More on the Fighting Sioux name.

I found some interesting points/things in a series of articles in the Grand Forks Herald regarding the Fighting Sioux name and logo. I think we have basically pinned down the major issue here. The anti-logo crowd had gained a lot of traction, their vocal minority was moving the ball forward and they were on the verge of getting the name changed, then the roof fell in on them. These people have basically had their own way for so long. The anti-logo crowd has thrown a lot of stuff out there rarely been challenged by the media.

Now the tide is starting to turn against them, and frankly they don’t like it. Notice the part of the article that mentions that the Spirit Lake nickname supporters, for example, have done an informal survey of tribal members that found an overwhelming majority approve the nickname and logo. Hum! Kind of throws a curveball to the people the anti-logo crowd and to the NCAA’s argument, I guess the people that call themselves Sioux don’t find the name hostile and abusive. Memo to Myles Brand and the hand wringing P.C. Nazi’s, are you hearing the people you claim to represent?

So basically one could read from this is the people that are know as the Sioux don’t want UND to change the Fighting Sioux name. So what does this do to the anti-logo crowd, they are not happy. I look at this way the anti-logo crowd is being beat at their own game and it starting to piss them off, because they are accusing the pro-name crowd of doing the some the same thing they do themselves. They are talking to people and informing them of their side of the issue. The anti-logo people are also trying to blame REA on the matter.

What’s at stake

There’s a lot at stake with the referendums because they may be the last best hope for the nickname.

A 2007 settlement between UND and the NCAA requires the university to win the blessings of the state’s two Sioux tribes to continue using the Fighting Sioux nickname and Indian head logo.

The NCAA considers the use of Indian nicknames in collegiate sports to be derogatory, but it could make an exception if the tribes’ leadership or their enrolled members approve.

Tribal leaders on both reservations have been largely hostile or ambivalent toward the nickname. The Standing Rock Tribal Council, for example, has both opposed the nickname and banned referendums on its use.

Tribal members, though, tend to favor the nickname, and supporters have turned to them. The Spirit Lake nickname supporters, for example, have done an informal survey of tribal members that found an overwhelming majority approve the nickname and logo.

The Spirit Lake survey confirms what Dupris had earlier discovered for the Ralph.

Jody Hodgson, the arena’s general manager, said Dupris’ most valuable role was helping his organization to understand the attitudes of tribal members and why they support or oppose the nickname.

Spirit Lake nickname opponents are scrambling to turn the tide, sending campaigners out to talk to voters, whom they feel do not fully understand what supporters say is the racially charged atmosphere on campus because of the nickname and logo.

In the meantime, Standing Rock supporters are seeking their own referendum

The accusations

Erich Longie, a longtime nickname opponent who’s now fighting the Spirit Lake referendum, is one of many who think the Ralph’s involvement is much deeper than just gathering information.

He theorized that the arena is paying the supporters to talk to their relatives and persuade them to vote for the nickname, using the traditional method of campaigning on the reservation. If that’s the case, he said, “that’s insidious. A small group gets paid, and the majority group that votes for it gets nothing.”
(Read the whole article here)

This is what the Herald editor Mike Jacobs had to say on the issue. It's pretty clear that is for changing the Fighting Sioux name.

Politics in native communities are notoriously complex in North Dakota and elsewhere. The normal means of gauging political opinion might be brought to bear — polling, for example — but since there’s little data about their reliability, there’s little reason to trust them.

So, the issue is in a kind of suspended animation, pending these referendums.

What are we to expect?

While it’s impossible to know for sure, it’s possible that the name might be supported in these referendums.

But will that resolve the issue?

Almost certainly not.

Opponents see this as a moral issue, remember, and they’re not likely to give it up no matter the election results this time around. They’ll continue to raise the issue on campus and in native communities.

That means that the issue will fester — until the name is changed.

It seems to me that this is the political reality and that the best move is to give up the name. That’s the only way to put the issue decisively behind us, and to move on.

This is the position that the Herald has held pretty consistently put forward in its editorials, and that it repeated as recently as January.
(read the whole story here)