Читать реферат по английскому: "Chief Illiniwek Essay Research Paper The Struggle" Страница 2

(Назад) (Cкачать работу)

from the University of Illinois, he is the living distillation of the most memorable moments

of their youth. To everyone else, he is Chief Illiniwek. While opponents argue the mascot

is degrading to Native Americans, supporters say he is a source of University pride.

For the last thirty years, efforts have been made to do away with the dancing

Illiniwek. The mascot, a seventy-five year old University tradition, has been under debate

for more than a decade. He is represented by a student who paints his face, wears a

costume and headdress from the Oglala-Lakota Sioux tribe and dances at the half time

shows at varsity football and basketball games(McSherry Breslin 7).

Although a great deal has been written about the controversy of using fake Indians

to get fans pumped up at football games, it took an entire book to give full vent to the

subject. Carol Spindel does this admirably and even handedly in Dancing at Half time:

Sports and the Controversy Over American Indian Mascots. “In Whose Honor?” is a one

hour program that was first aired on PBS stations around the country and that put the

university at the center of the suddenly revitalized movement to do away with using Indian

nicknames, symbols, and rituals at sporting events. In Los Angeles, “In Whose Honor?”

has become a central part of a school board debate on whether city high schools should

drop their Indian nicknames(”Documentary” 5).

It has been more than twenty years since Stanford University retired its Indian

mascot, but the Fighting Illini stick obstreperously to their guns. Gone but not forgotten

is Chief Noc-A-Homa, the retired mascot of the Atlanta Braves, who would “whoop”

around a makeshift teepee like a victim of Tourette’s Syndrome being pursued by a swarm

of bees the Braves hit a home run. The good people at the University of Illinois

designated the fictitious chief as their mascot and took him in as one of their own, insisting

that Illiniwek was a faithful representation of the Indian leaders encountered by the first

European explorers in today’s Illinois.

After the cultural upheaval of the 1960’s, the whole notion of naming a school

mascot after an Indian chief became seriously offensive to a large number of people. And

the biggest problem is ignorance. If the University was more aware of what Native

Americans are about, they would not have a mascot of Native American descent. They

would be ashamed. No matter what the board does, it is not an issue that is going to go

away.

Why is it that Native Americans seem to be the only ones who take issues with the

nicknames and mascots of athletic teams? No one ever hears outrage from the

Irish-American community over Notre Dame’s Fighting Irish. “And why aren’t the

Christians upset with the New Orleans Saints or the Anaheim Angels”(McDermott 24)?

Instead, a small minority can not stand it that popular culture, through athletic teams,

embraces Native American symbols so dearly. Because a small fraction of a race does not

like a nickname or a mascot, that is not a good enough reason to retire it. This is not

about honoring Indian people. It’s about acting honorably(”U of I Senate” 14). To us and

many others, the chief bespeaks courage, tenacity and endurance in the face of heavy

odds. The authenticity of his costume and dance is beside the point; the university

certainly is not ridiculing Indians. Thus, we think the protesters are vastly oversensitive.

Let’s compare Chief Illiniwek with Notre Dame’s symbolic Irishman. This

green-clad, clay pipe-smoking caricature who prances up and down the sidelines at

football games could be interpreted as suggesting that all Irishmen are buffoonish, rowdy,

and bibulous(Cahill 22). Does that constitute grounds for protest by Irish-Americans?

Most of us simply regard the leprechaun as a fun-loving free spirit.

“As an alumnus of the University of Illinois class of 1953, I must say the tradition

of Chief Illiniwek must not be allowed to die, nor can we allow it to become the victim of

a crusade by a small group who would, if they could, rewrite the history of our great

nation and its heritage”(Bridwell 22). Chief Illiniwek is not a mascot, but is rather a proud

symbol of a great Native American people, a great state and a great university. According

to Fialkowski, the chief is not “paraded” or displayed, but is revered and honored by all

who witness his presence. For those few minutes that the chief is on the field, he is no

longer a student in a costume but a symbol not only of a great university but of the legacy

of the state that is home to that university. Such a tradition must be kept; the true tragedy

would be its demise (18). David J. Goode adds “In the October 17 issue of the Chicago

Tribune, Gary Reinmuth referred to Chief Illiniwek as the “mascot” for the University of

Illinois. Please inform him that the term “mascot” was incorrectly applied to the chief(12).

Chief Illiniwek is a member of the Marching Illini and only appears with the band. The

Chief is a symbol of the University of Illinois and not a mascot as Mr. Reinmuth suggests.

The University of Illinois senate voted in favor of retiring Chief Illiniwek, the

symbol that has been portrayed as both a racist stereotype and an honor to American

Indian culture in a debate that has preoccupied

Похожие работы