The Kingfisher

Status
Not open for further replies.
#126      

altgeld88

Arlington, Virginia
Crazy how out of touch most posters on here are from the current student body. Geeze, just let the kids have fun
Right, 'cause the opinions of a portion of the current ~25k undergrads knowing little to nothing of the world at age 18-22, trumps those of the entire body of living alumni.

Lol. They're not shareholders yet.
 
#128      
I mean, if I really have to spell it out for you...you seriously think the current student body shouldn’t have any say in their collegiate experience? Not even for something as small as what costumed buffoon entertains people at half time? Because it might threaten your fragile world view? That’s sad man. This is no way effects your collegiate memories or your dumb chest tattoo

The problem is, the current student body knows nothing about the Chief. To them, it is all rumor and speculation on what the Chief was. I was on campus last fall and talked to a lot of the "student body". Most of them have no idea what the Chief was about. The only argument they had was "we removed it because it was racist and insensitive and offensive". None of them experienced any of those things, but instead, have been indoctrinated through the years by anti-Chief faculty and student groups. Get a grip on reality. By the way, those same people (who I was discussing this with) and who are offended by the Chief, still go into Legend's where the Chief is on full display. I don't see anyone boycotting the bar....

Even when I was a student and people wanted to remove the Chief, the argument was always that it's offensive and racist. I'm sorry, but if you are a white student from Schaumburg, how is the Chief offensive to you?

Lastly, I'd argue that it's the current generation of "everything is offensive to me" who have a fragile world view. If you can't handle seeing native american imagery, then perhaps it's you who has the problem?
 
#129      
Even when I was a student and people wanted to remove the Chief, the argument was always that it's offensive and racist. I'm sorry, but if you are a white student from Schaumburg, how is the Chief offensive to you?

That clearly isn't the point, and I thought that everyone on all sides understood that the Chief being offensive to white people was never the issue.

Lastly, I'd argue that it's the current generation of "everything is offensive to me" who have a fragile world view.

It sounds like the people you're talking about in this statement aren't the same ones up in arms about adding a mascot for children to Illini sports.
 
#131      
opportunity to have some fun with it and be a little self-aware. I mean the mockups are clean and nice enough. Completely unremarkable . Even that half baked otter idea is better than kingfisher.
 
#132      

Retro62

North Bethesda, Maryland
I’ll just wait to be flamed here: I loved the Chief, grew up with, and he was the mascot during my years at UI. However, I am not a Native American. My wife and her family are voting, card-carrying citizens of the Cherokee Nation, and my brother-in-law is the President of the Pawnee...I will take my cue from them. It’s not “politically“ correct, it’s just ”correct” to not continue the use of a symbol that bothers those the symbol (mis)represents. Much like the Redskins, I do not believe it was meant to denigrate or ridicule, but it needed to go.
Flame on!
 
#133      
I could think for a long time and not come up with anything more fragile than an adult working themselves into a lather on a message board about a symbol that's been retired for 13 years.

This is the typical narrative - if I can't understand it, it must not be true. Have some perspective man.

If someone portrayed the Chief for 4 years of their life, and it was an important and meaningful part of their life during their collegiate years - it's fully understandable that they, as adults, would also get into "a lather" over this issue.
 
#135      

unimaroon

Baja Ontario
I could think for a long time and not come up with anything more fragile than an adult working themselves into a lather on a message board about a symbol that's been retired for 13 years.
"A thing of beauty is a joy for ever" - Keats
 
#137      
Did you portray the Chief?

No. However I was very close to the Chief, both the person who portrayed him while I was there, as well as a member of the Marching Illini for 4 years. So to say the Chief has significant meaning to my college career would be an understatement.
 
#138      
I loved the Chief and was sorry to see that tradition go. I was, and still am, incredibly upset that there was a double standard with the NCAA that allowed FSU to keep their tradition of having someone dressed as Osceola ride a horse and throw a spear in the ground, but Chief Illiniwek was deemed too hostile and offensive. I felt like the administration should have worked harder with the Peoria tribe to come to some sort of agreement, similar to what FSU did with the Seminoles. Everything about the change was handled poorly from the start and it made a negative impact on our athletic programs. We lost a lot of our branding, game day atmosphere, and support from alumni and boosters suffered. Attendance has fallen off due in part (asides from the obvious sub-par on field performance) to the lack of money to upgrade our facilities and a largely apathetic fan base that has no reason to watch games in person. With the right people working on it, I really do believe that we could have either turned Chief into a positive symbol for the university, or had a smoother transition into a replacement that had meaning to alumni and to the state.

The kingfisher, to me, is stupid because it has no history or tradition for the university or state. I think there were better options that have relevance to our state's history than a generic bird that most of our fanbase didn't know existed, let alone even seen one in person. I don't know for sure, but I get the impression that the administration is either not listening to or getting input from the alumni on this, since most of the alumni think it's a dumb idea. I would have been ok with a a better mascot, but this just feels forced.

Mark my words, within five years, you'll see the kingfisher on uniforms, and within ten years there will be a push to rename our team the University of Illinois Kingfishers.
 
#139      

Deleted member 228346

D
Guest
No. However I was very close to the Chief, both the person who portrayed him while I was there, as well as a member of the Marching Illini for 4 years. So to say the Chief has significant meaning to my college career would be an understatement.

It can still have significant meaning to your college career. Nobody is taking that from you. They aren't asking you to turn in your old sheet music with "❤Mrs. TriangleIL Illiniwek❤" scribbled throughout. Flagg Hall had significant meaning to my college career, but I won't be upset when it is removed and replaced with something more suitable for a modern campus environment.
 
#140      
I loved the Chief and was sorry to see that tradition go. I was, and still am, incredibly upset that there was a double standard with the NCAA that allowed FSU to keep their tradition of having someone dressed as Osceola ride a horse and throw a spear in the ground, but Chief Illiniwek was deemed too hostile and offensive. I felt like the administration should have worked harder with the Peoria tribe to come to some sort of agreement, similar to what FSU did with the Seminoles. Everything about the change was handled poorly from the start and it made a negative impact on our athletic programs. We lost a lot of our branding, game day atmosphere, and support from alumni and boosters suffered. Attendance has fallen off due in part (asides from the obvious sub-par on field performance) to the lack of money to upgrade our facilities and a largely apathetic fan base that has no reason to watch games in person. With the right people working on it, I really do believe that we could have either turned Chief into a positive symbol for the university, or had a smoother transition into a replacement that had meaning to alumni and to the state.

The kingfisher, to me, is stupid because it has no history or tradition for the university or state. I think there were better options that have relevance to our state's history than a generic bird that most of our fanbase didn't know existed, let alone even seen one in person. I don't know for sure, but I get the impression that the administration is either not listening to or getting input from the alumni on this, since most of the alumni think it's a dumb idea. I would have been ok with a a better mascot, but this just feels forced.

Mark my words, within five years, you'll see the kingfisher on uniforms, and within ten years there will be a push to rename our team the University of Illinois Kingfishers.
that is why they need to do better than kingfisher. it will just be a mascot first but they will move to make it the official name eventually and instead of changing it again they will try to make kingfisher work and it just cant
 
#141      

altgeld88

Arlington, Virginia
It can still have significant meaning to your college career. Nobody is taking that from you. They aren't asking you to turn in your old sheet music with "❤Mrs. TriangleIL Illiniwek❤" scribbled throughout. Flagg Hall had significant meaning to my college career, but I won't be upset when it is removed and replaced with something more suitable for a modern campus environment.
I would think that Flagg Hall would give anyone having spent substantial time there PTSD ;) [at least when I was at Illinois, IIRC, as my roommate and other architecture students pulled untold numbers of all-nighters there.]

Your point is well-taken but not an apposite analogy, IMO. A symbol of the university, cherished for many decades, and paying homage to the aboriginal inhabitants of the land on which it sits is several orders of magnitude more powerful, relevant, and important to the institution than a utilitarian building. Snyder and Scott Halls nearby are dear to my memory but the day they both meet the wrecking ball won't be a sad one for me, nor for the many who lived there or the university.

I'm still waiting for the moral outrage emanating from Caucasian pipefitters and farmers everywhere to eliminate the caricatured mascots of Purdue and Nebraska. And whenever I've been in the southeastern Peloponnese, and locals learn I'm American, their visceral hatred of Michigan State is palpable.

We never had a mascot (thank goodness.) We had a symbol. And a small, enraged, politically-motivated group of opponents beginning in the late '80s. Such is the power of lobbying in general: the motivated, organized, concentrated, and vocal few easily outweigh the placid and dispersed supportive majority. That's what the CI controversy was always about. Let's not kid ourselves otherwise.
 
#142      
The problem is, the current student body knows nothing about the Chief. To them, it is all rumor and speculation on what the Chief was. I was on campus last fall and talked to a lot of the "student body". Most of them have no idea what the Chief was about. The only argument they had was "we removed it because it was racist and insensitive and offensive". None of them experienced any of those things, but instead, have been indoctrinated through the years by anti-Chief faculty and student groups. Get a grip on reality. By the way, those same people (who I was discussing this with) and who are offended by the Chief, still go into Legend's where the Chief is on full display. I don't see anyone boycotting the bar....

Even when I was a student and people wanted to remove the Chief, the argument was always that it's offensive and racist. I'm sorry, but if you are a white student from Schaumburg, how in the f*$* is the Chief offensive to you?

Lastly, I'd argue that it's the current generation of "everything is offensive to me" who have a fragile world view. If you can't handle seeing native american imagery, then perhaps it's you who has the problem?

If it's offensive to an entire culture it's representing, but not offensive to me, we should do nothing about it. Got it.
 
#143      

altgeld88

Arlington, Virginia
I could think for a long time and not come up with anything more fragile than an adult working themselves into a lather on a message board about a symbol that's been retired for 13 years.
I didn't see anyone worked into a lather. Putting that disparagement aside, however, and to your comment: why would you find it unusual that someone with close ties to an institution would remain opposed to the removal of a beloved symbol?
 
#144      

altgeld88

Arlington, Virginia
that is why they need to do better than kingfisher. it will just be a mascot first but they will move to make it the official name eventually and instead of changing it again they will try to make kingfisher work and it just cant
Why is a mascot desirable? Why not just leave it at the Block I and Fighting Illini?
 
Last edited:
#145      

mattcoldagelli

The Transfer Portal
No. However I was very close to the Chief, both the person who portrayed him while I was there, as well as a member of the Marching Illini for 4 years.

Honestly, for someone who portrayed the Chief, I understand how this is probably really fraught and a complicated thing to think about/deal with. I feel for those folks.

But for the other 99% of us, I can't fathom how anyone can let this take on such an outsized part of their relationship with college sports. The Chief was there when I was in school, I liked him, I understood why people wanted to get rid of him and why people wanted him to stay....and I can say I have been able to enjoy Illinois sports exactly as much as would have otherwise since 2007. Imagine surrendering even one iota of your enjoyment of last year's (and this coming year's) basketball team to grind a mental axe about the Chief. Life feels way, way too short.

Mark my words, within five years, you'll see the kingfisher on uniforms, and within ten years there will be a push to rename our team the University of Illinois Kingfishers.

I think you have this exactly wrong. I think adopting some sort of symbol insulates "Fighting Illini" for the future and helps to put the issue to bed.
 
#146      

Stevegarbs

Mokena, IL
Honestly, for someone who portrayed the Chief, I understand how this is probably really fraught and a complicated thing to think about/deal with. I feel for those folks.

But for the other 99% of us, I can't fathom how anyone can let this take on such an outsized part of their relationship with college sports. The Chief was there when I was in school, I liked him, I understood why people wanted to get rid of him and why people wanted him to stay....and I can say I have been able to enjoy Illinois sports exactly as much as would have otherwise since 2007. Imagine surrendering even one iota of your enjoyment of last year's (and this coming year's) basketball team to grind a mental axe about the Chief. Life feels way, way too short.



I think you have this exactly wrong. I think adopting some sort of symbol insulates "Fighting Illini" for the future and helps to put the issue to bed.

Well said.
 
#147      
If it's offensive to an entire culture it's representing, but not offensive to me, we should do nothing about it. Got it.

Nowhere did I say that. I understand the need to remove the Chief now, as nearly all of the Native American tribes which once supported the Chief, have all turned and now reject the symbol. For many years, the Ogala Sioux Tribe, and the Oklahoma Peoria Tribe both supported the Chief. The chiefs regalia was 'gifted' to the University by the Ogala tribe. (The University did pay the tribe, so history is not clear here). It was not until 2000 when the first of these tribes started to suggest that this was offensive and want it removed. The primary vocal push against the Chief was primarily internal to the university, from anti-Chief faculty and student groups with little or no affiliation to Native Americans. I'd have had a bit more sympathy to the movement when I was a student had it originated from Native American desires/concerns.

The irony of all of this is highlighted above. Nowhere do we see protests against Purdue, Nebraska or Notre Dame. One could argue that it's not offensive because it's representative of the "majority". The sad part of that is, years from now, I'm willing to bet the argument will become "how come these schools get to have white mascots and don't choose to have mascots or symbols that are more inclusive or represent other groups and/or all people."

The question I would like to know is, how can a tribe support Florida State and we can not have the same at the U of I. If the representation of the Chief was important to the Native American tribes who then and now are against it, why could they not work with the University to find an acceptable solution that honors and respects the Native Americans. Is the assumption here that any representation is insensitive and racist? What if a member of the Sioux or Peoria tribe was the one performing the ceremonial dance at halftime? Would that have been acceptable to Kaufmann and others?
 
#148      

Deleted member 228346

D
Guest
I would think that Flagg Hall would give anyone having spent substantial time there PTSD ;) [at least when I was at Illinois, IIRC, as my roommate and other architecture students pulled untold numbers of all-nighters there.]

Your point is well-taken but not an apposite analogy, IMO. A symbol of the university, cherished for many decades, and paying homage to the aboriginal inhabitants of the land on which it sits is several orders of magnitude more powerful, relevant, and important to the institution than a utilitarian building. Snyder and Scott Halls nearby are dear to my memory but the day they both meet the wrecking ball won't be a sad one for me, nor for the many who lived there or the university.

I'm still waiting for the moral outrage emanating from Caucasian pipefitters and farmers everywhere to eliminate the caricatured mascots of Purdue and Nebraska. And whenever I've been in the southeastern Peloponnese, and locals learn I'm American, their visceral hatred of Michigan State is palpable.

We never had a mascot (thank goodness.) We had a symbol. And a small, enraged, politically-motivated group of opponents beginning in the late '80s. Such is the power of lobbying in general: the motivated, organized, concentrated, and vocal few easily outweigh the placid and dispersed supportive majority. That's what the CI controversy was always about. Let's not kid ourselves otherwise.

Well I think the Native American historical experience is slightly different than that of a farmer or pipefitter...

In the realm of Native American mascots, Chief Illiniwek was on the more dignified end of the spectrum, but I also don't think there is much dignity to be found when you zoom out. Driving a group of people from their homeland, but making up for it by having a suburban kid do a super respectful halftime dance, feels icky (technical term) to me. No amount of authenticity or respect makes this equation balance out.

Imagine we collectively decided that all farmland needed to be used for bowling alleys, Walmarts, and parking lots, and forced all farmers out of their homes to work on vertical hydroponic farms in a corner of northeast Nevada. But to remember the farmers and the land they used to have, we had a student dress up in overalls to do toe touches on the 50-yard line during our football and basketball games. I don't care how historically accurate his overalls are, there would be some pissed off farmers. Oh, we also give the farmers smallpox and kill all of their cows.
 
#149      

altgeld88

Arlington, Virginia
Nowhere did I say that. I understand the need to remove the Chief now, as nearly all of the Native American tribes which once supported the Chief, have all turned and now reject the symbol. For many years, the Ogala Sioux Tribe, and the Oklahoma Peoria Tribe both supported the Chief. The chiefs regalia was 'gifted' to the University by the Ogala tribe. (The University did pay the tribe, so history is not clear here). It was not until 2000 when the first of these tribes started to suggest that this was offensive and want it removed. The primary vocal push against the Chief was primarily internal to the university, from anti-Chief faculty and student groups with little or no affiliation to Native Americans. I'd have had a bit more sympathy to the movement when I was a student had it originated from Native American desires/concerns.

The irony of all of this is highlighted above. Nowhere do we see protests against Purdue, Nebraska or Notre Dame. One could argue that it's not offensive because it's representative of the "majority". The sad part of that is, years from now, I'm willing to bet the argument will become "how come these schools get to have white mascots and don't choose to have mascots or symbols that are more inclusive or represent other groups and/or all people."

The question I would like to know is, how can a tribe support Florida State and we can not have the same at the U of I. If the representation of the Chief was important to the Native American tribes who then and now are against it, why could they not work with the University to find an acceptable solution that honors and respects the Native Americans. Is the assumption here that any representation is insensitive and racist? What if a member of the Sioux or Peoria tribe was the one performing the ceremonial dance at halftime? Would that have been acceptable to Kaufmann and others?

This. All this.

The question I would like to know is, how can a tribe support Florida State

Because Florida State University pays the Seminole nation a hefty annuity. I have remarked (darkly) to others over the years that it's truly a tragedy no concentrated representative group of the Illiniwek Confederation remained in the '90s to whom danegeld could be paid.

FSU has a mascot. A horse-riding, spear-toting, face-painted mascot. Yet not a peep is heard from the "tear-it-down" crowd, nor ESPN over the decades since the attacks commenced on CI. That's why this broader "issue" is nonsense, to put it gently.

And Matt C, that's why people like me keep it alive, though it doesn't diminish at all my love for the university or enjoyment of its facets: because the CI removal was opportunistic and rank hypocrisy. When I look at the Chief logo c. early '80s I see the implication of nobility, tradition, and honor. That remains worth preserving.
 
#150      

mattcoldagelli

The Transfer Portal
I didn't see anyone worked into a lather

I mean, I see people making tortured attempts at comparisons to Sparty and Herbie Husker and saying things "They will take my Chief logo when they scrape it off my cold, dead chest."

We never had a mascot (thank goodness.) We had a symbol. And a small, enraged, politically-motivated group of opponents beginning in the late '80s. Such is the power of lobbying in general: the motivated, organized, concentrated, and vocal few easily outweigh the placid and dispersed supportive majority. That's what the CI controversy was always about. Let's not kid ourselves otherwise.

I think the ultimate "kidding yourselves" move was - and continues to be - the fiction of "No no, see...we say it's a symbol - that means it's materially different from a mascot!" I'm going on like 20 years now of waiting for an explanation of this difference that doesn't warrant eye rolling.

Did the Chief yuk it up for photos at football games? No. But that's a pretty narrow slice of what that term means - we sure slapped the Chief on everything we could, from our uniforms to underwear to shot glasses. It's telling that so many people contorted themselves to find a way to say "No, the Chief is not a mascot" because that reveals a tacit understanding that if he was, it would be in poor taste.

You're right that the only difference between him and Chief Osceola is that one has the support of a tribe, and one doesn't. That's a really big difference! So much so that a) it's not the hypocrisy "gotcha" you think it is and b) it's ridiculous for you to claim one is a mascot and one isn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.