I think that Joseph P. Gone, the Associate Professor of Psychology and Professor of Native American Studies at the University of Michigan says it best, "three things are very clear: (1) for decades the university promoted--and the students believed--that the Chief's dance was an authentic form of some Indian tribal celebration; (2) whether or not the Chief's dance was originally "derived" from a Lakota ritual, it was "adapted"early on for sports events and currently resembles no traditional or contemporary expression of dance known to native people, the Lakota included; and (3) even if the current Chief's dance were an accurate portrayal of any Lakota dance form, that form is Lakota and not native to the Illini. It is also worth noting that the music which accompanies the Chief's dance is completely foreign to any musical expression known to native people--in short, it is the creation of white America."
In my mind, this is the argument that would drive the anti-Chief side of the debate. Not only is the dance a false representation of Lakota tradition, but the Lakota isn't even near the Illini! The Lakota people are further west, around eastern colorado and the Dakotas! I think the worst part about Chief Illiniwek is his costume. I do not see anything that would support the University of Illinois in his outfit. I believe that mascots should be at least dressed in their school colors. The Chief was not dressed in neither orange nor blue.
I want to hear a compelling argument for the Chief. I am aware of my bias against it, and I'd like to hear the other side.
In my mind, this is the argument that would drive the anti-Chief side of the debate. Not only is the dance a false representation of Lakota tradition, but the Lakota isn't even near the Illini! The Lakota people are further west, around eastern colorado and the Dakotas! I think the worst part about Chief Illiniwek is his costume. I do not see anything that would support the University of Illinois in his outfit. I believe that mascots should be at least dressed in their school colors. The Chief was not dressed in neither orange nor blue.
I want to hear a compelling argument for the Chief. I am aware of my bias against it, and I'd like to hear the other side.
My sister goes to U of I and was just talking to me about this the other day. She mentioned that there was a vote on whether or not to bring the chief back. I looked into it a little bit further and apparently close to 80 percent of students voted in favor of having the chief be the school mascot. She said that the school most likely won't be bringing the chief back, but it was interesting to see how many students supported it. Also, she brought up that there was an issue with a shirt that someone designed for Unofficial weekend. The shirt had an image of the chief on it and the student who designed the shirt was forced to change it. Here's the link to an article I found on it. http://www.dailyillini.com/news/campus/article_8e52bd0e-80a8-11e2-b5ed-001a4bcf6878.html
ReplyDeleteI think that the chief should not be brought back to U of I because they should have a mascot that is relevant to the school. I also agree that the whole point of a mascot is to spread school spirit and with that being said they should not bring the Chief back. I do agree that a mascot should wear their school colors and the Chief did not wear the colors of the school. It does concern me that most of the students wanted to bring the Chief back because if it was banned in the first place for being racist, then it should not be brought back.
ReplyDelete