Reasons for Keeping the Name

[dagies]

If American Indian students are treated so horribly at UND as a result of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, how is it that there are three times more of them at UND than there are at NDSU? How is it that UND has nearly two and a half times more American Indian students than the University of South Dakota? How is it that compared to my alma mater, South Dakota State University, UND has four times more American Indian students?

If what you say was true, one would think that UND would be the last university American Indian students would choose to attend. But for some strange reason, they come to UND in far greater numbers than they do to other universities in the Dakotas. How do you explain that?

If this is true (and your history speaks for itself), this is a very strong argument.

[PCM]

If this is true (and your history speaks for itself), this is a very strong argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have I ever steered you wrong?

You can look up the 2004 enrollment numbers (I assume this is 2003-2004) by college here.

NDSU and UND have their 2004-2005 enrollment statistics online. NDSU lists 112 American Indian students and UND lists 407. I couldn't find exact numbers for USD and SDSU, but USD's Web site says it enrollment of American Indian students varies between 150 and 175. USD's 2 percent listing under U.S. College Search would put the number closer to 150.

According to the 2000 US Census, American Indians comprised 4.9 percent of North Dakota's total population and 8.3 percent of South Dakota's. Therefore, between UND, USD, NDSU and SDSU, UND is the only school that comes anywhere near having a representative sample of American Indian students enrolled.

What I find truly amazing is that despite its use of a "hostile and abusive" nickname and logo, UND has far more American Indian students and far more Indian-related programs than any of the other major universities in the Dakotas.

Edited August 9, 2005 by PCM

[oldralph]

I keep hearing from the name-change proponents tell us about how a democratic nation is run . Isn't a democracy all about what the majority of the people want? Am I to understand that if a majority of the people favor the Sioux name (I mean in America/North Dakota, not in an Indian sovergn nation) then we should honor the wishes of that voting population? Take a look around, the majority of North Dakotan's favor keeping the Sioux name, and a majority of the country wants to keep their nicknames too. It appears to me the tail is trying to wag the dog (and much too much lately the dog is shaking).

After all, they are just nicknames. We don't pretend to be Sioux, but we love who we are. I for one am all for letting the democratic process play out. A vote would be best, but we'll likely never get that and have to give the name change proponents a chance, so let's get this thing into the courts and put the issue to rest. There should have to be an agreement between all people that whatever the outcome the other side has to honor it. If they say change it, then change it and move on. That is how a democracy works. If they say you live in America and have the right to free speech, then the other side has to try to accept it with dignity. Let it happen and I'll let the chips fall where they may. I don't like lawyers and judges, but this is America and there are many disagreements that are settled in the courts when the people can't agree. Get er' done and let's move on. And by the way, I have several Indian friends, one Sioux and 2 Ojibwa and not a one of them objects to the Sioux name. OK, whose keeping score? What is really the score when you count all Americans?

You can keep a personal score if you like, but that only counts for YOUR experience. You forget that almost ALL of the Sioux Tribes have asked for UND to change its logo. (The only tribe abstaining happens to be the smallest one, representing about 600 people). This isn't about a few people here and there who like or don't like the name. That just isn't how our democratic nation is run. I've heard the argument that Native people need to get together and agree on the issue. That is so ridiculous. Do Americans unanimously agree on all issues? NO! That is why we have elected officials. They are responsible for determining the needs and wants of their constituents. So it is with the Sioux Tribal Governments. And their decisions are that their SIOUX constituents do not want UND to use their name or identity as the school logo.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[tnt]

If a name isn't acceptable, it isn't acceptable. Native Americans shouldn't have a right to use any of the names for their teams either. But there seems to be a double standard here. If the threshhold for getting rid of a nickname is that a small number of people find it offensive, then there wouldn't be many nicknames to choose from.

[KnowtheFacts]

1. I don't understand why the Sioux should be a unique microcosm of Native American opinions nationwide.

Are all Europeans the same? Do their opinions differ from country to country? Would a Polish person necessisarily object to an Irish stereotype? Native Americans are not just one group of people, although that is how America has categorized them. There are over 450 some recognized tribes (Im not sure of the exact number) and they all have different cultures. How can you assume that a Pima Indian in Arizona (or anyone anywhere else for that matter) would have any opinion at all about the use of the Fighting Sioux nickname. ESPECIALLY if he or she knows little to nothing about the history of its use here at UND?

2. So the opinions of the people are less important than the opinions of their elected leaders? You are going in circles. We elect leaders in this country to make decisions for us based on facts and public opinion. Sometimes the public doesnt have all the time to research and be educated on a topic like our legistators. Im not all for the political system persay but that is what it is designed for. We dont get to attend all the hearings about a specific topic and we rely on our leaders to make an *informed* decision. Not just a decision based on opinions.

3. I'm aware of statistics, but of the polls I mentioned I haven't seen anyone object to the validity of the studies. If you find it, I'm sure you'll let us know.

Here's an article for you:

>>>

Pro-Chief polls are dubious

Letter | The Daily Illini

Published Friday, March 19, 2004

Again and again, I am cited the statistic purported by the Peter Harris Research Group and Sports Illustrated that claims 81 percent of polled Native Americans do not mind the use of Indian mascots. I'd like to call to mind some serious doubts regarding the integrity of these poll results. No information is disclosed within the Sports Illustrated article regarding how the poll was conducted, how the questions were worded, how subjects were approached, etc. Anyone who has taken a stats class knows the unbelievable capacity for bias and misrepresentation in statistics (whether intentional or not). I scoured the Internet looking for detailed information about the study, only to find nothing. Anyone can come up with statistics to back their claim, but not anyone can come up with valid statistics.

Here's another mascot-related statistic for you all. In the August of 2001 issue of Indian Country Today, the editors reported that 81 percent of those polled "indicated use of American Indian names, symbols and mascots are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans." (No it's not a typo, 81 percent is the number here, too). Hmmm, statistics are shady business indeed! However, when all Native American groups have been quite vocal against the use of Indian mascots, I must admit I have an inclination to believe the Indian Country Today poll over its Sports Illustrated counterpart.

The bottom line is that it is tremendously hypocritical for a person to quote the pro-mascot poll while ignoring the anti-mascot poll. The anti-mascot poll has the vocal support of Native American Groups across the nation. But where are all those Native Americans who want to continue using Indian names? If they exist in majority, and I doubt they do, they certainly aren't making themselves heard. <<<

[The Sicatoka]

Peter Harris Research Group and Annenberg Polling (U of Pennsylvania, an NCAA member) both have done scientifically respected surveys each with independent but similar findings.

Thus comes the choice: Mock the research or mock Native Americans themselves for their perceived unenlightenment.

[dagies]

1.  I don't understand why the Sioux should be a unique microcosm of Native American opinions nationwide. 

Are all Europeans the same?  Do their opinions differ from country to country?  Would a Polish person necessisarily object to an Irish stereotype?  Native Americans are not just one group of people, although that is how America has categorized them.  There are over 450 some recognized tribes (Im not sure of the exact number) and they all have different cultures.  How can you assume that a Pima Indian in Arizona (or anyone anywhere else for that matter) would have any opinion at all about the use of the Fighting Sioux nickname.  ESPECIALLY if he or she knows little to nothing about the history of its use here at UND?

2.  So the opinions of the people are less important than the opinions of their elected leaders?    You are going in circles.  We elect leaders in this country to make decisions for us based on facts and public opinion.  Sometimes the public doesnt have all the time to research and be educated on a topic like our legistators.  Im not all for the political system persay but that is what it is designed for.  We dont get to attend all the hearings about a specific topic and we rely on our leaders to make an *informed* decision.  Not just a decision based on opinions.

3.  I'm aware of statistics, but of the polls I mentioned I haven't seen anyone object to the validity of the studies.  If you find it, I'm sure you'll let us know.

Here's an article for you:

>>>

Pro-Chief polls are dubious

Letter | The Daily Illini

Published Friday, March 19, 2004

Again and again, I am cited the statistic purported by the Peter Harris Research Group and Sports Illustrated that claims 81 percent of polled Native Americans do not mind the use of Indian mascots. I'd like to call to mind some serious doubts regarding the integrity of these poll results. No information is disclosed within the Sports Illustrated article regarding how the poll was conducted, how the questions were worded, how subjects were approached, etc. Anyone who has taken a stats class knows the unbelievable capacity for bias and misrepresentation in statistics (whether intentional or not). I scoured the Internet looking for detailed information about the study, only to find nothing. Anyone can come up with statistics to back their claim, but not anyone can come up with valid statistics.

Here's another mascot-related statistic for you all. In the August of 2001 issue of Indian Country Today, the editors reported that 81 percent of those polled "indicated use of American Indian names, symbols and mascots are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans." (No it's not a typo, 81 percent is the number here, too). Hmmm, statistics are shady business indeed! However, when all Native American groups have been quite vocal against the use of Indian mascots, I must admit I have an inclination to believe the Indian Country Today poll over its Sports Illustrated counterpart.

The bottom line is that it is tremendously hypocritical for a person to quote the pro-mascot poll while ignoring the anti-mascot poll. The anti-mascot poll has the vocal support of Native American Groups across the nation. But where are all those Native Americans who want to continue using Indian names? If they exist in majority, and I doubt they do, they certainly aren't making themselves heard. <<<

1. I can see your point if you want to boil this issue down to just whether Sioux should be used as a nickname. However, names like Redskins, Indians, etc cross tribal boundaries and in those cases we see some conflicting information on whether they are acceptable or not.

2. Just because leaders make a decision, it doesn't mean it has to speak for the people. Yes, they may be elected but it doesn't mean every decision the leader makes represents the attitude of the people.

3. Fair enough. We know nothing about what questions were asked in the poll you cite, or how they were asked. As your quoted source says above, he's inclined to believe the source that agrees with his position, I am free to do the same.

[OldSchool]

No one denies the fact that we being the white people treated the Native Americans poorly, but that was 150 years ago. It's not like our ancestors had a gravy train. You want the nickname changed. OK then no more free education or paychecks every month. How do you feel about that. Get a life I am Irish, and a huge fan of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. I take a lot of pride in that little drunk, fighting Irish mascot. I agree with some of the other posts deal with the lack of education, teenage pregnancy, and alcohol and drug abuse. We cheer for the Sioux not against them in one of the best small universities in the country. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnn

nnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg.

[ESPNInsider]

No one denies the fact that we being the white people treated the Native Americans poorly, but that was 150 years ago.

[Siouxman]

No one denies the fact that we being the white people treated the Native Americans poorly, but that was 150 years ago.  It's not like our ancestors had a gravy train.  You want the nickname changed.  OK then no more free education or paychecks every month.  How do you feel about that.  Get a life I am Irish, and a huge fan of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish.  I take a lot of pride in that little drunk, fighting Irish mascot.  I agree with some of the other posts deal with the lack of education, teenage pregnancy, and alcohol and drug abuse.  We cheer for the Sioux not against them in one of the best small universities in the country.  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnn

nnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, real classy (NOT!!) - You just provided a perfect example of why Native Americans feel discriminated against on campus and feel insulted by nicknames.

[Blackheart]

Hey "know the fax", take your beret, your misplaced guilt, and your 1984 Yugo and head back up to whatever liberal arts college you came from.

[KnowtheFacts]

Hey "know the fax", take your beret, your misplaced guilt, and your 1984 Yugo and head back up to whatever liberal arts college you came from. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, my bleeding heart! Im so insulted. You must have nothing to say about my comments so you resort to personal attacks. That only really goes to show what kind of person *you* are.

[Fetch]

The University of North Dakota chose the name of the Fighting Sioux in the 1930

[Blackheart]

[GrahamKracker]

[Blackheart]

[crosby_87]

Wow, you REALLY waste alot of time in here.  I don't need to convince you of anything, because we are too busy convincing those that are NOT biased and those who CAN'T be bought....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like how you say those who Can't be bought, but in the other forum you said you would be ok with the name if you got a free education, and every building was named after a native american. So I suppose getting a free education just so you don't keep getting upset doesnt count as being bought?

[bkuddy]

I used to work on the Fort Peck Reservation every day for two years. Untold millions in technological equipment and educational supplies,along with the need to have armed police on campus, only to be destroyed or stolen by the students. No chance for education, or lack of willingness to adhere to the education that is offered. If its the quality or the fact that its mostly post native american rule history and politics that are offered, then why not use some of the money the United States Government is still paying to appease the lack of technological warfare on the native americans part, and start a completely self standing native american education council to dictate and mediate all native american children and prepare them to enter university and quit complaining about things that are so far in history that the people that were there and should be angry.... o.k. I am second generation norwegian american, my family came over just before WW1... My ancestors didnt kill yours and homesteaded land legally way after all the hoo haa. So in conclusion... I dont really care what you say

Fighting Sioux Hockey rules.

[GrahamKracker]

I used to work on the Fort Peck Reservation every day for two years. Untold millions in technological equipment and educational supplies,along with the need to have armed police on campus, only to be destroyed or stolen by the students. No chance for education, or lack of willingness to adhere to the education that is offered. If its the quality or the fact that its mostly post native american rule history and politics that are offered, then why not  use some of the money the United States Government is still paying to appease the lack of technological warfare on the native americans part, and start a completely self standing native american education council to dictate and mediate all native american children and prepare them to enter university and quit complaining about things that are so far in history that the people that were there and should be angry.... o.k. I am second generation norwegian american, my family came over just before WW1... My ancestors didnt kill yours and homesteaded land legally way after all the hoo haa. So in conclusion... I dont really care what you say

Fighting Sioux Hockey rules.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, two whole years? Wow, you have enough experience to "teach" Indian studies here at this University!!lololol I really don't get your point, but I'll tell you what countless have said to me here, If you don't like it, go back to where you came from, plain and simple. If you don't like the fact that this University is on the brink of changing its logo/nickname, go somewhere else. Easy as that, right? Oh wait, if someone says that to me its okay, but now I'm wrong for saying it back?.....we'll just have to wait and see in the next posting...lol

[bkuddy]

didnt have a point, just bored

ps you can only teach people who want to be taught

[bkuddy]

hey heres a point.. its a college sports franchise... hey, idea... lets try to make it as american as possible... fighting sioux... thats cool... wait ... dont wanna piss any native americans off... wait... native americans just means that the people we know as native americans defeated the people that were already here and very nicley asked them to be a part of the native american culture... wait... no people here when the native americans showed up... crap... they were just nomads like everybody else... wait... ok.. . you know what, enough... indian pride... please, some indians are just pissed because someone beat the crap out of them... it happens... be human... be adult, not a nation of crying four year olds... my people were decimated by the swedes and danes and ill bet im more norwegian than you are sioux...have i ever asked them for proper reparations? no... you give me crap for working on the res... when did you ever spend time on a res... and think to yourself, this is the epitome of indian pride... as a matter of fact when was the last time you were on a res? ever? fine you spew out some incoherent words at the beginning of this,,, but who cares... your people lost a war, is it my fault.. no.. the people that won that war should have the right to use whatever was won to advance the nation or state or county or town... your an angry person... but think of this... your people are not from north america... they emmigrated here just like everybody else, sooner... yes.. could they keep it?... no enough is enough... you lost big deal.. at least you can still get in touch with your ancestors... at least your religion is still atainable ... grow up all of you pc whiner wanna bes that want to dictate what everbody thinks and feels strength and intelligence are all that matter in this universe so get used to it, i use limited punctuation because im workin as a roughneck and a personal security advisor to get myself through college because being caucasian i dont qualify for any government programs so i have to pay for myself, try it once.. its LIBERATING, i dont hate you.. but people like you...go f$%k yourself

FIGHTING SIOUX HOCKEY RULES

[7>4]

Thanks to bkuddy's incoherent ramblings I must officially call GAME, SET and MATCH for GrahmKracker. My guess is that bkud is either a mailman or a Republican or both. Somebody check Teddy Kazinski's cabin up in Montana to see if it has a new resident.

Face it, the best arguments for keeping the name are tradition and it looks cool on a uniform. Neither very persuasive. If you think the boys are not going to play as hard if they have a different logo on their chest then the really weren't much of a player to begin with.

I am still against the name change but I want to thank Kracker for some very insightful thoughts.

[Diggler]

It's a nearly impossible question to answer though. What reason is there to keep any nickname? What if someone wanted to change the Twins name or the Wild? What reason is there to keep those names? Ummm, it's cool?

[mksioux]

Face it, the best arguments for keeping the name are tradition and it looks cool on a uniform.  Neither very persuasive. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This issue is about much more than a nickname. It's a battle in the culture war, which many of us feel very strongly about. It's about letting the activist voice of the fringe minority silence the collective voice of the majority. Rolling over would validate all that is wrong about victim/identity politics and political correctness.