Chief Illiniwek: "racism" or "good clean fun"?

Great Debates
1

I just wanted to throw the floor open for discussion here. I’m curious as to what anybody else thinks.

The University of Illinois Board of Trustees is holding hearings (after 10 years of increasingly acrimonious, albeit local, controversy) to determine whether the university’s mascot, a guy in a Sioux Indian costume known as Chief Illiniwek, should be discarded because it is offensive to Native Americans. Feelings are running pretty hot on both sides of the issue around these here parts. At the head of the pro-Chief faction are the daughter of the man who invented the Chief, the Alumni Association, and a large and vocal student group. The basis of their argument seems to be, “Hey, it’s tradition, and it’s fun, and we don’t mean to be insulting, and if you don’t like it, you don’t have to look.”

The anti-chief faction doesn’t seem to be nearly as well organized. Mostly it seems to be actual Native Americans and their sympathizers, who simply seem to be uncomfortable with the whole idea, but can’t really explain why, other than to say, “It’s demeaning.” They do have one good point, however, in that the only Indians who ever resided in Illinois were Eastern Woodland tribes such as the Sac, Fox, Illinois, and Kickapoo, all of whom were quickly eliminated by disease and a few strategic massacres early in the 19th century. No Sioux. No Plains Indians. No eagle feather bonnets.

So. What’s the opinion of the level-headed folks at the SDMB? Is this racism, or just good clean fun?

Students for Chief Illiniwek evidently have two websites: http://www.savethechief.com/ http://www.chief.uiuc.edu/

I did not see, offhand, any websites for the opposition. It’s possible that they simply have too many other battles to fight.

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen

2

I was wondering how long it would be before this topic wound up at GD. If you live in Illinois, especially eastern or central Illinois, you can’t escape the debate surrounding the Chief.

Now, for my opinion on the subject: at first, I stuck to my conservative guns & opined that the Chief should stay. He’s a tradition, after all, and the University doesn’t really seem to be demeaning him.

Then I went to a U of I football game.

As if University of Illinois football teams of late aren’t disgraceful enough, there was the Chief. I swear, watching him dance about & hop around out there to the amusement of fans was borderline gut-wrenching. I truly felt that if I were a Native American, I’d be puking right about now. I mean, if the U of I were called “the Fighting Negroes” and had a black student out there dressed like a sharecropper, picking cotton and eating watermelon, even the most ardent Chief-supporters would be appalled!

Maybe the University could come up with a compromise. Maybe they could dress the Chief in an outfit like what the NA’s of eastern Illinois would have worn (rather than his present outfit, which looks like it came from a cowboy western of the 1930’s) and had him do a more dignified ceremony rather than hop about frenetically for a few minutes. Maybe then I could see the point in keeping him.

But for now, I don’t.

3

As a descendant of Natives, I don’t need to tell you where I stand on this issue.

I find it even more exasperating in college sports. Is U of I a place for people to gain understanding? Apparently not.

BTW- The eastern woodlands is a geograhpical area. The Sac, Fox, Kickapoo, and Illinois are Algonquian tribes.

Also BTW- The word Souix is itself perjorative.

Just putting my 2sense in.

Tyranny,* like Hell*,* is not easily conquered*.
-Thomas Paine (fugitive slave catcher)

4

Actually there is a possibility that the Sioux did reside in the Illinois (and Indiana and Ohio) and were subsequently driven out on to the Plains by the Algonquins who (through linquistic analysis) probably originated north of the Great Lakes. I hope this solves the entire matter.

5

2Sense wrote:

“The word Souix (sic) is itself perjorative.”

I don’t understand why ‘Sioux’ is perjorative. Please explain, 2Sense.

As for the OP, and with the full disclosure that I am a Cleveland Indians baseball fan with my share of Chief Wahoo merchandise, I think the U of I should keep Chief Illiniwek. I think intent is important, and there is no intent to presently harm any Native American by use of the Chief. The use of the Chief is not meant to demean, and shouldn’t be taken as being demeaning by the natives. When no slight is intended, IMHO it is wrong for anyone to feel offended.

To my way of thinking, Native Americans should have more important things to complain about than college or pro team mascots. Unemployment, poverty and poor education of the native peoples are the problems that should be addressed, not the continued existence of Chief Illinwek, Chief Wahoo or the “Tomahawk Chop.”

6

I was going to say that it was a word meaning “snakes” imposed by their enemies, but I wasn’t sure about the actual meaning.

From the article in the EB:

A lot of peoples are known by the names imposed on them by their neighbors. (Anybody think that the Nez Perce actually called themselves “pierced noses”?)

The first name that Europeans encountered for any group was the name they heard from the group they previously met. Europeans do this to each other, as well: look at all the names for the people we call German, but who call themselves Deutsch.

The names that the people we call Sioux call themselves are Dakota and Lakota.

Tom~

7

While we’re on it, why not ban the Notre Dame mascot? I, for one, don’t like the association with a drunken, pugilistic leprechaun. If the previous example of a ‘sharecropper picking cotton’ is an example of a bad example, why is Notre Dame immune? Hell, are there any Irish in Indiana? Maybe the ‘Fighting Polacks’ or the ‘Agitated Swedes’ would be more appropriate??

This is only partially tongue in cheek-Native Americans have gotten routinely screwed, for sure, and deserve not to be portrayed in a negative way. But, the Irish had a bad rap when they came over (no blacks, no Irish, remember?). Why celebrate this negative stereotype?

And don’t get me started on ‘paddy wagons’ or ‘knick, knack paddy-whack’. :> )

-sb

“This is going to take a special blend of psychology and extreme violence.”

8

tomndebb:

Thanks for the cite. Saved me some painfully slow typing. Where does the term German come from? Is it an insult?

BTW- Members of the tribe generally refer to it as the Lakota Nation. IIRC the terms Dakota and Nakota are used by speakers of separate but related languages.

mipsman:

Maybe, but if so, they were driven out by Algonquian tribes. The Algonkin(sometimes called the Algonquin) were only 1 of the Algonquian tribes. A minor point, really.

PatrickM:

Have you ever unintentionaly insulted someone and then apologised?
Intent is not the point.

If you and I are trying to convince say Tom that this is demeaning, then I would try to convince him exactly that. I wouldn’t try to convince him that you were intentionaly trying to demean me.

Your intentions are a mystery to me.
My feelings are not.(Well, not in this case.)
___________________________PEACE

Just putting my 2sense in.

Tyranny,* like Hell*,* is not easily conquered*.
-Thomas Paine (fugitive slave catcher)

9

NOOOOOOOOO. Not here too. I can’t escape it. Wont someone please stop the insanity.

The amount of time people waste on this campus due to chief/antichief is absolutely ridiculous. Here’s my take on the issue: If you were to take all the time and effort spent by both sides, and put it twoards something worthwhile, like feeding the hungry, the homeless, or any other cause that is an actual problem then in 20 years they can look back and say “Wow look what I accomplished” instead of"I wasted my time on THAT?!?!?!?!?"
A very annoyed U of I student

He who is truly wise is the one who knows how much he has yet to learn.

10

2Sense:

Whether Person A feels demeaned or not by Person B’s behavior is up to Person A, not Person B. If by his actions Person B did not mean to hurt Person A’s feelings, or even if Person B did not give Person A’s feelings any thought whatsoever, then Person A should not feel demeaned.

11

Yes, 2sense, you’re right, “eastern woodland” is a geographical area, but it is also a category of related Indian tribes. Here is a link,
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,32365+1+31824,00.html

and here is a quote from the linked article:

I was merely intending to distinguish longhouse building Eastern Indians from the tipi-building Plains Indians, by way of pointing out that there never were any tipi-building, eagle feather bonnet-wearing Plains Indians in Central Illinois.

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen

12

Maybe a good solution would be be force every team of every sport to have a racist mascot. Then all groups could be offended equally, and we would all be constantly reminded how stupid racism is.

13

I was wondering who exactly the opponents of Chief Illiniwek are? AFAIK, we don’t have any sizable Native American communities in
Illinois, so who is being offended? Is it individual Native Americans who happen to live in Illinois, or rather some PC, uptight, (probably white, probably suburban) people with too much time on their hands?

14

It was not intended as an insult, specifically. (If I gave the impression that all imposed names were insults, I apologize. All imposed names tend to come from neighbors; if neighbors are on friendly terms, there may not be an insult implied.)

German was the name that the Romans gave to tribes in (I think) the Rhineland because the Romans perceived that they were related. (Our term cousin-german has the same root, as does germane (germane to the discussion).)

I am not sure what the root for the French Allemand and Spanish alemán means.

Tom~

15

PatrickM:

I don’t understand your argument.
If you act without considering other peoples feelings, how is that not insensitive?

Notthemama:

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I see your point now.
Although just how closly related those cultures would be a source of debate. In fact, if someone cared to post the linked article of the EB, then I could spend quite some time pointing out the errors in its aasumptions.

This is not a challange. PLEASE don’t. I am allready upset with myself for getting sucked into this argument.

Revtim:

Absolutly! I want to root against the SUNY Puny Dicks!
Where is their mascot? I can’t find him!

milroyj:

So, you are saying that since we ethnicly cleansed them from the area, it’s OK to make fun of them to make ourselves feel better about it?

(I know you are not saying this.)
((What are you saying?))

Just putting my 2sense in.

Tyranny,* like Hell*,* is not easily conquered*.
-Thomas Paine (fugitive slave catcher)

16

Tom:

No need to apologise. Thanks for the info. I envy you for your library. Of course, as long as I am nice to you, I can just ask you for the information. I don’t have to do anything except ask interseting questions.

And I think you are too modest. You are 1 of the bright lights on this board.(sucking up)

I don’t have a problem with imposed names, as long as those whom they are imposed on don’t either.

Allemand. Hmm. I don’t know either. Maybe the Allemani brought it with them when they moved into/invaded Gaul.
~Curtis

17

2sense

Of course I’m not saying it’s Ok to make fun of a group of people based on their ethnicity, heritage, or whatever.

I really want to know who the Anti-Illiniwek people are? If Native Americans are genuinely offended, then he should go. But if it’s a bunch of PC types trying to cause trouble where no trouble is warranted, I have a problem.

Just looking for an honest answer to an honest question.

18

milroyj:

Ouch! Mea Culpa.

Just continuing my 1 apology per post trend I have going here.
I am offended by the Clown. Does that count?

Just apologising for my 2nonsense

19

milroyj:
From what I’ve read in the local rhetoric, its a bunch of white suburbanites (for the most part) with a few non-indian minorities thrown in. There is no remnant of the Illini tribe still around to ask permission from. However, the closest related surviving tribe has oked the mascot in the past. So yes, it seems to be a PC issue here.

He who is truly wise is the one who knows how much he has yet to learn.

20

I’d like to know who they are, too. I didn’t see any kind of organized website. I have the impression there’s a loose coalition of out-of-town Native American activists who travel around from hot spot to hot spot. They probably don’t have much funding.

From what I read in the papers every time this issue comes up at the U of I (usually in the spring and fall), what turns the crank and gets it into the papers is a combination of a few outsider “PC types trying to cause trouble”, combined with a small contingent of sincere Native Americans, added to a lot of local people, both Town and Gown, who are just uncomfortable with the whole thing. A Native American medium-important spokesperson will usually fly in for a press conference or two, and then the whole thing blows over for another six months.

It looks like this go-round the Board of Trustees are really determined to get the thing settled once and for all. The Fighting Illini went to a Bowl Game in Florida last New Year’s Day, which was a Very Big Deal around here (even though it was such an obscure bowl game that I can’t even remember the name of it–all I remember is the flap because the marching band had to pay their own hotel bills, plane fare, etc.) So I think maybe somebody higher up at the U of I said, “Hey, we’re going nationwide, let’s clean up this mess before we see ourselves on Leeza.”

Didn’t the Washington Redskins go through something similar a while back? How did they resolve that? Did the problem just go away by itself or what?

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen