Content area
Abstract
So what's really wrong with a white guy masquerading as a Native American and prancing around during Big Ten sporting events? So what if the costume is unauthentic and the spectacle annoys a small group of folks.
When I was growing up on the South Side we played "cowboys and Indians" and, as depicted in the movies of the late '40s and early '50s, the "Indians" always got the short end of the stick. But I enjoyed seeing Indians in the movies; they were larger-than-life characters--savages to be feared but usually taken to task by the fearless cavalry or a tough posse.
As children, similar impressions were formed from seeing blacks caricatured-- Al Jolson in blackface and, most certainly, Amos and Andy. All of these characters were created and enjoyed by whites as a form of harmless entertainment.
Full text
So what's really wrong with a white guy masquerading as a Native American and prancing around during Big Ten sporting events? So what if the costume is unauthentic and the spectacle annoys a small group of folks.
When I was growing up on the South Side we played "cowboys and Indians" and, as depicted in the movies of the late '40s and early '50s, the "Indians" always got the short end of the stick. But I enjoyed seeing Indians in the movies; they were larger-than-life characters--savages to be feared but usually taken to task by the fearless cavalry or a tough posse.
As children, similar impressions were formed from seeing blacks caricatured-- Al Jolson in blackface and, most certainly, Amos and Andy. All of these characters were created and enjoyed by whites as a form of harmless entertainment.
Harmless, that is, to whites. Sometimes they were hypocritically defended as a sympathetic form of respect or recognition. No disrespect was meant. But in our ignorance and sometimes our arrogance, we never asked.
Chief Illiniwek falls into this category of "entertainment" and is inappropriate for our time. In fact, the Chief has been inappropriate for quite a long time.
The University of Illinois must begin a planned process to create a more racially acceptable identity. Most important, the school should eliminate the Chief as a mascot and marketing tool reproduced on everything from coffee mugs to blankets. As a cultural icon, he is about as appropriate today as might be a white in blackface tap-dancing the length of the field during half time at a University of Alabama football game. Inappropriate behavior often hides behind the mask of tradition.
Similar forms of tradition exist with commercial entities such as the Cleveland Indians, Washington Redskins and Atlanta Braves.
All feature questionable names and/or mascots, but as businesses promoting popular sport and entertainment, they're not pretending to be institutions of higher education and enrichers of life. Yet these organizations are equally responsible for perpetuating harmful stereotypes, most notably among young, impressionable fans.
In the "Land of Lincoln," of all places, the state's premier university should refrain from featuring a symbol that continually offends one of our nations' minorities . . . and one that endured persecution and hardship for a sustained number of years. This misguided tradition seems blatantly bigoted and intolerant, an image inconsistent with the enlightened leadership of a great university.
The trustees and other university leaders must wake up to what is right, take a pro-active stance and initiate a program that will replace the Chief with imagery in sync with the times--a new cohesive identity and aggressive public relations program.
When you consider the fierce competition for excellent students, the need to attract the best faculty and the importance of projecting the highest academic standards, the most recognized symbol of the university, Chief Illiniwek, seems pathetically out of date.
Copyright Chicago Tribune Co. Mar 7, 1998