The Univ. of Illinois Board of Trustees may vote on Thursday to rid the school of its mascot Chief Illiniwek
-- the flatlanders will keep the "Fighting Illini" nickname regardless of the outcome.
Link to story

As an alumni I am glad to see this happen. The Chief needs to go away quietly. We have gone over this issue before on the board so we shouldn't need to rehash the whole issue.

Political correctness run amuck. As an alumnus, I am furious over this asinine decision. If the trustees even realized the Chief is NOT and has never been a "mascot," perhaps they'd understand. Illinois will no longer get any more of my funds, that's for sure, and if they don't mind losing all the donations I've spread their way over the years, fine.

The idiots on the Board of Trustees don't realize that what they should have done is eliminate "fighting" from the "Fighting Illini" slogan to dispense with the misguided notion of Chief Illiniwek being a constant fighter. After all, the largest group complaining about this issue said that's all they were looking for, to not be misrepresented.

Just because this issue has been discussed before doesn't prevent it from being discussed now, especially in light of this new development. Those of us alums who disagree with you on this, Steen, aren't going to just "move on," especially since the admin never asked our opinions on it in the first place, but left it to the changing whims of a few undergraduate special interest groups. We take the moniker "Fighting Illini" seriously.

Both the Chief and the Fighting in Illini are historically accurate tributes to the tribes that populated Illinois until the mid-XIX Century. Consider the irony that the tribes themselves were unable to perpetuate the traditional dance the Chief does at halftime; it took a bunch of "immature frat boys" to do so. Now, there will be NO living record of this element of Illinoisian culture and the legend of the tribes' ferocity, sufficient enough to engage Abe Lincoln's efforts in the Blackhawk War, has been wussed down to just another quaint piece of Americana.

Before the left rewrites our history, it usually sees fit to destroy it. This is a perfect example of that practice in all its insidious action.

gmg, when I've gone to sporting events in my life, from the professional down to the amateur level, I've reveled in the fun that was a team's mascot. Often goofy, usually wacky, the halftime shows were entertaining. But whenever the Chief would come out--a symbol and not a mascot--it was as if the Pledge of Allegiance or National Anthem was being sung. Immediately the Chief commanded my respect. I never shouted or yelled or went nuts like in typical mascot cases. No, I looked upon the Chief as a symbol to be revered, for it reminded me of this state's history, of the University's history, and the history of certain Native American tribes.

If it wasn't for the Chief, I would never have bothered to WANT to learn more about the Native Americans whose history he so respectfully symbolized.

Now, sadly, another legitimate entity has fallen to the Left and their political correctness propaganda campaign. frown

[ November 13, 2003, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

I agree with Steen. With all do respect to both MIB and gmgsfo, you are in the minority of those supporters of both the name and the Chief that actually learned something more about the Illini tribe and/or its practices. As a graduate alum, I know of no other alums who knew more about the Illini other than the name "Illini."

For me, I find it demeaning to reduce the sacred rituals of a people to a halftime show, a time that has been traditionally left for dog tricks, spectator football/basketball tosses, and men on unicycles doing tricks. I also don't like a people whether it's Indian, Redskins, or Seminoles being in the company of Tigers, Cougars, and Cardinals.

If one truly wants to appreciate a people, then follow the lead of my undergraduate school, Stanford (they of the former nickname of Indian) and host an annual PowWow that brings not only the Native American populace but the entire community in general.

Lastly, why is it that being a Redskin or a Seminole is more acceptable and a supposed honor than a Yellowskin, a Blackskin, or any other names from other ethnic backgrounds?

If you people can't discuss this issue without making your usual hackneyed moronic attacks on "The Left" then this thread needs to be moved to the P&R section.

Man! A guy gets to 2 million posts and he thinks he's a moderator! JIP has spoketh.

Oh, if only I were a moderator....the power I'd have....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"Reviled"? Really? :confused:

gj, surely it doesn't come as a surprise to you that mib is a fun-hater from way back when?

apparently, beneath that dour exterior lies....a dour interior!

G-ddammit! I hate it when I misspell a word. Now everyone's gonna rub this in for weeks.

And thersis, what the HELL are you talking about? Oh wait. Never mind.

[ November 13, 2003, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Upon further reflection, that doesn't appear to be a misspelling, but more likely a Freudian slip...

Lovingly,

Miss "She-Who-Is-Without-Editorial-Perfection-Shall-Not-Cast-the-First-Stone"

GJ, Given our colleague's correction of his Freudian slip o' the finger, I think it's best described as a "wake up call."

Take care, my li'l marchin' AOPi!

Oh, brother!

It was a typo, guys--really. Seriously. No, honest it was. Freudian slip my ass. wink

Somebody wrote

"Both the Chief and the Fighting in Illini are historically accurate tributes to the tribes that populated Illinois until the mid-XIX Century."

Not true...The costume and dance are loosely based on those of another tribe from the Plains. Did the Native Indians were orange and blue war paint or is it just a coincidence that the football team wears these colors too (Tribune photo this weekend). In addition, the Indians themselves don't consider it a "tribute". And they should know. Saying something's a "tribute" doesn't make it so.

"Consider the irony that the tribes themselves were unable to perpetuate the traditional dance the Chief does at halftime; it took a bunch of "immature frat boys" to do so."

Funny how systematic genocide of a people and forced displacement to reservations will do that to a tradition. You know that American Indian boys were taken from their homes and schooled in American (English) schools and not allowed to speak their native languages or customs? Read the Jim Thorpe story sometime to learn more about this.

"Now, there will be NO living record of this element of Illinoisian culture and the legend of the tribes' ferocity, sufficient enough to engage Abe Lincoln's efforts in the Blackhawk War, has been wussed down to just another quaint piece of Americana."

You know there's more to a group of people than their "ferocity". That's one their main gripes, that they're painted as simple savages. Ever visited some of the Indian sites around Illinois (Cahokia)? There's more to these people than war paint and a war dance in buckskin. Know that the Cherokee nation in GA had a written language? Of course, they lost it when they were removed to _Oklahoma_.

"Before the left rewrites our history, it usually sees fit to destroy it. This is a perfect example of that practice in all its insidious action."

If you consider eliminating an insulting, hokey halftime dance to be "rewriting our history", you're Western Civ. requirement didn't serve you very well. You did take one right???

You know, if Native Americans had more financial or political clout, we wouldn't even be having this debate. That's sad.

You think a spear chunkin' African or a sombrero-wearing Latin caricature (historically accurate) could exist in this day? Harldy.

Kevin :mad:

"A bit of the blue and orange does not a revisionist history make."

You were the one claiming that it's historically accurate. I'm just asking how it's accurate with blue and orange paint? "Well, this headdress is pretty close", "I think I saw a dance like this at 'Wild West Days'". Those things became "historically accurate". I don't have the source in front of me (but I'll find it), where Native Americans pointed out that the dress and dance were not accurate.

"And exactly how should the Indians know what constitutes a tribute?"

I suppose how we all would. By examining something and asking if it reflects me or honors me. In fact, _only_ Native Americans (not Indians) can know if it's a tribute to them. I can tell my African American friends that _Song of the South_ is a tribute to them, but that doesn't make it so.

"Where were their gripes until the '80s? Answer: there weren't any, and it wasn't the Indians who led the charge on this issue, it was a bunch of angry undergraduates bent on destroying tradition, not tribal descendants intent on preserving their own."

Based on your reasoning, one could suggest...

Where were the gripes with slavery before the mid-1800s? There weren't any and it wasn't the Blacks who led the charge on the issue, it was a a bunch of angry abolishionist bent on destroying tradition, not blacks intent on preserving their own.

Your argument makes about as much sense as mine.


[Jim Thorpe stuff deleted]

"Not only read the book, but saw the movie too, both of which were devoid of the cliches you parrot. Please don't assume ignorance or bad faith; people might not think you're the optimist you surely are."

Never meant to suggest it was "bad faith", just a singular sense of what identity and culture can be.
The version I saw was not devoid of those facts. But I'm also smart enough that I don't have to be "spoon fed" facts to know them when I see them. Point is, the assimilation of aboriginal peoples all over the planet first included eliminating the native culture...usually in the name of "civilization" or "religion".

"Yes, and I've been to Starved Rock too; know the story on that one? True, there's certainly more to the Illinoisan tribes than painted buckskin dancers, but that's part of their history too. What do you want, a 15 minute Indian crafts show during halftime?"

If you're wanting to appropriate a historically questionalbe war dance of a Native American tribe, of whom you admit "there's certainly more to the Illinoisan tribes than painted buckskin dancers", I think the onus is on you to show that it's a "tribute". If you can't fairly represent them, don't presume to represent them at all.

"The dance and its manner of delivery fit the circumstances perfectly and gave Illinois football a tradition of its own."

I think we have the truth here. It's the right length and you can do it at a pep rally.

"Don't others' traditions count too?"

Sure, your traditions count but only insofar as they don't infringe or impugn other's traditions (freedom works the same way). I think the Native American ownership of the tradition trumps yours.


"No, I waived the intro courses in US and European history with credit, thanks to my HS AP classes, and went on to major in history. Sorry to know what I'm talking about."

Okay, now to critical thinking and integration of ideas...


"That's either speculation or an affirmation of the "might makes right" theory of cultural development. Either way, it's a non-issue. And good debaters don't get mad, they get points."

It absolutely is the issue. It's why people like you believe this issue was started by college students and only began in the 80s or 90s. These types of issues (and this one specifically) have been around along time. Only recently have they been on the FoxNews ticker...


"Ah, guilt by association, eh? These analogies won't work, in part because people are actually sensitive enough not to engage in negative stereotypes like these anymore, even though they're based on facts as you recognize. It's all a question of tasteful depiction and the Chief had that and much more".

You write, "These analogies won't work, in part because people are actually sensitive enough not to engage in negative stereotypes like these anymore". They work exactly but you're so neck deep in your own negative stereotype that you fail to recognize the similarities.

No, it's born from two reasons. Political clout and the fact that the mascots never existed. If an insensitive "spear' chunkin' African" mascot did exist, the alums of that school (much like you have) would scream that it's a tribute; historically accurate; and a worthy, estblished tradition.

And I can tolerate others' views. I think it's just amusing that people can be so blinded by a misguided loyalty that they torture their rationality such.

Kevin

"Where were their gripes until the '80s? Answer: there weren't any, and it wasn't the Indians who led the charge on this issue, it was a bunch of angry undergraduates bent on destroying tradition, not tribal descendants intent on preserving their own."

This is not true at all. I was elected to the Student Government Association (SGA) the year Charlene Tilton, a Native American grad student came before us to express her concerns about the Chief portrayals at halftime. She opened a lot of eyes that night and several of us helped her in this cause. Later that year I was also elected to be co-president of the Lesbian and Gay Illini and I asked the members to chage the name to drop the word Illini in suport of Charlenes efforts, which we did. There were and still are relatively few Native American students at the University and I believe Charlene told me that if she had known about the halftime dance she would never have enrolled.

Guess I gave some of the graduate students more credit than they deserved. ONE Native American shows up, enlists a few disaffected student orgs to support her cause and hijacks decades of tradition. That's not my idea of open debate and choice. Alums like me were never consulted; were the Illinois taxpayers who fund the school? No. Instead, it was the usual left wing minority power grab, and one more instance of a gay group hopping on to a cause totally unrelated to its own in an effort to forge coalition politics and find friends. With friends like that, who needs enemies? How many members did LGI have while you were there? When I was at U of I in the mid-'70s, our numbers - the group was then known as Gay Illini - hovered around ten or so, hardly an organization representative of all, or even most, G&L students. You were entitled to act as you saw fit, even if you spent public funds to do so, but to presume that you spoke or speak for ALL L&G students and alums on this subject is preposterous.

What an excellent reply.

And thank you for your interesting comments and for standing up to the usual bullying and obnoxiousness from the right wing.

This one wasn't directed at anything I wrote, but I'll jump in....I just love a good debate.

**********

"Guess I gave some of the graduate students more credit than they deserved. ONE Native American shows up, enlists a few disaffected student orgs to support her cause and hijacks decades of tradition."

So you have a problem with how the "ball got rolling"...
How exactly do you think movements get started? Not by some quorum or a critical mass. Know how many Blacks staged the first sit-in in Greensboro, NC? A half-dozen. Jesus Christ was one man who enlisted the help of 12 disaffected individuals who became his disciples. Rosa Parks was an individual. Ghandi was an individual. At the time that this ONE Native American showed up, how many do you suspect were at UIUC? Not that many I suspect, but it doesn't really matter.
I wouldn't call beginning a discussion "hijacking decades of tradition".

"That's not my idea of open debate and choice."

Mine either. That's where we are now.

"Alums like me were never consulted; were the Illinois taxpayers who fund the school?"

Right, let's put it to a vote of the alums or the taxpayer. Let "might make right". Let money do the talking. I have a better idea. Let's put the decision into the hands of the individuals (trustees) who have been chosen to make these types of decsions for the U. of I. Hear the arguments, make a decision.

"No. Instead, it was the usual left wing minority power grab, and one more instance of a gay group hopping on to a cause totally unrelated to its own in an effort to forge coalition politics and find friends."

Like when the Jews and other concerned Whites forged alliances to help Blacks to win integration in the South and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. Wasn't that "a cause totally unrelated to its own"? I didn't know social justice concerns were as balkanized as you make them out to be."

"With friends like that, who needs enemies?"

No points here...

"How many members did LGI have while you were there? When I was at U of I in the mid-'70s, our numbers - the group was then known as Gay Illini - hovered around ten or so, hardly an organization representative of all, or even most, G&L students."

First, it's an irrelevan point. The decision to keep or retire the Chief will be won on the merits of the arguments (I hope) and not the size of the constituency the arguments represent (which you apparently are hoping for)

I don't think these groups claim to be representative of all gays on campus. However, if you don't make your opinions known to them, you can't expect them to represent you.

"You were entitled to act as you saw fit, even if you spent public funds to do so,"

You mean like every other student group on campus...

"but to presume that you spoke or speak for ALL L&G students and alums on this subject is preposterous."

Whatever....


Kevin in Chicago wink

A bit of recent history here. Stanford use to be the Indians. Now their mascot is a christmas tree. Does this mean Illinois's mascot will become a pumpkin or maybe a turkey or bunny?

Today's NYTimes looks at the battle of Chief Illiniwek and the passions on both sides:

\"leftist social engineers\" or righting a wrong? (reg. req.)

QUOTE

This is the crux of the argument. I have never perceived the Chief as a mascot, only a symbol. Mascots embarrass themselves via stupid games and antics. They appear outside of sporting contests for promotional occurrences. The Chief has never done this.

Thanks to the Chief, I have learned more about Illinois' original inhabitants than I ever would have on my own.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DCBucky:
John Gadaut: "I'm a Native American," said Gadaut, who is white. "I was born and bred in Illinois. The chief means something to me, too. People keep saying we have a mascot. No, we have a symbol."

..........

Let's think about this. "Mascot: : a person, animal, or object adopted by a group as a symbolic figure especially to bring them good luck" (from M.Webster.com). Chief Illiniwik dresses up in costume and perfoms dance at half-time for the good of UofI. Sounds like a mascot to me.

gmginsfo wrote:

quote:
"Sounds to me like Ms. Teters has misplaced her boundaries. Last time I checked, Spokane was in WA, not IL. Memo to Ms. Teters from an Illinois alum: butt out!"

***
Someone else addressed the fact that she's an UofI alum but since when did righting wrongs become only the interest of the involved? Outside "agitators" have often been involved in other's struggles.

Chikev

Since when did the Chief become a "wrong?" :confused: