PCM

Sorry. You're right. I shouldn't have done that. I haven't. Until someone does a scientific poll of the state's American Indian population on this issue, the votes of the tribal councils are the only barometer we have to go by. However, that being said, my own personal opinion is that a tribal council member's position on this particular issue isn't going to get him or her elected or voted out of office. I just don't see it as an issue that most people on the reservations believe affects them one way or the other. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I remember when Kupchella made that remark and the uproar it caused among the change-the-name crowd. And you know what? It was a perfect example of hyper-sensitivity gone wild. Kupchella used the word in its proper context. Just because it's a word that some people associate with dogs doesn't mean that he was comparing an American Indian to a dog. Anyone who does serious geneology research will tell you that "pedigree" is a commonly used term to refer to people of all races. What I'm saying is that given the fluctuation in positions seen on the Spirit Lake and Turtle Mountain reservations over the past week, I find it difficult to believe that this is a "hot button" human rights or civil right issue on the reservations among most of the population. If it was, you wouldn't be seeing positions change from one day to the next. Again, I could certainly be wrong, but that's how I see it.

He would have done it to himself. But whether it was because he had no control over his mental faculties or he simply made a bad decision would be for a psychologist to determine. To this day, I've never heard anyone give an explanation for why Tyler did what he did. Personally, I believe he had mental problems at the time, which is why I don't think anyone should make fun of him. But that's just my opinion.

Perhaps, but I have no control over that. Although I'd hope that Hirsch wouldn't be ridiculed by Sioux fans, he probably will be. If UND fans insist on engaging in such juvenile behavior, they'll find that there comes a day when the shoe is on the other foot and they'll look like hypocrits for complaining. That being said, there's a huge difference between Bina and Hirsch. Hirsch, by his own actions in public, brought the unwanted attention upon himself. Bina had no control over what happened to him. Somebody did it to him. Bina could have been killed or paralyzed for life by the thoughtless action of another player. To claim, as you've done here, that Bina was responsible for his own injury is tasteless at best.

How do you know? About a week ago, every tribal council in North Dakota opposed the use of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo. You and GK were all giddy about that. Then the Turtle Mountain Chippewa changed their minds and suddenly their opinions no longer counted. The Spirit Lake Sioux went from supporting UND to opposing UND to now not being sure what stance to take. How can you be so sure about how many Sioux oppose UND's use of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo?

Neither are funny.

Busy night.

If you get UND to drop the Sioux name, what are you going to do about this? Get out the dynamite and blow it up Taliban-style? That would make a lot of white Hollywood liberals very unhappy.

SKIPPY ALERT!

It's a wonder that more people aren't attracted to the glamorous profession of sudo-reporting.

I posted a link to that article some weeks ago. I found the final reader comment posted beneath the article quite interesting:

Right on, HockeyMom.

Not any more. They changed it a year or two ago to a knight's head.

Yes. But it is not exclusively their right. Did you know that that the word "casino" is Italian? If a group of Italian Americans asked the tribes to stop using the word "casino," would they do it? Shouldn't they have to? Shouldn't Italians have the exculsive right to use a word that originated with their culture? Shouldn't they be able to demand that non-Italians stop using their word? Of course I'm not Sioux. And Duante Culpepper isn't a Viking. And Randy Moss isn't a white pirate with a patch over his eye. And most of the athletes who play for Notre Dame aren't Irish.

I'll restate what I just posted in another thread because it applies here as well. I want to further clarify my point for using the picture above. We are told by the NCAA that UND's use of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo is "hostile and abusive" to American Indians. The NCAA has justified its policy on this issue as being similar to the policy it adopted on the confederate flag issue. But this picture proves that the two issues are not at all similar. You can visit the Prairie Knights Casino on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and see these "hostile and abusive" words and images in widespread use. If the words and images are truly offensive, hostile or abusive to residents of the reservation, the tribal government wouldn't be subjecting its people to such treatment. Does the NAACP fly the confederate flag from its headquarters at the same time it demands that everyone else -- except African Americans -- must avoid displaying the flag or face punishment? Of course not. That's because blacks see the confederate flag as a symbol of an oppressive government that sought to keep them enslaved. They see the confederate flag as a symbol used by the KKK to threaten, intimidate and kill them. This is clearly not the case with American Indian names, mascots and logos. Polls show that a large majority of Native Americans have no problem with sports teams using these words and images. More recently, thanks to the NCAA, we've learned that there are tribes across America actively supporting the universities that use their names and images. If the entire Sioux Nation banned the words and images it claims are offensive, then perhaps GrahamKracker, his supporters and the NCAA would have a valid argument. As it stands now, they don't.

I want to further clarify my point for using the picture above. We are told by the NCAA that UND's use of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo is "hostile and abusive" to American Indians. The NCAA has justified its policy on this issue as being similar to the policy it adopted on the confederate flag issue. But this picture proves that the two issues are not at all similar. You can visit the Prairie Knights Casino on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and see these "hostile and abusive" words and images in widespread use. If the words and images are truly offensive, hostile or abusive to residents of the reservation, the tribal government wouldn't be subjecting its people to such treatment. Does the NAACP fly the confederate flag from its headquarters at the same time it demands that everyone else -- except African Americans -- must avoid displaying the flag or face punishment? Of course not. That's because blacks see the confederate flag as a symbol of an oppressive government that sought to keep them enslaved. They see the confederate flag as a symbol used by the KKK to threaten, intimidate and kill them. This is clearly not the case with American Indian names, mascots and logos. Polls show that a large majority of Native Americans have no problem with sports teams using these words and images. More recently, thanks to the NCAA, we've learned that there are tribes across America actively supporting the universities that use their names and images. If the entire Sioux Nation banned the words and images it claims are offensive, then perhaps GrahamKracker, his supporters and the NCAA would have a valid argument. As it stands now, they don't.

The two issues aren't even remotely similar.

I know you're not a Seminole, and you're not the NCAA, either. But two Seminole tribes told the NCAA that they didn't find Florida State's use of their name "hostile and abusive." In addition, the Ute's told the NCAA that they didn't find Utah's use of their name "hostile and abusive." The Chippewa tribe in Michigan told the NCAA that they didn't find Central Michigan's use of their name "hostile and abusive." The NCAA ruled that North Carolina-Pembroke's name wasn't "hostile and abusive" because it had the support of the university's American Indian students. There may be other appeals to the NCAA filed by other schools that have the backing and support of local tribes. For years, we've been told by various Native American leaders and organizations that all American Indians are offended by the practice of sports teams using tribal names and images. Obviously, this isn't true. Now, in North Dakota, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa say that they support UND's use of the Fighting Sioux name and logo. You were quite happy to have them on your side when they appeared to agree with you. Now you say their support of UND doesn't count because they're a non-Sioux tribe. Does this mean that you also reject the support of your cause receives from the Three Affiliated (non-Sioux)Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation? Does this mean that we can ignore non-Sioux people such as Leigh Jeanotte, Doreen Yellow Bird, Tex Hall and Vernon Bellecourt when they speak out against UND's use of the Fighting Sioux name and logo? Are you going to tell James McKenzie and other whites who support you to shut up because their non-Sioux opinions don't count? The Spirit Lake Sioux passed a resolution in December 2000 that more or less supported UND's use of the Sioux name and logo. A little more than a week ago, tribal chairwoman Myra Pearson was quoted in the Fargo Forum as saying that the controversy was a non-issue at Spirit Lake. She said it wasn't discussed much, and when it was, tribal members laughed about it. You hailed it as a great victory when it appeared that the Spirit Lake Sioux were going to unanimously oppose UND's use of the Sioux name and logo. Now Pearson says opinion is split on the reservation with the tribal elders supporting UND and younger tribal members being against UND. No matter what happens at Spirit Lake, we now know that the entire Sioux Nation does not support your cause. We also know that many other American Indians throughout the nation disagree with your opinion on this issue, which means that a minority of a minority is attempting to force its will upon the majority. In other words, you're claiming the non-existent right to self-portrayal by saying that only people of certain race, ethnicity or national background have the right to portray themselves. Why does it matter that a non-Sioux American Indian artist designed the logo? There are images and famous works of art all over the world that depict people of religions, races, ethnic backgrounds and nationalities other than that of the artist. Should we destroy or ban all of them from public view because they weren't created by a person with the correct skin color or religion or national origin? Or perhaps we should be like the Taliban in Afghanistan and destroy all images that were created by people of the "wrong religion."

Why admit to something that's not true?

I'll play along. If this is NOT hostile and abusive... (according to the NCAA) ...and this is NOT hostile and abusive... (according to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe) ...then why is this?

I'd like to dedicate a verse from Sundown by Gordon Lightfoot to our good friend, GrahamKracker: Sometimes I think it's a sin When I feel like I'm winnin' when I'm losing again

Did I say that? It's not how I feel. I can't speak for anyone else. Why would you care? You've said that these programs don't count if they're not state funded. Your cohort James McKenzie said in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that most of those programs were shut down. So why would you or any other American Indian student care one way or another what happens to those programs?

And definitely not as funny.

Then you were in the same section I was. I was thinking you were a section over, but maybe not. You were below and to the right of where I was sitting, however.

Once again...