Happy
Registered User
Re: Fighting Sioux name may change - Murphy's law
As long as they yell loud enough, 2% is probably enough.
As long as they yell loud enough, 2% is probably enough.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Fighting Sioux name may change - Murphy's law
- Thread starter Jockstock
- Start date
Happy
Registered User
Re: Fighting Sioux name may change - Murphy's law
Unless, the two year deadline was really just to get you guys used to losing the nickname.
Unless, the two year deadline was really just to get you guys used to losing the nickname.
MinnesotaNorthStar
Minding the gap
Re: Fighting Sioux name may change - Murphy's law
Close....When you lived up there, I thought you were the only one who didn't get made...
Dirty
#BanBiddy
Re: Fighting Sioux name may change - Murphy's law
They probably should have worked a little harder at it if that was the case. They didn't even do that. They didn't do anything. They just sat there like a coma patient. Then sixth months ago they awoke from their year and half coma, made up some crazy deadline and lapsed back into a coma.
They probably should have worked a little harder at it if that was the case. They didn't even do that. They didn't do anything. They just sat there like a coma patient. Then sixth months ago they awoke from their year and half coma, made up some crazy deadline and lapsed back into a coma.
Re: Fighting Sioux name may change - Murphy's law
You've been reading Ward Churchill again, haven't you? To answer your question, no, it doesn't make any difference. And I'll tell you why: your question presupposes some sort of higher claim to morality or justice on the part of native americans who've been treated badly by the white majority. Well, no matter how bad that treatment (and people like Churchill have make a lot of money by simply making up stories) it doesn't and shouldn't give NA's any special claims, especially in the area of words that are public domain.
We either have a First Amendment or we don't. This debate always puts me in mind of the final commandment on the barn wall in Animal Farm: "all animals are created equal, except some animals are more equal than others."
And in the context of this debate, your second "point" is a non sequitor. While I find racist language offensive (as do the vast majority of Americans) that doesn't and shouldn't give an aggrieved minority special rights in the area of speech enforcement. Censorship is censorship, no matter how you dress it up. And folks on the left in this country have an amazing affinity to lecture about the First Amendment while at the same time advocating censorship of people with whom they disagree.
You've been reading Ward Churchill again, haven't you? To answer your question, no, it doesn't make any difference. And I'll tell you why: your question presupposes some sort of higher claim to morality or justice on the part of native americans who've been treated badly by the white majority. Well, no matter how bad that treatment (and people like Churchill have make a lot of money by simply making up stories) it doesn't and shouldn't give NA's any special claims, especially in the area of words that are public domain.
We either have a First Amendment or we don't. This debate always puts me in mind of the final commandment on the barn wall in Animal Farm: "all animals are created equal, except some animals are more equal than others."
And in the context of this debate, your second "point" is a non sequitor. While I find racist language offensive (as do the vast majority of Americans) that doesn't and shouldn't give an aggrieved minority special rights in the area of speech enforcement. Censorship is censorship, no matter how you dress it up. And folks on the left in this country have an amazing affinity to lecture about the First Amendment while at the same time advocating censorship of people with whom they disagree.
Siouxfaninseattle
Fighting Sioux Fan Forever
Re: Fighting Sioux name may change - Murphy's law
That certainly looks like that's what they had in mind all along.
That certainly looks like that's what they had in mind all along.
MinnesotaNorthStar
Minding the gap
Re: Fighting Sioux name may change - Murphy's law
Losing the nickname would sit a lot better with most alumni if we thought the SBoHE had actually tried...
Re: Fighting Sioux name may change - Murphy's law
Permission? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to give us all a list of occasions in which one group of Americans requires permission from another group of Americans on their choice of language. Prior censorship, you've heard of it I'm guessing, is not where we want to be in this country. You're advocating pre-emptory capitulation on this issue, which is also not where we want to be, IMHO.
And while you're undoubtedly correct about your grandfather's use of language, that's hardly the point of what's going on now. What's going on now is the assertion that one group of people should be able to control (authorize?) the language used by others. That these words "belong" to one group and cannot be used without permission.
No one is being "used" as a mascot here. Denver Boone is a cartoon character and that didn't stop the PC assault on him. Chief Illiniwek represented a tribe that was wiped out during tribal warfare, that didn't stop the PC assault on him. Is DU supposed get permission from Scrooge McDuck and Archie in order to use Boone? And from whom is Illinois supposed to get permission, given that the Illini Confederation no longer exists?
Permission? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to give us all a list of occasions in which one group of Americans requires permission from another group of Americans on their choice of language. Prior censorship, you've heard of it I'm guessing, is not where we want to be in this country. You're advocating pre-emptory capitulation on this issue, which is also not where we want to be, IMHO.
And while you're undoubtedly correct about your grandfather's use of language, that's hardly the point of what's going on now. What's going on now is the assertion that one group of people should be able to control (authorize?) the language used by others. That these words "belong" to one group and cannot be used without permission.
No one is being "used" as a mascot here. Denver Boone is a cartoon character and that didn't stop the PC assault on him. Chief Illiniwek represented a tribe that was wiped out during tribal warfare, that didn't stop the PC assault on him. Is DU supposed get permission from Scrooge McDuck and Archie in order to use Boone? And from whom is Illinois supposed to get permission, given that the Illini Confederation no longer exists?
Last edited:
Re: Fighting Sioux name may change - Murphy's law
You going for some sort of non sequitor record here? All UND and Illinois and DU have been doing is "listening." Illinois held elaborate hearings presided over by a promient retired judge. They were listening big time. However, listening and doing what the minority wants are two different things, except in your mind.
You going for some sort of non sequitor record here? All UND and Illinois and DU have been doing is "listening." Illinois held elaborate hearings presided over by a promient retired judge. They were listening big time. However, listening and doing what the minority wants are two different things, except in your mind.
Happy
Registered User
Re: Fighting Sioux name may change - Murphy's law
Sure, bud, how about simple copyright law, if you want to sell a chair on ebay, don't call it a lazyboy when it isn't. don't call yourself a Fighting Sioux, when your not, either. if you are going to use someone Else's name, either get permission, or be sneaky, and copyright it out from under them. How dumb is it to spend millions of dollars, or in Uncle Ralphies case, hundreds of millions of dollars when you don't own the name?
Sure, bud, how about simple copyright law, if you want to sell a chair on ebay, don't call it a lazyboy when it isn't. don't call yourself a Fighting Sioux, when your not, either. if you are going to use someone Else's name, either get permission, or be sneaky, and copyright it out from under them. How dumb is it to spend millions of dollars, or in Uncle Ralphies case, hundreds of millions of dollars when you don't own the name?
MinnesotaNorthStar
Minding the gap
Re: Fighting Sioux name may change - Murphy's law
There's no copyright on the word Sioux, it's in the public domain...Laz-E-Boy is not...
Re: Fighting Sioux name may change - Murphy's law
Something else has to be going on that we're not seeing or reading about. Ron His Horse Is Thunder was against the name, and the council voted not to have a referendum...it's not only the SBoHE sitting on their hands, it was the tribal council and still is the tribal council. Why did he not pass a resolution condoning the use of the name and logo?
The SBoHE is absolutely ridiculous. Pushing back a deadline, and now that another extended one has passed, they aren't doing anything. This makes no sense, if it were a real organization that actually meant anything. I have a deadline to make at work, if I don't make it, I get hounded until I get it done, or it doesn't happen and people are out of a lot of money.
Something more HAS to be going on here, I think there's more than meets the eye, however I could be wrong, they could all just be lazy (both SBoHE and the tribal council), or there is something more going on that no one has mentioned or knows about. The longer this drags on, the more it's going to cost, and the more people are going to get PO'd and keep complaining.
Anyone know who is on the nickname committee? They'll pass a $1.5 million deal, however they won't address the nickname that is going to cost probably that amount for UND to replace all logos. Right now, I don't care what the decision is that is made, as long as there is one. I'd hate to see the name and logo (especially the logo) go away, but if people can't do their job and aren't doing their job, there needs to be some uprising or something to get it done. This is ridiculous.
Something else has to be going on that we're not seeing or reading about. Ron His Horse Is Thunder was against the name, and the council voted not to have a referendum...it's not only the SBoHE sitting on their hands, it was the tribal council and still is the tribal council. Why did he not pass a resolution condoning the use of the name and logo?
The SBoHE is absolutely ridiculous. Pushing back a deadline, and now that another extended one has passed, they aren't doing anything. This makes no sense, if it were a real organization that actually meant anything. I have a deadline to make at work, if I don't make it, I get hounded until I get it done, or it doesn't happen and people are out of a lot of money.
Something more HAS to be going on here, I think there's more than meets the eye, however I could be wrong, they could all just be lazy (both SBoHE and the tribal council), or there is something more going on that no one has mentioned or knows about. The longer this drags on, the more it's going to cost, and the more people are going to get PO'd and keep complaining.
Anyone know who is on the nickname committee? They'll pass a $1.5 million deal, however they won't address the nickname that is going to cost probably that amount for UND to replace all logos. Right now, I don't care what the decision is that is made, as long as there is one. I'd hate to see the name and logo (especially the logo) go away, but if people can't do their job and aren't doing their job, there needs to be some uprising or something to get it done. This is ridiculous.
Garibaldi83
Registered User
Re: Fighting Sioux name may change - Murphy's law
This whole dilemma is absolutely ridiculous. The University of North Dakota's fan base needs to put their collective feet down and say no to this name change. I bet it would cost less to pay the Sioux tribe's a royalty than to completely change the name and logo. THIS IS ALL ABOUT MONEY!!!
Don't lose the fight and have your mascot replaced by a lame bird!
This whole dilemma is absolutely ridiculous. The University of North Dakota's fan base needs to put their collective feet down and say no to this name change. I bet it would cost less to pay the Sioux tribe's a royalty than to completely change the name and logo. THIS IS ALL ABOUT MONEY!!!
Don't lose the fight and have your mascot replaced by a lame bird!
Garibaldi83
Registered User
Re: Fighting Sioux name may change - Murphy's law
HAHA no!!
HAHA no!!