Tribe not going to settle, recommend new Fighting Sioux name

College Recruiter · Post by **College Recruiter** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:19 pm

PETA is upset about the SC "Gamecocks"....cuz "cockfighting is barbaric". When in fact the gamecock mascot has very little to do with the a bird.

When will it ever end?

http://www.theinternetparty.org/comment ... 0110250000

WetWaderMT · Post by **WetWaderMT** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:27 pm

Please tell me the last time a mascot, building, place, etc was named after something/someone in a derogatory meaning? It doesn't happen! "We" name things after people, groups, etc. that "we" are proud of, as a form of respect for their achievements and contributions to society...I'm sorry but I can't for the life of me figure out why that is so difficult to understand.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and it has no bearing on me whether they change the mascot or not. But I'm obviously too much of a simpleton to understand, I just don't see the negativity in the situation, and since I'm not Sioux I can't have an informed opinion.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:32 pm

WetWaderMT wrote:Please tell me the last time a mascot, building, place, etc was named after something/someone in a derogatory meaning? It doesn't happen! "We" name things after people, groups, etc. that "we" are proud of, as a form of respect for their achievements and contributions to society...I'm sorry but I can't for the life of me figure out why that is so difficult to understand.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and it has no bearing on me whether they change the mascot or not. But I'm obviously too much of a simpleton to understand, I just don't see the negativity in the situation, and since I'm not Sioux I can't have an informed opinion.

Many mascots are not chosen to honor anyone or anything -- they are chosen so they can be used to represent fierceness and intimidation through primal power and violence. They aren't naming a Library after these people, they are using them as a brand to market their sports teams. There's a huge difference between those two concepts.

Shockingly, it appears that many Native Americans don't really like being represented by non-Indian schools in that way, and they don't like having images claiming to represent them and their families used in cartoonish sorts of ways by a state institution.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:34 pm

College Recruiter wrote:PETA is upset about the SC "Gamecocks"....cuz "cockfighting is barbaric". When in fact the gamecock mascot has very little to do with the a bird.

When will it ever end?

http://www.theinternetparty.org/comment ... 0110250000

I agree ... this is absurd. However, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

College Recruiter · Post by **College Recruiter** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:37 pm

WetWaderMT wrote:Please tell me the last time a mascot, building, place, etc was named after something/someone in a derogatory meaning? It doesn't happen! "We" name things after people, groups, etc. that "we" are proud of, as a form of respect for their achievements and contributions to society...I'm sorry but I can't for the life of me figure out why that is so difficult to understand.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and it has no bearing on me whether they change the mascot or not. But I'm obviously too much of a simpleton to understand, I just don't see the negativity in the situation, and since I'm not Sioux I can't have an informed opinion.

College Recruiter · Post by **College Recruiter** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:40 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
College Recruiter wrote:PETA is upset about the SC "Gamecocks"....cuz "cockfighting is barbaric". When in fact the gamecock mascot has very little to do with the a bird.

When will it ever end?

http://www.theinternetparty.org/comment ... 0110250000

I agree ... this is absurd. However, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Well then maybe you will think that this has something to do with it:

Mascots themselves.
What makes a politically correct mascot?
Indians are verbotten. Why then is it ok to have a pilgrim, demon, devil, orangemen, trojans, buccaneers, cowboys, raiders, chargers, gauchos, or minutemen? Should all mascots be animals, or some of them out of bounds as well? I haven't yet heard of a Screaming Pteradactile, but that doesn't mean that one isn't coming.

I guess to wrap up my ranting. Indians are a part of this countries heritage. We should celebrate that heritage. Is the final goal of the indians to wipe themselves completely from the map? Do they want to finish what the Europeans started when they came to this country? Or is it that they just want to be known for having casinos and being alcoholics?

http://stevenrigney-journal.blogspot.co ... tness.html

Directly on point...don't you think!

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:41 pm

The name Sioux (pronounced Su) is an abbreviation of the French spelling of the name by which they were anciently known to their eastern Algonquian neighbours and enemies, viz. Nadouessioux, signifying "little snakes", i.e. little, or secondary enemies, as distinguished from the eastern Nadowe, or enemies, the Iroquois. This ancient name is now obsolete, having been superseded by the modern Ojibwa term Buanag, of uncertain etymology. They call themselves Dakota, Nakota, or Lakota, according to dialect, meaning "allies". From the forms Dakota, Lakota, and Sioux are derived numerous place-names within their ancient area, including those of two great states.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14017a.htm

i honestly dont know what to think about this

WetWaderMT · Post by **WetWaderMT** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:44 pm

...used in cartoonish sorts of ways...

Its a matter of perspective, you and they consider it "cartoonish," I don't. I know, I'm not as "enlightened" as you.

Many mascots are not chosen to honor anyone or anything

Please educate me as to which ones these would be? And don't use the "Tree" of Stanford.

On another note, I thought I read/saw somewhere that UND is the ONLY NCAA school that hasn't gotten permission to continue using their mascot. Can anyone else confirm this or did I dream it?

Old Skool Cat · Post by **Old Skool Cat** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:44 pm

Okay, time to chime in. I understand how and why Native Americans can be upset with representations of themselves as sports mascots, particularly when they have no or little association with the institution. Buy my question is why must the school/team completely do away with the mascot and develop a new one? Why can't the tribe(s) work with the school to enhance the image so it is not tarnished or made fun of? This could lead to an entire new process of Native Americans and universities/colleges working together to the betterment of both. Let tribal officers assist in the design and marketing of the mascot. In turn, the university could develop awareness programs to assist Native Americans with easier access to higher learning and outreach that teaches whites more about their culture. Why does everything always have to be an "end-all" decision?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:45 pm

College Recruiter wrote: I guess to wrap up my ranting. Indians are a part of this countries heritage. We should celebrate that heritage. Is the final goal of the indians to wipe themselves completely from the map? Do they want to finish what the Europeans started when they came to this country? Or is it that they just want to be known for having casinos and being alcoholics?

That's awesome! So you think we need to have Indian sports mascots in order to ... wait for it ... protect their heritage!

Damn ... too bad they got rid of those Sambo's restaurants, 'cuz now we've got nothing left to remember black culture by. And if it wasn't for Mickey Rooney's pigeon-English representation in Breakfast at Tiffany's, Asian culture would be a thing of the past!

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:53 pm

WetWaderMT wrote:
...used in cartoonish sorts of ways...
Its a matter of perspective, you and they consider it "cartoonish," I don't. I know, I'm not as "enlightened" as you.

Many mascots are not chosen to honor anyone or anything
Please educate me as to which ones these would be? And don't use the "Tree" of Stanford.

On another note, I thought I read/saw somewhere that UND is the ONLY NCAA school that hasn't gotten permission to continue using their mascot. Can anyone else confirm this or did I dream it?

It's a friggin' cartoon, WWMT. Of course it's "cartoonish." Not a good point for you to dig in on, by the way ... I have the dictionary on my side on this one.

As for which mascots are not chosen to honor anyone or anything ... well, that would be just about every single one of them, actually. That is, of course, unless you think the Red Devils is a group of people that ASU is honoring, or that Michigan folks don't shoot Wolverines and people in Washington don't shoot Cougars, or that people in Miami actually love hurricanes, or that folks in South Park don't eat cows.

Mascots are not generally chosen to honor anyone or anything. They are generally chosen as a marketing image to brand their sports teams with images of aggression.

WetWaderMT · Post by **WetWaderMT** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:53 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:
The name Sioux (pronounced Su) is an abbreviation of the French spelling of the name by which they were anciently known to their eastern Algonquian neighbours and enemies, viz. Nadouessioux, signifying "little snakes", i.e. little, or secondary enemies, as distinguished from the eastern Nadowe, or enemies, the Iroquois. This ancient name is now obsolete, having been superseded by the modern Ojibwa term Buanag, of uncertain etymology. They call themselves Dakota, Nakota, or Lakota, according to dialect, meaning "allies". From the forms Dakota, Lakota, and Sioux are derived numerous place-names within their ancient area, including those of two great states.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14017a.htm

i honestly dont know what to think about this

I'd read that too, that they call themselves Dakota, Lakota, Nakota, so...would Fighting Dakota/Lakota/Nakota be acceptable? I'm not flaming or trying to offend, just asking an honest question.

Billings_Griz · Post by **Billings_Griz** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:54 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
WetWaderMT wrote:Please tell me the last time a mascot, building, place, etc was named after something/someone in a derogatory meaning? It doesn't happen! "We" name things after people, groups, etc. that "we" are proud of, as a form of respect for their achievements and contributions to society...I'm sorry but I can't for the life of me figure out why that is so difficult to understand.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and it has no bearing on me whether they change the mascot or not. But I'm obviously too much of a simpleton to understand, I just don't see the negativity in the situation, and since I'm not Sioux I can't have an informed opinion.
Many mascots are not chosen to honor anyone or anything -- they are chosen so they can be used to represent fierceness and intimidation through primal power and violence. They aren't naming a Library after these people, they are using them as a brand to market their sports teams. There's a huge difference between those two concepts.

.

Ya mean like a Terrier?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:55 pm

WetWaderMT wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:
The name Sioux (pronounced Su) is an abbreviation of the French spelling of the name by which they were anciently known to their eastern Algonquian neighbours and enemies, viz. Nadouessioux, signifying "little snakes", i.e. little, or secondary enemies, as distinguished from the eastern Nadowe, or enemies, the Iroquois. This ancient name is now obsolete, having been superseded by the modern Ojibwa term Buanag, of uncertain etymology. They call themselves Dakota, Nakota, or Lakota, according to dialect, meaning "allies". From the forms Dakota, Lakota, and Sioux are derived numerous place-names within their ancient area, including those of two great states.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14017a.htm

i honestly dont know what to think about this
I'd read that too, that they call themselves Dakota, Lakota, Nakota, so...would Fighting Dakota/Lakota/Nakota be acceptable? I'm not flaming or trying to offend, just asking an honest question.

I would assume that any name that is commonly known to refer to a specific group of people might bring the same reaction from that group of people if they don't feel that the name is being used in a way that is respectful.

I don't believe the genesis of the name likely impacts the argument one way or another.

WetWaderMT · Post by **WetWaderMT** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:59 pm

It's a friggin' cartoon, WWMT. Of course it's "cartoonish." Not a good point for you to dig in on, by the way ... I have the dictionary on my side on this one.

As for which mascots are not chosen to honor anyone or anything ... well, that would be just about every single one of them, actually. That is, of course, unless you think the Red Devils is a group of people that ASU is honoring, or that Michigan folks don't shoot Wolverines and people in Washington don't shoot Cougars, or that people in Miami actually love hurricanes, or that folks in South Park don't eat cows.

Mascots are not generally chosen to honor anyone or anything. They are generally chosen as a marketing image to brand their sports teams with images of aggression.

Okay, you think of mascots as cartoons...what do I care about the dictionary's definition of a mascot?

"Red Devils" for ASU, try Sun Devils. Yes, things that are feared can also be respected. So, you think that because someone shoots something that means they don't respect it? WOW!!!

The majority of mascots WERE NOT chosen for marketing puposes, come on!

College Recruiter · Post by **College Recruiter** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:00 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
College Recruiter wrote: I guess to wrap up my ranting. Indians are a part of this countries heritage. We should celebrate that heritage. Is the final goal of the indians to wipe themselves completely from the map? Do they want to finish what the Europeans started when they came to this country? Or is it that they just want to be known for having casinos and being alcoholics?
That's awesome! So you think we need to have Indian sports mascots in order to ... wait for it ... protect their heritage!

Damn ... too bad they got rid of those Sambo's restaurants, 'cuz now we've got nothing left to remember black culture by. And if it wasn't for Mickey Rooney's pigeon-English representation in Breakfast at Tiffany's, Asian culture would be a thing of the past!

I know you feel strongly about banning any Indian mascot BAC, and I feel strongly that it is all about victimhood and political correctness. So we are not going to change each others minds.

But really.....are you equating the use of the clearly demeaning term "Sambo" with a historic, courageous, strong and proud figure such as a "Fighting Sioux"??

Maybe that is where we part ways on this topic. See I cannot even fathom coming up with such a tortuous comparison on this topic??

College Recruiter · Post by **College Recruiter** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:04 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:
The name Sioux (pronounced Su) is an abbreviation of the French spelling of the name by which they were anciently known to their eastern Algonquian neighbours and enemies, viz. Nadouessioux, signifying "little snakes", i.e. little, or secondary enemies, as distinguished from the eastern Nadowe, or enemies, the Iroquois. This ancient name is now obsolete, having been superseded by the modern Ojibwa term Buanag, of uncertain etymology. They call themselves Dakota, Nakota, or Lakota, according to dialect, meaning "allies". From the forms Dakota, Lakota, and Sioux are derived numerous place-names within their ancient area, including those of two great states.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14017a.htm

i honestly dont know what to think about this

The "snake" is a mythical...bordering on religiously positive creature in Native American culture. It is not a demeaning term to them at all. Hence, why the Native Americans carve or paint snakes on their warshirts, tipis, pipes and other items of import in Native American culture.

So don't get too stirred up over the snake reference!

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:09 pm

College Recruiter wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
College Recruiter wrote: I guess to wrap up my ranting. Indians are a part of this countries heritage. We should celebrate that heritage. Is the final goal of the indians to wipe themselves completely from the map? Do they want to finish what the Europeans started when they came to this country? Or is it that they just want to be known for having casinos and being alcoholics?
That's awesome! So you think we need to have Indian sports mascots in order to ... wait for it ... protect their heritage!

Damn ... too bad they got rid of those Sambo's restaurants, 'cuz now we've got nothing left to remember black culture by. And if it wasn't for Mickey Rooney's pigeon-English representation in Breakfast at Tiffany's, Asian culture would be a thing of the past!
I know you feel strongly about banning any Indian mascot BAC, and I feel strongly that it is all about victimhood and political correctness. So we are not going to change each others minds.

But really.....are you equating the use of the clearly demeaning term "Sambo" with a historic, courageous, strong and proud figure such as a "Fighting Sioux"??

Maybe that is where we part ways on this topic. See I cannot even fathom coming up with such a tortuous comparison on this topic??

I don't care one way or another on a personal level ... but I am more than happy to defer to the people who are affected by these matters (in this case, the Sioux), and I accept their insights in the place of my own, as this isn't an issue that affects me but does affect them.

In terms of comparing Sambo to Native American mascots ... yes ... they are virtually the same issue.

Keep in mind, a whole lot of folks were pretty upset when the Sambo thing went away. In fact, they mocked the idea that anybody could be upset by such a thing.

Same story, new chapter.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:13 pm

WetWaderMT wrote:
It's a friggin' cartoon, WWMT. Of course it's "cartoonish." Not a good point for you to dig in on, by the way ... I have the dictionary on my side on this one.

As for which mascots are not chosen to honor anyone or anything ... well, that would be just about every single one of them, actually. That is, of course, unless you think the Red Devils is a group of people that ASU is honoring, or that Michigan folks don't shoot Wolverines and people in Washington don't shoot Cougars, or that people in Miami actually love hurricanes, or that folks in South Park don't eat cows.

Mascots are not generally chosen to honor anyone or anything. They are generally chosen as a marketing image to brand their sports teams with images of aggression.
Okay, you think of mascots as cartoons...what do I care about the dictionary's definition of a mascot?

"Red Devils" for ASU, try Sun Devils. Yes, things that are feared can also be respected. So, you think that because someone shoots something that means they don't respect it? WOW!!!

The majority of mascots WERE NOT chosen for marketing puposes, come on!

My bad ... had Glendive on the brain.

How on earth can you argue with a straight face that mascots are not chosen for marketing purposes?

That's exactly what they are. They are a brand name for the team.

If the "Fighting Sioux" is not a brand name used for marketing purposes, then why don't they just drop it? You know why they don't? Because it is a brand name that is worth a lot of money to them. A brand name used for marketing purposes.

Are you making a serious argument, or did you just want to see how much time I would spend explaining an obvious concept?

And by the way, you typically don't shoot things that fall into this category:

"We" name things after people, groups, etc. that "we" are proud of, as a form of respect for their achievements and contributions to society...

It's pretty obvious from my examples that this is not true with regards to many/most mascots. Nobody is honoring Sun Devils or Wolverines for their contributions to society or their achievements. Sure, they might "respect" Sun Devils (whatever that means) or Wolverines, but they certainly aren't honoring them by making them mascots for their sports teams.

College Recruiter · Post by **College Recruiter** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:36 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
College Recruiter wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
College Recruiter wrote: I guess to wrap up my ranting. Indians are a part of this countries heritage. We should celebrate that heritage. Is the final goal of the indians to wipe themselves completely from the map? Do they want to finish what the Europeans started when they came to this country? Or is it that they just want to be known for having casinos and being alcoholics?
That's awesome! So you think we need to have Indian sports mascots in order to ... wait for it ... protect their heritage!

Damn ... too bad they got rid of those Sambo's restaurants, 'cuz now we've got nothing left to remember black culture by. And if it wasn't for Mickey Rooney's pigeon-English representation in Breakfast at Tiffany's, Asian culture would be a thing of the past!
I know you feel strongly about banning any Indian mascot BAC, and I feel strongly that it is all about victimhood and political correctness. So we are not going to change each others minds.

But really.....are you equating the use of the clearly demeaning term "Sambo" with a historic, courageous, strong and proud figure such as a "Fighting Sioux"??

Maybe that is where we part ways on this topic. See I cannot even fathom coming up with such a tortuous comparison on this topic??
I don't care one way or another on a personal level ... but I am more than happy to defer to the people who are affected by these matters (in this case, the Sioux), and I accept their insights in the place of my own, as this isn't an issue that affects me but does affect them.

In terms of comparing Sambo to Native American mascots ... yes ... they are virtually the same issue.

Keep in mind, a whole lot of folks were pretty upset when the Sambo thing went away. In fact, they mocked the idea that anybody could be upset by such a thing.

Same story, new chapter.

The people (majority Native American) at Browning HS do not mind calling themselves "Indians". I guess all Indians don't care so much about this!! Just because a few political type folks, Native American or not, voice "concern". Don't translate that to mean that ALL Native Americans give one rip about using mascots and terms such as "Fighting Illini" or "Fighting Sioux" or "Indians". Most of the Native Americans I talk to in my business dealings laugh about this topic and find it silly, as do the Indian peoples of Browning Montana.

But you BAC, you seem to be highly concerned; for some reason. Wondering why if so many Indians really have no problem with it??

Go Browning Indians!!
********************************************
Seven Days on the Rez — Part 6 — By Any Other Name

"Indians" are who white people were looking for when they found us.

Margaret Yellow Kidney

If you asked Browning residents what the best thing about their town is, they'd likely say it's the Indians.

The Indians are the boys basketball team at Browning High School. Actually, every team at Browning High is called the Indians, but the boys basketball team is special. The squad has won Montana's Class A state tournament for two years running, which makes them a hot ticket.

In politically correct Madison, having an Indian for a mascot would be unthinkable. Some of the volunteers, like Lauralyn Schellin '61, MS'62, who's seen Native American names removed from many places near her home in Oregon, were surprised to see "Browning Indians" plastered on walls and T-shirts. But in Browning, the term Indian is used almost universally, and it doesn't seem to bother anybody.
Not much. But then there's Margaret Yellow Kidney, a nurse at Browning's Head Start, who has a different take on the issue. Though not Blackfeet herself — she was born to a white father and a Chilcotin mother on a reserve in British Columbia — she is deeply involved in the traditional life of the Blackfeet. Her father-in-law, Buster Yellow Kidney, was a renowned figure in the Native American traditional spiritual community until his death in 2000.

Margaret and her spouse still carry on his work at sun dances and sweat lodges, and she came to discuss traditional practices with the volunteers one morning. The details of native culture are important to her.

"I'm what's called a 'breed,' " she says. "With my father's people, I'm a squaw. With my mother's, I'm a white man's child." So she's clear on her terminology, and she prefers the term "native" to refer to the people whose ancestors predate Columbus. "Sometimes I say Indian myself, but we're native."

http://waa.uwalumni.com/onwisconsin/winter02/rez6.html

Tribe not going to settle, recommend new Fighting Sioux name

i think i am going to do an about-face about this

Re: i think i am going to do an about-face about this

Re: i think i am going to do an about-face about this

Re: i think i am going to do an about-face about this