my question is that why is being respectful considered PC and not just correct. I think PC implies that we think its actually correct to be an asshole.
because its been a tradition for almost 100 years. why should they have to change it when after they change it the lives of the Native Americans still around today WILL BE NO DIFFERENT.
and you bring up the idea of political correctness. PC sucks. im a jew and if you called me a K*ke or any other name i wouldn't get offended. now dont get me wrong, im very respectful of others, have many black friends, hispanic friends, chinese friends, and i NEVER use words such as the N word of the S word or anything like that. And even though I dont, i still think PC is ridiculous. If i call you retarted is that abusive and hostile towards mentally handicapped individuals?
the impact of changing the names would actually have a positive impact on the native american community. it would be a small step in righting one of the many wrongs that have been brought upon them.
100 years ago, native people had no right to choose or voice their opinions about these matters. they were not even considered people by most of society.
what is so bad about giving something back to people that is sacred to them and righting a wrong?
PC is a bullshit cliche term that helps people avoid talking about the difference between right and wrong.
the impact of changing the names would actually have a positive impact on the native american community. it would be a small step in righting one of the many wrongs that have been brought upon them.
100 years ago, native people had no right to choose or voice their opinions about these matters. they were not even considered people by most of society.
what is so bad about giving something back to people that is sacred to them and righting a wrong?
PC is a bullshit cliche term that helps people avoid talking about the difference between right and wrong.
and by not letting a mascot dance at halftime we are somehow going to right all those years of wrongdoing? you can't single out 1 institution like that. if this really is a wholistic approach at dissolving all Native American affiliations from NCAA sports teams than the rest should be banned too. otherwise i call bullshit. theres just too much hypocrisy going on. why isnt that slime ball stephen kauffman doing anything about FSU's mascot which is FAR more degrading.
and by not letting a mascot dance at halftime we are somehow going to right all those years of wrongdoing? you can't single out 1 institution like that. if this really is a wholistic approach at dissolving all Native American affiliations from NCAA sports teams than the rest should be banned too. otherwise i call bullshit. theres just too much hypocrisy going on. why isnt that slime ball stephen kauffman doing anything about FSU's mascot which is FAR more degrading.
it's a step toward righting a wrong. it doesn't instantly solve all the problems or make amends for all of the injustice suffered by native people. you can start changing the way people are viewed and mistreated with small steps like this, however.
i agree, it's not about singling out one institution. it's about getting to the point where a race of people and their heritage is no longer used in a way that is demeaning and insulting.
while i cant speak for all people who are irish or catholic, most of us dont really give a fuck bout the name
im irish catholic too and I could give a fuck. its a mascot representing a sport. in sports people "fight" to win. same concept applies to Indian mascots.
it's unfortunate that some of you don't understand.
i am happy, haowever, that you will never have to experience being taunted or having your children taunted by people calling out "tonto", "injun", "redskin" or "hey, cheif". be thankful that you won't be subject to people making axe chopping motions with their hands, or "wah wah" sounds and dancing around you like they think an "indian" would dance. it's good that you will never have to explain to your crying child why people taunt him or her with all of these things that they have seen in movies and on tv, at sporting events and in stadiums. people see those stereotypes and they copy them, they use them to hurt people. maybe if more people stood up and said it was wrong it would be enlightening to others. less people would suffer, less people would grow up feeling hated.
i hope some day some of you will understand, but i don't wish upon any of you what some of my friends have had to go through, being treated like a joke and not knowing why.
it's unfortunate that some of you don't understand.
i am happy, haowever, that you will never have to experience being taunted or having your children taunted by people calling out "tonto", "injun", "redskin" or "hey, cheif". be thankful that you won't be subject to people making axe chopping motions with their hands, or "wah wah" sounds and dancing around you like they think an "indian" would dance. it's good that you will never have to explain to your crying child why people taunt him or her with all of these things that they have seen in movies and on tv, at sporting events and in stadiums. people see those stereotypes and they copy them, they use them to hurt people. maybe if more people stood up and said it was wrong it would be enlightening to others. less people would suffer, less people would grow up feeling hated.
i hope some day some of you will understand, but i don't wish upon any of you what some of my friends have had to go through, being treated like a joke and not knowing why.
but mookie, it's tradition...you don't want to stop that do you...?
Look, just because they are persecuted doesn't mean their cause isn't stupid.
It's wrong that they have to take this kind of shit for their opinions ... but it doesn't make their opinions correct.
You know what's a hell of a lot more offensive than Chief Illini? The Fightin' Irish.
There's a key difference here, the Fighting Irish was a nickname applied to Notre Dame by white irish catholics. Illinois, and their fake mascot, was made up by white men, not Native American Indians. In other words, I have less of a problem when you choose to represent yourself or a majority of your student body with a silly charicature (which is what happens at Notre Dame), it's something that you can rally around, whereas at Illinois the school is representing an "other" or minority culture in the school, a culture which DOES NOT embrace their charicaturized representation. Can you see this difference or am I not making sense?
There's a key difference here, the Fighting Irish was a nickname applied to Notre Dame by white irish catholics. Illinois, and their fake mascot, was made up by white men, not Native American Indians. In other words, I have less of a problem when you choose to represent yourself or a majority of your student body with a silly charicature (which is what happens at Notre Dame), it's something that you can rally around, whereas at Illinois the school is representing an "other" or minority culture in the school, a culture which DOES NOT embrace their charicaturized representation. Can you see this difference or am I not making sense?
the third president of notre dame was also a member of the "irish fighting brigade" and that is a very big part of the reason the name was chosen.
we arent talking about the redskins. like I said, I'm no fan of that name.
...
we are takling about the illini. which in no way is offensive unlike your cute jew example.
the actual team name is the fighting illini.
and while we're at it, perhaps we can clear up other issues-- the 'mascot' is chief illiniwek, and the school is university of illinois (urbana-champaign).
there. maybe now some of you can better pretend to know what you're talking about.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
it's unfortunate that some of you don't understand.
i am happy, haowever, that you will never have to experience being taunted or having your children taunted by people calling out "tonto", "injun", "redskin" or "hey, cheif". be thankful that you won't be subject to people making axe chopping motions with their hands, or "wah wah" sounds and dancing around you like they think an "indian" would dance. it's good that you will never have to explain to your crying child why people taunt him or her with all of these things that they have seen in movies and on tv, at sporting events and in stadiums. people see those stereotypes and they copy them, they use them to hurt people. maybe if more people stood up and said it was wrong it would be enlightening to others. less people would suffer, less people would grow up feeling hated.
i hope some day some of you will understand, but i don't wish upon any of you what some of my friends have had to go through, being treated like a joke and not knowing why.
its unfortunate that you don't know what the word taunting is. taunting is a deliberate action to try and belittle another person/group. none of that applies here. the attempt is to honor the chief, not demean him. whether the dance or act is fully true or not has no relevence to the fact the intention is not negative. when Native Americans see the chief dance they can be upset that its not accurate, but to say they are being taunted? i dont buy it.
its unfortunate that you don't know what the word taunting is. taunting is a deliberate action to try and belittle another person/group. none of that applies here. the attempt is to honor the chief, not demean him. whether the dance or act is fully true or not has no relevence to the fact the intention is not negative. when Native Americans see the chief dance they can be upset that its not accurate, but to say they are being taunted? i dont buy it.
You could argue that when the UofI realized that Native American were upset over the charicaturized way the Chief represented them, it became taunting in that they felt no need to change something that was bothering people. In that way it was a deliberate action to try and belittle another group.
It would be like if you were a little kid and said the "n"-word b/c you saw it in popular culture and thought it was the right thing to do, but found out that it was actually hurtful. Then when you found out that it was hurtful, and not reverential, you kept doing it but said you were being respectful. Does that make it respectful, or right?
its unfortunate that you don't know what the word taunting is. taunting is a deliberate action to try and belittle another person/group. none of that applies here. the attempt is to honor the chief, not demean him. whether the dance or act is fully true or not has no relevence to the fact the intention is not negative. when Native Americans see the chief dance they can be upset that its not accurate, but to say they are being taunted? i dont buy it.
i was speaking about personal experiences and those of my friends. it was deliberate and it most certainly does apply here.
You could argue that when the UofI realized that Native American were upset over the charicaturized way the Chief represented them, it became taunting in that they felt no need to change something that was bothering people. In that way it was a deliberate action to try and belittle another group.
It would be like if you were a little kid and said the "n"-word b/c you saw it in popular culture and thought it was the right thing to do, but found out that it was actually hurtful. Then when you found out that it was hurtful, and not reverential, you kept doing it but said you were being respectful. Does that make it respectful, or right?
i was speaking about personal experiences and those of my friends. it was deliberate and it most certainly does apply here.
how is it deliberate here? you think the university of illinois said, "hmm, we hate native americans, so lets make it our universally known mascot and have a chief dance at halftime to make fun of them. yeah lets do that."
if thats not the case, which it most certainly isnt, then how did they deliberately demean your friends? i can see ryans argument about how not changing it sooner is a way of deliberately offending them, but many more people like the chief than dont and we live in a world where majority rules in most cases, sadly enough.
how is it deliberate here? you think the university of illinois said, "hmm, we hate native americans, so lets make it our universally known mascot and have a chief dance at halftime to make fun of them. yeah lets do that."
if thats not the case, which it most certainly isnt, then how did they deliberately demean your friends? i can see ryans argument about how not changing it sooner is a way of deliberately offending them, but many more people like the chief than dont and we live in a world where majority rules in most cases, sadly enough.
i think you misread my post that you quoted. i was talking about deliberate taunting in personal situations.
no, i don't think that they would sit down and plan that out as you described, but negative consequences can result from things that are not deliberately planned. this is but one example of a case where native american tradition, heritage, and symbols (or what the average person thinks is a correct symbol) are used improperly. it's part of a larger problem. i don't believe that the majority of people believe that many of these cases are ok. i do believe the majority of the population of the school probably does want to keep their "mascot", but it is not theirs to keep. it should have never been used in the first place, and the school is correcting a wrong that took place long ago. i don't think there is anything wrong with that.
i think you misread my post that you quoted. i was talking about deliberate taunting in personal situations.
no, i don't think that they would sit down and plan that out as you described, but negative consequences can result from things that are not deliberately planned. this is but one example of a case where native american tradition, heritage, and symbols (or what the average person thinks is a correct symbol) are used improperly. it's part of a larger problem. i don't believe that the majority of people believe that many of these cases are ok. i do believe the majority of the population of the school probably does want to keep their "mascot", but it is not theirs to keep. it should have never been used in the first place, and the school is correcting a wrong that took place long ago. i don't think there is anything wrong with that.
oh ok sorry about the misinterpretation.
i just dont understand why its not their to keep. it is their mascot and the schools symbol. if people don't like it, they dont have to look at it. if illini is a specific tribe and they are no longer around, then why should any other tribe be offended by it? its depicting the illini tribe (even if its inaccurate) and not the sioux or the seminoles or the cherokees or the choctaws, etc. those tribes can simply say, we are not illini and we do not associate ourselves with the traditions that the u of i depicts us to do.
also im pretty sure the seminole tribe leader (dont know the correct name for that, is it chief? (oh the irony)) said that the seminole tribe is honored that the florida state university wants to associate with them. why, then, should chief illiniwek be disbanned? especially when theres no specific illini that can object.
i just dont understand why its not their to keep. it is their mascot and the schools symbol. if people don't like it, they dont have to look at it. if illini is a specific tribe and they are no longer around, then why should any other tribe be offended by it? its depicting the illini tribe (even if its inaccurate) and not the sioux or the seminoles or the cherokees or the choctaws, etc. those tribes can simply say, we are not illini and we do not associate ourselves with the traditions that the u of i depicts us to do.
also im pretty sure the seminole tribe leader (dont know the correct name for that, is it chief? (oh the irony)) said that the seminole tribe is honored that the florida state university wants to associate with them. why, then, should chief illiniwek be disbanned? especially when theres no specific illini that can object.
no worries, sorry if i didn't explain myself well enough.
when i say it's not theirs to keep i mean that they stole something that is sacred to native people, the role of the chief. native americans did not found the school. now that native american people are actually considered to be people they finally have the right to stand up and say that they are against the use and bastardization of their symbols and heritage. the Oglala Sioux want what has been taken from them back.
it's true what you say that some of the seminole tribe in florida are for the use of the name at florida state. other seminole tribes are against it. i'm not exactly certain of what is going on down there, but there is speculation of corruption...meaning that the tribe itself is not seeing the money. certain individuals are taking advantage of the situation. that is a problem within the community. there would be no problem, however, if the people were not being used as mascots.
as far as people not liking it and not having to look at it, i would agree with you if we were talking about a movie, a piece of art, etc., but we are talking about something that whether intentional or not eventually demeans the people it tries to "represent".
we are both familiar with college sports i'm sure, and pro sports as well. a stadium full of people, often drinking, and making tomahawk gestures, and making what they perceive to be "indian noises" at a game is in no way paying respect to anyone. it only serves to perpetuate stereotypes.
i just don't understand why it is still acceptable to use a race of people as a mascot for a team. tribes and bands are connected as a people and that is why other tribes will speak out aginst the improper use of native heritage, even if it is not their tribe.
the way many of us look at it is that our ancestors did not have the opportunity to speak out against these things and so it is our generation that owes it to them to get back what is ours, to regain our heritage and reclaim it for future generations so that they won't have to be subject to these kinds of abuses of sacred tradition.
that is about as clear as i can make it. i hope i've explained my thoughts properly.
no worries, sorry if i didn't explain myself well enough.
when i say it's not theirs to keep i mean that they stole something that is sacred to native people, the role of the chief. native americans did not found the school. now that native american people are actually considered to be people they finally have the right to stand up and say that they are against the use and bastardization of their symbols and heritage. the Oglala Sioux want what has been taken from them back.
it's true what you say that some of the seminole tribe in florida are for the use of the name at florida state. other seminole tribes are against it. i'm not exactly certain of what is going on down there, but there is speculation of corruption...meaning that the tribe itself is not seeing the money. certain individuals are taking advantage of the situation. that is a problem within the community. there would be no problem, however, if the people were not being used as mascots.
as far as people not liking it and not having to look at it, i would agree with you if we were talking about a movie, a piece of art, etc., but we are talking about something that whether intentional or not eventually demeans the people it tries to "represent".
we are both familiar with college sports i'm sure, and pro sports as well. a stadium full of people, often drinking, and making tomahawk gestures, and making what they perceive to be "indian noises" at a game is in no way paying respect to anyone. it only serves to perpetuate stereotypes.
i just don't understand why it is still acceptable to use a race of people as a mascot for a team. tribes and bands are connected as a people and that is why other tribes will speak out aginst the improper use of native heritage, even if it is not their tribe.
the way many of us look at it is that our ancestors did not have the opportunity to speak out against these things and so it is our generation that owes it to them to get back what is ours, to regain our heritage and reclaim it for future generations so that they won't have to be subject to these kinds of abuses of sacred tradition.
that is about as clear as i can make it. i hope i've explained my thoughts properly.
you made your thoughts very clear dont worry about that.
as you might be able to tell, im an illinois fan. and i can assure you illinois does not do tomahawk arm motions or "indian calls" or other noises. the extent of it is the symbol with the native headdress and the mascot who dances at halftime. im not 100% sure but i am close to it that some of the native americans in the area actually gave the chief illiniwek mascot the headdress he wears so in fact, his costume is pretty real to life. the dance is probably a lot of hollywood and probably has no real correlation to a real illini tribe dance but it is in no way derogatory.
the crowd loves the chief and the dance. even if the dance isnt totally real, i still sort of fail to see (even though you guys have made me see the other side of the argument) how its offensive. everyone in the crowd is going "oh man thats so cool what the native americans used to do i love that." they in no way are abusing or offending. and since the university only represents the one tribe "illini", and not the native americans as a whole (like the cleveland indians, for instance) i dont totally see the offensiveness of it. especially because illinois does not do anything like florida state and the atlanta braves with the tomahawk stuff and the chanting which i can see being slightly offensive.
you made your thoughts very clear dont worry about that.
as you might be able to tell, im an illinois fan. and i can assure you illinois does not do tomahawk arm motions or "indian calls" or other noises. the extent of it is the symbol with the native headdress and the mascot who dances at halftime. im not 100% sure but i am close to it that some of the native americans in the area actually gave the chief illiniwek mascot the headdress he wears so in fact, his costume is pretty real to life. the dance is probably a lot of hollywood and probably has no real correlation to a real illini tribe dance but it is in no way derogatory.
the crowd loves the chief and the dance. even if the dance isnt totally real, i still sort of fail to see (even though you guys have made me see the other side of the argument) how its offensive. everyone in the crowd is going "oh man thats so cool what the native americans used to do i love that." they in no way are abusing or offending. and since the university only represents the one tribe "illini", and not the native americans as a whole (like the cleveland indians, for instance) i dont totally see the offensiveness of it. especially because illinois does not do anything like florida state and the atlanta braves with the tomahawk stuff and the chanting which i can see being slightly offensive.
and while we're at it, perhaps we can clear up other issues-- the 'mascot' is chief illiniwek, and the school is university of illinois (urbana-champaign).
there. maybe now some of you can better pretend to know what you're talking about.
Irish people choose the name Fighting Irish, Native American's did not choose the Chief...there's a big difference.
I dont see native americans crying about it. how about the peoria tribe, the closest relatives to this particular tribe say this....
The Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma are the closest living descendants of the Illiniwek Confederacy, having been relocated to Oklahoma in the 19th century. The position of the tribal leadership has evolved over the years. In a television interview with WICD-TV in 1995, Don Giles, then Chief of the Peoria Tribe, said, "To say that we are anything but proud to have these portrayals would be completely wrong. We are proud. We're proud that the University of Illinois, the flagship university of the state, a seat of learning, is drawing on that background of our having been there. And what more honor could they pay us?" Supporting Chief Giles was another tribal elder, Ron Froman, who stated that the protesters "don't speak for all Native Americans, and certainly not us."
Comments
the impact of changing the names would actually have a positive impact on the native american community. it would be a small step in righting one of the many wrongs that have been brought upon them.
100 years ago, native people had no right to choose or voice their opinions about these matters. they were not even considered people by most of society.
what is so bad about giving something back to people that is sacred to them and righting a wrong?
PC is a bullshit cliche term that helps people avoid talking about the difference between right and wrong.
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
it's a step toward righting a wrong. it doesn't instantly solve all the problems or make amends for all of the injustice suffered by native people. you can start changing the way people are viewed and mistreated with small steps like this, however.
i agree, it's not about singling out one institution. it's about getting to the point where a race of people and their heritage is no longer used in a way that is demeaning and insulting.
im irish catholic too and I could give a fuck. its a mascot representing a sport. in sports people "fight" to win. same concept applies to Indian mascots.
i am happy, haowever, that you will never have to experience being taunted or having your children taunted by people calling out "tonto", "injun", "redskin" or "hey, cheif". be thankful that you won't be subject to people making axe chopping motions with their hands, or "wah wah" sounds and dancing around you like they think an "indian" would dance. it's good that you will never have to explain to your crying child why people taunt him or her with all of these things that they have seen in movies and on tv, at sporting events and in stadiums. people see those stereotypes and they copy them, they use them to hurt people. maybe if more people stood up and said it was wrong it would be enlightening to others. less people would suffer, less people would grow up feeling hated.
i hope some day some of you will understand, but i don't wish upon any of you what some of my friends have had to go through, being treated like a joke and not knowing why.
but mookie, it's tradition...you don't want to stop that do you...?
right, what was i thinking?!
Look, just because they are persecuted doesn't mean their cause isn't stupid.
It's wrong that they have to take this kind of shit for their opinions ... but it doesn't make their opinions correct.
You know what's a hell of a lot more offensive than Chief Illini? The Fightin' Irish.
for the least they could possibly do
the third president of notre dame was also a member of the "irish fighting brigade" and that is a very big part of the reason the name was chosen.
the actual team name is the fighting illini.
and while we're at it, perhaps we can clear up other issues-- the 'mascot' is chief illiniwek, and the school is university of illinois (urbana-champaign).
there. maybe now some of you can better pretend to know what you're talking about.
cross the river to the eastside
It would be like if you were a little kid and said the "n"-word b/c you saw it in popular culture and thought it was the right thing to do, but found out that it was actually hurtful. Then when you found out that it was hurtful, and not reverential, you kept doing it but said you were being respectful. Does that make it respectful, or right?
i was speaking about personal experiences and those of my friends. it was deliberate and it most certainly does apply here.
if thats not the case, which it most certainly isnt, then how did they deliberately demean your friends? i can see ryans argument about how not changing it sooner is a way of deliberately offending them, but many more people like the chief than dont and we live in a world where majority rules in most cases, sadly enough.
i think you misread my post that you quoted. i was talking about deliberate taunting in personal situations.
no, i don't think that they would sit down and plan that out as you described, but negative consequences can result from things that are not deliberately planned. this is but one example of a case where native american tradition, heritage, and symbols (or what the average person thinks is a correct symbol) are used improperly. it's part of a larger problem. i don't believe that the majority of people believe that many of these cases are ok. i do believe the majority of the population of the school probably does want to keep their "mascot", but it is not theirs to keep. it should have never been used in the first place, and the school is correcting a wrong that took place long ago. i don't think there is anything wrong with that.
i just dont understand why its not their to keep. it is their mascot and the schools symbol. if people don't like it, they dont have to look at it. if illini is a specific tribe and they are no longer around, then why should any other tribe be offended by it? its depicting the illini tribe (even if its inaccurate) and not the sioux or the seminoles or the cherokees or the choctaws, etc. those tribes can simply say, we are not illini and we do not associate ourselves with the traditions that the u of i depicts us to do.
also im pretty sure the seminole tribe leader (dont know the correct name for that, is it chief? (oh the irony)) said that the seminole tribe is honored that the florida state university wants to associate with them. why, then, should chief illiniwek be disbanned? especially when theres no specific illini that can object.
no worries, sorry if i didn't explain myself well enough.
when i say it's not theirs to keep i mean that they stole something that is sacred to native people, the role of the chief. native americans did not found the school. now that native american people are actually considered to be people they finally have the right to stand up and say that they are against the use and bastardization of their symbols and heritage. the Oglala Sioux want what has been taken from them back.
it's true what you say that some of the seminole tribe in florida are for the use of the name at florida state. other seminole tribes are against it. i'm not exactly certain of what is going on down there, but there is speculation of corruption...meaning that the tribe itself is not seeing the money. certain individuals are taking advantage of the situation. that is a problem within the community. there would be no problem, however, if the people were not being used as mascots.
as far as people not liking it and not having to look at it, i would agree with you if we were talking about a movie, a piece of art, etc., but we are talking about something that whether intentional or not eventually demeans the people it tries to "represent".
we are both familiar with college sports i'm sure, and pro sports as well. a stadium full of people, often drinking, and making tomahawk gestures, and making what they perceive to be "indian noises" at a game is in no way paying respect to anyone. it only serves to perpetuate stereotypes.
i just don't understand why it is still acceptable to use a race of people as a mascot for a team. tribes and bands are connected as a people and that is why other tribes will speak out aginst the improper use of native heritage, even if it is not their tribe.
the way many of us look at it is that our ancestors did not have the opportunity to speak out against these things and so it is our generation that owes it to them to get back what is ours, to regain our heritage and reclaim it for future generations so that they won't have to be subject to these kinds of abuses of sacred tradition.
that is about as clear as i can make it. i hope i've explained my thoughts properly.
as you might be able to tell, im an illinois fan. and i can assure you illinois does not do tomahawk arm motions or "indian calls" or other noises. the extent of it is the symbol with the native headdress and the mascot who dances at halftime. im not 100% sure but i am close to it that some of the native americans in the area actually gave the chief illiniwek mascot the headdress he wears so in fact, his costume is pretty real to life. the dance is probably a lot of hollywood and probably has no real correlation to a real illini tribe dance but it is in no way derogatory.
the crowd loves the chief and the dance. even if the dance isnt totally real, i still sort of fail to see (even though you guys have made me see the other side of the argument) how its offensive. everyone in the crowd is going "oh man thats so cool what the native americans used to do i love that." they in no way are abusing or offending. and since the university only represents the one tribe "illini", and not the native americans as a whole (like the cleveland indians, for instance) i dont totally see the offensiveness of it. especially because illinois does not do anything like florida state and the atlanta braves with the tomahawk stuff and the chanting which i can see being slightly offensive.
thanks for the explanation. i appreciate it.
ok so we should ban the "fighting Irish" of ND?
I dont see native americans crying about it. how about the peoria tribe, the closest relatives to this particular tribe say this....
The Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma are the closest living descendants of the Illiniwek Confederacy, having been relocated to Oklahoma in the 19th century. The position of the tribal leadership has evolved over the years. In a television interview with WICD-TV in 1995, Don Giles, then Chief of the Peoria Tribe, said, "To say that we are anything but proud to have these portrayals would be completely wrong. We are proud. We're proud that the University of Illinois, the flagship university of the state, a seat of learning, is drawing on that background of our having been there. And what more honor could they pay us?" Supporting Chief Giles was another tribal elder, Ron Froman, who stated that the protesters "don't speak for all Native Americans, and certainly not us."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Illiniwek