Write a paragraph response to the movie In Whose Honor? Respond to the following statement: Native American mascots are always a sign of disrespect toward native groups of people. If you agree, give supporting statements from the movie to illustrate your point. If you disagree, use specific examples to show your point. Be sure to follow the "hamburger" method of paragraph writing. Think carefully about your topic sentence and your conclusion.
*** Remember to use your first name, "Nekrosius," and your class period number when you sign your post (do NOT put your last name). Also, if you choose to respond to what another classmate wrote, please do so in a respectful manner.
42 comments:
I think that the intent of the idea was good but the result turned out bad. The people at the university of IL should have researched more before making "the chief" permanent. The people at the U of I should have talked to real native americans for information. I think that its terrible if your children lose self confidence. I think it was great how she stood out side and endured are the criticism. She really wanted people to know that native americans were people and not things, she really stood up to stereotypical people.
Jiji Nekrosius
Period 8-9
There is someone with the topic sentence of which I agree with.
The central idea was not, purposely, supposed to turn out bad. At the University of Illinois, students liked the dances, and appreciated their morality. In "Those Who Honor", the narrator states that Mascots were not intended to be mean, at first, but as new mascots were thought of, and developed, Mascots became more of a symbol of "racism", and people were concerned about it. In conclusion, the idea of Mascots from my point of view, is wrong, because it is completely pointless, and at the same time, very hurtful.
Vivek Nekrosius
Period 8-9
I'm a bit ambivalent about this. I don't think that ALL Native American mascots are offensive. In the case of the U of I; they didn't plan well enough before actually making "the chief" their mascot. But not all the universities were like the U of I. Stanford WAS a great example of the mascots NOT being offensive, because before they deemed all of the Native American mascots offensive they had an ACTUAL Native American Chief dance at half time. I know this because my father went to Stanford, and he talked to the chief at Stanford, who thought that by deeming the Mascots offensive they were killing a chance for his people to show their culture. Please could someone respond to this and say their thoughts about this?
Will Nekrosius
Period 8-9
Jiji Neksius 89-
What do you mean when you said "I think that the intent was good but the result was bad?
-Katie Nekrosius
3-4
I think that all MODERN day mascots are very disrespectful and offensive. This is my thought because all the mascots make fun of the Native American Tribes. For example, the Fighting Illini's mascot is " Chief" and this mascot is offensive because the dances that he does for a crowd to laugh at him is what get real Native American boys to become men. Most of the dances that he does are not even what the Indians do. I think that wearing the real headdress and clothing is disrespectful because not only are they making fun of their tribe and culture their doing it with the Native Americans own things. The things that they wear are really important to a real Native American tribe and to wear it for some athletic sport is just a slap in the face.
Another disrespectful mascot/logo is the Cleveland Indians logo. The logo is very disrespectful because it is a picture of a little Native American who has a mischievous look on his face as if he was making fun of Native Americans. The logo is also offensive because not only is it mocking the Native Americans clothing ( the feather in his hair), but it is sending the message that Native americans aren't important. These are the reasons that I think MODERN day mascots/logos are disrespectful.
Andre Nekrosius 3-4
I agree very much so with jiji, i think she mad a good point in that there intent was not bad.
The people at the university of IL and many other teams and school had a good intent. They had no idea that they were hurting a race. But also they would not just send out a african american or a caucasian man to entertain people. In the movie the woman said that she was in tears because they had put some one in a costume and started dancing around to some made up dance. While they should have done research and actually respected the indians for who they are they just ended up offending people. Overall people did not have a bad intent but turned into being offensive.
Natalie Nekrosius
period 8-9
I agree with Jiji, one thing I'd like to add is that I don't think Charlene was disappointed only because the dance wasn't traditional, and the costume was from the Sioux instead of Illini. As she said before: "I think it would have been better, if the mascots were fake cartoon figures" Obviously, cartoon figures would be a lot less traditional than the present mascot; but people would know that a cartoon figure was fake and unrealistic. In this case, people think that the mascot is original. I think thats what hurts her. I also think that all the people who think the Mascot's dance is "respectful" are very inconsiderate. If the Mascots are supposed to be respectful to Native Americans; and the Native Americans on the other hand finds it very rude then how is that right?? How can that be "respectful" in anyway?
Emily Nekrosius
Period 8-9
Native American mascots are not always a sign of disrespect to Native American people. Native American mascots are not always a sign of disrespect although a mascot can be portrayed differently to different people. It depends on how the mascot is being portrayed. In the movie, Charlene Teters says that she would not have been as offended if the mascot was a cartoon. Where as the chief Illiniwek was real. Chief illiniwek’s costume was real buffalo hide and was from the Sioux as well as Chief Illiniwek’s head piece. It was disrespectful to Native Americans when Chief Illiniwek wore the headpiece and the costume and then did the dance that had nothing to do with Native Americans. Native Americans also might have found it disrespectful when the person who was “Chief Illiniwek” was not even Native American, he or she was just a college student at U of I. In the documentary Charlene Teters also says that the people at The University of Illinois would hold the headpiece like a trophy. To the Native American people, the headpiece was not a trophy so in this way it is also a sign of disrespect to the Native American people. Charlene Teters also says in the documentary, that it would have been better if the people at the University of Illinois portrayed the mascot as a cartoon or something that wasn’t so real. This shows that the Native American people would have been much more open to a mascot that wasn’t as real and was a cartoon. This also shows that the Native Americans knew when it was a cartoon, that it would be a joke. Native Americans are an important part of every Americans life and it isn’t OK to show a sign of disrespect through their culture. Native Americans mascots are not always a sign of disrespect but it depends on how the character is being portrayed.
Katie Nekrosius
3-4
In "In Whose Honor" i don't think the white people understand how hurtful and degrading it is to Native Americans. The white people say "He (Chief Illiniwek) is not a mascot, he is tradition."
An other reason i think it is degrading is because the Native Americans think it is hurtful, and that is coming from someone in that position. Charlene Teters also says that "American Indians are human beings, not mascots" and i think that must fell like your insides have been carved out, and all that is there is your stereotypical outside which is being used as a costume.
Ben Nekrosius 8/9
I think that the symbol of the american Indian is alright to have, i just don't think the dance might be the best thing to have. I think this since the American Indian family that came to the Illinois basketball game, they got extremely offended by the dance. They didn't seem offended by the symbol since they already knew that the symbol was an American Indian, they just didn't expect that the dance was disrespectful to their culture. I think that an indian symbol is very powerful. You just have to use it in a respectful way. If i were the person running the university, I would keep the symbol, but i would quit the dance since it is not good if American Indians feel that we are offending there ancestors and themselves. I don't think that not all American Indian mascots are offending, i just think that you need to be really careful of how detailed you get into the culture of the Native Americans.
Sam Nekrosius
Period 3-4
Making a mascot a American Indian Chief is very disrespectful. The University of Illinois greatly insulted the American Indians when they made their mascot, Chief Illiniwek. In the movie, Charlene Teeters held up two signs, one stating, “American Indians are human beings not mascots!” as well as another sign that said, “Being an Indian is not a character you can be”(In Whose Honor). This is showing how appalled a number of American Indians were. Not only do the American Indians feel used as a joke, they feel like there was no respect for their cultures or their rituals. The Illini were wrong to make an American Indian Chief as their mascot. When mascots are used, normally they are made fun of, hurting the origin of the mascot without even realizing it.
Lillian Nekrosius 3/4
Not all Native American mascots are offensive toward native groups of people. If all of the mascots were offensive, all of the professional and non-professional sports teams would be under pressure to change the mascot, or have heard complaints from tribes or Native Americans, which is obviously not the case. As the president of Illinois states, the dance was not meant to be offensive, and that they are trying to honor and fully represent the Illini. The college of Illinois does not want or mean to be offensive to this tribe, or they wouldn't have named them the Fighting Illini. Another example of this would be the Florida State Seminoles, Utah Utes and the Chicago Blackhawks. Both Florida State and Utah were under pressure for the name of their mascot, or a Native American Tribe. Because of this, the universities went to the tribes and asked them if use of their names were acceptable and not offensive. Both the Utes and Seminoles said that the universities were representing them perfectly fine, and that they could continue using their name. In the Chicago Blackhawks case, their logo is honorable and looks just like a Native American does. Because of this, there has not any dispute about the logo, and therefore is not offensive to Native Americans. These are just few of the many examples that prove that not all Native American Mascots are offensive to Native Americans.
Ethan Nekrosius 3-4
I agree with Jiji. The university should have made sure that the mascot wasn't making anyone mad especially the native groups. Also, like Jiji said it's terrible for a parents child lose their self confidence. Children should never lose confidence in themselves. I liked the fact that the mom was protesting about the mascot. She knew that she was doing this for her children. I personally feel bad for them because some university is mocking their culture. If I were them i would protest also. The mom was trying to send a message that native amerians are real people like everyone else.
Hannah Nekrosius
Period 3-4
in my opinion all race related mascots are an insult, wether it be the notre dame three foot tall fighting leprechaun, or "chief ilinniwek"
if you're going to make a race into a mascot you should at least get the facts straight. as stated in the documentary the animal hide robes were not from the ilinni, they were from a sioux tribe. the dance was made up, and the school band mimmicked native american drum beats. I can forgive schools that have realized this and have acted apropriatly, but I have no forgivenes for schools who have bee told this many times and have not lisened and have stated " maby native americans don't understand the mascot" I believe that the school does not now the pain caused by there mascot.
andy nekrosius
period 3/4
Will, that was very interesting, what you said about the Chief at Stanford. I never knew that people would use mascots to get their culture across. I'm not sure if that is such a great idea though. By using mascots to teach a culture, I think the watchers of that sport will take the culture less seriously. They will relate the things that that mascot did with (e.g.) football games. People like mascots, they cheer them on, but they (I think) don't take them seriously. They like them a lot, and support them, but its pretty much a joke. Its just to get the crowd on the side the team wants them to be on in a way. It is a way to get the crowd energized and excited about the game (I think). So do you really think that that is a good way to teach people about a culture? I don't think so...
Sheridan Nekrosius 3-4
All Native American mascots are wrong.
There is not one right now that's honoring Native Americans. Will said that Stanford university had a mascot that honored Native Americans but it wasn't. I did some research and I found out that the Stanford mascot is removed. The reason why it was removed is because a group of Native American students met with the Dean and said the mascot was disrespectful; the students believed the performances of the mascot were mocking Native American religious practices. They met a couple of more times after the meeting, and after two years the Dean removed the mascot. This shows that even when people think there honoring Native Americans there being disrespectful.
Another example is Chief Illiniwek, The Dean said that Chief Illiniwek's purpose was to honor Native Americans. But instead the Native Americans found it disrespectful. Then after 10 years the U of I also removed the mascot.
Even when some people think they're honoring the Native Americans they're not! All Native American mascots are wrong and should be removed right now. There is not one mascot that honors Native Americans.
-Maud Nekrosius 3-4
I don't think that all Native American mascots can be disrespectfal to Native American people, but they are. I think they could be...not respectful exactly, but not disrespectful. Yet it seems like the people who create the mascots don't care if they are offensive or not. Charlene Teters thought that the "The Chief" was extremely disrespectful because he wore a sacred headdress, and traditional clothing, and he was leaping around and saying that it was a traditional dance. And it wasn't. And he was using these sacred things during a sport's HALF TIME. I think that is un-excusable. It is EXTREMELY disrepectful. And Charlene Teters said that her daugher, "sunk down in her chair, trying to disapear" and her son, "tried to laugh". She said that their self confidence was shaken. That is totally un-excusable. Totally. Charlene Teters said that it would have been better if it was some mascot dressed silly with a huge plastic head with a silly expression. I disagree. I think it would be very offensive that way also. It seems to say that "This is how we think of Native Americans. This is how we think they all look." Like the Cleveland Indians logo. That is not how they look! They don't have RED skin. No one has RED skin. And that look on his face just seems totally rude. So I think that all Native American mascots are disprespectful and rude. I also think (in reply to Will's post) that teaching people Native American traditions during a sport half time is rude to that culture. It seems to say, this isn't importent enough to teach anywhere else, but in between games. And mascots are usually used to rile up the crowd, and show team spirit for THE GAME. And that is just...rude to use that time to TEACH people a culture! It seems VERY disrespectful to me. So again, it seems that there are NO Native American mascots that are not direspctful to Native Americans.
-Sheridan Nekrosius
Not all fist nation team logos are bad. It really all depends on what the logo is and how they use it. If the logo is portraying racism and stereo types and the people are mimicking First nation culture it is bad. But if they are using it respectfully with a none racist, none stereo typical logo i think it is okay. Which is what Will kind of says in his paragraph.
"Chief" on the other hand is using many stereo types and is not respectful.When the lady in the movie said she would have wanted it to be some cartoon character because then people would know that it wasn't real First Nation culture. It hit me that a lot of people are taking logos and stuff like this and thinking this is actually what there are like.
Just by having a first nation as a mascot your saying that fist nation are war like and competitive that is why the make good mascots.So all the mascots respectful or not are falling into one stereo type.
To what Jiji, Vivek, Will, Natalie, and Emily said, the U of I created "The Chief" in the 1920's everyone was racist back then they had no good intent.It was common to insult Minorities.
Adil. Nekrosius.
period 3-4
Native American mascots are offensive. If you are doing it just to recognize Native Americans it is ok, but to have one as a mascot is bad. It is good that people at least know about Native Americans, but they do not know about them. People besides Native Americans judge Native Americans by what they have heard about them. "White People" (not all of them) do not understand that most Native Americans find that disrespectful. There are so many stereotypes that people have for Native Americans. They do not see them as stereotypes, they see them as something to make them happy. Is it worth it to make people made just to make you happy? Charlene Teters(the mom in the documentary) says "At the basketball game people were spitting at me and throwing things at me." Is a team so important that you should be so cruel to a person? Charlene is just like any other person. The people from U of L like their "chief" so much. Whats wrong with liking Charlene? One year U of L had a female mascot. They called her "Princess Illini." What makes people think that Native American tribes had a princess? People think that just because they do not know much about Native Americans they can assume things about them. The chief says "It is another purpose to honor Native Americans." This is ok. If the mascot is just for fun and laughing then it is unacceptable. It is not a laughing mater. "White people" put up a lot of racist cartoons. This is where many kids get there stereotypes. Then they pass them to their children then their children and so on. Its not the children who are creating these stereotypes. It is the adults. People see one, one Native American dressed a certain way and that is what they assume about all Native Americans. When the chief says " Its another purpose." If it is another purpose to honor Native Americans, why have a mascot. You could make a statue in honor of Native Americans. You could build a museum about them. There are so many other ways to honor Native Americans. Why Native Americans? Why not an animal? Why does the mascot have to be Native American? There is no reason for that. When Charlene said that people were throwing things at her, how did people notice her? Did she stand out? To other people she was like the student who did not do their homework. Charlene thinks that the chief is offensive. The chief is offensive. Native Americans are a big part of our country. They were her before Americans. They should not be made fun of. They should be acknowledged but not in the way of a mascot. This argument is so important, because it stands up for the Native Americans. Native Americans mascots are very offensive.
Max Nekrosius
8-9
I agree with Will on this one. Not all Native American mascots are bad. If they are meant as a sign of respect and give that impression then it is okay.
The idea would not be as bad if they made it more accurate. The costume that they used was not from the Illini tribe nor was it from the Northeastern area of the United States. The women in the film stated that the clothing was from the Sioux tribe which is sort of the stereotypical Indian tribe, when the media and cartoons portray Indians it is normally a Sioux. The dance was also not from the Illini tribe. The dance was completely made up and not traditional of any tribe. The fact is that the people at the University of Illinois who had the idea lived in a different time, not when racism was okay but when it was not considered racist. However times change, and if the dance and clothing were from the Illini tribe it would be a lot less offensive. Another thing is that there is a WHITE PERSON playing the chief, the whole thing would be better if there was a Native American playing the Chief. All in all the idea could have turned out better, they screwed up a lot of things and didn't bother to change them.
Matt Nekrosius
Period 8-9
Sorry about this I just forgot to answer the question.
The idea of mascots is fine with ME as long as the mascots intent is respect and not mockery. Although my view is that this is a matter of opinion.
Matt Nekrosius
Period 8-9
I think that the Native American mascots that exist today are offensive. They mock the Native Americans. The dances that are used for special rituals in the Native American tribes are made fun of and repeated in a less respectful and special way. Also, the eagle feathers worn as a headdress is used in the Native American culture as a very special symbol that is worn only by very wise and respected people. the headdress is treated very carefully. It is not thrown around, it sits on like a very special pillow or something. The Illiniwek "chief" wears the headdress as if it's nothing, and when he/she is done with it, they would throw it in a locker or something, awaiting the next use. It's an insult to the Native American culture. There was one scene in the video, where Charleene talks about taking her children to an Illiniwek game, and how awful everything was. She said that when the chief came out, she felt offended, her daughter tries to sink into her chair and tries to become invisible, and her son tries to laugh with everyone else. It must have been awful to have everything that you knew, loved, and respected in life to have mocked in front of a huge audience, and have the audience laughing about it. The kids and Charleene grew up believing that the eagle feather headdress was sacred, and that dance were for a ritual, etc. Then watching the chief mock it must have been what Charleene said as "Damaging to the self-esteem." I think that the Native American mascots are very offensive, and I think that it must be very hard for Native American adults and children.
Alex Nekrosius 34
I think that mascots such as cheif illniwick are not offenseve. If they were why would the seminol tribe say it is okay for flordia state to do it and notredame irish mascot is a leprachon with its fists up and they have that out on the feild doing a dance. So why is that not offensive to irishman. The utah utes they have an indian mascot and they did not have to get rid of it. The illinois mascot was fine he did a dance and they stopped billing it as real. So why would native americans go after that but not the other ones. I think the lady in whose honor was being a little to sensativ.
David Nekrosius
3/4
The idea of using American Indians, or in fact, any race as a mascot, so long as they portray one or more stereotype (as is the case for the fighting Illini, Redskins, and Cleveland Indians, to name a few) that can be and is regarded by anyone of said race as inconsiderate, racist, or derogatory. Theoretically, a logo could be created in a way such that only positive things are expressed about a race. However, this is not the case. Perhaps the very fact that defenders of these mascots cannot come up with factual arguments shows that there are none. In "In Whose Honor," the fans of Chief Illiniwek say that "Indians don't understand the mascots." How could this possibly be correct? Just as one would say that someone knows themselves better than others know them, the Indians know how the stereotypes are perceived by the ones the stereotype is aimed at because they are them! While some might say the, for example, the name "The Cleveland Irish" might not offend them, it would depend entirely on how they are portrayed. Do any readers who have seen the "Could you imagine" sheet and belongs to one of the races portrayed not be offended?
Eliot Nekrosius
Period 3-4
Native American mascots are not intended to be disrespectful, but they are. If they gave Native Americans 'veto' power and allowed them to voice their opinions respectfully, it would be different. At U of I, they just dig themselves a grave by being so ignorant- first of all, all research on Chief was poor. The costume of Chief was more Sioux and the dance made entirely made up. They called the dance authentic. Then they said that the woman who was protesting should go to a game, when going to a game had triggered the whole event. Each time, they were just demonstrating their lack of knowledge on this subject. No main stream Native American mascot is at all authentic- take the Cleveland Indians. The logo is just completely stereotypical. And that is what this is- stereotypes. People do not understand how offensive they can come off. And at U of I, they should have listened to the protester (Charlene). If people just listened to each other and tried to understand other points of view, this never would have happened
Julie Nekrosius 3/4
Indiana mascots were meant to be nice but they turned offensive. People just think "o well the Indians were strong... so lets use them as a mascot!" The people meant it like the Indians were a sign of power but i didn't come out right. If the people at U of I had done research on Indians they might have had enough scene to not use the feather head dress. As for the dance not even being a real dance i think it would be even more offensive if it was a real Indianian dance. I would be more offensive because that would just be another thing that Indian people were taught to honor that was being made fun of.
Eleanor A Nekrosius
Period 8-9
I think that the people who thought of the mascot really needed to talk to real native americans, or think of another idea that wasn't a human. The people at IL didn't understand the meaning of the chief. One of the people that were interviewed said "The Indians don't know what the chief means." The person had no idea about what the native americans thought or didn't think. The U of I is using the chief as some one to laugh at, and the fact that the chief is so realistic makes it even more insulting to the native americans.
-Max Nekrosius 3-4
I agree that the idea was disrespectful.As the other people say, the first time it was to respect othes, but it didn't turn out well. You can know by reminding the part that one of the women said, "they don't know what this means." That sentence shows that they had did this for respecting the Native Americans. However this turned out bad because that all the things that the Native Americans respected and blessed were used in entertainments. That was the main reason that this had became disrespectful. The other par is that it is mimiced, and in a different way. Because this chief was mimiced like real, people will think "OK, that is how they dance and wear, I knew it was weird but it is not what I had thougt." As this thought starts. People will increase the same thought. And at the middle one of the men at the parking lot says "Why do we need to pay the tax when the Native Americans aren't." That sentence shows disrespect. THe second reason is because itis mimiced wrong. They say they don't dance like grasshoppers. I get that the students made it and it wasn't even similar. But in the true life they don't fly like grasshoppers, which would had made them made also.All these reasons are just enough to tell that it is offensive.
Alix Nekrosius 3-4
To tell you the truth I really don't agree with either side. Although many Native Americans can "laugh off" a cheesy mascot like the Cleveland Indians as a joke it's hard when there is an authentically dressed chief dancing around and doing fake rituals. Although there is no truly courteous way to make an Indian your mascot I think if it's silly to the point of being slapstick native Americans may not take as much offense. Although the schools with mascots say that the mascot is a part of their heritage and it is there to honor the Indians it's doing it in a very mocking way and I can see where and why the Native Americans would take offense. So although I would rather not take a side on this issue I have to say it might be better not t have Indians as mascots out of respect for Native American's traditions and culture.
The idea of "The Chief" came from a home made costume. Since then it's blossomed into a cultural train wreck.The University of Illinois says that having "The Chief" as a mascot should be an honor to Native Americans, seeing that he is so popular. On the Native Americans side of the argument it is not an honor at all, it is a mockery. The Chief is a professional dancer dancing a choreographed performance. This so called "ritual" is just disrespectful. When the Chief started he was just a costume of a Native American Chief. Well no one dresses up as Jesus Christ for Halloween do they?It's same thing as dressing up as a Native American Chief. They are both spiritual people improtant to both religions. The University was attempting to make it a "real" dance and it was not. All that the Chief does is he comes out during half time and dances the Kan-Kan with his arms crossed. It's "entertaining", when people should realize that going out in a full flown headdress is earned not bought. No true Native American gets paid a certain amount per hour to wear a headdress. So is the Chief an entertainment or a insult? Why do the University of Illinois people believe that it is not an insult? So "In Whose Honor" is the Chief established?
-Liv Nekrosius 89
I would like to know any answers you have to my questions. Thanks!
Native American Mascots are definitely offensive and racist. A made up chief dancing around with a fake costume on is making fun of the Native American race, possibly with the intent of "honoring" it. Although the intent might of been innocent, it came out to be a derogatory stereotyping of an entire race. The people in the documentary "In Whose Honor" supporting the argument that "Chief Illiniwek" was an appropriate mascot were all middle aged white Americans. They have no right to say it is not offensive because they have obviously never experienced racism. It is not okay to have a black, Spanish, or any other race dancing around a field with a made up "native" dance and costume because that is blatantly offensive and racist. Why should it be any different with Native Americans? Mascots are a form of entertainment and no race should be that. It's an issue of respect, and all mascots do is mock the entire race and culture by making it into a joke.
Leah Nekrosius
Period 8-9
I agree a lot with Andre. Native american mascots are offensive. You would never have another race as your mascot. You would not have a white person or black person doing some that's stereotypical, but but the U of I thinks that you can have a person dressed up in a real headress, eagle feathers, and warpaint be your mascot. In my opinion tyhat is very selfish and disrespectful. A Native Amerircan headress and eagle feathers are very sacred to Native American people and the school turned them into a stunt and more or less a joke. The school just really doesn't understand. If the tradition was flipped and the workers at the school were Native American, they would probably feel the same way as Charlene Teters.
Chris Nekrosius
Period 8-9
Dear katie nekrosius 3-4,
What do you mean when you say "Native American mascots are not always a sign of disrespect to Native American people. Native American mascots are not always a sign of disrespect although a mascot can be portrayed differently to different people." it is not really making sense to me.
niko nekrosius 8-9
The Native American mascot was a bad idea from the start. If you are going to make a mascot of a race the least you could do is not use a stereotypical image like The Cleveland Indians logo. The reason is that, maybe you think it's an honor but in reality it is disrespectful to the actual Native Americans for you to show how little you actually think or know of them. The intention may have been good but in the end no matter what you do, no matter how many times you alter the image it will still be disrespectful to one race or another. Therefore a bad idea!
Niko Nekrosius
Period 8-9
The fact of the matter is some group will always be offended by something. Does that mean that humanity should never have opinions only because it is worried about offending someone? Chief Illionowek was a form a school spirit for the U of I. He was a way for bringing the school together. Most students at U of I felt that he brought the school together. Some Native Americans felt that the chief was mocking them with his dance. Still the fact is that even though it offends some people they still don’t have to destroy a great way to show school spirit. Chief Illinowek was a great thing too cheer for and a great icon for school spirit. Who wants to cheer for the letter I?
-Alexandra
I think that Native American mascots are definitely racist and offensive. A made up chief dancing around a field doing a dance that is claimed to be "native" and wearing a fake costume is a horrible stereotype of the Native American Race. Although the intent was to "honor" the Native Americans, it came out to be very offensive. Mascots are a form of entertainment, and no race should be made into that. All the people in the movie "In Whose Honor" that supported the mythical "Chief Illiniwek" as the mascot for the U of I were all middle aged white Americans that I assume hadn't experienced racism before, and therefore could not say if it was offensive or not. It is not acceptable to have a mascot dressed as black, Spanish, or any other person of a different race parading around a field doing a made up dance, because that is blatant racism. Why would it be okay to do that to the Native Americans? It's backwards thinking. America has done so much to end racism, but things like this show that it is very much still a part of our country. It's an issue of respect, and mascots aren't respectable. Native American mascots are a mockery of an entire race and culture and that should not be allowed.
Leah Nekrosius
Period 8-9
Native American mascots are not always a sign of disrespect, but in the case described in the movie "In Whose Honor?" the mascot is disrespectful. The mascot from the movie, chief Illiniwek, was displaying things that were inaccurate to the Illini tribe. In the movie, Charlene Teeters states that the costume that Chief Illiniwek wears is actually modeled after traditional clothing from the Sioux tribe. She also states that the dance that the chief does is made up by someone at the University Of Illinois. If these elements were made accurate to the tribe that chief Illiniwek is representing, the show he puts on could be somewhat of a compliment to the Illini tribe. Since that is not the case, they are mocking the tribe. The traditional dances and dress of tribes are different. By not recognizing this, the University of Illinois is sending the message that the cultures of each tribe don't matter because they are all just Indian. The University of Illinois had the chance to be respectful, but ended up being disrespectful. This shows that when it comes to portraying another culture, every detail counts toward being respectful.
Lizzie Nekrosius 8-9
I do not think that the idea was good from the start. If they are going to choose a mascot atleast choose one after thinking for a while. I do not think that anybody that had the power to choose the mascot thought too hard because if they did they would have figured out that choosing the chief would be offensive to Native Americans.
In the movie one of the people says "I don't think that the chief is offensive to Indians maybe they should come to a game". This shows that they don't fully understand that this could be offensive because it's like saying we don't care about your religion or race so it doesn't madder if we make fun of you. In the movie the person being interviewed says that it would be different if it was a mascot with a big nose and a funny face because then she could laugh at it. I think it would be different if it was a mascot with a big nose and a funny face because then it would be more comical and less offensive.
DanteNekrosius3-4
I also agree with Jiji. I fall on the side of Charlene Teters the person who stood up to the U of I. It was irresponsible of the University to just throw on a costume and make up a dance. It was insulting to the Native Americans and if they think it is insulting (it could be argued) I think it''s all that matters. Because white people do not know what the Native Americans are going through, and the white people wouldn't ever know what that feels like either. It's not fair to them. And if Native Americans do not want to be mascots, the University should respect that and not have put that costume on the wrong character (if that makes sense). In conclusion, Native Americans felt like they were being used as props (in a way) and thought it rude. And as stated before, it should be taken respectfully and put into consideration.
Magda Nekrosius
Period 8/9
American Indian mascots such as University of Illinois (UIC) are offensive to American Indians. When dances such as the dance done by the former mascot of UIC was stereotypical, inaccurate, artificial and offensive to the American Indians. The traditions of UIC mascot are disrespectful to the scared practices of the American Indians. “My daughter tried to look invisible and my son tried to laugh” – In Whose Honor. The mother of this family is a perfect example of the pain and outrage one feels when there culture is being disrespected and misunderstood. The fact that the UIC mascot was what came from a stunt at a college game just shows how inconsiderate people can be when to other cultures. In conclusion I believe that peoples ignorance towards other cultures and stereotypes leads to many hurt souls and broken relationships.
Mutiat Nekrosius, 8-9
All Native American mascots can be construed as offensive. Mascots of Native Americans are mascots that are mocking a race and a religion. There aren't any mascots of christians, or white people, so why is it okay for there to be mascots of Native Americans? Having Native American mascots are racially offensive and religiously offensive to many Native American people. Native American mascots make Native American people feel like they aren't as good as other races and religions.
Eleanor B. Nekrosius
Period 8-9
Yes, Native American mascots can be offensive, but they are not always offensive. It is disrespectful to the people of the tribes they are mocking, and in all means, have a right to be angry. The definition of a mascot is "a person or thing that is supposed to bring good luck or that is used to symbolize a particular event or organization." The mascot is supposed to cheer the team on and raise the crowd, but the mascot of an American Indian can cause more of a dilemma. It wasn't that is was a big old mascot with the cartoon characteristics, but a real live version. She took it offensive because they weren't using real native dancing, the head dress, and the whole gown weren't legit, of native tribes. They were making up a part of history that never happened. I believe fully that she should be angry. She had enough courage to stand outside, get spat at, and loose her status of a student, all for her children. Eventually the mascot of a Native American was removed in 2007. It took about 20 years for the mascots to be terminated. How long can we [America] wait for the next big dilemma to happen?
Eric Nekrosius
Humanities 3-4
Post a Comment