U of I

[Texsox]

I lived there last year. Awesome place.

 

It seems like it. I was up there for new student orientation over the summer. She is rooming with a friend from HS and they were assigned a corner, which they really wanted. I've heard mixed reviews about the food, but complaining about dorm food is always in style.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Yeah I had a corner too which really worked out well. Food is not very good, but that's about the only complaint with Bromley. Everything else is far superior compared to living in one of the public dorms.

[Texsox]

Yeah I had a corner too which really worked out well. Food is not very good, but that's about the only complaint with Bromley. Everything else is far superior compared to living in one of the public dorms.

 

Not having choices of where to eat would drive me nuts. My son is at Texas State and they have seven or eight campus dining halls plus all the food exchanges at Blimpies, Zatarans etc.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Not having choices of where to eat would drive me nuts. My son is at Texas State and they have seven or eight campus dining halls plus all the food exchanges at Blimpies, Zatarans etc.

It takes some adjusting to the food but she should be fine.

 

At Illinois, most everyone ends up leaving for an apartment after freshmen year, which is what I did. Except I am of no use in the kitchen which has made quickly realize I was lucky at hall to have a dining hall in my dorm, ha.

[Texsox]

It takes some adjusting to the food but she should be fine.

 

At Illinois, most everyone ends up leaving for an apartment after freshmen year, which is what I did. Except I am of no use in the kitchen which has made quickly realize I was lucky at hall to have a dining hall in my dorm, ha.

 

She's already talking about that. She is also talking about going the RA route. She would be a good one. Personally, I'd like to see her that.

[Milkman delivers]

It seems like it. I was up there for new student orientation over the summer. She is rooming with a friend from HS and they were assigned a corner, which they really wanted. I've heard mixed reviews about the food, but complaining about dorm food is always in style.

 

I got pretty lucky. My school ended up having pretty good cafeteria food.

[Texsox]

I got pretty lucky. My school ended up having pretty good cafeteria food.

 

Texas State, where my son is at, seems to have a pretty good system as well. Plenty of variety. Good hours of operation. I know some people living off campus that pick up meal plans.

[Jenksismyhero]

The Chief no longer performing is a travesty IMO. What better way to completely erase the memory of Illinois Indian tribes than to get rid of the most public image of them. The idea was started in the 20's to honor the people that provided the name of the state. Original, authentic headdresses have always been used (save for the first year), and the dance is based off of the dances of many Indian tribes.

 

The guilt of a vocal minority decided it was best if the Chief was no longer around. You can tell what a horrible, corruptible tradition this was for the last 90 years. Just look at all of the people that saw the Chief perform. What terrible human beings they became. GMAFB.

 

I'm in total agreement with the double standard at play here. Illinois = ok money, FSU = good money. That's the only reason it happened.

[Texsox]

I'm in total agreement with the double standard at play here. Illinois = ok money, FSU = good money. That's the only reason it happened.

 

The double standard is

 

authentic and Tribe approved = good

Fake and Tribe not approved = bad

[Jenksismyhero]

The double standard is

 

authentic and Tribe approved = good

Fake and Tribe not approved = bad

 

What's "fake" about it? Illinois was a confederation of Illinois tribes and the Chief is a symbol of that. And the Chief was "approved" by the Sioux many times throughout the Chief's existence, providing the U of I with authentic headresses and dances. I fail to see how this difference matters on the "offensiveness" scale, which is the reason fire spear throwing traditions are ok, but a dance is not.

 

Edit: Sorry, "Illiniwek" was the confederation name.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Jenksismybitch

[Texsox]

What's "fake" about it? Illinois was a confederation of Illinois tribes and the Chief is a symbol of that. And the Chief was "approved" by the Sioux many times throughout the Chief's existence, providing the U of I with authentic headresses and dances. I fail to see how this difference matters on the "offensiveness" scale, which is the reason fire spear throwing traditions are ok, but a dance is not.

 

Edit: Sorry, "Illiniwek" was the confederation name.

 

So was the Chief Sioux or a confederation? How can one tribe approve a confederation and how can a confederation be an authentic depiction?

[Jenksismyhero]

So was the Chief Sioux or a confederation? How can one tribe approve a confederation and how can a confederation be an authentic depiction?

 

The Chief is simply a symbol of the Indians who lived in Illinois. Since none of those tribes exist anymore, there can be no approval. But the University got approval from the closest ethnic group they could find. What more can they do? If we're giving weight to the "offended" Indians who are not related in anyway to the Illiniwek tribes, than why not give weight to other similar individuals that support it?

 

Look, it would be one thing if some white college kid painted himself red, threw on a piece of cloth around his crotch and a feather in his hair and ran around the field with war axes screaming at the top of his lungs. But that's not what happened here.

 

[Soxbadger]

Im not sure that a single sentence of the above post is true. Even the Sioux did not want the Illini to use the headdress:

 

http://www.nativevillage.org/Messages%20fr...x_to_illini.htm

 

I get that people are upset they lost their mascot, but there is absolutely no comparison.

 

Im not sure if you realize this but the Sioux dont even support the use of their own name by North Dakota:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520248,00.html

 

 

[Texsox]

The Chief is simply a symbol of the Indians who lived in Illinois. Since none of those tribes exist anymore, there can be no approval. But the University got approval from the closest ethnic group they could find. What more can they do? If we're giving weight to the "offended" Indians who are not related in anyway to the Illiniwek tribes, than why not give weight to other similar individuals that support it?

 

Look, it would be one thing if some white college kid painted himself red, threw on a piece of cloth around his crotch and a feather in his hair and ran around the field with war axes screaming at the top of his lungs. But that's not what happened here.

 

Sure, give support to those that support it. But there is no half way here. Either the mascot stays or leaves. Closest isn't close enough, certainly not as close as FSU got. So now you start lining up Tribes on both sides of the issue. And is being offended, or not, the only yardstick to use? I find some value in offending people for a greater good, but I do not see a greater good here.

[clyons]

"The debate came to a head in September 2005, when the NCAA declared Fighting Sioux as "hostile and abusive" to American Indians and said UND would be barred from hosting NCAA postseason tournaments if the school continued using it."

 

"The name and logo, which is a profile of an American Indian man with feathers and streaks of paint on his face, could still be saved if North Dakota's Standing Rock and Spirit Lake Sioux tribes agree by Oct. 1 to give the university permission to use them for at least 30 years."

 

 

 

These two quotes from SoxBadger's Fox News link sum up the point I was trying to make earlier: If the NCAA (in its omnipotent wisdom) has already decided these things are "hostile and abusive," it seems hypocritical of it to allow the perpetuation of this "hostility and abuse" so long as the tribes say its ok. And who is the NCAA to make this judgment ahead of the tribes themselves, anyway?

 

And, again, if something is bad enough to be deemed hostile and abusive in the first place, does one party's consent really make it ok? Maybe the NCAA thinks so, but that not how it usually works in the real world. For example, a workplace can be legally declared sexually hostile and abusive if a boss goes around grabbing the ass of a secretary, even if the particular secretary herself consents; the company can still be found liable for sexual harassment given the impact of the bosses hostile and offensive behavior upon bystanding co-workers. And recall my prostitution example a few pages back.

 

Just sayin'. That is all.

Edited August 24, 2009 by PlaySumFnJurny

[Texsox]

The NCAA checks with tribes and they say this is offensive, this is not; then acts on those recommendations. Seems pretty easy and not hypocritical to me. They even left it open for the Tribes to approve. The NCAA acts because they have legislative power over the teams.

 

So not in their omnipotent wisdom, in the Tribes.

[clyons]

The NCAA checks with tribes and they say this is offensive, this is not; then acts on those recommendations. Seems pretty easy and not hypocritical to me. They even left it open for the Tribes to approve. The NCAA acts because they have legislative power over the teams.

 

So not in their omnipotent wisdom, in the Tribes.

 

 

"The debate came to a head in September 2005, when the NCAA declared Fighting Sioux as "hostile and abusive" to American Indians and said UND would be barred from hosting NCAA postseason tournaments if the school continued using it."

 

Doesn't seem like the NCAA checked with the tribes in 2005 to me, if they're saying it can stay if they say ok now.

 

Even so, bad in 2005, but maybe ok in 2009 doesn't sound the least bit hypocritical?

Edited August 24, 2009 by PlaySumFnJurny

[Jenksismyhero]

The NCAA checks with tribes and they say this is offensive, this is not; then acts on those recommendations. Seems pretty easy and not hypocritical to me. They even left it open for the Tribes to approve. The NCAA acts because they have legislative power over the teams.

 

So not in their omnipotent wisdom, in the Tribes.

 

 

The NCAA thought process:

 

Fan base and money >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> political correctness

 

 

[CanOfCorn]

Has anyone ever asked the people that were protesting against the Chief and against UND what THEY thought about the Seminoles? I mean, so what if the Seminole tribe gets money or whatever....if one of those people were against using Indian symbolism for U of I and UND and whoever else, why is their voice not as strong, or mean as much, for FSU?

 

Really, ti's over and done with, so might as well move on. Still, I think it might create a slippery slope. PETA against any animal mascot. Fighting Irish. Penn Quakers...ok, maybe not the Penn Quakers.

[StrangeSox]

She's in Bromley. She joined like five organizations over the weekend. So far she's enjoying it.

 

I was there for two years. Good place.

[StrangeSox]

Also, I don't think that the chief was an accurate depiction of any aspect of Illini tribes. I really don't understand why people get so upset about it either way.

[Texsox]

"The debate came to a head in September 2005, when the NCAA declared Fighting Sioux as "hostile and abusive" to American Indians and said UND would be barred from hosting NCAA postseason tournaments if the school continued using it."

 

Doesn't seem like the NCAA checked with the tribes in 2005 to me, if they're saying it can stay if they say ok now.

 

Even so, bad in 2005, but maybe ok in 2009 doesn't sound the least bit hypocritical?

 

You should have also highlighted the debate in the wuote. The debate was not the NCAA and themselves, it was Tribes and the NCAA. The NCAA did not start these actions until Tribes started complaining. If there is any hypocrisy, it is the NCAA trying to find anyway for teams to keep their mascot instead of just unilaterally banning all tribal mascots.

[Texsox]

Has anyone ever asked the people that were protesting against the Chief and against UND what THEY thought about the Seminoles? I mean, so what if the Seminole tribe gets money or whatever....if one of those people were against using Indian symbolism for U of I and UND and whoever else, why is their voice not as strong, or mean as much, for FSU?

 

Really, ti's over and done with, so might as well move on. Still, I think it might create a slippery slope. PETA against any animal mascot. Fighting Irish. Penn Quakers...ok, maybe not the Penn Quakers.

 

I do not think one person for or against will make much of a difference. When established tribal leaders, the elected officials for the tribe, come out and say, this is offensive, I believe the right thing to do is ask, what are we trying to do here and is it worth being offensive?

 

So what is the Chief trying to do?

[SnB]

She's already talking about that. She is also talking about going the RA route. She would be a good one. Personally, I'd like to see her that.

former U of I dining hall worker here!

 

woot woot

 

The food wasn't all that bad there, I went to visit my brother at bradley U in peoria and that was way worse.

[bigruss]

She's already talking about that. She is also talking about going the RA route. She would be a good one. Personally, I'd like to see her that.

If she is really interested in it have her contact me, I know the way to get a job, and tell her to join atleast one housing organization that has a higher-up person in housing running it. PM me if needed.