Media Stories on the Sioux Name

[Let'sGoHawks!]

This does not make the tribal council look good. Either they are clowns, or have an agenda. It is really too bad.

[redwing77]

This does not make the tribal council look good. Either they are clowns, or have an agenda. It is really too bad.

They're not clowns. They have an agenda.

Heh. They'll put it in historical context because after all, their more vocal minority make such a big deal about the past and why they as a people can't succeed because of how bad the white man is yet hold out their hands first for white man money.

The agenda is this: "Years back, our forefathers were sold a bunch of empty promises by the evil white man. They jerked us around like we were some two bit rag doll. It is unfortunate that they have not apologized nor given us enough back to move on but that's not the point. The point is that now, even though the scale is almost insignificant to most of the country, we get to jerk around the white man. The shoe is on the other foot, so they say. And what's better is that even if we don't succumb to the wishes of our people and vote, the outcome is still to our liking. There is only the will of the people that can oppose us now and we have the power to ensure that the will is silenced, at least until it is too late."

A more evil type of personification for sure, but that about sums it up.

And before the anti nicknamers come on and blast me for being racist a few points:

1. I am racist. I'm white and I dare criticize someone who is a different ethnicity that I am. So, by the modern definition, I'm racist. Who cares if I'm right. The term "racist" holds no significance to me any longer. I criticize Obama? I'm doing so because I'm racist. I criticize Native Americans for living too much in the past. I'm racist. Big deal. Talk about desensitized.

2. There is no denying that the US Government wronged the Native American people in the 1800s to mid 1900s (and before). I doubt any educated person would disagree with that. However, mistreating the white man even if it is a minor way makes them no different that those white men that wronged their ancestors. We try to teach our kids to be above the hate. Act in such a way to persevere and overcome adversity. But how do you do that while trying to find ways to get back at the White man? Could you imagine how the Jews would be viewed if we kept on trying to get back at the evil Germans? Would the Neo Nazis be a fringe hate group if we sat there whining and moaning about how the Germans are all pig headed ethnocentric hate mongerers?

The problem is that the Native Americans can't elect Tribal Council Members who can see the future without embedding it with the past. The past is like an anchor holding them back and killing their pride while subjugating their dignity. They become the stereotype and that typecasts the silent masses.

They call for us to move on but why don't they lead the way?

[ScottM]

This really is pretty shady. Hell I don't blame the SBoHE perhaps they anticpated this dog and pony show all along. SR will never meet on this and will deprive their citizens the chance to voice their opinion. History will have to judge these people. It truly is shameful.

And this type of "crap" is why I knew the name/logo were doomed if they were held hostage to tribal politics.

[The Sicatoka]

I had just talked to a member of SR a week ago and he said by them not given us an answer, that was their answer.

You know how all politicians work: If they can get what they want by doing nothing, they'll do nothing.

They're letting the clock run out but can still say, "I didn't do anything against it."

[BringDeanBack]

They're not clowns. They have an agenda.

Heh. They'll put it in historical context because after all, their more vocal minority make such a big deal about the past and why they as a people can't succeed because of how bad the white man is yet hold out their hands first for white man money.

The agenda is this: "Years back, our forefathers were sold a bunch of empty promises by the evil white man. They jerked us around like we were some two bit rag doll. It is unfortunate that they have not apologized nor given us enough back to move on but that's not the point. The point is that now, even though the scale is almost insignificant to most of the country, we get to jerk around the white man. The shoe is on the other foot, so they say. And what's better is that even if we don't succumb to the wishes of our people and vote, the outcome is still to our liking. There is only the will of the people that can oppose us now and we have the power to ensure that the will is silenced, at least until it is too late."

A more evil type of personification for sure, but that about sums it up.

And before the anti nicknamers come on and blast me for being racist a few points:

1. I am racist. I'm white and I dare criticize someone who is a different ethnicity that I am. So, by the modern definition, I'm racist. Who cares if I'm right. The term "racist" holds no significance to me any longer. I criticize Obama? I'm doing so because I'm racist. I criticize Native Americans for living too much in the past. I'm racist. Big deal. Talk about desensitized.

2. There is no denying that the US Government wronged the Native American people in the 1800s to mid 1900s (and before). I doubt any educated person would disagree with that. However, mistreating the white man even if it is a minor way makes them no different that those white men that wronged their ancestors. We try to teach our kids to be above the hate. Act in such a way to persevere and overcome adversity. But how do you do that while trying to find ways to get back at the White man? Could you imagine how the Jews would be viewed if we kept on trying to get back at the evil Germans? Would the Neo Nazis be a fringe hate group if we sat there whining and moaning about how the Germans are all pig headed ethnocentric hate mongerers?

The problem is that the Native Americans can't elect Tribal Council Members who can see the future without embedding it with the past. The past is like an anchor holding them back and killing their pride while subjugating their dignity. They become the stereotype and that typecasts the silent masses.

They call for us to move on but why don't they lead the way?

Bingo, 100% this is Standing Rock "sticking it to Whitey".

[MplsBison]

So is that it then?

Or is this board going to keep bashing the Standing Rock tribal council every week that they don't make a decision on holding a vote to support the nickname from now until Nov 30th?

[82SiouxGuy]

So is that it then?

Or is this board going to keep bashing the Standing Rock tribal council every week that they don't make a decision on holding a vote to support the nickname from now until Nov 30th?

Trolling a little late in the evening aren't we? Trying to stir the pot a little? You must be bored tonight.

[ticklethetwine]

So is that it then?

Or is this board going to keep bashing the Standing Rock tribal council every week that they don't make a decision on holding a vote to support the nickname from now until Nov 30th?

Once they finish destroying our nickname and logo I wouldn't be so sure they or someone like them will feel the need to take away the Bison name as it is derogatory to animals and is sacred to NA people. Perhaps you will need to garner the same support that UND is seeking from the tribes and karma can be a fickle lady.

[MplsBison]

Hey don't get me wrong, I think it stinks that the SR TC can get away with just "ignoring" the issue.

But what can realistically be done about it between now and Nov 30th?

[darell1976]

Hey don't get me wrong, I think it stinks that the SR TC can get away with just "ignoring" the issue.

But what can realistically be done about it between now and Nov 30th?

With 24 weeks from this Tuesday left. The clock is ticking faster if everything is delayed by a week at a time.

[82SiouxGuy]

With 24 weeks from this Tuesday left. The clock is ticking faster if everything is delayed by a week at a time.

To put it into even more perspective, they will probably have to give at least 60 days notice before any election. And they have talked about needing up to 90 days to verify the signatures before setting a date. 150 days is about 21 1/2 weeks. The tribal council would have to meet again after the election to vote up or down. Time is getting very tight.

[darell1976]

To put it into even more perspective, they will probably have to give at least 60 days notice before any election. And they have talked about needing up to 90 days to verify the signatures before setting a date. 150 days is about 21 1/2 weeks. The tribal council would have to meet again after the election to vote up or down. Time is getting very tight.

If they drag their feet for the rest of this month. Its game over for the nickname.

[82SiouxGuy]

If they drag their feet for the rest of this month. Its game over for the nickname.

It might not take 90 days to verify enough signatures, so there might be a little more flex time. But yeah, it's getting close.

[82SiouxGuy]

We have a new petition at Standing Rock. This one asks the tribal council to continue to follow the 1992 resolution asking UND to quit using the name. It was signed by 1,010 people (it looks like they wanted to make sure they had more than the other petition). Is this going to slow things down any further, if that's possible? Or will the tribal council just quit looking at the issue? Or maybe they will finally say 'Let the people make the decision'.

[Goon]

We have a new petition at Standing Rock. This one asks the tribal council to continue to follow the 1992 resolution asking UND to quit using the name. It was signed by 1,010 people (it looks like they wanted to make sure they had more than the other petition). Is this going to slow things down any further, if that's possible? Or will the tribal council just quit looking at the issue? Or maybe they will finally say 'Let the people make the decision'.

All the reason to have a vote up or down...

[the green team]

I guess one of the things I often forget is that unlike, in govenment, where a simple majority often can move an issue. Tribal government is one that deals with "consensus" not simple majorities, unfortunately what I feel this latest development with an opposing petition could mean is, that the tribal council could say that this means there is no consensus on the issue and thus no reason to further it. Again, I often forget that they view issues by consensus, which I don't think is to our benefit in seeing this get to a vote at Standing Rock.

[redwing77]

I guess one of the things I often forget is that unlike, in govenment, where a simple majority often can move an issue. Tribal government is one that deals with "consensus" not simple majorities, unfortunately what I feel this latest development with an opposing petition could mean is, that the tribal council could say that this means there is no consensus on the issue and thus no reason to further it. Again, I often forget that they view issues by consensus, which I don't think is to our benefit in seeing this get to a vote at Standing Rock.

What?

I think it is.

The only benefit that matters: Definitive judgment.

Say 2010 people vote (the numbers of the two petitions combined iirc) and 1010 people vote against the nickname and 1000 vote for. Yeah, it isn't good for the pro nicknamers but we got a DEFINITIVE answer to the will of the Standing Rock people.

There's no arguing about it.

The reason why there's no vote is the agenda I talked about earlier plus two factors:

1. Power. Standing Rock elders must enjoy the sense of power going in both directions: Elders on the White Man and I guess Elders on the Tribe.

2. Fear and Uncertainty. Sure, the vote could go in favor of changing the name but it could go the other way. If the will of the people says to support the nickname, they'd almost be forced to sign a 30 year agreement. To those Elders, that's seemingly unacceptable. As it stands right now, they have the power to ignore petitions at will. If the US Government did that (assuming the petitions in place had signatures comparatively similar percentage wise to the ST petitions), they'd be pretty much committing political suicide. But I guess ignoring the will of the people is something that is acceptable.

I'm a cynic but I believe that, unless things drastically change, there will be NO vote on this issue... EVER.

[82SiouxGuy]

What?

I think it is.

The only benefit that matters: Definitive judgment.

Say 2010 people vote (the numbers of the two petitions combined iirc) and 1010 people vote against the nickname and 1000 vote for. Yeah, it isn't good for the pro nicknamers but we got a DEFINITIVE answer to the will of the Standing Rock people.

There's no arguing about it.

The reason why there's no vote is the agenda I talked about earlier plus two factors:

1. Power. Standing Rock elders must enjoy the sense of power going in both directions: Elders on the White Man and I guess Elders on the Tribe.

2. Fear and Uncertainty. Sure, the vote could go in favor of changing the name but it could go the other way. If the will of the people says to support the nickname, they'd almost be forced to sign a 30 year agreement. To those Elders, that's seemingly unacceptable. As it stands right now, they have the power to ignore petitions at will. If the US Government did that (assuming the petitions in place had signatures comparatively similar percentage wise to the ST petitions), they'd be pretty much committing political suicide. But I guess ignoring the will of the people is something that is acceptable.

I'm a cynic but I believe that, unless things drastically change, there will be NO vote on this issue... EVER.

Even in your scenario there is plenty of room to argue if there are 6000 people eligible to vote. Only 1/3 of the population would be expressing their wishes in you scenario. The only way to get definitive judgment would be to make sure that every person eligible to vote actually votes. They don't ever come close and never will.

[The Sicatoka]

http://article.nationalreview.com/436333/w...s-prager?page=1

Western universities have an abundance of people of intellect, people with a vast repository of knowledge, and people who mean well. Yet, the Western university is a moral wasteland. Why? Because it lacks wisdom. The university relies on the good intentions of its professors, not on the accumulated wisdom of the past, for answers to society

[redwing77]

82 - True enough, but if they get the same voter turnout as Spirit Lake, then it's all good. Up or down, I want to know what they want. If they vote no, we don't support the nickname, would it then not be the same as the 1992 accord, but more definitively so?

The only harm in voting is the possibility that they'd support the nickname and the Elders would be forced to abide by the will of the people in a manner they don't want.

That spells corruption, sure, but the Will of the People is all that matters in a Republic.

[82SiouxGuy]

82 - True enough, but if they get the same voter turnout as Spirit Lake, then it's all good. Up or down, I want to know what they want. If they vote no, we don't support the nickname, would it then not be the same as the 1992 accord, but more definitively so?

The only harm in voting is the possibility that they'd support the nickname and the Elders would be forced to abide by the will of the people in a manner they don't want.

That spells corruption, sure, but the Will of the People is all that matters in a Republic.

Just wanted to point out that the only way to get a definitive decision would be to get a vast majority of the population involved. But a vote either way would probably be a good indication of the feelings on the reservation. The people that wouldn't vote probably don't care, and the ones that do care could make the decision. And yes, a vote against the nickname would effectively end all chance of trying to keep the name.

[dlsiouxfan]

http://article.nationalreview.com/436333/w...s-prager?page=1

I know this is off-topic but, but really the National Review? A rag that's only purpose seems to advance the agenda of those who would like to see the clocks in this country turned back to the 1950's. I wonder how this writer can accuse Western universities of lacking morality while writing for a paper that at various times in it's history was advocated for the continuance of apartheid in South Africa, Jim Crow in the American South, and torture of American citizens.

[yababy8]

I know this is off-topic but, but really the National Review? A rag that's only purpose seems to advance the agenda of those who would like to see the clocks in this country turned back to the 1950's. I wonder how this writer can accuse Western universities of lacking morality while writing for a paper that at various times in it's history was advocated for the continuance of apartheid in South Africa, Jim Crow in the American South, and torture of American citizens.

South Africa-

(see wikipedia for an index of sources)

A survey for the period 1998

[Chewey]

wasn't there supposed to have been another Tribal Council meeting yesterday? I wonder if that happened (probably not). Archie's Facebook page doesn't say anything about it.

[The Sicatoka]

I know this is off-topic but, but really the National Review? A rag that's only purpose ...

Thank you for the textbook definition of "ad hominem". But do you have anything to say about the point raised?