The Zen Master Speaks Out

[7>4]

Article in Colorado Springs paper about how Phil Jackson thinks name should be changed.

www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1316416&secid=3

Sorry, don't know how to hyper link.

[dagies]

That's impressive deep thinking, Phil.

First off, think about "Sioux". It's not a derogatory term anymore. Even the American Indians use that in marketing their casinos. "Yankees" likely was a derogatory term given the Revolutionists by the British, but no one is complaining about New York's baseball team using that name.

Secondly, 10% of people are offended so that's enough reason to censor one's self? What about the 90% who aren't? Where does "reasonable" fit into this %?

[The Sicatoka]

http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1316416&secid=3

[jloos]

I was under the impression Phil was "embarrassed" about being from ND. He is sure sounds more like a multimillionaire celebrity from California than a guy from Williston.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I do not put too much stock in what Phil Jackson says, unless it is about coaching basketball.

[jimdahl]

Phil's opinions about North Dakota aside, this quote struck me:

They might start preparing for change. My impression is the university wants a less controversial nickname but feels cornered and humiliated by pressure from the NCAA.

Though I guess his "impression" is born of faculty opposition and the 2000 controversy, the point that the NCAA pressure makes UND feel corned and humiliated is very true.

A lot of alums I talk to are in the group of not seeing what the big deal is, but sure as hell don't want the NCAA bossing UND around and telling us we're hostile and abusive. I think many of us wouldn't mind a change to another Dakota-based moniker if all the constituents agreed it were the right thing to do, but no one wants it forced on the institution by some PC-activists at the NCAA.

[PCM]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I do not put too much stock in what Phil Jackson says, unless it is about coaching basketball.

Unfortunately, there will be many in the media who consider Jackson an expert on the Sioux name issue.

[PCM]

Though I guess his "impression" is born of faculty opposition and the 2000 controversy, the point that the NCAA pressure makes UND feel corned and humiliated is very true.

I agree. The NCAA, in effect, is saying to UND, "Just admit that you're a racist institution and change your name -- or else!"

The NCAA Executive Committee issued a decreee without putting it to a vote of the membership and now wonders why people out here have dug in their heels in oppositon.

For schools in states that either don't have significant American Indian populations or don't have a significant number of American Indian students, rolling over to the NCAA is probably little more than an inconvenience. It's not the same here.

[ScottM]

I have to agree with the "ultimatum response". I suspect most people in favor of keeping the name/logo would probably be less aggressive in their defense of the status quo if the change were not mandated by a morally corrupt and inefficient organization.

[star2city]

"I haven't weighed in at all," Jackson said of the controversy, "but I think if it's offensive to people and there's enough people who find it offensive - if it's 1 percent or 2 percent who find it offensive, then that's not enough - but if there's 5 to 10 percent, that's enough to say, 'We have to change it.'"

So if there is 75 - 85 % that think it is non-offensive, that's immaterial?

What seems so unspoken is the anti-democratic principles that seem to be applied and applauded. Those kind of quotes by a "learned individual" lead me to fear for the future of this republic. In my view, the NCAA's and Jackson's philosophy basically endose tyranny rule by fringe minorities (which conveniently are the intellectual elites- i.e. those with a media voice well out of proportion to their numbers).

[crosby_87]

I also always thought we were in a majority rules democracy. This is like saying that in the last election something like 45 percent of people thought John Kerry should be president and George Bush should not "we have to do something about this. If 45 percent of people don't want Bush, it has to be changed." Get real people. Majority rules in pretty much everything these days. I'm sick of people feeling that if 5% of people want it changed, that's enough. What if the other 95% of people absolutely don't want it changed(I'm one of them)? What about them? Oh that's right we don't count because we're not "real" sioux.

[redwing77]

First off, I thought Jackson was always a supporter of changing the nickname... but I can't tell you where I got that impression.

Secondly, if 5-10% means that the majority should change, then I know there are more than 10% who don't like the President and think he should be impeached. Why isn't he? I know 5-10% or more people who think NCLB is a terrible bill, so why isn't it repealed! I know that 5-10% at least of people in Grand Forks run red lights, so why not pass a law making red lights optional?

The point is, if we are going to let a minority dictate policy, what is right and wrong, and what is and is not offensive, then we're going to be prisoners of interpretation. Mired in a sea of neverending bickering over words and interpretted acts until the ONLY way to resolve it is to have someone who is all powerful, like Big Brother in Orwell's 1984.

[dlsiouxfan]

If Phil feels so strongly about changing the nickname then maybe he should use some of considerable amounts of cash to change some opinions here at the university. Until then we should continue to listen to alumni who actually give a dollar or two back to the university and respect their opinions regarding the nickname.

[dagies]

We have to be careful about blindly assigning a "majority rules" designation on any situation. At one point in time the majority rules had blacks sitting in the back of the bus.

That said, I've yet to see any evidence that using the Fighting Sioux nickname the way UND does is anything like that.

[Cratter]

I also always thought we were in a majority rules democracy. This is like saying that in the last election something like 45 percent of people thought John Kerry should be president and George Bush should not "we have to do something about this. If 45 percent of people don't want Bush, it has to be changed." Get real people. Majority rules in pretty much everything these days. I'm sick of people feeling that if 5% of people want it changed, that's enough. What if the other 95% of people absolutely don't want it changed(I'm one of them)? What about them? Oh that's right we don't count because we're not "real" sioux.

You used a bad example because Bush Jr's first year more people wanted Gore to be president.

Look what happened.

[Cratter]

We have to be careful about blindly assigning a "majority rules" designation on any situation. At one point in time the majority rules had blacks sitting in the back of the bus.

That said, I've yet to see any evidence that using the Fighting Sioux nickname the way UND does is anything like that.

The times, they are a changin.'

[Northcountry]

How in Hell can a name like "Rough Riders" be called indigenous to the state of North Dakota? Unless I am totally ignorant of history Teddy Roosevelt was from New York and commanded the Rough Riders in Cuba. It is indigenous to connect this to North Dakota because he once deemed to spend part of his year in the unpopulated and uncivilized outback of North Dakota? If you want indigenous then "Wheatgrass" makes a Hell of a lot more sense than Rough Riders. The point is - this is North Dakota and our university should carry and convey the spirit, history, and geography of the state. The symbol of the Sioux depicted in the UND logo does exactly that a whole lot better than some robber baron carpetbagger from New York ever could.

[PCM]

Not to mention the fact that in 1886, Roosevelt gave a speech in New York in which he was quoted as saying: "I suppose I should be ashamed to say that I take the Western view of the Indian. I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth."

Nothing hostile or abusive about that, eh?

[dagies]

DaveK, it's nice to see you let yourself go a little.

[PCM]

We have to be careful about blindly assigning a "majority rules" designation on any situation. At one point in time the majority rules had blacks sitting in the back of the bus.

Very true. And slavery was legal at one time, too, because the majority approved of it.

What bothers me about the thinking of Jackson and those like him is not only that they believe the minority should dictate to the majority, but also that a minority of a minority should be allowed to trample the right of free expression simply because they are offended by something.

I remain unconvinced that the majority of American Indians in this country believe that sports teams should be prevented from using Native American nicknames if they're used in a respectful manner. The NCAA's own policy demonstrates that there are tribes scattered throughout the country who have absolutely no problem with the practice.

After more than 30 years of debating this issue, those who oppose nicknames such as the Fighting Sioux have been unable the convince the majority of the allegedly offended minority that they are, in fact, being harmed or abused.

[dagies]

After more than 30 years of debating this issue, those who oppose nicknames such as the Fighting Sioux have been unable the convince the majority of the allegedly offended minority that they are, in fact, being harmed or abused.

Right on.

You make another good point to, that's about the difference between someone's rights being harmed, and someone who is offended by something.

It's just not as easy as someone saying "I'm offended by that". Are they being reasonable? Is there a real reason for a person to be offended? If someone's rights are harmed, that's a lot more measurable. But being offended is a lot harder to quantify in regards to the amount of harm actually being done.

[HockeyMom]

Remember when ESPN did the 50 states in 50 days thing? Didn't they say that Phil graduated from North Dakota State?

NDSU he's all your's.

[star2city]

We have to be careful about blindly assigning a "majority rules" designation on any situation. At one point in time the majority rules had blacks sitting in the back of the bus.

The majority of this nation (North, West) never endorsed segregation. Segregation in the South was really only instituted well after Reconstruction. The main problem was that the majority of people (in the North and West) did nothing but sit on their hands while segregation was instituted late in the 19th Century.

The problem of the majority in this country is most often not their will, but their passivity.

[MafiaMan]

Absolutely hilarious, Phil. By your own estimation, you guess that about 1/2 of the Native American population in North Dakota wants a name change and that's good enough for you. Umm...using your math, that means 1/2 would like the name kept the same. What about them? Don't they count? Unbelievable. I think in threads gone by there was a discussion of Phil Jackson and many on here doubted me when it came to his views on the Sioux nickname. I hate to say 'I told ya so,' but I did tell ya so.

[Shawn-O]

If Phil is showing up for this come November, as was discussed in another thread, I think I'll sit this one out. Thank you.

[Northcountry]

I can't find any place in our Constitution or in the statutes of the Federal government, state government, couunty government, or municipal ordinance that grants to any person the right to not be offended. I find places that grant the right to security, to speech, assembly, religious practice, to not be cheated or defrauded, to not be assaulted, libeled or slandered but I'll be damned if I can find "offended" as a misdemeanor or felony anywhere. I personally have made a pledge to myself NOT to be offended - I refuse to let anything "offend" me. I get angry, discouraged, disgusted, or frustrated, but "offended" is a state of mind I refuse to enter because it places the offended in a victim position in which you can only be empowered by others coming to your rescue - not a very honorable position.

CJOB radio (Winnipeg) had a commentator on Friday afternoon talking about people as sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. Predators, prey, and those who protect. The most significant part of the commentary was the commentator concluding that sheep are sheep by birthright, wolves are wolves by birthright and their nature cannot be altered. Humans however have no such birthright and must learn what roles to play. Is it possible for human "sheep" to develop the traits of self determination and self protection if they are constantly coddled by "sheepdogs" and convinced that the dangers of the world are too great for them to face without protection. I swear that there is a point in there somewhere - if you find it please respond and share it. Sorry for the ramble.