"Fighting Sioux" nickname may [not] [may too] stick at N Dakota

[Ben]

A sad day. Political correctness wins again.

Yes, how sad that a large, powerful institution will no longer be using a grossly outdated racial caricature to promote their profit-making athletics enterprise.  Here, have a hanky.

But it fit so nicely with UND being generally evil. As evil as you can get in college hockey, anyway.

Really? I never got that impression from them. Maine? Evil. Minnesota? Evil. But UND?

Maybe I've been watching too many YouTube videos of them getting away with cheap shots and then starting fights.

[CUontheslopes]

A sad day. Political correctness wins again.

Yes, how sad that a large, powerful institution will no longer be using a grossly outdated racial caricature to promote their profit-making athletics enterprise.  Here, have a hanky.

Or the elected representatives of the people of North Dakota who decided to keep the logo and mascot were forced to change it by the NC$$. If North Dakota and the people of North Dakota wanted to keep it, they should have been allowed to. There's absolutely nothing racist about the term "Fighting Sioux." Let's see the NCAA crack down on the Fighting Irish.

[scoop85]

A sad day. Political correctness wins again.

Yes, how sad that a large, powerful institution will no longer be using a grossly outdated racial caricature to promote their profit-making athletics enterprise.  Here, have a hanky.

But it fit so nicely with UND being generally evil. As evil as you can get in college hockey, anyway.

Really? I never got that impression from them. Maine? Evil. Minnesota? Evil. But UND?

Yeah, I've always had the Goophers much higher on the evil list.  After all, can you imagine Minny ever coming to Lynah?

[Beeeej]

There's absolutely nothing racist about the term "Fighting Sioux."

Well, thanks for clearing that up.  I'm sorry so many of us were mistaken!

[ugarte]

A sad day. Political correctness wins again.

Yes, how sad that a large, powerful institution will no longer be using a grossly outdated racial caricature to promote their profit-making athletics enterprise.  Here, have a hanky.

Or the elected representatives of the people of North Dakota who decided to keep the logo and mascot were forced to change it by the NC$$. If North Dakota and the people of North Dakota wanted to keep it, they should have been allowed to. There's absolutely nothing racist about the term "Fighting Sioux." Let's see the NCAA crack down on the Fighting Irish.

"I am not offended" does not mean the same thing as "that is not racist."

[KeithK]

A sad day. Political correctness wins again.

Yes, how sad that a large, powerful institution will no longer be using a grossly outdated racial caricature to promote their profit-making athletics enterprise.  Here, have a hanky.

Or the elected representatives of the people of North Dakota who decided to keep the logo and mascot were forced to change it by the NC$$. If North Dakota and the people of North Dakota wanted to keep it, they should have been allowed to. There's absolutely nothing racist about the term "Fighting Sioux." Let's see the NCAA crack down on the Fighting Irish.

"I am not offended" does not mean the same thing as "that is not racist."

In this case, whether or not the name is "racist" is a subjective question. There's no element of racial discrimination that one could point to. The school's depiction of their name and logo has always been (at least AFAIK) respectful, not like Chief Wahoo of Cleveland. Some supporters think that the nickname honors the Sioux tribe and at least at some point the Sioux nation (or one of them) agreed. Some may think that any use of Indian imagery or names is inherently racist but there are others who disagree. Reasonable minds can differ.

[RichH]

A sad day. Political correctness wins again.

Yes, how sad that a large, powerful institution will no longer be using a grossly outdated racial caricature to promote their profit-making athletics enterprise.  Here, have a hanky.

But it fit so nicely with UND being generally evil. As evil as you can get in college hockey, anyway.

Really? I never got that impression from them. Maine? Evil. Minnesota? Evil. But UND?

I've been to many Frozen Fours, and seeing how entitled and cavalier their fanbase is at those events has cemented them in the "evil" category in my mind.  Plus, The Ralph.  It's like the Death Star of college hockey.

"That's no moon."

[Trotsky]

I have an idea. Let's use some ethnic group as an arbitrary opportunity to voice our political opinions.  Because that wouldn't be patronizing at all.

[CUontheslopes]

I'm sorry but there's nothing subjective about it. Fighting [INSERT PROPER NAME FOR ANY GROUP] is not racist in any way, shape or form. It's not like they're calling them the "Redskins" or, as someone else pointed out, using a caricature like Chief Wahoo. Fighting Sioux is no more offensive than Fighting New Yorkers. Last time I check "Sioux" was not an ethnic slur. The NCAA merely created an overboard rule which happened to catch the Sioux along with less respectful indian mascots.

And I'm happy to give those of you who see it differently the correct lesson - just because you think something IS subjectively offensive, doesn't mean it is or that the rest of society should bend to your opinion. If anytime someone was subjectively offended we apologized, we'd spend 23.5 hrs out of the day apologizing or being quiet for fear of offending someone.

[Jim Hyla]

A sad day. Political correctness wins again.

Yes, how sad that a large, powerful institution will no longer be using a grossly outdated racial caricature to promote their profit-making athletics enterprise.  Here, have a hanky.

Or the elected representatives of the people of North Dakota who decided to keep the logo and mascot were forced to change it by the NC$$. If North Dakota and the people of North Dakota wanted to keep it, they should have been allowed to. There's absolutely nothing racist about the term "Fighting Sioux." Let's see the NCAA crack down on the Fighting Irish.

They were forced to change it because they could not get the Sioux (all of the tribes) to agree to let them use it. It doesn't really matter that the non-Sioux were happy about the name. What matters is whether the elected representatives of the Sioux were happy with it. Not all were, so the name goes. Oh well, we'll have to pick on someone else.::deadhorse::

[CUontheslopes]

A sad day. Political correctness wins again.

Yes, how sad that a large, powerful institution will no longer be using a grossly outdated racial caricature to promote their profit-making athletics enterprise.  Here, have a hanky.

Or the elected representatives of the people of North Dakota who decided to keep the logo and mascot were forced to change it by the NC$$. If North Dakota and the people of North Dakota wanted to keep it, they should have been allowed to. There's absolutely nothing racist about the term "Fighting Sioux." Let's see the NCAA crack down on the Fighting Irish.

They were forced to change it because they could not get the Sioux (all of the tribes) to agree to let them use it. It doesn't really matter that the non-Sioux were happy about the name. What matters is whether the elected representatives of the Sioux were happy with it. Not all were, so the name goes. Oh well, we'll have to pick on someone else.::deadhorse::

When was the last time all of anyone agreed on anything? Requiring unanimous consent was merely a tactic used by the NCAA to ensure that the name wouldn't stand. I'm not sure you could get the consent of all the states to use the name Fighting Americans.

[Rosey]

The NCAA merely created an overboard rule which happened to catch the Sioux along with less respectful indian mascots.

I see this issue mostly as a slippery slope problem: I would rather the NCAA just stick to the business of setting standard rules for sports and organizing tournaments, and stay out of the business of promoting political agendas, whatever they are. But maybe that's just me: maybe a monopolistic intercollegiate athletic association should use its dominant market position to foist its majority members' sports-unrelated views on others. UND can of course drop out of the NCAA and go form its own association, right? But that would almost immediately destroy its D1 hockey program, dropping it to the level of the WPI club team overnight. Ah... what a dilemma! Who could possibly have foreseen it? ::demented::

The lesson people never learn is to be careful about the powers they delegate to a democratic organization they initially view as friendly, because these orgs tend to be captured by special interests unrelated to their founding purposes.

[ugarte]

I'm sorry but there's nothing subjective about it. Fighting [INSERT PROPER NAME FOR ANY GROUP] is not racist in any way, shape or form. It's not like they're calling them the "Redskins" or, as someone else pointed out, using a caricature like Chief Wahoo. Fighting Sioux is no more offensive than Fighting New Yorkers. Last time I check "Sioux" was not an ethnic slur. The NCAA merely created an overboard rule which happened to catch the Sioux along with less respectful indian mascots.

And I'm happy to give those of you who see it differently the correct lesson - just because you think something IS subjectively offensive, doesn't mean it is or that the rest of society should bend to your opinion. If anytime someone was subjectively offended we apologized, we'd spend 23.5 hrs out of the day apologizing or being quiet for fear of offending someone.

You are a child. A spoiled child who can't play with his toy. In this case, the toy is "the identity of people who aren't him."

Tribal names were, and to a lesser extent are, offensive because they represent an infantilized and romanticized view of a "foreign" culture. That it is possible to heap on extra offense by also using a slur doesn't make the basic idea of using someone else's culture as a symbol of whatever you choose to assign to it inoffensive.

Notre Dame isn't a counterexample. The Notre Dame teams are called "the Fighting Irish" because the Jesuits running the school intentionally appropriated an attempted slur against them.

[css228]

I can't really be all that upset about Fighting Sioux when a football team in our nations capital uses a blatant racial slur as their name. And let's not even start with Cleveland's baseball team.

[CUontheslopes]

I'm sorry but there's nothing subjective about it. Fighting [INSERT PROPER NAME FOR ANY GROUP] is not racist in any way, shape or form. It's not like they're calling them the "Redskins" or, as someone else pointed out, using a caricature like Chief Wahoo. Fighting Sioux is no more offensive than Fighting New Yorkers. Last time I check "Sioux" was not an ethnic slur. The NCAA merely created an overboard rule which happened to catch the Sioux along with less respectful indian mascots.

And I'm happy to give those of you who see it differently the correct lesson - just because you think something IS subjectively offensive, doesn't mean it is or that the rest of society should bend to your opinion. If anytime someone was subjectively offended we apologized, we'd spend 23.5 hrs out of the day apologizing or being quiet for fear of offending someone.

You are a child. A spoiled child who can't play with his toy. In this case, the toy is "the identity of people who aren't him."

Tribal names were, and to a lesser extent are, offensive because they represent an infantilized and romanticized view of a "foreign" culture. That it is possible to heap on extra offense by also using a slur doesn't make the basic idea of using someone else's culture as a symbol of whatever you choose to assign to it inoffensive.

Notre Dame isn't a counterexample. The Notre Dame teams are called "the Fighting Irish" because the Jesuits running the school intentionally appropriated an attempted slur against them.

HAHA It's amazing Cornell let you out with a degree. You can't disagree rationally, so you instead take to calling names. Excellent analytical strategy. Ooo or perhaps I could say I'm subjectively offended by you calling me a child. That could be a slur! I demand you immediately cease using the world child permanently because you might offend someone. Absurd.

Tribal names are not slurs or inherently offensive. They are descriptive monikers, names for a noun no different than calling a four-leggeed furry critter a "cat." Maybe we could just stop calling people by any names at all for fear of offending someone. If you don't like the Fighting Sioux I can't see how you could abide the blatent racism of a school right in our very conference! UNION DUTCHMEN! How offensive!!!

"Political correctness" is nothing more than a minority of society attempting to exercise a veto on the speech of the majority, which has the effect of chilling speech altogether. If the federal government did what the NCAA is doing, it would likely be unconstitutional.