Oh The Shame


I’m a mutt.  I have parents that German and Swedish.  I can’t make the case that my whole heritage is contained within the Nordic states, but it can be said that half of me is.

Further, I’m from Minnesota.  A state dominated by Swedes, Fins, Norwegians and the like.  It’s who we are, don’tcha know?

And I’m proud that part of who I am has been chosen to represent the state’s football team.  Who wouldn’t?

Leftist Libtards.  That’s who.

The state of North Dakota is home to many people descendant from the Sioux nation.  They are, rightfully, a proud people.  A people of honor and who possess a rich and noble heritage. So why is the NDSU and the NCAA  fighting so hard to take away that honor?

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A new state law that orders the University of North Dakota to keep its Fighting Sioux nickname won’t shield the school from penalties for continuing to use a moniker the NCAA considers hostile to American Indians, an NCAA executive told the school Tuesday.

The law, which says UND must use the nickname and a logo featuring the profile of an American Indian warrior, “cannot change the NCAA policy” against using American Indian nicknames, logos or mascots that are considered offensive, said Bernard Franklin, an NCAA executive vice president.

It’s insane.  The Fighting Sioux is a name and logo steeped in tradition and respect.  It carries with it the hope and aspirations of all the residents to emulate those characteristics associated with the Sioux warrior.

Serious, if we’re gonna ban the Sioux we should also ban the Vikings.  And the Cowboys.  And the Pirates, Raiders and Buccaneers.  And just as soon as Mother Earth earns “human rights” we’ll have to ban the Lions, The Tigers and the Bears oh my!  Not to mention the Eagles, The Falcons, The Seahawks, the Timberwolves and all other such mascots that were chosen for the POSITIVE traits they convey!

Frakin Liberals.

Advertisements
27 comments
  1. I’m offended you did not mention the Fighting Irish…

    • pino said:

      I’m offended you did not mention the Fighting Irish…

      I’m offended that you’re offended!

      Wait! Doh!

  2. 😉

  3. nickgb said:

    Unless you’ve found any oppression or massacres of Vikings by the American government, I think you might be missing a fundamental difference.

    Also, the NCAA is a private organization, and here’s the state interfering with their private rights in order to preserve a college mascot. Isn’t this the kind of thing y’all are against?

    • pino said:

      Unless you’ve found any oppression or massacres of Vikings by the American government, I think you might be missing a fundamental difference.

      THAT is the criteria for naming a team?

      If so, my opposition to Lions, Eagles, anything elephant stand.

      Also, the NCAA is a private organization

      I admit it’s wiki, not the best source, but I’m in a hurry:

      The NCAA, at first named the Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States (IAAUS), was established on March 31, 1906, to set rules for amateur athletic sports in the United States. When then-president Theodore Roosevelt’s own son, Ted, broke his nose playing rugby at Harvard, Roosevelt became aware of the growing number of serious injuries and deaths occurring in collegiate rugby football. He brought the presidents of five major institutions, Army (West Point), Navy (Annapolis), Harvard, Princeton, and Yale to several meetings at the White House in October 1905 to discuss steps to make college athletics safer.

      here’s the state interfering with their private rights in order to preserve a college mascot.

      The NDSU is a state university. The state of North Dakota can name their own university whatever they want. The NCAA is simply applying sanctions to athletic events. It’s the NCAA that’s interfering with the private right of naming.

      • nickgb said:

        If so, my opposition to Lions, Eagles, anything elephant stand.

        Only if you think animals and people have equal rights, and whatever you might think about “libtards”, that’s a pretty far-out belief.

        I admit it’s wiki, not the best source, but I’m in a hurry…

        Whether Teddy Roosevelt started it or not, it’s still a private organization. I promise.

        The NDSU is a state university. The state of North Dakota can name their own university whatever they want. The NCAA is simply applying sanctions to athletic events. It’s the NCAA that’s interfering with the private right of naming.

        Well, to get things straight, UND is the Fighting Sioux, NDSU is the Bison. And the NCAA is allowed to set whatever standards it wants, and schools are free to be members or not. If UND wants to be a member, they can change their name.

        What I don’t understand is what this bill is supposed to do. Basically, the legislature is forcing UND out of the NCAA. I’ll tell you right now, the NCAA is not going to care, but UND probably does. The legislature is screwing over the school, the students, and even if that law is constitutional (I don’t know the ND constitution, so I can’t say), it has no power over the NCAA membership standards. It’s just public theater to no good end.

      • pino said:

        Only if you think animals and people have equal rights, and whatever you might think about “libtards”, that’s a pretty far-out belief.

        You don’t have to tell ME. Of course I don’t think that animals and people have equal rights.

        A bloc of mostly socialist governments lead by Bolivia have put the issue on the General Assembly agenda to discuss the creation of a U.N. treaty that would grant the same rights found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Mother Nature.

        Treaty supporters want the establishment of legal systems to maintain balance between human rights and what they perceive as the inalienable rights of other members of the Earth community — plants, animals, and terrain.

        Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/18/prepares-debate-rights-mother-earth/#ixzz1KGytHQsN

        Don’t forget, there are nations that feel high speed internet access is a human right too!

        France’s highest court has inflicted an embarrassing blow to President Sarkozy by cutting the heart out of a law that was supposed to put France in the forefront of the fight against piracy on the internet.

        The Constitutional Council declared access to the internet to be a basic human right, directly opposing the key points of Mr Sarkozy’s law, passed in April, which created the first internet police agency in the democratic world.

        http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6478542.ece

        Well, to get things straight, UND is the Fighting Sioux, NDSU is the Bison.

        Egads! Thanks for the correction.

        the NCAA is allowed to set whatever standards it wants, and schools are free to be members or not. If UND wants to be a member, they can change their name.

        I agree. And it seems as if the University DOESN’T wanna change it’s name. And they seem to be willing to take the sanctions that accompany that.

        Your point is that the “State” shouldn’t be involved in matters private. To the extent that the University belongs to the “state” [a situation i don’t like by the way] they should be able to name themselves what they want. And yes, if that means they have to pay the NCAA, so be it.

        The NCAA is still being foolish and silly.

        What I don’t understand is what this bill is supposed to do.

        Keep the name.

        Basically, the legislature is forcing UND out of the NCAA. I’ll tell you right now, the NCAA is not going to care, but UND probably does.

        They are forcing the NCAA to sanction them. Right now, the NCAA doesn’t use mascots as a criteria for membership, they use it as a criteria for letting schools keep their money.

        And yes, the University probably does care, at least as it pertains to hockey. They are nearly always one of the top teams in the nation.

        It’s just public theater to no good end.

        I agree. I think the NCAA is being silly.

      • nickgb said:

        Actually, the State Board of Education already made the decision to retire the name and logo. The school agrees with that decision and has publicly said they’re planning to ignore the state legislature and follow the state board. So it’s the legislature, not the University or State Board, that is forcing the confrontation.

        From that same article, it appears the school went to court about it, and reached a settlement that said they had three years to get approval from two Sioux tribes, in which case they could keep the name. One tribe has long opposed it and continues to do so, which is why they have to drop the name.

  4. dedc79 said:

    How about an Iraqi soccer team named the fighting kurds?
    A turkish soccer team named the fighting armenians?
    A german soccer team named the fighting jews?

    The reality is that America became what it is today at the expense of the native american populations. Naming sports teams after them may pale in comparison to slaughtering entire tribes, but it is still spitting on graves.

    • pino said:

      A german soccer team named the fighting jews?

      If the soccer team was made up of an unusually large population of Kurds and had a large history in that region, would not that be okay?

      Then, of course, to Sean’s point above, how about the Fighting Irish?

      Naming sports teams after them may pale in comparison to slaughtering entire tribes, but it is still spitting on graves.

      I disagree. I think it honors the best qualities found within those peoples. Now, I DO have sympathy for those who object to Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians. But the KC Chiefs, Washington Redskins and the Fighting Sioux….I think those names are positive reflections of the cultures, not a caricature.

      • Plus, what do you rename the team after you change it from the Stanford Indians?

        The Stanford Cardinal?

        What would there mascot be? A tree?

        Oh, wait…

      • nickgb said:

        The Fighting Irish was a name proudly adopted by the Catholic School, which had a large Irish population. I somehow doubt the UND class of 1934 was largely Sioux.

        As for Chief Wahoo, I’m finding a lot of unofficial UND merch that depict a cartoonish Native American screwing a Bison with slogans like “Buck the Fison” and so on. If Wahoo is offensive, I assume that it too?

  5. dedc79 said:

    “I think it honors the best qualities found within those peoples.”

    You think that’s the case, i’d be curious to see what the Sioux think their best qualities were. Do we know anything else about their culture/language/religion/art/etc? We know about their fighting because we sent american troops to kill/displace them and they fought back with courage.

    • pino said:

      We know about their fighting because we sent american troops to kill/displace them and they fought back with courage.

      Sporting clubs seek to emulate the characteristics of the warrior than the artist, yes? Typically, I say typically because I believe that there must be some team named the Rainbows or the Green Trees, the “mascot” is chosen for it’s ferocity, strength and overall meanness. This is why they are things like Tigers who look mean, Bears who are growling and Eagles in “attack”.

      Should we sanction teams with names like “Crusaders”, “Knights” or other such reference?

    • What other qualities would you want to honor in a sportsteam?

      The Sioux Linguists? The Sioux Artisans? The Sioux Dancers? The Sioux Chefs (not Chiefs)?

      Most teams are named based on the martial qualities of the group they honor.

      • dedc79 said:

        Ok, so we’re making progress here. Fighting isn’t the Sioux’s best quality, it’s just the most appropriate for athletics. Glad we cleared that up.

        Who is the best judge of whether a name honors a group of people? i would think it would be the named group. You assume it’s an honor at the same time they’re telling you it’s not. Honoring the native american history of North Dakota can take many forms; making them a mascot is not one of them.

      • “Fighting isn’t the Sioux’s best quality, it’s just the most appropriate for athletics.”

        Fighting may very well be the Sioux’s best quality. Or it may not be. However, I agree that it is the most appropriate attribute for athletics.

        “Who is the best judge of whether a name honors a group of people?”

        A better question is, “Who is the best judge of what to name an organization?” And the answer is that organization.

        Now if the NCAA wants to sanction UND for thoughtcrime, that is the NCAA’s right as a private organization. If I were a UND alumnus, I would accept the sanction and keep the name.

        Now if the state is involved (because UND receives state funding – they may or may not), then the decision would be the state legislature’s.

        Either way, this whole thing is silly, and I am officially boycotting the NCAA as a result.

        OK, I admit that I cancelled cable in 2007 and do not follow NCAA events, so my threat is pretty hollow. But I feel better now…;-)

  6. I do not agree with banning the name, but the argument is a bit stronger than suggested. The Sioux (and other Indian tribes) were conquered and their land taken by the Europeans, and many live in poverty still. I can understand why a Lakota Sioux might be offended that his tribal name is used for a team, while Europeans don’t mind if theirs are (moreover most of us German-Norwegian types don’t identify with the Vikings as a current source of identity! We gave up raping and pillaging generations ago!)

    I took my sons, then 7 and 5, through the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation this summer en route to the Badlands. I showed them how poor it is, and explained the reservation system. “Why is it like that?” Well, I told them, “they lost a war so their land was taken.” The next question was “who defeated them” and my response, “the Americans.”

    “But dad, that’s us!” Well, I explained, it was 100 years ago and the world was different. But our country isn’t always right either. I didn’t go deep into the issues with them, but the plight of Indian tribes like the Sioux in South Dakota is really sad — and hard to solve. Giving money doesn’t work because it creates dependency. Forced assimilation is resisted because it goes against treaty rights and a desire to hold on to their culture. I honestly don’t know what to do, the American Indians are the most forgotten minority. So I do have sympathy for their distaste at having tribal names used for sporting teams most of them do not identify with. Again, I disagree with forcing schools to change names, but I understand the desire.

    • pino said:

      The Sioux (and other Indian tribes) were conquered and their land taken by the Europeans

      I’m struck by that argument. Has there been any research conducted that would suggest the tribes viable at the time of the European didn’t in fact, conquer yet OTHER tribes and take their land? In other words, is it likely that Native American Indian tribes are just as guilty as the European?

      moreover most of us German-Norwegian types don’t identify with the Vikings as a current source of identity!

      Again, something that has struck me over the years.

      I couldn’t tell you the first thing about German or Swedish folk lore, history or geography. I have literally ZERO idea where my family was born. None. In fact, I really don’t care.

      I don’t understand why the history of culture is more important to one group and not another.

      Giving money doesn’t work because it creates dependency.

      I’m excited to hear you say that.

      Forced assimilation is resisted because it goes against treaty rights and a desire to hold on to their culture.

      The treaties should be declared over. The longer folks hold onto the fact that we are a different nation, the longer those folks will languish. We are a powerful mix of many cultures, yet we are one nation. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but then again, it is the nature of man to conquer.

      • nickgb said:

        Has there been any research conducted that would suggest the tribes viable at the time of the European didn’t in fact, conquer yet OTHER tribes and take their land? In other words, is it likely that Native American Indian tribes are just as guilty as the European?

        Wait, so now you are demanding proof of a negative in order to admit that the wholesale slaughter and subjugation of Native Americans was bad?

        I don’t understand why the history of culture is more important to one group and not another.

        I think we’ve hit on the source of at least one problem here. But there’s also a big difference, this is a matter of race as well as particular cultural background.

        The treaties should be declared over. The longer folks hold onto the fact that we are a different nation, the longer those folks will languish.

        Yes, because we forced them on to reservations under promises of sovereign rights, leading to their detriment, we should now ignore the treaties and finish the job?

        I mean, c’mon man, you just advocated that we declare treaties signed at the point of our own guns to be nullified just because we want to stop worrying about Native American culture.

      • pino said:

        Wait, so now you are demanding proof of a negative in order to admit that the wholesale slaughter and subjugation of Native Americans was bad?

        Hardly.

        I’m merely suggesting that “civilization churn” is a natural state of man. I think it highly likely that the United States, for example will be conquered in time as well. Does that make it right? I don’t know, I’d like to think that in time mankind would be able to overcome that “animal instinct” within and be able to move to that higher plane we’re all hooping to get too.

        But, at some point, the sins of the fathers have to be let go. In my case, my maternal grandfather walked off the boat and my paternal great-grandfather did the same. How long do you suggest I make amends for something I didn’t do?

        I think we’ve hit on the source of at least one problem here. But there’s also a big difference, this is a matter of race as well as particular cultural background.

        I think it goes hand in hand with guilt. And, to be fair, a certain amount of that might be justified. It’s hard to expect a native African culture to resonate with the concept of a white skinned snow dweller delivering presents being pulled by reindeer, but still…..

        Yes, because we forced them on to reservations under promises of sovereign rights, leading to their detriment, we should now ignore the treaties and finish the job?

        I have often suggested that perhaps the best way to move forward would be to declare a section of America as “sovereign”. This would be complete with all the rights, and responsibilities, of a sovereign nation.

        you just advocated that we declare treaties signed at the point of our own guns to be nullified just because we want to stop worrying about Native American culture.

        At some point you have to admit what we’re doing isn’t working. At some point you have to admit that “we’ve” made mistakes and move on.

      • nickgb said:

        But, at some point, the sins of the fathers have to be let go. In my case, my maternal grandfather walked off the boat and my paternal great-grandfather did the same. How long do you suggest I make amends for something I didn’t do?

        What amends are being demanded of you? The NCAA, a private organization, decided to discourage the use of Native American team names that the tribes disapproved of. Some schools comply (The ‘noles have tribal approval, as do the Utes). The Sioux have not agreed to give approval, so UND will change their name. Where are you being burdened?

        At some point you have to admit what we’re doing isn’t working. At some point you have to admit that “we’ve” made mistakes and move on.

        I’m not sure why “we” is in quotes there. Either way, European Americans have a long tradition of deciding treaties with Native Americans aren’t working and “moving on.” It’s not something we should be proud of, or do over again. Do we not stand for rule of law?

  7. Alan Scott said:

    When I coached a youth soccer team I wanted a tough name for the team . All the bad ass names were over used and I wanted something unique , but still fierce . I ended up with Piranhas and had a fish logo put on hats . I think with animals you don’t offend the easily offended . Though like Vikings you might think the offended would figure out they are being honored . No one names their team for something they don’t respect .

    We once sat around and tried to think of names you could use for politically correct teams that would not scare or offend anyone . Who would be afraid of the puppy dogs, ballerinas , or the hamsters ?

    • nickgb said:

      When I coached a youth soccer team I wanted a tough name for the team . All the bad ass names were over used and I wanted something unique , but still fierce . I ended up with Piranhas and had a fish logo put on hats . … No one names their team for something they don’t respect.

      There’s a lot of meanings that fit into “respect.” In general you want a mascot that is fearsome, like a lion or bear or mighty cougar. When you pick a racial/ethnic group, you’re basically attributing violence/belligerence/etc. to them as a group, which is where the offense can occur.

      It doesn’t always happen, there are plenty of tribal groups that are fine with a college team having their name, and others that don’t. Ironically, the most offensive team name I can think of (the redskins) was explicitly picked to honor a Native American (or so the story goes). There’s a lot going on, but I think it’s self-evident that, if a tribe says that a usage of their name is offensive, they probably are the most trustworthy source on the issue. I can understand why a tribe might have a problem with being used as a mascot, and so can the NCAA, which is why they instituted the rule.

      • pino said:

        When you pick a racial/ethnic group, you’re basically attributing violence/belligerence/etc. to them as a group, which is where the offense can occur.

        But you can only be offended if you have first victimized?

  8. I guess I’d just say to have empathy. Let’s say you’re a Lakota Sioux living on the reservation. You know your people once had this land, and their ways were very close to nature with a strong spirituality. You don’t want to lose it, and you see the descendents of those who destroyed your civilization using your name in a way that seems to belittle the fate your people experienced. At some level, yeah, we’re all human, history goes on, great empires rise and fall and all that. We can’t undo the past.

    I do think we need to acknowledge the past. The West as a civilization is one of the most violent in all of history, conquering the world, having world wars, the holocaust, ideologies like communism that led to rationalization of the mass murder of tens of millions. The US essentially wiped out huge civilizations with what would now be considered crimes against humanity.

    No, we’re not guilty. The sins of the fathers do have to be let go, you’re right. We didn’t do it, we weren’t alive yet. We can’t undo it, history doesn’t work that way. I guess I see it from their perspective too, and can respect it.

    My Grandfather was a German minister (when he retired he was still giving German language sermons in Lester Prairie, Minnesota), and I’ve been to Germany many times. I actually do have a desire to learn and understand “my” cultural history. I also think we in the West should learn more about our history, which includes church history, the reformation, the enlightenment, etc. The more I see clashes between different cultures, the more it strikes me that Americans don’t know their own culture. I was explaining once to a class why it was that Muslims saw themselves as related to Jews.

    I started to tell them of how Muhammad said that Arabs descended from Abraham. I asked the class who knew who Abraham was. A few hands came up, they knew he was in the Bible. Of 25 people, only three knew Sarah was his wife, and only two knew that his son was Isaac. Only one knew of Ishmael, the son Abraham had with Haggar, Sarah’s handmaiden, because he thought Sarah too old to have children.

    I mean, even if a couple raises their kids in atheism or agnosticism, shouldn’t they learn the basic stories and history of the culture they are part of? I guess in that sense I’m more traditional – I think culture and history matters. But that doesn’t seem to be the case for most people these days (which ironically makes that part of our ‘new’ culture!)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: