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 Various universities have withdrawn such names except schools like the the Florida State Seminoles and the Central Michigan Chippewas who received tribal permission to keep their nicknames.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
The name “red skins” refers to the color of the scalp of an Native American, this color was red, as you can guess it was blood. This term is very offensive, I should know I am Native American.
Can you people please, plese get a life?
As far as the phrase “American Indian” uh, the name America comes from the Spanish who FIRST began killing
and claiming land, and that makes you happy to be called that?
I am Celtic by heritage. My race in Scotland was brutally enslaved by the Britons and by the Romans with the aim of wiping us from the face of the earth.
Just about every culture/race has, at one time or another, throughout history, been enslaved etc.
As a Native Born Son of Mississippi I have to watch as cultural icons of my heritage are destroyed and legislated against, by people of ignorance as to their true meaning and background.
It’s a cruel world out there campers, put on your “big girl/big boy” underwear and deal with it!
I went to the U of Illinois, and was saddened when they were forced to get rid of Chief Illiniwek, who came out and did authentic Amerind style dances at halftime. The Chief was always very dignified in his presentation, and never did anything I would describe as caricature. But the political pressure was overwhelming.
Far be it for anyone to judge what is offensive to a culture other than their own. It’s not really a matter of degrees either.
Please – this is not to be offensive – merely illustrative: What if the Redskins were Blackskins, Chinks, Coons, Kikes, Polacks … and so on?
I neglected to point out in my post that the order of
events is actually a little different than the way I presented them. The bill passed by the legislature to
force UND to keep the nickname was actually passed last
spring in hopes it would persuade the NCAA to ease its
sanctions against UND which of course it didn’t. Then
came the concerns from the athletic conferences which
was followed by the legislature repealing the law. I’m
not sure when the petition drive was initiated but the
required signatures had to be secured by Feb 7th to force
a statewide vote which is where we’re at now.
raff,
Then why support them…..
sheafferhistorian, that is why I only use the term, “American Indian” when referencing my heritage. I would like to add one more thing about this discussion. The reason why the adult American Indians are waging this battle of images is for the children. We want the children to grow up with less negative and less violent images of who they are. When I was a little girl, my family was in a car at a drive-in (remember those?) watching a John Wayne western. My Dad was a great John Wayne fan. He was busily killing Indians and I started crying. I told my Mom I didn’t like the Indians and I didn’t want to be one. So, she quietly explained to me the difference between me as a real American Indian and normal human being and the Hollywood Indians. It satisfied me for then; but, I had two other experiences afterwards that needed her comforting explanations before I learned to be proud of my heritage.
Native American is not really solid nomenclature….according to the 14th amendment, anyone born here is a ‘native american.’
I have read all of the comments above carefully. A two thirds to one third vote sounds good at first but then one must consider the thoughtful folks in the one third who might have good insight and see that this moniker denigrates folks in the tribe and might do harm to kids in the tribes.
Bonnie’s comment above has won me over. It is the term mascot which makes the whole thing offensive. We are not going to offend a Wolverine but we might offend members of a tribe so named, or any Native American, whether in the U.S., Canada, Mexico.
In my prior incarnation as a human (before I was a dog) there was some Osage in my ancestors. I was always proud and glad of that. In that life I was a lawyer and picked a jury in southwest Missouri. My client was Osage. There were about sixty five plus folks on the panel and when I popped the question as to whether anyone was of American Indian extraction, about 60 raised their hands. Mostly Osage and Cherokee.
Now Fighting Irish doesnt bother me. I never knew that the Irish were discriminated against until I saw the movie Blazing Saddles.
I now side with Bonnie on this– drop the moniker, especially the Fighting part.
I wonder what Winston Churchill would say on this issue. Did any of you know the ancestory of Jennie Jerome, his mother? He was a genuis, a great writer, and a great war time leader. What was his tribe?
I don’t claim to be an expert on this issue but I live
in Minnesota very close to the North Dakota border and
have been following this debate since the NCAA and UND entered into an agreement whereby the nickname would be
retired unless UND could get the two Sioux tribes in the
state, Standing Rock and Spirit Lake to agree to continue
using the nickname. The deadline for this was set at Nov. 30, 2011. Standing Rock voted to keep the nickname but Nov. 30 came and went with the Sprit Lake Tribal Council never calling for a vote. At this point UND
considered there only alternative was to begin a transition phase which would result in retiring the nickname. Failure to comply would result in NCAA sanctions against UND.
And herein lies the controversy. The state legislature
got involved and passed a law requiring UND to continue
using the nickname. This law would later be repealed
when athlectic conferences under the juridiction of the
NCAA began to raise concerns about UND’s participation
as long as the nickname issue was not settled. The Universities of Minnesota and Wisconsin have refused to
play UND.
Currently a petition drive has garnered 16,770 signatures (they needed 13,500) to force a statewide
vote on the matter in June. This is what prompted UND
to reverse itself and reinstate the nickname, something
I don’t think they wanted to do.
I have a couple of qwestions or concerns about this episode. First, since Spirit Lake was never allowed
to vote, does this alter in any way the terms of the
agreement entered into by UND and the NCAA? Secondly,
if it doesn’t should the petioners have been allowed to
proceed? Shouldn’t the state or the attorney general
have stepped in to prevent the crisis that now faces UND? If the measure were to pass in June, UND would be
faced with the prospect of keeping the nickname but
not being able to have it’s athletic teams participate
in any conference.
There is one possible solution, there may be plans to have the State Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of the original law that required UND
to keep the nickname.
Personally I like the nickname and do not feel it is
racist or abusive in any way and I think the NCAA wields
too much power. Whichever way this ends up, I wish the
best for UND.
As an American Indian, I am offended by the use of my cultural icons by non-American Indians as “mascots” (even that word offends me). You stole our land and killed my ancestors; now, you want to use icons of the culture you tried to destroy and expect me to like it. I do not believe that it shows respect for American Indians. It just shows that the conqueror gets to use images of the conquered as they please. On all other issues, I have the highest regard for Professor Turley. Not this one.
I guess many kids like myself grew up going to summer camp. I remember being a “Dakota.” The kids in the next bunkhouse down the hill were “Cherokees.”
I was doing some historical research when I stumbled across “The Improved Order of Red Men.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_Order_of_Red_Men
We’ve got a LOT to be sorry for. I’m with you, Dredd.
AY,
Why would the team have to leave because of a name change? Besides, I might even go to their game if they changed their name.
Steve:
Redskins are also peanuts. You could just have the Planters Peanut as a mascot and call yourselves the Fighting Goobers or the Charging Cacahuates.
Personally, I’m offended by the Fighting Irish brand.
They left out the drunk and singing appellations.
Everyone knows the fighting goes along with the drinking and singing.
and the other 10% didn’t matter cause they’re just indians
Very true Steve, but the key is whether or not they (minority or majority group) find the name offensive or disrespectful.
Redskins, in my opinion, is a term which has far more negative connoctations…from it simply referring to the shade of skin to it referring to the blood scalps of Natives brought back to frontier towns for sale after battles.
Knowing a large number of Lakota Sioux, I know that the majority are in favor of North Dakota using the moniker “Fighting Sioux”, though some do have a slight issue with the ‘Fighting’ part…which in actuality is rarely used. “The Sioux” is the more commonly used term. Many have a sense of pride and ownership of the Fighting Sioux moniker and feel it is one more thing being taken away from them.
Along with that, many of those who I have spoken to, believe keeping the name helps keep the plight of their out in the open and that by forcing the removal of the moniker, the NCAA is helping to sweep the injustices against Native Americans under the rugs, helping to further marginalize their people and reservations.
I’ll also say that when I was at UND (prior to the NCAA demands) the groups protesting the name were 90% white professors/extreme liberal individuals. And while I liked most of those professors, they seemed to be guided by a sense of white guilt which helped blind them to the fact that the majority of Sioux were in favor of the moniker.
My high school team was misfortunately named the “Redskins.” I never thought about the possibility of giving offense until a Native American asked me one day, “How would you feel about a school that named its team the “N****rs”? That cinched it for me. If Native Americans find such team names offensive or disrespectful, we should consider their wishes and not name teams after them.
I also advocate a law that stipulates if you use a likeness or name of another for a commercial purpose you must pay royalties from the time of first use at the market rate for such usage during the time frame. Marketing athletics is a commercial purpose. We can find the histoiric and current market rate without too much problem, and figuiring out when the name was first used presents no problem either. This economic rule would probably solve the problem.