Mr. Thurman, I invite the readers to consider what I actually wrote in my response (posted 5/4) in order to consider whether I answered your questions or not. It is not surprising that you did not like my answers, but it is a fact that I provided my own answers to the questions, rather than the ones you may have expected. The readers may notice that I provided some specific questions for Mr. Thurman, I suppose he will get around to answering them at some point.

You said that my answers of 5/4 involved a "nominative fallacy." However, what I said was that there is no doubt that the word Sioux is a proper noun that refers to certain tribes, even UND seems to agree to that. These facts are well defined, and there is no fallacy in that.

The history you provided does not appear to me, to have a bearing that directly supports UND's use of the Sioux as a mascot. Rather it agrees that the origins of the name "Sioux" were native American (whether Ojibwa or Chippewa) and the French and the Americans were also involved in the evolution of the name. As I now understand your position, you agree that the name Sioux, was not really "bestowed" (per your previous response of 5/2), but originated in a Native American source and evolved through common usage. Thus, your response seems to agree with me that there is no specific group with a claim on the name by virtue of having "bestowed" it. I am saying that the Sioux's claim is that "Sioux" is recognized unmistakably as their name, and has been so for a very long time.

Perhaps, long ago, the term Sioux had a broader meaning than it has had in modern times. It seems to me that long ago America’s cultural awareness of the Indian tribes would have been less well differentiated than it is today. Thus, it is not surprising that the commonly used names for tribes also evolved to greater differentiation.

You said that my 5/4 response had another fallacy in that I drew a parallel with corporations. Specifically, you wrote, "Now for Mr. Schuster's second fallacy. There is simply no parallel in the Sioux name and that of a corporation founded to market particular products or services." This is a misunderstanding of what I wrote. What I actually wrote was: "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." (posted 5/4) Thus in fact I noted that the current Sioux mascot issue is unlike a corporate trademark issue in that it is not currently a matter of law, and it is not "cut and dried." Further, the corporate trademark contrast I made was merely responsive to your question: "How does a name given to a group (such as "Sioux") come to be the exclusive property of that group?" (posted 5/2) Corporate trademarks (and servicemarks) are, as far as I know, the only common instances in our society of a "name" as an "exclusive property". Thus, they are standing examples of how such matters may be conceived of and handled in our society and this are directly relevant to the question Mr. Thurman posed.

Mr. Thurman also wrote: "Suppose "the Sioux" were able to trademark this name. Does he really believe that they would not try to license it far and wide? This marketing, of course, if I follow Mr. Schuster's line of argument, would then be, for him, a moral or ethical good." I don't think they could trademark it so this point seems irrelevant.

In response to my challenge for an ethical principle that would be against the Sioux position, you wrote this: "Implicitly, at least some of the people who have supported the continued use of the mascot name are saying: "This issue is enough. I value the traditional American principles of nationhood more than the outlook of tribalism." I would have the reader consider this, UND could change the mascot, and still support "the traditional American principles of nationhood." If this is so, then the principle Mr. Thurman identified is not, in my view, material or relevant to this particular question. In fact, UND could be the "Fighting NoDaks," as some have suggested, and still uphold "traditional American principles of nationhood," as I certainly hope and believe they would.

By the way, "morality" considers what is right and wrong as defined by a body of religious/theological considerations. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that considers what is the best thing to do, it is broader than just considering right and wrong, however, right and wrong are considerations. (The term "ethics" is also used in other ways.) Most scholars I am aware of acknowledge that the subject matter of these two areas of study overlap. What I said about ethics and morality was intended to fall into the overlap and as a practical matter in this discussion I don’t consider a distinction (between whether what I said describes an ethical principle or a moral principle) to be relevant.

-- Bernard Schuster, Owner, Find Your Online Graduate School (posted 5/7, 9:35 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.