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

Great Debates
81

The trashcan has no date, so the “20 years” thing was a guess, and prolly a poor one. I bought it used at a junk shop in Champaign 3 years ago, so I have no solid data there. But I believe you’re right that it is not from the 80’s. Boy, is he an ugly bastard!

I think most people are OK with the Illini name. At least I am.

The Viking example is interesting. I don’t find it offensive because: 1) The Scandinavian-American experience was really positive for everyone involved, whereas the term “genocide” could be used for what happened to the Amerindians (but that’s another GD topic).
2) The Viking mascot is also historically laughable- the “horned helm” was from centuries before the “Viking” period per se when Norsemen were engaged in widespread plunder, tooling around in longboats, etc. But I don’t think even the most idiotic Viking fan believes that Norwegians today are anything like the Viking’s mascot, and they prolly know Norwegians/Swedes, or are of Scandianavian extraction themselves. People are aware that the Viking mascot is a colorful and mostly fictional figure.

The opposite is true of Chief Illiniwek. The supposed “authenticity” of Illiniwek- the fact that the headdress was made by a native, the Chief’s cursory training on “Indian traditions,” etc.- is harped at upon at length by pro-Chief advocates. They are essentially arguing that Illiniwek IS an accurate portrayal of NAs.

There are other examples we could explore- every notice how there are no Italian-American mascots?- but I’m missing the Daily Show, which cannot be.

It’s fun to share our views, Dinsdale, but I am not suprised that you have not changed your mind. This is one of those issues, like abortion or political affiliation, that’s an emotional choice which we justify with logic, rather than vice versa. Either you think the Chief is wrong, or you don’t.

82

Personally I don’t see that the chief is quite the demon he is made out to be, nor do I see him as a symbol of “honor and strength.” I’ve only been to one U of I football game, and frankly I thought the half-time dance thing was pretty stupid. But, I didn’t do my undergrad work at U of I, so maybe I don’t get it.

However, I think this issue needs to be put to bed, one way or the other. The BoT bringing it up every year is not helping anyone, and it is causing a major distraction on campus. On the pro-chief side, I just don’t think this is an issue that is worth going to the matt on. It’s just a mascot people, not a religion.

I keep hearing that if the chief goes, the alumni won’t give the school any money. Is that true? Are the alumni that wrapped up in the chief? It just seems silly.

83

Anyone who has read my previous statements on this subject knows where I stand, but I had to yank this comment from page one just because I find it to be so terribly irksome.

AuMatar, would you care to guess which segment of the American population consistently rates among the highest poverty rates, the most health problems, the largest incidences of drug and alcohol abuse, and the highest suicide rates?

That’s right. American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Take for example the statistics for American Indians and Alaska Natives offered in this .pdf document, comparing per-capita incidences against the US all-race statistics:

I think I know one reason why such chilling statistics about the state of American Indians can be found, and it comes down to a basic premise: nobody gives a fuck about American Indians.

And why should we, when you can find them stereotyped, mocked and plastered on labels from everything from insurance companies to motorcycles, and dressed up in costumes running up and down the sidelines at football games?

The issue is one of respect. No other ethnic group in America is subject to such overt and repeated disrespect. Most of you wouldn’t tolerate it if it were directed at you. I think it’s because most people have never been to a reservation and don’t know any American Indians. I’m willing to bet that some daft SOBs out there think they’re extinct.

That paradigm is part of the reason why it’s acceptable to chronically underfund virtually every single program out there which attempts to bring economic development, infrastructure development, and healthcare improvement to American Indians, who are almost unique in that tribes are guaranteed such amenities by treaty in return for selling us most of the United States. Instead, we let them have casinos so they can fix the problems themselves, and lots of people bitch about that.

Well, they’re not extinct, even though we continue to steal their land, steal their money, and use them as mascots. Do you think that U of I is giving any of the revenues their games and merchandise generates to any of the various Sioux tribes out there? I don’t.

Have some damned respect, AuMatar, and stick around. You might learn something.
Here’s some of the citations for my second paragraph. Some are Adobe Acrobat .pdf format.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_14580.html

84

Perhaps if they want accuracy their mascot could be an accountant. And that purple is just too colorful! Maybe some nice earthtones.

85

I think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with naming a team, for example, the Atlanta Braves. I think that the Indian-head logo of Dartmouth College is perfectly respectible. A team named the Indians or Chiefs, absent any other offensive symbols, is perfectly OK. As someone-or-other has pointed out, you name teams for things you respect, not hold in contempt.

BUT…Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians has GOT to go. The “tomahawk chop” they do in Atlanta seems to me to be borderline. I am not familiar with Chief Illniwek, but it does sound as if he should be replaced with a more respectable mascot.

As someone noted above, at any Catholic high school or college football game you may well have a real priest blessing the team and offering prayers for success, but a comic mascot doing the same would be offensive to Catholics. The use of Native American images in sports can be handled respectibly.

Of course, sports fans of all kinds act like doofuses, and it is likely that ANY image may be taken less than totally appropriately.

86

"Yaah-hey, have ya seen the new Vikings mascot? Karl Gustavsen’s boy is playin him now, and he just sits there and eats lutevisk, and at halftime he gets up and talks about some trouble he’s havin with his lawn tractor. Yaa, he really got the crowd goin there. "

87

cough

Er, I feel obligated to point out that he hasn’t posted since 4-18-2000, so don’t hold your breath waiting for a response.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=3227

But, hey, excellent cites, though…

88

Good lord! How old is this thread?

At least as old as my repetitive ranting about this subject, I suppose.

89

Just to throw a little more gasoline on this fire, and to make this thread a little more timely, I would like to point out that the University of Illinois becomes even more un-P.C. this week by playing Northwestern for the “Sweet Sioux Tomahawk”, an annual trophy which once belonged to . . . gag . . . a cigar-store Indian.

Oddly enough I have never heard anyobdy from Northwestern challenge their complicity in this annual rite.

90

Well, I’m an alum, and I am strongly in favor of getting rid of it - it’s a racist symbol akin to Al Jolson figures or Little Black Sambo or Aunt Jemima - the U of I is a very white, conservative, affluent public university (in fact, most students weren’t all that crazy about South African disinvestment during the Apartheid era), and the Illiniwek figure as a mascot seems disrespectful, humiliating and reminiscent of slavery. It should be discontinued.

91

I have to stick up for the tale of LBS. Granted, the name and the original artwork from the story are grossly offensive today, but the core story, of a little boy who goes out into the woods, meets several tigers and outwits them by his own cleverness, is fundamentally sound. I have always particularly liked the image of the tigers running around the tree until they melted into a pool of butter, which he takes home and has on his pancakes…

There have been several modern versions of the tale released recently (one is under the title of “Sam and the Tigers”) which retain essentially all of the story, but discard the racist imagery, which had nothing to do with the story…

92

According to polling data published in Sports Illustrated magazine on March 4, 2002 on page 69 most Native Americans do not find Indian team names or mascots to be offensive. The data breaks down as follows:
Do Indian names contribute to discrimination? 75% of Native Americans said such names do not contribute to discrimination against them while only 23% said that such names did contribute to discrimination, with 2% undecided.

When asked whether the Atlanta Braves Tomahawk chop was offensive, 28 % of Native Americans liked it, only 23% found it objectionable, 48 percent didn’t care about it one way or the other and 1% was undecided.

It appears to me that only a minority of a minority actually find that sports teams using Indian names etc to be offensive.