Hawkster
-
Posts
2,207 -
Joined
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by Hawkster
-
-
Nobody is saying that except you. No Fighting Sioux nickname supporters are claiming to be more objective than Dana Williams. What Williams is doing that they're not doing is attempting to pass off his research based on recycled, seven-year-old data as if it's some new finding based on science. Contrary to how the Herald portrayed Williams, he quite obviously has a long, personal stake in the Fighting Sioux nickname issued based on his previous writings and associations.
Why does that matter? Here's what the National Institutes of Health says about the need for objectivity in research:
Unlike, say medical research, some personal feelings are going to creep into any statement made regarding the changing of a nickname. That same bias is evident in the arguments thrown out by both sides. Does that make my opinion less valid because of my opposition to the Sioux name?
It's hard to measure the racism that comes into play because of the continued use of the name. We have to defer to the namesake culture and let their leaders decide. Since they have stated repeatedly the name has to change, let's just do it. Again, why can't we just move forward, embrace a new name and work to the common good?
-
Hi Dana.
Nope. Absolutely not. In fact, I have never met Dana Williams, but I have the highest respect for his work on this subject.
-
There is nothin objective about Dana Williams research you can spin it anyway you want, its a ruse, the research is done by a biased researcher. The herald did a disjustice by trying to pass this off as objective. Ah, there you go, its another I am against the name so his research is objective. Go it. Your probably employed by the Herald as well...
No, I'm not employed by the Herald or any other newspaper. I am, however, trying to figure out how only the Sioux name supporters can be objective? Rather then calling Dana Williams biased, I prefer the think of him as qualified and well informed when it comes to this subject. He has, after all, done research papers on the topic.
-
Maybe your not getting it. What is dishonest is that Williams and the media is dishonestly trying to pass an article off as being objective social science when before the paper is written/presented the conclusion have already been made. That isn't science in my opinion nor is it value free sociology. That is social engineering. This so called scientific study is nothing more than jaming a leftist pc political view down our throats and that is not what soicology or social science was meant to be. The fact that person was presented as being objective is academically dishonest, the fact that no one challenged the news papers is also dishonest, in my opinion.
We not stupid just because we support the Fighting Sioux name. The minutes I saw this person name in the news paper I could tell you that research the Forum and Herald is trying to pass off as objective is a farce. I could tell you what the result was going to be before the paper was even written.
I think you are the one not getting it. The Williams article is objective. It points out the many problems with keeping the Sioux name. Just because he had the opinion for some time that the name had to go doesn't mean he isn't objective. I suppose you would say the same about me. I didn't just decide last week the name is offensive. This goes way back for me too.
-
Dear TRex,
Did you get permission from the British rock band to use their name? Did you get it in writing? Did they give it to you? Did you even ask? If not, you should stop. No, you must stop. Only that group can decide how their name should be used. You must stop. You must change. You are immoral if you do not. Their name is their name and you shouldn't use it for your personal entertainment.
(Hopefully you're a student of irony and satire. If not, that just flew over your head.)
I did, in fact get my name from that band. If they go public and tell me I'm offending them, YES, I would switch it. Nothing ironic about it. I'm against us using the Sioux name because the namesakes are opposed to it. Get it?
-
No, that's not it at all. Williams' research is being presented in the news as if it's something new and different conducted by a man of science. There is nothing new about it, and Williams ability to conduct objective scientific research is clearly clouded by his personal involvement in the issue.
Obviously, you don't mind having your intelligence insulted. I do.
I highly respect the forthright manner that Dana Williams used to layout the problems of using the Sioux name. There was nothing insulting about the Williams article. The insults come from a clientele who insist on clinging to an outdated name.
Several weeks ago, I really felt like we were making progress as most posters here were openly accepting the retirement of the Sioux name and looking at acceptable replacements. It almost appears that we are starting to take a step or two backwards.
It's time to move forward. Nokota is a name I would find very pleasing.
-
This is why I am alarmed at the apparent quick hook the State Board might be making with the Sioux name. 3 years to get the Tribal leaders to open an ear and quit repeating NO NO NO NO before hearing the rest just might allow constructive conversations relating to things like the above. But if the State Board is just going through the motions a great opportunity may be lost. On the other hand, the tribes have to be willing to listen, and if they are just not interested at some point you have to cut your losses and move on. Hopefully the State Board really knows when that is.
Why let it fester for another 3 years? It's time to start the healing process and move on. Nothing can be gained by waiting. I'm fully in favor of change ASAP.
-
"Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual lawful use of the trademark. These rights will cease if a mark is not actively used for a period of time, normally 5 years in most juristictions. In the case of a trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark in the lawful course of trade, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to become liable for an application for the removal from the register after a certain period of time on the grounds of "non-use"."
Plus the logo would not be the same. All you need is a 30% change........
Use the interlocking ND and remove the outline add a star above the N like on the Old North Star logo, and you have a petty cool start for a new logo that looks like UND tradition but adds the new. Plus some of the old Hockey jerseys had stars on them two.
I'm sorry but we do need a nickmane otherwise North Dakota ....... Bison? People get confused enough. F#*K that.
Thanks for backing me up. I thought there was a "use it or lose it clause". Amazing what I learned in those poli sci classes.
-
What does etc. mean here when your choices are all over the board?
I don't want something lame. The Flickertail comment was tongue in cheek, even though it's historical and unique.
-
Seriously, how many times do I have to repeat myself? Do you see that little tiny "TM" underneath the logo? That stands for trademark. In America, that's when you register something and no one else can copy it as their own or create a "rip-off". That logo remains property of the Dallas Stars. Anytime someone buys one of those nifty North Stars retro jerseys, part of the money goes to the NHL and the Dallas Stars. You can't copy that logo any more than you can copy the Blackhawk logo without paying the owner of the trademark a hefty fee.
And, if we're going to name the team after the state motto of a next-door neighbor, could we at least be the University of North Dakota Big Sky or the University of North Dakota Rushmores? God knows I don't want some knee-jerk academia nut to suggest that we become the University of North Dakota Peace Gardeners.
You know, we are sometimes called "The Flickertail State", but I don't think we want to go there. I could live with the name, but there are better ones.
Regarding the trademark on the Northstars, I'm not sure, but I think there is some provision that you have to have a reason to protect your trademark or it lapses. No Northstars in existence so it might be possible. I could live with Northstars also. Could also live with Fighting Dakotans. I feel that no name is no solution. Far to easy to lapse into bad habits and use the Sioux name. Unacceptable to me.
I don't want Blizzards, Tornadoes, Pumas, Mustangs, etc.
-
I'm not going to be one of those fans that instantly calls for a coaches job. I believe that new coaches should be given time to rebuild programs. I also understand that he didn't exactly take over a highly successful program and was brought in rather late to do any real recruitting for his first season. We saw alot of close games with some rather good teams last year. This off season he was able to bring in a few JuCo transfers and his system should be well in place by now. Alot of fans have been excited about the possibilites for the team this season. I don't see any reason why fans shouldn't expect to see some forms of improvement this year.
Granted, it is still VERY early in the season, but so far I haven't been real impressed. I just hope that as the season goes on I will see more and more things to be excited about.
I saw the team last year when they lost to Southwest Minnesota State at Marshall. It wasn't an impressive game. It sure isn't like the 70's when UND played dominating BB. I agree with you, we don't need a coaching change, but maybe the coaching staff needs to change philosophy.
-
http://www.in-forum.com/Opinion/articles/184357
The Herald today also has a lot of opinions on the coming name change.
-
Did you notice that the first time they mention us, they call us the "University of SOUTH Dakota Fighting Sioux"?
-
Yes, it was, assuming it happened as I've heard it told. But you'd have to look far and wide to find a Fighting Sioux fan who disagrees with you.
So what's your point? More importantly, what's James McKenzie's point in dredging up something that occurred 35 years ago?
My point is that we keep talking about the history and the tradition of the Sioux name at UND, so let's examine some of our history. Granted, times have changed. I couldn't see a situation like this happening today; it would never be allowed to progress to the ugly climax it did.
Let's get it changed and move on.
-
1972.
I bet your still bitchin' that your mom pushed you out of the nice, warm, nutritonally stocked, safe womb!
Sorry, but I'm old enough to remember the incident.
-
http://www.in-forum.com/Opinion/articles/184158
The King Kold incident was disgusting, to say the least
-
Anyone (besides PCM, who asked the question of me) wondering why there was no prior media attention or notice to a Standing Rock vote on the moniker?
Does that seem strange to anyone else? Shouldn't a vote like that be on an open records agenda? Wouldn't you expect that all voting members would have attended such an important meeting?
Where's the Fargo Forum or the GF Herald digging into history of key players of this (like they did with a state district judge)?
Indian nations are autonomous, so they operate under their own jurisdictional decree. They don't need to tell us anything, outside of the fact that they resent us, UND, using their name.
-
There is no way the NCAA goes along with no nickname. This makes if far to easy to revert back informally to the Sioux name, which is what the "no name" crowd wants. It's not going to happen. I know enough about legal interpretation to know we can't go there.
I also agree that the name has to be something that is representative of the area and our history. Storms, Rage, Blizzard, etc, isn't going to do it. Cavalry is nothing more then an attempt to poke a stick in the eye of the Native American's and the NCAA.
Nicknames don't need to be intimidating. Look at the Gophers and the Jackrabbits. Lack of an aggressive logo isn't causing them problems, no matter how poorly they play.
-
The reason we can't simply drop the "Sioux" name and use nothing is that it is far to convenient to informally keep using Sioux. Sorry, but the NCAA won't go for it.
-
I've been trying not to comment to much on this since the settlement to avoid the appearance of gloating. I'l even overlook the flaming I've taken for pushing for a new name.
The one comment I'm going to make is lets get an acceptable new name and move on. What ever we pick, let's embrace it and completely stop using the "Sioux" name. As others have said, now is the best time to switch. New division, new conferences, new rivals. Bury the past and welcome the future.
-
I see where the tribal leadership at both Standing Rock and Spirit Lake have already said their earlier positions won't change. Time to move on. Lets select a new name and get down to business. With all the latest distractions, does anyone even remember there is a football game today?
-
I said a long time ago this would happen, and a million dollars later, it did. I just hope we don't insult the tribal leadership with some kind "incentive" to let us keep the name.
-
This settlement is no good. I have no doubt that in the next three years someone from UND will find a way to hoodwink the Native American leaders into finding the name "acceptable". I'd put money on it. Let's face it, the name is racist and unacceptable in the modern age. Even if the Native Americans should decide to stand pat on their decision, it still leaves too many logos at the Ralph in place. Chang the name and let's move on.
-
Well, that's not really true. I don't think Iowa will play us and Minnesota and Wisconsin won't play us in football, basketball and other sports. But they will play us in hockey. When you say "no one", who are you referring to beside those three?
Also, can you tell us how much UND is missing out on when you say you won't donate as long as the name remains. You don't have to be precise, but would it be in the $10K - $50K range, $50K - $100K range, or >$1MM this year? And what do you estimate it would be in your lifetime? $10MM.......$100MM or more?
I'd just like to know how badly I should feel that UND is losing you as a big donor.
What do you think I am, Ralph?
Media Stories on the Sioux Name
in UND Nickname
Posted
While you weren't specific, I'm assuming that this little outburst is somehow directed at me. I will inform you that I am no longer in school, and have graduated for some time now. Well employed using my Poli Sci degree, I might add. I just love how anyone who supports the Native Americans in there quest to rid UND of a racist logo will be ridiculed. I said a long time back that the Sioux name would be retired and I was right What I can't figure out is why we seemingly have refocused our attention from finding a new name that conveys what we are at UND to bickering over keeping the old name. BTW, since you aren't even a UND grad, I don't see where you even have a horse to race in this event.