Students' pick for new mascot? 'No change'

Contest results' release follows moot court ruling

CHAMPAIGN — The results of an online contest seeking input on designs for a new University of Illinois symbol were released this week following the decision of a moot student court.

The UI student group Campus Spirit Revival held an art contest over the winter asking students to submit ideas and logos for a new mascot and for people to cast votes for their favorites. Because the Illinois Student Senate, a quasi-legislative body of elected students, agreed back in 2011 to co-sponsor the contest, another student group, called Stop Campus Spirit Revival, questioned the "constitutionality" of the student senate's actions.

The most votes cast were not for a new symbol, but for the category called "no change." The category "no change" received 1,767 votes, followed by 1,369 votes cast for "other options," and 1,071 for an eagle. Among other entries: 191 votes were for a fictional sea monster called the kraken, 138 votes were cast for "corn guy," and a werewolf received 100 votes.

At the hearing before moot court "judges" earlier this spring, Josh Good, a UI College of Veterinary Medicine student who brought the case before the student judiciary, argued that the student senate's sponsorship was not "constitutional" because it should abide by 2005 and 2008 student referenda that showed strong support for the Chief.

Representatives for the student senate argued that the contest was not an official call for a new mascot, but a simple poll. Moreover, they argued, the student referenda that showed support for Chief Illiniwek were nonbinding.

The moot court agreed with the student senate, that the 2011 resolution in which the senate co-sponsors the contest, does not violate the Illinois Student Senate Constitution.

"This case is not concerned with whether or not the 2005 and 2008 [Chief Illiniwek student] referenda are being sufficiently carried out by the ISS, and this court does not provide any opinion regarding the senate's power to 'support' or 'reinstate' Chief Illiniwek," the moot court ruled. "The issue presented before this court today is limited to considering whether or not the student body's passage of the binding referenda in 2005 and 2008 necessarily make the senate's subsequent passage of the 2011 resolution unconstitutional. This court holds that the passage of the 2011 resolution does not violate the ISS constitution because the resolution does not directly conflict with the 2005 or 2008 referenda," according to the opinion issued.

"Though I'm disappointed with the moot court ruling, I feel good about the results of the survey," because it shows students still favor Chief Illiniwek as the symbol of the university, Good said.

The UI Board of Trustees voted to retire Chief Illiniwek in 2007 after decades of debate on the subject. University officials have said there are no plans to come up with a new symbol or mascot.

Sections (2):News, Local

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.

Login or register to post comments

spangwurfelt wrote on May 16, 2013 at 7:05 am

It's good to see Campus Spirit Revival actively trying to embrace reality and get beyond the Chief. I wish the administration would give them some help, instead of just treating the whole issue as too radioactive to comment on. It's the other shoe that a lot of people have been waiting to hear drop.

jdmac44 wrote on May 16, 2013 at 8:05 am

Chief haters say: "It's time to move on."  which translated means, we won without the support of the student body and community, now we want you to pretend like you never had any love for the Chief and embrace some empty, meaningless caricature to fill the void for no other reason than to not have a void reminding us that the Chief belongs there.

Sorry haters, no NCAA ruling or Administrative decision is going to change us.  And to us, the Chief is still there.

spangwurfelt wrote on May 17, 2013 at 8:05 am

Better an "empty meaningless caricature" than an overtly racist one.

Really, it's time to move on. At the end of the day, the Chief was as "authentic" as a three-dollar bill. There were plenty of people who loved "Amos 'n' Andy" too. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_%27n%27_Andy

Then our country grew out of it, thank God.

I was pro-Chief when I first came to campus decades ago. The more I learned just how synthetic a character he was - Boy Scout dance and all - and just how offensive he was to Native Americans, just how paper-thin the "he's a symbol, not a mascot" dodge was, the more I saw just what an embarrassment he was to this university.

Of course, some people would rather basically pack their heads in tubs of concrete and insist that they will never be moved. That's their choice. People did that with the vote for women a century ago. Then they lost. Then, with the exception of an increasingly out-of-touch rear guard, they moved on.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on May 23, 2013 at 3:05 am
Profile Picture

The craziest thing to me about Amos n Andy is....I have never met a black dude named Andy before.  Has anyone else?

jeffhelgesen wrote on May 16, 2013 at 9:05 am

No change = no mascot.

Orbiter wrote on May 16, 2013 at 11:05 am

Yep, sounds like the students are as tired of this issue as many of the rest of us are. And to be honest, for a good number of the current students, the "Chief" is unknown to them--either because they were younger high-school students and not paying attention to collegiate athletics, or because they are from out of the State (if not out of the USA).

No disrespect to Chief-supporters, clinging to the memory of the tradition, but it might behove them to move on as well.  In the big picture of the world, the "Chief" will stand as a historic, but tiny and unimportant, figure.

Danno wrote on May 16, 2013 at 12:05 pm

Okay. You go to the upcoming Tribal (whomever claims 'ownership' of the symbol) Conference and tell them how '...tiny and unimportant...' they are.

rsp wrote on May 17, 2013 at 8:05 am

The UI owns the symbol. They still sell a few items with the symbol on it to maintain their rights. They know how tiny and unimportant they are. 

spangwurfelt wrote on May 17, 2013 at 8:05 am

Go ahead and throw a big party if you want. But remember, the day after the "conference" -- the Chief's still gone, and he's still not coming back.

spangwurfelt wrote on May 17, 2013 at 8:05 am

Go ahead and throw a big party if you want. But remember, the day after the "conference" -- the Chief's still gone, and he's still not coming back.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 17, 2013 at 9:05 am

This ridiculous 'argument' is a species of the old saw: "If it wasn't for chief wahoo, those Indians would be forgotten."

It shows the contempt that chief wahoo supporters actually truly hove for the people that chief wahoo supposedly "honors" and "respects."

Everybody can see right through you.

spangwurfelt wrote on May 18, 2013 at 1:05 pm

A rare thing it is to be told "everyone can see right through you" by a ghost.

WOW wrote on May 16, 2013 at 12:05 pm

I voted for the "Yellow Tailed Dictating Bureaucrat".

After all, one of them took out the Chief.

I picture it looking like a traditional skunk, but with a yellow stripe up the tail.

Tom Napier wrote on May 16, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Regarding spangwurfelt’s comment about “embracing reality:”  Chief Illiniwek was, indeed retired by the University of Illinois Board of Trustees in 2007.  That’s reality.  About four out of five UI students support the Chief tradition, as evidenced by three student referenda in the last eight years.  That’s reality too.  Many thousands of UI alumni and others within the UI community support the Chief tradition, as evidenced by on-line discussion forums and other sources of commentary.  Once again, that’s reality.  Most attendees at Illini football and basketball games support the Chief, as evidenced by their response during the playing of the three-in-one.  Reality.  While one may disagree with, or dislike what they see in reality, being so selective as to what’s included and exclude from reality is … unrealistic. 

Regarding spangwurfelt’s comment about the UI administration “… treating the issue as too radioactive to comment on”  Chancellor Wise’s collaboration with the Peoria Tribe, Council of Chiefs, Robert Warrior, and now Miami University hardly suggest she’s avoiding the issue like a radioactive hot potato. 

Regarding Orbiter’s comment about “… students are as tired of this issue as …”  The student participation in referenda is one piece of evidence (or “reality,” if you will) suggesting students are actually quite energized about the issue.  I would also suggest the overwhelming number of votes for “no change” and “other options” in the recent name-the-mascot contest is not a sign of apathy, but a backlash against efforts to relegate Chief Illiniwek to the trash bin of forgotten history.  I would also suspect the 400-plus votes for the corn guy, kraken, and werewolf were more tongue-in-cheek votes than genuine expressions of support for those characters. 

Regarding Orbiter’s comments “… the current ‘Chief’ is unknown to them … “  I’ve never met Abraham Lincoln, but that doesn’t mean he no longer exists as powerful influence on American society. 

I'm not saying these good folks are wrong because their opinions differ from mine.  I am saying they're avoiding a lot of information available to them, plus maybe a bit of common sense, when developing their opinions.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on May 16, 2013 at 11:05 pm
Profile Picture

So you believe that the Chief is a "powerful influence on American society" worthy of comparison to Abraham Lincoln?

spangwurfelt wrote on May 17, 2013 at 8:05 am

It's pretty funny watching this guy bring up non-binding, tiny-turnout, symbolic student referenda as if they meant anything. Ask any student, "who has the power to make the university's decisions?" and they'll tell you "definitely not us."

If you ask the students, they'd say tuition should be free. So you better get right on that, Tom -- after all, it's what the students want, and you wouldn't want to look like you were just cherry-picking the student opinions you like, would you?

The reality is, you're never going to convince the average sixty-year-old from DuPage County that the mascot he got drunk so many times while watching back in his dewy Nixon-era youth is a racist caricature, no matter how plainly you demonstrate it. You're fighting the misty watercolor memories of The Way He Was When He Was Young, and in doing that, you're asking for a level of honest self-reflection that lots of people just don't have, if they find they can dodge it by muttering under their breaths about "political correctness" and "non-binding vote" and such.

Tom Napier wrote on May 17, 2013 at 8:05 pm

There were over 12,000 student votes cast in the 2013 Student Referendum.  In  contrast, 3,269 voted in the 2012 referendum, which by the way did not include a Chief Illiniwek ballot.

You trivialize the UI voting results as a "tiny-turnout."  I wasn't aware Democracy depended on a minimum voter turnout to count.  What percentage might that be?  Obviously it's higher than 25%, which to you is "tiny."  The April 9 voter turnout in Champaign County was about 13%.  Do these results not count because they're "tiny?"  Or, do peoples' opinions not count because they're non-binding? 

Or do students' opinions not count because they're ... students?  Students aren't chopped liver and it's insulting to hold them in such low contempt.  You may recall there are student representatives on the Board of Trustees and the Faculty Senate.  No, students don't run the University.  Yes, students are represented to those who do.  And, I suspect the majority of UI students (I'm trying not to stereotype here) agree with your opinions a lot more than they don't.  Or, do you applaud them when they agree with you and trivialize them when they don't?

Of course, students (and their parents) would like free tuition.  Tell me you wouldn't if you were a student (or student's parent).  But they're realistic enough (there's that word again) to understand that's not a sustainable way to run a university.  I don't ever recall the student body marching arm-in-arm, clenched fists held high, chanting "hey-hey, ho-ho, payin' tuition's gotta go."  Well, maybe in the Nixon years, but not since. 

I do wax nostalgic about the UI having the integrity to support Jimmy Collins when the NCAA wanted the UI to fire him as a sacraficial offering.  The UI found no violations on either his or Lou Henson's part, so they stuck by them.  Ah, those were the good old, pre-clout days.

Oh, and what are Larry Epply, B. Joseph White, and Richard Herman doing nowadays?  Ah, that's the Administration we want to lead the UI, not those  freeloader students whose opinions don't count anyway.

Finally, please clarify your statement about the mascot "I" got drunk so many times.  Obviously you know something I don't. 

And ... I'm from Cook County, not DuPage.

Have a Grateful Day!

 

rsp wrote on May 17, 2013 at 8:05 am

The student participation in referenda is one piece of evidence (or “reality,” if you will) suggesting students are actually quite energized about the issue

There were over 42,000 students that year. Only 4,636 chose to vote in this poll. The largest votes were for "no change", suggesting we don't need a mascot to rally around in order to support our teams. In this time without a mascot the students have had the opportunity to see what is there. The Orange Krush fulfills that role in many respects better than a mascot. They don't try to be the show. They are there to support the team.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 18, 2013 at 10:05 am

This somehow sounds familiar:

We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Give me five bees for a quarter," you'd say.

Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

rsp wrote on May 18, 2013 at 12:05 pm

So...how many bees did the onions cost?

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 21, 2013 at 1:05 pm

7 bumblebees and 3 honey bees. And no Canadian money.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on May 18, 2013 at 3:05 pm
Profile Picture

Great reference.   Personally, whenever I hear people arguing about the Chief, George Carlin's "People are Boring" routine runs through my head.

 

Did I ever tell you about my mom and dad???  Well, my mom and dad went on vacation down to Mammoth Cave, Kentucky.  This was about...six years ago, I think.  Seems like it was six, about six years ago I think.  Six or seven, possibly seven, could be seven.  Let's call it six and a half.  

You know, now that I think about it, it could have been eight years ago, cause it was close to Y2K.  So let's say eight years ago.  It was either eight or five.....

NINE years ago.  Nine.  I know it was nine because my wife was pregnant with our first boy, Mahmoud ibn al Saiid bin Salaam.  And he's ten now.  Or eleven.  He's either eleven or five.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 21, 2013 at 1:05 pm

Not as funny as his baseball/football routine, but nice.

Illiniwek222 wrote on May 17, 2013 at 9:05 am

All it would take to return the Chief is going back to an elected board of trustees. The taxpayers who foot the bill should decide who is on the board.


Aside from the Chief issue, there are too many ex-admistrators receiving golden parachutes enabled by the Kennedy headed board.

spangwurfelt wrote on May 17, 2013 at 11:05 am

"All it would take to return the Chief is going back to an elected board of trustees."

... and making rude hand gestures to the NCAA, who aren't likely to take it lightly.

The Chief had his day. His day's over. Time to move on.

Illiniwek222 wrote on May 17, 2013 at 2:05 pm

There would be no sanctions to speak of from the NCAA. What post-season events has the U of I hosted in the last 10 years??  

spangwurfelt wrote on May 17, 2013 at 3:05 pm

So your argument is, basically, "It's okay for us to have a racist mascot because our teams suck anyway." Is that an example of what the Chief supporters call "school spirit"?

Illiniwek222 wrote on May 21, 2013 at 9:05 am

No, Phyllis. Whether or not the team "sucks", as you put it, has no bearing on post season events being scheduled at the U of I.

Tom Napier wrote on May 17, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Actually, an ageement with the affected Native American representatives, those being the Peoria Tribe in this case, should satisfy the NCAA.  While there are Seminole groups who object to Chief Osceola, there are others who agree, and that was good enough for the NCAA.  Unfortunately, the UI administration is the only party blocking a Native American representation that is agreeable to the Peoria Tribe ... not the Peoria Tribe itself. 

Of course, logic goes down the toilet when the NCAA acts in it's typical arbitrary, capricious, and tyrranical fashion.  But with Myles Brand ... not there anymore ... there's hope common sense can prevail. 

See the Florida State University webpage on Chief Osceola, http://www.seminoles.com/trads/fsu-trads-osceola.html.  Please tell me where this discourse includes anything about authenticity of the representation, Seminole heritate of the portrayers, or respect for Native Americans.  Nevertheless, it's just fine and dandy with the NCAA. 

 

spangwurfelt wrote on May 18, 2013 at 8:05 am

The NCAA made their call, and it was the right call. You can whine about it, you can rage about it, you can nitpick about it, you can bloviate about it, you can simultaneously call the NCAA irrational and appeal to NCAA's reason -- or you can accept it and move on.

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 18, 2013 at 10:05 am

What tribe negotiated a treaty for the settlement of Chicago, and Cook County?  How many chiefs represent the Peoria Tribe?  Does the Peoria Tribe, and their relatives, sign each of their individual names to any agreement?  Does every Peoria Tribe member agree with all of it's agreements?  Read your history regarding Native American agreements.

The current students voted for no change.  No change means no mascot.  Let's face it; it is some of the alumni, and wantabee U of I that want the Chief back.  That is not a major population.  If you really want to make your point, have those that agree with you dress up like Indians for the first season game attendance.

rsp wrote on May 18, 2013 at 12:05 pm

Maybe you should just move to Florida. You could have your indian and not have to respect him and "save" on taxes as a bonus.

Illiniwek222 wrote on May 18, 2013 at 10:05 am

Not moving on, Spangwurst, digging in. Only a small number, you, Phyllis, etc. consider the Chief racist. The vast majority considers him to be a dignified symbol of a great school.

spangwurfelt wrote on May 18, 2013 at 1:05 pm

"Not moving on, Spangwurst, digging in."

Yes, some of you seem determined to do the full ostrich.

Feel free to waste as much of your time as futilely as you choose to waste it. This is neither a student nor an alumni decision.

At the end of the day, the Chief's still history and is staying that way, and the only difference you'll have made by your decision to "dig in" is that you'll have beat your head against the wall that much harder without having accomplished anything except driving yourself crazy. Why not try something more productive - like flapping your arms and trying to fly?

Tom Napier wrote on May 18, 2013 at 8:05 pm

OK, if the Chief is still history, as you say, what is your objection to creating an accurate, appropariate Native American representation, agreeable to all?  I've asked the question before, but no one has bothered to address it. If the Chief is as horrible as you say, then a figure agreeable to Native Americans should be agreeable to you too, if you really want to respect Native Americans.  It's agreeable to me, which I would call "moving on."  That's the subject of my remarks.  Please show me where I've said "I want my Chief back, just the way he was in 1969, no ifs, ands, or buts."  You'll have to use your imagination to find any such statement.  Remember, I'm not the one advocating "no compromise." 

Come on, offer something constructive.  Please.  I'll be patient.

 

 

 

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 18, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Why do Native Americans need to be involved at all?  Pick a new mascot, or do without one.  If there is a persistence for a Native American symbol; buy a cigar store wooden sculpture, and put it in a sports bar for the faithful to revere.  The university has more important issues than a caricuture of a fantasy.

spangwurfelt wrote on May 19, 2013 at 9:05 am

"OK, if the Chief is still history, as you say, what is your objection to creating an accurate, appropariate Native American representation, agreeable to all?"

Simple. Because main reason -- pretty much the only reason at all -- that anyone wants it to be a Native American as opposed to something else is fealty to memories of a rancid racist caricature that has as much to do with Native Americans as "The Jew Süss" had to do with the Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jud_S%C3%BC%C3%9F_%281940_film%29

Why should anybody invent a new Native American mascot if the only purpose in that choice is to satisfy people like you who never understood how racist the previous mascot was, and who cling desperately to the fantasy that you can somehow bring him back?

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 19, 2013 at 10:05 am

Seriously. we need to promote Whitey the Corn Farmer. He staggers out to the field with his jug o' shine, wearing patched overalls and nothing else except a mangy straw hat.

No shoes. Missing a few teeth. We can even have a special ceremony each homecoming in which he marries one of his many sisters to keep the Whitey blood line pure.

And no one can get mad at us because we'll say that we have nothing but respect and honor for the culture and people that Whitey helps us represent to the world.

Who could object to that?

spangwurfelt wrote on May 19, 2013 at 10:05 am

Well, the problem with that is, we'd have to replace all those foam hands pointing their index fingers so that they have six fingers instead of five.

Tom Napier wrote on May 19, 2013 at 2:05 pm

That persona is already taken.  You've described "Hoosier." 

You know, the identity embraced by Myles Brand when President of Indiana University, and later NCAA president?  Please see http://www.indiana.edu/~librcsd/internet/extra/hoosier.html,  which includes the following:

"Evidence from the Linguistic Atlas, they conclude, reveals 'Hoosier' as a 'derogatory epithet' meaning uncouth and 'synonymous with hick, hayseed and hillbilly,' a term still in use in the upland South."

"The Dictionary (of American and Regional English) continues with additional definitions: 'A White person considered to be objectionable, esp because of racial prejudice.'"

Now, who wants to argue the NCAA isn't hypocritical with regards to "racist mascots."

 

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 19, 2013 at 3:05 pm

Ah, the lament of the long oppressed white man. Wonder at the majesty of the whine as so, so many travails are described in minute detail.

Expect references to Notre Dame and Michigan State post haste.

Tom is actually trotting out the hilarious go-to defense of white people who don't want to change their racist ways. It's as predictable as the indignation with which it is conveyed.

Tom seems to believe that he, and all white people, are the most oppressed people in the country, constantly harassed and victimized by the malevolent forces of "political correctness."

You see, Tom and his ilk are the real victims in all of this. They just don't understand why they should have to stop enjoying their racist little chief wahoo just because of the "outside agitators" wielding "political correctness" as a club.

They don't accept that their misty water color memories of Nixon era pep rallies featuring the dancing wahoo do not trump the rights of non white people. They also think they somehow don't have to accept the fact that a majority of other people don't want to be associated with the racist little dancing wahoo.

They are wrong.

spangwurfelt wrote on May 20, 2013 at 8:05 am

"Ah, the lament of the long oppressed white man."

I'm not racist. Some of my best friends are white people.

"They don't accept that their misty water color memories of Nixon era pep rallies featuring the dancing wahoo do not trump the rights of non white people. They also think they somehow don't have to accept the fact that a majority of other people don't want to be associated with the racist little dancing wahoo."

This is right on target. Boomer generation wants its lollipop back. And Boomer generation will hold its breath until it turns blue if it doesn't get it. What Boomer wants, Boomer declares it has a God-given right to have, so get ready for Boomer tantrum.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 20, 2013 at 10:05 am

Haven't we already been experiencing a mass boomer temper tantrum for the last decade or so...?

Tom Napier wrote on May 19, 2013 at 2:05 pm

Sorry, but your reference to Jud Suss is way out of line.   To say Chief Illiniwek mobilizes the University of Illinois community to genocide against Native Americans, as Jud Suss was intended to mobilize Gemans to genocide against Jews, is offensive beyond belief.  And I apologize my keyboard doesn't have umlaut or double-s German characters.

You call this "proof" the Chief is racist?  I call it hollow militant rant with no supporting basis of reason or logic.  It's circular reference; it's racist because you think it's racist, and because you think it's racist, it is indeed racist.

Again, I won't say you're "wrong" for holding an opinion that differs from mine (as you do of me).  But spewing inflamatory extremist rhetoric hardly supports your position.

I won't stoop so low as to make genocidal references.  But you explicitly state any reference to Native Americans, even one that is respectful and correct, is not only racist but rancidly racist.  And what do you call that?

 

 

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 19, 2013 at 3:05 pm

So the thread goes that all white people, especially rural white males, are racists?  So it continues with stereotypes of ethnicity, religion, and race?  All because of a tradition in college mascots.....  "Your more racist than I am."...  "No, your more racist than I am."

I think you guys have proven that racism exists.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 19, 2013 at 5:05 pm

Can you point out to the rest of us where someone actually said that "all white people, especially rural white males, are racists"?

The "both sides do it" line is just silly.

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 20, 2013 at 2:05 pm

"Whitey the Corn Farmer"?  References to the Holocaust, boomers, etc. for the need to ridicule those who agree, or disagree on the caricuture of a fantasy as a university sports mascot?  Is it really that important?  The Chief is gone.  He is not coming back.  Let it fade away rather than insult others.

Oh, I am sure to get another lecture from a wantabee Steven Colbert.... 

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 20, 2013 at 5:05 pm

Your projection about lecturing is cute.

For the second time, when did any person criticizing chief wahoo say anything like "all white people, especially rural white males, are racists"? This is in line with your previous false and unsupportable assertion that I "smeared all Catholics" when I of course did no such thing. You couldn't actually provide a quote to support that false charge either. We're seeing a pattern here.

Your assertion that references to "Whitey the Corn Farmer" and "to the Holocaust, boomers, etc." are tantamount to claiming that "all white people, especially rural white males, are racists" is embarrassing.

You certainly may have read that into what people have said, but no one actually said anything approaching that here in the real world. Facts and reality matter; let's stick to them.

As they say, you can have your own opinions but not your own facts.

And don't even try to tell me, for the umpteenth time now, not to comment on something because you think I and others should just shut up about it. As long as chief wahoo supporters keep trying to bring him back, others are going to express their opinions, both pro and con.

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 20, 2013 at 10:05 pm

Ghost of Colbert; opinions are like noses.  Everyone has one.  Yours is so big that you cannot see those of others.  "And don't even try to tell me, for the umpteenth time now......"?   What happened to the Huck Steven Colbert act?  I don't care for the Chief coming back.  You should have picked up on that; but you took off on Whitey the Corn Farmer in your Colbert act ranting against the Chief.  Not all boomers, white males, and rural residents are gung ho on the Chief.  You make comments; but you refuse to allow comments critical of yours.  One character is the wantabee Steven Colbert clown; but the other is the defensive, picked upon individual.  It is sort of like Charlie McCarthy, and Edgar Bergan.    

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 21, 2013 at 12:05 am

I lied. Your projection isn't actually cute.

Your position is plain. As you know, I objected to your false statements. Again.

You made a false statement about what others have said on this thread. Again.

When challenged, you twice failed to supply quotes to support your false claim. Again.

You told others not to express their opinions because you don't like those opinions. Again.

You clearly have no intention of even acknowledging, let alone retracting, your false statement. Again.

But calling out your false statements and objecting when you tell those you don't agree with to stop commenting is being defensive?

Okay Sid. Sure.

I'll await your next non sequitur filled dodge in which you'll tie everything to the metro/rural split you turn everything into. And don't forget to blame academics and the tenure system. And Illinois politics.

Again.

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 21, 2013 at 6:05 am

Glad you admitted to your lies.  I did not tell you to "stop commenting".  Your statement of "the umpteenth time" sums that up.

My point is that the Chief is gone, and not coming back.  A few alumni, and fans want to try in any way to reverse that with another token, historical image of a Native American.  The issue has nothing to do with boomers, religious groups, genocide, or race.  Yet, it spun off into those areas out of spite.  The academics, tenure system, Illinois politics, and Catholics have nothing to do with the article either.  Yet, you spin off into those areas out of spite.  Your best defense is accusing others of false statements; and demanding that they apologize to you.  You do a good impression; but your hick routine disappears into childish behavior when you are confronted.

Go ahead, and demand an apology while you pout.  Please hold your breath while waiting.   

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 21, 2013 at 9:05 am

You told people opposed to chief wahoo to just stop commenting and "let it fade away." That was on this thread. You've told others not to comment because you don't approve of their opinions.

You made a false statement previously that I "smeared all catholics."

You made a false statement on this very thread, which everyone sees, that people opposed to chief wahoo claimed that "all white people, especially rural white males, are racists."

Whining about being challenged on your false statements does not make your false statements go away. You could of course retract them -- that's the next best thing to not lying in the first place.

Your whining about personal attacks is as embarrassing as your "glad you admit to your lies" line. You should be especially wary of accusing others of acting childishly.

spangwurfelt wrote on May 21, 2013 at 11:05 am

I think the ghost has made his case pretty well here.

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 21, 2013 at 12:05 pm

As you did yours with your "boomer" comments.  In your rabid attack of the Chief supporters, you engaged in negative comments regarding the Boomer population.  To portray a generation as Chief supporters is a very, broad brush, paint job.  I agree with you about the Chief; but I do not agree with you about the Boomer generation, and the angry clown.  

Sid Saltfork wrote on May 21, 2013 at 11:05 pm

Mark; Your comment regarding "You should be especially wary...."?  Clown threats?  Should I be on guard for a pie in the face, or a whoopi cushion?

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 23, 2013 at 1:05 pm

smh

spangwurfelt wrote on May 20, 2013 at 6:05 am

Of course Chief Illiniwek is not an invitation to genocide. By the time he appeared, in his This Is What An Injun Looks Like According To The Boy Scouts garb, the genocide had already occurred.

spangwurfelt wrote on May 20, 2013 at 11:05 am

By the way -

"But you explicitly state any reference to Native Americans, even one that is respectful and correct, is not only racist but rancidly racist."

I think anyone with reasonable reading comprehension can see that I've done no such thing. Chief Illiniwek was/is a racist stereotype. But until people like you acknowledge that publicly, you're simply not going to persuade anyone that you're in a position to adequately judge whether any proposed-but-defeated Chief Illiniwek-Minus-Minus is racist as well. It'll just be "Well, this new one doesn't bother me, but then the old one didn't either."

Illiniwek222 wrote on May 21, 2013 at 9:05 am

Hey, Spangwuerst...check out the lead story on dailyillini.com today.

spangwurfelt wrote on May 21, 2013 at 11:05 am

"Spangwuerst"

So in addition to the advice "move on" I now add "grow up."

Tom Napier wrote on May 21, 2013 at 8:05 pm

That's the closest thing to "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" I've seen yet.

Tom Napier wrote on May 21, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Good one!

Tom Napier wrote on May 21, 2013 at 8:05 pm

First, please tone down the anger.  This is supposed to be a discussion, not an exercise of who can shout the loudest.

Now, may I suggest you look at http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/flags/ok_flag.htm.  

I'm sure some of you will refuse to look at this link because you think I'm promoting some racist symbol or character.  Relax, I'm not.  At worse, you may be disappointed in what you read.  So I'll quote: 

"In 1924, a contest was announced to create a new design for the flag, one that more uniquely represented the diversity of cultures in the state of Oklahoma. For the state with the largest Native American population, it is easy to see why the design submitted by Mrs. George Fluke, Jr. was chosen and officially adopted by the State Legislature on April 2, 1925."

"The shield is decorated with six white crosses (stars) representing high ideals. Superimposed over the shield are symbols of peace and unity from the cultures of the Native American and European-American settlers in the territory; the calumet or ceremonial peace pipe and the olive branch." 

In 1988 the State legislature reinforced the flag's status. 

"... it is truely fitting that the Oklahoma flag uniting the ancient lore of the Indian and the white man and symbolizing the peace of a united people should be standardized in color as an example of the solidarity and patriotism of such people ... " (The truely is taken from the subject website).

You refuse to accept Native American references associated with the State of Illinois' flagship university.  Let's revisit the values the Oklahoma State Flag conveys to its citizens: diversity of culture; large Native American population; high ideals; symbols of peace and unity, and cultures of Native American and European-American settlers.

Please explain why you don't want this to happen in the State of Illinois.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on May 22, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Profile Picture

Mr. Napier, I sincerely feel an overwhelming sadness for you when I read your posts.  It is disorienting to me that a grown man would spend as much time as you clearly have spent defending and arguing on behalf of a college sports mascot who is obviously not going to ever be reinstated.  We all need to pitch in and help you find a less futile hobby.  Stamp collecting?  Watching paint dry?  Let's brainstorm here.

Tom Napier wrote on May 22, 2013 at 9:05 pm

I have a suggestion to keep you from t being sad ...

But really, don't be sad, unless you want to be.  With the exception of an unfortunate genocide inuendo, I'm rather enjoying our little kerfuffle.

Oh, and your thoughts about the Oklahoma State flag portraying Native American symbols are ..... what now?

 

alabaster jones 71 wrote on May 23, 2013 at 3:05 am
Profile Picture

My thoughts on that flag are unimportant, since it is not really related to the Chief in any way except that they both involve Native Americans.

We're talking about some tasteful Native American imagery on a state flag vs. some white kid from the suburbs dancing around in a stereotypical Injun costume.  I fail to see the equivalency.

 

Tom Napier wrote on May 21, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Sorry, this comment is showing up in the wrong place.  My bad.