82SiouxGuy Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 I haven't seen this listed on here so I thought I would add it. The UND College of Education and Human Development is hosting a campus discussion on the use of the Sioux name. They list this as their 3rd campus discussion. It will be held from 2:30 to 4 on November 30th in the Memorial Union. It is free and open to the public. The listing on the UND calendar says: The roundtable discussion will be held by a panel of four: James Antes, director of the undergraduate program in the Department of Psychology; Eugene DeLorme, director of Indians into Medicine (INMED); and Tom Buning, athletic director. A fourth panelist will be named later. Jason Lane, assistant professor of higher education, will moderate the discussion. It may be interesting to see if anything new comes out of this or if it is just a rehashing of the same information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 A round table discussion, open to the public, mid-week, 2:30-4P, during work hours for most folk, hmm. Looks like this discussion is designed to mainly attract students, faculty, the self employed and the unemployed. Those who work Monday thru Friday, whose work hours are early morning through afternoon, employed folk cannot attend the meeting. This sort of eliminates most local UND alum and supporters. It's not easy to just take the time off when others are dependent on your being at work. I wish I could attend. Any chance this will be video-taped? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakotadan Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 It may be interesting to see if anything new comes out of this or if it is just a rehashing of the same information. Don't you mean misinformation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakotadan Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 (edited) I went to the "discussion" today and I can't say it was worth my time. There were 3 speakers against the name and then Mr. Bunning. Absolutely nothing new came out of this roundtable at all. Tom had to leave halfway through the discussion so it was basically 3 people patting each other on the backs for being against the name. Never once did anyone make any points as to how the nickname and logo is "hostile" or "abusive". Tom seemed a little unsure as to what he was talking about and was very careful about his words. There were probably only 10-12 Native Americans there. You can definately tell that all 400 Native American students on campus are sure worried about this issue. The most passionate person there was a short, balding, grey haired, english professor looking man sitting next to me. I thought he was going to give himself whiplash the way his head was flying around. The only thing that came out of this meeting was that when asked if a compromise could be reached between UND and the tribes, all 3 said that they would never allow a compromise or that common ground could never be reached. And they are trying to paint name supporters as closed minded. Did anybody else go? Edited December 1, 2005 by dakotadan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 Thanks for the report. I wasn't able to make it. That is about what I expected from the "discussion". Wouldn't it be nice to have an open discussion when both sides were at least willing to listen before rejecting the opinions of others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 It sounds as if the second roundtable in which Tim O'Keefe and Phil Harmeson participated was more of an open discussion than the latest one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Sounds like the mutual "stroke fests" that tend to be so common on campus. Lots of whimiscal hot air, but no real substance. Good thing there are universities, otherwise these clowns would be on welfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakotadan Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 You can watch a short story from wdaz about the round table on the wdaz website. You can check it out here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamKracker Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I went to the "discussion" today and I can't say it was worth my time. There were 3 speakers against the name and then Mr. Bunning. Absolutely nothing new came out of this roundtable at all. Tom had to leave halfway through the discussion so it was basically 3 people patting each other on the backs for being against the name. Never once did anyone make any points as to how the nickname and logo is "hostile" or "abusive". Tom seemed a little unsure as to what he was talking about and was very careful about his words. There were probably only 10-12 Native Americans there. You can definately tell that all 400 Native American students on campus are sure worried about this issue. The most passionate person there was a short, balding, grey haired, english professor looking man sitting next to me. I thought he was going to give himself whiplash the way his head was flying around. The only thing that came out of this meeting was that when asked if a compromise could be reached between UND and the tribes, all 3 said that they would never allow a compromise or that common ground could never be reached. And they are trying to paint name supporters as closed minded. Did anybody else go? What I don't get is if you are so passionate about this, why didn't "you" ask how UND is "hostile and abusive"....for some reason those who love the name so much are alway quiet to voice an opinion, unless it's from a "safe" place, like the confides of siouxsports.com, or unless its w/ 20 people backing you up, which I have never backed down to either. I don't know, but it sounds pretty cowardly to me, not "sioux"-like at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakotadan Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 What I don't get is if you are so passionate about this, why didn't "you" ask how UND is "hostile and abusive"....for some reason those who love the name so much are alway quiet to voice an opinion, unless it's from a "safe" place, like the confides of siouxsports.com, or unless its w/ 20 people backing you up, which I have never backed down to either. I don't know, but it sounds pretty cowardly to me, not "sioux"-like at all. I have attended many of these discussion and have asked this question many times. I have yet to receive a direct answere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mako Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 The UND mascot promotes an environment that is hostile and abusive. Imagine you are a Native American who brings a son or daughter to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Rather than blame the nickname for causing an environment that is hostile and abusive, let's rally around it and use it as a tool to confront and and change racist and stereotypical behavior by ignorant people. Making it go away only would make the ignorant behavior by individuals sit latent and silent until another issue brings it forth. Why treat the symptom when we should treat the cause? Now some bozo starts hollering derogatory remarks about Sioux. What do you do? Should you A) be the radical big mouth and start a fight? B), Put your head down in shame and teach your child to do the same? C) Laugh it off with feelings of repressed anger and teach your child repression through laughter? Or D) pretend you don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedGrn Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 The UND mascot promotes an environment that is hostile and abusive. Imagine you are a Native American who brings a son or daughter to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Can Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 (edited) Renounce the UND mascot in the name of justice and harmony. If you think UND giving up the Name/Logo is going to bring "justice and harmony" anywhere, except your own little world, you are really deluded. Edited December 13, 2005 by ScottM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacardio Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 If you look hard enough you will find racism anywhere, but do Native Americans have to avert our eyes not to see it? Renounce the UND mascot in the name of justice and harmony. To fight racism, you must first remove the racist feelings from the person you see in the mirror everyday The UND mascot promotes an environment that is hostile and abusive. Imagine you are a Native American who brings a son or daughter to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 My ancestors were Viking weaponmakers and somwhere in my family tree someone actually help create the Rapala knife. The Viking blood runs deep in my father's side of the family. Now while Vikings no longer attack, rape and pillage, that is only a small, small piece of the Viking heritage. Much as the waring side of the Sioux culture. Now while some people claim that the Vikings do not exist anymore, it only shows the ignorance. So by your train of thought everytime, everytime I hear "Vikings suck" I should hang my head and throw a pity party. Or maybe I should be ashamed that they wear purple and yellow. Since purple was a color only the females of the settlement wore and yellow was the color cowards were forced to wear when they ran from battle. Good stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 (edited) So by your train of thought everytime, everytime I hear "Vikings suck" I should hang my head and throw a pity party. Or maybe I should be ashamed that they wear purple and yellow. Since purple was a color only the females of the settlement wore and yellow was the color cowards were forced to wear when they ran from battle. I've asked GrahamKracker a variation of this question two or three times. He never responds to it. I'd like to know why the NCAA thinks it's okay for my Scandinavian ancestors to be mocked and stereotyped, but not his? After all, the Fighting Sioux that UND honors and the fictitious Sioux warrior depicted in the logo no longer exist. So if I'm not allowed to be offended by stereotypical portrayals of people from my race who are no longer alive, why should he? Edited December 13, 2005 by PCM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacardio Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I've asked GrahamKracker a variation of this question two or three times. He never responds to it. I'd like to know why the NCAA thinks it's okay for my Scandinavian ancestors to be mocked and stereotyped, but not his? After all, the Fighting Sioux that UND honors and the fictitious Sioux warrior depicted in the logo no longer exist. So if I'm not allowed to be offended by stereotypical portrayals of people from my race who are no longer alive, why should he? I also asked him on several occasions, the only thing I ever got was a sentence reply that said the Viking culture does exist and there are no longer Vikings. Pretty close minded and a poor grasp on history at that. I wonder if the the Minnesota Vikings were forced to give a history lecture before every game, if it would help out his ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I'd like to know why the NCAA thinks it's okay for my Scandinavian ancestors to be mocked and stereotyped, but not his? The University of Idaho (Vandals) is allowed to mock and stereotype Germanic people. Van Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mako Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 There seem to differing schools of thought about Vikings. A Viking is a pirate and not a name for the people or culture in general. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking. Maybe GrahamKracker was right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 There seem to differing schools of thought about Vikings. A Viking is a pirate and not a name for the people or culture in general. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking. Maybe GrahamKracker was right? Did you even bother to read the entry to which you posted the link? It doesn't say what you seem to think it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxjoy Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 There seem to differing schools of thought about Vikings. A Viking is a pirate and not a name for the people or culture in general. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking. Maybe GrahamKracker was right? I am definitely not going to join in on this debate, but Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where anyone can edit and modify the entries. Because of that, I wouldn't use it as a reliable definition for anything (learned that in class, when I used it as a source for a paper ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mako Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Did you even bother to read the entry to which you posted the link? It doesn't say what you seem to think it does. Can't you read? Today, somewhat controversially, the word is also used as a generic adjective, referring to the Viking Age Scandinavians. The point is you may be wrong, but you can't admit it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Can't you read? Today, somewhat controversially, the word is also used as a generic adjective, referring to the Viking Age Scandinavians. The point is you may be wrong, but you can't admit it. The Vikings were Scandinavian people. The Scandinavians still are people. Just because the pirating and pillaging Vikings no longer exist, it doesn't mean that Scandinavians ceased to exist. There are more similarities here than differences. Just as the stereotypical Viking warrior used in the Minnesota Vikings logo no longer exists, neither does the Sioux warrior depicted in UND's Fighting Sioux logo. 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.