[The Sicatoka]

Chief Illiniwek Supporter, on Nov 8 2007, 12:03 PM, said:

I assume you received permission from either Mario Puzo or David Chase for this, didn't you?

(Preferably you got permission from both of course. And either can veto the other's permission. And if you don't get permission within three years....)

I asked John Gotti for permission. He said there's no such thing as the mafia (kind of like Alaska-Anchorage's mythical Seawolf) so it's OK.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Somewhat related to the topic: a high school tournament in Chicago will help to organize support for a Native American community in your area:

Quote

In a follow-up to a story I wrote back in September, Barrington will be coordinating a winter jacket, blanket and canned food drive for the Dakota Native Americans at Lane Tech later this month. Every summer Barrington guidance counselor Ray Piagentini takes a group of students to the Crow Creek Reservation in South Dakota to spend a week with the Dakota people.

The food and clothing drive will be held during Lane's boys basketball tournament next Monday-Nov. 24. Besides watching some great basketball at Lane (Georgia Tech recruit Iman Shumpert of Oak Park is scheduled to play), fans can bring items that will help those less fortunate. And teams that are playing in the tournament also will be donating items.

It's a great way to put sports in perspective, especially during the holiday season.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/akouris/645...-tina12.article

FWLIW, Barrington could be considered a pretty affluent suburb of Chicago. Lane Tech would be considered "working class" IMHO.

One more thing: the nickname at Lane Tech is "Indians".

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

The Sicatoka, on Nov 13 2007, 02:12 PM, said:

I asked John Gotti for permission. He said there's no such thing as the mafia...

Some would say that Gotti is in far less of a position to grant permission than either Puzo or Chase. But that's a matter of opinion.

[MafiaMan]

The Sicatoka, on Nov 13 2007, 04:12 PM, said:

I asked John Gotti for permission. He said there's no such thing as the mafia (kind of like Alaska-Anchorage's mythical Seawolf) so it's OK.

Hey, dis ting of ow-has? Never hoid of it. Fuggedaboudit!

[star2city]

There was, IMHO, an extraordinary article in yesterday's WSJ that laments the fact that emotional hatred is now viewed as a virtue among many academics. Regardless of your political affiliation, substitute Clinton, or Bush, or the Fighting Sioux nickname, or nickname opponents, or Engelstad, for the ***, and see where you stand.

Quote

In short, *** hatred is not a rational response to actual *** perfidy. Rather, *** hatred compels its progressive victims--who pride themselves on their sophistication and sensitivity to nuance--to reduce complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil. Like all hatred in politics, *** hatred blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent.

[Fetch]

I put Goopher in there & it worked for me

[dagies]

I can't believe no one has posted this Nick Coleman piece yet. Maybe everyone was just too disgusted to do it.

Quote

A "settlement" in a UND lawsuit against the NCAA, which ordered the university to end the use of the nickname in 2005, was unveiled last month.

Wrong. They never said we had to quit using the name.

Quote

Under Jahnke's deal, UND was given three years to "persuade" Sioux Indians -- the real ones -- to accept the Fighting Sioux name. If not, the university would have to quit its fight to keep the name. It sounds reasonable until you examine it closely. When you do, you see it's the same old, same old.

Sioux tribes have heavily opposed the nickname for years. Just last week, the tribal council on the Standing Rock Reservation (where the legendary Sitting Bull is buried) reiterated its opposition.

But nickname supporters say they have three years to change minds. What part of "no" do they not understand? Apparently, the only good Indian is a compliant Indian.

How is this "Jahnke's deal"? Don't the 2 parties make a deal in a case like this? The judge doesn't propose the terms, does he?

What is Coleman afraid of? That the Tribes might actually see some benefit to UND using the nickname and decide to give their approval? God forbid they have that choice.

Coleman then quotes Clay Jenkinson, a professor at Dickinson State and Coleman says of Jenkinson

Quote

A native North Dakotan and humanities professor whose Thomas Jefferson impression was picked as "America's Top Jefferson" last year on Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," Jenkinson knows his history, and he says the Sioux are in a Catch-22 situation.

The quote in question:

Quote

And if they refuse? "They will become the 'bad guys' responsible for the 'loss' of 'Fighting Sioux. ...' It [is] outrageous to make North Dakota's Indians bear the burden of settling a controversy they didn't create, about a nickname that appropriates their culture without their consent."

Whoa whoa whoa. The Sioux elders granted permission to UND to use the nickname back in the '30's, did they not? If so, UND had that consent at one time at least. If the Tribes want to reneg on that permission, it is unfair to put them in the position of being responsible to do so? How is that unfair again? Is it for the white man to make these decisions for the tribes? If so, what does that say about our perceptions of the Indians ability to make decisions for themselves.

Who is holding the Indian in low regard here?

Quote

I do not think North Dakotans are more racist than anyone else. But they have been slow to understand how this looks to the rest of the country, and how it feels on impoverished, isolated Indian reservations to be "honored" so forcefully.

I'm curious how Coleman knows this so well, considering Archie Fool Bear's letter to Kubchella telling him of the vote that overwhelmingly showed support for the nickname in the tribal membership.

[PCM]

dagies, on Nov 18 2007, 07:53 PM, said:

I can't believe no one has posted this Nick Coleman piece yet.

Coleman's an idiot. As usual.

[Chewey]

PCM, on Nov 18 2007, 10:52 PM, said:

dagies, on Nov 18 2007, 07:53 PM, said:

I can't believe no one has posted this Nick Coleman piece yet.

Coleman's an idiot. As usual.

You have that right. It's just too bad that he has a widely circulated mouth piece in which to propagandize and misinform. What actually is being done? Is all of it just going to be a half-hearted attempt to give it the old college try and then accept the inevitable? One would think that the AG and the Gov and maybe even the congressional delegation would be meeting with the tribes at some point. I suppose the congressional delegation will not care (indeed they have not cared) what the tribes do as long as the tribes don't rat them out (i.e. see Jack Abramoff). One would think that UND would have Archie Fool Bear and others on the reservations trying to help out. Perhaps, as one already insightfully pointed out, all of this has been just to placate and satisfy the alumni and the AG just went through the motions. I don't see why they would have spent so much money just going through the motions though.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Quote

It [is] outrageous to make North Dakota's Indians bear the burden of settling a controversy they didn't create, about a nickname that appropriates their culture without their consent.

Okay, then tell us exactly who DID create this controversy. The NCAA has said over and over that they are responding to complaints. Who complained? The Sioux? That negates the entire statement. If not the Sioux themselves, then what right do the complainers have to speak for others?

You claim the nickname appropriates their culture. While I can't buy into that to begin with, why shouldn't they either consent (like the Seminoles, Utes and Chips) or not consent?

Quote

I do not think North Dakotans are more racist than anyone else. But they have been slow to understand how this looks to the rest of the country, and how it feels on impoverished, isolated Indian reservations to be "honored" so forcefully.

I'm glad this author mentioned "the country" when referring to the USA. Because the Aztecs didn't even get asked. Nor did members of one hell of a lot of other "cultures".

Isolated and impovrished? What does that have to do with right and wrong? So does a millionaire Sioux who lives in Los Angeles not have a vote according to this guy?

Question: are the Pembroke Lumbee Indians neither isolated nor impoverished? Maybe one, but not the other?


But this is the best part for me:

Quote

A native North Dakotan and humanities professor whose Thomas Jefferson impression was picked as "America's Top Jefferson" last year on Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," Jenkinson knows his history, and he says the Sioux are in a Catch-22 situation.

Which part is supposed to convince us that this guy is a expert on history? The fact that he's a profesor of humanites, or that "Comedy Central" picked him as a good impressionist (out of what could have been a field of ONE for all we know).

[The Sicatoka]

On a sidenote to all of this:

Remember the attention to detail and accuracy these "expert columnists" have every time you read a newspaper.

And they wonder why circulation numbers are in free fall.

[Taz Boy]

The Powerline folks make easy work of shredding Coleman and his inaccuracies in his articles. Demonstrating the research deft of a junior high class reporter, he is truly an embarrassment-- even for the leftist media. Yet the Strib, with declining circulation, continues to print his stinkbombs most likely because he attracts readers like a car wreck attracts gawkers.

Don't worry about Coleman; just laugh at him because he is silly.

taz

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

The Sicatoka, on Nov 18 2007, 09:50 PM, said:

And they wonder why circulation numbers are in free fall.

Exactly. Don't blame the internet: blame the people who helped Dan Rather "research" his story which was debunked about 3 hours after it aired by bloggers.

In the era of cell phone cams and email, you will either print the truth or suffer the consequences.

[dagies]

The Trib hasn't printed any of my responses to any of Coleman's pieces in the past so I doubt they'll start now but I did find it therapeutic to respond:

Quote

I would like to take issue with Nick Coleman’s piece titled “How many times must the Sioux tell UND no? One more, apparently.” on November 18th, 2007.

Mr. Coleman makes a number of questionable, at best, statements in his piece that I would like to address.

First, Mr. Coleman says that the NCAA policy ordered the University of North Dakota to end its use of the Fighting Sioux nickname in 2005. Actually, the NCAA policy said that schools that use such nicknames or mascots must not use the images during NCAA tournament play, nor could they host NCAA tournament games.

Secondly, Coleman characterizes the “deal” that he’s so unhappy with as a deal that Judge Jahnke is responsible for. A judge that Coleman feels has a biased past relating to the Fighting Sioux. However, in an out of court settlement, doesn’t one side have to make and offer and the other side decide whether to accept it? How would a judge’s supposed bias enter into a deal such as this? If it was good for the NCAA one would think Coleman would be accepting.

Coleman states that the tribes have heavily opposed the nickname for years. However, the Spirit Lake tribe (one of the 2 tribes that UND now has to receive approval from) is on record in 2000 as saying that they are not opposed to the use of the nickname as long as some good comes out of it.

In June of 2006 Archie Fool Bear, Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s judicial committee (the other tribe that UND must receive consent from), sent a letter to the NCAA informing them that six of eight districts on the tribe’s reservation voted “overwhelmingly” to support UND’s use of the nickname. Fool Bear said that the membership of the tribe had indicated that the Tribal Council should be in support. This information can be found in the archives of the Grand Forks Herald.

That’s hardly “heavy opposition”.

Coleman then quotes a history professor who says “It [is] outrageous to make North Dakota's Indians bear the burden of settling a controversy they didn't create, about a nickname that appropriates their culture without their consent." Why is this outrageous? The fact is that Sioux elders granted UND permission to use the nickname back in the 1930’s. If the Sioux tribes want to rescind that permission, why is it “outrageous” for them to be put in the position of being responsible for that decision?

Coleman says North Dakotans have been slow to understand “how it feels on impoverished, isolated Indian reservations to be "honored" so forcefully. If Archie Fool Bear’s letter is to be believed, maybe Coleman isn’t as aware of how things feel on the reservation as he thinks.

Which brings us to the final question. What is Nick Coleman afraid of? Is he afraid that the Tribes might actually decide there is value in allowing UND to continue using the nickname? Is he afraid that their final decision will not meet with his approval? And if not, what does that really say about those who believe the tribes should not be in a position to make this decision for themselves?

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

dagies, on Nov 18 2007, 10:10 PM, said:

Coleman then quotes a history professor who says “It [is] outrageous to make North Dakota's Indians bear the burden of settling a controversy they didn't create, about a nickname that appropriates their culture without their consent."

(emphasis mine)


Is he a Professor of History or a Professor of Humanities???

[The Sicatoka]

Quote

As long as no one threatens to have soldiers march anyone to the mountains at gunpoint.

There goes my plan for Coleman.

[ScottM]

Quote

But they have been slow to understand how this looks to the rest of the country, and how it feels on impoverished, isolated Indian reservations to be "honored" so forcefully.

But changing the UND name/logo will magically change all of the poverty, isolation, despair, health problems, etc., right Nikki? Come back when you have a viable solution to those issues.

[PCM]

ScottM, on Nov 19 2007, 08:42 AM, said:

Quote

But they have been slow to understand how this looks to the rest of the country, and how it feels on impoverished, isolated Indian reservations to be "honored" so forcefully.

But changing the UND name/logo will magically change all of the poverty, isolation, despair, health problems, etc., right Nikki? Come back when you have a viable solution to those issues.

This is where Coleman shows the depth of his cluelessness. He believes that the "rest of the country" is in agreement with his opinion. But in fact, polls have consistently shown that a large majority of Americans and a large majority of American Indians aren't opposed to sports teams using Native American nicknames. If he would have written, "...they have been slow to understand how this looks to the rest of the media in this country," then he'd be closer to the truth.

[The Sicatoka]

ScottM, on Nov 19 2007, 08:42 AM, said:

.... right Nikki?

Wait a minute here ... isn't Prince from Minneapolis? Darling Nikki?

[GeauxSioux]

When good mascots go bad

Quote

The University of North Dakota made a fuss and appealed the NCAA's ruling not once but a few times, including filing suit in civil court. A compromise was recently agreed upon: the NCAA has given the university three years to convince the Sioux Nation that the term Fighting Sioux is not racially insensitive. From what I've read, the Sioux supported the NCAA's original decree and they aren't about to let the university persuade them to allow continued use of the Sioux name.

Don't be shocked if a financial agreement of some kind might develop in the three years ahead. One person's insult is another person's homage if there's enough money attached to it.

Personally I don't consider it an insult because I don't think the names were ever meant to disrespect but to recognize the region and/or history of the region in which the school is located.