sioux7>5 Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 They were going to try and schedule a council meeting for today. Hopefully we will know more later today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Thank you for the textbook definition of "ad hominem". But do you have anything to say about the point raised? That's a great article and all too true, which is why it likely inflamed this fellow. I would also add to it in that Western universities faculty members, no doubt, suffer from chronic boredom and banal routine. Intellectual and creative atrophy is rampant but reactionary, knee-jerk manifestations of racism are sure plentiful. Hence, the fixation on issues involving sports team nicknames, accusations of "racism" as against those who disagree, etc. A case in point is that UND anthropology professor who, about a month ago in the Grand Forks Herald, compared people who support the nickname -- yes, even the 67% of natives and Spirit Lake who support the nickname (I know, the irony is compelling isn't it?) -- to people who supported Hitler and the Third Reich. Evidently, if one is a "politically attuned" college professor, one can just vomit forth any reactionary nonsense and then cry "racism" when people point out how stupid that reactionary nonsense is. If they had to exercise their collective creative muse to cover overhead or design an ad campaign to attract and retain a client base, I doubt we'd see such a pandemic of intellectual vacuity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yababy8 Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 That's a great article and all too true, which is why it likely inflamed this fellow. I would also add to it in that Western universities faculty members, no doubt, suffer from chronic boredom and banal routine. Intellectual and creative atrophy is rampant but reactionary, knee-jerk manifestations of racism are sure plentiful. Hence, the fixation on issues involving sports team nicknames, accusations of "racism" as against those who disagree, etc. A case in point is that UND anthropology professor who, about a month ago in the Grand Forks Herald, compared people who support the nickname -- yes, even the 67% of natives and Spirit Lake who support the nickname (I know, the irony is compelling isn't it?) -- to people who supported Hitler and the Third Reich. Evidently, if one is a "politically attuned" college professor, one can just vomit forth any reactionary nonsense and then cry "racism" when people point out how stupid that reactionary nonsense is. If they had to exercise their collective creative muse to cover overhead or design an ad campaign to attract and retain a client base, I doubt we'd see such a pandemic of intellectual vacuity. I think a more appropriate comparison with the people who supported the Third Reich would be people who believe that UND's use of the Sioux name is wrong hence they (UND) should be disallowed from using it. That my friends is Mind Control 101- prapaganda to manipulate people thought emotional based thinking. It's quite a study to see how what people accept being done to them evolves. Five years ago most name supporters defended the name from the LOGIC that it was no more deragatory than the Vikings or Irish and that in a free society it is rediculus to be forced not to use a word you choose to use- especially when it is used with NO intent to be negative. Now, five years later, those same people are all saying that if a group of people on the border of North and South Dakota decide they do not want to give their tacid approval of UND's use of the name then, despite another tribe which, oh by the way, is four times closer to UND gave them overwhelming approval to use the name, they will be be OK with having something we LOVE taken away from us. That my fiends is a textbook study on Propaganda and Brainwash. You all been served! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 I think a more appropriate comparison with the people who supported the Third Reich would be people who believe that UND's use of the Sioux name is wrong hence they (UND) should be disallowed from using it. That my friends is Mind Control 101- prapaganda to manipulate people thought emotional based thinking. It's quite a study to see how what people accept being done to them evolves. Five years ago most name supporters defended the name from the LOGIC that it was no more deragatory than the Vikings or Irish and that in a free society it is rediculus to be forced not to use a word you choose to use- especially when it is used with NO intent to be negative. Now, five years later, those same people are all saying that if a group of people on the border of North and South Dakota decide they do not want to give their tacid approval of UND's use of the name then, despite another tribe which, oh by the way, is four times closer to UND gave them overwhelming approval to use the name, they will be be OK with having something we LOVE taken away from us. That my fiends is a textbook study on Propaganda and Brainwash. You all been served! Very true. Well stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petey23 Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 I think a more appropriate comparison with the people who supported the Third Reich would be people who believe that UND's use of the Sioux name is wrong hence they (UND) should be disallowed from using it. That my friends is Mind Control 101- prapaganda to manipulate people thought emotional based thinking. It's quite a study to see how what people accept being done to them evolves. Five years ago most name supporters defended the name from the LOGIC that it was no more deragatory than the Vikings or Irish and that in a free society it is rediculus to be forced not to use a word you choose to use- especially when it is used with NO intent to be negative. Now, five years later, those same people are all saying that if a group of people on the border of North and South Dakota decide they do not want to give their tacid approval of UND's use of the name then, despite another tribe which, oh by the way, is four times closer to UND gave them overwhelming approval to use the name, they will be be OK with having something we LOVE taken away from us. That my fiends is a textbook study on Propaganda and Brainwash. You all been served! What is happening with the Sioux name/logo is a microcosm of what has been happening in the United States for years and which has been recently accelerated. It is like the Frog and boiling water analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Thank you for the textbook definition of "ad hominem". But do you have anything to say about the point raised? The premise that social programs or actions designed to help those who are less fortunate will lead to immoral actions is faulty to the core. In reality there are good acts, evil acts, and a great deal of acts that fall into the gray area in between. Most people can agree that certain actions such as helping others obtain basic necessities, giving to charity, aiding others who are in distress are actions that would be considered good. Other actions such as committing genocide, torturing innocents, keeping human slaves would and should be considered evil by everyone. Suggesting that just because a person's commission of a good action (such as feeding poor people) led to their later committing heinous evil actions just because both acts were committed by the same person is ridiculous. It's the same as saying just because a car thief put on a pair of sneakers in the morning and then stole a car that the individual's choice of footwear led him to commit grand theft auto. I also take a great deal of issue with the author's suggestion that exhibiting consideration for others who are less fortunate is somehow unwise. Whether we like it or not we're going to have to share this planet with each other and a society built on a very few controlling nearly all of the wealth while the majority of the population starves and suffers is unsustainable and this has been proven throughout history. You would think the author would have learned this in his history classes since he is so much "wiser" than the rest of us due to his private religious school education. Bringing this back to the topic of the thread, I would argue that naming sports teams after Native Americans would fall into the sizeable gray area. Personally, I think the Fighting Sioux nickname is entirely harmless it neither harms nor helps Native Americans. I feel that it is not offensive and not a single individuals troubles can be attributed to the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo. I also really don't hold the delusion that the plight of Native Americans is somehow better because we've chosen to honor them by calling ourselves the Fighting Sioux. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I think a more appropriate comparison with the people who supported the Third Reich would be people who believe that UND's use of the Sioux name is wrong hence they (UND) should be disallowed from using it. That my friends is Mind Control 101- prapaganda to manipulate people thought emotional based thinking. It's quite a study to see how what people accept being done to them evolves. Five years ago most name supporters defended the name from the LOGIC that it was no more deragatory than the Vikings or Irish and that in a free society it is rediculus to be forced not to use a word you choose to use- especially when it is used with NO intent to be negative. Now, five years later, those same people are all saying that if a group of people on the border of North and South Dakota decide they do not want to give their tacid approval of UND's use of the name then, despite another tribe which, oh by the way, is four times closer to UND gave them overwhelming approval to use the name, they will be be OK with having something we LOVE taken away from us. That my fiends is a textbook study on Propaganda and Brainwash. You all been served! Honestly, resorting to hyperboly hurts your argument much more than it helps. Nickname opponents may disagree with you but it doesn't make them Nazi's. Go and tell a holocaust victim or WWII veteran that the two groups are similar and think about how foolish you'd feel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yababy8 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Honestly, resorting to hyperboly hurts your argument much more than it helps. Nickname opponents may disagree with you but it doesn't make them Nazi's. Go and tell a holocaust victim or WWII veteran that the two groups are similar and think about how foolish you'd feel. Now you are using emotional suggestions to manipulate-- But I'm not so easily fooled I was pointing out that the two sociological events both arose from people having things taken away from them based on brainwash- Seeing things with a warped, illogical perspective brought on by people or a group with an agenda. Allow me to explain the brainwash process that has occurred: Through all of the guilting and emotional manipulating that has been done by opponents who subscribe to a socially immature victimization addiction, we have all become more accepting of the idea of losing our name - That is what the article about our University institution culture was addressing. The fact of the matter is that the closest thing to reasonable (and to be clear it is NOT reasonable) the name opponents have as an argument is that the name shouldn't be used if it offends Sioux people. (Please allow me to say again this argument is bogus itself when you consider the following: (1)No ill intent, (2)The fact that the name can reasonably be said to refer to historic Sioux which no one has the prerogative to speak for because they are all dead and gone. (3)The concept that no one has the right to deny the use of a word-something the Sioux historically believed regarding everything having to do with ownership and possession). Now to address this best argument- that the name shouldn't be used if it offends Sioux people- First of all, everyone will agree that the name is not used with the intent to offend and that the name was not used in the past as a word to offend or as a pejorative. That is not something even the most fervent opponent would even attempt to suggest correct? So that leaves only the position that the name is inherently offensive just because it is being USED at all. I would say this would be the perspective of someone who is addicted to the perception of being classified as a victim. oh and by the way two thirds of the only group of Sioux to be mathematically enumerated on the topic say they are not victimized by the use of the name and in essence go on to say that they rather approve of it. Yet here we are. Given everything I outlined above, and almost everyone is going to accept the lose of the name when that happens. At least in the sense that they will effectively do nothing about it. So there you have it. A study on how propaganda and brainwash can effectively take something very special away from an entire group of innocent people. And I bet if you ask the people you mentioned above about that they would agree. So in the future, please refrain from making emotionally manipulative statements in an attempt to gain some advantage where you have none. As much as most everyone knows this name change is asinine, everyone as well knows that this is not mass genocide! Wouldn't you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 The premise that social programs or actions designed to help those who are less fortunate will lead to immoral actions is faulty to the core. Clearly "programs or actions designed to help those who are less fortunate" are based in good intentions. Our intentions were good when we put American Indians on reservations and gave them sovereign nation status. How has that worked out? What is it about about high crime rates, massive unemployment, rampant poverty and widespread mental and physical health problems that make some folks defend this system and keep it in place? Our intentions were good when we attempted to assimilate American Indians into our culture by outlawing their religion, banning their languages and forcing their children to attend schools that taught them the "white" way. We now know that was too extreme and probably a mistake. Our intentions were good when we created the Indian Health Service to provide the reservations with government health care. Can anyone claim with a straight face that this has been good for Native Americans? By any objective standard, health care on the reservations is a disaster. We've gone from one extreme to the other, all with the best of intentions. Rather than forcing American Indians to assimilate into our society and contribute to it (while retaining their unique cultural values), we've decided that it's best to pretend that they can live in the past and retain their old ways. By pretending that they are independent entities when they are not, we've created a group of perpetual victims. But, hey, our intentions were good when we did it. You'll probably disregard this because of where it comes from, but, Sean Hannity's former call screener who was a huge animal rights activist. He once made her tell the story of how she bought a live lobster to save it from a restaurant's boiling pot. She didn't know it was a sea creature when she released it in a freshwater lake. Plus, she was so afraid of it biting her that she left the rubber bands on its claws when she let it go. When Hannity told her that she's condemned the lobster to a long, slow death because it couldn't survive in freshwater and couldn't feed itself without its claws, she gave the classic reply: "But my intentions were good!" The rubber of good intentions tends to skid into the ditch when faced with the asphalt of the real world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB#11 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 You'll probably disregard this because of where it comes from, but, Sean Hannity's former call screener who was a huge animal rights activist. He once made her tell the story of how she bought a live lobster to save it from a restaurant's boiling pot. She didn't know it was a sea creature when she released it in a freshwater lake. Plus, she was so afraid of it biting her that she left the rubber bands on its claws when she let it go. When Hannity told her that she's condemned the lobster to a long, slow death because it couldn't survive in freshwater and couldn't feed itself without its claws, she gave the classic reply: "But my intentions were good!" That is hilarious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn-O Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 The rubber of good intentions tends to skid into the ditch when faced with the asphalt of the real world. Consider that stolen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 As the grandson of a holocaust survivor (if you all didn't know that already ) I can say that I agree with yababy. I also agree with Sica. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 The Standing Rock Tribal Council has spoken. They voted 10-4 to keep the nickname and logo retired. Neither petition was brought up at the meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn-O Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 The Standing Rock Tribal Council has spoken. They voted 10-4 to keep the nickname and logo retired. Neither petition was brought up at the meeting. Time to move forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 The Standing Rock Tribal Council has spoken. They voted 10-4 to keep the nickname and logo retired. Neither petition was brought up at the meeting. Surprise, surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourwindsboy Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Surprise, surprise. YYYYEEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourwindsboy Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Hey Archie, why don't you and your followers put all your time and energy into trying to solve some of the social problems on the SRT? You should be ashamed of yourselves! Theres more important issues for you to concentrate on. I applaud the SRT tribal council. Time to move on!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willythekid Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 YYYYEEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! Almost as classy as not allowing your people to have a say.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn-O Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Hey Archie, why don't you and your followers put all your time and energy into trying to solve some of the social problems on the SRT? You should be ashamed of yourselves! Theres more important issues for you to concentrate on. I applaud the SRT tribal council. Time to move on!!! Agreed. I'm sure that's where your time is focused? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Agreed. I'm sure that's where your time is focused? Of course it is. He wouldn't waste his precious time and energy going directly to an internet forum to gloat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux rube Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Hey Archie, why don't you and your followers put all your time and energy into trying to solve some of the social problems on the SRT? You should be ashamed of yourselves! Theres more important issues for you to concentrate on. I applaud the SRT tribal council. Time to move on!!! SRT has had years to get their problems figured out and it's the same ol same ol.I'm assuming you are a Native American with your name so maybe you could help out your own people instead of depending on others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Hey Archie, why don't you and your followers put all your time and energy into trying to solve some of the social problems on the SRT? You should be ashamed of yourselves! Theres more important issues for you to concentrate on. I applaud the SRT tribal council. Time to move on!!! Why even bother coming on here? You got your desired result, no need for you to come here and rub everyone's faces in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux7>5 Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 I hope they do not say they are a democracy. This is a disgrace to the tribes. They do not care about their members to even let them have a say is horrible. Fighting Sioux forever!! It is hard to honor people that do not want to be honored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Hey! Since fourwindsboy came on here to gloat... You know what.... Let him gloat. I'd gloat about something bad that happens to him and his "people" but well... it happens so regularly that it's kindof the norm. Oh well. New nickname. Rid ourselves of the likes of fourwindsboy and this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 You bring up a point that many people (including yourself) don 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.