OT: North Dakota Fighting Hawks release first logo
It's actually pretty nice. Great use of negative space. Wonder how it will translate on a darker background though...
But you're looking at it from a graphic design perspective. But from a "is it as badass as Fighting Sioux" perspective, the answer is an emphatic no.
There are probably more important things than being "badass." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also, I've always thought of the Fighting Sioux logo as the lesser version of the Chicago Blackhawks.
But for a hockey team, badass-ness ranks rather high on the list.
Yeah, the Anaheim Ducks agree with you!
Might Ducks, lol.
Mascots shouldn't be people, especially people who's land was stolen and who were killed off by the same institutions trying to exploit their image now.
The Sioux enslaved and killed hundreds of thousands of indians from other tribes. This is like defending a serial killer that another serial killer killed. One is not morally inferior because it was more recent.
Therefore, get over it. It's a name.
So you wouldn't object to a team named the Nazis if serial killers don't matter and it's just a name? lol
Also, there's room to talk about how white people aren't the only ones to have waged war or enslaved people (althought the slavery of colonization was on a vastly larger scale), but the Sioux enslaved and killed hundreds of thousands? When? Over what period of time? Considering the Sioux were living off the prairie and bison, weren't they fairly nomadic? There aren't written records from them and so much of the native populations were wiped out from smallpox before white settlers even got out there. So what are you basing this on?
Actually, the largest and longest running of slavery based on a persons color/tribe, is from when the turkic/mongolic and arabs took white slaves from areas in russia, the balkans, etc for nearly 900 years running. Most of them were from the local Slavic tribes...this is why we have the word that describes the situation...the word slave is directly related to slavic. no white priviledge there.
Yes, I'm aware of that. How exactly is that relevant to whether or not the Sioux owned slaves?
The Sioux were widespread over the plains and west. They were at war with the Pawnee in near perpetuity. This is cited in Lewis and Clark's journal and many other places, as is their practice of slavery. Just google it, it's not hard to find. Many tribes enslaved other indians. Tribes in the south even owned enslaved Africans, like the Chickasaw and the Seminoles.
"So much of the native populations were wiped out...out there". I'm having a real hard time finding the relevance of this remark. We had an entire war with Indians in the west, many battles in which we got our asses handed to us. Many dying from small pox has no effect on whether or not the Sioux (like many tribes) killed and enslaved thousands of other Indians. The Sioux are a fierce mascot for North Dakota not only because of their geographic relevance, but also because of their aggressive, hawk-ish reputation.
Edit: And to your first point, no. Because it's a name. I'd move on with my life because it affects zero people in any way, shape, or form unless they allow it to do so. If someone named a team the Nazi's no Jews or Gypsies or Polish people would be harmed physically, or fiscally, nor would they be suddenly oppressed. Then the free market would probably force that team out of business since most people would not support them financially.
The Sioux weren't even on the territory west of the Missouri River until the 17th century at the earliest. They head out there from the area west of Ojibwe territory when the Comanche started trading horses up to the Mandan villages and the Ojibwe push west.
The idea that they enslaved and killed hundreds of thousands of other native people is a claim that I've never heard any scholar of American Indian history make, and lord knows, there's been a lot of scholarship on the Lakota.
The point is we have almost no idea how many pre-European Native Americans there were, so throwing out really large numbers like hundreds of thousands of slaves prima facie appears to be completely pulled out of your ass.
I also specifically say white people weren't the only ones to have ever waged war and enslaved people, so quit reading a bunch of PC stuff into my post that I didn't say.
Lastly, the idea that words don't matter is at best ignorant. I don't think you'd just shrug off people calling your mom a whore.
So should/could they be called the North Dakota Mohammeds then?
/ducks
Which would actually be perfect as there would not be any logo controversy because anyone who tries to depict Mohammed generally ends up dead.
Not Generals? Not Chiefs? Or Senators or Braves or Fighting Irish or Vikings or Seminoles?
And I was unaware the Universities who are "exploiting" them today, stole land or killed those groups. NCAA does exploit them and "maybe" I could believe they did that stuff.
Nevermind. This has been debated more than enough times already.
Don't forget the poor cowboys who had land seized by the government through eminent domain, only to become an exploited mascot decades later.
North Dakota University stole Native American land and killed Native Americans. And I wasn't aware that Native Americans believed in land ownership. I also didn't know that "exploit" is a synonym for "honor."
it doesn't matter. The Sioux tribe does not want this "honor" and that is the end of the debate to me
Feel free to give your house and all your possessions to the nearest Indian tribe and go back to Europe or wherever your people originally came from.
They lost. Ergo, the victors get to appropriate and/or use their culture and symbols in any way they see fit.
Using your logic, are cornhuskers being exploited?
Not as good a use for the negative space as the Hartford Whalers.
Never a bad time to remind ourselves of the greatest informal team anthem ever:
I think they did a pretty decent job with the new design
If you are going to have a bird mascot, you gotta show me some talons.
Tell me this isn't better.
`` ``
I mean where can you go though from the Sioux logo. Probably one of the top 5-10 mascot logos in college sports. Really a shame they couldn't keep using it
Looks fine, but overall this sucks. Fighting Sioux were the greatest. Glad the Seminoles are holding strong.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November can't get here soon enough.
The FSU and the Seminole Tribe of Florida have an extremely deep relationship. There is no threat of that mascot changing. And frankly, FSU is going about it in the exactly correct manner.
Gotta love the, ahem, "journalistic" liberties taken in that piece... "unusual bond".
They just could have focused on the relationship. Had to characterize it to suit their agenda.
I like it
I like it
I like it and I like the fact that the two of you also like it.
in Bismarck. They could be called the "Iron Chancellors" and chant "Blood and Gridiron".
"The Battleships."
Imagine having this song playing on a loop during North Dakota's pre-game skate and warmups.
It could be better but overall not terrible.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I actually really like the logo, but Fighting Sioux was a way better name.
Is there anything related to another school not named "Michigan" that you don't find lame, dumb, stupid?
True
The Fighting Sioux was a great name and a perfect logo.
...if you're willing to ignore the hundreds of years of historical and cultural baggage that goes along with having your entire athletic identity revolving around the cartoonish, exaggerated use of indigenous symbols and motifs.
WDs world view doesn't expand beyond Michigan clothing.
In the case of UND though, what was cartoonish about their logo?
Cleveland Indians, yes. UND, not so much.
I never saw guys at games with headdresses or a single feather in their hair or warpaint or doing the tomahawk chop or any of that. People understood they were the Sioux and wore their Sioux jerseys with pride. It has never once come across as some type of demeaning practice (at North Dakota specifically)
Meet "Sammy Sioux":