Help
Add ReplyQuote
NCAA: You know how it works with us, babe. Some days, we get so mad at Ohio State that we slap two years of probation on Prairie View.
Media Stories on the Sioux Name For reference / interest
Back to top
MultiQuote
#1302
Posted 14 October 2006 - 04:25 PM
PCM, on Oct 14 2006, 11:45 AM, said:
From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:
NCAA way: think small, stand tall
NCAA way: think small, stand tall
Quote
Reporter: Hello? I'm trying to reach Mr. Jones of the D.O.L.T.
NCAA: That would be me, James T. Jones, Division of Offensive Logos and Trademarks.
Reporter: I guess you guys are probably tired of hearing that D.O.L.T. spells "dolt."
NCAA: Why would we be tired of that? We're one of the NCAA's fastest-growing and most successful departments. Last Tuesday was "DOLT Pride" day at our headquarters in Indianapolis. We've got lots of dolts walking the halls here, but everyone in the building was claiming to be a dolt that day.
NCAA: That would be me, James T. Jones, Division of Offensive Logos and Trademarks.
Reporter: I guess you guys are probably tired of hearing that D.O.L.T. spells "dolt."
NCAA: Why would we be tired of that? We're one of the NCAA's fastest-growing and most successful departments. Last Tuesday was "DOLT Pride" day at our headquarters in Indianapolis. We've got lots of dolts walking the halls here, but everyone in the building was claiming to be a dolt that day.
Quote
Reporter: You really ought to consider a departmental name change.
NCAA: At our last meeting, someone proposed the Initiative to Drop Inappropriate and Outdated Terminology. I kind of liked the sound of it.
NCAA: At our last meeting, someone proposed the Initiative to Drop Inappropriate and Outdated Terminology. I kind of liked the sound of it.
#1303
Posted 17 October 2006 - 07:36 AM
Ryan Bakken story in the Herald contrasting the debacle during the Miami/FIU game to the nickname issue.
You Want Hostile and Abusive?
You Want Hostile and Abusive?
Quote
It's time for the NCAA to do something about the stain that is placed on collegiate sports by the likes of Miami.
Of course, the NCAA won't do that. When college athletics' governing body chooses to flex its muscle, it picks on the featherweights of college athletics like UND, not the heavyweights like the Miami Hurricanes. It lacks courage to confront a golden goose like Miami.
Of course, the NCAA won't do that. When college athletics' governing body chooses to flex its muscle, it picks on the featherweights of college athletics like UND, not the heavyweights like the Miami Hurricanes. It lacks courage to confront a golden goose like Miami.
#1304
Posted 17 October 2006 - 11:45 AM
Cmon, GeauxSioux, everyone knows that when you come into the OB, you're gonna get your a** whooped. I was about set to run down the stairs and mix it up myself. 
#1305
Posted 18 October 2006 - 01:17 PM
A friend sent me this email today:
Quote
Your boys were mentioned on NPR national news yesterday. They had a story about some Texas school that has chosen to have no nickname/mascot at all and have said that they’re banking on UND’s lawsuit against the NCAA. The reporter said “That’s the University of North Dakota ‘Fighting Sioux’, as in the Indian tribe, not the courtroom activity.”
Thought it was pretty clever. I suggest for tournament time you change the name to the Fighting Sue and change the logo to the cover page of the legal complaint against the NCAA.
Thought it was pretty clever. I suggest for tournament time you change the name to the Fighting Sue and change the logo to the cover page of the legal complaint against the NCAA.
#1306
Posted 18 October 2006 - 02:39 PM
dagies, on Oct 18 2006, 01:17 PM, said:
A friend sent me this email today:
Quote
... change the name to the Fighting Sue and change the logo to the cover page of the legal complaint against the NCAA.
Naw, just use the summons.
#1307
Posted 18 October 2006 - 10:24 PM
From the San Antonio Express-News:
McMurry, formerly the Indians, opts for no mascot
McMurry, formerly the Indians, opts for no mascot
Quote
Officials at McMurry University in Abilene have announced that, henceforth, the school's sports teams will have no mascot and not even a nickname.
Better not to have one, school officials say, than to cave in completely to an NCAA edict that the Division III institution change its 83-year tradition of calling its athletic teams the "Indians."
Better not to have one, school officials say, than to cave in completely to an NCAA edict that the Division III institution change its 83-year tradition of calling its athletic teams the "Indians."
Quote
"We are standing apart and true to our history and culture of our Indian tradition. It's a statement that what it says on our jerseys doesn't define who we are. And rather than diffuse the message by calling us the Bears or the Bobcats, we know who we are."
McMurry, the only school in Texas targeted by the NCAA, is now believed to be the only college in the country without any nickname.
McMurry, the only school in Texas targeted by the NCAA, is now believed to be the only college in the country without any nickname.
#1308
Posted 22 October 2006 - 10:20 PM
This doesn't need it's own thread, so I'm posting it here.
As some of you know, I'm currently on the Navajo Nation reservation in Arizona. I was driving around today enjoying the beautiful countryside and drove past a tiny little town named Red Mesa. The name of the high school's sports team was proudly displayed in big letters on a big sign for all to see as they drove past, THE RED SKINS.
Go figure.
As some of you know, I'm currently on the Navajo Nation reservation in Arizona. I was driving around today enjoying the beautiful countryside and drove past a tiny little town named Red Mesa. The name of the high school's sports team was proudly displayed in big letters on a big sign for all to see as they drove past, THE RED SKINS.
Go figure.
#1309
Posted 23 October 2006 - 09:33 AM
Sioux-cia, on Oct 22 2006, 10:20 PM, said:
This doesn't need it's own thread, so I'm posting it here.
As some of you know, I'm currently on the Navajo Nation reservation in Arizona. I was driving around today enjoying the beautiful countryside and drove past a tiny little town named Red Mesa. The name of the high school's sports team was proudly displayed in big letters on a big sign for all to see as they drove past, THE RED SKINS.
Go figure.
As some of you know, I'm currently on the Navajo Nation reservation in Arizona. I was driving around today enjoying the beautiful countryside and drove past a tiny little town named Red Mesa. The name of the high school's sports team was proudly displayed in big letters on a big sign for all to see as they drove past, THE RED SKINS.
Go figure.
That goes right along with the FORT TOTTEN INDIANS, WARWICK WARRIORS and BELCOURT BRAVES, and many more.
#1310
Posted 23 October 2006 - 06:54 PM
Siouxmama, on Oct 23 2006, 09:33 AM, said:
Sioux-cia, on Oct 22 2006, 10:20 PM, said:
This doesn't need it's own thread, so I'm posting it here.
As some of you know, I'm currently on the Navajo Nation reservation in Arizona. I was driving around today enjoying the beautiful countryside and drove past a tiny little town named Red Mesa. The name of the high school's sports team was proudly displayed in big letters on a big sign for all to see as they drove past, THE RED SKINS.
Go figure.
As some of you know, I'm currently on the Navajo Nation reservation in Arizona. I was driving around today enjoying the beautiful countryside and drove past a tiny little town named Red Mesa. The name of the high school's sports team was proudly displayed in big letters on a big sign for all to see as they drove past, THE RED SKINS.
Go figure.
That goes right along with the FORT TOTTEN INDIANS, WARWICK WARRIORS and BELCOURT BRAVES, and many more.
That's true. It's my understanding though, that calling an American Indian a RED SKIN is thought of in the same vein as calling an African American the "N" word. Calling an American Indian an Indian, Warrior, Brave, etc doesn't carry the same neagative,racially inflammable connotation that calling an American Indian a "Red Skin". I was very surprised to see Red Mesa (on the Navajo reservation) call their team by that name because of that understanding on my part.
I've also been reading in the Navajo Times that many Indians (from many different tribes) are banning together to request changing the names of many towns, rivers, etc. The name they want removed is "Squaw". Apparently, squaw refers to a women's genitalia in a very negative way.
#1311
Posted 23 October 2006 - 09:15 PM
Sioux-cia, on Oct 23 2006, 06:54 PM, said:
That's true. It's my understanding though, that calling an American Indian a RED SKIN is thought of in the same vein as calling an African American the "N" word. Calling an American Indian an Indian, Warrior, Brave, etc doesn't carry the same neagative,racially inflammable connotation that calling an American Indian a "Red Skin". I was very surprised to see Red Mesa (on the Navajo reservation) call their team by that name because of that understanding on my part.
I've also been reading in the Navajo Times that many Indians (from many different tribes) are banning together to request changing the names of many towns, rivers, etc. The name they want removed is "Squaw". Apparently, squaw refers to a women's genitalia in a very negative way.
I've also been reading in the Navajo Times that many Indians (from many different tribes) are banning together to request changing the names of many towns, rivers, etc. The name they want removed is "Squaw". Apparently, squaw refers to a women's genitalia in a very negative way.
What's interesting in these debates is that some American Indians words have taken on meanings that were never intended. For example, this Web site on Siouan languages says that the origin of the word "squaw" has nothing to do with the negative connation it's been assigned:
Quote
Recently 'squaw' has been spuriously associated with a Mohawk term otsískwa? 'female genitalia'. The ? here represents a glottal stop - the sound represented by dash in (h)uh-uh 'no'. This sounds to English ears somewhat like [ojiskwa](oh-gee-squah in the Lewis & Clark Phonetic Alphabet). Bright says this incorrect explanation was first offered by Sanders & Peck in 1974 and then popularized in a television interview by Suzan Harjo. The terrible salaciousness of it all has outraged the socially sensitive and captured popular imagination so effectively that the long known actual explanation in terms of Massachussett tends to get overlooked.
At this same Web site, you can read that the Siouan language experts aren't even sure what the word "Sioux" was intended to mean. While they agree that it was probably intended as a derogatory reference, there is debate about whether it really means "little snake," as is commonly assumed.
I've posted the link to this Washington Post article before in which Ives Goddard, Smithsonian Institution senior linguist, disputes the idea that the term "redskin" originated as a racial slur or that it has anything to do with scalping (as Myles Brand believes). There's evidence to suggest that Native Americans referred to themselves as "red skins" before European settlers adopted the term. And that might explain this:
Quote
Ninety percent of American Indians say the name Washington Redskins does not offend them, according to a new national survey.
Only 9 percent of polled Indians say they find the name of Washington's professional football team "offensive," according to the results of the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey. The other 1 percent did not respond.
Only 9 percent of polled Indians say they find the name of Washington's professional football team "offensive," according to the results of the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey. The other 1 percent did not respond.
#1312
Posted 23 October 2006 - 09:59 PM
PCM, on Oct 23 2006, 09:15 PM, said:
Only 9 percent of polled Indians say they find the name of Washington's professional football team "offensive," according to the results of the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey. The other 1 percent did not respond.
The proof is in
#1313
Posted 23 October 2006 - 10:16 PM
Regardless of what a word's origins are, it's contextually important to factor in what that word has morphed in meaning too. For instance, "Yankee" was supposed to be a derogatory word at the beginning, but look at it now.
What a word may have meant at one time isn't always the same as what it means now. I doubt there's more than a handful of people who, at this time, were really aware of any negative connotation of the word "squaw", but the other 99% of us all know it to be a female Indian, or something very innocuous and similar to that.
What a word may have meant at one time isn't always the same as what it means now. I doubt there's more than a handful of people who, at this time, were really aware of any negative connotation of the word "squaw", but the other 99% of us all know it to be a female Indian, or something very innocuous and similar to that.
#1314
Posted 23 October 2006 - 10:25 PM
dagies, on Oct 23 2006, 10:16 PM, said:
Regardless of what a word's origins are, it's contextually important to factor in what that word has morphed in meaning too. For instance, "Yankee" was supposed to be a derogatory word at the beginning, but look at it now.
What a word may have meant at one time isn't always the same as what it means now. I doubt there's more than a handful of people who, at this time, were really aware of any negative connotation of the word "squaw", but the other 99% of us all know it to be a female Indian, or something very innocuous and similar to that.
What a word may have meant at one time isn't always the same as what it means now. I doubt there's more than a handful of people who, at this time, were really aware of any negative connotation of the word "squaw", but the other 99% of us all know it to be a female Indian, or something very innocuous and similar to that.
You're right. Until I read the article in the Navajo Times, 'squaw', to me, referred to an Indian woman.
#1315
Posted 23 October 2006 - 10:25 PM
Sioux-cia, on Oct 23 2006, 09:59 PM, said:
The proof is in the pudding Red Mesa.
My point is that we get into playing these word games in which members of a minority choose to be offended based on their misinterpretation of an innocent word or phrase. To show sensitivity, we scramble to ban words that were never intended to be insulting or demeaning, thereby enabling the minority of a minority to trample the free speech rights of the majority for no good reason.
I no more believe that the owner of an NFL team intentionally selected the name "Redskins" knowing that it was derogatory than I believe that UND intentionally selected the name "Sioux" knowing it was derogatory. It makes absolutely no sense to name a sports team after people held in low regard.
To illustrate, does annyone remember this infamous incident?
#1316
Posted 24 October 2006 - 08:11 AM
From the Arizona Republic:
Indians' return may fuel mascot debate
Indians' return may fuel mascot debate
Quote
Even if many people support the imagery of Native Americans on sports logos, it doesn't make it right, said Suzan Shown Harjo, the president and executive director of the Morning Star Institute, a national Indian rights organization.
"It's not up to the offender to tell us what offends," she said. "What hurts, hurts."
"It's not up to the offender to tell us what offends," she said. "What hurts, hurts."
Quote
Ron Toya, the executive director of the Tribal Government Institute, said he is sympathetic to those hurt by the logos but doesn't believe in widespread intervention.
"Being offended is not a sufficient reason to limit free speech in America," said Toya, who also wondered, "who are the thought police to tell us which words are OK?"
"Being offended is not a sufficient reason to limit free speech in America," said Toya, who also wondered, "who are the thought police to tell us which words are OK?"
#1317
Posted 24 October 2006 - 09:12 AM
PCM, on Oct 23 2006, 10:25 PM, said:
... a minority choose to be offended based on their misinterpretation of an innocent word or phrase.
I guess you need to know a word's pedigree.
#1318
Posted 24 October 2006 - 09:29 AM
The Sicatoka, on Oct 24 2006, 09:12 AM, said:
I guess you need to know a word's pedigree.
#1319
Posted 24 October 2006 - 10:22 AM
PCM, on Oct 24 2006, 08:11 AM, said:
From the Arizona Republic:
Indians' return may fuel mascot debate
Indians' return may fuel mascot debate
Quote
Even if many people support the imagery of Native Americans on sports logos, it doesn't make it right, said Suzan Shown Harjo, the president and executive director of the Morning Star Institute, a national Indian rights organization.
"It's not up to the offender to tell us what offends," she said. "What hurts, hurts."
"It's not up to the offender to tell us what offends," she said. "What hurts, hurts."
Quote
Ron Toya, the executive director of the Tribal Government Institute, said he is sympathetic to those hurt by the logos but doesn't believe in widespread intervention.
"Being offended is not a sufficient reason to limit free speech in America," said Toya, who also wondered, "who are the thought police to tell us which words are OK?"
"Being offended is not a sufficient reason to limit free speech in America," said Toya, who also wondered, "who are the thought police to tell us which words are OK?"
How about this, even if a few people don't support the imagery of Native Americans on sports logos, it doesn't make it wrong.
#1320
Posted 24 October 2006 - 10:47 AM
Quote
Even if many people support the imagery of Native Americans on sports logos, it doesn't make it right, said Suzan Shown Harjo, the president and executive director of the Morning Star Institute, a national Indian rights organization.
"It's not up to the offender to tell us what offends," she said. "What hurts, hurts."
"It's not up to the offender to tell us what offends," she said. "What hurts, hurts."
Perhaps I'm just thick skulled, but I will never understand this. If UND was called the North Dakota Fighting Icelanders and had a picture of my grandfather on center ice, I would be proud, not hurt or offended. How are they hurt?
