Standing Rock/Spirit Lake

[Siouxmama]

University of North Dakota

Part of the "Land of the free, and the home of the BRAVE"

Well, since we can't keep out nickname, it's not the land of the free, but we are in the home of the brave (and I don't mean an Indian Warrior).

I suggest "Brave" as our next name. Our mascot, if we choose to have one, could be and sort of military person, past (Cavalry) or present .

I'm all for keeping Fighting Sioux, but this is never going to go away, and I predict that eventually we will have to get rid of the name. Is now the time?

And, I also agree that the tribes should have NO say in what out next nickname is.

[westsidesioux]

I read the Standing Rock story yesterday and a thought came to my mind, hopefully I'm not brining up what someone else has said here. My thought was, the best thing that Dr. Kupchella and Dr. O'Kelley could do is to call a press conference, thank the Spirit Lake Reservation for all they have done through this situation, and then proclaim that they are forming a committee to come up with a new nickname. I don't have the nuts and bolts of picking the name figured out, obviously including fans and alumni. Then they should proclaim that they don't want to keep the nickname because they are done honoring a tribe (Standing Rock) that doesn't feel it is neccessary to listen to the people who live within the tribal borders. Are we certain that a vote on the reservation would go the way of the Sioux nickname? Not neccessarily, but at least the tribal members would have a say and not just the slanted tribal council. This would not make all the nickname supporters happy of course, but I think UND would look pretty good doing it. Just my take, some may disagree.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

... Are we certain that a vote on the reservation would go the way of the Sioux nickname? Not neccessarily...

It looks like the people who are preventing a vote on their own reservation aren't sure which way the balloting would go either.

I guess that makes it similar to Washington DC, then.

Could be. But I know I'm far more interested in what happens in my local city and school board elections. Those affect me on a day-to-day basis much more than what happens (or doesn't happen) in DC. And IMHO that's why this board gets more traffic than the one where you can talk about Washington, DC.

All this animosity being created over this by good people on both sides (and, yes, some not so good) is not good for the soul.

I wish that message would get thru to some of the people your administration and the NCAA have empowered with their nonsensical decisions.

If it takes someone saying they win and we lose, fine, I'll say it. The anti-nickname side wins, the Fighting Sioux nickname supporters lose. Let's move forward.

And if that happens, all will move on. But only

some

people will move forward.

If you don't even want to hear what the people you represent say, what the people who are so INSULTED really think then you are obviously incapable of moving

forward

at this late date in your life.

[westsidesioux]

Seems like the people who are preventing a vote on their own reservation aren't sure which way a vote would go either.

Sadly, I think you are right.

[petey23]

Sadly, I think you are right.

Actually I think you are both wrong. The Tribal council has a pretty good idea how the vote would turn out which is precisely why they took this action. From people I know who have ties to and have been or are currently a part of the Standing Rock reservation it would come in around 75-80% in favor of or not caring about the Sioux name at UND.

[Goon]

Agree. Once the name/logo go, I could care less if UND ever deals with SR/SL again, and would prefer they do not especially on picking a new name/logo.

The only people that should have any say in the new nick name is the Alumni, Student and the board. Once the name Fighting Sioux is done the SR/SL have had all the say they should have on the name. I am sick and tired of a few dictating to the masses.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

The only people that should have any say in the new nick name is the Alumni, Student and the board. Once the name Fighting Sioux is done the SR/SL have had all the say they should have on the name. I am sick and tired of a few dictating to the masses.

Couldn't agree more with the idea that the alumni and students should have the sole voice here. But personally, I'd tell the Board of Trustees to go somewhere. They agreed to this mess, so its highly doubtful that anything they do would be helpful: it's far more likely that any "contribution" they made would be entirely and totally counterproductive.

Today's posts point up the idea that any voice you gave to the tribes wouldn't be a true "popular vote" but rather the choice of very few people on the reservation. That's simply the icing on the cake: they had their say-so and it was "no" so their role is ended.

[dagies]

Before we get all whipped up about whether the tribes will or should have some say in a future nickname, where did that actually come from? I haven't read or seen anything about that.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Before we get all whipped up about whether the tribes will or should have some say in a future nickname, where did that actually come from? I haven't read or seen anything about that.

Within your state/region-I don't know that. But here on this board, one poster advocated asking the tribes about his particular preferred new nickname: even though he admitted it had no possible connection to the tribes. And furthermore, even if the tribes gave it the thumbs-down he said he'd go ahead and adopt his nickname anyway.

I couldn't even begin to understand his logic with that one.

But to answer your question with a question: don't you think that someone (either within the Native-American community or someone on your campus) will advocate giving the tribes a voice, "since we've stolen their identity for so long without consulting them"?

[MafiaMan]

How ironic that Tribal leadership squelches the voices of the masses with respect to a vote on the nickname issue...then wants to be included in a group formed to come up with a new nickname.

Ain't democracy grand?

[Sioux-cia]

But personally, I'd tell the Board of Trustees to go somewhere. They agreed to this mess, so its highly doubtful that anything they do would be helpful: it's far more likely that any "contribution" they made would be entirely and totally counterproductive.

It wasn't the Board of Trustees that agreed to the terms of the settlement with the NC$$. It was the State Board of Higher Education. I agree that the SBoHE should have NO say in the new name other than making sure it follows the settlement guidelines.

I do remember reading somewhere, a few months ago, that the tribes wanted input into the new name. It probably was in this thread.

[Goon]

Within your state/region-I don't know that. But here on this board, one poster advocated asking the tribes about his particular preferred new nickname: even though he admitted it had no possible connection to the tribes. And furthermore, even if the tribes gave it the thumbs-down he said he'd go ahead and adopt his nickname anyway.

I couldn't even begin to understand his logic with that one.

Yeah that one doesn't make sense to me either.

[Goon]

How ironic that Tribal leadership squelches the voices of the masses with respect to a vote on the nickname issue...then wants to be included in a group formed to come up with a new nickname.

Ain't democracy grand?

I can't see it happening. The Univesity and the State Board of Higher Education would be fools to allow this to happen.

I am sure the public outcry would be big if this happened.

[ScottM]

Ain't democracy grand?

Come on. You're talking a "sovereign" nation. Just like Iran, China, North Korea or Zimbawbe.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

It wasn't the Board of Trustees that agreed to the terms of the settlement with the NC$$. It was the State Board of Higher Education.

My mistake: I took the word "Board" and incorrectly expanded it into the term "Board of Trustees".

Here's where I started down the wrong path:

http://forum.siouxsports.com/index.php?sho...1&start=331

Thank you for ensuring that all terms are accurate.

[dagies]

Within your state/region-I don't know that. But here on this board, one poster advocated asking the tribes about his particular preferred new nickname: even though he admitted it had no possible connection to the tribes. And furthermore, even if the tribes gave it the thumbs-down he said he'd go ahead and adopt his nickname anyway.

I couldn't even begin to understand his logic with that one.

But to answer your question with a question: don't you think that someone (either within the Native-American community or someone on your campus) will advocate giving the tribes a voice, "since we've stolen their identity for so long without consulting them"?

Exactly. That was one poster's idea and I didn't want to get on a track of ripping the Tribes for something suggested by a poster on this site. Now, if someone has a link to a story or article that reports this request by the Tribes I'm all eyes and ears, but until then I would suggest keeping our righteous indignation for the real issues.

On another issue I'm going to offer a rather unpopular perspective. We're all upset that the tribal councils won't allow a referendum of the tribal membership to decide this issue. Heck, I'd like to see that as well so don't shoot me as a supporter of the tribal leadership.

However, in a representative democracy our leaders are tasked with speaking for the people. I don't know exactly how the tribal constitutions are written, but if the council is given the authority to speak for the people, then they have that authority whether we like it or not.

There are times when a government's official position is not necessarily representative of the people it represents. For instance, I think the majority of Americans are against the Iraq war yet our government supports it. There would be other examples you can find over time along the same lines. The governmental organization is going to make decisions that it feels are best for the people (at least in theory). It's a plausible argument that the tribal leadership feels that the nickname is indeed a bad thing even if the majority of their population doesn't agree. I'll bet if we polled the population of the Confederate States of America they would have shown the population supports slavery. Did that make slavery right? I don't think so.

I, too, want the tribal referendums on the nickname to take place. I, too, want those referendums to show overwhelming support for the Fighting Sioux nickname. I, too, want that to decide the issue in our favor. I, too, believe that the best thing for the future of the tribes would be to sit down with UND and together find a way to make this a beneficial arrangement for all parties.

But at the same time we have to understand it may not happen, and that it MIGHT not be anyone abusing their power if it doesn't.

[Sioux-cia]

I know this group wanted SL to wait before taking the issue to the people for a vote.

http://www.kxmb.com/t/spirit-lake-nd/209778.asp

I'm sure we would have heard if the issue has been voted on. I wish they would get on with it. The fact that SL is giving their members a vote may have an impact on SR members and, hopefully, they'll force the council to put it to a vote.

http://www.kxmb.com/t/spirit-lake-nd/205045.asp

I believe that the name and logo are gone but I think it's important to know what the tribal members really feel and believe about UND's Fighting Sioux name and logo.

[The Sicatoka]

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I have your attention please.

The first folks to float the notion that the tribes should have "say" in selection of a potential new nickname were ... the tribes, through their United Tribes board.

Heck, "if you think you might be getting a little power, try to grab all you can," seems to be their motto.

And then complain when it really is given to you (like Ron His Horse is Thunder) seem to be their action plan.

[dagies]

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I have your attention please.

The first folks to float the notion that the tribes should have "say" in selection of a potential new nickname were ... the tribes, through their United Tribes board.

Heck, "if you think you might be getting a little power, try to grab all you can," seems to be their motto.

And then complain when it really is given to you (like Ron His Horse is Thunder) seem to be their action plan.

That doesn't say that the Tribes want a say in the new nickname, certainly not the right to vote down a new nickname. It just says that they don't want UND to change to a nickname that would be a problem for any other group. That's more of an opinion rather than a request to be part of the approval process.

[The Sicatoka]

So what's the discussion here:

- they want to pick?

- they want a say?

- they want veto power?

They want to be involved. That's all the notion someone else put forth also.

When it comes to a new moniker I'm guessing it'll end up being the "Golden Rule."

[Goon]

So what's the discussion here:

- they want to pick?

- they want a say?

- they want veto power?

They want to be involved. That's all the notion someone else put forth also.

When it comes to a new moniker I'm guessing it'll end up being the "Golden Rule."

The golden rule should read you got your wish the name is changed we will take it from here.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

...However, in a representative democracy our leaders are tasked with speaking for the people. I don't know exactly how the tribal constitutions are written, but if the council is given the authority to speak for the people, then they have that authority whether we like it or not...

Obviously I'm not an expert on tribal constitutions either. But in the original story

(here)

, it appears that some of the tribe who are not council members presented a resolution to their Tribal Council calling for a referendum. The Tribal Council refused (by a 7-5 vote) to fund such a referendum, effectively killing the idea. So it sounds like its within their constitution, even if it's (IMHO) a high-handed power play. And quite honestly, I don't know if they have a judicial branch where such a decision could be appealed.

I think what any number of people here want is to make sure that the irreversable step of changing the nickname is actually the will of the

people

of the tribe, rather than merely the will of seven of the twelve council members present on that particular day. It certainly seems like a referendum would answer that question. And another referendum could be held in 2009, and things could change-but at least all the people would speak at all times.

...it MIGHT not be anyone abusing their power...

Agreed: but OTOH, it might be someone abusing their power. I think a referendum would help to remove those "mights".

And of course, a dozen or so people arguing on a internet forum won't make it happen one way or another.

That doesn't say that the Tribes want a say in the new nickname, certainly not the right to vote down a new nickname. It just says that they don't want UND to change to a nickname that would be a problem for any other group. That's more of an opinion rather than a request to be part of the approval process.

Here's the quotation, which comes from 30 months ago:

In the resolution, the United Tribes board also called on the state Board of Higher Education and Kupchella to hold formal negotiations with the state

[sioux7>5]

Obviously I'm not an expert on tribal constitutions either. But in the original story

(here)

, it appears that some of the tribe who are not council members presented a resolution to their Tribal Council calling for a referendum. The Tribal Council refused (by a 7-5 vote) to fund such a referendum, effectively killing the idea. So it sounds like its within their constitution, even if it's (IMHO) a high-handed power play. And quite honestly, I don't know if they have a judicial branch where such a decision could be appealed.

I think what any number of people here want is to make sure that the irreversable step of changing the nickname is actually the will of the

people

of the tribe, rather than merely the will of seven of the twelve council members present on that particular day. It certainly seems like a referendum would answer that question. And another referendum could be held in 2009, and things could change-but at least all the people would speak at all times.

Agreed: but OTOH, it might be someone abusing their power. I think a referendum would help to remove those "mights".

And of course, a dozen or so people arguing on a internet forum won't make it happen one way or another.

Here's the quotation, which comes from 30 months ago:

In the resolution, the United Tribes board also called on the state Board of Higher Education and Kupchella to hold formal negotiations with the state's tribal nations, with the end goal being to change UND's nickname and logo "to ones not offensive to any ethnic group."

A say in the process, a goal, problem, offensive: all are quite open-ended terms. Just like "formal negotiations" can be taken a number of ways. And IMHO, a key term has all sorts of definitions: "offensive to any ethnic group".

Would "Cavalry" be offensive to an ethnic group? Who gets to determine that? How about "Settlers"?

Calvary would not be offensive. It would also be a great why to Honor the Military, which is a big part of GF and the surrounding area.

[Sioux-cia]

Calvary would not be offensive. It would also be a great why to Honor the Military, which is a big part of GF and the surrounding area.

Sioux would not be offensive. It would also be a geat way to honor the Sioux which are a big part of North Dakota and the surrounding states.

Sorry, just my little way of pointing out that what we think is not offensive, someone will find offensive.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Sorry, just my little way of pointing out that what we think is not offensive, someone will find offensive.

Exactly. The US Calvary came in with the goal of killing Indians; that sounds like ethnic cleansing. How can we possibly support that?? (I guarantee that someone will make that argument. A while back, during an organized crime crackdown, someone accused the Chicago Police Department of "ethnic cleansing".)

A while back, someone wanted to change the name (because someone found it offensive and therefore he found it offensive) to something "nice and neutral: something we can all get behind". And many, many, MANY people pointed out that what one person finds "nice and neutral" the next person finds offensive.

One little paragraph that contains "goal", "formal negotiations" and "offensive to any ethnic group". IMHO, that paragraph could cause years of yapping and claims.

You'll never please everyone. The question is the same with a new nickname as it is with the present one: how small of a offended minority do we ignore? And of course, which preferred group gets an outsized voice?

And as you will be replacing one person's offensive nickname with another person's offensive nickname: what's the point?