1. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 4:42 pm:

   Indian givers!

   It is their right to do this.

   Buh-bye oh great Anglo-Chief!




2. - Stomp Da Yard - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 4:44 pm:

   oh god…not this again…maybe there is a new Obama story that came out in the last 30 seconds I can read instead.




3. - So-Called "Austin Mayor" - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 4:49 pm:

   “The antics of persons playing ‘Chief Illiniwek’ perpetuates a degrading racial stereotype that reflects negatively on all American Indian people.”

   But I heard a white alum say it wasn’t degrading, so that must not be true.




4. - cermak_rd - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 4:58 pm:

   So in 1982, they were presented by the regalia the Chief wears. While I value a freebie as much as anyone, couldn’t they do a little research and figure out what kind of regalia an Illini or Miami or whatever Illinois native would have worn? I mean, the Chief is there to “honor” the Illini right? The Oglala are freaking Plains native Americans. They didn’t live here and have no connection to the IL prairie.




5. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 5:01 pm:

   I also heard that Colonel Sanders demanded the return of the San Diego Chicken mascot uniform too. Demeaning to chickens.




6. - The Horse - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 5:06 pm:

   Its time to finally give up the chief.




7. - Patriot - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 5:32 pm:

   What’s next? Change the names of all cities in the nation bearing Native American names? In time all Native American references will be erased from memory. Is this what the Native Americans want?




8. - Sahims2 - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 5:48 pm:

   Young Bear, I think the rampant alcohol and drug abuse on the reservations are more degrading to the Native Americans than the Chief is. At least the Chiefs portrayal of the Indian is a clean and moral one, what could be degrading about that?




9. - ArchPundit - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 5:57 pm:

   ===What’s next? Change the names of all cities in the nation bearing Native American names?

   Actually, the tribe isn’t asking the team to change it’s name, it’s asking for the team to not have a mascot who is a caricature of an American Indian tribe in South Dakota to no longer use that mascot.

   Can anyone explain to me why the supposed tribute to the Illiniwek uses regala from a tribe based in Minnesota and the Dakotas which was marginally an enemy of the Illiniwek?

   I’m not sure how some guy running around like he’s drunk is ‘clean’ or that making fun of American Indian customs and dances is ‘moral’.




10. - Chief - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 6:25 pm:

    I hope none of these ‘indians’ watch any television.. they might get offended on a nightly basis!




11. - Bubs - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 7:07 pm:

    It’s only a matter if time until the nickname goes as well.

    So start thinking:

    “Illinois Pioneers”

    “Illinois Suckers”

    “Illinois Hoi Polloi”

    whatever.




12. - Papa Legba - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 7:29 pm:

    For the way Europeans treated the Native Americans on their own land they have a right to complain.

    Do they carry on like Dorthy “The Hat” Tillman with her extortionist reparations B.S.? No. Should they? Maybe.

    To label them a drunk, drug abusing peoples is a flat out idiotic statement.

    The were here first. Whitey killed them off in a mass genocide and shoved them onto “reservations” not fit for anything other than cacti and scorpions.

    If those types of comments were to be made about any other ethnic group in the U.S. there would be holy hell to pay.

    Keep you bigoted fingers off your keyboards until you read your kids history books.




13. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 7:49 pm:

    I agree with Papa Legba. Cut the bigoted garbage, please. I should have deleted those posts, but I think I’ll leave them up to illustrate the mindset of far too many Chief holdouts.

    Oops. I commented. Whatever.




14. - Illini grad - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 7:51 pm:

    I graduated from U. of Ill. and I wish they would just dump the stupid mascott and stop insulting a whole group of people.




15. - Squideshi - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 8:01 pm:

    Just get rid of the character already.




16. - notquitehip - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 8:11 pm:

    I agree with the Chief and in a further show of support, I am demanding (I’ll file a lawsuit later, when I get the time), I am demanding that everybody that is not Polish or German stop Polka dancing. It is the national dance of our two great nations, and I’m tired of non-Poles and non-Germans perpetuating a degrading racial stereotype that reflects negatively on all Poles and Germans.

    Its high time we forbade Italians, French, Watusi, Hispanics and Irishmen from getting sloopy drunk at weddings and making a mockery of so solemn a ritual dance as the Polka.




17. - Papa Legba - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 8:20 pm:

    Bubs,

    The Illinois Sod Busters is probably the most fitting name for the state flagship University.




18. - Some Guy - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 8:59 pm:

    Chief,

    Why the quotes around the word Indian in your post from 6:25? Are you unsure if the Oglala Sioux are Indians or soemthing?




19. - Boor - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 9:06 pm:

    “Its high time we forbade Italians, French, Watusi, Hispanics and Irishmen from getting sloopy drunk at weddings…”

    Glad we were able to put a stop to the bigoted comments.

    Give it up. Only people with a romanticized delusion of their college days want to perpetuate this. It is ridiculous.

    I’m sure the Illiniwik would not mind having their name erased from mnetion by a university that has perpetuated such slander of their tribe for years. I would rename the mascot “the Shameless Ones”.




20. - Emily Booth - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 9:30 pm:

    Puh-leeze. The U of I needs to stop it. Just stop it. All of you.
    Sometimes the greatest distance is the one between our hearts and our heads.




21. - True Observer - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 9:56 pm:

    Indian giving was done away with after the white man came.




22. - 'Lainer - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 10:15 pm:

    OK, I don’t really have a dog in this fight, since I am neither Native American nor a U of I alum. I am no fan of hyper-political correctness either. But consider this: to have Chief Illiniwek wear the feathers- and buckskin garb of the Sioux is comparable to dressing up the San Diego Padre mascot like an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, or having Chinese acrobats perform at halftime of Notre Dame Fighting Irish games. It really doesn’t match the culture or tradition of the tribe/nation they are supposed to be honoring. So I think these Native Americans do have a point.




23. - notquitehip - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 10:25 pm:

    “Can anyone explain to me why the supposed tribute to the Illiniwek uses regala from a tribe based in Minnesota and the Dakotas which was marginally an enemy of the Illiniwek?”

    Because it’s simply a symbol, something for people to rally around, there is no intent at technical accuracy.

    Selecting Chief Illiniwek as the symbol for the University was seen as an honor back when it was done in the 1920’s. Society today denigrates everything that was done in the past as being trivial or wicked. A lot of folks here seem to be caught up in this denigration. It’s sad, but it’s what we do these days. So many people and groups attempt to capitalize on any perceived slight and exert their influence over others.




24. - the wonderboy - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 10:28 pm:

    I agree that it is time to get rid of the chief based upon the requests of the tribes and their apparent wishes. That being said, I do take issue with a couple of points that have been made.

    Archpundit–
    It is not a “caricature” if you have seen the chief. The definition of caricature is “a representation of a person that is exaggerated for comic effect.” I don’t think that the chief is exaggerated, nor is the experience of the dance comic in any way, shape, or form.

    “I’m not sure how some guy running around like he’s drunk is ‘clean’ or that making fun of American Indian customs and dances is ‘moral’.”

    In your effort to be politically correct, you may have been as bigoted as those you oppose. Dancing like he is drunk? The dance is modeled after research into original dancing of Native Americans…so you essentially called them drunks. As for making fun of…I don’t know if that is an accurate representation of the Chief or the dance at all.

    I think it is time to give up the fight, but we need to be careful in how we call for change.




25. - Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 10:51 pm:

    I agree, it’s time to give up the Chief.

    Personally, I gave up on the place after they held a “nationwide search” for an “eminently qualified chief financial officer” and the best they can come up with is right here in Cook County. Everyone knows they have become nationally recognized for their financial management.

    And let’s not forget the Internet campus that was/is a national laughingstock in academic circles until the idea was “rethought.”

    There was also the great plan to admit more international students and cut back on the Illinois taxpayers’ kids that get in to UIUC. Also “reexamined” and ashcanned.

    And then there was the $3 million grant for a hotel…oh never mind, this is all about the Chief, and who cares if the entire University is going to Heck in a handbasket.




26. - Just Observing - Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 11:07 pm:

    Drop the Chief!!! It is disgusting!




27. - commen-ta-tor - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 12:13 am:

    Why not give the U back to the tribe, they could probably run it better and they could chose their own mascot.




28. - Master of the Obvious - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 6:22 am:

    Rich–your edit button must have missed the inflammatory post by Sahims2 @ 5;48. This ain’t the SJ-R comments section. If I want racist tripe like that I can probably find it in the Ann Coulter column today in the same paper.




29. - Johnny USA - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 6:49 am:

    How much $$ is the tribe willing to take in compensation?




30. - Silent Majority - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 7:21 am:

    Give them their outfit back. Keep the name. It’s just another left wing nobody trying to get their name in the paper.




31. - Fire Ron Guenther - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 9:10 am:

    More “leadership” from the University. No one wants to make a decision.




32. - Dooley Dudright - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 9:22 am:

    This is setting up as a classic example of do-the-right-thing-for-the-wrong-reasons.

    The “merits” of the case — be they pro or con — will, in the end, be of utterly no consequence.

    What will be dispositive? The relentless and grindingly awful publicity, that’s what.

    Just watch. This Oglala Sioux resolution (coming as it does on the heels of the NCAA’s attempt to ban the mascot from tournament play) soon will have the board of trustees singing “Fail to the Chief” — whether they like it or not.




33. - Taylor Street - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 9:58 am:

    Rich - I think




34. - Taylor Street - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 9:59 am:

    Rich - I think that its time to put the new University of Illinois mascot name to a vote - you should poll the blog to come up with a new name….




35. - Retire the Chief - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 10:05 am:

    Good for the Sioux tribe. It’s becoming obvious that the university trustees don’t have the courage or honor to retire a fake Indian mascot and his silly dance routine that denigrates Native American culture and traditions. It’s time to retire the Chief.




36. - Patriot - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 10:54 am:

    The nickname of the University of Illinois mascot should be the “Flintstones.” The view of the administration is antiquated.




37. - ArchPundit - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 11:20 am:

    ====In your effort to be politically correct, you may have been as bigoted as those you oppose. Dancing like he is drunk? The dance is modeled after research into original dancing of Native Americans…so you essentially called them drunks. As for making fun of…I don’t know if that is an accurate representation of the Chief or the dance at all.

    LOL–I called them drunks because I said that a mascot who performs a dance that is ‘loosely’ based on the Fancy Dance–a dance that was created in the 1920s to entertain white people. Not a whole lot different from minstrel shows.

    ===Selecting Chief Illiniwek as the symbol for the University was seen as an honor back when it was done in the 1920’s. Society today denigrates everything that was done in the past as being trivial or wicked. A lot of folks here seem to be caught up in this denigration. It’s sad, but it’s what we do these days. So many people and groups attempt to capitalize on any perceived slight and exert their influence over others.

    There’s some real chutzpah in attempting to declare it an assault on history and tradition to want to get rid of a symbol that mocks tradition and is ahistorical.

    The dance is a BS dance created to entertain white people and it is ‘loosely’ based on that dance even. The regala is from a tribe that was in competition with the Illini tribes and not even geographically close to Illinois. If Illinois alums are actually making these silly arguments, there’s a greater problem with the educational product coming out of the university.




38. - Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 11:26 am:

    I’m gonna comment one more time so I can say I agree with ArchPundit.

    An assault on history? As Larry notes, if you want to stop assaulting history, then the Chief’s gotta go. Now, if you want opponents to stop assaulting white history from the super-racist 1920s, then I perfectly understand the point, although I would, of course, disagree.




39. - "Illini" not named for Native Americans - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 11:29 am:

    Despite what many believe, Chief Illiniwek and the nickname “Fighting Illini” are two separate issues. I posted this in the last Chief discussion, but based on some of the comments already posted I guess it needs to be repeated.

    – The term “Illini” was first associated with the University’s student newspaper The Illini (now The Daily Illini) and has been found to be only a reference to the citizens of our great state. (The “Fighting” reference first appeared in context with the construction of Memorial Stadium and its tribute to Illinois’ veterans.) This fact is why the NCAA has ruled to allow the continued use of the term “Illini” despite its prohibition of the Chief mascot. –




40. - Chief - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 12:33 pm:

    I’m Irish and insulted by the fighting irish… get rid of that mascot too…




41. - VanillaMan - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 1:19 pm:

    When the Chief was created, we believed that all native indians would assimilate into white culture. So, enlightened professors felt it would be fitting and an honor to create a mascot that would educate and showcase this dying culture. Just as minstrel show singers like Al Jolson felt they were bringing black culture to white audiences and educating them, UI professors used the Chief as bringing indian culture to white audiences. If you lived at that time, you didn’t see easily see black singers or indian dancers, so these groups felt they were educating white audiences. Few were intentionally being rude.

    Fast forward to today. We just don’t need this anymore. We let indians be who they are. We don’t keep African Americans from appearing in our popular culture, so we don’t need Al Jolson-types wearing blackface makeup singing spirituals. Although sincere, it comes off insulting.

    Even if we required that the student portraiting the Chief be an indian, we would still be stuck with a nice guy in a ceremony created by whites for whites. Can you imagine if we allowed minstrel shows but required black performers to do them? How can anyone justify that weird mix?

    Just drop the Chief. It is unbelievable that our state university is too screwed up to solve this. What kind of education can anyone get from these people? You have to wonder.




42. - Southern Ilinois Democrat - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 1:58 pm:

    I cant believe that with all thats going on in the world today and this is a hot topic. I beleive the tribes are making this a much bigger issue than it really is because I do not think it means as much to them as it does to some in the media and on the left. I believe the supporters are digging their heels in more as a statemnet of loyalty to U of I and their college days. I personally would like to see the Chief stay. I am a U of I grad and also 1/16th Cherokee. I take him for waht he is….a mascot at a University and not an attempt to downgrade a race of people.




43. - SouthernILRepub - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 2:12 pm:

    First off it seems that I will be the only pro-chief person on here. While this is a sensitive issue with many people, I want to know if there was some family issue with the grandson that wanted the costume returned. Could there be a fissure in that family that resulted in the grandson wanting to settle an old family argument? Also I want to know more about the grandparents that presented the University the garments. A better debate on this issue would be better handled by two Native Americans on both sides of the issue. Rich, would you be able to have a “cyber-discussion” with two opposing Native American opinions on this. Also one last thought on the issue that some years ago Emil Jones wanted to attach the funding of UofI to the Chief. That was the wrong way to go about trying to achieve compromise. Lastly, Rich I still have a hard time equating the Chief to the KKK, sure there are parallels in timing of when the groups were founded and beliefs that were held by Whites. However you are trying to say that Chief fans are racist, that seems quite shallow. However if that is your opinion so be it, its your blog. On this issue I’m sure we will just agree to disagree.




44. - the wonderboy - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 2:45 pm:

    Rich-

    I know you say you won’t comment, but I have to wonder whether you agree that the Chief is a caricature…seems to be a terrible misunderstanding of the word and the mascot. I still agree that it is time to get rid of the Chief, but resorting to loaded language which isn’t valid is not the right way to get things done.

    As for the fancy dance discussion…I still find your comment to be inappropriate. Fancy dance is still practiced by tribes across the country. Having seen one of these competitions personally, I don’t think that the dance is loosely based whatsoever…especially since the entire concept of fancy dance is to freestyle dance. I truly believe that your attempt to attack the opposition was unnecessary and inappropriate. I agree with your position on the Chief, but not your understanding of the traditions, customs, or history.

    Even for those of us who think the Chief should go, we should accept the fact that the Chief is not an outright effort to make fun of any person or tribe. Running around like he is drunk? Please watch a fancy dance presentation and then be your own judge of your own words.




45. - the wonderboy - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 2:47 pm:

    Sorry…only the first part of my comment was a question for Rich. The rest should have been directed to Arch Pundit




46. - ArchPundit - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 4:25 pm:

    ===“a representation of a person that is exaggerated for comic effect.” I don’t think that the chief is exaggerated, nor is the experience of the dance comic in any way, shape, or form.

    Ummm…do you not understand that the Fancy Dance was created in the early part of the 20th Century essentially as a caricature to entertain white people? It’s developed somewhat since then, but how is that a white kid running around an athletic event on a dance that is loosely based on the Fancy Dance which is loosely based on some tribes former dances is not a caricature?

    From the OED: Grotesque or ludicrous representation of persons or things by exaggeration of their most characteristic and striking features.

    The dance is a caricature. I’m not sure how it is then defensible to claim that fancy dancing is historically accurate is simply a revision of history. It didn’t exist until around the time the University starting having a chief. The university is older than the dance.

    Fancy dancing by American Indians is in context of them being American Indians, not a white kid running around representing a tribe that never existed in the area.

    But even dumber is the whole notion that the Chief is doing anything resembling what the Illini did:
    http://www.uillinois.edu/trustees/dialogue/report_files/IV.html

    He wanted the colorful regalia of the Sioux for several reasons, not the least of which was that the Indians of Illinois shaved the sides of their heads and he couldn’t quite picture himself or any future Chief Illiniwek walking around campus for two or three years with only a scalplock on his head. Also, the Illinois Indians were woodland Indians and did not wear the dramatic war bonnets of the plains Indians.

    ==I agree with your position on the Chief, but not your understanding of the traditions, customs, or history.

    So when was the Fancy Dance done before the 20th Century? Why was it developed? Tell me where I’m wrong.

    Some white kid running around as an American Indian doing a dance out of context and in regala chosen because it fit the stereotype of American Indians is a caricature. It’s dumb and silly and trying to pretend I’m being mean by pointing it out is ridiculous. Further, suggesting that me saying that a college mascot who is a white kid acts like a drunk is somehow portraying American Indians as drunks is a funny reach, but also stupid. As done at Illinois games it is like a drunk got dressed up and acted like a fool.




47. - Anon - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 5:21 pm:

    ArchPundit - enough already. This whole issue is such a waste of time. Are people truly “offended” by this?




48. - Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 6:51 pm:

    Yes.




49. - the wonderboy - Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 6:54 pm:

    It’s fine if you don’t see the issue that I have, but I still think that your position is incorrect. I have explained my understanding of the fancy dance…one that I have researched and experienced personally…and whether you choose to agree is up to you. I am one who believes that traditions and customs develop over time, and as such I see fancy dancing as party of the traditions of Native Americans since it has been accepted into the customs and practices.

    The issue that I took was that you stated the student who portrayed the Chief is running around acting like he is drunk when he is doing the fancy dance. If a Native American performed the exact same dance, would you say that they appeared to be running around drunk? If the dance was performed, in similar fashion, at a tribal ceremony, would they appear drunk? The point I am trying to get across is that there is nothing in the dance that makes the student look like they are “running around drunk.” To say that the dance performance gives that appearance can only mean that the dance itself is what gives that appearance…what else would give the indication of the student or performer being drunk?

    Whether you agree or not, you have connected the fancy dance to drunken behavior, which is a reach greater than I attempted. If the dance is not what indicates the appearance of drunkenness according to your position, then what is?

    I have no problem with you disagreeing with my position, but I do take issue with your ad hominem attacks. If you care to engage in constructive dialogue, I will do the same. Having followed your comments for quite some time on this blog, I expect better than names such as stupid, drunk, and fool. My original statement was an effort to point out the need for appropriate analysis of the situation, not a personal attack.




50. - MW - Saturday, Jan 20, 07 @ 3:56 pm:

    the only people I saw during four years at U of I that really, truly wanted to keep the Chief were upper middle class white boys from the suburbs.

    If it was such an honor, can someone please tell me why a honest to goodness native american never wore the costume and did the dance?

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.