mksioux

The biggest problem on the called goal was that he was at center ice when he called the goal. I'm not a ref, but when you're that far out of position, don't you rely on the goal judge a bit more?

Goon, I think you are getting down on the goalies too much. They may not be Karl, but they are good enough for this team to win. If Jake becomes more consistent, I think he will be very good. Josh does look shaky at times and gives up some rebounds, but he also makes spectacular saves sometimes too. Us Sioux fans have been spoiled with Karl and need to realize that we are not going to have the best goalie in the league every year. Also, SCSU is not my favorite rival either, but they're growing on me. When it was first announced that they were our "natural rivals," I was really mad. I would have rather had Duluth or any of the charter members of the WCHA. But I think the rivalry is developing with SCSU and it will be exciting to have two series with them every year. I can't stand their administration, but I'm learning to separate the P.C. administration from the players and fans.

I, for one, have never condemned NDSU students for chanting "Sioux suck." I realize that most of those students are not referring to the Sioux people, but are simply referring to the athletic team. I also think that most Indians realize this point as well (see article on uscho on Ranfranz). However, JBB, you come on this board and start ranting about how the Sioux nickname makes UND a racist institution, and at the same time, you claim (or imply that) NDSU is so pristine. People are simply pointing out that, according to your own standards, many of things NDSU students say in their "cheers" is more offensive than anything UND students do.

I'd like to respond to some of Bellecourt's comments in the Herald. "North Dakota is looked at across the country as still living in the dark ages as far as enlightenment," Bellecourt said. -- I hear this one all the time. Bellecourt is attempting to play off the fact that North Dakotans do not want to be perceived as "hicks." Thus, he tries to make us feel like the rest of the country is laughing at us. This is an easy one to fall for, especially for some of the younger students. However, the truth is that the rest of the county is not aware of us or doesn't care about us. And for the people that do think we're all a bunch of hicks, changing the Sioux nickname will do nothing to change their perception. Additionally, I sense a growing resistance to political correctness in the country. I would bet that an increasing number of people respect North Dakota for standing up to political correctness. This tactic has been tried before and it has generally backfired. Bellecourt basically insults an entire state. In doing so, North Dakotans reinforce their opinion that this is a movement run by outside activists who don't really care about the state. Bellecourt said the people who are hurt most are the American Indian students on university campuses that use the nicknames. --Where is the proof of this statement? I'm not an expert in this area and could be wrong, but aren't Indian students doing better at UND than at other schools? Aren't their graduation rates higher at UND than many other places? If Indians on UND's campus do hurt, do you suppose it's possible that the main reason is that white liberal professors are constantly telling them that they should be hurt by the nickname? He put the blame squarely on Indian logos and mascots and the effects they have on self-esteem when he said that 85 percent of American Indians don't graduate from high school, and of those who move on to college, 85 percent don't finish. --This is the funniest of all. It's not chronic alcoholism, drug use, gangs, poverty, family violence, lack of importance placed on education, isolation from the outside world, etc. etc. Yea, it's GOTTA be the Indian logos. Whatever.

I think you're only chance of catching the game on television is off a satellite feed. The coordinates are: Galaxy 3R, Transponder 18, Audio 6.2, 6.8. There was some talk on uscho whether the game will be televised in Wisconsin (which evidently can be picked up on DirecTV). However, the common consensus was that the games are not being televised in Wisconsin. Thus, it looks like any television viewing outside of the Dakotas and NW Minnesota will have to be at a bar with a big dish. I'm not 100% certain of this, so If I'm wrong, somebody feel free to correct me.

I also get very scared when I find myself agreeing with a Herald editorial. I too know a couple Democrats that claim to "liberal" who support the Fighting Sioux nickname. I hope there are more out there. Yane A, I agree that those who oppose the Sioux nickname on the campus at NDSU have a right to speak out against it. I've never argued that they don't have the right of free speech. I just wish conservatives exercised this right more often to counter the left. I know some conservatives and moderates on this board disagree with me on this point, but I believe the right has been "nice" too long and needs to be equally as passionate and vocal as the left. Maybe I've been reading too much David Horowitz. But on the topic of free speech, Yane A, I would argue that your position is in the minority among "political liberals." Just look at the climate on American campuses today that are dominated by the left. Speech is free as long as you speak from the liberal point of view. On many campuses, if one dares to speak another view, they are commonly shouted down, marginalized, and branded as a "racist" "sexist", etc. Increasingly, they are even subject to disciplinary procedures. "Speech codes" are becoming the norm. Many on the left want to ban all speech that is "offensive." But I would argue that almost ALL speech is offensive to someone. So who defines "offensive?" The left is trying to through political correctness. I suggest you read a book called "Shadow University" to see what your fellow liberals are up to on campuses across the country. As a disclaimer: at the two Universities I received degrees from, I seldom found that my conservative views were not welcome. However, I didn't go to liberal schools like UC-Berkley, Stanford, Michigan, any of the Ivies, etc. I believe (and hope) that schools like UND and NDSU are still relatively cordial and open to different points of view.

I agree with BadEagle that conservatives tend to be more independent thinkers than liberals, but my complaint is that they also tend to be more silent and passive and less passionate and involved. That is my main complaint. I don't suggest that we, as conservatives, always resort to forming some sort of group to get our point across, but I wish more conservatives would speak out on issues that do not directly affect them personally. I understand the liberals think more with emotion than conservatives and that is probably why they are more passionate about their issues. However, in many ways, this society respects emotion more than intellect and conservatives need to become more passionate. Like BadEagle has said, this is about more than simply a nickname. Conservatives at NDSU should be upset about this action even if they don't like UND athletics and have no attachment to the Fighting Sioux nickname. Having said that, I am pleasantly surprised that there appears to be some sort of backlash to what NDSU is doing. Will it be enough? Probably not.

This is just another example of liberal activists becoming involved while conservative students sit back and mind their own business. I think NDSU has a pretty conservative student body. I would be highly surprised if a majority of the students agree with the decision that the student senate is about to make. Yet, the student senate will decide against the nickname anyway and there will be little/no opposition by conservatives.

If Reusse has little respect for the Gophers, he has absolutely none for UND. His whole rant before the NC game last year was that Minnesota should win it almost every year because they get to play against teams like Mankato, St. Cloud, and UND.

I didn't realize the extent of the DOJ involvement at SCSU. But it is still just an investigation at this point correct? If the DOJ brings an action against SCSU, then that would be significant. SCSU may have serious race problems...I have no idea what is truly going on there. My main point was that this new "cultural survey" doesn't appear to be worth much. In general, I'm just very skeptical of people who cry "racist." I like to see who is making the allegations and whether they have an agenda. I also like to see specifics on the facts. Until then, I will withhold judgment. But, I agree that it is fair to criticize SCSU for criticizing another institution's nickname that they "perceive" to be racist, while they are under investigation for "real" racism.

I agree with the categorization of SCSU casting stones in a glass house. And while I would disagree with any school taking exception to the Sioux nickname, SCSU in particular (given these allegations) has absolutely no business taking the "racial highground" and looking down upon UND. I'm just very skeptical of this "cultural survey" by Nicholas and Associates. It seems like the group likely has an agenda. As the article in the Star Tribune states, the "survey" calls for the University to ``fire several vice presidents and deans who are known to be marginally effective and non-progressive,'' and stop hiring potential faculty and staff of color until there is a conducive and supportive environment on campus." What do they mean by "non-progressive" administrators? "Non-progressive" to many liberals means anyone who is conservative or who doesn't necessarily believe in racial preferences. Notice that they don't recommend limiting the firings to people who actually engaged in racist behavior, just "non-progressives." In other words, fire every conservative and moderate and replace them with "progressive" leftists. That, to me, indicates an agenda. And Department of Justice involvement means little. There was DOJ involvement with UND too and few of us (other than JBB) would consider UND a racist institution.

I read the story in the Star Tribune. http://www.startribune.com/stories/1592/3433566.html I think it's obvious that SCSU is overcompensating for their image problem by protesting the Fighting Sioux nickname. It seems to me that they're so worried about being called racist that they are going out of their way to prove that they are not. Having said that, I doubt the problems are as bad as this report/study seems to indicate. I don't know anything about this "behavorial science firm" Nicholas and Associates, Inc., but it doesn't seem too professional to me. Look at what they recomend. A hiring freeze of potential faculty and staff of color until there is a conducive and supportive environment on campus? The firing of "several" vice-presidents? These seem more like the recomendations of a liberal special interest group than an objective and professional consulting firm. I admit that I don't know the underlying facts behind these allegations. However, I think we, as Sioux fans, should be careful not to fly off the handle and call SCSU a racist institution. It could be that they are under attack by the politically correct cultural marxists...just like UND is...just like the rest of the country is. I know it's frustrating that SCSU seems to be taking their problems out on our nickname, but remember that most the SCSU community does not agree with Saigo's opposition to the Sioux nickname. We should direct our verbal and written jabs at Saigo...not the entire SCSU community.

Another possible reason it might be easy to get tickets for the CC series is because Zach Parise may be in Nova Scotia that weekend instead of Grand Forks. (I, for one, would love to watch a Sioux game, whether Parise is playing or not...but some of the "new" fans might be more prone to sell their tickets for a game where the star player is not playing) Anyone have any insight as to his chances of making the national team in the World Junior championships and playing in that tournament? It would seem to me that he'll make the team for sure, which means he'll miss the Holiday tournament and the CC series.

Here is the scoop by the St. Cloud Times. Nothing really new here. St. Cloud Times story on Parise and weekend series

JBB, need I remind you that the only time you're called names is when you make completely unsubstantiated claims that the entire UND community is racist. When you troll, someone is bound to respond (including me, against my better judgement). If you try to rationally articulate an argument why the name should be changed without resorting to blanket allegations of racism (and if you use proper capitilization of UND and Grand Forks), etc., I'm sure you will receive a civilized response.

The law school students were not consulted. My understanding is that a certain group of law professors spearheaded the effort and the Dean went along. I don't know the whole story behind it, but the end result was clear. I'm not saying that the Dean of the law school can't have a personal opinion against the nickname, but to allow the law school to formally go on record against the nickname without consulting the students is very unprofessional. I question the whole idea of "schools" going on record one way or another, but if you're going to do it, at a minimum there should be a student referendum. And yes, the law school alumni did let their feelings be known about that.

Good point Jim. I'm sure many nickname proponents agree with your assessment. The anti-nickname advocates want to keep this issue alive. I agree that responding to their "forum" may actually help them in their goal to keep the issue alive. However, I take a different view. Whether we like it or not, I think the issue is going to stay alive no matter how we respond. I realize there isn't a pressing need at this time, but I don't think that is a good reason to stop making our case and simply let the other side take control of the debate. Over time, if lefted unchecked, it is unavoidable that the anti-nickname activists on campus will have an impact on overall opinion. You have to remember, in five years there will be an almost completely different set of students at UND than there currently are today. I think by not actively engaging in the debate, we are unwittingly creating a "pressing need." In a formal setting, students today are only getting one side of the debate. I think bringing in a speaker who talks about the importance of American Indian nicknames and mascots is part of the educational process that a University should provide. Such an event would not have to coincide with the BRIDGES event. In fact, I think it would be better if it did not.

As of a couple years ago, the law school did not have a politically conservative student group (they had/have a Christian legal society, but I don't think it was/is political). I agree that it is joke to call this event a "forum." They want to make it appear that they are discussing the issue in an open fashion with a free exchange of ideas. In reality, all of the speakers will be against the nickname and anyone attending who speaks up in favor of the nickname will likely be shouted down, called names, and not be allowed to effectively communicate their point. My hope is that a student at UND will call Mr. Symes and ask him whether the College Republicans are interested. I don't mean to imply that Dr. Yeagley has agreed to speak at UND, but he was kind enough to give a roadmap on how to start the process. Someone should at least explore the possibility. Young America's Foundation pays half of the fees, so there will be a cost to the organization that organizes the event. But other groups always seem to be able to come up with the expenses and I'm hoping groups on our side will be able to as well. That's just my two cents. I'm no longer a student at UND, but it just seems to me like if someone like Dr. Yeagley has expressed an interest, someone at UND should at least look into the possibility.

BRIDGES is inviting Vernon Bellecourt back to campus to be part of a "forum" decrying the use of American Indian nicknames. The story in the Grand Forks Herald states that this event will take place on Nov. 25. I really don't think this advances their cause much because I think most reasonable people realize that Bellecourt is nothing but an America-hater, as evidenced by his comment that the United States is the biggest terrorist government in the world. The one thing that somewhat bothers me about this is the fact that BRIDGES and other similar groups are able to organize, mobilize, and bring speakers to campus in an attempt to advance their cause. There seems to be no interest among students on the other side of the issue to counter the anti-nickname sentiment on campus. I realize that many students believe the Fighting Sioux nickname is safe, but unless we counter leftist protestors like Bellecourt with intelligent and rational speakers like David Yeagley and others, we risk the other side gaining the upper hand once again.

It doesn't surprise me that those in charge of the Indian matters at UND do not want you around intelligently articulating a different perspective. In their view, any American Indian who does not think the Sioux nickname is offensive somehow doesn't understand his own history and heritage. I find this attitude very suspect given the fact that white liberal professors always seem to be behind the protests. I find the whole thing very elitist. When I asked whether any student group has contacted you, I was actually wondering about the conservative student groups on campus. If I were a member of theCollege Republicans, or a similar group, I would try to bring Dr. Yeagley to UND through YAF (if he's willing). I graduated a couple years ago, so I can't do it.

As the team improves and starts competitively playing traditional WCHA rivals, I think the UND community will increasingly support the team and attendance will be good.

Wow, thanks for joining the discussion Dr. Yeagley. I'll have to do my best to make my posts seem intelligent now that you're around! I don't know whether you've ever been contacted by any of the student groups at UND, but I'm sure if you ever gave a speech at UND it would be very well attended. Maybe it would even get C-SPAN coverage! Thanks for the link to your new website.

The following is an op-ed by David Yeagley written in February of 2001. I copied it from FrontPageMagazine.com. I wanted to simply post a link, but it is no longer on the site so I posted the entire article. Don't Walk the Black Man's Path FrontPageMagazine.com | February 13, 2001 INDIAN ELDERS used to warn against "walking the white man's road." But, since the late 1960s, I'm afraid it is the "black man's path" that has posed a greater peril for us. By the black man's path, I mean the familiar strategy of black civil rights leaders, who bait, belittle, provoke and bully white people, then run for cover, screaming "racist" when their white victims react. Sadly, more and more young Indians are following this path, thanks to the influence of leftwing college professors and media personalities such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Take the current disturbances at the University of North Dakota. The university has a mascot called, "The Fighting Sioux." Some Indian students have called it offensive and demanded that it be changed. Not surprisingly, white students and alumni have fought back. One alumnus currently building an $85-million hockey arena for the university has threatened to kill the project if the name is changed. As a member of the Comanche tribe, my name is on all the Indian mailing lists. I recently got an e-mail calling for solidarity with the UND protesters. It says that Indian students have suffered physical attacks, name-calling, slashed tires, and broken windshields. Indian students at UND now face a "hostile environment," says the e-mail. Many are seeking to transfer to other schools, to escape their abusive classmates. Physical attacks of this sort are deplorable. The culprits should be caught and punished. At the same time, the Indian students have to accept their own responsibility for helping to create the "hostile environment" they now face. I'm all for fighting when there's something to fight about. But, in my view, this is not the case at UND. Why should any Indian object if a university has an Indian warrior as its emblem? The purpose of a mascot is to inspire the school's athletes to fight hard and win. That the school chose an Indian to represent its fighting spirit is a sign of respect. It shows an admiration for the courage and manliness of the Sioux warrior, who laid so many whites in their graves just a few generations ago. All of this seems perfectly obvious to me. But those who have chosen to walk the "black man's path" are experts at finding things to get offended about. Virtually everything that white people do, no matter how innocuous, can be cited as an excuse to cry "racist." Take the name game. Every few years, leftwing black academics announce to their people that they must now call themselves something different. At one time, it was colored, then Negro, then Afro-American, then black, then African-American and so on. None of these names are better or worse than any of the others. Not long ago I was interviewed by black conservative talk show host Ken Hamblin. He told me that he's perfectly happy being "colored." Yet many black Americans have been conditioned to treat the nuances between these words as matters of life and death. Try calling a black man a "Negro" nowadays and see what sort of reaction you get. The name game creates new sources of friction out of thin air, for no good reason. As fast as white people get used to one name, black people change it. That way, no one ever quite knows what to call them, and everyone has to tippy-toe around on eggshells trying to figure out how to avoid giving offense. I don't pretend to know why so many African-Americans go in for this sort of nonsense. But I do know that many blacks, such as Ken Hamblin, refuse to indulge in it, and for that I respect them. What concerns me is that so many Indians nowadays - and especially the younger generation - seem to be following the worst examples. Back in the late '60s, some Indians even started playing their own version of the name game, by calling themselves Native Americans. I don't know who started it. Maybe it was a white liberal. To this day, most Indians still prefer to be called Indians. I know I do. But white people now have to tippy-toe around calling us Native Americans, for fear that we will take offense. It's all about playing the victim. Frankly, I find it weak and undignified. It's not the way of our warrior ancestors. Those young Indians at UND should end their needless fight with the university. The pursuit of academic excellence would be a far better testing ground for their warrior spirit.

This deal looks great for Sioux fans in Grand Forks and throughout North Dakota and nortwestern Minnesota (wherever the viewing region will be). I think this is a good start, but it doesn't appear that it will help those of us outside of the viewing region. All of the home hockey games are already on satellite, but unless you have a big dish, you don't have access to the satellite feed. It doesn't appear that this new deal will change that. Ideally, I'd like this new Sioux network to be available for purchase through DirecTV or Dish Network. I'm dreaming I know, but maybe someday. Despite the fact that it won't benefit me personally, I'm still very glad to see that more Sioux sports will be on TV. Hopefully this will lead to even bigger things. And Greyeagle, thanks for the tip. I'll look into it.

The Friday night game at St. Cloud (Nov. 8) will be televised in the Twin Cities on KSTC Channel 45. Saturday night's game is only televised in St. Cloud. LINK As far as the Wisco game on UPN, I can't confirm or deny. But if it is on UPN, I bet the game is only being aired on the Wisconsin affiliates. Perhaps Hudson might be an option. I wonder if Hudson carries the Twin Cities UPN affiliate or if they carry a Wisconsin affiliate. Luckily I'm headed up to Grand Forks to see this series in person.