No more "Fighting Sioux"
VikingDude
Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
After voting in yesterday's elections, North Dakota has voted to end the "Fighting Sioux" nickname for the University of North Dakota. Very controversial over the last few years but I think it was finally time to retire the name. Now comes the hard part of getting rid of it and getting a new one.
0
Comments
What a bunch of BS. Being part Native American I have no problem with the name Fighting Sioux. I see it as tribute to the Sioux for the warriors that they were. Now I could see where people would have a problem with the "Redskins" name.
Stanford went from Indians to a plural of their school color (cardinals) in early 70's. Some N.A. students protested and it was put to a student vote.
Later the name was changed to singular cardinal.
The mascot was even a member of the Yurok tribe.
Now the mascot is a tree. Stanford is near a city, Palo Alto which is Spanish for tall tree. The "tree" mascot is goofy. Much like the marching band has been for decades.
Good luck with the search.
<< <i>Interesting that Dakota is what Sioux Indians called themselves. Maybe they could call themselves the UND Teredos (worm shaped mollusk that is the State fossil)?
Stanford went from Indians to a plural of their school color (cardinals) in early 70's. Some N.A. students protested and it was put to a student vote.
Later the name was changed to singular cardinal.
The mascot was even a member of the Yurok tribe.
Now the mascot is a tree. Stanford is near a city, Palo Alto which is Spanish for tall tree. The "tree" mascot is goofy. Much like the marching band has been for decades.
Good luck with the search. >>
i always thought the tree was the stupidest mascot ever lol and i am a left wing tree hugging nutball!!!
looking for low grade t205's psa 1-2
What a joke
<< <i>Right in line with the rest of the overly sensitive and political correctness BS of todays world.
What a joke >>
+1
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
Must be a bunch of liberals running that university.
<< <i>Must be a bunch of liberals running that university. >>
Liberals in North Dakota?
<< <i>Pretty much had no choice. If they didn't change it they would have very limited NCAA activity. >>
I live in ND, and got my MBA at UND. You're exactly right - we didn't have a choice. The citizens/alumni fought for years to keep it. And I believe anyone that was offended by the name was completely out of line. I would have been honored if they were named the "Fighting Crackers" (as we are 99% caucasian up here), but nevertheless it is what it is. There are lots of people who are heartbroken over the name being retired but you are absolutely right. We wouldn't be able to compete (and especially in hockey where we are almost always ranked near the top in the nation) in NCAA tournaments, and we were having a hard time recruiting talent because of the uncertainty. It was a hard thing to vote on, but we knew what we had to do in the end.
"In Al We Trust!"
Looking for Autos of HOFers Charles Bidwill, Tim Mara, Joe Carr, Fritz Pollard, Guy Chamberlin & Bill Hewitt
SW Colorado has a large population of Native American Indian tribes, as does New Mexico, Arizona and Utah. The school has a large NA student population. In the 1990's complaints were made (not necessarily by indian students at the school) about the Raider and the mascot. As a result of the complaints the Raider and the Cavalry mascot were dumped and replaced with a "Skyhawk".
Fort Lewis College Raiders changed to For Lewis College Skyhawks.
What a disappointment.
It all stems from the NCAA being PC when in fact is doesn't offend anyone. Every NA I have spoken to about it said the same thing. The logo/name shows strength and pride. Something
the local NAs unfortunately do not feel as humans. Instead they are lumped into the negative stereotype. Sad day for UND alumni.
Hoarding silver and collecting history
<< <i>Wow, what a bunch of crap.
Must be a bunch of liberals running that university. >>
White know-it-all liberals at that! They think they know better what's best for minorities.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
I am not making an opinion on the Fighting Sioux situation as I only know some generalities about the situation and I view each situation as distinct.
I never thought I would see Yurok on these message boards as I am a member of the Yurok Tribe. I think there are a lot of issues in Indian country that are more important than this one but this one does seem catch a lot of national attention.
My thoughts on this. I know that there are a lot of Native Americans who do like to identify with a cartoon caricature that is often a mascot and proudly wear the gear of The Atlanta Braves or the Washington Redskins. I also know that there are many Native Americans who are frustrated with ignorant comments made about native peoples from stereotypical native imagery often promoted by the silliness of mascots from sporting events and often mock traditional dance ceremonies with a goofy representation. I think most people would be offended if another mocked their religious beliefs. I do think there is a difference between a minority and/or peoples who may have experienced genocide by the dominant culture, or be forced to move away from their homeland by the federal government, and the dominant culture who were the people running this country. It is a lot easier to assimilate to the dominate culture when you look the part of dominant society that do not experience the degree of racism and discrimination as a minority would. As for the Seminole Tribe in Florida, I think there are some financial motivations that seems to agree with that Tribe and that is their right even though other native people disagree with the Seminoles (some are okay with it as there are differing opinions).
I also feel that on national issues that Native people are often not heard as well as other minority groups as Indian Tribes are sovereign nations and each one has their own culture and there are approximately 500 independent nations within our countries borders.
Just imagine if the Oakland Raiders changed their name to the "Blacks" and imagery from a sporting event included some of the worst stereotypes people have of the race. Do you think for a moment that the NAACP would be up in arms in a nanosecond and put pressure on the team or the league to halt this practice? Why we are at it why not have a Mexicans team and go on with stereotyping them as well as the Jews. It really is amazing that our first peoples of this country are the ones who are the last to get the respect of other minority groups in this country.
I agree that Redskins is one of the worst nicknames out there as it is historical reference for "scalps" and other nicknames are generic and do not have as much "offensiveness" as I would say. I would like to see a more accurate portrayal of our native people here in our country. That is just me though.
By the way, one of the running jokes in Indian Country is how many "white people" say that their grandmother was a "Cherokee Princess". I have met people who are indeed Cherokee and they are quick to identify their "band" as they do not want to be mocked because Indian people have heard this saying hundreds of times.
I better stop, thought I would give an opinion a bit different than the earlier posts.
Woh-klew (thank you)
Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
<< <i>Maybe the cleveland browns should change their name, because it might offend Hispanics? >>
Or the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, as it forces a religious belief on fans.
As for WCK's post, I was very well-stated and thought-provoking; his analogies didn't always hold water for me as the connotations of the various examples were often markedly different, but the overall premise was welcome from my perspective.
FWIW - My beliefs are pretty mainstream, yet every day they got mocked on TV shows, in political speeches, in movies, etc.
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
I think that the reason why that there are so many Indian mascots in comparison to other races (Fighting Irish and ?) is that at one time it was a belief that Native Americans were subhuman and nearly animal like..... we may not believe that now, but at one time that was the prevailing thought by many. Locally, there was a massacre of Indian women and children in the late 1800s and an author was so appalled he wrote about it and brought attention to the matter.
On a personal note, my great grandmother was alive until the early 1980s and she was not considered a citizen of this country until she was in her thirties despite being born here and living here her whole life. This is a person that I loved dearly and it amazes me that she did not have basic rights that we take for granted in this country.
It is fact that some people talk about native people in past tense and there are native people who wear jeans, live in houses and not tee pees, etc.
My two cents once again.
Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
<< <i>Pretty much had no choice. If they didn't change it they would have very limited NCAA activity. >>
If this is true, then how come Notre Dame hasn't changed their nickname?
<< <i>
<< <i>Pretty much had no choice. If they didn't change it they would have very limited NCAA activity. >>
If this is true, then how come Notre Dame hasn't changed their nickname? >>
Because the NCAA rule in question only applies to Native American nicknames.
Tabe
<< <i> Just imagine if the Oakland Raiders changed their name to the "Blacks" and imagery from a sporting event included some of the worst stereotypes people have of the race. Do you think for a moment that the NAACP would be up in arms in a nanosecond and put pressure on the team or the league to halt this practice? >>
You mean like the way the NCAA has so vigorously pursued Notre Dame?
Tabe
If there was one word that could describe what happened to their culture and their people, it would be that they were 'exterminated'.
It is funny when people compare that to 'Angels' or Irish people...even though Irish immigrants had to overcome some prejudices when they first arrived, it hardly compares to being systematically exterminated.
Everyone learns of the first Thanksgiving with Indian Chief Massasoit, but do they know of King Philip's war when Massasoit's son, Metacomet(King Philip) and other thousands, were slaughtered because they would not assimilate into the culture and religion of the settlers? Or because they would not yield their land?
The typical M/O with the treatment of the Indians was: kill them, make a treaty with them, break the treaty and forceably move them to live in some god forsaken place where there was no way to thrive, have more die off all along due to disease, until their people and culture were severely diminished enough so as to not get in the way.
Oh, and scalping was a ritual started by the settlers done onto the Indians.
Really, if you look back at their treatment they were treated as pets, actually worse then pets, and then to publicly make them into a pet via a mascot, is simply salt in the wound.
How is making somebody a pet honoring them? If one really wanted to honor them, then wouldn't the first step be to educate people on what really happened to them? Yet hardly anyone in our society knows the whole story.
There is no other group of people in our country that can compare their journey to that of the Native Americans. Nobody. So all the comparisons in this thread of other groups that aren't as offended as being pets, hold no water.
500 nations is a good DVD series one could watch to get a view on what happened to them.
<< <i>The treatment of American Indians in the history of our country is the most over looked event in our nation's culture. Most of what people know about American Indians is from what they learned in elementary school during their Thanksgiving unit...or maybe a little later in their education that the Indians were 'relocated'.
If there was one word that could describe what happened to their culture and their people, it would be that they were 'exterminated'.
It is funny when people compare that to 'Angels' or Irish people...even though Irish immigrants had to overcome some prejudices when they first arrived, it hardly compares to being systematically exterminated.
Everyone learns of the first Thanksgiving with Indian Chief Massasoit, but do they know of King Philip's war when Massasoit's son, Metacomet(King Philip) and other thousands, were slaughtered because they would not assimilate into the culture and religion of the settlers? Or because they would not yield their land?
The typical M/O with the treatment of the Indians was: kill them, make a treaty with them, break the treaty and forceably move them to live in some god forsaken place where there was no way to thrive, have more die off all along due to disease, until their people and culture were severely diminished enough so as to not get in the way.
Oh, and scalping was a ritual started by the settlers done onto the Indians.
Really, if you look back at their treatment they were treated as pets, actually worse then pets, and then to publicly make them into a pet via a mascot, is simply salt in the wound.
How is making somebody a pet honoring them? If one really wanted to honor them, then wouldn't the first step be to educate people on what really happened to them? Yet hardly anyone in our society knows the whole story.
There is no other group of people in our country that can compare their journey to that of the Native Americans. Nobody. So all the comparisons in this thread of other groups that aren't as offended as being pets, hold no water.
500 nations is a good DVD series one could watch to get a view on what happened to them. >>
There was a debate about this on another site. Your post is debatable and I disagree with it completely.
The NCAA rules should apply to every RACE!!
<< <i>
Your post is debatable and I disagree with it completely.
>>
Seriously?
<< <i>
<< <i>
Your post is debatable and I disagree with it completely.
>>
Seriously?
I cant say I disagree with it, its without question the American Indians were systematicaly taken by force and relocated to reservations. The Indians were absolutely brutal in the war as well as the white settlers/soldiers though, raping woman occured on both sides as well as killing children and horrendous tortures. It is a shame but a neccessary event in our countrys start to what it is today, if we didnt defend it after settling in then another country would have done the same to our forfathers such as the English.
It is bad enough that they were conquered, and this country probably would not have grown to what it is if they weren't(though there most certainly could have been a better way)...but to make them mascots really is like putting salt in the wound.
Soundgard, what other races comprised 99% of the population of this country's borders, had their lands taken from them, were systematically eliminated(to near extinction at one point)...and now comprise only less than 1% of the population of the country's borders, and are the race that has the lowest level of poverty? If you find one, then MAYBE you have a case
So they are 'honored' by being made mascots? That is a funny way of honoring people.
In 'playing terms' it is like honoring a legendary baseball player by making him your bat boy...which makes about as much sense as honoring Native Americans by making them mascots.
If the University, or its backers, really did want to honor them, then why not name (or change) the entire name of the university to 'Sioux University' and then require classes on the true history of Native Americans in this country?
Lets say your son ‘Trent’ had a neighborhood kid over in your driveway to play some basketball, they had a disagreement and a fight ensued, and the neighborhood kid beat your son’s butt, broke his glasses, and took his ball.
Then next week you drive by the neighborhood kid’s driveway and he is playing basketball against some other kids with your son’s ball, and every time the neighborhood kid makes a basket, there is a kid on the sidelines dressed like Spaz from “Meatballs” throwing punches in the air to celebrate on behalf of the ‘Fightin Trents’?
Are you going to feel good about your son being honored because there is a neighborhood team and mascot named after him?
That is no way to honor a defeated foe.
Oh, and you can bet that if England named their Olympic teams the 'Lucky Leprechaun's', and had a caricature Leprechaun doing Irish dances incorrectly, you can bet the people of Ireland would be up in arms over that(and rightfully so!). Why? Mainly because there is a history of subjugation between them. Also, the IOC would certainly ban that from happening, and would be correct in banning it!
That same history between the Irish and US does not exist, hence them having no problems with Notre Dame using the Fighting Irish.
While there may be good discussion how Native Americans were treated throughout history (in many instances, enslaved just as black people were but with much less exposure), I think its just silly to find offense to a sports team named after Native Americans. Let's no longer have cartoons of children because there may be parents offended the way they are depicted! lol
If you want to know what Native Americans are really upset about, its the broken treaties TO THIS DAY, even recent treaties and also US government forcing themselves on the reservations in ways of laws and taxes.
Now, enough of this silliness!
It is logical that only a minority within the group are going to be offended by them being conquered and then humiliated so as to be pets. As like any other people, the majority have the major things to spend their times and energies on, such as finding work, making food, raising children, dating, etc...
Also, it was a long time ago that a lot of these atrocities occurred, and with most youth(and people in general), they have NO sense of history at all to make the connection that the minority within the group does see. Also, like you said, there are bigger fish to fry right now for the majority. None of that lessens the humiliation of being made into a mascot, even if it is not seen. Most will probably have to feel it first hand to make the connection.
How would you feel if the US government does find a way to get into the casino's on the reservation by either outlawing them, or taking a high percentage of the money...and then teams with mascots have their Indian caricatures, in a non mocking way, spinning roulette wheels in hope of finding luck to score a touchdown?
Naming your own Indian Lacrosse team an Indian name is different than the group that has subjugated you, naming it, and making you their pet.
Note the bold writings in the article, and the origin of "redskins".
STAR Text
<< <i>Soundgard, what other races comprised 99% of the population of this country's borders, had their lands taken from them, were systematically eliminated(to near extinction at one point)...and now comprise only less than 1% of the population of the country's borders, and are the race that has the lowest level of poverty? If you find one, then MAYBE you have a case
Well, pretty much every society that expanded their borders, for whatever reason, via war. For thousands and thousands of years, if the people ran out of resources or just wanted to conquer, whichever side "won" had power and controlled the narrative of how their story would be told.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses for what our forefathers did to Native Americans. However, to make it sound like an isolated incident is very short sighted. Kahn, Alexander, J Caesar, Mao, pretty much every historical military leader from the Middle East... The list goes on and on.
<< <i>
<< <i>Soundgard, what other races comprised 99% of the population of this country's borders, had their lands taken from them, were systematically eliminated(to near extinction at one point)...and now comprise only less than 1% of the population of the country's borders, and are the race that has the lowest level of poverty? If you find one, then MAYBE you have a case
Well, pretty much every society that expanded their borders, for whatever reason, via war. For thousands and thousands of years, if the people ran out of resources or just wanted to conquer, whichever side "won" had power and controlled the narrative of how their story would be told.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses for what our forefathers did to Native Americans. However, to make it sound like an isolated incident is very short sighted. Kahn, Alexander, J Caesar, Mao, pretty much every historical military leader from the Middle East... The list goes on and on. >>
Stown, I said "this country's borders." And obviously history is filled with conquerer's and conquered
But, even if one is to ignore that aspect... how many of them are now mascots for so many United States sports teams??
Would it fly if Israel had a Palestinian mascot?? Or like the example above if England had the Lucky Leprechaun mascot?
People usually need to feel it themselves before they could understand, hence a first hand example below:
Lets say your son ‘Trent’ had a neighborhood kid over in your driveway to play some basketball, they had a disagreement and a fight ensued, and the neighborhood kid beat your son’s butt, broke his glasses, and took his ball.
Then next week you drive by the neighborhood kid’s driveway and he is playing basketball against some other kids with your son’s ball, and every time the neighborhood kid makes a basket, there is a kid on the sidelines dressed like Spaz from “Meatballs” throwing punches in the air to celebrate on behalf of the ‘Fightin Trents’?
Are you going to feel good about your son being honored because there is a neighborhood team and mascot named after him?
That is no way to honor a defeated foe.
I think if one were to read the STAR link provided above, there would be more explanations presented.
I agree with Yankeeno7 that current American Indians have bigger issues to resolve, such as their sovereignty being challenged once again with new laws and money demands by the government. However, just because there are bigger issues at hand doesn't make the mascot issue unworthy of being challenged and changed, because as noted above, it is wrong and dehumanizing to make them mascots. The STAR link highlights this well.
Does the greater society care that American Indians feel this way? Probably not...and by reading these boards, I would say certainly not.
People like their status quo, and since American Indians really don't pose any threat to their current way of life, the greater society basically sees this whole issue as nonsense. The greater population is more concerned about issues that will affect their status quo, not that such a small part of the population is upset about being dehumanized as mascots, and then being told it is not a problem because it is under the mistaken veil of 'being honored'.
I wish I had all the answers and solutions to the many complex problems that countries and humans must tackle...problems that are so very hard to sort through, problems that are very difficult to solve, and problems where many life altering consequences are hanging in the balance.
The thing is, the mascot issue isn't very hard to sort through, isn't very difficult to solve, and the consequence of changing a team's name really isn't that life altering.
<< <i>Stown, I said "this country's borders." And obviously history is filled with conquerer's and conquered
But, even if one is to ignore that aspect... how many of them are now mascots for so many United States sports teams?? >>
Do you know the story behind my avatar?
At the end of the day, mascots, flags, songs, whatever, all depend on one's perception. What one sees with pride and history, someone else sees as oppression and defeat. Rather than attempting to find a common ground, most will take the easy way out and ban its use.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/05/two_tribes_call_state_board_of.html