Chewey Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Did he just basically state by not adopting a new name UND is fostering an environment that perpetuates the old name? No. He's saying that by not adopting a new nickname we're respecting the old nickname and the indigenous people. He's saying that by adopting a new and stupid nickname we're disrespecting the people for whom the sports teams were formerly named. As has been said, the perennial pouters will want a new nickname to bury the old one. Anything process that does not do that is "tepid". If there are associations or remembrances of the Fighting Sioux with just the name "North Dakota", that is something that can't be tolerated by the language/thought police. The nickname MUST be something different even if it's completely inane and stupid. Of course, they will resort to cynical tactics such as propagandizing about "marketing" insecurities/forthcoming tragedies and claiming racism at every turn regarding how "tepid" and craven UND is by not starting on a process for a new nickname. The thought police do not want any associations or remembrances of the nickname. Progressives "so-called" are absolutists. They try to circumvent the free exchange of ideas and speech by labeling anyone who disagrees with their weltanschauug a "racist" and they will boot-strap petty offenses to their puerile sensibilities as "human rights violations". "North Dakota" by itself is already "instantly recognizable". Why don't they just stop with the baloney of propagandizing about "marketing" disasters and state that they view any associations or remembrances that people may have as also racist and offensive? This is the underlying problem with keeping just "North Dakota" and not concerns about marketing, at least as far as the GF Hurled editorial staff is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Because by not having a nickname.... It encourages the use of the old one. It's that simple. Which I'm sure the NCAA would come down on.... Which is the last thing you folks want I'm guessing? Obtuse, much? Using "North Dakota" is not encouraging usage of anything. You may not have noticed but I think the teams actually no longer have "Fighting Sioux" on their uniforms and, if memory serves me correctly, they actually dropped the "Fighting Sioux" nickname. It's really racist of you to associate "North Dakota" with your own prejudices. "North Dakota" is not "Fighting Sioux". It's that simple. It really is; at least as far as the surrender agreement and the NC$$ policy go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Pretty much. Even today, the lack of a new moniker fosters a lot of discussion about the NC$$ and the fight we waged to keep the Sioux moniker around my neck of the woods. A new label might further bury the Sioux moniker in the minds of most people, and perhaps that's what the bedwetters want.Choosing a new moniker finally kicks the soapbox out from under Leigh Jeanotte et al. They can't allow that as complaining about UND's moniker is the only trick their pony knows. Until a new moniker is chosen events like t-shirts at the recent Springfest are the gift that keeps on giving to the (as Scott calls them) bedwetters. As far as respecting the indigenous peoples, UND had more indigenous students than any other university in the region, yet, they didn't come to UND's rescue in a time of need. That tells me all I need to know: We had a good run; thanks, but see ya later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Obtuse, much? Using "North Dakota" is not encouraging usage of anything. You may not have noticed but I think the teams actually no longer have "Fighting Sioux" on their uniforms and, if memory serves me correctly, they actually dropped the "Fighting Sioux" nickname. It's really racist of you to associate "North Dakota" with your own prejudices. "North Dakota" is not "Fighting Sioux". It's that simple. It really is; at least as far as the surrender agreement and the NC$$ policy go. I'm racist for saying that UND fans will continue to refer to UND as the Sioux until a new nickname is selected? Lol. Someone is way too hurt about losing a nickname.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 I'm racist for saying that UND fans **and opponents** will continue to refer to UND as the Sioux until a new nickname is selected? Lol. Someone is way too hurt about losing a nickname.... FIFY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 FIFY. Fair enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 I'm racist for saying that UND fans will continue to refer to UND as the Sioux until a new nickname is selected? Lol. Someone is way too hurt about losing a nickname.... You're racist by concluding that the use of "North Dakota" is akin to employing the same "racisim" and "cultural insensitivity" that UND assaulted everyone with through the use of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo - "racism" that the NC$$ sought to eradicate by forcing the school to nix the name and logo. You're craning in racism where none now is being employed, according to the NC$$ policy, because the nickname and logo are gone. Yes, the onus of racism is yours. You're obtuse by concluding that the school is actively or passively "encouraging" use of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo by using "North Dakota". If you'd criticize the Ralph or the school for selling Fighting Sioux gear or if you criticize the NC$$ by amending its policy to allow additional imagery to remain in the Ralph, you'd have a point. There is no basis for you to conclude "encouragement" with the simple employment of "North Dakota". So selling Sioux gear and amending the the surrender agreement do not constitute "encouragement" but using "North Dakota" does? This is the nonsensical, haphazard, contradictory web that all of this has become. It makes sense to the NC$$. It makes sense to the PC hacks on the UND campus and on the GF Hurled editorial board. It, evidently, makes sense to you. It does not make sense logically, unless one is twisting things to justify and excuse unjustifiable conduct. It's called "equivocation" and "dissassembling". The techniques are employed with great skill by so-called progressives to self-amputate from truth and reality. It allows "progressives", such as yourself, evidently, to proclaim partial points of view, such as "the Fighting Sioux nickname is 'racist'" into absolutes. That's called "totalitarianism". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 You're racist by concluding that the use of "North Dakota" is akin to employing the same "racisim" and "cultural insensitivity" that UND assaulted everyone with through the use of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo - "racism" that the NC$$ sought to eradicate by forcing the school to nix the name and logo. You're craning in racism where none now is being employed, according to the NC$$ policy, because the nickname and logo are gone. Yes, the onus of racism is yours. You're obtuse by concluding that the school is actively or passively "encouraging" use of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo by using "North Dakota". If you'd criticize the Ralph or the school for selling Fighting Sioux gear or if you criticize the NC$$ by amending its policy to allow additional imagery to remain in the Ralph, you'd have a point. There is no basis for you to conclude "encouragement" with the simple employment of "North Dakota". So selling Sioux gear and amending the the surrender agreement do not constitute "encouragement" but using "North Dakota" does? This is the nonsensical, haphazard, contradictory web that all of this has become. It makes sense to the NC$$. It makes sense to the PC hacks on the UND campus and on the GF Hurled editorial board. It, evidently, makes sense to you. It does not make sense logically, unless one is twisting things to justify and excuse unjustifiable conduct. It's called "equivocation" and "dissassembling". The techniques are employed with great skill by so-called progressives to self-amputate from truth and reality. It allows "progressives", such as yourself, evidently, to proclaim partial points of view, such as "the Fighting Sioux nickname is 'racist'" into absolutes. That's called "totalitarianism". ....TL;DR Without a new name in place... The old one will be used by people. Nothing racist about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 No. He's saying that by not adopting a new nickname we're respecting the old nickname and the indigenous people. He's saying that by adopting a new and stupid nickname we're disrespecting the people for whom the sports teams were formerly named. As has been said, the perennial pouters will want a new nickname to bury the old one. Anything process that does not do that is "tepid". If there are associations or remembrances of the Fighting Sioux with just the name "North Dakota", that is something that can't be tolerated by the language/thought police. The nickname MUST be something different even if it's completely inane and stupid. Of course, they will resort to cynical tactics such as propagandizing about "marketing" insecurities/forthcoming tragedies and claiming racism at every turn regarding how "tepid" and craven UND is by not starting on a process for a new nickname. The thought police do not want any associations or remembrances of the nickname. Progressives "so-called" are absolutists. They try to circumvent the free exchange of ideas and speech by labeling anyone who disagrees with their weltanschauug a "racist" and they will boot-strap petty offenses to their puerile sensibilities as "human rights violations". "North Dakota" by itself is already "instantly recognizable". Why don't they just stop with the baloney of propagandizing about "marketing" disasters and state that they view any associations or remembrances that people may have as also racist and offensive? This is the underlying problem with keeping just "North Dakota" and not concerns about marketing, at least as far as the GF Hurled editorial staff is concerned. Ding ding ding....we have a winner. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 You're racist by concluding that the use of "North Dakota" is akin to employing the same "racisim" and "cultural insensitivity" that UND assaulted everyone with through the use of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo - "racism" that the NC$$ sought to eradicate by forcing the school to nix the name and logo. You're craning in racism where none now is being employed, according to the NC$$ policy, because the nickname and logo are gone. Yes, the onus of racism is yours. You're obtuse by concluding that the school is actively or passively "encouraging" use of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo by using "North Dakota". If you'd criticize the Ralph or the school for selling Fighting Sioux gear or if you criticize the NC$$ by amending its policy to allow additional imagery to remain in the Ralph, you'd have a point. There is no basis for you to conclude "encouragement" with the simple employment of "North Dakota". So selling Sioux gear and amending the the surrender agreement do not constitute "encouragement" but using "North Dakota" does? This is the nonsensical, haphazard, contradictory web that all of this has become. It makes sense to the NC$$. It makes sense to the PC hacks on the UND campus and on the GF Hurled editorial board. It, evidently, makes sense to you. It does not make sense logically, unless one is twisting things to justify and excuse unjustifiable conduct. It's called "equivocation" and "dissassembling". The techniques are employed with great skill by so-called progressives to self-amputate from truth and reality. It allows "progressives", such as yourself, evidently, to proclaim partial points of view, such as "the Fighting Sioux nickname is 'racist'" into absolutes. That's called "totalitarianism". You're out smarting him 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 You're out smarting him He is over thinking. I have never had a problem with the Sioux stuff. It's a name. But they agreed to get rid of the name. By not picking a new name.... You are perpetuating the use of the old name. Simple as that. No racism or anything involved in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 He is over thinking. I have never had a problem with the Sioux stuff. It's a name. But they agreed to get rid of the name. By not picking a new name.... You are perpetuating the use of the old name. Simple as that. No racism or anything involved in that. Was there a deadline on when we had to implement a new one? Many "real" fans just want the process to be well thought out, or we'll end up with some absolutely stupid nickname. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Was there a deadline on when we had to implement a new one? Many "real" fans just want the process to be well thought out, or we'll end up with some absolutely stupid nickname.And that's the only thing that you can guarantee...hello Sundogs/Freeze/Storm/Screaming Weasels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Was there a deadline on when we had to implement a new one? Many "real" fans just want the process to be well thought out, or we'll end up with some absolutely stupid nickname. The new name was to be within one year of retirement (original settlement) but the state law and Al Carlson's interference messed up the timeline. Retirement November 30, 2010. New nickname 2011. I think the NCAA gave UND a break with the cooling off period but come Jan 1st I think the UND administration will kick start the naming process and if nothing is done, the NCAA will most likely interject. No NCAA school ( that at least plays sports) doesn't have a nickname. Nicknames = $$$$ in the eyes of the NCAA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Was there a deadline on when we had to implement a new one? Many "real" fans just want the process to be well thought out, or we'll end up with some absolutely stupid nickname. The administration has had a very very long time to think about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 The administration has had a very very long time to think about it They wanted a "cooling off" period. So, they say. It was probably easily agreed to as a way to get the opponents and supporters to come together on something. I believe a cooling off period was necessary. But, I also believe that our dear Johnny boy has a point. Now, to be honest, in the vacuum of a nickname, there has surfaced more hope that the Fighting Sioux nickname can survive in the absence of any nickname. I don't agree that there should not be a nickname, because it ultimately continues the controversy. Time to move on. Enough is enough. Let's go about choosing one and putting that behind us. Yeah, many of us (including me) older fans will wear the Sioux logo. But, let's have another generation develop their own affinity to their official school nickname. I think it may be ultimately selfish of the hangers-on not to let it go. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Until a new moniker is chosen events like t-shirts at the recent Springfest are the gift that keeps on giving to the (as Scott calls them) bedwetters. This is the most compelling argument that you've made in support of selecting a new moniker and I concede I can't think of a good counter. Whule I assume we both agree UND was not responsible or culpable in that situation, selecting a new moniker insulates UND from ignorant and unfortunate association/criticism in like situations in the future. I'd almost submit but I don't like to lose. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 The new name was to be within one year of retirement (original settlement) but the state law and Al Carlson's interference messed up the timeline. Retirement November 30, 2010. New nickname 2011. I think the NCAA gave UND a break with the cooling off period but come Jan 1st I think the UND administration will kick start the naming process and if nothing is done, the NCAA will most likely interject. No NCAA school ( that at least plays sports) doesn't have a nickname. Nicknames = $$$$ in the eyes of the NCAA. Even if one concedes that the settlement agreement controls and that UND is contractually obligated to select a new name, the NCAA has already punted big time on the retention of imagery at REA and has, at least tacitly, permitted the selection 'timeline' to go unmet. (There was no exception in the agreement for legislative meddling, as I recall.) Is there any reason to believe that the NCAA cares enough to chase after UND and actually file a lawsuit to enforce the settlement agreement by affirmatively requiring a name selection, especially if having a nickname is not required by association rules or bylaws? At the very least, the NCAA would not have any bullying power in the form of sanctions…any relief would have to come from a court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMSioux Posted August 17, 2014 Author Share Posted August 17, 2014 This is the most compelling argument that you've made in support of selecting a new moniker and I concede I can't think of a good counter. Whule I assume we both agree UND was not responsible or culpable in that situation, selecting a new moniker insulates UND from ignorant and unfortunate association/criticism in like situations in the future. I'd almost submit but I don't like to lose. :-) However I would say that even if UND had already chosen a new nickname those shirts would have still been made and somehow UND would have still been blamed (for not totally banishing the logo from campus for example - which again would not have stopped this situation from happening.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 However I would say that even if UND had already chosen a new nickname those shirts would have still been made and somehow UND would have still been blamed (for not totally banishing the logo from campus for example - which again would not have stopped this situation from happening.) It's the voice of dissidence and it was and is predictable. Forcing some "process" down everyone's throats just to have a nickname, "because it's time", will only worsen it. You'd think 60's radical draft-dodger types would relate to that. One is being a Pollyanna to think that it will just go away with a new nickname. If there is reasonable and deliberate participation by even those who wanted to retain the nickname, that's one thing. But, any process will not involve that. Any process has been predetermined, as has any replacement nickname. Kelley, et al are not interested in healing or balanced participation. They're only interested in appearances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 It's the voice of dissidence and it was and is predictable. Forcing some "process" down everyone's throats just to have a nickname, "because it's time", will only worsen it. You'd think 60's radical draft-dodger types would relate to that. One is being a Pollyanna to think that it will just go away with a new nickname. If there is reasonable and deliberate participation by even those who wanted to retain the nickname, that's one thing. But, any process will not involve that. Any process has been predetermined, as has any replacement nickname. Kelley, et al are not interested in healing or balanced participation. They're only interested in appearances. It's a nickname dude. It'll be fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Any process has been predetermined, as has any replacement nickname. Kelley, et al are not interested in healing or balanced participation. They're only interested in appearances. UND has thus far stated only that it is not in a hurry and that there is not yet any selection process underway. As annoying as the 'let's form a planning committee so it can form another committee' approach can be, time (or open records -- wink, wink) will tell if the game has been rigged as you suggest. Personally, I'm willing to reserve judgment until there is much more information available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 As far as respecting the indigenous peoples, UND had more indigenous students than any other university in the region, yet, they didn't come to UND's rescue in a time of need. That tells me all I need to know: We had a good run; thanks, but see ya later. Hey, no good deed goes unpunished. That said, I could really care less what name or moniker is chosen. I'm sure it will be lame and inoffensive to even the most sensitive souls. My loyalty and money go to the school. And I have more Sioux gear than is probably legal in most states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moser53 Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 On August 15, 2014 at 7:49 AM, CMSioux said: http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/letter-und-teams-north-dakota-works-just-fine Perhaps this is a losing battle for reasons we don't know at this time but but then again maybe a campaign needs to be started to "Keep it North Dakota" before behind the scenes decisions start to be made and we are told "The decision has been made." I'm hoping that Hal is enough of an insider he can keep an eye on this. "Keep it North Dakota" now there's a idea. Hum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post UNDBIZ Posted March 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 20, 2018 We don't need the same rantings in multiple threads. 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts