In Whose Honor?
Write a paragraph response to the movie In Whose Honor? Respond to the following statement: Native American mascots are always a sign of disrespect toward native groups of people. If you agree, give supporting statements from the movie to illustrate your point. If you disagree, use specific examples to show your point. Be sure to follow the "hamburger" method of paragraph writing. Think carefully about your topic sentence and your conclusion. You may also reply to other students, but be careful to be respectful even if you disagree. REMINDER: SIGN YOUR POST WITH YOUR FIRST NAME ONLY, NO LAST NAMES. WRITE YOUR CLASS PERIOD ON YOUR POST AS WELL.
posted by Peggy Doyle at
2:48 PM
39 Comments:
I think that it is kind of a disrespectful thing for the mascot to be an indian, in the native americans point of view, because the dance that the mascot does isn't at all like the real traditional dances that the native americans dance. (it's a mimic, as told by tha native american lady)Also when the mascot had all these nice things on, the big headress, the nice outfit, it was sad to see that the dance couldn't fit in as well with the nice outfit,because it wasn't traditional. Another thing is that all those equipment that the mascot had symbolized something very important, for example the paint that the mascot wore, it symbolized spirituality for the real native american traditions and it was being used in mockery ways. If people dug deeper into the problem they might realize what native americans were trying to say about the mascot, that it just was different from the real traditions they were used to, and it made them feel aweful to see this.
~Cameron
I don't think that its that disrespectful... I mean, they aren't trying to harm anyone or make them feel bad. Some people just take things way to seriously. The Indian mascot was just a symbol of the team, and everyone loved him! I understand that the American Indian woman offended, because dancing was sacred in her culture. But people were just trying to have team spirit, and they thought that the Chief would be a good person to symbolize that. I don't think that the team was trying to make the American Indians feel bad, and they obviously never knew that it was going to be like that. I know why American Indians felt offended, but I don't think that its something that serious. People are just trying to have fun with the Chief.
Jen
Per. 8/9
I wholly agree that using Native Americans as mascots can be viewed as offensive. I think this is true because of the ignorance it shows to their culture, saying, in as sense, that the "American" race as a whole does not care about or respect their culture. We have learned all we could about European culture, yet we know so little about the Native American cultures that we distill generic elements of their cultures to caricature them as skin and eagle feather-wearing people that dance random dances. It is a disgrace to see parts of costume such as lovely buckskins an traditional headdresses be used as tawdry stereotypes, and it greatly saddens the people whose customs these items belong to, as in the case with Charlene Teters.
Alex
Doyle 8-9
I think that Native American mascots are disrespectful in the sense that it is a mockery of their culture and tradition. The team’s mascot is supposed to be the chief of a tribe from Illinois but instead the costume is Sioux and the dance is completely made up. It's like making fun of the whole Native American culture. The headdress was supposed to be a position of very high standing and its being used by this guy who doesn't even have appreciation for their culture. Maybe if they got the costumes, dances, etc. correct I might think of it as only somewhat disrespectful.
Another thing is the team logos. Like the Cleveland Indians, Africans, Asians, and Hispanics, I find it very disrespectful. The logo is very mocking and puts in many untrue stereotypes. The Illinois university logo isn’t as disrespectful except that they exploit it into very disrespectful forms to make money off of it (example: toilet paper)
-Marwan
Period 8-9
I think that Native American mascots are not always offensive. I think that they can sometimes be offensive. If it is portraying them inaccurately. But if they portray them accurately and are doing it to honor them not just using it as a mascot, I think its okay. If there just making a complete mockery of the Native Americans I think thats disrespectful and should be changed. I think that Chief Illiniwek was a total mockery. He wore traditional clothing but did a dance that was completely made up and even stupid compared to the real thing. I don't know what it would be like from the perspective of a Native American. Even they might be split. Some of them might agree and some of them might disagree. But my personal opinion is that it can be offensive and it can be not offensive.
- Sam 0 Period 8-9
So personally, I think that a mascot being an Indian is very rude and disrespectful. I think that the mom was right for standing up in herself, and she mainly did it for her kids. Also in the movie when it shows them at the basketball game with her kids, and how she explains that her kids were sloped down into there chair's and how they were dissapointed to see that something that they study and honor is being making fun of. Then again, the clothing was really nice and beautiful in the Native American women's perspective. She was just disapointed that the dance was not done right, because it was a really important part of their culture. I also think that maybe it went too far and that maybe UIC was honoring the Native Americans, maybe they looked up to them and wanted to show that, but it's still the wrong thing to do. But it's good that the lady stood for what she believed in and like they say " One honest voice is bigger than a crowd." All her protesting and her fighting wasn't for nothing though, it did end up in the school newspaper and people were aware, they were just so used to there old mascot that they had no idea that it actually was a disrespectful thing.
-Tiffany
Mrs. Doyle
Pd. 3-4
I think it's completely unacceptible to use race as a mascot. If i had gone to a game and seen Charleen and what people were doing to her i definatly would have told people to leave her alone and gone and stood beside her. When i was watching the movie i had the sudden urge to throw my pen at the lady who was one of the university of il. trustees. Her point of view it sounded was that if it wasn't connected to her she didn't care.
Just because it doesn't effect you it doesn't mean you should ignore it other people are hurting because of how it mocks them. Charleen lived with the reminder of the mockery that was made of her people every day. Living in the same neighborhood as the collage ment that the mascot was on banners in store in houses windows and on clothing. Those people with the mascot didn't know how it hurt Charleen because it didn't effect them, so nobody stopped to think 'hey if i was native american i wouldn't like people laughing at this, maybe we should stop', no it made no difference to them because they only mattered.
~Maria 2
I think Mascots being indians can be disrespectful, but they can be a sign of pride or honoring the indians. When the picture is a charictature, it can be very disrespectful. But when its a real photograph of an indian, like sitting bull in our classroom, it can be showing our pride for our history. In "In Whose Honor" I believe it was mockery. The outfit the "Chief" was wearing was a very very serious spiritual, respected outfit, And when the dance was made just by some students, you can see how disrespectful it was. The Paint is also very respected in Indian culture and was innapropriate to put on the "Chief". If more people knew how the indians felt about this mascot, I think they would realize that it is wrong.
-Ellen
Amos, Doyle Period 8-9
I think it is always disrespectful to use Native Americans as mascots. Taking a group of people and using them as mascots means separating them from all other people. Also the dance was made up by students of University of Illinois and the costume has nothing to do with the Illini. I understand that the students of the University of Illinois think it is honoring the Illini with the fact they invented the dance and the costume is not really a part of the Illini culture I think it's disrespectful. Native Americans are human beings, and people should respect them by studying their culture, not to use them as mascots that dance made up disrespectful dances to support a sports team in such a racist way.
It is very disrespectful to use a Native American as a mascot. This is true because many people would be angry, and insulted if a mascot was a Caucasion or an Asian person. The Cheif's dance is also just gymnastics, Charlene said this in the film. People from University of Illinois call the Cheif's dance an authentic Native American tribal dance. This is untrue, and can be very offensive to Native Americans around the country. Would we like someone in the future to make fun of something we do now? Would we like that person in the future to make fun of a something very important to us?
The Cheif's 'costume' is insulting because the clothes are considered sacred to Native Americans. It is not fair to the Native Americans to use something that is very important to them, and then ridicule it.
It is very disrespectful and insulting to make fun of a sacred dance. A Native American is not a mascot, it's a person. It is not OK for somebody to make fun of a particular group of people. Would we like it if somebody made a Caucasian person or an Asian person a mascot. It is not honoring or even thinking about what Native Americans are: people who were in America before us.
The Cheif's dance makes it even worse. It's just a bunch of gymnastics, Charlene said this in the movie. The students at University of Illinois call it a sacred tribal dance. All the students at U of I think that it is amazing, they think that it shouldn't offend anybody, but it does. Charlene's kids sunk in there seat when they saw it. Charlene's daughter tried to become invisible because, even though she was a little kid, she was offended by the Cheif's dance.
Maddie
Doyle
Humanities 8-9
I think that it can be very disrespecful to Native Americans and Indians because people can feel as if they are making fun of Indians and not respecting their beliefs like they should. They may try to make it authentic, but it is not for the purpose tradition or religion that the Inians hold, but for a mascot for people to cheer for at a basketball game. Think about if there was a basketball team where there mascot was supposed to be someone doing African dances for half-way time. If you were an African-American you would feel very insulting. Or if you were jewish, and for half-way time a mascot came out as a rabbi because that is some teams' theme, how would you feel? Basing basketball teams, baseball teams, ect... off of peoples' religion or racism can be very hurtful because those people can feel very insulted and made fun of.
-Mckenzie
Ms. Doyle per 8-9
I think it is disrespectful to the Native Americans. In Idian reservations the dances and clothing are sacred to the Native Americans who live there. This seemed like mockery in a way, it just intertained the fans. I think that many of the fans think its ok because they don't think Native Americans are still around, but they are. Even if it is supposed to be respectful to Native Americans it obviously was not to the fans. I also think though the fans don't realize what there doing, I think if some of them knew how disrespectful it was then they would change there mind about the chief as well. At first many people might not see how racist it was but to the Native American family who saw it they were offended right away.
-Frank period 3-4
I think it was very disrespectful to have the mascot represent the team. If I was the mom I would definately stand up for my children and other Native Americans. This was a very brave action. From the Native Americans point of view this was disrespectful because the mascot would wear a very nice outfit that Indians wore, but then did a dance that made fun of Native Americans. Because of this, the mom and childen were upset. I think the reason that people did not realize this was because non-Native people don't know the dance or don't understand the culture. So when the people at the game start cheering for the mascot they don't realize how offensive this is. If everyone saw the movie like we did and talked about it, I think people would stop chearing and take sides with the mom.
-maria 1
doyle
period 3-4
I think that it is honorable and disrespectful at the same time if the costume was more authentic and the dance was changed it would be fine, instead of protesting she should have just asked the school to be more authentic with the chief and the dance. it could be turned into something honorable, and somewhat ceremonial.
-Gregory
I think that it is very disrespectful that that there are native american mascots. They mock indian culture when they put out a student dress up in a real native american outfit and do an "authentic" dance. The headdress and the outfit are spiritually symbolic for the native american people. Someone high in rank gets to wear that in native american culture, and then some student comes out dressed up with a headdress and does a dance that he made up. I think Charlene did the right thing protesting against indian mascots. I know that maybe it wasn't as disrespectful in the 1920's, but it once it became an issue it should have been taken care of. Native american mascots really should be removed permanently.
Cole
Per 3-4
I think that is it really disrespectful for the university to but the Indian. When you first look at the mascot you think its not a really big deal . But then when you hear other peoples thoughts you would think that it is disrespectful . Also when she addressed the problem everyone at the university was saying thats not true. I think that it's not nice . BUt also at the same time the mascot was made up a long time ago,so they didn't know any better . But now i think that when people say something that people should listen. Even if you dont wanna hear it you should still listen .
I think that in a way it was disrespectful and in another I don't it was . I think that it was disrespectful because when Charlene told people how she felt about the dance that the team mascot did before a big game, no one listened to her . Students at the school and the faculty didn't agree with what Charlene was saying. They were being mean about it though. Like this one old guy was saying "why should it matter what she thinks; she doesn't pay the taxes here" - that was really rude. She was just putting her opinion out about what she thought. She was not hurting anybody. Charlene's ancestors came from an Indian tribe. And when she was little she was learning the dance that the mascot was trying to do. I think thats why it hurt her because she knew the mascot was doing it wrong . Because she knew the right way and because her ancestors wore the clothes that also the mascot was wearing. I can see how it could hurt her.
On the other hand it don't think that it was disrespectful because the Chief Illini, the team mascot, was first made up in the early 20s-30s . So they didn't know any better . And with that said they weren't trying to make fun of the Indians . In a way I kinda think that they were honoring the Indians .
Kimmi
per
3/4
I believe that in some cases it may be disrespectful, and in others it may not. The issue with Chief Illiniwek is that it wasn't intentional that he is offensive. He is a part of the history of the University and I honestly believe he meant no harm. The other side of the issue is that even though Illiniwek isn't supposed to belittle Native Americans, he still manages to offend them because of his "traditional" dance which is mocking to some Native American peoples. Another thing that they find offensive is the costume he wears, specifically the headdress. Charlene Teters, the woman leading the battle against Illiniwek, said that the costume he wore was made of buckskin and eagle feathers, and the headdress he wore was only reserved for sacred people in a tribe. Therefore, I believe that Native American mascots aren't necessarily meant to be offensive, but since some Native American people are offended by them, that they should not be used because of the controversy it could result in.
-Marissa
Period 8
I think that in most cases but not all that using the American Indian mascot is a sign of disrespect. The only time when it would be apropriate to use an American Indian in a logo is when you are using it to honer the American Indians. Otherwise, like in the case of the Cleveland Indians it is compleetly inapropriate. I feel this way especialy of this one because it was made to make fun of the American Indians. And when the Chief comes out on the stage and does a completely fake dance and everyone loves it when they really should see that is disrespectful. And the only thing that is not real is the costume which makes fun of the eagle feather which is sacred. i think that this mascot would be okay if it was not used as badly. Just the logo for a team and maybe a small appearance that doesn't make fun of American Indians.
Rex Hughes Period 3/4
I think it's disrespectful to an native American chief as a mascot, but only when it's intentional. I think in this case it wasn't intentional. However Charlene Teeters has a good reason to be offended. Teems should be careful when choosing their mascot so they don't offend any one. Charlene wasn't offended by the the fact that the mascot was a native American, but by the way they presented it. She was expecting a silly character that was a joke. What she saw was a realistic costume with feathers for the head. The mascot was doing a "authentic" dance that was actually made up. She was offended because she was taught to respect the feathers and dance, and she was seeing it being mimicked. I don't think the school meant it, but they should've thought about it.
Jack 1
Doyle
Per. 3-4
I think that Native American mascots can be a very offensive thing. In some cases it looks like Native Americans are being made fun of, while in others it seems Native Americans are being symbolized for something they shouldn't be. Especially when the symbols are cartoon-like, where some features of the face more noticeable than others (like the large eyes in the Cleveland Indians logo). Another example from the movie is the dance that "chief" makes. According to the narrator, the dance was not an authentic Native American dance. It was a made up dance to look Native American. This could be offensive because it's like mimicking the wrong thing, which could be even worse. The last example I'm going to give from the movie is all of the feathers and buckskins used. It seems like the "chief" is being very stereotypical with these kinds of things which could be quite offensive. All and all, I think Native American mascots can be very disrespectful and stereotypical, but some Native Americans could have a different opinion on this and thats what really counts.
Louie • Period 8/9
I think that it's unintentionally disrespectful. In mimicking the Indian traditions like that, it's almost like they're suggesting that the Indians are so completely different from "normal" people that instead of being on the team they represent it, like a white sock or a bear cub. This can also be supported by when the old white fan who said "I'm an Illinois taxpayer, I pay Illinois taxes," and something along the lines that if she didn't agree to get out. It was like he didn't even consider her a fellow American and didn't care that her ancestor's land was stolen and they were treated so horribly, and he even had the nerve to say that she didn't belong here. But the fans and whites and people don't see making the Indians into a mascot as undermining the fact that they're also humans; they think that they're honoring the Indians by making them a mascot, by including them in their society. When the Native American woman began to protest it, I think they were almost perceiving her protest as arrogance, like she was saying Indians didn't need to be in white society. It also might have been perceived as arrogance because they might have thought she was telling them what to do, like she thought she could just order them around or something. I think that since they thought that the Indians should be grateful to be a mascot, it was like they were the arrogant ones, just assuming the Native Americans would be so grateful and honored. It was like they thought they were giving the Native Americans a gift, only the Indians were turning up their noses at it. So maybe their pride was a little insulted. Also, at that point they had become "attached" to the Chief. Like the Native American woman said, if it had been some other culture like Christians or Jews, it probably would already have been stopped. She also said that, by dressing up someone in beautiful buckskins and wearing the eagle headdress (a sign of authority, and deserving of respect), Native American traditions and fake dances trivialized for mere entertainment of a crowd to JUST pass time during half time is just SO insulting… The Chief tradition at the University of Illinois started with the good intentions of honoring Native Americans, but I think it became corrupted when they were told it was actually insulting and they refused to remove it out of stubbornness and a twisted sense of pride (like how they jeered at the influential man who wanted it removed, saying he "wimped out").
Julia
Period 3-4
When the people created the mascot Chief Illiniwek, they didn’t realize they were mocking the Native American culture. The dance and the makeup is something very special to the Native Americans. To see the sacred dance and makeup transformed into a mockery was very offending to the Native Americans. Many people would be offended if the mascot was making fun of African Americans, Mexicans, or Jews. So why is Chief Illiniwek any different? People need to be reminded of the fact that this is very hurtful for Native American people. If the dance was performed the traditional way, and the makeup was worn traditionally, Natives would take it as an honor. Chief Illiniwek is a problem that is not recognized by most people, but I think people will eventually realize how disrespectful it is.
-Stacy
8/9
Clearly, when the idea for chief Iliniweck was established, racism was not in mind. Native American mascots were likely seen as just another fun character to make into an icon for a school, like a bull or any other sort of animal. Apparently, though, it's very offensive to someone of actual American Indian descent, especially when any significance of the uniform for a high religious leader or a sacred dance is lost in racism. Though the team mascot was an established tradition, when the receiving end of the insult spoke out, I saw no good reason to keep the chief displayed in the video, just bent truth to disguise stubbornness. But as stated in the film, it's almost as if we're dressing a dancer in a rabbi costume, calling him a priest, and having him do triple back flips across the court at half time. It's beyond insulting! It's, well, derogatory. And if whatever school doing this refused to withdraw this action, It... wouldn't be very nice.
-Jack 2
I think it is disrespectful, but i don't think it was meant to be. Chief Illiniwek was supposed to be a way to get team spirit but the dance may have taken it too far. The dance shows that the typical american person just thinks that Native American dances are just a joke. They don't get that the dances they do are sacred to their culture. The student who made up Chief Illiniwek was just trying to share his learning with the students. Native Americans do have a reason to be offended i would be too if someone didn't understand the way i practice my religion.
-Korbin
Per. 8-9
I think that it is very disrespectful for Native Americans and it is just racist. i can't believe that people do not think that it is mean! the people who think that this is funny or cool need to really learn about native americans more. when the people who work at the University say that the dance that the "chief" does is "ceremonial", they really have no idea what they are talking about. the dance that the chief does was made up by students at the university so it it not ceremonial in anyway. They were basically saying that a piece of chicken is sacred. i think that it is very wrong for them to have done that, even though they did not mean it, they should have thought about what they were doing when they made the chief.
~Nell 8-9
I see how this can be taken negative. It's kind or like a form of mockery. The dance the mascot does isn't even real, just made up by a few team spirited kids. But he did have on real eagle feathered head dress and nice traditional-looking clothes. The staff used to say it was their mascot because it is the history of their land. Which I understand, but they still shouldn't have made that their mascot, they should have thought of all the risks they were taking by doing that. By doing this they cut down on young American Indians self conciousness.
RUBY doyle 8-9
Sports teams should not have Native American mascots. It is disrespectful to mock parts of their culture like their clothes and dancing. The dance wasn't even real. College students made it up. When the real native americans saw it, they were sad and tried to hide their identity. They tried to be invisible. It is hard to believe that schools would get away with having a jewish mascot or a black mascot. Native americans shouldn't be treated differently because they have feelings too. People should spend their time learning about Native Americans instead of imitating them.
Rachel p. 3/4
I think that it is kind of disrespectful to use Native Americans as a mascot. The mascot was doing a so called"Tribal Dance" that wasn't even created by Native Americans. It was created by students who go to the school, but i don't think that they meant any harm. The mascot was just there to represent the team.
-Aurielle
Per. 8/9
I think that the mascot is very disrespectful towards American Indians. The way its disrespectful is that the dances the mascot does is not traditional dances which is racist against American Indians. Its pretty much a mimic. American Indians were taught to respect feathers and paint and the other stuff he wore. i thought that that the mom had a right to stand up and protest, because she is standing up for her culture. I thought that the people were mean when they protested back to the American Indians, its disrespecting there culture. The dance I guess was a little bit racist to because maybe the dance wasn't right and it was like making fun about the American Indians. the bottom line is that it is disrespectful and mean.
-- Sam 1
Mrs. Doyle
Period 3-4
In some ways this is racist, however, I don't think they made the mascot to be racist. I think it can be very racist when the mascot would do a dance, like the Chief at the University of Illinois. If it is a totally made up dance, it mocks the Native American traditions, which is a pretty racist thing to do. And, to use a mocking of traditional Native American things for entertainment purposes is bad, too. However, I do not think that they mean for it to be offensive or hurtful. I think when the mascot dances around, they know that they are mimicking Native American dances, but they think it is all in good fun. In fact, some alumni and students think that they are actually respecting Native Americans by doing these things. To some extent I think having a Native American symbol for your team is racist, and when they use stereotypical Native American gestures at games (like the Atlanta Braves tomahawk move), it is very racist, but I don't think it is such a bad thing to do/have (to some extent).
Julian
Period 3/4
I think that this story is very disrespectful, but I don't think that it was completely the University's fault. I think one of the number one reasons for racism is ignorance. The University's original intentions were good but the end result was terrible. I think they were trying to incorporate the Native American culture into the University, but ended up making fun of it. The way she said it would almost be better if it were a cartoony character shows that instead of it being a Native American they were laughing at it would be something funny. Imagine someone laughing at your religion or race or culture, it would be terribly offensive to you, but since Native Americans aren't as recognized of a race it is excepted on some levels. I think the University was trying to teach people about culture, but it backfired and is very racist.
I think that this story is very disrespectful, but I don't think that it was completely the University's fault. I think one of the number one reasons for racism is ignorance. The University's original intentions were good but the end result was terrible. I think they were trying to incorporate the Native American culture into the University, but ended up making fun of it. The way she said it would almost be better if it were a cartoony character shows that instead of it being a Native American they were laughing at it would be something funny. Imagine someone laughing at your religion or race or culture, it would be terribly offensive to you, but since Native Americans aren't as recognized of a race it is excepted on some levels. I think the University was trying to teach people about culture, but it backfired and is very racist.
The last one sent is mine
-Logan
Personaly, I think that using a Native American Indian mascot can be very offensive. I state that it can be offensive, because it can be offensive to those many Native American Indians or just other people in general. They may feel as though this is a sign of disrespect, mockery, and not understanding the Native American culture. Many might feel sad when they see something like Cheif Illinewek dancing around in that beautifully crafted authentic head-drees, because they are using something real from Indian culture (the head-dress) and turing it into a mockery by also throwing in a completely fake dance to go with it. This is exactly how Charlene Teters felt in the movie. The fake dance is very disrespectful towards Indian culture becuase people are just mimicking the many traditional symbols that the Native Americans feel are important and sacred toward their culture.
On the other hand, many people might consider the use of a Native American mascot to be completely harmless, because they might think that the team is using it to show team spirit. Although many people might think this, I would say that maybe some of these people think that the use of a Native American mascot is okay because they might not really know about Indian culture and realize how much damage this can do to some peoples lives.
-Matthew, per. 3-4
I think that native american mascots are not always offensive because they can just be funny. If the costume they were whereing was totally fake and a charicture then it would be okey. The costume was trying to be reallly real.
The dance wouldn't have been as offensive if the dance had been much more fake because it would have just been cool to see the guy or girl do areobatics. The fact that the dance was a little bit like what a real dance may have been made it totally disrespectful.
Sarah 3-4
I think that it is disrespectful, not in the way of the chief dancing at the game, but in the way of how america has poked fun at the indians. We've turned them into a laughing mater through cartoon figures, and mastcots that don't even look human. America has turn some of the most spiritual people in our history, in some kind of phoneys. But, we've crossed the line before bastket ball was ever created. When Columbus discovered the so called new world. Then we forced them from their homes, we've split up families, tribes, and killed the people that have never don't harm to us. This is just not fair.
http://crustacean666.zoto.com/img/45/c2777cb52c0aa740b836f826e60b6c61.jpg
Double Whammy. Whaddya think?
-Jack2
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home