Fighting Illini

I know some people get offended over sports teams names and mascots that concern Native Americans.  And I want to show proper concern, which is difficult for a white American who grew up in Illinois, lived in the city of Pontiac, played on a Jr. High team named the "Warriors," went to a High School where the team was named the "Indians" and had a school newspaper called "The Chief," and rooted all my life for the UofI "Fighting Illini."

As someone named "McCoy," I hope the "Fighting Irish" will change their name.

Comments

[david rudd]

steve, we must be cut from the same cloth as this was my very first thought when hearing the news. i feel that my irish heritage is impinged upon every time i hear that name "fighting irish".

of course other schools in trouble...
duke -- clearly prejudiced agains satanists. implying they are all depressed.
wake forest -- anti-church officer
syracuse -- equating protestant irishmen like myself to fruits
USC and Mich.State -- portraying Greeks as nothing but warring factions

i'm sure the list goes on.

[Jon]

no dog in this fight, and I assume I'm stating the obvious but I do think that there is a distinct difference between self-acribed monikers by the dominant culture and those that appropriate the culture of an inarguably oppressed and marginalized people. my native american acquaintances all usually convey a sense of being mocked or exploited when I ask them about the issue, although most say they aren't opposed to it across the board just that they don't know of any instances when it is done well, ie their cultural heritage is celebrated for something more than its ability to be translated into a "wacky" mascot.

[Steve McCoy]

I think the "Irish" line is funny, but not really a big deal. It's not like the Irish fought in the 1700's to keep out the English, or something.

I didn't really write this to take a side, but to show that to some of us are deep in a culture of Indian mascots. It's what we know. Maybe they aren't the best thing to use, but honestly, where I come from, there is a sort of respect for the Indian culture that defines most of the city names around us. There was intrigue for me growing up and learning about the land. I don't know of any school or any general population who means to mock.

[Vicki Chapman]

You sound like an all-american person.

[Tim]

I've written about this issue before. To me, all the uproar surrounding Indian mascots is a bunch of PC mumbo jumbo. You select as a mascot something you respect -- not something you disdain.

The next thing you know, PETA's going to be in a tizzy over all the teams with animals for mascots.

[Steve McCoy]

I agree Tim. I'd like to know how you respond to this idea which I have encountered...

Even if someone is offended for something we think is "pc mumbo jumbo," isn't it better not to offend? Isn't it wrong to be assertive of our "rights" and freedoms which come off as prideful rather than peaceloving?

[Tim]

I guess I'd respond by saying I'm too insensitive to care. :)

Seriously, I guess my response would be that in this country, we have become so thin-skinned that EVERYTHING, in some form or fashion, seems to offend somebody. Where do we draw the line? I'm not going to offend people deliberately (well, not all the time), but if you're making a reasonable attempt not to be offensive, then that ought to be sufficient. If I spend my time worrying about whether everything I do is offensive, I'm not going to have time to think about anything else.

And, sure as the world, even when you've taken great care to make sure something you do or say isn't offensive, somebody is STILL going to be offended. If that's the case, I think it's their problem and not mine.

Harsh? Maybe, but I'm just tired of such sleeve-wearing emotions.

[Steve McCoy]

Tim, thanks for responding. I understand where you are coming from but I guess I would ask you, Is that a biblical way to approach the culture?

[Tim]

I think it's biblical if we make a legitimate attempt not to be deliberatly offensive for the sake of being offensive. But if people continuously take offense for innocent, innocuous things we do, how else should we respond?

I mean, if someone takes offense if you post a simple statement like "Go Cubs," how would you respond? Would you say, "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I'll never say that again." Or, would you brush it off as someone being ridiculous?

I'd do the latter. Obviously that's an extreme example, but you see my point.

[Tim]

And I do know how to spell "deliberately."

[Steve McCoy]

"Go Cubs" is a very offensive thing for some.

Here's the thing, trying to get it from their perspective. My ridiculous example. How would you like for 95% of the Ellsworth family and connected relatives to get wiped out by people who thought you all owned great houses that they wanted to live in. You fought hard, remarkably so, but lost all your houses which your enemies now live in, and they have started up a sports team called the "Ellsworths." How would the few remaining Ellsworths think about that?

[Tim]

I'd hope they would think the enemies had a great deal of respect for them. Do we name sports teams the Nazis? Why not? Because most people in this country are revulsed by Nazis.

How do you respond to the argument you say you've encountered?

[Steve McCoy]

But Tim, we are living with the "enemy."
They still live in this land. They even go to our schools, some of them.

I don't have any clear answers, which is why I didn't take a hard line on my post. On the one hand it isn't a big deal to me and it's actually kept the memory of a people around. On the other, these are people not animals, so if they are truly offended, why not change it? It's just sport, and I think we make it more than that.

[Steve McCoy]

And the Nazi's weren't a race (though there were ambitions for it) or a naturally distinct group of people.

[Tim]

But see, I've read statements from Native Americans who say they're not offended by these kinds of mascots. There are some schools who have great relationships with some Native American tribes specifically because the schools bear their name. They do projects learning about these tribes. Tribe members come and speak. It's a win-win situation.

If it could be proven that a majority of Native Americans were offended by these mascots, then maybe I'd be open to changing these names. As it is, I strongly suspect it's a vocal minority that's trying to impose its will on the majority. I have little tolerance for that.

[Steve McCoy]

Tim, I'm all for that. I like that. I hope it can be this way for all these schools.

All I'm saying is, since I'm essentially not taking a side, that we should be careful not to cast this off as pc mumbo jumbo as that will only stigmatize whatever offense is there.

I think in the scheme of things too many Christians respond more like Americans than Christians on issues like this. All of life is mission, and sport plays such a small role. If the minority is imposing a name change of my team, that really isn't a big deal for me since I want their heart to change more than I want my team to win or have a mascot with a headdress.

[Paul]

My opinion has changed somewhat on this. I find some value to Tim's argument that we choose a mascot out of pride, not derision. However, as I understand it the NCAA has not targeted all schools with Native American mascots, but particularly those that have a connotation that is other than positive. For instance, Illinois is not just the Illini, but the Fighting Illini. The Florida State Seminoles are also named, most assuredly because of the spear weilding mascot. Were he a mascot demonstrating something other than a violent image they would probably be left alone.

I live in Oklahoma - the land of the red man. We have a whole hose of schools with Native American mascots. Northeastern State University was not named in the NCAA report, though they are called the Redmen. Pretty generic. On the other hand, Southeastern Oklahoma State University is named in the report, and they are known as the Savages.

Living in a state with a large Native American population I can tell you than I don't know of any who run around with war paint on or wearing a head dress. But you see that in many mascots. It is as if they are the old savages ready to scalp the white man. And I can say that when I do see Native Americans wearing the native tribal outfits it is a serious thing in celebration of their heritage.

I think rather than being analagous to the Blue Devils or Demon Deacons, it would be more like a team calling themselves "The Molesting Priests," or "The Murdering Crusaders," or to just be the crusaders, but to ride around on a horse while carrying a pole with a Turk's head on it.

I can see how they might be offended without simply wearing their feelings on their sleeves.

[Julie (a.k.a. Sis)]

Alright-- my two cents...

Paul, you bring up some great points. it makes me think that the mascots were named during a period of time when the colleges were run by white men, when the very idea and phrase of "politcally correct" did not exist. The majority of people were looking for a mascot that would exude toughness, fear, and dominance. These are sports mascots-- and the object of sports is to WIN. (Not as it is today, where "the object of sports is to learn and have fun and be good sports"-- yada yada yada a la PC and soccer moms' mantras.)

Anywhooo... the mascot issue is just another step in the direction of PC-ness, coming in the wake of book banning.

The point? Times change, and people's attitudes change, too. So, do we go along with the changes? Or do value the way things were? If you are against book banning, then you are against mascot-changing as well. We cannot change how people USED to talk (i.e., the N-word). But they did talk that way. It wasn't innappropriate to Mark Twain as he wrote "Huck Finn." But does that mean we take the book out of society forever? I would hope not. It has become part of our culture... just like the mascots.

[Paul]

Julie, that is somewhat true, but we don't talk like Mark Twain did in Huck Fin anymore. If we do we become very unpopular and perhaps lose our jobs. But mascots are not simply a part of history. They are a continuing part of contemporary culture.

Would we feel the same way if Notre Dame's mascot was called "The Drunken Irish" or if a school with a 90% white population was known as the "Niggers" or the "Slackers" (with a hispanic mascot)? Those are all negative stereotypes and for many Native Americans a lot of the Indian mascots are more negative stereotypes. I think it is important that we understand the negative connotations that go along with "Savages," "Warriors," and the like.

I realize the Seminole tribe in Florida is supportive of the FSU mascot. Here in Oklahoma (formerly Indian Territory) nearly every tribe with a tribal HQ here has expressed unanimous agreement with the NCAA ruling. That should say something.

[Paul]

And I'm one of the least PC people I know.

[Joel Maners]

Hey I'm from the South. My great great grandfather fought in the Civil War. Should Ole Miss have to change their mascot(Colonel Reb)?

BTW, I'm not an Ole Miss fan!

[Julie (a.k.a. Sis)]

Paul--
The point of having a mascot is to inflict fear and intimidate the "enemy" (other school), save the Freeport "Pretzels" (ooh, scary!). Anyway, being raised as an "Indian" I never saw it as a negative thing at all. It was merely my mascot. And any Native American I know does not dress up and look like a war-time Indian, with the war paint and headress, etc. That's a look they used to puff themselves up for a battle-- think Braveheart here. They're putting on their "game face," per se.
As with our semi-battles on the court or football field these days, the mascot is meant to represent the sense of intimidation-- hence, the Warriors, the Bears, the Eagles, the Panthers. (How Chicago got the "Cubs" I'll never know! HAHA-- sorry Steve.)
In any case, a mascot is a representation of the competitor. To call yourself a wartime Indian is a nod of the head to the Indians, saying, "You were ready to put up a fight and so am I!"
In comparison, if I may, our military is comprised of the next level of competitor. Do they not have their own nicknames and mascots, in a way? Do they not have to prep themselves for battle? How much different is a football field to a battlefield, really? Do we not hurl insults and injury to the other team/side? Just as the army instills pride and determination in our soldiers, so do our schools instill pride and determination in our students.

And a mascot is a part of this tradition of life. Whether it's a Minuteman or a Tiger or a Seminole... I believe that the pride infused in the mascot goes with the person donning the mascot's name.

[Paul]

Julie, I don't entirely disagree. In fact, all of those arguments are ones I have made myself in this debate. What has changed my own opinion on this is not how I, a white Anglo, think of Native American mascots, but how Native Americans themselves think of them. Do they see them as a positive representation of who they are and does it instill pride in their history of being prepared to kick some butt? The Tulsa World and the Daily Oklahoman have both written articles on this issue, at least one from the persepctive of a Native American. So far, in every case the Native Americans in Oklahoma are much more offended than proud. All I'm saying is that should say something important to us.

The question is how would I like a school with a 90% Native American student body (and perhaps only 2% white) using a medeival Christian Inquisitor as their mascot because, well, the Crusaders were always ready to put up a good fight?

[Julie (a.k.a. Sis)]

Paul, Well put and I am enjoying this discussion very much!

My thought after reading your post is this: The Crusaders were a strong-willed, determined group of people. They would make a great mascot, one that represents the qualities of courage, pride, and the like. Also, they are an icon of the past. Sure-- they may have been extreme-- is that a reason not to use them? To keep them "alive" in this manner as a mascot would be of historical value, as well as a meaningful representation of the school. No one is impying that the students are going to go onto the court and Bible-slap the opponents, just because they are nicked after these historical Christians.

Similarly, no one is expecting the Fighting Illini to come out onto the court wielding a tomahawk and scalp the other team. But, do we not know what the Crusdaers did in the past? Do we not know how the Indians fought in the past? Yes. But just as children play pretend, this is just pretend, too. And it offers a chance to remember a past people's way of life. We don't WANT people to start using the N-word again! We don't WANT people to kill others in the name of our Lord! We don't WANT people to shoot others with bows and arrows! But, we're just tipping our hats to how things WERE.

And I don't feel, still, that the intent has ever been or in fact IS in a negative light when the Indians are represented as mascots. As stated in numerous previous posts, it's an honor.

But it's also a state of mind. People get so offended over everything these days. I like the argument above where someone said, and I'm paraphrasing, "So, is PETA going to start in about animal mascots?" Most animals are not aggressive unless provoked. Uh-oh! That makes us look bad, as if we're torturing animals to make them attack!! We had better change the Purdue BoilerMakers, too-- are we implying that the working class are aggressive? We'd better just name all the mascots after food, like the Freeport Pretzels! (Ooh-- but then won't we offend the obese community? What if we used non-carb items, like forms of meat? Ah, no, then vegitarians would be ticked off.) See? Where does it end?

One more point-- If I were a Native American at the imaginary school you proposed, I would probably not question the use of a white mascot, honestly. I would hope that I'd be smart enough to know that it's just a MASCOT and no one is trying to make me a white person. Plus, I would hope that people are smart enough to realize that you can't please everyone. Mascots are not necessarily chosen on the population of the school. I'd wager that there is a large number of people from foriegn countries at, say, University of Illinois. Are they up in arms about having a Native American as the mascot? I'm sure NO. Just as the majority of people who claim to be a Fightin' Irish are not Irish at all. My Mexican neighbor thinks nothing of it when he boosts with pride about being a Fightin' Irish. If anything, the Irish are promoted in his mind!

So, should everyone's race be represented by a mascot? Gee, maybe every school should have a "Melting Pot" as their mascot. There-- would that solve it? Everyone is represented in a happy, positive, United-Colors-of-Benetton way.

Ah, but lest we offend those who are of a mixed race!

[Paul]

Julie, thanks for your thoughts. Ultimately our symbols are not as innocuous as we sometimes make them out to be. Symbols are powerful means of communication. It is why we use them. We are saying something by them. The cross is a Christian symbol - in fact the central Christian symbol. I'm often bothered by those who use it carelessly (Madonna, anyone? Brittany, anyone?). Many in our culture have diluted the force of the cross with their careless and flippant use of it. And I happen to believe that Christians who are not bothered by that have a weak view of what that symbol represents to us. But I can only say that with any validity as one who has a personal investment in that cross. If I don't, then why should it matter?

Now, let's translate that to school mascots, particularly those patterned after Native Americans. I don't think you and I can fully comprehend the offense of the Savage mascot if we are not ourselves Native American, and it seems rather dismissive to think that we can (though perhaps you are Native American. I, in fact, have some Native American blood in me, though it is a very small amount). Are we really honoring the symbol of the Native American culture by putting some 20 year old white kid in an Indian costume and asking him to dance around on the sidelines of a basketball game? Am I honoring Native American heritage by making them my mascot? Do I honor them by singling out this one particular aspect of American history that pictures them as a violent, war-like people, despite their many positive contributions? Let's not forget that it hasn't been that long ago that public images of Native Americans (particularly on TV and in the movies) were depictions of savages ready to scalp the white man and burn his women and children in their homes. We perpetuate those images with our Warriors and Savages.

And finally, if Jesus were charged with coming up with a mascot for a new college in town and he knew that his choice offended an important segment of the population, would he be likely to do it anyway? Something makes me doubt it - unless doing so somehow advanced the Kingdom.

[Paul]

One last thing. I have friends who go to visit family in places like California or somewhere out east. They invariably come back with stories about friends asking them if we all live on reservations and in teepees. One was quite surprised to discover that we have movie theaters here.

Ahhhh...the power of stereotypes (and the symbols that perpetuate them).

[Julie (a.k.a. Sis)]

So, when my son wants to be an Indian this Halloween, am I going to say, "No- it's offensive to some people." I don't think so.

I have a little bit of Native American in me, too. But I'm not 100%-- so does that invalidate my opinion?

Should the Illini mascot be someone of Native American origin? But then you get into reverse discrimination against the white student who wanted to try out to play the mascot.

Are we going to eliminate all the white mascots out there, as well? There are plenty-- and certainly those schools are not comprised of an entirely white population.

The point I'm getting at is we are in a downward spiral. Take away one mascot, then people will just move on to the next one. Madonna didn't come out with her racy video "Truth or Dare" right away-- she kept pushing the envelope further and further. Now look at the state of TV and videos these days! It won't stop with these Indian mascots. It's just what's on the agenda for today's controversy.

I don't presume to know what Jesus would do. But I'm pretty sure he's never been in a position to choose a mascot for a school! LOL... And it doesn't matter if He was in that position and chose a mascot-- because someone's going to get offended that Jesus got to choose the mascot instead of Budda. (See-- no one wins no matter what the decision ends up being.)

[Julie (a.k.a. Sis)]

As for the "movie theaters" post, that's just ignorance on their part.

I once had a girl come down to our small town from Chicago and ask where all our tall buildings were! She had to go out and experience life for herself to learn about different places and cultures.

So, let's take away an opportunity to teach about history and a proud people by taking away these mascots. Yeah, that'll help. ;-) (read: sarcasm)

[Paul]

Actually, Jesus does have an opportunity to have a voice in this matter - through his people. The question, then, becomes: What would Jesus do if he were me (or you or in charge of the UofI)? Unless we're going to remove the gospel message from public life it both matters and needs to be said. Check out Leslie Newbigin's book Foolishness To The Greeks.

I've grown up in Oklahoma, with one of the largest Native American populations in the country and I've yet to learn any meaningful history or anything meaningful about the proud Native Americans from a school mascot.

I guess I'm just not as comfortable offending others as some. I go to church with Native Americans, shop with them and live with them as my neighbors. I think their opinion matters more than some perceived slippery slope to political correctness.

[Julie (a.k.a. Sis)]

Am I reading your post correctly to believe that I am one who IS comfortable offending others? Do I not also go to church, shop, and live among Native Americans?

I'll be the first person to stand up and tell you that you have a right to your opinion and voice-- no matter what your race or sex or whatever.

But I also don't have to change the course of life because of someone's over-sensitivity to a topic.

And I feel like I know MORE about the Native American life having grown up in a town and state named after Indian culture, as there were always opportunities to experience Indian culture at fairs and festivals, etc. Hailing from Oklahoma, I'm surprised that you don't know more about Native American culture. I guess I was just lucky.

[Paul]

Julie, sorry if I offended. That wasn't my intent. I almost re-wrote that line about not being comfortable offending for fear that it would be perceived as a shot at you. It certainly wasn't intended that way and I should have listened to the little voice in my head and said it a different way.

By the way, I didn't mean to imply that I don't know about Native American culture. I certainly do - though I'm sure not as much as I should. I was simply saying that I didn't learn any of it from watching Indian mascots at sporting events.

[Julie (a.k.a. Sis)]

I'm laughing out loud right now at this...

Here you are again-- afraid you've offended someone. ;-) See the irony?

You can't worry yourself about everyone taking things personally and being so sensitive. Jesus didn't. He didn't change because people didn't like what he was doing or saying. The Jews were up in arms-- but he didn't change. He stood firm and did what he knew was right.

This is a great discussion-- as I've said before, I enjoy discussing it with you! :-)

[Paul]

I think there was a pretty strong qualitative difference between the message that Jesus stood for and a school mascot, though. I mean, we wouldn't have told the Nazis to stand firm just because Jesus did.

I think when we are faced with a choice to remove an offense that doesn't impact the advance of God's kingdom in a negative way we ought to have a really, really good reason to keep up the offense. Surely it should be a better reason than the fact that people are perhaps too sensitive.

Paul taught us to make allowances for those whose conscience is weaker. And surely we aren't called to use our freedom to offend others. Quite the opposite.

[Julie (a.k.a. Sis)]

I like your Nazi reference-- a very good example to prove your point.

And it also goes to show that there are different ways to take things, including the Bible. Two people can read the same passage and take it to mean different things (LOL- kinda like these posts?! HAHA!). So, when we think, "What would Jesus do?" we cannot assume to know exactly... we can only guess on what we have absorbed from the scriptures about how Jesus lived.

But you're right in that we should not CHOOSE to offend. But certainly the mascots, when they were chosen, were not done so with a mentality of spite or meanness against anyone or any particular people. No one was out to offend.