For 80 years, no symbol in college sports captivated fans like Chief Illiniwek.
From his humble beginnings at an Illinois-Penn football game in 1927, the Chief represented the fighting spirit of the Native Americans who populated Illinois hundreds of years ago.
For some, that is.
Others, including a large segment of Native Americans around the country, believed that the Chief was a racially offensive mascot that did more harm than good for the state of Illinois.
Today's Must Reads
The NCAA stepped in by banning the school from hosting NCAA championship events. Illinois eventually relented—but when the Chief was officially retired on Feb. 21, 2007 during a basketball game against Michigan, it was a sad end to one of the most storied traditions in college sports.
The Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, and Atlanta Braves face no penalties for their Native American mascots. So why would the NCAA want to mess with tradition?
Is it because Illinois is a state school, or because NCAA officials don't have anything better to do with their time?
Is it because Illinois is in the middle of the best run in their basketball history, and headed to their first Rose Bowl in 23 years?
Or is it because our society is focused on things that really aren't important?
Academics and ethics are what matter for the NCAA. Somehow a mascot doesn't seem to me to be worthy of anyone's attention.
comments (4) write a comment »
write a new comment
8 months ago
"a large segment of Native Americans around the country, believed that the Chief was a racially offensive mascot that did more harm than good for the state of Illinois."
-yeah uh get your facts straight bro. there was no large segment of people that thought this was wrong.
U.S. census 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.
"Is it because Illinois is in the middle of the best run in their basketball history, and headed to their first Rose Bowl in 23 years?"
-and that matters because?
Bring up points that are relevant.
The only reason the U OF I BANNED the Chief was because they were going to be forced to give up BCS bowl eligibility and NCAA Basketball Tournament bids. The NCAA didn't get rid of the Chief. The U of I did because they had to or lose out on opportunities such as the Rose Bowl and March Madness.
8 months ago
Or is it because our society is focused on things that really aren't important?
---
The first responder wants to point to census data in support of his apparent argument as that native people were generally okay with the Chief and other native american sports mascots? If such statistics are relavant to the discussion, one doesn't have to look far if they want to gain a true appreciation of the racism and marginalization native people face - the vast majority of over 550 federally-recognized tribes regard native american mascots as a fictious, stereotypical, and disingenuous romanticism of their people on the part of mainstream culture - a culture from which they are routinely marginalized. They have said that the dipiction of native people is not only hurtful, but both hypocritical and incongruent with reality in the wake of western culture having lived out "manifest destiny," having both tortured and wiped out millions upon millions of native people.
And, let us not forget that less than 5% of our country's governmental representatives are of native descent, nor let us for who owns the media that feeds us what is and is not truth regarding this, or any native american issue - the media is not in the hands of those native people who have enough money and education to find a platform to articulate how they truly feel; in fact, such people are a small minority to begin with, but within this minority my bet is that you will find a large majority who intellectualize the issue for what it is - a mainstream culture numb to the fact that these images are one-dimensional, romanticized and represent absolutely no connection or love for the people that they purport to represent.
8 months ago
Anon, I would have to agree with you on that point. For whatever it's worth, the university had less than if I'm not mistaken, 1 percent Native Americans on their campus. How many of those few who were on the campus in Champaign were offended by a white guy dancing out in the middle of the court or the middle of Memorial Stadium on a campus visit? Plenty.
Will this change the university made on behalf of the mascot change the perception of the university? Probably. If you don't believe that it will, look at Mississippi State and Ole Miss, who had to deal with a huge image problem due to the racism that was there in the 60's and now has had African-Americans basketball coaches as well as a highly successful African-American football coach in the last 20 years.
8 months ago
See the quotes in "The Harm of Native Stereotyping: Facts and Evidence" (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/stharm.htm) for an explanation of why mascots matter.
write a new comment