One of my very first blog posts was about the Chief Illiniwek controversy. For those coming to the party late, in 1926, in an attempt to honor the Indian nations that the state was named for, the University of Illinois adopted the tradition of "Chief Illiniwek." This tradition consisted of a man (one woman, during WWII) in Native American garb performing a traditional Indian dance at halftime of U of I games.

The garb and the dance were taught to the first chief by the descendants of the original Illini Indians (actually a confederation of tribes, with names like "Peoria" and "Tamaroa," currently names of towns in Illinois) and a ceremonial headdress, made by said descendants, was presented to the University. Unfortunately, the Illini were driven out of this territory in the late 1700s, and the descendants merged with other tribes, so the headdress is of the style of Plains Indians. There is some evidence that the dance, at least, is authentic.

Unlike the Fighting Irish (nicknamed in part due to Irish tendencies to be pugnacious when drunk) or the Hoosiers, he didn't hang out with cheerleaders on the sidelines or do silly stunts with other team's mascots. Chief Illinwek was never a "mascot." He did his performance, and left.

The bugbear of our time, political correctness, has intervened. Under orders from the NCAA, the University of Illinois is no longer allowing the Chief to dance. His last performance was Wednesday. You can watch the dance at the link, emailed to me by my sister Jennie. I'm sorry to see him go, and if that makes me some kind of bigot, well sue me.

I don’t know if this counts as “politics” or not, but I feel compelled to jump into the debate regarding Chief Illinwek.

I read this article by C. E. Petit, an attorney and fellow U of I alumni. I am one of the alumni who have not remained in the area (despite having grown up 30 miles away) and so recognize myself in Petit’s article. Despite my being an out-of-towner, I feel qualified to comment.

I support the Chief, whether you call him a mascot or a symbol. My logic is simple – the attempt to get rid of the Chief is simply political correctness run amuck. When the Chief was first created, in 1926, every effort was made to create an authentic “Indian” portrayal, as best as possible given the constraints of the time. See http://www.uillinois.edu/trustees/dialogue/report_files/IV.html for the back story. Chief among the problems facing those who created the Chief were that the Illini “tribe” never really existed – “Illini” was a name for a confederation of related tribes, none of which survived into the 20th century.

But unlike the parade of “mascots” who followed, the Chief:
1) Never “hung out” with cheerleaders
2) Certainly never rode around on a horse on the sidelines (see the Florida Seminoles, a tribe that never even seen a horse until Andrew Jackson)
3) Danced to a song that can be traced back to the 1600’s.

Lastly, the people who have started the protests against the Chief are, although American Indians, not of the tribes represented, and have no more “standing” to complain then I do.

Petit is correct in saying that the expedient thing to do would be to ditch the Chief. Sometimes the expedient thing isn’t the right thing, and sometimes we need to draw a line in the sand. Not because the line has any particular merit, but because if we don’t, we’ll end up retreating all the way into the water.