I have just a couple counter points to this article. First of all please do not make blanket statements like "most Native Americans can either support/ care less about the chief" you are not the spokesperson for an entire nation of Native Americans. Secondly, why should we take a look at ourselves? I didn't realize that only Native Americans could stand up for themselves. If that's the way you feel then the civil rings movement would have gotten nowhere. We need to support eachother no matter what race we are. How many people need to be offended in order to make this a legitamate issue to you? If I(one person) find certain jokes to be offensive that is usually enough to make competent people around me stop telling them. Why continue purposefully hurting others simply for the sake of "tradition" (see- being stubborn.) Finally, all race issues aside, if bein labeled racist isn't good enough motivation to stop supporting the chief, how about the idea that a mascot should unite a school? The chief spawns nothing but anger and hatred amongst the students and alumni of our university- how can we support that? We are part of a community that can accomplish so much more than bickering over whether or not someone should be offended by something( being offended by the way is hardly a choice...) isn't it time we moved on to something more productive?

Did they DI print this simply to demonstrate how poorly certain people write? This letter to the editor is a joke!

"none of the anti-chief people has done anything this" what?

Also, this letter is so inaccurate! It should be a crime to print a letter to the editor filled with unsubstantiated claims (aka lies). The American Indian Studies program did not disappear with the removal of the chief mascot. The Native American House did not disappear with the removal of the chief mascot. Nor did any of the Native American students on this campus that are unanimously anti-chief mascot disappear from the State of Illinois - not to mention the hundreds to thousands living in communities across this state.

Did I also mention that the Native American House and American Indian Studies have continously issued statements agains the chief mascot?

Also, the Peoria (the remaining "Illini") have clearly stated they are against the chief mascot and find it offensive. The Oglala Sioux - the tribe from which the mascot gets its costume - have also stated they no longer want SCFI to use their regalia and are anti-chief.

Has the Chiefers not heard or read of anything this?

Really? Did a 5 year old write this?

Are you serious, Junior? A lot of Natives oppose Chief Illiniwek. If they're outnumbered by non-Natives, that's only because non-Natives make up about 99% of the US population.

There are far worse stereotypes out there? First, most Illiniwek supported deny that the Chief is stereotypical. Thanks for admitting what they're afraid to say. Second, is "two wrongs make a right" really the best you can do? Maybe we should steal some Indian land because there were far worse land thefts in the past.

Chief Illiniwek has nothing whatsoever to do with the real Native culture in Illinois. Once he's gone, Illinois will continue have many Indian communities, monuments, and place names. This phony dancing fool is only the tiny tip of the iceberg, not the whole iceberg.

Since you are not native american, who are you to speak for people of that decent and say how they feel? There certainly are people who feel offended by it, and why would an upstanding university want to keep something around like that? Please edit your entries before you put them in, and do a little bit more research. It's a waste of time to read something that's so full of opinions and absolutely no backup other than it is how you feel. You're in college, after all. You should be a little better educated than that.

as far as I know, none of the anti-chief people has done anything this.

all references to Native American culture in Illinois have been removed (expect from history).

I can only hope this ridiculous letter to the editor was published to recruit people for the "Not My Mascot" rally tonight, given its lack of any cogent argument, horrendously poor grammar and its awful, unsubstantiated assumptions. I don't even know how to engage with such a poorly argued position.

Just FYI, in response to your claim that "Most Native Americans either support or could care less about the chief," here's a real, live, Native Person writing on the Chief. At the present moment, at least one of the commentators is also Native.

http://unitcrit.blogspot.com/2009/10/american-indian-studies-statment-on.html

I am sick of this sh*t---you lily white mofos with severe entitlement complexes need to get the funk out of the 19th century! and while you are at it--get over yourself!

YOU do NOT own the imagery of the indigenous people of this continent--if you are so damn gung-ho about worshiping a cartoon mascot, then make one for yourself based on the demographics of YOUR people... I have one for you--the Illinois Babies ... since you can't grow the funk up and STOP playing Indian!

THIS Cherokee wishes you nothing but ill as long as you continue to desecrate and DIShonor my people.

(PS--the same goes for this farce of a "newspaper" --- do you sit at your computers getting happies while you choose the endless barrage of cartoon imagery to go with your asinine stories?)

I have found on an internet report on the Redskins suit that most native americans disagree with the people suing.

Secondly, just because some native american leadership opposes the chief does not necessarily meant that the people oppose the chief.

Thirdly, the anti-chief bloggers here need to get a life! The chief does not present native americans in a negative way. The chief was started by an eagle scout who was studying native american culture.

Fourthly, does any of these anti-chief people have any proof that native americans oppose positive portrayals of native americans? I thought not.

Fifthly, what do we have left in Illinois to remember Native Americans? Little to nothing!

Finally, anyone who is criticizing my letter for its grammar is a bigot for attacking someone with a disability.

Also, the chief's dance is not an authentic Illiniwek dance because the Illiniwek people have been killed out of existance

All the protesters that I saw were not native americans. if you claim to have the support of native americans, I would expect there to be some at your protest.

If only victims can stand up for themselves, then a right-to-life supporter really has no argument since they are not a fetus. Is that the message this Junior at one of the greatest institutions of higher learning wants to send?

You might want to check your facts. The descendants of the Illiniwek Confederacy are the Peoria Tribe in Oklahoma and they passed the following resolution and the Chief of the tribe made this statement. "In April 2000, the tribal council, with Chief Froman's support, passed by the margin of 3 to 2 a resolution requesting "the leadership of the University of Illinois to recognize the demeaning nature of the characterization of Chief Illiniwek, and cease use of this mascots [sic]". Froman said, "I don't know what the origination was, or what the reason was for the university to create Chief Illiniwek. I don't think it was to honor us, because, hell, they ran our (butts) out of Illinois." This puts Chief Illiniwek in a position different from that of the mascots of other schools such as Florida State University, whose Native American mascots are not opposed by the leadership of the corresponding tribes. In 2005, a new Chief, John P. Froman, when asked his position by the NCAA, indicated that "the Chief was not representative of our tribe and culture, mainly because the costume is Sioux." In 2006, in response to a widely published column by journalist George Will in support of the symbol's use, he wrote a letter reiterating the Peoria Tribe's opposition to the symbol and decrying that the "University of Illinois has ignored the tribe’s request for nearly five years."

Motsinger claims "little or nothing" is left of Indians in Illinois. That's his justification for "educating" people with a stereotypical chief who falsely represents a Plains culture in another state. Good thinking, Junior...I can see why you're majoring in engineering and not Native studies, history, or logic.

The Illini Indians' descendants, the state's Native communities, and the university's Native students all oppose the dancing clown. Motsinger denies that these Indians exist. Wow, Chief Illiniwek is really educating people about today's Indians...NOT.

For an extended debate on this subject, see:

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2009/10/next-dance-is-educational.html

Here's some of the Indian culture that Jason thinks is nonexistent:

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=326298&src;=5

Opening eyes to Native American culture, heritage at Elgin museum

I find it ironic how the Chief- a symbol of unity, pride, strength and resiliency- a symbol that honors a mostly positve (albeit stereotypical view) image of what Native Americans used to be back when they were the dominant culture on this continent is seen as being racist and offensive. That stereotype is much better than the newer stereotypes that unfairly paint Native Americans as drunks and mopes.

If Chief supporters want to do this in Assembly Hall, then fine, it's a lot more respectful this way than to trot out a guy in turkey feathers during halftime of the basketball game. To put the Chief on the same level as the Bobcats or the Panthers or other sports mascots is a slap in the face to Native Americans. Kudos to U of I for putting a stop to it, and kudos to Gov. Quinn for booting the moron off the Board of Trustees who'd made it his mission to reinstate the Chief.

If you're like me and of European descent, what right do you have to say that the mascot is racist or not? We aren't of Native American descent so how can we determine if the mascot is offensive to them or not?

This is really isn't our fight to fight. How do we know what they feel on the inside (besides from what they tell us, which is that they are offended).

When I was not sure about what to think of this issue, a wise high school teacher of mine once told me to think about the Middle East--they solve their diversity issues over there with suicide bombers and machine guns. So I think that we're rather lucky with the situation that we're in. I mean, I'd rather lose a mascot than my life.

So where's the DI story on the Next Dance and the huge protest that was organized by the IResist Coalition? We saw at least one photographer, and a DI reporter getting interviews. Same was true for the News Gazette. What's up?

These latest posts are ignoring the facts that I presented. Political leaders do not necessarily represent the will of the represented. Obama was elected president, yet only 41 percent of people agree with his health care proposals. Secondly, there is no proof to back up anti-chief people's claims that the chief is a negative stereotype. If the chief is a stereotype, than the name Redskins definitely is. Yet most native americans support the use of the name. I am not saying that all native americans support it (because that would be very untrue), but most do. Finnally, the increasing use of profanity on this comments section by anti-chief people is getting you nowhere. You are not winning over anyone with profanity.

You say that since I am of European descent that I cannot fight this fight, than neither can many of the anti-chief protesters, because I did not see any Native American protesters there. If any were there, the anti-chief people should have put them in plain view.

Also, if I find the name "Fighting Irish" discriminatory, then Notre Dame should stop using the name and symbol. I am Irish. If you are Irish, then, according to your logic, you can argue against me on this. If not, you should shut up. Does this seem logical to you? It does not to me.

Plus, the mainstream media would not report on native american support for the chief because they are in the tank for anti-chief people.

This is where your story is. The first section, page 3 of today's DI.

We can put it on the same level as the "Fighting Irish," except the chief is a very respectful symbol. He does not come on the court/field having a weapon or portray negative stereotypes about native americans.

Secondly, Gov. Quinn did not ask the trustees to resign because of the chief. In fact, some of the new trustees are probably supportive of the chief.

I said that the Illiniwek people no longer exists, not that none of the Indians that lived in Illinois are gone. The Peoria Tribe is the closest living tribe related to the Illiniwek people. Also, I never said that the chief's dance represented native americans from Illinois, yet it is a positive remembrance of native american culture.