The Bobcat Nation

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2615396

I know this topic has been discussed many times, but I don't think it has been discussed about UND suing the NCAA yet.

longhorn_22 wrote:http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2615396

I know this topic has been discussed many times, but I don't think it has been discussed about UND suing the NCAA yet.

The way I look at it: It is the NCAA's club if UND does not like quit the club.

Why were these names chosen? Are people making it up that there used to be a lot of warring between tribes?

They were chosen because of their proud, strong image. I fail to see why that's insulting. But, I guess if you are looking for a reason to be upset, you can always find one.

There are some serious double standards going on in the NCAA. This is one example.

mslacat wrote:

longhorn_22 wrote:http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2615396

I know this topic has been discussed many times, but I don't think it has been discussed about UND suing the NCAA yet.

The way I look at it: It is the NCAA's club if UND does not like quit the club.

+1

ChiOCat wrote:Why were these names chosen? Are people making it up that there used to be a lot of warring between tribes?

They were chosen because of their proud, strong image. I fail to see why that's insulting. But, I guess if you are looking for a reason to be upset, you can always find one.

That's true ... but they could always change their name to the "Genocidal US Army Soldiers" and have their mascot be a white American Soldier in 1800s uniform with a batch of Indian scalps hanging from his belt.

I think that would be strong, powerful and intimidating image that would be a great mascot. And it's historically accurate as well, so there would not need to be any debate as to the appropriateness of the respresentation of the US Army by the mascot caricature. And it wouldn't insult anyone ... unless they were looking for a reason to be insulted.

So did Indian Tribes only fight against white army soldiers, or did they fight against other tribes. Seems like hearing their history there was a lot of honor in the tribe for stealing horses from other tribes, being excellent hunters and warriors. Why are they ashamed of their history and someone using it in a positive manner.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

ChiOCat wrote:Why were these names chosen? Are people making it up that there used to be a lot of warring between tribes?

They were chosen because of their proud, strong image. I fail to see why that's insulting. But, I guess if you are looking for a reason to be upset, you can always find one.

That's true ... but they could always change their name to the "Genocidal US Army Soldiers" and have their mascot be a white American Soldier in 1800s uniform with a batch of Indian scalps hanging from his belt.

I think that would be strong, powerful and intimidating image that would be a great mascot. And it's historically accurate as well, so there would not need to be any debate as to the appropriateness of the respresentation of the US Army by the mascot caricature. And it wouldn't insult anyone ... unless they were looking for a reason to be insulted.

unless you were/are in the united states army

Hell's Bells wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

ChiOCat wrote:Why were these names chosen? Are people making it up that there used to be a lot of warring between tribes?

They were chosen because of their proud, strong image. I fail to see why that's insulting. But, I guess if you are looking for a reason to be upset, you can always find one.

That's true ... but they could always change their name to the "Genocidal US Army Soldiers" and have their mascot be a white American Soldier in 1800s uniform with a batch of Indian scalps hanging from his belt.

I think that would be strong, powerful and intimidating image that would be a great mascot. And it's historically accurate as well, so there would not need to be any debate as to the appropriateness of the respresentation of the US Army by the mascot caricature. And it wouldn't insult anyone ... unless they were looking for a reason to be insulted.

unless you were/are in the united states army

Do I need to connect the last two dots, or has my point been made?

You know, UND should file another lawsuit as a parallel strategy in case this case against the NCAA falls through.

As anyone who has opined on this topic knows, the reason the NCAA has ruled against UND is because the local Sioux Tribal governing bodies have requested this of the NCAA, saying that they do not approve of the way UND uses their tribal name as a mascot for their athletic programs.

To get around this complication, UND needs to sue the Sioux Tribe's governing bodies for the exclusive rights to the name "Sioux."

Not only is it fun to use the words "sue" and "Sioux" in the same sentence, but this lawsuit would have a sincere compelling business interest.

UND is running a business, and they have developed a brand ... the "Fighting Sioux."

The Sioux Tribe is also using the name "Sioux," but they are wasting it in a business sense. Not only are they not capitalizing on the enormous marketing potential of the Sioux name, they have been actively diluting the essence of the brand with their own vicious anti-business attitude.

You see, countless pulp novels of the 1800s, older-vintage American history books, John Wayne-type cowboy and Indian movies, and UND have spent a good deal of time and effort in the careful and exhaustive campaign to creat the Sioux brand that we all know and love: one that evokes an image of fierce violence and savage bravery in the acts of killing other people. It is a focused brand that emphasizes the power and image of a violent and war-loving people. This brand, through the efforts described above, has enormous fair market value, and should not be wasted.

The Sioux tribe, on the other hard, are working to destroy the brand name. They have tribe to portray the brand name in ways that have nothing to do with the focus of the brand that so many good white folks have put so much time in developing. The Sioux tribe is trying to portray the Sioux name in ways that are counter-productive. They are trying to show Sioux people as teachers, doctors, authors, farmers, and all sorts of other faces. They are portraying the Sioux as families and children ... native literature, art, religion, and language ... and all sorts of other complicated concepts -- very counter-brand focus. They have even gone so far as to suggest that some Sioux aren't savage war-loving violent people.

This is intolerable.

UND should have an open and shut case against the Sioux Tribe. The Sioux Tribe has shown a blatant and flagrant disregard for the brand potential of the Sioux name, and has willfully and selfishly tried to destroy that brand name by using the term to depict real people that lack the focused emphasis on savagery and violence that is imperative for the Sioux brand to be effective. Any judge worth his salt will be sure to strip all rights of the name "Sioux" from the tribe and grant exclusive rights to the University of North Dakota for its continued use.

And at that point ... those pesky tribes will no longer have the ability to sabotage the brand name that UND has worked so hard to develop.

Thats a good idea BAC. I think the word 'Sioux' is actually the French version of the Mandan word for the tribe. To be safe UND should try to acquire the rights to Lakota and Hunkpapa and the others.

Hilarious.

So, who in the NCAA is complaining about the name?

I haven't heard complaints from other schools in the conference. Now, I have heard complaints from various Sioux tribes (some of which used to support the name), but that is between the school and the tribe. But, which NCAA member schools are complaining about the name?

The NCAA be supporting its members, rather than chastising them.

mslacat wrote: The way I look at it: It is the NCAA's club if UND does not like quit the club.

So all schools must bend to the NCAA's whim without the opportunity to defend their schools heritage or position on a given matter? The NCAA doesn't have to be accountable to anyone for anything since it's their club?

Tsk! Tsk! You're starting to sound like a "Big Business Republican", Mslacat!

Did anybody bother to consider that the Fighting Irish might be insulting to Irish who love to drink and fight?

theblackgecko wrote:So, who in the NCAA is complaining about the name?

I haven't heard complaints from other schools in the conference. Now, I have heard complaints from various Sioux tribes (some of which used to support the name), but that is between the school and the tribe. But, which NCAA member schools are complaining about the name?

The NCAA be supporting its members, rather than chastising them.

So the NCAA shouldn't be listening to or considering the position of the tribes at all? Interesting. I didn't realize the NCAA was in the business of condoning and acting as an advocate for whatever its member schools wanted to do.

So are long as the native Americans don't run any NCAA member schools, they aren't worth worrying about?

Cledus wrote:Did anybody bother to consider that the Fighting Irish might be insulting to Irish who love to drink and fight?

What is the predominate ethnicity of the people who run Notre Dame?

And a follow-up question ... how many Sioux are in leadership positions at UND?

And you might want to ask the Stanford band how much the Irish (and Notre Dame in particular) appreciate it when somebody other than an Irish organization uses the symbols of their ethnicity for their own clever devices. [If you aren't familiar with the fracas that ensued ... it really, really pisses them off, and they demand punishment for the people do it].

And I guarantee that Notre Dame doesn't represent their mascot as a drunk. In fact, that is exactly the kind of representation that the Stanford band pissed them off with.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Hell's Bells wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

ChiOCat wrote:Why were these names chosen? Are people making it up that there used to be a lot of warring between tribes?

They were chosen because of their proud, strong image. I fail to see why that's insulting. But, I guess if you are looking for a reason to be upset, you can always find one.

That's true ... but they could always change their name to the "Genocidal US Army Soldiers" and have their mascot be a white American Soldier in 1800s uniform with a batch of Indian scalps hanging from his belt.

I think that would be strong, powerful and intimidating image that would be a great mascot. And it's historically accurate as well, so there would not need to be any debate as to the appropriateness of the respresentation of the US Army by the mascot caricature. And it wouldn't insult anyone ... unless they were looking for a reason to be insulted.

unless you were/are in the united states army

Do I need to connect the last two dots, or has my point been made?

I've typed 7 different responses. Deleted each.

I am so sick of the PC, make sure nobody feels bad crap. WHY is this offensive? The native American tribes were strong and proud warriors. As someone said, they took pride in their skills and abilities. To me, it's a much more proud past than the present many of them are living. And I do not mean that as a racial slur, but a sad reality.

If you are sincerely interested in answering that question, I highly recommend reading the following books (or just talk to some people who are directly impacted by this sort of thing and are offended by it):

http://www.amazon.com/First-Person-Peop ... F8&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/Dancing-Halftime- ... F8&s=books

Or, you can jump on my bandwagon to push for UND suing for exclusive rights to the Sioux name to keep those native people from ruining that valuable brand name. After all, we should never allow a "Do unto others" kind of respect for a group of people (aka "PC") to get in the way of a valuable trademark for a college athletic program.

And I always wonder what people who use the term "PC" to dismiss other people's concerns think when something is said or done that offends them? If they are never offended by anything, I guess they are safe. But if they should ever be offended by anything ... that must lead to a lot of inner turmoil.

EDIT: I particularly recommend the first book -- I found it to be fascinating on many, many levels.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

theblackgecko wrote:So, who in the NCAA is complaining about the name?

I haven't heard complaints from other schools in the conference. Now, I have heard complaints from various Sioux tribes (some of which used to support the name), but that is between the school and the tribe. But, which NCAA member schools are complaining about the name?

The NCAA be supporting its members, rather than chastising them.

So the NCAA shouldn't be listening to or considering the position of the tribes at all? Interesting. I didn't realize the NCAA was in the business of condoning and acting as an advocate for whatever its member schools wanted to do.

So are long as the native Americans don't run any NCAA member schools, they aren't worth worrying about?

From the NCAA website:

Core Purpose

Our purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.

What does the nickname of the University of North Dakota have to do with "governing competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner?" Nothing.

To answer your question, as long as Native Americans do not run any NCAA member schools, their concerns are not relevant to the decisions that the NCAA makes.

GavinDonos wrote:

mslacat wrote: The way I look at it: It is the NCAA's club if UND does not like quit the club.

So all schools must bend to the NCAA's whim without the opportunity to defend their schools heritage or position on a given matter? The NCAA doesn't have to be accountable to anyone for anything since it's their club?

Tsk! Tsk! You're starting to sound like a "Big Business Republican", Mslacat!

The NCAA is not a dictatorship - OK technically- it is made up of memeber schools that vote the administation its power. As has happened many times if the majority of schools disagreed with the rule that force a change.

Unfortunately the NCAA membership ussually does not overrule its leadership unless it has a negitive effect on the bottom line $$$$$$$ of the membership.

Still the NCAA came up with a rule that they will not allow any team/college to participate in championship event and display native American mascots. Later on they made an exception that if the Native American population that represented by the mascot, give their blessing the NCAA would allow that Mascot. The tribes in North Dakota found NDU's Mascot offencive, thus the Mascot is not allowed. It's there club, they made exceptions to allow flexiblity, but a group of people find the mascot offencive IIIIIIIITS OUT OF HEEEEEEEEEEEERE