Chief Illiniwek Supporter

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? 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: 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).

This is simply not true. I responded yesterday. I consider the words "don't tie it in with the name and logo" as responsive.

This is the type of thing I simply cannot support. Two Indians, and two of this race, and two of this gender... you're not educating the people most likely to benefit when you get to that level. Start with a simple tuition wavier, etc. for grad students who came from an undergrad at UND. Then a few waivers for upperclassmen (oops, upperclasspersons) who studied at North Dakota secondary schools. Then expand if these programs continue to work. Telling a full prof that his salary will be paid (and his classroom heated, painted, etc) whether he/she teaches a class of 30 or 28 (when there are 30+ waiting to get in) doesn't make any sense to me. Much as people want to scream, this isn't "threating" nor is it "harm". Rather the harm exists in wasting scarce resources.

First, a personal "thank you". Plenty of people here wouldn't have bothered with the word "now" in that last sentance. I think you'd have a far harder time with the word "Dakotah" in that case. It doesn't seem to be used in everyday conversation, and comes from the Indians. I'd say the NCAA would judge that the Indians "own" that word, and you need a continuing vote of approval from them. Given that "Sioux" has been banned, you've already lost that battle. Hey, lets not forget the important roles played by the USFL and WFL in starting the ridiculous "collective" nicknames!!

We're getting away from the point of this thread, but you should look at the recent happenings at the University of Delaware.

Someone responded with the word "human" but I was going to go with "political creatures, no different than virtually everyone on earth". Seems like the same answer in retrospect. At some point I think its a valid question to ask whether holding specific spots in a public university open only to a race or gender is connected to stopping diabeties. Or alcoholism. Is that the best use of tax dollars? Will Indians be the only ones who can develop solutions to these diseases? Again, the higher the education level, the less I can get behind affirmative action. Probably not, at least not immediately. But this doesn't make people eager to expand them IMHO; and as noted previously, also makes people think about what they're costing and if they're worth it given the unending list of special "programs" being demanded. I personally see extremely little difference between a donation and the tax dollars here. When it all comes down to it, the "want to" factor ultimately rules.

I think the (rather strong) opposition from the other tribe will affect the Spirit Lake group. Will they choose not to "stick their neck out" and just play it cool, figuring that the first tribe's opposition trumps any decision they could make? Personally, that's the way I would look at it. Why make enemies when whatever you say is irrelevant to the final decision?

Federal money, no. But as noted above, these programs aren't 100% Federal. The infrastructure, buildings, etc have to come under North Dakota jurisdicition AFAIK. And the closer you get to campus, the more the logo decision DOES affect the politics. Anyone reading this board can tell which way the wind is blowing. The strident anti-nickname people aren't making the greatest amount of friends. I never did. Someone else brought up the 20% number as some sort of badge of effectiveness of the special programs at the University of North Dakota. I didn't say that those 20% of physicians are automatically the least qualified, much less unqualified. Personally, I don't care what the number is. I wouldn't care if it was zero. Best doctors should "doctor"; plain and simple. Same thing with teachers. And engineers. Either way, what does that say about the need for a special program dedicated to bringing in more NA's to the U of North Dakota? Why not just call it the program to bring in ANYONE?? Edit to the first point above in this post, and also to prior posts: My mistake. I revisited the original post that Sioux-cia made as 5:43 pm, and Federal funds were specifically mentioned. In my responses, I more or less skipped over that and comingled the federal and state dollars. My point(s) are that North Dakota should be evaluating how effective the dedicated Native programs are doing: they should be doing it annually with each budget cycle: the idea that the logo is dropped shouldn't create some sort of "defensive" posture among the bureacrats involved with/funded by such progams that "you're just doing this out of spite", and like it or not, politics are going to play a role.

Its JMHO, but I think that "Dakotans" would be the solution that the NCAA wouldn't be able to touch. I don't know where the word "Dacotah" comes from-is that from the French? Or some other Euro settlers who translated an Indian word? The reason we maintained the word "Illini" is because we were using it long before we adopted Chief Illiniwek or any other imagery associated with the Indians. For that matter, we were using it before the NCAA was organized, or before any sport was played on campus. It was merely a word derived from the name of our state. Illini was associated with all students at Illinois. I think our sports teams had a few other names before we got this one. (And yes, the state was named by the French who misunderstood a word from the Indians.... but the NCAA chose not to go there.)

Okay, that's fine. I don't know who is performing such evaluations. Some federal agency? The board of trustees? And is the program funded 100% with federal money? The state has no money invested? I think its equally naive to think that ANY of these programs are free from politics. And IMHO, the politics have changed (like it or not) with the nickname decision. So, shouldn't someone find that out? Again, if this is a program that benefits the nation (the USA) then it should be federally funded. And I'd also say that other states would love a taste of that federal money. But the bigger question is are all of those dollars being spent wisely? Cut 5% of the money out of the medical school program, and do we suddenly have less NA docs? Or the same number but less qualified? And what would that say? Or, do the NA med students go to other schools? (Personally, this entire argument is a big non-starter with me. White, black, male, female, whatever: the best students should become doctors period. The higher the education needed for a function, the less Affirmative Action is important IMHO.) Did anyone here say that ONLY NA's can't make it in college? And if all peoples "can't make it in college", what does that say about the need for any of these programs limited to one race, gender, etc?

Yes, and whether its more correct to say that the University of North Dakota has a Native American Studies program within one of their colleges rather than saying they have a college dedicated to Native American studies, my point is still valid. Any time an entrenched little fiefdom (of a University or any large organization) hears that budget cuts are coming, the squealing about how unfair the cuts are starts. And the more inflamatory the language, the more I think that the cuts may be valid.

Well, almost every "personal" nickname comes from history. The Vikings, what, about 1000 years ago? Vandals-before even that? And the Trojans/Spartans?? Chief Osceola is about that 150 years ago era. And virtually all of them adopt war/battle symbols and imagery. Do people learn about Sioux (or any other culture's) history from a sports nickname?? I doubt it. Perhaps that does happen in one out of 100 million cases. But OTOH, dropping the nickname isn't going to teach anything about Sioux culture. And AFAIK, the Seminoles have negotiated for some educational opportunities in return for their signoff at FSU. If the Sioux tribes thought that the nickname was creating an incorrect impression, they might have been able to use the negotiations to strike a bargain regarding public information on campus.

You've missed the point entirely. To call the evaluation of the effectiveness of these programs "harm" is inaccurate. Nor is it a "threat" to make sure all programs are cost effective. People who see their little fiefdoms (be they in the engineering, native american or liberal arts and sciences colleges) as something they are entitled to no matter what else happens will typically squeal whenever budget cuts are mentioned. They'll say they're being "harmed". Sorry, someone has to bear the burden, and there are no sacred cows. One other point: if these programs for Native Americans are so necessary and beneficial, any cut at the University of North Dakota should be made up for at other schools: say, your sister schools or South Dakota or Oklahoma or Michigan: or even via federal funding. Furthermore, I just can't entirely separate the idea that the tribes would be entitled to a cut of royalties from a continuing "Sioux" logo and nickname from these programs. What would the tribes be doing with the royalty income? If its so necessary for their survival, why not just pay it out of the goodness of the North Dakota people's hearts despite losing the nickname? Well, just because this evaluation wasn't done in 2006 or 2005 is no reason why it shouldn't be done in 2007 and beyond. Don't tie it in with the name and logo: but don't use the loss of the name and logo and the hyperbole of "threats" and "harm" as an excuse NOT to do it either.

If you have to have a nickname, what's wrong with the "University of North Dakota Natives"? Just use the interlocking "ND" you have now for your logo. (Yep, that would make some people mad. But anyone who was born in North Dakota is a native, aren't they?)

I don't agree that the discussion of re-prioritzing the allocation of scarce tax dollars is "threatening" someone with "harm". Every program needs to face a cost/benefit analysis. And if voters judge that what they're spending on programs specifically targeted at one race/nationality aren't living up to what they're costing, then they should be free to spend those dollars where they're going to do the state of North Dakota the most good. I think a lot of people here are not seeing anything like "good faith" coming from the other side. No matter what happens with the nickname, people are still entitled to ask if these programs specifically (or any program in general) can accomplish such "worthy purpose(s)". Long and short of all this: IMHO, programs giving special treatment for some race, class, gender, nationality, whatever are not entitled to funds in perpetuity, and they should be periodically looked at to make sure that they're accomplishing something besides providing a generous salary for otherwise unemployable people.

I agree with this sentiment. IMHO, this will perpetuate the memory of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname for the longest period of time.

And a lot of others on this thread expressed much the same thoughts. The "absent" members of the committee wouldn't make a difference IMHO. Those militant enough to vote against the nickname were the ones who were motivated enough to get there last night. I have a feeling that the others will just go along with the already expressed (overwhelming) majority. And from MKSioux: I agree with your thoughts. And furthermore, the words "consensus soluition" was used as a euphimism for "surrender to the PC nutjobs" at Illinois. I can't be optimistic about the survival of your nickname.

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.

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

AFAIK this is the deal the Seminole tribe has struck with FSU. I really don't know if the tribe gets points from all royalty income or if they break out the revenue attribuitable to either the word "Seminoles" or the Osceola imagery. This makes the tribes financial partners with the athletic department and gives the tribe incentive to root for the success of the team. Obviously, all of the "Final Four" and other one-off merchandise is pure gravy.

Fuggittabotitttt.... (Besides, that group preferred to be called "LCN".)

Yes, someone else definitely owns the word Sioux fof the purposes of a University nickname. But its in the public domain for the name of a city. Or a county. And for that matter, if some stripper wants to call herself "Dirty Sioux" then nobody could prevent her from doing that. But a hockey team? Now that's hurtful and a "harmful appropriation".

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....)

Now that statement is a pile of....whatever. The only sport which can possibly state that they're scheduled out years in advance is football: and with the recent move from 11 to 12 games annually the schedules are again up in the air right now. Basketball schedules are commonly not known until roughly July or August of the current year. While SOME events are scheduled out years in advance, the overwhelming majority of all sports have very fluid schedules until virtually the eve of the academic year. That president is either misinformed or trying to spin something.

Here is where I need more info. AFAIK, if UND is ever granted permission by both tribes, and then either tribe subsequently rescinds permission then the Sioux nickname logo is gone forever with no hopes of reviving it. I have never heard that FSU could not get the Okie tribe to approve the Seminole nickname if the Florida tribe ever votes its disapproval, and therefore go on using the nickname/logo. Nor does the NCAA require both tribes to sign on in the case of FSU (again, that's AFAIK). Perhaps they have both done so, but I've never seen a statement saying that both are required for continuing usage. And AFAIK the Florida Seminoles get the bulk (if not all) of the funds from FSU. If the tribes both approve on 12/1/2007, doesn't that end the three year-period then and there? And if the tribes both revote on 12/15/2007 to take back their approval, doesn't that end the possibiltity of using the nickname forever? I'm not sure about the "no matter what" part.