Religious Practice
A letter to the editor in this last weeks NG, had me scratching my head and marveling at the consistency in those who write in continuing support of Chief Illiniwek.
First, there was the statement by the author in how he had recently had a conversation about this subject with someone on the NG forum. Although I don’t delve deeply into all the threads here, my search for this conversation found nothing. So I’m not sure were he was conversing but would have loved to have read it.
As for the consistency, it is truly amazing. You can always count on the supporting folks to say something about the militancy of those who oppose the mascot, which is always somewhat confusing, since when did opposition become militancy?
Then you always have the general sweeping statements such as tradition and ritual to argue continuance. With this kind of logic we should still be burning people at the stake because it fills the pews on Sunday mornings.
Also, nearly every supporter goes off on a tangent that has little relevance on the subject, with this last contributor confusing the arts (in this case film), with live native American religious practices.
Lastly, I’ve always found it most intriguing that the most virulent supports of Chief Illiniwek are devout Christian followers, who immerse themselves and adamantly support what their religious teachings call pagan practices.
Amazing isn’t it, how the devote’ of one religion can so easily adopt and use the practices of another and think nothing of it.
This may have a bit to do
This may have a bit to do with why there is opposition to Native American mascots.
I am not like the PC people.
I am not like the PC people. I do not run around looking for things to be offended about. Some of these replies are laughable. When people can't rebut a good point, they throw in a red herring like this one.
Because they were one sixth
Because they were one sixth of The Village People and were doing a reunion tour?
They're happy?
They're happy?
Illinois is the most corrupt
Illinois is the most corrupt state in the union
Illinois is becoming a police state that uses the people as a source of revenue only.
The university refuses to cooperate with an investigation regarding admissions
Wages for the working class are going backwards while CEO pay has skyrocketed.
Millions unemployed.
Greedy companies like Aqua and Ameren are gouging the public.
Gas prices are inappropriately high.
This is the biggest fish you people can find to fry? I am tired of the PC crowd telling others what to do. LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE.
You're more than welcome to
You're more than welcome to start a thread on any or all of those points that you raised. I was never under the impression that 'This is the biggest fish you people can find to fry'...
It's just a fish...
I hear you samseeker, but in
I hear you samseeker, but in telling people to "lighten up" aren't you, in fact, just like the PC crowd you dislike, telling others what to do? Are you the de facto Fish Frying Debate Czar? I thought there was some great information included and was glad to read the posts.
And I think Buzorro was right, Tom wins handily.
I am not like the PC people.
I am not like the PC people. I do not run around looking for things to be offended about. Some of these replies are laughable. When people can't rebut a good point, they throw in a red herring like this one.
So, if he University of
So, if he University of Illinois, Marching Illini, Alumni, et. al. are not responsible for mistreatment of Native Americans, why are they being associated with these events? Why are they being penalized and sanctioned (i.e. blackmailed)? And if retiring Chief Illiniwek did nothing to compensate or provide relief for Native Americans, why was it done? I contend the opposition to the Chief is based largely on these faulty cause-and-effect relationships. A bit of critical thinking would, in my opinion, conclude the Chief tradition had nothing to do with these events of the past. Retiring the Chief may have provided a symbolic feel good moment to some, but as you say, accomplished no genuine benefit for Native Americans. I agree injustices of which you speak are not simply part of the ancient past. But what's more important, tormenting over the past or taking constructive action to improve the present and future?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the inaccuracies in your last responses were inadvertent mistakes and not intended to mislead or misinform.
Frank Fools Crow presented a new regalia to the University of Illinois in 1982. I don't know whether his wife worked on this version or not. Whomever crafted these items, in the 1980's, would certainly have had the opportunity to decline this request, and the $3,500 payment, if they so chose.
The accounts of Webber Borchers' 1930 visit to the Pine Ridge Reservation do not indicate the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, W. W. Jermark, accompanied Borchers to the Reservation. Rather, Borchers forwarded letters of recommendation to Mr. Jermark, who in turn contacted an area trader who, in turn, contacted an elderly Native woman. It's unclear whether the trader accompanied Borchers to the Reservation or not. In any case, the imposing, intimidating authority figure of Mr. Jermark was not present when the original regalia's fabrication was requested.
Yes, these are subtle differences from recorded events, but very important to accurate communications. Miscommunication gives a whole different meaning. And, credibility depends on accurate communication of facts and events.
Webber Borcher wrote:"I also
Webber Borcher wrote:"I also took other letters of introduction to the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, which at that time was Mr. W. W. Jermark, and explained to him my project," Borchers wrote. "He called in a trader that lived on the reservation and they discussed the matter. They, in turn, called in an old Indian woman and explained to her what I wanted. I wanted the war suit to be made in the old original way. She agreed to undertake the project. "
He wrote that "they" (which I understand to mean the Superintendent and the trader together) called an old indian woman (who turned out to be Frank Fools Crow's wife).
Webber was with the Superintendent and the trader.
Tom wins! Good job...
Tom wins! Good job...
While I'm no scholar on this
While I'm no scholar on this subject, I am aware that dance has been part of spiritual rituals and customs throughout history. I don't know this for a fact, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if my English, Irish and Polish ancestors at one time danced (or drummed, or chanted) for spiritual purposes a couple thousand years ago. However, dance is no longer a religious ritual only. Dance has been adapted for secular purposes hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.
I'm no anthropologist, but I suspect there's a parallel between dance and drumming. You might read Mickey Hart's books "Drumming at the Edge of Magic" and "Planet Drum." In them, he addresses drumming as a feature of ancient spiritual rites, but also describes drumming in historical and modern contexts. I've never heard of anyone offended by the Grateful Dead because they have a drummer, or even two drummers.
I will stand corrected regarding my understanding of the term "fancy dance." I took it to mean a style of dance, as the Waltz, Tango, or Polka would be styles of dance. However, there may be a slightly different meaning, as described in "The Chief Illini Dialog," excerpts of which follow.
"Fancy dancing"
"The halftime performance of the University of Illinois' Chief Illiniwek takes its movements from the Native American style of dancing called "fancy dancing" or "fancy feather dancing," which is considered the brightest and fastest of Native American dance styles."
"Fancy dancing did not originate from any old dance or style. Fancy dancing originated as a method of entertaining visitors at reservations in the early 1920's and to display aspects of Native culture that were not restricted for ceremonial use. ... Fancy dancing belongs to no one tribe - it started in Oklahoma and is now all over the country, with some differences in dress and style in the North. "
" Fancy dancing troupes travel in the Southwest to perform shows for tourists and visitors."
"The Chief dances a fancy dance"
"The performance of Chief Illiniwek is very similar to fancy dancing seen at powwows today. ... Just as fancy dancing has changed and evolved since the 1920's, so has the performance of Chief Illiniwek. There is no fault in either one, since this form of dancing was designed as an artistic expression. ... The performance of Chief Illiniwek can neither be classified as "non-authentic" or "authentic," because it has changed and evolved just as fancy dancing has over the past century. Would those who argue that Chief Illiniwek's performance and dress are not authentic also argue that today's fancy dancers who use neon colored feathers and beadwork are not authentic as well?
"Native American influence on the Chief's dance"
"The first three individuals who portrayed Chief Illiniwek (Lester Leutwiler, Webber Borchers, and William Newton) studied Native American dancing (especially fancy dancing) for years before they held the role of Chief Illiniwek. ... When Webber Borchers traveled to the Pine Ridge Reservation during his tenure as Chief Illiniwek, he spent many hours with several of the Sioux men on the reservation learning and perfecting his dance steps. Upon his departure, they inducted him as an honorary tribal member."
This narrative suggests "fancy dancing" emerged as a non-ritualistic art form intended for outsiders such as visitors and tourists. There is nothing in this narrative to suggest the Universtiy of Illinois misappropriated this art. In fact, the collaboration with the Pine Ridge Sioux suggests that these Native Americans themselves found no offense in this arrangement.
Several years ago at a UI basketball Midnight Madness, a dance troupe called the Muntu Dance Theater of Chicago performed prior to the basketball events. I thought they were terrific; energetic, colorful, and extremely talented. Their website describes them as follows.
"The Chicago-based Muntu Dance Theatre performs authentic and progressive interpretations of contemporary and ancient African and African-American dance, music, and folklore. A colorful and dynamic Company, Muntu brings its audiences out of their seats and into the aisles with its unique synthesis of dance, rhythm and song ... The Company is highly regarded for its innovative repertory, preserving traditional African dance while creating new works that build on African, Caribbean and African-American cultural traditions."
While African-inspired, they're not Africans. While their foundation is African tradition, their works are contemporary and innovative. In short, they provide entertainment, as opposed to desecrate religion.
So, how are they so different from Chief Illiniwek?
Has Yatiri, Penteller, or anyone else investigated the hakas performed by Polynesian sports teams? If not, why not? If so, you must acknowledge that New Zealanders, Maori and Europeans together, can and have developed a national identity that transcends "them" and "us." Why can't that happen at the University of Illinois?
Oh, I'm still waiting for some answers to my second and third questions.
I'm not going to answer any
I'm not going to answer any more lawyer-like questions, it is a waste of our time.
I am going to directly appeal to you as a Roman Catholic to seek wise counsel with your parish priest on this matter. What is driving you? Compassion, Charity? You say it is the injustice of how Chief Illiniwek was retired that torments you.
One great Roman Catholic prayed thus:
Make us worthy Lord to serve our fellow men throughout the world,
who live and die in poverty and hunger.
Give them through our hands, this day, their daily bread
and by our understanding love give peace and joy.
Lord, make me a channel of thy peace.
That where there is hatred I may bring love,
That where there is wrong, I may bring the spirit of forgiveness,
That where there is discord, I may bring harmony,
That where there is error I may bring truth,
That where there is doubt I may bring faith,
That where there is despair I may bring hope,
That where there are shadows I may bring light,
That where there is sadness I may bring joy.
Lord, grant that I may seek rather to comfort that to be comforted,
To understand than to be understood,
To love than to be loved.
For it is by forgetting self that one finds.
It is by forgiving that one is forgiven,
it is by dying that one awakens to eternal life.
Amen.
Yes, this is a lovely prayer.
Yes, this is a lovely prayer. We also sing it as a hymn. Thanks, and Dominus vobiscum.
Tom I'm just saying that we
Tom I'm just saying that we should live it, not just pray it and sing it.
Third question first. No,
Third question first.
No, outsiders are not permitted in authentic Native American sacred dances.
No I havenit investigated the Hakas, because I am not interested
And I'm tired and bored of this debate. The issue just isn't important to me. I'm tired of reading the extensive cutting and pasting out of "we want our mascot back" internet pages and the lawyer-like questions you ask.
Like I said at the start, for me its an amusing sideshow.
Pay up what is owed to the tribes whose land was leased by the US to oil companies, loggers, farmers, ranchers. The money was kept by the US and never benefited the tribes. After much litigation a small fraction of that money has been awarded by the courts to the tribes. Now Congress won't write the check.
What is your opinion about that Tom? That is more interesting to me than the hakas of the polynesian sport teams. You talk about developing a "national identity" that transcends "them and us". How about paying up what is owed to "them" legally and rightfullly?
Again, for the sake of
Again, for the sake of accuracy, the "The Chief Illiniwek Dialogue, Intent and Tradition vs. Reaction and History. A Report to the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois" by Louis Garippo, former Federal Judge, was neither a pro- or anti-Chief document. The Introduction of that report concludes with the following statement. "This issue frequently polarizes those who express opinions. As the moderator of this Dialogue, the most difficult goal was to carry out the designated duties in such a manner that attendees at the Dialogue and readers of this report would feel that all views had been considered and fairly reported, and at the same time, no bias would be ascribed to the actions or statements of the moderator. Every effort was made to achieve that goal; hopefully those efforts were successful." Clearly, this is not a "we want our mascot back" website.
You call my questions "lawyer like." Ouch! Now that hurts. Seriously, these are questions that are relevant to the Chief issue, but are never addressed by the anti-Chief contingent. If the answers do not support the allegations the Chief is racist, hostile and abusive , that doesn't mean they're bad questions.
I find it curious you're "not interested" in learning about a Native dance with spiritual origins that is adopted and adapted by both Natives and Whites, and embraced by both since the early 1920's. Your whole argument is that it's wrong to appropriate Native customs. I'm offering an example where this has been successfully accomplished without the animosity that pervades the opposition to Chief Illiniwek. In fact, the Allblacks have composed a Haka specifically for Rugby matches. They will perform both the ancient Ka Mate as well as the new Kapa O Pango. Please, just take ten minutes and see http://www.allblacks.com/index.cfm?layout=displayNews&newsArticle=2468. Of course, you're free to follow or not follow this suggestion. But I'm sure you will find it interesting if you do.
About broken promises by the Government and failure to pay reparations ... Whatever was established by Agreement, that's fine with me. I've just filed my income tax, but I would have no objection to Uncle Sam taking out a bit more to compensate Native Americans if that's what it takes. I, personally, can't underwrite this repayment all by myself, but if we all chip in, we can make a difference. How about you and I initiate an effort to raise enough new tax revenue to make good on these legal and rightful promises.
I stumbled upon Penteller’s
I stumbled upon Penteller’s posting completely by chance. The title “Religious practices” attracted my attention (as well as the number of times Penteller’s name appears on discussion forum postings). Imagine my surprise to see Penteller featured MY letter to the News Gazette.
Before I offer rebuttal, I want to acknowledge that not all people who do disagree with the Chief Illiniwek tradition do so the same way. Some are thoughtful and articulate, whose opinions I respect, and others just rant, whose opinions I don’t. Implying a single characterization to all people whose opinions differ from mine would be stereotyping, which I want to avoid.
Penteller completely misses the point of my letter. It’s not about religious practice at all. It’s about the inconsistency, the contradiction, in what is and is not offensive to some people. Specifically, to say the Chief Illiniwek tradition is offensive because it misappropriates Native symbols or beliefs , but misappropriating Catholic symbols or beliefs is perfectly fine is duplicitous to be kind, hypocritical to be honest. Opponents object to Chief Illiniwek as being hostile and abusive. They accept Chief Osceola. Opponents object to Chief Illiniwek as being racist. They accept Hoosiers (a derogatory term for racially prejudiced people) and Tar Heels (Confederate soldiers from North Carolina defending slavery). It’s this double standard about which I’m writing, not anyone’s faith systems.
I’ve written nothing about robbing anyone of their faith or imposing mine on others. Either Penteller is reading too much between the lines, or the red mist of activism makes him / her see things that don’t exist.
Now, some clarifications are in order.
First, the comment exchange for which Penteller was looking and could not find took place on 11 & 12 October, 2010. A remark was offered to me “The idea that we cannot change one thing unless we change everything is asinine. Please adjust your thinking to something sensible.” My response was “… However, one's inability to change everything is quite different from the consistencies or inconsistencies of one's sympathies and convictions. One should apply the same values across all similar instances, correct? If one objects to an inaccurate portrayal of a culture or faith system, for instance, shouldn't one also object to inaccurate portrayals of other cultures and faith systems?" Again, I make no mention about preferences among faith systems.
I use the term “militant” to distinguish between extremists and those who express their disagreement in a civil and rational manner. Penteller questions when opposition becomes militancy. I think opposition becomes militancy when it becomes disruptive and denies or inhibits others’ rights and violates the community's mores. Voicing objection to the University administration and administrators is fine. Breaking into and staging a sit-in at the Administration Buildingand harassing an administrator with a personal verbal assault is militancy. Writing or speaking opposing opinions is fine. Using half-truths, misrepresentations, erroneous cause-and-effect relationships, and rhetoric designed to enflame emotion and generate anger in lieu of a rational discussion -- and never, ever offering any concession or adjustment of opinion, and never, ever, ever offering constructive alternatives, is militancy. Voicing an objection to The Next Dance is fine. Getting all up in my face yelling “Racist! Racist! You should be ashamed!” is militancy. Objecting to signs is fine. Defacing them isn’t, and that applies to both the Honor the Chief billboard and the Beyond the Chief signs.
Penteller compares the Chief tradition with burning people at the stake to fill pews on Sunday mornings. This is grasping at straws to make an irrelevant point. If he/she would cite references or provide examples of a faith system or religious institution actually burning or having burned people at the stake as an attraction for Sunday services , this argument may be more convincing. Otherwise, this is simply inflammatory rhetoric (see above) with no credibility.
Penteller remarks that art (cinema in this case) is irrelevant to the Chief’s dance. I’m obviously missing something here, as dance and cinema are both are forms. Is Penteller saying one art medium justifies abuse or misrepresentation of religious beliefs but another doesn’t? This is a wholly flawed argument. I think most people would agree that if something is “offensive” it’s offensive regardless of the venue or medium. If “offense” can only be perceived only within such a terribly, utterly narrow boundary, the “offense” really doesn’t exist.
Here’s where Penteller abandoned my letter and letter and embarks on a wholly different discourse.
Penteller remarks that “the most virulent” Chief supporters are devout Christian followers . I don’t think the Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish and other non-Christian students and fans who support the Chief and wear Chief apparel would agree with that argument.
If Penteller is trying to paint me as a far right, “Christian Right” wacko extremist, that’s his/her problem. No one who knows me would agree with this characterization. Perhaps Penteller would have loved to read something to that affect, but it just isn’t there. The Far Right is as dangerous to American society as the Far Left. Of course, not actually knowing me and my religious beliefs or political opinions has no bearing on his/her judgment of me.
What I find intriguing is the most virulent opponents of Chief Illiniwek are so passionate about fighting religious and racial stereotypes, yet they impose exactly the same stereotypes upon those with whom they disagree. I’m a white Christian. Therefore, according to Penteller’s profile, I am a religious zealot with no tolerance of Native religions, hold an obsessive fascination with “pagan practices,” take great pleasure in defiling Native American symbols and culture, and want to keep traditions exactly the way they were since 1930. Again, actually knowing me is of no importance to this stereotype. What I find intriguing is the most virulent opponents of Chief Illiniwek either 1) don’t recognize they’re imposing the very stereotypes they claim to detest, or 2) they just refuse to admit it.
Penteller’s remarks that devotees of one religion can so easily adopt and use the practices of another and think nothing of it. If Penteller objects to this, then he/she would object to our state’s named “Illinois,” or the city named Chicago, or the County named Iroquois, or the river named Kankakee, or the automobile named Pontiac (oops, that one’s gone, never mind), or most locations in Wisconsin and New Jersey.
The Greeks adopted and adapted culture from the Egyptians; the Romans from the Greeks, Gallics, Normans, Gauls, Germans, Byzantines and others ; Christians adapted Jewish and Roman festivals when developing their own traditions, etc, etc, etc. The Beatles and Rolling Stones formed their roots in American blues music. Hippie kids adapted and adopted Eastern religious practices in the ‘60’s & 70s. White kids are adopting and adapting African-American and Hispanic style and fashion. Yes, cultures adopt and use practices of others, and it’s been happening throughout history, and will continue to happen. Get used to it.
Has anyone out there ever been to a Maori or Hawaiian Mass? The blending of Catholic rites with traditional Polynesian interpretations is amazing; it is so beautiful! I, as a Catholic I was amazed, and the Polynesians seemed to find it inspirational as well. Are you familiar with the New Zealand All Blacks Rugby Football Team? See www.allblacks.com where Maori and White Guys perform their Haka together, shoulder to shoulder, in common defiance of their opponent. If nothing else, the least you can do is try to learn about how other cultures adopt and adapt to each other.
Tom why don't you adapt to
Tom why don't you adapt to the new reality? Chief Illiniwek is gone from the U of I. The tide has turned and we must adapt and adopt the new culture, right?
Speaking only for myself, Mr.
Speaking only for myself, Mr. Napier, I applaud your non-emotional and very informative input on this thread. Not being sports-oriented, ever, I observed the hooplah over the recent past, regarding the Chief's alleged irreverance, and had wondered what the big deal was. Being formerly ignorant of the specific arguments, for and against, I've committed myself to remain non-committed. Because of you're much-appreciated enlightenment on this issue, I now am of the mind to be pro-Chief. Like you, I await with much anticipation for Penn's rebuttal to your rebuttal.
Ignorance may indeed be bliss, but I, personally, always seek the truth no matter how ugly it may turn out to be.
Again, thanks...
I appreciate your
I appreciate your characterization as non-emotional and informative. I hope people see this as a virtue and not a vice. But given these comments, sometimes I wonder.
I'm not trying to twist anyone's arm into either supporting or opposing the Chief. All I want to do is offer some facts and reasonably well accepted information in rebuttal to inflamatory rhetoric that has no constructive content. Please make up your own mind ... or commit to being non-committed ... as you see fit.
If you're not a sports fan, I would ask you to consider the Chief Illiniwek issue as being broader than sports. As I've said often, my complaint is less with the Chief being retired, and more with the way in which he was retired. Remember, the Trustees and Administrators who brought us Clout also retired the Chief. And there's the NCAA blackmail too. These are all the wrong reasons to have retired the Chief, in my opinion. And then, we've got that pesky thing called democracy that says the majority vote or opinion should prevail. Keeping that idea supressed for four years has got to be hard work.
It's the University of Illinois' integrity that's at stake here, not just what happens at halftime.
Have a grateful day.
Penteller continues on about
Penteller continues on about Chief supporters being “nearly always devout Christians” and “overt Christians.” Again, this subject has nothing to do with my News Gazette letter, but that seems to matter not.
Yes, I’m a practicing Catholic. I’m not sure how Penteller uses the word “overt” but if he/she mean “devout,” I try hard to be that too. If Penteller means intolerant, or Extreme Right, he/she is fishing in the wrong pond.
Penteller rambles on about the Great White Father robbing billions of dollars and derogatory use of religious symbols, pillaging indigenous people and desecrating other peoples’ religion, and that “the majority” slander and rob etc, etc, etc. There is no denying that great injustices were inflicted upon Native people by the British, then the American governments. However, to attribute those unfortunate events with the University of Illinois, it’s students, alumni, and university community is complete fallacy, nothing but inflammatory rhetoric and hollow rant. This may attract the ignorant and gullible, but has no credibility to people with a shred of common sense. It is certainly not constructive in reaching an understanding between Native Americans and non-Natives. Chief opponents complain that the Chief is divisive; Penteller and others who write this stuff are driving the wedge of division, not Chief supporters.
What I find intriguing is the most virulent Chief opponents steadfastly refuse to acknowledge information available to them about the Chief Illiniwek history and tradition … as well as massacres and slavery performed upon Natives by Natives … as well as mistreatment of Natives by British and American governments. It’s pretty easy to find if people take the trouble to look for it. My observation, however, suggests that few Chief opponents care enough about history to do any research before launching into a rant. Or, they don’t let recorded history interfere with their rant.
I also find it intriguing that the most virulent Chief opponents steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the Regalia and the Chief’s persona and dance were developed in collaboration with Native Americans in 1930. I trust the Native Americans involved with and maintaining, upgrading, and replacing the regalia between 1930 and 2007 were comfortable that sacred symbols were not being misused.
I can’t do justice to Penteller's statement by paraphrasing; only verbatim can the richness of this accusation be appreciated: “This blindness and desecration is driven by one of the great evils in man, wherein hedonism becomes such an overpowering force that they are willing to enact laws to preserve their lust. A hedonistic lust which grew so great that our federal representative actually began considering the passage of a bill in congress to recognize the Chief Illiniwek abomination.”
Ouch! This is pretty serious language; real red mist stuff. See the discussions of inflammatory rhetoric and stereotyping, above.
Regarding Penteller’s three questions; if he/she knows the answers, it would be nice to post them. Here are some things I do know, and this information is readily available to the public.
The Chief’s dance was choreographed in collaboration with Native Americans. It was intended to be a secular dance. Literature describes it as a “fancy dance” style.
The headpiece and the Regalia were fabricated by Native Americans, then maintained and updated by University of Illinois and Alumni Association personnel, and Native Americans. Per the University’s request, the eagle feathers were returned to Frank Fools Crow’s family in 1991. Turkey feathers were used in the Headpiece since.
I question the statement that authentic Native dances are closed to outsiders. I’ve see Native dancing in many venues. The Powwow at Kickapoo Park is open to the public. If Powwows aren't considered to be “authentic” Native dancing in that they aren’t performed as part of a rite or spiritual purpose, that’s different. Regardless, there has never been any spiritual connotation to the Chief’s dance, so there should be no objection to it’s being open to the public.
Now I have three questions for Penteller, for which I’ve never received an answer from Chief opponents:
1) Exactly what religious rites and/or symbols are being used in a derogatory manner? Please identify the specific people (tribe, clan, group, etc). Please describe the specific beliefs that make the rites or symbols “sacred” or “spiritual” to those people. Please describe exactly how these rites or symbols are being used in an inappropriate manner by the University of Illinois.
2) Exactly how does (or did) the University of Illinois, the State of Illinois, the citizens of Illinois, the University of Illinois Marching Band, the Pennsylvania University Marching Band, Chief Illiniwek, myself, my ancestors, or over 600,000 UI alumni contribute to pillaging, slandering, robbing, and other mistreatment of Native Americans? Please describe specific events and articulate cause-and-effect relationships. FYI, I was born in 1951, and my ancestors were on a different continent when the Indian Removal Act was signed by Andrew Johnson in 1830.
3) Exactly how has the removal of Chief Illiniwek improved the racial climate on the UI campus and the local community, other University campuses and nationally?
Penteller uses a crucifix analogy several times. Perhaps he/she trying to make a point, or maybe trying to sucker me into crying foul. Jesus’ teeth as a nail puller? Come on, that’s getting desperate.
First things first. The Chief Illliniwek Tradition – Dance, Regalia, and overall persona have never held any religious connotations. The Native Americans involved in the tradition since 1930 never indicated anything sacred was involved, much less being abused. From a spiritual standpoint, the Chief’s dance is no different than any other recreational dancing. So, your comparison to a crucifix or other Christian/Catholic symbols is not relevant.
Yes, I would object if a crucifix (or Star of David, or Crescent) was used in an inappropriate and irreverent fashion. Wearing these symbols as a sign of faith is an appropriate use. Wearing a four-pound zircon encrusted crucifix (or Star of David, or Crescent) as bling isn’t, in my opinion. Would YOU object? Or, more consistent to the anti-Chief argument, to which would you object and which would you ignore? If the Chief Illiniwek tradition did, indeed, include spiritual symbols that were overtly misused, I would sympathize with Penteller’s objection. But to the best of my understanding it doesn't, so the argument is moot.
I wanted to read the answers
I wanted to read the answers to the 3 questions.
Very poor answers. If I were the teacher grade F
If you were a teacher, you'd
If you were a teacher, you'd articulate exactly how an answer was "very poor," and what the correct answer would be. If your critique consists only of "very poor," it's neither constructive nor informative; not very good teaching.
So what are the answers? I took my best shot. If you (or Penteller, or anyone else) know, please "teach" us all.
Any answers to MY three questions?
Now I will take a stab at
Now I will take a stab at your first question which is really several questions. You ask us to specify exactly which religious rites and rituals are being used in a derogatory manner?
Its the dance Tom. Authentic Native American dances are sacred. The mascot dance is not an authentic sacred dance, but it evolved historically from those dances only because the authentic religious dance was outlawed back in the day.
Now you go on to ask more questions asking about "specific" tribes and and "exactly" who is offended by exactly what. I can't answer all that right now. I would have to do considerable research. What I can say is that Native Americans have been historically offended over and over again. They have been trespassed against over and over including when the U of I was using the mascot dance for sports events.
The last question in your multiple part first question is: "Please describe exactly how these rites or symbols are being used in an inappropriate manner by the University of Illinois."
The answer Tom is that the University of Illinois no longer is using the mascot chief dance. Yes Tom that is the reality. The NCAA sanctioned the University, the mascot and the dance have been discontinued forever. That is reality and you cannot seem to accept it.
Any comment on this from
Any comment on this from Tom?:
'I also find it intriguing that the most virulent Chief opponents steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the Regalia and the Chief’s persona and dance were developed in collaboration with Native Americans in 1930. I trust the Native Americans involved with and maintaining, upgrading, and replacing the regalia between 1930 and 2007 were comfortable that sacred symbols were not being misused.'
Collaboration?
Collaboration? Like Native
Collaboration? Like Native Americans had a choice? I will answer you with the answer that Chief Black Hoof gave when he "sold" tribal land to the US government:
In 1831, the U.S. Government made a proposition to purchase Wapakoneta from the Shawnee.
The Shawnee formed a four-person committee, including Chief Black Hoof, to negotiate terms. These negotiations resulted in the transfer of the Ohio tribal lands held by the Shawnee Nation.
Black Hoof was asked later if he agreed to the sale, he replied, "No."
When Black Hoof was then asked why he sold the land to the government, he said, "Why? Because the United States Government wanted to buy and possess our lands, and remove us out of the way.
"I consented because I could not help myself, for I never knew them to undertake anything without accomplishing it.
"I knew that I might as well give up first as last, for they were determined to have our lands."
The same can be said about Native American "collaboration" about their dances. What choice did they really have?
Yes Native Americans "collaborated" as you said, but later they changed their minds also.
Once again, I'll acknowledge
Once again, I'll acknowledge that great injustices were inflicted upon Native Americans by British, then American governments.
And once again I'll ask, exactly how was the University of Illinois responsible, or UI students, or UI alumni, or the Marching Illini, or the citizens of Illinois? Then, I'll ask how will (or did) "retiring" the Chief reverse these injustices or compensate Native Americans for their losses?
You ask what choice did Native Americans have when collaborating with Webber Borchers on the regalia and dance. I wasn't there at the time, so I'm only speculating. But I suspect a white kid hitch hiking from Illinois wasn't an especially imposing or intimidating figure. If they told him to scram, I suspect he would have. But they didn't, and he didn't. And the rest, as they say, is history.
The U of I is not
The U of I is not responsible, and neither are the others you mention.
Retiring the Chief did nothing to compensate Native Americans. Injustices and ongoing injustice by the United States (Congress right now is not paying tribes whose land was leased and the government collected but now won't pay up). The injustice is not just in the distant past Tom, it is ongoing. But again the people you mention are not responsible.
Webber Borchers not imposing? He showed up at the Pine Ridge Reservation with the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, who at that time was Mr. W. W. Jermark. Now Tom when the Superintendent of Indian Affairs shows up with you on a reservation (apartheid Tom), that makes you imposing. And so the elderly wife of Chief Frank Fools Crow was called and told what Borchers wanted. How could she say no? Do you really believe that the wife of a Chief "voluntarily collaborated" sewing the regalia out of buckskin and using 91 eagle feathers for $40? How it must have pained her to part with the sacred eagle feathers, and for 40 measly dollars!
You say that the rest is history. Well that history includes the retirement of the mascot chief dance in 2007 after 2 decades of contention, litigation, legislation, and protests. The tide of history had changed.
The mascot chief and his dance were retired permanently, and that is history.
So you see Tom, Native
So you see Tom, Native American Chiefs dance for the same reasons that Roman Catholics genuflect, raise the Host up in the air, have Holy Communion.
For the same reasons Tom. They are sacred and religious reasons.
And why was it necessary to
And why was it necessary to invent "fancy dance" style in 1930?
Because the United States had outlawed Native American religious dance. Yes, illegal to perform their sacred dances.
Now Tom if you want a B maybe
Now Tom if you want a B maybe you could mention that fancy dance, the style the mascot chief dance was modeled after, was a dance invented in 1930 to allow for secular (not sacred) dancing at wild west shows and when the public included people who weren't of the tribe.
Perhaps you could continue and show us an A+?
I will begin with your first
I will begin with your first answer to the question: "Why do Chief's dance?"
I understand the question to ask in general about why Native American Chief's dance.
Tom in your answer you talked a little about how the U of I mascot chief dance came to be.
You didn't really answer the question.
If you love Native American's so much why not become more educated about them?
Native American Chiefs danced for many important ceremonial and religious reasons. They never did the mascot dancing for sports or other trivial occasions.
I think my answer is maybe a C+ because it is better than the average.
Yep they are weird all right,
Yep they are weird all right, as are their opponents.
I get criticized anytime I wear old clothing with the Chief insignia.
How about healthcare for the indigenous people. How about paying up what the government owes them?
The mascot is a curious non-issue for me.
I agree, I liked the Chief
I agree, I liked the Chief but feel the bigger issues are the government's failures to honor promises to indigenous people. Morgan Spurlock had an interesting mini documentary where he spent 30 days on a reservation. It was unfathomable how they were forced to live on a tiny amount of potable water so that others could water their lawns and fill their swimming pools.
And on the most "religous" people preaching one thing and practicing another, it's as they say: those who can't do teach. Similar to homophobic politicians: those who most vehemently attack homosexuality are discovered to be homosexual themselves. It's human nature to attack that which you fear, apparently even if you are what you fear.
What leads you to speculate
What leads you to speculate that " the most virulent supports of Chief Illiniwek"?
Social Media
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.