What a wonderful tactic!
We just have to find extinct tribes and we can make fun of them as much as we want!
First, I suggest there is no injury without a victim.
Second, it is only your characterization that Chief Illini “makes fun of” the Illini or any Indian(s). IMO, it is a far cry from Chief Wahoo, or the Redskins.
Do you oppose any team identification with any ethnic/historic group? Even if the intent is to honor positive attributes of that group?
dictionary.com does that. Here’s an example from a search I just did which you may appreciate:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perjorative
Shouldn’t the school be bothered by the fact that it is a caricature? That there is no authenticity to it? I mean, if you don’t even care to get the mascot right, then how much “honor” can you attach to it?
And I don’t buy the “honor” argument for a second. People don’t give a damn about the honor of their mascots, whether they be yellow jackets, bulldogs, or Indians. A mascot is a comical logo. Something you can laugh at during the half-time show, when the plushie comes out on the field and dances with the cheerleaders.
Honor? Bullshit.
If it were about honor and homage to Native Americans, the school would care about making the mascot an accurate representation. Since it isn’t, the school should be honest and admit that it’s lampooning the Indians.
No one at Notre Dame justifies their mascot by claiming it’s about honor and respect.
This stuff really has no place in our society today, especially at a University. How the hell the Washington Redskins survive is beyond me. Is it that hard to find something more or less neurtral?
Take a hint from what Stanford did awhile back. The dancing tree (the palo alto) is hilarious, and even the Earth Firsters aren’t offended, AFAIK.
Please, though, if you have to change the name of the sports team, don’t do something foolish like calling them The Cardinal. Maybe people in the UK can say “the Cardinal are”, but that just doesn’t slide off the tongue wiht any ease here in the good Ol’ US of A.
Yes, there are “real Indian” offended by Chief Illiniwek. Charlene Teters, a UI alum and Amerindian, is one. My close friend Christine Carr is partly native, being a Meztiza/Chicana (or whatever she should be called- I’ll ask her), like many Illiniwek opponents. There was a long powwow to protest the Chief a few years back. Also, there are fewer Indians around to be offended by the Chief because Indians won’t go to UofI. So it’s a self-fulfilling and mildly racist argument.
I own a ~20 year-old garbage can that depits the Chief as a buck-toothed, Sambo-esque freak brandishing an ax. His image has been cleaned up a lot since then, but he’s still pretty damn offensive. The dancing he does (“fancy dancing”) was invented by the BSA at the turn of the century, part of an ongoing cultural trend depicting Natives as stone-age relics, naturally fading away to make room for the (white) future.
My favorite chief protestor dresses up as Jesus (crown of thorns and everything- but extra body oil and smaller loincloth) and does a trip-house freakout dance with a life-sized crucifix. But hey, he’s honoring Jesus.
If I were trying to honor a group of people, I would seek out evidence that they felt that I was paying tribute in an appropriate way, rather than challenging others to prove that I wasn’t.
The Chief is dated. He represents an earlier generation’s view of what American Indians were all about. We’ve moved beyond that.
Well, if Chief Illini’s actions can be interpreted as farce or caricature, at the very least it suggests that the effort to “honor positive attributes” needs some serious rework.
Now, out here in Los Angeles, the University of Southern California’s football team are the Trojans – y’know, ancient European warriors and all that – and “Tommy Trojan” comes out to the games, complete with helmet, spear, breatplate, cloak, etc. If you’ve never seen Tommy Trojan before, trust me on this: he is never played for a fool, and does nothing that makes him look like the butt of a joke.
That is how a university can have a mascot that “honors positive attributes” of a group. I strongly suspect Chief Illini doesn’t get half as much dignity as Tommy Trojan does.
For a good history on the Chief and the controversy, read “Dancing at Halftime” by Carol Spindel. Ms. Spindel definitely leans towards getting rid of the Chief but is pretty even handed about it (if anyone in the SF bay area wants to borrow it, let me know).
Ah, good ole USC education (you can make fun of my Illinois education with spelling and grammer errors I’m bound to make). Trojans are from Troy, in modern Turkey, which is not part of Europe. This does bring up a serious point though. Can you really claim to honor someone if you don’t even know where he’s from?
I’ve seen both in action and Chief Illiniwek is, IMHO, treated with more dignity. The only time he is seen is at half time, he (or she) does his spiel alone then leaves. He doesn’t interact directly with the cheerleaders or fans at all. Hmm, maybe that stoic individualism is part of the charictature that offends some, gotta think about that… The main difference between Tommy Trojan and Chief Illiniwek is that there isn’t a large number of people who have been oppressed recently that associate with
The image of the Chief has come a long way. He is no longer portrayed as a buck toothed charicature, the Illinettes no longer dress in mod indian dress. He is now described by the University as “Dramatic and Dignified” instead of the “Colorful and Memorable” of old (by of old I mean the 80’s). Apparently this isn’t enough for some.
For people who want to get rid of the chief, Is there any room for compromise?
Until I see proof that the majority of Native Americans are offended (I’ve seen studies showing both results) or until I see demonstrable harm proven I can’t support getting rid of the Chief.
I’m also not going to fight to keep him because I can see how he can be harmful. That and I kinda like the sound of the University of Illinois Prarie Fire.
If I were trying to get someone to change smething I woud seek out evidence that their actions are harmful, not just tell them that I, personally, am offended by their actions.
That’s kind of a silly test. We could rename the team “The Dirty Eskimo Goatfuckers,” and guess what? There are no Eskimos around to be offended, and it didn’t put anyone’s eye out, so it’s not harmful…
Imagine that the U.S. had utterly lost the Cold War and the CCCP had taken over our country by military force. They have “Uncle Sam” come onto the ice before hockey games at Gagarin University, Urbana, IL, and do that crazy Russian squat thrust dance to Russian folk music. Maybe he waves a club around becuase the Russian wish to “honor the American’s fighting skills.”
Are you personally offended yet? Sure, it reminds you of the catastophic defeat and humiliation of your culture, but no one is getting hurt. So it’s OK.
My bolding. I think it comes down to the fact that Indians are a fairly powerless minority in this country. The remaining Illinois Indians condemn Illiniwek, along with almost every other Indian tribe and organization. Does anyone think a black mascot would fly for a second, however “honered” he was? Or as one (full-blooded Indian) protester told me, “How many times do we need to say ‘this is racist’ before they believe us?”
Slight nitpick. Ancient Turkey (ie, during the time of the Trojans) was culturally and ethnically linked with Greece. And even modern Turkey is recognized as striding the two continents, even if only a tiny bit of it is phsyically in Europe.
Well, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for someone to show you a significant group of Illini Indians who are harmed by this portrayal, because the Illini no longer exist.
BTW there was contest a few years back to come up with new mascots. This was at the same time that the Log Cabin Republicans started getting press, so my friend Neil Burkey proposed the “Flamin’ Abes.” He had a real neat logo and everything. And at halftime, we could have Honest Abe get funky instead of the Chief.
They never called him back about that idea.
How close of a connection does one need to have to the mischaracterized party to find it offensive enough to speak against it?
Looking at the Chief Illiniwek issue from the “anti” perspective, it seems to me that the argument might be something like this:
This is some character, wearing ceremonial garb which has ethnic/religious connotations, dancing around in a manner similar to those used in rituals with a spiritual significance, doing so in a manner which is prone to invoke laughter or loud revelry which is not an appropriate response to actions of that type, and otherwise co-opting points of importance from Illini culture for something as insignificant – on a spiritual/cultural level – as sports.
From that perspective, we can joke about Fighting Catholics with molesting priest mascots, but that’s actually a bad analogy. It’d be more like Fighting Catholics with a priest mascot who makes the sign of the cross to “bless” the game and falls to his knees in exaggerated prayer when a field goal was being kicked, or the Battling Hebrews with a mascot in a kippah and tallit who blows a shofar to incite the crowd to whoop and holler to support the team, and cheerleaders who light candles during the halftime show.
Now, something like that won’t happen until Catholics and Jews no longer exist on the planet, because they both have a strong enough voice to squelch any efforts someone would make to co-opt that which is sacred and significant to them in that fashion. But I would hope that one would not need to be a Catholic nor a Jew to see something like that for what it is, and stand up to proclaim that it is unequivocally insulting and wrong. In this case, because the Illini don’t have a voice of their own, others must present their case. Just because there is no voice from beyond the grave doesn’t mean that the dead can be commodified.
This is supposed to be other than what happens at your typical Catholic high school or college football game?
Thanks everyone. I undertsand your arguments. That is not to say, of course, that I am convinced by them.
I am not sure where people get the impression that the Chief is ridiculed, or portrayed as a comical “mascot.”
My personal experiences are far more along the lines of Chookie’s. I am surprised to hear of a 20 year old artifact portraying him cartoonishly, as that correlates to the time I spent 8 years in C-U, attending many football and many more b-ball games. While I certainly can imagine that the Chief was portrayed in such manner occasionally – possibly in commercial purposes such as the sale of knick-knacks, my experience was that that would certainly have been the exception, and not the officially sanctioned manner.
Getting to be Chief is a highly competitive. One of my closest buddies, a competitive gymnast and cheerleader, tried out and made the finals, but wasn’t selected. It involves far more than putting on a goofy costume and an oversized head, and leading cheers.
A few disjointed thoughts:
How about the Chicago Blackhawks? Or even the team name Indians (my high school’s teams). Just wondering how far we should go.
I’ve heard people say Vikings (for example) is no problem because Scandinavian folk have done okay in the US. But what if a group of Scandinavian folk expressed their displeasure? Who gets to determine? Couldn’t someone argue that Jewish people have been rather successful lately? Or Asian immigrants?
Also, if accuracy is key, how accurate is Tommy Trojan? I am pretty ignorant of ancient history, but his get-up always struck me as pretty Roman. Nice horse, too. I don’t remember a whole bunchh of cavalry in the Iliad - but it has been some time…
Also, I hate to sound harsh, but I repeat that having been so successful in annihilating the Illini, the vanquishers gained certain latitude in how they wish to portray them. Not only history is written by the victors. While members of other oppressed tribes may have somewhat greater say in portrayal of fellow Indians, IMO by no means do they control all portrayal and expression.
In the American legal system, lots of rights and interests are extinguished upon death, absent a legitimate succeeding party. And strength of opinion and emotional appeal do not determine such rights.
Like I said, I really don’t care too much one way or another. I spent my time at U of I, and that was some time ago. I do not belong to or contribute to any alumni organizations, watch any college athletics, own any paraphernalia, etc. Hell, I don’t think I even know where my diplomas are any more. Tho if my kids want to go there, it is a fine education for the money.
Good point, Dinsdale. So, speaking as a person whose ancestors were mostly victimized by the Vikings I’m going to object to them. Then the rest of my ancestors who WERE Vikings will object to what wimps modern Scandanavians are and how insulting it is for them to pretend they are heirs to the Viking name.
Another thing - is Chief Illiniwek only objectionable thing, or should the U of I can the whole Illini team name thing?
Again, just wondering how far to take this thing.
Under the circumstances, I can’t think of a better mascot than Chief Illiniwek.
This is after all a contest of violence, played mostly by poor whites or African Americans whose academic achievements would not permit their extrance into such an institution, for the benefit of mostly rich white people.
Folks deserve an opportunity to enjoy themselves by watching the pain of others. The racial and class thing is just an added bonus.