Why do you think the chief was retired by the university? Who put the most pressure on to ban him? Do you think the university should have succumbed to this pressure? The chief had been the Illini mascot since 1926. Should the U of I have tried harder to keep him? Do you think it was too politically correct to remove the chief?
Here are some sites to visit if you do not know much about this issue:
www.honorthechief.org
www.prairienet.org/prc/prcanti.html
12 comments:
I think that the cheif rtired by the university could bring the school spirit out of University of Illinois. The reason why i sad this is becuase I a like Illinois basketball and if you make the chief retire what will the community believe in when they go see any U of I sports? They will not get to see the Cheif becuase just watching him dance brings the spirit into us and that whats makes the U of I so great for having team spirit. If they also stop selling Cheif merchandise that will bring the spirit more down becuase everyone in the Champaign/Urbana area owns a Cheif product either if its a t-shirt, coffe mug, football, and etc this will just have everyone afraid to won this piece of history just because some political crect pepole banned the chief. I believe that it's the pepole that want to be political corect that put the prssure to retire the chief becuase they (the pepole who bannded the chief) want to be political corect and does not want to harm any one but other schools can celebrate with their team mascott. The university did succumbed to the pressure becuse the university did not want to have a lawsuit on their hands. I believe that the university should of did a better job to keep the chief so that we can have a mascot and have something to believe in. I believe that it to %100 politically correct people who remove the chief. Also what about the Florida Seminols? How did they keep their mascot? i can tell you it was all about the money.
Brian Siscoe
The chief has been a tradition for the U of I for many years. I Do understand why the chief had to go. I don't believe it was fair but something had to happen. The native americans thought we were making fun of their traditions with the chief dancing and the whole mascot. The native americans were one of the biggest people pressuring the ban. Even thought i don't think us making fun of them was the case at all and that we were trying to celebrate them, I think people got to upset over whole thing. Their was to much talking and backstabing throughout the whole debate. I think it got a little out of control, because then students did start saying bad things to the native americans and about them. My mother works at the U of I and some of the things that she told me students were doing, that rarely got printed in the papers, was making fun of the indians. So I think something had to happen becasue of the way the students reacted and the things that were happening on campus. I think this was one of the main reasons the administration believed that they had to ban him. Althought I believe it was time for it to go. Believe me I am a big Illini Chief fan, but I think the issue was bringing to much argueing againt each party and it just became to much, and something had to happen.
Jenna Kirts
I think that the U of I only retired the chief so they wouldn’t have to hear any more complaints from Native Americans. I think that the Native Americans and the NCAA put the most pressure on the school. I just don’t understand why Chief Illiniwek had to be retired, yet there are professional teams which degrade and embarrass Native Americans. The Washington Redskins use a term for Native Americans which would be the same as using the n-word to describe a black man. The Cleveland Indians’ logo is the head of a “Indian” with a huge smile, big eyes, and a feather sticking out of his head; this shows no sign of respect to Native Americans. I also don’t understand why part of the reason that people wanted Chief Illiniwek banned was because it was a white man dressed in an authentic Native American outfit, and doing a dance that wasn’t even a real Indian dance, and the Florida State Seminoles have a white man dressed up in a store bought Indian wardrobe and sitting on a horse with his face painted, but their mascot isn’t even mentioned as being disrespectful to the Native American race. I think that chief Illiniwek was a sign of respect to the Native Americans. He wasn’t running around making a fool of himself, and trying to get a laugh out of the crowd. Everyone at the football and basketball games looked forward to half time so that they would be able to see the legendary Chief Illiniwek. I definitely think that the University should have fought harder, much harder, to keep the Chief as a symbol of the U of I. I don’t see how Chief Illiniwek was politically incorrect in the first place, especially when compared to Native American mascots of other collegiate and professional teams. I think it’s ridiculous that Native Americans would want to ban one of the few national symbols that show respect and honor to them.
Cory Schlensker
I think that the chie was retired by the University because it was completely racist. They had to retire the chief because it was an embarassment to the university, other schools looked at us like racists. Other schools that had mascots that were racist dropped theirs too. I don't think it matters how long the chief was the mascot, if the university kept him their would have been serious negative consequences that effected the school. I think there was pressure from many places including the Native Americans. In 2007, should an entire university and society have to be told that what they are doing is racist by the people that they are hurting. I think it's too bad it went on as long as it did, and no it was not too politically correct.
Katie Moore
The Chief was retired by the Trustees because the NCAA imposed sanctions against the University for having the Chief as a mascot. The Trustees definitely felt pressure by the NCAA, and I think the NCAA felt pressure by the Native Americans. I do think the Trustees made the right decision. They tried to appeal, without success. There was no way the NCAA was going to budge on their decision with the University of Illinois. A year before the Chief was actually retired the men's tennis team couldn't host their championship games because of the sanctions. That was unfortunate. They did well, but there's nothing like having home field advantage during championship games. As long as we kept the Chief we weren't going to host any championship games. I grew up loving the Chief, but came to realize that he was offensive to a lot of people. The University is a school known internationally and accepts people from all cultures and races. The University needs to ensure that everyone is being treated equally. It was time for the University to finally make a decision and move forward.
Angie
I think that someone made a stink about it. I wonder why they had to do it now when the tribe is gone?
I think that the NCAA put the pressure on the university. From what I have heard that the chief is not a mascot but a symbol of the university. A mascot is a person that appears the beginning, during, and after the games or activities. The chief only came out during half time. It didn't stay out cheering the team on all game long. I don't think that the NCAA had any real good footing because he wasn't really a mascot.
The U of I should had tried harder to keep him. I think that They took the easy way out. There were alot of gray areas. I personal think that they should have fought harder.
Simon Auth
I think the chief was retired to end the debate. I think the the majority of the pressure came from the asian comunity, I only say that becase they were the only ones i only saw fighting it. One of my close friends is a native american and was very up set when the chef was retired. The cheif was a selabration of this states heritage. It is my understanding that the dance is taught by the native americans. Yes, the U of I should have fought harded to keep him, this is an example of minorities taking away others freedom. This is a democrocy pepole!! I'm saying that minorites don't matter don't get me wrong. I feel that people just want a cause to fight for and this was it, what is next???
Jason Gordon
The chief was a symbol of strength, and was never meant to be disrespectful to anyone. He was our mascot, just like any other college or university, and he pumped up the croud with every performance that he gave. The only reason that the UofI got rid of the chief was because they were tired of dealing with bad publicity. Most of the people who opposed it were decedends of the Native Americans who once inhabited this land. I think they should have been proud of thier heritage, and instead of forcing the university to retire the chief, they should have tried to compromise by working with the chief to better represent them. I don't believe the UofI should have ever let these people talk them into removing their mascot, as it has been known by the same thing for almost a century now. The name Illinois is a Native American term, and so getting rid of the chief, to me, makes just as much sense as changing the name of the state! We should have fought harder to keep him, as he was a great motivater and crowd pleaser at the games. What's next? A big pack of snakes rebelling against Parkland for being the Cobras? That's how much sense it makes to me.
Emily Bown
I am personally glad to see the cheif go. I believe the cheif was disrespectful to the Native Americans because we stole their land, turn them into slaves, and gave them the tinyest piece of land for them to live. And after all we did to the native american race the University mocks these people by using their native costumes. If the University used any other important costumes from any other enthic group, this debate would have happened years ago. It finally took a group of people, many who have native american blood in them, to get the Cheif retired. I think the Univeristy was in the wrong in the first place to turn the native americans costumes into their entertainment.
Lena Fatheree
To me i am not much a basketball fan but, my boyfriend and his mom is heavy. What I have learned I think that the UI should of tried harder on trying to keep a tratation. The illiniwek has been around sence 1926. The UI was not being racist using the chief as a symbol and a mascot. I just learned that the Illini had no post season tournaments due to NCAA. If the UI had tryed harder the PRC might of change the theroy of the chief
Jennifer Chounard
my opinion is that there was no problem with the chief and i dont think there should be. there are too many people today that like to complain. these people need to get over it i don knoew the whole story of the chief but i do know that if everyone would just mind thier own business the world would be a better place to live in. all people do anymore is create problems for themselves and others. the chief was a deal that was blown out of proportion. i am sick of all of this. i say forget about it now because it is over with, but it never should have been a problem.
Hail to the chief!
caleb
Chief Illini had to go, and I'm glad he did. The U of I dragged its feet in getting rid of him because of $$. They didn't want to offend the alums.
Universities are supposed to be institutions of LEARNING, not sporting. All of this hoo-hah about the chief just drew attention to the fact that way too many schools put athletics before academics. This is because athletics bring in cash. In effect, the university has been prostituting its reputation. They'd rather look like unfeeling racists than lose money. They'd rather put their $$ into sports than into education. How much sense does it make that the football coach makes more than twice what the college president makes? That's just crazy.
I liked the chief. I liked the tradition and the song and all, but if you think the University ever really cared about the chief, you're kidding yourself. They only cared about the $$--and that's why I'm glad to see they didn't get their way on this one. I hope the alums really do pull their cash back, as they threatened to. It would serve the university right and serve as a reminder that education should come first at a university and all other concerns a distant second.
Nick Wiggins
Post a Comment