Chief Illiniwek.....HE GONE!!!

[longshot7]

I was there when it started and there was a Native American woman championing the cause, I think her name was Tilton, but she was helped by a white male. The same one who went after Niles West in the late 80s. Just FYI.

 

As seen in the film "In Whose Honor?"

 

 

I'm familiar with the Univ. of North Dakota controversy as well. Their mascot is the Fighting Sioux, which although (to my knowledge) didn't have a chief Illiniwek-type character at halftimes, the name Sioux is offensive to the Lakota nation (the real name of the tribe - not Sioux as it was given to them by an enemy tribe.) The UND controversy is complicated by the fact that the school has a new basketball/hockey arena, which has the Sioux logo impressed onto every seat, and a clause in the building's lease which states that if the name Sioux ever changes, UND will not be allowed to have games there. As you can guess, the major donor behind the arena's construction was a big Sioux (the name)-defender.

 

But they'll lose their court case, so it'll be interesting to see what happens next.

[IlliniKrush]

http://www.pjstar.com/stories/022307/ILL_BCFAESNC.083.php

[santo=dorf]

I'm going to ask LCR this, since he went to U of I and made these comments;

How is it racist for a University to use a mascot dressed up like an old tribesman and half him dnace to cheer up the crowd with the intent of cheering up the crowd (lord knows the football teams need it) and not mocking the actual members of the Illiniwek tribe?

 

Now how isn't it racist for Michael Richards to call a bunch of black people "n*****s" repeatedly with the intent of hurting or insulting the individuals?

 

Using a gimmick based off an old tribe with the motive to cheer up people and NOT insult native Americans = RACIST!!!!

 

Using a slur with the motive to insult people of color = not racist.

 

go figure.

[CanOfCorn]

http://www.pjstar.com/stories/022307/ILL_BCFAESNC.083.php

It's going to go over like a fart in a spacesuit.

 

Classic.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I'm going to ask LCR this, since he went to U of I and made these comments;

How is it racist for a University to use a mascot dressed up like an old tribesman and half him dnace to cheer up the crowd with the intent of cheering up the crowd (lord knows the football teams need it) and not mocking the actual members of the Illiniwek tribe?

 

Now how isn't it racist for Michael Richards to call a bunch of black people "n*****s" repeatedly with the intent of hurting or insulting the individuals?

 

Using a gimmick based off an old tribe with the motive to cheer up people and NOT insult native Americans = RACIST!!!!

 

Using a slur with the motive to insult people of color = not racist.

 

go figure.

I personally felt that it was an inaccurate portrayal of a Native American chief and was meant to be in a serious vein. Richards actions were on a comedy stage and thus set in a different setting. In the vein of sports which is much more mainstream and represents an academic institution, academic institutions are held to a much higher degree of conduct than a comic with a mic in his or her hand. The comic answers to just their own conscience.

 

They're apples and oranges when trying to compare them.

 

That said, there's bound to be better mascots (i.e. Youppi! or Drinkin' Lincoln) for the UIUC.

[IlliniKrush]

I'm going to ask LCR this, since he went to U of I and made these comments;

How is it racist for a University to use a mascot dressed up like an old tribesman and half him dnace to cheer up the crowd with the intent of cheering up the crowd (lord knows the football teams need it) and not mocking the actual members of the Illiniwek tribe?

 

Now how isn't it racist for Michael Richards to call a bunch of black people "n*****s" repeatedly with the intent of hurting or insulting the individuals?

 

Using a gimmick based off an old tribe with the motive to cheer up people and NOT insult native Americans = RACIST!!!!

 

Using a slur with the motive to insult people of color = not racist.

 

go figure.

Excellent point.

 

Response doesn't surprise me.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 23, 2007 -> 04:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I personally felt that it was an inaccurate portrayal of a Native American chief and was meant to be in a serious vein. Richards actions were on a comedy stage and thus set in a different setting. In the vein of sports which is much more mainstream and represents an academic institution, academic institutions are held to a much higher degree of conduct than a comic with a mic in his or her hand. The comic answers to just their own conscience.

 

They're apples and oranges when trying to compare them.

 

That said, there's bound to be better mascots (i.e. Youppi! or Drinkin' Lincoln) for the UIUC.

Michael Richards used a racial slur to hurt people. I don't care where it was, it was a racist thing to do. Are you telling me Chief Illiniwek would not be racist if he stood up in front of a brick wall with a spotlight on him dancing while making jokes? If you do something considered racist somewhere, it has to be considered racist everywhere else.

 

Was Dances with Dudley a racist character? Is Tatanka a racist character even though Chris Chavis has Native American blood?

 

Due to the Illinois state rules, I was forced to take a non-western humanities class, and in my only liberal arts class at U of I, I took a foreign music class. One day the ultra left professor brought in an anti-chief person who said the Chief was racist and making claims that the kids playing the role of Chief aren't trained in any actually Illiniwek tribal dancing and aren't educated about the tribe itself. This was disputed by students in the class as somebody was the sibling of a former Chief and tried to set the story straight. It was really awkard and pretty pathetic by the professor, but at least he apologized for it the next class session. From this woman's stance, I made this obsevation about her comments (which I posted earlier in the thread)

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From what I recall in school, the people who had a problem with it (true descendants of the Illiniwek Trib, and ultra-libs trying to change the world) didn't like how the Chief character was inaccurately representing the Illiniwek tribe. Everything from the clothing, the dancing and the fact a non-descendant was playing the character.

 

Like I mentioned before, why can't they drop "Illiniwek" from the Chief name, and claim he is not part of the Illiniwek tribe, but he represents the "Fighting spirit of Illinois?" If you think that last part sounds silly, it's actually the reason why the school doesn't have to change their name. Which Tribe does Chief Wahoo belong to?

As it turns out, I missed an important post about 10 posts before that;

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 11:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um, the outfit isn't authentic. The dance isn't authentic. The person portraying the Chief isn't even authentic.

 

So it is all the honesty and genuine respect of complete sham imitation.

So it appears my observation of the anti-chiefs was dead on. Again I must ask, if the whole problem with the character is the supposed inaccuracy of the outfit, dancing and that the person in the outfit isn't native american or part of the Illini tribe, why can't the university just remove the references to the Illini tribe?

 

No longer Chief Illiniwek, he's just Chief, hell call him Master Chief for the Halo fanboys.

I didn't realize the anti-chiefs were such experts in Indian tribal clothing and dancing (and it's amazing how fast they learn over night,) but if the outfit is too similar to the Illini Tribe, modify it. Same with the dancing too.

[Pauly8509CWS]

Excellent points.

[Rex Kickass]

Central Michigan University is located in Mt Pleasant, adjacent to a reservation for Chippewa Indians. I don't believe that they have a mascot.

[RockRaines]

Seriously, is it worth crying that much after the fact? Great points for someone's opinion that doesnt matter in this case. You are lucky that you at least get to keep your team names at this point and only lost a 5 min halftime show. Comparing the Chief to other things like a celebrity is pointless and a real stretch. The people of the race that the Chief and the University is named after didnt want the Chief anymore in its current state. The University chose to fight instead of make changes or work with the tribe to fulfill their requests. If there is anyone you should be upset with its your school administration, or you can be mad at the Peoria tribe that told them to lose the Chief.

 

As for re-naming the Chief and letting him continue to dance. Yeah maybe it could have worked, maybe there could have been a loophole, but take a look at the long list of schools I posted that had to change their names regardless of any connection to a certain tribe. It has been deemed inappropriate in college athletics to have mascots appearing as Indians in any way shape or form. The only way that they have overlooked it in certain circumstances was due to the support of a tribe. If you dont have that support, you dont have that mascot, so even that path is closed to you. Im sorry that things end, but the times change, and having a Native American Mascot is something of the past these days, and thats how it is.

[Pauly8509CWS]

Seriously, is it worth crying that much after the fact? Great points for someone's opinion that doesnt matter in this case.

 

Yes, it is worth "crying" over. It was a major part of the tradition at this institution, sorry that you've never been a part of something like this.

 

 

The people of the race that the Chief and the University is named after didnt want the Chief anymore in its current state.

 

Wrong.

[Chisoxfn]

As seen in the film "In Whose Honor?"

I'm familiar with the Univ. of North Dakota controversy as well. Their mascot is the Fighting Sioux, which although (to my knowledge) didn't have a chief Illiniwek-type character at halftimes, the name Sioux is offensive to the Lakota nation (the real name of the tribe - not Sioux as it was given to them by an enemy tribe.) The UND controversy is complicated by the fact that the school has a new basketball/hockey arena, which has the Sioux logo impressed onto every seat, and a clause in the building's lease which states that if the name Sioux ever changes, UND will not be allowed to have games there. As you can guess, the major donor behind the arena's construction was a big Sioux (the name)-defender.

 

But they'll lose their court case, so it'll be interesting to see what happens next.

I hate that film. Our high school had to watch that film a million times because our mascot was the Warriors and there was debate on whether we should drop the name Warriors. Luckily we voted to keep the name (not like I have major school spirit but I think the whole idea of dropping your name is such hooey).

 

I can buy into the whole RedSkins idea though so to speak and that being a poor team name.

[RockRaines]

Yes, it is worth "crying" over. It was a major part of the tradition at this institution, sorry that you've never been a part of something like this.

 

 

Wrong.

Im not sorry, I really dont think its that great. As far as being part of a tradition at a University, mine was founded in 1809, there were plenty I took part in.

 

 

As far as the fact that im wrong. Heres a PDF that can show you who is actually wrong in this case. You might want to start posting informed opinions, instead of just typing.

 

http://www.nah.uiuc.edu/faculty/tyeeme/doc..._resolution.pdf

 

Heres another link showing the illiniwek descendants opposing the Chief.

 

http://www.retirethechief.org/Dialogue/haney.html

 

if you can come up with something more recent that says that they supported the Chief, feel free to post it.

Edited February 25, 2007 by RockRaines

[Pauly8509CWS]

Im not sorry, I really dont think its that great. As far as being part of a tradition at a University, mine was founded in 1809, there were plenty I took part in.

As far as the fact that im wrong. Heres a PDF that can show you who is actually wrong in this case. You might want to start posting informed opinions, instead of just typing.

 

http://www.nah.uiuc.edu/faculty/tyeeme/doc..._resolution.pdf

 

Heres another link showing the illiniwek descendants opposing the Chief.

 

http://www.retirethechief.org/Dialogue/haney.html

 

if you can come up with something more recent that says that they supported the Chief, feel free to post it.

 

Throughout this haney dialogue, he claims that he is a Peoria, an Illiniwek, and a Dakota. Something isn't right there...

[RockRaines]

Throughout this haney dialogue, he claims that he is a Peoria, an Illiniwek, and a Dakota. Something isn't right there...

Still waiting for your sources.

[AddisonStSox]

Im not sorry, I really dont think its that great. As far as being part of a tradition at a University, mine was founded in 1809, there were plenty I took part in.

 

Yes, such as: pretending we are enrolled at The Ohio State University, partying at The Ohio State University every weekend because my campus was a dump, watching riveting MAC sports action, hanging with rich, Jewish kids...I could go on.

 

Worry about your own damn school.

[Pauly8509CWS]

Still waiting for your sources.

 

 

So you post a "retire the chief" site, I post a save the chief site, and somehow they're supposed to be legit responses? Give me a break, yours were probably the first two that came up on your, "anti-chief illiniwek" google search.

 

Basically, if you read your source at all, my response was correct, the man is apparently part of all three tribes, which, if I remember my history correctly, is impossible. You can't be Dakota, Illini, and Peoria.

 

And wow, what a response by Addy. Haha

[RockRaines]

Yes, such as: pretending we are enrolled at The Ohio State University, partying at The Ohio State University every weekend because my campus was a dump, watching riveting MAC sports action, hanging with rich, Jewish kids...I could go on.

 

Worry about your own damn school.

I never pretended I enrolled at OSU, I went to Miami and damn proud of it. Considering Miami is considered one of the most beautiful campuses in the nation, I would say that you obviously havent been there much. Nor did I go up to Columbus every weekend, I think oxford is actually more fun and the girls are exponentially more attractive. Our idea of watching sports at Miami was hockey, and we were one of the top teams in the nation, so it was quite riveting.

 

So you post a "retire the chief" site, I post a save the chief site, and somehow they're supposed to be legit responses? Give me a break, yours were probably the first two that came up on your, "anti-chief illiniwek" google search.

 

Basically, if you read your source at all, my response was correct, the man is apparently part of all three tribes, which, if I remember my history correctly, is impossible. You can't be Dakota, Illini, and Peoria.

 

And wow, what a response by Addy. Haha

I posted relevant responses and submissions from the Peoria tribe. The date of their submission and passing of of a resolution has nothing to do with whatever site was linked, but the one I linked from was uiuc. Their stance has been against the Chief, still awaiting your response on how I was wrong, and still waiting....

Edited February 26, 2007 by RockRaines

[CanOfCorn]

"Hostile and Offensive" shouldn't disappear because the tribe supports it. If, Rock, as you say, Native American mascots have been deemed hostile and offensive and it's time to retire them. Then it's time to retire ALL of them. Just because the tribe supports it, doesn't mean OTHER Native Americans find it hostile and offensive.

 

Bottom line, I'm upset at both the University and the Peoria. But mostly, I'm upset with the NCAA. They have absolutely no reason to be involved in this. ZERO! Talk about the U of I needing to deal with internal problems, I think the NCAA has bigger things to think about other than school symbols/mascots/etc.

[RockRaines]

"Hostile and Offensive" shouldn't disappear because the tribe supports it. If, Rock, as you say, Native American mascots have been deemed hostile and offensive and it's time to retire them. Then it's time to retire ALL of them. Just because the tribe supports it, doesn't mean OTHER Native Americans find it hostile and offensive.

 

Bottom line, I'm upset at both the University and the Peoria. But mostly, I'm upset with the NCAA. They have absolutely no reason to be involved in this. ZERO! Talk about the U of I needing to deal with internal problems, I think the NCAA has bigger things to think about other than school symbols/mascots/etc.

Thats actually been my personal stance all along. My experience with my own mascot being retired, as well as high schools around where I grew up makes me think that all should be retired no matter who supports what. The NCAA obviously has a double standard in place, and its one that is somewhat influenced by money. The funny part of the argument is that many high schools who arent governed by the same body were made to give up their mascots. At the same time we have considered professional sports teams untouchable by the same law. Of course this only applies to Native American mascots as the Washington Bullets were made to give up their name because it was too "hostile".

 

There should be a blanket rule covering all of sports or at least all college sports. There shouldn't be any exceptions and its the exceptions which are making people more angry about their collective situations. If all schools no matter what were made to give up their native American mascots, then i don't think there would be nearly as much emotional grief for as many people as there has been.

[Pauly8509CWS]

I posted relevant responses and submissions from the Peoria tribe. The date of their submission and passing of of a resolution has nothing to do with whatever site was linked, but the one I linked from was uiuc. Their stance has been against the Chief, still awaiting your response on how I was wrong, and still waiting....

 

My point was,

 

The people of the race that the Chief and the University is named after didnt want the Chief anymore in its current state.

 

is wrong.

 

There are no more Illini Indians, they've been long gone since before the institution was founded, and if I'm not mistaken the Peoria Tribe was a distant relative of the Illini. Which would be like a brother-in-law fighting the case here. They're not direct blood descendants of the Illini, they are another Indian Tribe located in the Midwest fighting this cause.

[RockRaines]

My point was,

is wrong.

 

There are no more Illini Indians, they've been long gone since before the institution was founded, and if I'm not mistaken the Peoria Tribe was a distant relative of the Illini. Which would be like a brother-in-law fighting the case here. They're not direct blood descendants of the Illini, they are another Indian Tribe located in the Midwest fighting this cause.

The Illiniwek (also known as the Illini, Illinois, Illinois Confederacy) were a group of six Native American tribes in the upper Mississippi River valley of North America. The tribes were the Kaskaskia, the Cahokia, the Peoria, the Tamaroa, Moingwena and the Michigamea.

 

As a consequence of the Indian Removal Act, the descendants of the Illiniwek are now found in Ottawa County, Oklahoma, as the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma.

 

 

umm, not exactly.

 

 

Heres a full history in case you wanted to know

 

The Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma is a confederation of Kaskaskia, Peoria, Piankesaw and Wea Indians united into a single tribe in 1854. The tribes which constitute The Confederated Peorias, as they then were called, originated in the lands bordering the Great Lakes and drained by the mighty Mississippi. They are Illinois or Illini Indians, descendants of those who created the great mound civilizations in the central United States two thousand to three thousand years ago.

 

Forced from their ancestral lands in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Missouri, the Peorias were relocated first in Missouri, then in Kansas and, finally, in northeastern Oklahoma. There, in Miami, Ottawa County, Oklahoma is their tribal headquarters.

 

The Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma is a federally-recognized sovereign Indian tribe, functioning under the constitution and by-laws approved by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior on August 13, 1997. Under Article VIII, Section 1 of the Peoria Constitution, the Peoria Tribal Business Committee is empowered to research and pursue economic and business development opportunities for the Tribe.

 

The increased pressure from white settlers in the 1840’s and 1850’s in Kansas brought cooperation among the Peoria, Kaskaskia, Piankashaw and Wea Tribes to protect these holdings. By the Treaty of May 30, 1854, 10 Stat. 1082, the United States recognized the cooperation and consented to their formal union as the Confederated Peoria. In addition to this recognition, the treaty also provided for the disposition of the lands of the constituent tribes set aside by the treaties of the 1830’s; ten sections were to be held in common by the new Confederation, each tribal member received an allotment of 160 acres; the remaining or “surplus” land was to be sold to settlers and the proceeds to be used by the tribes.

 

The Civil War caused considerable turmoil among all the people of Kansas, especially the Indians. After the war, most members of the Confederation agreed to remove to the Indian Territory under the provisions of the so-called Omnibus Treaty of February 23, 1867, 15 Stat. 513. Some of the members elected at this time to remain in Kansas, separate from the Confederated Tribes, and become citizens of the United States.

 

The lands of the Confederation members in the Indian Territory were subject to the provisions of the General Allotment Act of 1887. The allotment of all the tribal land was made by 1893, and by 1915, the tribe had no tribal lands or any lands in restricted status. Under the provisions of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 1936, 49 Stat. 1967, the tribes adopted a constitution and by-laws, which was ratified on October 10, 1939, and they became known as the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma.

 

As a result of the “Termination Policy” of the Federal Government in the 1950’s, the Federal Trust relationship over the affairs of the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma and its members, except for claims then pending before the Indian Claims Commission and Court of claims, was ended on August 2, 1959, pursuant to the provisions of the Act of August 2, 1956, 709 Stat. 937, and Federal services were no longer provided to the individual members of the tribe. More recently, however, the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma was reinstated as a federally recognized tribe by the Act of May 15, 1978, 92 Stat. 246.

 

 

The name was changed, but they are still the Illiniwek. So your POV on them being like a brother in law is quite off.

 

heres some more info in case you are not convinced.

 

http://www.rootsweb.com/~itquapaw/illinois/illinois.html

Edited February 26, 2007 by RockRaines

[CanOfCorn]

Thats actually been my personal stance all along. My experience with my own mascot being retired, as well as high schools around where I grew up makes me think that all should be retired no matter who supports what. The NCAA obviously has a double standard in place, and its one that is somewhat influenced by money. The funny part of the argument is that many high schools who arent governed by the same body were made to give up their mascots. At the same time we have considered professional sports teams untouchable by the same law. Of course this only applies to Native American mascots as the Washington Bullets were made to give up their name because it was too "hostile".

 

There should be a blanket rule covering all of sports or at least all college sports. There shouldn't be any exceptions and its the exceptions which are making people more angry about their collective situations. If all schools no matter what were made to give up their native American mascots, then i don't think there would be nearly as much emotional grief for as many people as there has been.

 

That's the heart of the situation right there. Nothing to complain about if all institutions had to do away with it.

[RockRaines]

That's the heart of the situation right there. Nothing to complain about if all institutions had to do away with it.

exactly, the exceptions to the rule are what makes everyone more upset.

[NorthSideSox72]

Consistent doesn't necessarily mean all-or-none about names. For example, I think names like "Illini" or "Utes" are perfectly fine, but I find Chief Illiniwek to be unacceptable (so I think the right decision was made here). Why? Because the name is not an insult, but the chief and its behavior are. So, I'm consistent in my view. Just don't be offensive. If U of I really wanted to keep the chief, all they had to do was work with the tribe(s) and come up with a way for it not to be insulting. If they couldn't make that work, then just don't do it.

 

Of course, I have it easy, being a Cyclone. Can't really offend a weather system. But even that name is inaccurate, really, since a cyclone is just any low pressure system.