ACor58 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I am not Native American. However, I am having trouble understanding what is offensive about Chief Illiniwek, as it seems like a tribute to the six Native American Tribes that resided in the region. However, the all mighty NCAA doesn't think so. On the other hand, is there really a more offensive name than the "Redskins"? Somehow this name is ok? http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2767980 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The NCAA standards for what is offensive are random at best. "Seminoles"? No problem. "Fighting Irish"? OK. "Fighting Illini"? RACISTS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigdaddyinOrlando Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Also think that if the "Illini" were ripping off records of 10-2,11-1 there would be a large amount of people against this idea of removing a mascott that has been there for over 80 years!! PC run amuck again!! The squeky wheel gets the grease!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I am not Native American. However, I am having trouble understanding what is offensive about Chief Illiniwek, as it seems like a tribute to the six Native American Tribes that resided in the region. However, the all mighty NCAA doesn't think so. On the other hand, is there really a more offensive name than the "Redskins"? Somehow this name is ok? http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2767980 "Redskin" - technically - refers to ceremonial war paint, not skin color. Miami (OH) up the road from me was attacked several years ago for their Redskin team name. So much for free speech. They changed it to the Redhawks. There were some spiffy suggestions at the time - replace the logo with a Mexican peanut - a redskin peanut - and since Miami (oh) has decent baseball, golf, and hockey teams, change the name to the "FourSkins". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 "Redskin" - technically - refers to ceremonial war paint, not skin color. Miami (OH) up the road from me was attacked several years ago for their Redskin team name. So much for free speech. I'm not sure you really understand what free speech means. It doesn't mean that people can say anything they want and everybody else has to STFU if they don't like it. It means the state doesn't restrict one's speech and leaves it to the people to decide what they will accept and what they won't. In the instance you site, free speech is working perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBilliever Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I go to IUP. Indiana Indians. Note: the word Indian is in the word Indiana. We had to change the mascot, since the grizzly bear was offensive to the Indian tribes of old. Now the Crimson Hawks. Woopee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roch-cha-cha-bill Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 this topic always amuses me...like someone just said the fight irish is "dirogatory" but you dont here the Irish complaining...the San Diego Padres is "dirogatory" towards Catholics...no Catholics are complaining...yet the Native Americans find this to be ofensive...its strange to me, but that is just my opinion... I took a class in college on Native American culture, and my paper/presentation was on this topic. The class was taught by a Iroquois Indian, and he encouraged us to speak freely and not both sides in arguments such as these...so I argued both sides, but found the arguments for the Native American side to hold no weight, I mean its rediculous to me that they find it insulting...We are honoring them by naming our multi-million dollar franchises after them...its insane...im Irish, and I dont give a rats behind that Notre Dame calls its sports team the Fighting Irish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike In Illinois Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Living near the University of Illinois (and working at a local TV station) I've been subject to this debate for the past seven years; it's been going on for 12-15 years now. Some people (students and faculty among others) deem Chief Illiniwek as racist and offensive. They feel the University is harboring racists and promoting racism by allowing the Chief to perform at halftime (those who portray the Chief take courses as a performance art, I believe, for class credit. They learn about the history of the Chief and the significance of the dance). The pro-Chief group, seemingly led by a pocket of boosters, alumni and students do not see the Chief as anything but a symbol of the University and see it as a sense of pride and history (the Chief dates back to 1926 as part of the Marching Illini). The timing is important as the past few years, due to incompliance with the NCAA, Illinois has not been allowed to host postseason NCAA Tournament events (women's basketball and tennis to name a few). This does not include postseason conference tourneys. Now that the men's basketball team is struggling to make the NCAA tourney and is "doomed" to the NIT, it has the possibilty of hosting games in that tourney, but only if they comply with the NCAA sanctions on hostile/abusive mascots/imagery. Bottom line, the timing allows the U of I to make money of it's cash cow in athletics; Men's bball. A couple of notes: they are keeping the nickname "Fighting Illini", as it derives from the name given to the group of men and women who fought in the First World War (The Fighting Illini). However, anti-Chief people are going to fight this. Also, the image of the Chief on apparel (t-shirts, sweatshirts, etc.) may still appear, as there is not apparent NCAA conflict; it only deals with athletics. I know this only scratches the surface for you, but I do hope it sheds some light. I for one hope this goes away and we can worry about that sorry football team (who ended Syracuse's losing streak in 2006) and rebuilding a wrecked basketball team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I am not Native American. However, I am having trouble understanding what is offensive about Chief Illiniwek, as it seems like a tribute to the six Native American Tribes that resided in the region. However, the all mighty NCAA doesn't think so. On the other hand, is there really a more offensive name than the "Redskins"? Somehow this name is ok? http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2767980 Surprised it took so long; I remember my Native American English Prof. talking about that in the Spring of '99. I wrote an anti-pc paper on the subject and needless to say got like a D or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Flanders Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I am offended that this is not on the off-topic board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 The NCAA standards for what is offensive are random at best. "Seminoles"? No problem. "Fighting Irish"? OK. "Fighting Illini"? RACISTS! Not random at all FSU Seminole jerseys = Big $$$ Notre Dame Fighting Irish jerseys = Big $$$ Illinois Illini jerseys = not a big seller almighty dollar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatPatPatSack Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Surprised it took so long; I remember my Native American English Prof. talking about that in the Spring of '99. I wrote an anti-pc paper on the subject and needless to say got like a D or something Hah hah, back in the day, stupid rants got the D they deserved. Fast forward to today.......... of course I'm not gettin collich credit for this either.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Surprised it took so long; I remember my Native American English Prof. talking about that in the Spring of '99. I wrote an anti-pc paper on the subject and needless to say got like a D or something Reminds me of a public speaking class I had in college. We'd give a short 5 minute or so speech every class and professor and other students in the class would critique them. With the exception of one speech the worst I got was a C+ with critiques like use better enunciation, make eye contact, use hand gestures, etc. Then we had to come up with a persuasion speech. I did mine on curbing illegal immigration. Professor barely critiqued my style at all. In his notes he asked if I used Rush Limbaugh as a source and told me my views would change when I was a grown up . The other student's critiques were more positive, both on style and content. I got a D on that speech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHOUTBOX MONSTER! Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I am offended that this is not on the off-topic board. ...it's probably here for all the die-hard Duke Preston fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts