The Chief Illiniwek Dialogue
Intent and Tradition vs. Reaction and History
An Addendum to the Report to the Board of Trustees
of the
University of Illinois
Louis B. Garippo
Moderator
I. Introduction
On October 18, 2000, the report on the Chief Illiniwek Dialogue was issued. As expected, there were many comments and questions raised concerning the content of the report. What was not expected was some confusion as to the format used in presenting the specific arguments raised by the contributors to the debate.
On November 9, 2000, the formal presentation of the report to the Board of Trustees was made at a public hearing. The remarks made at the presentation were designed to answer most of the post report questions raised up to that point and to eliminate any confusion caused by the format. Because these remarks did not reach all those who had read the original report and because there were significant submissions to the moderator taking issue with some of the arguments reported, this addendum is necessary.
II. Moderator’s Presentation Remarks of November 9, 2000
Today begins the final chapter of one of the most interesting and challenging assignments of my professional career. I say challenging because not many people would feel comfortable writing a report on a controversial subject, knowing that the report likely would be graded by a group of college professors.
This became more apparent to me when I submitted a draft of the section of my report discussing the History of the Illini Tribe to Professor Fred Hoxie for his review. He made a number of suggestions and questioned whether I would be offended if he graded my initial effort with merely a “B.” I remarked back to him that a “B” from him would be the highest grade I had ever received from a college history professor.
The far more serious challenge, however, was that I knew starting out that the report never would satisfy those who were strongly partisan on either side of this issue. With that in mind, I approached this project with the knowledge that some might even be offended by certain facts included in the report. However, I hoped that those who were new to the debate could find the report as a fair presentation of the issues. At this juncture I hope that my efforts have not served to further polarize both sides.
I assume that the Trustees have read the report, so at this time I wish to review that report, not for its content, but rather for some of the considerations that went into it.
Section I of the report sets out the parameters of my assignment, i.e.: preside over the Intake Session, review communications into the Dialogue mail boxes, and distill the various arguments advanced in the form of a written report. Specifically I was directed not to make recommendations, but merely to prepare a report to the Board distilling the various arguments found through the Dialogue.
I agreed to those guidelines. I understood that the purpose of the report was to present both sides of the issue, not to endorse one side or the other. In this report I have done just that, and have not made a recommendation to either eliminate or to keep Chief Illiniwek.
I would like to read the last paragraph of that section:
This issue frequently polarizes those who express opinions. As the moderator of this Dialogue, the most difficult goal was to carry out the designated duties in such a manner that attendees at the Dialogue and readers of this report would feel that all views had been considered and fairly reported, and at the same time, no bias would be ascribed to the actions or statements of the moderator. Every effort was made to achieve that goal; hopefully those efforts were successful.
As I sat through the Intake Session for approximately six hours, it was apparent that at least one hour was devoted to many speakers describing the Chief as either a symbol or a mascot. Of course, the designation as either was a subjective reaction, depending on each individual’s personal feelings regarding the Chief’s retention or his elimination.
My intention in writing this section was to jolt the partisans to think about and the Board to focus on the relevant arguments. Additionally, had I used either term in the report, necessarily I would have been adopting the position of that side. Now, my choice to describe the Chief in a neutral and less highly charged way has been interpreted by both sides as an expression of my opinion in violation of the Board’s directions. If a reader begins with that mind set, all hope for an objective evaluation of the report by that reader is lost.
This section on the Illini Tribe was meant to explain the original Illini confederation, its considerable depletion and its present location in Oklahoma as the Peoria Tribe.
At the end of the section I thought it would be informative to compare the American Indian population in the State of Illinois with its enrollment at the Urbana campus. After obtaining the 1990 U.S. census figures and the reported campus enrollment, those figures were included in the original draft of this section. Upon sending the draft to Professor Hoxie, he surprised me by indicating that many American Indians question the accuracy of those numbers. Debbie Reese, a Native American student leader on campus, reiterated Professor Hoxie’s statement, and thus the report notes their concerns.
In reporting the history of the Chief Illiniwek I felt it important to describe various facets of his performance. Much of the history came from the Chief Illiniwek website, even several facts which arguably are unfavorable to the pro-Chief position.
The origin, costume, music, dance, and evolution of the Chief are explained in separate sub-sections. The discussion of the dance presented the most troubling portion of the report to write. At the Intake Session, several anti-Chief speakers spoke of the Chief’s dance as being a mockery of a religious dance. At the same time other anti-Chief speakers complained that the dance was not authentic. The present student portraying the Chief called it authentic Indian fancy dancing. Nobody submitted any authoritative material to support the characterizations that they had expressed.
If the dance truly were an accurate or seemingly accurate portrayal of a religious ritual, this would be a compelling and significant fact to report to the Board. I regard the question as to whether an unquestionably religious ritual was being used as halftime entertainment as a most critical area of my report.
However, the speakers having presented these conflicting characterizations: religious, non-authentic, and fancy dancing, I felt duty bound to go beyond the unsupported assertions and conduct at least a limited research of my own.
I called Prof. Hoxie, who obviously is a professor of and expert in American Indian history. I asked him if he knew of any authoritative sources that I could consult regarding several areas of the debate being discussed. One of those areas was whether or not this dance was religious in nature. He did not identify any source specifically as to that topic, but he did point me to a number of reference materials at the Newberry Library in Chicago. One of my staff contacted the Library and we were referred to Prof. Bruce Lincoln of the Chicago Divinity School at the University of Chicago. I spoke with Prof. Lincoln. He would not necessarily agree with the statement that all Indian dancing was in fact, religious. He indicated that although one might argue that most Indian dancing has a spiritual component, that did not necessarily mean it was religious. He directed me to some specific works at the Newberry Library.
I consulted a number of works on Indian dancing either identified by Prof. Lincoln or found through my own research from the library or from the Internet. During my admittedly limited research, I found nothing to substantiate the assertion that all Indian dancing was a religious ritual. However, I did find a number of sources describing Indian fancy dancing, which were consistent with John Madigan’s statement. No source suggested that fancy dancing was a religious ritual. Accordingly, I felt comfortable that a legitimate argument could be made that the dance is more akin to the past and present custom of Indian fancy dancing.
On the other hand, the dance had for years been described by the University as being authentic, conveying the image that the dance was a re-enactment of some historic Indian practice. Based on my research and Mr. Madigan’s description, certainly the previous attempts by University publicists characterizing the dance as being authentic in that sense were overstatements.
I would now like to move ahead in the report to a discussion of the Dialogue Mail Box. At the start of the Dialogue, it was announced that the Dialogue Mail Box was not intended to be a vote or a poll; it was intended solely for the input of ideas and arguments to be included later in the report. Certainly, the numerical results never were intended to be meaningful. However, our process for handling the Dialogue mail did create totals resembling a poll. During that process, we wanted to insure that all correspondence would be read and considered. To that end, we created a computer database whereby each letter would be assigned a number. The letter would be read, the author recorded, the author characterized as being student, alumni, faculty, etc., and lastly the writer’s position, for retention, for elimination or for a neutral position. The numbers resulting from that database did not constitute a valid poll.
As the process progressed, several inquiries were made concerning the statistical results. I was deeply disappointed that so many people failed to understand that this was not a true poll. I would estimate that as a poll, the margin of error might be in the neighborhood of 100%. Sensing that the numbers would be misinterpreted and draw undue attention, thereby detracting from the rest of the report, I considered omitting the results entirely. I realized, however, that the report would be coming out in the midst of the presidential election campaign and that the news media and perhaps the public generally would be immersed in tracking poll results. Knowing that there would be an immediate interest in the numbers and that questions would be asked if they were not available, I did not want to appear to be hiding anything. Reluctantly, I included the results with caveats about the unreliability of the numbers.
Release of the report confirmed my initial fears. The statistics became the lead-in to most news articles with the Daily Illini leading with a graph of the results to highlight the news account of the report.
Even worse, the statistical results, already characterized in the report as being unreliable, were being called into question because they were said to be non-representative. The complaint was that individual contributors were counted while perhaps large memberships or organizations speaking on the subject were not included. On reflection, the release of the statistics might have been delayed until the balance of the report had been reviewed by the public.
Speaking of organizational response, some have said that the report ignores the views expressed by many prestigious organizations. That is far from the case. The report was to identify all of the various arguments from as many people who wished to be heard. That goal was considered early on when assigning time for speakers at the Intake Session. The number of organizations given eight minutes to speak as opposed to four minutes for individuals was limited so that organizations would not dominate the Intake Session thereby leaving out several individuals.
Additionally, there is a problem with overemphasis on organizational response. Here are two prime examples. In 1996 the Illinois Legislature passed the statute proclaiming Chief Illiniwek the proud symbol of the University. Now, certainly, that does not mean that 11 million people in the State of Illinois should be counted as favoring the Chief.
Further, in 1995, the Peoria Tribe passed a resolution by their tribal council supporting Chief Illiniwek. I do not know what the vote was on that proclamation. It could have passed by a single vote. That favorable vote by the council does not mean that the entire Peoria Tribe favored the Chief. Perhaps a significant number might have had no interest in whether he stayed or left. Perhaps a vote of the membership may have resulted in condemnation of the Chief. Similarly, in the year 2000 when the tribal council voted 3 to 2 to withdraw support, did that reflect the sentiment of the entire tribe?
The same holds true for the various outside organizations. I do not know how these resolutions were passed by the various organizations and it really makes no difference. Their arguments were not ignored. Of course, campus organizations were given a prominent place in the report because of their obvious importance for consideration by the Board. Outside organizations were listed in the appendix with the number of those groups referenced in the body of the report. But, most importantly, the arguments presented by all organizations were considered and are reflected in Section VIII of the report.
Additionally, it has been said that the report does not single out certain organizations considered to be more prestigious than others and thus more worthy of consideration. That criticism provides its own response.
Section VIII setting forth the various arguments is the heart of the report. Hopefully, however, the balance of the report puts those arguments in perspective.
In formatting this section, the report attempts to get the reader to digest each argument without a preceding identification as to it’s being pro- or anti-Chief. The report groups the arguments into four areas of discussion: Tradition, Stereotype, Effect on Campus, and General Arguments. The idea was to set out the arguments in bold type followed by selected comments from various contributors supporting each of those arguments.
An explanation of the format was omitted from the report so that the readers might dwell on the content of each argument and thereby give deeper consideration to the substance. Unfortunately, many readers, especially those who reviewed the report quickly, did not understand the format and some confusion resulted. In a brief addendum that will be filed shortly, clarifying language will be added.
A good question one might ask is how the arguments were divided into groups and how they were selected. As I presided over the Intake Session, I began making mental notes identifying the various arguments. It was my opinion, based on what I had heard, that really there was only one argument on each side of the issue, and all other arguments flowed from these two positions. On the pro-Chief side, the argument was that Chief Illiniwek is intended to be a non-racist and proud tradition of the University. The opposition perceives the Chief to be a racist stereotype evolving from the dishonorable history of this country’s treatment of the Indians. Hence, the report is subtitled, “Intent and Tradition versus Reaction and History.”
Knowing that the Board and the contributors to the Dialogue would not be satisfied with such a simplistic analysis, the many facets of the debate submitted by the Dialogue participants were included in the report.
However, the report treats those two arguments differently than the rest. For each of these arguments, the report adds in a single narrative, a special digest of what the various writers have submitted in support of that particular view.
If you will look on page 34, you will see the argument on Tradition set forth in bold type.
The Chief’s value as a tradition outweighs other factors; he is not racist, he is a nostalgic link for alumni of the University and a focal point for school pride and spirit, both laudable emotions.
Next, there is a two-page narrative attempting to capture the thoughts of the several pro-Chief contributors to the Dialogue who speak of Intention and Tradition. This narrative is not to be interpreted as a view of the moderator although I believe some readers have interpreted it as such. Following that first argument are sub-arguments regarding Tradition from both points of view.
The same pattern is followed on the Stereotype sub-section beginning on page 38. The Stereotype argument is in bold print:
The Chief is based on a racist and stereotypical image of American Indians; moreover, the fact that it is a static portrayal of that group creates and fosters a one-dimensional image of all of its members.
What follows is a historical analysis of the American Indian stereotype, how it grew out of a history of a shameful policy of elimination of American Indian culture, religion and unfortunately led to the death of many of the ancestors of today’s present day American Indians. It speaks of the negative effect on Native American children and points out that not every American Indian wishes to be viewed as a proud, brave, noble, dancing and whooping Indian.
Again, this narrative is followed by bold-typed arguments with selected comments dealing with the Stereotype argument. As with the Tradition argument, pro and anti-Chief arguments are included without a designation.
I wish to add that in the addendum that I will be filing, I have promised to an anti-Chief contributor that I will include her broader definition of racism than the Webster’s Dictionary definition, which appears in the narrative on Tradition.
The last two sub-sections, Effect on Campus and General Arguments, follow the same format without a moderator’s narrative for each.
There is one area in the General Arguments that I wish to discuss. That area concerns the financial impact on the University with respect to either decision that the Board might make. There were submissions from both sides claiming that dire financial consequences would befall the university if the Board does not decide their way. There would be lost revenues in alumni contributions and legislative funding if the Chief were to be retired; or lost revenues from conventions and meetings not being held on campus and throughout the State as a result of boycotts by various organizations.
As with some of the other factual assertions that were made, I did some limited investigation into these claims. What I found was that neither claim could be substantiated.
I was notified of a study that found that schools that had dropped their Indian designations were not affected by a corresponding decrease in alumni contributions. Further, I personally contacted the directors of the Chicago and Illinois State Convention Bureaus. Neither of these directors knew of the refusal of any organization to come to Chicago or elsewhere throughout the State because of the presence of Chief Illiniwek. The director of the Illinois State Convention Bureau was not aware of any boycott of the Champaign-Urbana area. However, we have been informed that at least two academic organizations have resolved not to meet on the Urbana campus.
I did not include these specific findings in the report because I was doubtful that the Board would make its decision based upon speculative financial considerations anyway, especially given the gravity of some of the other positions raised.
However, the report gives each view this same selected comment:
Both sides are resorting to extortion: alumni supporters who say that they will not contribute if the Chief goes; and opponents who will boycott the University if he stays.
Interestingly, on my way down to the campus last evening, I heard a report on NPR concerning The San Diego State University Aztec and Monty Montezuma debate going on at that institution at this time. The University reports that alumni contributions are down 50% since the schools’ Student Council voted to retire the name, logo, and mascot. The administration predicts that it will cost a half million dollars to make all the physical changes on campus. On the other hand, the report notes that at Miami of Ohio, revenues from alumni contributions and sales of licensed merchandise actually are 10% higher than before the school’s athletic teams became Red Hawks rather than Redskins. The person making the decision at San Diego State is the president of the university. To his credit, he has stated that financial concerns will not be considered in his decision.
With respect to the arguments presented, it has been said that the report does not consider the voices of Native Americans. Because the various arguments are not identified by source, one cannot say that anti-Chief Indian pleas have been ignored. I believe a fair reading of the report reflects how Indians who oppose the Chief certainly have their position stated.
Given the above criticism, there is an interesting facet to our collection process that should be known. In setting up the database, I thought it would be informative to provide a category for Native American response. I instructed the staff to set up a category of all persons identifying themselves as American Indian. Some writers with American Indian heritage quantified their bloodlines by percentage for example: full bloodied, one half, one eighth, etc. I told the staff to adopt the single drop rule: i.e., if the writer claimed any percentage of Indian blood, that writer would be included as Native American.
When we were well into the process, we were finding that 75% of the people in that Native American category favored retention of the Chief. Because of my arbitrary definition of who is a Native American and the general unreliability of the numbers, that category was not included in the report thereby preventing a debate as to who should be considered a Native American and which Indian voices are to be heard.
Compromise
The final section of the report deals with the lack of discussion of compromise. While several contributors to the Dialogue mentioned compromise, there was no indication of any movement on the part of the University or from organized American Indians showing any inclination that it even be discussed.
The compromise section was intended to describe the difficulties with achieving an agreement whereby the Chief might remain under certain conditions.
Just as the report had digested in a narrative format the two arguments relative to Tradition and Stereotype, the call for compromise deserved similar treatment. One could not articulate that position any better than Prof. Lynn’s submission which was included in its entirety.
Again, the report’s ending with this section should not be interpreted as a view of the moderator that a compromise should be sought.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I wish to thank the Board of Trustees for having selected me to preside over this Dialogue. It truly was an educational experience and, as I have described previously, a challenging one.
Additionally, I wish to thank the many faculty members and administrators of this University who responded to my many requests and inquiries so promptly and courteously.
III. Racism Another View
On page 35 of the report, the following appears as part of two pro-Chief arguments that the Chief Illiniwek tradition is not racist:
The pro-Chief supporters insist that the above elements of the Chief tradition are not racist. Webster’s Dictionary defines racism as:
1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race;
2. racial prejudice or discrimination.
Under the first definition of racism, the Chief is racist only to the extent that the Indian is perceived as a higher quality of human than others. Thus, it is argued that the Indians should be proud that the University seeks to honor those perceived traits. Additionally, under the second definition, the elevation of the Indian does not show a prejudice against him nor a discrimination.
Ms. Cyd A. Crue, a graduate teaching assistant at the Urbana campus, represents the National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media (NCRSM-IL). The goal of the organization is clear by its title. [1] Ms. Crue spoke at the Dialogue. Also speaking was her 12-year-old son who spoke of the harassment and ridicule he experienced as a Native American student in the Champaign-Urbana schools. After the report was issued, she contacted the moderator, expressing her quarrel with the single definition of racism that appeared in the report as part of the pro-Chief argument.
After exchanging e-mails and telephone conversations, she was assured that this addendum would contain a much broader definition which she would supply. The following is her submission:
Racism is a term that is frequently subjected to simplistic definitions. It is common to define racism as having only one cause and existing in only one form, or being of a uniform type such as in the dictionary definition.... There is no simple canned definition for racism -- racism is a complex system of power put in place over 500 years ago. Also, this definition does not address the psychological aspects of racism for either the perpetrator or recipient of racism.
I will begin with a definition put forward by the Saugeen Ojibway Chiefs and Council that I use in my race and ethnicity class: RACISM is any communication, action or course of conduct, whether intentional or unintentional, which dehumanizes, or denies recognition, benefits, rights of access or otherwise abrogates or derogates from the constitutionally recognized rights and freedoms of any person or community on the basis of their membership or perceived membership in a racial, ethnic or cultural community. The fostering and promoting of cultural appropriation [Native imagery] or uniform standards, common rules and same treatment of people who are not the same [Illini & Lakota] constitute racism where the specificity of the individual or community is not taken into consideration. The public dissemination of any communication or statement which insults [the insult to be determined in this case by Native authorities and peoples] a racial, ethnic or cultural community or which exposes them to hatred, contempt or ridicule also constitutes racism.
Racism is a global system of material and symbolic resource distribution management. Racism embodies power and influence. Racism is a structure to assist in maintaining power in the hands of a few, subjugating and pacifying those kept out of the decision making process and rooting itself in the culture of the masses to sustain control by elites. Racism is stereotyping (whether considered good or bad stereotypes), prejudice, and discrimination. Racism is actions undertaken by whites in pursuit of their own interests regardless of the consequences to nonwhites (the ‘we are honoring you and if you aren’t honored, you should be’ discussion). Racism is dismissing authoritative Native voices (or relegating them to the appendix section). Racism is continuing to use Illiniwek even when told the practice is ‘a racial insult,’ destroying self-esteem, a mockery of religious ceremony and cultural practices. The use of race-based imagery, performance, symbols, mascots, etc. for sports entertainment is racism it is the minstrelsy of Indians!
IV. Chief Illiniwek’s Dance -- Religious or “Fancy Dancing”
During the period prior to the publication of the report, input was sought by the moderator from a number of U of I faculty. One of those who had been contacted for input on the question of Native American dancing as it relates to religion was Professor Brenda Farnell of the Department of Anthropology and a faculty member vocal in the effort to eliminate Chief Illiniwek. She was contacted because she was a known specialist in Native American culture. Unfortunately, she was out of the country at the time and thus unaware of the attempts to contact her.
Professor Farnell has followed up with a critique of the report’s section on the dance. Specifically she took issue with the lengthy characterization of the dance by the present student Chief Illiniwek, John Madigan wherein he cited the similarities of the dance with Indian “fancy dancing.” In referring to a previous submission of the Department of Anthropology, Professor Farnell cited the following:
.… it is frequently claimed that the person portraying the Chief is knowledgeable about Native American cultures, dances and music. The faculty members in our department whose areas of research and teaching focus specifically upon the music and dances of Native North America find this claim untenable. In marked contrast to indigenous dance forms, the choreographed movements performed by the Chief are a combination of stereotyped gestures and steps taken from the Boy Scout movement and Wild West Shows of the 1920s and 30s, supplemented by acrobatic display. The musical accompaniment is likewise a stereotypic misrepresentation derived from early Hollywood movies.
.… Armed with accurate information our students would know that, from the Native American perspective, the young man portraying the Chief has not earned the right to wear Lakota Sioux military regalia, just as he has not earned the right to wear a US Marine's uniform and a Purple Heart. They would know that Native American dancing and the wearing of traditional regalia are connected with spiritual beliefs and practices and so would understand why the Chief's performance as entertainment at a sporting event violates the religious sensibilities of many American Indian people. They would know that American Indians are the only recognized ethnic minority in the US who are still subjected to public stereotyping, and that ethnic stereotyping, however well-intentioned, always misrepresents, and so dishonors, those it portrays.
As an anthropologist, I must admit that I find Mr. Madigan's letter fascinating in its ingenuity since his account is entirely pseudo-historical and self-serving. He provides a creative but erroneous re-reading of history that seeks to rationalize and authenticate his current practice and beliefs. For example, the first three individuals who portrayed Chief Illiniwek could not have studied "fancy dancing" at Pine Ridge since this distinct style was an innovation that developed in Oklahoma after World War II. It gradually spread northwards across the Plains during the 1950's and early 60's as Inter-tribal Pow-wows and Pan-Indian forms of dancing emerged in all regions of the country.
At Pine Ridge during the 1920's and 30's men danced a form sometimes referred to as "straight style," which developed into today's "traditional men's" style. Fancy dancers do not, and never did, dance in buckskin and feather headdresses with bare feet. Fancy dancers wear two large gaily-colored feather bustles attached to shoulders and hips and wear moccasins or beaded sneakers. The dance movements make the feather bustles blur the outline of the body through fast turns and changes of direction on the spot, combined with fast-footwork that must not lose the beat of the drum. In competitions, the musicians try to trick the dancers into missing the final beat and thus lose vital points off their score. The combinations of moves are improvised, but only certain kinds of steps, jumps and turns are acceptable.
I would be very pleased to supply evidence of these facts by sending you a copy of an excellent video called "Dancing to Give Thanks" that I regularly use in my classes. It was directed by an Omaha historian for Nebraska Public Television and shows clear footage of genuine Fancy Dancing. More than this, Native peoples talk about the spiritual connections between sacred regalia and dancing, as well as the sacred circle of the dance arena. These first hand accounts would help you understand the religious factors that are at the heart of this issue from the Native perspective.
V. Summary Position of the Illinois Native American Bar Association
Matthew W. Beaudet, President of the INABA, has submitted a position summary for the elimination of Chief Illiniwek. While it is the contention of the moderator that a fair reading of the report and the accompanying appendix encompasses the concepts set forth by Mr. Beaudet, his summary is included to collect those various arguments:
What Indian mascots teach students about Native people and culture.
Fictional Indian mascots, who live in an imaginary past and mythological present, teach non-Natives very little about Native people and culture. Instead, Indian mascots promote the premise that everything “real or valuable” about Natives belonged to a long lost era, before the race was overtaken by manifest destiny. The stereotypes encompass the students’ “education” on Natives, thereby enabling the students to collectively believe that they are “honoring” Native people and culture while at the same time collectively blinding them to the real and adverse effects that such stereotypes have on modern Natives.
What the “dignified” Indian mascot teaches students.
Today the bloodthirsty and tomahawk-wielding warrior-savage has given way to the ecologically-conscience and stoic “proud” Indian. To Natives, as well as women’s, minority and civil rights organizations, the “proud dignified Indian” mascot is simply the modern-day version of the old “Aunt Jemima” ads which extolled the virtues of the “content, dignified and proud Mammy” who protected her benevolent master and noble Confederate officers from Yankee patrols and marauders. The “loyal Mammy” presents a stereotype which absolves guilt about slavery, but also denies the modern-day plight of slave descendants and postpones our coming to terms with our true shared past. The “good Indian” mascot stereotype serves the exact same purpose; it absolves the past but denies the present.
The everyday impact of stereotypes on the Native community.
Real Natives face real problems that are neither romantic nor exciting. Native cultures, religion and identity have been converted to sources of sport and entertainment. Natives who act to improve their community are often accused as having betrayed or forfeited their “Indian-ness.”
It is an undeniable and documented fact that Native-based mascots teach and perpetuate stereotypes which directly undermine the self-determination, dignity and well-being of Native people, as well as create a hostile school, work, economic and social environment for over two million Native men, women and children.
Natives endure the highest averages for poverty, unemployment and violent crime victimization that any other group, with the rates for each category being 2½ times above the national average. Native youth suffer the most, having the highest teen suicide and drop-out rates of any racial or cultural group. Prejudice derived directly from stereotypes has been cited as the primary factor for all of the above.
The response from other educators.
The Los Angeles, Dallas and Minnesota school systems have mandated that schools retire Native-based sports names, symbols or mascots. The New York State department of education is reviewing a similar mandate. An estimated 1,250 schools have retired Native-based sports names, symbols or mascots since 1970, with the Niles West Township district 219 of Illinois joining them on October 16, 2000.
The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, which accredits schools in the Midwest, has stated that the presence of an Indian mascot raised substantive questions about a school’s “Institutional integrity” and “educational effectiveness.” The association further stated that the controversy caused by Indian mascots “...interferes with the educational climate and with the institution’s stated goal of creating an inclusive community....”
A 1994 University of Illinois faculty committee study confirmed the detrimental impact of Indian mascots on Natives and non-Natives alike. The board of trustees did not address the study’s actual findings but rather chose to highlight the committee’s racial and ethnic composition, which one trustee complained was composed of a number of faculty from “Third World countries” and “minority groups.”
The National Education Association and other educational organizations have passed several resolutions calling for the retirement of Native-based sports names, symbols and mascots. The NCAA Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee has stated that: “When we (non-Natives) choose not to speak out against the perpetuation of disrespectful images of Native Americans, we fail to respect ourselves.”
Why this civil rights issue is vital to everyone.
Many ask why we refer to Native-based school mascots as a civil rights issue. Again, the undeniable and documented fact is that such mascots teach and perpetuate stereotypes which directly undermine the self-determination, dignity and well-being of Native people, as well as create a hostile school, work, economic and social environment for over two million Native men, women and children. This is not simply a Native perspective, it is also the conclusion of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; the National Organization for Women; the Asian American Association; Amnesty International; the National Education Association; numerous state and local school boards; several medical and mental health care associations; and leading civil rights organizations. The Southern Poverty Law Center is also on record as starting that Native-based mascots violate Titles II and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It is simply impossible for Natives to have important social, economic and civil rights issues heard without first shedding the stereotypes thrust upon them by these mascots, especially when these stereotypes are being “validated” by institutions of primary, secondary and higher learning.
A great man once dreamed that we would someday live in a nation where people were not judged by the color of their skin (Black, Brown, White, Yellow and Red) but by the content of their character.
Based upon the above, we would respectfully request that the administration retire the practice of allowing Native-based sports names, symbols and mascots to be used in the Public School System.
Matthew W. Beaudet
President, Illinois Native American Bar Association
The filing of this report concludes my assignment of February 15, 2000. I wish to thank the Board of Trustees for giving me the opportunity to be of service to this great university. Additionally, I wish to repeat my thanks to the faculty and staff of the U of I who have offered and furnished invaluable assistance to me during this project.
Exhibit A
Dear Judge Garippo:
Thank you for your response to my letter of November 30th (although the first part seems to be missing?).
The point of my letter was to provide "expert testimony" as it were, to counter the unchallenged claim in your report that the Chief's dance is/was, or is based on, Native American Fancy Dancing. Accurate evidence exposes the claim as a rhetorical ploy in the service of ideology -- somewhat desperate attempt to authenticate the Illiniwek performance. This focus diverts attention from the real issue, which is that of "diversity" on the UIUC campus. However, since you foreground this in your report, I felt that it required an informed response.
To reiterate briefly, ALL of the relevant constituent features that make a Fancy Dance are missing -- wrong rhythm, wrong steps and step patterns, different choreographic structure, wrong music, and especially the costume. Just because Fancy Dancing is a choreographic form that allows for improvisation does not mean that "anything goes." On the contrary, there are clear boundaries within which one must improvise. In addition, to be recognizable as a Fancy Dance the regalia must consist of two large feather bustles (one tied around the waist, a second tied around the upper back), a special head piece called a 'roach' made out of porcupine quills and eagle feathers, and moccasins -- not buckskin shirt/trousers and war bonnet headdress. Since Fancy Dancing only emerged circa 1950's the appeal to historical context fails in this regard.
Even allowing for a certain amount of artistic license, for the informed spectator, there is nothing in Chief Illiniwek's dance to evoke connections with Fancy Dancing. They are two different KINDS OF dancing -- in style, purpose, historical origin and performance context. To call Chief Illiniwek's dance a Fancy Dance in light of its failure to meet these ESSENTIAL criteria of identity is like calling disco-dancing, ballet -- which would be very funny, if serious issues were not at stake here that go way beyond discussions of whether the Chief Illiniwek dance is, or is not, "authentic."
To answer your question, "Does anyone contend that "fancy dancing" competitions at pow-wows is a sacred ritual?" I first have to ask you to stretch your imagination. Please work with me for a moment to try to understand this from the Native American point of view, since it involves one of the fundamental differences between mainstream American culture and Native American cultures generally. The mainstream practice of dividing the world into "sacred" and "secular" is just NOT a part of Native American worldviews. While some events (ceremonies) are much more sacred than others, there are NO social events devoid of spiritual beliefs and practices, however "secular" they might appear to outsiders. Pow-wows are a good case in point. They are complex social events that include several different kinds of rituals (e.g., give-aways, naming ceremonies, honor dances), the sacred nature of which would probably go unnoticed by the casual outside observer or tourist.
I can say with certainty that any social event which includes Native forms of dancing involves spiritual components because the dancers must enter the sacred circle of the dance arena. THIS IS ALWAYS BLESSED WITH PRAYER AND RITUAL ACTIONS BEFORE AND DURING EVERY EVENT. This remains the case whether the dance is held in a traditional outdoor dance arbor, or a school gymnasium. In addition, elements of a dancer's regalia are considered sacred by their owners. Competitive events are a part of this too -- however unlikely this seems to us, for whom competition is "sport" -- a "secular" activity. For many Native dancers, preparation for competition is accompanied by prayer and ritual action -- in order to gain spiritual assistance to perform well, and to ward off adverse influences from spirit beings and/or other competitors. So, the answer to your question is, yes, Fancy Dance competitions are saturated with sacred elements, most of which are invisible to uninformed eyes.
I am very pleased that you asked this question because it pertains to the very heart of the issue of "diversity" at UIUC. Please allow me to explain. To understand and respect ethnic minorities requires exactly this kind of encounter with a different worldview. And genuine understanding requires a willingness to take off the cultural lenses that our own beliefs and values provide, even just for a few moments [in this case suspending the idea that "sacred" and "secular" are separate categories]. Such moments of understanding are a prerequisite to developing respect for cultural differences. It also involves learning that these deeply rooted differences are usually unobservable. For example, Native Americans today may speak English, dress in jeans, drive pick-up trucks, work 9-5 jobs and live in Chicago, but retain the beliefs, values and cultural practices that constitute their identity as Dakota, Ojibwa, Potawatamie, Navaho, etc. Dancing is one of those practices and it is always accompanied by spiritual elements. This is precisely why Chief Illiniwek's performance is so offensive to so many -- a point that has been made many, many times, but one that falls on deaf ears because most Americans categorize dancing as "secular" and as "entertainment." Adding the component of "competition" only places it further in the category of "secular" from the mainstream perspective, as your question reveals.
Dealing effectively with diversity requires becoming aware of the propensity we all have to judge and classify other peoples and their practices through the categories provided by our own culture and its values (in Anthropology 101 we call this "ethnocentrism"). It also requires deep reflection about what is required to provide the "equal" in equal opportunity for students who belong to groups of people who have been oppressed and marginalized. Surely the very first step is to take seriously what Native students HAVE BEEN TELLING US for over a decade, and remove this obstacle to their very presence on this campus.
I hope my attempt to answer your question provides an opportunity for further reflection. Thank you for your consideration of these points.
Sincerely,
Brenda Farnell
Exhibit B
Dear Judge Garippo,
This note is to add a personal experience to Brenda Farnell's response to you about fancy dancing and to demonstrate the religious/spiritual nature of the dance circle at all pow wows regardless whether they are considered contest" or "traditional."
The same sacred rituals are present at contest pow wows as at a traditional pow wows. There are no pow wows that have only a fancy dance competitions. All categories of dance (i.e. traditional men’s, grass dance, fancy dance, traditional women's, jingle dance, and fancy shawl) usually proceed one after the other in age groups (i.e. seniors categories, tiny tots, junior boys, junior girls, teen boys, teen girls, adult men, adult women). All dance is sacred, many dancers are wearing sacred eagle feathers (those who have earned them) -- at the same time all dance is not ceremony, but that does not mean it is not spiritual and part of religious practice.
Now to that personal experience I mentioned: My son, Wayne, competed at the November Chicago Pow Wow. I was video taping his contest (grass dance) when I noticed he was just standing there with tears coming down his cheeks. About the same time I notice he had stopped dancing, the drum stopped and the competition stopped. Wayne had dropped an eagle feather from his roach stick (the stick that holds on his head piece). The announcer asked for all cameras to be shut off and for everyone to stand. Four veteran elders were asked to dance for this feather and a drum was chosen to play the ceremonial raising the feather. As I stood there during the ceremony watching the tears role down Wayne's cheeks, I found myself wondering, "How can anyone not see the spirituality that is interwoven in dance?" Wayne was disqualified from the pow wow competition and he is still making restitution for dropping his feather. There is strict pow wow etiquette for participants and observers as well as ceremonial practices such as this one, the raising of the feather. Brenda mentioned many others.
Judge Garippo, for anyone to separate fancy dance as not part of Native spirituality is totally inaccurate and the result of misunderstanding and mis-education. The dance circle is blessed by elders. No food or drink is allowed in the circle. No alcohol or drugs are allowed. All because of the spiritual nature of dance whether contest or a social gathering. Further, in order to dance in any of the above categories, one must be appropriately dressed. If our current chief tried to enter a fancy dance contest, the drum would stop, the dancing would stop, and he would be asked to leave. Most likely, there would be a sagging off of the circle (purification) accompanied with prayer before any dancing would be continued.
I just wanted to add my thoughts to Brenda's. Her response to you was well stated and from a researcher who, unlike those who are pro-chief, has immersed herself in understanding the dynamics of the dance and spirituality of our First Peoples.
By the way, I have taken Wayne out of school here (7th grade) in Champaign because of the racism of teachers and students at his school--because of the racism that the University of Illinois advocates in its chosen symbol -- our elementary and secondary schools continually play out the chief debate as well. This area has become increasingly hostile to Native Americans with people even advocating taking up arms against Native Americans in the local newspaper's letters to the editor. Teachers in his middle school advocate keeping the chief by wearing images that insult my son's religious beliefs. Teachers even pass out save the chief stickers to students in the middle school. All of this makes the environment extremely hostile for Wayne. He is always the target. I have never been separated from my son before. This separation causes me much pain -- I miss him desperately. He is now attending the Bug-o-nay-ghe-gic Tribal School at Leech Lake Reservation in Minnesota.
I again would like to encourage you to attend a pow wow with a Native person who can explain the intricacies of the spirituality of dance and pow wow.
Respectfully,
Cyd A. Crue
Exhibit C
Dear Mr. Garippo,
I have reviewed your response to Brenda Farnell's letter regarding Fancy Dance. I found myself wondering, as I have throughout this process and indeed throughout the ten-year plus debate how it is that the obvious and core issues have been avoided by most participants -- especially the UIUC management. The entire question about fancy dance, while curious, is irrelevant.
My questions to you are simple, simple enough to be misunderstood as rhetorical. Yet, these following questions are not rhetorical. For that matter, neither are they simple.
What does it take for an action to be racist? I have read much on the subject, including the overly simplistic definitions in English language dictionaries, including the one referred to in your report. As with other words, for example the word marble, dictionary definitions leave much to be desired once one has experienced the thing defined. What does it take for an action to be racist?
What is intrinsic in all acts of subjugation? As citizens, a society and a tenuously bound group of families and individuals we seem forever at the crossroad of liberty and fascism. We have not always made the choice toward liberty or shown true courage at every challenge. Our ability to rationalize is endless and we work tirelessly to find validation of our righteousness. We do as if it were human in nature, and it may be. By what do we know injustice?
What does intent have to do with harm done? With harm repeated over and over and over again?
Can truth really be created by telling a lie often enough or having the lie repeated by enough people?
Given that the above questions are key to the mascot (or symbol if you like) controversy I am deeply interested in your thoughts. My take on the subject has gotten quite clear over the years. More so as I have followed the "dialog," listened to the opinions via web cast, read many collected as well as published opinions and read your report. The UIUC portends to present itself not just as something it is not, but as someone it is not. UIUC assumed the authority to do so unilaterally. UIUC benefits from its misrepresentation. UIUC wraps itself in the circular reasoning that the image it has created is popular with those for whom it was created, therefore, it is good. Those who are burdened by UIUC's image are politically insignificant. Historically, pre-European inhabitants of the Americas have been misrepresented in popular culture through generations of "others" going back to 1495 or 1496, when Columbus gave birth to the historic trend.
Given the specifics of history is it not possible that here we have an ongoing injustice we have become so comfortable with that we, and not justice, have become blind?
Sincerely,
Don Messec
National Coalition on Racism in Sports and the Media
[1] Recently, the United Methodist Church consistent with its United Methodist Book of Resolutions which condemns the use of racially oriented human logos and mascots by sports teams awarded a $10,000 grant to NCRSM-IL.