For those wanting to discuss the Chief Illiniwek regalia story, here it is.
On Wednesday, the Executive Committee of the Oglala Sioux Tribal Nation submitted a resolution to the University President B. Joseph White and the Board of Trustees demanding the return of Chief Illiniwek's regalia and the original eagle feathers to Mel Lone Hill, descendent of spiritual leader Frank Fools Crow. Fools Crow presented the regalia to the University 23 years ago.
According to the resolution, Lone Hill asserts that Fools Crow was disappointed in how the University made use of the regalia.
The resolution also demanded that the University cease using Lakota regalia for Chief Illiniwek, and further supports a Peoria Tribe resolution from 2000 that requests the University "recognizes the demeaning nature of the characterization of 'Chief Illiniwek'" and retires the figure.
The floor is all yours.
I'm sorry but the whole chief thing might be the dumbest issue in the history of debates!!! At this point and time I'm inclined to say the native americans in this country don't appreciate him, so I'd be inclined to be understanding of their heritage and get rid of the chief. However, I'm not going to lose any sleep if they don't get rid of the chief either. Why do people care so much either way? Its a waste of space in print, and a bigger waste of hot air on both sides.
Indian givers!
Personally, I was shocked to find out that the University has several other Chief costumes that they can use. Does this mean our beloved Chief is not really wearing traditional Native American clothing? And, if so, does that mean he isn't really honoring the Native Americans? No way!
This is a real trip for me right now. I have always respected the Chief as a loving, honoring symbol for those Native Americans. I have his image on a baseball hat, my jacket, even some pens and pencils! Remember Chief toilet paper? I used that stuff for years! All with the pure desire in my heart to show respect to the Native Americans.
Now I find out the Chief may not have even been wearing the real costume? Oh, man. I'm shocked!
I think we need to get a Tim Johnson mascot. That way, he can donate some authentic sweatpants as an artifact, but if he decides that the mascot is not power-walking around the field respectfully enough, it should be easy to get some new sweatpants.
It's too bad the Honor the Chief Society, who have already spent more than $84,000 in donations trying to save the Chief, don't instead use their money for something meaningful, like actual education.
Moving over to this thread:
Given that the University purchased the regalia from Frank Fools Crow in 1982 for $3500, and that the outfit was his personal property (made by himself and his wife), what claim does the tribe have on it?
Further, what changes have occured in the way in which the University presents the Chief since 1982 when Frank Fools Crow sold the outfit (under the supervision of Chief Joe American Horse) to the University? Has the presentation of the Chief changed, or has the leadership of the tribe changed?
Under the terms of the sale, was there any provision made for the tribe to demand the return of the regalia?
If I sell you an object that I have made, by what justification can others demand, 25 years later, that I turn it over to them?
Further questions:
1) The demand was made by the Executive Committee, which by the resolution itself appears to be acting while the council is not in session, and by the resolution itself is charged with handling "all routine matters". This would clearly seem to be other than a routine matter. Does this fall within the authority of the Executive Committee, and why is this resolution not made by the 18 member Tribal Council? According to the Constitution and By-Laws of the Oglala Sioux Tribe (Article V, Section I), the full council is scheduled to meet in January. If they have met already this month, why did they not vote on such a resolution themselves, or if they have not yet met, then why would the Executive Committee push this out early?
2) The recorded vote is 3 in favor, 0 against, and 0 abstaining and 0 not voting, yet the executive committee (according to http://www.lakotamall.com/oglalasiouxtribe/government.htm) actually consists of 5 members - President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Fifth Member. Why did only 3 people vote?
Further question: Has the tribe settled the dispute yet over who exactly is the executive committee? As of Dec 14, there were two separate groups claiming to be the Executive Committee, and the the committee that signed the resolution is not the committee that was residing in the government offices as of Dec 14. Well, actually the William Brewer that is on the Resolution as President is neither of the two people who are claiming the title, those being John Yellow Bird Steel (who apparently won the election but the election was invalidated) and Alex White Plume (who was taken off of the ballot, but succeeded in invalidating the election).
So the question would be, how does William Brewer who was elected Vice-President, but signed the resolution as President, factor in this resolution?
I don't know the terms of the contract the University signed or didn't sign when they bought the Chief regalia. But remember, we're supposedly honoring Native Americans here. I don't know if the tribe has a legal right to get back the regalia, but if we really want to honor them, shouldn't we stop being so lawerly and respect their wishes? Or do we only honor Native Americans who tell us what we want to hear?
A school mascot (or "symbol" for the P.C. crowd) is supposed to unite the campus. Can anyone seriously argue that the Chief does that?
I love my Alma Mater and I love Illinois sports. But I find the Chief divisive at best and racist at worst . The sooner we end this minstrel show, the better.
I am a big believer in censorship, and it is about time the University of Illinois get on board my bandwagon. If something offends people, it should be banned, end of discussion.
The lack of leadership at the U of I is appalling. No one wants to make a decision, from the President, Chancellor, Board of Trustees and the "best AD in the Country" Ron Guenther.
I am a free speech, anti-professional victim guy, so despite my at best lukewarm appreciation for U of I athletics, I support the Chief. Much of the Chief''s current trouble comes from getting needlessly involved in the rabble-rousers' goofy and unsupportable arguments about racism, authenticity, and, oddly enough, whether the Chief is a mascot or an honored symbol. The Chief is in fact a non-racist, non-authentic mascot and honored symbol of the University of Illinois. He does not and need not honor the extinct Illini or any other tribe. This point is so elementary that it seems incredible the point should ever have to be made. Does Aunt Jemima honor black women cooks or the product? Does Betty Crocker honor white women cooks or the products? Does the bear honor the the ursine family or the Cubs and Bears?
The anti-Chief crowd needs a big dose of inattention.
John (honors intestinal relief stations everywhere) Bramfeld
Leadership.
Let's get something straight.... the decision **HAS** been made. It's been made by the DIA. It's been made by the BOT. It's been made by the General Assembly and governor. It's been made by the US Department of Justice. At EVERY level of government that this nation has, this issue has been vetted and REJECTED. The decision was to keep the Chief, and that decision has been UPHELD by everyone except the NCAA (a private organization).
It's not that there has been no decisions. It's not that they haven't "been dealing with the issue." They've dealt with it, YOU JUST LOST.
Let's at least be honest about the facts.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
I might almost agree here.
I'm trying to follow through with this thought.
Are you saying that even though the chief is identifiable as a member of that group, that whether or not he is an accurate representation of that group is not material to the discussion? (ie. X is a Bear, but X is not meant to honor bears, or to represent all bears, and as long as X is presented in a form that does not dishonor all bears, then bears in general have no say in your use of X)?
The only problem I am having with it is the fact that so many people seem to be dishonored by any portrayal. It brings to mind the fact that just using a picture of Mohommed angers all muslims, regardless of the context. To me, it's a "Get over it" issue, but to others, meh.
Bramfeld, you are wrong.
If the New Orleans Saints had, instead of an amorphous saint, and a fluer de lis on their helmets, a group of "Saints" come out and walk around at half time, maybe flagelate a little, or even have some relic fall off and get scooped up by some monk in costume, that would upset a lot of Catholics (Catholics being that sect that will believe anything) and there would be cries of protest. But, since Catholics are a minority of a minority religion in the world, thier cries of protest should be ridiculed.
Not some bear, not some cub, although ridiculing Cubs is high sport, but a mascot that sort of portrays a real person, and people would go ballistic.
"Today's saint is Saint John Bosco, so we're giving free hot chocolate for everyone holding seat numbers 177-241 in Rows 44 through 49! Please go to the concession stands and show your ticket stub!"
I credit them for addressing those larger issues, such as funding over a mascot.
"But, since Catholics are a minority of a minority religion in the world, thier cries of protest should be ridiculed."
their cries of protest are ridiculed, as anti-science, when they protest federal funding of embyronic stem cell research
their cries of protest are ridiculed, as theocratic, when they protest federal funding of art that mocks their religion
their cries of protest are ridiculed when the protest the removal of a prayer before a school football game
........
Is so, they would not be as effective as say a local Christian sect in Southern California.
"their cries of protest are ridiculed, as anti-science, when they protest federal funding of embyronic stem cell research"
Catholics have a long history of torture, may as well continue torturing people with devasting diseases, because science isn't in the bible
"their cries of protest are ridiculed, as theocratic, when they protest federal funding of art that mocks their religion"
That darn First Amendment. What were the Founding Fathers thinking?
"their cries of protest are ridiculed when the protest the removal of a prayer before a school football game"
Pray to yourself, I've had enough of the Catholic church killing people because they flunked the prayer test
The Catholic church and its followers have killed more people in the name of religion than all the Islamists put together, including beheadings, ripping people apart aka quartering, stretching people to death on the rack, stoning to death, and many other ways.
The Catholic church has been, over many centuries, a terrorist organization torturing and killing in the name of their beliefs. How long do we have to wait until the Church has cleansed itself? How long do we have to wait until people understand that Muslims aren't all murderers?
Why do we have to give any deference to a terrorist organization with a clearly defined military structure, with ranks of officers, bishops, achbishops, cardinals, and the generalissimo, the pope, and the one now is the Nazi pope to boot? The Pope in WWII sure did a good job helping the Jews, didn't he?
A nest of killers and perverts. That's the Catholic Church. So maybe a little Injun dance isn't so bad after all.
I am against superfluous funding of stuff that offends. Since the U of I is a state funded institution, they should quit funding anything related to the Chief.
We also need to drop the National Endowment for the Arts, and no funding for research that kills embryos. Deal?
Anonymous 1:56 has been cruising Wikipedia.
redstatewannabe: so it's about the money and not the morals, huh?
When it's your time, you'll count your change in Hades.
the U of I received all its funding from the State of Illinois but it does not so
NO DEAL!!!! YOU PAY FOR IT - YOU GET TO PLAY WITH IT!!!
Anonomo you need to get out a little more, acquire a little more education especially in Christian churches. As a 9th generation American who belongs to an Anglican Catholic Church here in Central Illinois, your post offends me, my "universal' or catholic religion and displays your limited education and experience.
"redstatewannabe: so it's about the money and not the morals, huh?"
No, its about my morals vs. someone else's morals. How do we settle who is right? I don't think you should make me pay for stuff I find morally wrong, so it is only fair that Chief opponents get the same respect. If the U of I was a private school, or a pro sports team, then my position would be different.
I don't think people have the right to go thru life and not be offended. But if you are going to offend someone, you shouldn't be a able to do it with their own money. I just want to be morally consistent. Now, I don't think the Chief is any where close on a moral grading scale to killing embryos, but it could be considered pretty close to the Christian-bashing art exhibits.
I'm an anglican myself. I'm not what people in America understand as "Catholic."
Regardless of your self-involvement and your 9 generations, for whatever reason you need to express that you can't force Americans to change their reality ot match your reality, anymore than Muslims can force American women to cover their faces
Now, I don't think the Chief is any where close on a moral grading scale to killing embryos, but it could be considered pretty close to the Christian-bashing art exhibits.
You aren't talking about this idiocy, right? If you aren't, please accept this little diversion, since I see it as an opportunity to educate on a issue that people seem to talk about much and know very little about.
If you've read about Ofili and his art and disapprove, that's certainly fine. After all, I think Rush Limbaugh is one of the worst human beings on the planet, but you probably just look at the same body of work and see good where I see atrocity.
I really hope though that you have had the integrity to study about this artist before criticizing him. He's certainly a smart and gifted artist, no matter your perspective.
From Ofili himself?
Chris Ofili has said of his painting: "My project is not a p c project ... It allows you to laugh about issues that are potentially serious."
The Dung that Ofili used is considered sacred in some areas of Africa. Here to most it is not. In the same way that in some areas a complete mockery of Jesus or Mary by misrepresenting their appearance is seen as sacred while in other circles it is seen as insulting.
The reverse swastika is a historical/international symbol of holiness, but that doesn't stop people from demanding that cultures abandon their more than millenium old symbol of sacredness due to atrocities of last century.
I'm sorry, I can wholely support freedom of expression movements that "anti-PC" crusaders claim to be representive, but I can't fathom this "my values are sensible and others' are not and they are just wrong!" (Once again, to those who believe that they were born into the moral center of the universe, not you, unless it happens to be relevant.)
I've been enjoying the increasingly wide-ranging debate on art, expression, and censorship here, but the biggest news on today's Chief front has not yet been touched. The Chairman of the UI Board of Trustees guaranteed at yesterday's Board meeting that the Chief issue would be resolved in 2007, and that UI athletics would be brought into compliance with NCAA mascot regulations that now disallow post-season home games for our so-called "Olympic sports" teams. UI President Joseph White has been on Chicago radio today seconding the Chairman's pledge. Now that all legal appeals against the NCAA have failed, there only one way that compliance can be secured: the Chief, it seems, is (finally) a certain goner.
If the Chief is gone, what will we, those who are in a state of denial about our self absorption, righteousness, and importance, all the while determining, with petty minds, the competition of thought and expression, going to fret about, and caw and scratch and make faces?
Oh, the loss! The sociopolitical emotional cost!
Say it ain't so, say the Chief ain't gone!
Opportunity Knocks Fools, we did not know where to find you to cut a deal when the NCAA came complaining about Illini, Illiniwek, Illinois, etc. We wanted to cut a marketing deal like Florida State did, ensuring full tribal support for the mascot program. Now that you have appeared, Ron Guenther wants to meet with Frank Fools Crow, to offer a fair percentage of profits from sales of Chief gear, as long as you provide your support to the NCAA, similar to Seminole Tribe with Florida State. The Chief logo is very popular with Illini sports fans, so please, lets get together and talk about it.
Ah, the HSQDs are back, blathering about the same non-sequiturs about other things -- always unrelated to the Chief -- and whether they are better or worse.
The HSQDs have no argument, yet they have stretched this issue out for more than 16 years. They probably view this as an accomplishment.
They fear change. When the Chief is eliminated, they will probably whine and complain for another 16 years, even though their response to more serious issues is to say: "The ruling has been made; deal with it."
The NCAA has made its ruling. The BOT has said this idiocy will stop this year; deal with it.
Please, explain what exactly is a HSQD?????
===Hybrid Squirrel Quail Duck
It sounds cute, but believe me, it's not. It is a nut-burying, poor-flying, billed atrocity and it must be stopped.
HSQD = hapless status quo defender.
There are quite a few of them in C-U. They cling hard to the "way things always have been."
They come out of the woodwork for the Chief issue. Their favorite ploy when arguing a topic is to bring up unrelated non-sequiturs, as follows:
"Cigarettes? Why, Union Carbide killed A LOT more people in India that one time!"
"The Chief isn't anywhere as offensive as that Herb guy from the Burger King ads! Save the Chief!"
And so on. They fail to realize how silly they sound when making these arguments, so they keep doing it ad nauseum.
FYI, Frank Fools Crow died some time ago (1989), even presuming there was any interest in the very white idea of cutting a deal. But there will be more news on that issue in the not too distant future and it won't be good for the UI and its smug "we'll get around to dealing with it sometime this year" attitude.
When the Chief is eliminated, they will probably whine and complain for another 16 years, even though their response to more serious issues is to say: "The ruling has been made; deal with it."
Sounds surprisingly like these guys.
The more things change ...
hapless ad nauseam misspellers
Hey, an HSQD found a typo!
Just shows how desperate the HSQDs are on the Chief issue. They know they've lost.
All that's left is the 16 years of whining and complaining. Just remember, HSQDs, any change is bad!
I hope that last argument was to set the HSQDs straight and not yet another bid to make the Chief "more accurate" so it can be kept.
The Chief is going. There's no changing that. This is it; make no mistake where you are.
The HSQDs just can't handle being on the side where the decision has been made and they have lost. They're so used to making the argument of "If you don't like it, leave."
It must sting to have the tables turned.
I was comparing/contrasting the realities to everything UIUC has done. The Chief is a cartoonish Plains Indian composite. The Illinois Confederacy is not part of that. The Ogalala were their enemies. The anthropology prof that started all of this was a moron who couldn't distinguish fact from racist stereotyping. The drunken dancing caricature perpectuates the racism (as does the indian giver statement from a previous commenter). There is so much proof that it's negative. There are no positives. Adopting the Chief is a mistake that UIUC should have never allowed.
I think it is most appropriate that the feather being used by the Chief is a turkey feather. I think that speaks volumes to the Chief, the U of I, and the Board of Trustees. They should all wear one of those feathers in their caps.
After years of haggling, mud slinging, political posturing and stubborness, this ethnic transvestite is finally history according to a current news report ! I wonder if the good, proud alumni of Illinois will use another ethnic or racial group to parodize?
Eugene
Hey, he's gone.....the ethnic transvestite known as "The Chief," has been removed from university athletic events. So, maybe the alumni can employ another ethnic or racial group, let a Caucasian dress up again and prance around some more. Most of all, it feels good to win....So, get over it!
The idea that any group of people can claim offense at something and therefore require that something to be eliminated. If this is the logic we are to follow... get ready to lose a lot of things. How about our money. Should we really be allowed to have George Washington on our money... after all, he owned slaves. Certainly there is some group of African-Americans somewhere who find our honoring of this slave owing president to be in poor taste. Surely he should be replaced by Martin Luther King Jr. Let's wipe out all of the good that he did, and choose to only focus on one aspect if this individual that is now considered politically incorrect and hostile to a small group of people. That is what we are doing with the Chief. If anyone is naive enough to believe that any university campus is one hundred percent united, they aren't paying attention. This campus will be divided, as it should be, on many issues... even after the chief dances his last dance. Differences and the discussions that occur because of them is what helps create positive change. If anyone believes that racial tensions will be lessened by decommissioning the Chief they would again be wrong. The chief did not create racial tensions... that can be credited to the upbrining an individual has had. If you are a racist, you were that way when you came to the University. If you decide you don't agree with racism, you will change, if not... you will raise racist children. The anti-chief groups on campus have done more to perpetuate racism on our campus than the chief could with another 81 years under his belt. They brought the focus on race, not the chief. All I have to say to them is that you reap what you sow. Good luck with that. In another 81 years, who will be honoring you or talking about you... no one. The Chief is forever a part of our University though... whether he dances or not!
Maybe we can find a manufacturer to create replicas of the regalia he wore and all the fans can show up in full dress! Then what can they say. I have the right to where what I want and the University can't be blamed for that!
This how stupid your comment is. Proof: You offend me so you should be banned.
From articles on the web, the Peoria tribe has little to no interest in Chief Illiniwek. They are interested in the economic development of their people. I for one as an Alumni and the parent of a current student; feel that the matter should have been handled differently. Surely, there was a compromise position. Maybe the campus can have a cheerleader now doing a dance or whatever. Can the NCAA ban face paint? My daughter is saying they are considering Abe Lincoln as a mascot. This too is not appropriate. A late president as a mascot? No way. Regardless of what side you are on, we have stated one thing... we care about this institution. We care about the traditions and legacy of these people and this state. Let this be the starting point to work from. The indian culture is strong and respected in Illinois. However, I've seen the images of indians and their traditional dances performed by indians (for sale). Is it only questionable when we do it? Or is it ok when the performance is for money? Maybe they just want to get paid now. Nevertheless, Chief Illiniwek is retired. May he live in our hearts and memories of a time where we were not so sensative (or politically correct). As for the costume.. it was purchased. It belongs to the school. Perhaphs portions of it should be donated to a museum so that the Indian culture and regalia can be seen. To return it to the the family is not the answer. Surely, the regalia does not last forever. Donate it, or better still create a place of honor on the University campus. So that we can remmember Chief Illiniwek with respect as we do for the Alma Mater. Whatever the University chooses it will cause a debate.
What you said is stupid. If you are a student or Alumni surely you must be aware of the racial tensions on this campus. If not, you need to explore the organizations on the campus. Look at how many groups have formed with the purpose of unity for a racial group. The number of organizations are growing. This should tell you somethings wrong. If the university cared about racial harmony the issue re: the Chief would not have been discussed for more than 10 years.
If you are a student... Get out of the books and get a life..
If you are an Alumni.. God help you. The world is made up of different colors. Each color has a issue and all want to be heard. You might want to listen to the issues and not make judgements.
Several of us spoke to Fools Crow years ago about the outfit and we saw what was supposedly agreed upon - the agreement said nothing about a Non-Native wearing the outfit at games and doing splits and dancing wildly in barefeet. The agreement was for an outfit to be put under glass in one of the main halls!!!! When Fools Crow actually saw a tape of the dance, etc. he was heart broken.
There was no honor in Chief Illinwek or the dance because we don't dance like that and we don't dance barefoot. And how could you say you are honoring Natives at a school that would not even allow Natives in for many, many years?