Chief Illiniwek Supporter

This is from Charlene Teeters, one of the biggest complainers in the Anti-Chief movement. IIRC, she was the one who said she "sunk back into her seat in shame" during halftime of the first game she saw on campus. She also saw some sort of squaw dance by sorority girls during tailgates. Personally I never witnessed this during many, many years of attending games. But, people see what they want to see I guess. Who knows, maybe I just didn't recognize a squaw dance when I saw one. In any case, yes, I'm sure that Teeters thinks this is all the University has been known for in recent years. Our Supercomputing center has been entirely overshadowed by this. Top ten rankings in business and engineering studies weren't even noticed, thanks to Chief. At least in her not-so-humble opinion.

Ironically, that

That's still up in the air. Technically, the NCAA has not (yet) said that we cannot use the logo. But of course, that's just a matter of time. And since the Board of Trustees rolled over like a trained beagle on Illiniwek himself, they'll undoubtly voluntarily surrender the use of the logo at some time in the future; as soon as the professional whiners finish their parties and get their second wind the complaints will start about the logo, the name, the music.... What will happen with the logo is a bigger question. It moves a lot of merchandise and our wonderful administrators are just as money-hungry as they are cowardly. Here's an article on some of the thoughts currently being considered: http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/02...9b861136620.txt And one more: this one mentions one of the newest of the whining groups: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/265981,...chief21.article

Ah yes, but high and mighty Dartmouth is now lecturing to the great unwashed masses, at least officially. They've seen the light. Here's something I saw yesterday. It explains a little about how Duke came to choose the nickname Blue Devils (it has nothing to do with their current mascot) and asks if the choice would be repeated today using the same criteria: http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/s...k-2728086.shtml He repeats a lot of the same arguments made here. Nicknames are chosen to exemplify bravery, courage and spirit. Sometimes those people/animals chosen cannot speak for themselves; why some are "spoken for" and others are not can be considered a valid question IMHO.

Yep, that's an objection. But IMHO the same people would have objected if we had a female Latino or African-American portraying Chief this year. That wouldn't make the protestors feel better, nor would it matter to the NCAA. Their objections are not to the idea that he's white, nor to the idea that he's male. They object to the fact that he exists at all; not to Chief "as he currently exists". I personally believe that if we had a full-blooded Native American from a tribe that traced its roots to the Illiniwek Confederation, in fully authentic regalia, appearing in a manner ok'd by tribal elders there would still be people protesting. Just as I believe that there are those who object to the idea of Chief Osceola despite his okay from the Seminole Tribe. IMHO, those same people will still be mad even if next year Osceola is a full-blooded Seminole wearing regalia that belonged to his (or her) great great grandfather (or grandmother), riding a horse who was born on Seminole tribal land and carrying a flaming spear that was lit by the sun as it shone on Seminole tribal land. If and when Osceola is eliminated, he'll be gone no matter who was riding Renegade the day before. I agree: saying that in 2006-07 Chief is a white male is accurate. And I'll stand by what I said: the "idea" of Chief was eliminated last Friday, and it would have been eliminated whether Chief was currently embodied by a white male or a non-white female. If Chief had been a Latino for 80 years and a white for this last one, he still would have been gone. The fact that he currently is a white male does not matter. And it isn't worthy of inclusion. And I'm done on this subject.

I appreciate that. I understand that I'm a guest here and the facts surrounding North Dakota are different than what we have at Illinois. I want to state that at heart, I really do believe all of the supporters of the Fighting Sioux of North Dakota and the Fighting Illini of Illinois (and the supporters of Chief Illiniwek) are all on the same page. I think ALL of us would be happy if the NCAA just stayed out of things, and let our schools either attract students and athletes on our own or perhaps repel others. I read some of the things others post; and while I may point out certain things and quibble over some semantics, I respect that we're in search of the same goal. All I will say in response is that many of the people who don't like Chief Illiniwek also don't like "Illini". Just yesterday, one day after Chief's last dance, some group called "S.T.O.P." (I don't remember what it stands for, but the "P" is for Privileged) issued some sort of self-styled "press release" saying they wanted to eliminate the nickname. And there are others who demand that the University no longer use the MUSIC that the band played while Chief was on the field/court. Thus my reference above to Neville Chamberlain. Once you start appeasing these "victims", they'll never stop with further demands. I personally do not doubt that the protestors at Illinois will not be satisfied that Chief has been "retired". Bullies don't stop at just one day's lunch money. Technically, we're off the NCAA's list. But for longstanding conference tie-ins, we'd be "on" the list at Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota IMHO. The Bradley Braves are (technically) off the NCAA's list (double secret probation though) but on the list at Iowa. Have we satisfied the NCAA as of 2/22/07? Yes. But the NCAA didn't have a stance at all on this say, 15 years ago.

Question: if the Chief Illiniwek of 2006-07 had been non-white or non-male, would the decision announced on 2/16/07 to drop the use of the quote/unquote "idea" of the mascot called Chief Illiniwek been any different?? Would the NCAA have been more flexible? IMHO, no. You say it wasn't the point. Then why was it included? Whether I inferred it or you implied it, "a dancing white male mascot" was written. Everyone here is free to read your original blog-and the comments here-and decide what it means to themselves: the current person, or the larger concept of the "mascot" in its entirety. My interest here is merely historical accuracy.

To be honest, I'm not sure I quite understand the reference here. But believe me, there has been a number of people questioning whether this decision complies with the Illinois state statute compelling open meetings of public bodies. The Chief opponents were very quick to pull this law out to try and ensure that no discussion of Chief was taking place during non-scheduled Board of Trustee "meetings". But they've been silent about the fact that the Board Chairman took it upon himself to notify the public last Friday about this change in what should have decision made by the entire board of trustees, in a meeting open to the public. I'd love it if someone asked how and when a vote was taken.

I could not agree more. Your guess is as good as mine. On the subject of influential alumni, Roger Ebert has flip-flopped. First he came out with an editorial supporting the Chief, and shortly thereafter (I'd say no more than ten days later) he withdrew his support. Perhaps some of you have seen Bill Giest-he does those "here's a wacky festival that you haven't seen before" or "here's someone who collects oddly shaped twigs" stories for CBS; he's also a published author and is an Illinois alum. This popped up in the letters to the editor section of the local newspaper. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/opinions/...ll_need_ncaa_ok Some of our most notable supporters lately have been our athletic alums. We had a football player who introduced himself on Sunday Night Football as being from the "University of Chief Illiniwek" and just last Sunday a current NBA player said he'd favor keeping Chief.

The interesting thing is that they're sabre-rattling at high schools within their own state. Taxpayers support both UW and those high schools. If I were at UW, I wouldn't force people to choose. I personally know of a high school in Chicago (Gordon Tech) that at one time used the "GT" from Georgia Tech and switched to the "G" of either the University of Georgia or the Green Bay Packers. Nobody said anything in either instance-IIRC, the change was brought on by a new coach who came in. You probably couldn't count the number of high schools who use the horseshoe from the Colts. Or the Cowboys' star, or the Chargers' thunderbolt. Arizona State must see that devil symbol all over the place too. I can point out where there's a copy of the "WV" symbol of West Virginia. Pick and choose your battles, especially in-state. Because there's always the "W" from the University of Washington...

From the above-linked article:

Neville Chamberlain's name has been mentioned more than once in this discussion.

This has been my biggest problem with our Board of Trustees; we didn't make a judge go on record as saying anything. There's enough lawyers among the alumni so that the briefs and filings would be at no charge. And our Board president keeps claiming that he has a consensus. Part of the signature used by poster Sioux-cia says it all for me: "You're never a loser until you quit trying." Mike Ditka. Chicago takes credit for Da Coach, but he's actually from Western PA.

That's true too. And the Quakers of the University of Pennsylvania. Plus Division II football power Pittsburgh State; I'm suprised there's no mention of their nickname.

Thank you. I have recommended some sites to various people this morning, but as of now I cannot bring myself to view them. I'm sure it would represent some level of surrender in my mind.

http://siouxsports.com/forums/index.php?sh...=7929&st=20

Anyone who wants to see the "last dance" from 2/21/07 can view it at FightingIllini.com.

I guess the world is a little bit less of a hostile and abusive place this morning. Did you feel it when you woke up? Neither did I. Here

That letters section is a real piece of work. I especially laughed at the pompous writer who pronounced that Chief is supported by no more than 70% of the people in Champaign, and "that's not good enough". How does he know that its 70%?? And what exactly would be a "good enough" level of support? Who appointed him the judge of what's acceptable? Finally, I'd love for this genius to tell us all what symbol he suggests as a replacement for Chief. Because I'm sure his idea would be supported by at least 30% of the population.

For years, we heard how Chief Illiniwek was "divisive" and therefore the only way to end this "divisiveness" was to eliminate him: which implied that all of the people who supported him (the vast majority) would simply give up once he was gone, and life would simply go on the same way as always. Now we hear that the the way the decison was made was somehow "divisive". http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/200...es_of_the_chief There's simply no way to satisfy professsional complainers. There's no end to the ways they've been victimized by society. And they're the ONLY people to whom life has been unfair. BTW, here's my favorite part of the story. Translation: people who give money to the University are PO'd and we may end up losing some jobs here. And some of the people we drive by on the way to our tenured, protected jobs are probably going to see their income drop when tourism falls off in our town of about 100k people two hours from Chicago with no other attractions other than the University. So don't gloat publicly.

Religious high schools that use the nickname "Crusaders" have already been pressured to change.

Here's the first article I've seen that addresses that issue. Of course, nobody is suprised that Chief is a huge money maker and the University has had an attack of money-grubbing after kowtowing to the PC brigade; a few days ago dropping Chief was just the right thing to do, but today its "well, we have to think everything thru before we rashly make a decision we'll regret later": http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2007/02/20/s...s/sports002.txt One other item for your fans: I haven't seen this reported in the media yet, but various message boards are saying that the local Champaign activists with too much time on their hands are already saying that the Illini nickname is still unacceptable and they plan to continue to protest.

Here's a quibble that some will say is playing with semantics, but I'll offer it anyways. The University of Illinois has never referred to Chief as a mascot, but rather as a symbol of school spirit and pride-and that's going back over 20 years that I know of personally. Others have said it goes back to the 1960's, but in any case it definitely predates the current debate as well as the PC era. Some opponents used the word mascot in order to demonize Chief by conjuring up images of paper-mache, furry costumed-cheerleaders in the minds of the uninformed. Our Chief doesn't (or DIDN'T) run around during the game trying to hex opponents trying to shoot free throws, or hold his head when the other team scored or things like that. Some people believe that Chief behaved that way, and the anti-Chief group used "mascot" and threw in pictures of Purdue Pete and Herky Hawkeye to make it seem that we were using Chief as a glorified cheerleader. I know people will go to Websters and quote the definition and that's fine. But its not the way that our University used the term. Osceola is marginally different: he's on the field when the opponent is also on the field, and he hands off that flaming spear once a year. Illiniwek only appears at halftime when the teams are in the locker room; and nobody who hasn't been Chief is ever cast in the role of Chief or assists in any way.

It hasn't been decided yet. The University owns that trademark, and they fear giving it up into the public domain would be counter-productive: they say it could be used on toilet paper, etc. Some cynical types also mention that it would become a HUGE money-maker and eat into the profits of University-licensed jerseys, t-shirts, etc. But our board is altruistic, isn't it? They certainly wouldn't even think about crass commercialism. One option under discussion is to give (or loan) the use of that trademark to the group of former Chiefs. FWLIW, that logo has long since disappeared from our playing fields and courts, as well as our uniforms. We've been trying to appease the PC-police for over ten years. Obviously, the appeasement tactic didn't work.