I frame this issue differently than you do, so it is difficult for me to answer these questions, and I doubt that I can give definitive answers, but since these questions are posed to me I will answer as best I can.

1) How does a name given to a group (such as "Sioux") come to be the exclusive property of that group? Why do the people who bestowed the name not continue to own it?

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Sioux) the claim of this name goes back to 1761 and the word originates from the Ojibwa name for this tribe. (Based on that, the Ojibwa are actually "the people who bestowed the name" to whom you referred, but let me ask you a question: When a proper name comes into common usage in a language, does that constitute "bestowing" the name? Did we "bestow German" on the Deutch. Now, this is a loaded question because there have been and continue to be numerous hate names thus "bestowed.")

"Sioux" is a commonly used word in English that refers to the Sioux people. Sioux is a proper name, as you know of course, it is capitalized. It is a proper name because it refers to this group of people. .As I see it, the word "Sioux" is not necessary the exclusive property of the tribe except, to the extent that it is used to represent or identify a group. I mean to say that the word "Sioux" is in the dictionary, history books, on maps etc., but the Sioux do not receive royalties. I don't think they get royalties for movies with Sioux in them. I don’t think anyone is proposing that the uttering the word be outlawed, rather I think the Sioux people hope to control its use "as a name or identity," as it is their name and identity.

If the Sioux were a corporation and had trademarked the name the issue would be a matter of law, and would probably be cut and dried. But they are not a corporation, and the issue may be more an ethical one than a legal one, at the current time. Ethically, I believe that the Sioux have a claim of ownership of the use of the name since it is an American-English proper noun that refers unmistakably to them. I don’t think UND, or anyone else, is arguing that their "Sioux" is not the tribe's proper name, or that the word is not the name of this tribe. To the extent that they have admitted that, I think the Sioux claim that the name is theirs is absolutely validated. I believe that the fact that Sioux is their proper name in English, makes it their proper name, and that they have a right to the exclusive use of their name as their name, as you or I have a right to ours. What it is about this that is difficult to agree with?

Now, the Sioux are a people, a culture, not an individual. Can I fully state all legal or ethical principles that ought to apply to the use of a tribal or cultural names? I don’t think so. But, in this particular case, as I see it, every principle of fairness and justice seems to be on the side of the Sioux. As you know, I challenged this discussion for an relevant ethical principle that would be against the Sioux position, and none has thus far been offered.

2) Why, precisely, is the name "fighting Sioux," degrading to the Sioux who claim the name now" Is it because this is a stereotype which make the Sioux appear as savages? Is it invariably degrading for the Sioux to be know as "warriors" or "braves" for this reason? Are you saying that you may call yourself anything that you want to, but if others call you by that name it is thereby offensive?

I feel uncomfortable with this question for a couple of reasons. (1) It assumes there is a burden of proof on the Sioux. My question for you is how was it determined that the burden of proof ought to be on the Sioux. Wouldn’t it actually be more legitimate for the UND, with their vast resources and education, to prove it is not offensive. Could they prove that? (I don’t think they could.) (2) As I am not Sioux, my affective claims could easily be challenged. (But here is my generic answer.)

Let us say that there is a person on the internet who visits chat rooms and discussion boards and uses your name, and identity. I mean, its not that there are a lot of Tom Smiths in this world. This person is using your name, your job title, and your place of employment (however, they do add the word "fighting" before your name. When you discover this, you leave messages noting that you did not leave the other message and that you want the person to stop using your name. Now this person leaves a message for you asking you to prove that their use of your name is degrading or offensive. Let's say this other person could write well, and otherwise did not depart radically from your actual opinions. Would that be offensive then? (As you ask me for a specific answer to your questions, I ask you for a specific answer to this question.)

I say that as a matter of principle it is offensive because they are presenting a false image of you, they are misusing your name, by definition, they have invaded your privacy, they create unwelcomed associations with your name, including a precedent that others mascarade as you, their behavior demands a response from you, it is stressful, they have made unfair demands of you to prove they ought to stop, the use of your name is literally "out of control," they have taken away your efficacy in the use of your name, and, you do not know what they may do next, and how it could affect your image.

I also would like the reader to consider this, if I were a Sioux, I would be offended at the very questions posed. No doubt, these question seem inoffensive to some, but let's try this, you role play being a Sioux, I mean really, seriously try, and see what answers you can come up with. I role-played the Sioux, here is how I responded role-playing a Sioux: (Now, don't take this personally, it is just an exercise in seeing the issue from a different perspective. I would like to bring people to the Sioux side, to support the Sioux side. You try "being Sioux" yourself to see if you feel the same as I did ... or if you are Sioux try being a UND fan -- I like this idea.)

Myself trying to be Sioux:

"You can only pose these humiliating questions because you (wrongfully) took our name to begin with, otherwise I could wash my hands of you, I don’t have to meet you, I wouldn't have to respond to this -- my ancestors were my ancestors -- I am not ashamed of them, and I resent the question that assumes that in some way I should or could be -- my ancestors fought to control this land just the way your ancestors fought to control it. I need feel no shame in that…my ancestors were not any more or less savage than your people were .. they may have done massacres, just not so many as your people.. your leaders said, "the only good Indian is a dead Indian," so how who you define genocidal intentions? So where do you get off even thinking of using the word "savage" to us -- why do I have to suffer the humiliation of answering these insinuating questions as if I were a suspect, or as if I have to justify myself to you. Instead, you prove you are right to me, I can judge too, as I also know of past wrongs I can throw in your face, and I too can ask insinuating, humiliating questions while saying, "Gee, what's offensive in that?" here, you answer my questions "Do you use the Sioux name as your mascot because you are ashamed of you own ancestor's genocides, is that why?" "Is it embarrassing to you to know that the people who you want to 'honor' consider your honors to be a disgrace" "If you really wanted to be Sioux, shouldn't you obey our tribal laws?" "So you don't know who you are? or are you just ashamed of who you are?" "Maybe you need our identity because you have 'identity confusion'" "Do you impose on us with your petty needs for a mascot because you are trying to raise yourselves up (for example, our lives are not for sale and we don’t trash the environment) is that why?"

I seriously suggest trying to role-play the other side. Maybe it will give both sides some kind of insight. Also, tell some friends of yours to masquerade as you on the internet, see how it feels to see your identity claimed by someone else. Could you prove that it is offensive? After all, they are your friends.

-- Bernard Schuster, Find Your Accredited Online Graduate School (posted 5/4, 9:55 a.m., U.S. Eastern time)

previous response

next response

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name: Your title & institution: Your phone: Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.