"“I don’t know whose decision it was, but I think it’s a terrible decision…From going there and being part of it, it’s something you’re really proud of. They’ve got a great history, a great tradition, and everyone’s always respectful of the tribes and the name (emphasis added). You wore it with pride and I don’t see a problem with it.”

This emotional opinion, expressed by Zach Parise, illustrates the biggest obstacle preventing any clear consensus on the logo. Both sides are so involved in supporting their own opinion that they tend to speak about the issue emotionally, causing all discussion to break down. For the anti-logo faction arguments to be true, the pro-logo faction has to concede that the logo can be hostile and abusive.

This is problematic because the majority of supporters see the logo and nickname more as a jersey and sports team than they do an actual people (disturbing as this may be.) As a result, the pro-logo camp tends to overlook the racial implications involved in this debate precisely because for them, the racial issues don’t play a part in how they view the logo. They are passionate about the team and its illustrious history, and are appalled and offended at the thought that they might be inherently racist.

On the other hand, for the anti-logo faction to concede that the pro-logo faction is correct, they must accept that the logo has never been a source of racism or even inherently based on the issue of racial identity. For those who have dealt with the racism that this logo and the controversy surrounding it has produced, it is insulting to be told that they should feel “honored” by something that has had very real and extremely negative impacts on the lives of a group of individuals."

Get the Story:
David Barta: Nickname: the racist few (The Dakota Student 4/22)

North Dakota Supreme Court Decision:
Davidson v. North Dakota (April 8, 2010)

Related Stories:
Column: Time for 'Fighting Sioux' supporters to move on (4/19)
Supporters of 'Fighting Sioux' still hopeful for tribal vote (4/15)
Editorial: Eliminating 'Fighting Sioux' was right decision (4/14)
Opinion: Standing Rock Sioux Tribe fails on Fighting Sioux (4/13)
North Dakota board kills 'Fighting Sioux' nickname and logo (4/9)
Editorial: Keep 'Fighting Sioux' nickname for North Dakota (4/8)
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe puts off vote on 'Fighting Sioux' (4/7)
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe considers 'Fighting Sioux' petition (4/6)
Column: Debate over 'Fighting Sioux' all about the money (3/25)
North Dakota court hears case on 'Fighting Sioux' name (3/24)
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe pushed on 'Fighting Sioux' vote (3/23)
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to get 'Fighting Sioux' petition (3/12)
Standing Rock petition calls for vote on 'Fighting Sioux' (3/3)
Column: It's past time to get rid of 'Fighting Sioux' nick (2/26)
Letter: 'Fighting Sioux' not honoring Indian people (2/22)
Board takes no action on status of 'Fighting Sioux' (2/18)
Letter: Give tribes time to think over 'Fighting Sioux' (2/17)
Erich Longie: Divide and conquer for 'Fighting Sioux' (2/15)
'Fighting Sioux' supporters want Standing Rock vote (2/10)
Column: Long saga over 'Fighting Sioux' continues (12/21)
Judge to issue 'Fighting Sioux' decision this month (12/10)
Judge to hear tribal member suit for 'Fighting Sioux' (12/9)
Michael Eshkibok: Colonization and 'Fighting Sioux' (12/7)
Tom Iron: A tribal backer of 'Fighting Sioux' name (11/23)
Police probe potential threats over 'Fighting Sioux' (11/20)
Standing Rock chairman not pushing 'Sioux' vote (11/19)
Editorial: Give tribe more time on 'Fighting Sioux' (11/16)
Editorial: A bizarre delay for 'Fighting Sioux' nick (11/12)
Judge orders delay on 'Fighting Sioux' nickname (11/10)