Unveiling Chief Illiniwek By: Willard M. Frye
 (This version of the original document has been condensed for the purpose of sending electronic copies via email. The only deviations from the original is the absence of the "Author's Note" and source "Footnotes". The body of the document is completely intact.) "The 'redskin' heritage - Illiniwek- began in 1926 when Ray Dvorak, Assistant to A. A. Harding, Director of Bands, enlisted the aid of Lester Leutwiler, a University of Illinois student with an interest in Indian lore."
--"Chief Illiniwek Tradition"by Lester Leutwiler, Chief Illiniwek I
In their endeavor to defend "Chief Illiniwek", supporters strongly urge us to believe that "tradition" warrants the continueduse of the "Chief". While we can believe that there are reasonable justifications for preserving many traditions, we should also realize that there are viable reasons for the dismantling of others.

Before the Civil War put an end to the practice,slavery was a tradition to southern plantation owners in the United States. And for more than a half of this century, it was southern tradition to degrade African-Americans through segregation by excluding their entry to "white" restaurants and schools and by forcing them to ride in the back seats on public busses. Most southerners, during both eras, would have ultimately proclaimed that there was nothing wrong or evil with their practices. Obviously, their practices were wrong and tradition didn't justify their continuation.

The values that "Chief Illiniwek" supporters project through their actions and words are intimately woven into those that the "Chief" ultimately represents. So, since the "Chief" is the embodiment of those who breathed life into him and those who continue to sustain him, it is important to understand that the ideals and values of his supporters are also part of the "tradition" and cannot be disassociated from it. So, what values do the supporters of "Chief Illiniwek" represent in their ongoing tradition of honoring American Indians?

Though supporters proclaim that the "Chief" has never represented racism and vehemently deny that they are degrading Native Americans through the use of the symbol, we can see by Lester Leutwiler's(Chief Illiniwek I) usage of the term "redskin" in his 1982 essay"ChiefIlliniwek Tradition" (excerpt above) that this is hypocritical. Also, take note the connection that Mr. Leutwiler makes between the words "redskin"and "heritage" to describe the "Chief". By their own account, supporters recognize the terms "redskins", "redmen" and "injuns" as "...derogatory racial slang" and claim that they do not support these things. Who are they trying to fool?

Leutwiler is not alone though. Degrading terminology toward Native Americans is quite prevalent among the many letters and essays by pro-"Chief" advocates. Supporter Stephanie Tonnies, in an article appearing in the Daily Illini (September 25, 1997), states that her great grandfather's great-great grandmother ". . . was a Cherokee 'squaw'". Perhaps an American Indian woman should correct her on the usage of the term "squaw" which many of us call the "s" word. For inquiring minds, the word"squaw", an Algonquin expression, in translation refers to female genitalia and has a long outstanding tradition (not unlike certain symbolisms) of misuse by European descendants. Most recently published English dictionaries now list the term "squaw" as "...often offensive". So ladies, next time you call an Indian woman a "squaw" don't be suprised if she smiles and calls you the English contemporary derivative... "cunt".Stephanie, like so many others, believes that she has some all-powerful"Indian" voice, on such issues, which exceeds the voices of genuine American Indians because she has some distant ancestral roots. The truth is inherent in the fact that people like Stephanie know little, if nothing, about American Indians, and their ideals and therefore ultimately fall under the same category as the majority of other "Chief"supporters, non-American Indian.

Jim Fay Ph.D. in his endeavor to generate some interesting analogies in a feeble but educated effort to justify the continued use of the "Chief", goes so far as to refer to American Indians as "...creatures"and speaks of us and our ancestors as "...mythical". It is quite astonishing how living American Indians are overlooked, even by contemporary scholars such as Mr. Fay, as if they were extinct and/or only fictional objects from some fantasy dime-store novel. It was the same, dominantly Euro-American, society which Mr. Fay represents today that created the mythical"noble savage" to which he refers. Mr. Fay connects this mythical Indianness with "Chief Illiniwek" and insists that the "Chief" is not intended to be the genuine article, but representative of the old wild west stereotypes. Certainly we should rest our case here as this stereotypical nonsense is what we wish to be abolished.

Supporters are, also, consistent and quite typical when it comes to the use of opinion in their writing. Genuine American Indian opinion, if in opposition to their views, is bypassed for the favored opinion of the majority, mostly comprised of middle and upper class "whites" and "non-native" minorities which Mr. Fay refers to as "popular culture". Mr. Fay expresses an overall dislike for political correctness except when it suites his own purposes.  

"We're really in trouble when (a) student's main exposure to Indian culture comes in the form of a sports mascot."
--Will Antell
Interestingly enough, when "Chief" supporters do encounter a few biological American Indians in support of their own views, you'd think they had struck gold; but the fact of the matter is that it takes more than biology to be an American Indian and more than a handful to justify their cause. During the slave era, there were some slaves who sided with their "masters", but did their opinions justify slavery? They also continuosly downplay the number of American Indians and their supporters who protest the "Chief" in hopes that their impressionable readers and listeners will fall into the trappings of their so-called popular culture. Then you have those like Warren H. Holston, who wish to recruit people to believe that they are carrying on the Illini legacy lest it be lost forever. In a letter to the Chicago Tribune (Saturday, June 24, 1995), Mr. Holston claims that "...history has taught us (that) a people can be forgotten in a relatively few generations". He says that "...the Illiniwek went into extinction...there is no living remnant who can claim blood-line..." and so it should, then, be proper to "...mentally place ourselves in the original Illini moccasins". According to the Chief Illiniwek Homepage, itself, "The Peoria, who reside in Oklahoma, are considered to be the last living descendents of the Illiniwek Confederacy.". Hmmm...get the feeling that nobody knows what they are talking about? Regardless of any of the aforementioned, "Chief Illiniwek" affects all American Indians. Any claims that this is, somehow, the best way to remember the Illini and to "pay tribute" to them is ludicrous.

How does someone dancing around in plains Indians style regalia at a spectator sport teach people about the "once proud" and "courageous" Illini? What are spectators learning about the Illini? Absolutely nothing, except "...that guy in that Indian outfit sure dances them Indian dances good.". But what would they know?

Based upon analysis of their writings, one might get the feeling that pro-"Chief" advocates would like us to believe that, somehow, their world will come crashing to an end without their fantasy "Chief". Perhaps they will end up mentally imbalanced without him to nurture them in their adult careers. In their own words, their "Chief" is what they "...aspire to be". Supporters seem to actually believe that all their aspirations will crumble without the "Chief". The fact that they are holding onto a childish fantasy which is culturally destructive to another group of human beings has never occurred to them, not that it would matter even if it did. The notion that getting rid of the "Chief" will cause any harm whatsoever is, in itself, childish and a complete fabrication born of their own insecurities.

It is quite obvious that "Chief Illiniwek" and his supporters radiate ideals and values that are degrading and contradictory to those of the majority of American Indians. Whether supporters are aware of their actions or just plain ignorant, their degradation, in and of itself, defines the tradition of "Chief Illiniwek". Degradation is the out come of their ignorance which is the basis for their tradition and therefore ignorance is that which they continue using to justify their cause; which is, of course, quite ridiculous. Furthermore, ignorance is not a justifiable defense for this tradition to carry on.

"How can you be honoring people while they are telling you that what you are doing is demeaning to them?"
--John Benson, Superintendant of Wisconsin Schools
Another perplexing aspect of this entire controversy is the proclamation of "Iliniwek" supporters that they are honoring American Indians and that the "Chief" is, somehow, "...the finest tribute" to American Indian culture. Why is it that thousands of American Indians and their supporters disagree? Why is it that, in the "Chief's" defense, pro-"Chief" supporters manipulate the general public's minds through elaborate and deceptive prose and create the illusion that their opposition is considerably obtuse? Their opposition consisting mostly of those they claim to honor. Elaborately constructed, direct and indirect, insults targeting the intelligence of American Indians is not honoring. Finally, how can one dictate what is an honor and what is not? If an honor is rejected by the recipient as being damaging and/or disparaging, then it isn't much of an honor...is it?

Along with their claims to honoring American Indians, supporters of the "Chief" convey that they are "promoting Native American culture". How? The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has no Native American Studies program, so how is it that they are promoting "Native American" culture? So far they have shown us that they know very little about American Indians and their culture. They have consistently substituted their own stereotypical and fantastical views of what they think American Indians are in lieu of what genuine American Indians loudly proclaim to be. Where is their so-called promotion of "Native American culture"?

Not only is there no Native American Studies program on the curriculum, there is not a single American Indian language course. According to Mr. Jim Fay, himself, in his essay "Native Influences in Vernacular American Culture", "language is culture".

If they wish to honor, pay tribute to and promote American Indians and their culture then why are these things nonexistent in the school's curriculum? It can be as certained that supporters use the expressions honor, promote and tribute so liberally that the words have no real meaning. The words have become a munipulative shield to appear as if they are doing something good for American Indians, but the only real intent behind these words is to protect the "Chief". In the public eye this illusion, of course, is a plus.

In truth, however, it is minipulative and deceptive. If someone customarily commits crimes against others, yet always says "I'm sorry" afterward, the words eventually lose meaning, not only to those whom are affected by the crime, but to the perpetrator as well. Ultimately the words become a shallow and deliberate attempt to avoid persecution from the victim. These words"honor", "tribute"and"promote" have no real meaning to "Chief" supporters, they say them because they are pretty words and they have no intention of standing behind them. If they did, there would be no controversy as "Chief Illiniwek" would be removed of their own accord.

"The use of American Indian team names and much of the use of Native American symbols and images promotes stereotypical thinking. Many Americans seem to think Indians no longer exist, or that if they do, they are broken and destitute skeletons of the formidable 'noblesavages' of the past."
--Gary Sandefur (Chicasaw)
The Illinois Alumni magazine provided a forum for the"Chief" debate and, in a letter to the magazine (March/April of 1998) Robert A. Ekblaw says that, "All of the rhetoric surrounding this issue has been emotional blather." Mr. Ekblaw contends that he doesn't believe "...that Chief Illiniwek is harmful to Native Americans" and that he will continue to believe so until he witnesses "...a letter from a representative of that ethnic group...citing rational and factual evidence of harm." He goes on to say that the Illinois Alumni magazine "...does nothing except provide a soapbox for people who have nothing worthwile to say, and does nothing to further the principles and execution of the University's esteemed goal - to provide high-quality education.". Perhaps Mr. Ekblaw could rationally and factually explain how "Chief Illiniwek"aids in providing this high-quality education.

Assimilation is an All-American past-time although today it has become quite subtle and more difficult to recognize. As recently as the early 70's, American Indian children were forcibly removed from their families and homes by Federal and State governments to be placed in boarding schools for deprogramming and reconditioning.The goal of this brainwashing program was to remove all Indianness from the individual so that they could be assimilated into mainstream American society. Upon entering the schools, Indian children had their hair cut, were beaten if they spoke their native tounge and were reprogrammed to be good "white-like" citizens. Their religion and culture was banned and thus stripped from them forcibly. They were taught American history from the views of those who oppressed them, were forced to learn and abide by a foreign religion, and forced to make a foreign language their primary tounge. Today stereotypes on TV, in public schools and in sports slogans, mascots, logos and symbols have taken the place of forced removal, forced religion and forced education. The effects of these things, however subtle, are no less devastating to American Indian children and the future of American Indian peoples.

To be honest, what is envisioned by most Americans in the first instant that "American Indian" is mentioned? Perhaps... feathers, headdresses and tomahawks? Bows and arrows? A scantily dressed maiden? I wonder if any of the following are among the top ten of the list? Doctor? Lawyer? Dentist? School Teacher? Mommy? Or even...Daddy? No...I guess those last few items just don't fit in with the vision...do they?

The tradition of "Chief Illiniwek", and others like it, perpetuates a stereotype, dehumanizes living American Indian peoples and creates the illusion to American Indian children that real Indians wear feathers, carry tomahawks and, in accordance with the wildwest stereotype offered up by Mr. Jim Fay, kill cowboys. While "Chief Illiniwek" supporters enjoy their childish fantasy, the impressionable minds of American Indian children, as well as children from all other ethnic groups, are being imprinted with a racial and ethnic stereotype. Thus today, American Indian children are having a hard time distinguishing themselves as American Indians. They are slowly being brainwashed along with the rest of America's children that American Indians don't really exist and if they do, they are "...those other guys"...the ones "on TV,at baseball and football games"...the ones "wearing the featherheaddresses"...the ones "with the tomahawks".

No matter how hard one tries to erase the sestereotypical images from the minds of young children and explain to them the truth, their thoughts will continue returning to those deeply embedded images that Mr. Jim Fay's beloved "popular culture" has taught them about Indianness. If traditions like "Chief Illiniwek" continue, American Indians will surely be extinct in a few generations...perhaps not biologically, but culturally. Supporters could care less about these things though. American Indian children are not on their top 100 list of concerns. And if American Indian children are of no concern to them, then neither are American Indians and their culture. The words "honor", "tribute" and "promote" are just a few more lies in the never ending saga of assimilating American Indians.

The American Indian protest against "Chief Illiniwek" does not a disservice to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign...rather, the tradition of "Chief Illiniwek" is a disservice to American Indian children and the future American Indian peoples. American Indians maintain the right to dissent against culturally destructive processes. The tradition of "Chief Illiniwek" has been and continues to be an aid, perhaps a lesser one but an aid nonetheless, in the destruction of American Indian culture through the assimilation of our children. Furthermore, their fun and games and vocal denegration of American Indians does a disservice to the human spirit.