The Chief is Resurrected
The Chicago Tribune reports that Chief Illiniwek, the former University of Illinois mascot, has been resurrected by a group of students who have elected a new mascot to perform for students and the University community this year.
Please read the story and respond. Write your first name and class period at the end of your post.
What do you think of this new manifestation of Native American mascots? Should the students be allowed to do this? Is the University responsible? Are they condoning the practice and how does this fit with the NCAA ruling that no teams that host tournament play are allowed to have Native American mascots?
5 comments:
This article was EXTREMELY biased toward the Chief. The Chief coming back is horrible. The article had no thoughts of any of the Native american community, didn't recognize once that the Native american lady (I forgot her name.) was fighting years to get rid of this. The students are getting all of her work and her suffering undone. The students achieved in like 3 months what the Native american community did in like 20 years. The Chief coming back had no opposition from the top of the U of I. The students had a chance to create a new less offensive mascot like "The U of I Wild Bucks" Or something.
I know someone is going to bring up "the group encountered no resistance" but then later it said "from the administration." The university is at fault of not stopping the students. No one asked the Native americans.
It is offensive, END OF STORY!!!
Adil Nekrosius 3-4
I think that it is very good. That illinois cares about a tradition enough. To really bend the rules about the NCAA rule about mascots. I think that that it is a very good tradition. I think that it was not a good choice about cheif. It is a dumb rule that no team with a native american mascot may not host tournements. I think that the native american activast groups are being a littler sensative. I like how the UofI bent rules and now the cheifs back. David Nekrosius 3/4
I think that this decision by the students is an excellent one. Adil, can I see some evidence that the article is biased? Thanks. I believe that the Chief is a longstanding tradition, just like the the "Dotting of the i" in Ohio State football tradition. I believe that the term, "Fighting Illini" is a term of respect and tradition rather than a more offensive way of putting it. The Chief is a long tradition and the students were right to bring it back. However, the college is responsible as well. Adil, to your point of the group encountered no resistance for the Admin., the Administration of Illinois University has to take into account the feelings of everyone attending the school as well, and I guarantee you that the college want no lawsuits. This is why the college deemed it OK.
Ethan Nekrosius 3-4
The only thing different about the Chief is that he performs before and after games. The University can't be held responisble because it's some students that are bringing the Chief Back.
The resurrection of Chief Illini is a blow to America's attempts to become more racially sensitive. The fact that a figure that is KNOWN to be offensive is allowed to return with "no resistance from the administration" humbles my belief that America is a land of its people. It is obvious that America is greatly flawed when a group of citizens work this hard to stereotype and demean another, equal group.
It is the school's fault for not even attempting to stop the students, especially because "The Chief" performed on campus. Clearly, however, the students are more at fault. It is ridiculous, that a stereotypical, offensive mascot could "inspire me [a student] to be a complete man." Is this really the image of "manhood"? Offensiveness should NEVER be a good thing.
Eliot Nekrosius 3-4
Post a Comment