Home
Forums
New Posts
Illini Basketball
Illini Football
Sports Talk
Log in
Register
What's new
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Sports
Sports Talk
The mascot debate/fandom thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ktal" data-source="post: 2082701" data-attributes="member: 745969"><p>No mascot is the right answer. But not because it has anything to do with the Chief.</p><p></p><p>I've been drifting through and not following threads closely, but I did want to elaborate on a comment I made calling the war chant racist. And since you find getting rid of the war chant a bridge too far, I thought I'd at least explain why I called it racist and offer evidence of why you're wrong, racist or not. </p><p></p><p>I saw a few of the responses, including a couple on the evolution of music itself, leading to the claim that all music is a form of cultural appropriation. While that's compelling-sounding argument, it completely misses the point(s).</p><p></p><p>The first point is that war chant isn't racist because of its musical attributes or name. It's racist because it played <strong>sound track</strong> to branding deemed disrespectful towards native Americans. UIUC has never been associated with a tribe in the way FSU's equivalent to Seminole nation profits from that alliance, so FSU is a false equivalence.</p><p></p><p>The second point is how effective adminstrators become effective: they draw clear lines. Why? Because those are easy to enforce. When it was deemed the Chief had to go, the whole identity package had to go. The lines were made as clean, and tight, as possible. </p><p></p><p>And frankly, they appear to have nailed it. Want evidence?</p><p></p><p>Look at the threads during the Sweet 16 run, and compare the engagement level there relative to the engagement level of threads talking about the Chief. Now ask yourself, how many times did threads go sideways bickering about how this announcer or that reporter hardly even mentioned the game, instead focusing on their dislike for the Chief, and belief it was past time to retire it?</p><p></p><p>If the Chief were still around the Chief debate would be louder than ever and it wouldn't suck the air out of the room in every interview. It would eat countless bandwidth doing nothing but turning people off.</p><p></p><p>How many great transfers would want to come to Ilinois if they knew any moments in the spotlight of their college playing career would likely be drowned out by discussions about the Chief? How can you not see how massively detrimental having the Chief still associated with the program would be to the program you claim to have loved. Well, the war chant was part of the Chief's identity package, when viewed through the lens of how the brand was administered. They could have gone a lot further, and said the fighting had to go, and do an entire re-brand with some effing squirrel mascot or whatever, to make a clear break.</p><p></p><p>The war chant invites the Chief debate distraction. Why ruin the fan experience with that nonesense, and undermine the health of the program at the same time? It's ridiculous. But oppsing a mascot is an idea we can agree on.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ktal, post: 2082701, member: 745969"] No mascot is the right answer. But not because it has anything to do with the Chief. I've been drifting through and not following threads closely, but I did want to elaborate on a comment I made calling the war chant racist. And since you find getting rid of the war chant a bridge too far, I thought I'd at least explain why I called it racist and offer evidence of why you're wrong, racist or not. I saw a few of the responses, including a couple on the evolution of music itself, leading to the claim that all music is a form of cultural appropriation. While that's compelling-sounding argument, it completely misses the point(s). The first point is that war chant isn't racist because of its musical attributes or name. It's racist because it played [B]sound track[/B] to branding deemed disrespectful towards native Americans. UIUC has never been associated with a tribe in the way FSU's equivalent to Seminole nation profits from that alliance, so FSU is a false equivalence. The second point is how effective adminstrators become effective: they draw clear lines. Why? Because those are easy to enforce. When it was deemed the Chief had to go, the whole identity package had to go. The lines were made as clean, and tight, as possible. And frankly, they appear to have nailed it. Want evidence? Look at the threads during the Sweet 16 run, and compare the engagement level there relative to the engagement level of threads talking about the Chief. Now ask yourself, how many times did threads go sideways bickering about how this announcer or that reporter hardly even mentioned the game, instead focusing on their dislike for the Chief, and belief it was past time to retire it? If the Chief were still around the Chief debate would be louder than ever and it wouldn't suck the air out of the room in every interview. It would eat countless bandwidth doing nothing but turning people off. How many great transfers would want to come to Ilinois if they knew any moments in the spotlight of their college playing career would likely be drowned out by discussions about the Chief? How can you not see how massively detrimental having the Chief still associated with the program would be to the program you claim to have loved. Well, the war chant was part of the Chief's identity package, when viewed through the lens of how the brand was administered. They could have gone a lot further, and said the fighting had to go, and do an entire re-brand with some effing squirrel mascot or whatever, to make a clear break. The war chant invites the Chief debate distraction. Why ruin the fan experience with that nonesense, and undermine the health of the program at the same time? It's ridiculous. But oppsing a mascot is an idea we can agree on. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Sports
Sports Talk
The mascot debate/fandom thread
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…