Yeah, right.....We can't keep talking about the chief lol. We have to move on.
All due respect, but I'm really confident that if you go somewhere that Native Americans live, you'll find plenty of it, and it will be authentic and representative of them. It's irrelevant if non-natives hold it with honor and respect if the Indigenous folks don't agree.Kind of odd that in a desperate attempt at relevance the people who want to get rid of native American imagery in our culture because it's racist etc etc are actually getting completely rid of almost all the native American imagery that we have left in America. Imagery that is held with honor and respect and usually supported by the native American cultures, and at times generating income for them. When is the last time you drove around your city and saw anything dedicated to native American people. There are only little pockets/places around America who have such a thing.
Heck no. It’s not even a tough/cool bird mascot idea either.I hate the fact that the Chief is gone, likely forever. In today's "everyone's a victim"/I'm offended society, I don't see a path towards restoration of our symbol. I'll also say "WE DON'T NEED A F****N' BIRD MASCOT."
I could believe a mascot like "Blocky the I" or "Alma Otter" could provide something furry and silly to hang out with the cheerleaders and take photos with the kids, while also not having aspirational goals to ditch the Fighting Illini name.
Once again, this is the main point of all this. It's not a sinister plot to get rid of the name Fighting Illini.
All due respect, but I'm really confident that if you go somewhere that Native Americans live, you'll find plenty of it, and it will be authentic and representative of them. It's irrelevant if non-natives hold it with honor and respect if the Indigenous folks don't agree.
Native Americans are fully capable of managing and maintaining their imagery, culture, and legacy, and that's as it should be. Seeing native imagery in the middle of a city would be like seeing Italian imagery/symbolism in Chinatown--it just doesn't make sense to be there, no matter how much one thinks it's respectful or honoring.
I know a Stanford alum who is wholly embarrassed by his alma mater's logo and mascot. I know that's a sample of one, but get serious. Don't compare Chief Illiniwek to the Stanford Tree. It's not an "official mascot," but he's on the court at basketball games and I don't know where else. If you want a symbol equal to that of Chief Illiniwek (and we're worthy of it), try Chief Osceola of Florida State, not Stanford's abomination.
View attachment 28705View attachment 28706
There are more Native Americans in Los Angeles than in most reservations.All due respect, but I'm really confident that if you go somewhere that Native Americans live, you'll find plenty of it, and it will be authentic and representative of them. It's irrelevant if non-natives hold it with honor and respect if the Indigenous folks don't agree.
Native Americans are fully capable of managing and maintaining their imagery, culture, and legacy, and that's as it should be. Seeing native imagery in the middle of a city would be like seeing Italian imagery/symbolism in Chinatown--it just doesn't make sense to be there, no matter how much one thinks it's respectful or honoring.
I think the responses to that article by Robert gives a good sense of where the Illini fanbase really stands on the kingfisher. Not one response sounded decidedly for it, some were confused, and the vast majority were clearly against it.This is the best breakdown I’ve read about the Kingfisher Task Force with quotes directly from the head of the task force:
Funny you say that because all I’ve been seeing is people getting offended by others who call the chief a “mascot” instead of a “symbol” and also getting mad at a dumb bird mascot.I hate the fact that the Chief is gone, likely forever. In today's "everyone's a victim"/I'm offended society, I don't see a path towards restoration of our symbol. I'll also say "WE DON'T NEED A F****N' BIRD MASCOT."
If anyone base their self-worth on their dumb school mascot so much that it gives them embarassment, they probably should re-evaluate their priorities in life lol.I know a Stanford alum who is wholly embarrassed by his alma mater's logo and mascot. I know that's a sample of one, but get serious. Don't compare Chief Illiniwek to the Stanford Tree. It's not an "official mascot," but he's on the court at basketball games and I don't know where else. If you want a symbol equal to that of Chief Illiniwek (and we're worthy of it), try Chief Osceola of Florida State, not Stanford's abomination.
View attachment 28705View attachment 28706
Because there's a group that thinks a void needs to be filled. Read Robert's article from this post.Someone please tell me why a kingfisher is even considered to be a mascot. There is zero connection to the university.
I don't think people are offended by the misuse of mascot as it relates to Chief, it's a concern over the misuse itself. Words matter, and Chief was not ever a mascot in the sense that other schools have mascots.Funny you say that because all I’ve been seeing is people getting offended by others who call the chief a “mascot” instead of a “symbol” and also getting mad at a dumb bird mascot.
I mean, what connection did Marquette have to the Golden Eagles before they changed from the Warriors? Nothing. Now, 30 years later there is a connection. It’s just a mascot. I think trying to overthink it and go for the Honest Abe’s or the Galloping Ghosts is worse. The kingfisher logos are cool looking and a connection will come with time.Someone please tell me why a kingfisher is even considered to be a mascot. There is zero connection to the university.
I mean, what connection did Marquette have to the Golden Eagles before they changed from the Warriors? Nothing. Now, 30 years later there is a connection. It’s just a mascot. I think trying to overthink it and go for the Honest Abe’s or the Galloping Ghosts is worse. The kingfisher logos are cool looking and a connection will come with time.
This is one of the larger issues I have with the whole mascot situation. The Kingfisher task force is terrible at preventing people from being misinformed of their goal. Most of the fanbase is unsure if the current push is 1) to add a mascot AND a name change, 2) a mascot as the first step towards a name change, or 3) if they are just simply trying to have our version of Iggy. They already have a merch section of their website so it'd be as simple as having a shirt that says "Fighting Illini" available for purchase and pushing that design on their socials. When your goals are already controversial, not being adamant to separate yourself from another goal which would be even more controversial is a bad idea, and their lack of effort in this respect makes me uneasy about them.Marquette
Nickname/Moniker - Golden Eagles
Mascot - Iggy the Golden Eagle
Logo - MU Monogram
So...what is it you actually want for Illinois? Is it just our version of Iggy to patrol the sidelines? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but given that you mention logos and mascots along with Marquette's moniker change, I would think not.
I ask that question not to be trapping or confrontational. It's just impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion when people are using different words to mean different things.
And FWIW, the only sweatshirt at the official Marquette University Spirt Shop with an Eagle logo is the Ugly Christmas Sweatshirt.
I’m stationed in the heart of Alabama (near Montgomery) and am surrounded by Alabama fans…plus a solid amount of Auburn fans.Conversely, look at Alabama, who has only had the current/official version of their elephant mascot since 1980, and Big Al is effing EVERYWHERE.
Marquette changed nickname/moniker and mascot. Since you're in favor of keeping Fighting Illini, Marquette seems like an odd example to put forth as the model for Illinois. Alabama, on the other hand, I agree with. Just like us, they have a nickname/moniker that is very general. They went with a miscellaneous animal that has nothing to do with the school colors or heritage of the state - pretty much the opposite of The Kingfisher plan.I would think Marquette is actually a pretty good model for the most mascot-skeptical
Not sure if this is supposed to be some sort of slight, but you've seen Iggy, right? It's not like he's feathered or something. Just like every other conventional mascot, he's furry.(including the people that are weirdly compelled to use the word "furry" in every post....you might be telling on yourself!)
Agreed, it's a good one.Anyway, another good moment to plug one of my other hobbyhorses: making script Illinois from the basketball jerseys a DIA/University-wide mark. It's unique and it looks fantastic - who says no? Why haven't we done it already?