The University of North Dakota has decided to challenge the NCAA and its threat of sanctions for using Native American names and symbols for its sports team. The UND is bringing back its traditional nickname of the “Fighting Sioux” and said that it will take whatever punishment is meted out by the NCAA. Various universities have withdrawn such names except schools like the the Florida State Seminoles and the Central Michigan Chippewas who received tribal permission to keep their nicknames.
In 2006, the NCAA called on 19 schools with American Indian nicknames, logos and mascots to drop them as “hostile and abusive” to local tribes.
I must confess that I have never been convinced that some of these team names are disrespectful or racist. To the contrary, the team names often idealize the fighting spirit of the tribes. While I strongly believe that these universities have to take active steps to guarantee that the depiction of the tribes are respectful, I do not see why there should be sanctions for the use of all such names or images. I do not doubt that some mascots can be hostile or culturally abusive, but I do not believe that any use of such a name or image is inherently hostile, abuse, or disrespectful. For example, the decision to bar the use of “Chief Illiniwek” by the University of Illinois killed a long tradition at the school that honored that image. I realize that many would disagree with me on this and I am concerned that some Native Americans do take offense at the use of such images. However, I am not convinced that they should have a veto on the use of names and images that are closely connected to these areas. Under the NCAA rules, the schools must get permission from any tribe to use such images. However, the opposition to such symbols has extended to even generic symbols of American Indians. The question is whether a name or image like the Sioux should be treated as essentially proprietary or exclusive for the current members of the tribe or whether it is an image that part of the entire community and its history.
From the Vikings to the Cowboys to Packers to the Fighting Irish, local communities often select powerful images connected to their communities. These tribes are idolized in American culture and inspire people with their strength and dignity. They are selected for those positive elements and the schools often make students playing roles like Chief Illiniwek study the culture and adopt authentic elements to their outfits and dance. Critics of the use of the image make some very good points. It is also true, as some advocates have argued, that “In the time when the mascots were created — the 1920s, ’30s and ’40s — the United States populace did not have a positive view of people of color.” However, that does not mean that they are used today in negative way or cannot be used in a positive, even educational, way.
Some Native Americans do support the use of the symbols though many do not. These views should be given great weight but they are not determinative in my view. I felt the NCAA should have left this matter to the individual communities to hash out whether the use of such images are disrespectful or abusive. I might support the elimination of some images or practices, but it should be done on a case-by-case basis. If a tribe opposes such use of its name, that would weigh heavily in my own judgment. The makes the use of Sioux a close question for me, but I do not believe that the decision to eliminate Chief Illiniwek was warranted.
UND President Robert Kelley noted that the issue will be placed on a state referendum and that the school should wait to see the results of that legal and political process. A law requiring the school to use the nickname was repealed eight months after it was enacted to avoid NCAA sanctions. However, there has been a demand to put the issue to a statewide vote. The State Board of Education has suggested that it may fight the move to reinstate the law.
Of course, I come from a city that roots for the Blackhawks. Putting aside the legal questions of North Dakota state law, what do you think about the ban on any use of Native American names or images?
Source: ESPN
JCTheBigTree:
Thank you for that bit of insight. In view of those proffered facts, I think the Univeristy should continue with the nickname. The overwhelming overt approval by one tribe and the tacit approval by the other tribe ok’s it for me. Qui tacet consentire videtur ubi loqui debuit ac potuit. (He who is silent is taken to agree when he ought to have spoken and was able to).
raff,
I understand your point….and I think you understand mine….I’ll state this…You like Hockey….You like the Hockey Team in your town…If they had to move because of the name, would you still support them?
I’m just going to stay out of this one … I’m a Cleveland Indians fan.
I’m of Irish decent, so Notre Dame needs to change that mascot right now.
I live in North Carolina, and the derogatory name of Tar Heel, or Blue Devil offends me.
North Carolina is OK it was named after a European; however both Dakotas (Sioux Indians), Minnesota (Dakota (Sioux Indian) name), Iowa (Ioway Indians), and a dozen other states need to fix their offensive names.
For a much shorter answer than my previous post.
There are two tribes the NCAA said UND needed approval from by a date a year or two ago, the Standing Rock Tribe and Spirit Lake Tribe.
One tribe has overwhelmingly giving its approval with 2/3rds voting pro-moniker.
The other tribe has never gotten to vote on the matter but polls show they are also around 2/3rds in favor of keeping the moniker. Interestingly enough, that tribe gave UND permission to use the moniker in perpetuity in a peace-pipe ceremony back in the 60’s.
I am a UND Alumni and there is A LOT more to this story than is presented here, this issue is a good 7 or 8 years old (since the NCAA got involved.)
The NCAA stated that there are two Sioux Tribes which must give the University their approval to use the moniker by a certain date, which has past.
One of the Tribes voted immediately and gave the University their approval by an overwhelming 2/3 majority. The other tribe was not allowed to hold a vote because the Tribal Chairman was against the University using the moniker…polls showed that tribe is also 2/3rds in favor of the moniker. As soon as that Chairman came up for re-election his opponent (pro-Sioux moniker) was voted in by a majority of, you guessed it, 2/3rds. Unfortunately, while he continues to state his pro-moniker stance, he has yet to bring a vote before the Tribe. He says the tribe has more pressing matters to attend to first.
It has also been brought up many times that the tribe that has yet to vote on the issue held a peace-pipe ceremony back in the 60’s giving the University the right to us the moniker in perpetuity. In that tribe, and many others, a peace-pipe ceremony in regards to an agreement is a binding agreement. The NCAA does not consider this approval, ‘approval’.
After we ‘lost the right’ to use the Moniker a state assemblyman passed a law requiring the University to use the name, that law was repealled, but as you can see it wasn’t done in a state-wide referendum, which it apparently has to be, which is the reason UND is now pushing back on the NCAA once again.
I want to be sure to emphasize the use of the term MONIKER. UND has never had a Native American mascot. There isn’t a white kid running around in Native regalia or cartoonish costume. We use a name and a logo (which is a design done by a Lakota Sioux artist.)
In my 9 years of living in Grand Forks, the closest thing I saw to that is that once ever couple years a Native student association would put on a brief Wacipi (means: “they dance”) prior to a hockey game…
There is nothing but a large amount of respect from the student body and university towards the moniker and the people it represents.
What’s most shameful about all of this, to me, is that other schools have been allowed to keep their monikers and mascots simply because they make large payments to the Tribes they represent. UND is a highly ranked school in many regards, but it is not a rich school, it does not take in millions upon millions from athletics like Florida State…it can afford to provide free tuition and other services to Native American Students, but it can’t afford to pay millions to the Tribes every year, and yet the tribes still want UND to have and use the name…UND must be doing something right with that amount of support, just wish the NCAA could see that and let it go.
AY,
What if the little league team is named the Redskins and one of the players is a native American? What do you tell your son or daughter about that? What values are we teaching the child when we mock his or her heritage?
It was already said earlier, but Mespo’s kindergarten rule and Dredd’s rule should be the standard. Even as a Black Hawk fan, I would prefer that they change their name.
mespo,
I agree with you in the respect that this is a Voluntary Organizations……..Where I do differ and this is only because I worked on a few of these issues when working for the Department of Civil Rights…
How can the Indians capitalize on it on one hand and then complain about it on the other….That just makes illogical sense to me….
I agree with Dredd…Only the living should be able to complain about its MISUSE…..
Then we get to the whole area…where…the name Lee comes to mind….How can a school Named Robert E. Lee and the school moniker be the Rebels be considered offensive?
It is my opinion that sometimes common sense goes away when one is trying to correct what is perceived as social injustice…..
The Dutch are taking people to court for disrespecting the Sh aria Law…say what?
It also brings to mind little league and other types of sports….We want kids to get along with other kids but are willing to impose our values upon them when they are playing against the same kids we want them to get along with….it get complicated after that…don’t you think?
I would like to know what the Sioux think of it. I personally think it should be taken as a sign of respect, rather than the other way around. That said, I have to agree with those who have suggested deferring to the Native cultures on their attitudes on it. In light of the attempted genocide of their people and constant attempts (many successful) to break agreements with them, I think it is a little thing to ask.
I polled the members of my dog pack and we have come to the following consensus: The Wolverines are out because there are few or none in Michigan and the ones roaming in Canada would be offended. The Miami Marlins are out because use of the name will just encourage folks to go to Miami to capture them with baited hooks and eat them. Same with the Dolphins. Baseball Cardinals in Saint Louis are in because they celebrate a local bird that is not hunted or denigrated. Football Cardinals in Arizona are out because that is not a place that welcomes birds in fact they bring in all sorts of humans from California who wreck the desert with daily sprinkling. Washington Redskins are out because the Whiteskins are disfavored. Fighting Whiteys are in for the NCAA if they choose to have a mascot but it doesnt jive with National Council of Alcoholic Assholes. We read up on the Nuremberg Trials and are convinced that the NCAA is trying to make America: NaziCatholicArianAgnostic (sp intentional). We think that the Sioux tribe should weigh in on this issue in North Dakota, particularly the Dakota Sioux and northerners rather than southerners who have their own odd notions of race, ethnicity and the American way. If the NCAA objects to the adjective Fighting then omit that and substitute Pissed Off Sioux. The NCAA is obviously guided byJohnny Cash wherein he stated in that famous song: Anything But Sue!. And, North Dakota is telling them: so Sioux Me.
Its all a play on words is it not?
One problem ND has is who has to ‘approve’ of the use of Sioux? There are dozens of different Lakota nations that use the term, many have said they do object, the college has found one or two that say they do not.
I like the idea of the Kindergarten rule and I know from my experience here in Minnesota that a lot of people who pretend to see no problem with offensive names are doing it simply BECAUSE they know it offends some minority. (its no surprise to learn that Ralph Englestad, who tied his millions of dollars donation to UND to the continued use of a name that offended, just happened to a big fan of Adolph Hitler).
If we are going to error in cases like this I would rather do so on the side of being too careful. There is no reason to be offended by the UND Fighting Sod Busters or Mud Skippers or Sugar Beets so were is the harm in changing the name?
I was reading about the Judges Trial at Nuremberg following WWII when Germans were prosecuted by the United States for making Germany aryian.
If the Sioux are for this then the NCAA should be on the defendants end of a lawsuit. What does the NCAA want them to name the team: Fighting White Boys?
It’s offensive when “honoring” a chief is to dress him up in regalia that no chief ever wore and have him dance around in a way that the chiefs dance. If the tribes are offended, it’s offensive and should not be used. If you want to know if an action is offensive or oppressive, ask those who are the target of the offense or the oppression. Those doing the act usually don’t have a clue.
Agree with mespo on this one.
“what do you think about the ban on any use of Native American names or images?”
As Dredd said, it’s probably wisest to take the Native American community at its word that some or all of these references are offensive, but I’ve understood the offense. Perhaps some of these mascot names are offensive because they were chosen during a very different no so Indian-friendly time in our history and perhaps not for honorable reasons at all. But, many of those names acknowledge the existence and importance of native peoples who occupied a given area before the white invasion. Often the legacy of a brave warrior past or defender of their tribe is honored to inspire today’s students. I see these as mostly positive references where far too often the legacy of our native Americans has been ignored or deliberately blurred.
I think your balance and common sense opinions on this subject are very much in line with my thinking, JT. As usual the extremists on each end destroy their credibility through hyperbole and absurd statements.
I wonder about your feelings on the “Redskins” nickname, JT. Personally, I believe in the “Kindergarten Rule” : If the person you’re talking about is offended by the name, don’t use it. No law and no regulation required — just a little common decency.
If the NCAA has to enforce common decency among its members, so be it. It’s a voluntary organiztion, after all. Those schools all dance to the green music of college athletics. What’s a little pay to piper?
“what do you think about the ban on any use of Native American names or images?”
I take Native Americans at their word when they say some of that offends them.
Forked man speaks with white tongue …
maybe all that oil money gave them a spinal injection.
Common law trademark that needs to be licensed under agreement, reached through consensus with the trademark holders, not the BIA. The approval of AIM would help in my mind.
Payment for the use of the trademark in scholarships to the school should be part of any agreement.