Christopher Maier, a Pennsylvania native, came to Champaign-Urbana five years ago to earn an MFA in creative writing—and he's still here. He's written and edited for magazines, newspapers, trade publications, university presses, literary journals, corporate clients, and family holiday newsletters. At the University of Illinois, he's taught creative writing and composition, and was a founder of the literary/arts magazine Ninth Letter. He appreciates corn fields, but also misses the mountains.
If you go to Wikipedia and type in “Council of Chiefs,” what you’ll find is a very brief entry on a “non-profit organization that was created in honor of Chief Illiniwek at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.” At the bottom of the page, there are two suggested links: one to a site that hasn’t been updated since the mascot’s demise and the other to a Facebook group called “Save the Chief.”
Here’s how the group, which has 65 members, describes itself: “For everyone who thinks its [sic] extremely gay that they want to change our mascot to ‘THE ORANGE CRUSH’ or something else gay like it.”
The Facebook HQ for “Save the Chief” doesn’t appear to have been updated in nine months, which is surprising. Given the vehemence (albeit immature and crass) with which this crew seems to champion its cause, one would think it safe to assume that The Wall (for all of you unfamiliar with Facebook, that’s where messages are posted) would be lit up with notes of self-congratulations now that the Council of Chiefs has elected its newest member.
That’s right: At the end of April, after a round of tryouts, a new Chief was chosen. The winner, Logan Ponce, a junior at the University of Illinois, becomes the 37th Chief.
But because the Chief’s official affiliation with the university has been severed, the question becomes: What exactly does the Chief of today do? And why aren’t the enthusiasts on Facebook cheering and swapping virtual high fives now that Number 37 is in place?
At a press conference to announce Ponce’s new post, the departing Chief, Dan Maloney, pointed out that, even though the person who portrays the Chief no longer dances, he is more than a mere symbol for those wishing to resurrect the gameday spectacles that made the mascot known. One of the obligations of the contemporary Chief is to help raise ten grand for Oglala Lakota College in Kyle, S.D.
And let’s be honest: That’s nothing to scoff at.
This raises the possibility that “the Chief” — as a functional position rather than a white-guy-decorating-his-face-with-war-paint-and-dancing-like-a- cartoon-character position — might actually have some relevance. Perhaps the resolution to this conflict (and yes, it is still an issue, given that in a referendum this spring, 79% of nearly 10,000 student voters called for the Chief’s return) is to encourage the Council of Chiefs to redefine its prized figurehead. Let him evolve and grow up. Put the Chief in a nice Bachrach suit. Send the Chief to a few dozen Native American charity and educational events each year. Have the Chief organize a conference. Allow the Chief to become an academic pillar befitting his roots. As a business might do, rebuild the ailing brand from the ground up — with substance, not feathers. This lets the proud legacy continue without the belittlement and discrimination that — whether intended or not — is unavoidable when someone dresses up and dances around like a caricature from another race.
The question, then, becomes this: Can the Chief, which has come to embody division as well as tradition at the University of Illinois, find a way to reinvent itself in the 21st century? — a reinvention that puts aside the race-as-mascot mentality and pushes forward with the stated intention of the Chief, which is to celebrate and bolster a tribe and, really, a civilization that has been dealt a rough hand in this nation. And if the feathers finally go away and this mission takes over, will the Facebook crew celebrate or will it simply deem this another “gay” move?
Comments (8)
Wednesday, May 7, 2008 2:10 PM
Great points Chris. As someone who is vehemently anti-chief, I would wholeheartedly support a non-dancing Chief whose purpose is the raise money for and awareness about American Indians. After all, that is exactly what the anti-chief folks have been saying for years - the way to honor and support tribes is not dance at football games, but to learn about their contemporary issues and support their struggles.
It would be great for the new chief to actually interact with and spend quality time with a tribe or two. I hope it isn't limited to flying in and dropping off a check and expecting universal adoration.
However, I do wonder why they are raising money for the Lakota rather than the Peoria, who contain the remnants of the Illini. A political decision perhaps?
Wednesday, May 7, 2008 2:26 PM
I love this column. And I am not just saying that. It's very very well written.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008 5:53 PM
This would be fantastic, and I am positive that the council of chiefs would get support from all kinds of places they never imagined.
what a fantastic way to reinvent the chief into something worthwhile and meaningful.
Thursday, May 8, 2008 2:52 AM
“For everyone who thinks its [sic] extremely gay that they want to change our mascot to ‘THE ORANGE CRUSH’ or something else gay like it.”
UGH. People like this are the reason that college kids are painted with such an immature brush.
This column is the best that I've read since the inception of this site. Kudos. What a great idea.
Thursday, May 8, 2008 7:10 AM
Dan S, I believe it was a member of the Lakota tribe that made the chief's outfit and headdress. Thus it was the Lakota tribe that was asking for it back shortly before the chief's retirement.
Thursday, May 8, 2008 1:51 PM
No matter what they do the chief will always be inappropriate.
"the symbol" is made up of, different and unrelated, Native American cultures, mixed with stereotypical Hollywood style "Indian" characteristics. The U of I is suppose to be a place for higher learning. What is this historically and culturally inaccurate depiction of Native Americans teaching?
Its basically like making a mascot called the Samurai but have him wearing some Chinese armor and doing a dance to Korean music. But he has an authentic Japanese sword so hes a Samurai.
They can dress the chief up with fancy new ideas. They can attach "the symbol" to things that everyone can agree on are good. But at its base, whether the chief is meant to be serious and "honored"or not, its still the opposite of respectful and will always be just a different kind of Minstrel Show.
Friday, May 9, 2008 10:17 AM
Jason, I don't think anyone is arguing that this new conception of "The Chief" should dress up like he used to. He should wear a business suit because his new job would be to raise awareness surrounding contemporary American Indians issues and problems, not dance at halftime to rile up sports fans.
However, this sparks an idea: Maybe the first act of any new chief should be to dress up like he used to at halftime, and then go visit 3 tribes. He would then explain to the people there why they should be honored that he is dressing that way, and how it shows them respect. That would probably cure him of wanting to don his costume again.
Friday, May 9, 2008 12:18 PM
Excellent point Dan S. I, myself am a minority(born and raised in CU) and when i first became aware of the chief's inappropriateness i strongly disagreed and was a hardcore pro chiefer. Grant it, i was only about 14 years old. But it took meeting actual Native Americans to make me "see the light".
I guess everyone deserves redemption. But, yeah... I don't think anything short of, not just meeting, but actually visiting Native Americans will show these people how awful THEIR "symbol" is.
I really do think that is the issue. When you don't know people, when they aren't around you and you've never interacted with them. Its very easy to use them and their culture in this context. Look at most other "human mascots" they are mostly Pirates or Vikings or something else from hundreds of years ago or something mythological. Or, on the other hand, with schools like Notre Dame, where the mascot name is The Fighting Irish. Their actual mascot isn't an Irish man, instead its a Leprechaun.
It would be easier for people to see what they're really doing if they were using a culture of people they actually knew. If someone wanted to honor the 400 years of hardships African Americans went through by having their mascot be the fighting Slaves... I think people would see the misrepresentation much easier. Maybe because their good friend Frank is black and so is the nice Johnson family down the street.