Tribe not going to settle, recommend new Fighting Sioux name

[College Recruiter]

Why were 6 of them excused?

If this doesn't imply a certain stereotype WHAT DOES??

Because it is an issue of such import to them that a vast majority of the council either voted no or did not bother voting at all.

In reality...they are probably graduates of UND and were embarrassed about the whole thing!

[Sportin' Life]

not true!.....in fact a minority of the tribal council voted against the UND mascot. Here is how the vote came down:

8 - Yes (vote to disallow the UND mascot)
1 - no
2 - no vote
6 - excused

So of 18 possible votes......8 council members voted to disallow the UND mascot. So that would be clearly a minority based on my math class at MSU...right?

The majority of all Indians in the US could care less about this issue!

I find it humorous that a full 1/3 of the Tribal Council thought no little about the subject that they did not even find it important enough to vote on "such a critical and turbulent issue" to Native Americans!!!

If the tribemembers want to elect different councilmembers they can. And maybe they will. But as of right now, the issue got more votes for than against.

Why would a majority of Indians in the US care about it? You understand so little about Indians. That would be like asking if Italians were upset about Notre Dame's use of the Fightin' Irish.

Why do you take such offense to people asking for more respect? You seemed to get it with the Sambo's issue.

[College Recruiter]

not true!.....in fact a minority of the tribal council voted against the UND mascot. Here is how the vote came down:

8 - Yes (vote to disallow the UND mascot)
1 - no
2 - no vote
6 - excused

So of 18 possible votes......8 council members voted to disallow the UND mascot. So that would be clearly a minority based on my math class at MSU...right?

The majority of all Indians in the US could care less about this issue!

I find it humorous that a full 1/3 of the Tribal Council thought no little about the subject that they did not even find it important enough to vote on "such a critical and turbulent issue" to Native Americans!!!

If the tribemembers want to elect different councilmembers they can. And maybe they will. But as of right now, the issue got more votes for than against.

Why would a majority of Indians in the US care about it? You understand so little about Indians. That would be like asking if Italians were upset about Notre Dame's use of the Fightin' Irish.

Why do you take such offense to people asking for more respect? You seemed to get it with the Sambo's issue.

It is not an issue of respect! It is an issue of politics!

If a school name or mascot is direspectful or hateful in some way, I concede (ie; Wash. Redskins), but in no way is "Fighting Sioux" and similar mascots anything other than honoring and respectful of the history, strength, bravery that was a Sioux Warrior!

But listen....as previously said.....if the minorty wants to banish the Native American culture and terminology to the cobwebs of American lexicon for senseless political purposes, who am I to stop them.

[SonomaCat]

What ulterior political motive are you suggesting the Sioux tribes have?

What's the secret reason that they REALLY want to do away with this mascot, in your mind?

[SonomaCat]

From the article:

Taken Alive said that, by his count, 12 of the 17 members of the Standing Rock tribal council have voiced disapproval of the Fighting Sioux name and logo. Two have declined to voice an opinion and at least one has voiced support for it, he said.

[College Recruiter]

What ulterior political motive are you suggesting the Sioux tribes have?

What's the secret reason that they REALLY want to do away with this mascot, in your mind?

It is simply activist politics...thats it!

Who knows? Maybe if enough people started to care about Native Americans' culture and history, they would also care about their current marginalized state. A state where the government expects them to survive on unwanted pieces of land, often off of gambling proceeds, which leads to high alcoholism and crime rates.
In my mind, becoming more relevant and people knowing of their existence thru whatever means can only be a good thing. But many seem to buy into this concept of further marginalizing them by banishing all terms relating to Native American history into the trashheap.

I suspect that many more Americans know a little bit about the history of the Illini, the Seminoles, the Sioux, etc. as a result of the identification of these mascots. In 50 years when these terms have long since been banned and forgotten, who will ever know who Chief Illinewek is...or who were the Seminoles?? NOBODY cept for the 1.5 million Native Americans who reside in the US secretly and anonymously.

Shame Shame

[College Recruiter]

From the article:

Taken Alive said that, by his count, 12 of the 17 members of the Standing Rock tribal council have voiced disapproval of the Fighting Sioux name and logo. Two have declined to voice an opinion and at least one has voiced support for it, he said.

He can say what he wants...but unless the recorder at the meeting cannot count, here it is:

http://aistm.org/20071109.standing.rock ... lution.htm

hell...the chairman could not even get excited enough about the issue to cast a vote one way or the other!! LOL

[Sportin' Life]

What ulterior political motive are you suggesting the Sioux tribes have?

What's the secret reason that they REALLY want to do away with this mascot, in your mind?

It is simply activist politics...thats it!

Who knows? Maybe if enough people started to care about Native Americans' culture and history, they would also care about their current marginalized state. A state where the government expects them to survive on unwanted pieces of land, often off of gambling proceeds, which leads to high alcoholism and crime rates.
In my mind, becoming more relevant and people knowing of their existence thru whatever means can only be a good thing. But many seem to buy into this concept of further marginalizing them by banishing all terms relating to Native American history into the trashheap.

I suspect that many more Americans know a little bit about the history of the Illini, the Seminoles, the Sioux, etc. as a result of the identification of these mascots. In 50 years when these terms have long since been banned and forgotten, who will ever know who Chief Illinewek is...or who were the Seminoles?? NOBODY cept for the 1.5 million Native Americans who reside in the US secretly and anonymously.

Shame Shame

So you're whole issue with wanting UND to keep the caricature mascot is because you respect Sioux culture so much and want to see it cherished?

Sorry if I doubt your motives.

[Bleedinbluengold]

BAC - you are the master of spining logical loop-tee-loops and mixing arguments, so don't give me that crap! Thank you very much.

At the start of the thread, ChiO said that the tribes equate "Fighting Sioux" to the "N" word, basically.

Again, your argument appears to boil down to the use of the name (or partial name) of a recognized race and the depiction of that race w/o the authorization of the recognized race. So, it's about the money. UND makes a ton of it off their mascot and the Sioux have their shorts in a bundle about it.

Jeez, if life's real issues were only so simplistic and trivial.

Like any issue, the majority of Seminoles obviously were not offended by FSU's use of the name and logo. I was just wondering what makes the Seminole situation different than the Sioux, that's all. The Seminoles, interestingly enough, is the wealthiest and most educated Native American Tribe, if memory serves. The Sioux, on the other hand, are one of the poorest and least educated. I don't think their respective stances on the issue is any coincidence.

You claim that, in essence, white America needs to be more educated on these matters. I suggest that more education of the Native Americans would probably have a more significant impact on the ability of our two cultures to interact constructively on real issues...and I'm sorry, but wasting time and money on sports' teams mascots is not, in any way shape or form, a real issue - it's just not.

[SonomaCat]

At the start of the thread, ChiO said that the tribes equate "Fighting Sioux" to the "N" word, basically.

Okay ... but I haven't seen any Indians quoted as actually having said that. We can agree that neither of us thinks that "Fighting Sioux" is the same as the "N" word.

And yes, this is about money FOR UND. As it relates to the Sioux tribes, I see no indication that this is anything more than a request that they be respected as people.

The Seminole issue is a completely different fact pattern than the Sioux issue. The Seminole issue is a moot point in this discussion.

I agree that increasing education for Native Americans would be a good thing. I also know that increasing education among the rest of Americans on issues like this would be a good thing.

But at the end of the day, we still have a sports team named after an Indian tribe who doesn't want to be used as a mascot. And people are criticizing the tribes for speaking up about that (and in some cases, even questioning their intelligence). Trust me, people will look back on this with the benefit of perspective years from now and wonder what we were thinking to ever think that was a good idea.

Is this the biggest issue in the world? No. Is this something that we should change anyway, knowing that it will be at least marginally positive? Yes. Is this something hard to change? Not at all. So why are people arguing against it? I still haven't figured that out.

[Bleedinbluengold]

I'm not arguing for or against. I am stating that the issue is irrelevent and whether, or not, UND's mascot is a Fighting Sioux or a Box of Rocks, it will have absolutely ZERO bearing on how the real Sioux develop culturally or, are viewed by the rest of america.

[SonomaCat]

I'm not arguing for or against. I am stating that the issue is irrelevent and whether, or not, UND's mascot is a Fighting Sioux or a Box of Rocks, it will have absolutely ZERO bearing on how the real Sioux develop culturally or, are viewed by the rest of america.

I might have agreed with you at one point ... until I met so many people who had really skewed perspectives of what Montanans were like and how we lived. Knowing that these people got their skewed views of us from (often silly) entertainment media representations of us, and knowing how incredibly skewed most of America's views of Native Americans are today, I have little doubt that things like this do, in fact, perpetuate myths and stereotypes in a very real way.

[Bleedinbluengold]

I'm not arguing for or against. I am stating that the issue is irrelevent and whether, or not, UND's mascot is a Fighting Sioux or a Box of Rocks, it will have absolutely ZERO bearing on how the real Sioux develop culturally or, are viewed by the rest of america.

I might have agreed with you at one point ... until I met so many people who had really skewed perspectives of what Montanans were like and how we lived. Knowing that these people got their skewed views of us from (often silly) entertainment media representations of us, and knowing how incredibly skewed most of America's views of Native Americans are today, I have little doubt that things like this do, in fact, perpetuate myths and stereotypes in a very real way.

As I said, a reasonable person knows the difference between a marketing ploy and the real deal. The people who take a marketing ploy at face value are precisely the ones whose opinions on such matters are irrational.

[College Recruiter]

I'm not arguing for or against. I am stating that the issue is irrelevent and whether, or not, UND's mascot is a Fighting Sioux or a Box of Rocks, it will have absolutely ZERO bearing on how the real Sioux develop culturally or, are viewed by the rest of america.

That is it in a nutshell...activist politics! The minority (activists) will accomplish their short term goal, all while either not serving any purpose whatsoever, and possibly even hurting the cause of Native Americans altogether by further marginalizing them.

[College Recruiter]

You claim that, in essence, white America needs to be more educated on these matters. I suggest that more education of the Native Americans would probably have a more significant impact on the ability of our two cultures to interact constructively on real issues...and I'm sorry, but wasting time and money on sports' teams mascots is not, in any way shape or form, a real issue - it's just not.

Extremely articulate and succinctly stated...Thanks BBG

[SonomaCat]

I'm not arguing for or against. I am stating that the issue is irrelevent and whether, or not, UND's mascot is a Fighting Sioux or a Box of Rocks, it will have absolutely ZERO bearing on how the real Sioux develop culturally or, are viewed by the rest of america.

I might have agreed with you at one point ... until I met so many people who had really skewed perspectives of what Montanans were like and how we lived. Knowing that these people got their skewed views of us from (often silly) entertainment media representations of us, and knowing how incredibly skewed most of America's views of Native Americans are today, I have little doubt that things like this do, in fact, perpetuate myths and stereotypes in a very real way.

As I said, a reasonable person knows the difference between a marketing ploy and the real deal. The people who take a marketing ploy at face value are precisely the ones whose opinions on such matters are irrational.

This really isn't just a shallow and easily pierced marketing "ploy," though. It is a long-term image of a group of people put forward in the shape of a mascot. I agree if we were talking about a spammer or something, but this is a much larger piece of pop culture, and pop culture does, in fact, shape people perception's of the world around them, often in a negative way.

I don't think pop culture should be squashed by government in an effort to only present accurate portrayals of people or anything like that, but to the extent that an Indian tribe is asking for a little help in undoing some of the damage of the past by getting rid of remnants of old stereotypes like a silly Indian mascot, I think we (as individuals) should probably support such a move.

[SonomaCat]

I'm not arguing for or against. I am stating that the issue is irrelevent and whether, or not, UND's mascot is a Fighting Sioux or a Box of Rocks, it will have absolutely ZERO bearing on how the real Sioux develop culturally or, are viewed by the rest of america.

That is it in a nutshell...activist politics! The minority (activists) will accomplish their short term goal, all while either not serving any purpose whatsoever, and possibly even hurting the cause of Native Americans altogether by further marginalizing them.

Kind of like your rampages against Kramer back when he wouldn't offer a scholarship to the kid you were pimping, eh?

I guess it's pretty easy for people to mock someone else's concerns for a cause as long as they don't respect those people or their cause.

[College Recruiter]

I'm not arguing for or against. I am stating that the issue is irrelevent and whether, or not, UND's mascot is a Fighting Sioux or a Box of Rocks, it will have absolutely ZERO bearing on how the real Sioux develop culturally or, are viewed by the rest of america.

That is it in a nutshell...activist politics! The minority (activists) will accomplish their short term goal, all while either not serving any purpose whatsoever, and possibly even hurting the cause of Native Americans altogether by further marginalizing them.

Kind of like your rampages against Kramer back when he wouldn't offer a scholarship to the kid you were pimping, eh?

I guess it's pretty easy for people to mock someone else's concerns for a cause as long as they don't respect those people or their cause.

mock? where did I do that? This entire post is beneath you BAC!

With that in mind...I will assume it was an attempt at humor or some such thing and forget it.

Just as I was about to compliment this entire 5 page thread and it's posters about how to have a civil and non-personal debate without tossing in the thorny inpertinent jabs...you go and post that crap.

NICE!

[SonomaCat]

I'm not arguing for or against. I am stating that the issue is irrelevent and whether, or not, UND's mascot is a Fighting Sioux or a Box of Rocks, it will have absolutely ZERO bearing on how the real Sioux develop culturally or, are viewed by the rest of america.

That is it in a nutshell...activist politics! The minority (activists) will accomplish their short term goal, all while either not serving any purpose whatsoever, and possibly even hurting the cause of Native Americans altogether by further marginalizing them.

Kind of like your rampages against Kramer back when he wouldn't offer a scholarship to the kid you were pimping, eh?

I guess it's pretty easy for people to mock someone else's concerns for a cause as long as they don't respect those people or their cause.

mock? where did I do that? This entire post is beneath you BAC!

With that in mind...I will assume it was an attempt at humor or some such thing and forget it.

Just as I was about to compliment this entire 5 page thread and it's posters about how to have a civil and non-personal debate without tossing in the thorny inpertinent jabs...you go and post that crap.

NICE!

If you don't like the word "mock," then I guess I could use more words to say the same thing ... how about "questioning the sincerity of those presenting their concerns and dismissing them as being counter-productive and frivilous and motivated only by seeking to complain for the sake of complaining as opposed to actually having a sincere and noble motive for their actions."

And since you were throwing out these kinds of allegations towards these Native Americans, and as you received a similar backlash from other posters when you were making complaints that others felt were unfounded and "activist" in nature, and they alleged that your criticisms of Kramer lacked any substance (much in the same way you are framing the motives of the Sioux leaders), I thought the comparison was apt.

So ... is it fair for other people to question the motives of people who are trying to make a difference on an issue they care about ... or is it only fair when you personally want to do that, but unfair when you are the one whose motives are being questioned?

That's a fair question, isn't it?

You might even go so far as to say that your criticisms were on-point and have since been validated by subsequent events. Is it not possible that the same might hold true for these outspoken Native Americans?

[College Recruiter]

I'm not arguing for or against. I am stating that the issue is irrelevent and whether, or not, UND's mascot is a Fighting Sioux or a Box of Rocks, it will have absolutely ZERO bearing on how the real Sioux develop culturally or, are viewed by the rest of america.

That is it in a nutshell...activist politics! The minority (activists) will accomplish their short term goal, all while either not serving any purpose whatsoever, and possibly even hurting the cause of Native Americans altogether by further marginalizing them.

Kind of like your rampages against Kramer back when he wouldn't offer a scholarship to the kid you were pimping, eh?

I guess it's pretty easy for people to mock someone else's concerns for a cause as long as they don't respect those people or their cause.

mock? where did I do that? This entire post is beneath you BAC!

With that in mind...I will assume it was an attempt at humor or some such thing and forget it.

Just as I was about to compliment this entire 5 page thread and it's posters about how to have a civil and non-personal debate without tossing in the thorny inpertinent jabs...you go and post that crap.

NICE!

If you don't like the word "mock," then I guess I could use more words to say the same thing ... how about "questioning the sincerity of those presenting their concerns and dismissing them as being counter-productive and frivilous and motivated only by seeking to complain for the sake of complaining as opposed to actually having a sincere and noble motive for their actions."

And since you were throwing out these kinds of allegations towards these Native Americans, and as you received a similar backlash from other posters when you were making complaints that others felt were unfounded and "activist" in nature, and they alleged that your criticisms of Kramer lacked any substance (much in the same way you are framing the motives of the Sioux leaders), I thought the comparison was apt.

So ... is it fair for other people to question the motives of people who are trying to make a difference on an issue they care about ... or is it only fair when you personally want to do that, but unfair when you are the one whose motives are being questioned?

That's a fair question, isn't it?

You might even go so far as to say that your criticisms were on-point and have since been validated by subsequent events. Is it not possible that the same might hold true for these outspoken Native Americans?

I will respond hopefully without the personal jabs towards you, in spite of the fact that the thread has instantaniously devolved!

I never questioned the motives of anyone, Indian or not, for arguing against Native American mascots, names, images in athletics. I just disagree with them. The term activist was introduced into the discussion to attempt to describe that it is the minority who is railing against this mascot thing in the first place, and it continues to be the minority.

Tyranny of the minority...as said previously.

Up until your last few posts, I was amazed at how this group could argue 2 sides of an emotional and important issue for 5 pages without doing what you now have done. tsk tsk

As far as I am concerned, the thread is now DOA!