From the honorthechief site (this has to be the most neutral of them all!):

“Although the original Illini disappeared from the region long ago…” .

“Disappeared” is an interesting choice of words for “run out of town”.

According to the site, the Chief’s dance ” has evolved over the years to make its movements more visible to spectators”.

How does the dance of an obsolete tribe “evolve”? Might it have lost some accuracy in the effort to make sure the nosebleed section doesn’t miss out on anything?

“Today, Native American gatherings, called
“pow wows,” held across this country include elaborate dance competitions in which Native Americans and others who dress as Native Americans dance side-by-side. Prizes may be awarded, not for authenticity or religious intent, but for the beauty of the attire and skill of the dancers.”

I’m afraid that proponents of the U of I Chief have used the Indian custom of Pow wows, where they sometimes include non-Indian participants as license to do what they want with the custom in an arena. It’s quite a presumption.

Of the U of I Chief’s costume:

“The current regalia worn by the Chief is authentic and reflects the dress of the Plains Indians. The Illini tribes were of a much earlier culture, and less is known about their style of dress, however, it is believed to be simpler and less ornate than that used to portray Chief Illiniwek today”

So… why not do the research and make the Chief’s dress “simpler and less ornate”?

The Peter Harris poll is another can of worms. There is a lengthy article here
Http://www.aistm.org/fr.2002.of.polls.htm

refuting PH Research Group, describing how the poll was used for a controversial Sports Illustrated article. Like I said, it’s quite long, but I found this tidbit interesting:

“Fom a poll of 351 Native Americans and 743 sports fans commissioned from the Peter Harris Research Group, supplemented with 10 interviews with Indian and non-Indian individuals, Price concluded first that the majority of indigenous peoples, like sports fans and citizens generally, supported such mascots, and more, that Native American leaders working against these mascots were out of touch with, even disconnected from, their constituents.”

That’s over twice as many “sports fans” as Native Americans polled!!! Gee, wonder how they got all those pro-Indian mascot numbers?

And in conclusion, whereas I might usually trust Roger Ebert with my film reviews, as a columnist commenting on the Chief, I guess you could say that I have the same reservations that Stanley did with faculty and student opinions, since Ebert is known to be a proud alumni of U of I and supporter of its sports programs. I don’t give him any more credence than some lowly student just because he has a cushy gig at the Sun Times. But in order to be fair, I read the column. It’s very much what I thought it would be, and that’s OK, he has a right to his opinion and he certainly knows how to express it well.

Imagine my surprise however, when I happened upon another of his columns which appeared just NINE DAYS after the one Stanley referenced. It can (and should) be seen here.
Http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20010315/ai_n13894026 3/15/01

I have a newfound respect for Ebert. Not because he saw things my way, but because he had the courage to reexamine his hard and fast belief that the Chief was nothing but honorable and thought that there may be room for compromise. I was particularly touched by his biblical quote.

“There need not be a feeling of hate involved, but just a feeling of one race being “better” than another.”

I find this quote a little odd. This holds true even if the minority race in question is being held up, at least in the Chief’s case, as being the “better” race? I could see it if it was the other way around but…..

This is pure speculation on my part but how is this theory? Maybe those that support the Chief do so as part of an underlying feeling of guilt over what has happened to the American Indians as a whole. By showing great respect and adulation towards the Chief, and fighting fiercely to keep him, it is a way of saying “I’m sorry.”

Once this constant positive reminder of past wrongs is removed from the majorities’ consciousness what is left? I’m afraid that by removing the Chief as a symbol it will cause the American Indians’ plight to fall further off the majorities’ radar of things to care about.

And finally, I appreciate the research on the topic but I am always a little wary of being completely swayed by “research.” I have seen research discredited in many cases, which as you know is what it is designed to do – attempt to replicate with varying causal factors. Given the low numbers of American Indians available as a sample I find the psychologist’s study of the negative effects of an Indian mascot on Indian school children a little hard to believe. As we have seen through the media, numbers and statistics can be viewed in polar opposites by the various sides of a debate. Here is an example:

What do actual ancestors of the Illini tribes think of Chief Illiniwek?
Over the years, the Chief Illiniwek tradition has had continued endorsement of Native American descendents. Since the tradition’s inception in 1926, there has been considerable support for the Chief by Native American leaders, including several that trace their lineage to the original Illini tribes.
In the past two years, the only scientific opinion polls on the subject have concluded that the majority of Native Americans are not opposed to the use of Indian nicknames—at the high school or college level, or in professional sports. In 2002, a Peter Harris Research Group poll showed that 81% of Native Americans support the use of Indian nicknames in high school and college sports, and 83% of Native Americans support the use of Indian mascots and symbols in professional sports. The accompanying commentary concluded that the “poll suggests that although Native American activists are virtually united in opposition to the use of Indian nicknames and mascots, the Native American population sees the issue far differently.”
In September 2004, the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey reported the results of a year-long poll which showed that the vast majority of American Indians say that calling Washington’s professional football team the “Redskins” does not bother them (90% of Indians took that position, while 9% said they found the name “offensive”). Taken from: http://www.honorthechief.org/tradition.html

As you can see there is much information here that supports one side of this debate. Yet, much like the “research” you have quoted I do not believe this information to be any more credible. There is much room for this information to have been skewed, or falsified for a self-serving purpose.

Whether you like/respect him or not, here is an article from Roger Ebert on the topic: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20010306/ai_n13901675

Chiefs, Braves, and Tomahawks: The Use of American Indians as University Mascots
by Robert Longwell-Grice & Hope Longwell-Grice
In 1926, assistant band director Ray Dvarak of the University of Illinois conceived of the idea of performing an American Indian dance during halftime of the Illinois–Pennsylvania football game in Philadelphia (Students for Chief Illinewek, 2000). The University of Illinois football coach at the time suggested calling the Indian symbol Chief Illinewek. Chief Illinewek ran onto the field “doing a lively Indian dance,” saluted the Pennsylvania rooters and then smoked a peace pipe with William Penn (impersonated by another University of Illinois student). The crowd loved it and a tradition was born. The Chief has appeared at halftime of every home University of Illinois football game ever since.

The bastardization of traditional and sacred practices is not limited to Chief Illiniwek. Flutes, whistles, and drums are important in Native American ceremonies and are even considered to be spiritual in nature. The use of these instruments and the music that accompanies a mascot performing at a halftime show trivializes their importance and is out of place on the playing field. The wearing of feathers, buckskin, and war paint all lend themselves to an imagery that degrades Native Americans and their culture and distorts people’s perceptions. The symbols mascots use—tomahawks, spears, war whoops, and headdresses—also are a stereotyped vision of Native Americans as savages—and certainly not as a people who are among us today (Pewewardy,1992). All of these images prevent the dominant culture from understanding the historical and current culture of indigenous people. Since the mascot image simply reinforces or affirms our stereotype, the image must have been implanted earlier in our lives. The films we watch and the books we read have grouped Indians into four groups: the noble savage, the generic Indian, the living fossil, and the savage. While serious efforts have been made to raise our collective consciousness, many of these efforts have been undermined by the superficial treatment they receive in school (Charles, 1993).

Given the problems of using Indian mascots as outlined in this article, why would anyone select them as mascots and why do we as spectators and fans support them? One explanation may be that those who created the mascot symbol did not see it as stereotypical or racist in nature. It is only now, with the advantage of years of knowledge and experience, that people are beginning to see these symbols as wrong (Delgado & Stefancic, 1992). Dennis (1981) contends that people engage in racist behavior because they are reasonably sure that there is support for it; and since many of these mascots were created when overt racist acts were common in this country, it should not be altogether surprising that no one spoke up against the use of Indian mascots at the time. In many ways, this reinforces Davis (1989), who says that humans categorize other humans to make sense of their world. Those who initially chose the American Indian mascots were responding to the category they had placed Native Americans into as a result of their own experiences vis-à-vis popular culture and traditional education. Their experiences were rarely firsthand interactions with Native Americans. Little concern was given to whether the mascots selected were portraying a stereotype that could fan the flames of racism or discrimination.

Although some people who support Indian mascots claim that the mascots honor Indians, with little appreciation given for tribal customs or reality, schools have created their own image of the “Indian.” That it is a false image never penetrates the mind of the halftime spectators, since it simply reinforces the mascot they learned in the classrooms and textbooks (Trimble, 1988). Spectators who witness the mascot accept the mascot unconditionally since it reinforces their categorization. Further, since this categorization is subconscious, attempts to un-learn it and confront it are met with defensiveness, hostility, and an unwillingness to consider the possibility that the categorization may result in racist or biased behavior.

REFERENCES
Charles, J. (1993). Of mascots and tomahawk chops: Stereotypes of American Indians and the English teacher’s response. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national teachers of English. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 355 535)
Pewewardy, C. D. (2000). Why educators should not ignore Indian mascots. Multicultural perspectives, v2(1).
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (1992). Images of the outsider in american law and culture: Can free expression remedy systemic social ills? In R. Delgado and J. Stefancic (Eds.), Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Philadelphia: Temple Press.
Davis, P. C. (1989). Law as micro aggression. In R. Delgado and J. Stefancic (Eds.), Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Philadelphia: Temple Press.
Dennis, R. (1981). Socialization and racism: The white experience. In B. P. Bowser and R. G. Hunt (Eds.), Impacts of racism on white Americans (pp. 71–85). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Department of The Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (2000). Federal Registry, 65(49).
Trimble, J. E. (1988). Stereotypical images, American Indians, and prejudice. In P. A. Katz and D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy. New York: Plenum Press.

Just one more thing. As we (Rob and I)continue to learn more about the Chief and what he represents to the Native American community we are being forced to face the issue of our own 10 year old son’s obsession with the U of I. He has sweatshirts and hats bearing the Chief’s symbol. Our kids have worn Halloween costumes that we now know they shouldn’t have. We will take the time to teach our children about these things and continue to learn from our own mistakes and insensitivities.

There. In the interest of full disclosure, let there be no doubt that we do not feel morally superior to anyone. But we are open-minded enough to learn from our mistakes.

You asked me to explain to you how the Chief is racist. OK, that is a simple straight forward question. To fully address the issue I culled though the masses of research available – and while I have done my best to paraphrase where appropriate I none the less feel the need to apologize in advance for the length of this response –

Here we go . . .

Let’s start with our terms. Merriam-Webster defines racism as “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits” and the word discrimination comes from the Latin “discriminare”, which means to “distinguish between.” However, what we’re talking about is more than distinction or differentiation; it is action based on prejudice resulting in unfair treatment of people. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that no state can deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. While there is no identical provision applicable to the federal government, this right to equal protection is interpreted to apply to the federal government by virtue of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that the federal government shall not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Equal protection, in its simplest definition, means that laws are supposed to protect people equally. So what we are dealing with in the UIUC case is the all–to-common instance of racism leading to discrimination (and that, Stanley, addresses your issue of damage) which is not only immoral, it is illegal. The Chief is the symbol of our state (let us not forget that the UIUC is, as a state university, subject to the control of the Illinois General Assembly and subject to the limitations of the state constitution – meaning that it is a state agency, therefore it’s symbols are de facto the symbols of our state) and I won’t accept a racist stereotype to be the emblem of my state. But I guess others disagree with me there . . .

Still not convinced the Chief is racist? I didn’t think so, let’s keep going . . .

The “Chief” is not authentic. His dance and costume are derived from a 1926 Boy Scout project and the music was written by the UIUC band director using Hollywood beats. Even if the “Chief’s” performance were authentic, it would still be inappropriate for a non-Native to perform it at a college sporting event. The “Chief” makes the UIUC a hostile environment for many Native people, and therefore impedes true education about Native culture on the UIUC campus. Native activists and people of conscience have repeatedly suggested that education about Native culture necessitates, first and foremost, the elimination of the “Chief,” as well as the establishment of a Native Studies Program, and Cultural House (neither of which currently exist), more Native scholars, and more scholarships for Native students.

Here’s a fact for you to consider: Every national Native organization that has taken a stance on the issue has called for the elimination of the “Chief,” including: the American Indian Council of Illinois, the American Indian Education Association, the American Indian Movement http://www.aimovement.org/ncrsm/illiniwik.html), the Cherokee Nation, the National Congress of American Indians (http://www.ncai.org/ncai/resource/documents/governance/NCAIposis.htm), and the Peoria Tribe. So, while you might not get this info watching NewsChannel 20 – the fact is that the call for the Chief’s ouster is coming wholeheartedly from American Indians themselves – and not just some generic “morally superior” group.

The Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma are the closest living descendants of the Illiniwek Confederacy, having been relocated to Oklahoma in the 19th century. In April 2000, the tribal council passed a resolution requesting “the leadership of the University of Illinois to recognize the demeaning nature of the characterization of Chief Illiniwek, and cease use of this mascot”. http://aistm.org/2000peoria.htm

Chief Ron Froman was later quoted as saying “I don’t know what the origination was, or what the reason was for the university to create Chief Illiniwek. I don’t think it was to honor us, because, hell, they ran our (butts) out of Illinois.” This puts Chief Illiniwek in a position different from that of the mascots of other schools such as FSU, whose Native American mascots are not opposed by the leadership of the corresponding tribes. In 2006, Chief, John P. Froman, wrote a letter reiterating the Peoria Tribe’s opposition to the symbol and decrying that the “University of Illinois has ignored the tribe’s request for nearly five years.”

This brings us to the effects of school mascots on a society that has already displayed its tendency toward racism. Using a race of people, or a representation of a race of people for a mascot, sends a strong signal that it is alright to belittle and insult that race. There need not be a feeling of hate involved, but just a feeling of one race being “better” than another. In some cases, this can and obviously does, lead to a feeling of hate. Psychologists have studied this mascot issue and the affects on both the Indian children, and on the non-Indian children. As one would expect, Indian children in a learning environment where an “Indian” mascot is in use, have the worst problems. They are not as apt to join in with classroom activities, nor with sports activities. It creates an environment that deprives these children of an equal learning opportunity. It also affects the self esteem of these children. The non-Indian children quite frankly, learn racism. They also, because of the mascot, learn of a stereotype image of Indian people that hinders their learning about present day Indians. In other words, both the Indian children and the non-Indian children are injured by the affects of the mascot, but in slightly different ways. The only answer possible to this problem is to remove the racist mascots and stereotypes.

Charlene Teters, a founding member of the board of the National Coalition on Racism in Sports and the Media and a Spokane American Indian, states “There is no acceptable level of racism . . . people often argues that to have a national sports team named after them should be considered a great honor.” But it is Teters’ position that reducing the tribal leadership position of chief to a mascot and then displaying that mascot on clothing and trinkets to be sold “does not feel like honor or respect to us.” The chief, she noted, is the highest political position in any tribe and American Indians have great respect for their chiefs. Native Americans do not feel welcome at the stadium or on campuses where that respected figure is portrayed as a grinning caricature or where the team name evokes a deeply painful image to American Indians.

UIUC’s official mascot and symbol, “Chief Illiniwek” is, therefore, a racist representation of Native people created by non-Natives for the halftime entertainment and profit of non-Native people. It undermines Native peoples’ right to self-determination by appropriating sacred aspects of Native political and religious culture. It has no place in a state sponsored event – or as the logo of one of our state agencies. The “Chief’s” performance is just as offensive to Native Americans as the Little Black Sambo and Amos & Andy stereotypes are to African American people. By mocking Native culture, the UIUC sets a dangerous precedent for racist representation of all other social and ethnic groups targeted for oppression.

Respectfully,

(Rock) Rob(ster)

Point taken.

Dan:

I appreciate your concerns that maybe it’s not Native Americans who are so concerned about the Chief, but rather a bunch of wannabe moral superiors. I actually struggle with this notion. It’s not an attractive image to me…to act better than someone else or to act like I know more or am more ethical. I realize that’s how I come off and I definitely do my share to project that image, but my position is honestly rooted in a belief that I am most certainly NOT better than anyone else and I try to understand the challenges of being born anything but white in America.

I think a lot of the Chief debate can be compared to the smoking ban, which I believe you and Stanley both came out in support of. Why should we be asked to just not attend UofI games if the Chief offends, and not take the same attitude when choosing whether or not to patronize restaraunts that allow smoking?

Maybe the ouster of the Chief really is protecting people that don’t know he is perpetuating stereotypes, or, “protecting us from ourselves”.

You will find research debunking the dangers of second hand smoke just as you will find research saying that the Chief is an honorable representation of the Illinewek tribe. I’ve no doubt that you read about a group of American Indian chiefs who had no problem with the Chief, just as you probably read letters to the editors from non-smokers against the smoking ban. It’s newsier. But just as there are thousands who are for the smoking ban, there are thousands who are in support of the Chief’s removal. But in the interest of keeping the news more compelling, it’s going to be the “Native Americans for the Chief” and “Non-Smokers Against the Ban” that are more likely to get the coverage and the headline.

That’s it for me, although I will happily read any responses and think hard about them, as I do every time. Seriously, this has kept me up at night. Must….sleep…….

You said: “you reveal yourself to be not so much “Pro-Chief” as anti-”anti Chief”.”

Exactly. I have already said that in an earlier response.

“but in the end if the Chief doesn’t dance it really doesn’t matter to me. What does matter to me is that a very small minority of people have created an illusion that their lives are being damaged by the Chief”

Maybe if you would bother to actually read what I post there would not be the need for such a lengthy “boring” debate.

While I’m sure Rock Robster appreciates your “nice comment” compliment, I think it is an understatement as his was a beautifully crafted response to the thousands of Chief supporters who are getting hysterical as if someone has taken away their KKK action figures. But to answer your question, Yes. He kisses his kids with that mouth.

Stanley

I suppose if you think we’ve said everything that needs to be said, than OK, Mr. O’Reilly. The fact of the matter is, you can demand to know how the Chief is offensive until you’re blue in the face and it doesn’t matter, because he’s gone. When you make comments like “I pride myself on being in the opposition of what the majority of a college faculty do and believe.” you reveal yourself to be not so much “Pro-Chief” as anti-”anti Chief”.

There are a lot of similarities between your resistance to acknowledge any kind of minority discrimination and my quick-to-the-draw defense of almost all claims. I think we could both use some more research in forming our opinions rather than our usual canned responses to such issues. It’s become so predictable, it’s boring.

I’ve read some compelling articles in support of the Chief. I can appreciate people who have taken the time to give reasons why the Chief is not racist, because I believe they truly care that he’s not portrayed that way. Saying simply that he isn’t racist because you don’t know how someone could be physically or financially affected isn’t enough.

I’m intrigued. Put the Chief in the hands of a performance artist and then any objection would be seen as censorship and an affront to artistic expression.

Nancy,

The only logical motivation for removing the Chief is because a majority of Indians are offended by him, similar to how a majority of blacks are offended by white actors performing in blackface.

But from what I’ve read, the anti-Chief movement doesn’t appear to be sparked by an outraged Indian community. If I’m wrong about this, then I’ll take back everything I’ve said or will say.

I think that some of the motivation from those pale faces (oops) that did spearhead (oops again) the opposition comes from their need to be morally superior and to speak on behalf of minorities that they believe aren’t smart enough to be offended on their own.

I also think that some of the motivation derives from the same insatiable need to be outraged that causes people to bitch about the death of Christmas each Holiday season.

And finally, some of the motivation is general concern for their fellow man, but again, the voice of their fellow man, in this case Indians, is the only one that really counts.

Rock Robster,

Explain to me how the Chief is racist.

Is it how he is portrayed, who is portraying him, or is the very idea of using an Indian as a mascot for a school offensive regardless of how he is portrayed (in which case the Seminole tribe is stricken with terminal self-hatred)?

As I’ve said, I’m not angry or sad to see the Chief go, I just question the motivations that led to his dismissal and believe that the accusation that the Chief is hostile and abusive is ridiculous.

In the Sun Times last week there was an article in which several tribal leaders said they had no problem with the Chief. Granted, they don’t speak for every Indian, but if they don’t find it racist, why would you?

Thanks for commenting and please know that I hold you in the highest esteem and that I enjoy these debates on an intellectual level. There is no harboring of ill feelings and I will still buy you a beer if you show up at the next Movie Geeks Club.

Dan