Tribe battles to keep logo for the Fighting Sioux
By Valerie Richardson
The most prominent defenders of the University of North Dakota's right to call its teams the Fighting Sioux are neither alumni nor hockey fans.
They're Sioux.
A group of Spirit Lake Sioux won a temporary restraining order last week to stop the North Dakota University System from retiring the nickname and logo, one of the last in the country associated with an American Indian tribe. A hearing for a preliminary injunction is slated for Dec. 9 in Ramsey County District Court in Devils Lake, N.D.
Most such university team names have been abandoned in the face of criticism that they were offensive or derogatory, but that view isn't the only one in Indian country. Some tribal members take pride in their association with the Fighting Sioux and worry that eliminating the moniker "will cause isolation and a diminishing of public interest, knowledge and respect for Sioux history," according to the complaint.
"There are more members of the Sioux tribe that support this than oppose it," said Frank Blackcloud, a Spirit Lake Sioux and member of the tribe's Committee for Understanding and Respect, which brought the complaint.
The committee's decision to weigh in on the Fighting Sioux nickname is the latest - and most ironic - twist in a decades-old debate over the university's nickname and logo.
While Spirit Lake Sioux members are fighting to save the name, they're meeting resistance from largely nonnative groups like the faculty Senate, the College Anti-Racism Team and even the state Board of Higher Education.
Board President Richie Smith, who has come out in favor of retiring the logo and nickname, called the judge's decision to issue the restraining order "bizarre."
All this has Patrick Morley scratching his head.
"It's definitely a turnaround," said Mr. Morley, a Grand Forks, N.D., lawyer representing the Committee on Understanding and Respect.
"I don't think most people realize the Fighting Sioux is actually a source of pride to a majority of those in the tribe. You can see Fighting Sioux jerseys everywhere when you go on the reservation."
Still, pressure to eliminate the Fighting Sioux is intensifying - and not just from those who find the nickname offensive. The university, which recently moved to Division I athletics, wants to join the Summit League athletic conference, but league officials have said the nickname dispute must be resolved first.
The legal debate centers on the deadline for resolving the nickname issue.
The University of North Dakota remains the last holdout among 19 schools identified as having "hostile and abusive" mascots by the National Collegiate Athletic Association in 2005 and 2006. The other universities have either retired their Indian mascots or kept them after securing the approval of their namesake tribes.
Under a settlement reached with the state of North Dakota, the NCAA agreed to give the university until Nov. 30, 2010, to settle the matter. But the state board later passed a resolution moving up the deadline to Oct. 1, 2009, which was later extended to Oct. 31.
The Spirit Lake Sioux tribal council approved the use of the Fighting Sioux in September, after a tribal referendum election in April in which 67 percent of voters supported the university's use of the nickname and logo. To win NCAA approval, however, the university needs the blessing of a second tribe, the Standing Rock Sioux.
That tribe's leadership had long opposed the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, but in September, the Standing Rock elected a new chairman, Charles Murphy, who has previously supported the moniker.
At a state board meeting Thursday, North Dakota University System Chancellor Bill Goetz said Mr. Murphy had told him that no referendum vote is imminent. The previous council passed a moratorium on a referendum vote, which is still in effect.
Mr. Murphy also said the issue remains contentious on the tribal council and reservation at large, Mr. Goetz said.
Even so, Mr. Blackcloud said he was confident that the Standing Rock would ultimately give its approval for the nickname, but that it's likely the tribal council doesn't want to be hurried.
"Tribal leaders like to do things in their own time," Mr. Blackcloud said. "They don't like people on the outside telling then what they have to do or when they have to do it."
His committee wants the court to move the deadline to resolve the dispute back to Nov. 30, 2010, the date set by the agreement with the NCAA, which would presumably give the Standing Rock Sioux sufficient time to come to a decision.
"For someone to try to impose a deadline on us that wasn't part of the original agreement is wrong," Mr. Blackcloud said. "The Sioux name is ours."
Critics counter that the Spirit Lake Sioux have no legal standing because the university, not the tribes, owns the nickname and logo.
"It's hard to imagine so foggy a ruling can survive clear-eyed legal scrutiny," the Fargo (N.D.) Forum editorialized.
The wait-and-see approach may be gaining steam. Mr. Blackcloud's group won an unexpected vote of confidence Sunday when the Grand Forks (N.D.) Herald, which has criticized the nickname and logo in the past, came out in favor of holding to the original deadline.
"What's the rush?" said the editorial. "After generations of being called the Fighting Sioux and several decades of controversy, UND now has a chance to resolve the issue honorably and with full and considered input from the tribes. That's worth a short - in historic terms - wait."
Quote from: WarriorHal on November 20, 2009, 08:45:30 AM
"There are more members of the Sioux tribe that support this than oppose it," said Frank Blackcloud, a Spirit Lake Sioux and member of the tribe's Committee for Understanding and Respect, which brought the complaint.
While Spirit Lake Sioux members are fighting to save the name, they're meeting resistance from largely nonnative groups like the faculty Senate, the College Anti-Racism Team and even the state Board of Higher Education.
This is the problem with our country... public interest groups don't take what the public wants into account and instead pursue their own liberal agendas. Since when does the minority dictate what the majority should do?
Quote from: LastWarrior on November 20, 2009, 08:58:49 AM
This is the problem with our country... public interest groups don't take what the public wants into account and instead pursue their own liberal agendas. Since when does the minority dictate what the majority should do?
since always in history?
crack a book.
Quote from: LastWarrior on November 20, 2009, 08:58:49 AM
This is the problem with our country... public interest groups don't take what the public wants into account and instead pursue their own liberal agendas. Since when does the minority dictate what the majority should do?
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place"
- Mahatma Gandhi
I'm pretty sure Gandhi wasn't speaking about something as trivial as a team nickname when he spoke of "matters of conscience."
But still, majority rule isn't always such a swell idea.
Quote from: LastWarrior on November 20, 2009, 08:58:49 AM
This is the problem with our country... public interest groups don't take what the public wants into account and instead pursue their own liberal agendas. Since when does the minority dictate what the majority should do?
I don't understand that these groups (probably made up of those not associated with the Sioux whatsoever) get offended FOR the tribe.
Ya I'm pretty sure that if the majority of the Sioux approve of the nickname it should be allowed just like FSU's Seminoles nickname is supported by the tribe.
That being said, there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. I may be a cynic, but I don't trust most peoples opinions about most things.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15970.msg154737#msg154737
majority rule vs. minority rights is not the issue here at all. The issue is whether a small group of brie eating, left leaning, politically correct univeristy administrators should make decisions according to their world view that, in reality, don't offend anyone. If using Indian nicknames and symbols was truly offensive, we wouldn't have the Washington Redskins, Chicago Blackhawks, Cleveland Indians, etc. etc.
Political correctness, i.e., not calling something what it is out of some fear that you might offend somebody somewhere, is offensive to me. It has now lead to deaths when PC behavior in the army lead to looking the other way with Maj. Hasan.
Quote from: downtown85 on November 20, 2009, 09:47:35 AM
majority rule vs. minority rights is not the issue here at all. The issue is whether a small group of brie eating, left leaning, politically correct univeristy administrators should make decisions according to their world view that, in reality, don't offend anyone. If using Indian nicknames and symbols was truly offensive, we wouldn't have the Washington Redskins, Chicago Blackhawks, Cleveland Indians, etc. etc.
I'm not in favor of changing the nickname, but your rationale here isn't very good.
Major League baseball and/or the NFL shouldn't be your compass on what is/isn't offensive.
Just because MLB allows "indians" doesn't mean that it's ok.
Quote from: downtown85 on November 20, 2009, 09:47:35 AM
majority rule vs. minority rights is not the issue here at all. The issue is whether a small group of brie eating, left leaning, politically correct univeristy administrators should make decisions according to their world view that, in reality, don't offend anyone. If using Indian nicknames and symbols was truly offensive, we wouldn't have the Washington Redskins, Chicago Blackhawks, Cleveland Indians, etc. etc.
Political correctness, i.e., not calling something what it is out of some fear that you might offend somebody somewhere, is offensive to me. It has now lead to deaths when PC behavior in the army lead to looking the other way with Maj. Hasan.
drop the politics, doofus.
Never could figure out how a positive symbol like a school or team's "Mascot" could be construed as demeaning. these are people's unifying identity. When MU asked me about changing from the Warriors, I suggested simply changing from Willie Wampun to a european but the brie eaters ignored me
What do you people have against brie?
Quote from: Pakuni on November 20, 2009, 10:20:53 AM
What do you people have against brie?
Camembert 4 life!
Quote from: Pakuni on November 20, 2009, 10:20:53 AM
What do you people have against brie?
I like Brie. ;)
I did not intend for my comment to be political. However, the gist of what I said stands, i.e., a politically correct elite is making poor decisions on this issue and in the name of tolerance, are in reality intolerant. Hards_Alumni, you use an ad hominum argument, i.e., calling me a doofus, rather than supporting a counter argument with facts. I really hope you are not an MU alum. I thought our school taught us how to argue better than that.
Quote from: downtown85 on November 20, 2009, 10:43:32 AM
I really hope you are not an MU alum. I thought our school taught us how to argue better than that.
Aren't you the guy who just said:
"If using Indian nicknames and symbols was truly offensive, we wouldn't have the Washington Redskins, Chicago Blackhawks, Cleveland Indians, etc. etc."
That's terrible.
Quote from: 2002mualum on November 20, 2009, 10:48:47 AM
Aren't you the guy who just said:
"If using Indian nicknames and symbols was truly offensive, we wouldn't have the Washington Redskins, Chicago Blackhawks, Cleveland Indians, etc. etc."
That's terrible.
I don't quite understand where you are getting with this? Which logical fallacy did I use?
I probably should have added the Fighting Irish as well? There's an offensive stereotype for you. I bet you there is some Irishman somewhere upset with that name.
Maybe I missed it but are there boycotts of the teams I mentioned?
Quote from: downtown85 on November 20, 2009, 10:43:32 AM
I like Brie. ;)
I did not intend for my comment to be political. However, the gist of what I said stands, i.e., a politically correct elite is making poor decisions on this issue and in the name of tolerance, are in reality intolerant. Hards_Alumni, you use an ad hominum argument, i.e., calling me a doofus, rather than supporting a counter argument with facts. I really hope you are not an MU alum. I thought our school taught us how to argue better than that.
I made the mistake of taking logic at 9am mon/wed/fri first semester freshman year....needless to say I didn't learn much about arguments... Worst class in college.
Quote from: downtown85 on November 20, 2009, 10:43:32 AM
I like Brie. ;)
I did not intend for my comment to be political. However, the gist of what I said stands, i.e., a politically correct elite is making poor decisions on this issue and in the name of tolerance, are in reality intolerant. Hards_Alumni, you use an ad hominum argument, i.e., calling me a doofus, rather than supporting a counter argument with facts. I really hope you are not an MU alum. I thought our school taught us how to argue better than that.
You incorrectly assume that I am arguing that in this case it is silly to force a name change. This is what is called a moot point. While I DO agree that there is no need to change the mascot/team name in this case, as 2k2mualum pointed out, your argument is rather lackluster when you say that the name "Redskins" doesn't offend anyone simply because it exists. IN FACT, it offends a LOT of people (myself included). People would be crapping their pants all over the US if there was a NFL team called the "Blackskins" with an African warrior head on a helmet. The Redskins refuse to change their name due to 'tradition' and NOT because people aren't offended.
be real man... I just disapprove of pulling politics into the conversation... since they are forbidden on these boards... and because my views probably don't fly with most people on this forum... so rather than me (and others I'm sure) waste half my day at work typing back and forth about politics, the moderators have chosen to disallow the discussion.
Bring back Willie Wampum and all the glory of his paper mache' head.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on November 20, 2009, 09:16:50 AM
since always in history?
crack a book.
Crack a book... interesting response. What book would that be? Perhaps a book on communism? Communism is based on the premise that the state dictates what is best for the people (rule by minority). Democracy is based on the principle of government by popularly elected officials (rule by majority). Just a refresher on how the government in the U.S. works... our representatives are elected by MAJORITY, legislation is passed by MAJORITY vote and a popularly elected (AGAIN BY MAJORITY) President signs legislation into law.
I'm sure you'll disagree so here are the two definitions...
Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Communism: A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
My point above is that it is commonplace in the U.S. these days to see special interest groups try take away the principles of democracy from the people. If the majority of folks are for the name, then let it stand!
Also, how about you stop resorting to name calling... that's pretty immature.
Quote from: downtown85 on November 20, 2009, 10:54:07 AM
I probably should have added the Fighting Irish as well? There's an offensive stereotype for you. I bet you there is some Irishman somewhere upset with that name.
I know quite a few personally.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on November 20, 2009, 10:56:04 AM
You incorrectly assume that I am arguing that in this case it is silly to force a name change. This is what is called a moot point. While I DO agree that there is no need to change the mascot/team name in this case, as 2k2mualum pointed out, your argument is rather lackluster when you say that the name "Redskins" doesn't offend anyone simply because it exists. IN FACT, it offends a LOT of people (myself included). People would be crapping their pants all over the US if there was a NFL team called the "Blackskins" with an African warrior head on a helmet. The Redskins refuse to change their name due to 'tradition' and NOT because people aren't offended.
be real man... I just disapprove of pulling politics into the conversation... since they are forbidden on these boards... and because my views probably don't fly with most people on this forum... so rather than me (and others I'm sure) waste half my day at work typing back and forth about politics, the moderators have chosen to disallow the discussion.
Point taken on the politics angle. I didn't intend to bring in politics.
Regarding the "offensive" names. I agree that it is possible that offensive names exist but I also think that if a couple of people are offended by something that it doesn't necessarily warrant changing them. We would live our lives in a milktoast world, living at the whims of others. On the other hand, I would also agree that there comes a point where something becomes offensive to "society." It is at that point when such offensive names shouldn't be used anymore. My argument is that the NCAA decision-makers and various university adminstrations have decided something that is far away from reaching that point.
I really don't want to get into discussion now about what is offensive to "society" because you and I probably differ and it would involve discussing politics. So I am happy to leave it at that.
Quote from: downtown85 on November 20, 2009, 10:54:07 AM
I don't quite understand where you are getting with this? Which logical fallacy did I use?
I probably should have added the Fighting Irish as well? There's an offensive stereotype for you. I bet you there is some Irishman somewhere upset with that name.
Maybe I missed it but are there boycotts of the teams I mentioned?
Just because major league baseball allows "Indians" doesn't mean it's not offensive.
Let me restate:
I'm not personally offended by the mascots of sport teams... but just because there are teams out there using them doesn't mean that it's right.
There are certainly arguments that can be made in favor of keeping the fightin' Sioux nickname, I just don't think "Major league baseball does it" is valid. Major league baseball should not be used as an example of some sort of moral/political high ground.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 20, 2009, 11:02:41 AM
Bring back Willie Wampum and all the glory of his paper mache' head.
I love the Warrior nick name. But if there was a poster child for offensive mascots Willie was it. In my opinion, if we had no Willie we would probably still be called the Warriors. Didn't we play a team last year called the "Chippewas" from Michigan?
As an Irish-American I demand that ND rename themselves the Gold
Quote from: dcook on November 20, 2009, 11:29:29 AM
As an Irish-American I demand that ND rename themselves the Gold
Would work to w/ their gold dome. How about Golden Domers.
Quote from: NCMUFan on November 20, 2009, 11:26:01 AM
I love the Warrior nick name. But if there was a poster child for offensive mascots Willie was it. In my opinion, if we had no Willie we would probably still be called the Warriors. Didn't we play a team last year called the "Chippewas" from Michigan?
I think that's exactly what happened; some folks inability to separate Willie (or Native American for that matter) from Warrior in their heads ultimately killed any attempt to bring it back. That stupid canned election didn't help either.
Nevertheless, this article is interesting to me in that it shows if you have tribal support then you are golden (so to speak). If a local tribal council were to approach MU and request we "represent" them again I could see a return to Warrior. Without their involvement this conversation remains, sadly, moot.
Quote from: NCMUFan on November 20, 2009, 11:26:01 AM
I love the Warrior nick name. But if there was a poster child for offensive mascots Willie was it. In my opinion, if we had no Willie we would probably still be called the Warriors. Didn't we play a team last year called the "Chippewas" from Michigan?
Willie was very cool and played the role perfectly. Is Bucky Badger offensive? I think UW has the best mascot in college athletics. Since badgers are unable to speak and the PC crowd hasn't taken up the cause, UW is left alone.
Is the Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop offensive? How about the ultimate example, the Washington Redskins?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 20, 2009, 11:53:13 AM
Willie was very cool and play the role perfectly. Is Bucky Badger offensive? I think UW has the best mascot in college athletics. Since badgers are unable the speak and the PC crowd hasn't taken up the cause, UW is left alone.
Is the Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop offensive? How about the ultimate example, the Washington Redskins?
Yes, there are many folks in and out of the Native Am community that find both the tomahawk chop and the skins name offensive. As evidence both organizations have seen their share of protestors. Of course, neither organization nor their fans are willing to bend either so there it is.
I hear rodents around the world are generally pissed by how they are represented by UW.
BTW...our family pet hamster, 'little rascal,' died on Wednesday. In his last dying breath I swear I heard..."F-Bucky."
Quote from: MUinCO on November 20, 2009, 11:52:04 AM
Nevertheless, this article is interesting to me in that it shows if you have tribal support then you are golden (so to speak). If a local tribal council were to approach MU and request we "represent" them again I could see a return to Warrior. Without their involvement this conversation remains, sadly, moot.
Without getting into specifics, the MU administration was not really interested in hearing what the local American Indian community had to say.
Quote from: LastWarrior on November 20, 2009, 11:09:24 AM
Crack a book... interesting response. What book would that be? Perhaps a book on communism? Communism is based on the premise that the state dictates what is best for the people (rule by minority). Democracy is based on the principle of government by popularly elected officials (rule by majority). Just a refresher on how the government in the U.S. works... our representatives are elected by MAJORITY, legislation is passed by MAJORITY vote and a popularly elected (AGAIN BY MAJORITY) President signs legislation into law.
I'm sure you'll disagree so here are the two definitions...
Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Communism: A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
My point above is that it is commonplace in the U.S. these days to see special interest groups try take away the principles of democracy from the people. If the majority of folks are for the name, then let it stand!
Also, how about you stop resorting to name calling... that's pretty immature.
Thanks for the lesson, though it was unnecessary. And besides unnecessary, it was wholly inaccurate. Go read Karl Marx's manifesto if you really want to know what Communism is.
Your definition is simply the Soviet Unions terrible attempt at "Communism", when in reality, it was mere despotism. The term Communist gets thrown around far more liberally than it really should, and usually it gets thrown around by people who are ignorant of the true meaning.
as for your communism definition, I prefer the actual definition...
communism
–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
Not surprisingly though, you missed the entire point of my statement.
First off, we don't live in a democracy. We never have, and never will. What we have is a Democratically elected Republic. But that wasn't really my point anyway, just a heads up to you and others who don't seem to pay attention in civics class.
My point was that a small amount of people have almost ALWAYS (historically speaking) held the power. Power is concentrated for efficiency's sake. Our small (only a tiny portion of the population) government controls the law of the land. Additionally, those with a lot of money (again, a small portion of the population) control a vast amount of the economy. To say that we all have power is idealistic at best, and ignorant at worst.
Historically speaking, how many places in the world have the majority of people ruled the land? Almost none. From the Pharaohs and monarchs of the past, to the despots and dictators of the modern world, the power has almost always been held by a FEW people.
You can dream all you want about America being a democracy and allowing the majority to speak, but why should it be to the detriment of the minority? Simple utilitarianism does not, and should not apply to every situation, and especially in this situation. By your logic we should have never stopped calling African-Americans by a certain other name simply because a majority of folks are, "for the name!" as you say. Surely, you'd like to revise your argument?
as for the name calling, I apologize if it truly offended you. I doubt the name 'doofus' would offend any adult, and it was sort of a tongue in cheek joke alluding to the fact that most people should know that politics is
verboten on these boards. Again, lame joke on my part, apologies.
as for downtown85, I can completely agree with your last post. I don't find the "Fighting Sioux" offensive. But, if the Sioux did, then it should be changed. Simple as that.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 20, 2009, 11:53:13 AM
Is the Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop offensive? How about the ultimate example, the Washington Redskins?
I have no problem with Warriors, but I think anybody in their right mind would find Redskins offensive. Not saying it has to change - I couldn't care less one way or another - but Redskins is pretty bad.
A couple of things:
First, I am a liberal university administrator and I've never eaten brie.
Second, the issue that the University faces isn't one of political correctness, it is whether or not they are going to be able to host NCAA playoffs in their venues because the NCAA won't allow it, nor will they be able to wear uniforms with Native imagery. That means no more home hockey playoff games for one of the best hockey programs in the country. Any realist is going to come to the conclusion that fighting the NCAA is simply not worth it.
Third, I have no idea what legal standing the Sioux tribe has to force the University not to change its name. Bizarre.
One other thing.
North Dakota really got behind the 8-ball with this when the big donor to their hockey arena, and huge Sioux supporter, turned out to enjoy throwing Nazi-themed parties on a regular basis. It kind of took the wind out of their sails.
I'm sure the University is just ready for this entire episode to be done with...just like people at MU are just ready for the Warrior issue to be done with. It's hard to focus on the future when people keep bringing up the past.
Oh...one final, final thing.
University administrators figured out long ago that people's bark is much worse than their bite on this issue. People talk a good game, but by and large people still come to the games, still donate money and still support the program. Just look at this board as an example.
I would love to go back to the Warrior nickname. But I still support MU basketball and still contribute to the alma mater. Marquette really hasn't been hurt all that much by their name change.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 20, 2009, 03:39:37 PM
Oh...one final, final thing.
University administrators figured out long ago that people's bark is much worse than their bite on this issue. People talk a good game, but by and large people still come to the games, still donate money and still support the program. Just look at this board as an example.
I would love to go back to the Warrior nickname. But I still support MU basketball and still contribute to the alma mater. Marquette really hasn't been hurt all that much by their name change.
I couldn't agree more with the entire post. Administrators seem not to be accountable for their poor decisionmaking. Dude, you've got a great job! ;)
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 20, 2009, 03:32:56 PM
One other thing.
North Dakota really got behind the 8-ball with this when the big donor to their hockey arena, and huge Sioux supporter, turned out to enjoy throwing Nazi-themed parties on a regular basis. It kind of took the wind out of their sails.
I'm sure the University is just ready for this entire episode to be done with...just like people at MU are just ready for the Warrior issue to be done with. It's hard to focus on the future when people keep bringing up the past.
The donor you are referring to is Ralph Engelstad who owned the Imperial Palace in Vegas. There are about 2,200 or more engraved Fighting Sioux logos in the walls and floors throughout the beautiful arena he built. They can change the name but he made sure before he died that the Sioux logo would be very very hard to remove from their history.
EDIT: There are over 2,200 logos engraved throughout the stadium not 200.
Quote from: downtown85 on November 20, 2009, 03:43:09 PM
I couldn't agree more with the entire post. Administrators seem not to be accountable for their poor decisionmaking. Dude, you've got a great job! ;)
I know you are somewhat kidding, but we are most definitely held accountable. It's just that on a scale from 1 to 100, the university's nickname ranks about #99.
Quote from: SaintPaulWarrior on November 20, 2009, 04:13:11 PM
The donor you are referring to is Ralph Engelstad who owned the Imperial Palace in Vegas. There are about 2,200 or more engraved Fighting Sioux logos in the walls and floors throughout the beautiful arena he built. They can change the name but he made sure before he died that the Sioux logo would be very very hard to remove from their history.
EDIT: There are over 2,200 logos engraved throughout the stadium not 200.
And they will be removing every single one of them.
One tradition that I doubt will die is that when they play the national anthem at their sporting events, the crowd ends it with "...and the home of the SOOOOOOOOOOO."
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 20, 2009, 06:03:20 PM
And they will be removing every single one of them.
One tradition that I doubt will die is that when they play the national anthem at their sporting events, the crowd ends it with "...and the home of the SOOOOOOOOOOO."
They are leasing the arena until 2031 when the university will own it...these logos are engraved into marble and concrete...I wonder what the cost to remove over 2,200 logos in 2031 will cost?
Quote from: dcook on November 20, 2009, 11:29:29 AM
As an Irish-American I demand that ND rename themselves the Gold
Fool's Gold would be more appropriate.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 20, 2009, 06:03:20 PM
And they will be removing every single one of them.
One tradition that I doubt will die is that when they play the national anthem at their sporting events, the crowd ends it with "...and the home of the SOOOOOOOOOOO."
Highly doubt it, seeing how the University doesn't own the complex. The Engelstad family trust that owns the stadium would have to betray its purpose. Why would you want to scrub out your history?
Quote from: Balrogs on November 21, 2009, 12:17:36 AM
Highly doubt it, seeing how the University doesn't own the complex. The Engelstad family trust that owns the stadium would have to betray its purpose. Why would you want to scrub out your history?
OK, I didn't know they didn't own the complex. It did say "their facilities."
I wonder if the NCAA will allow them to host playoff games there? My guess is that this was part of their agreement.
I don't post often, but this topic sort of burns me. I was and am a warrior. Fine that our university's administration was one of the first to cave in on a milktoast nickname. As I said in the questionaire sent out by Marquette, a warrior doesn't have to be a Native American. There are plenty of Marquette grads out on a real battlefield today in harms way, and they could be out symbol.
As to the Native Americans, many want their tribe's names out there. Not only is there a lot of history involved, but they flat out make a lot of money for it. The Seminole tribe in Florida went beserk over this little rule and won, as they get a ton of dough from FSU for allowing them the honor to use their tribe's name. It goes a lot further than just being PC. They are taking a lot of money away from the tribes by doing this.
A return to the Warriors as a nickname? Probably not in my lifetime as it would take some spine or simple creativity, and I haven't seen that in any university administration for quite a while. There are plenty of Marquette grads out there who are real warriors, and probably the best being the road warriors to support the away half schedule!
Man, I want a university to name themselves after an indigenous tribe of the Philippines.
Seriously...they'd sell so many caps, shirts, etc. in California, parts of the Western Region, and the largest US cities!
One of the arguments in the article was identical to mine (and others) years ago....that is, if you stop using these nicknames you further push these tribes into obscurity.
My son last year asked what a Seminole was when we were watching the FSU game. Why else would a kid 3000 miles away from Florida ask about an Indian tribe from the American SE? Simple, it wouldn't happen.
FSU keeps the Seminole name alive nationally. So does ND State.
Would it surprise anyone if 40 years from now when no one knows anything about the tribes that some politico will suggest a law forcing schools to adopt Indian nicknames to honor them. Ironic, but it wouldn't surprise me.