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

[Tcl123]

"A person can find cause to become upset about almost anything if they are looking to be upset about something. Sometimes, though, there really are reasons to be offended, like in the case of the Redskins, but most of the time it's just someone being over-sensitive and needing to relax a little bit and not be too uptight. There are many more things in the world, and in life, to be legitimately upset over instead of a sports team's nick name or mascot."


http://voices.yahoo.com/politically-incorrect-sports-team-names-7976922.html

[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.

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.

At least I bother to read before I respond. Do you have a macro set up for that shit? When I called you a child it was a slur. I get away with it because some of my best kids are children.

I'd like to take a look at the part in bold, from your own screed of stupidity. Then when you realize that you've just - in defense of your point - analogized an entire culture to a cat (another popular choice for naming teams) - I ask you to please turn off the internet for a while.

[adamw]

I believe North Dakota's evil-ness to many stems from having a Nazi-sympathizing benefactor donate $100,000,000 to build a gawdy hockey palace. It was supposed to be $10M - but he got mad over the Sioux issue, so pulled the plug on an across-the-board donation, and pumped it all into the arena instead.

That said, I'd love to see the place some time soon - and the only thing I have against any of them, really, is that their fans complain when every article isn't written about them, or their players don't win every award. There are fans like that everywhere - from my experience, they are just the largest bloc of them.

Also - my understanding is that the NCAA's decision was driven more by the mascots than the name itself.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Redskins isn't the most offensive ... from there, it's a matter of degree, and a matter of personal opinion as to what crosses the line.

[Rosey]

If the federal government did what the NCAA is doing, it would likely be unconstitutional.

Right, but the NCAA is a voluntary, private association while the government can throw you in prison, making it necessary for rules enforced by the latter to be held to a higher standard.

I don't relish playing both sides of this issue: I'm simply trying to be intellectually honest about it. I don't think the courts should be able to tell the NCAA what kinds of rules they can enforce... but I can at the same time think the NCAA is freaking retarded (can I say that?) for implementing this rule, and schools shortsighted hostages for having to put up with it.

[Ben]

I believe North Dakota's evil-ness to many stems from having a Nazi-sympathizing benefactor donate $100,000,000 to build a gawdy hockey palace. It was supposed to be $10M - but he got mad over the Sioux issue, so pulled the plug on an across-the-board donation, and pumped it all into the arena instead.

On a related note, Dave Hakstol looks like he could play an SS officer in a war movie. With bleach blonde hair.

[French Rage]

As a DC area native, you all can pry the name Redskins from my cold dead hands.  Actually, you can pry it from Dan Snyder's cold dead hands and we'll all look the other way from how he got that way.

[Josh '99]

Tribal names are not slurs or inherently offensive.

I can't vouch for the veracity of this information, but one of the comments to the article nyc94 posted yesterday that revived the thread said:

The word "Sioux" is a derogatory term that was given to the Lakota Tribe by the rival Ojibwe Tribe.  If memory serves me right, it translates to Two Serpents, or Two Devils.  That is why some of the local Native tribes are against it, if the mascot was named the Fighting Lakota, it may not of been an issue.

To which another comment replied:

its actually "snake in the grass" (as told to me by my tour guide at the On-a-slant-villiage, in Ft. Aberham lincoln state park) which can seem degrading but the meaning is contested.  Either snake in the grass as a bad thing, or a compliment, when the Ojibwe came to the prarie lands to fight the Sioux they ere use to fighing in the forests of minnesota and didn't know how the sioux camouflaged themselves and hid so well in the prarie... they were like a snake in the grass...  Its just a story told to me by a tour guide, but how many times do people say things that are taken the wrong way?

In response to which the original poster linked this article from the Lakota Country Times, which said:

"Nadowessi" means little serpent; "Nadowessioux" means two little serpents; "Sioux" is a slang word meaning little devils or demons. Nadowessi refers to the Ojibwa Nation; Nadowessioux refers to the Ojibwa Nation and the Dakota Tribe; Sioux refers to the Dakota Tribe. Later the US government stuck the Lakota and Nakota Tribe in this word Sioux.

...

This word did not and does not come from the Lakota, Dakota or Nakota.

This leads me to believe that while UND and the people of North Dakota may very well have been well-intentioned in using the term "Fighting Sioux" as a tribute to the native Americans in the region, as they claim, there seems to be a real basis for the people being so "recognized" to object to the use.

[Jim Hyla]

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.

Sad to tell you but societies put curbs on the majority to protect the minority all the time. In part that's what makes the US so strong, respect for minority rights.

But this really should come down to individual respect, much like the discussion about words used by fans at games. If I say something that is offensive to someone, and they let me know that it is, and it seems reasonable to me; then I try and respect them and be more careful. If a large segment of Native Americans in ND are offended and don't want the U to use their name and image, then why in the world can't we just respect that. It's not like they are hurting us by asking us to stop, they just find it disrespectful. To me that's it, end of question, it's over. They don't like it, so why in the world would I do it?

So, you can obviously take my point to the absurd, but please don't. I certainly don't mean that I'd stop doing everything just because someone said so, although I still don't throw candy in Lynah.:-/

They find it offensive, and the NCAA doesn't want to go along with it. It's that simple. I'm certainly happy living in a culture like ours, where we respect the minority.

[billhoward]

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.

Maybe the symbol had something to do with it. And hasn't even this symbol been cleaned up a bit over the years to a Disney look?

[clear]

[billhoward]

I still like the idea of a college telling the NCAA to buzz off and do something useful like nail the next Jim Tressel sooner ... but we really did screw over the Indians. So what's on ND's jersey doesn't seem all that important. I suspect if the team nicknames were respectful of the region's heritage and the logos weren't caricatures, American Indians wouldn't have such an issue.

[RichH]

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.

Maybe the symbol had something to do with it. And hasn't even this symbol been cleaned up a bit over the years to a Disney look?

[clear]

Yes.

[Jim Hyla]

The Sioux have played their last game. That is unless a desperation lawsuit changes things. Their new logo:

[ugarte]

They'd better trademark that. Never know when someone else will want something illegible. Maybe if the Escher Museum gets a hockey team.

[munchkin]

First thing I thought when I saw that was Notre Dame. Probably not what you want from your school's logo to make people think of another institution.

[jtwcornell91]

First thing I thought when I saw that was Notre Dame. Probably not what you want from your school's logo to make people think of another institution.

NoDak was already using some sort of ND logo, which I believe I once heard they had licensed from Notre Dame.

How many rupees do I need to pay Age to design a Fighting Flickertails logo?