Chief Illiniwek Controversy

Here is the Wikipedia page on the Chief Illiniwek, here is the website of the anti-Chief people, here is the website of the pro-Chief, more information can be found doing a yahoo or google search. here was my initial view on this situation, before i read any of the above information.

My take on the controversy:

does anybody want to debate this with me (maybe a lawyer or two in the thread), cause i've been thinking about this for a while and I agree with the indians side. let me quickly explain my reasoning. what i don't think illini people realize is what exactly this means to the indian population. let me put it into kappa sig terms and you can tell me if my analogy is wrong or shouldn't or doesn't apply.

something like this would be analogous to another group of people coming into our fraternity house, killing the majority of our brothers, stealing the house from us and putting the survivors in a shitty ass house with no reedeming value far away. then, these people start blaspheming and desecrating our ritual and ceremonies by totally doing it wrong and totally not understanding the meaning of it, etc., etc., and thus, in our eyes, mocking it and mocking us every time they do this pseudo-ceremony.

as if this wasn't enough, they add insult to injury about this by claiming that their own meaning and value for their interpretation of our ritual and ceremonies supersedes or takes precedence over the original and intended meaning that us, the originators of the ceremonies, gave to it. they say it makes it all right for them to do our ritual and ceremony whatever way they want because they've been doing it this way for many years (like 80 or something i think, you illini could correct me on this) and for them it stands for noble things like honor, integrity, tradition, etc., etc.

that's what i think illini people don't understand, that for these indian people, this cheif illiniwik ceremony is tantamount to shitting and pissing on the cross and the altar in a church for a christian and then being told by the very people who are doing the shitting and pissing that this is all right and shouldn't be stopped because for the shitters and pissers, their ceremony stands for good and noble things. am i missing anything here in my reasoning about this?

even after all this, i guess the burden depends on whose interpretation of this ceremony takes precedence or should trump the other interpretation. does the originator's interpretation take priority and thus, the ceremony should be stopped because it's highly offensive to them, or does the borrower's interpretation take priority and trump the originator's interpretation, because of the length of time it's been going on and the good things it signifies for the borrower's? does anybody want to advance any arguments about which interpretation should take precedence here? maybe some legal precedent speaks to this subject? anybody, anybody..

my fraternity brother jason replied:

The only differnce is, if I understand it correctly,
is that the tribes that made up the Illini Indians
made a traditional headress for the univeristy of IL
back in 1927, the second year of the illini tradition.
Since then the Illini Indians have become extinct,
and the people who say they have a problem with the
Chief have nothing to do with the Illini Indians.  If
the real Indians that made the headress and encourged
the univeristy than what is the problem with
continueing the tradition.

my fraternity brother nick said:

which illini indian people are offended? none, they don't exist anymore. they are a tribe gone for many years now. wiped off the face of they earth by people we never even met. maybe those who oppose the mascot need to change their negative thinking and think of it as a tribute to those who have come before us. since indian culture is dead, besides the casinos in the wasteland of america, the half time rituals give young people a look and better understanding of a culture that has long been gone. i don't see any native americans promoting their culture to anyone, if anything they sell it like whores. why not instead of bitching about mascots they lobby to get more native american culture in the education system?

who can really comment on the rituals of a culture that has not existed for 100 years or more? how can they, the accuser, possibly know if what they want to be more accurate, isn't already incredicley accurate? they can't because they weren't there when it was actually happening.

rituals differ from individual to individual. reinemann performed differently than urban and nate different from henderson. same content, different spin.

according to keith oberman(spelling) on the dan patrick show today, a recent poll showed that most(over 75%) of native americans do not care about this issue.

i highly doubt that the people who pick the mascot to begin with thought it would be awesome to rub it into the indians faces. instead they honored their people. picking a mascot that shows honor, toughness, and respect.

I replied:

after thinking about your responses for a night, i guess that my next question would be that if the people who are opposing the cheif are not the descendents of the illini indians and if they don't have any information about what this dance originally consisted of, then what basis do they have to both 1) make their argument against it and 2) to be offended by it's portrayal? i guess nick's statement about the misguidedness of this attack on the cheif, which I think I now agree with if all of what you guys said is true, that 'since indian culture is dead, besides the casinos in the wasteland of america, the half time rituals give young people a look and better understanding of a culture that has long been gone. i don't see any native americans promoting their culture to anyone, if anything they sell it like whores. why not instead of bitching about mascots they lobby to get more native american culture in the education system?' is an extremely good and valid point. if these people were really concerned about perceptions of indian culture or it's accurate portrayal (or inaccurate misportrayal) to the general populace, they could affect more change by affecting the educational system in early schools instead of protesting a college mascot.

also, i think that the vast majority of native americans who are living today don't care about this issue says a lot. I guess since nobody knew the original meaning of this ceremony and none of the descendents of those who would have known even exist anymore, i see know reason for disallowing the ceremony, given that the original meaning of the ceremony is the meaning it has today and nobody is alive who can genuinely be offended by it. Where the fuck do these people come from who are always offended by everything? Maybe they shouldn't be so sensitive. I'm offended by people who get offended at stupid shit, like these people now seem to be, but you don't hear me complaining. Thanks for the information about this guys, I appreciate it.

Nick replied:

i knew you would see it my way.

I replied:

i don't know anymore man, after reading the wikipedia page, i don't know what i think. it looks like originally the descendents were all for the chief, and then somebody else gained power and met with some students, and now they are against the chief. i still lean towards your view because of 1) the descendents waffling on the controversy, 2) the fact that some women's kids, who are not even descendents of the illiniwek indians, are the initially offended people, and 3) what it means to the university. i thought you had a really good argument though, way better than any of the other guys at least

Nick replied:

i feel education is the best way to reach people and have them understand. i was never offered a class on american indians in any system and that is the real crime.

My fraternity brother Jared said:

It is clear that everyone needs to review their Native American history
and culture.  A good book collection to start with is narrated by Mary
Brave Bird.  In these texts she discusses her people's plight through a
collection of facts and personal suffrage.  Mary Brave Bird discusses
the issue of other people using her ancient and deeply spiritual
cultural in other non-cultural affairs as is disgusted by such actions.
Anglo-Saxons stripped Native Americans of their culture, and continue to
mock them to this day.  Why did 75% of Native Americans not care about
the issue? Probably because they are worried about how they are going to
eat or sleep...or maybe they are worried about the millions of tons of
waste deposited (both toxic and nontoxic) on the pitiful wastelands, we
comfortably call "reservations."  Perhaps we should look at the 360+
treaties the American government has broken, or the 40 billion we stole
from their reservations in the form of oil. The last thing we need to
discuss is some fucking douche bag mocking an ancient culture and
people, we should be discussing how we are going to pay them back for
the acts of genocide committed by our ancestors, our government, and our
inability to act morally or ethically.  Not only have we destroyed an
ancient people we have turned their mother earth into a state of utter
peril.  If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the
problem, find a charity today.