So, do you think that sports teams should stop using American Indians as mascots like Chief Illiniwek of the University of Illinois or the Atlanta Braves' cartoonish, buck-toothed, big-nosed Indian mascot?
For my response, I'll post the questionnaire we got at the end of the flick.
1. Is this a social problem? How many people are affected? Does it contradict important values and norms in our society? Who are the “claimsmakers”?
Yes, this is a social problem. There are a large number of people affected, namely the American Indian population. “Values and norms” in our society are subjectively defined. Some people have different values than others. However, Chief Illiniwek’s presence does not appear to violate the norms and values of the majority, because the majority is white. Using this reasoning, it does not qualify as a social problem. This is why the definition of a social problem given is inherently weak and subjective. The “claimsmakers” are American Indians.
2. What do you think is the strongest argument for keeping Chief Illiniwek as the mascot for the University of Illinois?
There isn’t one. All the arguments for keeping Chief Illiniwek as the mascot are blatant logical fallacies, appallingly inconsistent and simply reprehensible from a moral standpoint. The argument that Chief Illiniwek is actually respectful to American Indian culture is plainly ludicrous. Even if that was the real intent behind the mascot – which it isn’t – and not a poorly though-out defense, it begs the question, “How good a job of ‘respecting’ American Indians are these people doing if all the American Indians find their gestures of ‘respect’ offensive?” Wouldn’t expressed outrage at a symbol of “respect” be sufficient cause to reevaluate the perceptions of what the symbol means? It’s absolutely stunning that people who possess doctoral degrees can’t figure this out.
The argument that “minority rights aren’t always right” is simply bizarre. What conditions allow the minority’s right to be treated with respect to be removed? When the majority derives enjoyment from berating and demeaning the majority? Again, these are the kinds of people that graduate from one of the most prestigious universities in the country? Narrow-minded white people with absolutely no empathic capabilities possessing an eerily fetish-like attachment to an athletic mascot?
Most of the other arguments are simply appeals to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. A practice’s traditional value does not lend validity to that practice.
The only objectively valid argument is that alumni contributions to the university may drop due to alumni attachment to an obviously racist mascot, and money problems are never a valid argument in terms of the morals of a situation. If the country was primarily concerned with economics over basic ethics and moral practices, slavery would never have been abolished.
3. What do you think is the strongest argument for removing Chief Illiniwek as the mascot for the University of Illinois?
How would Catholics feel if some sports team paraded around a priest as a mascot and had him perform bastardized Catholic rituals, perhaps performing exorcisms or maybe burning condoms? No doubt the Catholic authorities in the United States would immediately speak out against such a sacrilege. Similarly doubtless, the team would acquiesce to demands to remove such a mascot. Why? Because Catholics and Christians are the majority, and the majority hardly ever understands the plight of the minority. Ignorance of the way this democracy works has pervaded to such an extent that many of the majority actually think that it’s acceptable to take others’ rights away for no other reason than the dictates of the majority’s whim! Obviously, most have skipped over the “inalienable” part about human rights, or they just pretend that it doesn’t exist. This brand of “might makes right” reasoning never leads to constructive results.
4. Do you think there is a solution to this social problem? Is there any possibility for a compromise?
Yes, there is possibility for a compromise. If the University of Illinois continues to insist on keeping their little cult object of Chief Illiniwek, stop having blonde-haired, blue-eyed white guys representing him. If University of Illinois alumni or staff really care about paying respect to American Indians, they could at least take the time to find an American Indian student willing to portray Chief Illiniwek by using authentic American Indian dances and rituals instead of an ignorant white kid who makes up dances and rituals based purely upon stereotypes.
The bottom line, however, is that compromise is not needed here. What is needed is understanding and empathy. The people supporting Chief Illiniwek are simply wrong, from a moral standpoint. American Indians are right to try and get the him removed. The best solution would be for the University of Illinois to detach themselves from their quasi-masturbatory obsession with Chief Illiniwek, admit that they are actively supporting the practice of minority stereotyping, and move on.
