UI asks Chief group to stop use of name, old logo
CHAMPAIGN – The University of Illinois, through a Chicago lawyer, is telling the Honor the Chief Society to cease and desist in its attempts to trademark some Chief Illiniwek items, possibly affecting an upcoming homecoming performance.
But a co-founder of Honor the Chief Society said Saturday that the homecoming dance will go on. "The Next Dance" is scheduled for Oct. 23 at the Assembly Hall, after the Illinois-Indiana football game.
In a letter obtained by The News-Gazette, Chicago lawyer Andrew L. Goldstein, on behalf of the Urbana campus, demands that the group:
"Withdraw trademark application Serial No. 77/136902; remove the reference to the Chief Illiniwek name in connection with the posters and pin offered on the society's web site; cease and desist from sale of the pin bearing the Illini trademark; and remove the references on the society's web site to performances or appearances by Chief Illiniwek and cease and desist from any similar statements."
The letter, dated Oct. 1, also asks the society to "provide us with written assurances that the society will not use, and will cease any use of, the Chief Illiniwek name or other trademarks of the University of Illinois on its web site, in connection with any goods or services, or in any other manner that will be likely to cause confusion with the University of Illinois."
The letter ends by asking for an amicable resolution of that matter, but adds that if the society does not comply, the UI will use legal methods to oppose its request for trademark.
UI spokesman Thomas Hardy, who has been on vacation, said he was unable to comment.
Urbana campus spokeswoman Robin Kaler said "The university continues to use this vintage logo through (a licensing program), and we will continue to protect it under trademark laws."
Roger Huddleston of Mahomet, co-founder of Honor the Chief Society, said pro-Chief forces would contest the action, "although the UI can probably outspend us, with their own lawyers and the other Chicago lawyers that they hire."
"I don't know what we'll do about the trademark application," Huddleston said. "It seems like we're on some fairly good ground with this thing and we'll continue to pursue it."
Huddleston said the application is very specific and limited to "The Next Dance" and a few other selected events.
"It's not like we're after the Chief Illiniwek trademark," he said.
He called "The Next Dance" "a done deal."
"The dance has already been approved by the University of Illinois," he said.
Huddleston said the society is "not intending to defy the university in any way, shape or form."
"We are very conscious of two things. We will not violate any NCAA measures. We treasure our university. None of our efforts are to return the Chief to halftime," he said.
Huddleston said his main impetus is love of the Chief.
"We feel that the Chief is a lot more than four-and-a-half minutes at halftime. To bring him back as a symbol would not violate anything. He's never left as a symbol," Huddleston said.
You are embarrassed, not the university. They are forced to comply with a biased NCAA. Nobody is complaining about the "Fighting Irish" or the " Fighting Amish" because the Irish and Amish aren't offended. There are no Illini indians around to be embarrassed but there are "holier than thou" people to stir up trouble.
I agree. First they eradicate any vistage of Jesus Christ or the Lord from campus, then they erase the completely unoffensive Cheif Illiniwek---what's next people? No more soda pop? Oh wait, they are already doing that!! Unbelieavable.
I used to dream of one of my girls growing up and attending the U of I, but no more. It will be hard, but we are currently saving every penny to send them to Ave Maria or Noter Dame.
Is it very surprising to you that there aren't images or references to Jesus or God? The University of Illinois is a public school in a secular nation. Christ has nothing to do with it.
As a student who also grew up in the area, I have to say that I felt conflicted for a long time about the issue of the chief. In my mind, I associated the chief with being at sporting events with my dad, eagerly awaiting halftime for what I felt was the best part of the event: chief's dance.
But recently a TA here at the University explained it in a way I can understand: here in the states, Native Americans suffered genocide at the hands of white settlers. Now, think of any other acts of genocide that have been committed. For example, the Holocaust. Would it be appropriate then for Germans to use a Jewish man as a symbol for a university to dance around at sporting events? Modern-day Germans have nothing to do with the holocaust, not anything more than any of us here in Central Illinois today has to do with pushing Native Americans out of their land. But it would STILL be inappropriate, right?
I really understand people who are sad that Chief is gone and who are trying to preserve the legacy, but thinking of it this way really helped me overcome the sense of loss and recognize that it's the right thing. I hope it helps others as well.
To equate what happened to Native Americans to the Holocaust is a gross distortion. I am not trying to say that Native Americans were treated well or close to it in most cases. However, the true cause of the destruction of most of their population was not under the control of the Europeans in any way they understood. The bulk of the deaths were caused by the introduction of diseases that the Native Americans had zero immunity to. (The one reverse disease picked up by Europeans from Native Americans was syphillis.)
Europeans had no awareness of the issue nor did they have any way to control it beyond no contact which was never going to happen. There were massive deaths in New England before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock due to contact with sailors who stopped for water and food on trips across the Atlantic. When the Pilgrims landed they found the land in the immediate area empty due to the deaths in the previous years from disease (probably smallpox or the plague).
Movies and some TV shows might lead you to believe there were massive massacres on both sides but events like Custer's last stand were rare on both sides. I believe the bigger issue was the treatment given Native Americans and especially the forced movements. This resulted in deaths but the numbers were small compared to the issue of diseases which is estimated to have killed 70 to 90 percent of the Native American population.
The real issues are deeper involving the change of life styles and the impact of technology on cultures with a less developed lifestyle. Sadly, the reservation solution and concpt of independent nations that was put in place has failed miserably.
There is nothing sanitized about the view but it is the facts of what happened. To teach it was intentional genocide is a gross distortion of history and adds to the friction between the groups.
The only true genocide was against the buffalo which were seen as a food source and control mechanism against the Native Americans. I am sure there were individual cases on both sides of limited genocide (Custer's last stand and other battles where entire Native American camps were wiped out). But true genocide was never a national plan but relocation, poor land, and lack of aid due to poor enforcement of treaties was the result.
However, none of that describes the base issue which was a clash of two cultures one of which was advancing at a rate unimaginable by the other and unaccepted by each other.
Indeed, what our ancestors did (and what we continue to still do) to the Native American's was far worse than the Holocaust. Thank you for pointing that out. We still have treaties on the books that we continue to ignore, and we've yet to do any sort of reparations. Jewish families have a venue for getting their art back that was stolen from them. The American Indians?
Where are the Indian Reservations in Illinois like in many of the surrounding states? Oh yeah, that's right, we kicked them out. Reservations are beta versions of concentration camps (see also: Japanese Internment Camps)
We've also at least admitted it: On September 8, 2000, the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) formally apologized for the agency's participation in the "ethnic cleansing" of Western tribes.
If blaming it on disease assuages your guilt and allows you to sleep at night, you're in fine company with the NeoNazi movement. Your choice of words "less developed lifestyle" shows a distinct lack of respect for what was a *very* technologically advanced lifestyle, just one more in tune with nature than bending nature to man's will.
We. Wiped. Out. Their. Culture. In many cases, intentionally.
Here's some homework for you on the genocide debate. Note that Hitler claimed much of his ideas sprang from the US treatment of American Indians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_p...
Another fallacy of the anti-Chief dogma; associating the University of Illinois and Chief Illiniwek with events totally unrelated to them and over which they had no control, supported by gross generalization and militant rhetoric as substituts for rational discourse.
If you can show a cause-and-effect relationship between the University of Illinois and Chief Illiniwek and Japanese internment camps, or the policies initiated by Andrew Jackson in the early 19th century, then maybe you'd have something. Until then, it's all just hollow rant.
"Getting their art back"? Really? You think that is what Jews care most about regarding the Holocaust...that is, arguably, the most bigoted, anti-Semitic remark on this thread. Do not try to educate others on the aftermath of genocide when you think the most important post-Holocaust issue is art that was confiscated by the Nazis!!
The genocide argument is being incorrectly used here to smear the chief and his supporters.
The American Indians have been both the victim and perpetrator of ethnic conflict since long before Europeans showed up. The Archeological Institute of America recently reported the the Anasazi, once thought to be peaceful, were actually in command of an army. They demanded tribute from the surrounding tribes, slaughtering those who did not comply. The evidence comes in the form of huge pits that look like mass graves from a war zone. Here is the article:
http://archaeology.org/blog/?p=1028&cpage=1#
I'll bet your TA didn't (and won't) mention this part of the history. It doesn't fit your narrative of Europeans being a scourge on the earth.
And I bet you swear by the Constitution of the United States of America, too!
Once the Republicans take back control of Congress they are going to do away with federal funds to state run universities, so you better save long and hard so that your daughter can get into Notre Dame or Ave Maria, in Florida.
The University of Illinois and all state run institutions of higher education are going to face difficult times without Pell Grants, research funding and other perks provided by the US Government and Department of Education.
The only place for Jesus Christ on a public state run university campus is in a Christian church!
Founding Fathers on Christianity:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin
It appears that while the U of I owns the symbol trademark, chief Illiniwek is on the auction block for ownership. A good stale mate for all 3 parties involved, UofI, Save The Chief and members of the American Indians. What ya gonna turn the clock back on next wise NCAA?
This little education in human cultural evolution is wisest when heeded in dealing with prisoners of war and terrorist that you attempt to coexist with when your enemy opts to continue use of deadly force. Ya don't see any American Indian, UofI, Save The Chief people running around attacking innocent people and or blowing themselves up. Just sayin...
When you give people free will they will do exactly that by freely enforcing their will on others. To be the law is to be above the law but with now ya see me now ya don't guerilla tactics makes for one slippery animal to impossibly catch.
You should get out more often and visit a distant planet or two. Keep your eyes open and take notice of the broad horizons allowing them to expand your mind but only if the disconnect has first been repaired. Just sayin...
The Thinker (French: Le Penseur) is a bronze and marble sculpture by Auguste Rodin held in the Musée Rodin in Paris.
Delizabeth -- I don't doubt your sincerity nor do I challenge your right to offer an opinion. However, a bit of critical thinking should be applied to distinguish your good intentions from what sounds like anti-Chief dogma and campaigns of misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric.
First, no one disputes Native Americans suffered under European governments, and later the United States government.
You use the word "genocide."
Note that the first European explorers recorded incidents of neighboring tribes inflicting murderous acts against Peoples inhabiting Illinois. The Illini did likewise to their neighbors as well. The Iroquois seem to have come closest to an actual campaign of genocide. Then, it was the Kickapoo who moved into the territory occupied by a weakened Illini prior to the region's settlement by Europeans. References are available upon request, as they say.
You acknowledge none of us here in Central Illinois had anything to do with pushing Natives out of their land. Both my paternal and maternal ancestors were on a different continent when the Indian Removal Act became law in 1830, so I should be off the hook. Yet, I must share a guilt trip for something over which I had no control, nor would I agree if I did. It's inappropriate that I respect a symbol whose origins are completely honorable, and has been respected by hundreds of thousands of University students, alumni, and others within the university community for eighty-four years, right? No, wrong.
Your comment acknowledges modern day Germans had nothing to do with the Holocaust. However, applying this same anti-Chief logic, we must not drive German cars, eat German food, wear German clothing, speak German, read German literature, study in Germany, tour Germany, date or marry men or women of German ancestry, or even acknowledge Germany even existed. The faux-Oktoberfest celebrations enjoyed by millions throughout the United States must be retired. German beer must be eradicated Prohibition style from just about every bar in the United States. We must avoid all associations with German culture because they're STILL inappropriate, right? No, wrong.
Applying the same anti-Chief logic, we can't drive Japanese cars, eat Japanese food, date or marry men or women of Japanese ancestry, study in Japan, etc., etc. because the atrocities inflicted upon Asian and Pacific peoples prior to and during World War II STILL make them inappropriate. Right? No, wrong.
Applying the same anti-Chief logic, we can't eat Chinese food, enjoy Chinese art, date or marry men or women of Chinese ancestry, download music onto i-Pods, submit comments to newspapers on-line, buy Chinese manufactured electronics, study in China, wear underwear made in China, etc., etc. because of human rights violations committed over the last couple thousand years STILL make them inappropriate, right? No, Wrong.
How about the English and Irish, Scotts, and Welch? How about the English and Catholics or Catholics and Protestants? How about French and North Africans; the Italians and Ethopians (see "Germans," above); Greeks and Turks, Ottoman/Turks and Armenians, Spartans and Athenians, Persians and Spartans, Chinese and Tibetans ... etc.
My point is this -- If you, or anyone, want to detach yourself from some culture or society who has performed some injustice upon others throughout history, you'd better be prepared to do so toward all such cultures and societies. You'll have nothing left. Anything less would be inconsistent, if not hypocritical.
Better yet, instead of proclaiming what's inappropriate and denuding society of its traditions, how about we use our energies constructively to develop traditions that ARE appropriate, Right?
Tom, you've been writing this stuff for years, and it has never made sense.
The idea that we cannot change one thing unless we change everything is asinine. Please adjust your thinking to something sensible.
Until you can do that, every word you write is wrong. Every one. You should start trying to change all of them.
The remark that what I've written makes no sense took me aback for a moment. However I now realize this is indeed an accurate statement.
It makes no sense that the NCAA condemns Chief Illiniwek while approving Fighting Irish, Spartans, Trojans or Gauchos (ethnic stereotypes), Sun- and Blue-Devils, Quakers or Decans (Religious figures), Cowboys, Broncos or Miners (cultural stereotypes), Hoosiers (a derogatory term applied to the racially prejudiced), Tar Heels (slave-state Confederate soldiers), not to mention Seminoles, Utes, Chippewa or Aztecs. Nope, no sense at all.
It makes no sense that some people associate events with the University of Illinois and Chief Illiniwek that occurred centuries before Illinois even became a state.
It makes no sense that anti-Chief activists can vandalize an Honor the Chief billboard without uttering a peep, but raise all ... heck ... when the Beyond the Chief signs are vandalized.
It makes no sense that certain anti-Chief professors and take every opportunity to belittle the University of Illinois and tarnish its reputation, yet happily accept the University's paycheck or annuity. It makes no sense that, despite the Governor's order (who appoints them), two trustees refuse to step down in the wake of the Clout scandal, threatening to sue the very University whose interests they are supposed to uphold.
It makes no sense that University of Illinois administrators use their office to sabotage a legitimate student event, then attempt to justify their actions with a remark that no free speech rights were violated. Likewise, it makes no sense that one of those administrators thought he could judge peoples' racial attitudes by watching them walk through the Assembly Hall doors.
It makes no sense that people who disagree with the anti-Chief arguement are branded as racist bigots. It makes no sense the Asian-American, Hispanic and African-Americans who wear Chief apparel would be similarly branded.
It makes no sense that a few people use a local tragedy as a feeble attempt to associate Chief Illiniwek with a young man's death.
It makes no sense that people are so presumptuous to think they have the moral authority to advise I adjust my thinking because I disagree with them. (Note that this is not the same as disagreeing with me, to which I have no objection.)
You're right, a lot of things make no sense. Thanks for the clarification.
I agree neither you nor I can change everything; no argument there. Each of us does our best to chip away a little at a time. I have my "niche" and I would assume you have yours too.
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?
If not, it's hard to take them seriously.
it is simple, notify the NCAA, as the university has ruled on this.
Maybe the old macot supporters can be stepped on, disrespected and ignored
for 80 Plus years then it can be brought back to the table.
What is the issue? The University needs to implement a new logo and mascot to end this.
to many people are wasting time and tons of money on disrespectful issues to: education, culture, history and all people who have open minds and respect. Now I see this as disrespect and who cares attitude toward teh University, the trustee's , the law and people.
If this continues and the "next dance" happens I hope the NCAA slams the university for not stopping this now.
Myattitude presents uninformed, ahistorical revisionism, denies genocide against American Indians and posits a false equivalency.
JP suggests respecting trademark law and NCAA policy.
I'm not sure why you have to ask, but clearly, JP's suggestion is rational while myattitude is engaging in self serving revisionism.
Actually my information is based on college courses on the west, reading books on some of the original settlements, and a very strong interest in history all my life. The overall issue is actually very complicated and I have never said Native Americans were ideally treated or even properly treated. What I find disturbing is the propagation of the idea there was a national plan for the genocide of Native Americans by the government. Were there people who wanted to do so? I am positive there was. In terms of Presidents I would contend that Andrew jackson was one of the worst based on his actions especially with the Cherokees and the Trail of Tears.
However, one must look at what happened based on the time it happened and avoid trying to lay today's morals onto the issue. That doesn't mean it was alright then and not today but times change.
What I have never heard is what those fighting the Chief believe should have happened in the 1600s and later through the 1800s. It is naive to think the Europeans were going to leave the Americas and not return. The technology differences and culture changes were too massive to expect Native Americans to keep control of the Americas especially when massive numbers of them were wiped out by contact. I believe there was one village Lewis and Clark stayed with on the way west that was wiped out by the time they returned on the eastward portion of the trip due to disease. The same thing happened in Europe with the bubonic plague multiple times. Why would the Americas be any different.
Native Americans were people like everyone else and they reacted like everyone else. Before the Civil War tribes in the Oklahoma lands in some cases kept slaves which is well documented. Should we judge them any differently from the white slave owners?
The sad part is that today the attitudes toward Native Americans in many cases have changed and people have come to value the heritage of the Native Americans as part of the history of the country. However, attempts to display their love of this heritage is being spurned by a few for all. Rather than embracing the desire to illiminate the Native American history by people, they are being spurned.
I have also never understood the issue of the Chief's dance given the fact that Native American groups all over the country put togethe Pow Pow's which are dances including the fancy dancing style of the Chief for a fee. It is an annual event where I live. If there was a religious connotation to the dance, I would understand the issue but there is not.
Yes, but we don't have to celebrate the actions of the Europeans. It's called cultural misappropriation and it has nothing to do with 'honoring' the American Indians. It's telling them, despite their protestations that it is offensive, that they have no voice or power and we are going to do what we please and appropriate their traditions for our amusement during halftime of a game.
In the words of one of the Indians in "In Whose Honor?" What part of 'ouch' do you not understand? Why continue behavior that you have been told in no uncertain terms is offensive? And the tripe about them 'being forgotten' but for the 'chief' is worse.
Interesting. This comment is in Wikipedia under cultural misappro[riation.
Michael Lazarus, a North American Indian in his essay Anti-racist Measures Take Culture Away From Sports published by the Lowell Observer writes that the use of an ethnic symbol by a sports team is a progressive, liberal act that can be used by a culture to embrace history rather than hide from it.[
Of course you didn't note it was under the 'criticism' section and a header for page states: "This article needs attention from an expert on the subject."
The reference and further readings sections of Wikipedia can sometimes be a good source for info but there's a very good reason no instructor would give a passing grade to a student text that used it as a source. Also, the habit of pro 'chief' people citing few and far between Indians who approve of the mascot has the distinct whiff of the racism denying retort "But some of my best friends are..."
Do you go to Mass, Church, Temple, Mosque, or some other place of Worship? Do you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Ramadan, or other spiritual rites your family, and families before them, enjoy the freedom to celebrate? Aren't these observations alien to American native belief systems? If you observe no spiritual rites, isn't that alien to American native belief systems? How is this different from the cultural misappropriation you describe above?
Got no "white guilt" Joe...whatever that is. The fake "chief" is just a cartoon anyway...almost but maybe not quite as embarrassing as the "tomahawk chop" or a minstrel show. What's really embarrassing is how people are so taken with the idea of "honoring" a non-existent caricature but not so interested in the well-being of their fellow humans. Mis-placed priorities among the "honor" crowd I'd say.
And you know for a fact that Chief supporters are not interested in the well-being of our fellow humans. How do you know this? Having proclaimed this publically, you must be certain that we never contribute to The United Way or churches, or perform volunteer work, mentor young people, visit the elderly, contribute to scolarship funds, tutor school kids, belong to service organizations, or do anything to help others. Not one of us, correct?
They call that stereotyping, the very evil Chief opponents claim they're eliminating.
Here is my take. If you choose to be a member of an organization, you must agree to abide by their set of rules/morals. The NCAA has deemed it immoral to have an indian as a mascot/symbol. Whether or not you agree with that decision (I don't), the UI should abide by that ruling or leave the NCAA.
I have two questions:
1. How can a governing body in good conscience say that it is ok for some members to continue with the use of an indian name, logo, mascot (i.e. FSU), but not for others? Yes I know the Seminole tribe signed off on it, but if you are proclaiming it immoral/undignified/unjust/demeaning... to use an indian as a mascot, then why isn't it in all cases? Where is the line that suddenly makes it ok? Why would you allow the Seminole tribe to degrade themselves if you truly believe that an indian mascot is wrong? Maybe it is because there is a possibility that it isn't degrading?
2) In my sport law class, we learned that you had to use a logo or you would lose the rights to it. I think you had two years to use it. How is the UI able to retain the rights to the Chief name and logo?
I plan to give as much consideration to this request as they did to my request to keep the Chief. They ignored me and I intend to ignore them. My $$$ is my only means of protest. I will keep it and the university can depend on the anti-chief element to finance their ventures. My bet is those of us who donated previously far out number those who joined the ranks of donors who stepped up because the chief was removed.
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.