Rather than have this seep into every other thread that we have this week, let's use this thread to try and keep it in one place.
If you want to gripe, vent, spew, gloat or celebrate the University's "consensus" decision on Chief Illiniwek, please do so here. If the letters to the editor have you scrambling to respond, please do so here.
I've waited a couple of days to post this, as to allow my anger to subside a bit. My self-censored take:
- The "consensus process" was a joke. There was no consensus - this was a decision made by the NCAA, and no other perspective mattered.
- The way the decision was reached and announced was disappointing. I don't blame the University for the decision (as their path was dictated to them by the NCAA) but I do blame them for clumsiness of delivery.
- The University and the NCAA have just given official sanction to the idea that those of us who supported the use of Chief Illiniwek are racists, regardless of our reasons for that support.
- I hope that the pro-Chief side handles this decision with class and dignity. If the tradition was worth keeping because of its honor and dignity, this is not the time to squander it.
- I also hope that the anti-Chief side will handle this graciously.
I applaud your political correctness on this. My blog is a little more impassioned but I didn't take any potshots at the anti-chief "supporters", I am more upset at the NCAA than anything else.....
Here's the thing. If the Native American tribes had a problem with Illiniwek, I'd be the first to insist that their sensibilities must be respected. But, as I understand it (from 1000 miles distant), the Natives have not been the complainants in this case. Rather, some ACLU-inspired or intimidated twit(s) has/have been convinced that any display of Native custom or culture must be mockery if associated with the "white man's" sports. It's just sick that in the name of preventing an imagined insult, new generations of Illini children will lose this bit of exposure that might have reminded them of the history of their home.
Many's the daydream this little girl once enjoyed, knowing that part of her heritage included headgear that flowed with eagle feathers and campfire dancing to a simple drumbeat . We CAN mourn their loss but still celebrate their very existence, and that's where we lose the PC crowd, I think.
Test your Chief IQ:
http://www.ucimc.org/node/980
There are a lot of Native Americans opposed to the Chief. Look at this:
http://www.uillinois.edu/trustees/dialogue/speakerlist4_14_00.html
I'm not gloating. I think this is right, but far from perfect.
One question I have is "Why does this have anything to do with letting people know the history of the Native Americans in this area?"
Whether the Chief was hurtful and hateful or not, none of you are saying that the Chief's routine did anything more than shallow surface education about the rich heritage of Native American culture, right?
The Native American studies department is already doing a great job of this (many of whom also were instrumental in the anti-Chief movement). Why not help them out, and rather than railing on and on about the PC crowd doing it for the wrong reasons?
Wouldn't actually doing great for Native American issues instead of football mascots, prove our sincerity regardless of our side on this issue?
I feel sorry for the campus sportswear guy - the t-shirt maker on 6 street. This pretty much hoses him. Oh well, he chose a stupid carrer anyhow.
Wed Feb 21 is not the last home game for ILLINI basketball, cause the women have 2 more home games. Hey Ron Gunther are the girls the red headed step children of the athletic program? The trustees of the UofI have never had any balls.
The full version of my comments that were referenced in the Daily Illini today are here.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Although I'm disappointed in how this was handled, the decision has been made and it's time to move on. My concern is what will happen in the future. I'm afraid that this has simply emboldened the PC crowd. One of the local tv channels was interviewed one of the anti-chief spokespeople who said that she saw this decision not as an end but just a beginning in their quest to rid the campus, and presumably the world from racism. Of course, racism is defined by them, so who knows what will be in their sights next. Finally, I thought Trustee Eppley's explanation was weak and rather insulting. I would have respected the Board more if they had just come out and said we can't make any money if the NCAA bars us from post-season play, and the Illinois Senate President has threatened to withhold our funding if we don't take this action. Mike Frerichs, if you're out there, please explain why the Senate President is involved in this and why he feels it's necessary to strong-arm the University.
He's involved, because his party is in charge, and there is no viable GOP opposition to challenge it anymore on a statewide level...
Thank you George Ryan. Thank you Alan Keyes. Thank you Judy Baar Topinka.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
I understand the disappointment over the process of the decision to retire the "symbol". But anyone who is upset about the way the announcement played out has one and only one person to blame: the chief (or the student who portrays him to be exact). He forced the hand of the BOT by bringing on that silly injunction. I suspect the announcement would bave been much more dignified and even celebratory if the BOT and administration had a little time to plan it out.
CD is right.
This isn't the end, and it isn't the beginning, it's only the another step. This is not "consensus," this is the loss of one major battle in the war. Concessions over the Chief have been made over and over and over again - the Chief used to be everywhere: on stationary, on university property, etc.
Except for officially sancitoned apparel and appearances at half-time, the Chief image had been all but eradicated. Now that the image is "officially" gone, the next step for those who apparently feel that they are the 'deciders' is the term "Fighting Illini."
1) This, in particular, will never end for at least a generation.
2) It could have been prevented in the first place in the 80's when protesters first made it an issue, if the BOT had grown a sack and said right upfront: "No. The Chief is what it is and nothing more, he stays, that's the end of it. Buh-bye." Waffling about it, putting off a decision, agreeing to come to future "consensus" only led to an increasingly widening rift in the community.
3) This kind of move only emboldens those who would stifle free speech in other areas in the future, outside of the Chief issue.
I'm incredbly disappointed at the irony: the death of free speech (the letter to the NCAA) occured on the same day my diploma from the originator of the same arrived in the mail, on the 15th. Liberal education, my butt.
I'm so happy that Epply's name is on my diploma.
I assume the following "racist" organizations will be on the radar of Chair Eppley and the PC Police (and this is just a partial list of RSO's found on uiuc.edu):
Black Chorus at the University of Illinois
Black Congratulatory Committee
Black Graduate Students Association
Black Greek Council
Black Law Students Association
National Black MBA Association Collegiate Chapter
National Organization for the Professional Advancement of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers
National Society of Black Engineers
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc.
Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc.
Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.
Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc.
Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc.
Iota Phi Theta Fraternity, Inc.
Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc.
Phi Delta Psi Fraternity, Inc.
Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.
Beta Phi Pi Fraternity, Inc.
Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc.
Phi Rho Eta Fraternity, Inc.
So where will the next focus be---the Florida Seminoles? or the Atlanta Braves? (thankfully Bradley University dropped the Braves already)
I look above and see:
1. Anger at people for not quitting to fight for their principles and AGAINST what they perceive as racism. If you think our perspective is wrong, that's fine, but you can be mad at people for fighting for what they perceive to be equality.
2. The same stupid argument about "free speech" immediately following a hindsight recommendation that the BoT should have ignored a PoV on this topic entirely.
Once again, if you are going to play the "free speech card", please explain how this ties into the term. I've yet to locate a passage of the constitution that discusses the freedom to have your tax dollars pay for someone to jump around during basketball games.
________________
Several posts later and let me renew my plea: Rather than get reactionary and mean, why not do something positive for Native Americans? If the Chief leaving really does create a vacuum and is unjust in your opinion, lashing out at people is not going to fill that vacuum.
Why not do some study of Native Americans and volunteer at after school programs? Why not donate to the Native American studies program instead of the athletic department?
America is not somehow under attack because you can't shout "Ching Chong, Ching Chong" on the airwaves (actually you can ;))
The Chief "IS NOT GONE". He will NEVER be gone. He'll only be gone if you're convinced he's gone. He lives on at my house, in my dressers, and on my vehicles. The NCAA dictates nothing to private citizens and alumni, then so do our CHIEFS continue. You'll see them every home game for years to come as you walk down Florida Avenue past my pow wow, and on your way to football and basetball games. Stop in for a beer and brat and get your free chiefs head removeable tattoos before gametime.
crd
Xian, you argue passionately for the anti-chief crowd to fight for their beliefs. Are those who are in support of the Chief not equally entitled to fight for their beliefs, or is that to be denied them because others think it's racist? If we're at a point in our lives where, if someone labels speech racist, and because of that label, that speech is prohibited, then you're looking at the slow death of free speech in this country. Tell me what you think the anit-chief crowd will next target, because they have already gone on record as saying this is the first step in their battle. You urge us to do something to help Native Americans. What has the anti-chief crowd done that is meaningful to someone living on the Rosebud reservation? When will we see professor Kauffman donating his time to teach on a reservation, rather than concentrate on this racist campus--his words, not mine.
"But anyone who is upset about the way the announcement played out has one and only one person to blame: the chief (or the student who portrays him to be exact). He forced the hand of the BOT by bringing on that silly injunction. I suspect the announcement would bave been much more dignified and even celebratory if the BOT and administration had a little time to plan it out."
This is not true - the announcement had been planned for February 15 or 16 for quite some time. The lawsuit was a reaction to the upcoming announcement, not the other way around.
Why not donate to the Native American studies program instead
Or you can just cut out the middleman and write your check to the DNC. I had no idea that all Native Americans were leftists - not that there is anything wrong with being a leftist.
Xian, I absolutely agree with you that when the government is involved, there is no such thing as free speech. It is up to the government officials to decide what can and cannot be said or done, and where.
That is why one cannot expect public money to be spent on a dancing Chief, but at UIUC, you can always count on it being spent criticizing Christians, funding left-wing "scholars", and discriminating based on race, as long as the right groups are favored.
In a socialist environment such as the university, it's all about protesting, shouting, threats, pressure - anything to get those in power to do what you want. Some people call it "dialog" and think that it's good for easing racial tensions and other disagreements, but it's interesting that such conflicts are not often found in the private sector, where nobody is compelled to support anything that they don't like.
I don't know why anyone thinks Ron Guenther or the BOT would exhibit any semblance of leadership on this issue when they fail to do so on every other issue.
Can someone provide us with any _evidence_ that:
(1) pressure from Emil Jones was directly involved with the final decision? Eppley has said he hasn't spoken to--or about--Jones for some time. Is he lying?;
(2) the Chief was retired primarily because the university hoped to "make money" from hosting NCAA championship contests? What's been cited again and again by Guenther and company is instead the need to keep Olympic sports teams competitive in their recruiting and morale. Is he lying as well? Could the funds produced from local NIT games, say, really outweigh those produced through Chief merchandise and old-school alumni contributions linked tightly to the Chief?
I bring this up not only because I'm curious about the specifics, but because I keep reading commentary from sad and angry pro-Chief folks that casts about for something (anything) corrupt and ignoble to blame for the retirement. Not the best way for the university or community to heal....
"I bring this up not only because I'm curious about the specifics, but because I keep reading commentary from sad and angry pro-Chief folks that casts about for something (anything) corrupt and ignoble to blame for the retirement."
If someone is really looking for a corrupt and ignoble target to blame, they need look no further than the NCAA.
What's always entertaining to me is the air of superiority and nobility anti-chiefers assume. Most have never witnessed the chief before making an assessment. I perceive some just want to convince themselves they are better than others and say "How could you support something like that?" Many of these people are the same anti-religion fanatics who like to draw a ridiculous comparison to Jesus (these people are just nuts and enjoy being 'subversive' and like to try to piss people off). And finally there is another group which you could possibly group together with the previous: those who just want to bitch about something.
I do believe there are those who honestly take offense to the chief but if they would give him a chance before coming to that conclusion and witness the reverence with which he is treated by the student body, the Champaign-Urbana community, and Illini fans across the state and nation then they would honestly not have a problem with it unless they would want to.
Fieldmouse--I don't think that Eppley was lying when he said that he hadn't talked to Jones for a while. I don't think the Senate President has to call you every day for any threat he makes to be taken seriously, especially given his obvious preference to ship higher education funds north. How many battles does the U of I have to face in terms of their budget before they finally get it? I'm quite disgusted with Jones' intervention in this and threatening to use our tax dollars like this. If he were anyone but the Senate President, it would be called extortion or blackmail, but since he's the Senate President, we can call it Ilinois politics as usual.
If we're at a point in our lives where, if someone labels speech racist, and because of that label, that speech is prohibited, then you're looking at the slow death of free speech in this country.
And how are we anywhere near that point? You are not banned from talking about the Chief. You are not even banned from suited up in a fake indian head dress and dancing down Green street.
We have every right to say whatever we want on this issue, and we have every right to criticize what the other says. That sounds about as "Free Speech" as one could possibly have.
If some folks who have never seen the Chief and are anti-Chief so that they can appear subversive and call other people "racists" are the LCD of the anti-Chief movement, MJH's point is the equivalent on the other side.
I grew up with the Chief and not only witnessed him perform dozens of times per year, but he also visited my school. I understand the allure. I have just thought about it and made an informed decision that he is a fraud and a detriment to the educational mission of the university.
You might disagree, but you are always complaining that Anti-Chief people cast Pro-Chief people as evil racists. Why replicate that? We can always use the lowest common denominator to demonize people who disagree with us. It leads to nothing but the dehumanization of all of us.
A blog on the topic:
yellowcontent.blogspot.com/2005/10/hail-alma-mater-ever-so-true.html#comments
MJH provides another example of why pro-Chief arguments are unlikely to promote respectful disagreement and healing now that the Chief has been retired. He or she attacks anti-Chief folks ad hominem (nothing new in this reflex, of course), in this case suggesting that we're simultaneously (a) superior and snobbish; (b) sacriligeous and anti-Christian; and (c) likely to bitch about anything. Can MJH supply us with a single example of someone who fits this bill? Wouldn't anti-Chiefers be denounced (correctly) for proclaiming that pro-Chiefers are (a) inferior and humble; (b) fundamentalist fanatics; and (c) likely to put up with anything, however oppressive?
By the way, I'm one anti-Chiefer (soon to retire this identity, thank god) who's seen the Chief perform at least half a dozen times because of my enjoyment of Illini sports. The fact that the Chief was protested by Native Americans at UIUC and the living descendants of the Illini--those nearest to those he represented--was enough argument for me.
The NCAA as ignoble? I'm willing to grant you that (I'm ignoble myself, I'm sure). But why do you believe it's obvious that the organization is corrupt, as in depraved or riddled with bribery? Has the President of the NCAA been bought off by the Sioux, say?
MJH provides another example of why pro-Chief arguments are unlikely to promote respectful disagreement and healing now that the Chief has been retired.
Did you really think there would be "healing" as soon as the Chief was retired? People are bitter, and will be for quite some time.
Well, bitterness is an excuse, not a justification for bad behavior. A principled person can see past rage and do their best to act thoughtfully and strategically for their values.
Sadly, such people are at a premium on any side of most issues...
"The NCAA as ignoble? I'm willing to grant you that (I'm ignoble myself, I'm sure). But why do you believe it's obvious that the organization is corrupt, as in depraved or riddled with bribery? Has the President of the NCAA been bought off by the Sioux, say?"
Well, as regards this issue specifically, they've been bought off by Florida State University, and others.
But the NCAA's corruption is much more rampant than that. The NCAA is an organization that uses a tax-exempt, government-protected monopoly to wring cash by the bucketloads off the backs of athletes - particularly underprivileged athletes - for whom they do almost nothing. Their notions of "justice" ignore due process. Their decisions aren't made democratically.
In short, they're a non-profit that is motivated only by profit and that uses whatever means necessary to protect their own empire rather than the student-athletes and institutions which they're supposed to be serving.
The NCAA is a power-hungry monster that just got substantially more powerful. The NCAA has now been reassured that the have the power to dictate internal policies to member institutions. The victors in this particular case will accuse me of being melodramatic (but we've all now learned that being melodramatic is an excellent way to achieve policy outcomes!), but at some point, I hope before it's too late, the member institutions are going to realize that the tail is now wagging the dog, and act to remedy the situation.
I do believe there are those who honestly take offense to the chief but if they would give him a chance before coming to that conclusion and witness the reverence with which he is treated by the student body, the Champaign-Urbana community, and Illini fans across the state and nation then they would honestly not have a problem with it unless they would want to.
I did give him a chance. I was a member of the Marching Illini in fact, so had the complete picture. I experienced an intense rush of emotion when the Chief would emerge out of the band and onto the field. It was quite exciting. I know or at least met several of the former Chief portrayers who now want control over the trademark.
But once it became clear that the tradition is offensive to Native Americans, I no longer saw any reason to continue it. For all the talk of the NCAA and Emil Jones, don't forget that this all started with one Native American child who saw the Chief perform and cried because he didn't want the Chief making fun of his customs and culture. This led his mother to start protesting outside the Assembly Hall. This is where this all started. Sometimes I think people forget this.
So I have seen it from both sides. I believe many have. And I am glad the BOT finally made this decision. It was an inevitability.
IP: I agree entirely with your assessment of the NCAA. I would love to see a competitive organization that would allow for the athletes to receive a major cut of the profits. Ideally, they would be reserved like a trust fund so that the athletes could live adequately during college, and then those who did not make professional ranks would have some money to live on (which they earned through their college days).
That being said, NCAA or no NCAA, the Chief was going to be a controversial topic no matter the governing body for the very reasons that Julie refers to in her post.
I agree with what you suggest about the NCAA's exploitation of student atheletes, who really should be paid a living wage given their revenue production. But, to return to the narrow and most pertinent case, how exactly was the NCAA bribed by the FSU Seminoles? The pro-Chief case I keep reading is that _FSU_ "bought off" the tribe in question, thus escaping the NCAA's sanction. Is the NCAA a financial beneficiary of this agreement as well?
"IP: I agree entirely with your assessment of the NCAA."
I think Hell just froze over. :-)
"I would love to see a competitive organization that would allow for the athletes to receive a major cut of the profits. Ideally, they would be reserved like a trust fund so that the athletes could live adequately during college, and then those who did not make professional ranks would have some money to live on (which they earned through their college days)."
I'd be highly in favor of something along these lines.
"But, to return to the narrow and most pertinent case, how exactly was the NCAA bribed by the FSU Seminoles?"
FSU is a much higher profile NCAA program than Illinois, and generates a significantly higher reveneue for the NCAA than Illinois does. The NCAA frequently bends over backwards for its highest-profile programs. They couldn't very well tell the world that one of their most visible programs was racist, as the program is a cash cow. So they created a loophole they knew would apply to FSU and just a few other schools.
This is the same reason that high-profile schools (Michigan, Ohio State, Duke, USC, etc.) are never subjected to the harshest NCAA penalties for violations, while middle- and low-tier schools like SMU, Baylor, St. John's, Minnesota, etc. are.
The NCAA is motivated only by money, and by growing its own power - they know how to take care of the schools that generate most of their money.
"1) This, in particular, will never end for at least a generation."
A generation in Champaign-Urbana lasts four years. Those predicting eternal warfare need only to look at how quickly this sort of thing has blown over on other campuses. A lot of people will make a lot of noise, there will be some attempts at legal maneuvering, reality will set in, and the whole thing will fade into history, like on every other campus.
The University should have bitten the bullet ages ago, but decided to pull the band-aid off one hair at a time over three decades. I'm glad Eppley has decided to let himself be the lightning rod -- that's real leadership, not the half-measures that let the Chief debate rot and fester for decades.
"If the Native American tribes had a problem with Illiniwek, I'd be the first to insist that their sensibilities must be respected."
You would have been the first to respect Native American sensibilities had you taken a few minutes to check, but being the last to show respect is better than not showing respect for those sensibilities at all:
From the Peoria tribe who are the ‘relocated’ descendants of the Indians in the area of University of Illinois:
From the Oglala Sioux Indians:
Don't worry, though, I heard that Illinois students have started a campaign to make Little Black Sambo the team new mascot. As you may know, Sambo is a much admired figure from children's literature who represents the proud African tradition of speed and adaptatability in the face of adversity. Already, several white students from the Chicago suburbs have stated that they are ready to don grasscloth skirts and wear face paint to proudly portray the quick, crafty and much admired, pancake-eating African.
I'm wondering how many anti-chief Native Americans would be swayed if the role of the chief was played by a Native American on scholarship. I can see how some might be offended when a white man is playing the role but I cannot comprehend how anyone could be offended if an authentic Native American, who may not have been able to attend college otherwise, is on scholarship to perform as the chief. I guess I just fail to see how the dance and the symbol itself could in anyway be considered demeaning.
And if this compromise is proposed to the Native American tribes who originally raised the concern and is accepted, I don't think there is anyway that the NCAA could go on claiming that the cheif is "hostile and abusive."
Why yes indeed I can provide an example thanks to Youtube.com
have a look...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8Rp4lRn9x5Y
I don't know how to give a better example of what I described...
As of right now I am personally in favor of retiring the chief. But hopefully only temporarily. With a brother on the Illinois baseball team I would love for his team to have the opportunity to host the Big Ten Tournament later this year.
I believe and feel it should be said that the Board's decision had very little to do with the puny insignificant minority against the chief. It had to do primarily with Myles Brand and co. over in Indianappolis (Ironically the city of Indians) exaggerating the situation here in Champaign. We are only complying in order to have the right to host NCAA tournaments and events. We have to fight the NCAA, not the anti-chief faction.
Another fear I have in abolishing Chief Illiniwek is that it will scar us. Someday somewhere some fool will speak of the awful, terrible damage we have caused the University with this despicable tradition. Unfortunately some more fools will buy in consequently shaming the good people who have performed as Cheif Illiniwek for decades as well as this prestigous university.
I am also curious...does anyone honestly think FSU's 'mascot' (not sure if this is the appropriate term) is any better? He rides a horse and throws a flaming spear...
Two things:
Where were our esteemed members of the General Assembly on this? Other than Chapin Rose, no one ( Jacobsen/Frerichs) has said a thing about this
there is no doubt that they probably are in favor of this as well. Second... for all of you Illini fans who were so proud of Miles Brand for facing down the
evil Robert Knight and how you all thought he was a brillant person... what do you think of him now? In 4 yrs, as with the students at IU, it will not be
"save the chief" but rather, oh yeah isnt that some sort of guy who danced at half time?
Xian, I'm not sure that I understand your last statement. You're correct that I've pointed out that many people in the anti-Chief corner portray the Chief supporters as racist, and then you ask, Why replicate that? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you saying that I should just be the bigger person, and move on, or something else? I'm truly confused by that.
"The Indians fought and died , the Negroes multiplied" I heard an old negro man say that when I was a kid. Believe it or not they were once called Negroes
For all the talk of the NCAA and Emil Jones, don't forget that this all started with one Native American child who saw the Chief perform and cried because he didn't want the Chief making fun of his customs and culture. This led his mother to start protesting outside the Assembly Hall. This is where this all started. Sometimes I think people forget this.
So it all started with a lie?
And no, it didn't. I was at a campus function 20 years ago at the Union when a fellow in the crowd started heckling the speaker, saying the Chief was a racist mascot, yada. He said he was "one eighth Cherokee".
People who point to their genetics to presume moral authority are the problem, not the solution.
Why are you beating up on Alan Keyes? Ryan was a crrok, and Topinka is a baby killer. At least Keyes is a real Republican
Xian, I'm not sure that I understand your last statement. You're correct that I've pointed out that many people in the anti-Chief corner portray the Chief supporters as racist, and then you ask, Why replicate that? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you saying that I should just be the bigger person, and move on, or something else? I'm truly confused by that.
I'm saying that stereotyping your opponents might win you a debate, but ultimately everyone loses. Rather than engaging poor opposing arguments, you should address the strongest ones. That way the discussion advances, we all learn something and we can all be thankful, no matter the outcome.
So win or lose, at least empathize with the other side. That is the only true victory anyway.
Don't blam Alan Keyes. Blame Jim Ryan, the Stupidest Man on the Planet.
I mean, really. Married to Seven of Nine, and ... well, never mind.
The point is that even Mike Ditka would have had a hard time undoing the damage Ryan did by mishandling the scandal, not to mention by not being satisfied with the ... well, never mind.
You know, I used to be pro-Chief, because I bought the bill of goods about how it's honoring the noble historical tradition of the etc. etc. etc.. But the more I learned about how hollow the supposed "authenticity" of the Chief really was, the less I could see the Chief as anything but an escapee from 1930s movies, prettied-up after Wounded Knee by those too embarrassed to acknowledge the Chief's origins as a stock Hollywood character.
Maybe a year ago I caught an old Eddie Cantor musical from 1930, "Whoopee!" -- the movie the song "Makin' Whoopee" comes from. It was set in the old West, and sure enough, along come the minstrel-show Hollywood Indians -- a bunch of white guys in face paint who say "How!" and fold their arms in the same "hey, look, I'm supposed to be heap big Indian" gesture that is now considered too embarrassingly racist to appear anywhere anymore except at Assembly Hall. Eddie Cantor did some shtick where he disguised himself as an Indian -- folded arms and "How!"; later on in the same movie, he did a blackface number. That's the real tradition the Chief "honored," the Hollywood Indian, and I say good riddance.
Rather than recognizing in the 1970s and 1980s, as many campuses did, that the Chief was at root a racial stereotype, the U of I tried to split the difference: keep the Chief but can the rest of the minstrelsy -- the "chop," the grotesque caricatures in local advertisements, and so on. But they couldn't quite get rid of it all -- that folded-arms gesture, the same one Eddie Cantor got a laugh out of in 1930, still survives as the folks in bleachers say, in effect, "Hey, look, I'm supposed to be heap big Chief Illiniwek" halfway through the dance.
By trying to split the decision for so long, by refusing to come down on one side or another, they laid the path open for decades of pointless division. Still, in the end they made the right decision; better late than never.
Having seen the Chief's dance, the old Hollywood portrayals of Native Americans, as well as an authentic Native American (Lakota) Pow-wow, I can say with certainty that his half-time dance is far closer to an authentic pow-wow than the Hollywoodization you make it out to be.
Imagine for a moment the half time show. The band plays the Chief's music but all that we see is a spotlight dancing across the floor. Would we all be guilty of discrimination for what we see in our minds eye? Would the music then have a air of incivility? Would the NCAA pounce again because it infuriates somone with one sixteenth of potowatamee genes? For that matter, is sound itself an insult to the deaf? Now I sound like a freshman philosophy major.
Now I sound like a freshman philosophy major.
Don't worry, someone's easily cleared you for that title ;P
I think the questions you raise are interesting. I think that the answers are complex. Certainly we can all envision an audio display at the game that would be inappropriate.
I'm sorry, I'm gonna agree with Gehrig on this one.
One of the embarrassing bits about the Chief in his current incarnation is how the administration(?) decided to take the "oh, but it's educational, it's our heritage, and it makes sure people won't forget the Illini" tack.
Puh-leeze. It only takes five minutes at the public library to show just how false the entire idea of it is. All the talk about how the costume is "authentic," - so what? It's not an Illini costume! The "Indians wear big feather headdresses and dress like Plains Indians" trope is pure Hollywood, pure Boy Scout. The tradition was started by a (no doubt well-meaning) Boy Scout, so this isn't exactly surprising.
It's basically the equivalent of dressing a Frenchman up in real imported lederhosen and telling the audience he's a Spaniard dancing the flamenco - after all, the costume is authentic, isn't it?
THAT part is embarrassing, the idea that people from outside the state would think that people who go to the University of Illinois are that ignorant. I'll admit I'm no fan of the Chief, but I'd respect the whole deal more if we were honest about just what the tradition is. Just say "he's our made up tribe, representing school spirit" and let that be the end of it.
Incidentally, I was boogling around and I found one of Prof. Reese's blogs and found it interesting.
I'm sure she can speak for herself (and often has around here), but if you want to read some other perspectives try reading this post and the comments:
nativeperspectiveonchiefilliniwek.blogspot.com/2006/12/field-hearing-on-tim-johnsons.html
I'd rather see a black picking cotton and an asian doing laundry than an indian dancing.
I'm sure that pro-Chiefer's are feeling some sting lately from getting rid of the Chief. I do feel bad about that--I know that for many the Chief was a part of some treasured memories that are not about anything negative. Seeing the Chief go will represent the vanishing of a beloved tradition, and I don't think that the cultural beliefs and traditions of UI alums or those from the CU area should be sneered at while other traditions are respected or revered. The hardest and saddest thing about this controversy for me has always been the fact that my being anti-Chief causes unintended insult to people whom I respect. I wish this hadn't been the case.
But in the end, it was more important that the University make an effort to serve Native Americans, who are now seriously underserved in higher education, and after some thought, it was clear that the use of sacred imagery by UI teams during sporting events was something that could give offense to many---though not all---Native Americans. As a teacher I know that it made some Native Americans who did come to UI very uncomfortable, causing them to conceal their identity to avoid conversations about the Chief by well-meaning Illinois fans who would explain the inoffensive nature of the Chief, and sometimes become angry if their explanations were not accepted.
This was a case where a beloved sporting tradition collided with a basic principle of Illinois as public higher education. Illinois was founded on the (radical, at the time) proposition that higher education should be made available not only to the wealthy elite, but also those traditionally excluded from higher ed---the poor, the urban working classes, women, minorities, and others. This is something to be proud of, over and above symbols like the Chief, and it is to this deeper principle that Illinois remains true by retiring the Chief. I hope those upset by the retirement of Chief Illiniwek will recognize that, while there were many motives among those opposed to the Chief as a symbol, one of the most important was the basic commitment of Illinois to principles of educational access and opportunity. Therefore I hope that those who feel the retirement of the Chief was misguided, will at least consider the reasons in favor of doing so, and recognize that these reasons are part of the University's founding mission, and part of what has always made us proud of the University, on an even deeper level than symbols like Chief Illiniwek.
I hope also that University alums--even those who disagree strongly with this decision---will not be willing to abandon their Alma Matter over this issue. The University of Illinois is about more that the symbols that represent it, and I hope that those who support the Chief will remember and recognize the things that those who are part of the extended Illinois continue to have in common, rather than focusing entirely on the result of this long-running debate about U of I's symbols.
I was watching the WCIA news and a spokesperson from the PRC stated that they would be going after the name fighting illini and the three in one..... as they stated why not go after all three when we have just eliminated one of the parts of the triangle. I do suppose that if this person had botherede to go to a game at the U of I stadium and bothered to look at the pillars, each one represents the name of a student or alumnus who died in WW1.== hence the name, which transends the Chief by some 3 years... the fighting illini.
Perhaps when the stadium is done, they can add the names of the men and women who have died since in defending this country. Let those trolls f rom the PRC then explain why that is racist. Next time PRC folks there is a fight at your place, dont bother calling the cops after all its your thought that UPD is a bunch of jerks anyway.
Yes, if someone believes something other than you, they deserve no police protection. That makes perfect sense. Good one.
Xian...
You're kidding, right??? Donate to the Native American house???? Yes, I formerly donated to Native American causes, including scholarship funds, even though I despise the term "Native American" when applied to American Indians. I was willing to give up that part of my heritage as a native American, even though my grandfather was so proud of the fact that I AM a native American. He was not...he had to pass a test and put up with much harassement due to his Eastern European ancestry. (What? You didn't REALIZE European Americans could also face discrimination and ridicule?? Kinda racist, aren't you?)
But I will NEVER again donate to the people who worked so hard to kill the Chief.
(What? You didn't REALIZE European Americans could also face discrimination and ridicule?? Kinda racist, aren't you?)
Sorry, I don't like to resort to personal attacks, but could you be more of an insensitive prick?
You didn't realize that you aren't supposed to beat your spouse? Kinda of a domestic abuser aren't you?!?!??
I've studied the European immigrations and whitifications extensively. I've never suggested anything of the kind. I guess this is the nasty habit which explains why you are completely incoherent on these topics...
Could we have a "Chief Illiniwek Apathy Thread?" I'm close to my saturation point.
Xian--sorry, your arguement just doesn't hold any water with me. Apparently your position is that I'm stereoptying the anti-Chief crowd, which is bad, and therefore, I should abandon my position, but they can stereotype all pro-Chief supporters as racist, and that somehow serves a higher good. Either the standards apply to all, or they apply to none.
"Either the standards apply to all, or they apply to none." Nonsense. Standards are applied selectively all the time. Your non-sequiturs (and I suspect there are many) don't change that.
A lot of this comes down to the same hapless defense of the status quo. This debate never would have turned into what it did if so many people hadn't simply dared the other side and said, "We won't change, no matter what."
I don't have a problem with the Three-In-One, aka the Zero-In-None, disappearing. If Fighting Illini really symbolizes the World War I effort, then it seems OK.
Xian--sorry, your arguement just doesn't hold any water with me. Apparently your position is that I'm stereoptying the anti-Chief crowd, which is bad, and therefore, I should abandon my position, but they can stereotype all pro-Chief supporters as racist, and that somehow serves a higher good. Either the standards apply to all, or they apply to none.
Right and because someone, somewhere has gotten away with a murder, that means that I should have free reign to kill anyone, right?
That doesn't make any sense. Don't do wrong. Find other people from the other side who don't do wrong. Learn from each other. This is the best way to resolve a conflict.
So no, I don't think that pro-chief folks should be stereotyped as racist. But look two posts above--you have a nasty look that stereotypes not Pro-Chief or Anti-Chief people but all living Native Americans.
I find it highly ironic that someone would say that today's Native Americans suffer no discrimination IN THE MIDDLE of the hate filled invective against Native Americans.
“But he’s not meant to offend anyone.”
I am going to address this issue as calmly as possible and attempt to highlight some key points I think many supporters never realized or allowed themselves to realize.
First, I want you to realize that I do understand you feeling sad about this loss. Contrary to what you may believe, it was not the protestors' goal to "rub it in the face" of all the supporters once this day finally arrived. The goal was to retire the chief. That being said, don't tell me that I don't understand the connection you had to this tradition. It's not about not understanding that forced us to speak up. It's also not about being politically correct. It's about having the ability to feel empathy and understand that when a person says he is being hurt, you stop—even if your intentions are good. I understand your pain now, just as I understood the Natives' pain all along.
The major argument was always "the chief isn’t intended to disrespect or degrade; he’s not meant to offend anyone.” “Because my intention is good, I don’t understand how anyone could be upset.” That rationale was reason enough for the majority to continue their support and enough to get seriously angry when anyone ever threatened this symbol they held so close to their heart.
Here’s the thing, though: we never argued that your intention was racist or meant to degrade. That was NOT the reason. Believe it.
I know your intention was not malicious. I am sorry if anyone ever said your support deemed you racist. Your support was marked by nothing but respect.
And here's where empathy comes into play. It's time to realize that just because your intention was true and good doesn't mean that the tradition itself was right. One is not guaranteed because of the other.
Even though your intention was good, it’s time to realize that the chief was not your symbol—not a religious figure you could simply pick and choose which aspects of his race intrigued you and turn into a halftime show.
I don’t really need to go into the inauthentic aspects of the chief. Many of us know that the chief’s clothing and headdress resembled that of another tribe (the Sioux) and that the Illini rarely (if ever) did toe-touches to music better relegated to Hollywood westerns.
The problem comes when people attribute this characterization of Illiniwek as justifiable when there remains very little evidence of Native Americans today. It’s all right for us to show Illiniwek this way because there’s no better image out there, remained their argument for years.
Using this type of rationale would easily be termed “racist” when applied to any other minority. A stereotype is a stereotype—even if it’s a positive one.
Just as all Blacks shouldn’t be thought of as superstar basketball players or all Asians as math wizards, all Natives shouldn’t be thought of as proud, brave dancing warriors. The difference is that there are enough Black and Asian people in the world today to counter this characterization. That’s not the case with “Indians.” If given the chance, Native Americans would not want to come and dance happily at your sporting event as if they gave their blessing for what happened to their people.
Still, many thought majority opinion was reason enough.
It’s a moral issue, not a politically correct issue. History has shown us that the majority is not always right. Native Americans account for such a miniscule amount of the population—how were they ever expected to hold a “majority opinion”? Does having an opinion and speaking up for a group that’s been so silenced only make me a “politically correct do-gooder”?
It’s a total cop-out to say this was the “only way we could showcase our state’s Native American history” or that “millions of children will sadly never know about real Native Americans.” I highly doubt seeing a white boy dressed up in warpaint convinced millions of students to thoroughly study Native American culture on non-gamedays. And as far as their “it’s a way to remember their history” argument goes, since when do history professors recommend remembering false characterizations of time—even if they are positively spun.
Is it morally correct to continue a tradition based on historically inaccurate information just for the sake of tradition? When it means children will continue to grow up thinking of Natives in this stereotyped way? Do we, as the original oppressors, have the right to portray any race with less power than ourselves in any way we see fit? Even if the majority supports us? These are hard questions for supporters to think about.
Sadly, it keeps coming back to: but he wasn’t meant to offend anyone.
So, as the chief dances his last dance, let’s remember that—yes—this was a longstanding tradition that instilled very real, powerful feelings in millions of people. Also remember that by ending this tradition, you have the power to show the Natives that you feel empathy; you are hearing their cries. And that is the greatest honor.
Is it racist to broach the "INDIAN GIVER" stereotype? Or is that reality. Take your beaded deer skins and headress back to the reservation.
Our world is in for many, many more similar PC events. Read your bible and have faith, things are in for a rather crazy ride. Why, partly because of the FIGHTING LIBERALS OF URBANA and there buddies. Sickening, but hey I'm just a right winger who hates what is happening to our country, one little step at a time.
Uh, Wenalway, I hope you're not expecting to win me over with your insults or what you believe passes for argument. Maybe you can come up with another witicism--"hapless defender of the status quo" is losing its effect due to overuse.
Xian, once again, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.
ChampaignDweller:
I just think the argument claiming there should be either universal or no enforcement is beyond weak.
And yes, I think it's often used by those who protect the status quo. It's a cop-out for those who don't have a real argument.
Is it racist to broach the "INDIAN GIVER" stereotype? Or is that reality. Take your beaded deer skins and headress back to the reservation.
Wow. Just wow. What's it called when you sign treaties and then totally go back on them because you want their stuff?
What is wrong with the performer usually being a white male? Is this not a racist complaint? I'm not one to cry reverse racism (which does exist, though in a far lesser frequency than flat out racism) or oppression on whites, but I ask, is there any hint of racism in that complaint? I have often heard, “They have some WHITE DUDE/PUNK/(Insert expletive here) out there hopping around!” I wonder if the white folks of today are still being blamed for the actions of their ancestors treating Native Americans they way some of them did years ago. Honestly it would be interesting to examine any possible tension or resentment for whites coming from Native Americans. I’m not blaming Native Americans for anything here and I could understand any lingering feelings in that culture based on what happened to their ancestors. In my honest opinion thissensitivity in some Native Americans to things like the Chief is based on their persecuted history. I just thought I would ask the question because anti-chief Native Americans and other minorities against the chief seem to have an issue with a member of another race (especially white) portraying a member of their race. Is this not racist? Why can’t a white man portray a Native American? Does that really matter? What if a person of Native American descent played Chief Illiniwek?
* This is also interesting since, to my knowledge, two minorities (Latinos) have dawned the regalia and performed at halftime in the past.
There was also a Filipino Chief in the past.
MJH, fair question:
The simple answer is that over time, our society has decided that a member of the ethnic majority dressing up as a member of an ethnic minority group and presenting a stereotyped image promotes racism.
I don't think it's that simple. I don't find yellowface funny when Eddie Murphy does it either. But I haven't seen the portrayal, so I can't comment intelligently on that particular role.
What I do know is that historically, minstrelsy and black/red/yellow/brown face has been used a form of oppression of ethnic minority groups. It is a way to dehumanize us, and that isn't really changed too much by the motive of the person doing the stereotyping.
Furthermore, it's pretty similar to lying. I mean, part of the magic of the Chief when I was a kid was that he was an authentic Indian, whatever that means. So it was a bit of a portrayal when I found out that he really was "just a white guy doing fake dances" in some indian suit.
Quick quiz: Who are the only people to use "White College Kid" in this thread?
MWG: There have been some good anti and good pro-Chief responses in their thread (despite whether or not I agree with them). But there have also been hate-filled arguments directed at Native Americans. Just look above in the thread, or read about some of the experiences of Native Americans in our community. "Blaming the target" as you do, has always been a strategy of bullying, racial or otherwise. Furthermore, the argument that "everyone faces bigotry so therefore there's no point in addressing it" is asinine. Of course every group faces bigotry, but that doesn't mean that all bigotry is equal, nor that we can ignore it and hope for an egalitarian society.
Thank you for intelligently responding to my previous question, Xian.
Next I would like to point out an interesting article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/04/AR2006010401590_pf.htm
I found the following to be the most interesting:
"In 2002 Sports Illustrated published a poll of 351 Native Americans, 217 living on reservations, 134 living off. Eighty-one percent said high school and college teams should not stop using Indian nicknames."
Not to end the discussion on my previous questions and thoughts, but I would like to seriously talk about Chief Osceola and Renegade. Before every home football game, Chief Osceola rides out before the frenzy of FSU fans astride an appaloosa horse and hurls a flaming spear across the field. Promoted as one of the most exciting displays in college sports, this tradition dates back to 1977. Their chief, to my knowledge, is usually portrayed by a white student as well. Answer me honestly, those of you against Chief Illiniwek. Do you also find Chief Osceola offensive? What is the difference between theirs and ours? Yes, the Seminoles endorse him, but the Illini are long since gone! Can we not agree the NCAA at least has a double standard here? Please tell me what makes their situation better than ours! Is it more than the fact that ancestors of the Seminoles survive to endorse it? Do you believe they would take offense to Chief Illiniwek and not Osceola?
Please quit ignoring the Chief Osceola issue!
Well, MJH, now that the University of Illinois has stopped ignoring the Chief Illiniwek issue, maybe the Mysterious Somebody Elses now can turn to the Chief Osceola issue.
Funny how that works, huh? You address one issue, then move on to the next one. The hapless status quo defenders should take note.
It's got nothing to do with tradition, tribal approval, or anything else. FSU gets a pass because they generate much more revenue than UI does - that's why the NCAA created the loophole that exempted FSU in the first place.
exactly...Myles Brand sucks
Also, the 'Chief Illiniwek issue' was not being ignored. It wasn't really an 'issue' until the NCAA made their ruling. The tiny minority againts the chief didn't really bother the university.
MJH, it's sort of amazing that this logic must be explained, but the reason local anti-Chief folks have been "ignoring the Chief Osceola issue" is because--unlike in the case of UIUC's soon-to-retire symbol--we have no direct connection to either Florida State or the communities proximate to it. (My mother wasn't alone, I'm sure, in instructing me to clean up my own room before kvetching about the state of my sister's.) Some of us find Chief Illiniwek uniquely problematic, others believe that all such symbols--including Osceola--should be removed. In any case, the NCAA's possible hypocrisy or "hyper-selectivity" in targeting Illiniwek does not bear on the question of the local and immediate justice of retiring him.
MJH:
So, in other words, once the NCAA made its ruling, then the University stopped ignoring the issue?
Keep digging -- you may find a way either to make it out of the hole or to get to China.
"In 2002 Sports Illustrated published a poll of 351 Native Americans, 217 living on reservations, 134 living off. Eighty-one percent said high school and college teams should not stop using Indian nicknames."
If you can find it online, it'd be worth the time to read the actual survey. I'm sure you are familiar with neutral and non-neutral surveys.
The questions for this survey were quite unbalanced.
I am declaring that the NCAA's hypocrisy the main dilemma right now! The anti-chief faction on campus had little to do with the decision made by the board. We just want the freedom to host athletic events! Also, what can someone, Native American or not, against the chief say to Native Americans just fine with either Chief Illiniwek or Chief Osceola? Are they the equivalent of an Uncle Tom? Are they being bribed? Tell me. What's wrong with them? Must be something right?
Wenalway,
What I meant by it being an non-issue, was that the only reason we are retiring the chief is because of the NCAA's ruling. It does not mean the Board or administrators see the chief as hostile or abusive, we just want to host tournaments and such.
This whole thing has gone on far too long, the Uof I has made the decision to kill the Chief, the first person to be executed in this state for a long time. They were pressured into this decision by the bullying and blackmailing of the gutless Board of Trustees who are all buddies of and appointed by the worst Governor Illinois has ever had. Rather stand up to the NCAA and spend a few more million dollars, they have given up. I guess the money spent to save the Chief from the death sentence was far less than the hundreds of millions of dollars the U of I will reap from TV deals and tournament play not to mention all the Chief merchandise that is still for sale at the NCAA site. If anyone wants to point the finger at who killed the Chief they need only to look as far as the Uof I ,the BOT has defecated in their own Tee Pee. It will take some time to see what impact this has on Grant in Aid donations and other Alumni money. Maybe from now on Larry Epply can come out at half time and dance around the issues like he did last week on TV. Long Live the Chief!!!!!
HEY, profanity is not appreciated.
IP, please remove that comment and mine too that even refers to that comment.
Then close the thread if that's what it draws.
"HEY, profanity is not appreciated.
IP, please remove that comment and mine too that even refers to that comment."
I'm not seeing it.
the qualities I always admired in historical Native americans, dignity, courage, fierce independence, spirituality, leadership were shown this night by a "white college kid" dressed up to honor (in his mind -and the audiences) the great people that are no more and the great University o f Illinois. If the chief haters had shown some of these qualities during the past 20 years of fighting this issue, maybe the loss of the Chief wouldnt have been so bitter. Lynne
I'm just so relieved the University doesn't stand for anything any more.
I started to write a comment here, but it got out of hand.
A Moment of Silence for Chief Illiniwek.
the qualities I always admired in historical Native americans, dignity, courage, fierce independence, spirituality, leadership were shown this night by a "white college kid" dressed up to honor (in his mind -and the audiences) the great people that are no more and the great University o f Illinois. If the chief haters had shown some of these qualities during the past 20 years of fighting this issue, maybe the loss of the Chief wouldnt have been so bitter. Lynne
Dressing up in redface and prancing around=dignity, courage, fierce independence, spirituality, leadership
Fighting for what you believe in and disagreeing with Lynne==none of these qualities
"white college kid" in quotes=strange choice of communication
The Chief is gone, you can't tell me when the TV deal was made the U of I did not know the date of the last dance and purposely had it on ESPNU a channel 90 percent of the local viewing audience does not get. this was a direct slap in the face of local Chief and what used to known as the Fighting Illini fans, the Illini shall be referred to know as the "Frightened Illini" as they have had the fight taken out of them by the gutless Board of Trustees! and the NCAA
Actually, yes.
Ah, here we have some honesty. "Fighting for what you believe in" describes the anti-Chief crowd, not native Americans as a whole, who were split on the Chief. You were fighting to prove that you cared. Congratulations: you care.
Putting equal signs between clauses==difficult to follow.
I can feel the social justice in the air this morning, can't you?
I hope Kaufman,Bill Cook & the rest of the "Do the right thing bunch" are proud of what they have done. now maybe they can shut up!!! Especially Kaufman who for over 30 years fed at the trough of the good ole U of I and now is receiving a pension from the U of I . Why don't you anti-Chief people got to Atlanta, Cleveland or maybe Florida and try your gutless blackmail on some of these Pro teams? This is big money and the pros wont cave in like the U of I did. I will continue to Honor the Chief and wear my Chief stuff, and dare any of this bunch of misfits to try and take them off me!
Don't worry, Greg--persuading Chief fans to undress isn't high on the list of many of us "misfits" in question.
More seriously, Professor Kaufman's pension from the UI was in fact preceded by decades of distinuished work as a teacher and researcher--and at wages that are among the lowest in the Big Ten and can't hold a candle to those at comparable private universities.
YOur view of Kaufmans contrbution is a matter of opinion. I come from a family of UIUC professors and growing up in Urbana knew many many professors (several in the same dept as Kaufman) personally and their opinions of Kaufman are quite different. He stepped over the line too many times between "open discussion of ideas" and using his tax payer given position to stuff his agenda down the throats of students faculty and tax payer, meanwhile neglecting the job he was being paid to do.
So, again, the University acted once the NCAA forced it to stop stalling after 17 years of inaction. Glad we can agree on that.
I just think it's funny how the hapless status quo defenders are still throwing out tired non-sequiturs -- rename Urbana, blahblahblah. It just shows they have never had a real argument and never will.
"I just think it's funny how the hapless status quo defenders are still throwing out tired non-sequiturs -- rename Urbana, blahblahblah. It just shows they have never had a real argument and never will."
It just shows that regardless of the argument, you'll still dismiss it as "HSQD," trying to fit your square peg into every round hole. And what that shows me is that you really don't have an argument, and really never will.
Your constant bleating says an awful lot about you, but doesn't do anything to rebut any point made by anyone, simply because you use the same tired label to attack whichever side you disagree with on every single issue facing humanity.
It's like having a discussion with a skipping CD.
If Kaufman was not getting paid what you or He thought He was worth He should renegotiated a better deal or have packed up and went to happier hunting ground! I'm sick of people comparing the cost of everything to everywhere else. We live here. A lot of the Professors could not find their offices with a map !!! Many only showing up to do the good work of whatever cause they are supporting while using University computers, postage and other University property to spew the dis-information of what was going on at the U of I . Then the U of I looking the other way! Kaufman is a joke and so is Bill Cook.
Hey I just say Kaufman on Ch. 15 at the love in at the " Native American" center at the Uof I looking timid as ever standing in the back row like Les Nessman " don't throw the ball to me!!" what a wimp!
Actually, yes.
Ah, here we have some honesty. "Fighting for what you believe in" describes the anti-Chief crowd, not native Americans as a whole, who were split on the Chief. You were fighting to prove that you cared. Congratulations: you care.
Putting equal signs between clauses==difficult to follow.
I'm not a member of the faith of "Healism" or "Faith Healing" or whatever your congregation of one is called. Your post is no more illuminating than the original post.
Many of your posts on here are utterly incoherent, but that's fine--this is forum where informal communication is fair game. I'm more interested in ideas and insights. Please do share some.
"Actually, yes." is not informative. It's just boorish.
I don't see why it is helpful to say that not all Native Americans were anti-Chief. That's true of anything. Native Americans are not a homogenous group. That doesn't mean that there aren't trends do to shared experiences within the Native American community. It's the same in any ethnic community: 9 out of 10 African Americans didn't vote for Bush in 2000. That's neither good nor bad, but it is worth investigating.
I can't speak for the entire anti-Chief movement, nor do I wish to. What I can say is that I've heard a lot more direct interest in Native American voices in the anti-Chief movement (pro or anti-Chief voices) than in the pro-Chief movement.
It's similar to the situation around the Iraq War. I'm not sure how I feel about the War effort itself. I'm opposed to it, but I'd like to know more. But I especially want to hear from the soldiers themselves, and I put some time into it.
But when I suggest doing so on this forum, I usually get excuses about how that's too biased or something of the sort.
None of us is the haven for all that is correct and intelligent in the world. The inability to process or respect opposing viewpoints and the inability to critique perspectives that agree with "one's own side" are signs of ignorance.
Just because you didnt see "any of that" doesnt mean it wasnt there or that those who did see that are worthy of your distain. I dont appreciate opera or classical music but when i see people being moved by these I am respectful and I have no doubt they are sincere. I also feel that it is me that lacks something (the ability to understand and appreciate) and not the opera/classical music lovers. With so many people of backgrounds from the most educated to least, from the richest to poorest,oldest to youngest…doesnt it occur to those who dont “get it "that mabe they are missing someething that goes deeper than their undertaning rather than believe that 10s of thousands of people have lost their minds
Xian Im sure u are a good guy IRL and if we didnt discuss politics we might even be friends. But u have some Major blind spots 1. in your apparent belief that all of your posts make sense e 2. in your apparent belief that you do not dispaly bigotry in your argument 3. inyour apparent belief that you are mr. "open minded" when I see other entries with strong arguments that u ignore and zero in on something petty and or insinuate the writer is a insensitive retard at best and a racist at worse 4) In your apparent belief that u understand both sides of the issue while continually mocking the pro-chiefers (which isnt necessary to make your point) I dont want to go personal and I do mean what I said about you IRL (this blog is a very small indicaator or a very small part of a person) but Im responding to your post ridiculing the rest of us.
I'm not a member of the faith of "Healism" or "Faith Healing" or whatever your congregation of one is called. Your post is no more illuminating than the original post.
Nice. Name jokes? Insulting my religious affiliation, which as far as I know I've never mentioned to you? This is not supposed to be an illuminating post, but gloating and venting. So, gloat. There, do you feel more illuminated?
Many of my posts "are utterly incoherent"?
I'd really appreciate it, xian, if you could point to an utterly incoherent post I've made. No, seriously. Because I've just been shooting for 'dumbed down' or 'clearly posted while inebriated'. If it's too much trouble, just give me a "what the?" next time.
As for hearing from the soldiers themselves, I suggest Iraq War News, or there are plenty of others in the links there.
But when I suggest doing so on this forum, I usually get excuses about how that's too biased or something of the sort.
That doesn't seem likely to me.
The inability to process or respect opposing viewpoints and the inability to critique perspectives that agree with "one's own side" are signs of ignorance.
No, that is the definition of "bigotry". Ignorance is the absence of knowledge.
IP:
As I said, I've tried to keep this above board.
But if you and the other HSQDs don't realize how foolish you sound by literally trying to point out every possible flaw and unaddressed slight in the entire world and using those to justify the Chief, you really need to listen to yourselves.
I'm not the only one who feels this way. Eric Zorn already has limited what he calls the failed arguments of the last 20 years to one thread. I assume that declaration finally sank through to some folks, but maybe he's just censoring the same non-arguments again and again.
Either way, since we're getting blunt now, it's time to quote from Forrest Gump: Stupid is as stupid does. And in the case of the Chief, stupid finally lost. Hopefully we move on to smart sometime in the near future.
"As I said, I've tried to keep this above board."
Wenalway,
I've tolerated your insults for quite a while. In just this comment, you call me stupid, foolish and hapless.
Please try to do a better job of attacking arguments rather than people. Please.
Perhaps you don't realize it, but repeatedly calling me a HSQD isn't an argument - it's just name-calling. I would hope you can do better.
Alas, the main argument for keeping the Chief was: "This is the way we've always done it." In other words, status quo.
I tacked on the hapless part, but that comes with the territory of people saying: "If they won't make (fill in the blank) change their mascot, we shouldn't change ours." That is the very definition of non-argument.
If you're never going to vary it, regardless of the issue, then simply repeating the same insults over and over in multiple threads isn't adding anything, and is awfully close to trolling.
Please come up with some way of discussing things without insulting people, including me.
Thanks.
Xian Im sure u are a good guy IRL and if we didnt discuss politics we might even be friends. But u have some Major blind spots 1. in your apparent belief that all of your posts make sense e 2. in your apparent belief that you do not dispaly bigotry in your argument 3. inyour apparent belief that you are mr. "open minded" when I see other entries with strong arguments that u ignore and zero in on something petty and or insinuate the writer is a insensitive retard at best and a racist at worse 4) In your apparent belief that u understand both sides of the issue while continually mocking the pro-chiefers (which isnt necessary to make your point) I dont want to go personal and I do mean what I said about you IRL (this blog is a very small indicaator or a very small part of a person) but Im responding to your post ridiculing the rest of us.
Where?
I responded a post that listed off a bunch of positive terms and said "Pro-Chief" and said that Anti-Chief people exhibited none of those qualities.
I've taken care to not stereotype "Pro-Chief" posters at all. If someone can point out somewhere where I made a generalization without qualifying it as such, I will gladly apologize.
However, I'm obviously going to respond strongly when people are stereotyping people of Native American descent as drunken casino owners. That attack is not going to be on all Pro-Chief people, only the person who made the racist comment.
No, that is the definition of "bigotry". Ignorance is the absence of knowledge.
I said "signs of ignorance" not "the definition of ignorance". Lack of acquaintance of contrasting perspectives IS a lack of knowledge. Why do you constantly use these :gotcha" debate tactics? It's just wasting time for both of us.
Finally, "Congregation" can be used non-literally. For the name stuff, I thought it to be good natured. I do understand however that it is tiresome and non-creative, especially to the person whose name it is. I apologize.