LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

RBANA, Ill. (AP) -- The University of Illinois will drop its 81-year-old American Indian mascot, Chief Illiniwek, following the last men's basketball home game of the season on Wednesday, officials said.

The move makes the school eligible to host postseason NCAA championship events.

The NCAA in 2005 deemed Illiniwek -- portrayed by buckskin-clad students who dance at home football and basketball games and other athletic events -- an offensive use of American Indian imagery and barred the university from hosting postseason events.

American Indian groups and others have complained for years that the mascot, used since 1926, is demeaning. Supporters of the mascot say it honors the contributions of American Indians to Illinois.

Illinois still will be able to use the name Illini because it's short for Illinois and the school can use the term Fighting Illini, because it's considered a reference to the team's competitive spirit, school officials said. It is unclear if the school will get a new mascot.

LINK:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

Wow...

Is the man in the picture Native American? I thought they tried this at FSU and the seminole people flipped out and protested the white protesters...quite ironic.

DARN IT SONNY....you stole my thunder...

http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/6478400?MSNHPHMA

How is this offensive, just curious...

The NCAA has its A-List and its B-List. It's another arbitrary shot taken at Illinois, king of the B-List whipping boys.

It has long been queried how this situation (which I can attest has always been a situation of respect toward the Native American heritage--NEVER have I seen these symbols or what they represent disparaged at Illinois) differs materially from other "blessed" programs. Look at A-List Notre Dame, for one. How 'bout the Noles? Even the Fighting Sioux may get a reprieve from the PC police, I haven't kept up. SDSU Aztecs? No problem. I'm sure there are dozens of others but . . . this is Illinois we're talking about.

Beta wrote:How is this offensive, just curious...

I don't know, why not ask a Native American? After all, we only stole their lands, broke the treaties that we did sign with them, massacred them at will, forcibly relocated them across many states...etc.
And they don't like it when white students dress up like their revered leaders and prance around athletic events. But hey, we pay homage to them by playing their game - wahoo!

This political correctness has gotten WAY out of hand.

Oh, FWIW, the avatar stays.

it's these situations where I am glad the MCLA is NOT apart of the NCAA...

I don't know, why not ask a Native American? After all, we only stole their lands, broke the treaties that we did sign with them, massacred them at will, forcibly relocated them across many states...etc.
And they don't like it when white students dress up like their revered leaders and prance around athletic events. But hey, we pay homage to them by playing their game - wahoo!

This political correctness has gotten WAY out of hand.

That wasn't in my U.S. history book. Why do you hate America?

For a not-so-quick survey of nicknames, see:

http://www.smargon.net/nicknames/.

Maybe "Banana Slugs" is the way to go. Another curiosity--the nickname of the Haskell Indian Nation University in Kansas? the "Indians". Go figure.

I agree with Graybear...apparently you can be named the Seminoles, Aztecs, etc and that's alright...but this is wrong?

Im going to start protesting mascots I find offensive...and it doesn't matter if other people just like me (white males ages 18-35) don't mind...Im going to raise heck over it.

The Delta State Fighting Okra is just plain wrong and hurtful. Okra is a peaceful vegetable...and they turned it into this abusive, cannibalistic womanizer...how can they sleep at night !?

You rutabaga!

Athletic nicknames

The link above has a sort of a preface that there are no reference sources, but it is interesting to read the last paragraph called "Native American likeness." My first question is if the objections raised by the Native American organizations were probably based on finding those offensive and insulting and at the same time in a sense for economic reasons. Since colleges and universities have trademarks, they get to garner revenues from apparels, logos, etc, and the funds are not going to the Native American organizations.

If that is the case, the animals, the vegetables, et al. would demand monetary restitutions. Of course, that is far-fetched.

Historically, when the issue of finding school nicknames demeaning and offensive start? In the 1980's? Why not bring that up in the 1910's or 1920's? When did the licensing of team uniforms, logos, apparel begin?

To me, I can understand that some of those things may deem offensive, but most important of all, it boils down to money. Everyone wants the pot of gold.

My wife is an alum of William & Mary and received this letter from the college president:

I am compelled to say, at the outset, how powerfully ironic it is for the College of William & Mary to face sanction for athletic transgression at the hands of the NCAA. The Association has applied its mascot standards in ways so patently inconsistent and arbitrary as to demean the entire undertaking. Beyond this, William & Mary is widely acknowledged to be a principal exemplar of the NCAA's purported, if unrealized, ideals.....

.....Meanwhile, across the country, in the face of massive academic underperformance, embarrassing misbehaviors on and off the field, and grotesque commercialization of intercollegiate athletics, the NCAA has proven hapless, or worse. It is galling that a university with such a consistent and compelling record of doing things the right way is threatened with punishment by an organization whose house, simply put, is not in order.

full text here: http://www.wm.edu/news/?id=6869

It is ironic since William & Mary was originally founded as an Indian school, hence there nickname being the Tribe. I think his point about the NCAA applying its standards that are inconsistent is the root of this whole problem. On some levels I can see where Indians are offended. Personally, I find the mascot "Redskins" to be an offensive name for a team. Names like Seminoles, Illini, Indians, etc. seem no more disrespectful than Sooners or Minutemen. They denote certain groups of people and often use the characteristics of those groups as a rallying point.

Where I think some institutions, both schools and professional teams, cross the line is in the depiction of those groups, such as the Illini and the Cleveland Indians. Underlying all of this is what many Indians feel is a theft of their cultural identity and it gives them a stake in how that is portrayed, if it is to be portrayed at all. If you know any Indians you will know that this is important to many of them. In the case of the Seminoles it seems they have the backing of the Seminole Nation with regard to their mascot, consult with them about how it is portrayed. This seems like a good situation and one that will benefit both the college and the Seminoles.

I saw a news program on this a few year ago, which revolved principally around Charlene Teters, the woman who was the catalyst for the protesting. The gist of her argument was that the Chief's head symbol was used by shopkeepers in their store windows to advertise that they would pay cash for "Indian" scalps, and that Chief Illiniwek is a further mockery of this.

There's been a lot of argument about it being true or not, since it was supposedly an unofficial symbol, but if true, it is a powerful argument. A great deal of the bad feeling probably stems from that story.