Diggler Posted August 13, 2003 Posted August 13, 2003 The NC$$ ruled that for the at least the next two years schools will deicde whether or not to use Native American nicknames. President Saigo probably isn't real happy about this as his brainchild has been shot down for now. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ian_nicknames_2
ScottM Posted August 17, 2003 Posted August 17, 2003 In view of some of the current idiocy that passes as governance in the NC$$, this is probably the best move they've made in a while. I'd guess that some of the bigger schools that use Indian names, e.g., Florida State, Illinois, etc. may have "cleared their throats" when this issue came up. Or perhaps they just realize what a half-witted kook Saigo is for condemning other schools' names as "racist" while his own paid out money for systemic anti-Semitism and racism on its campus, and there's still a DOJ investigation in the background. Glass houses ... stones ...
Goon Posted August 18, 2003 Posted August 18, 2003 Its a lot to do about nothing. Talk is cheap but the reality is the name is going no where. I don't care what the pro-name change crowd says. I don't see UND changing the name, any time soon when there are still schools FSU, Utah State, Illinois with the Indian names...
sioux fan in phoenix Posted August 19, 2003 Posted August 19, 2003 These left-wing fringe groups are pretty effective in pushing their agendas down the majority's throats because they're so much more vocal. Their radical ideas would never be approved through normal channels (like voting), so they resort to judicial means. I wouldn't underestimate these knuckleheads. If one school is forced to change its name, it's obviously going to snowball & effect everybody. "Ooooh, I'm sooo offended with a public institution using an indian logo & nickname that I'm depressed & can't sleep at night!" Next thing you know, animal rights activists will be barking & want any school affiliated with an animal name to change its image. The sad thing with these groups is that they won't stop at just Native American names; they'll always find a "cause" to rally around.
mksioux Posted August 19, 2003 Posted August 19, 2003 Next thing you know, animal rights activists will be barking & want any school affiliated with an animal name to change its image. It's already started to happen. PETA wants South Carolina to drop its Gamecocks nickname.
WYOBISONMAN Posted August 19, 2003 Posted August 19, 2003 Yeah....the feminists want Oregon State to drop thiers too.....
sioux fan in phoenix Posted August 19, 2003 Posted August 19, 2003 Yeah....the feminists want Oregon State to drop thiers too..... But you'd think they'd want more & not less...
sioux fan in phoenix Posted August 19, 2003 Posted August 19, 2003 What I'd like to do with those PC'ers:
MinnesotaNorthStar Posted August 20, 2003 Posted August 20, 2003 It's already started to happen. PETA wants South Carolina to drop its Gamecocks nickname. Well PETA can suck one . They should all be caught underneath a bus. That would save the world a bunch of trouble. It'll start with Native American nicknames, then clergy (Wake Forest), then people (Notre Dame), animals, etc... where do we draw the line here? I say screw these groups. It should be up to the school what there nickname is, unless it is a socially demeaning name like N*ggers, Sp*cs, etc...Unless of course the word Sioux has somehow become demeaning. Disclaimer: No offense to any African-American or Latin-Americans that post. I am in no way racist and was simply using those terms as examples of what an inaproriate name would be.
sioux fan in phoenix Posted August 21, 2003 Posted August 21, 2003 Well PETA can suck one . They should all be caught underneath a bus. That would save the world a bunch of trouble. Amen & right on. Most Americans don't realize the dangers these radicals pose due to a lot of outside distractions: tv, sports & other "opiates" of the masses. Meanwhile, their agendas are passed via judicial mandates while we sleep. Some of these "name changers" are just misguided, kooky liberals while others are socialists who want a welfare state. I know that's a big leap calling pc'ers card-carrrying socialists; but if their political affiliations are revealed I'd bet you wouldn't find (m)any Republicans or even centrist Democrats in their ranks. They need to be engaged in debates & exposed for their true intentions. Rarely do their "solutions" fit the needs of the majority-- When's the last time you remember them championing the rights of the straight white American Protestant male? Not gonna happen with them. Ask yourselves which direction our country is headed & why it's headed in that direction. Then ask which groups are behind this spearhead to alter American culture. That's how I came to my conclusions. I know I went off on a huge tangent here but I'm just trying to frame these "name changers" into a larger perspective so people can hopefully understand them better.
mksioux Posted August 21, 2003 Posted August 21, 2003 Nice post phoenix. Most regular people (who are generally center-right) are too caught up with their jobs, their family, their recreation (sports), etc. to care much about what's going on in the social/cultural wars. Once in a while the left will go too far and there will be a backlash, but as long as the left continues to take small steps and not rock the boat too much, they will continue to make advancements. It's sad but true. Activism is down the list of priorities for the majority of conservative people. It's right on top of the list for most liberals. That's the big difference. I think the key is for centrist and center-left Democrats to wake up and realize who is taking over their party. They need to take their party back or jump ship. I'd love to have a farmer/union/blue-dog Democrat go onto a college campus and take a few classes in political science, womens studies, peace studies, etc. and see how fast he turns into a Republican. After living in Minneapolis for a few years, I don't see anything in common between the Democrats here and the Democrats back home in North Dakota. Sometimes I wonder how a conservative state like North Dakota can even have a Democrat party. Perhaps the Republicans need to be a little more amenable on some economic issues to lure the blue dogs into the party. I used to care more about economic issues, but in the last couple years I've started caring much more about the culture wars. This is off-topic but...I've always thought that if it weren't for college athletics, most colleges and universities would not get the public support and public legitimacy they now receive because people would not put up with the liberal and subversive political climate permeated in every aspect of "higher learning." I know conservative leaning people that wouldn't normally give a penny to a liberal brainwashing institution like the UofM, but gladly give money to them because of their fondness of Gophers athletics. They even encourage their kids to go there. They admit they don't like the administrators or professors there, but they're loyal to it nonetheless. I'm not really blaming them because they don't want to give up on their passion for Gopher athletics. I'm sure it's the same for Wisconsin, Michigan, UCLA, etc. , etc. We should be thankful UND is not as liberal as a lot of institutions in this country and hasn't been completely taken over by the left yet. But the left is close to taking over UND too and students, alumni, the people of North Dakota, and the friends of UND need to be on guard and make sure it doesn't happen. To me, the Sioux nickname issue is a huge symbolic battle in that war.
sioux fan in phoenix Posted August 21, 2003 Posted August 21, 2003 Very nice post, mk, & very relevant. Your sentiments & opinions mirror mine to a great degree. Others who read this thread might think it's spun off topic into a political theme; but to understand a pro "name changer", one also has to understand their agendas & political leanings. There's much more to them underneath the surface. I also don't want others who read this to think I'm anti-Democrat. I value the 2-party system & feel it's essential for a democracy; I just have humongous issues with the radical liberals--many of whom are camoflauged socialists to the nth degree. For those of you who think radical liberals are harmless annoyances, think again. These are the same people who brainwashed us into thinking that separation of church & state was a fundamental Constitutional clause. Guess what? There is no such wording therein. The Constitution strictly forbids the establishment of a national denomination but says nothing about prayer & the pledge in public schools as being illegal. And if you've seen the news lately, you've seen that a federal judge has banned an Alabama Supreme Court judge from having a monument of the 10 Commandments in his court plaza. Ridiculous! The judge's name is Roy Moore & if I've ever seen a modern-day patriot, he's the man. Thank goodness he's gotten national airtime as this has gotten him some much-needed support. Radical liberals also want us to redefine our concept of marriage. For two thousand years, Western civilization has rationally rejected same-sex unions on the basis that they offer no substantial & moral benefit to our future. Now socialists want us to reconsider & allow gays the same benefits & legal privileges that Christian heterosexual couples have always enjoyed. Why do you think past generations rejected the sexual whims of a tiny minority? What's next, the legalization of polygamy & pedophilia? I've said it b4 & I'll say it again. Political Correctness is a tenet that was conceived in post-revolution Russia by Stalin. It's also a tool used by modern-day Cultural Marxists in their attempt to turn the traditional white, Christian, pro-God power structure on its head by advocating anything & everything its opposite. mksioux, I've got what I think is an excellent link that defines Cultural Marxism. You stated you've been interested in this topic a couple years & I thought you might like it. William S. Lind Edit: I know what you mean, mk, when you talk about the UofM. Here in AZ, I had a work colleague who was trying to get her BA in psychology at one of the ASU branches. One of her instructors in a prerequisite anthropology course was a lesbian who would get on her soapbox & preach about the merits of homosexuality & denounce all heterosexual relations as useless. If true & I trust this source, what a sham! If I were her student & I heard that crap, I would have raised my voice & done my best to shame her in front of all her class. Would have told her stuff like,"I don't pay good money to hear about your personal opinions" & anything else that would bring negative attention on her. Of course I'd probably get an "F", but it's all about principles, right?
mksioux Posted August 22, 2003 Posted August 22, 2003 If conservatives actually spoke their mind in college...not many would graduate. Many would get expelled for "hate speech"...which is nothing more than speech a liberal disagrees with. In addition to the partisan grading, a conservative also has to deal with ridicule by their peers. In the end, most conservatives simply adopt the "means to an end" attitude, write the papers the way the professors want, and keep their mouths shut. With all the celebration of "diversity" on college campuses, they are ignoring the most important aspect of diversity...the diversity of thought.
sioux fan in phoenix Posted August 22, 2003 Posted August 22, 2003 Nice talking with you on this subject. I try not to sound like the incarnation of Gordon Kahl, but it's kind of hard not to with all this rampant liberal lunacy. I'm just hoping the political pendulum starts its swing back to the right after being on the left for the past 40 years. For the sake of this country, I certainly hope so. The more I think about this subject the more tense I get. Thank goodness for Sioux hockey-a healthy stress outlet & a lot better than drinking myself under the table.
CoteauRinkRat Posted August 22, 2003 Posted August 22, 2003 Nice talking with you on this subject. I try not to sound like the incarnation of Gordon Kahl, but it's kind of hard not to with all this rampant liberal lunacy. I'm just hoping the political pendulum starts its swing back to the right after being on the left for the past 40 years. For the sake of this country, I certainly hope so. The more I think about this subject the more tense I get. Thank goodness for Sioux hockey-a healthy stress outlet & a lot better than drinking myself under the table. I couldn't agree with you more. I feel the same exact way on these issues as you do. Glad to see other Sioux Fans share the same opinion as mine. The media, especially the Herald, would like people to think that the whole university is in favor of the name change. It really amazes me that five people can show up at a demonstration against the name and the herald will actually send someone to cover it every time. I use to be a big advertiser with the Herald, up until they wrote those ridiculous editorials the week of the opening of the REA, in favor of the name change. Praying that Roger Ailes or somebody at Fox News Channel will take over some of the local media outlets around here. Enough of my little tangent here, Go Fighting Sioux!!!!
ScottM Posted August 24, 2003 Posted August 24, 2003 Remember that it's the Hurled you're talking about. I suspect the Maidenberg, Jacobs et al. got a collective woody whenever the name issue boiled up, and I'd bet they ran out of cigarettes when it was going full steam during the construction and opening of REA. Outside of the base closing or slimming down, an occasional flood, the stench from the beet plant and mosquitoes, there's really not much else going on in GF. So whenever some itinerant carpetbagger like Russell Means comes to town for 5 minutes, some idiotic college president like Saigo at SCCC or some weakminded student senate at 'SU rants against the name, the do-nothing losers decide it's "news" and cover it ad nauseum and provide a nice forum for the white liberals to write flowery editorals and letters to the editor. Then the "journalists" at the Stupid in preparation for their careers at tabloids and weekly shoppers follow suit with their mindless drivel. Pathetic, really.
Goon Posted August 25, 2003 Posted August 25, 2003 The media, especially the Herald, would like people to think that the whole university is in favor of the name change. Thats just it. There are very few that are actually for changing the name. But we have a few hand wringing/half witt professors from the Social Sciences that have nothing better to do, trying to convience the rest of the school they are wrong in supporting the Fighting Sioux name. Then you end up with loose cannons like Johnny Hoff and a few others fueling the flames of discontent. The Herald thinks this is news but its nothing more than a small minority. Notice no one is listening to these people lately, the name is going no where...
sioux fan in phoenix Posted August 25, 2003 Posted August 25, 2003 It sounds like there are a lot of defenders of common sense on this board & that's good to hear. Standing up for one's beliefs & throwing their warped logic back in their faces is what it's going to take. The Fighting Sioux name is probably going nowhere but one can never rest on his laurels, especially when it matters.
mksioux Posted August 25, 2003 Posted August 25, 2003 If the name ever changes it will be from outside forces, such as the NCAA or the Department of Justice. The nickname is pretty safe on a local/state level, but it is far from safe on the national level. Imagine a Department of Justice under a Dean administration.
sioux fan in phoenix Posted August 25, 2003 Posted August 25, 2003 I sometimes wonder if Dean is that liberal or if he's just catering to these groups for votes. Homosexuals number about 6% of the population & add in another 2% or so of other fringe wackos & that ain't much. Doesn't seem very politically savvy, but then again these groups do have powerful lobbies.
mksioux Posted August 26, 2003 Posted August 26, 2003 I'm not just talking about the homosexual issue. Catering for votes or not...I was watching C-SPAN this weekend and he showed up at a rally in D.C. by (what seemed to me to be) a revolutionary-type African American activist group. You know...the type where someone gets up and rants about how the Bush administration is the real terrorists, compare Bush to Hitler, and claim that Connie Rice, Colin Powell, and Clarence Thomas are all Uncle Toms blah blah blah. The only candidates that appeared on the stage were Dean, Sharpton, and Mosley-Braun. That says quite a bit about where the guy stands and what type of groups will have his ear if he becomes President.
sioux fan in phoenix Posted August 26, 2003 Posted August 26, 2003 I think it's important to consider whether candidates are pandering or not. I'm sure most, if not all, do; but in Dean's case he's so left it begs the question what his true agenda is. It sounds like he's exactly what he preaches. There's even talk that Bush will get off the fence & be more conservative if & when he's re-elected. If anyone wants an idea what would happen to this country economically (not to mention culturally) if it were liberally run, just look at CA. & their fiasco. Liberals are claiming the recall effort is a bad idea & unethical even though it's in their state constitution Back to your point, yeah, the groups he seems to cater to scare me a little. Black radicals, homosexuals & all the other "disenfranchised" groups; if he's not a socialist I'll run out onto the ice butt-naked during a soldout Sioux home game. Remember the little mantra that Jesse Jackson was chanting a few years ago? "Heeey hooo, heeey hooo, Western civilization has gotta go."
siouxfan1 Posted August 28, 2003 Posted August 28, 2003 I was going to add my 2cents worth, but you know what I refuse to be drawn in to an argument with the PC left. Keep the Sioux name!!!
Goon Posted August 28, 2003 Posted August 28, 2003 I'm not just talking about the homosexual issue. Catering for votes or not...I was watching C-SPAN this weekend and he showed up at a rally in D.C. by (what seemed to me to be) a revolutionary-type African American activist group. You know...the type where someone gets up and rants about how the Bush administration is the real terrorists, compare Bush to Hitler, and claim that Connie Rice, Colin Powell, and Clarence Thomas are all Uncle Toms blah blah blah. The only candidates that appeared on the stage were Dean, Sharpton, and Mosley-Braun. That says quite a bit about where the guy stands and what type of groups will have his ear if he becomes President. You bring up some really good points. Think of it this way. If Clinton was a centrist Democrat, how scarey would Howard Dean be as president, Dean makes Johnny Hoff look sensible (no wait a minute), Dean scares me even more than Hillary and Goron, and I am sure we all remember Clinton's shenanigans, the guy was a pathalogical lier and he couldn't keep his zipper up, and he tax the living crap out of us... By definition I believe that Howard Dean is a socialist, and he has made it no secrete that he would tax the crap out of the country. Howard Dean reeks of class warfare, he is a divider. I am affraid that none of us would be able to own a gun (pretty hard to go hunting in Ducktober without a gun). Better yet you would have to pile your dog and decoys into your Yugo to get to the field. Nice thing is there are too many checks and balances to let that happen.
Recommended Posts