Frequently Asked Questions about the "Fighting Sioux"

Why is the use of American Indian people as mascots and symbols offensive?

The continued use of American Indian people as mascots, logos, and symbols is wrong. It denies a race of people the basic right of respect. By tolerating the use of demeaning stereotypes, we desensitize and objectify people. When using a race of people as nothing more than mascots and symbols, we are teaching the next generation of non-Indian children that it is okay to participate in culturally abusive behavior.

Why is it okay for schools on reservations to use "Indian" logos and nicknames?

Only American Indian people have the right to choose how they are portrayed. If a reservation school chooses their school name, it is their perogative. Native people should have the right to say how their image is projected to the outside public.

How does the continued use of "Fighting Sioux" harm Native American people?

By portraying Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota students on campus as the "Fighting Sioux," you are participating in a misconception of American Indians as being inclined towards particularly "war-like" and "violent" behavior. This denies the Native students on campus their sense of pride, integrity, and place in a unique cultural heritage. It transforms them into dehumanized "things."

Aren't there more important issues for Native people to be concerned about?

There is nothing more important than one's sense of identity and self-worth. A person's self esteem is shaped, to a great extent, by how they are portrayed by others. This is especially true with children.

Why do some American Indian people support the use of "Fighting Sioux"?

American Indian people, like Euro-American people, are not monolithic. People's perspectives vary. However, virtually every national American Indian organization supports a change.

Can we find a common ground on this issue?

UND administration's strategic plan calls for more educational forums emphasizing cultural awareness and sensitivity. Increasing racial awareness is always a step in the right direction. However, until the symbol and nickname are removed the plan is no more than broken promises and empty, hypocritical rhetoric.

Why aren't American Indian people honored by the use of "Fighting Sioux"?

Saying it is an "honor" does not make it one. American Indian people have never asked for this. Honoring a race of people because of their "war-like abilities," gives the impression that Native people are relics, existing only in the past.

The Students voted overwhelmingly to keep the logo: majority rules! A vocal minority shouldn't be able to dictate its wishes.

Human rights should supercede majority rights-- thus the rights of a minority population are just as important as the majority. Consider 150 years ago when the Southern US was overwhelmingly in support of slavery. 100 years ago women didn't have the right to vote; in fact many women agreed with this, thinking themselves not to have the intellectual capacity to do so... just because most people support it doesn't mean it's right!

It's being used in an honoring way.

An honor is decided by those that it is intended to honor, not by the honorer. For instance, if a man told his wife that she should feel honored to be married to him, does that make it true? It is only an honor if she decides it is. Thus, if Native Americans feel they are not being honored, then they are not being honored.

When opposing team fans yell "Sioux Sucks", people shouldn't take it seriously.

Why not? Whether or not they are being malicious, it is an insult. Simply allowing a team name to be an ethnic group, places them in a position to be disrepected.

I'm not offended by the "Minnesota Vikings" and I'm of Scandanavian descent!

First of all, "Vikings", as an ethnic spin-off of Scandanavians, did not directly populate Minnesota. The descendents of Swedes and Norwegians who presently live in Minnesota come predominantly from those countries directly, not through the Viking explorations nearly a millenium ago. Secondly, the Vikings were invaders and violent people; they conquered others-- they themselves were not conquered. Descendents of Scandanavians in Minnesota are integrated in to the power structure of Minnesota; Native Americans, however, do not assert such power in state government or other institutions. In fact, they have historically been systematically subjugated to the whims of European settlers. It's a case of honoring the conquerer instead of the conquered.

Using the "Fighting Sioux" brings attention to the Native people, and thus honor.

If one wants to honor a people, they learn their traditions, speak with their people, and try to understand their history. They do not simply display them on clothing, shout the label of those ethnicities at sporting events (which Native peoples never played in the first place!), and argue that they are honoring them. If one truly wants to honor the D/L/Nakotan people, they can take classes to learn the Lakotan language, take Indian Studies courses, attend pow-wows, befriend D/L/Nakotan students and faculty members, read books on both the proud heritage of Native peoples and on the terrible genocide practiced on them for centuries (even presently). To honor Native Americans, one can encourage the state and federal governments to honor treaties which have all been consistently ignored. To honor Native Americans, one can work to stop the looting of their natural resources by private companies and the government. Having the likeness of a generic-looking "Indian" head on Highway signs does nothing that the likeness of a Jew would on highways running through Auschwitz or Dachau.

I'm proud to be a Fighting Sioux!

If you do not have D/L/Nakotan blood in you, you are not "Sioux" (a term which actually means "snake"). Why are you proud of being called something you are not? People of a certain ethnicity should operate the rights to control the usage of that legacy and terminology.

Don't these people have anything else better to do?

Nearly everyone working to change the name is either a student or faculty member, and, yes, has many other things to do. Yet, they also feel that this is an important issue, important enough to sacrifice their valuable time upon. This issue is one of renewing respect for a culture, changing it from one of tokenism to true respect and history... putting Native people on equal footing with non-Natives, and not as some imagery of fantasy.

This is getting old, and I'm sick of hearing about it!

It is always easier to ignore something, than to deal with it. Yet, ignoring it and complaining about those concerned about it, is simply circumventing the true issues. If you don't want to listen, don't listen-- no one is making you. But, closing your mind to debate is not the point of higher education. For years, many Americans tried ignoring and down-playing the stories coming from Europe in the late 1930's about the Holocaust. Think of why you are "sick of hearing about it", and ask yourself if it is because you do not want to face up to the charges and claims of the Native peoples who feel they are being disrespected.

"The school is not doing anything wrong by using the Fighting Sioux nickname. People just need to be educated on the importance of the nickname. Those that oppose the nickname need to be educated on why the University has chosen the name.... I really wish that the Fighting Sioux nickname can remain, along with the great memories and traditions that go with it." (taken from an actual student's post)

The school may not be intending to do anything wrong, but benigness is not the same thing as innocence. Saying that people "need to be educated" on the importance of the nickname is not far from saying "people need to be coerced to understand" or "people need to be forced to accept my version of reality". In fact, the reasons why the University chose the nickname are in the public record, but not what is read at the beginning of sporting events. These are only a few reasons given for the name change in 1930 from the Flickertails to the Fighting Sioux:

1) Sioux are a good exterminating agent for the Bison
2) They (Sioux) are warlike, of fine physique and bearing...
3) The word Sioux is easily rhymed for yells and songs.

These are the reasons why the University changed the name. Think about it: there were absolutely no Native students attending the University at that time, they were not enfranchised at all, could not vote, and anti-Native sentiments ran rampant through out the Dakotas. Do you really believe that it was made out of respect at that time? And finally, what "great memories and traditions" are the ones that we should retain? A tradition of disrespecting treaties, natural resource rights, federal sovereignty? Memories of genocide, forced relocation, ghettoization, biological warfare, systematic slaughter, and persecution? Or are you referring to the nobility that Native Americans felt before white America stole their land and culture?

[In response to Questions and Answers posted by students, alumni, and community members on the Fighting Sioux "controversy". Drafted by Dana Williams, a 1999 Computer Science graduate of UND and former President Insurrectionist of the Student Political Action Network, who is not Native American. He may be reached at: danamwilliams@yahoo.com. Anti-copyright 2000.]