Group Sues U. Of Illinois Over Indian Mascot Perpetuates Racial Stereotype

[seemslikeadream]

Suit Claims Mascot Perpetuates Racial Stereotype

POSTED: 9:23 am CST March 16, 2005

CHICAGO -- Opponents of University of Illinois mascot Chief Illiniwek filed a lawsuit against the school's trustees Tuesday, claiming the figure perpetuates a racial stereotype.

SURVEY
Do you think Native American-themed mascots and logos are racially demeaning?
Yes
No

In its suit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court, the Illinois Native American Bar Association and two individuals seek to force the school to stop using the Chief as its sports mascot.

"The use of this mascot is outrageous, it's been going on way too long and it should come to an end," said Kim Edward Cook, association president. "We've tried for a long time to work with the Board of Trustees with the University of Illinois and we haven't been able to get them to recognize that the use of the Chief Illiniwek is a racial stereotype and is damaging to all Native Americans."

The Chief is a 78-year-old tradition in which a student dresses in buckskins and headdress and dances at sports events. The suit alleges the mascot violates Indians' rights under state law and violates the board's own policies against discrimination.
more
http://www.nbc5.com/news/4289963/detail.html?z=dp&dpswid=2265994&dppid=65172

[GreatScott]

1. GO FIGHTING ILLINI !!!!

March Madness and St Louis, here we come!!!!

[not systems]

2. Indian sports mascots are celebrations of genocide.

Support of such mascots is support for genocide.

Period.

Tradition that is the truth.

[leftofcool]

6. Then people also support genocide for the Irish

The same is true then for the Irish because the image of the "drunken leprachaun" has been used as a mascot/image to portray Irish people for quite some time now. I am full blood Irish and I have no problem with it, but your assumption that people who support "such mascots" support genocide dictates that all Irish people should have a problem being portayed as such because those who support it are trying to kill us off.

Left of Cool

[not systems]

9. This continent was never stolen from the Irish.

If some English soccer team was called the paddies and
had a drunk leprechaun as a mascot and ran around with
a basket begging for potatoes I doubt you would be down with it.

If you were I would wonder about you.

[leftofcool]

21. Not "down with it"

just wouldn't see it as being important. It has nothing to do with who I am or what I do as a person. I guess I just have better things to worry about.

Left of Cool

[Krupskaya]

27. Any time the Irish want to protest it, go right the fuck ahead.

But until then, I'm not going to waste my time with a red herring.

The American Indians aren't cool with it. So let's stop it.

[Terran]

47. Bzzt! Sorry, wrong answer! But thanks for playing.

If you're "100% Irish", perhaps you would tell us who it was in the U.S. that ever killed off millions of Irish people in order to rid America of them. Hmmmm?

Irish-Americans have the luxury of thinking that a little stereotyping is "cute" rather than harmful. It's just another aspect of white privilege.

[leftofcool]

57. Not millions

but many hundreds persecuted and many hundreds killed, specifically because they were Catholic. Also google search for "history of persecution of Irish in America" and if you really want some horror stories, see if you can find anything on "Fitchburg, Massachusetts." I don't know of any Irish people who think stereotyping is "cute." And that would include relatives still in Mayo County. It just doesn't affect who we are as a people.

Left of Cool

[Bridget Burke]

52. Some Irish-Americans find "those" images offensive, as well.

And the stereotyping of different non-English groups is connected in history:

European settlers to North America brought traditions of cultural, ethnic, and racial prejudice with them from their home countries. The supremacy of the English after the wars of the mid-seventeenth century and, more importantly, 1763, would insure the dominance of British biases in English language publications in America. It follows, then, that early nineteenth century American publications would feature anti-Catholic, anti-Spanish, and anti-Irish depictions, despite two rather desperate wars with Great Britain. In the 1830s, American images of Catholic monks and nuns seemed to have been drawn from the time of Henry VIII. Screeds against the Spanish, and later Mexico, during the 1820s and 1840s seemed reminiscent of the era of the Spanish Armada. When the Irish began to arrive in numbers in American cities while fleeing from the Irish Potato Famine, they were greeted by a familiar, centuries old, Anglo-Protestant contempt.

Added to the traditional bigotry of their English heritage was the developing, home-grown, intolerance toward Native Americans, whose land they coveted, and toward Africans, brought to America as slaves. Although, not specifically covered by the demonology or hierarchy of the early European Settlers, Native American peoples were soon embellished and limited by imagery and characterizations from European literature and lore. English settlers rapidly applied to the tribes traits which they had previously described the Irish: savage, brutal, uncivilized, unrepentant, untrustworthy, and heathen. Upon these were embellished long held features attributed to "barbarians" since Roman times.

http://www2.uah.es/asi/stereo/hays.htm

The mascots may have been adopted in a spirit of thoughtless fun. But times change. And when people say they are offended, one really ought to pay attention.

[leftofcool]

65. Yes, some do,

and stereotyping is wrong no matter which ethnic background is being typed, which was my exact point. You can't say the Irish think it is cute and Indians don't. You can't say that one is equated with genocide and the other is not. It is either all wrong or it isn't. It doesn't matter if millions were persecuted or hundreds were persecuted, all is wrong.

Left of Cool

[Inland]

43. True! There are no wolverines in Michigan, either!

Hunted out of existence!

Coincidence or conspiracy? You decide!

[EVDebs]

3. A while back Stanford Univ. almost called "The Robber Barons"

but weeenied out and renamed themselves "The Cardinal". Sigh. Nearby UC Santa Cruz "Banana Slugs" is my favorite.

[Larkspur]

4. The Seminole tribe gave Florida State permission to use a Seminole

as the university's mascot. Are there any Illini members around?

[Scurrilous]

8. Seminole Tribe chairman stands with FSU Seminoles

http://www.fsu.com/pages/2004/08/04/mitchell_cypress.ht...

<snip>

"One of the things that Florida State University gives us is a sense of pride. FSU could have chosen anyone else to portray and use as its mascot. We are proud that a university as prestigious as Florida State decided to use us. And it was a great decision because we are called the unconquered Seminoles. We are the only tribe that never signed a treaty with the United States government."

[LittleWoman]

16. I think they all died at Starved Rock.

On edit: It appears that the members of the tribes native to Illinois were removed to reservations in Oklahoma. I assume this includes the Illini. However, a large number of Illini did die at Starved Rock in the late 1700's in part of the Iriquois Wars.

[William Bloode]

5. Glad to see it....

For a native like me things like this are akin to if they had called their team the "Darkies" and came out in black face and danced around at half time.....think about it.

[Eloriel]

19. Exactly

And well-said.

It's so frustrating to me that people can't see this particualr level and manifestation of racism and dehumanization/objectification. VERY frustrating.

[One_Life_To_Give]

7. Can we rename them the "Whites"?

There was a story about a college intramural team, in CO I think.
Mascot was a guy in a suit.

[BiggJawn]

10. So how long before the Steelworkers sue Purdue?

Why don't we just do away with all mascots? all emblems of school "pride", lest anyone should boast?

Get rid of the Rainbow Flag while we're at it, too. Eh? <sarcasm>

[not systems]

11. What "pride" pride in efficient dispossession, right? n/t

[seemslikeadream]

12. Tears of pride?

[Solar]

13. What's next?

Is PETA going to sue the University of Texas because having a Longhorn cow as their mascot is advocating beef consumption? :crazy:

[seemslikeadream]

14. Are you equating Native Americans with COWS!!

Please tell me you left out the word sarcasm.






Band of Apache Indian prisoners at rest stop beside Southern Pacific Railway, near Nueces River, Tex., September 10, 1886. Among those on their way to exile in Florida are Natchez (center front) and, to the right, Geronimo and his son in matching shirts. By A. J. McDonald. 106-BAE-251 7A.
http://www.archives.gov/research_room/research_topics/american_west/american_west.html

[not systems]

15. What is next someone will compare the North America genocide to ...

eating meat.

Nope it just happened.

This is an example of how these mascots undermine
an accurate view of history.

[Lotcm]

17. Chief Illiniwek

I wanted to set the records straight on the Chief and the Fighting Illini

1) The Chief is the symbol of the University of Illinois, not a mascot. He does not cheer for the team in any way. He does not parktake in any mascot activities, but he does a halftime dance. The Chief symoblizes the history of the state and the importance of the illiniwek indian tribes to the area.

2) The illiniwek tribes which the state and the schools nickanme came from were primarily the Peoria, Cahokia, Tamaroa, Metchigamea and Moingwena; the other tribes which were part of the illinois confederacy were basically gone by the 1700's.

3) The outfit worn is made by he wife of Frank Fools Crow, the elderly chief of the Ogala Sioux tribe of South Dakota

4) The original intent 78 years ago is the same intent today, to honor the history of the State of Illinois, Just like Penn Quakers honors its history or the Fighting Irish. Never in its history has the Chief or the name used in any way to deman, suppress, make fun of Native American culture, as compared to the black face, minstrel shows,

5) There is no comparison between the Illinois symbol to the Atlanta Braves and Washington Redskins, which use the native american culture not to honor their history, but to stereotype them for their team.

[Eloriel]

20. A distinction without a difference, AFAIC

And frankly I don't care how much so-called "dignity" is conferred -- it's still inappropriate use of human beings as symbolism. U of I isn't, after all, an Indian institution, is it? It has literally nothing to do with Indians, does it? Does it even teach any Native American literature or other classes?

The outfit worn is made by he wife of Frank Fools Crow, the elderly chief of the Ogala Sioux tribe of South Dakota

Is that supposed to be equivalent to her or HIS "approval"? Does that mean that if George Bush wears a Calvin Klein suit, CK approves of his actions and agenda?

Never in its history has the Chief or the name used in any way to deman, suppress, make fun of Native American culture, as compared to the black face, minstrel shows,

You miss the point and have to back up to get it: the use of the Chief as any kind of a "symbol" IS by definition demeaning (objectifying, dehumanizing, trivializing and belittling, etc.) to Native Americans, their culture and history.

There is no comparison between the Illinois symbol to the Atlanta Braves and Washington Redskins, which use the native american culture not to honor their history, but to stereotype them for their team.

Again, distinction without a difference. In the cases you site, it's just a little worse on the continuum scale, but definitely still ON that continuum scale, IOW, different only in degree, not kind.

Edited: IOW, it's not sufficient to say, "Ah, but OURS is the kinder/gentler objectification.

But thanks for playing.

[seemslikeadream]

23. Chief Illiniwek is a trademark

Chief Illiniwek is loosely based on Illinois history and is a copyrighted trademark owned by the University of Illinois' Board of Trustees.

Not an accurate portrayal of the conqured Illini people

[Eloriel]

25. A copyrighted trademark

Fucking PROPERTY. Yeah, THAT's sure as hell a dignified representation and use of a Native American person/symbol.

:puke:



and


:grr:

[Krupskaya]

28. If the people who it's supposed to honor don't feel honored by it...

...then should it be kept around? Methinks no.

[seemslikeadream]

29. There is NO NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGION COURSE OR NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES

program at University of Illinois. This is primary evidence that they DO NOT honestly care about Native American culture and religion.


Maybe they've decided since all the controversy to have one but I am not aware of any before 1997. What were they thinking for 75 years?

Honor?

[seemslikeadream]

34. GSLIS Faculty Statement on Chief Illiniwek

The Graduate School of Library and Information Science

It has become increasingly clear that the continuing use of the Chief Illiniwek symbol directly hinders each aspect of the GSLIS mission.

Teaching: The use of the Chief Illiniwek symbol interferes with our primary educational mission in many ways. Not only has it made it difficult to recruit Native American students or to work with Native American communities, the continued use of a symbol now widely seen as racist creates a chilling atmosphere for all students who for whatever reason do not see themselves as in the mainstream. Such an atmosphere is not conducive to learning. Moreover, it directly contradicts much of the content of our teaching, especially when addressing the importance of providing accurate information, adopting a service perspective on providing information, and challenging stereotypes in literature.

Research: Our research in library and information science is also negatively affected. In formulating criteria for evaluating information in books, electronic media, and other sources, we stress the importance of accuracy, which is directly contradicted by the stereotypical representation of Native Americans embodied in the Chief. Moreover, we have already seen numerous professional societies declaring our campus off limits for professional meetings. Colleagues throughout the world are aware of the Chief controversy and ask us when will the University catch up with other great institutions of learning. The controversy itself drains energy that could be much better applied to substantive research.

Service: In the area of service the Chief symbol belies our professed concerns about equal access and a service orientation to information providing. How can we provide leadership to library and information professionals on strategies for serving diverse populations or looking beyond stereotypes of library user groups when our own campus promotes stereotypes of a minority population? And what answer can we give when someone asks why we choose to represent people who have repeatedly expressed their opposition to the unwanted appropriation of their culture?

...

By unanimous vote of the GSLIS faculty - 5/10/2000

http://alexia.lis.uiuc.edu/gslis/school/news/chief.html

[Inland]

44. Still fucking idiotic mascot.

I mean, that guy and his stupid dance----does anyone really like that? Throwing the indians a bone would do everyone good.

[seemslikeadream]

18. NOW THAT THE BUFFALO'S GONE

"Rath & Wright's buffalo hide yard in 1878, showing 40,000 buffalo hides, Dodge City, Kansas."

NOW THAT THE BUFFALO'S GONE (BUFFY SAINTE-MARIE)

Can you remember the times
That you have held your head high
And told all your friends of your Indian claim,
Proud good lady and proud good man?
Your great-great-grandfather from Indian blood sprang
And you feel in you heart for "these ones."
Oh, it's written in books and in songs
That we've been mistreated and wronged.
But over and over I hear the same words
From you, good lady, and you, good man --
Well, listen to me if you care where we stand
And you feel you're a part of "these ones."

When a war between nations is lost,
The loser, we know, pays the cost.
But even when Germany fell to your hands,
Consider, dear lady, consider, dear man,
You left them their pride and you left them their land --
And what have you done to "these ones?"

Has a change come about Uncle Sam,
Or are you still taking our lands?
A treaty forever George Washington signed --
He did, dear lady, he did, dear man --
And the treaty's been broken by Kinzua Dam;
And what will you do for "these ones?"

Oh, it's all in the past, you can say;
But it's still going on here today.
The government now wants the Iroquois land,
That of the Seneca and the Cheyenne --
It's here and it's now you must help us, dear man --
Now that the buffalo's gone.

BUFFY SAINTE-MARIE

[Behind the Aegis]

22. Mascots

It really does depend on how the mascot is portrayed. I have seen some that were very respectful of the Native culture, and others that were appalling. If a group had a black mascot who was in the image of MLK, Jr. that could be good thing. Same with having a positive gay mascot. But, then you will those that support some off-the-wall things. I could see some here thinking a mascot that was a lip-wristed fairy would be "cute" or "funny." Oh well, the world is complicated.

[Eloriel]

24. Oh, please

If a group had a black mascot who was in the image of MLK, Jr. that could be good thing.

I hope you'll go think about this for a while -- long enough to come to your senses, no offense intended (despite how offensive your idea of this is). The very NOTION of making some group or individual a "mascot" (or "symbol" as described above) is demeaning, ESPECIALLY if for a sports team or similar, or even a dominant culture institutions (such as U of I). It's making them into caricatures, and there's no way out of that no matter how much lipstick you try to put on that pig.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Not offended

I don't see using a person as a mascot as offensive. It is how it is used that is offensive. Mascot implies sports team, but I was thinking outside of sports. I will admit, it does sound odd to say "black mascot" and it was not my intention to reduce a person to a "thing." That is offensive. But, I see making a composite of a group into an individual that positively represents the group and the organization can be a good thing.

[Krupskaya]

30. If people are offended, then it seems to me it's offensive.

Your opinion, if you're not a part of the group it's objectifying, doesn't matter in this instance. So if you see it as not offensive, who gives?

[Behind the Aegis]

32. Heehee! I was about to reply to your other post!

I agree with you! If the group it is supposed to honor has an issue with it, then it should be scrapped! No questions. However, I don't think all mascots are viewed as negative, even some where it is a composite of a group.

Since I am not a member of the group in question, I defer to their judgments. Whether I think it is offensive or not, is beside the point because I may not have enough education about said group to understand why it is offensive. Therefore, in my own verbose way, I support their fight to remove the mascot or have it changed, it is also supposed to represent their culture and heritage.

On edit: I used the wrong title for my prior post. It should have read "not offended." I was telling the poster, Eloriel, that I wasn't offended by what she said. My bad...I corrected it.

[Lotcm]

46. Define the group

Let's be clear on a few things. The Native Cultures are not one group. Just like calling the Irish and the German the same people would be ridiculous, so would calling the Navajo and the Illiniwek tribes the same. There is no one in this lawsuit that is claiming that they are descedents of the Illiniwek tribes, so under you analysis their opinions also don't matter, correct?

Even Assuming if you group all native americans together, under your guidlines, what percentage of the group needs offended to say the particular symbol is offensive? One person, 25% 50%, 75% what's the number?

[Behind the Aegis]

48. What does it really matter?

I am not sure if you were replying to me or not. So, I will say, I know quite a bit about SEVERAL Native nations. What I was saying is because I am not part of the group, it is not fair for me to pass judgment on what is offensive to them or not. Just because no one represents the Illniwek Nation, doesn't mean they are no longer Native Americans. And, despite that they are not a homogeneous group, doesn't imply that they cannot be offended (or proud) of other representatives of Native American culture. As far as numbers, what does that matter? If one person is offended, s/he would have the right to determine what s/he felt was offense to her/him.

You expressed your opinion about my analysis, but did not share your opinion on the situation. Do you have a better alternative?

ON EDIT: I just saw your earlier reply. It appears you don't think this is a matter of offense, but respect. Therefore, what was your beef with me?

[Lotcm]

49. More than the group's opinions matter

I really meant to use is as a general reply, not to you specifically, sorry about that.

I understand your point, but only partially agree with it. Just because you are not part of the group does not make your opinion invalid. I would say that a person who is in the group, his/her opinion should carry slightly more weight than one not in the group, but I won't go and say its the only the group opinions that matters.

And as far as numbers, yes if an individual is offended ,who is anyone to say their feelings are wrong, but changing someone else's action based upon those feelings, it needs to be based more than one one person's opinion that the complained of offense is offensive.

In most cases I do view intent of the actor as important. Not determining, but definitely an important factor

[seemslikeadream]

51. He is not YOUR toy

[Lotcm]

54. Toy???? What are you talking about??

At least try and learn the tribes were talking about. Grouping Native Americans together is like grouping all Europeans together, or all hispanics together, its ridiculous.

Purto Ricans are not Mexicans, who are not Dominicans

Same as Irish are not Germans and are not Italians

Navajo are not Seminoles and are not Illiniwek tribes. I view it as offensive to group all Native Americans together

[not systems]

56. The at the funny fake injun ma...

It is nothing but modern a mistral show.

[seemslikeadream]

58. Your attempt to change the subject is infantile

Let me remind you your first post on this board was

1) The Chief is the symbol of the University of Illinois, not a mascot. He does not cheer for the team in any way. He does not parktake in any mascot activities, but he does a halftime dance. The Chief symoblizes the history of the state and the importance of the illiniwek indian tribes to the area.


....

So the University of Illinois shows it's concern for the importance of the Illiniwek Indian Tribes by putting on a half time minstrel show? Well what more could we ask for?

[Lotcm]

63. Well using the wrong picture shows your lack of knowledge

Infantile? Do you know what the word means? Your use of the incorrect picture and you lack of knowledge on the subject is the problems. Do you even know whose picture you are using?

Where does anyone, on either side of the issue say the Chief is a toy? Non representative, maybe, but a toy, well I pretty sure you have little knowledge of the situation with Illinois and its symbol if that is your response.

The intent of the symbol was and is to honor the state's heritage. Though I disagree, I have no problem with the argument that the intent though well meaning is still offensive by the people it represents, but you impune that the intent was to put on a minstrel show is wrong and disgusting. The intent of the minstrel show was for comedy, and to make fun of black, I can not see any comparison. Please show me one example which the University or its students have intended to make fun of the Illiniwek tribes. Do they throw stuff at the Chief? Are they laughing at him? Please since you know so much, please tell me where else does the Chief appear on campus and how do the students react to him?

[not systems]

64. It is not the black face it's the reactions of the whites to the ...

mistral show that counts.

Is that the point you are making?

[Lotcm]

67. Minstrel shows

The minstrels show are offensive on many levels. First and foremost was that was the intent of the white actors was to belittle and make fun of blacks. To argue Ted Danson's supidity a few years ago was not offensive b/c he was not intending to offend does not wash. The history of the shows matters.

With the Illinois Chief - the original intent was to honor, as well as the current intent. Now, that alone does make determine whether its offensive, but it does have meaning nad at least support the argument that its not offensive.

[seemslikeadream]

68. NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGION COURSE OR NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES

Honor would have been to have courses not minstrel shows

I say again TRADEMARK

Chief Illiniwek is loosely based on Illinois history and is a copyrighted trademark owned by the University of Illinois' Board of Trustees.

Not an accurate portrayal of the conqured Illini people

[Lotcm]

71. There are many Native Indian classes at Uof I

There are six courses in American Indian Culture available at U of I
under the American Indian Studies Progam


American Indian Studies
Director of Program: Wanda Pillow
Native American House: 1206 West Nevada, Urbana,

AIS 157 The Archaeology of Illinois
AIS 165 North American Indians
AIS 277 US Native Americans to 1850
AIS 278 US Native Americans Since 1850
AIS 288 American Indians of Illinois
AIS 449 North American Archeology


In addition there are independent study course which can be set up through the university, so your statement which you have twice stated is wrong. Also don't forget the many anthroppology course which deal with American Indian history.

Yes, the circular Chief symbol is trademarked, which the University does control and it limits the image of the chief symbol and its use. Are you arguing that it would be better if the University had no trademark, so the symbol could be put on anything a corporation wanted to, no matter how offensive? I don't see that helping you argument

[seemslikeadream]

73. Too bad you didn't check when those classes commenced

none before 1997.

[Lotcm]

74. Again not True

Yes there were Native Indian classes before 1997. I have the course catalogs from the eighties to show them mostly in Anthropology and Religious studies, and history, so please stop lying.

[seemslikeadream]

78. Well I just got off the phone with the Director of Native American Studies

at U of I. Starting date Sept.19 2004. Please refrain from calling me a liar.

[Lotcm]

80. Unfortunately that's not what you said

Again, there were classes on Native Americans at U of I. well before 2004 or 1997. Was the a department, No, but that was not your statement nor my argument. You argued there were no classes at U of I on American Indian culture - and that is Wrong. Clearly wrong. Could ther have done more, yes, of course, but that goes for almost every university.

[seemslikeadream]

82. NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGION COURSE OR NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES

That's what I said, post 68

[seemslikeadream]

66. Infantile -Displaying or suggesting a lack of maturity; extremely childish

That's exactly what I meant.

You say:
The intent of the minstrel show was for comedy, and to make fun of black, I can not see any comparison. Please show me one example which the University or its students have intended to make fun of the Illiniwek tribes.

Here ya go



I thought maybe you had no idea what a Indigenous person was since you seem to think they all look like this.


I was not saying this photo was from an Illiniwek Tribe, He is an example from the First Nation.

[Lotcm]

69. Missing the point

Your missing the point. Your use of a picture of a first nation indian representing is wrong, and many native americans would find offensive.

What, do you say all Hispanics look alike? What about middle eastern people? Hey they all look alike, right. I see that as offensive. The differences between Native American Tribes is just as significant as between Irish and German, that was my point to you use of the wrong picture.


As to wearing costumes like the chief is whereing surely does not show intent of the perosn to make fun of the indians. I see tons of people donning authetic costumes every day who are not part of the culture, who are not trying to make fun of that culture or people

[seemslikeadream]

70. I am not a mascot

"I believe that the hidden agenda behind Indian mascots
and logos is about cultural, spiritual, and intellectual
exploitation. It's an issue of power and control. These
negative ethnic images are driven by those that want
to define other ethnic groups and control their
images. To me, power and control is the ability to
make you believe that someone's truth is the absolute
truth. Furthermore, it's the ability to define a reality
and to get other people to affirm that reality as if it
were their own. As long as such negative mascots
and logos remain within the arena of school
activities, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous
children are learning to tolerate racism in schools."

Excerpt from an article by Dr. Cornel Pewewardy
Comanche/Kiowa

[Lotcm]

72. Florida Seminoles

Well, as discussed above the Seminoles said okay to the use by U of florida. Are you telling that Comanche can tell the the Seminoles what's offensive?

[seemslikeadream]

75. Racism

n/t

[Lotcm]

76. Are you saying the Seminole tribe is racist?

Good job at avoiding the question, but at least try and make sense. Why do you take the Comanche side of the Seminoles decision. Maybe you believe the Seminoles can't decide this themselves, right.

[seemslikeadream]

79. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth

n/t

[Lotcm]

81. Then Just answer the question

[Behind the Aegis]

55. I can agree with that.

I apologize if I was "snippy." Seems the past few days, I have had some 'unpopular' opinions and some replies have been questionable, so I was a tad defensive.

To clarify, I do not discount a non-group member's opinion, I just don't feel it carries as much weight. I also don't like for a non-member deciding what is or isn't offensive for a group for which s/he doesn't belong. I don't mean to imply s/he cannot have an opinion. To me, when a non-member decides what is offensive for another group, it can smack of ethnocentrism.

Numbers really aren't all that important. If one has an issue, it is likely more will follow. However, I don't know that there is a "magical" number as to when a lawsuit, such as this, should be launched.

I also agree that the actor can make a difference. If the portrayal is one that involves real rituals and is done in an authentic way, then it can be educational. However, in this case, if the actor were to come out on the field patting his hand over his mouth going "WOO WOO WOO" then that could be a real issue. I am not very familiar with this particular mascot, so I was basing opinion on a variety of other experiences.

[Eloriel]

31. Objectification is never a good thing

Never.

The ONLY type of acceptable use I can see your MLK Jr example serving is "The MLK Jr. African American STudents Group" or "the MLK Jr. Chapter of the NAACP" or similar.

Anything that's even remotely less "serious" and dignified than the man himself is an insult.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. See..that was I was thinking

So, you agree that in SOME cases it could be OK! I never said I was just thinking of sports teams, but I could see how it could have been inferred since the mascot in question is used for a sports team.

Personally, I don't care if they scrap the mascot. If the group it represents is offended, then that is a good enough reason for me to see the mascot retired.

[HockeyMom]

35. High School Sports Teams

The local high school sports team names are usually something applicable to the town name. Unfortunately, here on Long Island a lot of the towns are named after Indian Tribes, i.e, Massepequa, Hauppague, etc. We have been going through all this for several years. The schools with tribal town names were usually called Braves, Warriors, etc. Are you supposed to change the NAME OF YOUR TOWN? Somehow, the Massepequa "Storm" just doesn't sound right. Sorry, no offense to any Native Americans.

[Krupskaya]

36. It doesn't sound right because you're not used to it.

That's all.

[seemslikeadream]

38. It's not the name of the team

It's this

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

53. It's exactly that...

For most tribes, the title of "chief" (although that title was never used by the tribes themselves), the native garments, and the dance were all of profoundly religous significance. To have a white boy put on these clothes and do a non-sensical dance for the amusement of halftime spectators in deeply and profoundly offensive.

I don't care if they keep the name and a Native American logo, but f'ing dance has got to go.

[tlcandie]

37. Here ya go ... one answer to all this ...

Everything's Gonna Be All White

http://www.fightingwhites.org/

<snip>
The Fighting Whites basketball team was organized in early February (2002) by a group of Native American and non-Indian students of the University of Northern Colorado with the intent of playing intramural basketball. We came up with the "Fighting Whites" logo and slogan to have a little satirical fun and to deliver a simple, sincere, message about ethnic stereotyping. Since March 6, when our campus newspaper first reported on the "Fighting Whites", we have been launched into the national spotlight, propelled by a national debate over stereotyping American Indians in sports symbolism.

Our objective as students was to make a straightforward statement using humor; to promote cultural awareness through satire. Now that national attention has come to us, we hope that our message will reach a wider audience. As a part of our involvement in this ongoing issue, we have formed the Fighting Whites Scholarship Fund, Inc., a non-profit organization, the profits of which will go entirely to support the education of Native American students.
<snip>

[not systems]

39. Maybe one of the white crackers could do the rape and steal dance ...

at half time brilliant.

Or run around with the culturally significant gun.

:think:

I'm being sarcastic FYI.

[GregW]

40. Awww fuck it - now all the ducks are gonna sue UO

[not systems]

42. Duck == American Indians in your mind that is the problem here. n/t

[thedude]

41. Time to retire the Chief

I'm an Illinois alum, and I have to agree with most of the comments on this board. Anyone who has seen an Illinois halftime show with an open mind can only conclude that it is offensive. Imagine a white fraternity boy dressed up like an Indian doing his impression of a war dance. It really is as bad as it sounds.

To those who argue that it is an honored tradition, ask yourself why those who are supposedly being honored find this so offensive. What exactly are we supposedly honoring? If we had really honored the Illini Indian tribes, they wouldn't be "extinct" now.

The reason the chief persists is that there is a large body of wealthy alumni who threaten to pull their financial support if the Chief is eliminated.

To them, I say F%@$ You! If you only support the university because you enjoy seeing an offensive halftime show, and not because you value the education and opportunities that a U. of I. education provided you, then good riddence.

[salin]

45. Been around two institutions that changed their mascots

per the Indian issue. One was in a community in which I had lived - became Eagles - had a few angry alumna - but the bruhaha died down quickly. The other is where I went to grad school - now the cardinals. In the latter case, things were so cooled down quickly - that I had no idea that the mascot had been changed (eg there was no lingering controversy a few years after the change - so that new comers had no idea... it was more of a trivia item.) Having witnessed the "after effects" (none) of two institutions - I find the outroar rather amusing. Sort of like the one in my home town per a living wage issue - all the evil potentials are trotted out - even though the community where I resided had NO negative effects after going to a living wage arrangement (raising the wages for contractors to the city government). Sorry Illini fans... let the dancing mascot retire - there really won't be all the negative effects (eg all alumni donations will dry up) that are being predicted.

[barb162]

50. very glad to hear they finally sued; I find this 'dancing Indian' stuff

offensive.

[Xithras]

59. I love the broad brushes used in this post.

FWIW, my wife is half Osage, half Hoopa/German mix (Hoopa is a N. California tribe), so this subject comes up in conversations around our household a lot.

First things first: There is no "Native American Nation". My wifes ancestors didn't care a whit for the Cherokee, Paiute, Cree, or any other tribes, and still don't much today. While there is a general acknowledgment of Native American rights in general, the loyalty is still to the tribe and not to the race.

Which brings us to point two: These posts that say "Mascot suchandsuch offends Native Americans" are just stupid. Does it offend some? Sure, but the statement itself is like saying "Gay marriage offends whites" simply because some people are offended. For the record, I have yet to meet a single Indian (and yes, many do still prefer that name) who was personally offended by the concept of Indian mascots. What you typically have are a small minority of activists who try to paint themselves as being "representative" of the tribe who are in reality simply pushing their own agendas.

If a tribal council formally requests that an institution stop using a mascot, I could see a valid cause for a lawsuit if the school were to refuse, but when it's not the tribe but TWO STUDENTS? How silly.

[seemslikeadream]

60. It is not just two students

I repeat

GSLIS Faculty Statement on Chief Illiniwek
The Graduate School of Library and Information Science

It has become increasingly clear that the continuing use of the Chief Illiniwek symbol directly hinders each aspect of the GSLIS mission.

Teaching: The use of the Chief Illiniwek symbol interferes with our primary educational mission in many ways. Not only has it made it difficult to recruit Native American students or to work with Native American communities, the continued use of a symbol now widely seen as racist creates a chilling atmosphere for all students who for whatever reason do not see themselves as in the mainstream. Such an atmosphere is not conducive to learning. Moreover, it directly contradicts much of the content of our teaching, especially when addressing the importance of providing accurate information, adopting a service perspective on providing information, and challenging stereotypes in literature.

Research: Our research in library and information science is also negatively affected. In formulating criteria for evaluating information in books, electronic media, and other sources, we stress the importance of accuracy, which is directly contradicted by the stereotypical representation of Native Americans embodied in the Chief. Moreover, we have already seen numerous professional societies declaring our campus off limits for professional meetings. Colleagues throughout the world are aware of the Chief controversy and ask us when will the University catch up with other great institutions of learning. The controversy itself drains energy that could be much better applied to substantive research.

Service: In the area of service the Chief symbol belies our professed concerns about equal access and a service orientation to information providing. How can we provide leadership to library and information professionals on strategies for serving diverse populations or looking beyond stereotypes of library user groups when our own campus promotes stereotypes of a minority population? And what answer can we give when someone asks why we choose to represent people who have repeatedly expressed their opposition to the unwanted appropriation of their culture?

...

By unanimous vote of the GSLIS faculty - 5/10/2000

http://alexia.lis.uiuc.edu/gslis/school/news/chief.html

[seemslikeadream]

62. English Department on Chief Illiniwek - distorted cliché of Indian people

The faculty of the Department of English find Chief Illiniwek an inappropriate symbol or mascot for the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. While we understand that in the eyes of many supporters of the Chief Illiniwek symbol, the current version of Chief Illiniwek looks like a more respectful image than many other Native American sports mascots, we strongly believe that such stereotypical, oversimplified, and inaccurate representations are out of place in a university environment, where they miseducate the wider public and the members of our own university community, perpetuating a distorted cliché of Indian people and perpetuating the notion that Indian cultures are a plaything for the dominant culture.

We recognize that the intent of many supporters of the Chief Illiniwek symbol is benign. They see the Chief symbol as a dignified image. But as scholars and teachers of English often note, a cultural artifact, whether a novel or a movie or a university symbol, may mean more than its producers intended or understood. Despite the innocent intent of many Illiniwek supporters, the effect and meaning of the Illiniwek symbol is to present a distorted cliché of Indian people.

We would not honor African Americans by having a Booker T. Washington imitator provide halftime entertainment; we would not honor Asian Americans by having someone in an emperor costume dance before cheering crowds; we would not honor Latina and Latino Americans by having a César Chavez imitator put on a mariachi costume and dance at athletic events; we would not honor concentration camp victims by having someone dress up as a rabbi and do splits at halftime; and we would not honor Catholics by having a student dress up as a pope and perform with miter and incense. Some members of the University of Illinois community may point to the look of intense solemnity in the current Chief logo, a look that the student playing the Chief sometimes puts on as the halftime crowd stands with arms folded in a sign of respect. But the solemn, silent Indian is yet another demeaning cliché that goes along with the dancing Indian and the Chief Illiniwek keychain with flashing lights for ears that is sold at the Illini Union bookstore. Derogatory clichés often come in the form of contradictory stereotypes.

We believe that the Chief Illiniwek symbol offers the wrong image of this great university. It has made the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign an object of scorn to many people across the nation and across the world, misrepresenting both Indian people and the ideals of this great university. It is time for the Board of Trustees and the wider university community to act with courage and vision, to respect our own constituency of Indian people and of the national and world communities and, like so many other schools and universities, give up our Indian symbol and mascot. It is time for this great university to live up to its commitment to community leadership and retire Chief Illiniwek.
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/-announcements-/statement_illiniwek.html

[Lotcm]

77. Great point

I thank you for saying there is no "Native American Nation". Its such a wild misconception. It's a point I tried to make above, but I think you made it better in a simpler manner.

[seemslikeadream]

61. "First Nation" David Clark

David Clark, July 13, 2004

Opinion: very anti-Chief

I want to thank you in advance for reading what I have to offer. As an educator and scholar, and as a subject of the Sac and Fox First Nations from near Tama, Iowa, and descendent of the Potawatomi First Nations in Shawnee, Oklahoma, I support all efforts to retire Chief Illiniwek and the "Fighting Illini" name. Like others, I use the term "First Nation" (Indigenous works, too) rather than Indian, American Indian, or Native American. We are not "Indians" because we are not from India. Referring to us as "native" Americans really is disconcerting (as well as imprecise) because anyone born anywhere in the Americas in this and the last century rightfully can (and countless many do) claim "native-born" status.

With certainty, the name "Fighting Illini" is an uncomplimentary designation for the descendants of the First Nations earlier removed from what became the state of Illinois because it focuses only on aggressiveness and offers no context for the conflict or fighting. "The Chief" undeniably is racist. It is a red face re-formulation of nineteenth-century black face. Both the name and the symbol (or mascot) are symbolic manifestations of the lingering residue of European and (later) American semantic imperialism and racism. The label "Fighting Illini" is an oppressive and patronizing name for the Kaskaskia and Cahokia (whose present-day descendants are citizens of the Peoria-Miami First Nations located in Miami, Oklahoma) as well as other subjects of First Nations coercively displaced or forcibly removed from their lands by the terrorists who occupied their homes. Rather than engage in serious research, and serving ongoing colonialism, most academic historians have imposed the name "Illini" on these diverse peoples. Countless students and UIUC athletic team fans have uncritically accepted the authenticity of the name "Illini" as a signifier for now vanished First Nations. Used alone and only in reference to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and its athletic teams, "Fighting Illini" has no redeeming cultural or social value that could make it a name to feel proud about. Think about it: English-language words synonymous with "fighting" include squabbling, rioting, and brawling, as well as offensive, belligerent, pugnacious, quarrelsome, and evil.

Thus, the name "Fighting Illini" is culturally demeaning. It, and its symbolic counterpart, Chief Illiniwek, are one-dimensional symbols that nourish what my colleagues at the University of Kansas, Cornel Pewewardy and Michael Yellow Bird (following Joyce King), have termed "dysconscious racism"--an uncritical habit of the mind that justifies inequity and exploitation by accepting the existing order of things as given. To valorize images of the "Fighting Illini" without soberly recognizing the degree to which the United States sought--and seeks--to summarily conquer, displace and remove, and control First Nations peoples cultivates dysconscious racism. Numerous scholars have written about its effects. Any institutionalized violation or manipulation (e.g., exploitation) of individual or group identity can be understood as a clear elucidation of oppression. UIUC in many ways is a powerful institution that exploits the identity of the Peoria and Miami (and other) First Nations. Oddly, UIUC also manipulates the identities of the First Nations located still today on the northern and southern Plains (in western Oklahoma and in north-central Nebraska, the Dakotas, and Montana)--the First Nations earlier made popular by wild west shows and Hollywood motion pictures. This all is the subject of a vast scholarship. Many scholars also have written about the role of empowering and disempowering images in shaping the identities (the many heterogeneous individual conceptualizations of self) among Indigenous young people. Once the idea is formed for a young person that she or he belongs to a devalued group (and in today's media-saturated culture this idea does not take long to form), then every subsequent event and encounter is processed through this lens.

http://people.ku.edu/~tyeeme/mascots.html

[sellitman]

83. This is a Redirection

Stupid stories like this are merely the Repuke way of misdirecting the lemmings from the real stories at hand. This is about as important as the MJ trial, the Lacey trial etc. Meanwhile our votes are stolen the ANWAR is raped and criminals are running the country. Get with it gang!!!!

[phrenzy]

84. The New York Shylocks?

Hey, we're "HONORING" them!

[Moderator]

85. locking

discussion is no longer productive.