|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights : Education : Protest Activity |
|
Chief protest ends; makes gains |
Current rating: 0 |
by Andrew Ă“ Baoill
Email: andrew (nospam) funferal.org (verified) |
16 Apr 2004
|
|
The 4pm press conference outside Swanlund gave details of the agreement between the sit-in-ers and U of I administration. |
|
The 4pm press conference outside Swanlund gave details of the agreement between the anti-Chief coalition and U of I administration. Administrators helped arrange meetings between the coalition and the Latino and Black caucuses in the Illinois legislature on April 27th. Coalition representatives will meet with the accreditation body for the university when it visits Urbana on 28th April. And Trustee Carroll has agreed to put the retirement motion back on the agenda for the June Board of Trustees meeting. |
Related stories on this site:
Sit-In Press Conference at 4pm
PRC Statement on Swanlund Occupation
| 
This work is in the public domain. |
Comments
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 13
16 Apr 2004
|
You ran out of food did'nt you? Wow, now what if you lose this time. How about getting down on your back in the grocery store and thrashing around and screaming loudly until the chief is gone and your Mom gets you the cereal with the prize you have already picked out.
One thing about losing, I have heard it becomes a habit. Ask the Editor.
Jack |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by MAD AS HELL
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
16 Apr 2004
|
M.L.
I thought we decided that "'Jack Ryan" was too dangerous for our readers. I thought we decided not to let him post anymore. I see most of his stuff in the "Hidden Articles" but not all.
He makes fun of everything we do and I for one will not listen to him or anyone else who consistently posts against our ultimate aims.
DO YOUR JOB OR WE WILL FIND SOMEONE WHO WILL. |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by Redundant
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
16 Apr 2004
|
You know, I have been a reader of the ucimc for only a few months and I must agree with Mad As Hell. I have no time, nor do I wish to listen, to anyone who spouts the hatred that is Jack Ryan regardless of what he says. He has many avenues for his speech and it has no place on the ucimc. In fact, I think that there should be a way to control or prevent these vandals from posting on the ucimc.
Redundant. |
|
Obviously, A Provocation |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 8
16 Apr 2004
|
No member of the UC IMC ever uses the asinine tone expressed by "MAD AS HELL". In fact, I suspect this person is Jack Ryan himself.
In any case, if you want to influence our editorial policy, you will have to come to a meeting and speak up. We don't think much of Jack, but we are hardly the net nazis that both Jack and M.A.H. think we are or should be (which is the main reason I think that M.A.H. is actually Jack himself...)
And Redundant, well, that's obviously what you are. Same supposition (and advice) applies to you. |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by MAD AS HELL
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Apr 2004
|
Dear Editor,
You are confused. I am on your side. Jack Ryan is a beast. I thought you had silenced him for good, but I see that he is back and posting his intolerance freely. I have no patience for his bigotry or his opinions.
To date you have done a fair job of hiding his facist opinions. However, I will not support you if his voice continues to be heard regardless of the message. |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by The Anti Rush
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
16 Apr 2004
|
In the words of Jack's God, Ditto "Mad As Hell". I have listened to this slimeball long enough. I am tired of having everything I believe be berated, abused, and downright made fun of. You go " Mad as Hell" and Down with the Chief. Eat that Jack!!!
AR |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by Redundant
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
17 Apr 2004
|
M.L.
I will see you at the next meeting as you have become way too tolerant of opinions from the right. I have openly expressed this in past meetings and I know you know who I am. Get control of these stormtroopers on the right and let them find their own way to express themselves but not on the UC-IMC.
They are now linking our site to the racist's on the Pro Chief sites. We will be inundated with opinions with which we do not agree.
How is this Independent Media??? |
|
If I Am Supposed to Know Who You Are...Use YOur Initials Instead of an Unrecognizable Pseudonym |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 13
17 Apr 2004
|
Au contraire, I do not know who you are. We have not previously had any of our members post using the nym "Redundant" that I am aware of nor have we had anyone make a motion to ban Jack, although we have had several people ask that we more strictly enforce our existing rules against his violations of our website use policy, which the web editorial team has done.
I suggest you actually speak up at the next meeting you attend, if you are for real. I and many others would be happy to consense to such a motion, although the general feeling is that Jack undercuts himself by his own stupidity enough that there is little need to do so.
Generally, what Jack does not understand (and apparently you too, which is why I doubt your veracity or previous attendance at ANY of our meetings) is that we are extremely tolerant of people voicing their opinions on this site, even if we do not agree with them, as long as it is done without repeatedly violating our website use policy.
The extended string of rather inane and ignorant comments made about the sit-in and the Chief in the last few days is an example of this. They were all made without the need to send any of them to the Hidden Files, with the exception of a few by Jack himself. I exclude duplicate articles, of couse, the number of which only goes to show the basic technical incompetence of many on the right in the use of our rather simple to use software.
Perhaps the time has come to ban Jack -- he certainly has violated our website use policies enough to qualify, as have the tiny handful of others who have been subject to the ultimate penalty in the past. But you will have to actually show up and make such a motion, which so far no one has done, demonstrating again that his bleating about censorship is without substantive basis.
As for anyone linking to our site, well, it IS the Internet and such things happen. Maybe if some of these people come here and actually read the material in an attempt to understand what motivates us, instead of having the kneejerk reactions that only cause them to spew insults, they might actually learn something, so that does not trouble me in the least.
Overall, your lack of understanding about how we do things at Indymedia still convinces me that you are the invention of Jack's paranoia, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if you appear in person at a meeting, note that you are actually the person posting as "Redundant" and make a motion to ban Jack. |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by chuck
chuck (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 2
17 Apr 2004
|
|
What are you going to do when troll Cantor leaves? Its obvious that she is the only reason anyone pays attention to this nonsense, other than the fact that there might have been some free sandwiches. I feel sorry for Syracuse, they will probably end up having to get rid of that adorable orange-man. |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by Mink!
mink (nospam) tcp.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 30
17 Apr 2004
|
|
I've always found the OrangeMan a bit creepy myself (possibly it's just the costume) but hey, at least they're not tarting up a lemon and claiming he's so very educational to the masses about how one goes about cultivating and honoring oranges.
That said, Cantor will leave (although for the moment she's still got the office and the right to negotiate on the University's behalf) and they will find another chancellor. This might happen relatively quickly, if they can find someone willing to step into the maelstrom of divisiveness that the Chief debate has become, or it might take longer, in which case there is a distinct possibility that Those In Charge will recognize that their best chance of finding a prestigious candidate lies in finishing off the debate before the new candidate takes office.
Given that this is the 21st century, and that even the illustrious Eppley has commented to none other than the New York Times that he himself must admit that outside a 150-mile or so radius of Champaign-Urbana, it's rather hard to justify keeping the Chief or explaining just why it is that people retain such an attachment to it, I'd bet that "resolving the matter" will inevitably equate to "retiring the Chief."
I hope they will manage to do so with the honor that the tradition deserves, before they are forced to do so.
|
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 13
17 Apr 2004
|
Nancy Cantor negotiating with the leftist students is like Yasar Arafat negotiating the Middle East Peace with Osama Bin Laden.
What Negotiations?
Jack |
|
Nah, Jack, If You Go, It's Only Because We're 100% in Favor of That |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 30
18 Apr 2004
|
Jack,
Actually, no, there won't be a vote on whether to ban you, if someone makes such a motion. At the IMC, we operate on consensus, so the only way that will happen is if everyone is in favor of your being banned. Thus, while it won't be a vote, you can be assured that we will all be 100% in favor of such an outcome, if it occurs. If even one person objects, you get to stay (with you continuing to remain subject to our website use policy, of course.)
BTW, if you do go, it will be because of your repeated violations of our website use policy, not because we think your opinions are excrementitious. As anyone can clearly see, based on a number of comments made here in the last few days, we do not hide oponions just because we disagree with them.
Have a great day. |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by Michael Feltes
mfeltes (nospam) shimer.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 4
18 Apr 2004
|
Let me try that again.
In 1978, the members of a Native American student organization headed a protest against using the Saltine Warrior as an athletic mascot. Onondagan Chief Oren Lyons, a 1958 alumnus and former SU lacrosse star, explained that it's "all in the presentation...The thing that offended me when I was there was that guy running around like a nut. That's derogatory" (Daily Orange, March 23, 1976, p. 5). The Saltine Warrior was subsequently "sidelined" and a contest for successor ensued (Daily Orange, February 12, 1978).
From http://www.syr.edu/aboutsu/memorabilia/mascot.html |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 15
18 Apr 2004
|
Question: Are "people of color" offended by the term " Orangmen". Look out Syracuse, Cantor is coming!!!
Jack |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by Me
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
21 Apr 2004
|
|
I think the Chief should go. I also think anyone that was at this occupations and violent protest should have been arrested and expelled with impunity from the University. |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 23
21 Apr 2004
|
I thought Nancy Cantor handled the Swanlund standoff rather well -- she used reason and logic to resolve the conflict, rather than brute force (which is what the pro-chief types always seem to want). She is, after all, the chancellor of a university, rather than the warden of a prison. It appears that are some people who don't understand the difference between these two institutions. Unfortunately, this includes Trustee Eppley.
One function of an institution of higher learning is the training of social activists. This is one reason why there are so many campus-based organizations. Sometimes social activism requires the disruption of the status quo, believe it or not.
I wiish to congratulate the anti-chief coalition for their partial victory as a result of the sit-in. |
|
It's Obvious Some People Don't Bother Getting an Education While They're at the UI |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 22
22 Apr 2004
|
chuck: "At least 98% of the public..."
jm: "...a FEW people..."
L Tugo: "...overwhelming support..."
If you go by the results of the questionable Chief referendum, it's clear that none of these statements are true. Two-thirds of the student body didn't even have a dog in this fight -- they didn't bother voting. Of those who did vote, it was about 2-1 in favor of keeping the mascot. Thus, no one can credibly say that the Chief any longer represents a symbol of unity (the original stated purpose) of the student body. In fact, the number of rabid Chief supporters isn't that much larger than the number of Chief opponents.
Of course, it should be no surprise that a mascot such as the Chief, based on misrepresentations, lies, and myth, should have many supporters who have no regard for facts. The Chief is a fake, as are nearly all arguments made in support of keeping him around. As one of his more enthusiastic supporters, James Mortland (is that you, "jm"?), has already stated, "the Chief is an imitation of an original..."
In that case, why bother? Even more so, those who complain that Chief opponents should be out protesting "real" issues, as "jm" does, are wallowing in hypocrisy. Aren't they they ones wasting their time on a fake?
"jm" goes on to state that Chief opponents are out "...to eliminate some guy's ability to make a fool out of himself." No one cares about someone making "a fool out of himself." The problem is when such a "tradition" makes a fool out of a great University and makes light of the very real genocide against Native Americans.
Those who are out of touch with reality are the Chief's supporters, not those who oppose it. |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by ijustkrushalot
uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Apr 2004
|
first off, the recent referendum was the most voted on ever. 13,000 students voting was an extremely large number. The number of students voting for the chief was higher than the number of students voting for a $1 increase in student fees to pay for Asian-American cultural programming. And all of this was after a month long blitz by anti-chief protestors.
Each side can bicker all they want about what the other 26,000 would have voted on... but if you have ever taken a basic stats class, you would know that more than likely the proportion of results would be roughly the same.
Although ML, you are probably right. The vast majority of the student body doesn't really care that much about the issue. I voted YES on the referendum because my personal feeling is that having a native american mascot is no different that the Fighting Irish, Spartans, Cavaliers, Knights, Crusaders, or Cowboys. If the chief is retired, i doubt i am going to loose too much sleep over it (although i can't say the same once the PRC starts protesting "Illini" every day on the quad...
As the News-Gazette put it...
===============================
"(they)... claim that the university administration has been deaf to their cries to eliminate Chief Illiniwek. That of course, is not true. The university has spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours collecting opinions, conducting dialogues, listening to the same arguments (pro and con) at board meetings for years. The administration has hardly ignored the protesters; it just hasn't agreed with them. Nor have UI students and alumni. Nor has the general public."
=============================== |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 37
22 Apr 2004
|
Apparently the successful and peaceful resolution of the stand-off by the chancellor has embittered the more fanatical chief proponents, although this does not surprise me.
Let's consider what the chief is supposed to be: merely a mascot of sports teams, a source of entertainment at university sports-related events. It has become clear, however, that the chief has evolved into something else among the more fanatical propronents of the chief -- it has become like a pagan god, even a symbol of oppression and hatred. This must be true, otherwise the fanatical proponents of the chief would not become so upset whenever there is any talk about retiring the chief as the university's mascot. After all, if the chief really was nothing more than a mascot, then no one would really care whether or not the university adopted another mascot to replace the chief.
Consider what has happened to the current chancellor over this issue. Nancy Cantor expressed the opinion that the chief should be retired as the mascot of the university. Her opinion was leaked to the press when an Amerindian was thrown into the local jail while protesting the chief at a sporting event.
And what was the response of the fanatical proponents of the chief when the chancellor expressed her private opinion on this issue? She became the focus of their unreasoning rage and resentment. Tasteless billboards near the campus demanded the chancellor's immediate resignation. She was personally attacked in letters to the editor and editorials in local newspapers. In effect, she became the focus of a disgusting witch hunt thanks to this stupid mascot and its fanatical followers.
And so now we have reached the sad stage where the next chancellor must be a proponent of the chief if we wish to avoid the controversy surrounding the current chancellor. And I would like to know how the university is supposed to go about this? Should a prospective applicant of the chancellorship be required to place his or her hand on a bible while swearing allegiance to the chief? Or perhaps a more extreme measure should be required, like subjecting the prospective applicant to a lie detector test, or requiring the applicant to kiss the big toe of the chief ten times?
Clearly, the position of the chief proponents is untenable, because they demand nothing less than that the next chancellor be totally pro-chief, which is completely silly. Without even realizing it, they have imposed their own version of political correctness on the university -- they have chased the current chancellor from her job because they happen to dislike her views on the chief.
Clearly, the university should repudiate this rambuctious fanaticism by retiring the chief as its "mascot." I can see no good reason why the university should nurture this nascent fascism any longer. If these pro-chief fanatics wish to continue the worship of their pagan god, this can be done somewhere off-campus using their own money and resources. I doubt anyone will care about the continuation of their religion as long as it doesn't involve human sacrifice.
--------------------------------------------------------
And now I will attempt to address some of the comments that follow my first post on this thread (sigh . . .):
"At least 98% of the public as well as the newspapers picked up on what a joke this was."
This is wishful thinking on the part of Chuck. In a recent News-Gazette poll with over 1,000 respondents, about two-thirds of these respondents stated that the chief should be retired as a mascot, while only one-third stated that he should be retained. Even when one uses the outcome of a recent student election, the support for the chief is nowhere close to 98%.
Furthermore, the majority of faculty and administrators at the university would prefer to see the chief set aside as a mascot. I'm quite certain that Nancy Cantor is highly regarded by her peers.
"I'm glad our government doesn't negotiate with terrorists like she negotiates with protestors from Parkland and Ill. State."
Chuck, if Nancy Cantor had imitated George Bush in his war against "terrorism," she would have blown up the Swanlund Administration Building with a cruise missle and killed everyone inside. I don't think that this would be an acceptable result to any reasonably sane person. Hopefully you're one of them.
"If someone were to lock themselves in your home how would you want the police to handle it? Negotiate with them for 3 days while they go through your personal items? Or would you rather the police enter your home and arrest the trespassers so you could return to your home as soon as possible?"
jm: If the anti-chief protesters wish to lock themselves in my home for 3 days, I'd let them. After all, I know some of them personally and trust them. However, I would not extend the same courtesy to pro-chief protesters. After all, it's my home and I'll deal with my guests as I please.
Your comment implies that Nancy Cantor should have had the anti-chief protesters arrested for trespassing. I happen to disagree; the university should resort to the police as a last resort, rather than a first resort for this type of incident, which involves neither damage to property nor injury to people. This type of policy should be applied fairly by the university to both anti-chief and pro-chief protesters (notwithstanding my personal preferences at home).
In Section3 of the Student Responsibility and Discipline Code (amended 2003), it states: "There is no requirement that University authorities order students to cease participation in a disruptive or coercive demonstration." Therefore, according to the university's own rules, the chancellor was under no obligation to have the protestors arrested by the police. She was acting in accordance with the university's rules and traditions.
You might be interested in knowing that both faculty and students at universities were exempt from common law during Medieval Europe. At that time, neither the local courts nor officers of the law had any jurisdiction over faculty and students because they were patrons of a royal institution that was supported by the monarchy. While exemption from common law no longer applies, remnants of this ancient tradition still persist within the university system. This is one of the reasons, I believe, why university officials prefer to resolve conflicts internally without resorting to the police.
". . . another function of the institutions of higher learning is to develop intelligence in the students, to teach them how to use their brains for something other than drug use."
jm: Again, I know some of the anti-chief protesters personally, and they are highly intelligent and motivated. Furthermore, the development of social protest skills and intellectual skills are not mutually exclusive, as your comment implies.
"Is protesting [the chief] the only thing our Universities can teach? How about teaching our students to protest the growing poverty in this country? How about teaching the students how to care for the elderly? How about teaching the students where to put their money because there won't be any Social Security left when they retire?"
jm: Again, I personally know some of the anti-chief protestors who were involved in the sit-in. They ARE actively involved in many of the issues that you list above through various local organizations. When I attended a rally and protest march on behalf of the homeless in Champaign today, I saw Brooke Anderson there (who was the leader of the anti-chief protestors at the sit-in), but I saw none of her pro-chief critics. I'm afraid, jm, that you can't hurl these spurious accusations around without wallowing in hypocrisy, as ML has already stated. |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by jm
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 5
23 Apr 2004
|
Actually Mr. Hilty I wasn't talking about anti-Chief protestors occupying your house. I was asking your opinion on any protestors who have a view which differs from your own occupying your house.
The protest didn't enbitter me (and I doubt I am a fanatical pro-Chief person). I consider myself more of a 'is the time spent worth it or are there other things you could be doing that are more beneficial to society' type of person. I guess if me wanting to contribute to society in some way makes me a hypocrit than I guess your vast intelligence (that is a hint of sarcasm if you didn't catch it) would be correct. I don't deny the right of the protestors to protest for their beliefs. I completely support ever peaceful protest that takes place.... even the ones I disagree with and the ones I think are of little value or ill-timed. So I regret to inform you that my hypocrisy knows no bounds... I can have a view on a subject which differs from someone with a doctorate and I can still be correct. A persons views cannot be wrong. They are developed by a lifetime of experiences and lessons learned. My views may differ from yours (or ML's) that doesn't make my views any more flawed than yours are. Have the protestors ever thought to contribute their time to visiting elderly Native Americans? Have they ever considered petitioning for a vocational training program for unemployed Native Americans? You with your vast intelligence would be a good person to head that up...yes? I state simply, your time could be spent for something more beneficial to the people you claim to be fighting for. |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by chuck
chuck (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
23 Apr 2004
|
|
Hilty, did you ever stop to think that maybe most people despise Cantor because she is a self indulgent moron with no grip on who she represents? Just a thought. |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by JWK
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Apr 2004
|
|
Regarding DR. Hilty's reference to the News-Gazette poll - it was one of those on-line polls where you can vote as often as you want. I imagine there were some blistered fingers on the anit-chief side as a result of their constant pushing of computer keys. If you need to rely on thak kind of poll, you're in big trouble. |
|
Re: The N-G Poll |
by tried it, but why bother
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 22
24 Apr 2004
|
I believe you are interpreting the poll incorrectly. The N-G polling mechanism deposits a cookie on your machine. You can't vote more than one time on the same machine, unless you are using dial-up or take others measures to reset the cookie. I tried it just to see how credible the poll was, and it wouldn't let me vote twice, but really, why bother? It simply takes too much time.
I think the poll reflected the fact that word was passed around to various Native American BBs and to others interested in the abusive use of Native American images as mascots. The poll reflected the wider reality of views about the Chief in society.
Once you get beyond the cozy confines of the N-G editorial board and Champaign County, in general, you quickly find that people take the time to appreciate the narrow parochialism of the locals and the wider issues raised by opponenets of mascotizing Native Americans. After all, it is not the University of Champaign, but rather the University of Illinois. Not all people are so narrow-minded as the Chief's supporters would like you to believe. |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by JWK
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Apr 2004
|
|
My point remains the same. Any poll or vote on the Chief that has any claim to statistical accuracy has come out in favor of keeping the Chief - by a wide margin. |
|
Got Cites? |
by grad student
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 22
24 Apr 2004
|
Do your have a citation for what you assert, JWK?
Or are you like many of the undergards I have to grade, good at making an assertion, but generally lacking any citation for what you say, except to reiterate common accpeted wisdom? |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by JWK
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Apr 2004
|
|
I'm the one doing the grading here, Prof. So far, you're arguements haven't been bronze tablet material. Tell you what. You come up with just one poll, vote, whatever, that has any statistical vaildity and that does not favor retention of the Chief, then I might reconsider my statement. |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by JWK
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -5
24 Apr 2004
|
|
and before you try to change the subject, yes, I know the difference between your and you're. |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by Risa Burlona
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 24
24 Apr 2004
|
. . . but apparently not how to spell "arguments."
Incidentally, how precisely do you determine if a poll has "statistical validity"? |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 10
25 Apr 2004
|
Dear JWK,
You wrote: Or are you like many of the undergards I have to grade, good at making an assertion, but generally lacking any citation for what you say, except to reiterate common accpeted wisdom?
Please tell me, that you do not teach English.
Regards,
Jack |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by ijustkrushalot
uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 2
26 Apr 2004
|
Dr. Hilty studies flowers... look up his website...
This chief thing is really starting to irritate me… the level of chaos those opposed to it are trying to spread onto the campus is shameful. They are unwilling to budge and have had to resort to hijacking an administration building. Nancy cantor has once again gone out of her way to embarrass the school by allowing these punks to get away with out even a reprimand.
First off, I think all pro-chiefers (including myself) should take a long look at the situation, and try and understand WHAT is causing this reaction from these people. If we are going to base our athletic department, and the university as a whole on the native people of this country, I think we owe it to them to at least let them be heard. This is hard to do when the voice on campus claiming to represent them is made up of whiney brats who can’t accept the fact that they lost. They will do anything to inflame the situation. They grab a hold of minority issues as one of their “crusades” and try and paint chief supporters as people who hate minorities. This is a shameful tactic, as I am sure most chief supporters would support native American cultural programs, especially when considering the amount of funding that is given to other minority programs. These people are the ones who are dividing the campus, they are responsible for the chaos, and they should be ashamed. I feel that these people do have some legitimate concerns, and they need to be addressed, but nothing pisses me off more than when I hear someone who blindly labels pro-chiefers as “racist” or “intolerant”. I don’t think anything could be farther from the truth. But I think that there are a minority of people who are intolerant, even if they don’t realize it, and that needs to be addressed.
I think the university needs to make the following changes…
1. I-Pride, the organization that controls among other things, I-Block and Orange Krush, needs to make it perfectly clear to members that it strongly discourages them from wearing Indian headdresses, and to try and be sensitive about wearing “war-paint”… so as to try and not send the wrong message
2. More funding for native American programs. Since we insist on using their culture as the basis for our athletic programs, I think that it would behoove the university to try and accommodate students of native American decent. Offering scholarships and possibly even requiring incoming students to learn about native culture, would be a good idea.
3. Make the campus environment less hostile. This goes along with number 1. I think the DIA should wage an aggressive campaign to try and educate the general masses. The only reason I would ever vote to eliminate the chief is because of the actions of a few people that have the “look at that injun dance around!! YEEE HAW!!!” mentality. I think the DIA should openly discourage cartoonish Indian references by tailgaters, and drunk fans from wearing headdresses and being insensitive.
I think most importantly, last weekends stunt has shown that there needs to be new voice on campus for those who feel offended by the chief. I feel that a compromise CAN BE REACHED that would be mutually agreed upon by the mainstream of both sides. The problem is that the PRC is so out of tune with the majority of society that they will never stop their bickering, and I think that there will ALWAYS be protests because of it. The university HAS to send a clear message though, that stunts like they pulled WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!! They have for too long succeeded in hijacking this university. They have yet to do anything that I would consider to be “productive” in solving this dispute. They completely disregard the wishes of the majority and spew their own brand of intolerance. They freely through out words like “racist” and “nazi” to anyone that has opposing viewpoints. They label us as being intolerant and bigots, while they won’t listen to what we have to say. Most of us realize that natives have been constantly screwed by the US government. We realize that in the past many atrocities were committed on a (mostly) peaceful culture. Nearly all of us look at the natives of this state as a noble, honorable people, and most of us recognize the errors of the ways of our forefathers who massacred them. There is a certain sort of reverence toward basing the athletic program on a certain culture or group of people. That is why schools use nicknames like warriors, Spartans, knights, and so on. There is nothing racist by it, it would seem kinda dumb to name your team after someone you look down upon… if we did that we might as well be the U of I Canadians :) ( I am being sarcastic… have a sense of humor people!)
Perhaps the most ignorant statement I have ever heard in my life was from a Doctor John Hilty, who posted this on www.ucimc.org
===================================
“First, let's be clear about one thing: the chief mascot is a symbol of hatred, oppression, racism, and genocide, and that's precisely why the pro-chief supporters love it (even though they won't admit this to either themselves or others).”
==============================
people who base there arguments on absurd and demeaning accusations like this should not be allowed to be the moderating voice in the chief debate. There are two exremes to this. First there is the radically pro-chief supporter, who gets wasted before football games, takes off his shirt, and wears a headdress and dances around hooting and holloring inside the stadium. On the other extreme there are people like Dr. Hilty, who are so absorbed in their own self-righteousness that they don’t see that they are being equally intolerant and are equally misguided. In the middle, which is the vast majority of the population, there are reasonable people. The sad thing is that the anti-chief side is ruled by extremists who, like Dr. Hilty, are so misguided that it is hard to win supporters, because their hateful banter scares away most reasonable individuals. Currently the pro-chief side, as can clearly be shown from the recent referendum, has the vast majority of the moderate, reasonable voters. Dealing with the PRC on the chief issue is like Israel trying to negotiate peace with Hammas. There can be no negotiations with people who are so diametrically opposed to the will of the majority. These people will never shut up until they are allowed to force their agenda on the will of the majority. I think for the most part, the leadership of “Students for Chief-Illiniwek” is reasonable, and willing to have an open dialog, they are more than willing to address concerns, and very much would like there to be a compromise, whereby both sides are happy. These kids are not racist and they are not intolerant toward any person. At the heart of this issue, however, are people who can not be dealt with, and compromise is something that would benefit them to learn before they graduate from this school (those that ACTUALLY GO HERE… that is) |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by ijustkrushalot
uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 3
26 Apr 2004
|
|
whoops.. sory for the double-post... |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by JWK
john_koenig (nospam) ici.com (unverified) |
Current rating: -3
28 Apr 2004
|
Krush -
Based on his letter in today's DI, U of I President Stukel agrees with you. Pro-Chief does not equal racist.
Also, his letter supports the idea of compromise. You gave some good suggestions above. It would be great if the U of I could become a center for Native American studies. My only concern is how much that would actually benefit the state, seeing as how the state's taxpayers would be paying for the program. I don't know how many Native Americans live in Illinois.
You didn't address changes to Chief Illiniwek himself. It could be argued that the Chief, as an abstract symbol, does not have to be "accurate." The MSU Spartan is certainly not representative of Greek citizens living in Sparta today. The MSU Spartan is an abstract symbol for strength and selfless courage as demonstrated at Thermopylae. Similarly, the Chief could be viewed as an abstract symbol of courage and honor without any reference to present-day Native Americans. In general, symbols (and even mascots), are not meant to be taken literally. However, I do think that changes could be made to improve the accuracy of the symbol. The Chief should be made to look more like the Illini actually did, rather than looking like a plains Indian. If that means cutting off most of his hair, so be it. If portraying the Chief is such an honor, the person should be willing to give up some hair for that honor. The dance, for me, is more of a problem. I don't buy the idea that the dance is sacreligious. However, in the spirit of compromise, I'd even give up the dance. The one element of the Chief's ceremony during which he is most symbolic is when he raises his arms for the Alma Mater. At that moment, he brings all Illini together and really does represent the spirit of the university. That is something which should be kept. Unfortunately, compromise does not seem to be part of the vocabulary of the anti's. As you said at the end of your comment, it would be an excellent lesson for them to find out that the need for compromise a fact of life out in the real world.
JWK |
|
Re: Chief protest ends; makes gains |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 17
28 Apr 2004
|
Okay I read the article as well. First, what kind of name is Emil? Secondly, since when do we as voters get to decide how are tax dollars are spent? I am paying for abortions for which I believe are murder.
So, I guess if I just occupy a building, I can get my way.
Your Enternal Enemy,
Jack |
|
