Chewey

I am sorry that happened to you and we can all have our interpretations of what was said. I personally do not think it was ignorant or racist but you are entitled to view it as you see it based upon your own personal experiences and I am not going to deny you that. LeftyLZ is correct. In this day and age, you had better rely on your cell phone and AAA whether you're white, black, NA, Spanish or otherwise. A lot of people are just afraid because they've heard stories of criminals impersonating cops and raping women on what appeared to be a routine stop. If one is a man in need of help along side the road, whether one is white, black, NA, etc., you're especially stuck. There seem to be more crazy people on the fringes these days than 20 years ago and people are paranoid. I know and have known many NAs whom I respect a great deal. A couple even disagree with me on the nickname yet I get along fine with them. Most are like the NAs someone was mentioning here at the Devils Lake bar who were wearing Sioux attire during a hockey game. I'm sure if I knew you, I'd get along fine with you, disagreement over the Sioux nickname notwithstanding. I do think that many on your side perpetuate racism by doing many of the things that I have described. Assuming white people do not give you the time of day perpetuates racism because it fosters feelings of resentment that you already have. Those get expressed to others and cause others to feel guarded and discomfort is spread. What you must understand is that not all white people are card carrying members of the KKK and that the vast majority of white people do not harbor ill feelings against NAs. My dad teaches in Dunseith where the school is 90% NA. I've worked on a reservation helping the tribal council re-codify their tribal constitution. During that time, I was at Ladot's in Belcourt wearing shorts. One older NA essentially said that I was as white as the snow and looked like a girl with my shorts on and then he asked me what the fu$% I was doing on his reservation. That was a racist moment. I do not hold all NAs accountable and my time on that reservation was great. I even got to go golfing with the tribal council in Rolla. I have worked at several pow-wows too. My point is not to establish NA "street cred." Rather, it is to point out that we all experience racism and that the historical victims of racism can also be and often are racist. We only perpetuate it when we make broad assumptions after we've experienced it. I, too, have said racist things. One time, after bankruptcy court, I went to lunch with the Bankruptcy Judge's law clerk at the time who happened to be Jewish. I was complaining about something being expensive and said that I felt like I got "Jewed." I was an adult when I said this and the law clerk quickly pointed out the stupidity of my remark. To this day, I feel chagrined that I said that. Was I trying to be anti-Jewish? No. I grew up in NW North Dakota and that phrase was simply part of the vernacular along with many other idiotic phrases. At that time, I had been through 7 years of graduate studies and practicing for 4 years and I still did not catch myself. Many NAs and blacks learn to be perpetually angry at white people. We all should be outraged, saddened, sickened, and educated about what happened and I don't think you'd find one responsible, educated, rational white person or any member of this site who would disagree with me on that. Educated people can be racist and I think there are a lot of them in the Sociology, English and Philosophy departments at UND. While you might not agree with the nickname, many other NAs may agree with it. Why not let their voices be heard. To simply say "Because we need to strike one against the dominant culture" is not responsible, in my opinion. That sort of animus is spurred by anger and rage of the type spewed forth by many UND administrators and professors and it is not productive. Forcibly retiring the nickname will do nothing to redress historic tragedies. Use of the nickname and the respect it is accorded by that fans, alumni and athletes and adversaries are entirely positive things that serve to work against many of the negative things you have stated. I can't imagine that the athletes and fans proudly displaying the nickname and logo would be anything but constructive ambassadors, of a sense, reminding people around the country of the Sioux heritage. They play sports and do not engage in sociological or anthropological debates but the people are made known of the Sioux and they remember the Sioux people every time UND plays. I can not imagine why one would want to squelch such positives and I think many who oppose the nickname like RHHT, David Gipp, etc are just blinded by anger and rage against white people. That is racist behavior. Anger over what happened is a good thing but the desire to punish and seek retribution, rather than educate, admonish and remind and respect, is simply a reaction without the benefit of reason. To decorate it in terms of "it is a racist name/logo" and/or "all who support it are racists" does not change anything.

Actually, I think he's saying that you and people like you perpetuate racism. You and people like you are racists. The Jesse Jackson's of the world would be lost without racism because they have no identity and no power apart from the victim mentality. You and Jesse Jackson should read the new book by Juan Williams. What you and people like you are saying, essentially, is that "racism existed and blacks, NA's, etc were persecuted (which they were terribly) so we (the NA's such as you, blacks such as Jesse Jackson, etc.) get to be racist now and we are justified in being racists because look at what happened to our ancestors. In fact, it's not racism because look at what happened to our ancestors." Healthy? Logical? Productive? Will help to end racism? Ah, nope. Racist? negative energy? perpetuation of racial stereotypes? Unhealthy? Serving to further hurt the descendants of those who were persecuted? Yep. The "we get to be racists because our ancestors were persecuted" argument does not wash at all.

People need to start holding the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons and RRHTs of the world accountable for their perpetuation of racism. The onus of racism is on them. All we have to do is voice that reality back at them when they pull the race card.

All I can say is "wow." It would be nice if the Herald printed stuff just like this. Losing to the indians has nothing to do with it and that kind of racist vitriol reveals much about you. When we're saying that most of the NA's would like to keep the name and that it should be placed to a vote, we're really not saying that we have lost to the indians and we're mad about it. Trust me on that, n'kay?

I seriously doubt that Jewish people would care at all. After all, the state of Israel is full of modern day warriors in that everyone must do 2 years in the military. I like the idea. The other teams could be Assyrians or Egyptians something attempting to stomp on our team and our team could open a whole lot of Old Testament whoop-ass on them just like Saul, David and Solomon. Of course, academia and the NC00 would not even care if Jewish people were offended. I can not think of a more anti-Jewish group than American academia, including the NC00.

You're absolutely right. If any group would have a reason to gripe, it's Jewish people. They don't and they've been persecuted for thousands (not hundreds) of years and they've been highly successful for thousands of years.

That kind of hyper-sensitive mindset is what is the problem in the workplace, for sure. I understand the comparison but it is not totally valid. The agreement is if we can get approval from the tribes we keep the name. If an employment contract had something about the fact that the use of terms offensive to some would be permitted as long as most of that "some" agree to it, I think your comparison would have more validity. Besides, the tribes gave the name. In a work place one does not say "I give you permission" to use this term and that term and then go complaining that the term is offensive. Do not even start with me about the work place business. People need to shut up and work and get thicker skins. They should be thankful that their jobs are not over in China or India.....yet. Do any of us think that the Chinese and Indians do this crap and make their people go to sensitivity training so that they know that the use of "black" rather than "african american" is wrong or the use of "man" as opposed to "humans" is wrong? It's one thing to prevent the use of obvious name calling and sexual harassment. It's quite another to have that noblest of good intentions to morph into what it is today.

Ah, more victim fixating. That's it. NA's such as RHHT and David Gipp and their white enablers are perpetuating racism with their "we can use the name but white people can't" argument and with their "you're all racists if you support UND using the nickname" position. There are racist NAs, there are lots of racist blacks, there are lots of racist hispanics, etc. Just because you're not in the so-called "dominant culture" (another racist term thrown around by sociologists, racist administrators/educators, etc.), does not mean that you can never be a racist. Racism is not something exclusively reserved for white people. Besides, what the fools who use the term "dominant culture" do not realize are the implications that go along with it. What are other cultures? Are they the weak cultures? Are they the subservient cultures? Are they the inferior cultures? These are the implications that go along with the disgusting "dominant culture" term. One would think that the use of this term would be taboo in PC land but nothing else in PC land makes sense or is consistent. I guess the fact that nothing in the PC mindset makes logical sense and everything is inconsistent are the only consistent things in PC land.

Agreed that this is one of the absolute worst PR blunders that the tribes could possibly make. To people like RHHT, David Gipp, BRIDGES etc., it's not about what is rational or good long-term for the tribe. They are not interested in constructing bridges, working to end racism, etc. They are for simply striking back in this fashion.

Let them vote on it. If the votes come out against, fine. The only poll ever done on this subject, nationwide, identified at 90% of NAs either do not oppose or don't care about NA nicknames in sports. If the nickname opposition is so confident that most NAs are against it, a vote should not be discouraged.

Oh, please. Is that all you have to bring out of the hat AGAIN? I don't see how investigating it carefully and closely constitutes a dragging of the feet. That mindset comes from PCers who just want people to conclude as to their own assertions without any support whatsoever (i.e. some profs and students claiming racism without documentation or reports). Another case in point is the Duke Lacrosse fiasco. This professor has spent too much time in his office and needs to stimulate his creative muse to come up with more logical and factually based positions. There is no nexus between the nickname and the terrible event that happened with the Jewish student. The university is absolutely correct in taking its time to investigate this matter, given the severity of the issues involved. I hope neither you nor the professor (charitably described) ever are allowed on a jury. Even if RE had Nazi parties (which, if proved, is abhorrent conduct), the reflection is on him and not UND. How about Obama accepting money from the terroist that came (or is he yet to come?) to UND? How about Obama going to church and listening to racist vitriol for 20 years? I guess Obama is responsible for the conduct of his pastor and the conduct of that rube who has appeared, or is going to appear, at UND. Obama is not responsible for the conduct of idiots who have expressed support for him. Neither is UND responsible for idiotic conduct by RE. I know the fellow who was in charge (maybe he still is) of INMED. He is probably one of the ten best human beings I have ever had the good fortune to have known and I have not seen him in years and, yes, he opposes the nickname. There are plenty of NA doctors on the reservations. There are plenty of NAs who are lawyers too who work on or have worked on the reservations: Ivan Bercier (a great guy from Turtle Mtn), Janice Schroeder-Morley at the U.S. Attorney's Office, Tom Bird Bear (its terrible that he died so young), etc. In fact, your conclusions that there are no such educated people on Spirit Lake is racist, isn't it?

In a letter to UND administrators, Weinstein linked the West Hall and Noren Hall swastikas with the Gamma Phi Indian party, suggesting that the UND administration had compromised its moral authority by defending for so long the school

This makes too much sense for the politically correct mindset. RHHT and David Gipp and some of the UND professors and administrators only care about effecting the PC mandate of changing the name and chalking up a "victory" over the oppressive masses. Such a sensible solution would do nothing to feed their racism or their effervescent rage.

Nice. That's very racist of you to say so. That racist vitriol is all too tired. ScottM's response could apply to anyone, especially the racist, creatively-impaired and intellectually numbed sociology professors at UND. I can think of at least one so-called educator in the law school who could start earning his keep, too.

Hmm. I wonder why Ron His Horse Is Thunder is so afraid of putting it to a vote then. I wonder why one person wrote in to the GF Herald expressing opposition to a vote on the Spirt Lake Reservation after Myra announced that it could go to a tribal-wide vote. I respect the heck out of Myra because she's willing to let the tribal members express their opinions collectively, even though she's against the nickname. She does not subscribe to Star Chamber Democracy like RHHT. If you're so confident about tribal opposition you probably would not mind a vote to validate your position would you?

Oh, so your aim is retribution and pay back rather than remedying the "hostile and abusive" nature of the nickname? Your aim is not to work to allay the supposed deleterious "self-esteem" effects of the big bad nickname? I knew those claims were always just shams for the racist motivations that you so eloquently stated. Besides, what were your racist experiences specifically at UND? Do they even exist? Did you report them? Given that you kicked some @$$ at least one time, I presume there are police reports/campus security reports? No? Is this just the same old trip-trap that name changers trot out about insults and racist experiences that never happened except for in their dreams?

Uh, ok. The chants will not go away. Just look at Dartmouth. Their old mascot has been gone for over 30 years and chants, shirts, etc. stemming from it are alive and well.

A minority of a minority of them do not want "whitey" to use and benefit from the Sioux name. As I've said before and I'll say it again, that is a racist position because it is a decision based upon race. They try to say it is offensive but if that were true the NA's would not use the name themselves. When this clear logic is presented, the ones like hermit trot out the same nebulous "you'll never understand" response. The whites took their land and they can't take the land back but they can take the name back and so that is some sort of feel good retribution poke in the eye for the RRHT types and the white, professor racists too. The NA's experienced terrible sufferings and there is no arguing the cruelty that white people did against them but taking the name back after it was given is not going to make it like those things never happened. Neither is it going to allay any angry, racist feelings that the PC'ers hold. Neither is it going to improve any relations between the communities. Their goal is to score one against what they believe to be the oppressive masses. It is not to "improve self esteem" or improve relations between the communities. I'd respect the PCers at least some if they were honest about it.

Are you serious? Scapegoating? You did not see us at the Pow Wow (Yes, even though I'm white I know this is to be capitalized because it's sacred which is why no alcohol is allowed) this week? First, you don't know who we are so you would not have known if you had seen any of us would you? Your argument is rife with contradictions. You must not have heard all of the yammering by RHHT and David Gipp and others of their ilk that the "Sioux" term is "racist, degrading, insulting, hostile and abusive." It means, incorrectly but according to them, "snake" and was concocted by the enemies as a term of derision. All of this, but it is great for RHHT and David Gipp, etc. to use the name=CONTRADICTION #1. Side B -- "We are Indians and are of that RACE so we get to use the name, even though we denounce it publicly as racist. You are white people and are not of the RACE so you do not get to use the name and if YOU do use it, we'll label you as racists for using a name that we deem as racist." This is an argument of justification based on RACE and is a RACIST standpoint and anyone who argues its validity is a RACIST. Using RACE as a basis to grant some people one thing and deny others that same thing is a RACE-based classification. Using the argument that "we can employ RACIST arguments/positions because we've been persecuted for centuries" is neither logical nor intellectually honest. Using your logic, white men circa 1870 to 1920 could have said "we have always had the ability to vote. Because we are white and have always had the ability to vote and you're not white or not a man and have not had the right to vote, we're going to deny you the right to vote." Make sense? Nope. Neither do your arguments wash logically or intellectually. They are nothing more than RACE-based, emotional, angry blather. I guess the coin of the realm in PC-land which you, being the intellectually insecure hermit that you are (i.e. using the insensitive term "mental midget", according to the PC bible, i.e. referring to others with opposing viewpoints as lacking cognitive abilities) have displayed here is this: "We can employ and argue contradictory, RACIST, and illogical positions to justify what we want without challenge. If you disagree, you lack intellectual faculties, you're racist, etc." It is disturbing that adults can employ this kind of twisted thinking but I guess that's the influence of a lot of the so-called "educators." Incidentally, I've probably been to more Pow Wows, during the years that I sold concessions, than you have.

He's good for comic relief.

Very original, indeed. In the PC lexicon, isn't the term "midget" hostile, abusive, degrading and demeaning? Is the use of such a term an example of another double-standard that you live by? The simple throwing out of trite and hackneyed phrases and the continual recitation of sophomoric positions with no logical basis at all simply reaffirms my conclusion that you and people like you have no rational mindset at all. The banality and creative lethargy of the PC side of life is manifested once again.

UND was previously given the tribes' approval in 1969. It is a name/term that is part of the public domain. What about the people in Sioux Falls, Sioux City, etc.? So the NA have the right to refer to themselves using, according to RRHT and Gipp, such a terrible and offensive nickname/term? That makes sense. If you listen to RRHT and Gipp, they are not even Sioux. They are Lakotah, etc. If you listen to them, "Sioux" was a derogatory name given to them by the French and other tribes so they don't really have the right to use it either without getting the consent of the descendants of the rival tribes and French trappers that used the offensive term to describe them in the first place, right? Usuing the arguments of RRHT and Gipp, they don't have the right either.

Ah, yes. Here we go again. The "ineffable truism that you plebes will never understand" argument. Why is there life on earth and not the other planets? Answer: there just is. I guess this is one of those that can't be understood but must be accepted as reality. Oh, I see. I guess what he really meant is that only a truly indoctrinated or thoroughly conditioned person could understand the convoluted reasoning (generously described) that nickname changers live by. Any free-thinking, rational, educated person should not be able to comprehend it. It's no more than this: We're angry, it's our way or you're stupid/uneducated, we're going to stick it in your eyes and feel really good about it for awhile until our twisted spirits of control and contempt resurface and we have to find another so-called injustice to complain about. Logic and a rational basis for argument are superfluous and unnecessary.

Well said. This is exactly the same kind of disturbing mindset as that held by the religious fanatics in Devils Lake. What rational person would truly think that yelling "Go Satans" constitutes worshipping the Devil? If someone thinks a name is offensive and degrading, it makes sense that the person would not use the name to refer to himself or herself.

Same old, same old. Incidentally, the ones who oppose the nickname do frequent here but they ban themselves because they just can't take being disagreed with so they have to go to their own forums to be reassured. We actually do care what a minority group feels as we are for a reservation-wide vote on both reservations. It's Ron His Horse is Thunder who does not care what his own people want. Before, he and others of his ilk were of the opinion that "you never asked us what we think." Now when they are asked -- reservation-wide -- somehow RHHT and David Gipp are offended that the tribes are being asked. Just throwing out this same old tripe does not get it done for your side of the argument. Inane comparisons, emotional outbursts, etc. are of little logical value. Polish people don't refer to themselves as "dumb fuc@king Polacks." Irish people don't refer to themselves as "Micks." French people don't refer to themselves as "frogs." RHHT and others of his ilk do refer to themselves as "sioux." Evidently, they think it's alright. Such images and the "sioux" name are all over the casinos so they must be alright. My apologies for not comprehending the twisted logic of such a blatant double-standard. If the words are wrong and offensive, they're wrong and offensive. If the tribes vote that they are wrong and offensive, so be it. What it really boils down to is that a lot of people want the name and find it non-offensive and a small fraction of people mad about past injustices (which we all are), which did happen and were terrible and were inexcusable, find this as a way of getting back for those injustices. Taking the name will not redress, or even begin to redress, those injustices. It may make a few twisted people temporarily feel good that a lot of people are very bummed by the loss of the name but the genesis of the same twisted vengeance-driven spirit will be there still. It's quite pitiable, really.