Exactly, I find it amusing that we will make an exception for bowl games. Apparently Iowa will stand on their "principles" when it means punishing the other teams, but we'll make exceptions to our "principles" when it comes to our own financial interest. I'm almost embarrassed to be a Hawkeye after seeing this news.
U of Iowa Refuses to Schedule North Dakota
- Thread starter SPGroth
- Start date
Exactly, I find it amusing that we will make an exception for bowl games. Apparently Iowa will stand on their "principles" when it means punishing the other teams, but we'll make exceptions to our "principles" when it comes to our own financial interest. I'm almost embarrassed to be a Hawkeye after seeing this news.
Illinois did away with their mascot a few years ago. Pressure from the NCAA and a group of on campus faculty who were calling and writing potential recruits and advising them that they shouldn't attend a racist university. However, the NCAA and its infinite wisdom saw fit to allow Florida St.'s mascot, who rides out to the 50 yard line and throws a spear into the ground, to continue.
ajones1996
Well-Known Member
Uhhh we are playing central Michigan in football this coming season....you know, the central Michigan Chippewas......but I'm sure that's different
ColoradoHAWKEYE
Well-Known Member
LOL, thats funny. Maybe because they are not "the fighting chippewas".
Simple people have a hard time with complex issues. This is a complex issue. Some schools have strong connections with some tribes. This is the case with FSU, who have the endorsement of both the Florida and Oklahoma Seminole Nations for use of their likeness.
This is also the case with Central Michigan and the Chippewa tribe.
Basically it comes down to a tribe or people having rights over use of their likeness or cultural identity, which also means the right to use this for financial profit. Yunno, like Iowa's claim against Southern Miss with the Tiger Hawk / Golden Eagle issue?
The culturally offensive part is about a group of individuals in power co-opting the cultural likeness of a less powerful group without the endorsement of that group. Yunno, kind of like when these groups were forced off their land without permission?
So what's the problem with the Sioux? Well the different factions of the Sioux have not come to an agreement about endorsing the use of their likeness. They have rights over that likeness, just like Iowa has rights over the Tiger Hawk.
But I am sure I lost some of you after "simple."
This is also the case with Central Michigan and the Chippewa tribe.
Basically it comes down to a tribe or people having rights over use of their likeness or cultural identity, which also means the right to use this for financial profit. Yunno, like Iowa's claim against Southern Miss with the Tiger Hawk / Golden Eagle issue?
The culturally offensive part is about a group of individuals in power co-opting the cultural likeness of a less powerful group without the endorsement of that group. Yunno, kind of like when these groups were forced off their land without permission?
So what's the problem with the Sioux? Well the different factions of the Sioux have not come to an agreement about endorsing the use of their likeness. They have rights over that likeness, just like Iowa has rights over the Tiger Hawk.
But I am sure I lost some of you after "simple."
And the donor thing is key. I work at a university that had to change their "Indian" mascot. There are still some people who are mad. But, most have fully bought into the new mascot. It also helps that the school made a good choice of new mascot.
Any real donors that might have fallen off are definitely back.
Any real donors that might have fallen off are definitely back.
It would help if you understood the issue before making a clown of yourself. You claim a group of individuals basically took the name and mascot without consent. Do you realize that the standing rock tribe, yes the tribe that hasn't reached agreement, was part of the original delegation that coined the name and mascot decades ago? Let's not let facts get in the way of a good white guilt story though. The spirit lake tribe has filed suit against the NCAA for this PC overreach.
"In order to continue using the Fighting Sioux mascot, the NCAA had required UND to get approval from both Sioux tribes residing in North Dakota -- Spirit Lake and Standing Rock. The Spirit Lake tribe gave its approval, but Standing Rock rejected it.
Hill also found Three Affiliated Tribes in North Dakota -- the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara -- and the Siseston-Wahpeton Sioux, whose reservation is mostly in South Dakota but also overlaps into North Dakota, also didn't support the mascot. And five other Sioux groups in South Dakota -- Oglala, Rosebud, Yankton, Crow Creek, and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes -- all wrote letters saying that they wanted the Fighting Sioux mascot to be retired."
This is from research done by Christina Hill at Iowa State University. You can look it up fairly easily. Some tribes like the Chippewa and Seminoles are less complex, because their nations are not so diverse. The Sioux are broken up into too many tribes for one or two groups to be able to claim naming rights over the entire Sioux name. Now maybe if they changed it to the North Dakota Spirit Rock Sioux it would work. Or maybe just North Dakota Spirit Rockers! (LOL)
I know that for some of you being able to only look up one perspective and then finding convenient loaded language terms like "PC" or "white guilt," which help you argue some ideological position is about as far as you can go - you know, those of you who only get your news from sources like MSNBC or FOX NEWS. Half of you would say that all Native American mascot names are bad, the other half would say that there is no problem with any of them.
But that doesn't mean the rest of us will be fooled by an argument that is based on a biased presentation of the facts and dirty rhetoric.
hawkfan340
Well-Known Member
The Standing Rock leadership rejected it. The Standing Rock people were denied the chance to vote.
DFaceHawkeye
Well-Known Member
This has been Iowa's policy for nearly 20 years. They also banned the "Chief Illiniweck" mascot from being used in Iowa City at the same time. Wisconsin has the same policy and adopted it before Iowa did.
The standing rock tribe approved the name in 1969. Are you saying that every generation we should rehash this issue and ask the current generation's permission? Let's use your logic for a second. You basically claim that the sioux name is broad and requires the permission of all tribes. When is the ncaa going to require notre dame to have a vote among the factions of irish before allowing them to continuing use of the name?
This is true, but it is tribal tradition for decisions to be made by the leaders of this tribe. But, I bet they would really love you to give them a lesson on how they should function based on your cultural traditions.
However, even if Standing Rock changed their stance, I think the other tribes who voiced their dissent would still be an issue for the NCAA. I think the NCAA kind of got gut punched on this issue when they limited the decision to just two tribes and then the others came forward.
Seriously, there is a reason this one has gone as far as it has gone. It is a very complex case.
This is true, but it is tribal tradition for decisions to be made by the leaders of this tribe. But, I bet they would really love you to give them a lesson on how they should function based on your cultural traditions.
You do realize this tribe's leadership originally approved the name?
Stop only focusing on Standing Rock. You need to also consider the other different Sioux tribes in South Dakota. But, yes, if Standing Rock decides that past generations made a mistake, then they should be able to rectify that mistake. You know, kind of like the way our government lets women and African Americans vote?
The Irish issue is a 'red herring' and another attempt at dirty rhetoric. The Irish were NOT a sovereign people who were displaced by American Government legislation. The Irish were part of the immigrant population that came to America and were participants in the displacing. ND was developed by this immigrant population as a way to strengthen their cultural identity through religious education. This cute little false analogy would only work if we were talking about a school set up by a Native American tribe that was using the name Native Americans as a mascot. Guess what? I don't think the NCAA would have a problem with that.
Again, I am not against all Native American mascot names. I also think the NCAA has been very reasonable in dealing with this on a case by case basis. But I just see no way that this Sioux issue will be resolved in favor of keeping the Sioux name because of the complex history and divisions of the Sioux people.
vonwilhelm
Well-Known Member
The Peoples Republic of Iowa City has spoken...
A sovereign people displaced by another? If you truly feel that way perhaps you should set sail back to europe since you are violating their right to this ground. You wouldn't be here if it wasn't for that. You've shown yourself to be just another moronic liberal ideologue without a practical clue.
Nice attempt at dirty rhetoric by using an ad hominem attack. This is used by people who know they can't beat an argument so they try to attack the character of the person making the argument. In this case, it was an interesting use of loaded language "people's republic" to attack my character.
Too bad I don't live in IC, nor in any kind of blue or blueish state.
Again, for me it is not an ideological issue. I don't watch FOX NEWS or MSNBC. I just think people should try harder to make good arguments based on sound data and not be so quick to jump to easy arguments.
Too bad I don't live in IC, nor in any kind of blue or blueish state.
Again, for me it is not an ideological issue. I don't watch FOX NEWS or MSNBC. I just think people should try harder to make good arguments based on sound data and not be so quick to jump to easy arguments.
