Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Lane Evans open thread
Next Post: Rep. Lou Jones dies
Posted in:
Rather than do like others and engage in another long argument over Chief Illiniwek, I’m curious what makes this issue so volatile. Why do alumni get so worked up over a cheerleader? Why do opponents get so worked up over a cheerleader? Vent your anger below if you must, but try to explain to me why the heck you even care.
UPDATE: To throw a little more gas on the fire, I thought this was a very interesting comment today and (unlike almost everything else I’ve seen so far today) one I hadn’t heard before:
The Chief is Illinois’ Confederate flag.Like the Confederate flag, the Chief represents tradition, pride, and honor to those who support it. And like the Confederate flag, it is a symbol of racial insensitivity to those who oppose it.
Chief supporters might not like that analogy, but ask any Confederate flag supporter in Mississippi or South Carolina why they support this obviously divisive symbol, and you’ll get a lot of the same answers you get from Chief supporters here.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 3:38 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Lane Evans open thread
Next Post: Rep. Lou Jones dies
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rich-
How would Catholic’s feel if there was a college, with the majority of its students and alumni not being Catholic, and its nickname was the “Fighting Priests.” There was a Priest mascot, who was never a practicing Catholic, who did a half time routine where he did a Priest dance, did a ceremonial communion etc. And when that team is on the road opposing schools’ fans hold up a signs saying “Crucify the Priests.”
How is that any different that Chief Illiniwek? I don’t see much of a difference.
Comment by wndycty Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 7:11 am
This is about arbitrary cultural and symbolic attachments and the Chief is completely irrelevant. Imagine if all of those alums–when young and impressionable–had been entertained by the innaccurate portrayal of another aboriginal cultural figure. We are hard-wired to have these kinds of symbols “impressed” on our brains (especially at an early age), and we are still, alas, animals in that respect.
Why are we wasting so much time and energy on this? It’s silly. Adults taking this so seriously is saddening but unfortunately it is political reality. Look at what they did to beloved and ethical Paul Simon when he broached the subject: they booed him. Animals. Dumb animals.
Why don’t they rise above their animal instincts and focus on education funding, the number of classes taught by graduate assistants, science and math competency by graduates? Sports and sports symbols. Mark Twain would have a field day with this native idiocy.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 7:27 am
How is it different than F.S.U.? Notre Dame;? North Dakota?
To characterize the Chief as a cheerleader is a little over the top . . . I have never seen him leading cheers.
This is liberalism at its finest . . . here is what you should think and do and act because select individuals feel offended.
Comment by Fighting Redneck Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 7:32 am
The sad part is the Chief did not hold out in the budget talks so that the wanna be 2nd term chief wasn’t inlcined to kick in a few million more $$$$’s.
Comment by can't imagine Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 8:23 am
Rich — It is all about freedom of expression and who has a good p.r. machine.
Those who love the chief want he/she to stay. Of course if you want to freely express yourself on other issues — like gay rights, choice, Bush’s war, etc. — you will be suppressed with every breath in their beings.
I liked that opening comment comparing this issue to Fighting Perverts, opps I mean priests, but I did not want to upset anyone.
Meanwhile U of I Board slated to approve new $100 million plus hunting ground for the Chief today.
Comment by Reddbyrd Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 8:27 am
Because, like all emanations of PC it’s about power.
THEY have decided something is bad so WE must accommodate THEM.
NOT.
Like Lord Nelson facing the Terror of the French Revolution, we oppose them even on small things.
Comment by Pat collins Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 8:38 am
Because, like all emanations of narcisistic arrogance it’s about power.
THEY have decided something is good so WE (native americans, immigrants, etc.) must accomodate them.
NOT.
Like Martin Luther King facing the terror of bigotry, “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out
the true meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.”
Comment by Anti Pat Collins Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 8:59 am
My support for the Chief is drawn from my experiences as student at the U of I. Seeing the Chief perform at halftime brings back many great memories for me during my days at the U of I. Whether sitting in Block I or at the Assembly Hall, clapping for the Chief emobied, in my mind, support for not only the Illini teams but the University as a whole. Just as we all have those special “safe” places/memories we cherish, the performances by the Chief are one of those places for me. I’d like to reatin that feeling not only for myself but for future generations as well. In a nutshell, from my perspective, the Chief is not a racist steroetype but an honored symbol that should be preserved.
Comment by illinifan86 Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 9:10 am
the liberals just need something to complain about. It is not big deal, why can’t a University have some pride in a mascott without being ripped for it. The Cheif is a symbol for many generations of alunms and residents of IL.
I think if the Native Americans were really expressing concern the alumni and university would have a different position. They are not a disrespectful group. But this attack on the cheif was lead by WHite, liberal, professors, and members of the public who are saying is offenseive to native americans.
Which is worse, just having a mascot, or prentending you know what offends a group of people. I think the Native Americans are much bigger then this controversy.
Comment by the Patriot Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 9:17 am
It doesn’t make much difference to me. Of course, I went to Northwestern, where I saw all those fine athletes compete (unfortunately, they were wearing the visiting teams’ uniforms!).
Comment by Randall Sherman Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 9:19 am
We used to do minstrel shows. Minstrel performers sang their hearts out in black face, and studied black culture to give them authenticity. These performers felt they were uplifting and honoring black culture at a time when blacks were considered inferior, and their music and tastes inferior too. Al Jolson was not a racist, but a man who felt he was educating a racist society about the beauty of black culture.
The Chief is a minstrel act that has survived into the 21st Century. Performers who apply the make up and exaggerated costumes feel they are honoring indian culture. They often study indian culture and deeply care about their performances. Alumni feel this tie to this minstrel character.
PC didn’t exist when we declared minstrel shows off limits, and it isn’t an issue regarding this minstrel character either. What we have done is simply recognize that a vital taxpayer funded center of knowledge should put this kind of embarrassment in the past, where it belongs.
We have real indians. We don’t have to play them in order to demonstrate their viability in society. We have real black performers. We don’t have to have white performers smear their faces and wear funny clothes to educate audiences either.
In both cases, I believe we have learned that although our hearts may be in the right place, we must be humble enough to recognize that we can only honor another culture by respecting them and allowing them to claim what is rightfully theirs.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 9:28 am
ILL-INI ILL-INI, Sorry got caught up in the cheerleader comment. Not a UofI alumni, in fact really hate the school, however if the NCAA is going to kick the Chief around to be p.c. then they need to clean house and get rid of all offensive teams. All of us could sleep alot better with the Notre Dame “shamrocks,” Oklahoma State “beef distribution engineers,” and the Bradley “river bridges”
Comment by southernilrepub Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 9:39 am
This is not some PC, wacky-liberal issue.. this is outright, in your face arrogance, ignorance and insensitivity.
1. Most native americans oppose Chief Illiniwek — who are we to tell them they should not be offended;
2. Chief Illiniwek never existed, his “costume” is emblematic of the Sioux tribe, and his game time “dances” is not authentic at all to any real tribal customs (rather is some college kid jumping around and acting goofy) — therefore it is a specious argument to say that it honors the Illini;
3. Because the Chief is a very generic, cartoonish Indian, it furthers our cultural beliefs that all native Americans are the same instead of the truth that across the country their are very real differences between various tribes;
4. It teaches children (and adults) that native Americans are funny, cartoonish, mascots put on earth for our amusement;
5. Its simply wrong — we would not tolerate a team called the Joliet Jews or the Naperville Negroes.
This issue makes me sick — people that support the Chief are wrong, wrong, wrong and just plain ignorant.
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 9:41 am
Alums should cherish their memories. Retiring the Chief won’t erase the cherished memories. Most people don’t like change, unless it’s their idea. It’s time to retire the Chief with dignity.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 10:02 am
The surviving members of the Illiniwek tribe consider the Chief’s representation of their culture to be an honor. How then can any of us object?
Comment by Veritas Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 10:11 am
If the Patriot is such a proud alumnus, why not show off your university education and spell “chief” correctly?
I’m not an alumn and I think the issue is ridiculous and the chief needs to be retired. The chief is not a symbol of your time at the university or even a symbol of the university, it’s a branding mechanism just like all other sports mascots. If you want to show your pride for the U of I - that’s great, cheer for the teams, beam with pride at the institution’s academic rigor, but don’t use the Chief as your symbol when it is offensive to others.
If we as Americans wish to continue to believe that we are morally superior to the rest of the world then we must act with morality and respect to each other first. Sorry that’s not a liberal or a PC perspective, it’s a reality check people.
Comment by Mike's Used Sports Section Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 10:13 am
We should look to Native Americans for guidance in portraying a positive image of their culture. So, anyone up for a tour of Indian Casinos?
Comment by gg grandfather/Indian Fighter Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 10:28 am
This seems to be generated by the kind of whackos that staff agencies like the ACLU and other “equal rights” groups that spit in the face of tradition to promote liberal agendas and then charge with bigotry those who don’t bend or break when confronted with the pressure to conform. The funny thing to me is, in the quest to stop offending one group (Native Americans), the NCAA has offended me and 1000s of other loyal U of I fans and other common sense types who really see nothing wrong with the Chief or the Illini nickname. The same principal always applies in these types of situations…in order to appease one group, you have to make the other group mad. All of the “let’s hug and get along and never see color or race or religion” honestly makes me sick. I always laugh when the slogan “Celebrate Diversity” is brought forth. What commonly happens in those situations is the differences among all of us just become more clearly defined. But, just so someone stops whining, lets hold hands and sing songs about rainbows and blue skies and puppies and kittens….Puke. KEEP THE CHIEF!!!
Comment by heet101 Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 10:31 am
Rich,
Nothing gets me more worked up that the issue of Chief Illiniwek. Why do I care?
Because I am a U. of I. alumnus and former member of the Marching Illini and the basketball band that the Chief performs with at halftime of our games.
As a member of the band performing with the Chief, we learned the tradition and honor that the symbol of Chief Illiniwek represents. It was an incredible feeling to be marching on the field with the Chief and to hear the crowd roar. I still get goosebumps at games to this day.
Chief Illiniwek isn’t a cheerleader, nor is he a mascot. He only performs at halftime with the band during the traditional 3-in-1. No cheering on the sidelines, no speaking at all.
I can remember seeing the anti-Chief protestors on campus and at the games. Usually about 25-30 people whose ringleaders were neither students nor alumni.
I accept the fact that the other side gets as upset about this issue as I do. But only a few years ago, the student body voted on this issue. Chief Illiniwek had the support of more than 70% of the student body that voted.
So I’ll be blunt - if you aren’t a student or alumnus of the U. of I., shut the hell up! This isn’t your fight and you have no right to tell the U. of I. student body and alumni what to do.
Comment by The Ghost Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 10:50 am
What’s with the Lu Jones story???
Comment by Anon Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 10:50 am
I have recently graduated from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I cannot stand the fact that people with nothing better to do constantly confuse tradition and respect with parody and offensiveness. Do I think the Chief is necessary at sporting events? No. But then for what do traditions stand? Traditions do not exist for necessity. They exist to honor and remember history. If some PC hyper-sensitive deems the Chief perverse, then they need a hobby.
And to those whose argue that the dance is a foolish inaccurate spectacle, I pose a question: If this dance was so inaccurate, why didn’t someone come forward to correct the problem? why didn’t someone speak and correct the dance moves, or offer constructive criticism? Why did someone have to turn this into a crusade against a symbol that students and alumni of the University revere?
Comment by Forgotten Exodus Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 10:53 am
The funny thing to me is, in the quest to stop offending one group (Native Americans), the NCAA has offended me and 1000s of other loyal U of I fans and other common sense types who really see nothing wrong with the Chief or the Illini nickname.
Ah yes, the old “opposing racial caricatures offends me and that’s just as bad as the offense caused by caricature in the first place!” canard. Hopefully that absurd attempt at reasoning will soon be consigned to the dustbin of history along with this embarrassing mascot.
I *am* an alumnus of UIUC and I will not give the university a penny until the Chief is gone. Not a cent.
P.S. Sure hope you don’t ever need the assistance of a group like the ACLU in protecting your constitutional rights. Assuming we have any left by the end of the Emperor Bush Administration, that is.
Comment by anonymous Illini Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 11:07 am
I don’t think it’s any big secret that I’m a huge Illini fan but not very fond of the Chief. If you have a guy dancing around who’s based on Native Americans generally but no person and no tribe in particular, well, it’s hard for the result to be anything other than a stereotype.
But besides that, is anyone else marveling at how this whole thing is going down? The Board of Trustees and the campus administration have been stuck when it comes to this issue forever. The political appointees on the BOT historically tended to favor the Chief but maybe now it’s different. The BOT’s been wrestling with this, and it’s been afraid to commit one way or the other since the Blagojevich people have started coming in. Meanwhile, it seemed the campus folks wanted the Chief gone.
And even if the BOT wants him gone now, they can’t eject him without it becoming a political hot potato and, possibly, an issue in the governor’s race.
Now, conveniently, the NCAA steps in and plays bad cop. So if the BOT has changed its mind and no longer wants the Chief around, it has the perfect excuse. Blame the NCAA. The university officials will protest on principle (as well they should), but the end result may be just what they wanted.
I don’t think it’s a conspiracy. I think it’s just strange how this has all played out.
Comment by Dan Vock Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 11:13 am
“Just observing,†if the truth is (which it is) that all native Americans are not the same and that there are very real differences between various tribes, why would it matter that “most native Americans†find the Chief offensive? Isn’t it only important how the Illiniwek tribe feels, right? And thanks to Veritas, we know what that is.
What’s more, your point #1 is pretty much contrary to actual evidence. A Peter Harris Research Group poll of those who declared Native American ethnicity on a U.S. census showed that 81% of Native Americans support the use of Indian nicknames in high school and college sports, and 83% of Native Americans support the use of Indian mascots and symbols in professional sports. In September 2004, the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey reported the results of a year-long poll which showed that the vast majority of American Indians say that calling Washington’s professional football team the “Redskins†does not bother them (90% of Indians took that position, while 9% said they found the name “offensiveâ€). Hard to argue (based on what you say in point #5) that the “Redskins†are generally more offensive than the Chief.
That being said, I really don’t care too strongly one way or another on this specific case, since I am not an alumni of the school. What I do feel strongly about is not getting self-righteously offended on behalf of those who don’t find alleged offense against them to be offensive themselves.
Comment by grand old partisan Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 11:15 am
Most of Blago’s appointees, save Frances Carroll, in any public statements before they all clammed up are Pro-Chief. As for the Governor, who after all is a voting member of the Board of Trustees, where does he stand? He’ll be on the campus today, which seems an excellent time for him to once and for all hop off the fence on this issue.
The last comment I recall is that he couldn’t take a position because he had never seen the Chief.
Comment by Another Illini Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 11:30 am
Any follow up on Lu Jones? A message left this morning had some disturbing news but I haven’t heard anything more. Rich, any word?
Comment by illrino Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 11:36 am
The Trib story on Lou Jones’ death is up here:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-060509lovana-jones,1,6836728.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Comment by Dan Vock Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 11:50 am
An an alumna of the state’s flagship university, I believe students and alumni and residents of the state of Illinois should have the ultimate decision on the Chief.
I support the Chief 100%. Why? Because it’s a symbol of our history (through Illinois’ Native American history) and our future (through the futures of the students who graduate from the University).
The Chief is a symbol and not a mascot. I place the Chief on the same level as the American Eagle, the flag, and the cross. You ask how we can be so attached to a symbol, but yet most people would agree that they feel attachments to the eagle, flag, and cross.
Students express intense loyalty to their schools, whether it’s grade school or college. You wouldn’t attend NIU and yet root for OSU. If you’re offended by the Chief, don’t attend the school. Student enrollment has increased every year at U of I.
To me, the Chief represents honor.
And I still get goosebumps when I attend a football game and the crowd grows silent as the Chief enters the field. Linking arms with my friends and singing the Alma Mater while swaying to the music will always be my favorite part of the game.
To lose the Chief would be to lose a piece of our history and the sense of loyalty he establishes.
Comment by UIUC Alumna Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 11:56 am
Folks, like everything else in Illinois politics, it’s all about the money.
The Miami Tribe, which, by the way committed genocide on the Illini nation, has been suing farmers in Central Illinois to gain State leverage to get a “tax free” casino in Illinois. The opposition to Chief Illiniwek is just another part of the “campaign” to show that we “owe” some generic “Indians” a casino for reparations, even if the Tribe receiving the windfall was the one that originally slaughtered the Illini. Go to Starve Rock to find out about the “Illini Last Stand”.
Getting rid of the Chief is just another part of their “raid”, and people in Illinois don’t like it.
Being a “progressive”, I’d recommend the following accommodations:
1. Change the Illiniwek costume (which is actually Sioux)to something closer to the actual Illini garb.
2. Add a women and a boy and girl also dressed in Illini garb.
3. Prior to each game, renact the slaughter of the Illini family by students dressed as Miami. Clearly identify the tribe’s name on the constumes.
4. Following the renactment, complete with fake blood and special effect dismemberment, have the announcer make the following statement:
“Ladies and gentlemen, please observe a moment of silence for the Illini Nation, which was massacred by the Miami. Please reflect on the fact that this sort of genoicide is going on daily in Darfur, the Sudan and many other places in the world today.
The descendants of the Miami Tribe that slaughtered the Illini now want a casino given to them in Illinois.
Now lets play ball!”
Do you think I can sell this to the Board of Trustees and NCAA?
Comment by PalosParkBob Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 11:57 am
I’m not sure what the big deal is either, even though it’s an argument that’s been thrown back and forth for years. Why do U of I alums get worked up about some dude wearing turkey feathers on his head during sporting events? Hell, I think I did that once back in ‘97 at a house party.
Maybe I’m jealous because I’m an EIU alum, and our mascot was some dude dressed in a panther outfit. A few years ago, after I graduated, EIU had its own mascot controversy over what to name the panther. Honest to God. All the students over the years, for whatever reason, called him “Billy the Panther,” and all hell broke loose when the university decided in Jan. 2003 to call him Prowler. Now THAT is a mascot controversy.
Comment by Tony @ The Apartment Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 11:58 am
If you think he is anything but a Cheerleader, then you have your head up somewhere very dark.
I couldn’t care less if they kept him or dropped him myself. If you’re a UIUC grad and the frigging Chief is what makes you feel attached to your school, then you must have bombed all your classes and gotten a crappy job. How about feeling attached to the university because you got a great education like most successful alumni do.
Comment by UIUC Grad Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 12:00 pm
Wndycty - as a devout (read disenfranchised) Catholic, i say bring on the Fighting Priests, and their molesting defense.
Comment by anon Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 12:05 pm
I really need to state that most Native Americans do not oppose the Chief. I ask everyone that I come into contact with at sporting events. He is a proud symbol of their heritage. Here, where there are numerous teams called the Tribe, the Braves, the Indians, they are respectful of their heritage and have found the symbolism associated with Chief Illiniwek to be quite authentic.
The Hopi people here tell me that due to the fact that no Illini exist, it is impossible for the tribe to voice any support at all (like the Seminoles did.)
My Native American friends that are current students at the UofI tell me that, it is the present young man that portrays the chief, that is the problem. He needs to be above reproach, and he is not.
Comment by Writing in from the REZ near Flagstaff, Az Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 12:06 pm
To the Ghost: First of all its a public university and receives taxpayer money (including mine), and the school represents our state, therefore I think we all get a voice. Secondly, your logic is faulty on another point… if a public school had a dancing Jew or black person as their mascot, then you contend that is strictly up to the school… huh.. interesting.
Forgotten Exodus: So… the Illiniwek tribe should step up and train white college kids to make a mockery of their traditions more accurate… another great point.
Grand Old Partisan: Wrong… while the Illiniwek might have a marginally greater concern, Chief Illiniwek degrades ALL native american culture and history. Just because their are very distinct differences (culture, language, dress, food, etc.) between tribes doesn’t mean they don’t share any commonalities or interests. As you demonstrate, images of cartoonish native americans tarnishes the legacy and current views of native americans. On another note, I would have a hard time taking any poll very seriously that shows 80-90 percent opinions in one direction or the other, unless the question posed is “are you in favor of cute, little puppies?”
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 12:11 pm
My ethnic and religious background is the source of a wide variety of sports team nicknames, symbols and mascots (Irish. Saxons. Vikings. Highlanders. Saints. Yankees.) I don’t lose sleep over them. The rules surrounding Illiniwek ensure the dignity of the Chief symbol more than any of the others.
(How can the NCAA call all Native American-related names into doubt while maintaining offices in Indianapolis, Indiana? They could take a strong stand against such names by packing up and moving.)
Comment by UIalum86 Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 12:28 pm
For me the issue is tradition. The Chief is a part of my college experience. It is a symbol, along with the Block I and the Alma Mater, that form is an integral part of nostalgia of my time at the University. I find it offensive that people outside the UIUC community (in particular) deem it their right to (attemtp to) villify and take that away from me (and so many others who share this as a part of their collective UIUC experience).
I truly do not belive the Chief is any more damaging, demeaning, or degrading than the “Fighting Irish”, “Vikings” or “Demon Deacons” - but just has become an easy hotbutton issue for exploitation by those needing a platform for their gain.
Comment by ChicagoAj Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 12:34 pm
I have one word for everyone here that keeps saying this is part of “my” college experience and traditions: SELFISH
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 12:39 pm
Why it is so contentious? Because the Chief fight is ALL about power - not morals, suffering Native Americans, school spirit or anything else.
Comment by Bubs Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 12:42 pm
“Just Observing†– Would you have a hard time believing any poll that said 80-90% of native Americans WERE offended? After all, according to you “ALL native American are degraded by the Chief.†I’m curious, what percentage of Native Americans would you say might be degraded but not offended?
Think about that for a moment.
Now, please tell me again why your completely unsubstantiated assertions should carry more weight than scientific polls conducted by 2 different, reputable and independent sources.
The bottom line is that the people you claim to be defending from degradation do not feel degraded. So why do you persist in your patronizing “defense†of them?
Comment by grand old partisan Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 1:28 pm
Funeral arrangements for State Rep. “Lou” Jones are being finalized. Once the details are available I will pass it along to Rich for posting.
Comment by Steve Brown Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 1:33 pm
The Chief is Illinois’ Confederate flag.
Like the Confederate flag, the Chief represents tradition, pride, and honor to those who support it. And like the Confederate flag, it is a symbol of racial insensitivity to those who oppose it.
Chief supporters might not like that analogy, but ask any Confederate flag supporter in Mississippi or South Carolina why they support this obviously divisive symbol, and you’ll get a lot of the same answers you get from Chief supporters here.
As many southern states and institutions are learning, it’s an economic and competitive disadvantage in today’s global and multi-cultural world to be represented by a divisive symbol many find racist. If we had fewer Chief supporters and more Universitiy supporters, this issue would go away (along with the Chief) fairly quickly.
Comment by Morrow Plotting Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 1:43 pm
Every organization I know that represents Native Americans has expressed formal opposition to Indian mascots. This includes, by the way, the Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma, descendants of the original Illini.
Comment by Morrow Plotting Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 2:03 pm
apples and oranges?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 2:34 pm
Grand Old Partisan: I never said all native Americans. Doing a bit of research finds that: Among the national Native American organizations calling for the retirement of the symbol are the National Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Education Association. At the UIUC campus, the Native American House, the American Indian Studies program, and the Native American student organizations have all called for its retirement.
In regards to your specific poll, my research finds: Peter Harris Research Group poll of those who declared Native American ethnicity on a U.S. census showed that 81% of Native Americans support the use of Indian nicknames in high school and college sports, and 83% of Native Americans support the use of Indian mascots and symbols in professional sports. However, the methods and results of this poll have been disputed, and the Peter Harris Research Group refuses to clarify the matter. A separate poll conducted by the magazine Indian Country Today in 2001, which has a very small readership, reported “indicated use of American Indian names, symbols and mascots are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans”. And to answer your response, yes I believe that 80% against is much more believable than 80% for — however both polls may be flawed.
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 3:05 pm
If it really is about power — as several people here have said — then the quickest way to resolve the situation is to quit fighting. Ignore the other side. Give in.
I don’t feel strongly about it, but other people do. I’m tired of the issue, and wish it would just end. In any fashion. Throwing the Chief under the bus seems to be only way to bring a pointless debate to an end. There are few other things that are more important.
Comment by TomD Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 3:28 pm
The Florida Seminoles bought their continuing relationship with the Indian tribe they represent. Perhaps we could have seances with fallen Illini. With PC in play, there will be no nostalgia or history ,it will be retracted
Comment by Loyal Alum '65 Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 3:54 pm
Keep the Chief on the flag, at least that symbol is fairly dignified. Can the bozo in the faux Indian suit. He looks and acts stupid prancing around. Not dignified. Imagine if the Notre Dame mascot’s half time act was chugging a bottle and stumbling around. It would be pretty the same lack of respect for the people being represented. It just shows a lack of class and excessive arrogance to keep that moron on the field. If you what to keep the Chief, do it in a respectful way.
Comment by Papa Legba Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 4:32 pm
Those who would refer to Chief Illiniwek as a “cheerleader” would not know that the tradition was started by Webber Borchers, a former state rep. from Decatur, who traveled to visit the remnants of the Illini tribe in the Dakotas. He learned the culture, studied the traditions, and the tribe even sewed the costume for him to wear as the first Chief Illiniwek.
Most of those spouting poltical correctness opinions and spewing drivel about the Confederate flag probably have never seen the Chief perform and have no concept of the legacy.
The sad fact is that our Native American legacies get pushed further and further out of consciousness by those allegedly trying to save them from the perceived offenses of a few.
Comment by Lincoln Lounger Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 4:54 pm
Just Observing:
You’re a bit closer, in that you are at least finally addressing facts instead of relying purely on your own conjectures. But I’m still far from sold.
I just want to be sure on this: are you actually saying that you would take “any poll very seriously that shows 80-90 percent opinions in one direction or the other,†as long as it was the direction YOU agreed with? (or unless the question posed is “are you in favor of cute, little puppies?â€)
Now, assuming that both the magazine poll and the Harris group’s are equally flawed, you still have another poll to deal with: the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey reported the results of a year-long poll which showed that the vast majority of American Indians say that calling Washington’s professional football team the “Redskins†does not bother them (90% of Indians took that position, while 9% said they found the name “offensiveâ€). I don’t believe the methodology or results of that poll have been called into question yet, care to give it a try? I’d venture to say that – if it were at all – “Redskins†would be more offensive than the Chief.
As for the self-selected representatives of the Native American community who are upset: I don’t doubt that they legitimately are. But hasn’t it usually been true throughout history that the small minority that is upset about something is often much more organized and vocal than the vast majority who are content with the status quo?
Comment by grand old partisan Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 5:04 pm
ChicagoAj - I too am a U of I alum, and I find it a little sad that the only connection you feel to the university is eight saturdays a year.
The U of I should be proud of it’s status as a land grant college and one of the great public universities in America, it’s rigorous curricula, it’s outstanding faculty, it’s many nobel prize winners, diverse student body, and storied alums.
The Chief casts a shadow over all of the things.
I have put myself in your shoes, and I don’t think I would feel any less pride for my time spent at U of I or my degree if the Chief retired tomorrow, nor less honor in my affiliation with the campus, nor less of an obligation to carry on a tradition dedicated to the University motto, which is “Learning and Labor,” not “I-L-L—I-N-I”.
On the otherhand, it is much harder for me to put myself in the shoes of another race, a culture systematically extinguished (we call it genocide now) and completely marginalized from society, but I have tried.
I visited the site of Wounded Knee, where in 1890 the U.S. Government massacred 150 Native Americans, mostly women and children, for practicing their religious beliefs. We killed them for dancing.
The site of the massacre is marked by nothing but a weathered old billboard — there are no government monuments to honor them.
Parked below the billboard was a family of four, i don’t know which tribe. They were homeless, living out of a van from another decade, and hoping for the kindness of passerbys.
A broken man, a desperate mother, and two innocent little children. That is the legacy of America, and that is the image I want to burn in the mind of every alum who talks about “pride.” There is much for Native Americans to be proud of in their history, but our part in it is shameful.
A final note to those who would like to compare The Chief to The Fighting Irish. It’s an important distinction to note that the Irish, while once downtrodden in the U.S., have been largely welcomed into the dominant culture. Native Americans, Latino Americans, and African Americans remain marginalized as a whole, socially and economically. So a more accurate comparison would be a white student in blackface or a sombrero performing a West African ritual or the Mexican hat dance. No matter how honorable their intentions or the intentions of the audience, it’s not hard to understand what the offense is.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 5:12 pm
I’m coming up on the one year anniversary of my graduation from U of I. I loved my time there. Even worked for admissions to try to get more people to go. But this damn Chief controversy distracts people from the real issue in Champaign:
The feckless bureaucrats and legislators in Springfield are starving the flagship university of funds! Most of the buildings on the Quad are in such a sorry state that I’m lucky I made it out of there without a chunk of concrete falling on my head. And don’t even get me started on the rotting lecture hall in Lincoln.
It’s high time all you Springfield types stop throwing $$$ at your pet projects that mean nothing to the vast majority of Illinoisans and start showing the flagship university the respect it deserves.
U of I won’t be a powerhouse much longer if you keep starving it of funds.
Comment by Alum Tired Of It All Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 5:20 pm
My memories of the U of I are of getting hammered drinking “The Wall.”
Bring back The Wall.
Bring back The Wall.
Comment by anon Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 5:29 pm
You’d think that we would’ve become a little more enlightened after 500 yrs. Obviously not. A little history lesson to ponder –>
Many Algonquin-speaking tribes have inhabited this region before the European invasion began. The Illinois Indians, also known as Illini or
the Illiniwek, were a group of independent tribes sharing a common language and a common origin. The Illinois language belonged to the central Algonquin group, along with the Miami, whom the Illinois Indiansclosely resembled. The word Illinois is the French version of the
Algonquin term for men. In 1673, the Illinois Confederacyincluded about twelve tribes: Kaskaskia, Maroa, Cahokia, Peoria, Tamaroa, Tapouaro, Coiracoentanon, Espeminka, Moingwena, Chinkoa, Chepoussa, and the Michigamea. By 1700, all but the Cahokia, Kaskaskia, Michigamea, Peoria, and Tamaroa had disappeared from the territory, through either original misidentification (some of the groups designated as tribes may have been only subdivisions of a tribe) or absorption into
other tribes. As their populations diminished, these tribes, too, merged: the Tamaroa and Michigamea joined the Kaskaskia, and the Cahokia
merged with the Peoria. After a Kaskaskian Indian killed the Ottawa chief, Pontiac, in 1769, provoking enmity of the Lake tribes, the
Illinois took refuge for a period with the French at the village of Kaskaskia. It was at this time that the Sauk, Fox, Kickapoo, and Potowatomi began to move into the territory vacated by the Illiniwek.
For 50 yrs., the Kickapoo (i.e., Kiwigapawa, meaning he stands about, he who moves about, stand now here, now there) remained in the area (which includes the UIUC campus) until 1819. Their ownership was recognized by contemporaneous tribes of Indians and military authorities, French, English and American. On July 13, 1819, they signed a treaty in Edwardsville ceding their lands to the US. The language of this treaty recites that, “said Kickapoo tribe claims a
large portion by descent from their ancestors, and the balance by conquest from the Illinois nation and undisputed possession for more than half a century.”
Based on the history few people have accurate in these comments, it would be more appropriate to obtain feedback and permission in recreating their culture. Borrowing from other cultures and polling Indian Country as a whole is misleading. It would be more appropriate to use anything from the Central Original People (i.e.,
Algonquian ) of the Upper Country. The UIUC Historical
Fact Sheet never mentions anything about the history of the area prior to its charter. If history
is that valuable to the institution, something about the region’s original inhabitants would be part of that fact sheet. Finding information about Japan House & Sousa is easier than finding any Native information on the UIUC
cultural website . The Lakota and Kickapoo were
enemies. It is ironic that the outfit currently used during the performances was provided by Chief Frank Fools Crow, an elder in the Ogala Sioux tribe of South Dakota, and was sewn by his wife. It is more of an insult really and looks nothing like the
traditional clothing for the region. Instead of using the name Illiniwek, Kanakuk, a Kickapoo
prophet, would have been more appropriate. The name could also honor one of the actual
tribal chiefs — maybe the one that signed the treaty ceding the land the university occupies. If many of the portrayers have actually visited
Indian reservations in order to enhance their knowledge and their performance, they would be familiar with the Brown County, Kansas, reservation (and their water shortage) and the Texas
and Mexico residents.
If the portrayer knew anything about the culture, he/she should be making as many speaking appearances in TRADITIONAL
costume as possible (maybe even conduct fundraisers for the tribe’s impovershed reservation. Not speak in costume or even utter the words excuse me is ridiculous. The portrayer should learn a few Algonquian phrases & REALLY promote greater understanding of the Illinois Confederacy through speaking engagements. Also, it would be more appropriate for a person of the Upper Country or of French descent to portray a Kickapoo. The people would not have been
black nor even had black slaves. They had strong alliances with the French. They would’ve sold any captives as slaves to the black inhabitants of the West Indies.
Obviously, goal of the UIUC administration has nothing to do with authentic tradition (or REAL support for the tribal reservation descendents). It created a marketing gimmick out of a hodgepodge of Plains Indian culture. As a whole, Black Hawk’s defense of his beloved Saukenuck against Manifest Destiny does better drawing attention to the long-forgotten Native American tribes than a tired, tasteless marketing gimmick like a foolish dancing caricature selling university sports and embarrassing a state.
Comment by Alison Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 6:13 pm
Rock to find out about the “Illini Last Standâ€.
Not really - that likely is a distortion of the Fox last stand near Bloomington. Didn’t happen.
in a PC driven world divisive symbols
Ah, the “d” word. Funny how it’s NEVER divisive when:
Mexicans have as a mainstream oganization “The Race”.
Groups demand special study centers be set up on campus to study their “experience”.
No, it’s only SOME symbols that are racist, not others…….
Why does no one use the term Oriental anymore? Because memebers of that group didn’t use it to describe themselves, only outsiders did.
So why is Oriental bad (check any paper’s guide) and Anglo good?
Unless, of course, it IS all about Power.
All Illini oppose the chief
Actually, in 1995 the Peoria voted to approve the Chief. After lots of lobbying, the vote in 2000 was 3-2 against the chief.
Comment by Pat Collins Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 7:10 pm
Next, we have to eliminate the Vikings nickname. This is clearly a negative attack on people of Scandanavian descent.
Then we have to eliminate the term, “white.” Its a racist term to negatively define a large segment of our population. From today on, I’m “European American.”
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 8:04 pm
Yellow Dog, well said indeed. What was done to the Native Americans truly was a sin for which this country may never be fully redeemed. But I think we have certainly tried to do our penance. How many American boys have died trying to stop similar tragedy across the globe over the last 70 years?
But to me, the image you described just makes keeping the Chief all that more important. Of course, I think there is something to be said – as others have – about the need to ensure that “the Chief†is done, as it were, properly and respectfully. But I think that wouldn’t be hard to do. Unlike to the mascots of some pro-teams, the Chief earnestly attempts to pay homage with a certain level of authenticity, and is at least ½ way there already. He is not a cartoon, or a derogatory slur from the past. So to whatever extent the pro-chief movement should recognize and deal with the fact that there are some Native Americans out there who have a legitimate beef with their “symbol,†those with the beef should not act like representatives of a people they obviously do not fully represent. I’d like to think that of all the issues facing Native American today, symbols like the chief would be among the least important things on the minds of their true leaders. And for those with the beef, why not engage those who sincerely profess their intention to pay homage and assist them in fulfilling that goal instead of calling them selfish racists? If you think it’s a bluff, call them on it.
Comment by grand old partisan Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 8:18 pm
As an UI alum, I find the Chief and his silly dance routine demeaning. It perpetuates a sterotype. Native Americans are people, and shouldn’t be depicted as mascots at sports events, along with animals and objects. How often is the Chief invited to dance at an Indian ceremonial gathering or dance? He should be retired.
Comment by anon Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 8:32 pm
ComEd is more of a Confederate Flag that the Chief.
The Confederates were all about trying to convince people that being locked up against their will was good for them. The Chief is about kicking some butt.
Maybe tomorrow there will be a real question like can the AccordiOnGal’s campaign sink much lower — right now they at periscope depth and the pumps are not keeping pace.
TTFN
Comment by Reddbyrd Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 8:36 pm
Way to go Rich. This debate will make the Blago vs. JBT one look civil. The Chief has been around for over six decades, he is as much a part of my family heritage (three Illini grads)as any Native Americans. Besides, if he oes we might get something like that idiot Bucky the Badger or whatever the cheeseheads call that thing in the Red and White prison uniform.
Go Illini, Oskee Wow Wow
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 8:39 pm
I really need to state that most Native Americans do not oppose the Chief. I ask everyone that I come into contact with at sporting events. He is a proud symbol of their heritage. Here, where there are numerous teams called the Tribe, the Braves, the Indians, they are respectful of their heritage and have found the symbolism associated with Chief Illiniwek to be quite authentic.
The Hopi people here tell me that due to the fact that no Illini exist, it is impossible for the tribe to voice any support at all (like the Seminoles did.)
My Native American friends that are current students at the UofI tell me that, it is the present young man that portrays the chief, that is the problem. He needs to be above reproach, and he is not.
Comment by Writing in from outside the REZ near Flagstaff, Az Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 10:01 pm
I’m an alum, and I got a great education there.
However, I think the student experience ain’t what it should be. Chambana has become a bleak assemblage of strip malls and tract housing. Campustown looks like a slum. The Greek system is a shadow of the party machine that it was in the 80’s. As a result, people don’t have much other than a good education and college friendships to take home with them.
I think a lot of alums wouldn’t care so much about the chief if they had had a better time at the school.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 11:04 pm
My bad: that was directed at the p.o.s. known as heet101
Comment by anonymous Illini Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 11:10 pm
This is what real fancy feather dancing actually looks like:
http://www.powwows.com/gathering/articles.php?action=viewarticle&artid=228
Comment by Webguy Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 11:39 pm
I’ve seen the old yearbook pictures from way back, and the Chief back then was obviously a racist looking cartoon character, about on a level with the Lone Ranger’s Tonto or the Hakowie tribe from “F Troop”. Not this holy figure invoked by alums today. It started as a racist joke, and has gained it’s current adoration only from the passage of time, not from any intrinsic value.
Let’s be real about this: Pekin’s school team is no longer called the Pekin Chinks, they are the Dragons now, and I don’t think anybody today really misses the old name. Symbols change over time; Christians in the early days used a 5-pointed star or the shape of a fish to denote their faith, the crucifix came into ‘vogue’ as their symbol later, though it had been part of the faith since the beginning.
A more reverent thing to do at the games would be to retain a representative from a real tribe to come out and say a quick prayer or blessing in the actual language. It was good enough for the start of the Winter Olympics, had all the pageantry you could want, but also authenticity, class, and taste.
I miss Bob Bell in his rubber nose and yak-hair wig, he was a part of my childhood, but time moves on. The school should too.
\BTW, nice t-shirt today, Governor, it fits great.
Comment by Fighting Ennui Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 11:56 pm
You know the real reason he dropped in to the school today on such short notice, right?
He was going to a fundraiser in the evening, and the “official” appearance enables him to write off the use of the state helicopter as state business, so his cash-strapped campaign didn’t have to pay for the flight back to Chicago. You all did.
Comment by Oh no he di-n't Wednesday, May 10, 06 @ 12:00 am
GOP -
This has nothing, nothing to do with honoring Native Americans.
It’s more like trying to smear their blood on our chest and hope some of their honor wears off on us.
Want to teach students about Native Americans? Make Native American studies part of the core curriculum. Want to honor them? Challenge every alumni and every student to contribute to the Chief Cray Horse Monument.
But what’s going on at U of I right now is not about honoring Native Americans. I’m betting that if you walked around Kam’s with a tin can, asking students to choose between the Chief Crazy Horse Monument and their next round of beers, you’d walk away empty handed.
How much do students really value the Chief? Put him in Assembly Hall with no alcohol and no sporting event, and sell tickets for $10 for students to “pay homage”. The place will be so empty, you’ll be able to hear the crickets.
There. You’ve called me, I raise you.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 10, 06 @ 12:05 am
Most of this is really redundant.
The far Left is all about censoring anything it doesn’t like, and that’s all there is to this.
Comment by T.J. Wednesday, May 10, 06 @ 6:41 am
YDD – Fair enough. You obviously care passionately about this issue for the right reasons (which is admirable), and as a U of I alumni, you have far more invested than I. My point – and my position – is that we should “fix†the Chief, for lack of a better word, not get rid of him. You can disagree with that conclusion, but I can assure you that it is not reflective of any disrespect for, or desire to offend, Native Americans. Quite the contrary, it is because I want to honor and pay tribute to them. I think there is (or at least should be) common ground for compromise between those want to ensure the Chief remains for the right reasons, and those who want him removed for the right reasons. But that requires both of those groups being willing to separate the other from their respective broader sides of the debate and acknowledging the each others good intentions. Because this has not become largely a political issue in the state, I fear that may not be possible for either side.
Comment by grand old partisan Wednesday, May 10, 06 @ 1:05 pm
So far there’s no indication that anyone associated with UIUC really wants to show respect to the former inhabitants of the land it now sits on. Supporters seem to prefer redirecting everyone’s attention to some imaginary political objective. They fell for a really good con thinking no one would ever notice. The university needs to stop using a composite of a Plains Indian as a marketing gimmick & REALLY support the descendents of the Algonquin:
1. Work with the REAL descendents of the IL tribes & not their historical enemies to dance, dress, & speak authentically.
2. Create an Illinois Conferacy cultural center & sponsor visits for the descendents (Urbana has Japan House. UIUC can do this.) & activities/events during November (i.e., Native American Month).
3. Promote historical accuracy instead of selling sports.
4. Conduct fundraisers to benefit the tribes in KS, TX, & Mexico.
5. ACT like they value the region’s history in the marketing materials.
6. Have the law students research federal law, file the necessary paperwork, & force Yale to repatriate Geromino’s skull.
UIUC loses credibility doing nothing about it’s foolish dancing caricature & remains a sucker for a good con.
Comment by Alison Wednesday, May 10, 06 @ 3:57 pm
Rich:
My two cents. I do have native lineage and I am not a U of I alum. I think it is time to get rid of the Chief. Why?… It is our turn. I do get a kick out of all of the politically correct, educated people fighting to save the Chief. Next time you read a letter to the editor praising the pride, tradition, history etc. insert the “N†word for Chief. It might just give one a different perspective.
Comment by Anon Thursday, May 11, 06 @ 1:45 pm