I was feeling rather celebratory yesterday when I read the news that the University of Illinois, after some 80 long years, has finally retired its "mascot," Chief Illiniwek. Of course, the school didn’t do it out of some noble purpose; it did it to get off the NCAA shit list. But it’s a victory for Native Americans, and I’ll take it.
Unfortunately, my joy is somewhat tempered now by the realization that even so-called progressives still regard this whole racist mess as an example of the school knucking under to "political correctness." Via Chris at Pandagon, I learn that John Aravosis has his knickers in a twist over losing "his" mascot:
I’m sorry, I never saw the problem. Illinois, which I attended, didn’t have an indian mascot the way you might think. There was no goofball running around with a tomahawk pretending to scalp people. The mascot was an honorable position, it was a big deal to get the job, and he only appeared in a half-time show that involved an incredibly exhausting dance that paid homage to our state’s native American heritage - it doesn’t poke fun, mock, anything. And yeah, I get that some native Americans didn’t like it. But that doesn’t mean they’re right. First step, you have the right to complain. Second step, you need to prove your point. I’m not convinced they have. The NCAA, and others, just killed a perfectly respectful tradition that actually reminded Illinoisans of their heritage and made us proud in our school and our state (and frankly, reminded us of our state’s native American past, something that is going to be remembered less now as a result of this action). Our mascot was killed because of the caricature that others ascribed to it, not because of the caricature it was - which it was not.
Sweet Jeebus, where to begin?
Okay, John; I’ve read your blog frequently enough to know that you consider yourself a member of a persecuted minority. Yet you "never saw the problem?"
There was no goofball running around with a tomahawk pretending to scalp people.
No; just a [white] goofball running around pretending to engage in a sacred dance while wearing sacred regalia and faux "war paint" for the entertainment of a bunch of yokels during half-time at paid sporting events, all the while playing to every sad frickin’ stereotype of the "Indian" from every spaghetti western in existence.
The mascot was an honorable position, it was a big deal to get the job, and he only appeared in a half-time show that involved an incredibly exhausting dance that paid homage to our state’s native American heritage - it doesn’t poke fun, mock, anything.
Bullshit. There was nothing honorable about this travesty: It was pure minstrelsy. You can see an example in the YouTube clip
here. A "big deal to get the job?" So fucking what? It might be a big deal to get a job singing "Mammy" in blackface, but that doesn’t mean U of I should be sponsoring it. He "only appreared in a half-time show?" Again, what’s your point? He appeared at the one moment calculated to grab the largest audience - and via one of the school’s biggest sources of revenue. It’s "incredibly exhausting?" John, ever been to a powwow? Watch real Native American dancers sometime if you want to see "incredibly exhausting." Chicken dance, men’s fancy, - maybe the smoke dance, which originated with the Six Nations Haudenosaunee. Meanwhile, these idiots, prancing around in regalia that they were not entitled to wear, were engaging in nothing more than sacrilege.
So John thinks that such prancing "paid homage to our state’s native American heritage - it doesn’t poke fun, mock, anything." Again, I call bullshit. Poking fun and mocking are exactly what it does. Of course, John’s viewpoint is clear from his choice of capitalization: Note his use of "native American," with only the "American" capitalized, emphasizing the reference to "our," meaning his, heritage. And this isn’t a typo; he does it throughout the post.
It gets better:
Or is a respectful use of my state’s Indian heritage acceptable, and if so, then why was Chief Illiniwek killed?
Get a grip. You can’t have your racist mascot - boo fuckin’ hoo. You’re actually going to whine that "Chief Illiniwek [was] killed" about the decision to quit parading white boys around in garb sacred to a culture not their own to exploit that culture for others’ amusement and financial gain, when Native Americans are to this day dying in astounding numbers as a result of what your precious "American heritage" did to them? Oh, and BTW, there was nothing "respectful" about that "use."
But he’s not done whining yet:
PS And they want us to return the outfit the mascot wore, an outfit that the chief of a tribe sold to the university, and not for a necklace of beads 300 years ago - it was a fair deal for $3500 in 1982, and the outfit wasn’t historic, it was made by the chief’s wife (there’s some dispute about the feathers in the headress being special, fine, return the feathers if they can find them). Enough is enough, they got their piece of flesh - at least keep the outfit in a museum. Their chief knew what he was doing, he even came to the university to celebrate the sale.
You’re damn right: Enough is enough. The regalia is not yours, as your ignorant characterizations of it betray all too fully. It’s not merely the warbonnet; it’s the breastplate and a host of pieces in dispute. And I’m sure the tribe to whom they rightfully belong (they should never have been sold in the first place) would be more than happy to return "your" precious $3,500, if that’s what you consider a "fair trade." Oh, and BTW, it’s not an "outfit," it’s "regalia," and it has no place in a museum, unless that’s where the tribe wants it.
You know, bad enough that this minstrel show has persisted for so long, with people ike you endorsing it while claiming to be progressive. But underneath all of this is an undercurrent of racism that reminds me of the shit-flinging sexism that Melissa and Amanda recently endured at the hands of
Donohue’s trolls. Read the comments to the blog entry at
The Lede for examples. Or take a look at
these, from U of I’s Facebook site:
Two posts on that page were threatening toward the only Lakota woman on campus who has been active in opposition to the school’s mascot.
‘’What they don’t realize is that there was never a racist problem before … but now I hate redskins and hope all those drunk, casino owning bums die,'’ wrote one student at UIUC.
Another posting referred to the Lakota heritage of one woman and then went on to state that because she is Lakota, or Sioux, ‘’the Sioux Indians are the ones that killed off the Illini Indians, so she’s just trying to finish what her ancestors started. I say we throw a tomohawk in her face.'’ (The misspelling is in the original.)
Let’s hope the little bastard who wants to throw a tomahawk in the face of the young woman has been arrested and charged for that threat - not bloody likely, though.
Finally, as usual, John trots out that tired old canard that using Native American "mascots" is logically equivalent to using team names like "Spartans" or "Trojans." [Sigh . . . .] No, John, they’re not. Greek Americans (in American parlance, read "white") were never subject to the sort of discrimination, persecution, and wholesale slaughter that Native Americans were, on their own lands, yet, at the hands of "white Americans." There’s no similar history of cultural exploitation and devastation. And there’s no moral equivalency. Let me leave this with a question that I’m sure your commenters must have asked you by now:
Would it be okay if the white boys who’ve been playing Indian minstrel instead dressed in blackface, wore cuffs and leg irons, and instead pranced around in a faux "African" dance singing slave-era spirituals? That might get some laughs in the Midwest, after all.
No? Didn’t think so. So why is it okay to do it to us?
Answer: It’s not. So STFU.
great post. i was profoundly disappointed in JA. great work.
Comment by erizzle — February 18, GMT @ 12:1806 PM
Yes, a great post. I wasn’t disappointed in aravosis, though, just sick of his usual churlishness and dissent. I already knew, after the Cynthia McKinney post and the Big Girl post, that he doesn’t take kindly to disagreement.
Comment by kactus — February 18, GMT @ 12:1810 PM
Thanks, both of you.
Yeah, I knew JA wasn’t nearly as progressive as he’d like people to believe - his “progressivism” tends to be aimed at expanding the power and the glory of JA and his personal interests - but I was still disappointed in the utter pigheadedness of his statements. [Sigh] I guess I always hold out hope that people will learn from their own mistakes (e.g., McKinney, “Big Girl”) - which, I suppose, means that 99.9% of the time, I’m doomed to disappointment, no?
Comment by Administrator — February 18, GMT @ 23:1855 PM
well, if John goes true to form, as soon as this blows over a bit he’s going to hold another fundraiser. It’s like a ritual over there. Someday, oh someday, Americablog 2.0 will appear.
Comment by kactus — February 19, GMT @ 01:1935 AM
i wasn’t reading AMERICAblog when the McKinney and BG incidents happened, but checking into them i can see there is certainly a pattern. it’s funny watching some of avaracist’s sycophants try to defend him at Pandagon.
on the bright side, following this has connected me to some great blogs (like this one)!
peace
Comment by erizzle — February 19, GMT @ 10:1951 AM
“Avaracist” - I had to read that twice before it registered, and then it had me laughing out loud!
Thanks, erizzle - glad you like it. Which reminds me: Are you a blogger, too? When I get the new site up and running, one of the things I’m planning to do is blogroll a bunch of the non-A-listers whose stuff I like, and who I think need to be highlighted. (Yes, kactus, I’m lookin’ at you here.) Just my own little contribution to Atrios’s concept of “blogroll amnesty.”
Comment by Administrator — February 19, GMT @ 21:1949 PM
I’ve never been one who really has cared about the mascot thing, mostly because they are are all caricatures, whether they be cowboys or dolphins. That said, it’s not about my feelings, it’s about the Native Americans’. John and the other UI folks need to get a grip because it’s just a fucking mascot, and that cuts both ways: if it’s not a “big deal” to have an Injun as a mascot, then it’s not a big deal to find a different one that’s not so offensive.
I wonder if John would be cool with Illinois choosing The Queer as they’re new mascot. You know, he’d only go out at halftime and dance to ABBA tunes in a traditional outfit designed by Andrew Sullivan. That wouldn’t be offensive, right?
Comment by NTodd — February 19, GMT @ 22:1941 PM
not a blogger (at least, not yet). i’m waiting to get a year in at my new job, which eats time faster than my cats eat tuna.
rock on, rational.
Comment by erizzle — February 19, GMT @ 22:1925 PM
erizzle: Let me know when that changes. (Guest-blogging here is always a possibility, too, if you’re ever so inclined.)
NTodd: I wonder if John would be cool with Illinois choosing The Queer as they’re new mascot. You know, he’d only go out at halftime and dance to ABBA tunes in a traditional outfit designed by Andrew Sullivan.
Wish I’d thought of that when I was writing this post! Somehow, I think that would get more traction with him than the comparison to black minstrel shows. Incidentally, what would said “traditional outfit” look like?
Comment by Administrator — February 19, GMT @ 23:1931 PM
NOTE TO ALL: For some reason, I can’t post this morning; page comes up with a 404. It may be because my tech genius friend is handling my archive-transfer problem, or it may be that Blogsome is bloggered. I’ll keep checking throughout the day; meanwhile, amuse yourselves in the comments.
Comment by Administrator — February 19, GMT @ 23:1902 PM
My high school’s mascot was the Redskin. As far as I know, it still is. I am not Native American, but they can’t change the mascot soon enough to suit me: at least this alumnus finds it offensive.
I cannot remember who it was, but one Native American wrote a couple of years ago, asking how everyone would react if a school named its team, say, the Oklahoma N****rs. Would that be OK? No big deal, right? Right. Anyone who cannot see the direct analogy is, IMHO, a racist.
Comment by Steve Bates — February 19, GMT @ 23:1935 PM