Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 509 Editor's Choice: 26
-
Jonathan's response to Sean...
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...and then I'll give it a rest as well. I'm sure everyone else is probably sick of the thread.
First, I would like to thank you for the polite dialogue. It's a tribute to the power of internet that we can have conversations with people who are intimately acquainted with an issue. As someone who was involved in the actual issue at the actual university, I'm sure you have strong feelings on the issue and I'm happy see that you can keep those feelings in check to discuss this politely.
Second, its Jonathan with 2 "a"s. Try to get it right next time. I, after all, didn't refer to you as Shawn... ; )
Now, to the issue at hand:
Yes, the Chief's dance wasn't originally about "honoring Native Americans or the heritage of the aboriginal population of Central Illinois". I get that. I'm pretty sure there were many traditions started in 1926 that were insensitive to someone. It was a different time (i.e., Strom Thurmond had yet to run for President on the "Screw the Negro" ticket).
Point being, why does that have to hold true? Things change. People change. The reasons for doing things can change too. It seems to me that the Illiniwek issue had a great deal of bullheadedness on either side. Wouldn't it have been great if the dance or the Chief could have been co-opted by a Native American campus association and turned into something that DID respect the culture or celebrate it? It seems that everyone got so wrapped up in the issue that it was either "keep it as it is" or "lump it". All I'm saying is that there probably was a compromise, but no one rose to the challenge, and now its lumped. And, as someone else pointed out on the board earlier, now alot less people are going to know that there was ever an indiginous people called the Illiniwek.
True, I did site a quote from the Chief of the Peoria tribe in 1995 to highlight that there has been recent differing opinions from Native Americans themselves on the issue. If they didn't want this to be taken as their "official" stance than maybe they should have been a bit more mum on the issue. Also, the 1978 date of federally recognized status and the 1995 quote would lead one to conclude that they had 17 years to get on the same page about whether they were for it or against it (as a tribe) but the 1995 quote does still stand.
I will take your word that institutional Native American support of Indian mascots is a myth (I would stay away from absolutes as there was at least one guy, Don Giles, the Peoria Chief in 1995, who is on public record as a supporter of a mascot) as long as you acknowledge that we're talking about sports mascots and not all other public representations of Native Americans. I have neither the time nor the drive to do informal polls of Native Americans.
Lastly, I would like to correct you on one last issue: I am not a supporter of the Chief's dance. King's article piqued my interest (I live in Chicago and hear fleeting mention of UIUC and this issue on a semi-regular basis) and I decided to do some (internet) research. Much to my surprise, the Wikipedia entry was not as anti-Chief as I thought it would be. Which brought up other questions, which led me to the Peoria Tribe's website, which brought up even more questions, which led to my initial post.
Like my previous posts have stated, I have some in depth knowledge of the history and culture of the indiginous people of our country. My knowledge base gets a bit more shallow the closer we get to modern times, due mostly to the overwhelmingly depressing treatment of Native Americans during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It's just too much to handle sometimes.
Which is why when people get on a soapbox of such supposed cut-and-dry moral debates, I'm a bit skeptical. I think "Wow, how brave of you take that stance. What's next: an unequivocal support of the 'Puppies Are Cute' platform?" I've seen the dance. Its offensive. Not here's-some-blankets-with-small-pox offensive. But definitely offensive.
I am serious, however, that if somewhere down the road, we lose the lessons of the culture because someone is dressed in Sioux garb when it should be Pueblo, then we're all a bit poorer for it.
-
Point taken, Sean...
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...thanks for the "conversation". I was just ribbing ya about the name thing.
Cheers!
-
Brooklyn Hoosier...
[Read the article: Hollywood gets humble]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You give word to my thoughts.
Everybody in these letter sections can be soooooo self-righteous (about celebs being self righteous - its soooo trivial, but you just wasted 10 minutes of your employer's time posting about it! ;-P). I swear Jim just posts to tell us (yet again) about his work teaching kids to read. Yes, Jim, ALL OF US wish we got paid/acknowledged more.
Half of them don't even bother to post a name - my favorite is the one anonymous poster who put at the end of his/her post "Don't post my email." It's a glorified message board sweetie, nobody reads these before they go up. If you click "Publish my Letter" its all there...
I'm glad that Ms. Wilson (who is a very good writer - those of you who complain that she belongs in a tabloid should read one - its pretty awful) found some good in the Oscars, which did have its moments, and gave it the "treatment" it deserved. Much better than the recent Grammys article, who's letters section decended into an ageism arguement about what good music is.