The issue
that won't go away
By Editor, RetireTheChief
Which side
are you on?
Few issues polarize our local community like Chief Illiniwek.
Local statements on the issue haven't exactly cooled things down.
News-Gazette columnist
Loren Tate (Sports, November 12) threw hot coals on
the Chief debate with his article
"Chicagoans might shove Chief away.".
He stated:
- Trustee Frances Carroll, due to her relatively new presence on
the board, was "a Johnny-come-lately" with
a "slim background and a large agenda."
- Oh, and she didn't attend the U.I. Another strike
against her, apparently.
- She allegedly
"doesn't appreciate downstate traditions".
- And, to toss a gas can onto the already roaring fire, the columnist
stated that Carroll "by her presence brings race
into the debate".
In response, a coalition opposed to the columnist's statements issued
their quite reasonable demand for a retraction and apology:
WHEREAS
Loren Tate, the featured sports journalist at the
News-Gazette, recently argued that it was improper for African American
Board of Trustees member Dr. Frances Carroll to fully participate in debates
over an issue of importance to the University of Illinois due to her race,
and
WHEREAS
the University of Illinois is a great university
serving all of the people of Illinois, and
WHEREAS
students, faculty and staff of color, who are vital
to the current successes and future possibilities of University of Illinois,
will accept no questioning of their "presence" on campus or limitations
of their right to discuss any issue,
We therefore
request that Loren Tate and News-Gazette
management issue a full and speedy apology to the university community and
especially to Dr. Carroll.
In the view of RetireTheChief,
it is especially unfortunate when this debate becomes
personal, the most egregious example being
the attack on the U.I. Chancellor, which brought condemnation
from many, including University administrators.
Let's look at the News-Gazette columnist's statements. Along the
way, I'll stop using Carroll's name, or Tate's, because
this is (or should be) about ideas, not personal attacks.
- The Trustee had "a slim background and a large agenda."
The first statement doesn't hold water; the NG writer even stated in his
column that her "resume is long and impressive." This includes her
participation in the Chicago Area Alliance of Black School Educators,
a group endorsing, among other things, the
value of public education and local schools. I invite you
to review her
resume for yourself.
- The Trustee didn't attend the U.I. This brings back an age-old
argument that Chief opponents "aren't from here" or "didn't attend
school here." Well, the RetireTheChief editor did, and
let's not forget that some 800 U.I. faculty and staff have
stated their opposition to this symbol. There are plenty
of people who are anti- (and pro-) Chief in our community.
- The Trustee "doesn't appreciate downstate traditions." Oh,
let's just let that one go.
- The Trustee "by her presence brings race into the debate."
This statement defies belief and reflects poorly - to say the least -
on a respected local newspaper.
This statement brings race into the issue. It was there all
along, but the News-Gazette columnist just fanned the flames. To what end?
Can we not agree that the race of each Board of Trustee member does
not matter - in this matter? Nor does the race of the News-Gazette
columnist. Have we not moved on from the days where we first counted
race, then gender, then ideas? Could we, now, please?
"The people who want to retire the mascot note that virtually every major
American Indian organization has long called for the elimination of
sports-based Indian references, as has nearly every civil rights and
national church organization."
The New York Times
December 16, 2003
I respect the opinions of those who support the Chief. I
invite them to express their
views here. I hope both sides can address the issues
without resorting to personal attacks. But the Chief
remains a very troubled symbol, one that divides our
campus and our community and reflects poorly
on a fine University.
Isn't it time to retire the Chief? •
|
 |
|
|
Guest Editorial
Some thoughts about the 'Chief'
By Thomas Garza, via the web.
Excerpts of Garza's letter appear below; please read the
full letter here.
I was born in the city of Champaign, in 1956, and spent all of my formative years
here in the long shadow of the University of Illinois. Consequently I have never
known a time when Chief Illiniwek wasn't the personification, or the 'face',
of the U of I and it's sports teams...
When I look at the controversy about the Chief from this perspective, it's not
difficult for me to see why there are still so many people who simply don't
understand why anyone would have a problem with him....
Leaving aside for a moment the extremely questionable taste of using a young white man
dressed in, let's call it 'red-face', to portray a Native American elder, the truth is
that taken entirely by himself, out of context, Chief Illiniwek is not especially
offensive...
[Quoting this 'Save the Chief' site]:
"The tradition of Chief Illiniwek is a link to the past. He is filled with qualities that a person of any background can relate to: goodness, strength, bravery, truthfulness, courage, and dignity."
That has a very nice sound to it, and from what I've read on the subject, this sort
of soft-focused, idealized view of the Chief is just about ubiquitous. Such lists of
virtues are very common in pro-chief materials, yet nowhere in this, or in any of the
other literature that I've read, does anyone mention just why they think that the Chief
in particular is so well suited to portray these qualities...
The unspoken assumption seems to be that: Indian chief, equals dignity and courage. Period.
And since this is the case, then why not celebrate that fact, and how can we be insulting
Native Americans by doing so? ...
Consider, if you will, the following question:
why would the university create a fictitious character from a poorly understood and
alien culture to represent them, when there are a whole host of well known and comfortably
familiar icons from the dominant western European historical tradition to choose from?
Why, in other words, don't we ever see a heroic Abe Lincoln simulacrum dancing around
the field and whipping the crowd into a frenzy with his long, nimble legs, and
characteristic stovepipe hat? Or how about a 'Fighting Pope'? Wouldn't the crowd be
thrilled to see this fiery pontiff cross himself while simultaneously doing aerial
splits...?
If these examples strike you as ludicrous, it's because they are. Such spectacles would
be risible and more than a little embarrassing. This is because these figures have
personalities and embody qualities that actually are revered and honored by the
majority of students and fans, and to see a familiar and respected religious
leader, or a much beloved president behaving in such a way would strip them
of their dignity, and make them, and through them their respective offices,
seem both comical and foolish.
Yet this is exactly what the Chief does to the image of a real Indian chief during
his half-time performance, or when his image appears on everything from coffee mugs
to seat warmers. And yet somehow his ignominy is perfectly acceptable to a surprising
number of people who would generally characterize themselves as both open, and
fair-minded...
Since the controversy over the Chief began, the university has changed a few things
in order to address the offensiveness of the officially sanctioned uses of the Chief
but not, I think, because they completely or collectively recognize the racism inherent
in his use, but rather to calm things down and hopefully make the problem go away.
In the long run however, no matter how limited his exposure, the fact that his role remains that of a symbol, a mascot, or a trademark, is in and of itself demeaning.
The Chief portrays Native Americans as one dimensional cartoons, and no matter how
high the pedestal upon which he's placed, how many wonderful characteristics are
attached to his name, or how honored his treatment, he's still -- and by extension
so are his putative relatives -- a caricature. By using this cardboard cut-out of
an Indian in such a public way, the university drowns out the attempts of real
natives to express their genuine humanity, and to show their real, true dignity.
It says, in effect, 'as far as Indians go, we prefer our version', and real
Native Americans must continue by personal example to live down, or live up to,
or simply try to ignore a stereotype that is more powerfully financed and omnipresent than the quiet examples of their everyday lives can ever hope to compete with. The sad part of it is, it should be completely unnecessary.
It is difficult enough to know who you are, without having to first stop being someone that you never were to begin with.
Thomas Garza
His full letter appears here.
|
