The Chief is Resurrected
The Chicago Tribune reports that Chief Illiniwek, the former University of Illinois mascot, has been resurrected by a group of students who have elected a new mascot to perform for students and the University community this year.
Please read the story and respond. Write your first name and class period in your post.
What do you think of this new manifestation of Native American mascots? Should the students be allowed to do this? Is the University responsible? Are they condoning the practice and how does this fit with the NCAA ruling that no teams that host tournament play are allowed to have Native American mascots?
Your post will count as extra credit!
posted by Peggy Doyle at
11:02 AM
27 Comments:
I think that the resurrection of Chief Illiniwek is offensive and disappointing for the Native American community in much the same way as it was before when the University of Illinois officially used the Chief. I do not condone the actions of these students, but I think that they have a Constitutional right to practice these activities, no matter how offensive. I understand that people may have an attachment to Chief Illiniwek. However, this does not make the stereotyping of Native Americans right. The University, however, is not responsible, as it doesn't sponsor the actions and that the university did not give the costume to the students. However, I think that the statute of limitations applies to this, as this is a non-university sponsored organization, and the NCAA ruling does not apply, just as the NCAA cannot rule that an outside vendor cannot sell Chief Illiniwek items.
The University of Illinois is not responsible. They said that the students are not allowed to hold a project without university funding, but they allowed it anyway. The students should not be allowed to do this. They are insulting many people by calling there team Illini, which is just like calling a team a different racial group. By making up a dance, which, by the way, is not at all like an Illini tribes tribal dances, is insulting to everybody at the university. They are discriminating against a racial group which is just like any other. This is an immature idea that was thought of when people didn't respect Native Americans as much as they do now. The clothes aren't authentic at all. They are making fun of the Native American tribe, the Illini.
Maddie
Humanities period 8-9
Ms. Doyle
I think that the students should be allowed to have an Indian mascot. The University of Illinois is not responsible for any of this, except for allowing the students to have a mascot. The mascot is not meant be offensive in any way, they just want a way to express their team spirit. They are not following the rules about no Indian mascots, but its just for fun, and no harm is meant to be caused.
Jen
Humanities 8-9
Ms. Doyle
I think that the new manifestation of the chief is worthless. Eventually, the mascot will be banned and resurrected over and over until the university closes. Because the team and the students are doing this, the university won’t let the team play. This will make the mascot have no meaning along with the team, so the team will disband or the mascot will be gone. I think that the university is completely responsible. The university allowed the mascot in the first place, and allowed it again now. This clearly proves that they have no care for the Native American community. About the NCAA, they couldn’t care less. What they care about is to get butts into their seats and cash into their pockets. The NCAA can’t do anything about it even if they do care. They can’t do anything about the chief without making a large investment in the school (also known as a bribe) or contacting the federal government. The problem with the federal government is that they don’t care either and the constitution also doesn’t care. So the chief is in the university’s hands, and the future looks good for him (I say this because of my experiences with administration).
I think that the Chief though hurtful to some people, but inspires leadership and spirit in others. I think that the Chief should not be resurrected because of the people he offends. Its best to have a mascot that doesn't offend anyone even if it just offends a small group. I think that the students have the right to do this. Even though hurtful we still have free speech. I don't think the University's responsible since the Chief isn't playing at the actually sport games. The people who are organizing it are paying for the space, so the University isn't sponsoring it. I think this doesn't break the NCAA ruling since the Chief is not preforming at the stadiums and the Chief isn't the official mascot. For example, I'm sure there are shows at theaters that make fun of Native Americans and those are not breaking any rules. Technically this is a separate event so it doesn't fall under the NCAA's jurisdiction.
Sam 0
Doyle 8-9
10-14-08
this is distastful..... it's like the recent ban on gay marriage, in the sense that its finally changed something for the better, but some dead gum thought that the change was bad, so he was all like "i have $$ i have power, and ii don't care about you and your "morals". the University is totally responseble. letting it happened is like incouraging it... threre is no way it's not their fault. There are things called rules, and you don't enforce'em then they be come guide lines. well it's also the d***ed constatuitions fualt, our country was based on racism/hatin another form of ppl. gah!!!!!! so aggravated aat this....
-bored to death (aka marcus, aka loren)
I think that the resurrection of Chief llliniwek is both right and wrong. I absolutely think that this is not the University of Illinois's fault. They probobly want to show team spirit and maybe the students don't know that this offends the Native Americans. But in the end it does effect and harm them a lot. It didn't exactly show that they were making fun of the Native Americans though. I think it is a bit wrong to perform these dances and put on these nice costumes but not show the right dances. It was a bit of a betrayal to them. Student's should be allowed to do this, they are trying to show team spirit and I dont think that they were trying to offend the Native Americans. But if I were put in the position of the Native Americans I would most likely be somewhat offended and I may try to go against it.
Tiffany
pd. 3-4
11/16/08
I think this new manifest of Native Americans is rude and inappropriate. Students should not be allowed to make shows with "The Chief" to amuse people. It is hurtful to the Native American people.
Here we have a normal collage boy pretending to be a Native American with paint, the beautiful buckskin outfit and feathers. All of these accessories are deeply respected in a Native American community. And not to be made fun of. The University should take the responsibility and prevent this from happening.
Ellen
pd. 3-4
11/16/08
I think this new manifest of Native Americans is rude and inappropriate. Students should not be allowed to make shows with "The Chief" to amuse people. It is hurtful to the Native American people.
Here we have a normal collage boy pretending to be a Native American with paint, the beautiful buckskin outfit and feathers. All of these accessories are deeply respected in a Native American community. And not to be made fun of. The University should take the responsibility and prevent this from happening.
Ellen
pd. 3-4
11/16/08
I think that this resurrection of Chief Illiniwek is disrespectful and shameful to the Native American community. The students do have constitutional rights, and can do whatever they want; as long as it’s not too racy, so they are allowed to do it, but I still think it’s racist, and that they shouldn’t be able to do it. I don’t think the University is responsible for these actions, but they seem to be letting them do it. I don’t think it breaks the NCAA rule because Chief Illiniwek isn’t the official mascot of Illinois.
Cole
Doyle per 3/4
I think that the students resurrecting Chief Illiniwek is offensive, but not surprising. Of course students are going to want to bring back their beloved mascot, but the university should not allow it. It is too big of a risk to back this if you are the university, because you don't want to risk getting the NCAA after you for breaking the rules. I think on some level the university wants this to happen but can't show it. They probably also want to have their mascot back. It's a tradition for them, and so they probably won't be trying extra hard to stop this act.
-Logan
I think that it is a good thing that the mascot of chief Illiniwek has been brought back as a mascot for the University of Illinois. But I don’t think that it should have been decided by students, of course if it wasn’t them it would probably never been seen again. I do not however feel that it is appropriate for them to bring back the actual character, and if they do bring it back certainly not to the ‘traditional’ dance. I think that the university certainly is responsible for any acts that take place. I also believe that the NCAA should not allow this to happen.
Rex Period 3-4
I am disapointed that they resurrected the cheif. I believe it is offensive to native americans that they brought him back. After all the hard work the native american comminity put into getting rid of The Chief. Now that they brought him back it seems like it was for nothing. I think it was unfare for the students to do this even though I understand why they did. I don't think the Universtiy is responsible for this because it wasn't their choice the students were the ones who wanted him back. I think it breaks the rules of having a native american masscot. After what other sports teams and massocts have done for these rules, the universtiy of IL goes and breaks the rulem, which seems unfare.
-Frank
Having Chief Illiniwek perform once again should not be allowed. Chief Illiniwek is mocking the Native Americans and it is hurtful. Even though I do disagree with Chief Illiniwek coming back, students do have the right to have a say in whether the chief should be allowed. I do not think the university is responsible for bringing the chief back because the school does not sponsor the group, Students for Chief Illiniwek. Although, the university is responsible for stopping this because whatever happens on their campus they are in charge of. They are not condoning the practice, they might not be doing anything about it, but that doesn't mean they aren't at least trying to do something about it. However, since this new mascot is completely run by students and not sponsored by the school, the NCAA ruling that no teams that host tournament play are allowed to have Native American mascots does not apply to this situation, which means that University of Illinois is not allowed to end this because it is student run.
Stacy-8/9
This doesn't seem like a very thoughtful thing to do. Chief Illiniwek may be remembered by everyone at University of Illinois, but I really think these students have to move on. If something is offending a group of people (in this case the Native Americans) it should not be allowed. Even if it is also a part of another groups lives. Using a Native American mascot in the first place was offensive, but reviving him after being banned is even worse. Isn't this against the NCAA's rules? I really don't like how a group of students put this whole idea back together. Paying for a costume and for time in an assembly hall all for something offensive? This is not right and they shouldn't be allowed to do this. I don't think the university is completely responsible for these actions. They are not sponsoring it, nor paying for it, but they could prevent Native Americans from being offended at all by preventing the students from organizing any of this.
Louis · Period 8/9
After all the trouble Charlene T. had gone through, it must be really disappointing and upsetting to see the Chief Illiniweck mascot back in action. I know I feel that way. Even though the students funded it, I have a bad feeling that it will lead to a sort of war all over again. Though I'm sure that there are no hard feelings intended towards the Native American race, There will probably be some confusion and much disapproval, just like last time.
Jack 2
11/20
The resurrection of Chief Illiniwek was a step backwards that also kicked Native Americans too. It shows how some people are so ignorant of the feelings other cultures experience that it completely incorrectly stereotypes Native Americans. The fact is that the university cannot be considered racist, the sponsors of Chief Illiniwek are the ones who should be held responsible because many people at the U of I have stood up to this and the sponsors are throwing money at the students to keep it going. Because of freedom of speech the students can use the costume but that does not say it ethically is right. No matter how bad chief Illiniwek becomes it isn't even remotely close to a hate crime which would allow the entire mascot tradition to be shut down and the Chief to hang his costume in a closet.
In my previous blog post concerning Chief Illiniwek, I said Charlene Teters overreacted after seeing a phony Native American dance at a U of I basketball game. I still believe she overreacted, but I think it is a bad idea to bring the chief back from the dead.
This is definitely the University of Illinois’ fault. They should oversee the actions of the students at all times. In February 2007, they banned the appearance of Chief Illiniwek at sporting events. Letting the students bring it back should not be allowed without the consent of the University. Once the students get the thumbs-up from the Board of Trustees, then they could bring him back.
In my opinion, even if the Board of Trustees says it’s okay, the students should just forget about the chief to avoid any kind of friction with Native American groups.
Phil
Period 8-9
It seems like the University is not doing anything to interfere with the student about this. Did we not have a very big dispute about this? Charlene Teeters had brought to light a serious problem the University of Illinois was either ignoring or condoning at school games. I am sure some people see Chief Illiniwek as a symbol and remember it being something everyone enjoyed watching, like at half-time when the "chief" would come out and perform a presumably authentic dance. The students and alumni who set up the try-outs continue to disregard the history of all Native Americans. Chief Illiniwek is essentially mocking the culture and beliefs of Native Americans. It is like someone performing a “Christian” dance dressed as a priest or minister. The students have also used every possible loophole, such as renting Assembly Hall to attract a large crowd and having a replica of the Indian costume made. It certainly was not a small group of students. I firmly believe the University of Illinois should have intervened to stop this mockery, especially after Charlene Teeters had called attention to this offensive practice.
Victoria Aponte-Blizzard
Humanties 8-9
Ms. Doyle
I think it is not right to bring Chief Illiniwek back after banishing him for nearly two years. I think it is offensive to Native American people for a mascot to be wearing such awesome and beautiful Native clothes. Also University of Illinois was doing just fine without it the last two years, so why would they want it back? The students should not be allowed to do this because some of the Native American people think this is wrong. I think the University is responsible because they are letting the Chief dance again, even if it’s not on the football field.
Miles
Per. 8-9
Mrs. Doyle
For some reason, many people think that it is a great idea to have a Native American, and many people get this idea. I think that the University should make sure the dance that the Chief is doing is appropriate and not just some silly Indian-looking dance that people have the urge to imitate. If you were an American Indian, and you were very close to your religion, you would most likely feel kind of insulted that people think it is okay to have someone dress up and make it some fun football thing. In my opinion, the University should have asked that if you Indian; you should post a comment on some site, or email the University saying what you think. Cleary, the group that made the decision, none of them were probably Indian and none of them have probably tried to imagine that they were an Indian and put themselves in that situation. This group probably only cared about having some fun mascot that people can imitate that might even be creating some stereotypes. The University is clearly responsible for this, because there are most likely some American Indians that go to the University, and they probably feel awkward now that there own religion is being used as a mascot. The University thought that they should leave the decision to the Students for Chief Illinwek even though they didn’t sponsor this, the University still let the Students of Chief Illinwek make this decision, most likely thinking that they will think about the Indians' religion. Even if this was not the University’s' decision, they are still responsible because they were the ones that thought it would be okay to leave the Students For Chief Illinwek, and that they wouldn't let anyone get hurt in this decision. The people who was for this idea and helped make it happen, they may have the right to, but I and a lot of other people do not approve.
-Mckenzie, Ms. Doyle per 8-9
I think that the resurrection of the Chief is wrong because it breaks NCAA rules and is offensive to Native Americans. I think that if they had made the dance and costume more realistic that it would be fine and by no means offensive to Native Americans but in a sense respectful.
-Gregory Pd. 3-4
I think that the new manifestation of the chief is worthless. Eventually, the mascot will be banned and resurrected over and over until the university closes. Because the team and the students are doing this, the university won’t let the team play. This will make the mascot have no meaning along with the team, so the team will disband or the mascot will be gone. I think that the university is completely responsible. The university allowed the mascot in the first place, and allowed it again now. This clearly proves that they have no care for the Native American community. About the NCAA, they couldn’t care less. What they care about is to get butts into their seats and cash into their pockets. The NCAA can’t do anything about it even if they do care. They can’t do anything about the chief without making a large investment in the school (also known as a bribe) or contacting the federal government. The problem with the federal government is that they don’t care either and the constitution also doesn’t care. So the chief is in the university’s hands, and the future looks good for him (I say this because of my experiences with administration).
marwan
period 8-9
(i had forgotten to put my name on the one before, sorry!)
I think that the resurrection of chief Illinwek is not offensive because the way I look at it is that when all these Indian people marry white people their child will not retain any of the culture that is based on the Indians,(I'm basically saying that their culture is being reduced by the second because of this)so when chief Illiniwek gets restored shouldn't that be a happy thing for the culture of the Illinois Indians? Because if the real Indians get a chance they could possibly even teach the mascot the real dances that will retain their culture for more time to come. I do not think that the university is responsible for this because the people that want to bring something back should suffer the consequences of their actions if there are any, not the people who just listen sit back and watch. I also do not condone the students about wanting the chief back or anything because they just want a mascot that will be exciting and fun to watch, but I also think that people could switch this made-up dance into a real actual dance made by the Indians so it keeps the Indians happy and the students happy.
~Cameron
Ms.Doyle humanities 8/9
I think that its fine to have to mascot. Because its like a inspiration to some people. And its just a Mascot. I think that after two years its ok for the mascot to come back and dance for the school. It dosent break to rules because its not the official mascot yet. But i can go both ways. I also think a little that the mascot should be restricted for the people he offends, even know its a very small group of people. I do not think that it is the Universitys fault. They just wanted to have team spirit.
Sam 1
Period 3-4
Humanities
The University is not responsible for the students actions, but they do have the power to terminate the students action, which they have not. The students should not be allowed to do that, even if it is not supposed to make fun of Native Americans; it goes against the rules, and it is still offensive to Native Americans. It is wrong for the students to be doing this.
I think that the resurrection of Chief Illiniwek is very offensive and is a very rude idea towards the Native American community as well many other people in general. It is very sad to think that after all the trouble and chaos the original Chief Illiniwek caused, the Students for Chief Illiniwek would even have the guts to perform such an action. The resurrection of Chief Illiniwek will have the same effect as the original; causing the same disturbence and acting offensive to Native American culture. I think that it might even cause more chaos than the original Chief Illiniwek, because the students all know what the original Chief Illiniwek did and yet they still want him back. The first time the school had Chief Illiniwek as the mascot, many students did not realize how offensive and disrespectful this was. After the bannishment, I would think that all the students would be well aware of what Chief Illiniwek did to the Native American community. This would only cause more anger to arrise from the Native American community. Even though the Students for Chief Illiniwek might have an attachment to the famous mascot, I really think that the students should not be allowed to do this. I would say that the University is largely held responsible for this action, because even though the University of Illinois Board of Trustees banned the mascot from sporting events, the University authorities had no resistence towards the students conducting such an action. The University is condoning the practice of Chief Illiniwek performing, and this certainly does not fit with the NCAA ruling which states that no teams that host tournament play are allowed to have Native American mascots. I hope that in the future Chief Illiniwek will again be bannished as a mascot, and I hope that all of the students and administration will realize what an offensive, disrespectful, and humiliating time of having the mascot was.
Matthew, per. 3-4
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home