The University of Illinois appealed the NCAA's ruling to ban on mascots that represent a "hostile and abusive image of American Indians." They lost their appeal. In my four years of undergraduate studies at the University of Illinois, I never once saw Chief Illiniwek as a hostile and abusive image of American Indians. The representation was always of the highest and utmost respect. The halftime dance done by "The Chief" attempted to best adhere to the traditional dance done by the Illini tribe. The individual chosen to be "The Chief" required an arduous process and was a great honor to be chosen. Nothing about the process ever struck me as "hostile and abusive".
You don't see Americans of Irish heritage upset that they're represented by a drunken, fighting leprechaun at Notre Dame. Why not?
Now, since I don't have a girlfriend, or really any friends for that matter, I occasionally sit up nights concocting conspiracy theories. For fear of questions about my sanity, I've been keeping this one to myself for a few months now. But I think it's finally time to unleash it to the few dozen people that read this blog. Here goes...
Answer this question - Why would a large governing body want to eliminate mascots that represent American Indians? Don't answer right away. Just ponder it for a few minutes.
When was the last time any large governing body did anything to really help American Indians? No really. Indian Reserves? Those are on pieces of land that NOBODY wanted. The ability to put casinos on their land? Here in California, they've legalized gambling in other areas. Small pox blankets? That wasn't helpful, now was it? The point here is that the treatment of American Indians is probably the biggest stain in the history of The United States (African slavery being the other. Seeing as though American Indians were also used as slaves, they earn the "biggest stain" tag in my book. Either way, it's up there). How many American Indians do you know? In fact, how many have you met in your life? I think it was Chris Rock that said "You ain't NEVER seen 2 Indians at the same time". Basically, the culture of the people who lived here for thousands of years is really non-existent in our daily lives. The only place where any representation of that culture remains is in sports mascots - both collegiate and professional.
This brings us back to the original question - Why would a large governing body want to eliminate mascots that represent American Indians?
Here's the theory. Why not erase the greatest stain and blemish in United States history? Without mascots to remind us of the American Indian culture that was essentially destroyed over the past 200 years, then it really didn't exist. If a piece of history is no longer discussed, then it is no longer a piece of history. How many other cultures are we unaware of since they don't exist in our history books? I'm sure the answer is greater than zero. The NCAA ruling is a red herring. The ruling appears to be respecting the American Indian culture under the guise of "hostile and abusive images". When, in fact, the ruling is helping erase the culture completely from our memories. What happens in a decade. What about 50 years from now? Who is going to talk about American Indian culture? If it weren't for sports mascots today, I wouldn't be defending the memory of their culture.
The question remains - Why would a large governing body want to eliminate mascots that represent American Indians?
On that note - Happy Veterans' Day
While I'm on a roll - Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
If you're planning to have a kid soon, might I recommend that they not watch the 2008 Olympics. The new mascots for the 2008 Olympic Games have been unveiled. And they will permanently torture your kids' dreams well into adulthood.
No comments:
Post a Comment