|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights |
|
UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
Current rating: 0 |
by Sascha Meinrath
Email: sascha (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified!) |
13 Nov 2003
|
|
The first order of business of the University of Illinois Trustees was to withdraw the resolution calling for the retirement of the racial mascott -- Chief Illiniwek. It is expected that the resolution will be brought up in July -- after students are on summer vacation.
Please let your opinions on this be known by commenting below.
The UCIMC is collecting opinions on this -- please let yours be known by commenting below. |
|
|
The first order of business of the University of Illinois Trustees was to withdraw the resolution calling for the retirement of the racial mascott -- Chief Illiniwek. It is expected that the resolution will be brought up in July -- after students are on summer vacation.
The UCIMC is collecting opinions and additional information on this issue, please let your voice be heard by commenting below. |
| |
Comments
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Robert Porter
rporter (nospam) newtonbigelow.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Nov 2003
|
|
Does anybody know whose idea it was to withdraw the resolution? Was there any discussion before the the decision to withdraw it was made? Is there any official way of censuring Trustees? Could a petition be created to remove specific members from the Board? In other words, where are the pressure points? |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -7
13 Nov 2003
|
Nice Try, Nutbags, but not today. Honor and Courage won out today. The majority has rights too. I know you guys are angry for always being the last one picked for the team, but leave us alone and quit calling everything you disagree with: racist.
You do not speak for Native Americans, nor do you speak for the rest of us.
Jack |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by KJ
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -7
13 Nov 2003
|
|
GO CHIEF!!!!! |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 8
13 Nov 2003
|
Again I spoke without thinking and now after much thought realize my sorry attitude is wrong. Please forgive again and may I add I am sure that with a chief as the racist mascott it is, the university trustees will at some point realize this, have the courage to hold a vote and remove this offensive mascott!
Please pay no attention to my first posting! I get off track ever so often! |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Allison Jones
amjones3 (nospam) uiuc.edu (verified) |
Current rating: -1
13 Nov 2003
|
When will this end?
The Chief is degrading. Its long past time for him to go. We need a REAL mascot, not a faulty representation of a race of people. |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Allison Jones
amjones3 (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Nov 2003
|
When will this end?
The Chief is degrading. Its long past time for him to go. We need a REAL mascot, not a faulty representation of a race of people. |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by John
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
13 Nov 2003
Modified: 11:45:55 AM |
Allison,
You say that you want a real mascot? The Chief is a real mascot! If the U of I changes you and your friends will start bitching about the next mascot just like the people in Normal who want Illinois State to give up the Redbird. When will it end. If the Chief goes then I want to see you and friends at Florida State protesting down there. After you get none in Florida go up to Notre Dame have them give up the name Fighting Irish! After that you guys can start on all the animal mascots! When will it end!!!! |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Governater
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 8
13 Nov 2003
|
|
When will it end? If we end slavery, then blacks will want to vote! They'll want to own property and even have the right to marry white folks! Then the Asians and Native Americans and women and others will get uppity, and we'll have civil rights marches and all kinds of nonsense! Social justice is a slippery slope! WHEN WILL IT END???? |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Erika
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
13 Nov 2003
|
|
I don't understand the rationale behind keeping the Chief as a mascot. If Chief supporters claim the Chief honors and respects Native Americans, but Native Americans themselves say they feel it is racist, doesn't it make sense to "honor and respect" their opinions? |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Beth Tub
elizacorps (nospam) yahoo.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Nov 2003
Modified: 01:14:57 PM |
Again folks in power using it to put off facing their history and the consequences of their choices.
Over and again I hear the audacity of ignorance- claiming that we must defend the local history of champaign-urbana rather than the dignity of native americans. It hurts to admit a poor choice was made all these years- it it more embarassing, though, to put off making the intelligent choice of retiring the chief. It will be that much less salt rubbed into our (White's) history of genocide. |
|
The Chief---A Rebuttal |
by a small vocal minority of one representing myself
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 7
13 Nov 2003
Modified: 04:26:04 PM |
I live in Champaign. I graduated from the U of I and have lived in central Illinois all my life. Do I in anyway think that I will change anybody’s opinion? Big fat no. I am not even trying. I present these thoughts as a rebuttal (emotional as it may be) to some of the ideas I have heard offered by pro-Chiefers. Read them or ignore them. I just wanted to offer them.
I listened to many callers on WDWS AM radio in Champaign, IL during the week of the Board of Trustees meeting. I have heard many people refer to a similar idea. It starts with the caller declaring his “X” heritage. If “X” heritage were to be made into a mascot, like the Fighting Irish or the Flying Dutchman, well, then it would be an honor. And Native Americans should feel honored as well. Wake up you small vocal minority. If the majority thinks it’s okay, it is. If you agree with this admittedly sarcastic premise, please indulge me for a moment. I do not believe the “Fighting Whities” phenomena is a similar comparison which would put whites in a similar position. I understand why “Fighting Whites” T-shirts sold so well. Most people do think having a team named “Fighting Whites” is an honor. The problem is that it is not exactly the same thing. My following analogy might begin to approach true reciprocity.
You have just become a brand new ethnicity. You are now Native American. Not in the traditional sense of the word, as in a person that was born to a government-defined group of people who originally inhabited this country prior to European colonization, but Native American, as in a person who was born in this country and have lived here since birth. You share the common general culture with your neighbors in a similar way. You may practice different types of religions or speak in different dialects and even languages. Different areas depend on different methods of economic sustenance. But all live under the umbrella of the same culture---criminal justice, media, education system, health and welfare, and so on.
Now image that another group of people comes to the U.S. and begins to live and takeover the government. I suppose a really good analogy would be aliens with ray guns. Sounds really out there, but it doesn’t matter what these people are, they will not go and they have superior weapons---weapons which are illegal for you to possess BECAUSE you are a human. Now imagine contact with these people sends great illnesses through us. Viruses that kill within days. Infections overcome and strike its recipient dead within a week. You want these people to leave. But they want you to leave. And since you cannot win after making war and attempting “peace” treaties, you and all in Champaign-Urbana are forced to march across the country to live in “camps” which have no water, no arable land for crops, not that you have anything to plant to eat anyway. You are now a prisoner. Perhaps some of them are “nice”, like the camps for the Japanese during WWII. Now image it is the year 2302. Three hundred years from today. Seem far off? I am 30. My great grandchildren will be alive then. In the year 2302, a nation of millions is reduced to a few hundred thousand. We have been killed off by disease; forced marches; aliens trying to take over our homes, our crops, our churches, our businesses; starvation; alien armies; and camp security and alien charity forced upon us, splitting children from their parents, husband from wife. Not until my granddaughter is alive can you practice your own religion. It is illegal to practice any religion except the dominant alien grape worship and it is considered savage to deify a bleeding man on a stick. But don’t worry. These aliens in 2302 won’t let Americans be forgotten. Some of their quidditch teams use Americans for mascots. The quidditch team for Bronxtown has a bucktoothed skinhead. The team for Newer York has Hitler in a priest’s collar. (Yah, it might not be totally accurate, but it’s meant to honor Native American culture.)
It is difficult to say that using X race wouldn’t offend you. The Dutch (and Irish) which has been used were not invaded and decimated by a conquering force. It would be similar if, say as an analogy, the Nazis invaded Holland during WWII and killed off 95% of the population and then rounded up the remaining 5% into camps. Not implausible. Now imagine that the Nazis still control Holland and use the image of a Dutch girl in her clogs to make money for sports teams and public learning institutions. Does it seem like an honor now? If you think it is ridiculous to use the Nazis because of their horrific record against Jews, I would suggest to you that while you and I may not have committed atrocities against native peoples, the U.S.---as an nation, as a governmental body that supposedly espoused freedom and democracy, as an entity---has. Yours and my ancestors may have come to this country after the American Indians were already on reservations or mostly there, but we benefit to this day from the removal and forced deportation of American Indians. I would offer that U.S. may not have gassed the Indians, but we gave them blankets with small pox on them---on purpose. The U.S. government removed thousands of children from their families because the U.S. government determined that Indian people were child-like savages who didn’t know how to raise their own children. The Trail of Tears (the forced march across the U.S. during the winter months) decimated the Cherokee nation. I would say that in its treatment of the people living here prior to colonization, the U.S. didn’t act very differently from the Evil known as Nazi Germany. The symbol used, the analogy chosen, the races substituted, it really doesn’t matter. Whether you are Dutch or Irish or Polish or German, your ethnic heritage was not hunted. Posters have not been hung in general stores offering 5¢ for the scalp of your grandmother (this is where the term “redskin” originates). Nobody wants to sell your religious iconography for sports paraphernalia. I have never seen a team selling a purple-sequined thong-clad Jesus on a stick to “honor” the Irish Catholics at Notre Dame. It would never been done.
And for the record, I have lived “here” all my life. (Is “here” Champaign proper? or Champaign County? Or East Central Illinois? Or Illinois? Or the U.S.?) I really don’t know why everybody “assumes” all anti-chiefers are from some far off place. I have lived within a 75-mile radius of the U of I since birth (not that I don’t travel). I shouldn’t have to leave. When people call up and say that those who don’t “like” the Chief or any other “unpopular” opinion should just leave, I would like to offer two points.
First, not everybody who is from here thinks just like you. And I have a right to my opinions, just as you do. Unpopularity was never illegal. By this rationale, anti-abortion protesters and those who work to rid the world of abortion should leave the U.S., since it is legal. Suck it up and deal with it. Not all of the people who live and work near you agree with you. I guess all the Republican residents of Urbana better rent U-Hauls ‘cause the majority in Urbana is Democrat. Life doesn’t work like that. (Just a tip to pro-Chiefers: when you say “Go back where you came from,” I can’t help but hear echoes of white racist Southerners from the ‘60s echoing in the background. Not the intent, I’m sure, but it might not be the tack you want to take in an argument.)
Second, mob rule is not how we govern. The Bill of Rights is specifically designed to protect the minority from the whim of the majority. We have the freedom to worship any religion, to print and say anything, to pursue whatever crazy dream we have, to travel, to live. Many ideas once held by the majority now seem absurd. The majority in Germany backed Hitler. And, for many years, it was believed that black slaves and Native Americans were subhuman animals that didn’t feel emotions or pain like “normal” people. Women were considered too feeble-minded to own property or vote. Many past injustices have taken decades to overturn, let alone change. Opinions were not changed in ten years, which is how long we have been discussing the “Chief issue” intensely. Women struggled for years for the right to vote when the majority did not want it. This nation has been torn apart more than once because a small vocal minority wanted freedom/voting rights/equality for blacks. Just because an idea begins with a small vocal minority does not make it wrong-headed or without merit.
I was raised by a father who attended this university. I learned two songs as a child. “Take me out to the ballgame” (sorry, I’m a Cubs fan) and “Hail to the Orange.” I learned all about Wik and the Three-in-One before even coming here. I got shivers from the Chief the first time I saw him. I loved him. Then, as I attended classes and graduated from the University of Illinois, my view of the world *and* the chief changed. I am not a religious zealot. I don’t know many verses, but I do know one that says something like...when I was a child, I spoke like a child. When I had grown, I put away childish things. This is what I had to with the Chief. Perhaps when our eyes are closed, when our eyes are innocent like a child’s, the idea of the “Chief,” of a noble savage is romantic. But when our eyes are open, no matter what the original intent, I cannot pretend that using the image of a religious figure from a race of people my country has attempted to annihilate is still an honor.
You cannot tell someone how he or she should believe. Let’s reverse it:
1.
CALLER: I love the Chief. He’s a respected symbol of the University of Illinois. Native Americans should feel honored by his symbolism.
2.
CALLER: I love Bill Clinton. He’s a respected symbol of the United States of America. Americans should feel honored by his presidency.
Granted, I have simply matched analogy for analogy. However, when I hear some analogies put forth in pro-chief arguments, I can envision the simple substitutions that would have the caller singing a different tune. For example,
a small vocal minority opposed to the “blank” should not change the status quo. And (insert outspoken opponent here) should go work somewhere else if he doesn’t like the “blank” here.
becomes
a small vocal minority opposed to the “Chief” should not change the status quo. And “Stephen Kauffman” should go work somewhere else if he doesn’t like the “symbol” here.
changes to
a small vocal minority opposed to “abortion” should not change the status quo. And "George W. Bush" should go live somewhere else if he doesn’t like the “law” here.
Still want me to leave? I’ll save you a seat---right next to me.
signed,
a small vocal minority of one representing myself |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Erika
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Nov 2003
|
|
To the author of "The Chief--A Rebuttal", I really liked your commentary and I sincerely urge you to send it to the DI and the News Gazette in hopes that they would print it so that it could get wider exposure. I think it was a really thought-provoking, well written statement that everyone needs to hear. |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Jon Hickel
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 5
13 Nov 2003
Modified: 06:34:35 PM |
TODAY IN NEWS-GAZETTE WATCH:
Paul Wood and Jodi Heckel did a pretty balanced job of covering the reaction to the vote delay. Read it at: http://www.newsgazette.com/story.cfm?Number=14895.
This is in marked contrast to yesterday's coverage, by Jodi Heckel, which ended with a plug for the pro-Chief rally. Yesterday's story gave extensive coverage to the blatantly racist comments of Trustee Marjoree Sodemann: "the Chief is *our* symbol because he represents *our* heritage and *our* history. It is one of the few ways *we* have of teaching *our* children *respect for our forefathers.* I think he's been an honorable symbol; there's not a thing racist about him, and most people want him." (emphasis mine). The student trustee interviewed was on the fence. Where were the comments of Trustee Carol and other supporters?
Although the story didn't seem balanced, extensive coverage of Sodemann gave her plenty of time to put her foot in her mouth. It is important to hear the pro-Chief folks make justifications because it shows the logic behind their statements. The Chief is genuinely an appropriation of the symbol of an oppressed people by a dominant people, with no regard for the history of that oppression.
Also, I will note, near to yesteday's article, there was a large photo and caption about the pro-Chief truck locals are free to visit parked outside a local bank.
The News Gazette, as we know, has a clear side on this issue. |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by swing dancer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
14 Nov 2003
|
|
I have always liked the chief as a mascott. Oh well, lets get a stupid bird like everyone else. sigh! |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by JMohr
mohrjimmy (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: -1
14 Nov 2003
|
I think those WHITE and BLACK people who have a problem with the chief should really get a life and start focusing on REAL problems (starvation, unemployment, welfare reform, homelessness). Do not compare the chief to slavery. How can the true Native American population be slaves? They pay no taxes, are able to receive welfare, they are allowed to own casinos, and fish and hunt without limits... I wish I were a slave if that is the life of a slave.
If Hoopstown would create a football team named the Hoopstown Honkies I would cheer for them. Heck I'd drive out there to see them play.
Get a life, please.
Oh, one more fact. There is no such thing as Native Americans. They migrated here from Asia thru Alaska. Technically they are Native Asians (tongue in cheek). |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Marie
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 4
14 Nov 2003
Modified: 12:51:37 PM |
To author of "A Rebuttal", I second the suggestion that you send your letter around to local papers.
Someone above quoted trustee Soderman as saying, "the Chief is *our* symbol because he represents *our* heritage and *our* history." Trustee Schmidt said something very similar about "our heritage" in today's NG article. It seems that they talk about the original settlers of this area like any other feature of the area -- like the prairie or native trees -- like "they're 'things' that were here long ago, and we love it *here*, so to honor this *place* we love, we'll honor the *things* that were here long ago". |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Governater
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
14 Nov 2003
|
Nobody said it was slavery. The point was that the "slippery slope" argument is misguided.
And of course there are bigger issues than the Chief. What has that got to do with anything? Tell the cop writing you a speeding ticket that he should be out catching murderers, and see what happens.
If you really believed it was a such a minor issue, you wouldn't be here wasting your time arguing with us and getting pointlessly angry.
The Chief is obnoxious, tasteless, makes the University look bad, and makes its supporters say stupid things. We should just get rid of it and be done.
What's the big deal? |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by JMohr
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
14 Nov 2003
|
The big deal is that a couple of people cry about how it makes the University look and too much time (and money) is spent on the issue. I see nothing wrong with the image of the U of I with the Chief.
Calling 'The fighting Illini' racist is just wrong. How silly does it make us look when we rename our University, all the teams, all the apparel, all the signage around Memorial Stadium... for what? The Illinois Farmers? No that degrades 'city-folk'. The Illinois Lincolns? No he was a Republican. The Illinois Ground Hogs? No PETA will have issues with that one. The Illinois Engineers? No, all graduates aren't engineers? This is the flywheel that we get on.
A much simpler and cheaper solution is to take pride in your University (even though the football team can't win). If it bothers you that much, close your eyes when the Chief comes out to dance. |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Thinkpeople
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 4
14 Nov 2003
Modified: 01:56:16 PM |
I am native american and I'll tell you this if the flying ditchmen were portrayed as idiots running throught tulips or the fighting irish were displayed as drunks there would be a problem. It is ok to portray Native Americans as uncivilized people slapping there hands over there mouths and running aroud all over the place...Do you know how many tribes did that...Do you think that represents us.
My tribe doesn't belive in gambling and neither do many others so know WE DON'T LIVE IN CASINOS EITHER that was probably the most ignorant comment I read from all of them.I encourage all pro chiefers to read LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME.
P.S.Florida Seminoles don't have a WHITE boy dressed as a NATIVE CHIEF running around acting stupid |
|
Re:Thinkpeople |
by Peoplethought
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
14 Nov 2003
|
Thinkpeople I think you need to re-read the messages. He never said 'Native Americans' live in casinos. He said they own them. Correct me if I am wrong but the casinos are owned by the tribe.
The Lac du Flambeau tribe owns the Torch of the Lakes casino. It is owned, operated, and staffed by tribe members. That is fine with me.
I would assume the WHITE boy you spoke of dancing about probably knows more about true 'Native American' culture than atleast half of the people who claim to be 'Native American'. I have several family members who call themselves 'Native American'. They have 15% 'Native American' blood in them... That is enough according to the government to qualify for benefits as a 'Native American'. That is a bigger insult to the 'Native American' people than the Chief ever could be. |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Governater
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
14 Nov 2003
Modified: 08:16:38 PM |
JMohr
Why are you so worried about how other people spend time and money? I can understand the anger of Native Americans, who feel insulted and humiliated. But the pro-Chief crowd? It makes no sense. The U of I could have saved a lot of money and trouble by eliminating the Chief early on.
YOU don't see anything wrong with it. So what? A very large proportion of the people the Chief is supposed to honor do see something wrong with it.
Think of how absurd the basic pro-Chief position is in this regard:
"We have the Chief to honor Native Americans".
Well, Native Americans are not generally honored, and would rather we got rid of the Chief.
"Too bad! We're gonna honor them whether they like it or not!!"
Finally, to imply that we are getting on some "flywheel" (really a slippery slope) if we get rid of the chief is to ignore reality. As a simple matter of fact, there do not exist big campaigns to get rid of other kinds of mascots. Other schools have not had this problem, and you are not entitled to make things up out of thin air when making an argument.
|
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
15 Nov 2003
Modified: 10:05:25 PM |
Dear Leftists:
What I have discovered by this entire argument is that the same people fight for every cause or else they would have no one to talk too. Brook Anderson is a player in the Health Care Consumers, Planned Parenthood, and every other left leaning cause summed up by demanding others take responsibility or pay for something they themselves want.
As for the Anti Cheif forces, I have some questions. Do you ever even go to any sporting competitions? Have you ever played a competitive sport? Did you read the comprehensive Sports Illustrated pole in which 82% of Native Americans were not offended by these symbols?
My theory is that you are looking for something to protest so you will have friends. This is sad. Perhaps you should take responsibility for your own actionsa and expenses, you would be so much happier. You folks look for reasons to be angry. You grew up hearing how your parents stopped a war in Southeast Asia and you long for the same experiences. Unfortuanately you have grown up to be just as irrevalant as your, now divorced parents.
Put your talents, and they are many, into employing the very people you claim to defend. Start a company, become rich and provide health insurance and a 401K for your workers. If you truly want to help, learn the system and quit bitching. If you wnat to get rid of someone, start with the liberal Nancy Cantor. She is holdling all of you Nutbags back.
Good Luck,
Jack |
|
"Irrelevant" Minority? Think Again |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
16 Nov 2003
Modified: 01:08:57 PM |
John Foreman fulminated at length about the Chief issue in Sunday's News-Gazette. Like some of the even less thoughtful commenters here, he also is having delusions about the "majority" status of the Chief's support.
Word is that there is, in fact, a majority of the Board of Trustees that would voted to retire the Chief, but the timing was a little too rushed for a few of them. It simply isn't a matter of Trustee Carroll "not being able to count to six" as some have charged in another display of the thinnly veiled racism that is displayed by some Chief supporters.
Neither Foreman or any other N-G writer has made reference to results of the News-Gazette's own on-line poll this week. As has already been mentioned, it is hardly a scientific poll, but the final results may be surprising to those who try to paint the continuation of the Chief as a matter of majority rules (although this is clearly one of those cases where majority rule really is less the issue than the need to create a welcoming climate to a diverse student population.)
The final results of the N-G poll on retiring the Chief:
23,382 votes
63% - Yes, it's time to retire the mascot
37% - No, we prefer to wallow in the past
More and more, it looks like support for the Chief is a matter of a small, vocal minority who seek to intimidate others into keeping the Chief. Which is, in my mind, an improvement over them being a vocal majority. |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Ditto
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 5
16 Nov 2003
Modified: 08:06:18 PM |
Jack's right, you commies! If you worked harder, you'd have all the health insurance you need.
And the 20-30 million uninsured Americans?... What do you think, health care is a right? If your job doesn't provide insurance, get a better job!
And while I'm at it, I'd like to point out that conservatives like me and Jack are 100% opposed to farm subsidies, even for Illinois farmers. They should compete in the marketplace like everyone else.
Success is a matter of personal responsibility, not government handouts.
The same should go for our taxpayer funded roads, highways, libraries, schools, universities, hospitals, police and fire departments, workplace safety rules, building codes, timber, oil, and coal industries, and so on.
This place is full of hippie freeloaders!
Thank God there are real men like me and Jack to set you all straight.
PS- I'm not looking for "excuses" to get mad at people, just because I'm a conservative and I spend enough time on a liberal website to post more than anyone else. My successful business and loving family take up too much time for that. |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by thinkpeople
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Nov 2003
Modified: 08:06:32 PM |
|
this is to all of you folks he did say live on casinos and I was raised on a reservation |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Tom Blackwood
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Nov 2003
Modified: 11:43:07 AM |
|
The main arguement I hear against the chief is that he is not authentic. If this is the case I have a couple of solutions. Having been on several Indian reservations and observing what goes on there, my first would be to dress a native american up in a cheesy tux and have him roll a crap table out to center court and select several fans to come down and try their luck. Another idea would be to roll out a trading post with benches out front and let selected fans sit there and see how much whiskey they can drink during half-time. I may be stereotyping, but these are huge problems that do exist and after first hand seeing these problems, I don't think the chief is really degrading the Native Amerian image. They seem to be doing a great job of doing that themselves. |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
01 Dec 2003
Modified: 02:01:22 PM |
ML,
You know what, you are probably right. If you have so much confidence in this recent and only pole that was in favor of dumping the chief, would you be willing to put it to a vote among the students and faculty at the U of I? Why not let the people decide.
As for Ditto, please speak for yourself. You might be surprised to learn, that I am opposed to farm assistance, because I believe in markets. You, on the other hand, clearly do not. I suspect you are one of those nutbag protesters that try to circumvent Free Trade. Did you learn nothing from the depression?
Jack |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Saluki
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
29 Dec 2003
|
What is next? You leftists going after SIU's mascot because he is "demeaning to other creatures of the dog species?"
Yet, your logic seems to be quite similar to this.
Conservatives agree with liberals on more than you think, it's just this whole "political correctness", combined with your love affair that keeps the two apart. Shame. |
|
Think About This |
by ZK
zkeeter (nospam) stu.parkland.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Feb 2004
|
Well, I am not going to say I am speaking for Native americans. I am also not going to try to bash anyone on here. But, stay with me here, this is my opinion. I consider myself native american. Although, I am not pure blood, I am the last generation that can register with the tribe. I belong to the Cherokee Nation. My family is from Oklahoma, mainly in Talequa and Grove. All my life I have been told of my heritage. I know of many direct relatives that traveled the Trail of Tears. We even own land in Oklahoma that was given to my family by the government years ago. I know what real Native Americans were and are today. I've seen them, lived with them, I even hung out and played cards with the brother of the former Chief of the Cherokee Nation in Fort Gibson Ok.. He almost married into my family. And none of these people I speak of, some being of pure Native American blood, have any concern about the Chief. They don't feel offended by him, and they don't feel it racist. We are for the Chief 100%. I dont feel so much that the Chief is meant to honor Native Americans so much as it is meant to visualize the fierceness of a sports team. It is not meant to be seen as some person dressed funny and running around acting foolish, making fun of a group of people. And it is not meant to show that we are a bunch of indians, or to portray Native Americans in a negative manner. It is a symbol of good nature. It is meant to show strength, courage, and the willingness to fight. Which is what the Native Americans did. They fought the White Man who was trying to take their land. They had a fire that just wouldn't die. And still do. And this mascot is meant to resemble that same fire. A fire that won't die in the hearts of the team. Getting rid of the mascot is not doing any civil or human rights deed. Its degrading your own school. Its making your school look silly. I think that a Native American/ Indian makes a very strong, respectable mascot. Its not some silly, whimpy bird as was mentioned in previous posts. Or some inanimate object. Its a symbol that has a history, a past, and respected and revered past. A heroic past. So I think it was a very wise choice in making it the team mascot of a school that has a past of similar stature. In my eyes, only the Native Americans can, and should say what they feel is racist or demeaning to them. Anyone who this personally could affect. Anyone with a substantial link to Native American life and/or heritage. Only these people should be debating this. All the people that jumped on the band wagon should have very limited, to no say in this matter. How can you say its racist, your not a Native American. You don't know. I consider myself to be of much Native American heratige, as I stated before. And I feel no harm being done by the Chief. I think all the protestors need to take a step back and look at the real thing going on here. You have made a mountain out of a mole hill. And you are doing nothing but ruining a good thing. If you need something to do, find another hobby. One that doesn't involve you dictating the feelings of people that you are not. All I have to say for now is LONG LIVE THE CHIEF!!!!!!!!!!
P.S.
I welcome any intelligent debate to what I have said. Also, I would like to know who I need to speak with to take a more formal stand on this. |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by Louis Gray
louis (nospam) okit.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jun 2004
|
|
Indian people are not mascots. It is impossible to honor people you mock. Retire this old symbol of racial intolerance. it is painful and shameful. peace |
|
Re: UIUC Board Of Trustees Chief Resolution Withdrawn -- No Vote Today. |
by chuck
chuck (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jun 2004
|
|
Shockingly, I have to agree with Jack on this one. No matter how many polls show that the overwhelming majority support keeping the Chief, lifelong protestors want to remove him. And for God's sake, he's not a mascot. The Phillie Phanatic is a mascot, Benny the Bull is a mascot, Nancy Cantor is a mascot (although extremely heinous and troll-like). He is not mocking anyone, he is not a symbol of racial intolerence, he is an honored symbol of our great university. Learn to understand that and try to enjoy yourselves once in a while. |
|
