Comments on: N.D. Sioux gets Native American support

By: OverHeree

OverHeree — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:11:37 +0000

WHY WOULD THE UND COLLEGE WANT TO KEEP THE LOGO WHEN THERE IS NO HONOR SHOWN TO THE NATIVE AMERICANS!! . WITH YOUR CHILDISH SIGNS!! BEING POSTED AROUND CAMPUS WONDERING WHY PEOPLE THINK ITS FUNNY MAKING JOKES AND SIGNS LIKE THAT ABOUT NATIVES…HMMMM.MUST BE NOT ALL IN THERE IN THE HEAD…!

By: hmmm

hmmm — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:44:53 +0000

actually according to the article it wasn’t even spirit lake supporting keeping the mascot but a few tribal members. equating the two is misleading.

By: mplsboy

mplsboy — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:12:41 +0000

Blue Wizard. I agree with you 100%. Well stated!

If VM’s post was intended as sarcasm I stand corrected. However even upon rereading it that’s not apparent to me. Can you confirm VM? I would be very satisfied to know we are all taking the same position.

By: Blue Wizard

Blue Wizard — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:20:36 +0000

Er… if I’m not mistaken, mplsboy, vocal minority was being sarcastic. He’s comparing Native American issues to gay issues. And in some aspects, they are similar. There is not general agreement for gay marriage, for example, even if many gay rights groups will settle for no less than that.

So one tribe says they’re okay with keeping the Fighting Sioux. But what about the other tribes? One endorsement does not give a university carte blanche to take advantage of a group’s cultural heritage. According to the article, one tribal council (Spirit Lake) supports it while another (Standing Rock) is against it.

I disagree with the position on this article. Making a group of people be a school’s mascot sounds like disaster to me – it flattens the representation of the group into just one attribute, whether it be the savage, “Fighting Sioux”, or the belligerent “Fighting Irish”. And while they’re meant to be positive stereotypes, they project into people’s minds the one fact that Sioux = fighting, instead of thinking about their tribe’s history, culture, and people as their own thing.

By: mplsboy

mplsboy — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:35:28 +0000

Whaaaaa. . .? Are you kidding me VM? If the “vocal minority” (as you call them and seem to think they are) just “shut their mouth and quit causing trouble” you would still be using a special knock on at a nondescript door to get into a gay bar. Then you would spend the evening hoping the police didn’t show up and hall you away.
Shutting up about issues of civil rights doesn’t solve anything it only perpetuates it. Speaking up doesn’t “cause” the problem it “addresses” the problem. If you want to live in a dark room of denial and you own kind of comfort fine. Just don’t expect everyone else to stand still while the world moves on by.

By: vocal minority

vocal minority — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:44:00 +0000

yeah and only a vocal minority of the gays are calling for gay marriage and that kind of stuff.

if the vocal minority gays will just shut up their mouths then everything will be fine. its the vocal minority gay people who are causing all these trouble.

if other gays will sue the vocal minority to shut up then good for them.

By: Chris K.

Chris K. — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:42:22 +0000

No such thing as a case by case basis? If the Sioux do not have a problem with a team calling themselves the Fighting Sioux, why should anyone else? If you have an issue with Redskin or Indian, take it up with the francises in DC and Cleveland. Cyd was referring to the PC police being upset simply because there is no unanimous consensus by Native Americans in regards to native monikers for sports teams. Not everyone thinks the same way, or are offended by the same things. Why would we expect Native tribes to be upset at the same thing? Simply because they are Natives or a minority group?

You cant cry victimization if the group you claim being victimized doesnt go along for the ride.

By: mplsboy

mplsboy — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 04:40:35 +0000

I’m encouraged by the response to this story. I couldn’t possibly agree with Cyd’s position on this one any less and it seems most here seem to agree. If one group of marginalized people can’t understand and support another marginalized group then who can.

By: George

George — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:44:07 +0000

If this particular tribe is okay with the university using a particular nick-name which is specific to them that’s one thing, but I think you’re mistaken if you think there’s a minority of individuals in the Native American community who are against the use of athletic teams using terms to describe Native Americans. Particularly teams that use general terms to describe Native Americans (“Redskins, “Indians,” etc…) as there nickname.

I grew up in AZ (right off of a reservation actually) and most Native Americans I knew preferred NOT to be called “Indians” and several found it offensive, actually. Who exactly is the baseball team in Cleveland “honoring” by calling themselves the “Indians?”

By: Joetx

Joetx — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:57:30 +0000

I find it rich when someone outside of a particular group has the gall to tell people of that group what they should and shouldn’t be offended by. For example, I’ve seen homophobes tell gay people that they shouldn’t be offended by the use of words, “faggot,” “fag,” etc. Cyd is doing the same thing with regards to Native American names.