likeness to be put into use. If UND wants to use the Sioux tribe name without their permission, they are wrong because the Sioux did not agree to offer his likeness to be put into use.

There. Is that a good enough correlation, for those who think still think Fighting Sioux should be the name for UND's athletics?

[Big A HG]

Big A HG... serious question. You keep referring to false statements and misinformation, but my understanding is that the NCAA gave UND a few years to get approval from Spirit Lake and Standing Rock. Spirit Lake approved, but Standing Rock abstained from voting and therefore, UND has lost the right to use the Sioux name. Is anything in that statement incorrect? Because really, these are the only facts that matter here.

Now, if Standing Rock's leadership is indeed suppressing the voices of its constituents (which I don't deny could be the case, as I've lived in NE Wisconsin and know that the politics of Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin could be described very similarly), I'd say the tribe has much more pressing issues than whether or not a university's sports teams are using their imagery. Even then, they're still not under any obligation to give cloture to anyone connected to UND, nor should they be. And this is coming from someone who would rather see the Sioux name stay.

No, you are correct, those are a couple of the facts. Depending on how deep you want to dig, there are other facts as well, obviously.

[aci]

If EA Sports puts Eli Manning on the cover of Madden without his permission, they are wrong because Manning did not agree to offer his likeness to be put into use. If UND wants to use the Sioux tribe name without their permission, they are wrong because the Sioux did not agree to offer his likeness to be put into use.

There. Is that a good enough correlation, for those who think still think Fighting Sioux should be the name for UND's athletics?

If the logo was a specific Sioux, I would agree with you that the specific person in question would have a case. To the best of my knowledge, however, that is not the situation.

[winghaz]

If EA Sports puts Eli Manning on the cover of Madden without his permission, they are wrong because Manning did not agree to offer his likeness to be put into use. If UND wants to use the Sioux tribe name without their permission, they are wrong because the Sioux did not agree to offer his likeness to be put into use.

There. Is that a good enough correlation, for those who think still think Fighting Sioux should be the name for UND's athletics?

That doesn't work because the Spirit Lake Sioux tribe gave its support to the name, and the Standing Rock elders back in 1969 did a ceremony giving UND permission to use the name.

In fact, there has been a big discussion on Standing Rock as to if the tribal council even is allowed to vote on the issue, simply because they can't go against such a ceremony by the elders of the past. So, by that way of thinking, that ceremony would be the final say. The NCAA, though, doesn't see it that way.

[Eye]

Actually it does work because you'd need all Sioux tribes to allow use of their name. If even one Sioux tribe doesn't allow it, whether because they don't want to, or because they don't vote, then the name shouldn't be used.

[Big A HG]

Actually it does work because you'd need all Sioux tribes to allow use of their name. If even one Sioux tribe doesn't allow it, whether because they don't want to, or because they don't vote, then the name shouldn't be used.

And this is where it gets hairy. Spirit Lake already approves, and the tribal leaders of Standing Rock disapprove. The issue with many is that if Standing Rock had a vote, like Spirit Lake, that they'd also vote in a similar manner, which is almost 3 out of 4 people in favor of the nickname.

Spirit Lake is currently suing the NCAA over the Sioux the nickname, which is kind of ironic if you ask me.

[Mingjai]

If EA Sports puts Eli Manning on the cover of Madden without his permission, they are wrong because Manning did not agree to offer his likeness to be put into use. If UND wants to use the Sioux tribe name without their permission, they are wrong because the Sioux did not agree to offer his likeness to be put into use.

There. Is that a good enough correlation, for those who think still think Fighting Sioux should be the name for UND's athletics?

Sorry, your Manning example illustrates an individual's right of publicity--i.e., the right to control the commercial use of one's name or likeness. The Sioux as a group have no more legal right to publicity than the Irish or the Hoosiers do.

[oldschoolvikings]

Actually it does work because you'd need all Sioux tribes to allow use of their name. If even one Sioux tribe doesn't allow it, whether because they don't want to, or because they don't vote, then the name shouldn't be used.

And this is where it gets hairy. Spirit Lake already approves, and the tribal leaders of Standing Rock disapprove. The issue with many is that if Standing Rock had a vote, like Spirit Lake, that they'd also vote in a similar manner, which is almost 3 out of 4 people in favor of the nickname.

Spirit Lake is currently suing the NCAA over the Sioux the nickname, which is kind of ironic if you ask me.

And, again, you know this as a fact? If so, I'd like to know how.

[bigbean24]

A little off topic, but does anyone know where you can get cheap Sioux gear because they might not be able to use the name?

[Eye]

If EA Sports puts Eli Manning on the cover of Madden without his permission, they are wrong because Manning did not agree to offer his likeness to be put into use. If UND wants to use the Sioux tribe name without their permission, they are wrong because the Sioux did not agree to offer his likeness to be put into use.

There. Is that a good enough correlation, for those who think still think Fighting Sioux should be the name for UND's athletics?

Sorry, your Manning example illustrates an individual's right of publicity--i.e., the right to control the commercial use of one's name or likeness. The Sioux as a group have no more legal right to publicity than the Irish or the Hoosiers do.

You're missing the point. In the above, hypothetical example, yes, all the people involved, in this case, one individual, are controlling how their likeness is used. As far as the Sioux go, all the people involved, in this case, any tribe using the Sioux name, are not controlling how their likeness is used, and as a result, the Sioux name should not be used until all tribes that claim the Sioux name are in agreement that UND can use the name.