Diggler Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 So what happens if a school such as UND, who has pink as one of it's colors, paints their locker rooms pink? Huh?! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'll personally beat up whoever ordered it to be painted pink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 And how about your sexist, homophobic avatar? What's the NCAA going to do about that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quick, shade her green!! If pink is suppose to soften the oponents, green should pad their bank accounts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 If pink is suppose to soften the oponents, green should pad their bank accounts. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Seemed to work for Ralph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 From Indian Country Today: Mascot logos still hot-button issue ''They will listen, but they will act where the money is. It's all about money and it's all about oppressing a race of people,'' said Jesse Taken Alive, councilman from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.The Spirit Lake Tribe at Fort Totten supported the mascot some five years ago. The tribe is now in support of the NCAA ruling. Because of attempts to change the mascot and logo many American Indian students, the resolution claims, were harassed, threatened and received death threats. Indian Country Today could not verify the nature of the alleged threats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 And how about your sexist, homophobic avatar? What's the NCAA going to do about that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Great. Now the NCAA is going to step in and say we can't have pink as a school color! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggler Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 It's kind of funny how Taken Alive believes that the NCAA will give UND an exemption, while most people here, who favor the name, think the NCAA will reject UND's appeal. Someone has to be right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 It's kind of funny how Taken Alive believes that the NCAA will give UND an exemption, while most people here, who favor the name, think the NCAA will reject UND's appeal. Someone has to be right. Taken Alive's comments are quite clever. If the NCAA reads them, and if they care, he's painted them into a box. Here's a NA spokesman who is claiming they will choose to act in the interests of "money" and "oppress" a race of people. Who wants to be accused of that? I think it's just an attempt by Taken Alive to push buttons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 Taken Alive's comments are quite clever. If the NCAA reads them, and if they care, he's painted them into a box. Here's a NA spokesman who is claiming they will choose to act in the interests of "money" and "oppress" a race of people. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They've already done that by granting the last batch of exemptions, based on the "permission" of one band or another. UND's appeal touches a variety of issues that go beyond the mere rubber stamping of a school's use, even if other bands/tribes object. FWIW: I doubt Taken Alive is that clever so as to put the NC$$ on the spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 From Indian Country Today: Mascot logos still hot-button issue <{POST_SNAPBACK}> FINALLY, a newspaper admission that the threats could not be verified and it's an American Indian newspaper! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 Not that this has much to do with the Sioux name issue, but I'd like to know if others think this reaction by Martha Burk, National Council of Women's Organizations, to the new NHL TV ad you can watch here is within reason. "That's a major stretch," she said. "The woman is a sexual ornament, in my view. "It's appealing to adult men while trying to masquerade as something for kids. That's deeply offensive to me. As a mother of two sons, they see enough sex and violence anyway. Why put it in warrior terms? That's offensive, let alone the sexism." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggler Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 Martha Burk is an insane old bag. What the hell is she even whining about? It's a commercial where a woman helps a man put on shoulder pads. Holy Horse Sh^t! What a terrible thing!!! Should bring her to the Uptown Downtown, maybe she'd suffer a massive heart attack and thus no longer able to irritate the entire nation with her assinine load of crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 Not that this has much to do with the Sioux name issue, but I'd like to know if others think this reaction by Martha Burk, National Council of Women's Organizations, to the new NHL TV ad you can watch here is within reason. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course the woman is a sexual ornament, it's a television ad. Sex sells. I don't understand Burks comments, "they see enough sex and violence anyway. Why put it in warrior terms? That's offensive, let alone the sexism." This ad is not protraying women as victims of violence. I believe that warriors were dressed by women before battle in 'ancient times'. I don't believe they were dressed in their underwear when they did so. But again, sex sells especially if your goal is to appeal to the men in your audience. I can't remember the product but there is also a commercial out there where women customers were ogling young buff male waiters. Who's complaining about that one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 Of course the woman is a sexual ornament, it's a television ad. Sex sells.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe it's just me, but I don't really see much that I would consider "sexy" about this commercial. Yes, the woman is attractive, but the camera doesn't dwell on her. I can't even tell exactly what she's wearing. It's not anything terribly revealing, however. I've seen sexier Dorito commercials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 Maybe it's just me, but I don't really see much that I would consider "sexy" about this commercial. Yes, the woman is attractive, but the camera doesn't dwell on her. I can't even tell exactly what she's wearing. It's not anything terribly revealing, however. I've seen sexier Dorito commercials. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're right, it's not overt. But since there were comments about about the women being a 'sexual ornament' and 'It's appealing to adult men..', I paid attention to what the women is wearing when I watched the clip. Sexy, yes. Inappropriate wear for what she is supposedly doing, yes. Inappropriate for a commercial, no. As a women, I have to say that the man was also very attractive, shirtless, and I did not have to go back to see what he was or was not wearing because I most certainly noticed the first time. The other times I went back was to check to see if I had missed anything. Sex sells. Burk is a publicity seeking, PC extremist. I am all for women's right but this commercial is not offensive. She should go to Paris if she want's something to protest. Billboards of women wearing only g-strings are used to advertise cigarettes. Burk should spend her energy raising her son's to be respectful of women regardless of how they are portrayed in the media and educating on what is real and what is fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggler Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 The commercial is really exploiting women, that's why I'm sure the woman made more money for doing the commercial then the man did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 That's right sex sells. If people are offended by things, don't watch them. If it's an ad, don't buy their products, don't watch the channels that the ads are on. Don't like guns, don't own one. Don't like hunting, don't do it. Don't like abortions, don't have one. People bitch too much. Maybe that's what's really wrong with society. People care too much when one person complains about something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 From KitsapSun.com: Disrespect in the Eye of NCAA Beholder I suspect that whenever UND adopted The Fighting Sioux nickname (the university was founded in 1883), the original motive was less to honor Native Americans than to portray its athletes as fierce, savage, and warlike, a widespread strategy still common in naming sports teams.The rules of etiquette hold that it's never defensible to offend someone intentionally. On the other hand, too much sensitivity can be as bad as too little. In our hyper-sensitive age, it isn't unimaginable that the North Kitsap Vikings could be in trouble with touchy Scandinavians resentful about a comparison with their hairy, warlike, horny-helmeted ancestors. From dailypress.com: Warriors aren't worriers "Can we paint graffiti on the Wailing Wall in a respectful manner?" said Robert Holden, a senior staffer at the Washington-based NCAI. "It's not in the eye of the beholder to judge. It's in the eye of who it affects. ... How is it we're not the experts on our culture? ... Sports and football coaches - with all due respect, they're not necessarily the bastions of social and cultural change.""We made the change out of respect to the Native Americans. In that sense it's worth it," Henke said. "As far as school spirit, I don't think it makes any difference at all." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 Taken Alive's comments are quite clever. If the NCAA reads them, and if they care, he's painted them into a box. Here's a NA spokesman who is claiming they will choose to act in the interests of "money" and "oppress" a race of people. Who wants to be accused of that? I think it's just an attempt by Taken Alive to push buttons. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think Dagies is right. Jesse is trying to get the NCAA to see his perspective. One thing the p.c. anti name crowd is: manipulative. I wish the NCAA would just get over so we can sue them. By the time the NCAA is done meddling in Universities names/monikers they are going to be broke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 Kupchella headed to Spirit Lake tomorrow. http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/12742626.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 Kupchella headed to Spirit Lake tomorrow. http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/12742626.htm <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Here's what I think is the most interesting part of the article: Who's distorting? Kupchella said he's baffled by what the NCAA seems to be doing with Spirit Lake. He said the NCAA already has a copy of a resolution signed by the Spirit Lake Council five years ago supporting UND's nickname. "We've given them a resolution," Kupchella said. "The only way I can understand it is that they are saying to Spirit Lake 'are you sure you want to do that?' "It's enraging because it's changing the way they are approaching this whole issue - it's actually influencing the outcome." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 From Indian Country Today: Mascot logos still hot-button issue I find that rather interesting. Indian Country Today has never seen an anti-mascot article it didn't like; yet, in this case, they print a sentence that reads like a disclaimer. It even said "alleged threats." Could it be that Indian Country Today was looking to protect itself against what comes after printing false accusations? (If you aren't sure what that is look up "libel" in the dictionary. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 "We've given them a resolution," Kupchella said. "The only way I can understand it is that they are saying to Spirit Lake 'are you sure you want to do that?' "It's enraging because it's changing the way they are approaching this whole issue - it's actually influencing the outcome." A resolution got FSU, CMU, and Utah under seven-day turnaround. Not for UND. If the NCAA is attempting to influence the situation to try to cover up their (dare I say slanderous) accusations against UND that could make a slander lawsuit even more lucrative to UND --> not only did they slander, they tried to cover it up (which is a clear acquiescence to the slander!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 where is your letter to the editor ? & the one from NA students ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggler Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 where is your letter to the editor ? & the one from NA students ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> NA Student Letter He seems really bitter and angry to me. The land was stolen and no one ever apologized. If the US Gov't stole land from the Dakota, did the Chippewa also not steal land from the Dakota? After all, the Chippewa didn't pay the Dakota for the land either, they just took. Everyone's favorite reporter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crosby_87 Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 I'm sorry but that lady just took it waaay too far. I still can't figure out why they insist on using the example "How would you like it if we called you the fighting honkies". Well for one, last I checked the name "Sioux" was not a racist term used for native americans. It is a group of people that called themselves the Sioux. Referring to whites as honkies is basically like referring to native americans as "prairie N*****s". And I don't even want to hear people call me racist for saying that, as I would never say it in real life, but i'm using it for an example. I try not to get involved with the name changing stuff, but some things people say just get to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.