Life in a Post-Chief World

Posted February 16th, 2007 at 12:16 PM by Adam
in

Now that the University has sacrificed the Chief to the PC gods, I find myself wondering... what's next?

Will racial tensions go away, or at least subside, now that the Chief is gone?

Will we have more Native American students enroll (and graduate)?

But the most interesting question is: What will be the next target of the professional victims / protesters on campus?

I'm sure now that the Chief is gone, we will be hearing more, not less from the "anti-Chief" crowd. I expect demands for more funding of the "studies" programs and more money for programs such as the "Targets of Opportunity" program, which is designed to allow departments to hire faculty from certain minority groups, so long as the departments wouldn't be willing to use their own funds to pay for the individual.

More noise will be made about the under-representedness of blacks and hispanics, and the over-representedness of asians among the student population. More funds will be spent to try to get students with ACT scores in the teens to pass their engineering courses.

At any rate, it should be exciting over the next few years... We will finally be able to measure what the effects of the Chief were.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Loren Heal's picture
On February 16th, 2007 at 01:46 PM, Loren Heal said:

actually began some time ago, when the professional victims of the world (which class of folks predate but is best exemplified by Cindy Sheehan) gained the presumption of moral authority.

The special interest group bullying will continue until open war breaks out. That's the way it always works: successful tactics are repeated, increasing in severity. The bullying will continue until one side is utterly defeated and apologizes for daring to oppose the other. Guess which side is closer to doing that.

Specifically, I predict that the Chief-haters will next go after the name "Fighting Illini", followed by the name "Illinois" and indeed the word "university", formed as it is from offensive European roots and traditions.

On February 17th, 2007 at 11:00 AM, xian said:

Do the whining privileged count as "professional victims" or do you get some other special term? I think you should get some more flattering title, after all, this is your country.

On February 17th, 2007 at 12:44 PM, Adam said:

I'm not whining, I'm speculating.

Do you see that you can basically respond to anything someone says with "quit whining" ?

What do you mean by "this is your country" ? To whom are you referring? Me specifically? Some group of people? "Privileged" people? Can you share your formula for determining who is privileged?

On February 17th, 2007 at 04:19 PM, xian said:

Do you see that you can basically respond to anything someone says with "quit whining" ?

Exactly my point.

What do you mean by "this is your country" ? To whom are you referring? Me specifically? Some group of people? "Privileged" people? Can you share your formula for determining who is privileged?

That was sarcasm, but yes, I was referring to a group of people.

I would define it as the group of people who are able to gleefully convinced themselves that they are somehow special, have no need for empathy and deserve more rights than others. Then living in that reality, they manage to convince themselves that they are persecuted and that their way of life is under attack. (Which it may indeed be, but it really doesn't show much appreciation for historical context.)

On February 18th, 2007 at 01:04 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
The ‘victim groups” and their partners, the NCAA, the national media, the guilt ridden liberal whites and those afraid of being called “insensitive, bigots, racists” have won and the Chief is gone. For those of us who saw the good in the Chief, we will miss him. I personally live in California and haven’t seen the Chief in 20 years so it won’t be much of a physical loss. The loss is one of respect …and hope… for our legal system, for my University, for the press, for the Native Americans and for the self hating liberals involved in this politically correct decision.
 
You anti -Chief people are of many minds and goals. Some believe that this is really a good thing and that good will come of it, at least for Native Americans. Some of the “liberal do gooders’ who feel morally superior for having supported the “politically correct” point of view are satisfied to just be able to say “yes, I fought to have that symbol of racism removed”. The true right or wrong of the issue is far less important than being found on the perceived “correct” side of the issue. Another group of anti-chiefers don’t believe and never have believed that banning Chief Illiniwek would result in a significant improvement in the lives of Native Americans. These people are more concerned with revenge and general power plays than real improvement. They will shortly be looking for their next target and the list of targeted issues will never end as their anger and bitterness towards the European Americans will never end.
 
So, what good, if any has come out of this? Not justice. with the victory of a minority of “offended people” over the right of “freedom of expression”?  First, Chief Illiniwek was never “abusive or offensive” to anyone with normal levels of sensitivity. Many Native Americans are so full of bitterness and anger that they become hypersensitive and single minded in their determination to find insensitivity and offensiveness in every word thought or deed of the white population. For the ones who truly were offended, I once again say…..the world is full of things that offend me but I don’t feel that I have the right to intervene and take others rights away to impose on everyone my “opinion” that something is offensive. This whole concept that a person’s opinion about another person’s expression in dance, writing, art etc. should trump the artist’s right to express them or the audience’s right to be entertained is a dangerous street to go down. Since offendedness is a matter of “opinion”, not fact, and for every action and deed there is someone who is offended, there is no end to how much power and control the offended can amass. It just takes a bully like the NCAA or a misguided judge to take mine or YOUR rights away because some one else (of special status) complains that they are offended.
 
Maybe this whole thing would have been worth it if at least some understanding and bridge building had come out of it. This is where the battle (getting rid of the Chief) was won by the anti-chief group but the war is being lost. Consider this: Maybe we as a society are too hyper-sensitive and maybe we spend too much time looking for slights, insults especially on the basis of our “victim-group” mentalities. The energy and time would be better spent, bettering ourselves as individuals and building bridges between people based on our common attributes and history rather than our divisions. It is ironic to me that the very individuals that profess they are trying to “fix” problems and heal racial, religious, etc. hostility, are the ones that cant stop stirring the pot, dragging up old wrongs until all we can focus on is how much we cant stand each other 
 
 I hear the anti-chief crowd arguing that getting rid of Chief Illiniwek will somehow increase respect for Native Americans. In reality, this whole fight has decreased respect for Native Americans. The fact that the anti-chief crowd chose  to name call, vilify their opponents, rely on cheap “victim” excuses, staged riots, and employed other unprofessional tactics such as labeling a proud and decent University  as racist has not gone unnoticed by those who heretofore had a great respect for the Native American population. This was a wake up call to those of us who had a lot of respect for historical Native Americans. That wakeup call was to realize that just as we, the living descendents of those who treated the Native Americans so inhumanely, are not our ancestors, the living Native Americans are not their ancestors either. As much as today’s Native Americans fight to hold onto that image of  dignity, self reliance, sacrifice, integrity and courage of the Native Americans of 120 years, the Native Americans of today are as far from those people as the white man is. It is perhaps this loss of their larger than life historic character that is fueling the obsession with controlling the “images” and “symbols” so that they always reflect “positively” on Native Americans (as perceived by Naïve Americans”). I would thing that today’s Native Americans would be more concerned about the loss of the inner spiritual life and value system of their people than about some symbol that offends them. Why worry about the “white college boy” who is attempting to pay honor to Native Americans (even if he fails in THEIR eyes he was not failing in the eyes of the majority) when the whole culture is falling apart? How does “authenticity” and Indian sacred dances and religion figure into the casino life? If Chief Illiniwek is an affront to the sacred life of the Native American, what is the Indian casino that pollutes the sacred shoreline of Lake Superior in Grand Marais? No other group would have been permitted to desecrate that beautiful “sacred” area just to make a few bucks. If the great Chiefs: Crazy Horse, Chief Joseph, Red Cloud, Kicking Bear, Cochise… who faced death, pain, sickness every day in their attempts preserve their way of life, were alive today, would they be proud of how the mighty Native Americans got rid of Chief Illiniwek? OR WOULD THEY BE ASHAMED to see how the courage, pride  and honor and dignity of the Native Americans 120 years ago has deteriorated into the petty, whiney, victim and dependent mentality (dependent on giveaway’s and  special treatment based on guilt and pity )and money grubbing behavior we see today?
 
As for the liberals, they have actually won something… a way to feel superior and have their “white guilt” massaged” without really sacrificing or doing anything. Notice it is them that got something out of this and whether the “victims” actually do is not the issue. I wrote the following to an avowed “bleeding heart liberal” in her anti-chief  blog.
 
“I count many “bleeding hearts” among my best friends and I know most have their hearts in the right place. They do want harmony and fairness between all people. But they do not look and see what is actually happening with all of this focus on group mentality and grievances. Racial tension is increasing and if you don’t believe the two are related listen in on some conversations between the young” oppressors” and hear their resentment for having to have their noses rubbed in “their” sins in every history and sociology class from middle school on for things that happened before they were born. Meanwhile they watch as , affirmative action programs in hiring, scholarships,  and admissions leap frog less qualified individuals over them. The anti-Chief group would never have prevailed nor even attracted much attention if they hadn’t presented themselves as “victims”.  Meanwhile the “ victims” can be heard like a broken record reciting the endless list of grievances (like the Chief) and reasons why they can’t make it without special programs, special treatment, special status. The ability of a marginal (in terms of being part of the University) minority, on the basis of the minorities “opinion” of insensitivity alone, to destroy an 85 year old well like symbol, despite the opposition of the overwhelming majority, was only made possible by the special status conveyed on the minority group… that of victim. And the majority group …that of oppressor.
 
 
Her”bleedng heart”  reply: Note the issues for her in bold.
“All admirable, but where does that leave me to help aid in this process? I can't look at these people and say, "Well, just get over it. If you just ignore it, it doesn't exist." I am a white woman from a middle-class family who is married to a doctor. He grew up poor. His parents pushed him in his education, but neither of them had distinguished educational careers. He is bothered by the assumption of "white privilege" that follows him as now a white male doctor, and I do sympathize with him on that account. But that doesn't really help me when I'm on the possibly offending side.”
 
This poor victim of “white privilege” is concerned that the “victims” wont need her to help them out of their underprivileged life styles and that she will have to suffer with the “possibility” that she is on the “offending” side without any “good deed” to make her feel better. Sometimes our egos get caught up in "helping" people and we begin to believe they can’t make it without our programs, pity and excuses. Although fighting to get rid of the Chief is a feel good thing for liberals, they are not doing Native Americans any favors by reinforcing their (Native Americans) victim mentality and by reinforcing the idea that something like a dancing historical symbol (even performed by a white college boy) is able to hurt Native Americans or affect their ability to thrive in life.
 
What these liberals and all of us who want to “help” can do rather than battle these paper tigers like the Chief is:” treat all people fairly and look beyond ethnicity to values and behavior. We can acknowledge past wrongs without ruminating on them and without taking or assigning responsibility for these wrongs based on our group status  (unless we were personally responsible as individuals.).
 
It may not make us “feel as good” but maybe the greatest gift we can give Native Americans is the thought and belief that they can overcome the past and create a good future and that they have the power, abilities, character, faith, and courage to achieve those dreams, even if the whole world stands against them...
On February 18th, 2007 at 01:10 AM, xian said:

If I give all the white people in the room $20, that's white privilege. The fact that one of them may have been mugged last night and lost $100 should neither be ignored, nor does it negate the reality of white privilege.

By being white and male, your friend's husband certainly received societal advantages. However, if he grew up poor, he probably had to overcome even greater class obstacles, especially in medical school where most of the students probably had better financial means and opportunities.

I don't see why he should resent the acknowledgement of white privilege though--that's just a piece of his history--whether he perceived it or not. My wife is going through a similiar situation and she doesn't harbor issues about fully understanding her whole reality--privileged and obstacles. To be defensive about such things is a sign of insecurity.

On February 18th, 2007 at 02:18 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Someone please explain this to me. The Chief was banned because he was perceived to be abusive and racist and generally demeaning to Native Americans. What I am having trouble understanding is how did this happen and who was the recipient of this racist demeaning information? There are 3 groups involved. Those who heard about the issue and never saw the Chief perform. This group could not have been affected by the demeaning exhibition because they didn’t see it. The second group is the observers who felt that the performance was demeaning. This group was largely made up, I assume, of Native Americans and those who generally think well of Native Americans and were therefore charging the Chief with racism. (Obviously if they were bigoted against NA’s they would probably care less about that aspect of the performance. This group is not likely to become anti NA over a performance that they deem derogatory and it’s unlikely their good opinions of Native Americans will be affected… if it is a matter of individual self image of Native Americans in the audience then why not skip the chief performance. There are millions of things in the world to offend any one of us if we seek them out. Who needs the aggravation) the third group involves those who watched the performance and enjoyed it and were pro-chief. Throughout the entire debate about the Chief this group has overwhelming testified that they found the chiefs performance to be a tribute to NA; and in fact most of the individuals in this group said the performance increased their respect for Native Americans. So, if the Chiefs performance was actually racist and offensive, it did not achieve its goal of demeaning NA to the only group that actually saw the performance and who were not NAs or already sensitive to Native American issues. In truth, it had the opposite affect on this “impressionable” group in most cases and actually was increasing respect and admiration for Native Americans. So who has been saved from the affects of this abusive display which, as the anti chief crowd has alleged, includes encouraging an atmosphere of intolerance and racism against Native Americans? I doubt the second group is going to become racist against themselves over a display they find non authentic. On the other hand the removal of the Chief definitely took away a positive symbol of Native Americans in the eyes of a majority of the people in group three. Further, the undemocratic process by which it done and the tactics used by the anti chief crowd definitely resulted in the lowering of many of the third groups opinions of Native Americans. SO what was accomplished in terms of NA image? It was damaged. So why did they pursue this so vehemently? Not to achieve what could never be achieved by banning the chief……improving relationships and perceptions between Native Americans and non Native Americans (I can say this DEFINETLY did not happen) and improving the image of Native Americans. (for whom???, most non Native Americans thought the Chief improved the image of Native Americans) ….but REVENGE...now.. that is sweet and for that victory I salute the anti chief crowd. I wonder if it will be worth it however since so many of the give away, special rules like casinos, special treatment like the NCAAs rulings on Chief Illiniwek and preference programs for Native Americans are fueled by guilt and pity for past wrongs. As Native Americans bring more and more “victim checks” to the bank to be cashed the balance in that account is diminishing. It would be wise to spend the balance on something more substantive and profitable than banning Chief Illiniwek
On February 18th, 2007 at 02:37 AM, xian said:

The first group of people who never witnessed the performance still might be composed of Native Americans and their children who faced racism and stereotyping due to the performance. The second group might be composed of people who understand the affect of such stereotyping and with that insight are troubled by the impact of what they are watching.

The third group might think see the performance and have positive connotations from the jumping around and fake dancing, but that positive impression about something fake doesn't necessarily lead to positive treatment of real Native Americans. I mean the "I'll throw a tomahawk in her face" Chief supporter certainly didn't extend his positive respect for the white guy in the fake Indian suit to actual Native Americans.

I have no interest in revenge. I would just like our flagship state institution of higher education actually do its job. I've read the statements from the various parts of the institution whose expertise is the understand of societal dynamics and they featured strong majorities of faculty members who saw the Chief as an obstacle to the mission of the institution.

Even in your own post, I see little respect for actual native americans.

On February 18th, 2007 at 03:04 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

First of all how is the first group going to suffer from chief stimulated additional racism and IF the third group (the group with the potential biggots)is not incited to greater racism by the CHief? As for the second group, dont watch. I avoid things that disturb me. As for the third group where is wyour proff of a causal realtionship between the chief and the "tomahawk -he doesnt carry one) If anything has increased dislike and aanti Native American feelings it is as I said the arrogance, lack of consideration for others rights, unwillingness to compromise, villification, of the anti chief group and their unwarranted victory  wo with percieved unethical tactics. Ask group # 3 for that is where the biggots come from, yes there is a decrease in respect , sympathy and support for Native Americans from that group... u can hear it evrywherer,in the blogs, letters to editors and  in the polls 57-70% still want the chief to perform

On February 18th, 2007 at 03:07 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

Oh bye the way, their are no experts in social dynamics! that would require it to be a science which it is not. There are now at the Universities experts in attempted indoctrination and intimidation in many of these social "science" departments. if u dont believe me check the comments on ratemyprofssor

On February 18th, 2007 at 03:18 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

u r so wrong about the"respect" issue. Here is part of a prior blog I wrote a few months back

"I will not defend the indefensible way the Native Americans were treated by the dominant European culture during the 1600s-1900’s. Watching Chief Illiniwek dance when I was a kid of the experiences that motivated me to read every book I could get my hands on written by and about Native Americans beginning when I was about 15.I have enormous respect for the very great attributes such as integrity, courage and self sacrifice that dominated their cultures. I was pleased when history classes, books and movies began to reveal the many admirable values, beliefs and practices of the Native American tribes. It was way overdue to tell the epic, heart breaking stories of the struggle and self sacrifices made by American Indians in their attempt to preserve their way of life. It was also overdue to admit to the unfair and inhumane way the dominant culture "dealt" with the Indians. Like most people, I am ashamed of the pervasive deceit, inhumanity and racism that dominated the government "
As I said recently however, todays Native AMericans are not the same as their forefathers and neither are the whites. As for "experts" in social interaction there are none. These social "sciences" are not science as they cannot imploy the scintific method,.Many of these professorsy do  more and more exhibit their expertise in intimidation propaganda and attempted brainwashing. If you dont believe me look at the comments on the raetmyprofessor website.
On February 18th, 2007 at 01:24 PM, xian said:

There are plenty of ways to employ the scientific method in the social sciences. Some use the tactics you describe, others do not. But a person who is capable of independent critical thought should have no trouble evaluating the scientific value of social theory.

To simply not believe that social science expertise exists is really no different from a lack of belief in traditional science. People, their thought processes and social interactions move in logical patterns. If you are able to drop your own agenda and look at the vast amount of human data we have, there is nothing preventing you from applying the scientific method.

This lack of belief in science is why our society consistent returns to failed social policies that have already been tested time and time again around the globe. Why do you think we are still pushing punative motivational tactics across our society?

On February 18th, 2007 at 03:25 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
What u say is a matter of opinion and is debated even with tin the "disciplines" of the social sciences. I know because I grew up in Urbana and my father as well as most of my friends fathers, my parent’s friends and my neighbors were all PhD’s most from Ivy League universities and about half in social sciences. Many of them admitted to the fact that they taught "opinions' and therefore changed books out every two years to accommodate the new "opinion de jour" (unlike most science and math books). My best friend’s father was a PhD from Princeton in history. He was a world renowned “expert” I remember him saying the expression" those who do not learn from history are domed to repeat it" was totally BS because though we can study history, interpreting it and extrapolating from it were nearly impossible because” history  never reapers itself". People, societies and their interactions are so infinitely complex that although we might apply a soft scientific method to a very thin piece of the sociological /anthropological/ psychological pie as get some valid conclusions, the piece has to be so thin that it is impossible to fit it back into the total pie with any meaning or worthwhile conclusion.
As if the complexity of people and societies isn’t formidable enough the more recent attitude of too many professors i.e. that it is ok to teach their own personal agendas in an atmosphere of intimidation (using grades and humiliation to keep opposing views silent0 have only degraded an area of study whose value to anyone other than providing a teaching job, is questionable. (Really how does a degree in sexual orientation really help a society?) Intimidating students in the classroom is not new although it is getting more prevalent. Actually using grades as a weapon is something that few professors ever did 25 years ago. That is why The Academic Bill of Rights point #3 states that students will be graded solely on the basis of their work not on their political, religious etc. beliefs or ethnicity. It is a disgrace that this has even become an issue in “the market place of ideas” i.e. the Universities. When I grew up my father and the other professors I knew, had a high code of ethics that did not have to be imposed on them but was part of who they were. Tenure for those people was not a policy to hide behind. It was an honor and a trust sealed by theiralmost idealistic respect for the learning process and the pinnacle of that process, the University. They would never have degraded themselves or the institution by using their position to suppress independent thought or to distort the truth to promote their own personal agendas. Unfortunately too many professors of social sciences today believe that the college classroom is their own personal vehicle to promote hatred and revenge for perceived wrongs. If u doesn’t believe me check the comments on ratemyprofessor, look up bias on college campuses in Google, or talk to some college kids. I happen to talk to them every day and as many as can, will avoid college and the ever growing  social science requirements and go directly to the companies themselves for training.
 

e"history  never reapets itself"

On February 18th, 2007 at 03:30 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

It occurs to me that u must  not have a science backgroudn because I dont know a one scientist (the ones who studyy physics, biology, chemistry, math etcs)who considers "social sciences " to have anything to do with science.