Fetch Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 the corruption of logic in the convoluted process you used in arriving at your decisions. I have always prided myself in being able to hear or see things thru to logical conclusions (faster than most) & this behavior can pizz off many people - so I try, really try, to slow down & listen to all sides before I make a decision - But Dr. K is finally saying things that need to be said ...THANK YOU VERY MUCH !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 If one person is offended by the Sioux being the Sioux, then the NCAA ought to step in. From a recent George Will column: But in any case, why should anyone's disapproval of a nickname doom it? When, in the multiplication of entitlements, did we produce an entitlement for everyone to go through life without being annoyed by anything, even a team's nickname? If some Irish or Scots were to take offense at Notre Dame's Fighting Irish or the Fighting Scots of Monmouth College, what rule of morality would require the rest of us to care? Civilization depends on, and civility often requires, the willingness to say, "What you are doing is none of my business" and "What I am doing is none of your business." But this is an age when being an offended busybody is considered evidence of advanced thinking and an exquisite sensibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux7>5 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 From a recent George Will column: Great quote and Thanks for posting it....I think it is sad day when the PC world is considered right and anyone that disagrees with them is wrong. They are the closed minded ones. Who here does not honor the Sioux ever time we put on our jerseys and go to a game. I know I do. I am Proud to call my self a Sioux fan, and proud of what the Sioux Nation did for the Great State of North Dakota.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 From a recent George Will column: I've always enjoyed reading George Will. The man has a way with putting his thoughts into written word that make you understand and ponder at the same time. A vey thoughtful writer. It also helps that I usually agree with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northcountry Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I really am having a hard time trying to understand why the NCAA and opponents of the Fighting Sioux nickname keep insisting that it is proper to ONLY be proud of White guys. Oklahoma is proud of the Sooners, Nebraska is proud of its farmers (Cornhuskers), Notre Dame is proud of the Irish, Monmoth is proud of the Scots, Grand Valley is proud of the Great Lakes sailors, Mississippi is proud of the Rebels (as is Las Vegas), Wyoming is proud of its Cowboys (UCSB calls its cowboys Gauchos), Denver is proud of the Pioneers, and the list goes on. These are ALL white guys and the pc crowd and the NCAA says "fine". I would think that there would be an uproar over no schools being proud of Blacks, Latinos, Hispanics and other minority groups and an ourpouring of support for those schools that express pride in American Indians. A hypothetical: Suppose a school wanted to rename and chose to be proud of the Patriots who fought for liberty in the Revolution, especially those who came in slavery and fought for their and our freedom. This school renames itself "The Patriots" and as a logo adopts a Black man in Revolutionary War uniform and installs as a mascot a replica of the logo to inspire fans and be visible at all contests. Would this imagery be deemed "hostile and abusive"? If so, would it still be "hostile and abusive" if the logo and mascot were changed to a white guy? This is why I believe that the only way to settle this issue is in court. Is it permissible to use human imagery to represent institutions? The answer has to be either yes in all cases or no in all cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux7>5 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I really am having a hard time trying to understand why the NCAA and opponents of the Fighting Sioux nickname keep insisting that it is proper to ONLY be proud of White guys. Oklahoma is proud of the Sooners, Nebraska is proud of its farmers (Cornhuskers), Notre Dame is proud of the Irish, Monmoth is proud of the Scots, Grand Valley is proud of the Great Lakes sailors, Mississippi is proud of the Rebels (as is Las Vegas), Wyoming is proud of its Cowboys (UCSB calls its cowboys Gauchos), Denver is proud of the Pioneers, and the list goes on. These are ALL white guys and the pc crowd and the NCAA says "fine". I would think that there would be an uproar over no schools being proud of Blacks, Latinos, Hispanics and other minority groups and an ourpouring of support for those schools that express pride in American Indians. A hypothetical: Suppose a school wanted to rename and chose to be proud of the Patriots who fought for liberty in the Revolution, especially those who came in slavery and fought for their and our freedom. This school renames itself "The Patriots" and as a logo adopts a Black man in Revolutionary War uniform and installs as a mascot a replica of the logo to inspire fans and be visible at all contests. Would this imagery be deemed "hostile and abusive"? If so, would it still be "hostile and abusive" if the logo and mascot were changed to a white guy? This is why I believe that the only way to settle this issue is in court. Is it permissible to use human imagery to represent institutions? The answer has to be either yes in all cases or no in all cases. I have said that UND if they do change their name, if should be changed the Calvary. Instead of showing a beautiful video of how UND honors the Sioux like they do at the beginning of every game. Maybe they could show a video of a Calvary soldier scalping a indian. I know this an extreme, but we would be within the guidlines of the NCAA. I just think this is a prime example of how screwed up this policy is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trunk Monkey Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I really am having a hard time trying to understand why the NCAA and opponents of the Fighting Sioux nickname keep insisting that it is proper to ONLY be proud of White guys. Oklahoma is proud of the Sooners, Nebraska is proud of its farmers (Cornhuskers), Notre Dame is proud of the Irish, Monmoth is proud of the Scots, Grand Valley is proud of the Great Lakes sailors, Mississippi is proud of the Rebels (as is Las Vegas), Wyoming is proud of its Cowboys (UCSB calls its cowboys Gauchos), Denver is proud of the Pioneers, and the list goes on. These are ALL white guys and the pc crowd and the NCAA says "fine". I would think that there would be an uproar over no schools being proud of Blacks, Latinos, Hispanics and other minority groups and an ourpouring of support for those schools that express pride in American Indians. A hypothetical: Suppose a school wanted to rename and chose to be proud of the Patriots who fought for liberty in the Revolution, especially those who came in slavery and fought for their and our freedom. This school renames itself "The Patriots" and as a logo adopts a Black man in Revolutionary War uniform and installs as a mascot a replica of the logo to inspire fans and be visible at all contests. Would this imagery be deemed "hostile and abusive"? If so, would it still be "hostile and abusive" if the logo and mascot were changed to a white guy? This is why I believe that the only way to settle this issue is in court. Is it permissible to use human imagery to represent institutions? The answer has to be either yes in all cases or no in all cases. You raise great points. I have always wondered that if we had no Native American nicknames and still had the Cowboys, the Roughriders, the Patriots, the Vikings etc...that the politically correct crowd of today would be arguing that it is discriminatory that we have no nicknames that represent the Native American culture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 The people who oppose the nickname view, in a most twisted sense, that use of the nickname by mostly whites is a continuation of abuses that were perpetrated upon the native peoples. What it boils down to is that they don't like whitey using anything about their heritage, especially if whitey is making money off of symbols, etc. and they are not ..... but it is fully ok for them to refer to it and use it. Trademarks be damned. Such types are either bored or intellectually stagnant to super-impose abuse where none exists. If they say abuse exists and if they say something is abusive, it must be so and there is no room for debate or disagreement. If you do disagree or debate, you're ignorant or a rascist ..... or you're a Nazi. These are self-proclaimed "intellectuals"? Once, when I was at a gopher/sioux game in the TC, I stood right in the middle of the "protesters" and commenced my own counter-protest. Boy, it felt good to exercise my free speech rights regardless of the insults hurled for disagreeing with the PC police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Sioux 7>5 raises an excellent point. Let's use a name that is truly offensive. How about the "storming brown shirts"? Given that all of the fans and other people who support the nickname are Nazis anyway, according to the PC crowd, there should be no problem with this should there? How about the "Marauding White Lucifers"? This should fit well with the PC opinion of most whites anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wreckincrew Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 I guess what I don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 How much would Ford Motors or McDonalds pay to have the REA plastered with their logos and have the lights turned down to watch a 5 minute commercial right before the game starts? Ask Pontiac which bought some commercials on the REA's big screen during the NCAA West Regionals. Just think of it. Pontiac paid the NCAA to put its hostile and abusive name and logo in front of the fans at the arena and those watching on TV. Pretty good scam Myles Brand has going there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux Grandpa Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 OK I have read enough about this to make me finally put in my opinion. I don't think that we are any way hostile or abusive. If the NCAA would have come to visit here that would have seen that we do respect the native american. Who leads the football team out on the field (I don't think that is a white guy in costume) I believe that is a Native American, who is obviously proud of his heritage. The headdress that they wear is made by them & is a great achievement. We have seen them sing & dance at the Englestad. Never once have I seen anything hostile or abusive about that. At basketball games I have seen a standing ovation after they were done. I am having a hard time seeing where anything about this is hostile or abusive. UND went to the Native Americans to design the logo. If you read the article about the logo it tells you what it all meant, from the colors to the marks on the face. I don't think that the people at FSU have any clue as to what the colors or even any of the history is with Native Americans, but yet the NCAA allows them to use the so-called mascot & logo. If I was Native American I would be more offended by a white guy dressing up, trying to protray them, to me that is hostile & abusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Who leads the football team out on the field (I don't think that is a white guy in costume) I believe that is a Native American, who is obviously proud of his heritage. The headdress that they wear is made by them & is a great achievement. When has an American Indian wearing a head dress ever led the Sioux football team on to the field? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxjoy Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 When has an American Indian wearing a head dress ever led the Sioux football team on to the field? I believe Geremiah Holy Bull (sorry if I spelled his name wrong) did during the 2001 Championship celebration at the Alerus, but that was the only time I remember seeing someone in full dress leading the team onto the field. It gave me goosebumps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Siouxjoy do something about that avatar. WOW is that a big file for a tiny little picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux Grandpa Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 When has an American Indian wearing a head dress ever led the Sioux football team on to the field? Sorry that should have read "who has lead". I also thought that the first time that UND played in the Alerus that he lead them out, but I could be wrong. SORRY!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxjoy Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Siouxjoy do something about that avatar. WOW is that a big file for a tiny little picture. I don't know how. Am I breaking board rules? Have I been breaking rules for a long time now? How come it took 140some odd posts until someone yelled at me for this? I really am wondering about this, not trying to be defensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 I don't know how. Am I breaking board rules? Have I been breaking rules for a long time now? How come it took 140some odd posts until someone yelled at me for this? I really am wondering about this, not trying to be defensive. First. I didn't yell. I'm typicall not the yelling type. Avatars are supposed to follow the following protocols: Your avatar must be no bigger than 64 pixels by 64 pixels in size. Uploaded avatars from your computer must be no larger than 20 KB. This is under the heading of "My Controls". I don't think this is policed and I'm not trying to police it either, I just noticed with all of the other things open on my desktop this morning (Oultlook, Excel, Word, AutoCAD, ...) that the page I was looking at took an unusual amount of time to load. I looked and saw your avatar slooowwwwllllly loading. I right clicked on the avatar and saw how large the file was. If you right click on another Sioux logo from someone elses avatar you can see how large the file is and where you can link to it. Some of them are being linked to UND sites, which is the easiest. Once again, not trying to be a pain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 I PMed siouxjoy with a link to a Sioux logo avatar that's the correct size for this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 I PMed siouxjoy with a link to a Sioux logo avatar that's the correct size for this board. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxjoy Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Thanks. Thanks, PCM! According to the controls, my other avatar was the correct dimensions, but obviously not the right size. I apparently must learn how to make pictures "light" enough to fit the size requirements. GeauxSioux, when I first read "do something about that avatar" it felt like a command...yell was obviously too harsh of a word, but I was a little embarassed (and oversensitive). I apologize if I offended you in any way. I feel I convey messages better vocally, which is the main reason why I don't post here all that often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Thanks, PCM! According to the controls, my other avatar was the correct dimensions, but obviously not the right size. I apparently must learn how to make pictures "light" enough to fit the size requirements. GeauxSioux, when I first read "do something about that avatar" it felt like a command...yell was obviously too harsh of a word, but I was a little embarassed (and oversensitive). I apologize if I offended you in any way. I feel I convey messages better vocally, which is the main reason why I don't post here all that often. Sorry for the "command" and embarassment. I probably should have put a on the message. *Man sitting tall in the saddle* My work is done here. I will move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 100.3 KTLK in Mpls/St. Paul has an afternoon talk show "Lambert & Janucek". Lambert has a liberal bent, and Januszak a strong conservative bent. I was surprised on the drive home that they called up Kupchella after hearing about the letter he wrote. They had about a 10-15 minute interview with him regarding the situation. It was clear they weren't terribly familiar with the whole controversy, but they both thought the NCAA's position was preposterous, both strongly supported UND's position, and both told Kupchella to sue and stick it to the NCAA. I was impressed with how Kupchella came across, having never heard him speak publicly before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 I just read the President's letter. I'm in awe. I'm thinking that the legal minds think they have such an incredible case this letter is a shot across the bow to the NCAA in the hope that they will quietly remove UND from the hated list and both parties can avoid the cost and expense of going to court. Either that OR, and here's my concern, UND doesn't feel they want to pursue this in court, and this is a bluff hoping that the NCAA will back down now. If not, UND in a few months will quietly make the decision to transform the name because they've decided it's not an appropriate investment of time or money to fight this in court. Hopefully the former. Maybe there's a 3rd option. Maybe this was a smart, calculated move by the Kupchella and Company. Assuming this letter might get wide play around the country, the idea might be that the groundswell of public opinion puts the NCAA into a position where they feel they have to cave. Just grasping, here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB#11 Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Maybe there's a 3rd option. Maybe this was a smart, calculated move by the Kupchella and Company. Assuming this letter might get wide play around the country, the idea might be that the groundswell of public opinion puts the NCAA into a position where they feel they have to cave. Just grasping, here. That's what I was thinking...hopefully it continues to get coverage throughout the US. It would be nice for someone like Scott Hennen to let Sean Hannity know what's going on and maybe he could do a piece on his show. Whether you believe in his politics or not, he has one of the largest audience's in the US. 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.