U of I bars Indian mascot
This really disappoints me. This era of Political Correctness has to stop...... Seriously.....yo .......seriously. The university campus (campi) is supposed to be the bastion of free progressive thought, but this is only foolishness. Who is this protecting? Who is offended by this? When asked, most native American people feel honored by Chief Illiniwek. It is part of our Illinois history. This is our history!!! I guess progressives don't want to have anything that would remind them of of how we mean pale faces drove out the natives in our blood thirsty conquest of world dominance. This is such typical liberal bull@$#%. In an effort to not offend people, who for the most part are not offended in the first place, we are doing away with a tradition in order to make the progressives feel better about themselves. Gee thanks. I can't wait to show my children the DVD of what it was like when rational people roamed the Earth. I can't wait to take my children to the Basketball game of team "x" (formerly known as The Spurrs.....ya know with all of those offended cowboys) against team "y" (formerly know as the Bulls.....I mean really...who's lookin' out for the cattle?) For a change wouldn't it be nice for a university to say that they are more committed to their traditions than the blackmail money of the NCAA?
This is a bigger problem than we think. This opens the portal for all sorts of things that people can tell us we need to be offended by. DO YOU NOT SEE THIS PEOPLE!!?!?!? This is not offensive. It takes very educated, progressive liberals to TELL us how offensive this is. What's next? Smoking!?!?! oops.... too late, the ball is already rolling on that.
posted by BJ Aberle @ 9:05 AM
9 Comments:
OK, first off ... smoking is not just offensive. It kills people, including those that don't ask to be exposed to its toxins. However, your last comment was an aside, so aside from this I'll stick to the main point of your post.
I guess I don't understand how Chief Illiniwek honors Illinois history when he's wearing a Lakota costume (presented to the University by Frank Fools Crow, an Oglala Sioux), and the Lakota never lived in Illinois.
The tribes of the Illini Confederacy (the Kaskaskia, the Cahokia, the Peoria, the Tamaroa, the Moingwena and the Michigamea) were Algonquin, ethnically, linguistically and culturally related to the Shawnee and Cree ... although the Arapaho and Cheyenne of the Plains were also ethnically Algonquin. My point is that the Lakota language and culture were quite different from that of the Illini tribes.
The dance performed is not authentic First Nation dancing. It's cheerleader calisthenics VERY loosely based on Lakota fancy dancing, a dance form initially created to entertain white tourists. Of course fancy dancing also served to maintain some vestige of Lakota culture since their sacred dances were banned by their enlightened Christian masters.
Fancy dancing is loosely based on the Sun Dance, a HIGHLY sacred dance to the Lakota people. Some among the First Nations see that origin and find Chief Illinwek's dancing to be a mockery of the Sun Dance ... equivalent to someone dressing up in a clownish version of a Catholic priest's garb and performing a mockery of an Easter Mass at the halftime of a basketball game.
And then there's this ...
From Wikipedia:
"On January 17, 2007, however, the Executive Committee of the Oglala Tribal Council issued a resolution, asking that UIUC cease the use of the symbol, and return the regalia to the family of Frank Fools Crow. The resolution was delivered to UI's Board of Trustees, UI President White, and UIUC Chancellor Herman."
So ... the First Nation tribe that gave the costume to U of I formally requested the return of the regalia. So much for your PC liberal conspiracy.
Non-Native Americans don't know much about the lives of contemporary American Indians. Most of what they know has to do with the stereotypical images fed to them by the media.
I find it interesting that you say "most" "native American people" "feel honored by Chief Illiniwek." How did you come to this conclusion? Did you do any real research on this topic? While "some" American Indians might feel "honored", you cannot say that "most" feel honored. And if many feel insulted by this symbol, why can you not respect their feelings?
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=43
In a survey by Indian Country Today, 81 percent of respondents indicated use of American Indian names, symbols and mascots are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans.
http://www.indiancountry.com./content.cfm?id=1096414451
the Oglala Sioux Tribal Executive Committee passed a resolution on Jan. 17 requesting the return of the regalia used by Chief Illiniwek and asked that the use of Chief Illiniwek as a mascot be stopped.
The Society of Indian Psychologists are against the use of mascots.
http://www.geocities.com/indianpsych/mascots.html
In addition to the above, the following do not feel "honored" by the fake stereotype of Chief Illiniwek:
The National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Education Association, the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, the Central New York Native Studies Consortium, and the Native American Journalists Association.
Well I can't argue your facts. I guess I have a typical average persons gut reaction to this situation. I would have a problem if I felt that the performance was mocking Native American culture. But I have always been told that the person who is chief has to go through some serious briefing and training, and that the authenticity was tried to be preserved as much as possible.(aside from the mid-air kicks)
We are honoring the specific Illini tribe which is where, obviously, we get our states name. What difference does it make where the the outfit came from? Do you think the Oglala people would intentionaly misrepresent their culture by crafting an outfit that was not as authentic as possible?
From Wikipedia:
The Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma are the closest living descendants of the Illiniwek Confederacy, having been relocated to Oklahoma in the 19th century. The position of the tribal leadership has evolved over the years. In a television interview with WICD-TV in 1995, Don Giles, then Chief of the Peoria Tribe, said, "To say that we are anything but proud to have these portrayals would be completely wrong. We are proud. We're proud that the University of Illinois, the flagship university of the state, a seat of learning, is drawing on that background of our having been there. And what more honor could they pay us?" Supporting Chief Giles was another tribal elder, Ron Froman, who stated that the protesters "don't speak for all Native Americans, and certainly not us."
And I think if anybody's voice should be heard it should be thier's. My limited Wiki research also says that:
In the past few years, opinion polls on the subject have not been much help in defining Native American opinion on the subject. In 2002, a Peter Harris Research Group poll of those who declared Native American ethnicity on a U.S. census showed that 81% of Native Americans support the use of Indian nicknames in high school and college sports, and 83% of Native Americans support the use of Indian mascots and symbols in professional sports. However, the methods and results of this poll have been disputed.
So which is right? Your research or mine? Anyway, you clearly know more about this than I do. I am not too proud to be corrected if I need it. But I didn't mean to imply that this is a conspiracy. I did mean to imply that Political Correctness, while well intentioned and good in very small limited ways, is a tool of liberalism. Like I said before, we are living in a society where very educated people, usually people with graduate degrees, are telling us that we should be offended by things that just are not offensive.
I do respect their feelings. I just have a differing opinion....that's all. I am not offended by "the Patriots, the Crusaders, or the Knights." These things are part of my heritage.
Okay. You have a differing opinion. I don't think it's too much to ask to respect the opinions of those American Indians who feel demeaned by these stereotypes.
What does being "politically correct" mean to you? To me it means respecting the feelings of others.
My opinion is based on what I have seen and read in the media. For the most part, what I have gathered is that more often than not, Native Americans seem to be ambivilant to the whole thing. It is made out to seem that those who are making a stink are the few fringe zealots. I acknowlege that I could be completely wrong.
To me political correctnes is pointing out things that are not offensive and then telling average people that they should be offended. It has nothing to do with respect.
Other than the current topic, do you have any other examples of things that you do not find offensive and yet others insist on being politically correct?
I assure you that you are wrong on the current topic. You are not completely wrong as there are some American Indians who are not offended. And, yes, many are ambivalent because they have so many other issues to deal with which are more important. If you would read the Society of Indian Psychologists site, perhaps it would help you in understanding how some American Indians feel about this issue.
Thank you.
Ron Froman, then Chief of the Peoria Tribe, changed his position regarding Chief Illiniwek in 2000 after discussing the matter with a First Nation student group. The tribe has remained opposed since then, and the tribal government has written letters to the University demanding that they cease their use of the mascot.
indians aren't a monolithic group with a group mind.
a squeaky wheel wants to be oiled, that's why it squeaks.
it's just a way of getting attention for some very bored people of any kind.
you want some excitement?
vote for the war-monger!
iran is waiting.
The Banning Is Wrong, There Is No Racial Slur. When The Illinwek Were Still Alive They Enjoyed There Honor. All You Hippies Need To Get A Life Your Team is Next.
Post a Comment
<< Home