SiouxSports.com defamed?

[PCM]

This quote was in a [url="http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=59952

Edited December 9, 2007 by PCM

[Sioux-cia]

How about posting the vile things a certain Lakota Sioux posted on this site? Things he posted under his own user name about Sioux who supported the name and about other ethnic groups? How about the obscene things he posted as me after he hacked into my SS.com account? What about the things he and his wife have posted about Mexican Americans? That not only happens to be my ethnic heritage but his wife's as well. I guess when she married him, she, through osmosis, became Lakota Sioux. Their children are now full blood Lakota Sioux.

Oh wait, he was within his rights because he is a Lakota Sioux who is opposed to the name and logo.

[PCM]

Sioux-cia, I thought of your situation with GrahamKracker as I read the column in the Herald. I rememberd how neither the Herald nor the Dakota Student would publish your letter to the editor about the incident.

[jimdahl]

To be fair, she lumped SiouxSports.com in with letters to the editor. Not necessarily picking on her, as I don't know her, a lot of self-declared intellectual elite particularly dislike forums that give a voice to the unwashed masses, instead preferring viewpoints filtered for correctness before dissemination by major media. The Internet is a great democratizer in that it allows people to be read based on others' interest in reading them instead of their ability to secure traditional publishing.

The SiouxSports.com forum, in that way, is neither inherently good nor evil, but can be used for both. There are undoubtedly racists saying racist things on this part of the site, I would guess in a bit lower proportion than there are racists saying racist things in the general population (because of moderator and community pressure). If you come looking for any positive or negative personality trait, you can probably find it in the forum somewhere. To use such a discovery as an indictment of the entire site and medium is certainly inappropriate, and suggests to me that the author does fit in the category I described above -- concerned about her constituency's loss of control over what is said.

[Goon]

What sickens me is the total lack of accountabilty that those who oppose the Fighting Sioux nickname are held by the media. They can say and write whatever they want. They can libel and slander whoever they want. They can declare anyone who disagrees with their opinions racist. They can make any claim they want about how they're treated.

Welcome to the liberal art college education scene. Acedontal evidence doesn't require hard fact just wide eye pontifications.

[ScottM]

That has to be most obtuse, meandering piece of garbage the Hurled has published in oh, about the past 2-3 weeks. Good thing Sudie has a "job" in the liberal arts program at White Cloud State, otherwise I'd worry about her prospects at Starbucks, let alone her making a living as a "writer".

[Goon]

That has to be most obtuse, meandering piece of garbage the Hurled has published in oh, about the past 2-3 weeks. Good thing Sudie has a "job" in the liberal arts program at White Cloud State, otherwise I'd worry about her prospects at Starbucks, let alone her making a living as a "writer".

They have enough problems at their school that they don't need to be lecturing us up here on how to do things.

My buddy was an RA at SCSU in 1992, SCSU had a ton of problems at their school more than anything we have seen here. This woman has no moral ground to stand on. There was an old saying he who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[The Sicatoka]

Sudie needs to deal with the numerous swastikas found around the SCSU campus this semester before she starts pointing fingers lest she risk the label hypocrit.

Seems her "Human Relations and Multicultural Education" isn't sticking to those she's "educating".

[Ranger]

FBI: St. Cloud #1 MN city in 2006 for reported hate crimes. When will the banner be raised?

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

And I'll admit it's possible that I missed the post in which someone suggested that protestors should be run over with a truck. But I make a habit of reading every post in the Sioux Name forum and I can honestly say that I've never seen anyone post anything like that. Does anyone else here remember seeing such a post?

No, I don't remember that language.

I wonder if the nickname protesters have always had perfectly reasonable things to say about those who see no problem with the nickname? It is a heated argument. Heated language is sometimes used. I doubt one side has a monopoly on such language.

I also see a parallel between the letter-writer's statements and the usual hyperbole about "oh, at the hockey game the Minnesota fans were saying 'kill the Sioux' so that means they really want to go to a reservation and murder people based on their race". I highly doubt either is to be taken literally.

It is unfortunate that she points out this board. Maybe it did happen, but if it did it isn't the only place that such language is used.

There are undoubtedly racists saying racist things on this part of the site...

Yes, but I think its just as important to point out that the ratio of racist posts here (or anywhere) to racist posters is not always 1-1. Others have pointed out that the motivation of an individual poster who writes some racist statement is not always discernable.

Perhaps there have been some people here who establish an identity to post some statements, and then go to the traditional media to point out the "racist" and "vile" people at SiouxSports.com.

This reminds me of the way that Ken Griffey Jr. justified his trade from Seattle to Cincy. He said he got racist threats from Seattle fans, so he had to get out of that town. As if it wasn't possible that somebody from Ohio could travel to Seattle and write him a letter with a Seattle postmark....

[PCM]

Yes, but I think its just as important to point out that the ratio of racist posts here (or anywhere) to racist posters is not always 1-1. Others have pointed out that the motivation of an individual poster who writes some racist statement is not always discernable.

That's a good point. It's also important to note that when someone makes a post that might be construed as racist, it's often greeted with disapproval by most people here. So it's not as if this site is a bastion of hatred and bigotry that promotes violence against protestors or minorities, which is certainly the perception that Ms. Hofmann intended to create.

[Sal Atticum]

I really don't want to get into this right now, but as someone who is still on the fence about the morality of naming a sports team after a people, this place does give off the impression that anyone who disagrees with the Sioux name should be drawn and quartered, or at least verbally badgered until they go away.

(I haven't read the whole article, since I refuse to give information to the Herald for something I should be able to get for free.)

Welcome to the liberal art college education scene.

Not everything can be blamed on liberal arts. People have ideas for their own reasons, and all a liberal arts degree tries to do is educate people to be able to deal with as many situations as possible, based on the information at hand. What is the alternative to a liberal arts school anyway?

[PCM]

I really don't want to get into this right now, but as someone who is still on the fence about the morality of naming a sports team after a people, this place does give off the impression that anyone who disagrees with the Sioux name should be drawn and quartered, or at least verbally badgered until they go away.

You're still here.

It's a board for fans of the Fighting Sioux. Therefore, it shouldn't be difficult to comprehend that most people who hang out here favor keeping the nickname. But the vast majority of people who post here dont' preach hate and don't advocate violence against the protestors or American Indians.

[jimdahl]

this place does give off the impression that anyone who disagrees with the Sioux name should be drawn and quartered, or at least verbally badgered until they go away.

As PCM suggested, given that the site's target audience is Sioux fans, support for the name here is likely higher than in the general population (where it's quite high). While there are and have been plenty of people here who don't support the name, it's only reasonable to expect that any post specifically decrying the evils of the name will be met with argument.

I don't think engaging such posts with debate constitutes "verbal badgering", but will repeat my observation that a lot of people against the nickname have favored controlled mediums where they can soliloquize (e.g. Herald opinion pieces with comments turned off) over forums in which their essays may be challenged and debated.

FYI -- I do think you (and she) have your demographics wrong. The most recent informal poll of this forum indicates that 54% want to drop the name. A poll with broader participation, on the front page indicates that 23% want to drop the name immediately (it contains insufficient information to extract how many would favor dropping the name if it didn't gain tribal support).

[The Sicatoka]

Folks need to read my signature.

[Sal Atticum]

You're still here.

I have a thicker skin, and I'm still on the fence. Plus you amuse me.

It's a board for fans of the Fighting Sioux. Therefore, it shouldn't be difficult to comprehend that most people who hang out here favor keeping the nickname. But the vast majority of people who post here dont' preach hate and don't advocate violence against the protestors or American Indians.

Non sequitur.

I would argue that, as fans of the UND sports teams, the name doesn't come into the argument at all. The team is the same, so why does it matter what we call them?

I do understand that most of the people are aren't in the mood to go behead people for disagreeing with them though.

I don't think engaging such posts with debate constitutes "verbal badgering", but will repeat my observation that a lot of people against the nickname have favored controlled mediums where they can soliloquize (e.g. Herald opinion pieces with comments turned off) over forums in which their essays may be challenged and debated.

FYI -- I do think you (and she) have your demographics wrong. The most recent informal poll of this forum indicates that 54% want to drop the name. A poll with broader participation, on the front page indicates that 23% want to drop the name immediately.

A lot of people who are for the name feel that they have safety in numbers. I don't think that anti-nickname writers should be granted anything more than pro-nickname writers.

I can't claim to have cited any demographics. I just get the impression that fans on this site (just like fans on any site) are likely to be riled when an alternative viewpoint is presented.

Folks need to read my signature.

Voltaire said "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." I totally agree, which is why I am in favor of personal moderation of speech rather than legislation.

[dagies]

I am still who I am if you change my name, but don't expect me to be happy about it.

Obviously, a university nickname isn't the same as my name, but there is still identity attached to that nickname. When I went to school there, the nickname was (and still is!) "The Fighting Sioux". Personally, I loved identifying with the plains warrior. I thought that was a great nickname for a sports team. Over time, I think, the nickname becomes part of your psyche. "This is who we are".

Let's make no mistake. Other than those who have the true physical bloodlines, I, nor anyone else, really thinks we are Sioux warriors. But we ARE "Fighting Sioux" in the context of the University of North Dakota, likened after the great plains warrior.

I'll repeat again, imitation is the fairest form of flattery.

For this reason, I don't see it as a simple thing to just say "oh, ok. You don't like it? I guess I can be the 'Blizzards', the 'Sun Dogs' or the 'Fighting Nokotas'". Because it's not the same. It's not the same "symbol" that identified with my past experience.

Will it mean I won't cheer for my favorite team anymore? No.

Will it be the same? No.

People from other schools love to mock this idea. "It's just a name, why don't they give it up and pick something else?". I wonder how they would feel if someone told them they couldn't be the Badgers, or the Gophers, or the Bulldogs, and they had to be something totally different from what they identified. It's easy to say "no big deal". But I submit it would matter. It would matter more than they think when they can't talk about the sacred M, or Bucky the Badger.

It wouldn't be the same. And if you don't agree with why you have to give up the name, it makes it hard to accept.

[PCM]

I can't claim to have cited any demographics. I just get the impression that fans on this site (just like fans on any site) are likely to be riled when an alternative viewpoint is presented.

Believe it or not, there have been some good discussions on this board between people who support the nickname and those who oppose it. So I don't buy your claim that "anyone who disagrees with the Sioux name should be drawn and quartered, or at least verbally badgered until they go away." From my perspective, it's simply not true.

Yes, you probably do need a thick skin if you're going to defend a viewpoint that most posters here oppose. So what? If I went on Gopher Puck Live and tried to convince Minnesota fans that Zach Parise is the greatest college hockey player who ever lived, I'd have the same problem. Lots of Gopher fans would disagree with me and some of them wouldn't be very civil about it. Nor would I expect a friendly reception if I walked in a bar to preach about the evils of demon rum.

Non sequitur.

Umm...no. My point went directly to the heart of your original premise. You don't get to introduce a different premise and then claim my argument is a non sequitur because it doesn't follow your new and different premise. You're the one claiming that people who post here in opposition to the Fighting Sioux nickname are threatened with physical violence or hounded off the board. All I'm saying is that if you can't take the heat, don't come into the kitchen.

I would argue that, as fans of the UND sports teams, the name doesn't come into the argument at all. The team is the same, so why does it matter what we call them?

Actually, I agree with you. But does that mean UND should be forced to change its nickname every time someone says they don't like it?

Edited December 10, 2007 by PCM

[jimdahl]

A lot of people who are for the name feel that they have safety in numbers. I don't think that anti-nickname writers should be granted anything more than pro-nickname writers.

I can't claim to have cited any demographics. I just get the impression that fans on this site (just like fans on any site) are likely to be riled when an alternative viewpoint is presented.

Ok, I completely agree that there are people here who get riled whenever they read something anti-nickname, and jump in to vehemently argue their side. However, that's to be expected in a forum where 1000s of different people with different personalities and viewpoints interact. It's not even nickname-specific, you'll get the same passionate response on posts about the AD, Coach Hakstol's performance, how Lee played, etc...

On that basis, I continue to object to Ms. Hofmann's characterization of SiouxSports.com as "not unlike these [hate groups in the South in the 1960s]". This is an open forum where when she read something she disliked, she would have been more than welcome to hit reply and state her point of view. The worst she would have received would have been swift and ferocious argument, no acts or even threats of violence. I do think that ferocious argument is precisely what she wanted to avoid, and I'm not particularly sympathetic.

As to the demographics, I was just responding to the suggestion that "this place does give off the impression that anyone who disagrees with the Sioux name should be drawn and quartered, or at least verbally badgered until they go away." At least half the voters, including me, think it's time to change, and the worst I've received was Sicatoka likening me to Neville Chamberlain

[The Sicatoka]

Countless others referred to the protesters in vile, disparaging ways.

And how many times must I be called a vile, desparaging term ("racist") for supporting the name before it's a problem.

Heck, even the NCAA now admits that good people can disagree on this topic, and yet now I'm compared to the 1960s KKK by this author who has a constant "swastika shows up" problem on their St. Cloud State University campus (a campus with a history of this problem and behavior so much so that they've lost significant dollars and reputation in courts of law).

She needs some Windex for that glass house of hers.

[jloos]

Sudie Hofmann is the same nutcase who has been trying to ban kids from making mothers day and fathers day cards in school (I am not making this up). I believe she is also the main instigator for organizing protests at SCSU against the Sioux name. I would be curious to know how many times she has been to Grand Forks.

Apparently Jews have joined Christians in groups it is ok to discriminate against. Maybe the good professor should put her cool-aide down and take a look around her own campus.

A quick google search of the professor is pretty entertaining. This is one of the funniest articles

In most of my classes I favor projects that send students out into the real world and these assignments frequently send the students into retail stores. For example, I send my students to seasonal stores in the fall to determine which Halloween costumes perpetuate racism

Toy Segregation

The effect of toys and playtime may not be as benign as some parents and educators think. Although great strides have been made in many social areas, boys are still pushed toward higher levels of unhealthy competition and stoicism during playtime while many girls are reinforced in their unrealistic beliefs that they will always be taken care of or that employment outside the home is optional. The segregation under those neon lights is a fairly good predictor for what is to come, both in terms of earning power and career choice. The power and labor inequities in homes and work places

[Chewey]

Sudie Hofmann is the same nutcase who has been trying to ban kids from making mothers day and fathers day cards in school (I am not making this up). I believe she is also the main instigator for organizing protests at SCSU against the Sioux name. I would be curious to know how many times she has been to Grand Forks.

Apparently Jews have joined Christians in groups it is ok to discriminate against. Maybe the good professor should put her cool-aide down and take a look around her own campus.

A quick google search of the professor is pretty entertaining. This is one of the funniest articles

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

(emphasis mine)

Hmmm, does the professor start with the assumption that every seasonal store does stock costumes that perpetuate racisim? Isn't it possible that they found no costume that meets the requirements she sets up?

[Sal Atticum]

I am still who I am if you change my name, but don't expect me to be happy about it.

Obviously, a university nickname isn't the same as my name, but there is still identity attached to that nickname. When I went to school there, the nickname was (and still is!) "The Fighting Sioux". Personally, I loved identifying with the plains warrior. I thought that was a great nickname for a sports team. Over time, I think, the nickname becomes part of your psyche. "This is who we are".

Let's make no mistake. Other than those who have the true physical bloodlines, I, nor anyone else, really thinks we are Sioux warriors. But we ARE "Fighting Sioux" in the context of the University of North Dakota, likened after the great plains warrior.

I'll repeat again, imitation is the fairest form of flattery.

For this reason, I don't see it as a simple thing to just say "oh, ok. You don't like it? I guess I can be the 'Blizzards', the 'Sun Dogs' or the 'Fighting Nokotas'". Because it's not the same. It's not the same "symbol" that identified with my past experience.

Will it mean I won't cheer for my favorite team anymore? No.

Will it be the same? No.

People from other schools love to mock this idea. "It's just a name, why don't they give it up and pick something else?". I wonder how they would feel if someone told them they couldn't be the Badgers, or the Gophers, or the Bulldogs, and they had to be something totally different from what they identified. It's easy to say "no big deal". But I submit it would matter. It would matter more than they think when they can't talk about the sacred M, or Bucky the Badger.

It wouldn't be the same. And if you don't agree with why you have to give up the name, it makes it hard to accept.

This is how I'm wrestling with it right now, and I wish the majority of people would look at it this way too. It's great when you can laugh at someone else for having to do something, but when you have to do it yourself, it sucks. I'd be pissed if my college team wasn't allowed to be the Saints anymore, and I see how people are pissed about potentially not getting to be the Fighting Sioux anymore.

I'm with you there--it means a lot, the name, and I wouldn't change my cheers. However, I think that the nostalgia and pride we all feel for our college team is a different issue than that team name being called racist. I would like to separate the two issues.

Is imitation the sincerest form of flattery? I think that's an entirely different (and much more philosophical) debate.

Believe it or not, there have been some good discussions on this board between people who support the nickname and those who oppose it. So I don't buy your claim that "anyone who disagrees with the Sioux name should be drawn and quartered, or at least verbally badgered until they go away." From my perspective, it's simply not true.

I said that that was the impression that I got, and still occasionally get. This is a touchy subject for a lot of people, and I'm doing my best not to get into the anger on either side. I know that a lot of this stems from this being a board devoted to the Fighting Sioux. It's unfortunate that many people will continue to see this place as a bastion of hatred and racism simply because of your association with the name (and now this article from the crazy lady).

Yes, you probably do need a thick skin if you're going to defend a viewpoint that most posters here oppose. So what? If I went on Gopher Puck Live and tried to convince Minnesota fans that Zach Parise is the greatest college hockey player who ever lived, I'd have the same problem. Lots of Gopher fans would disagree with me and some of them wouldn't be very civil about it. Nor would I expect a friendly reception if I walked in a bar to preach about the evils of demon rum.

Can't agree with you more. It's always fun to try though.

Umm...no. My point went directly to the heart of your original premise. You don't get to introduce a different premise and then claim my argument is a non sequitur because it doesn't follow your new and different premise. You're the one claiming that people who post here in opposition to the Fighting Sioux nickname are threatened with physical violence or hounded off the board. All I'm saying is that if you can't take the heat, don't come into the kitchen.

I was claiming that it does not follow from someone joining the board that they support the nickname. You've admitted yourself that around half the people here (according to polls) think the name should be changed. I wasn't trying to say anything else.

Actually, I agree with you. But does that mean UND should be forced to change its nickname every time someone says they don't like it?

Gods no. This is the tricky part we're here to figure out together, isn't it?

[Teeder11]

As PCM suggested, given that the site's target audience is Sioux fans, support for the name here is likely higher than in the general population (where it's quite high). While there are and have been plenty of people here who don't support the name, it's only reasonable to expect that any post specifically decrying the evils of the name will be met with argument.

I don't think engaging such posts with debate constitutes "verbal badgering", but will repeat my observation that a lot of people against the nickname have favored controlled mediums where they can soliloquize (e.g. Herald opinion pieces with comments turned off) over forums in which their essays may be challenged and debated.

FYI -- I do think you (and she) have your demographics wrong. The most recent informal poll of this forum indicates that 54% want to drop the name. A poll with broader participation, on the front page indicates that 23% want to drop the name immediately (it contains insufficient information to extract how many would favor dropping the name if it didn't gain tribal support).

Jim:

I tend to agree with you a lot, as you are very reasoned in your approach to things, and may I say, very fair. But, as someone who is very close to the majority of Herald staff writers and editors, I can honestly say there is no vast conspiracy about the nickname, which is what it would take to have someone actually making a conscious intentional effort to turn off certain comment lines and leave others on. I have seen examples where it may have appeared that way, especially to someone who is outside of the newsroom and who can only judge from the outside looking in. And may I say I understand this. I have complained to the newsroom Web guy during these instances, and in many cases the Webmaster on duty at the time, says "Oh sh*t, thanks I forgot. I'll get one up." Other times, I am sure I have missed, and it probably went on with out a comment line. The Web guy a lot of times is a college kid who could care less about the nickname or not as he's not an alum or from here. And he's not getting orders from higher to skew information or not print stuff because it will be damaging to the anti nickname cause.

So, basically, I am just saying that it's Webmaster error and not the diabolical conspirings of the Dr. Evil empire that is the Herald/Forum Comm upper management.

I know some of you now will post the usual, "I'm not buying it." All I have to offer you is my word, and since you don't know who I am, at least online, I guess we know what that is worth. I will say that I know many of the more frequent posters on here personally. And you know who I am, and we get a long quite well, though I've never brought up my id. I know a lot of your ids from others who have told me. Sorry. I am one of those who have close friends on both sides of the media's boundary lines. So I tend to stick up when misuderstandings may come up.

I will criticize the Herald with the rest when I think it is merited. And some of what Jim and Pat, I mean, PCM, said, I agree with very much. One example, I have differed with Tom Dennis about is the letters to the editor that he deems not printable and the ones that he things are ok. I would have allowed Sudie's letter. I don't think you can libel an entire group. That is a stretch. But PCM is correct in much of his defense. I, like him, am often the first to get after people who go overboard with attacks that can appear racist.

Cheers to all, and go Fighting Sioux forever.