Illini make another appeal for Illiniwek

[RockRaines]

Illini, smartass. Illinois, Illini. Get it? Brilliant!

And I believe the debate is over the chief illiniwek. Brief yourself of the actual premise of the argument.

[IlliniKrush]

Oh, I didnt know that it was called Univeristy of Illinois Illiniwek.

 

Oh and PS, im sure there are ALOT of people who DO go to your school who think it is racist.  Here is the short list: UIUC Chancellor's Committee on Diversity, UIUC Student Government, ISU Student Government, NAACP-CU Chapter, Nat'l Organization for Women-CU Chapter, UIUC's College of Medicine, School of Life Sciences, Counseling Center Staff, and Departments of Anthropology, English, History, Psychology, Sociology

My argument wasn't that no one here thinks it's racist. So don't put words in my mouth.

 

There are many here (and $$$$$ alumni) who think that the Chief is very important to this school. It's not just some 'gymnastics' dance, like ignorant people think. Without going to the school, your opinion really holds no weight.

[IlliniKrush]

Ok, name all of these schools that are exceptions to this rule, and I will beat that list with a number of schools who have already been forced to change their mascot.

Is there an actual argument in this post?

 

Explain to me why FSU hasn't been touched.

 

Exactly.

[IlliniKrush]

And I believe the debate is over the chief illiniwek.  Brief yourself of the actual premise of the argument.

But it's not just the technical naming of Illiniwek and Illini. If it were, they'd both be gone. It's about the actual symbol, dance, et al.

[RockRaines]

But it's not just the technical naming of Illiniwek and Illini. If it were, they'd both be gone. It's about the actual symbol, dance, et al.

Egg-zactly. And the cheifs fake dance and portrayal is what makes him controversial.

 

"The "Chief" is not authentic. His dance and costume are derived from a 1926 Boy Scout project and the music was written by the UI band director using Hollywood beats. Even if the "Chief's" performance were authentic, it would still be inappropriate for a non-Native to perform it at a college sporting event. The "Chief" makes the UI a hostile environment for many Native people, and therefore impedes true education about Native culture on the UI campus. Native activists and people of conscience have repeatedly suggested that education about Native culture necessitates, first and foremost, the elimination of the "Chief," as well as the establishment of a Native Studies Program, and Cultural House (neither of which currently exist), more Native scholars, and more scholarships for Native students."

 

" UIUC's official mascot and symbol, "Chief Illiniwek" is a racist representation of Native people created by non-Natives for the halftime entertainment and profit of non-Native people. It undermines Native peoples' right to self-determination by appropriating sacred aspects of Native political and religious culture. The "Chief's" performance is just as offensive to Native Americans as the Little Black Sambo and Amos & Andy stereotypes are to African American people. By mocking Native culture, the UI sets a dangerous precedent for racist representation of all other social and ethnic groups targeted for oppression."

 

 

 

 

These views were expressed by: the American Indian Council of Illinois, the American Indian Education Association, the American Indian Movement, the Cherokee Nation, the Peoria Tribe, the National Congress of American Indians, and the National Indian Education Association.

 

Which is why he should be gone.

Edited February 1, 2006 by RockRaines

[IlliniKrush]

That's pretty much a load of crap in my eyes, but i realize people have that opinion. I'm not going to get into it.

 

However, if they are going to do this to the majority of schools, do it to all of them. That FSU seminole is offensive. Certainly more offensive in his actions than the Chief's dance. But he will probably stay due ot $$$? That's very inconsistent.

[RockRaines]

That's pretty much a load of crap in my eyes, but i realize people have that opinion. I'm not going to get into it.

 

However, if they are going to do this to the majority of schools, do it to all of them. That FSU seminole is offensive. Certainly more offensive in his actions than the Chief's dance. But he will probably stay due ot $$$? That's very inconsistent.

So, FSU is the only school you can come up with that hasnt changed their mascot yet?

 

I would like to know how its a load of crap in your eyes? You say I cant understnad the chief because I dont go there, maybe you dont understand their views of the racism because you arent in their minority having your culture distorted?

[IlliniKrush]

So, FSU is the only school you can come up with that hasnt changed their mascot yet?

 

I would like to know how its a load of crap in your eyes?  You say I cant understnad the chief because I dont go there, maybe you dont understand their views of the racism because you arent in their minority having your culture distorted?

I only need one example to show an inconsistency. Christ he throws a flaming spear into the 50 yard line, yet that's ok.

 

If you want me to name another school, with a different style, similar category...Notre Dame.

 

My opinions are different than theirs because i think the Chief represents such things as loyalty, spirt, courage, etc and embodies the whole university. Honestly, i think if there were a $$ deal in place with them like FSU has, they wouldn't be saying such things, IMO. The Chief doesn't "mock" anything. The dance is taken very seriously and the Chief has a lot of tradition behind it. Just because it's not 100% authentic doesn't make it a mockery, in my eyes. I also don't know exactly what it "distorts," i don't have negative views about Native Americans due to my experiences here.

Edited February 1, 2006 by IlliniKrush

[RockRaines]

I only need one example to show an inconsistency. Christ he throws a flaming spear into the 50 yard line, yet that's ok.

 

If you want me to name another school, with a different style, similar category...Notre Dame.

 

My opinions are different than theirs because i think the Chief represents such things as loyalty, spirt, courage, etc and embodies the whole university. Honestly, i think if there were a $$ deal in place with them like FSU has, they wouldn't be saying such things, IMO.  The Chief doesn't "mock" anything. The dance is taken very seriously and the Chief has a lot of tradition behind it. Just because it's not 100% authentic doesn't make it a mockery, in my eyes.

Your tradition for the cheif is about sports. That should say enough. The "dance" and outfit are degrading to real native americans. Their support and constant fight on this issue should be enough proof for you. The dance is taken seriously by college kids during a sporting event, thats it. In your daily life you dont look up and wonder, what values has the chief taught me? In their eyes he is mocking a religious and culturally significant event. Until you lose your emotional attachment to it, you will not be able to see the other side of the argument. You really should check out "In whose Honor" as a way of further educating yourself on other cultures views.

 

Stanford, Miami University,Dartmouth, Marquette, Syracuse, Stanford, Oklahoma, St. John's all changed their mascots, as a result of immpending racist protests. Some schools even had the support of tribes dating back as far as 1809. Yet they all realized that we cannot portray other cultures in a degrading manner even if it has a negative effect on our sporting events. s***, even here at Naperville Central, they decided to change. Now all they are asking is get rid of the chief at the events, not even the mascot as whole, and you are saying "why." I say why not. FSU can deal with their own problems moving forward, but the trend suggest that their mascot will be gone in due time as well, no matter how much money is throw at the issue.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

I only need one example to show an inconsistency.  he throws a flaming spear into the 50 yard line, yet that's ok.

 

 

How is that offensive?

[SleepyWhiteSox]

FSU can deal with their own problems moving forward, but the trend suggest that their mascot will be gone in due time as well, no matter how much money is throw at the issue.

 

Thing is, there really is no movement at FSU to get rid of the Seminoles mascot. It isn't generic; the Seminole tribe is real, a part of Florida history, and has given its full blessing to the school.

 

I think the problem at u of i is that it seems as if their has been some movement towards getting rid of the mascot. That would make the NCAA's decision much easier if there is already controversy. That's not the case at FSU as of now.

[RockRaines]

Thing is, there really is no movement at FSU to get rid of the Seminoles mascot.  It isn't generic; the Seminole tribe is real, a part of Florida history, and has given its full blessing to the school.

 

I think the problem at u of i is that it seems as if their has been some movement towards getting rid of the mascot.  That would make the NCAA's decision much easier if there is already controversy.  That's not the case at FSU as of now.

Case in point: Miami University Redskin's had the blessing of the Miami tribes in Ohio (there were no miami tribes in FLA BTW), yet still had to change the name. Why, because the name was degrading in nature, even though they were supported. The difference is seen in FSU's seminoles and schools such as the North Dakota Sioux. They are tribal names and when supported by the tribe, there is really nothing the NCAA can do about the name. If someone raises a problem with the mascot on the field, thats when they can do something. In FSU's case the student who rides renegade as the Chief has to study the tribes heritage with advisers and the outfit was designed by the Fla Seminole tribe. I still believe that the Chief will be gone someday, as it has taken roughly 7 years to get rid of Chief Illiniwek.

 

I actually had the pleasure of attending several lectures given about this subject while I was in college, and I was definately on the other side of the argument until I got a chance to see their side. I was able to have long conversations with several individuals who made me at least consider their side of the argument. At the time I was angry about my school changing from the Skins to the Red Hawks, and I had severe emotional attachment to the Redskins. Their points about Chief Illiniwek among others really opened my eyes to other cultures and their heritage.

Edited February 1, 2006 by RockRaines

[J-MAN]

So, FSU is the only school you can come up with that hasnt changed their mascot yet?

 

I would like to know how its a load of crap in your eyes?  You say I cant understnad the chief because I dont go there, maybe you dont understand their views of the racism because you arent in their minority having your culture distorted?

Chief Illliniwek is far less offensive than the "FIGHTING IRISH"

 

But that's a sacred cow!!!

 

Why the heck can't the NCAA worry about student athletes graduating!!!

 

I find it offensive that great team names and logos have been changed to placate a small minority!

 

i.e. the Marquette Warriors who were honoring warriors.

Even more ridiculous is the Washington Bullets named after a train having to change their name because some morons find it "objectionable"

[RockRaines]

I find it offensive that great team names and logos have been changed to placate a small minority!

 

 

You are right, lets just focus on whatever makes the majority happy, and not give a s*** what any minority group thinks, because well, they are the minority!!! Lets keep whatever makes our sports fans happy, and totally ignore a different culture's values and beliefs!!! Yeah!!!!!

[J-MAN]

You are right, lets just focus on whatever makes the majority happy, and not give a s*** what any minority group thinks, because well, they are the minority!!!  Lets keep whatever makes our sports fans happy, and totally ignore a different culture's values and beliefs!!! Yeah!!!!!

There a lot more objectionable things out there than Chief Illiniwek!

 

Why don't you people who don't go there and probably never saw how much the "symbol" not mascot is honored.

 

If you do away with everything someone finds objectionable we can all sit in our homes and do nothing.

 

It's only a matter of time before some jerk finds the Blackhawks logo (not that anyone cares about hockey anymore) objectionable and we do away with one of the neatest logos in sports.

 

Why not go after Chief Wahoo (Cleveland) the chop in Atlanta - something that is really objectionable.

[mr_genius]

the Seminole tribe is real, a part of Florida history, and has given its full blessing to the school.

 

 

 

 

the fact that the Seminole tribe is OK with the nickname is a main reason it stays. What is funny is how some loser professor sent the tribe a letter calling them all 'Unlce Toms'.

 

oh, and the professor was white

[RockRaines]

There a lot more objectionable things out there than Chief Illiniwek! 

 

Why don't you people who don't go there and probably never saw how much the "symbol" not mascot is honored.

 

 

I've been to games, I've seen the chief, many of my best friends attended U of I. It doesnt offend my culture. Im German, it has nothing to do with me. But it offends the culture of someone else, and they wouldnt make a big deal out of it if it didnt. You have to respect the people whose culture it offends. You can see where it hurts their image, considering its a mockey of a religious ritual used to pump up a crowd during sports. You are just b****ing to keep your sports the way it is. A cultures heritage is more important that a halftime show IMO.

[CanOfCorn]

You are right, lets just focus on whatever makes the majority happy, and not give a s*** what any minority group thinks, because well, they are the minority!!!  Lets keep whatever makes our sports fans happy, and totally ignore a different culture's values and beliefs!!! Yeah!!!!!

 

Here's the issue in my eyes. The State of Illinois was named after a group of Native American Tribes called the Illini. The University of Illinois is a state school. If they want to drop the "Fighting" from the name, I, as an alum, would have no problem with that. I DO, however, have a problem with 1) changing the name of the sports teams, 2) changing our "mascot."

 

I hesitate to use the word "mascot" because, to me, a mascot is someone like Bucky Badger or the Sparty. A student that dresses up, hangs out with the cheerleaders, kisses babies, "fights" with the other teams mascot, etc.

 

Chief Illiniwek wears an authentic Sioux outfit, given to the school by Frank Fool's Crow in 1982. Once the student who portrays the Chief puts on the outfit, he doesn't speak. It is not an authentic Native American dance, but an amalgamation of Plains "fancy dancing." Yes, the music was written by a band director, but, so what. And, if I remember correctly, the Chief will also go out with the band and "preform" for school groups and I believe the student portraying the Chief has an obligation to study, as well as teach, the history of the Illini Tribe through speaking engagements (not in dress, but as the student).

 

Everything done by Chief Illiniwek is done out of respect. Now, I understand the ends don't justify the means, or vice versa. But one can't put a blanket statement on the Chief saying that it is racist like all the other schools who have changed their names. Nor can one say that "X-School does it, so why can't we?" It should be on a case-to-case basis and I believe that Illinois has got to be the most difficult case, maybe North Dakota as well.

 

We shouldn't have to bow down to the vocal minority, just because they are vocal, nor should we accept the majority, just because there are more of them. But just as you say, Rock, that you heard the other side and could understand where they came from...did those people go and talk to Chief Illiniwek alumni? Did they talk to relatives of Frank Fool's Crow? Did they do any research as to why Chief Illiniwek does what he does? Or did they just say, "No sir, I don't like it."

[RockRaines]

Chief Illiniwek wears an authentic Sioux outfit, given to the school by Frank Fool's Crow in 1982.  Once the student who portrays the Chief puts on the outfit, he doesn't speak.  It is not an authentic Native American dance, but an amalgamation of Plains "fancy dancing."  Yes, the music was written by a band director, but, so what.  And, if I remember correctly, the Chief will also go out with the band and "preform" for school groups and I believe the student portraying the Chief has an obligation to study, as well as teach, the history of the Illini Tribe through speaking engagements (not in dress, but as the student).

 

Everything done by Chief Illiniwek is done out of respect.  Now, I understand the ends don't justify the means, or vice versa.  But one can't put a blanket statement on the Chief saying that it is racist like all the other schools who have changed their names.  Nor can one say that "X-School does it, so why can't we?"  It should be on a case-to-case basis and I believe that Illinois has got to be the most difficult case, maybe North Dakota as well. 

 

We shouldn't have to bow down to the vocal minority, just because they are vocal, nor should we accept the majority, just because there are more of them.  But just as you say, Rock, that you heard the other side and could understand where they came from...did those people go and talk to Chief Illiniwek alumni?  Did they talk to relatives of Frank Fool's Crow?  Did they do any research as to why Chief Illiniwek does what he does?  Or did they just say, "No sir, I don't like it."

To Answer your post. You obviously have some tie to it as well. But frankly the "dance" was a boy scout interpreted dance made up in 1926, and so was the initial outfit. Its ok that they do it out of respect, but the tribes, and the native american population feels that it is disrespect. Is the chiefs dance supposed to symbolize the Indian Nation? Or the schools athletic teams? The dance is thought of as a misrepresetntation of a sacred ritual and ideals of the native americans, and it is being presented as a crowd pleaser during a sporting event. It can be respectful to you all day long. But the fact that so many people inside and outside of the university find it offensive, makes a bold statement. You do not see too many of the native american population arguing that it is a respectul portrayal of their ritual. All of the arguments presented here defend it as a symbol of their athletic teams.

 

The PRAC suggests that no matter how little the performer speaks, or acts respectful, it stil undermines the cultural history of the dancing. "UIUC's official mascot and symbol, "Chief Illiniwek" is a racist representation of Native people created by non-Natives for the halftime entertainment and profit of non-Native people. It undermines Native peoples' right to self-determination by appropriating sacred aspects of Native political and religious culture. The "Chief's" performance is just as offensive to Native Americans as the Little Black Sambo and Amos & Andy stereotypes are to African American people. By mocking Native culture, the UI sets a dangerous precedent for racist representation of all other social and ethnic groups targeted for oppression."

[RockRaines]

Is there anyone who doesnt have emotional attachment to this Character in this argument other than me?

[SleepyWhiteSox]

It is not an authentic Native American dance, but an amalgamation of Plains "fancy dancing."  Yes, the music was written by a band director, but, so what. 

 

That's the part I think causes the most problem because, let's be honest, it looks cartoonish and silly. I mean, you're admitting that it isn't even a real Native-American dance. It's kinda obvious why they might take less offense to a warrior-like image than to that crazy dance.

[RockRaines]

I understand some of the U of I sports fans not having their mascot dance at halftime being upset. But its hard to argue that the chief "honors" native americans.

 

Here are some links to U of I dept pages that are against the chief.

 

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/-announcements..._illiniwek.html

http://www.retirethechief.org/Documents/anthropology.html

http://www.sip.uiuc.edu/chief/

 

Here is a link to a letter from the Peoria Tribe who are direct decendants of the Illini

 

http://aistm.org/2000peoria.htm

[sayitaintso]

So Long Cheif!

[RockRaines]

So Long Cheif!

Looks more like a Chad.

[ZoomSlowik]

I have a couple of problems with this whole thing. One, the NCAA decided to put this rule in and it really only affects one school in Division IA. Several other schools won their appeals (can't remember who, the only one of note is FSU), but the Illini have been unsuccessful so far based mostly on the fact that there aren't any Illini left to gripe and/or buy off. Tribe approval isn't really the greatest criterion to use for whether or not it is okay. Other people have been influencing those people for years, so I don't see why their opinion suddenly has value now when it almost never has in the past. I don't have a problem with persuading schools to change the mascots, but when you're basically acting against one school, that's a poorly planned rule and approach.

 

Another major issue that was brought up in an Anthropology course I took a while back was that people aren't supposed to speak for the group and tell them what they want, they're supposed to do things for themselves. They brought this up in the previous section, and then basically told us why the Chief is bad. None of the positions presented in the class were from any of the tribes, and none of the people making the case were Native American. Maybe that was just poor planning of the class material, but I found it interesting. Most of the people pushing this thing are middle-class white people, usually at college. I realize that there are some Native American groups coming out against the Chief, but they seem to be only a small portion of those opposed to it. Many people seem to be assuming that all Indians are against the Chief, but that doesn't really seem to be the case. I wish I could find it now, but Sports Illustrated did a rather large survey a while back concerning Indian mascots. They surveyed people of Native American descent and Native Americans still living on reservations. The results showed that a majority of these people either didn't care or supported those mascots. This wasn't just referring to the Illini, it was also referring to mascots that are generally considered more offensive, such as Chief Wahoo and the Washington Redskins. It's also somewhat vexing that they're taking this hard of a line considering that the pro teams go largely unbothered.

 

It also kind of bugs me that they are picking on schools with Indian mascots without following the guidline that they used in their own rule. If you take the "hostile and offensive" clause seriously enough, there are other schools that could be subject to the rule, but aren't being affected. There are numerous warrior based names that could really fall under the same rule. The problem is that there aren't any Spartan or Trojan descendents making a stink (or descendents of the minutemen, volunteers, or musketeers), and we probably wouldn't care even if they did since most of those are out of the country. If you take it far enough, people could find the Hurricanes offensive after the events in the Gulf Coast. You've also got the animal rights people protesting the live animal mascots, but that movement's not really getting any help (I actually kind of agree with that one. I'm not saying they should lose the name, but does Colorado really need to keep a live buffalo in captivity and trot it out on the field during games?) They're being very selective with this rule.

 

I can see where people that are against the Chief are coming from, but I just don't really think that it's that big a deal, and it kind of sucks that Illinois seems to be being singled out.

Edited February 1, 2006 by ZoomSlowik