Led by Stephen J. Kaufman, an emeritus professor of cell and developmental biology and a longtime critic of the university’s use of an American Indian mascot, the faculty members wrote letters to prospects advising them to “think twice about whether the university is a good environment for you to further your education and athletic career” because of the chief, according to today’s Chicago Tribune.
October 14, 2006
Don't go to hostile U. of Illinois
Mascot Flap Leads Illinois Professors to Urge Sports Recruits to Stay AwayDon’t come to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. That is the message 14 Illinois faculty members are sending to some of the university’s athletics recruits because of a controversy over Chief Illiniwek, the Illinois mascot that some people feel is hostile to American Indians.
Led by Stephen J. Kaufman, an emeritus professor of cell and developmental biology and a longtime critic of the university’s use of an American Indian mascot, the faculty members wrote letters to prospects advising them to “think twice about whether the university is a good environment for you to further your education and athletic career” because of the chief, according to today’s Chicago Tribune.
Led by Stephen J. Kaufman, an emeritus professor of cell and developmental biology and a longtime critic of the university’s use of an American Indian mascot, the faculty members wrote letters to prospects advising them to “think twice about whether the university is a good environment for you to further your education and athletic career” because of the chief, according to today’s Chicago Tribune.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
From what I've seen, activists are most concerned about the worst cases: the Redskins name, the Chief Wahoo and Illiniwek mascots, the Braves' tomahawk chop. Which only makes sense.
Since the Chiefs don't use a stereotypical Indian figure, they're not a high priority. The Chiefs name and arrowhead logo are somewhat stereotypical, but they're but they're not especially offensive.
I think you're right about the title. I'll change it.
As I said, "Chiefs" is still somewhat stereotypical. See The Big Chief for my explanation of why.
"Warriors" shouldn't be a problem if there's no Indian image associated with it. If people complain about "Warriors" in the abstract, they're being a bit oversensitive.
I'm white and I would not have a problem if there was a team called the Washington Whity's, or the St. Louis Spooks. I get so sick of hearing other ethnic groups bawling and crying, saying we are slinging their race in the mud. I'm a big K.C. Chief fan. So are my "Indian"....oh, I'm sorry..."Native American" friends. Where I live, the percentage of Indians are high. There are 2 schools within 30 miles of each other and their mascot is the Indian. The Indians in this area are PROUD of their team, and no, the majority of the team are NOT Indians. The team is just damn good. I guess here in southwest Missouri, we have better things to do than sitting around pouting over something so stupid and frivolous. If this keeps up, I as a white-man, DEMAND to be called Mutt-American or Hines 57-American. Heck....even Caucasion-American. I want one of those fancy ethnic names too since every other ethnic group is getting one.
That's funny, Roger...I get sick of hearing white people like you whining and crying over minorities sticking up for their rights. I guess you have nothing better to do than sit around pouting over your stupid and frivolous--not to mention stereotypical and racist--mascots.
See Rob the Presumptuous White Man? for a further response to your arguments.
Post a Comment