[Race Relations] Is U of I mascot Racist?

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:05 pm

Senate Leader: Dump Mascot

Seante Leader compares University Officials to Segregationists

So apparently there is a big debate here in Illinois. The University of Illinois' mascot is an American Indian. He's seems pretty stereotypical, feather head dress, face paint, etc. Some really stupid people say this is racist. They're idiots.

So what do you all think? (You can tell I think where I stand on the matter)

Instant Cash · Post by **Instant Cash** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:07 pm

It is the same thing when there was a big move to change the Washington Redskins.

It is silly and people really need to find better things to do with their life.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:14 pm

I'm reminded of something I heard on Rock103 a while back; a school near a reservation or in the same district or somesuch was called the Indians. To protest, the reservation school named their team the Fighting Whiteys, assuming that it would piss white people off. In reality white people find it absolutely hilarious; the school is making a fortune selling Fighting Whitey's T-Shirts and hats and such.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:03 pm

Buncha crap is what it is. The whole thing makes me fucking ill.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:38 pm

See, now "Redskins" I could understand someone getting upset about. It's a slang term, and as such wasn't really intended to be complimentary. I can see how someone might take offense to that.

However, the "Fighting Illini" is actually pretty nice. I mean, the underlying message, apparently, is "we're badass like the Illini were". What's wrong with that? I dunno about Illiniwek - iirc, the guy who "plays" him tries to be pretty authentic as far as his dress and dances and stuff (though I could be totally wrong here, so someone feel free to give me the real facts), so I have a hard time understanding what's so terrible about that.

It'd be like if Notre Dame suddenly weren't allowed to have their mascot wear plaid. It's a part of the Irish culture, and if it's being presented in a way that's promoting that culture, what's the matter with it?

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 7:10 pm

"Segregationist." Wonderful. There's our new euphamism for "Nazi."

Here's something I want to know.

One, what does the mascot look like?

Two, has anybody bothered to ask for the opinion of an Indian on this?

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 7:13 pm

Two, has anybody bothered to ask for the opinion of an Indian on this?

I think it's Indians that are complaining. At least that started the initial complaint. The people in the picture in the paper looked vaguely American Indian

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 7:26 pm

Interesting. Here's the part where I rail on my fellow bleeding heart liberals.

I'm going to make the assumption that they want the mascot torn down, making it the university's problem to find a new one - if they're anything like my middle school, it'll end up being a simple monogram. And the chances are pretty high that they're going to win, because when it comes to political poker, race cards are the aces, the second-highest scoring cards you can get.

However, it seems to me (because both articles are almost the same word-for-word) that they haven't thought up of the incredibly obvious solution of finding a middle ground and replacing what they consider to be a negative image with a positive one. If that's the case, then this is just another case of people knowing what they don't like, but not knowing what they do like. They probably can't even think of a positive image.

Buzzed · Post by **Buzzed** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:03 pm

They need to change their mascot to a person with a red dot on their forehead to more realistically portray the name.

The mascot is Indians correct? Or is it Chiefs?

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:32 pm

Wait a minute. I think most people would agree that having, say, Leroy the Illinois Negro, or Rabbi Cohen the Illinois Jew, as a mascot would be kind of offensive. So why is it acceptable to patronise Native Americans?

Buzzed · Post by **Buzzed** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:40 pm

mrmooky wrote:Wait a minute. I think most people would agree that having, say, Leroy the Illinois Negro, or Rabbi Cohen the Illinois Jew, as a mascot would be kind of offensive. So why is it acceptable to patronise Native Americans?

Is it bad to have a cowboy mascot?

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:45 pm

ak404 wrote:[...]when it comes to political poker, race cards are the aces, the second-highest scoring cards you can get.

After what? Treason?

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:32 pm

Wait a minute. I think most people would agree that having, say, Leroy the Illinois Negro, or Rabbi Cohen the Illinois Jew, as a mascot would be kind of offensive. So why is it acceptable to patronise Native Americans?

Because it's not patronising. The state is /named/ after a tribe of American Indians (Actually, a confederation of tribes). The Illinois, as well as most other tribes, /were/ great warriors. They /did/ wear face paint, and they /did/ wear feathered head dresses. Schools want these as their athletic mascots because they they respect the physical prowess of the American Indian warriors.

If this is unacceptable, what else is? What about animal mascots? They're often portrayed as being fierce and vicious, when the real animal is surprisingly gentle. What about Purdue Pete? He looks like an frigging idiot. Is this offensive to boilermakers?

How many other things become unacceptable? Forty Niners? Cubs? Minutemen? Cowboys?

By the time the PC Terrorists get done, all that'll be left will be Azalias. And that'll probably piss off the botanists.

(For the record, I see nothing wrong with the Illinois Negro or Jew. Both had/have excellent strereotypical qualities one might want to embody)

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:33 pm

Yeah, but that's not really a political thing is it.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:32 pm

Salvation122 wrote:
ak404 wrote:[...]when it comes to political poker, race cards are the aces, the second-highest scoring cards you can get.
After what? Treason?

The high card is anti-Semitism, the Joker. You put that on the table, and it shuts down just about any argument.

My opinion on political poker is that every time you wanna up the stakes of whatever it is you're arguing about - in this case, the mascot - you pull out the highest applicable card you can and accuse your opponent of being that. The higher the card, the more emotionally charged and inarguable it is; for example, it's almost impossible to argue that the Chief's mascot isn't racist without seeming like a racist yourself. Calling a race card is a relatively safe move to make because the mascot uses so many of the stereotypes that Americans have attributed to Native American traditions. However, none of the stereotypes on the mascot are particularly offensive: it's not stupid, it's not an alcoholic, it's not primitive, it's not weak, it's not barbaric, but nobody's gonna listen to that.

And as I said, I don't believe anybody's come up with an alternative Indian image, which makes me believe that the people who want the mascot taken down either don't know what the fuck they're talking about or are a bunch of Indians who're peeved at what they consider a negative image of their culture, but refuse to suggest an alternative image.

Kitt · Post by **Kitt** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:03 am

The people who called for that are the same people that changed my school mascot (The Raider, the same stereotypical Indian) to a fucking buffalo. Oh yeah. We're striking fear into the hearts of our opponents now. Oh, watch it, you might slip in some shit and get trampled to death. Oh. The horror.

Fuckwits like that need to get real lives.

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:15 am

I can understand that things like this can be seen as mildly offensive. But for the most part I view this as people that need real hobbies. Is there any confirmation on who originated the complaint? Normally I attribute most horseshit like this as coming from the ACLU.

crone · Post by **crone** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:41 am

If Amercian Indians are complaining, then it might not be racist, but it is rude. It's their culture that is being appropriated to give some sports team a cool logo.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:49 am

If Amercian Indians are complaining, then it might not be racist, but it is rude. It's their culture that is being appropriated to give some sports team a cool logo.

Fuck them. They're lucky we let them live. Shouldn't have stopped with a few small pox laden blankets.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:58 am

Hell. They got their reservations of shitty land with no resources that nobody else wanted and all the casinos they can build. What more do they want?

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 5:09 am

My sister had the same situation with Florida State Seminoles. See, the thing is, certain people get upset over these mascots, but the way I see it? Remove them - all of the Indian mascots - and we're going to have a hell of a lot more people crying racism than we do right now.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:28 am

Kitt wrote:The people who called for that are the same people that changed my school mascot (The Raider, the same stereotypical Indian) to a fucking buffalo. Oh yeah. We're striking fear into the hearts of our opponents now. Oh, watch it, you might slip in some shit and get trampled to death. Oh. The horror.

Well a Raider I could see as being more than slightly offensive. Should've just replaced it with a priate or something.

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:42 am

MooCow wrote:
If Amercian Indians are complaining, then it might not be racist, but it is rude. It's their culture that is being appropriated to give some sports team a cool logo.
Fuck them. They're lucky we let them live. Shouldn't have stopped with a few small pox laden blankets.

Yeah, if they saw how Australia treated the aborignials, especially in Tasmania, they'd shut the fuck up real quick.

Eva · Post by **Eva** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:02 pm

mrmooky wrote:Rabbi Cohen the Illinois Jew

PISSES herself at the Internet Shoppe.

Instant Cash · Post by **Instant Cash** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 5:48 pm

ak404 wrote: Well a Raider I could see as being more than slightly offensive. Should've just replaced it with a priate or something.

VIKINGS!!!

TLM · Post by **TLM** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:18 pm

Instant Cash wrote:
ak404 wrote: Well a Raider I could see as being more than slightly offensive. Should've just replaced it with a priate or something.
VIKINGS!!!

Ah yes, Vikings. The one time in European history that my country actually mattered somewhat.

Now, just to put some perspective in here... Some Vikings were utter and total bastards. They raped, killed, maimed and were generally very very naughty. I don't really think that makes a Viking a good mascot, unless you want to send the following message:

"Dude, we're going to assrape you, your wife, and your dog, then kill you, loot your house of all valuables, and carry the survivors off as slaves."

Or, if you want to emphasise the more meaningful aspect of Vikings, such as the fact that most of them were excellent sailors, explorers, craftsmen and traders:

"Dude, we're going to barter, negotiate and trade your ass into the ground. Then we're going to discover a new continent, just for the hell of it."

One's too threatening, the other... Well, I dunno. Neither would be offensive to me, but I do think it would be in poor taste.

Point is: Some people will find any and all things offensive on some level. Does that make the mascot in question inherently racist? Not at all. Does it mean it might be in poor taste? Yes, indeed.

Incidentally: Is the mascot represented by a whte guy in war-paint et al?

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:29 pm

"Dude, we're going to assrape you, your wife, and your dog, then kill you, loot your house of all valuables, and carry the survivors off as slaves."

I would attend that school in a heart beat.

Can you imagine the resume? "BS in Civil Engineering, specialization in burning and pillaging"

LynGrey · Post by **LynGrey** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:45 pm

Gee, I always though the U of I stood for the great Folk nation....

Kitt · Post by **Kitt** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:01 pm

ak404 wrote:Well a Raider I could see as being more than slightly offensive. Should've just replaced it with a priate or something.

We tried that. But then they decided that calling a pirate a raider could be considered offensive by pirates. Right, because there are any *real* pirates anymore.

Bishop · Post by **Bishop** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:04 pm

Well, you wouldn't want to offend somebodies great great grandfather, would you? I mean, come on. Get with the PC program here.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:53 pm

Kitt wrote:
ak404 wrote:Well a Raider I could see as being more than slightly offensive. Should've just replaced it with a priate or something.
We tried that. But then they decided that calling a pirate a raider could be considered offensive by pirates. Right, because there are any *real* pirates anymore.

Philippines. Seriously.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 11:03 pm

West Africa. Seriously. So seriously that I knew a guy who lost his yacht there to a bunch of pirates. Well, it wasn't really his yacht, but he had been cruising with it since he stole it from a rich American.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 12:47 am

Man I am so glad I just waste my time th eold fashioned way. SOmeone really should introduce legislation requiring everyone to spend an hour a day playing.