Eliminating the ‘Chief’ is unreasonable

I am wondering about the motivation for Burt Constable’s articles about Chief Illiniwek at the University of Illinois. Is he trying to generate controversy and interest in his articles? In my opinion his thoughts are completely ludicrous. His bottom line is “the Chief no longer means what supporters want him to mean.” That would be like saying that the Wildcats nickname for his beloved Northwestern does not mean what it is supposed to mean and is a violation of humane treatment of animals.

Burt’s motivation is not rational, but it certainly has generated controversy! Chief Illiniwek means honor, dedication, respect and the highest positive tradition of the athletic teams at the University of Illinois.

I can understand that some might want to eliminate the “dance” the Chief does, claiming that it is not authentic, and I think that is agreeable. But to eliminate the Chief completely is unreasonable.

If Burt Constable really wants to defend Indian honor and culture, then why doesn’t he go after the Cleveland Indians, whose mascot is Chief Wahoo, a very detrimental image of Indians? Why doesn’t he go after the Atlanta Braves and their Chief Nokahoma and their “tomahawk chop”? Those depictions are demeaning to Indians! He probably will not go after them because it will not generate the controversy that he has achieved in his recent Chief Illiniwek articles.

Don Rowley

Arlington Heights