![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hail to the Chief
May. 1st, 2006 09:14 pmI don’t know if this counts as “politics” or not, but I feel compelled to jump into the debate regarding Chief Illinwek.
I read this article by C. E. Petit, an attorney and fellow U of I alumni. I am one of the alumni who have not remained in the area (despite having grown up 30 miles away) and so recognize myself in Petit’s article. Despite my being an out-of-towner, I feel qualified to comment.
I support the Chief, whether you call him a mascot or a symbol. My logic is simple – the attempt to get rid of the Chief is simply political correctness run amuck. When the Chief was first created, in 1926, every effort was made to create an authentic “Indian” portrayal, as best as possible given the constraints of the time. See http://www.uillinois.edu/trustees/dialogue/report_files/IV.html for the back story. Chief among the problems facing those who created the Chief were that the Illini “tribe” never really existed – “Illini” was a name for a confederation of related tribes, none of which survived into the 20th century.
But unlike the parade of “mascots” who followed, the Chief:
1) Never “hung out” with cheerleaders
2) Certainly never rode around on a horse on the sidelines (see the Florida Seminoles, a tribe that never even seen a horse until Andrew Jackson)
3) Danced to a song that can be traced back to the 1600’s.
Lastly, the people who have started the protests against the Chief are, although American Indians, not of the tribes represented, and have no more “standing” to complain then I do.
Petit is correct in saying that the expedient thing to do would be to ditch the Chief. Sometimes the expedient thing isn’t the right thing, and sometimes we need to draw a line in the sand. Not because the line has any particular merit, but because if we don’t, we’ll end up retreating all the way into the water.
I read this article by C. E. Petit, an attorney and fellow U of I alumni. I am one of the alumni who have not remained in the area (despite having grown up 30 miles away) and so recognize myself in Petit’s article. Despite my being an out-of-towner, I feel qualified to comment.
I support the Chief, whether you call him a mascot or a symbol. My logic is simple – the attempt to get rid of the Chief is simply political correctness run amuck. When the Chief was first created, in 1926, every effort was made to create an authentic “Indian” portrayal, as best as possible given the constraints of the time. See http://www.uillinois.edu/trustees/dialogue/report_files/IV.html for the back story. Chief among the problems facing those who created the Chief were that the Illini “tribe” never really existed – “Illini” was a name for a confederation of related tribes, none of which survived into the 20th century.
But unlike the parade of “mascots” who followed, the Chief:
1) Never “hung out” with cheerleaders
2) Certainly never rode around on a horse on the sidelines (see the Florida Seminoles, a tribe that never even seen a horse until Andrew Jackson)
3) Danced to a song that can be traced back to the 1600’s.
Lastly, the people who have started the protests against the Chief are, although American Indians, not of the tribes represented, and have no more “standing” to complain then I do.
Petit is correct in saying that the expedient thing to do would be to ditch the Chief. Sometimes the expedient thing isn’t the right thing, and sometimes we need to draw a line in the sand. Not because the line has any particular merit, but because if we don’t, we’ll end up retreating all the way into the water.
