« Checking 2005 Major PredictionsJeong Jang better than Michelle Wie now, will always be better than Wie »

33 comments

Comment from: Chris Baldwin [Member] Email
Kiel, I didn't know you could make sense. Good one!

Sorry couldn't get resist.

The NCAA uses all its collective mental powers to justify not paying its pro athletes. Oh, that's right we had that discussion. What about the women's water polo players!

Hard to disagree with you on this particular one though Nutty Professor.

Though I'm still holding out hope that Heywood from your Jeong Jang post will show up and comment that he's outraged that you're endorsing raping and pillaging. And still upset that you so severely dissed Michelle Wie.

08/12/05 @ 12:30
Comment from: Donna Schaal [Visitor]

Up until the following quote this was a worthwhile article......"If raping and pillaging softer Northern Europeans was still a viable way of life in Norway, I would probably emigrate back and join in the fun. Sadly (for me and my people, at least) those days are gone."



My question to you.......how many women from Norway past or present would consider raping "fun"? For that matter how many "softer Northern European" villages would have considered being pillaged "fun".



You can proudly defend your Viking heritage of rapists and pillagers....your words not mine....but you have no idea what great pains the U of I has gone through to ensure that the Chief is respected and honored. He is not a mascot but a symbol of Illinois heritage. He performs a celebratory dance not a religous or war dance. He is not on the side lines cheering anyone on. He does not travel the country with any sports team from the U of I. He is more revered in the State of Illinois than any politician or leader.



I would suggest that you visit www.chiefilliniwek.org and find out exactly what you are talking about.....



As an alumni of the U of I, I'm ashamed that you are on the faculty and scared for any females who take your classes.






08/15/05 @ 10:45
Comment from: BV [Visitor]
This is a fantastic and much-needed review of the issue. My personal opinion is that the NCAA has gone completely overboard in trying to be "PC" and they have no business making a ruling of this nature.

Here in Florida, there is a plan afoot to bring this to court and charge the NCAA with some form of restraint of trade violation - IF they don't back off this ill-advised plan.

Thanks Kiel, for a thoughtful and well-reasoned argument.
08/15/05 @ 10:45
Comment from: BV [Visitor]
Oh My Dear God In Heaven! I was writing the above when Ms. (of course it's Ms) Schaal penned her diatribe above. I'm sure she is so politically correct (and a registered Democrat) that HUMOR is also on her list of things to eradicate in this country. Please darlin' - GET A LIFE.
08/15/05 @ 10:49
Comment from: Kiel Christianson [Visitor]
I know all about Illiniwek's symbolism, and as I said, I do not find anything offensive about it (but also as I said, I am not one to ask, not being a member of the appropriate tribe). Regarding my Viking heritage, that was, of course (and as BV points out) hyperbolic humor. Reflecting on historical facts is crucial to illuminating the human condition--past and present. Shying away from the uglier, baser aspects thereof do not make these things any less appalling, nor make those of us who do not shy away any less grateful for progress and civilization. Sadly, hyperbole, humor, and the ability to divorce fancy from reality all appear to have been lost (by some) as a consequence of this otherwise welcomed progress, however.
08/15/05 @ 11:36
Comment from: Donna Schaal [Visitor]
BV, darlin' how very judgmental of you......you were wrong on all accounts. I am neither a Democrat, nor humorless, nor do I need to get a life. I have one - thank you very much. I love Chief Illiniwek (not a very politically correct stance to take....) I don't understand what you are trying to infer with your (of course it's Ms.) comment.....that must be some sort of slam against women that I just don't get or wait was that humor again......??????

But for a faculty member to say in any way that rape is "fun" is not only offensive it is dangerous for it to be condoned. There is nothing funny about rape. All cultures and peoples have violence in their past. There is no denying that and I appreciate Mr. Christianson's attempt to illuminate the human condition. I agree, as a student of history, that studying the past is absolutely necessary to progress, but saying that you regret that you can't "join in the fun" is a lot different than saying "let's study what happened here".

I found the last line of Mr. Christianson's column very funny.....
"I will stomp and cheer and drink mead and act like a berserker during Viking games. Thank Thor the NCAA can’t touch THAT name." THAT is humor. Rape is not.

Obviously, the two of you have never been the victim of a violent, humiliating attack against your person.

You are both very lucky, many women and even some men in the past and present cannot say the same thing......Go Illini!
08/16/05 @ 14:58
Comment from: Kiel Christianson [Visitor]
Donna--No offense was intended, and I certainly was not labeling present-day atrocities as "fun." That said, it is certainly a valid (if unpleasant) observation that at least some Vikings undoubtedly DID have fun sacking northern Europe, taking "brides," and otherwise wrecking havoc--irrespective of how we view such acts today, in our obviously more socially responsible present-day state.

But I do appreciate your indignance, because by expressing it, you have hit my point directly on the head: The name "Vikings" (as fond as I am of it) does indeed conjure up a time when violent acts were, in fact, a common (and even for some at the time, acceptable) means of existence. So, if it WERE an NCAA mascot, would it fall into the category of mascots deemed "hostile or abusive"? I believe that case could be made--much more so than the Illini!--and thus it too would be banned.

I do not think that would be fair, just as I do not think that respectfully presented Native American mascots should be banned. Certainly there is nothing in the Vikings regalia that celebrates the truly bad parts of their namesake's history. (Although, to be fair, Vikings usually married into local populations and settled down as responsible family folk.)

The point is that blanket judgements on mascots (or writers) cannot be passed based on one criterion (or word) divorced from both synchronic and diachronic considerations.
08/16/05 @ 15:46
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email
1) I've met my match. I do not know what synchronic and diachronic mean, nor could I threaten to use them properly in a sentence.

2) Kiel/Fuzzy, what the hell were you thinking?

3) Possessed ministers have come out in support of the mascot of my alma mater, the Demon Deacon of Wake Forest.

4) Donna, the singular feminine of alumni is alumna, which is what you are.

5) BV, what happened to the D? Did you soil it with your poison pen?

6) No six. Once again I've led you astray.
08/18/05 @ 22:25
Comment from: Greg Pinelli [Visitor]
I believe that if we were more sensitive to animal communication we'd be hearing ([please pardon the expression) a teepee full of complaint and heartache. Huskies, Bulldogs, Longhorns, Eagles, Hawks, Bears and Bruins (among MANY others) would all be raising their barks, screeches and growls in anguished protest.
Team mascots should either be named for inanimate objects or things no one likes...like middle aged men.
I also believe you should not be a Professor anywhere and am unofficially removing one letter from any advanced degree you have...take your pick.
08/23/05 @ 23:32
Comment from: Kiel Christianson [Visitor]
Oh, boy. Or, "Oh, boulder." I am not a comparative psychologist, but I have a suspicion that even if animals could talk, they'd be discussing the avoidance of predators over their soy lattes instead of team mascots. And why should mascots be "things no one likes?" The point is to IDENTIFY with a powerful, awe-inspiring entity. What would be the point of, "The Fighting Gum-on-the-bottom-of my-shoes?" I bet I could find potential offense in any mascot name. My daughter's soccer team is The Hurricanes. OK, not offensive...unless someone in your family has been killed by one. Sadly, the hyper-sensitive have trivialized the real issue of how Native American culture (or, as I tried to point out, any minority culture) is portrayed in the sports/entertainment industry.
08/24/05 @ 10:44
Comment from: ken [Visitor]
i dont know anythin about chief illiniek or whatever he is.but i'm sure his dance is more for show and parody then respect or religion.just how can something be religious and respectful in a stadium with thousands of fans there to cheer on their team.his dance has nothing to do with any real native cultures. i'm a native person and i've been hearing and reading about this the past few day and i noticed one thing about all those experts that are against this.they arent native.its easy to say it isnt offensive.how could they know that.they arent natives,they dont know how it feels to have your culture mocked and belittled in front of thousand of people in the stands and millions on t.v
08/25/05 @ 14:00
Comment from: Richard Yoakum [Visitor]
Ken, if you don't know anything about Chief Illiniwek, then why comment? I have attended and graduated from Illinois...the Cheif is a PROUD symbol of our university and is not mocked. Besides, if you don't like the mascot, then don't watch the games and don't attend the university. After all, it is a free country...
08/27/05 @ 00:29
Comment from: Tim [Visitor]
You seem to be about on point.

I guess it all comes down to weather or not cultures should be portrayed as they want to be seen or if they should be portrayed as they are seen by others.I don't think it would be fun to have a mascot who portrayed a real life character perfectly, that would be extremely boring.

Personally I think people need to lighten up and realize that some things about all of our cultures are just funny, we're all imperfect.

Sure it was wrong for early Americans to unjustly kill off Native Americans, but to be perfectly honest I don't think it really matters anymore, forgive and forget.

I'm puertorican, so should I hate spain because they invaded puertorico and killed off many native puertoricans and took over the culture and infiltrated the population? Nope, specially if you put into account that some of my ancestors are from spain, as most native americans have modern american blood in their veins. Being 16% native american means you're 84% something else. So if I'm a golfer and I make 16% of my puts am I known as a great putter? Or what if I make 84% of my puts?

We have to live now and here, bitterness is only going to hurt yourself.

Besides, no one really believes mascot's or slogans to be a true representation of a culture. It's just a character, a representation of a silly person, not a representation of a silly culture.

(I have no clue why I wrote such a long reply on a subject that doesnt realy interest me)
09/08/05 @ 21:29
Comment from: James Coulthard [Visitor]
As a graduate of the University of Chicago, I would like to offer the University of Illinois the use of my alma mater's nickname. The University of Chicago doesn't use it much anymore. Monsters of the Midway seems to have been taken by the Chicago Bears, but I'm sure no one would object if the University jof Illinois wanted to call themselves the Maroons.
09/10/05 @ 23:04
Comment from: bob [Visitor]
you suck I can't be;ive you want to chage the mascots you jacka** go f**k your self
09/13/05 @ 09:43
Comment from: Tyr Thorssen [Visitor]
Kiel you rule! Love the article! I am Norwegian as well, but I also have the upmost respect for native americans... I feel everyone is a little uptight in this situation, chill out guys!
VIKING POWER!
09/14/05 @ 04:31
Comment from: Jim [Visitor]
I beleive there is no book in the world that has a right to say...."Last of Indian battles". Native Americans are still in modern day battles. People (non-natives) don't realize it, but it's true. As a Native American, i find native american mascots truely offensive. It's non-natives that don't find it that way..because it ain't offending their culture or religion, what am i saying - half of them don't have a culture. I thought this country said " All are to be equal. Do we, as native americans, have a equal right for a say in this subject?WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!! YOU ARE MOCKING A TYPE OF PEOPLE. STOP THE USE OF NATIVE AMERICAN MASCOTS!!!
09/21/05 @ 16:55
Comment from: Arthur Medicine Eagle [Visitor]
Now if the white boys children were put through the gamet with racial mascots and snide remarks I am sure the good ole boys would cry foul ball! And I have news for you the good ole boys did when some of our children statrted a team and named it the fight'n whities boy the crap hit the fan and I commend our children for doing such a great job. Mascots have a tendency to make our children feel lessor and apparently it does not matter to beer guzzling red necks or whiskey drinkin men! "What disciplined person would allow their schools to teach racisim?" The ones with the mentality of an idiot.
09/29/05 @ 19:29
Comment from: Kiel Christianson [Visitor]
That's FANTASTIC! The Fightin' Whities -- I love it. And it is my point exactly: Only the people being portrayed can rightfully determine if such things are offensive. If those people feel that they are, then change the names. Period. When the tables are turned, suddenly perspectives shift.

It is interesting that the Seminoles, Utes, and Saginaw Chippewa Band of Central Michigan all came out in favor of their namesake university mascots. And the NCAA exempted those schools from the ban. The Fighting Sioux of the U of North Dakota, however, did NOT receive support from the Dakota people (not from any of the three bands consuslted, I believe), and did not receive exemption, as ruled just yesterday by the NCAA.
09/29/05 @ 20:08
Comment from: Arthur Medicine Eagle [Visitor]
I have called the NCAA headquarters and they are so chknschtz. I explained to NCAA that if the Seminoles want to have an Indian mascot then why don't they use their own dress style instead of a plains tribe. What's up with that are the seminoles so ashamed of their culture that they have to rape another to look cool? We asked the NCAA to ban the mascots because it is hurting our culture as a race and the ones who say it is ok apparently do not have children that are under the pressure or they are "JUST PLAIN IGNORANT". I have worked with american indian children that attended schools with american indian mascots and the majority of the children had this response"I feel like a piece of shit among those white kids" No how is this bettering our tribal reloations? I wish the one who want their names on the marquee would stop,look,listen then pay very close attention to the children,instead of their so called beer drinkin buddies.
09/30/05 @ 06:58
Comment from: Arthur Medicine Eagle [Visitor]
Here is an excellent link to see what we mean when we state we do not want Our Race used as mascots. What ever happened to the Frito Bandito? What happened to the Sambos Eateries? To hold someones race as a so called honor is B/S because there is no honor in stereotypical mascots.
http://www.aistm.org/1indexpage.htm
09/30/05 @ 07:37
Comment from: Kiel Christianson [Visitor]
Arthur--you are absolutely right re. the Seminoles. Why does that mascot dress in Plains regalia?

By way of adding to this very interesting discourse, I offer the link to the American Psychological Association resolution concerning Native American mascots:

http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resolution_american_indian_mascots.pdf

A great deal of research cited there suggests that the observations Arthur makes about the kids he's worked with are not simply anecdotal.
09/30/05 @ 12:23
Comment from: Mark Nessmith [Visitor]
Just a point of fact: The regalia for FSU's Chief Osceola was in fact designed for the university by the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
09/30/05 @ 13:55
Comment from: Chris [Visitor]
Kiel,
80% of Native people interviewed do not find it an "honor" to be portrayed as mascots. And the Viking reference is irrelevant, as Vikings and Irish people have been absorbed into white culture for some time.

Native Americans are non-white, so a better comparison might be, The New York Negroes, The Washington Wetbacks, or the San Francisco Chinamen. Since lawsuits have eradicated these images because of their negative impact on Asian, Black or Latino cultures, we can at least honor Natives by respecting them- so what if there are a few Natives who endorse institutionalized racism.
10/19/05 @ 12:57
Comment from: Kiel Christianson [Member] Email
Chris--

I agree in principle. Did you read the examples I gave in the blog? They were almost identical to the ones you used. (BTW, why use honor in quotes? I never used that term nor claimed that it was an honor to be portrayed as a mascot.)

That said, if a group like the Seminoles comes out in support of their name being used, then I do not see that, say, the Cree can legitimately complain about it. Lumping "native people" all together in one group is historically inaccurate at best, culturally insensitive at worst.
10/19/05 @ 13:45
Comment from: Chris [Visitor]
Kiel,
Of course I read your examples. You missed the point when you say that Seminoles support the use of a Native mascot- THAT is "lumping 'native people' all together". The truth is, by "Seminoles" FSU means James Billie and a handful of aboriginal leaders, NOT a survey of the Seminole population. FSU takes great pains- as does your University of Illinois- to find "representatives" of Native populations who support their viewpoint, and tons of Native mascot supporters are pouring out of the woodwork claiming Indian heritage, proof not-with-standing. These sports-fans who claim Indianness have more often than not never set foot on a reservation, never reflected on the comparisons between more-recent civil rights issues (remember Sambo's Restaurants? There were black folks who thought these were okay, despite the overtly racist imagery). And it makes sense that animals as mascots are brought into the issue: one student, when asked about Indians as mascots, said they were "just another uncivilized animal".
My point is that it doesn't really matter if you can get permission from Billie or any other particular supporter- even without rhetorical "lumping" the surveys speak for themselves. The majority of Natives don't like it. With good reason.
10/19/05 @ 19:17
Comment from: Kiel Christianson [Member] Email
Chriss-

Excellent points. (And you're right, my choice of wording was "lumpish.") Did you get to see the link I included previously, from the American Psychological Association?

http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resolution_american_indian_mascots.pdf

It concurs with what you've said. Nevertheless, I have been on reservations and in Native communities where a great many of the people (not just a few) do actually take pride in their culture being associated with sports--e.g., the Saginaw-Chippewa Band's support of the Central Michigan University's Chippewa mascot. I certainly cannot speak to the issue other than with my own admittedly second-hand impressions (not being a Native), but I don't think that being a mascot/name automatically makes people equate the mascot with "animals." It may well do so--and if so, should be eliminated (although in the long run what is really needed is a profound shift in education reagarding Native history and culture).

I still maintain at present, however, that the only true, final judge of whether a team should keep or change its mascot is the group that is being portrayed (perhaps by public vote rather than by decree of a few leaders). Taking away this right of choice across the board seems to me to smack of paternalism.
10/20/05 @ 09:52
Comment from: Tricia [Visitor]
I totally agree with you Kiel. The names of these schools are not at all offensive.However, some of the portrayals of Native Americans are. They need to be changed but I see no reason for banning the names!
10/23/05 @ 17:32
Comment from: Arthur Medicine Eagle [Visitor]
Many schools,Civic groups,Sports teams, automotive manufacturers, alcohol makers never contact us American Indian people to RESPECTFULLY inquire if they can use a name. Instead the groups ASSUME it is ok and then make up LAME EXCUSES WHY IT IS COOL TO EXPLOIT US. I want to see Indian names off all sports teams,off all line dancing groups,off all public schools and anywhere else I have not mentioned.
10/26/05 @ 00:15
Comment from: William Belcher [Visitor]
Blogs are nice and the attention is good, but what are we all going to do to really push the flakes at the NCAA to abandon this complete abortion of an idea?

Someone start linking and someone host a site and lets get some sponsorship behind telling the NCAA what to do with this calamity of an idea.
11/12/05 @ 12:15
Comment from: Milton Tye [Visitor]
Do Native American like when NCAA use they name as mascots?
12/07/05 @ 14:36
Comment from: Kendrick Lagrimas [Visitor]
I want assembling useful information , this post has got me even more info! .
11/26/10 @ 06:26
Comment from: nem alma cihazi [Visitor]
Ev,Havuz ve Endüstriyel Tip Nem Alma Cihazları.Nem Sorununuza %100 Çözüm.
01/14/11 @ 10:42

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)

Simply select where you want to play, find a tee time deal, and golf now!

Dates: January 5, 2014 - December 20, 2014
Experience the ultimate golf extravaganza in a luxury 3-bedroom suite and let our Concierge link you up with the grandest spas, finest gourmet dining and exquisite shopping options. It includes 4 rounds of golf at each of the Wailea Blue, Wailea Gold, Wailea Emerald Courses (12 rounds of golf), 5 nights at the Wailea Beach Villas and 5 days of Premium Sedan rental.
Price range: $8045