The Washington Times 2/17/10
By Valerie Richardson
The end of the Fighting Sioux could be near as the University of North Dakota appears ready to abandon its mascot over calls of racism despite a petition drive by local tribe members to preserve the school's nickname and logo.
Supporters from the Standing Rock Sioux want to collect at least 600 signatures before the next tribal council meeting in March.
"We just want the people to have their say," said Archie D. Fool Bear, one of the petition organizers. "It's not up to 17 people on the [tribal] council, it's up to the entire reservation to decide. A whole lot of people have told us, 'Get that petition going, we'll sign it.'"
Time, however, is running out.
The North Dakota University System board could rid itself of the controversy by retiring the nickname and logo as early as Thursday's February meeting.
Last month, both UND's Chancellor Bill Goetz and UND President Robert Kelley abandoned their neutral stances on the issue by coming out against keeping the Fighting Sioux nickname.
Under NCAA rules, universities may keep their Indian mascots, nicknames and logos as long as they receive the permission of the namesake tribe, which in UND's case consists of two tribes — the Spirit Lake Sioux and Standing Rock Sioux.
The Spirit Lake Sioux tribal council gave its blessing in September but Standing Rock Sioux leaders have long opposed the nickname. That changed in October, when the tribe elected a new chairman and several new council members who favor the nickname, but a formal granting of permission has been slow to come.
Chairman Charles Murphy has indicated the council doesnt want to be rushed into a decision.
The limbo leaves the University of North Dakota as the last campus with an unresolved Indian nickname. In 2005, the NCAA issued its decision against Indian nicknames and since then the rest of the 19 schools on its list either switched mascots or received tribal permission, said NCAA officials.
"The reality is the NCAA says the tribe can either give their consent or not give their consent; it is in their ball court," said state Board of Higher Education President Jon Backes, according to the Grand Forks Herald. "We have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to cultivate that and get it to a resolution. We haven't succeeded at this point.
"I think we've spent enough time and effort. ... Should they choose to give consent, we'll find out about it."
Even if the board does vote to retire the nickname, the issue isn't expected to disappear. A group of Spirit Lake Sioux have filed a lawsuit challenging the university's authority to get rid of the nickname before the NCAA's November deadline. That case is expected to be heard by the state Supreme Court in late March.
"I wish they would respect us enough to wait for the lawsuit," said Eunice Davidson, a Spirit Lake Sioux and member of the tribe's Committee for Understanding and Respect, which brought the case.
Mrs. Davidson said the Fighting Sioux nickname is actually a source of pride on the reservation, citing her son and grandson's love of the school's hockey team as a motivator for continuing their education.
"That's what kept them in school — they wanted to play for the Fighting Sioux," Mrs. Davidson said.
Other tribal supporters of the nickname argue that UND already has permission to use the Fighting Sioux. In 1969, Sioux tribal leaders held a naming ceremony and pipe ceremony at UND giving the university the right to the nickname.
That pact cant be broken, although NCAA officials dont seem to realize this, Mr. Fool Bear said.
"All the spiritual people I've talked to, all the elders, including my mother, who died recently, said, 'Once it's been done, you can't undo it," Mr. Fool Bear said.
The Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, he said, confer much-needed respect and recognition on the Sioux nation.
"Youve got the other side jumping up and down and saying, 'Its racist!'" he said. "And I respect their opinion, but were stuck out here on a small reservation. We've already been annihilated by the government. This [nickname] is telling people, 'Hey, we're still here. We're strong. And we're going to be here for another 200 years.'"
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC
Now you got me all fired up again - probably shouldn't have read this (ignorance is bliss as they say).
I'm part Irish, and I find ND's logo racist and offensive. Why isn't the NCAA and ACLU standing up for my minority voice?
I also descend from people who worked at ACME and I find "Packers" offensive.
Not to mention that I also have family members who worked in the mines and I find "Badgers" offensive.
Seriously.... where does this end?
"Youve got the other side jumping up and down and saying, 'Its racist!'" he said. "And I respect their opinion, but were stuck out here on a small reservation. We've already been annihilated by the government. This [nickname] is telling people, 'Hey, we're still here. We're strong. And we're going to be here for another 200 years.'"
Perhaps the most interesting quote I've read thus far regarding this issue
As a male sports fan, I find the RISD mascots - Nads (HK) and Balls (BK) - offensive to my manhood...since they suck (no pun intended)!
an interesting trend that I think bears upon the debate is that the more specific Native American mascots and nicknames have been, the better the chance the nickname survive. Cases such as the Fighting Sioux or the Seminoles allow the particular school to seek out the approval of the relevant tribal leadership. However general terms like Warriors or Indians are more often changed, because they generalize and group often very distinct tribal affiliations or racial groups together.
Quote from: MUBurrow on February 17, 2010, 01:35:32 PM
an interesting trend that I think bears upon the debate is that the more specific Native American mascots and nicknames have been, the better the chance the nickname survive. Cases such as the Fighting Sioux or the Seminoles allow the particular school to seek out the approval of the relevant tribal leadership. However general terms like Warriors or Indians are more often changed, because they generalize and group often very distinct tribal affiliations or racial groups together.
Warriors is a bad example because outside of Marquette volunteering to give up the name, I can't think of an instance where someone with that nickname got rid of it. Certainly, no one has been forced to give it up.
But yeah, you are correct. My guess is that the UND administration just wants this all to go away so they can move on.
good point, warriors is a distinct case in that the nickname does not refer to a Native American history whereas the mascot was a racially divisive image. I can't really think of any comparable examples where a name did not necessarily evoke race whereas the mascot chosen did.
Quote from: MUBurrow on February 17, 2010, 01:49:06 PM
good point, warriors is a distinct case in that the nickname does not refer to a Native American history whereas the mascot was a racially divisive image. I can't really think of any comparable examples where a name did not necessarily evoke race whereas the mascot chosen did.
Illinois Fighting Illini
the Illini refers to a confederation of Native American tribes based in the area which became Illinois.
Quote from: Benny B on February 17, 2010, 12:55:06 PM
Now you got me all fired up again - probably shouldn't have read this (ignorance is bliss as they say).
I'm part Irish, and I find ND's logo racist and offensive. Why isn't the NCAA and ACLU standing up for my minority voice?
I also descend from people who worked at ACME and I find "Packers" offensive.
Not to mention that I also have family members who worked in the mines and I find "Badgers" offensive.
Seriously.... where does this end?
Because you're a white guy and therefore you cannot understand what racism means (I shouldn't put this in teal because there are a large number of people in this country that actually believe this)
Quote from: MUBurrow on February 17, 2010, 01:57:45 PM
the Illini refers to a confederation of Native American tribes based in the area which became Illinois.
Yes I understand. I was referring to people's discomfort over "Chief Illiniwick"(sic) as an example of people having an issue over a mascot and not the name.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 17, 2010, 01:44:41 PM
Warriors is a bad example because outside of Marquette volunteering to give up the name, I can't think of an instance where someone with that nickname got rid of it. Certainly, no one has been forced to give it up.
In fact, the exact opposite happened. The University of Hawaii ADOPTED the name Warriors.
Yeah, Hawaii is an interesting case because there, it is implied that the general name applies to the particular Native tribe. Hawaii actually maintains closer ties to its Native American heritage than even particularly named schools (FSU, etc). I guess all of these cases are so particular to the circumstances it is difficult to look at them in the vacuum. Illinois for example, I think would have been in hot water even without Chief Illiniwek because the nickname refers particularly to a tribe. After getting the necessary approval, it just so happens their mascot was so egregious that the conflict wasn't over.
Could Marquette have dropped the mascot and Warrior icon and just simply kept the nickname? Or even switch the logo to a different type of Warrior maybe one that's closer to MSU's Spartan or the old Golden State Warrior. I know it wouldn't have been ideal, but I think it would have been much better.
Quote from: LAZER on February 17, 2010, 02:15:02 PM
Could Marquette have dropped the mascot and Warrior icon and just simply kept the nickname? Or even switch the logo to a different type of Warrior maybe one that's closer to MSU's Spartan or the old Golden State Warrior. I know it wouldn't have been ideal, but I think it would have been much better.
Yes. But Fr. DiUlio didn't want to.
Quote from: LAZER on February 17, 2010, 02:15:02 PM
Could Marquette have dropped the mascot and Warrior icon and just simply kept the nickname? Or even switch the logo to a different type of Warrior maybe one that's closer to MSU's Spartan or the old Golden State Warrior. I know it wouldn't have been ideal, but I think it would have been much better.
No.
Quote from: LAZER on February 17, 2010, 02:15:02 PM
Could Marquette have dropped the mascot and Warrior icon and just simply kept the nickname? Or even switch the logo to a different type of Warrior maybe one that's closer to MSU's Spartan or the old Golden State Warrior. I know it wouldn't have been ideal, but I think it would have been much better.
This is exactly why the switch was so stupid. We could have just kept Warriors and switched the logos and everything would have been fine. Now we sit here 16 years later still arguing about it.
Quote from: LAZER on February 17, 2010, 02:15:02 PM
Could Marquette have dropped the mascot and Warrior icon and just simply kept the nickname? Or even switch the logo to a different type of Warrior maybe one that's closer to MSU's Spartan or the old Golden State Warrior. I know it wouldn't have been ideal, but I think it would have been much better.
This was also brought up during the 2005 "revisiting." The response the administration gave was along the lines of "the name is forever tied to the image at Marquette."
Quote from: bma725 on February 17, 2010, 02:29:32 PM
No.
We will always respectfully disagree on this.
The Warriors in the NBA used to have an indian mascot and now almost no one knows that was the case. People can dissasociate with the linkage quite easily, especially in time. That was the decision that should have been made, but we went the coward way out of it.
The Warriors in the NBA had the Indian mascot for decades and yet people don't associate Warriors to Indians now. Some of the logos below for the Philadelphia Warriors and San Francisco Warriors. Just one example of many.
(http://i48.tinypic.com/29aur74.gif)(http://i48.tinypic.com/ie2cyg.gif)(http://i47.tinypic.com/33nglxy.gif)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 17, 2010, 03:27:51 PM
We will always respectfully disagree on this.
The Warriors in the NBA used to have an indian mascot and now almost no one knows that was the case. People can dissasociate with the linkage quite easily, especially in time. That was the decision that should have been made, but we went the coward way out of it.
The Warriors in the NBA had the Indian mascot for decades and yet people don't associate Warriors to Indians now. Some of the logos below for the Philadelphia Warriors and San Francisco Warriors. Just one example of many.
(http://i48.tinypic.com/29aur74.gif)(http://i48.tinypic.com/ie2cyg.gif)(http://i47.tinypic.com/33nglxy.gif)
It's a fair example, but it's also unfair because pro fans seem to "get over it" more than a college alumni.
I don't see anybody screaming about wanting to to be the Bullets. Why not? Well, because pro fans (especially basketball) don't seem to have the strong emotional ties that college fans have.
As far as MU goes, I agree that changing to a knight logo would have been the prudent thing to do.
BUT...BUT... let's examine all of the hand-ringing about the nickname and logo. IF MU had kept the Warrior nickname and lost the Indian logo, you can bet there would still be some pissed off people.
People will say that they wouldn't be pissed if MU had simply changed the logo... but let's face it, A LOT would still be very angry because this is an emotional topic (college memories) multiplied by the political overtones (PC vs anti-PC).
Probably never should have gone away from Hilltoppers...
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 17, 2010, 03:27:51 PM
We will always respectfully disagree on this.
The Warriors in the NBA used to have an indian mascot and now almost no one knows that was the case. People can dissasociate with the linkage quite easily, especially in time. That was the decision that should have been made, but we went the coward way out of it.
See the "We Are Marquette T-Shirt" thread to show why we will not be able to disassociate with the imagery. We have people downloading old Native American logos to make t-shirts. (Believe me...I am not condemning those who are doing it...just that it proves the point that bma is making.)
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 17, 2010, 04:11:37 PM
See the "We Are Marquette T-Shirt" thread to show why we will not be able to disassociate with the imagery. We have people downloading old Native American logos to make t-shirts. (Believe me...I am not condemning those who are doing it...just that it proves the point that bma is making.)
But that's because there's no alternative. If MU had used different imagery, the name would become associated with the new imagery.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 17, 2010, 04:11:37 PM
See the "We Are Marquette T-Shirt" thread to show why we will not be able to disassociate with the imagery. We have people downloading old Native American logos to make t-shirts. (Believe me...I am not condemning those who are doing it...just that it proves the point that bma is making.)
That's because MU is not giving us an acceptable non-Indian Warrior image that we can all embrace. So we old-timer Warrior lovers are going overboard the other non-PC way just to maintain our link to the Warriors as our nickname.
EDIT: Litehouse, you beat me to it
Quote from: Litehouse on February 17, 2010, 04:15:32 PM
But that's because there's no alternative. If MU had used different imagery, the name would become associated with the new imagery.
Maybe... I don't know.
Quote from: BrewCity on February 17, 2010, 04:16:51 PM
That's because MU is not giving us an acceptable non-Indian Warrior image that we can all embrace. So we old-timer Warrior lovers are going overboard the other non-PC way just to maintain our link to the Warriors as our nickname.
Sure. Have fun. But you are just proving the point that the administration is making.
Quote from: BrewCity on February 17, 2010, 04:16:51 PM
That's because MU is not giving us an acceptable non-Indian Warrior image that we can all embrace. So we old-timer Warrior lovers are going overboard the other non-PC way just to maintain our link to the Warriors as our nickname.
EDIT: Litehouse, you beat me to it
Maybe this is just for sake of argument, but why is it the job of the university to provide you with an alternative when, right or wrong, it has decided that it believes no such alternative exists?
Shouldn't it be incumbent upon the fans who say a change of imagery is possible and easy to provide examples and, for lack of a better phrase, live that example? Instead, the example most often provided is just the opposite - that those holding firm to the the nickname also are holding firm to the Native American imagery.
I've seen MU fans in headdresses and T-shirts bearing Willie Wampum, but never a knight's gear or St. Joan of Arc.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on February 17, 2010, 03:53:13 PM
It's a fair example, but it's also unfair because pro fans seem to "get over it" more than a college alumni.
I don't see anybody screaming about wanting to to be the Bullets. Why not? Well, because pro fans (especially basketball) don't seem to have the strong emotional ties that college fans have.
As far as MU goes, I agree that changing to a knight logo would have been the prudent thing to do.
BUT...BUT... let's examine all of the hand-ringing about the nickname and logo. IF MU had kept the Warrior nickname and lost the Indian logo, you can bet there would still be some pissed off people.
People will say that they wouldn't be pissed if MU had simply changed the logo... but let's face it, A LOT would still be very angry because this is an emotional topic (college memories) multiplied by the political overtones (PC vs anti-PC).
Probably never should have gone away from Hilltoppers...
I've heard that argument before but I'm not sure I buy it, at least for most fans. It would be the ultimate compromise. We'll let the name stay but we're going to change the association and I believe most people would have accepted that as a wise decision.
I've also heard the pro fan argument but also not sure I believe it, though it's definitely out there. You're right that most fans of pro teams could give a rip about the logo, and quite frankly I don't think MU fans do either. But if you were to change the Lakers name to something else (name, not logo) the city would burn down. Dodgers to something else, city would burn down. At the end of the day, it was the name change that got everyone fired up and I think most pro sports fans would be pissed off to high heaven over name changes. The Bullets being one of the few exceptions.
We can buy Warrior "retro" gear with Warrior imagery that the school has used in the past. Anything that is Warrior related that is not Indian related is not readily available, and doesn't really have any connection to the Marquette Warriors that anyone would recognize. So, since there has never been any official Marquette Warrior logo that is not Indian related, we Warrior lovers are forced to go with anything that is available. If the school had endorsed a Joan of Arc Warrior, which I wholeheartedly endorse(d), I'd be wearing that Warrior logo on my gear today instead of the Indian Warrior stuff.
Rumor has it UND will be known as the "University of North Dakota Golden Eagles" joining 18 other division I schools known by the same nickname...
Quote from: Pakuni on February 17, 2010, 04:30:57 PM
Instead, the example most often provided is just the opposite - that those holding firm to the the nickname also are holding firm to the Native American imagery.
I've seen MU fans in headdresses and T-shirts bearing Willie Wampum, but never a knight's gear or St. Joan of Arc.
Of course, because that's the only known official linkage. But if the mascot changed to a knight, or spartan or whatever, then you would see people wearing those things that associate with that new meaning. No different than seeing some people now wear Golden Eagles materials.
It's quite easy to go from one logo to the next when it's the same name. Something entirely different when you're going from one name to another name, a much more radical transition that will, to use a pun, ruffle some feathers.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 17, 2010, 04:30:57 PM
Shouldn't it be incumbent upon the fans who say a change of imagery is possible and easy to provide examples and, for lack of a better phrase, live that example?
You know, I sold a couple hundred of these "non-offensive" shirts back during the latest warrior fiasco. So it's pretty clear to me that fans would support such a thing. Plus I was actually involved in talking with University officials and the GLITC. There was really a lot of agreement that it was possible.
However, the University basically gave the idea the middle finger twice, so they only have themselves to blame.
(http://www.new-warriors.com/media/1/20060208-shirt_design.jpg)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 17, 2010, 05:00:33 PM
I've heard that argument before but I'm not sure I buy it, at least for most fans. It would be the ultimate compromise. We'll let the name stay but we're going to change the association and I believe most people would have accepted that as a wise decision.
I'm really torn on this one. I agree with you to a certain extend because a compromise would make the most logical sense. Make the logo a knight, and the issue would have been solved. Right?
BUT, this isn't a "logic" issue for a lot of people, and I think in hindsight its very easy to say "Just change the logo, everybody will be happy with that." People are passionate about this because it hits them in their soft spot (college memories) and in a highly combative spot (What is PC all about? Why do we need it?) I think a lot of people who claim they wouldn't have been mad with a logo change would still have been pretty pissed, and would still be ordering old shirts with the Indian logo instead of the new logo. However, to be fair, people are ordering indian shirts now, so I don't really see a huge difference.
I've also heard the pro fan argument but also not sure I believe it, though it's definitely out there. You're right that most fans of pro teams could give a rip about the logo, and quite frankly I don't think MU fans do either. But if you were to change the Lakers name to something else (name, not logo) the city would burn down. Dodgers to something else, city would burn down. At the end of the day, it was the name change that got everyone fired up and I think most pro sports fans would be pissed off to high heaven over name changes. The Bullets being one of the few exceptions.
Your right, there are a handful of franchises where logos and colors mean a lot (celtics, bruins, Yankees, Colts, Canadiens, Packers, etc.). But, there are also a ton of teams where it really doesn't mean much (cannucks, Sixers, Magic, Chargers, Tampa Bay (any of the teams), etc. The passion for tradition is much greater in college sports (for the most part). I mean, how many times has Golden State changed/added logos in the past 10 years? I feel like they are always tweaking something. What about the Cavs? They have about 7 different jerseys, and rarely do they have the same logos.
Quote from: bma725 on February 17, 2010, 02:29:32 PM
No.
The hell they couldn't have. Who was going to say they couldn't?
I just wish they would have figured out something better than gold when they decided to go out of the box.
off the top of my head: apex, angle, boulder, bastion, catalyst, dawn, engine..
Did they ever do a focus group? There is something outthere that people would have been excited about.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on February 17, 2010, 05:24:41 PM
The hell they couldn't have. Who was going to say they couldn't?
It's got nothing to do with disassociating the name the logo, or whatever logo they could have come up with.
There are much larger things at work here. Things far outside of Al DiUlio's control. Follow the money.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 17, 2010, 03:27:51 PM
We will always respectfully disagree on this.
The Warriors in the NBA used to have an indian mascot and now almost no one knows that was the case. People can dissasociate with the linkage quite easily, especially in time. That was the decision that should have been made, but we went the coward way out of it.
I'm not talking about inability to associate the name with something other than the old logo.
As much as the Warrior fans would like it to be, it was not as simple a decision as just changing the logo associated with the name. There are much larger factors at work here, much more powerful people the Big Al and Sherri Coe-Perkins, much more complicated situations that made sticking with the nickname then or at any point in the future an impossibility.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 17, 2010, 04:30:57 PM
Shouldn't it be incumbent upon the fans who say a change of imagery is possible and easy to provide examples and, for lack of a better phrase, live that example? Instead, the example most often provided is just the opposite - that those holding firm to the the nickname also are holding firm to the Native American imagery.
I've seen MU fans in headdresses and T-shirts bearing Willie Wampum, but never a knight's gear or St. Joan of Arc.
At the risk of sounding rude, that arguement just seems silly to me. A university with millions of dollars available to hire a firm to develop a suitable replacement logo refuses to even contemplate it. But the fact that Joe and Tony sitting at The Gym haven't come up with a replacement logo and marketed it to the point of full fan acceptance means that one doesn't exist.
Huh?
Quote from: bma725 on February 17, 2010, 07:49:02 PM
There are much larger factors at work here, much more powerful people the Big Al and Sherri Coe-Perkins, much more complicated situations that made sticking with the nickname then or at any point in the future an impossibility.
Care to expand on that?
Quote from: MUEng92 on February 17, 2010, 07:57:31 PM
Care to expand on that?
Not really. But it's really not that hard to figure out when you look into it. Look at the condition of the university when DiUlio took over. Look at the condition of the campus. Look at the perception and reality of the neighborhood. Look at how that changed, and what that sort of change requires. Look at the projects the university considered and finished during that time frame. Look at who DiUlio actually reports to, and what those people are doing now.
It was never just a decision about a nickname.
Quote from: MUEng92 on February 17, 2010, 07:52:27 PM
At the risk of sounding rude, that arguement just seems silly to me. A university with millions of dollars available to hire a firm to develop a suitable replacement logo refuses to even contemplate it. But the fact that Joe and Tony sitting at The Gym haven't come up with a replacement logo and marketed it to the point of full fan acceptance means that one doesn't exist.
Huh?
At the risk of sounding rude, you completely miss the point.
Perhaps I need to phrase it better.
Marquette University has taken the position that the Warrior nickname is irrevocably linked, at least in the context of Marquette University, to the Native American imagery. We can agree or disagree on that point as much as we want, but that's the university's position.
That being the case, why would you expect the university to make a concerted effort and "spend millions of dollars" (a fine use of university resources, by the way) to prove itself wrong and create a replacement logo? A logo that, in their opinion, could never erase the nickame's Native legcay. That makes no sense. It's like complaining that the Catholic church doesn't try hard enough to disprove the existence of God. The university has taken a position, and you're complaining that they're not doing enough disprove it.
Do you spend a lot of time, effort and money trying to convince others you're wrong?
Whether a different logo would or would not be accepted to the point that it erases the Native legacy is something I don't know. Nor do I care. It's a freakin' nickname, and for the life of me I can't figure out why so many people are so emotionally invested in it. But that's just me. I'm not saying people who are that invested are stupid or anything of the sort, just that I don't comprehend it. On the list of things that makes MU valuable to me, the Warrior nickname (which was there when I attended) ranks about 10,000th.
So, bottom line, if people want to make the case that the Warrior nickname can be adopted in a way that would, to the university's satisfaction, end links to past imagery, they should go about doing so instead of demanding the university do it for them. And certainly instead of continuing to wear Willie Wampum-ish garb that merely serves to prove the anti-Warrior crowd's point.
Maybe they would succeed, maybe they wouldn't. I have no idea.
But it's not the school's job to do it for them.
Quote from: bma725 on February 17, 2010, 08:35:13 PM
Not really. But it's really not that hard to figure out when you look into it. Look at the condition of the university when DiUlio took over. Look at the condition of the campus. Look at the perception and reality of the neighborhood. Look at how that changed, and what that sort of change requires. Look at the projects the university considered and finished during that time frame. Look at who DiUlio actually reports to, and what those people are doing now.
It was never just a decision about a nickname.
So changing the nickname has something to do with urban renewal?
Somebody should call the Mayor of Detroit. All they need is a nickname change.
Quote from: bma725 on February 17, 2010, 08:35:13 PM
Not really. But it's really not that hard to figure out when you look into it. Look at the condition of the university when DiUlio took over. Look at the condition of the campus. Look at the perception and reality of the neighborhood. Look at how that changed, and what that sort of change requires. Look at the projects the university considered and finished during that time frame. Look at who DiUlio actually reports to, and what those people are doing now.
It was never just a decision about a nickname.
True - its about ideology also. That farce of a vote they ran also excluded any nicknames that contained war in it.
Here's what I never understood. Why don't they replace the seal of the University? Some individuals may interpret it as Father Marquette commanding that poor native to row the boat to where Father is pointing. Seems just as or more offensive depending on how you want to spin it.
What always pissed me off was that Wild and the gang should be beating up on their SLU brethren for having the Biliken idol as a mascot. Goes against the Ten Commandments if you ask me and a fundamental point to make if you're going to try to sit on a high horse about morality. Dude's a great administrator, but never cared for the I know morality better than you attitude on this issue.
Quote from: bma725 on February 17, 2010, 08:35:13 PM
Not really. But it's really not that hard to figure out when you look into it. Look at the condition of the university when DiUlio took over. Look at the condition of the campus. Look at the perception and reality of the neighborhood. Look at how that changed, and what that sort of change requires. Look at the projects the university considered and finished during that time frame. Look at who DiUlio actually reports to, and what those people are doing now.
It was never just a decision about a nickname.
I don't know why you're being so cryptic. Its long been speculated that the nickname was changed as the terms of huge donation from a Native American group. I don't know if this is true and honestly 15 years after the fact I don't lose a lot of sleep over it. I also don't spend a lot of time wishing horrible things on Tom Crean but that's for another thread.
I do know that immediately after the nickname was changed Marquette built an $8 million athletic facility right next to the Potowatomi casino. Maybe the two things are related, maybe not.
It is also well-known that donors have offered the University millions to change the name back to Warriors and have been refused. In 1994, the last year Marquette had the Warrior nickname, it ranked 127th nationally in University endowment rankings. For fiscal year 2008, it ranked 176th nationally.
Without anything more than circumstantial evidence, it's too attenuated to say that the University changed the name for money and has reaped a financial windfall ever since. If you know something more I'd love to hear it.
Lot more money involved than just what went to Valley Fields, and MU did a lot more in that period than just buy and build that facility. You're on the right track though.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 17, 2010, 09:17:50 PM
So, bottom line, if people want to make the case that the Warrior nickname can be adopted in a way that would, to the university's satisfaction, end links to past imagery, they should go about doing so instead of demanding the university do it for them. And certainly instead of continuing to wear Willie Wampum-ish garb that merely serves to prove the anti-Warrior crowd's point.
Maybe they would succeed, maybe they wouldn't. I have no idea.
But it's not the school's job to do it for them.
Damn tiny itouch keys. In my original post I meant to type that the university refused (not refuses) to even consider it. Obviously they aren't going to waste their time and money on an argument they already "won".
I fully understand that the name will never change back. Fine, whatever, I have a lot more important things to worry about. But that doesn't take away the bad taste in my mouth from the weak arguments used to justify how the change was made.
The Warrior theme is nothing more than a tribute to a legacy of violence and oppression. It is homage to a shameful past that brought a proud people to the brink of extinction.
Quote from: Jacks DC on February 17, 2010, 10:18:29 PM
I don't know why you're being so cryptic. Its long been speculated that the nickname was changed as the terms of huge donation from a Native American group. I don't know if this is true and honestly 15 years after the fact I don't lose a lot of sleep over it. I also don't spend a lot of time wishing horrible things on Tom Crean but that's for another thread.
I do know that immediately after the nickname was changed Marquette built an $8 million athletic facility right next to the Potowatomi casino. Maybe the two things are related, maybe not.
It is also well-known that donors have offered the University millions to change the name back to Warriors and have been refused. In 1994, the last year Marquette had the Warrior nickname, it ranked 127th nationally in University endowment rankings. For fiscal year 2008, it ranked 176th nationally.
Without anything more than circumstantial evidence, it's too attenuated to say that the University changed the name for money and has reaped a financial windfall ever since. If you know something more I'd love to hear it.
If that is the case, the issue could be a perpetual, confidential agreement with the tribe that prevents the Warrior nickname.
It wouldn't matter if anyone offered millions to get the name switched because in that circumstance, they would never change it. And your endowment figures are misleading. MU has been directing most of its charitable support into building programs v. the endowment...and everyone's endowment figures have been growing over the last 20 years.
Quote from: bma725 on February 17, 2010, 10:29:09 PM
Lot more money involved than just what went to Valley Fields, and MU did a lot more in that period than just buy and build that facility. You're on the right track though.
I definitely prefer Golden Eagle to the first choice, Gnew.
Here's DiUlio's post-MU bio. Sent to Ethiopia at the behest of the Pope, now Secretary of Finance for the Jesuits... this conspiracy theory sounds like a job for Dan Brown.
http://www.jesuit.org/index.php/main/about-us/jesuit-conference/conference-staff/secretary-for-finance-and-higher-education/
Maybe DiUlio can get the Potawotamis to build him some stuff in Ethiopia.
My two cents (which is probably worth less than that).......the importance of any particular word is that it represents or symbolizes something. From the time MU incorporated Warriors----as a marketing gimmick because the Milwaukee Braves came to town, the symbol representing that word was a Native American, specifically Willie Wampum. If that symbol is replaced, then what does the word represent? Marquette, as an institution, is far bigger than any word or athletic mascot. People got over the loss of Avalanche and Hilltoppers as symbols/nicknames. And, if we want to argue that the term Warriors symbolizes Marquette, don't we have to argue that Avalanche and Hilltoppers represent the university as well.
Quote from: d6 on February 18, 2010, 12:34:43 PM
My two cents (which is probably worth less than that).......the importance of any particular word is that it represents or symbolizes something. From the time MU incorporated Warriors----as a marketing gimmick because the Milwaukee Braves came to town, the symbol representing that word was a Native American, specifically Willie Wampum. If that symbol is replaced, then what does the word represent? Marquette, as an institution, is far bigger than any word or athletic mascot. People got over the loss of Avalanche and Hilltoppers as symbols/nicknames. And, if we want to argue that the term Warriors symbolizes Marquette, don't we have to argue that Avalanche and Hilltoppers represent the university as well.
Words have multiple meanings which the Warriors of Philadelphia, San Francisco and Golden State more than successfully executed away from an Indian "symbolism" (despite 4 decades under that symbol) to one with a different symbol despite the same word.
I absolutely agree that words have multiple meanings. In the same vein, if we simply change what Warriors was represented as (i.e., change Willie Wampum and replace it with a new symbol), then what is the significance of the word? My opinion is that we should have either held firm and kept the Warriors and what it represents or we should have reverted back to one of our previous nicknames. To keep Warriors and change the symbol, in my opinion, is no different than changing the word completely. Hell, why don't we just pretend that the golden chicken is actually a warrior...........
Quote from: d6 on February 18, 2010, 12:34:43 PM
My two cents (which is probably worth less than that).......the importance of any particular word is that it represents or symbolizes something. From the time MU incorporated Warriors----as a marketing gimmick because the Milwaukee Braves came to town, the symbol representing that word was a Native American, specifically Willie Wampum. If that symbol is replaced, then what does the word represent? Marquette, as an institution, is far bigger than any word or athletic mascot. People got over the loss of Avalanche and Hilltoppers as symbols/nicknames. And, if we want to argue that the term Warriors symbolizes Marquette, don't we have to argue that Avalanche and Hilltoppers represent the university as well.
Beautifully stated.
I wish we would have stayed Warriors. But if they had to drop Warriors, they should have just gone back to Hilltoppers in '94 or even '05. The Golden Eagles is just such a bland and generic name that represents nothing.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 18, 2010, 12:49:31 PM
Words have multiple meanings which the Warriors of Philadelphia, San Francisco and Golden State more than successfully executed away from an Indian "symbolism" (despite 4 decades under that symbol) to one with a different symbol despite the same word.
It seems to me inaccurate comparing the circumstances of a professional sports franchise that's played in multiple cities to multiple fan bases and changed its logo nearly five decades ago to that of a nearly 130-year old university that has an entirely different relationship with its consumers/supporters.
Couldn't one surmise that the old GS Warrior logo has easily faded from memory in part because of the team's moves, it's relationship with its fans and the length of time that's passed since the change?
For the most part, the people who followed those Warriors under the Native American imagery lived thousands of miles away from where the team now plays and has for 39 years. I'd venture to guess that 95+ percent of Golden State Warriors fans today likely never saw or followed the team under the old logo, and maybe aren't even aware of it.
(FYI ... according to the NBA, the team officially changed away from the Native logo when the franchise moved to San Francisco in 1962 ... meaning the youngest fans to remember the old logo are in their mid- to late 50s).
http://www.nba.com/warriors/history/logo_history.html
Not sure I know the answer - though I lean pretty strongly toward saying the two entities are totally incomparable - but it's a question worth asking.