Media Stories on the Sioux Name

[Riverman]

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

NCAA way: think small, stand tall

[GeauxSioux]

Ryan Bakken story in the Herald contrasting the debacle during the Miami/FIU game to the nickname issue.

You Want Hostile and Abusive?

It's time for the NCAA to do something about the stain that is placed on collegiate sports by the likes of Miami.

Of course, the NCAA won't do that. When college athletics' governing body chooses to flex its muscle, it picks on the featherweights of college athletics like UND, not the heavyweights like the Miami Hurricanes. It lacks courage to confront a golden goose like Miami.

[MafiaMan]

Cmon, GeauxSioux, everyone knows that when you come into the OB, you're gonna get your a** whooped. I was about set to run down the stairs and mix it up myself.

[dagies]

A friend sent me this email today:

Your boys were mentioned on NPR national news yesterday. They had a story about some Texas school that has chosen to have no nickname/mascot at all and have said that they

[The Sicatoka]

A friend sent me this email today:

Naw, just use the summons.

[PCM]

From the San Antonio Express-News:

McMurry, formerly the Indians, opts for no mascot

Officials at McMurry University in Abilene have announced that, henceforth, the school's sports teams will have no mascot and not even a nickname.

Better not to have one, school officials say, than to cave in completely to an NCAA edict that the Division III institution change its 83-year tradition of calling its athletic teams the "Indians."

"We are standing apart and true to our history and culture of our Indian tradition. It's a statement that what it says on our jerseys doesn't define who we are. And rather than diffuse the message by calling us the Bears or the Bobcats, we know who we are."

McMurry, the only school in Texas targeted by the NCAA, is now believed to be the only college in the country without any nickname.

[Sioux-cia]

This doesn't need it's own thread, so I'm posting it here.

As some of you know, I'm currently on the Navajo Nation reservation in Arizona. I was driving around today enjoying the beautiful countryside and drove past a tiny little town named Red Mesa. The name of the high school's sports team was proudly displayed in big letters on a big sign for all to see as they drove past, THE RED SKINS.

Go figure.

[Siouxmama]

This doesn't need it's own thread, so I'm posting it here.

As some of you know, I'm currently on the Navajo Nation reservation in Arizona. I was driving around today enjoying the beautiful countryside and drove past a tiny little town named Red Mesa. The name of the high school's sports team was proudly displayed in big letters on a big sign for all to see as they drove past, THE RED SKINS.

Go figure.

That goes right along with the FORT TOTTEN INDIANS, WARWICK WARRIORS and BELCOURT BRAVES, and many more.

[Sioux-cia]

That goes right along with the FORT TOTTEN INDIANS, WARWICK WARRIORS and BELCOURT BRAVES, and many more.

That's true. It's my understanding though, that calling an American Indian a RED SKIN is thought of in the same vein as calling an African American the "N" word. Calling an American Indian an Indian, Warrior, Brave, etc doesn't carry the same neagative,racially inflammable connotation that calling an American Indian a "Red Skin". I was very surprised to see Red Mesa (on the Navajo reservation) call their team by that name because of that understanding on my part.

I've also been reading in the Navajo Times that many Indians (from many different tribes) are banning together to request changing the names of many towns, rivers, etc. The name they want removed is "Squaw". Apparently, squaw refers to a women's genitalia in a very negative way.

[PCM]

That's true. It's my understanding though, that calling an American Indian a RED SKIN is thought of in the same vein as calling an African American the "N" word. Calling an American Indian an Indian, Warrior, Brave, etc doesn't carry the same neagative,racially inflammable connotation that calling an American Indian a "Red Skin". I was very surprised to see Red Mesa (on the Navajo reservation) call their team by that name because of that understanding on my part.

I've also been reading in the Navajo Times that many Indians (from many different tribes) are banning together to request changing the names of many towns, rivers, etc. The name they want removed is "Squaw". Apparently, squaw refers to a women's genitalia in a very negative way.

What's interesting in these debates is that some American Indians words have taken on meanings that were never intended. For example, this Web site on Siouan languages says that the origin of the word "squaw" has nothing to do with the negative connation it's been assigned:

Recently 'squaw' has been spuriously associated with a Mohawk term ots

[Sioux-cia]

Only 9 percent of polled Indians say they find the name of Washington's professional football team "offensive," according to the results of the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey. The other 1 percent did not respond.

The proof is in the pudding Red Mesa.

[dagies]

Regardless of what a word's origins are, it's contextually important to factor in what that word has morphed in meaning too. For instance, "Yankee" was supposed to be a derogatory word at the beginning, but look at it now.

What a word may have meant at one time isn't always the same as what it means now. I doubt there's more than a handful of people who, at this time, were really aware of any negative connotation of the word "squaw", but the other 99% of us all know it to be a female Indian, or something very innocuous and similar to that.

[Sioux-cia]

Regardless of what a word's origins are, it's contextually important to factor in what that word has morphed in meaning too. For instance, "Yankee" was supposed to be a derogatory word at the beginning, but look at it now.

What a word may have meant at one time isn't always the same as what it means now. I doubt there's more than a handful of people who, at this time, were really aware of any negative connotation of the word "squaw", but the other 99% of us all know it to be a female Indian, or something very innocuous and similar to that.

You're right. Until I read the article in the Navajo Times, 'squaw', to me, referred to an Indian woman.

[PCM]

The proof is in the pudding Red Mesa.

My point is that we get into playing these word games in which members of a minority choose to be offended based on their misinterpretation of an innocent word or phrase. To show sensitivity, we scramble to ban words that were never intended to be insulting or demeaning, thereby enabling the minority of a minority to trample the free speech rights of the majority for no good reason.

I no more believe that the owner of an NFL team intentionally selected the name "Redskins" knowing that it was derogatory than I believe that UND intentionally selected the name "Sioux" knowing it was derogatory. It makes absolutely no sense to name a sports team after people held in low regard.

To illustrate, does annyone remember this infamous incident?

[PCM]

From the Arizona Republic:

Indians' return may fuel mascot debate

Even if many people support the imagery of Native Americans on sports logos, it doesn't make it right, said Suzan Shown Harjo, the president and executive director of the Morning Star Institute, a national Indian rights organization.

"It's not up to the offender to tell us what offends," she said. "What hurts, hurts."

Ron Toya, the executive director of the Tribal Government Institute, said he is sympathetic to those hurt by the logos but doesn't believe in widespread intervention.

"Being offended is not a sufficient reason to limit free speech in America," said Toya, who also wondered, "who are the thought police to tell us which words are OK?"

[The Sicatoka]

... a minority choose to be offended based on their misinterpretation of an innocent word or phrase.

I guess you need to know a word's pedigree.

[PCM]

I guess you need to know a word's pedigree.

[82SiouxGuy]

From the Arizona Republic:

Indians' return may fuel mascot debate

How about this, even if a few people don't support the imagery of Native Americans on sports logos, it doesn't make it wrong.

[GeauxSioux]

Even if many people support the imagery of Native Americans on sports logos, it doesn't make it right, said Suzan Shown Harjo, the president and executive director of the Morning Star Institute, a national Indian rights organization.

"It's not up to the offender to tell us what offends," she said. "What hurts, hurts."

Perhaps I'm just thick skulled, but I will never understand this. If UND was called the North Dakota Fighting Icelanders and had a picture of my grandfather on center ice, I would be proud, not hurt or offended. How are they hurt?

[The Sicatoka]

Perhaps I'm just thick skulled, but I will never understand this. If UND was called the North Dakota Fighting Icelanders and had a picture of my grandfather on center ice, I would be proud, not hurt or offended. How are they hurt?

You're not alone.

If someone were to come up to me and say, "Look, I think the Lithuanian people are just wonderful. They helped all the former republics of Soviet Union regain their independence, so I'm going to name my first-born after some Lithuanian patriot or person." Even if they were to do something I might think is a little different or unique, I would take what they said as a compliment to my ancestors and say, "Thank you very much. I get it. You want to identify with the spirit of a great people, and that's a good thing." Then, if there are issues, about how we go about doing it, let's take them up one at a time and eliminate them if that's a problem. But there are those who take the view that any use of any Indian nickname is somehow inherently demeaning. I just know that if someone wanted to honor my ancestors

[Sioux-cia]

To illustrate, does annyone remember this infamous incident?

I wrote a letter to the editor around twenty years ago and used the word niggardly, the paper changed the word without asking me. I used the word for emphasis and when it was changed, the emphasis was lost. I was not referring to any group or race. It was used as defined in Webster's Dictionary.

[Sioux-cia]

My point is that we get into playing these word games in which members of a minority choose to be offended based on their misinterpretation of an innocent word or phrase. To show sensitivity, we scramble to ban words that were never intended to be insulting or demeaning, thereby enabling the minority of a minority to trample the free speech rights of the majority for no good reason.

My point is, as mentioned ad nauseum in these threads, not all members of a minority 'choose to be offended'. As also mentioned many times before, no where is it writtten that we have the right to not be offended.

[Goon]

My point is, as mentioned ad nauseum in these threads, not all members of a minority 'choose to be offended'. As also mentioned many times before, no where is it writtten that we have the right to not be offended.

Its not. Some seem to think it is though.

[Goon]

Perhaps I'm just thick skulled, but I will never understand this. If UND was called the North Dakota Fighting Icelanders and had a picture of my grandfather on center ice, I would be proud, not hurt or offended. How are they hurt?

I would be happy if the logo was a fat white guy with a beer in his hand.

I am not going to complain about it. I mean what are these people if they get their way going to p!$$ and moan about next.

[sioux7>5]

My point is, as mentioned ad nauseum in these threads, not all members of a minority 'choose to be offended'. As also mentioned many times before, no where is it writtten that we have the right to not be offended.

Exactly. I am offened by people everyday. No one cares and guess what I do not make a capital case of it.

Has anyone heard of the NCAA has responded to the UND complaint yet? If not when is there time up to do so?