Note the way aggressive Florida State University defended its use of Chief Osceola on horseback at football games halftime celebrations and how they forced the NCAA to back down and approve this chief. Compare this with the University of Illinois lukewarm, half-hearted, defense of Chief Illiniwek. Whats over is over, and Illinois now needs a mascot. We need a funny cartoon character to clown around at halftime, and we need something everyone will agree is appropriate. What could be better than to turn to the Popeye comic strip. Not the Popeye character or Olive Oyl or Sweetpea or Pappy or Bluto. No, the appropriate mascot for the University of Illinois is Wimpy.

Posted by grampsjp on February 22, 2007 at 8:51 AM Suggest Removal

Yesterday was a dark day in so many ways. It showed what power a relatively small group of poorly informed people can have, particularly when their message spreads to those who may be even less well informed. I have not walked in the shoes of a Native American, so I cannot pretend to know what prejudice or racism they may encounter. What I fail to this day to understand is what it was about the portrayal of the Chief that was so offensive. IF the complainers had done any homework at all, they would have found that the concept of the Chief was founded in authenticity, and that there was never a hint of anything undignified about his performance. The dance, though magnified for the setting, was learned from Native Americans. The original Eagle Scouts who along with Ray Dvorak started what became a tradition, created the Chief because of their LOVE AND PASSION for the Native American customs and history. What better way could be found to make 70,000 people stop and remember if only for a few minutes, what existed here before the white people came? So, fine...You got your way. Money talked, and a tradition that meant something to the majority fades into the past. Just like the Illini. They are all dead, and have been for decades. They didn't complain. What happens next? I suspect that those who are entitled to proudly claim Native American roots may find that although stereotyped before, they were not disliked. Now, they can be stereotyped AND disliked. If paying respect to an extinct culture was and is offensive to those with roots to the ancient past, then it is truly time to get out the rest of this cake so it may not only be posessed but also eaten. Since permission was never asked, then it's time to rename not only the State of Illinois, but any town, county, ...any entity at all using a reference of native American namesakes. Take all of those names, along with our memory of the Chief, and put them in a boat, row it out onto Lake Michigan, and dump them all into the....wait a minute. Hmmm..Lake Michigan...needs a new name...something generic...maybe Lake Daley? Am I mad and somewhat sarcastic? Yup. Oh...and one other thing. About the request made by the family of the Native American who provided the outfit worn by the Chief that the University return it to his family....that, in and of itself seems to perpetuate another stereotype we all know from childhood.

Posted by illiniband on February 22, 2007 at 10:22 AM Suggest Removal

I have to agree with illiniband. I hope that all Chief supporters will not take the retirement of the Chief as final. I have signed petitions and will seek out those who are still trying to preserve the Chief and do whatever I can to help. I agree with some of the responses I have seen in that we need to get the Trustees elected again rather than appointed. It is time for the majority to stand up and honor our Chief.

Posted by deannad on February 22, 2007 at 11:12 AM Suggest Removal

The hyprocrisy in Illini land is overwhelming. You want people to be sensitive to your feelings about the demise of a mascot, while you have been totally insensitive for decades to a people who are among the most downtrodden on this planet. illniband writes about a small group of uninformed people ... hmm .. ever been to a powwow or seen an authentic Indian dance? Know any Native American's personally? Ever read any works by Native American authors about their traditions, religion, history? I bet few pro-chiefers can answer yes to those questions, but they set themselves up to say what 'honors' Native Americans. People like iliniband will never get it because they don't want to, and will look for any excuse to keep a 'tradition' going that honors Indians in the same manner minstrel shows honored blacks. When their flawed reasoning and 'facts' are shot down, pro-chiefers can only respond by calling people names like thugs and PC police. But if you step back and take an honest look at things, this protest was led by real, live authentic Native Americans, who were courageous in taking a stand that brought them nothing but harassment and abuse. The behavior by the pro-chiefers has been petty, childish and yes in some cases bigoted. This whole controversy has given Illinois a black eye nationally, but all you care about is a sports mascot. Fine, but stop lying about your motivations. Just admit you don't care about Indians, and stop pretending this is some kind of honor. For those few who really believe they do care, then start to learn about the great cultures found in our Native history and you will come to understand what a ridiculous and sad spectacle the chief was.

Posted by Steve1us on February 22, 2007 at 11:13 AM Suggest Removal

Illiniband,

While you make many valid points, you have also not "done any homework at all." To wit:

* You say: "Just like the Illini. They are all dead, and have been for decades." This is incorrect. The Illini were a confederation of tribes, and descendants of that confederation live on in the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; forced to relocate there in 1857. When native remains and artifacts are found, the state of Illinois contacts this tribe.

* You say: "If paying respect to an extinct culture was and is offensive to those with roots to the ancient past, then it is truly time to get out the rest of this cake so it may not only be posessed but also eaten." Friend, you're forgetting one slightly enormous detail - certain native cultures are extinct because of European colonization. Of course that was 250 years ago; of course you and i had nothing to do with it; of course it's time to get over it. But having a holy figure from that culture dance around a basketball court is just adding insult to a centuries old injury.

As for grampsjp, the Florida State situation is simply not analogous to the University of Illinois. The Seminoles exist, they control their image and branding, and they have given FSU permission to continue using a Seminole as a mascot. Is there money involved? Yes. Is it weird and just plain corrupt that the Seminoles allow this usage for a payoff? Yes. Is the NCAA hypocritical for not pursuing FSU the way they pursued Illinois? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, you're comparing apples to oranges. The U of I was backed into a corner, and they made the best decision they could for their sports programs.

We all loved the Chief, but it was time for him to go. For many, many reasons. And both of you need to get over it; why don't you apply your energies toward thinking up a new mascot/symbol that breeds honor and tradition the way the Chief did? That's something worth working on.

Posted by ColoradoIllini on February 22, 2007 at 11:14 AM Suggest Removal

Anti-Chief followers want the Chief gone as he offends them. Pro-Chief followers want the Chief to stay because they feel he portrays honor and dignity. These are both opinions and tradition should not be changed based on the opinion of individuals at any random time in history. 20 more years from now the area tribes may find him to be non-offensive and may even be supportive. Sorry if you are offended. I am not violating any of your constitutional rights or laws therefore your opinion is just that... an opinion. If you can't support us, then don't be involved with us in any way. We have plenty of support and don't really need. It is your constitutional right to boycott us and it is our constitutional right for freedom of speech.

Posted by deannad on February 22, 2007 at 11:37 AM Suggest Removal

I think that Notre Dame should give up the Fighting Irish mascot in order to host NCAA events. They're basically saying all Irish are angry, short redheads, and I don't see any difference between the ND's mascot and the Chief.

Posted by auntshelly on February 22, 2007 at 11:41 AM Suggest Removal

It is a sadder day for us Native Americans than it is for the White Chief fans. Now, because of the few politically correct "braves" among us, and their do-gooder White allies, our entire village will suffer by disappearing from the public view. Already, the American Indian is far beneath the public eye. There are too few of us left in America. We continue to battle social problems of poverty, unemployment, domestic violence, alcoholism, gambling, poor education and other issues. The public largely forgets about us. The only time the Native American is remembered is either as a poor drunk on a modern day reservation who needs the White Man's help or as a valient warrior free on the Plains fighting against domination by the White Man. Personally, I find the latter to be something far more admirable. But, now the White Man and his "brave" stooges have finally completed domination over us, completely obliterating our proud, free image so that we are only left with the pathetic image who needs the White Man's help. Don't think you are doing us any favors by getting rid of the Chief. Now we lapse into obscurity, just like the White Man has wanted for the last 150 years. All thanks to those who arrogantly act in our name. I will miss you, Chief Illiniwek, and the image of Native American honor that you provided for my children to aspire to.

Posted by NativeIllini on February 22, 2007 at 11:43 AM Suggest Removal

Thank you NativeIllini! I have long said that those opposing the beloved Chief do not speak for all Native Americans. I intend to do all I can to keep the Chief alive. This is a sad day and to you... I apologize for any negative effect that has been bestowed upon you and your family based on your heritage.

Posted by deannad on February 22, 2007 at 11:48 AM Suggest Removal

illiniband (a.k.a., Dan Maloney), I am Indian and my family and I are not dead. My many-greats-grandfather (Chee-Chee-Pin-Quay) was a real Chief, and was at Fort Dearborn, helping white people after the attack. You ask what was so offensive. For starters, you, as a white kid, doing a parody of one of our religious ceremonies for the enjoyment of other white people at a sporting event. That, in itself, is undignified. When we taught Ray Dvorak some of our ways, we did not know that they'd be used in such a perversion of what is ours.

You reveal your hypocrisy about 'our honor' when you speak of "a tradition that meant something to the majority." What you call 'tradition,' we see as something else that's been stolen from us and despoiled.

And you want me to "remember if only for a few minutes, what existed here before the white people came?" Son, I remember it every bloody day.

-

(And NativeIllini, your language gives you away-- you are obviously not Native. Come to a reservation and learn how we speak.)

Posted by grayskies on February 22, 2007 at 12:12 PM Suggest Removal

If the Chief has been the symbol for 81 years...and people have been so offended by it for the entire time...why did it take THIS LONG for him to be taken away? Is it really people being offended or just the University becoming like everyone else, just to be able to be involved in the NCAA events?

Pretty soon everything we know will be offensive. The only colours allowed will be beige and tan. Not even white will be used because it might offend someone Caucasian. Soon all the mascots will be oak leaves...but wait, someone might be allergic to oak so we can't use that. Actually, mascots will probably be banned entirely because someone will be offended because they think that they scare children- or something ridiculous.

Welcome to a world of beige. Where everyone everywhere is offended by everything. Good bye traditions, good bye anything that is special to everyone.

I will never forget my time here at U of I as I was lucky enough to know the tradition of the Chief. I am sorry for my children who will never know such an awesome experience.

Posted by jadealmayre on February 22, 2007 at 1:22 PM Suggest Removal

In reading some of these responds, I am shocked to see people claim to be against racism and sterotyping of people, when I see comments calling people "white people" or "white kid." If your really want to stop racism then start cleaning up your own act and stop stereotyping as well. I am offended by your actions, now.

Posted by standsproud on February 22, 2007 at 1:58 PM Suggest Removal

In reading some of these responds, I am shocked to see people claim to be against racism and sterotyping of people, when I see comments calling people "white people" or "white kid." If your really want to stop racism then start cleaning up your own act and stop stereotyping as well. I am offended by your actions, now.

Posted by standsproud on February 22, 2007 at 1:58 PM Suggest Removal

jadealmayre, Why did it take this long? We did not have the political voice (read: money) as what we do now. The political reality in America is that if you lack capital, you're not heard in the Capitol.

The rest of your rant is just a straw man. And because you obviously don't know what's offensive, let me educate you.

Here's what's offensive-- being called "Timber Nig..." by white kids in my High School (1980s). Not being able to get a summer job to save for college when I was in High School because "we don't hire you people." Having my sister's white (now ex-) father-in-law tell her that her college-educated brother "will never amount to anything because he's just another lazy Indian." Having store security follow me every time I shopped when I lived in the South (1990s).

And having white people who've never met an Indian (much less been to a Pow Wow) tell me that I need to "lighten up" or that they're somehow honoring me by playing dress up in a minstrel show and making a mockery of me and my traditions. And by losing their minstrel show, that I'm somehow taking one of their "awesome" traditions.

That's offensive.

Excuse me please, but my people have become experts at knowing what it's like to have what's yours taken by another group of people. Your little racist minstrel show is not a tradition. It is (was) a pathetic display of sports bravado and cheerleading. You honor nothing of mine. We do not need white people to honor us. The only thing we want from white people is what is rightfully ours.

(Read up on the BIA and royalties owed, if you want a start.)

Posted by grayskies on February 22, 2007 at 2:02 PM Suggest Removal

standsproud, you're obviously talking about me. You're offended? You call me racist yet you 'stand proud' for a racist cariacture of me and my people? Your mock outrage is transparent and offensive.

Posted by grayskies on February 22, 2007 at 2:08 PM Suggest Removal

Grayskies, I did not say that I am standing proud for a racist cariacture. I am saying that your need to re-read what you have said and look at it through others eyes, like you are asking me. Try growing up in a society that also labels white kids as "Poor White Trash." I am saying some whites have been in the same boat at one time or another. If you are true to you words then help educate against racism instead of name calling!

Posted by standsproud on February 22, 2007 at 2:18 PM Suggest Removal

If you are not standing proud for a racist caricature, then what does your screen name mean?

Since when is "white kid" a perjorative?

In what part of America are all white kids labeled "Poor White Trash?"

Posted by grayskies on February 22, 2007 at 2:26 PM Suggest Removal

gray skies-

I know what it is like to be made fun of for being a "nonwhite". Try being the ONLY person of colour (I am Hispanic btw) in a suburban setting for YEARS. You act like you are the only one who knows what it is like to be called names, to be degraded, to be poor.

You want to know what is offensive? Being asked if I was good at laundry or mowing lawns because I am part Mexican. I know what it is like to be denied employment or even provided with substandard employment.

My point, in above post, was that- everything can be offensive to everyone. We are just taking the steps to make the world boring and bland. Beige.

The Chief is gone. Am I happy a bout this? No. Can I see where people (grayskies etc) get their feelings of offense from- yes. Opinions differ in America, thats the joy of it....

I don't believe that it was EVER anyone's intention to be making fun or misrepresenting the Native American culture by having the Chief represent U of I.

Again, my point was- with all the regulations currently, the world will be beige with a lack of mascots due to their very nature offending someone.

Posted by jadealmayre on February 22, 2007 at 2:54 PM Suggest Removal

"You act like you are the only one ..."

I never said that; I don't believe that. "Try being?" I don't have to; I know how it is. I've spent a lot of time on a reservation, but I didn't grow up on one. I spent most of my childhood in the Chicagoland area (Rockford, actually), where other kids thought it was kinda cool that I was an Indian. Then my parents divorced and my mother moved us to a very white town in Northern Wisconsin. As an Indian moving there, let me say that I got a rather 'frosty' reception.

My wife (who is white) is an artist. A couple of months ago, she received a commission to paint an Illiniwek logo for an alumni for his private office. She asked me if I was offended. I told her that I wasn't; it was a nice painting and I saw nothing offensive about it.

Now, even if he wanted the caricature version (e.g., the Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo), I believe that what people want/do in their private homes is their business. But when it comes to a public institution and a very public display, that's a different story. It may not have been Ray Dvorak's intention to make fun of us or misrepresent us, but that's what it's become.

Here's another way to look at it-- would Dan Maloney be willing to dance through a reservation in his Chief Illiniwek costume? As I'm pretty sure that illiniband is him and he's reading this, whaddaya say Dan? I'll even drive you there. If you're not willing to do it, you already know how offensive your actions are (and that may be an authentic headdress, but if you didn't earn those feathers, you have no business putting them on your head).

Another way to look at it, jadealmayre-- would you be offended if the Cleveland Browns came up with a mascot dressed as Pancho Villa and had a halftime display of marching gardeners?

Posted by grayskies on February 22, 2007 at 3:19 PM Suggest Removal

I understand your point grayskies. I really do. I am just going to stick to my previous points and continue supporting the memory of the Chief, as it is my right to do so.

:)

And if illiniband is Dan or is not Dan, I don't think it is anyone's business.

Posted by jadealmayre on February 22, 2007 at 3:28 PM Suggest Removal

I understand your point grayskies. I really do. I am just going to stick to my previous points and continue supporting the memory of the Chief, as it is my right to do so.

:)

And if illiniband is Dan or is not Dan, I don't think it is anyone's business.

Posted by jadealmayre on February 22, 2007 at 3:29 PM Suggest Removal

I don't understand, in the name of fairness, why Iowa was not singled out for their nickname and mascot. The name Hawkeyes was given in momento to Chief Black Hawk. Why do they get to keep their Hawkeye name and we have to do away with our Chief Illiniwek?

Posted by chonmom on February 22, 2007 at 4:32 PM Suggest Removal

chonmom-- What is the Hawkeye's logo? Do they have a painted white kid in an Indian costume dancing like a fool during half times?

jadealmayre-- Why don't you answer my Pancho Villa question? And, as illiniband has called the people asking for the return of the Chief Illiniwek garb Indian-Givers, I think it is important to know if he's Dan Maloney-- who claims out of one side of his mouth to be honoring my people.

Posted by grayskies on February 22, 2007 at 5:06 PM Suggest Removal

White people? White kid? Ah, now who is the racist. Oh, I know I am supposed to cower and refrain from pointing out reverse discrimination...after all, that is the politically correct thing to do in society today. Not sure who's cause was served by elimination of the Chief, but I certainly know who's cause wasn't.

Posted by wfffdfb on February 22, 2007 at 5:19 PM Suggest Removal

As I asked before-- Since when is "white kid" a perjorative?

Is there something else you'd like to be called?

Reverse-discrimination? I didn't know that I denied you a job because of your skin color. Your mock outrage is hollow and offensive.

Posted by grayskies on February 22, 2007 at 5:40 PM Suggest Removal

I guess you'll just have to get over it.

Posted by wfffdfb on February 22, 2007 at 5:45 PM Suggest Removal

???

I think you're late for the cross-burning.

Posted by grayskies on February 22, 2007 at 5:50 PM Suggest Removal

grayskies,

While I agree with you that the whiners on here complaining about being called "White Kid" should lighten up (no pun intended)--they are "white" just like I am an "Indian"--I don't agree with you bashing me for my language, telling me to "come to a reservation to learn how we speak." I know how we speak, thank you. I didn't grow up on a reservation, but I did grow up right outside Anadarko, Oklahoma, which along with being near my people's reservation (Kiowa), is near several others too. But I worked hard to get a good education, taking speaking classes and spending my free time reading every book I could get so that I didn't sound like a "dumb Injun". You criticizing me is like poor blacks in the ghetto calling each other Oreo for doing well in school and "talking white." Your attitude is exactly what I am talking about. It is elitist and keeps our people in ignorance and poverty. you are part of the problem, not the solution. I'm not going to get into a contest with you to see who is more Native American. I'm sure your tribal number is just as good as mine. But I will get in your face anytime you say that the Kiowa nation or any other should "stay on the reservation" by "talking like an Indian" or any other B.S. stereotype you perpetuate. We have a proud history and I will never forget that, and I will never miss a chance to remind the White Man--and fellow Native Americans--of that history. Even if you do everything possible to force us back onto the reservation "for our own good" and obliterate our image from the White Man's world.

Posted by NativeIllini on February 22, 2007 at 6:29 PM Suggest Removal

NI-- LOL-- I sincerely apologize. I'm a linguist. I didn't mean that you sounded like an apple*. Quite the opposite-- your first post used language patterns common to white, blue-collar Missouri-valley-area Americans.

As far saying that I'm part part of the problem, that's the biggest load of garbage. If you've read all of my posts here, you'd have realized that I don't advocate "staying on the reservation" or any of that garbage.

And as for education, I also worked hard for my degree and about half of my cousins have post-graduate degrees.

I am also proud of our history and our traditions, which I am happy to share with white people. Which is also why I'm glad to see Illiniwek go. He didn't educate white people of our history or honor us.

If they really wanted to honor us, they'd have some real dancers, not some white kid. But they don't want that. Illiniwek was never about honoring us. It was just a minstrel show with a kid who thinks that we "are all dead, and have been for decades." Now that's ignorance.

-

*my wife called me an apple once, not knowing what the term meant-- she meant I was putting on some weight and getting a bit round in the middle.

Posted by grayskies on February 22, 2007 at 7:05 PM Suggest Removal

IlliniBand is not Dan Maloney. Dan Maloney is more educated on the history of the Chief and the Illini. Clearly, Illiniband has a bit more research to do.

But what I don't fully understand is that some of you claim that the Chief (and those who portrayed him) did nothing but "mock" Native Americans and that they should have been educating people on Native American history.

What you missed, and may not be completely aware of, is that part of the Chief's "job" IS to educate people of the community about the Chief, the history and the tribes that it TRIED to honor.

The Chief is gone. We all must now move on. I don't see why everyone continues to bicker at each other about it. Yes, there are those who will forever love the Chief - let them. And yes, there will be those who will ALWAYS find the Chief offensive - let them.

The Chief is gone and no matter what efforts are made, it's a decision that will not be overturned, so it's something that people need to come to terms with.

Posted by OrangeNBlue82 on February 22, 2007 at 10:56 PM Suggest Removal

"... part of the Chief's "job" IS to educate people of the community about the Chief, the history and the tribes that it TRIED to honor."

If this were true, it'd be noble (although, why not use real Indians?). However, even assuming that illiniband is not Dan Maloney (and I still think he is), illiniband knows Dan Maloney well. You admit that illiniband is clearly ignorant of us. Therefore you must admit that either Dan Maloney was doing a poor job of educating the people of the community, if someone who works closely with him is so ignorant, or Dan Maloney neglected his duty to educate the people of the community.

As the pictures of Dan in yesterday's Tribune show, Dan appears to have taken his roll very seriously, and seems to have worked hard in performing as Chief Illiniwek, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and not say that he was doing a poor job. But rather, I'll give a third explaination-- Ray Dvorak's idea of "educating the community" fell by the wayside over the years, allowing the Illiniwek display to descend into minstrelism and parody. In other words, "educating the community" may have been in the job description, but the words ring hollow as the deeds show otherwise.

If people want to mourn the Chief's passing, I'll let them. But don't expect me to trade my relief. And I'm not happy that he's gone any more than I'd be happy to see a scab over a wound. Nativeillini may see it differently, but I never saw the chief as a symbol of our culture or who we are.

Finally, this is a sincere invitation-- if anyone wants to learn about our culture, my Tribe has an annual Pow Wow every July on the shores of Lake Superior in Baraga, MI in the Upper Peninsula. There's plenty of food and real dancing. It's a good time; we're good people.

Posted by grayskies on February 23, 2007 at 8:00 AM Suggest Removal

It is shocking that individuals of education and maturity cling to an artifice that is symbolic for an insitution as well as a symbol of oppression regardless of how "they" interpret the symbol. The long time argument that the symbol is intended to "honor" and or "respect" Native Americans is contentious because the view is from inside. No matter how much work the portrayer does to educate, his actions on the field/court perpetuate the negative associations that stereotypes create. How one ignores this reality is beyond me. I understand the desire to hold onto something that resembles tradition, but this tradition isn't your only association with the U of I, is it? Is your collective memory of your time at the university so narrow that you assume a caricature to symbolize your affiliation with said institution? Maybe. It is ridiculous to fathom that "chief" supportors continue to believe their own rhetoric about the function of the "chief" as honorable. But, then again, you are on the inside looking in. How can anyone assume you'll see your reflection?

Posted by marceldada on February 23, 2007 at 9:13 AM Suggest Removal

Good Riddance Chief Illiniwek

Posted by marceldada on February 23, 2007 at 9:14 AM Suggest Removal

Have any native americans ever stepped up to portray Chief Illiniwek? If you are so truly offended that its some "white kid" dancing around would you have been satisfied with a native american chief?

Posted by illinifan24 on February 23, 2007 at 9:50 AM Suggest Removal

"It is shocking that individuals of education and maturity cling to an artifice that is symbolic for an insitution as well as a symbol of oppression regardless of how "they" interpret the symbol."

Y'know, maybe we at Rutgers should dump the Scarlet Knight under such logic. Knights are associated with crusaders, who, after all, massacred Jews and other Christians (whom they mistook for Muslims), and they were pretty warlike (whaddyaexpect, they're WARRIORS)...

Other team names/mascots/symbols that could use tweaking:

Padres, Chiefs, Barons (an elaborate version of "Knights"), Warriors, Braves, Battling Bishops, Belles (symbolic of submission), Squaws (ditto), Bombers, Bullets, Cardinals (if clergy), Cadets, Captains (?), Colonials, Colenels, Commodores, Conquerors, Crusaders (of course), Deacons, Dukes, Generals, anything with "knight" in them, Gorillas (may be seen as racist), Governors, Ladies (symbolic of "propriety"), Lancers, Lasers, Lords, Monarchs, Monks, Mounties, Musketeers (?), Praying Colonels, Rainbow Warriors, Rainbow Wahines (?) (why not just simplify both to "Rainbow Islanders"?), Rangers, Regals, Rockets, Royal Crusaders, Savages, Sea Warriors, Senators, Soldiers, Student Princes (lords-over-other-folks), Swordsmen, Titans, Warriors, Wolf Pack, and Wolfpack (Nazis are said to have gone about in "wolf packs"). Please note that there are plenty of warrior-related imagery: this is because warriors are an example of oppression, as are governments oftentimes. On the other hand, ethnicity survives the test because ethnicity doesn't oppress. It is oppressors who oppress ethnic groups; they don't oppress themselves. War oppresses, unfortunately.

Posted by Rickyrab on February 23, 2007 at 9:53 AM Suggest Removal

illinifan24-- I believe I suggested that. Although you'd have a couple of caveats: one, no Indian I know would wear the Illiniwek headdress as he hadn't earned the feathers; and two, the dance would be much different.

-

Rickyrab-- you've got the wrong argument. For your argument to equate, you'd have to appropriate the symbols of the conquered. For example, if, at the halftime of a Rutgers game, you had Catholic (I'm Catholic btw) kids dressed and dancing as whirling dervishes to whip up the crowd, that would begin to equate.

Also, you forgot the best sports team controversy of recent years-- PETA suggested that the Green Bay Packers change their name to the Pickers because of their name's origin in meat-packing (which, like the rest of your argument, has nothing to do with the Illiniwek controversy, save sports team names).

Posted by grayskies on February 23, 2007 at 10:28 AM Suggest Removal

Illinifan: As a '53 grad, I seem to recall that Illiniwek 1949-1950, James A. Downs, a graduate student in chemistry, was a Sioux Indian. He even took the uniform, summer of 1950, to his grandfather, a Sioux chief, for minor repair.

Kfus

Posted by Kfus on February 24, 2007 at 10:23 AM Suggest Removal

I just want to know why there were never talks of how to meet half way in this battle. Obviously everyone wont ever be totaly happy, and the squeeky wheel gets the oil, but it seems there could have been a happy medium. Legitimize the image and the dance. Get references from native americans that would be happy to have their heritage remembered. Make it honorable where they say it is not. My children are 1/8 american indian and my son was looking forward to the chance to try out to be the chief. I was told in the '80s when a friends Dad wanted to try out, he couldn't because he wasn't native american. So make it that they have to have native american heritage to be the chief. Mabe I have missed something and that has been tried already, but it seems to me that there are few native americans left and there will be less all the time and that sucks but, lets put the chief in a place they would be proud of him so their dances will be seen for generations to come and will not become history like they want to make Chief Illiniwek.

Posted by saturn3 on February 26, 2007 at 12:08 AM Suggest Removal

I think everyone here (regardless of some very valid arguments for both sides of the issue) has completely overlooked something very important.

Think about the issue on a much smaller scale. When any group gathers in an organized form and decides to name itself - dont they typically choose a name that represents the group in a positive light?

Does anyone honestly think that when Chief Illinwek was born a group of guys sitting in a conference room said "Hey what mascott could we use that would most embarass or offend the Native American heritage of our state?" The Fighting Illini, in its origin, was named to give honor to a group of people. There was never any intention to offend anyone - ever. Okay, so maybe the best route wasnt taken, however, the intentions were never cruel. For years, the Chief has been a symbol of pride, and those who love the Chief - the MILLIONS - who love the Chief don't ever think of him in any negative form towards any group of people. We watch him with pride. I find it very disheartening that some middle ground couldnt be found here. I find it very disturbing that our ridiculously politically correct world has become what it is.

Granted, I am not Native American, therefore, I cannot fathom the offensiveness of the Chief in that aspect. Regardless of ethnicity, I think we should all take into consideration the INTENTIONS of pride and honor in the creation of the symbol for the U of I.

Oh yeah, and with everything transpiring in the world today - war, homelessness, child abuse, umemployment, etc. - one would think that all of the energy used to oust the Chief could be spent on issues that could positively affect the well being of others.

Posted by guardsup on February 28, 2007 at 9:32 PM Suggest Removal

Hey Grayskies,

You never answered the post that Kfus left. That's a toughie, eh?

Additionally, I read in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the Sioux chief that sold a headdress to the University of Illinois in 1982 now wants it back.

I guess if you're a Native American it's okay to sell feathers, just not wear them if they haven't beened "earned."

Posted by NetworkEngineer on March 3, 2007 at 8:44 PM Suggest Removal

Why do you poke a dying thread? Why should I answer anything? Kfus didn't ask a question; he just posted a recollection from almost 60 years ago. What relevance does that have?

And it's not ok to sell eagle feathers. In fact, unless one has a permit (even Indians), it's illegal to possess eagle feathers, even if they're found on the ground.

Note-- I found that the original eagle feather headdress that was used by the Illiniwek minstrel show was "lost," and the one that's been used recently is made of common turkey feathers.

Posted by grayskies on March 5, 2007 at 8:40 AM Suggest Removal