GrahamKracker Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Its only fair that you all know about this: There will be a UNDIA (University of North Dakota Indian Association) General Membership Meeting on Wednesday, March 8th 7:00 - 8:30 pm at the International Center, 2908 University Ave. There will be voting on the resolution to change UNDIA's neutral stance on Fighting Sioux Logo. This event is open to the public, however you must be a UNDIA general member to vote. (FYI change UNDIA's stance to against the logo) I hope to see you all there. Hecetu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMeNow Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 Its only fair that you all know about this: There will be a UNDIA (University of North Dakota Indian Association) General Membership Meeting on Wednesday, March 8th 7:00 - 8:30 pm at the International Center, 2908 University Ave. There will be voting on the resolution to change UNDIA's neutral stance on Fighting Sioux Logo. This event is open to the public, however you must be a UNDIA general member to vote. (FYI change UNDIA's stance to against the logo) I hope to see you all there. Hecetu. we'll be there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 GK, This, by your own reasoning, really doesn't matter. "Why?" you ask. Because you tell us that tribal resolutions matter, and this isn't one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 GK, This, by your own reasoning, really doesn't matter. "Why?" you ask. Because you tell us that tribal resolutions matter, and this isn't one. I agree. However, it is surprising that they had a neutral stance on this before. I was under the impression that they were always against the name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 However, it is surprising that they had a neutral stance on this before. Why? Effectively, Spirit Lake is "neutral" on this (not against as long as good comes of it) and has been for quite a while (and despite efforts of some to change the stance). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Why? Effectively, Spirit Lake is "neutral" on this (not against as long as good comes of it) and has been for quite a while (and despite efforts of some to change the stance). Probably because I was under the impression that many of the UNDIA bigshots were trying to lead up the name change campaign? I dunno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Probably because I was under the impression that many of the UNDIA bigshots were trying to lead up the name change campaign? I dunno. I'm also surprised that the organization had a neutral position on the name/logo issue. I'm sure this is just another attempt to generate some more headlines for the cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I'm also surprised that the organization had a neutral position on the name/logo issue. Well, from one perspective I am surprised: I thought all members of UNDIA thought only GK's way on the issue (or so we'd been informed by GK). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 A neutral stance? The membership must be 20% bleeding heart liberal white folk, 40% 'Hang around the fort Indians'*, 39% 'plantation negro mentality'* Indians and 1% 'real Indians'*. *quotes made by 'real Indians'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVCL Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 No neutrality anymore. http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/14052925.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I attended this meeting. I met GrahamKracker. He spoke in support of the resolution. And while I didn't agree with much of what he said, he was very articulate in making his case. The resolution passed begins: WHEREAS, the University of North Dakota Indian Association (UNDIA) was established in 1966 as a means of providing support to American Indian students who felt alienated from the community because of the FIGHTING SIOUX nickname and logo; So it makes me wonder just how neutral the organization ever was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamKracker Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 Here is the resolution so everyone knows it in its entirety: WHEREAS, the University of North Dakota Indian Association (UNDIA) was established in 1966 as a means of providing support to students who felt alienated from the community because of the FIGHTING SIOUX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Hmmmm Nothing there I don't already see... some stuff that I find questionable. I'm still waiting for proof that the nickname was even remotely responsible for the inability of Native American students to participate in any organization as an example. But the resolution is passed and there's really no surprise to be had at all other than the fact that the UNDIA took until 2006 to take a stance against the name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertrex Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Well, I'm shocked, SHOCKED that this resolution has passed.... What were you expecting from the "I need another handout" class among us. I've come to expect this stuff from the "I don't take any responsibility for my actions so I need to find something or somebody to blame" people.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Well, I'm shocked, SHOCKED that this resolution has passed.... What were you expecting from the "I need another handout" class among us. I've come to expect this stuff from the "I don't take any responsibility for my actions so I need to find something or somebody to blame" people.... I didn't hear any of that at last night's UNDIA meeting. Oh well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I didn't hear any of that at last night's UNDIA meeting. Oh well... I wouldn't expect you to have. Whether we like to admit it or not, there are people out there who are respectfully against the nickname. I may not respect GK as he has come across on this board, but to characterize every opponent to the nickname issue in the "handout" category is akin to the way GK labelled us as racists. It doesn't fly. I support the nickname. The members of the UNDIA evidentally don't (at least a majority of them do not as I am not sure the resolution passed unanimously nor did they need a unanimous vote for it to pass). If there weren't opposing sides to this debate, then it wouldn't be a debate. My "problem" with this whole debate on this board doesn't have to do with whether you are for or against the name. It is the assumptions people are using to characterize the supporters of either side. GK thinks of us as racists therefore he treats us as such. Members of the other side of the aisle think of Native Americans as leeches on American society so they treat Native Americans as such. There is no respect towards either side on this board at least from some of the posters on both sides. THAT is my problem with the issue. No, I don't think GK could change my mind about the issue, nor can anyone even if they did come forward with respect for my perspective. However, if GK would have come forward with respect from the onset, I doubt I'd have him on ignore and I doubt there would be such heated feelings towards his side of the aisle even if we don't believe as he does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yekcoh Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Not all Native Americans feel the same way GK feels.. thankgoodness! No matter what I say I would be wrong, because I am a white girl. I see Ft. Totten Sioux (home of the Four Winds Indians) proudly sporting their UND Sioux hats, UND Sioux sweatshirts, UND Sioux jackets, UND Sioux t-shirts, and UND Sioux hockey and football jerseys daily.. only 13 miles from the reservation! But then they wouldn't know anything according to some. I think the NCAA has done much more harm than good in this whole fiasco! They.. the NCAA.. have brought so much attention to THEIR issue that all Native Americans have been pushed into an uncomfortable position.. being asked about their feelings, being looked at.. because people are wondering how they feel about the issue (they just don't dare ask), and other nationalities now feeling like they have to tip toe around hoping they are not offending anyone.. with anything, not just the names anymore! And there will always be some idiot on either side of the issue putting their foot in their mouth. Thats life. How long will it be before a nationality or group claims a simple color and causes others grief about wearing it? Oh yeah, that already happens.. in a warped society. Now I suppose I have offended someone. Thank you NCAA, you really screwed up this one!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignellyxx Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I'm sure this has been discussed before but i am just wondering what the real deal is with the arena if the name changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I'm sure this has been discussed before but i am just wondering what the real deal is with the arena if the name changes. There is no deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mako Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Well, I'm shocked, SHOCKED that this resolution has passed.... What were you expecting from the "I need another handout" class among us. I've come to expect this stuff from the "I don't take any responsibility for my actions so I need to find something or somebody to blame" people.... Did you forget to take your medication today? Usually I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petey23 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Let me make sure I have this right. A group that was formed due to their opposition to the UND Nickname and Logo has passed a resolution opposing the UND nickname and Logo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Let me make sure I have this right. A group that was formed due to their opposition to the UND Nickname and Logo has passed a resolution opposing the UND nickname and Logo. Shocking, isn't it? It made the front page of the Herald. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmrg74 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Let me make sure I have this right. A group that was formed due to their opposition to the UND Nickname and Logo has passed a resolution opposing the UND nickname and Logo. Geee, its a whole club pretty much decated to ridding UND of the Sioux Name and Logo? So, what exactly would they do with themselves if UND ever did change the name?? I'm sorry, but I just don't see how UND being called the Sioux really affects the Native Americans living today, and how changing the name would do anything at all to help improve the daily quality of living of most Native Americans. Is changing the name going to bring electricity, running water with indoor plumbing, and most imprantantly, Jobs out to those on the reservations?? Is removing the name going to lead to less alcohol and drug abuse on the reservations and other NA communities? I would still like to see how that's going to happen when UND changes their name. You know, if change the name proponents would put half of the passion and zeal they have for getting the name changed into solving some of the real world issues for those living on the reservations, you would be amazed at how much they would have gotten done already, instead of worrying all about some silly little name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Shocking, isn't it? It made the front page of the Herald. PCM: It made the front page of the Heraldo becuase it was new news that no other media in the region had. In case you didn't notice, DAZ, DAY, KNOX, KVLY and the "Borum" were tripping over themselves to get the news in on Thursday after the Grand Forks paper had it. It also was bigger news for the paper because -- Holy Cow-- here you actually have a UND group, of students no less, that claim they were neutral on the issue. The relative exclusivity and the unique aspect drove it to the front page, I would guess. You didn't say this, but your post was dripping with this whole pervasive assumption that the current news writers at the Herald hate the nickname and want to get rid of it. The editorial staff maybe, but not the news room. And contrary to popular belief the news room leaders call the shots on how the things are going to be played. Jacobs and his crew rarely make it to the news planning meetings where the issues are discussed. I know you know the Herald better than your giving off. Shocking? Harldly. Other than that ... PCM... keep up the great work. I really enjoy your posts. -- From a former Herald employee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) PCM: It made the front page of the Heraldo becuase it was new news that no other media in the region had. I never said it wasn't news. Is it front page news? That's debatable. It also was bigger news for the paper because -- Holy Cow-- here you actually have a UND group, of students no less, that claim they were neutral on the issue."Claim" is the operative word. I was at the meeting. It was rather obvious from looking at the agenda what the outcome was going to be. At one point point in the meeting, a UNDIA member said the group wanted someone to speak on behalf of the Sioux name, but they couldn't find any faculty members who were for it. That generated a big laugh. To me, it was bigger news that this group had been neutral for so many years. Why did we never read about that? You didn't say this, but your post was dripping with this whole pervasive assumption that the current news writers at the Herald hate the nickname and want to get rid of it. You're right. I didn't say it. Journalism 101: Never assume. Early on in this thread, I said: "I'm sure this is just another attempt to generate some more headlines for the cause." Now, based on what's happend, tell me I was wrong. Edited March 10, 2006 by PCM 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.