Chief Illiniwek Appeal

You just don't get it. The Seminoles of Florida said it is ok for UF to use Seminole imagery. The Sioux of North Dakota say it is not ok for ND to use Sioux imagery.

Either there are no Illini to approve the use (your past position) or the Peoria tribe, a member of the Illini confederation that still exists and may have the right to speak for the Illini, disapproves of the use, so there is no active Illini tribe that approves of the use.

There is consistency. The Chief is done. Live with it.

And who do you think it should fall upon?

Im sure Blago, Madigan, Jones, and even Naomi are shaking in their boots about losing because of the Chief.

If you want to blame the guv, then blame Jim Edgar. He had the best chance to save the Chief, and refused to.

But I bet you'll overlook that, and still work for him if announces he's running.

Fair share? He had it on his desk, and refused to sign it.

Blago is a little more concerned about being Mr. "A" than about Eppley stalling the Chief issue.

So if one loves the Chief, one should work AGAINST Edgar, and FOR Blago, right?

there might be some single issue voters on the Chief, but I bet you could fit them all in one room.

That's what I have believed for years, but cannot understand the unwillingness of pols or the BOT for that matter of settling this issue long ago and be done with it. The little vocal minority always has, is, and will be a little vocal minority, and no amount of Kaufman's little lies will change that. Now that the NCAA has stepped in it gets dicey. I'm sure as this plays with the NCAA we will find out what they used in deciding the way they did. We'll find out it wasn't much. The issue has been frustrating to say the least.

You, and so many others, seem to think that a majority is sufficient.

But, in America, "majority rules" is misunderstood, and not always applicable.

For example, we do not have a true democracy. It is a representative democracy. I would guess that you have never voted for the president. You have voted for someone who then went to Washington and voted for the President (Electoral College).

(The following is for illustrative purposes, I am not calling anyone a rascist!)

If the town of Whoknowswhere, comprised of 95% white protestents, votes to ban Blacks, Catholics, and Jews, it would fail. The majority does not rule. Those people can make the blacks, Catholics and Jews very uncomfortable, but can't vote to suppress them. Conversely, if the Whokowswherians want to make imagery that is insulting to the blacks, catholics or jews, they should not be allowed to do so if the blacks, etc do not want to be offended.
Or do not want to be CONTINUED to be offended.

We no longer have blackface minstrel shows (too bad, I liked 'em). We no longer functionally ban catholics from becoming President (we used to, until Kennedy. The history was fear of the Pope having tooo much influence over a Presdident). We no longer ban Jews from employment, clubs, or neighborhoods. For that matter, it has been a long time since anyone has displayed the "No Irish Need Apply" sign in their shop window.

So majority doen't rule. A minority can and does have a voice. It has to be a minority that is more than one, and for more than some little pissant complaint, but there are a substantial number of people, if still a minority, that believe that Chief Illinwek is offensive to their culture, or to the culture of another group to which they belong, but still find offensive sympathetically.

I don't know a single person from Darfur, but I am concerned about their treatment. I don't know a single person from Sri Lanka, but I am concerned about the tsunami. I don't know a single Kurd, but I am concerned about the Kurds in Iraq. And I am sure you are, too, becuase you have the compassion all humans are granted by God.

But those people are far away, almost in the abstract, and you have (probably) no particular love for them. You do have a love for the image of someone portrayed by a dancing kid. But many NAs, many, many NAs, do not like the appropriation of the NA image for commercial or cultural purposes by those who are not NA.

Cleveland Indians? Washington Redskins? Offensive, but big time multimillion dollar operations, tough to take on without traction. The schools provide that traction. High schools first, then colleges, then the pros.

Sorry if this was rambling, but I hope I answered your question, especially about "majority".

For you it's all about politics and tactics. And I am sure it is. But as someone from Kansas, originally, now Urbana, who's wife worked at a Native American museum in New England, and who grew up going to Catholic school in Wichita and being taught by Mrs. Shunatona in the fifth grade, I have to tell you a lot of Native Americans really do think the use of "indian" nicknames is demeaning and insulting. Many do not, but far and away the individuals I know see those nicknames as cynical. And living here I can tell you that most of the people I see supporting the "Chief" might as well have "I'm secretly a racist" printed on their foreheads. It is all too sad this had wound on as long as it has. By resisting doing the right thing a decade ago the Trustees made that idiot the major speaker here and gave him power he shouldn't have. By the way, my son, a U of I grad, has a much better defense of the Chief rap then you do. But that's because he's a rational thinker, not that concerned with the ideological power politics running through this fight.

Clear thinking? What the hell is that supposed to mean? It's perfectly acceptable to let your wallet do the talking. It has nothing to do with being shallow. It has do with an unwillingness to support a radical liberal agenda and the university leaders that won't stand up to it.

I think you interchange the majority with what is moral. We have come so far as a society in this country as you pointed out the racial issues that we have dealt with. While it may have been legal and accepted as such in the past we have changed because we have matured to believe that those laws or policies were wrong and saw the immorality of it.

With regard to the Chief (I will not rehash years of discourse) complaints have ranged from inaccuracies, inappropriateness, all the way to racist. The anti-Chief crowd have not made their case that this situation is anything like the ones you described. We have matured enough as a society to see when something is not right and should be corrected. When you have polls, votes, and general discourse on this issue that make it clear that the vast, vast majority of people (NA and otherwise) either don't see it for anything else than what it is or support the Chief. Why is that? That has been something that few bring up, but why is it that the little vocal minority is still a little vocal minority on one of the most liberal and politically correct universities in the country after 15 years of ceaseless efforts to remove something? Even the NAs that come to protest are the same. Why is it that this issue that should be able to get the traction on this campus with all the factors in favor of it cannot get any? I do not ask these to be biligerent, but as someone who has there from the beginning these have been my questions that continue to go unanswered.

As someone who was in governent service and had the opportunity to visit and spend significant amounts of time in a multitude of countries I can honestly say that as a society we are quick to alleviate offense when it is recognized as a result of political correctness. A behavior that is viewed with much derision on the other side of the world. Just to illustrate a point the examples you gave earlier regarding the discriminitory behavior against blacks, Catholics, Irish, etc. continues in those countries and geographic areas you mention albeit with different actors. Even in those countries who we view as civilized pass laws that would make some people here cringe.

Some non Americans I knew who are aware of the overall NA issue expressed opinions that the extreme politically correct crowd have diverted attention from real issues on reservations and what they see as removing NA imagery because of offense to some is viewed as erasing history. They do not understand why so much effort is expended on this issue when there are far more serious ones that demand attention. They are correct in assuming that most US children do not get much in way of NA history that is unrelated to the Pilgrims or the Indian wars of the old west and as a result NAs will slowly fade from memory. The level of understanding by them was very good and logical. I can't help but agree with them.

While you may think that 10% or 15% of a population should dictate to the majority what is correct what is missing is the morality of what is right and wrong in making such decisions. As I said, we have come very far to ensure that individuals are not discriminated against and allowed to fully participate in society regardless of color, sex, religion, etc and the Chief does not rise to that level. There will always be a difference of opinion and the Chief is simply that. The divisiveness that people like our former infamous chancellor and Kaufman like to bring up does not exist. The campus, community, state is not divided, but a little vocal minority just doesn't agree with the Chief.

vvl, I agree, but for this.

We have matured but aren't done. We are still maturing. The maturation will include NAs, someday.

I guess you and I, and IP and I, disagree about how large of a group it needs to be to be thought of as signifcant.

You (apparently, I don't want to put words in your mouth) think the anti numbers are low, just kaufman and some vocal student types, maybe a few NAs thrown in.

I think it is larger. Unfortunately, and I hope you agree, neither "side" has definitive numbers to rely upon.

It's lunch time, and..... GO ILLINI! Beat the Hawkeyes!!!!

People without principle can always be bought.

And people without principle do the buying, or selling (out).

yet radical faculty members are allowed to contact recruits in an effort to keep them from the university?

Recruits? Do you mean sports recruits, or academic student recruits?

If you mean sports recruits, do you mean marginal students whao are handy with a ball, or students who qualify for the great U of I, who ALSO can handle a ball?

Go cheer the Bears, or the Cubs, or Cardinals. This is a UNIVERSITY, not a sports conglomerate that has a few required classes. Jack Ingrams (engineering) are few and far between. Luther Heads (Residential burglary) and Ryan Mathas (felony battery) are far more common.

Hooray for our sterling student athletes! To heck with the high academic engineers if they don't like the Chief.

What we need, and deserve, are quality students, some of whom are high achievers in sports, coming to a high quality, well funded, world class university. Or do you think Texas Tech is a better school because it has developed good sports teams?

So who (names, please) are "ant-recruiting" non-athletes (names, please)?

My pride for my school lies in Nobel prizes, not in the football team. If you went to the U of I because of its sports, you should have gone to Michigan, or Tennessee, or Florida State. If you went to school because of the education, you should have gone to Illinois, or Chicago, or Stanford, or (hate to say it), even Michigan.

So to turn your back on one of the greatest schools in the world because some libs are getting press, and because the symbol might be eliminated, shows you are shallow and immature. You belong at UNLV.

As far as names, here's a list of plaintiffs from the lawsuit a few years ago:

Cydney Crue, John McKinn, Debbie Reese, Brenda Farnell, Frederick Hoxie, Stephen Kaufman, Philip Phillips

I only recognize some of the names as faculty, but the group claimed to speak on behalf of all faculty and students (a ridiculuous assertion).

And which nonathlete students did Crue, McKinn, Reese, Kaufman et al talk to? Names, please.

OK, which ATHLETES did they talk to, names please, and what did the athletes decide?

Let's deal with facts, please.

So you are operating on rumor. You don't trust someone or some group unless it fits your agenda to do so.

I'm not denying it happened. I can't prove a negative any more than you can. You just can't prove an assertion you made, that they talked to athletes about not coming here. Or that they even had any effect on them. You choose to believe something Kaufman may have said out of faith, or faithlessness, instead of having facts.

Until you have facts, you should confine your comments, unless you make it clear it is your opinion.

And at this point, facts not proven are facts that don't exist.

But you don't care about facts, you just care about punishing the University of Illinois for one act that you don't approve, an act that hasn't even happened.

Take your money and give it to anyone or anything you want. If you don't care about one of the finest universitites in the world, don't give them any money. I don't care. I love the U of I, warts and all, and will support it if it keeps the Chief or dumps the Chief.

But then again, I must care about the U of I more than you. I certainly care about it more than I care about the Chief.

September 5, 2005

Dear UIUC Faculty, Staff, Students, and Community Members,

On Tuesday of last week, a sophomore student in my Introduction to American Indian Studies class said to me “I know you want the mascot retired, but I don't know why. All we hear is the pro chief reasons, but we don't hear your reasons. And what about Illini?”

The student is interested in my reasons because of my identity. I am a tribally enrolled Pueblo Indian. I grew up on our reservation at Nambe Pueblo, in northern New Mexico. I dance at our ceremonies. Pueblo dance is one aspect of our traditional way of worship.

Acting on an assumption that many of you­like the student in my class­want to hear directly from a Native person on campus why Chief Illiniwek, the logo, and the name must be retired, I prepared this letter and ask that you read and share it with others, regardless of their position on this issue. It effects all of us, whatever our position---even if it is one of neutrality. The letter is long because this is a complex issue.

Local and national media tends to cast the mascot issue as “pro-Chief” or “anti-Chief” and for the most part, Native people are not quoted. Instead, reference is made to the survey's conducted by Sports Illustrated and the Annenberg Center that said Native Americans are not bothered by the mascots. The surveys are flawed in many ways. I provide two here.

Who are the Native Americans they talked to? Our UIUC campus lists over 100 Native American students. The majority of them, however, are not tribally enrolled or otherwise connected to their tribal nation. Their identity as Native American is significantly different in experience than someone whose life experience is immersed in Native ways of being as a citizen of a Native community. Many of them have spoken on our campus, saying they find nothing wrong with Chief Illiniwek. I do not question or denigrate their claim to Native heritage, but I do question the degree to which they can appreciate or understand this issue.

How informed were the people they talked to? Prior to coming to UIUC in 1994, I was living on our reservation. I was teaching at an Indian school in Santa Fe. I was asked by the professor recruiting me if the mascot issue here would be a problem for me. I dismissed it then, saying it was unimportant and that mascots are not a problem. Within a few months of living in Champaign Urbana, I changed my mind. Conversations with people on and off campus revealed that most people's knowledge of who Native people are is based on romantic and stereotypical images encountered from childhood through adulthood from books and movies to programs such as Y-Indian programs and scouting that provide the opportunity to dress and behave in ways they believe are Native. The emotion and strength with which people hold these images dear would, seemingly, make them welcome Native people in their midst, but I and others across the country have found otherwise. If we do not affirm their flawed ideas, they lose interest in us. They dismiss us as radical, or “PC.”

Last year, the NCAA asked institutions with Native mascots to respond to a set of questions. UIUC submitted their report near the end of last semester. That report was highly flawed. We, at the Native American House, responded to their report with a strong statement denouncing the report. You can read our statement here:
http://www.nah.uiuc.edu/mascot-news.html

The NCAA's announcement regarding mascots and names gave the Board of Trustees the opportunity to end this situation. Statements in the media from Trustee Chair Eppley suggest that the BOT will appeal the use of Illini and Fighting Illini. There are indications that “Chief Illiniwek” and the logo will be retired, but the names will be retained. I am concerned that you will welcome this compromise and view it as an acceptable solution.

I am on record in opposition to that outcome. I have stated that position to the Board of Trustees, President's Stukel and White, and Chancellor's Cantor and Herman. My statements and letters were provided in my role as president of the Native American student organization; more recently I speak as a member of the faculty in American Indian Studies.

There are many reasons why Illini and Fighting Illini should not be used in the sports venue. I offer some of my thoughts here.

It is highly unlikely that fans of UIUC's rivals will go along with UIUC's plan to recast Illini and Fighting Illini as nicknames void of any association with Native Americans or imagery. Fan behavior is emotionally charged, with fans invested in coming up with clever ways to skewer their opponents. I expect that UIUC's administration and fans will spend a lot of time and money in their effort to recast the name. They will be frustrated by rival fans who will do what they want to with the names. UIUC administrators will spend more and more money to counter what they view as a mis-use of the name. And, rival fans will dig in harder. That is the nature of the sports arena.

Moreover, I expect Illini fans of the mascot will continue to use Native imagery. There might be a different mascot, and their may be an attempt to disassociate the names with Native imagery, but there are many fans who will be opposed to such a move. Like rival fans, they will use Illini and Fighting Illini as they choose. During the basketball season, the local newspaper ran stories calling the UIUC fanbase the "Illini Nation." Many of you may not know much about the history of American Indians, but please know that such casual appropriation of Native nationhood by a group of fans who refuse to acknowledge the harm done by the mascot is an affront. The history is such that there were multiple efforts by private and public and governmental agencies to destroy Native peoples and their tribal nations. Our leaders fought hard to retain our status as sovereign nations, and we have persevered.

Meanwhile, caught in the midst and furor of this mess will be Native students, staff, and faculty, whose cultures will still be the stuff of sports play. Instead of relying on Sports Illustrated or the Annenberg Center, I urge you to consider the statements issued by national, regional, and local Native American political, social, educational, and professional organizations that have called for an end to the use of Native imagery in sports programs. A list of them is included at the end of this letter.

Many of you are wondering about the Florida Seminoles and other tribes who have recently given endorsements to Florida State, Central Michigan University, and the University of Utah. I respect the decisions of those tribal leaders, especially given their sovereign nation status, but I wonder if they might change their minds, as I did, when I became immersed in the campus with an Indian mascot.

Many of you may wonder where these efforts at use of Native imagery will end. There are suggestions that those who work on this effort also want the name of the state to be changed. That is not the case. State leaders don't have symbols, mascots or imagery that is used the way that they are used in sports arenas. My efforts are limited to the use of such symbols, mascots, imagery, and names in sports programs.

UIUC has spent far too much money supporting and defending the use of the mascot, logo, and name. It has cost the institution in other ways, too. The University's reputation is not what it should be. I encourage you to consider the costs we all bear, and if you feel our sports team should change the name in addition to Chief Illiniwek and the logo, please write to President White, Chancellor Herman, and the Board of Trustees.

Sincerely,
Debbie Reese
Assistant Professor
American Indian Studies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMERICAN INDIAN ORGANIZATIONS WITH STATEMENTS REGARDING THE USE OF AMERICAN INDIAN MASCOTS/IMAGERY

National Congress of American Indians

Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma [formerly Kaskaskia, Peoria, Piankesaw and Wea Indians known by Europeans as Illinois/Illini]

National Indian Education Association
Society of Indian Psychologists of the Americas
American Indian Movement
Advocates for American Indian Children (California)
The Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
American Indian Language and Culture Education Board
American Indian Mental Health Association (Minnesota)
American Indian Opportunities Industrialization Center of San Bernardino County

American Indian Student Services at the Ohio State University

Association on American Indian Affairs
BRIDGES - Building Roads Into Diverse Groups Empowering Students
Buncombe County Native American Intertribal Association (North Carolina)
Cincinnati Zapitista Coalition
Committee to End Cultural Genocide (St. Cloud State University)
Concerned American Indian Parents (Minnesota)
Council for Indigenous North Americans (University of Southern Maine)
Eagle and Condor Indigenous Peoples' Alliance
Governor's Interstate Indian Council
Fontana Native American Indian Center, Inc.
Greater Tulsa Area Indian Affairs Commission
Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council
HONOR - Honor Our Neighbors Origins and Rights
Illinois Native Bar Association
Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes
(Composed of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muskogee (Creek), Cherokee, and Seminole Nations)

Institute of American Indian Arts, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians
Kansas Association for Native American Education
Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs
Mascot Abuse San Francisco Bay Area
Medicine Wheel Intertribal Association (Louisiana)
Menominee Tribe of Indians (Wisconsin)
Minnesota Indian Education Association
Morning Star Institute
NAES College, Chicago (Native American Educational Services)
National Coalition on Racism in Sports and the Media
National Indian Education Association

Native American Caucus of the California Democratic Party

Native American House, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Native American Indian Center of Central Ohio
Native American International Caucus of the United Methodist Church, Inc

Native American Journalists Association

Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs
North Carolina Commission of Indian Affairs
North Dakota Indian Education Association
North Dakota State University Student Senate
Ohio Center for Native American Affairs
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
San Bernardino/Riverside Counties Native American Community Council
Society of Indian Psychologists
Southern California Indian Center
St. Cloud State University - American Indian Center
Tennessee Chapter of the National Coalition for the Preservation of Indigenous Cultures

Tennessee Native Veterans Society
Unified Coalition for American Indian Concerns, Virginia
The United Indian Nations of Oklahoma
Virginia American Indian Cultural Resource Center
Wisconsin Indian Education Association
WIEA "Indian" Mascot and Logo Taskforce (Wisconsin)
Youth "Indian" Mascot and Logo Taskforce (Wisconsin)

Debbie A. Reese, (Nambé Pueblo)
Assistant Professor, American Indian Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Native American House
Room 200, MC-139
1206 West Nevada Street
Urbana, Illinois 61801

TEL 217-265-9870
FAX 217-265-9880
http://www.nah.uiuc.edu

Ok.

Ms. Reese if you could be so kind as to answer a few questions I have.

Why has the anti-Chief crowd remained a such a little vocal minority after 15 years of ceaseless effort? All evidence from protesters, polling, and voting indicates this.

Define racism and then tell me how, specifically, is the Chief racist?

Speaking of protesters and observing the numerous BOT protests inside and out for a number of years why are there typically the same anti-chief people?

Why have the various anti-chief groups failed to gain a significant following on this campus of all places?

After attending BOT meetings and hearing the tearful protests by the anti-chief crowd why has it not moved other minorities on this campus to action?

Why do blacks, asians, and hispanics on this campus purchase and wear or display the Chief?

And finally, in real terms, how many jobs for NAs do you believe will be created nationwide with the elimination of the Chief, alcoholics on reservations taken off the AA rolls, literacy rates to climb among NAs, graduation rates to improve on reservations, drug abuse among NAs to decrease, etc?

These are questions I put to you that over the last 15 years have gone unanswered or dismissed as irrelevant. These are legitimate questions because I believe that you and other anti-chief groups have taken on this cause as an easy way out to not have to deal with the hard realities faced on reservations or as a feel good issue that makes people feel they are doing something. I know that there are those who earnestly believe that this is necessary and I respect that, but how much money has been spent by you and other local anti-chief groups that could have gone to fund scholarships for disadvantaged NAs or other programs.

Ignored and unaswered. I continue to be disappointed.

Paytonfan86,
I don't think you're going to get an answer.

veritas vos liberabit asked me a series of questions. My answers to each of them are below.

Why has the anti-Chief crowd remained a such a little vocal minority after 15 years of ceaseless effort? All evidence from protesters, polling, and voting indicates this.

D Reese: I'm not sure that I'd say it has remained a little minority? I think that, over time, more people have come to understand the issue, and have changed their minds, but are not public about their view. Last spring during the basketball season, I saw a lot of students on campus wearing shirts that said "ILLINOIS" but did not have anything related to the mascot. I think their decision in shirts speaks volumes, though they remain silent. From personal experience, many people with whom I have spoken have changed their minds.
--------------------------------------------------------
Define racism and then tell me how, specifically, is the Chief racist?

D Reese: I do not think the Chief itself is racist. There are (at least) two kinds of stereotypical images of Native Americans. The savage, blood-thirsty Indian (as in children's books like THE MATCHLOCK GUN, CADDIE WOODLAWN and many other works of historical fiction for children), and the romantic one (this is the noble Indian who fought the good fight and the one who stands for protection of the environment, living in harmony with the earth, etc. who many know from an early 90s best selling children's book called Brother Eagle Sister Sky). So, the entity called Chief Illiniwek is not hostile or racist. However! Some people refuse to hear the critique. It is easier to dismiss those who object as "politically correct" than it is to really give some thought to the critiques. In their passionate support, a lot of pro chief people say and do things that are racist. I believe thoughtful, caring people support the mascot, but this issue pushes them to say and do things they wouldn't otherwise do.

----------------------------------------------
Speaking of protesters and observing the numerous BOT protests inside and out for a number of years why are there typically the same anti-chief people?

D. Reese: I think the same is true for the pro-chief people. On either side, a handful of people/names appear with regularity in the paper. The media is drawn to drama, and so vehement pro- and anti-Chief voices and sound bytes are what we (the public) get from our local media. It is important to know that there is at least one voice that doesn't get much press. That is those who the university says it means to honor----Native Americans. We are not in the forefront of the protest, but our voices have been documented to the BOT numerous times over at least 15 years. The concerns we have cannot be reduced to sound bytes, so if/when we do give interviews, we are usually ignored. I think the media is doing us all a disservice. We are thoughtful readers; we don't have short attention spans. We can handle long, complex discussions, but the paper doesn't provide us with them.

-------------------------------------------

Why have the various anti-chief groups failed to gain a significant following on this campus of all places?

D. Reese: Are you sure? How do you know? As I noted above, in the 11 years I've lived here, I find that more and more people who I speak with wish the University would retire the mascot and move on.

----------------------------------------------------

After attending BOT meetings and hearing the tearful protests by the anti-chief crowd why has it not moved other minorities on this campus to action?

Why do blacks, asians, and hispanics on this campus purchase and wear or display the Chief?

D. Reese: Actually, the sit-in two years ago was a multi-racial coalition of people called I Resist. And, it is my understanding that Black, Asian, and Latino student groups on campus have issued statements calling for the retirement of the mascot. You will ALWAYS find exceptions to any statement or perspective, so I don't discount your observation of who is wearing the clothing with chief logos. That said, I don't think this is a people-of-color issue. It involves all of us, whether we are "of color" or not.

----------------------------------------------------------------

And finally, in real terms, how many jobs for NAs do you believe will be created nationwide with the elimination of the Chief, alcoholics on reservations taken off the AA rolls, literacy rates to climb among NAs, graduation rates to improve on reservations, drug abuse among NAs to decrease, etc?

D. Reese: In the U.S., we tell our children to go to school, get a good education. We believe education is the way out of poverty or dysfunction in whatever form it exists. Your argument---that Native people have more pressing issues---is valid, but the way to deal with these problems is through education. Unfortunately, schools in the US are unintentionally not welcoming to Native students. Chief Illiniwek is just a stereotype, but it is a stereotype that exists at every level of schooling. Romantic and savage Indians move all through textbooks and children's books and television shows and movies. Native kids who see this on a daily basis have to figure out how to cope with this. Perhaps being inundated with these stereotypes explains poor self esteem, lack of motivation, high drop out rates, etc. etc. It is not something that can be quantified, but it is most definitely worth thinking about. Whether we like it or not, Chief Illiniwek is just one more piece of that massive body of stereotypes of Native Americans that exist.

-----------------------------------------------

These are questions I put to you that over the last 15 years have gone unanswered or dismissed as irrelevant. These are legitimate questions because I believe that you and other anti-chief groups have taken on this cause as an easy way out to not have to deal with the hard realities faced on reservations or as a feel good issue that makes people feel they are doing something. I know that there are those who earnestly believe that this is necessary and I respect that, but how much money has been spent by you and other local anti-chief groups that could have gone to fund scholarships for disadvantaged NAs or other programs.

---I can flip that back to you; how much money has the University spent defending the mascot and its honor of Native people? That money could have been better spent on scholarships for Native students, and it would have been a far greater number of scholarships that those all the anti-chief groups could ever fund. Additionally, the University could have spent some of that money visiting reservations and actively recruiting Native students.

paytonfan85 asked if I know whether or not any of the faculty in the lawsuit actually contacted potential athletes. I do not know. I was not involved in that effort. My involvement in the suit was directly related to restrictions on my ability to speak with Native students on my reservation.

Sorry, must have just missed your post when I sent mine.

Foleyma, I appreciate your post, but want to be clear that I am not an "anti-chief" individual. My concerns are much larger than the mascot. It is my belief that the anti-chief strategies on campus have caused people to be anti-Indian and unreceptive to anything having to do with Native issues.

In the 11 years I have lived, studied, worked, and taught in CU, I have spent a great deal of time answering questions like the ones pose on this blog. It was, and is, clear to me that the CU community wants information about Native Americans. Logically, the flagship educational institution should provide that information. Courses in Native American history, literature, law, etc. should have been in place here for many years, but that has not been the case. Our efforts to get a Native American House and American Indian Studies program were repeatedly ignored over and over again. I think that was because the anti-chief protests simply made the power brokers angry and unreceptive to meet with us (Native students) to talk about the need for educational opportunities. Instead, they allow the rhetoric of how the mascot educates people about Native Americans to stand, as though it provided substantive information about Native Americans.

UIUC has only had the Native American House and American Indian Studies program since 2002. For the first time, students at UIUC can take courses on Native American topics taught by Native American professors. The wider CU community can, for the first time, attend public events sponsored by the Native American House. UIUC's athletic program is well funded, but the Native American House and American Indian Studies program is like other academic units---underfunded due to state cuts. Rather than withhold money due to the mascot controversy, I'd like to see people donate their money and earmark it for the Native American House.

This is corny, but nobody has to be pro-or ant-Chief. There is another option. Be pro-Indian!

paytonfan86,

My posts to this forum are to provide information. Nobody appointed me to any role, and I do not claim to speak or represent anyone other than myself.

By and large, Americans know very little about Native Americans. As a professor at UIUC and a member of the CU community, I work to provide information that none of us (me included) got in school.

Paytonfan86's question is a fair one. I don't think that people with Native ancestry but no active involvement with their Native community should be disqualified from voicing their opinion about the mascot.

History being what it is, there are a lot of people in the US with Native ancestry, but who do not know what tribe it was, or if they know what tribe it was, they are not connected with their tribal community in the present day. I suspect that there are more without connection than there are WITH connections, and for those without, their understanding of Native life in the present and past is skewed by what they got in school or through TV or movies.

In the years I have been here, many students have said "I am Native American and I don't see anything wrong with the Chief." I make the distinction because I think it matters. Especially at UIUC, where there is an interest in diverse perspectives and voices. To hold the university accountable for that statement means, to me, seeking out people who grow up in different places, with different life experiences. With respect to Native Americans, I think it means those who are active with their Native community/tribe.

The Board of Trustees. As the people charged with the well-being of the University, I expect them to make decisions that are in the best interest of the university and the people of the state. I expect them to make decisions based on information.

I'm new to this blog, so I don't know your position, paytonfan86. What issue is it that you think we disagree on? I've shared my position that I think the mascot, name, and logo ought to be retired, and I've supported that with my reasons, but I don't know yours. Would you mind sharing them?

Thanks.

http://www.prairienet.org/prc/anti.html/qa.html

I counted 11 references to "racist" and "racism" on this page alone. This may not be your personal view, but you have made your bed with these people.

The University of Iowa must change the color of their visiting locker room and apologize to all the people they've offended. They have used a color that is part of my family crest to attempt to demoralize opposing teams. I demand that this part of my heritage be respected. Furthermore, the professor who raised this issue must apologize to all members of my family for suggesting that the color pink promotes sexism and homophobia. Either she's inferring that people who use pink are sexist and homophobic or that people who legitimately use pink are women and/or homosexuals. I am none of the above, and I am offended. It is the right of any easily offended person (me) to insist that everyone else change their bigoted and insensitive ways, so that I may remain clueless.

paytonfan86: A couple of quick points before I give you my reasons: 1) Chief Illiniwek is a fictional character who is not based on any actual person, living or dead. Therefore, he could not have belonged to any tribe (Illini, Peoria, etc.). Therefore, for this group to claim the right to approve or disapprove of the Chief is both unfounded and irrelevant.

D. Reese: In 1994, summertime, one of the local television stations went to visit with the Peoria Tribe in Oklahoma. Does anyone know why they chose the Peoria? Apparently they felt it was the Peoria who had "the right" to say whether or not the Chief was a problem. The station aired three segments (three nights in a row) of their interviews with Peoria tribal members. They showed the Peoria people protests that had taken place. These protests were, from what I can tell, coordinated by the campus group, PRC. At some of their events, they invited members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) to come here to speak and take part in the protests. I believe the Peoria people recognized the participation of AIM and responded by saying that the protesters did not speak for the Peoria people. I think the Peoria people then said that the mascot was ok with them. There were, however, Native students, staff and faculty at UIUC who had been working to achieve other goals (Native American House and American Indian Studies), and they felt the way the Peoria was informed by the TV station was unfair, so they visited with the Peoria, too. After their visit, the Peoria Tribal Council issued the statement that currently stands, that they feel the mascot ought to be retired.

I don't recall seeing anything from the university that said they felt the Chief was related to the Peoria people. Generally speaking, the argument has been made that the tribes who were once here are the ones that have some stake in the matter. Obviously, both pro- and anti-Chief groups have visited with the Peoria, so it seems to me that both groups have felt that the Peoria are THE tribe who gets to have the final word.

Is the Chief a fictional character? I do not recall anyone using that phrase to describe the Chief before your post, but let's go with it. Let's say the Chief is a fictional character. It is still a stereotyped image of Native Americans. Whether it is a positive or negative stereotype, it is still the case that Native American imagery is being used for a sports mascot. As such, it falls within the statements made by leading national Native American organizations--that is, that such imagery should be discontinued.

------------------------
paytonfan86: 2) I have heard the argument that he should be retired because his dance makes fun of a form of Native American worship. Harvest is also a part of many tribes' worship. Should I consult anyone before I harvest corn and squash? I realize that's ridiculous, but so is the “making fun of my religion” argument.

D. Reese: I don't think harvest is part of anyone's worship. Rather, people (Native and non-Native) are thankful to whatever higher power they worship, for a good harvest. They don't worship the corn or squash, but the entity that in some way provided it. As a Pueblo Indian, we dance in the fall after the harvest, but we don't worship corn. We do a corn dance but are thankful to the Creator for the corn and other good things we have received.

---------------
paytonfan86: 3) You assert that the Chief is not racist. However this rings hollow when I see bumper stickers that say “anti-Chief, anti-racism”.

D. Reese: Bumper stickers are like sound bytes. They don't allow for complexity. We live in a society where we are taught by those who love us (parents/teachers/etc.) how to think about Native Americans. We are taught this largely through stereotypical imagery that does little to help anyone understand who Native people are. It is not useful, nor accurate to try to blame any single person/group for that state of affairs. It is simply "the way it is." It is "the norm." It was the norm for people to do a lot of things that are no longer acceptable (eg: deny women the right to vote, keep slaves). Gradually, over time, people began to understand whatever issue it was, and change occurred. A term that is used to describe this phenomenon is "institutional sexism/racism." It isn't intentional or overt. It is just the way it is. It takes time to think through what is going on in order for change to occur.

---------------------------
paytonfan86: Here's my real problem: there is a movement on college campuses across the country for some students/faculty to root out anything that may remotely be considered offensive to someone. There is always someone willing to take any knee-jerk, extremist issue and raise hell about it until something is done. Usually they accomplish this by denigrating those they oppose, rather than relying on the merits of their own arguments. I've stood by when students couldn't celebrate their religion/culture on campus by displaying a Christmas tree in residence halls. I've stood by for all the war protestors that label our soldiers as terrorists. I've had enough. I'm not going to stay quiet anymore. I have been labeled a racist for supporting the Chief, which is slanderous and a blatant lie. I loathe everything these people stand for, which is grabbing power. How many of these protestors have actually contributed something positive to society? Very few. They are too busy being against everything to stand for anything. I've had enough. Thanks for asking.

D. Reese: You've made some broad statements. Are there students/faculty hell-bent on objecting to anything and everything? Maybe, but not all are like that. Are there war protesters who call our soldiers terrorists? Yes, but not all protesters think that. But let's get back to the mascot. I asked for reasons why you support the mascot, but your answers were not why you support the mascot. Rather, they are counter-arguments. Why do you like the mascot? Why is it a good thing? Why is it good for the university to have this mascot?

I mistook your previous question as wanting reasons why I'm against the ban. To quickly address your rebuttal: who asked the local news station to take it upon themselves to appoint the Peoria tribe as the arbiters in this case? It is unfortunate that they did so, because they have confused the issue (Pretty standard for journalists, when you think about it.). Furthermore, I do not accept your premise that the Chief represents a stereotype. In no way does his image suggest that he represents what he (or the university) believes all Native Americans to be. He is contrived from a variety of different Native American sources, not just one. I also reject that one needs the approval of another race/ethnic group to use their imagery. Am I free to restrict the use of Beethoven merely because of my German ancestry? Finally, calling people racists is not nuanced. It's blatant, slanderous, and without need for interpretation.

Now, as for my arguments for keeping the Chief:

1) The Chief is not a mascot, he is a contrived symbol. Mascots hang out with the cheerleaders, athletes, fans, etc. and generally serve the purpose of amusing people. The Chief does not fit this criteria. I defy you to find one school mascot that in any way resembles the Chief and his role on our campus.

2) The Chief is a positive symbol meant to instill pride and loyalty. He represents courage, honor, and dignity, qualities that all should strive for. Chief Illiniwek is unquestionably treated with more respect than any other part of the university.

3) The Chief represents history. Not the history of Native Americans, but the history of our university, our students, and our alumni. The Chief is a part of the collective heritage of those whose lives have been influenced by the university.

4) Retiring the Chief will not help those who wish to foster understanding of Native Americans to achieve their goals. Those who support the Chief will resent those who have imposed their will on the overwhelming majority who support and honor the Chief.

5) Anti-Chief activists have turned Native Americans into victims. Victimization teaches that you are inferior and cannot succeed without the help of others. It presupposes a monopoly on moral superiority that is unfounded. This not only does not help Native Americans, it demoralizes them and dishonors their real struggles.

I completely support providing better education opportunities for people to learn about Native American life, and not just the rosy picture that some want to believe in. However, the energy is being focused in the wrong direction. You cannot build people up by tearing something else down. You have to invest in the people themselves. Build a Native American cultural center. Make it a centerpiece and a source of pride for the university. Do something that edifies Native Americans in this community and across the country. Banning the Chief will not accomplish this.

Thank you. It won't change any minds, but I refuse to let the PC crowds dictate the terms of the debate. I also refuse to allow them to identify problems and then try to garner support with false crusades. If your position is just, it should be easy to argue the merits of your case. When you have to rely strictly on emotion and misrepresentations, you have to question the validity of any argument.

I actually sympathize with the situation many Native Americans are in. I think most Americans would too, if they were better informed. The anti-Chief movement not only will not help, but will close people's minds to real solutions. Banning the Chief and any associated imagery will not solve the problems of poverty, addiction, unemployment, and poor educational opportunities that face many Native Americans. We should be focusing on real solutions, not this window-dressing crap that we're dealing with now.

For those interested in events taking place at UIUC's Native American House, go to our website:
http://www.nah.uiuc.edu

There are many events there that the public is welcome to attend.

Thank you Ms Reese for your efforts to educate.

Your comments about Native Americans not asking for any of the past, present or future struggles are most compelling.

Perhaps all of us non-Native Americans should speak less and listen more on Native American issues?

One question, if Native Americans are eliminated as symbols, how would you envision the public learning about Native Americans in the future and what could the local pro, anti or indifferent people do to support such a future?

paytonfan86 posted URLs to websites that show Native people in dance clothing that he says is similar to Chief Illiniwek. If I understand him correctly, he thinks that I said that nobody dresses as Chief Illiniwek does. For clarification, the clothing the Chief wears is similar to that worn by Plains Indians. That style of dress was made popular by the film industry, and over and over, it is what is used (by default) to portray "Indian." There are over 500 tribes in the US. They differ from each other in multiple ways based on geographic location.

Another resource readers of this blog can use to learn about Native Americans are the websites prepared by tribal nations. Go to this site: http://www.nativeculturelinks.com/indians.html. The first link is to home pages of tribal nations. Those maintained by the tribe are indicated with a drum. Look at the other links, too. They're so much info on this page that will be helpful to those who are interested in learning about Native Americans.

Here's my take on the whole thing:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=15328829&postID=112748379570401602

It's over. It's just a matter of time.

So if the attire is theirs, it must also be theirs to give. The regalia worn by Chief Illiniwek was given to the university in just this manner. That doesn't sound like a stereotype.

Were the Illiniwek associated with the Plains Indians in any way? If the Chief accurately represents the Plains Indians, then shouldn't they get to decide whether it's ok for UIUC to use the Chief since there aren't any Illini? Are there other elements of the Chief that involve other tribes? Does mixing the Illini with the Plains Indians essentially create a stereotype?

Whether Chief Illiniwek is an amalgam or sterotype, the rhetoric is that he honors Native Americans.

In my first post to this list, I shared a long list of Native organizations that have asked that Native American imagery be retired from use in the sports arena. These statements have been made because Native Americans do not feel honored by these representations/amalgams/stereotypes.

Call it what you want. Characterize it in whatever way you choose. But you cannot deny that Native American's don't like it and we don't want to be honored in this way. We do want respect and we do want people to know who we are. Yes, there are Native casinos, but for the most part, it is not Native people who are dealing cards. There are more non-Natives than Natives employed in the Native casino business. And please---do not hold Native people to a higher or different standard regarding moral issues around casinos. Don't expect Native tribes with casinos to be any better or worse than any other entity that has a casino. If you find casinos immoral, point to them all, not just those operated by tribes.

To images of dancing Indians, add business people who run casinos. And teachers who work in schools on and off reservations. Let's not forget doctors, nurses, lawyers, police officers, singers, songwriters, authors, playwrites, college/high school graduates and dropouts...

I rarely hear anyone argue that he honors Native Americans. The Chief honors the university and those who have ever been associated with it. We honor him because he is a symbol of dignity, pride, loyalty, and nobility- attributes we would all hope to achieve one day. Any argument that this attributes these qualities to any one group of people is arrogant presumption and false.

His presence IS a representation of the Native heritage(among other things) of this land (as is the use of many Native names throughout the state), but that is not justification for a ban. No one is under any obligation to gain permission from any Native American group before using any N.A. imagery. If Native Americans choose not to be honored then that is their right, but it does not allow them to dictate the actions of others.

If the concern was really that Chief Illiniwek is not authentic, why do the solutions of the anti-Chief crowd not center around making him so? Because your associates are more concerned with a power grab than solving problems. There's never any talk of compromise, just all or nothing.

Anonymous,

The statements were made prior to the appeals from FSU, Utah, and Central Michigan.

When the NCAA made their initial statement, the National Congress of American Indians issued a statement commending the NCAA for their action. Here's the URL to their recent statement:
http://198.104.130.237/ncai/index.jsp.

And, here is the URL to the NCAI's position statement:
http://198.104.130.237/ncai/resource/documents/governance/NCAIposis.htm

The National Indian Education Association also has the NCAA statement on their website:
http://www.niea.org/media/news.php

And, their resolution is on page 13-14 of this pdf file:
http://www.niea.org/profile/NIEA_Resolutions_2002.pdf

The fact that FSU, Utah, and CMU all entered into agreements with schools that use their tribal names has not been addressed (as far as I know) by the Native organizations. I suspect this may be due to the fact that the organizations respect Native sovereignty. If a tribe decides it is ok, I doubt that a national organization would counter the tribal leadership. A tribe's sovereign nation status is given utmost respect. Tribal members may disagree, and Native people from other tribes may disagree with the decision (as I do), but I do not deny their right to do so.

So where does that leave UIUC? Your guess is as good as mine. The remarks I've heard from Eppley, and the documents I've read from the university, indicate that they do not think there are any "Illini" left. However, there were Native people here at one point in time, that is not in dispute. Their remains are found in many places. The US govt passed the NAGPRA act in the early 90s, which meant that any remains held by any museum had to be returned to a tribe that could establish that the remains were their people. The Illinois Archeology groups (I don't recall at the moment their official name), in compliance with NAGPRA, contacted the Peoria Tribe about remains they identified as possibly belong to the Peoria people. The remains were returned to a delegation of the Peoria Tribe. Given that remains are being returned to the Peoria people, it seems reasonable to me that it would be they who would have the "final word" on Chief Illiniwek.

In terms of historical connections, the Indian people who lived in Illinois were agricultural based, and their attire, housing, food, etc. was not like the hunting ways of the Plains Indians. If the University wanted to make Chief Illiniwek authentic, his appearance would change dramatically. As noted in the documents prepared for "the dialogue" (or maybe it was Trustee Plummer's report), one of the young men who developed the attire and dance decided he had to do something other than Illini because if he made it authentic, the student would have to shave his head and wear a topknot, and he doubted any student would be willing to do that for three of four years while he was Chief Illiniwek. And he'd have to tattoo his body from head to toe, as was customary with the people who were in this area.

I don't know all the details regarding negotiations with the tribes/universities who successfully appealed the NCAA ruling. I did read that FSU will give four Seminole students a scholarship that covers 80% of their costs. Seems to me they could have bargained for a lot more than that. Maybe they did. Who knows?!

As far as I know, the tribes in the Illiniwek Confederacy were not associated with the Plains tribes. I think they may have had warfare with them, but they weren't all "killed off" as some say. They were moved by the US Government. They are now in at least two places: Oklahoma, and Wisconsin.

Will the BOT enter into negotiations with the Peoria? I don't know. Perhaps. During the Sweet Corn Festival, Wakeland was saying that he had been to visit the Peoria people to talk about an agreement regarding Chief Illiniwek. He specifically named their tribal leader, Chief Froman, and Wakeland said that Froman was going to send his daughter to school here. Wakeland's statement has been refuted by administrators at UIUC and by Froman, but it is possible BOT members have been meeting with Froman. Anything is possible.

Yes, I am familiar with it. It is irrelevant to the discussion for several reasons. 1) The Chief is not a product that is for sale. 2) The university or those responsible for preserving the Chief's traditions have not made claims that Chief Illiniwek is an authentic Indian, representing any particular group or person. 3) If this Act covered the Chief, a lawsuit would undoubtedly have already been brought against the university, and the courts would have required the university to cease and desist.

If the day should come when the buckskin of Chief Illiniwek comes up for sale, the buyer can rest assured that it was manufactured by and/or with the authority of a real Native American. If you're implying that purchasing merchandise with the likeness of the Chief falls under the jurisdiction of this Act, I would again have to remind you that 1) the Chief is not real and, therefore, cannot belong to any tribe, and 2) no one in their right mind who purchases Chief merchandise thinks they're buying authentic Indian merchandise.

The purpose of the Act was really to protect an important aspect of the economy of many Native American tribes. Similar crafts could be mass produced by others (Walmart, etc.) and sold for less than most Natives would be able to compete with, thus further isolating and marginalizing them in society. It is essentially a tariff to protect Native merchants. Although I'm generally for free trade, I think it is a good law, though not applicable in this situation.

I did not suggest (or mean to imply) that the Indian Arts and Crafts Act has any applicability to the current discussion.

Hmmm..... You argue that the Chief is a fictional character. Made up. Not real. Is that like "pretend" or "fake"? Is the student who is the Chief "playing Indian"? Can you point me to a university document that includes the phrase "fictional character"?

I thought readers of the blog might be interested in knowing about the legislation, given our discussion which is related to authenticity and image and Native people. It does not apply to the Chief. I suspect, however, that a lot of people who like the Chief also like Indian jewelry and art, and might become more informed consumers with this info.

It is nice to think that it was passed to protect the economy of Native people who make jewelry, art, etc., but that is not stated anywhere in the Act. It may have been the motivation of some of the people involved in it being proposed and then passed, but it is not part of the Act itself.

http://www.doi.gov/iacb/act.html

One last thought: I don't expect the University to retire the mascot/name/logo and offer any apologies of any sort. I know some people want such apologies, but I don't think they are necessary.

The BOT does not want to be seen as giving in to the anti-Chief groups, or to Native Americans (who they deem as "interest groups"). That is fine with me. They have to save face somehow. I do think the end will come sooner or later, and the NCAA ruling gives them an out.

Retire the Chief/name/logo for the SAKE OF THE ATHLETES. They should not be punished. They're great young people.

Since Friday when I first posted to this blog, I've shared my perspective, some information, suggested some children's books, offered strategies to effect change in the school curriculum, and I've provided lots of on-line resources. I hope readers of the blog found this lengthy discussion useful. Tomorrow I return to the work I was hired to do as a faculty member at UIUC.

Sincerely,
Debbie Reese

Paytonfan86, that is a brilliant idea, to purchase the trademark and licensing rights. Maybe the BOT will sell them to some Native American group for a dollar.

Then the NAs can do what they want, including 1. retiring the Chief, and 2, suing anyone who uses the Chief after they purchase the license.

Brilliant, PF86, absolutely brilliant. I hope someone on the BOT reads this blog, it is a great way out for everyone.

Ms. Reese,

Thank you for participating in this discussion. Your carefully worded arguments are refreshing, though I do not agree with them, and a welcome change to what I usually hear. I look forward to disagreeing with you in the future.

IP, do we get cookies for behaving? Do you think we could break 100 posts if we talk about banning the Chief from smoking?

I'm not as familiar with IL law, living most of my life in CA, but usually government institutions are required to bid out contracts (buying or selling) in order to ensure women and minorities have equal opportunities to compete. It's a contract because there are time limits on trademarks. A well-financed alumnus(a) could assist a pro-Chief tribal group with purchasing the rights.

Anonymous,

The National Park Service has a website with info about the Illini Confederacy (the site also uses "Illiniwek Confederation". It is here:

http://www.nps.gov/jeff/LewisClark2/Circa1804/Heritage/NativeAmericans/NativeAmericanInfluence.htm

According to the NPS site, it was a confederacy of 13 or 14 tribes, including the Peoria and Kaskaskia, Cahokia, Tamaroa, Michigamea, Moingwena, Tapouaro or Tapouro, Coiracoentanon or Korakoenitanon, Espemnka, Chinkoa or Chinko, Cepoussa or Chepoussa, Maroa, and Omouahoas.

From the entry "Illinois" in Hoxie's ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE NORTH AMERICAN INDIAN, is this: "In 1994 the Peorias, Kaskaskias, Tamaroas, and Metchigameas presented an altar cloth and votive wampum belt to the Church of the Immaculate Conception on Kaskaskia Island, Illinois."

So, the Peoria is not the only surviving tribe.

The NPS site also says: "Before 1600 the Illiniwek Confederacy had a Grand Chief and one or more totems to signify the entire group of tribes."

The word "Illini" is used throughout these pages to describe these Native tribes. It may be, as Plummer's report says, "simply a Frenchman's modification" of the word Illinois, but it was used to refer to the tribes.

I don't know how UIUC's "Chief Illiniwek" was named, but yes, I think it is fair to say that his appearance is fashioned after the Plains Indian image popularized by the Wild West Shows.

If UIUC conviced the Peoria (or any of the other former tribes of the confederacy) to support the Chief, I would respect their decision, but I would continue to critique representations like Chief Illiniwek in his current form. If the university made him authentic, I would respect their decision to do that, but I would still argue that using a people---any people---for a school mascot/symbol is inappropriate. Whether or not an entity has permission of a tribe does not change the effects the mascot/symbol has on children, be they Native or not.

The APA doesn't get a vote in this either.

If you're looking for a price tag, I don't think you can come up with one. This issue is an ideological battle. What's at stake is whether or not the university should cave to a vocal minority, many of whom are extreme, who seem to have nothing better to do than to be indignant all the time. Burden of proof falls upon the anti-Chief crowd because they want to change the status quo. As of yet, they have not contributed solid, logical reasons for a ban and have had to rely on emotion and rhetoric.

There is not always a price tag. There are costs associated with the issue, but neither side seems to care very much about them. Is the university losing enrollments? Not because of this. Will they lose licensing dollars? Almost certainly. Sporting venues? Nope.

The NCAA ruling on postseason play only bans the use of names and logos, it does not ban the team. If the basketball team makes the tournament, all they have to do is wear uniforms that say "Illinois" on them instead of "Illini". No big deal. The ban doesn't apply to football, which wouldn't matter anyway because we're not making a bowl game anytime soon. The ban also prevents Illinois from hosting any postseason tournaments while using or displaying the name or logo. We don't host the basketball tournament, and the other tournaments (tennis, wrestling, etc.) are money drains on the university anyway. Football and basketball pay for everything else.

I agree that the casinos remark was a little out of line (I didn't say it), but expresses frustration over why Native Americans would continue to perpetuate that stereotype but not others. The only difference is over who gets the money.

If you think that consensus is possible, you are obviously new to this debate. There will be no consensus (not even close) on a resolution.

I accept the majority of arguments as to why stereotypes are hurtful to Native Americans. I also agree that they should have the same protections as other minorities. However, as I have exhaustively discussed in this thread, these arguments don't apply because a) the Chief is not a stereotype, and b) Native Americans have no rightful claim to the Chief Illiniwek imagery or legacy.

Activists have tried to paint Chief Illiniwek with the same broad brush that covers Chief Wahoo, the Washington Redskins, and the Atlanta Braves, among others. The situation at Illinois is unique and greatly differs from those examples.

The Chief is not a stereotypical Native American?

Does lack of specific legal standing (questionable) mean moral issues are irrelevant and should be ignored?

Consensus among extremists is not likely, but indifferents and moderates on both sides could find a way, probably to the dissatisfaction of extremists on both sides, but probably best for the overall public good.

http://www.dailyillini.com/media/paper736/news/2005/10/04/News/AntiChief.Lawsuit.Fails.As.Matter.Of.Law-1008173.shtml

From today's DI: AntiChief lawsuit fails as matter of law. So much for questionable.

According to a German friend, stereotype in psychology has a specific meaning and Chief Illiniwek fits it. Know of any surveys that demonstrate that most people don't consider the Chief to be a stereotype (as they define it), regardless of whatever technical definition you, I, or the APA wants to use?

Moral right is different from legal right, which often changes over time to reflect improved moral standards. Why keep ignoring and dismissing the moral issues?

Much of the 20th century was spent fighting rather than working together and millions of people paid the price due to arrogance, greed, and hunger for power. We've got enough real issues to worry about instead of rubbing salt in old wounds (even if we've ignored or dismissed that wounds ever existed).

The pro-chief extremists are the ones who refuse to step into someone else's shoes and listen because they would rather lose everything about The Chief than seek any compromise. They may even hope for a destructive backlash, rather than working for a constructive future. This also applies to anti-chief extremists.

It doesn't take much for racial issues to ignite into violence, which is why we legally set much higher standards for racial discrimination. Perhaps you feel this infringes on your free speech rights, and I respect your right to ignore and dismiss, or even demean, but I reject your moral standards.

Paytonfan,

Not that you get any more votes than any other individual on this issue, but what's your definition of a stereotype?

"I have yet to read/hear/see anything or anyone suggest that the Chief was meant to represent a group of people other than those connected with the university."

Are you saying stereotype depends on the intent behind how The Chief was created and that how it's perceived is completely irrelevant?

I rejected your moral standards on this particular issue, not everything in the world, because you continue to ignore and dismiss the views of at least some Native Americans.

Again I ask, what are the damages?

No one has as of yet quantified any other than some people are offended.

Offense is not a quantifiable damage.

The APA says there are damages and documented the research, as posted above.

As for definitions of stereotype, the one presented could easily include both pro and anti chief groups. Most people would probably say The Chief looks Native American, which obviously oversimplifies How does that not meet the definition of stereotype?

Why shouldn't Native Americans have final say over Native American mascots? Should Blacks, Hispanics, or other races not have final say over mascots in their image?

Paytonfan, it's your lack of respect for others, whose image is being used for entertainment not education, that is most offensive. If the image were being used constructively and respectfully (as demonstrated by significant UIUC actions to improve conditions for Native Americans), it would probably never have been challenged, and may even have solid backing of Native Americans.

If UIUC were private, it would be a longer, slower story, but we all have to live together without killing each other and it starts with respecting the race of others, especially when there's plenty of other forms of entertainment besides Native American mascots.

"the apa says there are damages"

So now they are economists too?

I ask again, what are the damages?

"Why shouldn't Native Americans have final say over Native American mascots? Should Blacks, Hispanics, or other races not have final say over mascots in their image?"

Well, no. They don't own the image.

"whose image is being used for entertainment not education, that is most offensive.

If you use this argument you are calling for the demise of the entire sports program.
Let's face it. College sports exist as they do for entertainment.

And exactly how should the university improve conditions for Native Americans? Would you care to list the benefits they are automatically eligible for now, not just from the State but from the federal government as well?

Please, go for it. List those benefits and compare them with what the awg gets and show me how Native Americans are injured.

I'm waiting.

crickets chirping

Exactly.

If you want to research exactly what damages (probably not financial) the APA documents and discredit them, feel free to use the links Ms Reese provided...it's not that interesting to me and I'm willing to take their word for it.

Calling for a shift from a Native American image to something non-racial is hardly a call for ending entertainment.

To my knowledge, the only benefit Native Americans get compared to an awg like me is equal opportunity advantages, which really should be changed to economic equal opportunity rather than specifically racial...maybe in another decade if we start listening more respectfully, but that doesn't seem likely.

The poverty and shorter life spans at most reservations are clear evidence of how Native Americans continue to be damaged. Until Republicans helped push through the casinos, we had clearly failed to make any significant effort to make up for past wrongs or show any respect. UIUC still hasn't done much as far as I can tell, even though we've used their land for our own gain. A little help with scholarships to assist those more likely to be poor doesn't seem unreasonable, especially if we want to keep using Native American mascots for entertainment.

Anonymous,

I didn't make your point, you made mine. You used 2 (!) stereotypes to attempt to show that the Chief is one. Then you repeated it! That's called irony (or being a hypocrite).

Is race the only determinant as to what is acceptable or not in the use of a mascot/symbol? Is it only non-white races? Canucks and Tar Heels are people. How about Celtics, Vikings, and Irish? Who is raising hell over those names? Should we oppose those? If a name is a slur or degrading, I would support a change. I personally hate the use of the name Redskins (and I hate the team) and think it is intentionally derogatory. The name Illini and Illiniwek are not slurs and are not derogatory.

Again, team names/logos/mascots/symbols are intellectual property (licensing, trademarks, etc.). Native Americans are legally allowed to secure the licensing rights to N.A. names. Most tribes have done this and are able to control the use of their name and imagery for commercial purposes. They do not have the right (nor does any other minority group) to dictate terms for that which they do not own, unless it is a civil rights violation (which the courts have said it's not).

I'm flattered that I'm the general, but I must decline the honor.

They are anti-Chief. Read the bumper stickers and the websites.

I understand your point. I also think it is rhetoric and devoid of relevance. I keep asking for evidence that links any Native American group with the creation and legacy of Chief Illiniwek but all I hear is "He looks like a Native American". If the evidence doesn't exist, and I don't think it does, than they have no claims for anything. Someone will always be offended about something. I can't do anything about that, and I don't think society needs to be accommodating them.

paytonfan.

since ownership is so important, would you support a school and its Honor The Gay Jesus Society to have the right to have a portrayal of Jesus Christ in a very suggestive, homosexual dance at half time somewhere?

There you go paytonfan. Ban Paul Bunyan.

My family of crackers has been in this country since before those pilgrims landed on the rock. The characterization of Paul Bunyan as an ignorant, flannel wearing, axe-swingin', backwoods cracker who can't even beat a steam driven saw is offensive to me.

My dog doesn't like the ox either.

Paytonfan, the logic you use is apparently some esoteric legalese that fails to apply common sense or personal respect to problems. It might work in a courtroom, but not with public opinion. It doesn't mean non-lawyers are stupid if you can't communicate effectively with them. You simply can't fool all of them, all of the time.

Just hope there's not a revolution against lawyers that keep using their power to mooch off the rest society with their constant quibbling over silly nuances, instead of doing something productive to help improve our standard of living. Or perhaps lawyers are just lousy at PR for their own profession.

The rule of law only exists as long as people respect the justice of the outcomes. The early and weak Supreme Court understood that very well, but perhaps power has corrupted. Legislating from the bench creates public disrespect for the courts.

Judging from his picks, it appears Bush learned the lesson of how quickly respect for government could be lost if the courts become too political, such as getting dragged into the ugly politics of selecting a President.

The public is dangerously cynical of government these days and spouting legalese on controversial issues with a non/psyuedo-legal audience doesn't help.

Of course, if you're a really good and fair lawyer, you could just argue this case back and forth to the best of your ability and we'd all learn why one outcome is better than another...but that fails the common sense test.

From the Honor the Chief Society webpage:

"Why is it so important that the University keep Chief Illiniwek as the symbol?
For 78 years, the Chief has been the symbol of the spirit of a great university and of our intercollegiate athletic teams, and as such is loved by the people of Illinois. The University considers the symbol to be dignified and has treated it with respect. His ceremonial dance is performed with grace and beauty."

If the university is so proud of Chief Illiniwek, why was it not part of UI's most ceremonial event, the inauguration of President White? Why is it not part of UI's graduation ceremonies?

Anonymous,

I'm not a lawyer, just familiar with different aspect of civil rights law and trademark law. This is a trademark case. You think it's a morality issue. That's where we differ. It doesn't make me insensitive to your viewpoint, I just don't see its relevance. My argument, on the other hand, is far from esoteric. What is so difficult to understand about my argument that the Chief, being a created character, is intellectual property of the university, not Native Americans? It's pretty simple. And if you think it won't fly in the face of public opinion, you're dead wrong. Opinion overwhelmingly supports keeping the Chief. The problem with opinion is that the anti-Chief crowd insists that only the opinions of Native Americans count.

Does the Chief need to perform at every big event to maintain his status as symbol of the university? He was created to appear at football games and has since appeared in numerous sporting contests. If you want to use that as reason to suggest he is only entertainment, that's fine. I won't argue that it's not entertaining. It is. I love it when he comes out. But I don't love it the same way as watching a movie or a TV show. For me, his appearance is more like a one-act play. His performance is a perfect complement to the pageantry that accompanies college athletics, which is lacking in other events. If you want to use the "Indian as entertainment" argument, fine. To compare the Chief to Sambo or Amos n' Andy is laughable and intellectually dishonest.

Paytonfan said this:

"I never said the Chief doesn't represent A Native American. I said he doesn't represent ALL or even a group of Native Americans. He is a character, like any other fictional work (Hamlet, Paul Bunyan, take your pick), who belongs to his creator."

Little Black Sambo is a character. He was not intended to represent A black, or ALL blacks, but objections to him by African Americans and those who think carefully about characters deemed Little Black Sambo problematic. Helen Bannerman (his "creater") may have created him, but she had no control over how people responded to him. By and large, he has gone the way of time.

I think Chief Illiniwek will eventually meet that same fate. He will be retired and no longer be used by UIUC, which is a public, academic institution.

Perhaps Little Black Sambo wouldn't have become associated with a slur if the author had taken more care in choosing her illustrations. The story itself is not racist or a stereotype. The picture of Sambo is the problem, because it closely resembles blackface minstrel dolls that were used in a condescending and demeaning way, both in America and in Europe. Does the Chief resemble any icon that has been deemed racist or a stereotype?

The dolls were caricatures of blackface minstrels who performed in stage plays. These minstrels were frequently displayed as drunk, cowardly, superstitious, liars, and after white women. These same shows also did caricatures of other stereotypes: drunk Irish, scheming Jews, and so forth.

The obvious difference is that Chief Illiniwek doesn't come out as a crazy Injun with a scalp in one hand and fire water in the other. Minstrel dolls and other similar iconography are parodies of commonly held beliefs. Again, Chief Illiniwek doesn't fit the bill.

Wrong again. Trademark law is federal. It still applies. If the legislature says they have no opinion, then they have NO opinion, for or against. Civil rights law only applies when someone successfully argues before court that rights have been violated. The ruling, as of right now, is that no civil rights have been violated. If an elected body wishes to make a change, then the rule of law will have taken place and I will be satisfied (though not necessarily pleased with the outcome). The objection I have is to any fiat decision by activist groups.

paytonfan, you said,

The first is much more of a stereotype than the Chief. He would do a dance on home plate before each game, asking the baseball gods for a win.

The Chief comes out at half time and does what, pray for rain?

"Much more" implies quantitative analysis, so you must therefore admit that the chief IS a stereotype, just less than the others.

Sorry I got my dancing injuns mixed up.

I guess my knee jerk reaction (despite being for the chief before, studying the issue, researching history, and speaking with those both for and against before becoming against it now) is wrong. I should enroll as a freshman, get indoctrinated in the pro-chief lore, and then have knee jerk reactions to someone telling me that it is wrong to be for the chief.

Knee jerk reaction. Phooey. Yours is the kneejerk reaction.

Chief Knock-a-homa was in Atlanta, by the way (and Milwaukee before that). Chief Wahoo is from Cleveland.

The first is much more of a stereotype than the Chief. He would do a dance on home plate before each game, asking the baseball gods for a win. He'd go out to his tipi in left field during the game and come out and dance for each home run.

For anyone on this thread who actually has a sense of humor and doesn't get offended by satire, check out this link:

http://www.shipbrook.com/jeff/ChiefWahoo/

Federal trade law trumps state's civil rights law? Not necessarily. With no state endorsement of Chief Illiniwek, the recent court decision sounds like it would have gone the other way and the Chief would be gone.

It's a huge leap to assume that if the legislature didn't have a stance that the court would have ruled the other way. More likely is that the court would have had to find a different statute to rule on.

I didn't create the Illiniwek toilet paper, nor have I ever purchased any. You're right, it's denigrating. I hate it. I don't think the university should be nearly as lax as they are in allowing use of the image. If it's about honor, they've got no business whoring him out to anyone they can make a buck off of. I would completely support de-commercializing the Chief in order to preserve his legacy.

To you the dance is silly, to me (and the overwhelming majority of students and alumni) it's not. The costume is authentic. Click the link to see a real Native American wearing what you call "fake".

http://www.chiefilliniwek.org/phoenix/library/foolscrow.htm

Yes, I staked out a position before I studied the issue, I was very very pro-chief.

To deny that Chief Illiniwek is a stereotype is just so silly, I must now believe you are merely playing games, designed to foster an unusual dialogue.

Your comment about anti-cheif kneejerk reactions is what caused me to defend myself, and illustrate that it is not a kneejerk reaction to be against the chief, and that it could be a kneejerk reaction to defend the chief despite any arguments that have been presented. You do not budge, but rather twist logic (stereotype or not? "Comparatively" means campared to, "much more" means more than, as opposed to "one is a stereotype and one is not". The Sears tower is taller than the Assembly Hall, (comparison) not the Sears tower is tall and squirrels don't eat cheese. Comparison means a qualitative analysis comparing two or more things that have shared qualities.

You're something else, paytonfan. Sorry to have bothered you.

authentic Native American is a racist thing to say.

People aren't "authentic". If you think of someone as "authentic" you are a racist. Not for loving the Chief, but for considering people to be "authentic".

That term is disgusting. It is racist. And anyone who uses it in such terms is a racist.

I am done with you. I will not discuss things with people like you. Go on about your way, love the chief, do whatever, but you have shown me, and everyone else, how you feel about humans who are of one group or another, either they are "authentic" people or no.t Perhaps you use the term mongrel, too, or are they just "fake" if they are not "authentic" in your eyes?

Don't bother answering. You are not an authentic human being, you are a racist dog.

Anyone who wants to post a final reply telling me what a jerk/racist/idiot/religious zealot and so forth I am, feel free. No one has been able to answer my questions with anything but emotion. There has been little substance, which disappoints me but doesn't surprise me. I'd be happy to respond to anything that addresses the core issues. To me, these are: 1) Which part(s) of the Chief is a stereotype and why do you think so? 2) Why should Native American groups have the right to control a symbol they have no connection to? 3) Which civil rights are being violated by keeping the Chief? I really have no interest in responding to any posts that don't address these questions. I've heard all the other arguments, and they have yet to make any logical sense.

Special thanks to Debbie Reese for an intellectually stimulating conversation. Although we will likely never reach a compromise on this issue, I find it refreshing to debate someone that doesn't have to resort to name calling.

Good lord! Authentic means real, genuine, or bona fide, as opposed to fake. Frank Fools Crow was an authentic Native American, meaning real, as opposed to Chief Illiniwek who is not authentic.

But thanks for proving my point about name calling, emotion, and knee-jerk responses. Isn't it amazing how the loudest people are usually the ones who should keep their mouths shut?

This is the other anonymous.

"It's a huge leap to assume that if the legislature didn't have a stance that the court would have ruled the other way. More likely is that the court would have had to find a different statute to rule on."

When judges write opinions they usually fully research all the arguments and write decisions on each one (and it sounded like there were a lot in the new stories). Yet, the media made no mention of any other aspects of the law that protected The Chief besides this single piece of legislation that says the state officially sanctions The Chief. Without the legislation, The Chief very likely disappears because Native Americans will be empowered to control entertaining mascots in their image under civil rights.

I'm not a civil rights lawyer, so don't ask me to explain how it can be done, but there was no hint of any evidence that it couldn't be done.

Regarding which parts of The Chief are stereotypical...how about the combined effect of such an absurd hodgepodge of dance, costume, and name that don't match all in the name of entertainment? No wonder Native Americans are embarrassed by The Chief!

I think the two anonymous posters should add a 1 or a 2 after their names so I don't mock the wrong one.

If the judge really believed that there was a civil rights issue, he would have mentioned it despite the reason he gave. In fairness, I haven't read the decision. I've relied solely on media accounts on this one (oops!). What he did was punt back to the legislature to address the problem. If they change their mind would he rule differently? Quite possibly. But just as possible is that he took the easy way out. I think the courts are done with this for awhile, and I'd be surprised if the legislature changes their position (regardless of the number of Dems). It will be the BoT that decides whether or not to retire the Chief.

I guess absurdity is relative, so it's difficult to debate. But your argument suggests that if the Chief were authentic (yes, I used that racist word again) then Native Americans might not object to him. Clearly this isn't so.

Exactly.

BTW, I didn't agree with you about the benefits comment because I think that a race that was brought to the edge of extinction not all that long ago can use all the help they can get. I also think that the military benefits are lacking in certain areas. Anyone willing to take a bullet for their country deserves the best, as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed and thanks. Pro-Chief supporters had to play catch up on this one. We ignored the issue so long that the anti crowd had the ability to cloak the debate in emotional and dramatic terms. Rather than arguing with them on their terms, we need to insist on debating the merits of the issue. This is why I've been met with such vociferous resistance by the anti crowd. They're used to being able to fight on their own turf (alleged moral superiority) and don't like having to face facts (legal rights).

What I find funny is that they accuse supporters of not considering the feelings of Native Americans and then turn right around and call supporters racists. So far, just on this blog, I'm a racist, jerk, idiot, religious zealot, and a racist dog. Sounds hypocritical and cowardly to me, but what do I know?

In 1974, students in kindergarten in St. Paul, Minnesota, were asked a series of questions designed to reveal their attitudes and information about Native Americans. The authors of the study, The League of Women Voters (1975/1999), reported that “as a group, the children saw Indian people as far removed from themselves in location and in time” (p. 4). Many of the children held an historic/traditional image of Indian people in terms of clothing, housing, and food and did not differentiate between Indian people in the present or past tense. The children viewed Indian people as warlike and hostile, and described an overgeneralized image of Indians, saying Indians wear feathers, hunt, and live in teepees or tents in the woods. More of the children described male Indians than female Indians.

Twenty-five years later, a similar study was conducted. In the report of his findings, Brophy (1999) states that kindergarten students characterized Indians “almost exclusively as warlike, dancing around campfires, hunting with bows and arrows, or attacking people with axes” (p. 40).

In both studies, researchers speculated that the kindergarten children's views were influenced by “cartoon stereotypes of Indians picked up through exposure to television and other media” (Brophy, 1999, p. 40). Both studies also examined the attitudes and conceptions of children in the fifth grade, and in both studies, children developed empathy for Native Americans, and demonstrated more accurate information toward the end of their elementary school years. Brophy (1999) wrote that “Stereotypes of Indians as bad, mean, or warlike had virtually disappeared” and had been replaced by a “noble ecologist” (p. 41) stereotype in which students described Indians as “killing only what they needed, sharing food with other tribal members, and showing concern for one another and for the physical environment” (p. 41). The negative stereotype of the early years was replaced by a positive one in later elementary school years. Both stereotypes, however, situate the Native American as a figure of the past, not present tense.

It is images like Chief Illiniwek that children draw from regarding Native Americans. Paytonfan does not think Chief Illiniwek is a stereotype, but whatever way he is categorized, he contributes to misperceptions that obscure the history and lives of real Native Americans.

paytonfan said:

"If my arguments were so off base from most other pro-Chief supporters, let me hear it. So far, I haven't heard from any."

Not hearing from anyone doesn't mean anything. I haven't heard from anyone (other than you and prairie biker) that my remakrs here are off base. I continue to post my remarks because I have faith in the goodness of people who read them and think about their own position and actions on this issue. If even one person changes their mind due to my input, that is a good thing.

Perhaps your group should create a leaflet to hand out at games aimed at educating children who attend. That would be a great opportunity for you to reach a captive audience without having to go through the Dept. of Education. I'd leave out any anti-Chief stuff, other than to teach that he is not representative of Native Americans, otherwise angry parents may not let their kids read it.

I don't know how plausible that is, but at least it shows willingness to educate kids.

Why bother with a poll? It wouldn't matter what they'd say. If you wanted them on a halftime football field, you'd figure out a way to play with words and discredit any response they might have to your poll.

Okay Ms. Reese, back on topic.

One, the issue of homosexuality has nothing to do with the Chief issue.

Two, a study of kindergartners? Puh-leeze.

Perhaps if you had a comparison showing attitudes changed or not in those same kids from when they were kindergartners until they were adults, then you'd have something.

The issue at hand is whether or not offense is a reasonably litigious issue and enough grounds to get rid of the Chief. And I'm still waiting for someone to show me where there are actual damages involved.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with the Chief as YOU define it.

You pick and choose from Native culture in an effort to create this thing you call Chief Illiniwek so that you have some tangible symbol that can give you cause to feel dignified, couragous, honorable.

Homsexuality has everything to do with the Chief as I define it. If you wanna love us, know what is is that you love, not in some abstract way, but through and through. If you want to emulate us, offer gay and lesbian's the respect they deserve.

Why do you rest so heavily on the legal system as the final word on this issue?

National/professional organizations will not hold conferences here because of Chief Illiniwek. Does that not constitute damage to the university and local businesses in terms of reputation and revenue?

The Chief doesn't do splits. He does a jackknife.

The following link will take you to a dance studio that incorporates Indian dance poses. I thought you might want to give them a call and tell them to stop.

http://www.danceviewtimes.com/2004/autumn/07/printz.htm

Hellooooooo...your perfectly concrete legal system depends on the subjective decisions of politicians under a variety of influences when writing the laws. Anyone who has ever taken a law class knows there's plenty of gray area, even in judicial decisions. More importantly, the public just don't care about your almighty legalese technicalities...only justice. And wisely so, as we saw when Katrina demonstrated that when law collapses under stress only morality remains and endures.

Nobody here has claimed to be a lawyer, so it's absurd to keep repeatedly asking for confusing technical legal definitions. It's too easy to throw stones at people's legitimate (maybe not to you if you're only hearing, not listening) concerns.

However, anyone can certainly talk about the politics of morality and justice, including the legislature...or boycotts. Now that's a real conversation everyone can participate in and understand without a lawyer. Too bad if you can't handle emotion and opinion because this blog is all about politics.

Welcome back to the reality of life.

IP, your silence had been surprising or have you really been as silent as it might appear?

Ms Reese, thank you for all the educational posts.

anon 12:58

"so it's absurd to keep repeatedly asking for confusing technical legal definitions. It's too easy to throw stones at people's legitimate (maybe not to you if you're only hearing, not listening) concerns."

I'm not asking for a technical legal definition. Who doesn't understand damage? The difference here is some keep talking about subjective damages and I want objective proof of damages. I keep asking for this because I know you don't have it and it proves not just my, but paytonfan's argument as well.

You talk about a breakdown of morality and justice and the subjective nature of our legal and political system. You deride it rather unfairly. It IS the system we have in place. It IS the best solution we have. Why shouldn't we use it? Nobody said it was perfect. But perfect doesn't exist. We have not experienced Katrina-like conditions here in central Illinois so I don't know why you would even make the comparison.

Ms Reese, thank you for all your careful and thoughtful research and posting. You are offering a valuable and insightful viewpoint but I still have two criticisms. None of your references point to an offense that occurred within the last 25-30 years and you keep wandering away from answering the question of damage to carry the discussion into the arena of offense.

It is easy to prove or disprove damage.
Offense is not so quantifiable. I wouldn't dare argue that the Chief isn't offensive to some because that obviously isn't true. But, NEWSFLASH, you don't have the right not to be offended. Everybody is offended about something somewhere. That's just how life is.

Unfortunately, the argument as you frame it is moot. Other schools have successful licensing agreements and education plans in reference to their use of Native American imagery. To keep calling for the removal of the Chief imagery is asking for a position far and away from a position that is demonstrated to be acceptable. In short, it is an extreme position. paytonfan asked about an education plan and finding a way to teach students more accurate associations. Nobody addressed his point. The debate continued on the absurd issue of offense. I have previously asked the same question and probably should have told him that no one would answer.

So here it is:

I recognize that you and others are offended. I negate it. You don't have a right not to be offended and other schools have worked past the issue. That takes care of your argument.

Now about mine and paytonfan's (sorry to speak for you in your absence pf):

What are the damages?
Other groups have demonstrated valid ownership to imagery. This is non-existent in this case. Why can't the university/legislature decide on their own?
Why can't there be an educational program designed around the Chief?

I don't have your objective proof of damages because I'm not willing to spend the time researching and documenting it for a legal case, but I'm sure somebody is and will make the case in court to a judge, not you.

I love the phrase "esoteric legalese" which means that we're using words that only a small group of people would understand the meaning of. Yet you use that phrase repeatedly, which is evidence of an advanced vocabulary (or that you heard it somewhere else). It really doesn't mean anything. Which "legalese" words were esoteric? Trademark? Rights? Courts? Which ones?

I already said I wasn't a lawyer. One doesn't have to have taken classes to understand the concept of law. Hell, you don't even have to pass law school to take the bar exam. But I get where you're going. Your argument is to attack my credibility (or prairiebiker's) instead of the substance of my arguments. Pretty typical for those who rely on emotion. I never demanded anyone's credentials. I automatically accepted Ms. Reese's opinions without seeking proof that she is Native American.

I think what PrairieBiker meant was that being offended is not a basis in law to assert any rights. I think you knew that as well, but had to resort to a condescending comment because your argument is fragile.

I'm curious how the Chief interferes with the ability of Native Americans to practice their worship. Do they usually worship at Memorial Stadium and the Assembly Hall during halftime? If so, I can see where that might interfere.

As for the public not caring about the law (but only justice), how can you speak for the public? Is that not a stereotype, of which I've repeatedly been accused? I'm shocked at the gross double-standard and the level of hypocrisy that has been reached. Not really, but I thought I would fight indignation with indignation. I highly doubt that the public sees this as a "justice" issue. The only ones protesting are the ones who use it as a way to avoid having to contribute anything positive to society.

We've passed 200 posts. Awesome! I wonder if we can hit 300 by including the smoking ban or saying that Naomi Jakobsson is a liar....

"The only ones protesting are the ones who use it as a way to avoid having to contribute anything positive to society."

So Ms. Reese isn't contributing anything positive?

The anit-chief crowd will certainly use the legal system again after the state stops endorsing The Chief...the end is near...start raising funds for Native American scholarships if you want any hope of saving your precious Chief.

The nuclear scenario was because you said Katrina doesn't apply to Illinois, which was used to demonstrate how the legal system can fall apart rapidly.

Fundamental (as in basic) morality is what keeps people from hurting each other when there's nobody around to enforce subjective laws...many religions and secular principles do this successfully.

Lack of respect for "emotional" opinions, shows a lack of morality.

Your belief that The Chief isn't damaging in any way (or just financial?), doesn't make it so because you can't prove it.

"I love the phrase “esoteric legalese” which means that we're using words that only a small group of people would understand the meaning of. Yet you use that phrase repeatedly, which is evidence of an advanced vocabulary (or that you heard it somewhere else). It really doesn't mean anything. Which “legalese” words were esoteric? Trademark? Rights? Courts? Which ones?"

All of them are extremely complex when trying to precisely define them in a legal context...that's what lawyers and judges are for because it's clearly out of our ballpark.

The phrase I should probably use is "convoluted logic" because you've apparently studies logic and regard it very highly. Probably less than 1 percent of the public understands or even accepts the logic you use. However, the public clearly understands justice and morality.

If you want everyone to argue using your rules, do something constructive like making logic a standard for graduating from high school. Otherwise, stop complaining emotional arguments based on justice and morality aren't proper or reasonable because they are to most people and majority wins, right?

Our people hurt their people and we should try to make up for it. People understand that.

It's nice to know that you have offended the intelligence of 99% of the population and made another unsubstantiated stereotype about them. How many more arrogant displays of superiority are we going to see? It must be infuriating for you to be both intellectually and morally superior, yet not every one agrees with you.

Logic just requires consistency and evidence. You've been consistent. You have not provided evidence.

These aren't my rules. They're the rules that rational adults use on a daily basis. Most adults live in the world of "the way things are" rather than some fantasyland of "the way I think things ought to be". The legal system is the way you move from the first world to the second. You don't get to throw a temper tantrum until you get the outcome you like. Most people learn that when they're around 5.

Our people do not hurt their people. I won't deny that there have been atrocities in the past. What you're talking about are hurt feelings. I wonder how many Native Americans enjoy being placed by you into the status of victim.

"The burden of proof isn't on me. You have to prove that there are damages."

I don't have to prove anything. That's the job of qualified lawyers making the case to the judge after the legislature stops endorsing The Chief, not rank amatuers like you and me.

And you're assuming quite a bit about the legislature. You're talking about people who rely on the favorable opinions of their constituents to stay in office. That may not be an issue for people in Chicago who only claim any connection with the university when the basketball team is ranked #1. I'd be surprised if you could find enough support for banning the Chief downstate to influence many legislators to take action.

Since you're so quick to criticize my guess, what percentage of the population do you think understands the formal logic you're using?

What percentage of the population do you think would agree that formal logic is more correct than emotional justice and morality?

Since both of us are too lazy/busy to get solid data, we can either give our best reasons to challenge estimates or stop wasting time playing silly logic games.

"Our people hurt their people and we should try to make up for it. People understand that."

How does saying we whites should try to be better neighbors make someone else a victim? Are you suggesting Native Americans don't want anything (not even respect) from us for our past wrongs?

Logic rules aren't mine, and they don't require study. All that is required is a consistent thought process. Haven't you ever had to use logic before? I'll list my questions and then include the responses I've been given in parentheses. I'll show you why I'm having a hard time with the reasoning.

1) If the Chief is a stereotype, what is he a stereotype of? (Native Americans)
2) What part(s) of the Chief is a stereotype? (The outfit, the dance, the entire image)
3) How can he be a stereotype of something that has no consistent pattern? (No answer)

4) Who has the right to determine what happens to the Chief? (Native Americans)
5) Why do Native Americans have the right to make the choice? (It's their heritage)
6) If the Chief has never been part of the history of any N.A. tribe, and he is a fictional character not created by any N.A., why do N.A.s have a say in the matter? (It offends them.)
7) Does a person have the right to not be offended? (Yes)
8) Where does it say that? (It's immoral to offend someone)
9) Morality is subjective. (You're immoral.)

Did I miss anything? I want to make sure I've accurately expressed your point of view. My inability to see your point of view comes from your inability to properly answer #3 and #7-9.

I don't care about OJ. It was 10 years ago. Move on.

I'm not going to give a percentage of the population that uses logic. I would merely be guessing, but I would be a lot closer than your ridiculous 99% assertion. A fair guess might be for me to take the percentage of people that agree with the PRC (30%), subtract that from 100, and come up with the new answer. But that's just a guess.

I have been reading this blog with great interest.

It seems to me that the commenter "Paytonfan86" is concerned about money damages versus hurt feelings, and the application of the law.

The law does provide for money damages for hurt feelings. In civil law, the action of "intentional infliction of emotional distress" is a long standing basis for money damages. Claims have been made and courts have made awards based solely on emotional distress.

In criminal law, the offense of "disorderly conduct" is strictly an emotional claim, where a person is criminally charged with doing something that "alarm(s) and disturb(s) another so as to cause a breach of the peace".

So the law does recognize monetary damages, or even jail, for strictly emotional distress. Or in other words, hurt feelings.

Money damages such as loss of income, loss of business opportunity, or actual damage to property does not have to be claimed in all cases. Whether or not there are "damages" to people because of the Chief is speculative, but that is what courts are for, to sort out speculation that gives rise to facts, and make awards or deny awards based on those facts.

IP, I've read that before. The reason I didn't include any comments like that was because the anti crowd would say, "Oh yeah? I've got 10 times as many Native Americans who are offended by it!" Besides, my point is that Native Americans don't have any right to this discussion (unless they're associated with the university), for or against.

Atty, I'm glad you joined the conversation. I'm surprised there haven't been any legal professionals on here before now. I never meant to imply that there is never legal recourse for emotional damages. Certainly there are. My point is that, if they're so certain of the superiority of their arguments, why have they had no success arguing them in court?

I agree that the claim for damages is speculative. Perhaps there are real damages. I have yet to see any evidence, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. I am perfectly willing to modify my position in light of new evidence, but not rhetoric. If the courts find that damage has been done, then I will respect the rule of law (even if I disagree with it).

Another interesting legal point is that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has refused to renew the trademark on the name "Redskins" because it is racially demeaning, however they still renew Chief Illiniwek. Perhaps they don't see the Chief as racially demeaning either.

You can't explain #3 (no one can, apparently), which proves the point that he isn't a stereotype. You want to argue that he's a stereotype of Native Americans, but you can't because Native Americans are a widely diverse group of people. Which specific group of Native Americans is he a stereotype of and what are those characteristics?

To quickly address the OJ thing, since you can't get past it.... Both sides were arguing legal particulars. There may have been larger societal implications, but they were still arguing points of the law. Those who thought he was guilty (I'm staying away from the black/white split you brought up) couldn't believe that the overwhelming evidence of the DNA didn't convict him. The other side believed that it was a case of police corruption. Both are legal issues. They can be very emotional, but they're legal issues. The reason I believe this is irrelvant is because I have yet to hear a substantial legal (and emotional, if you like) argument to ban the Chief.

Logic isn't a game, and my logic isn't convoluted. You have yet to show me where my logic is inconsistent. Point it out, if you can. Just because you can't understand something probably reflects your limitations more than it does mine.

If race or ethnicity is the issue, why are you not protesting the use of other names? How about the Celtics? Vikings? Irish? Padres?

This whole opposition to the Chief makes as much sense as PETA arguing on behalf of animal mascots.

really.

no, I'm done with it. I feel I've made my point. I haven't heard a real argument that contradicts it, nor has anyone tried to refute my point directly. One person (with absolutely no evidence) even accused me of being an attorney (I'm not, nor do I pretend to be. At no point did I cite a law or get out a copy of Black's and go surfing for a definition)!

As well, I don't like arguing with someone who refuses to define their own terms or even stay on track. Sure call it a moral issue and I'll go ahead and use Machiavelli's morality: kill the opposition, call it decided and say because there is no longer an issue my actions were moral.

(the above is a ludicrous example. don't get all riled up)

(you do understand what riled is, don't you?)

(it's not a legal term, it should be okay)

yup. I'm done with it.

228 comments and the issue is not advanced. Of course, if someone had just pointed out at the beginning that I'm just another awg, I would have admitted that I hold no stake in the matter either, other than being a UI alum and Champaign resident.

It's an issue for the legislature and the BoT and they have already demonstrated that they don't care for our input anyway, or they would have exercised their leadership and decided it one or another long ago.

sorry, I should have said "decision making authority" and not "leadership." Didn't mean to confuse the two.

Ya'll have fun. Thanks IP, paytonfan, atty, Ms. Reese and others. It was entertaining and enjoyable.

Just devoted the last two hours reading through this thread (after following a link back to this blog from my web site entitled "'Indian' Mascots and Logos: Looking Forward to Their History"). Doing so was well worth the time invested. I learned a great deal from you all. Wa ko mo wa -- thank you.

What I want to share, though, is my profound respect for my colleague, Professor Debbie Reese. I am pleasantly amazed at the patience and generosity she demonstrated here over the last several days. These -- patience and generosity -- are rare commodities these days, it seems. Professor Reese and I both are tribally-enrolled and connected. Different Indian nations. Different parts of the country. We both are University of Illinois professors of American Indian Studies. We both speak for ourselves, and not for our nations or for all American Indian peoples. In my estimation, Debbie has honored her family at Nambe Pueblo in her efforts here.

Debbie, I hope my sharing these words here don't embarrass you.

I also wanted to suggest, to those willing to consider the possibility, that symbols and traditions such as Chief Illiniwek stand in to represent and otherwise speak for American Indian peoples (and by "people," I mean sovereign nations) when actual Indian peoples are not in a position to speak for and otherwise represent themselves -- ourselves. Remember, our nations are not represented in your Congress or White House, or in your state legislatures (including Illinois) or your county and city governments. We are represented in your state and other place names, and in your athletic traditions and symbols and in your schools and motion pictures. In addition to the sobering problem of redistributing political power back in the direction of the Indian nations are actual Indian peoples linguistically displaced as human beings by symbols and traditions in athletic entertainment, in school curricula (as Professor Reese points out), in movies, and elsewhere (everywhere, it sometimes seems). Indian peoples too often are depicted as mascots (or whatever), rather than in complicated ways that represent all of our diversity, that represent all of our various faces. Chief Illiniwek and other similar symbols and traditions constrain the ability of Indian peoples to represent ourselves, both symbolically and as sovereign nations.

Chief Illiniwek, for Indian peoples, is a problem of representation.

I am not anti-Chief Illiniwek. I am pro-Indian people. I support efforts to retire Chief Illiniwek so that this community can move forward to more completely know actual Indian peoples.

Ki de to ne mo wa, wa wa ka a mwa!

Posters here have made several remarks about how "civilized" this discussion has been. I want to point out that the Native students, staff, and faculty with whom I've spoken to, worked with, and stood alongside in this issue, have been reasonable, not extremist, in our discourse. But, as I noted earlier, the media seems to prefer strident sound bytes to civil discourse, and so they've ignored our input on this issue. Perhaps some of those with strident voices prefer and enjoy being provocative. As such, pro-Chief people who view themselves as reasonable people have not had the opportunity to hear what we have to say, and they've been maniuplated by the media into taking positions based on those provocative sound bytes.

Granted, many pro-Chief people will view my position (retire the dance, symbol, logo, and name) as extreme, but thank you for recognizing that the manner and words I use to frame my arguments are not extreme.

Ms. Reese,

I was stuck on stereotype because that's all the pro-Chief supporters ever hear (or racist) and it still rings hollow with me. But I am intrigued by Mr. Clark's point of view. It's quite possible that this conversation would have gone in a completely different direction if it had been brought up earlier. Perhaps you and your colleague should put together a series of talking points, hand those out to the PRC, and tell them to quit putting words in your mouths. But it's nice to add another adult to the conversation!

Well, I didn't say I want him retired, but I'm willing to pursue this new line of thought. I still haven't had my question answered. If the Chief is a problem due to lack of representation, wouldn't it make more sense to have an increase in proper representation than to just remove the Chief? Removing the Chief won't add to an awareness or understanding of Native American cultures and people, but it will probably slam shut some minds. More inclusion seems to be a better solution than more exclusion.

A survey with a vague "Modify Chief Illiniwek" would show how many moderates exist, compared to more extreme positions. That would be very interesting to know and may even help move the extremes to some sort of middle ground.

If IP is right that Chief Illiniwek is near the end, then such a survey may actually be the best hope for the pro-chief crowd to save some part of Chief Illiniwek. Or perhaps it would be like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Ms. Reese,

Did you sign the letter that Kaufman sent out?

As noted earlier, I am "pro-Indian" in my work on this issue. As such, I write my own letters. I heard on WILL that there was a letter asking other schools not to play UIUC, but I have not read it.

No. I did not send my own letter. Why do you ask?

I was just curious. I would have been disappointed if you participated in that behavior. I gave you the benefit of the doubt because you have been thoughtful on this thread, but I really wanted to know for certain.

I see a big difference in writing letters to increase awareness of the controversy and writing letters to intentionally inflict damage to the university. I believe Prof. Kaufman is doing the latter. It sounds as though you are doing the former, which is perfectly acceptable.

Oskee wow wow doesn't mean anything. It's a nonsensical phrase similar to rah rah. It has no Native American origins that I have been able locate on the internet. It is just an old football rally cry. But I stand corrected if someone can dispute that.

The DoD has been pretty progressive on race issues...probably because the last thing you want in a fight is internal divisions.

The last thing UIUC needs when trying to compete with universities from around the world is internal divisions.