Awesome Letter

[LB#11]

You're entitled to not like the name/logo. You're also entitled to not attend school or sporting events at UND. Just because you personally don't like something does not give you the right to take it away from those of us who love it.

Especailly in the manner fourwindsboy wants to do it, by getting back at the white man. Sioux fans give the Sioux name the utmost respect...we all know that, it just has to be said every once in a while.

[redwing77]

here's an interesting letter in the GF, a close friend to englestad wrote in response after the anti-semetic attacks

By Barry Beloff,

Published Tuesday, April 29, 2008

GOLDEN VALLEY, Minn. — In my years at UND, I was a member of a fraternity, perhaps one of the first Jews to belong to the group. What is taking place on campus today is terrible, it makes me ill, and I commend the Jewish Student Organization and its faculty adviser, Jack Weinstein, for their efforts in response.

I have no doubt that the individuals who are behind these dreadful deeds are not just kids doing pranks. They meant what they did. The reports of verbal threats, swastikas and harrassment show this.

When I attended UND, I never experienced this sort of behavior, on or off campus.

That said, I must comment on some published comments by

Weinstein, the faculty adviser to the Jewish Student Organization.

“For years, I have pointed to anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic activities and assumptions in the university community,” Weinstein wrote to a UND official.

“I have warned people publicly and privately that something along these lines would happen and that UND is open to significant liability because of the hostility Jews face on campus. UND is notorious for its intolerance to Native Americans, but with its intimate connection to Ralph Englestad as well as certain practices and events, it is guilty of hostility toward Jews.”

As a former longtime resident of Grand Forks, a graduate of UND and a Jew, I must take exception to the comments directed toward Engelstad. I was lucky enough to consider Ralph Engelstad a personal friend. Being Jewish, I know that the claim that Engelstad’s connection to certain practices and events make him guilty of hostility toward Jews is simply not true.

I had a business relationship with Engelstad and a friendship with him as well; his friendship certainly outweighed the business relationship. I was welcomed into his circle of friends. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting his family and the people he trusted the most. I still have a relationship with them.

I never, ever, experienced the slightest hint of anti-Semitism from him or anybody around him. If he was guilty of anything, it may have been of bad judgment at one time, not anti-Semitism.

To tie UND’s “notorious” intolerance to American Indians and Jews to Engelstad is not a valid connection. Anybody who knew Ralph well would tell you the same thing. He was an honorable, gracious man.

There are a lot of flaws in this article:

First, how can a guy who wasn't there know the intent of the accused? He was a member of a fraternity. He should know better than to state that. Frat members do stupid things just because they think they're funny all the time. Look at the Steak and Sirloin Club or Gamma Phi whatever (yeah, that's a sorority but still...).

Second, this Weinstein character is no more a member of the JSO as Ralph Englestad was. I was President of the JSO at one time and I never even saw him. We told him when our meetings were and tried to contact him and he NOT ONCE bothered to reply. This is a growing trend among professors across the nation. When there is no controversy or chances for personal gain, they aren't a part of anything even though their name may be a part of it. Then, once something bad happens and a chance to advocate against some ideal, they're suddenly the most ardent member. Weinstein's views should be taken with the utmost of salt grains.

Third, Beloff is right. Ralph has no connection to this. The nickname has nothing to do with it either. It was just some dumb people. D-bags to be sure, but an isolated incident. It isn't like it is a daily occurrence like at SCSU.... or a University endorsed activity... like at SCSU (at one point).

EDIT: And trust me, the JSO people are no saints either... at least not when I was there. They made a T-Shirt that said in Yiddish "Alles Goyim esst drek: Why can't we just get along?" Now, the "Alles Goyim" bit was in Yiddish so, unless you were literate in the language you wouldn't know that Alles Goyim Esst Drek means "All Gentiles Eat Garbage" (though Drek can be loosely attributed to the word !@$!). I was floored that they'd even suggest something like that. They said "Well, majority rules" and I resigned on the spot. They then ordered me a T-Shirt. I told them where to stuff that t-shirt.

[SR Fighting Sioux]

Try this article.

Thanks for posting this link, all I can say is "wow", he's got alot more courage than I do. I wonder if it was printed in the SR paper. I like that he posts his name in the comments. I tried the link on the first page, I was hoping it might of been posted somewhere else, guess I gota spend a few bucks.

[siouxjoy]

He was a member of a fraternity. He should know better than to state that. Frat members do stupid things just because they think they're funny all the time. Look at the Steak and Sirloin Club or Gamma Phi whatever (yeah, that's a sorority but still...).

You have just made a blanket assumption about an entire group of people based on a couple incidents.

[Sioux-cia]

That's rich!!! Holding up Darthmouth as an example of a positive cause and affect after changing their hostile and abusive name and logo!!

http://www.angryasianman.com/2008/04/racis...-dartmouth.html

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_regi...outh_presi.html

http://dartreview.com/archives/1998/12/15/...ional_media.php

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~thepress/read.php?id=23

Just a few of many. The last one is pretty telling, IMHO>

[iramurphy]

Why is it that when Mr. Foolbear writes a letter and makes his case, he's absolutely speaking the truth and put on a pedestal, but when another NA makes says the oppsite, he's chastised. I did not ever say all members of my tribe were against the name, but a significant number are and that will be enough. I really wanted my alma mater to take the high road as an INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION and do what the leaders of such prestigous universities like Dartmouth and Stanford did in changing their names. I guess they'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Come get some!

I would think because Mr. Foolbear's letter was articulate and factual. Was there something that wasn't truthful? If so, dispute it with facts. He referenced the permission given by your elders for UND to use the logo and later reaffirmed. He referenced your own culture and how to rescind this permission now after all of these years, dishonors your elders. He seems to think his culture is more important than the activists and those who are most concerned about being politically correct. He also seems to be able to see opportunity in the relationship (which I agree with) and you seem to see the opportunity to stick it to someone. (Whitey)? I understand your thinking and I am well aware you are not the only one who needed to "win one". That was something the previous athletic director, Roger Thomas, had mentioned in working with those who oppose the logo. He said there were some "very good people who opposed it and they really didn't care so much about the logo issue, they just needed to win one".

You either are unaware or don't care about the UND alumni all over the country who are doing things for Native Americans. There are UND alumni who have sent kids to the Castaway summer camp on Pelican Lake in Minnesota. There are UND alumni who are helping Native American Business people. Is this because of the logo? There are people in my community who are UND alumni who have helped NA kids. Is it because of the logo? If you are going to blame things on the logo you need to look at both sides. There could be a lot of good that could come from continuing and expanding the relationship between UND and our states Native Americans. At this time if Native Americans don't want it to continue then lets retire it. It isn't worth fussing over.

Mr Foolbear does not condone mistreatment to human beings because of race and he does not dismiss that there is racism. There is racism and it does exist at UND, NDSU, Dartmouth, Stanford, Harvard as well as other communities. It exists on reservations too. There are many white, black, Native Americans, Hispanics, Jews who are racist. Most are not as dumb as the students who put up the Nazi graffiti recently, but they are out there. There are also a lot of us who will stand beside you and help defend you against racism.

The UND logo has been on campus for about 70 years. I don't believe it is the cause of the racial incidents and I disagree with Weinstein (as does Barry Belhoff) that neither Englestad nor the logo caused the anti Semitic incidents recently. Englestad wasn't a Nazi sympathizer. Most anyone my age had fathers who fought in WWII and there were very few vets who didn't have uniforms and Nazi souvenirs. There were Nazi theme parties thrown by vets who did it for the hell of it and had fought bravely against the Nazi's. That didn't make them Nazi's nor anti-semetic. Nobody cared about it back then but now it is considered poor taste. Englestad isn't and wasn't the enemy of the NA people.

The fact is the Logo and Fighting Sioux name is going away. I think it is a mistake for your people to lose this oppotunity, but at this point in time most of us don't care anymore. It was never who the athletic teams were. They were never meant to represent your people. UND simply honored your peple in a way consistent with our culture. You seem to think others need to understand your culture but you have no obligation to respect ours. If you wish to dishonor your elders who saw it for what it was and choose to rub people's nose in it feel free. Before you take too much credit remember it was the NCAA who made the change not you and you the activists.

Lastly, some of your references about what occured in the 1970's with the snow scuptures is not factual. Iwas there. I see you conveniently left out the facts about the AIM folks who ganged up on the single fraternity guy who was sticking up for the women the AIM guys were harrassing. The distortion of the facts over the years in order to convince people back on the reservation how terrible things are at UND for NA students is not consistent with your culture and their respect for truth. That dishonors your people more than the UND logo.

Your Alma Mater is going to change the name. The only way it won't happen is if you and others on the reservation convince the tribal councils to ask UND not to change the name. I don't think that is gong to happen. It seems to me it is time to cut the ties and move on. We have spent too much money on the issue already and we have more improtant issues to deal with.

By the way I did get your reference to the trailers and beer and it was a good comeback. Best wishes.

[The Sicatoka]

I believe the NCAA wants to punish UND for playing in the Englestad Arena because Mr. Englestad was a Nazi supporter.

They'll bend the rules in whatever way they see fit to make sure UND will not be known as the Fighting Sioux in the future.

Ralph Engelstad was born in 1930.

WWII ran from 1939 to 1945.

A poor (at the time) 9 to 15 years old kid from Thief River Falls, MN, was tell me what again ....

[The Sicatoka]

Ya-know, the best part of this will be that it's a self-inflicted wound: On the tribes, By the tribes.

The tribal governments? They're exposing what kind of neighbors they really are. Neighbors deal with neighbors in kind. (Remember that at the next Legislative session.)

Leigh Jeanotte and that cadre? They're kicking their only soapbox out from under themselves. Can you say "one trick pony" (and it just came up lame). Good luck, Leigh, jumping ahead of any other department on President Kupchella's or Kelley's (or any future) schedule to voice your issues. You'll just be "next in line" just like everyone else.

And the rest of us get to sit back, smirk, and say, "You wanted 'equal.' It's not our fault it's the opposite direction from what you thought it was."

[redwing77]

You have just made a blanket assumption about an entire group of people based on a couple incidents.

You're absolutely correct. For that, I apologize.

Maybe there are a lot of incidents performed by non-frat members that aren't getting covered. Of course, if that's the case, then I'd hope that gets fixed too.

I've said it before, but I'm sure there are a ton of great fraternity members and sorority members as well. I know sororities are always doing something for the community. But it's just amazing how many times a frat name gets brought up on the college crime blotter. I guess what I'm saying is this:

Most rational people know that a few scattered incidents cannot classify an entire organization.... or can it? A few incidents with the nickname has UND and its pro-nickname supporters in hot water.

As for the frats in particular, there is a TON more things they could do to resolve their sullied image. I just don't see them doing it. They still party a good percentage of the week. They still contribute to underage drinking (and don't give me the bs of "If they close the frats underage drinking will go away" I agree with that completely. It won't go away, but at least underage drinkers will have to find a place to go rather than knowing they can always go to whatever frat). They contribute to a lot of foolish behavior.

[choyt3]

Someone has watched "Old School" and "Animal House" too many times.

I think the same things could be said about Walsh Hall. It was a good thing I lived in Bek when I was at UND. There was absolutely no underage drinking going on there. Good thing I wasn't interested in those fraternities, either. I was easily influenced back in those days...

[SR Fighting Sioux]

I am sorry to hear about the incredibly abusive treatment of your brother. Maybe, if the parents were called, those brats would get good solid spankings. That's unacceptable behavior at any age.

thanks for the concern, school was contacted, parents were informed, but my brother still hears the snickering and indirect comments. I know it bothers him, but what can you do? some peoples kids....

[Sioux-cia]

Racism is not a Native American problem, it's a problem for every one who is different. Be you white, red, black, brown, yellow, rich, poor, from a foreign country, mentally/physically handicapped, live in the 'wrong' neighborhood, go to the 'wrong' school, live in the wrong part of the world, different sexual orientation, etc., etc., etc.,

It's up to you and me to raise our children to be better people than we are. I look around and I see all of the above is still happening but I also see it's alot better than it was. It's not always the parents 'fault'. Sometimes children acquire racist behavior from the media, school, friends, or experiences. If we can give our childlren a strong core, we can only hope for the best.

I can honestly say that my two sons are do not discriminate. They judge people on who they are as a person not their color, job, social status, etc. I can admit they are better people than I.

[dead_rabbit]

... I did not ever say all members of my tribe were against the name, but a significant number are and that will be enough. I really wanted my alma mater to take the high road as an INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION and do what the leaders of such prestigous universities like Dartmouth and Stanford did in changing their names. I guess they'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Come get some!

Please define significant. Is it a majority? Is it 25%? Is it 2%? If the number is less than 50%, please explain why that "will be enough." If it is less than 50%, why do you feel that a minority gets to decide against the majority? When you're teaching one of your classes, and a situation arises were you let your class take a vote on something, and 3 kids out of 25 vote no, do you decide to overlook the 22 yes votes?

Just because universities such as Dartmouth and Stanford decide to change their names, does not mean they have taken the high road. I think fighting to do what is right, and not what is easiest is taking the high road.

What do you mean by "come get some!"

Something I'd like to pass on to you. This is something that my parents taught me at an early age, that has made my life much easier and less stressful since I have come to accept this fact. LIFE IS NOT FAIR! Bitching and whining will not make life fair, and will just make you bitter.

[fourwindsboy]

Please define significant. Is it a majority? Is it 25%? Is it 2%? If the number is less than 50%, please explain why that "will be enough." If it is less than 50%, why do you feel that a minority gets to decide against the majority? When you're teaching one of your classes, and a situation arises were you let your class take a vote on something, and 3 kids out of 25 vote no, do you decide to overlook the 22 yes votes?

Just because universities such as Dartmouth and Stanford decide to change their names, does not mean they have taken the high road. I think fighting to do what is right, and not what is easiest is taking the high road.

What do you mean by "come get some!"

Something I'd like to pass on to you. This is something that my parents taught me at an early age, that has made my life much easier and less stressful since I have come to accept this fact. LIFE IS NOT FAIR! Bitching and whining will not make life fair, and will just make you bitter.

Come get some refers to the fact that I get attacked for anything I post. And you are exactly right about the Life isn't fair quote, SO QUIT BITCHIN AND WHINING ABOUT KEEPING THE NICKNAME!!

[dead_rabbit]

Come get some refers to the fact that I get attacked for anything I post. And you are exactly right about the Life isn't fair quote, SO QUIT BITCHIN AND WHINING ABOUT KEEPING THE NICKNAME!!

I'm still curious as to how you define "significant." As far as bitching and whining go, I can't recall doing either when it comes to keeping the nickname. As far as that goes, I'm on the fence; After reading all of you posts, my thoughts are this; Get rid of the name, get rid of all the Indian nicknames. Let's forget all about the NAs. Then after reading posts from NAs such as Steve Fool Bear, I think that the right thing to do is to fight to keep the nickname, the nickname that IMO, honors your people.

[fourwindsboy]

No... You quit bitching and whining about dropping the nickname.

HaHaHaHa..........That made my mornin, thanks.

[Goon]

No... You quit bitching and whining about dropping the nickname.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

See, you just don't quite get it. Its not the small minority of people whining about a picture that are divisive, obstinate, need to get a life, etc. The problem here is overwhelming MAJORITY of people who have to look at things they don't like all day and realize there's nothing they can do about it.

Its that one nickname that's the problem. The NICKNAME. Not the whiners-they're not causing anything. The nickname is causing everything! Even if you acknowledge that there's no difference between Sioux and Ute or Seminole-this one nickname is the problem. The nickname is preventing UND from "moving forward".

[SportsDoc]

Why is it that when Mr. Foolbear writes a letter and makes his case, he's absolutely speaking the truth and put on a pedestal, but when another NA makes says the oppsite, he's chastised. I did not ever say all members of my tribe were against the name, but a significant number are and that will be enough. I really wanted my alma mater to take the high road as an INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION and do what the leaders of such prestigous universities like Dartmouth and Stanford did in changing their names. I guess they'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Come get some!

Yes, please, can we be more like some of our "enlightened" fellow institutions of higher learning, like Yale? They would allow this as a Senior art project, but I'm sure they would never be the "Fighting Sioux" or "Indians". Thank goodness we now have a moral compass to follow. They are obviously fully into the 21st Century.

Yale Daily News

Star Trib Blog

Be careful what you wish for your alma mater to become!

[Oxbow6]

Yes, please, can we be more like some of our "enlightened" fellow institutions of higher learning, like Yale? They would allow this as a Senior art project, but I'm sure they would never be the "Fighting Sioux" or "Indians". Thank goodness we now have a moral compass to follow. They are obviously fully into the 21st Century.

Yale Daily News

Star Trib Blog

Be careful what you wish for your alma mater to become!

Maybe fourwindsboy can contact Shvarts to display this "art" to his class. Moral compass and into the 21st century..."come get some"! No thanks!

[Goon]

Yes, please, can we be more like some of our "enlightened" fellow institutions of higher learning, like Yale? Yale Daily News

Frankly that woman is an idiot. That is not a form of art. I heard about this on the radio the other day and it is distasteful.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

...That is not a form of art...

The interesting thing about "art" is that its totally self-defined. To HER, it is art.

This reminds me of the "How to display the American Flag" exhibit of maybe ten years ago at the Chicago Art Institute. (BTW, the Art Institute is one of the most respected museums in the world. We have no need to take a back seat to the Louvre or anything in London or New York.) This display was by one of the students and it invited people to write down their ideas about how to display the flag in a notebook on a table on a wall. That was about the entire work of "art"-a table containing a notebook and a sign asking for suggestions. Oh yes, one more thing: an American flag was on the floor directly in front of the notebook. To write in the book, you had to step on the flag. Quite "arty", no?

Suprisingly, a few people didn't consider this to be the epitome of artistic talent and protested at the Art Institute. The museum director was on TV after that saying things like "we must protect freedom of expression", "art is many different things to different people", "we cannot stifle the learning process" and other pious pronouncements designed to educate the great unwashed masses. So the next day the protest moved to one of the major sponsors of the Art Institute (either a utility or a major department store) and the president of THAT company was on television announcing that they were re-evaluating their financial support: great applause, and the protestors said they were going on to the next sponsor that following day (meaning Day Three).

On Day Three, the Museum's director was on TV again. No pious pronouncements this time: the guy was LITERALLY CRYING on television. Have to balance things, not a cause for people to stop supporting "art", blah, blah....

Odd how time changes things, isn't it? That was a very long two days.

[redwing77]

The interesting thing about "art" is that its totally self-defined. To HER, it is art.

This reminds me of the "How to display the American Flag" exhibit of maybe ten years ago at the Chicago Art Institute. (BTW, the Art Institute is one of the most respected museums in the world. We have no need to take a back seat to the Louvre or anything in London or New York.) This display was by one of the students and it invited people to write down their ideas about how to display the flag in a notebook on a table on a wall. That was about the entire work of "art"-a table containing a notebook and a sign asking for suggestions. Oh yes, one more thing: an American flag was on the floor directly in front of the notebook. To write in the book, you had to step on the flag. Quite "arty", no?

Suprisingly, a few people didn't consider this to be the epitome of artistic talent and protested at the Art Institute. The museum director was on TV after that saying things like "we must protect freedom of expression", "art is many different things to different people", "we cannot stifle the learning process" and other pious pronouncements designed to educate the great unwashed masses. So the next day the protest moved to one of the major sponsors of the Art Institute (either a utility or a major department store) and the president of THAT company was on television announcing that they were re-evaluating their financial support: great applause, and the protestors said they were going on to the next sponsor that following day (meaning Day Three).

On Day Three, the Museum's director was on TV again. No pious pronouncements this time: the guy was LITERALLY CRYING on television. Have to balance things, not a cause for people to stop supporting "art", blah, blah....

Odd how time changes things, isn't it? That was a very long two days.

When art breaks the law, then it's not art. It's illegal. A flag that touches the ground, IIRC, must be BURNED. It is a token mandated of respect. That's why such disdain was cast towards those worthless hippies that wore the American flag on the seats of their jeans. Admittedly, there were a lot of disdainful acts committed between 1967-1972 between American CITIZENS in the United States (to be redundant here. I don't want people saying I'm criticizing Vietnam. To me, Vietnam was an awful engagement and an embarrassment, but nothing compares to what was going on at the same time domestically).

However.... I see both sides of the Art Institute's story here. On one hand, no one in art or literacy or speech wants to be censored. They should be able to express whatever they want. And, yes, offensive material is protected by the Constitution. HOwever, OBSCENE material is not. Porn might be offensive, but rape is obscene. See the difference? Well... in art and speech it gets blurred. There is no real standard definition of what is obscene, so there are activists who are out there trying to ban this, that, and everything under the sun they find "obscene." In other words offensive-obscene. I am not in favor of these activist groups. I am not in favor of subjective censorship because it tends to be arbitrary and superficial in nature.

What happened to the Art Institute is how non-profits work nowadays. There is no such thing as blind support. There can't be otherwise the restraint will be lifted and ugliness and obscenity will be passed off as art. There are such things as standards in artistic expression. This flag idea obviously overstepped those standards.

I don't think it was wrong for the protesters to do what they did. I also think the Art Institute Director is right in what he/she said. However, the way the Director went about it was wrong. You don't have to censor art. You just say that the edgy art like the flag idea doesn't fit in with the artistic community in that area, wish the artist well, and there you go. You could call that selective censorship, as you would be refusing to display the artwork in your museum, but not every art piece produced makes a museum.

[Sioux-cia]

" Section 8b reads, "The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground."

http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html#violations

Our esteemed President (nor his advisors) either don't know the flag rules and regulations or they don't think they apply to him.

[fourwindsboy]

Yes, please, can we be more like some of our "enlightened" fellow institutions of higher learning, like Yale? They would allow this as a Senior art project, but I'm sure they would never be the "Fighting Sioux" or "Indians". Thank goodness we now have a moral compass to follow. They are obviously fully into the 21st Century.

Yale Daily News

Star Trib Blog

Be careful what you wish for your alma mater to become!

So whatever happens at one Ivy League school can be applied to all Ivy League schools? Wow, the words stretch and reach apply here. keep'em comin, though.