Of Vikings, Cowboys, Irish...and Illini

^ I agree with some of what you're saying but I do have to disagree on a couple of points.


"The very native Americans that the chief represents don't even exist anymore. They are no more a part of the scene today than are cowboys, Vikings, or 49ers. They no more represent today's native Americans than the Fighting Irish represent today's Irish population of that Spartans are the residents of today's Sparta. In fact, the very native Americans who criticize the chief have so damned much white blood (perhaps even more than native blood) running through their veins that making a compelling issue on their part is virtually impossible.

Chief Illinwek is a symbol, not a mascot. The dance that he does is viewed not as an the amusing gyratons of a savage, but as a sign of respect. Seeing the chief do the dance is no less degrading than seeing Poles do the Polka or Jews the hora."


To the casual observer this situation may seem obsurd since to modern Americans the chief is nothing more than a mascot. You have to understand however that the Native Americans are not like those other peoples that you listed in that their connection to this land is much more substantial and their history with this nation far more tragic. Another way that the Natives differ from those groups that you mentioned is that their culture has been almost entirely destroyed except for maybe a few shreds here and there. It would be understandably upsetting for the Natives to see their entire culture bastardized into one highly patronizing sports mascot. It is not that the Chief is disrespectful that makes the Natives so angry it is that many of them have been fighting to be taken seriously in modern American culture as Native Amerians and to not be treated as some goofy sideshow of Americana. That is what the Chief really is, a condensation of an entire culture into some strange curiosity or goofy sideshow. That is not the kind of treatment the people that once ruled this land deserve.

Oh, and about the comment regarding the white blood in the native population, just because many Natives have now become racially intermixed with their conquerors doesn't mean that they should be any less caring about how their culture is represented in this country.

Suburbanite, I fully agree with you that the story of what native Americans faced at the hands of our nation (including its colonial period) was shameful. It is one of the darkest stories in human history.

That said, I don't think there is anything negative in the way the U of I portrays either the Fighting Illini or Chief Illinwek. There are contrasts out there: in MLB, both the Indians and Braves have used rather offensive native logos (compared to the classically beautiful and dignified circular Illinois logo). "Illini" is a word that carries pride, with none of the conotation of "Indian" or even more offensive "*******".

We are half a millennium removed from Columbus's encounter with America. There was an inevitability that when the eastern and western hemispheres met up, there were going to dramatic changes in both. We today in the US are a vastly different people than those who involved in white vs. Indian battles more than a century back. As I said before, native Americans today are often a mix of many blood lines and a good percentage of those who call themselves native Americans have less than 50% native bloodlines.

On a personal level, I am for understanding between peoples. I am not for special status. That would would be true as it relates to native Americans. It would be true for other groups as well. I am Jewish, but I deplore the idea that Jews should have a "special status" because of two millinnea of antisemistism and the Holocaust: prejudice (on both the giving and receiving end is not the provence of any one group). I don't see either native Americans, African Americans, Jews, or any group as being "singled out".

Forgive the cliche, but I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water. There have been offensive uses of native logos, names, etc., in sports. IMHO, that is NOT what the U of I did with either the chief or the team name Illini.

There may be a need to adjust team names and even traditons, but they should happen out of common sense, not do to political correctness. The U of I can and does make a compelling argument as to why there is nothing offensive in intent or portrayl of the chief and the team. And on a strictly personal level, I buy in.

Maybe one question we need to ask is:
whose heritage is it?

If I look at team names (and related symbols) such as Minutemen, Cowboys, 49ers, Illini, among others, I see names that relate to the American experience. The shared American experience. And I'm not positive how that experience can be divided if it shared by all. If Native American groups object to the Chief or a team name such as Illini, I have to ask: do they have any more ownership than I do.

Let me explain: I live in Illinois. I'm a native. Does a native American who grew up in, California, and whose native ancestry is Hopi, Navahoo, or Iroquois have any more claim to a lineage (or more apporpriately, a connection) to the the tribes the Illini honor in their name? Personally I don't think they do.

There is a tremendous double standard in the acceptablility of European/white inspired nicknames (i.e. Vikings, Irish, Spartans, etc.) than there is in the lack of acceptablility of native names. Did native Americans get a much worse deal from white Americans down through the years? That's a no brainer. Of course they did, as did African Americans, Asians, Hispanics. The question is, should any of this have any bearing on the team naming issue in a current America that is diverse, a mix of groups, groups that intermarry. I think not.