Sioux-cia

Those aren't terms I used. 'As an employee' does not state them either. I am saying that a UND employee has the right to say that while he/she may work at UND, they don't agree with UND's stance on the use of the Sioux name or logo. The same as stating that while I may work for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, I don't agree with their stance on the use of the Sioux name or logo by UND. No where does my previous post state "on behalf of the University/Tribe or part of the University or Tribe". They are stating their opinion 'on behalf' of themselves who are employed by an employer who has an opinion with which they do not agree.

Why?? While I don't agree with the name change group and hope that they will not prevail, I support their right to disagree including their right to contact the NCAA. I abhore employers including State and Federal employers dictating to their employees what they can and cannot do in their personal lives. Unless of course that is one of the agreed upon by terms of employment. I agree that this is not something they can do as 'representatives' of their employer or that it is something that they can do while 'on duty'. But they have the right to say, "As an employee of UND, I disagree with the use of the Sioux name and logo". The rest of us can also contact the NCAA and say "As employees of UND/North Dakota/Specific Tribe/Federal government/etc, we support the use of the Sioux name and logo."

Thought I'd add a little levity to the 'name game'. http://channels.netscape.com/ns/travel/con...ustriantown.jsp

I am not a lawyer but these 'rights' come to mind. Could be that they are not enforcable by a court of law. I'm sure I'm going to find out though. 1. The right to continue to use the Sioux name. 2. The right to continue to display the Sioux logo on uniforms, buildings, etc. 3. The right to participate in competitions in all venues (other school arenas, pre- and post-season competition). 4. The right to proceed without threats from the NCAA and/or other organizations for the use and displaying of the Sioux logo and name.

The Notre Dame nickname is not 'The Fighting Leprechauns', they are the 'The Fighting Irish', please do your reasearch. So, if I read Taken Alive's comment correctly, it's ok to use the Fighting Irish name because the mascot is not 'real'. Using that same logic, using your comments about the UND logo, it's ok to use the name Fighting Sioux because the logo depiction of a Sioux is not real.

As stated in other threads, if the use of an American Indian name and logo is hostile and abusive 'here' then it is hostile and abusive 'there' regardless of tribal approval or lack of. The NC$$ will be unable to defend this. My mother (a third generation Mexican-American), and many others from her generation, found the terms 'Chicano' and 'Hispanic' hostile and abusive yet these are 'mainstream' terms. Their 'rights' would not be recognized in a court of law. The NC$$ may not be mandating Universities to change their names and logos but by not allowing them to host post season games they are creating a economical hardship (this will occur in more ways then the revenue from the post season games such as in the recruiting of top players and coaches) that in essence IS forcing them to change. 'Change or go out of the atheletic activities business.'

Careful, MafiaMan, you're starting to sound like a liberal!

No ,they do not SUPPORT the use of the name. They do not OPPOSE it. http://www.indianz.com/News/2005/009785.asp

I don't think that the Oklahoma Seminoles approve of the use of the name. I believe their stance was to not oppose it. I know I read this in one of the media posts. I know that this is considered approval in some circles. If the NC$$ is using 'approval' from namesake tribes as the 'gold standard', how and where in the H are schools such as U of I and those other schools with generic names going to get 'approval'? If they are going to say that 'generic' Indians don't approve, then the Turtle Mountain Chippewa's approval is all we need to keep the name. I don't think that this condition will hold water in a real court of law. Hopefully, those on the appeal committee will realize that before they decide to approve or not approve appeals.

I totally agree HockeyMom. Unfortunately, what GK and KTF want is the logo and name gone. The other opponents that oppose the name also want all Indian references gone. 'Compromise' is not in their vocabulary.

Doesn't matter to me who or what you are, if you have earned my respect, you have my respect. If you look like, act like, smell like, and/or speak like a jack a$$, likely you won't. But my respect is not something you want, you want a logo and nick name changed. As one of my favorite women, Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your permission." How unfortunate, that your self esteem depends so much on a name you don't even use. You would do well to teach your children about self respect and self worth. Teach them that the way the word SIOUX is used is not indicative of who they are; be it the name of a city, state, car, cereal, casino, etc. Sad, very, very, sad.

OK, but since this is a generic term why isn't the term hostile and abusive to other American Indians--in the same way that Indians and Braves is abusive and hostile. Just a rhetorical question, I know the answer>>>>NCAA logic.

Does anyone know why the Hawaii Warriors aren't on the list of shame?

Humbling. These men show pride in the name and logo. I don't see how this display is threatening to American Indians or their children. I see honor, respect, and a sense of 'home' in this picture. Thanks, mksioux.

Oh man, there goes my retirement plan......

Krackhead has continuously jumped to conclusions and expressed himself in the lowest form of communication based on the two or three words he is able to read in some threads. I guess we should forgive him his ignorance. My mom taught me not to make fun of the less mentally fortunate so I'll refrain from saying anything more regarding his shortcomings.

Well, I guess being called 'hanging around the fort Sioux' and accused of having 'plantation negro mentality' has more of an impact on their sensibilities than all the American Indian programs and services UND provides does. I'm disappointed that they didn't continue the support in spite of the outside pressure they must have been deluged with. I guess they lack sufficient strength and fortitude to stand up to it. It must have been tremendous.

I really like these points from the appeal '