Re: Chief Illiniwek
philncleve@aol.com
Tue, 13 Jun 1995 17:45:52 -0400
If I recall correctly, Hugh Danforth (Oneida) who lives in Madison, WI did
some research on this issue. He showed me an article that he had written
which suggests that there was no such person and questions the identity of
the First Nation this alleged chief was associated with. But listen, IT
DOESN'T MATTER. The point here is that once again, Indian culture is being
appropriated and exploited. A personal anecdote pretty well illustrates
this point. At John Carroll University in Cleveland, there was a notice
posted on a public bulletin board concerning the Cleveland Baseball Club's
use of "chief wahoo." The notice was defaced by a scribbled message which
read "We conquered them and we can do what we want." Perhaps this was
simply a paraphrasing of a principal expressed early U.S. Supreme Court
decision in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) where the Court discussed title of
land in the New World vesting in the "discovering sovereign" and where
Indians retained a right of occupancy at the sufference of the federal
government. This principal applied to land and not culture, but hasn't one
taking more or less followed another? If you appropriate culture can't you
pretty much do whatever you want with it? THAT seems to be the operant
mindset in the case of mascots.
[ This exchange is becoming a discussion, and I'm becoming inclined to
move it to the NATCHAT list. --Gary ]