GrahamKracker Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Does anone know what happened to the "chief" that this website had in the top left corner? Hmmm..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crosby_87 Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Does anone know what happened to the "chief" that this website had in the top left corner? Hmmm..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok i brought it over here, happy? Give me one reason why you asked this question. And we all know its not really because of curiousity so don't even try that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamKracker Posted September 4, 2005 Author Share Posted September 4, 2005 Ok i brought it over here, happy? Give me one reason why you asked this question. And we all know its not really because of curiousity so don't even try that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I asked it to start discussion on it. If its not offensive, why was it removed. If it was offensive, then what was offensive about it. Actually, I was hoping one of the moderators who stay up and read all of these threads could answer this, because they are the only ones who can answer this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Once again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crosby_87 Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamKracker Posted September 4, 2005 Author Share Posted September 4, 2005 exactly <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm just starting the discussions and giving you information you may not know (or want to know), its up to you whether or not you want to believe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crosby_87 Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 I'm just starting the discussions and giving you information you may not know (or want to know), its up to you whether or not you want to believe it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What information have you given on this thread so far? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamKracker Posted September 4, 2005 Author Share Posted September 4, 2005 What information have you given on this thread so far? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Discussion.....of the former logo used by this website. That's what we are discussing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 I'll play along. If this is NOT hostile and abusive... (according to the NCAA) ...and this is NOT hostile and abusive... (according to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe) ...then why is this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamKracker Posted September 4, 2005 Author Share Posted September 4, 2005 I'll play along. If this is NOT hostile and abusive... (according to the NCAA) ...and this is NOT hostile and abusive... (according to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe) ...then why is this? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A. I'm not seminole, so I can't speak on behalf of the Seminole Nation. B. That picture of the Hunkpapa Lakota warrior is an accurate description of who they are, they have the right to claim their history. C. As for the Sioux logo (drawn by a Chippewa, endorsed by the TM Chippewa), the Sioux Nation has asked you to quit using it, plain and simple. http://www.grandforksnd.net/logoissue/Images%204.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND83 Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 A. I'm not seminole, so I can't speak on behalf of the Seminole Nation. B. That picture of the Hunkpapa Lakota warrior is an accurate description of who they are, they have the right to claim their history. C. As for the Sioux logo (drawn by a Chippewa, endorsed by the TM Chippewa), the Sioux Nation has asked you to quit using it, plain and simple. http://www.grandforksnd.net/logoissue/Images%204.htm <{POST_SNAPBACK}> GK: If you answered this before I apologize, just wanted clarification from letter C above. If UND changed their name from Fighting Sioux to "Warriors" and kept the current logo, would the Sioux Nation be ok with that because "Fighting Sioux" would no longer be part of the equation? Is it the logo by itself that you want changed or is it the link between "Fighting Sioux" to the logo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 A. I'm not seminole, so I can't speak on behalf of the Seminole Nation. I know you're not a Seminole, and you're not the NCAA, either. But two Seminole tribes told the NCAA that they didn't find Florida State's use of their name "hostile and abusive." In addition, the Ute's told the NCAA that they didn't find Utah's use of their name "hostile and abusive." The Chippewa tribe in Michigan told the NCAA that they didn't find Central Michigan's use of their name "hostile and abusive." The NCAA ruled that North Carolina-Pembroke's name wasn't "hostile and abusive" because it had the support of the university's American Indian students. There may be other appeals to the NCAA filed by other schools that have the backing and support of local tribes. For years, we've been told by various Native American leaders and organizations that all American Indians are offended by the practice of sports teams using tribal names and images. Obviously, this isn't true. Now, in North Dakota, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa say that they support UND's use of the Fighting Sioux name and logo. You were quite happy to have them on your side when they appeared to agree with you. Now you say their support of UND doesn't count because they're a non-Sioux tribe. Does this mean that you also reject the support of your cause receives from the Three Affiliated (non-Sioux)Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation? Does this mean that we can ignore non-Sioux people such as Leigh Jeanotte, Doreen Yellow Bird, Tex Hall and Vernon Bellecourt when they speak out against UND's use of the Fighting Sioux name and logo? Are you going to tell James McKenzie and other whites who support you to shut up because their non-Sioux opinions don't count? The Spirit Lake Sioux passed a resolution in December 2000 that more or less supported UND's use of the Sioux name and logo. A little more than a week ago, tribal chairwoman Myra Pearson was quoted in the Fargo Forum as saying that the controversy was a non-issue at Spirit Lake. She said it wasn't discussed much, and when it was, tribal members laughed about it. You hailed it as a great victory when it appeared that the Spirit Lake Sioux were going to unanimously oppose UND's use of the Sioux name and logo. Now Pearson says opinion is split on the reservation with the tribal elders supporting UND and younger tribal members being against UND. No matter what happens at Spirit Lake, we now know that the entire Sioux Nation does not support your cause. We also know that many other American Indians throughout the nation disagree with your opinion on this issue, which means that a minority of a minority is attempting to force its will upon the majority. B. That picture of the Hunkpapa Lakota warrior is an accurate description of who they are, they have the right to claim their history.In other words, you're claiming the non-existent right to self-portrayal by saying that only people of certain race, ethnicity or national background have the right to portray themselves. C. As for the Sioux logo (drawn by a Chippewa, endorsed by the TM Chippewa), the Sioux Nation has asked you to quit using it, plain and simple. Why does it matter that a non-Sioux American Indian artist designed the logo? There are images and famous works of art all over the world that depict people of religions, races, ethnic backgrounds and nationalities other than that of the artist. Should we destroy or ban all of them from public view because they weren't created by a person with the correct skin color or religion or national origin? Or perhaps we should be like the Taliban in Afghanistan and destroy all images that were created by people of the "wrong religion." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Does anone know what happened to the "chief" that this website had in the top left corner? Hmmm..... I guess this one is for me... the current mastheads are temporary special headers that celebrate 10 years of the existence of this web site (woohoo!). They feature contemporary branding (the Hockey @ SiouxSports.com, etc... wording) and shaded background imagery (green-shaded REA / Alerus imagery in the background of the text). One could argue I should've adopted more similar imagery for the forums banner instead of the rather generic text, though it has the advantage of being very small for quicker / lower bandwidth downloads. I'm honestly not sure what the placement of this question in the "Sioux name" section is attempting to imply -- SiouxSports.com is completely immune to any NCAA pressure (we're classified as a "booster" in NCAA terminology) so its brand management is completely independent of the naming controversy. The banners change every couple years, and these were put in place long before the current controversy -- almost a year ago now, in anticipation of the 2005 anniversary. To eventually replace these, I am working on new imagery that will return to featuring more Indian motifs, but if not ready in time, the mastheads may revert to the former imagery when the anniversary ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 I want to further clarify my point for using the picture above. We are told by the NCAA that UND's use of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo is "hostile and abusive" to American Indians. The NCAA has justified its policy on this issue as being similar to the policy it adopted on the confederate flag issue. But this picture proves that the two issues are not at all similar. You can visit the Prairie Knights Casino on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and see these "hostile and abusive" words and images in widespread use. If the words and images are truly offensive, hostile or abusive to residents of the reservation, the tribal government wouldn't be subjecting its people to such treatment. Does the NAACP fly the confederate flag from its headquarters at the same time it demands that everyone else -- except African Americans -- must avoid displaying the flag or face punishment? Of course not. That's because blacks see the confederate flag as a symbol of an oppressive government that sought to keep them enslaved. They see the confederate flag as a symbol used by the KKK to threaten, intimidate and kill them. This is clearly not the case with American Indian names, mascots and logos. Polls show that a large majority of Native Americans have no problem with sports teams using these words and images. More recently, thanks to the NCAA, we've learned that there are tribes across America actively supporting the universities that use their names and images. If the entire Sioux Nation banned the words and images it claims are offensive, then perhaps GrahamKracker, his supporters and the NCAA would have a valid argument. As it stands now, they don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakotadan Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 http://www.grandforksnd.net/logoissue/Images%204.htm <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is completely my own opinion but those letters seem a little convenient to me. They happened to appear at a very convenient time in a very convenient location. Seems a little convenient for the anti-namers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choyt3 Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 This is completely my own opinion but those letters seem a little convenient to me. They happened to appear at a very convenient time in a very convenient location. Seems a little convenient for the anti-namers. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Trust me, there are plenty of people that share the same opinion. The story of the boy who cried 'wolf' comes to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Let'sGoHawks! Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 What a waste of my time...reading those pages. I agree those letters seem awfully convenient. Spend time on something that will directly help American Indians...please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmduf Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 I want to further clarify my point for using the picture above. We are told by the NCAA that UND's use of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo is "hostile and abusive" to American Indians. The NCAA has justified its policy on this issue as being similar to the policy it adopted on the confederate flag issue. But this picture proves that the two issues are not at all similar. You can visit the Prairie Knights Casino on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and see these "hostile and abusive" words and images in widespread use. If the words and images are truly offensive, hostile or abusive to residents of the reservation, the tribal government wouldn't be subjecting its people to such treatment. Does the NAACP fly the confederate flag from its headquarters at the same time it demands that everyone else -- except African Americans -- must avoid displaying the flag or face punishment? Of course not. That's because blacks see the confederate flag as a symbol of an oppressive government that sought to keep them enslaved. They see the confederate flag as a symbol used by the KKK to threaten, intimidate and kill them. This is clearly not the case with American Indian names, mascots and logos. Polls show that a large majority of Native Americans have no problem with sports teams using these words and images. More recently, thanks to the NCAA, we've learned that there are tribes across America actively supporting the universities that use their names and images. If the entire Sioux Nation banned the words and images it claims are offensive, then perhaps GrahamKracker, his supporters and the NCAA would have a valid argument. As it stands now, they don't. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I guess I was also wondering why you were showing the statue in front of the casino. Now I know. That is a very good case you make here, PCM. The case that the logo cannot possibly be found "hostile and abusive" if a statue like this is in front of the casino. Point taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamKracker Posted September 6, 2005 Author Share Posted September 6, 2005 I guess I was also wondering why you were showing the statue in front of the casino. Now I know. That is a very good case you make here, PCM. The case that the logo cannot possibly be found "hostile and abusive" if a statue like this is in front of the casino. Point taken. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> While in the military, I spent many, many quality days w/ my weapon. I slept w/ it, at w/ it, cleaned it every chance I got, and when we came back, it was wierd to check it in. I bet if I walked around campus w/ that same M-16, I would be considered "hostile". Ifs funny how different places or different scenarios can warrant different attitudes and beliefs. That picture you are so proud of is a picture of the REAL Sioux, not peoplewhoclaimtohonortheSIOUX. Why can't you understand this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force One Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmduf Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Que? That was wierd. So, If an artist does a statue of a Sioux warrior, and have it bronzed here in Northern Colorado, it isn't an actual Sioux warrior unless the artist is a Sioux warrior? Whaaaaa? By that logic, the paintings of the presidents of the United States in the White House aren't actually painting of presidents because the presidents didn't do them? Only artists of various backgrounds did them, so they are invalid. Or even if one of the presidents of the United States looks at one of those paintings, let's say the one of President Kennedy done in an impressionist style, and says, "Well, that's not a valid painting, because it wasn't done in a neo-gothic or early american style." Would that mean that the painting itself is an invalid representation of President Kennedy because, let's say, President Clinton didn't like it or didn't think it was valid? Now you did it, my brain hurts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 That picture you are so proud of is a picture of the REAL Sioux, not peoplewhoclaimtohonortheSIOUX.  Why can't you understand this? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you get UND to drop the Sioux name, what are you going to do about this? Get out the dynamite and blow it up Taliban-style? That would make a lot of white Hollywood liberals very unhappy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 (edited) Edited September 7, 2005 by redwing77 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.