***UPDATED: Includes downloadable PDF 8 1/2 X 11 "Long Live The Chief" poster.***
The Chief has danced his last dance.
But there's a bunch of unanswered questions out there, some in "our" (unofficial) control, and some out of "our" (official) control.
"Official" control questions:
- What of the logo? The University still controls the copyright. Where's it going to go, who will have control of it, will it be maintained in a lockbox by the university simply so they can say others can't use it, or will it be transferred to another entity for use in sales, or for other reasons?
- Similar questions for the Chief himself, although I'm not sure how the "copyright" works for the actual person who does the dance.
- What of the development of a replacement symbol, or an actual goofy mascot (so that if nothing else, the community can agree that "yes indeed, our mascot is a mascot")?
- What will next football season look like? Surely the three-in-one won't change that much, except for the obvious...
"Unofficial" control questions:
- Tailgating, specifically, but also the logo and pictures of the Chief around town. Will the Chief image and community love of the Chief persist forever? When someone you love dies, their memory tends to live on, you pass on stories and memorabilia to your children...in short, you don't stop loving them because they are gone. And there's a LOT of people who love the Chief.
- Would an "unofficial" Chief, present outside of a sporting event, not sanctioned by UIUC, be appropriate? Would it even be legal, at present?
- Would a "memorial," of sorts, perhaps a statue of the Chief with arms upraised and a plaque (similar to the SunSinger) be appropriate? Maybe not on UIUC property, but even funded by an individual, business or fundraising group and placed on city property or high-visibility private property?
Please share and expand (or flame me) as you see fit.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Long Live The Chief.pdf | 189.16 KB |
Promoted to the front.
I would love to see a statue - maybe as part of the Memorial Stadium renovation project.
A statue on university property may not work. Wouldn't something like that have to get past the BOT first? If so, how do you (or anyone) propose to do that?
Epply, et al, have already shown that they are incredibly spineless (in their quest to please everyone, they've pissed off everyone). It's one thing to get them to end something controversial, I believe its something else entirely to even attempt to begin anything new with the BOT at this point in time that could possibly be considered by ANYONE to be even remotely controversial.
Oh, I don't expect a statue, I just think it would be really cool.
Had the BOT really cared about the Chief at all, the statue would already be done, and it would have been revealed yesterday as part of a retirement ceremony.
.
While I share your sentiment to some extent, and I feel that there is certainly a reason to vent, eventually we must move on from frustration. If the tradition is to continue in some fashion, sheer anger should not be what the "new" version of the tradition is based upon, which is the purpose of this thread. Frustration may be a driving force initially to spur us to action to begin anew, but frustration cannot be sustained indefinately.
The Chief does not hate. The Chief does not show anger. The Chief treats his opponents (whether that be a rival team, a rival school, or an anti-Chief person) with respect, whether or not they are deserving of it. The Chief does not believe in revenge, and the Chief does not hold a grudge.
A "new" version of the tradition should embody those same convictions as the Chief himself.
Mr. Mortland, with all due respect, taking the high road with these PC bullies and thugs has brought us to where we are right now. They have prevailed on this issue, and are they satisfied? No. Instead, we have a bunch of statements that this is just a beginning in their quest. I truly believe that the PC crowd will not be happy until they have re-engineered society to conform with exactly what they want, and have done away with all speech and opinion that does not agree with theirs. Taking the high road when the Republicans had a national majority did nothing but earn them contempt from their opponents, and has now emboldened those very same opponents.
I didn't say we shouldn't be wise when making decisions about the future of the Chief decision. I see plenty of opportunity to do both: take the high road AND to tactically proceed such that the "new" tradition is ironclad against detractor actions. Private organization intervention comes to mind (Council of Chiefs, etc) as an option.
The upshot of all of this is that the UI, as the publicly funded and administered "safekeeper" of the Tradition will no longer be playing that role, leaving the future largely up to non-public entities, like the Council of Chiefs, and other individuals, who have a whole lot more ability to retain control of the tradition from detractors.
I SHOULD be writing about new TradtionS, plural, as it would benefit Chief fans to have multiple avenues of approach in order to decentralize the future of the Tradition and make it that much more difficult to snuff out.
I think Chief fans should write a book or pamphlet about their highly successful strategy of arguing. It could highlight the following points:
* Digging in obtusely for 17 years.
* Throwing out all kinds of non-sequiturs.
* Claiming "It's not over yet!" when it is, in fact, over.
* A failure to grasp the incredibly obvious.
* Opening the door for even more PC-based arguments through blatantly offensive acts like doing the "tomahawk chop" right next to its opponents.
I'm sure there are more examples.
Mr. Mrotland, I am not venting i am recommending actions we can take as indiviudals not becasue of a maacott but because of principles. It takes anger to get peopel moving. Theres nothing wrong with anger if it is channeled properly. Im jsut saying, lets stop letting the fear of being un PC stop us from saying "the emperor has not clothes"
Wenalway, your response makes my point, particularly your statement "Failure to grasp the incredibly obvious." It's not incredibly obvious, or we wouldn't be having these discussions. To you, if we disagree, there must be something wrong with our powers of observation. Your failure to recognize there are valid viewpoints other than your own is part of the problem.
The people who loved the Chief loved a painted fraud who danced to the Zero-In-None, at best a low-level montage of artificial adrenalin and hype.
It would be dwarfed by a segment of Rocky IV. It was cheap entertainment for the masses.
Don't feed the trolls.
Actually I think a statue COULD work - if the statue was clearly a historical commemoration of the "for 80 years, UIUC had this symbol, it was meant well, but times change and it was retired in 2007" style thing. Heck, use the original Lester Leutwiler photos for a model.
Better yet would be some exhibit in the archives - but the key point is that it has to be a truthful exhibit, explaining the true origins of the Chief in the Boy Scout skit, and its place in Americana along with all the other Indian imagery from Tammany Hall to color war at summer camp.
While I've long believed that the Chief's days were numbered, and I'll admit I think this decision is overdue, if anything, I'd always imagined that some sort of commemorative statue or plaque or something, at the stadium, would be part of the retirement. I do think that the founders of the tradition meant well, even while I find the whole thing misguided. So - a respectful, retirement statue, I would support.
If the context is clearly retirement, the NCAA might go along. Getting rid of the Chief doesn't change the fact that the Chief existed for 80 years, and that in itself is very historical, even if it has nothing to do with actual Indians.
Get over it
Ah, yes--the sweetness and light of the Republican majority's "high road" still lingers. As in the Schiavo circus, the tarring and feathering of all polticial opposition as soft on terrorism, the Vice President's gracious welcoming of dissent from the intelligence community, the President's habit of speaking only before pre-selected crowds of any and all heartland citizens who happen to be Republican donors and volunteers, with silent protesters summarily detained with help from the Secret Service (now _that's_ a free speech issue)--the list rolls on....
"Ah, yes--the sweetness and light of the Republican majority's "high road" still lingers. As in the Schiavo circus, the tarring and feathering of all polticial opposition as soft on terrorism, the Vice President's gracious welcoming of dissent from the intelligence community, the President's habit of speaking only before pre-selected crowds of any and all heartland citizens who happen to be Republican donors and volunteers, with silent protesters summarily detained with help from the Secret Service (now _that's_ a free speech issue)--the list rolls on...."
Huh?
I have absolutely no idea how this relates to the topic at hand.
Sorry for feeding the trolls (hangs head in shame).
As in the Schiavo circus,
I didn't follow that, or only vaguely. Something about a comatose woman and whether her husband could have her killed so he could marry someone else? Better than divorcing her, I guess. I must haveit wrong, becuase no one could be that callous.
the tarring and feathering of all polticial opposition as soft on terrorism,
Not all opposition, just those who are on the terrorist's side.
the Vice President's gracious welcoming of dissent from the intelligence community,
If by "dissent" you mean offering political opinion, they should be fired for giving it. If by "dissent" you mean offering intelligence analysis that differed from the VP's opinion, then you've bought into a myth. Why would he insist on hearing only opinion he wanted to hear? What evidence do you have that he insisted on only hearing his own opinion?
the President's habit of speaking only before pre-selected crowds of any and all heartland citizens who happen to be Republican donors and volunteers
Why would he do anything else?
, with silent protesters summarily detained with help from the Secret Service (now _that's_ a free speech issue)
No, it isn't. If the local Ladies for Knitting chapter holds a rally, is it your free speech right to disrupt it? No. That's their chance to speak, not yours. You do not have a right to speak to anyone in particular, just to speak. You can't force someone else to listen.
--the list rolls on....
Keep it coming. Maybe you'll come up with something I can't swat down so easiliy.
This question may be 15 years too late, but why do we honor the Chief? Why honor a group of Native Americans who were, after all, a small band, and losers? It's not like the Chief represents a great tribe or a great person.
The word "Illini" does not relate to the Illinek people, it relates to what students called themselves years ago. it means, "students of the University of Illinois" it does not mean "followers of the Illinek tribe".
So the Chief is a well-meaning-at-the-time but based-on-fantasy Boy Scout tradtion. When we honor the Chief, it has nothing to do with the Illinek, it has everything to do with the Boy Scouts. The Chief's meaning has changed from a Boy Scout depiction to some sort of honored symbol of the U of I, and of the Illinek. That slow transmutation into a symbol loved by many is a transmutation that shouldn't have ever occurred. I postulate: we should have never fallen in love with Chief, any more than we should have fallen in love with the Boy Scouts. It's not racist, it's just misplaced adoration. A cool looking costume, a fun dance to watch, but it's not really some "honored" symbol.
The Boy Scouts are ok I guess, but I choose not to honor a small band of NA's that frankly weren't the strongest survivors around. I would prefer a symbol that exemplified winners, strong people or things or concepts, not some glorified Boy Scout image. I have no suggestions what that symbol should be, many suggestions have been made, and many of them very good ones. (I do have one suggestion: the "Fighting Reds", after Red Grange, and the vocal wacko protestors and the NCAA can go cry a river if they think it's a poke in the eye, which it is.)
The Chief is a symbol not of us, but of losers in the gane of life. Let's find a winner to rally around, and move on from some Boy Scout thing that is outdated.
Me, too. I'm sorry. Hey, maybe we can form a support group.
IMHO, the very fact that over the years the Chief "transmutated," as you put it, to what he became up until last night is what has caused the Chief to become its own entity, personalized by generations of those who live here, have lived here, and passed through here.
Regardless of how well or how poorly the Chief represents or was intended to represent at any given time anyone or any group, the Chief is now a product of the UI and the community, and therefore "belongs" (for lack of a better term) to the UI and the community. (I'm gonna get flamed for that one! Quick, who's going to be the first to put that same idea in the context of a Catholic Priest?)
And shoulda, coulda, woulda: the fact that we "shouldn't have fallen in love with the Chief" is irrelivent. We did.
Relate? It doesn't have to when you are as enlightened as this person.
Boy, I'm glad this sideshow is over. I know the Chief seems quaint to prairie people from the likes of Fisher, Mahomet, and Pesotum, but out here in the real world of California, Chicago, and the East Coast, where we U of I alums are taking our degrees, would you believe people actually frown on the spectacle of a white kid dressing up like a minority in the year 2007 to dance at a sporting event?
"out here in the real world of California, Chicago, and the East Coast"
Snobbery isn't very persuasive.
I don't think that the university can just put the Chief in a lock box. The Chief logo is trademarked. After only a couple of years of non-use trademarks go into the public domain.
Who's there to persuade? The Chief is already gone.
"Who's there to persuade? The Chief is already gone."
Well, in that case, you're just being a snob for snobbery's sake, which is even less appealing.
Actually, you know I don't think he's being a snob. As I have mentioned before, I didn't "get" the whole anti-Chief thing until my wife and I began spending more and more time in Seattle. There are a lot of Native people in Washington, include some of our good friends who actually use garments similar to the Chief in their religious practice. She is 100% Chippewa and her kids were brought up practicing Native religion. It is difficult to reconcile that reality with the reality of the Chief who was, after all, a white guy pretending to be an Indian.
I just think a person is more likely to be exposed to authentic Native cultures in a place like Seattle, or even Chicago, than in Champaign-Urbana. It really does make a difference.
This relates insofar as it responds directly to this claim by Champaign Dweller:
"Taking the high road when the Republicans had a national majority did nothing but earn them contempt from their opponents, and has now emboldened those very same opponents."
If by swatting something down you mean venting counter-cliches in relationship to it, you've done that well. Given your comments above, am I wrong in thinking you believe that:
1. removing a feeding tube from a permanently brain-dead person, in accordance with her prior wishes as reported by her closest living relative, is murder;
2. some Democrats actually favor Islamist terrorism (can you name one?);
3. at least three CIA officers are lying when they assert that the Vice President and his office repeatedly pressured them for their desired--and as it turned out, catastrophically wrong-headed--interpretation of intelligence evidence in the lead-up to the Iraq war;
4. George Bush's pioneering refusal to hold no open campaign events should be standard operating procedure for candidates in a representative democracy;
5. wearing a t-shirt or sporting a bumper sticker that criticizes the President qualifies as disrupting speech (this--not shouting anyone down--is what saw folks chucked out of several Bush rallies in 2004).
Back to the Chief issue...
I have been trying hard to resist the urge to gloat, but I must admit that when I was a guest on WVON radio in Chicago I couldn't help but laugh as the host kept playing Donna Summer's "Last Dance" over and over again. But seriously....
There is a lesson here for you pro-Chief people if you are willing to hear it. Probably as much as any individual on this planet, I am happy to see the Chief removed. But the fact is, you pro-Chief people blew it. I don't mean to kick you when you're down, but if you had been willing to sit down, seriously, in a room with Native American leaders 18, 17, 16, even 15 years ago, and negotiated a compromise -- and understand that a compromise means you don't get everything you want -- you could have easily avoided the NCAA edict under which you now must live. The compormise that the so-called "Council of Chiefs" (and aren't these guys just totally full of themselves to call themselves that?) are trying to formulate is going to be about almost impossible to sell than it would have been 15 years ago, without the NCAA hanging over our heads.
But your side -- which admittedly had all the power and consequently held all the cards (or so you thought) -- staked out a position that it was your way or nothing. And you know what? Now you've got nothing. In the 18 years that this controversy has gone on, not once has the Board of Trustees ever invited our side to the table. So we finally took our argument to a neutral party, the NCAA. You can bad-mouth the NCAA all you want now, but they were never inclined to have any opinion on this one way or another. But we made our case, and we won them over to our side. Where were you when we were making our case to the NCAA? Spending nearly $100,000 putting up billboards and buying special newspaper inserts, all in Champaign County.
But the lessons are these: 1) our side has the drive and determination to continue to fight despite virtually insurmountable odds for as long as it takes. Does your side have the same? Are you willing to fight for 18 years when you no longer have the athletic department recruiting for you in from of 60,000 fans each Saturday? You're about to learn how tough it is being outside the system. For those of you calling us names and moaning how we're never going to be satisfied, you are correct. We will contine to fight for what we believe in. For as long as it takes. So 2) next time, it might be in your best interest to try to work with us on a compromise early in the process, instead of holding out for everything that you want. Because if you do, read 1) again.
My two cents. Go ahead and call me names now.
Incidentally, I was surprised to see how small the pro-chief rally was the other night. Ever though I utterly disagree with their position, I admire those who take their time to participate in society by coming out and representing for their point-of-view.
Of course, there were 25 times as many people at the forum several weeks ago. I think they should be respected as well...
Not all opposition, just those who are on the terrorist's side.
WORST. COMMENT. EVER.
No names, but I will say that you are unrealistically self-absorbed.
It was the Chief's time.
James Mortland:
Your need to throw insults is amusing. I've tried to keep this above board, but if you think what this community really needs is a statue of a figure that has led to inflammatory divisiveness for the last 20 years, perhaps you need your head examined.
Feel free to call me a troll, but one of us here is forward-thinking. And it ain't you.
There's been enough insults. Please return to the topic at hand.
WW, in the interest of not starting a second flame war in what was intended to be a serious thread, and in case you haven't noticed, I'm not responding to you. You've never had anything productive to add to a conversation, and I honestly don't feel the need to speak with you.
Updated with downloadable poster.
A downloadable poster of a mascot the University plans to retire. This gets funnier and funnier.
Keep 'em coming.
Wenalway, I don't understand the point of comments like that. No matter how misguided or horrendous it is to treasure the Chief, it is perfect normal for someone to want a poster of something they cherish that is going away.
Thanks to both for bringing this back to the top of the "recently commented" list.
More visibility for the poster. :)
Um, it was already near the top because you added the update.
You amuse me, James.
I
.
Instead of wasting your money on a lost cause like that, though, just send the cash to me.
The University made this move to keep from losing money. It's not going to change its mind. Even if it does, the NCAA is not going to appreciate being played for a fool.
Elvis is dead. Anna Nichole Smith is dead. Mohammed is dead. Jesus is dead. The Chief is dead.
Get over it.
Please do explain why such a case would be successful in a court of law. I can't figure it out, but I'm not exactly a legal mastermind.
Elvis is dead. Anna Nichole Smith is dead. Mohammed is dead....
Anna Nicole Smith is dead? Have you got a link for that? Because that would be pretty big news.
There must be a cover-up.
Oh, wait ... you mean all of that arguing over who gets her body is over her corpse? I though it was ... oh, never mind.
I feel icky.
I say let the courts decide: there is enough evidence of
Be sure to let us know how that "violation of First Amendment rights" argument works out. I'm sure it will be good for a grand laugh.
It makes as much sense as a small minority lightly connected to the Univerisity dicating to the majority based on being offended" Im not surprised you are not in support of this. But indulge us, it will be our waste of time an money
I'm not understanding. What should I be in support of? I've in love with freedom of speech and expression.
What do those concepts have to do with this at all?
People can do fake fancy dances whenever, whereever they want. They just can't do it on the floor representing the flagship institution of higher education for the state. How is that different from anyone else? I mean I would love to bust out my ridiculous dance moves on the Assembly Hall floor, but the fact that I would get arrested if I tried doesn't seem like an infringement of my First Amendment rights.
Lyn:
Just be sure to use all the usual non-arguments when you go forward with it. I anticipate your rationale of how the First Amendment should apply to this mascot, but all the other mascots are evil and should be trashed if Chief Illiniwek goes.
That'll be a merry display of self-indulgency.
"Um, it was already near the top because you added the update.
You amuse me, James."
Keep yappin', smart guy. It's great when other people promote your work - especially when they're against it.
James, James.
You miss the point. It was already at the top because of your post. Sort of like it is now, just before I post.
Of course, you'll see my post and make the same mistaken assumption. Again.
Save the Chief! Destroy the logic!
...of course, why didn't I realize it the first time? THAT'S the whole reason I A) updated the post and then B) IMMEDIATELY (check the times) added a comment about it. Gosh, I just did that on a whim, but now I know why!
I intentionally brought it back to the top the first time after updating with MY comment, you kept responding to myself and others and KEPT it there.
But, you're right, what do I know, I'm just a know-nothing HSQD, spewing forth non-sequiturs.
Just keep runnin' your keyboard, little boy, its just more visibility for the poster.
Ok, I may not be fluent with words, but please allow me to give MY opinion over this whole BS that has transpired.
A few people get offended that we used the Chief ! So, after over 80 years of tradition, the chief had to go.
Well gee, I am offended that we don't have the Chief anymore. Does anyone care that the chief supporters are offended? Heck No!
Why don't we do away with the Atlanta BRAVES, the Florida SEMINOLES, the KANSAS CITY CHIEF, the Pittsburgh Pirates? (Pirates are known as evil). We could be known as the Illinois Bunnies or something! Certainly that would not offend anybody. Or how about the Illinois Wussies?
Madaline Murray O'Hara was offended that God was in the schools, so everyone bowed down and abided by her wishes. Look where it has gotten us!
The Chief stood for integrity, bravery, courage, and honor. Apparently the BOT doesn't want those qualities associated with the U of I. They are more concerned about their precious donations and abilities to host post season events.
My husband attended the U of I, and he will no longer support the college with any kind of donation. Hopefully others will follow. After all, it is no longer the school that HE attended!!!
If it wasn't for our teams deserving our support at the games, I would LOVE to see boycotts at future games..but that wouldn't be fair to the teams. (But was the BOT fair to US????)
.or hey! At least don't go spending your money for concessions at halftime since the Chief won't be dancing and there will be nothing else worthy of watching. After all, some of that money may go back to the college...... the college who didn't give a crap about tradition and what the Chief stood for...or what the MAJORITY of the people wanted!
James:
Just to clarify, it's near the top this time because of the other guy's post.
And I like that argument: No one will buy concessions at halftime because there's nothing to watch. Seems that would mean MORE people would go to the concessions stand.
Save the Chiefleaders! Destroy the world's logic!
WW:
You just keep on rollin' with your bad self, rub some funk on it!
Your persona gave me a great idea for a comic strip. When I get some time I'll develop it and post the first one on IP. ;)
I'm anxious to see that.
I've thought of trying a strip myself. If yours is any good, maybe I'll copy it.
Clearly, the majority of you on this board have narrowing networks of friends and expanding waistlines so I won't address any comment in particular but I will let you know that the majority of us "Day Walkers" who go to sporting events, have jobs that require communication skills and run into friends when out on the town and don't just "flame" and hit F5 all day actually wanted the Chief to continue to be our symbol. I understood why some didn't like him but realize the majority did. This majority doesn't like being called racist or to get as confrontational as you shut ins with all the right beliefs, so we lose what we like. I know the Chief is another victory for the hapless misery-makers without a cause, so kudos to you. Way to further grey the bright world we live in. Just don't try to make me like you, that won't fly.
Hey, maybe tell your friend who plays dress up for religious days that if she really were true to her heritage she wouldn't try to assimilate with the white folk who murdered her ancestors and stole her land. It's all or nothing for the Indians just like it was all or nothing for the Chief. If you want some of our culture, which everyone feels such entitlement to, why cry when we borrow some of yours? At least we are nice about it. Most cultures thumb their nose at White America. Why does that fly so easily? Now before you call me a racist, think about it, why should I appologize for being white to somebody who's not? I shouldn't. I'm my own person and if you can't see past that YOU are the biggot! I hate using caps lock but you people rub me the wrong way. Regardless, I'm with the majority so I win in the long run even if you win this round. I used the preverbial 'you' a lot so if it applies to you, take it as such, if it doesn't then I like you.
Boggle.
I've got the strip finished.
However, it won't be posted until at least Thursday evening, due to technical difficulties - namely, my IT department being technically difficult.
I guess I didn't make myself clear. I meant to ask or request that we refrain from spending money at the concession stands (even though) there will be nothing to watch during halftime.
You misunderstood that statement, so let me state it differently:
.......hopefully people will stay away from the concessions EVEN THOUGH there will be nothing else to do at halftime....nothing worth watching, anyway.