Mascot IssueWednesday, February 05, 2003
Chief Illiniwek: Proud representation or racist? Why Chief Illiniwek must go Opinion by Kip Bordelon Kip's corner January 21, 2003 http://www.uictoday.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/01/21/3e2e395b8b1c4?in_archive=1 Over the last week, I have pondered what I wanted to write about. But then suddenly, I remembered the controversial Chief Illiniwek issue and immediately grabbed my paper and pen. This is a subject that has been quite upsetting to me. In all honesty, I really can't believe that this is an issue that remains unresolved. To me, there can be only one solution to the controversy: retire the chief without further delay. For those who are unfamiliar with the controversy, allow me to give a brief synopsis. Many people and groups for years have been protesting the University of Illinois' use of Chief Illiniwek as its mascot. The protesters argue that the use of Chief Illiniwek is stereotypical, racist, and plain offensive to Native Americans. Many schools across the country, from elementary schools to universities, have replaced their "Indian" mascots with other symbols in response to Native American displeasure with the use of their cultural symbol. I applaud those schools. However, I am appalled and disappointed that the University of Illinois has yet to follow suit. Chief Illiniwek is nothing more, and has never been more, than a white man's perception of how a Native American chief looks and acts. This is nothing new. White actors used to dress up in black face in minstrel shows to give audiences their rendition of how black people looked and how black people behaved. Some of these so-called actors would even argue that their antics were justified because they believed their routine was an accurate portrayal of African-Americans. Stupid, huh? The Chief Illiniwek issue is almost a carbon copy of black minstrel shows. A student, usually white, parades around and gives a performance that been considered for many years now quite offensive to Native Americans and many minorities who have been victimized culturally by the majority's disrespect of minorities. One individual tried to argue that because some (though I would imagine very few by comparison) Native Americans have not objected to the Chief, that makes the racist disrespect of their cultural icon acceptable. Unfortunately, resistance to renaming mascots has been widespread in all sports. The name of the NFL team for our nation's capital remains the Washington Redskins, despite the Native American community and supporters calling for a name change. Interestingly enough, though, in the same city, the NBA team (about five years ago) changed their name from the Washington Bullets to the Washington Wizards citing that the former team name was too closely related to violence. So the message relayed is that violence is a compelling enough reason to change a team name, but offending a race of people is not. It really is quite simple; the Chief Illiniwek mascot is extremely disrespectful, quite offensive, and plain racist to Native Americans and others. How dare any person insist on maintaining a symbol that has been deemed offensive to another person's race and culture. Since Native Americans' views have been voiced and are well known, it really takes incredible nerve, a large dose of narrow-minded thinking, and a strong belief in supremacy over others to continue to dismiss their concerns and indignation. Proponents of Chief Illiniwek, regardless of what they think, are not any better than other persons. Since this fact has clearly escaped them, I truly hope they will come to realize this reality very soon. In the meantime, such arrogance continues to prove that racism and bigotry are still prevalent in our society. The failure of the University to fully appreciate the depth of anger and indignation felt by Native Americans showcases the University in the worse possible light as insensitive and uncaring regarding the great history, tradition, and aspirations of modern Native Americans. No wonder why racial issues continue to be divisive and a hindrance on all of the University of Illinois campuses. Native Americans are people, not mascots. The Chief must go! posted by: Webmaster@ 3:14 PM
Friends, MARK YOUR CALENDARS NOW! We will be "greeting" the Cleveland baseball team when it comes to Cincinnati, OH, for spring training exhibition games to tell them that their racism is not welcome here, and not welcomed anywhere by all persons with a conscience, who understand that race-based stereotyping cannot be tolerated, in any form, in any venue. PLEASE JOIN US! The game on Friday, March 28 begins at 7:10; we will gather starting at 5 p.m. The game on Saturday, March 29, begins at 1:15; we will gather starting at 11 a.m. Futher details will be forthcoming. Because the new "Great American Ballpark" is still under construction, we will not learn where we can hold the protest until closer to the event. We will also be be working to accommodate and make arrangements for those who come in from out-of-town, as needed. Please contact us if you are coming in from outside the Greater Cincinnati area. MARK YOUR CALENDARS NOW TO STAND AGAINST RACISM IN SPORTS AND THE MEDIA! posted by: Webmaster@ 12:55 PM
What's in a name? Plenty for 'Redskins' http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/levesque/106471_leve30.shtml  By JOHN LEVESQUE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST This much we know. The folks who own the Washington Redskins are as sensitive as a goal post. The NFL team should have changed its name years ago to something that doesn't scream RACIAL SLUR across the sporting landscape, but in the name of something important -- tradition? solvency? institutional obstinacy? -- the new gang Daniel Snyder led into power four years ago has resisted pressure from many groups to get with the program. Case closed. Or not. This week, the Journal Star in Lincoln, Neb., said it would stop using the Redskins name in its coverage of the football team. Of course, these noble gestures take time to trickle down to the staff. Since the announcement, the Journal Star, at least on its Web site, has used the term twice, both in news briefs from The Associated Press. Oh, the hypocrisy! Sorry, couldn't resist. This sort of thing always happens. Some people never get the memo until they've embarrassed the boss. But the Journal Star's new policy does revive an issue that won't die until sports teams using people as mascots understand the danger of uniform bigotry in a polychromatic society. It's not whether the name should be used. Let's hope even those who still would accommodate Indians and Braves and Blackhawks would cringe at the heinousness of Redskins. It's whether the sports pages should reflect reality or promote morality. The Oregonian in Portland doesn't use "Indian" nicknames. The Seattle Times uses the names but bans any images it considers offensive, such as the Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo. The Post-Intelligencer's policy has been to reflect reality, leaving it to editorial writers and columnists to provoke thought and shape opinion while allowing the use of nicknames in news stories. But change may be afoot. "The Native American Journalists Association has asked that newspapers stop using sports mascots and nicknames that depict Native Americans by 2004," said P-I executive editor Ken Bunting. "That has sparked a healthy internal discussion at the P-I and other newspapers. "I'm mindful, however, that a newspaper style rule doesn't change public perceptions, doesn't change helmet logos or the way millions of sports fans refer to a team. Where team names are offensive, it would be much better if the leagues, not the media, took this on." The journalist in me is inclined to agree. We're supposed to be dispassionate, fair and careful not to distort the truth. If there's a team out there called the Redskins, our readers ought to be aware of it, no? But my inner citizen, who clearly has seen too many Keith Jackson telecasts, is thinking, "Whoa, Nellie! If the Pekin Chinks were still around today, would we use the team nickname in the paper?" I don't think so. Pekin, a town in central Illinois not far from Peoria, is thought to be named for the Chinese capital. Its high school teams were the Chinks until 1981, when public sentiment forced a change to Dragons. The sworn enemies of political correctness, aka the friends of coarse and uncivil behavior, will climb all over this and say the Washington Redskins are merely paying tribute to Native Americans -- sorry, Indians -- and shouldn't be pilloried if someone happens to take offense. It's not the team's fault, they'll say. Right. And no one should be offended if the Chicago Bears decide to pay tribute to the city's Polish-American heritage and rename themselves the Chicago Polacks. It's entirely possible that not all ethnic and racial nicknames started life as pejoratives. But when cultural evolution does make them offensive to a segment of society, shouldn't all of society strive to remove the thorn rather than jam it in deeper? Instead of saying, "Deal with it," shouldn't we be bigger than we were yesterday, better than we were yesterday, and seek common ground? The Washington Redskins are reluctant to change names because it will cost them more than a few draft picks. If they repudiate the name they've had since George Preston Marshall changed it from Boston Braves to Boston Redskins in 1933, it follows that they'll have to stop licensing and selling Redskins merchandise, which usually ranks in the top 10 of team-gear sales across all sports. Worse, they'll probably have to spend millions suing the renegade dealers who start selling counterfeit stuff. Hey, nobody said a corporate conscience would be cheap. What about a newspaper's conscience? We make decisions every day on whether something is appropriate for the reader. We'll omit from stories and advertisements the name of a rock group or the title of a fringe-theater production if it's considered profane or explicitly offensive. We'll clean up a quotation or avoid using it altogether if its colorful nature isn't deemed essential to the story. Is that any different from eliminating references to Redskins? Or Chinks? In the editorial announcing the decision to stop using "Redskins," Journal Star editor Kathleen Rutledge wrote: "Many sports mascots were adopted at a time in this country when native people had no voice. Now they have a voice." Newspapers have had voices for centuries. Loud voices. They've used them to speak out against injustice, inequality, insensitivity. The P-I's editorial board cheered when the Seattle School Board voted last summer to end using "Indians" as the nickname of West Seattle High School's teams, even though some Native American groups didn't object to it, even derived some pride from it. Still, it's hard to find anyone who thinks "Redskins" is acceptable, for it would also imply acceptance of Blackskins, Brownskins and Yellowskins at a time in our history when only Potato Skins would be palatable. In that case, newspapers shouldn't wait for the Washington Redskins to take the lead. We need only go back 40 years into our files to remind ourselves they were the last NFL team to employ a black man. P-I columnist John Levesque can be reached at 206-448-8330 or johnlevesque@seattlepi.com posted by: Webmaster@ 10:44 AM
|
