The new Standing Rock tribal leader, Charles Murphy, appears to have had a change of heart. The name is no longer a priority.
I wouldn't call it a change of heart, he's still pro-nickname. He probably just realizes that there are more pressing issues to the tribe then a nickname. A lot of the anti-nickname people could learn from this...The new Standing Rock tribal leader, Charles Murphy, appears to have had a change of heart. The name is no longer a priority.
I wouldn't call it a change of heart, he's still pro-nickname. He probably just realizes that there are more pressing issues to the tribe then a nickname. A lot of the anti-nickname people could learn from this...
Scooby...IIRC there has to be a month's notice of anything like the nickname issue being discussed at a tribal meeting. There are a lot of problems on the reservations that Murphy feels are more important. RHHiT wasn't voted out just because he was anti-nickname...Really?
They've had ample time to deal with this issue. They could have come right out and said "absolutley not" or "go ahead". Instead they're waffling on levels that rival Brett Favre.
Now it appears instead of a yes or a no it's going to a deadline that does the name in? Preposterous.
Ron His Horse Is Thunder is a way cooler name for a tribal leader than Charles Murphy.
They've had ample time to deal with this issue.
One month is ample time for the new tribal council to decide on the Fighting Sioux nickname?![]()
![]()
One month is ample time for the new tribal council to decide on the Fighting Sioux nickname?![]()
![]()
That's not really my point and you know it.
That's not really my point and you know it. And yes, they could have taken care of it 5 minutes after they were put in place, instead they're dragging their feet and drawing it to a ridiculous conclusion. The tribal leader appears in his whining about "timetables" and "preconditions" to "want something" out of the negotiations. It's comical at best.
I don't have a dog in this hunt. But I am unable to understand why it's considered appropriate for one group of Americans (and a small group at that) to have veto powers over how another and much larger group of Americans expresses itself.
I don't have a dog in this hunt. But I am unable to understand why it's considered appropriate for one group of Americans (and a small group at that) to have veto powers over how another and much larger group of Americans expresses itself.
Balkanization of America is not in the best interests of the country or the groups we seek to "protect" from hurt feelings. Thanks to grandstanding Chicago politicians who threatened the university's revenue, Illinois was forced to cave in on the issue of Chief Illiniwek. Iconoclasts everywhere rejoiced, but what had they really accomplished other than ending a harmless tradition revered by tens of thousands?
Similarly, what will be accomplished by ending the Fighting Sioux tradion? Nothing. The iconoclasts, again, will delight in their success but will have destroyed something revered by tens of thousands. Nothing else.
When that larger group of Americans is pretty much the reason that the smaller group is in fact so small, that kinda makes a difference, does it not?
I guess those pesky African Americans (12.7% a few years ago) should just shut up when the much larger white population calls them something inappropriate?
Show me an African American that would object to me calling them...African American.When that larger group of Americans is pretty much the reason that the smaller group is in fact so small, that kinda makes a difference, does it not?
I guess those pesky African Americans (12.7% a few years ago) should just shut up when the much larger white population calls them something inappropriate?
I don't have a dog in this hunt. But I am unable to understand why it's considered appropriate for one group of Americans (and a small group at that) to have veto powers over how another and much larger group of Americans expresses itself.
Balkanization of America is not in the best interests of the country or the groups we seek to "protect" from hurt feelings. Thanks to grandstanding Chicago politicians who threatened the university's revenue, Illinois was forced to cave in on the issue of Chief Illiniwek. Iconoclasts everywhere rejoiced, but what had they really accomplished other than ending a harmless tradition revered by tens of thousands?
Similarly, what will be accomplished by ending the Fighting Sioux tradion? Nothing. The iconoclasts, again, will delight in their success but will have destroyed something revered by tens of thousands. Nothing else.
When I lived up there no one got made at me for asking if they were Sioux...
If 75% of those African Americans say it isn't inappropriate, should we base policies on the 25% who say it is inappropriate?