Chief Illiniwek
 

So today I went to the last U of I basketball game where Chief Illiniwek performed during half time. The NCAA has banned him; read about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Illiniwek.

I can understand both sides, like we are honoring the Illini but it's a sacreligious practice. It doesn't really affect me and I am not passionate either way; I just am disappointed we can't be the Fighting Illini anymore. That was coined during WWII when we sent off our boys to the European theatre, not about hostile Native Americans. Anyway I just hope we get a better name than, let's say, the Illinois....Illinoisians. :yeldead:

I can not argue the banning of Chief Illniwek but the "Fighting Illini" should stay. Or at least change it to the "Illini".

I can see why a group wouldn't like certain mascots / team names. Some are downright racist, like the Washington Redskins. Chief Illiniwek probably crosses the line. Yet some of this seems way too touchy.

One school had the Braves mascot and name replaced because it offended Native Americans. This despite that the area was originally inhabited by Natives and there was no bad intent. Another school had to drop the name Kossacks because a few Jewish folk were offended the Cossacks of Eurasia fought with the Jews. Newsflash: they fought lots of folk. Cost the school big bucks to change names because of a flimsy objection.

Will Christians object to the The Minnesota Vikings because the Vikings raided churches ages ago? Sad to say I bet people even complain about teams like the Cleveland Browns :\ I just don't get why some of this stuff is taken as a direct insult.

But, where will we stop? What's next? Changing the name of the White House? Or the Red River? Or West Virginia (cause Virginia is further west?) I mean everything seems to bother everyone!

Life sucks! Get a helmet!

One mascot gets banned since...I don't know when, and it's like the world is coming to an end. :confused:

But since the question's been asked, what *I'd* like to see banned next is that awful "Cleveland Indian" caricature. Gawd, is it ever obnoxious.

Yeah I'll put up two examples for both sides.

Pro Chief - I mean if Notre Dame can get away at being the Fightin' Irish with a little old leprechaun in a angry fighting pose why can't we have the much less derogatory version of the great Chief? I don't see any Irish getting angry cause the stereotype that they are hostile little midgets.

Anti-Chief - On the religious aspect; the dance the students learn to be the Chief is partly a religious dance. It would be comparable to a priest leading a mass or Jesus being crucified-----on a football/basketball field. We don't know much about Native American religion, so most people don't know the significance of the dance.

Take your stance.

Actually, there are Irish people who are angry about that.

Yeah, the Pittsburgh Steelers make steelworkers look like gum-chompin' dirty miners.

The Chicago Cubs are unfair to small furry young bears.

The Dallas Cowboys dishonor those who fought and died to steal land from the Native Americans.

The Purdue Boilermakers make a mockery of shot glasses dropped into beer mugs.

Don't even get me started on the Trojans. :rolleyes:

(I'm part Shawnee and not offended by American Indian imagery. It doesn't affect me or how I feel about my heritage, nor do I think it promotes hate and intolerance to Native Americans. That was all accomplished a long time ago. I say get over it.) :o

A-freaking-MEN!!! You pretty much can't do or say ANYthing without "offending" someone. For crying out f*cking LOUD!

(Forgive me if there is another thread around here wherein this rant should be placed.)
Some US schools are not allowing teachers to use red pens to grade because some poor kid's (poor sutdent's) feelings might be hurt due to all the mistakes he/she made being so obviously pointed out!??! WTF?!?!

Some schools are no longer allowing competitive physical activities (PE) because someone has to lose!?!?! Again, WTF?!?!

I thought school was supposed to, in addition to teaching stuff, prepare kids for the real world. Seems like it's merely setting them up for a huge shock and some major therapy-requiring disappointment.
The real world isn't all fuzzy warm happy feelings.
You must face the consequences when you make errors (unless you are in NM and the error is in judgement when you decided to get behind the wheel drunk, drive the wrong way on the interstate and end up killing a family at Christmas and you are not incarcerated because you "had a headache" and "other cars managed to avoid you," but thats another rant.)
Sometimes the other guy wins and you lose. It's gonna happen.

It offends ME that I have to try to be so careful about not offending someone. Maybe I ought to try getting banning things banned. That sounds logical.

*Steps off the soapbox, kicks it aside, squirts lighter fluid on it, tosses lit match at it and walks away.*

It only takes one to make it an issue...

I would personally be more offended if everything thinks that I would be offended if someone made a mascot of a Native American when I could really care less.

Ferret, the PETSB (People for the Ethical Treatment of Soap Boxes) are gonna get you, man.

Erm, that wasn't really on topic was it?

Well, it was a lot closer than most threadjacks. It was also right on the money in my opinion. :thumb2:

Sorry. After I ranted I realised that it was kinda off topic. But the idea is kinda there.

Thanks Bruce.

I'm confused on two issues: Are you saying that you don't like Native Americans or just that you think the way I do and realize mascotting has no bearing on the heritage? Also, don't you mean you couldn't care less, because if you could care less it would mean that you care some and have room to care even less than you already do.

I am just a bit confused by the reply and was hoping for clarification. Thanks! :)

Further proving that the Irish are angry people :lol:

Those particular Irish are, anyway. LOL

But back to Chief Illiniwek...

Turns out the regalia he wore was that of a completely different tribe, Oglala Sioux. An Oglala chief had sold the clothing, including the eagle feather head dress, to the university 20 or so years ago, though not intending to clothe the mascot. Too bad the university decided to use it for that, instead of much-more needed educational purposes.

Shawnee, you earlier said that you care less about the mascot (offensiveness wise) and you have some Native American heritage.

I would think it would be more insulting to me if everyone went out of their way to make sure I wasn't offended when I didn't have a strong postion on the argument.

I'm part Native American. To me, the use of Native American symbols and nicknames is just...silly. And improper. I'm not all up in arms over it, but it just seems old and from another era. Retire them...come up with something creative.

Having said that, I don't see any issues with using the team name "Fighting Illini."

Any more silly and improper that using critters that have no concept of sports and games? At least the indians played games. If we're going to be all politically correct and shit, calling the team the Indians should have no connection to, or bearing on, the Native Americans. :cool:

PC isn't always a bad thing. We don't call blacks "Negroes" or "Coloreds" anymore...at least, most of us don't.

See, this is problem. These "Indian" mascots just perpetuate stereotypes, and keep the uninformed from moving past their antiquated views of actual Indians.

(Indians *still* play games, by the way--football, basketball, soccer, chess, etc. ;))

...and in another 50 years, calling someone "black" will be horribly offensive and there will be some brand new name we should be using. In the 60s, most black people preferred the term "Negro" and actually felt "black" was the offensive term. There are always new names for things, doesn't change the intent--or lack thereof--behind it.

Times change, people change. Native American mascots and names have come under increasing scrutiny over the past 20 or so years. While there may no be offense meant, the offense is still there. Would we call a team "Darkies" even if it had no racial connotation? I don't think so.

I said the critters don't play sports. You know, critters, Bears, Lions, Eagles.

When was the last time you saw a real native American that looked anything like those sports mascots. When did they ever look like those sports mascots? There's no relation and anyone with half a brain knows that.

My Grandparents came from Scotland. I'd like a nickel for every time I've seen or heard a characterization of Scots. They weren't exactly flattering, either. Do I get my casino now? :rolleyes:

Gooood point.

What's a good point, they play games or it perpetuates stereotypes?

Did you ever stop to think the mascots promote a better stereotype than the general perception by the public?
Talking with local people I worked with, throughout the western part of the US, their perception leaned toward "drunken Ira Hayes".:eyebrow:
I was really surprised because, being from the east, I hadn't been exposed to that attitude.
Of course in the east, Indians didn't enter the conversations very often, other than early history or sports(more recently casinos). That's not because they aren't here, it's because in the east, they have assimilated. In most cases you wouldn't know their background, they're just Americans.

Bruce, there are pretty significant differences between animals and people. And huge--HUGE--differences between the ways Scots/Irish/Italians/etc. were treated when they came here and the near-elimination of Native Americans.

If there is a mascot that makes Native Americans look good, I'd love to see it.

My former college (Southeast Missouri State University) tried to put a positive spin on their old name--Indians/Otakhians (for the women). It was supposed to honor the Natives that lived in the area back in the day. Of course, they used stereotypical renderings of these mascots. They even had Chief Sagamore until the mid-80s. They did away with the names in 2004.

A good chunk of the Native American population on the East Coast was wiped out or moved westward during the settlement of the country. The ones that were left were smart to shut the fuck up and/or assimilate. Assimilation is a good thing--to a point.

Well Duh. I asked what the hell do critters have to do with sports? Aren't the teams/mascot named after critters for the traits we respect. Do you think the Chicago Bears are named that because bears take good care of their cubs? Hardly..... it's the bear's ability to kick ass and take names. Does that mean the Mascot goes around kicking every ass? No, just opponents.

A lot of teams chose Indians out of respect for their abilities as warriors. Does that mean their mascot should go around fighting everyone? No, only opponents.
Every one of them looks better than "drunken Ira Hayes". What do you want, noble red man sitting on his horse gazing over the plains below? Talk about perpetuating a stereotype, most of them never saw the plains.
I'm not talking about how they were treated, but how they are portrayed. The Indians got there ass kicked when they tried to stop the settling of North America. Boo fucking hoo, get over it, unless you want a rematch. Stop being a professional victim. You've seen pictures of the reservations, they suck.
One of the guys I work with came from a reservation on the Mexican border, high school diploma because he wanted it, joined the Navy to get away, and never looked back. Nice house and family in the suburbs because he refused to be a victim. He hasn't forgotten his heritage, his tribal history, but he knows that was then and this is now.
They can't wander around hunting Buffalo and setting fire to the plains anymore. They can't live on roots, berries and venison in the Ozarks anymore. It's not going to happen, ever.... so get off your ass and get to work if you want more than you've got.

We don't really know why school always choose what they choose, given how much goes on behind the scenes. I'm sure that some teams choose Native American names out of respect. But I suspect that more often than not, they're based on stereotypes.

Chief Illiniwek looked like a tool to me. So did the mascot renderings that SEMO used. Not to mention, that stupid Tomahawk Chop in Atlanta.

Even if we're talking portrayals, there are still huge differences. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Do you know one person that was offended by the Fighting Whiteys? I don't... not one. I suppose because 6 million Jews died in Germany, I can't laugh at fiddler on the roof, too.:rolleyes:

Right. Because they stereotype Indians as "warriors," "braves" or similar, a la old John Wayne movies. The most positive depiction of Native Americans by sports team mascots is NO depiction. The University of Illinios, ignorantly, couldn't even get it right trying to depict a specific tribe with their mascot. Of all places, institutes of higher learning should hold themselves to higher standards.

I'm not sure what you mean by "most of them never saw the plains"--several tribes still live in the plains areas.

Retaining your culture isn't being a victim. Not all reservations "suck," not even most of them. Not all tribal-owned lands are even called "reservations." It's too bad that your friend decided to leave his tribe for good, but that's his choice, I guess. Maybe he'll have a change of heart one day and go back to be a part of the community, revive/continue traditions, bring his skills/trade in, etc.

Now, this perception of yours that "the Indians got their ass kicked" is exactly the kind of stereotype that is perpetuated by the John Wayne Indian mascots. Yes, there were tribes that were decimated or uprooted. But there are still a lot of us, and cultural traditions are still going strong in native communities from North to South America.

Agreed. It sounded like Bruce was saying that they should just assimulate just because everyone else does. It is not a bad thing at all if some Native Americans want to whole heartedly maintain their culture that was practiced for generations before the settlers. By just saying "yeah, whatever they got their assked kicked" then it shows total intolerance and ignorance to their culture.

Everyone has a right to maintain their way of life as it seems fit. We shouldn't judge them if they want to be traditional and unincorporated into US lifestyle.

The Yanomami is a first-contact Native American tribe in the Amazon that refuses to live like normal Brazilians. We shouldn't make them assimulate just because we tell them to.

I think it's safe to say, though, that most Native Americans in the U.S. who maintain traditional cultures also incorporate the "U.S. lifestyle." Those who don't would have to make a concerted effort not to.

No, not John Wayne Movies, that's what they respected and emulated the most. Go to the Smithsonian and read the Lakota winter counts. Highlight of the year?...caught an unarmed boy from another clan out picking berries alone, and killed him.Why can't you understand they are not depicting Indians, they are depicting a caricature. Nobody thinks the mascots are depicting any real indians.They should be historically correct in dress and manner? Give me a break, it's a mascot not a historical pageant. oooow, several tribes huh? How many Indians do you think were living between the Atlantic and Pacific, at their peak? And how many of them ever saw the great plains?
"Culture is a catch all phrase. If you sustain yourself buy hunting and gathering and suddenly you're in a place with no game and you can't keep moving to gather, then you damn well better come up with a new plan, even if your ancestors did it for centuries. I guess that depends on your definition of suck. Who said they were? Bullshit, it's desert, there's precious little water, and the only jobs are tracking wetbacks for the federal government. Everybody else lives on welfare. Who in hell would go back to that? Get a dose of reality, will ya.
Yeah, there are "communities" of Sandhill Cranes, too. But thanks for straightening that out, silly me, I didn't know the indians won. :rolleyes:

Can you point to where that "quotation" came from? It wasn't me. :eyebrow: Define culture, what do you think is incorporated in "their culture". Fine, they can live any way they want. But if they piss and moan that the feds should support them because they can't hunt and gather anymore, that doesn't cut it. They don't have to live in a split level rancher and have two SUVs in the driveway. They can live in a tipi, wigwam, wickiup, hogan, double wide or palace, that's their business. They don't have to give up their way of worshiping or their crafts and traditions. But they DO have to find a way to support and feed their families. I would assume most of them do that. Usually that means working for a living outside, but what ever works for them. I'd hardly call the assimilating.Who said they did? As long as they have the means to continue their lifestyle, why can't they? The rub comes when they start killing off their neighbors to maintain that lifestyle. If that happens, you can be sure they will get their ass kicked in short order, because the government can't tolerate that. It's eventually going to come down to who owns the land and I'm pretty sure the government thinks they do.

Absolutely, if they have any brains they pick and choose what they want from other people lifestyles. Take what appeals to them and reject things that don't, so that their lifestyle evolves in a manner they are comfortable with.

If I moved to Japan I'm sure I would adopt much of their lifestyle. But I'm not eating raw fish. :greenface

The problem is idiots actually end up missing the whole caricature point. You don't want to know how many people think the Vikings actually had horns based on Minnesota Vikings emblem. The solution isn't to make the team change but to make sure people know it's a caricature.

Maybe, but when I see Chief Wahoo, I think of the Cleveland Indian baseball team, nothing more. When I see the kneeling maiden in buckskin, I think of Land-O-Lakes butter, that's all. There will always be people that are just dense, and I object to dumbing down the whole world to their level.
Irony and satire replaced with politically correct potty jokes is not good or good for us. :2cents:

You know full well that you think of more than just butter ...

Are you talking about the Native American Museum? Is that all you got out of it? That's really fucking sad.

I understand it, and I've said it. Again, that's the problem, people do think the mascots depict "real Indians"--because those are the stereotypes they've been inundated with. But since "real Indians" are standing up and saying something about it, everyone benefits from the education.

Millions. I said I wasn't sure what you meant--I thought you were talking about Native Americans in the present tense. But I keep forgetting that you don't really think of us in those terms. :rolleyes:

Culture is comprised of different things for different societies--it's not a "catch all phrase" by any means. Native communities each have their own set of circumstances; how they rebuild and/or sustain themselves and what they incorporate is unique unto themselves. There are those who are having a tough time and slower going of it, and a whole spectrum of every other situation you can think of. It's interesting that many tribes today do have traditional resources still available or within their grasp, and work toward maintaining that, or bringing it back into their lives. It's similar, if not exactly the same as, for example, other Americans' move toward utilizing organic food techniques and resources.

People do choose to go back to their native communities, even the ones in the desert. Just because it's not a reality you're familiar with, doesn't make it bullshit. What's bullshit is being so outraged about things you know little or nothing about, and having no desire to learn more about them.

Not all tribes have engaged in violent confrontation with the U.S., so they can't be considered to have "won" or "lost." What do Sandhill Cranes have to do with this? We're talking about HUMAN BEINGS, not birds.

Well put, blue. That's what I woulda said, if I was a better writer.

I agree, let's consider the culture of peoples that frankly, is beyond comprehension of our culture. Telling them to change because that's the way it goes isn't how it should be. Let's try not to hold onto the colonialistic attitudes of "Land? Land should be owned! This is the West! Shutup and move or die!" that got us into this mess in the first place.

No, I'm not....Winter counts.
Btw, that central hall is the biggest waste of space in DC.....think of all the wonderful exhibits that could be displayed there, even if it was contemporary crafts or tribal projects. Yeah, yeah, giant tipi/council lodge complete with smokehole. No, wasted valuable space.
The Smithsonian has had a considerable collection of Indian stuff, long before it became fashionable to break up their stuff into dedicated museums.
That's just a fund raising ploy, anyway.
Give to the Smithsonian.
I already gave.
But this is for the Indian Museum.
Oh, ok.
Give to the Smithsonian.
But I just gave?
But this is for the Air & Space Museum.
Oh, ok.
Give to the Smithsonian.
You're an expert on what people think and why? Why are you determined to educate the public about what Indians are doing now.
I suspect as long as you don't interfere with them doing their thing, most people have more than a passing interest in, or care if, you're doing your thing. That was the general idea when the Constitution was written. Granted, it's been severely strained, but it's still a good idea.
Case in point, most people don't even know what their Congress Critters are doing and that's something that effects them profoundly.
You got that right. I think of everyone that belongs here as Americans. I'd rather dwell on what we have in common, even though that's become unfashionable. Everyone is running around declaring they are different, they are special, which is usually followed by why they should get preferential treatment.
Foul. Culture is an English word. It can't have a different meaning for different communities. You have to establish what the word culture encompasses. Once thats established, the circumstances, the problems, and solutions can vary from place to place but not the definition of culture. You've just proven my statement that people used it as a catch all, by doing just that.
You have no idea what I know. You said We were both talking about a specific individual . I said Still speaking of a specific individual and his circumstances. I still say your statement was bullshit applied to that specific individual.
I don't care how many return to their roots, I wasn't discussing that. I was talking about how one individual escaped a hell hole and became a productive member of a community instead of living on welfare and bitching. Again, if you can't support yourself where you're at, move.
That's right they didn't. The smart ones adjusted, adapted and evolved with the developing circumstances. The ones that persisted in fighting went the way of the Sandhill Cranes. Human beings? More specific than that, Americans. I don't think any of the tribes are issuing passports yet, are they?
I really don't care what they are doing north or south of our borders. :headshake

What mess are we in?
Or are you speaking for the Indians?

OK, since you don't believe in property ownership I think I'll sleep in your bedroom tomorrow night. OK? :cool:

Dude it just seems like you think everyone in America should think like you. Are you speaking for everyone who is an American?

Hell no, I speak for myself just like you or anyone else. Even points that are linked, doesn't make it so, it just shows how the poster came by their view. On the other hand, bluecuracao wants everyone to think like her. No, that's not true, but I believe she would like everyone to have her view of Indians and Mexicans.
She and I have disagreed of minority issues before, and I have the greatest respect for her and her right to her opinions. I just don't agree with many of them.
Do you think I make it up as I go along? No, I got my opinions about Indians the old fashioned way, I earned them.

Actually the Indians is something I've done quite a bit of research on, but only when they were a player in the shaping of the country. After that, only information what happens to come my way, like everyone else rather than active looking. Some current tid bits I hear from an old girlfriend because she has a lot of contact with Indian dance troops across the country.

But, none of that has anything to do with sports mascots, because that was then and this is now. Anyone that sees Chief Illiniwek or Wahoo and assumes that's what Indians either were, and/or are, like, shouldn't be out of the home without an orderly. Seriously, if they can't see the difference between mascot behavior and real people behavior, they need to see Dr Wolf. :crazy:

I can imagine no bigger honor, than if a group I was in was used in some cartoonish way as the team mascot for a major sports organization.

Imagine our awesome pride if, someday, the Philadelphia Dwellars competed in the National Football League.

The logo would either be a fat guy typing at a keyboard in his sweats, or a woman in her office hitting alt-tab to avoid the boss.

I'd volunteer to be the prototype for the mascot.

Although given the fact the mascot supposedly honouring the Illiniwek was dressed as a Sioux, it would be a fat guy in a blouse and skirt and a woman in sweats.....

I object! By depicting the office worker as a woman you insult my manhood.

True, they've had a lot of Indian Stuff for a long time, but isn't it a little bit possible the Native American Museum was built to show more of that stuff? ;) Though, The Smithsonian does need funds to keep going; I don't think they're trying pull anything over on the public.

What I understand from this is that you consider cultural diversity as something merely in fashion, and you think that when someone shares information about other cultures, they're wasting their time. OK, fine. But that contradicts your apparent interest in The Smithsonian.

I didn't say the word "culture" has different definitions. I said the same thing you're saying now.

Alright. But this specific individual's circumstances seem to form the basis of your opinion that Native Americans overall have these circumstances. I presented to you another scenario. Sorry you're not interested in it.

There's more to it than that. Some tribes didn't fight, and didn't survive long enough to adapt. There are others who fought who are still around. The matter of smart vs. not smart, won vs. got their ass kicked can't be applied as a sweeping generalization to all Native Americans. And Native Americans are not only those who live within the U.S. borders. You may not care about any of this, but that's reality.

All I can do is share my point of view and the facts I know. If someone makes statements which look like they're based on error or lack of knowledge, I like to try to help out. Isn't that what we all do here, more or less?

As an aside, I don't know a thing about Sandhill Cranes and figured they were extinct or close to it based on your analogy, so I looked 'em up and found out that, "Sandhill Cranes are the most abundant of the world’s cranes." :confused:

So would I, except that I don't bother with the ALT-TAB. I just keep typing and say, "Yeah, I'll be with yah when I'm done with this witty quip."

I keep The Cellar minimized to just inside the window of one of my work applications. Since my hand is already on the mouse, I just click outside The Cellar to bring my "work" to the top. Reaching for <Alt+Tab> would be awkward. Although I did see a window-switching USB footswitch somewhere.

Sure it was, but I think the wasted space in the design could have been put to better use displaying more things. They never have enough space to display it all. I agree the Smithsonian isn't trying to pull a fast one, they've just discovered they can raise more money having specific museums to target specific groups for support. Right now they need a ton of money to restore/repair the Castle and some other older buildings that are falling apart.
Yes I see it's in fashion and being jammed down peoples throats where I work. I feel cultural diversity is the most insidious and divisive ploy perpetrated on the American citizens, ever. Divide and conquer. Play down what we all have in common, the thing that unites us, and weaken the voice of the people that keeps the government and big business in check.

Those people down the block, those people in the next town, those people that live south/north/east/west of you, they are [chilling voice] different. [voice] Damn, those people are different....I wonder if they eat babies. We have nobody to protect us except.....wait for it.......the government.

You've heard the government should fear the people, not the people fear the government. Well the government doesn't have to fear a people that are so divided they can't raise a collective objection. And wouldn't because they need Uncle Sam to protect them from the baby eaters.

I find different groups and their customs/lifestyles interesting. But I haven't the time left on Earth to investigate them in depth...there's just too many. Just around Philly there's a whole bunch of diverse groups like the Mennonites, Amish, Quakers and more.

OK.


The reservation this guy escaped from and many more I've either seen myself or on PBS, have nothing to offer, no work, no commerce, sometimes no schools, and no money to change that, evidently.
I understand you're saying there are viable reservations or communities that do offer opportunity. But my saying bullshit was to the suggestion that this guy should entertain that possibility. It's an impossibility, not because he's dismissed his roots, but because it's just not possible there.

If they don't live in the US then I don't care what they think, especially about Wahoo or Illiniwek.
Certainly, that's why when I disagree I argue my position, rather than dismiss or ignore, call you names, or question your intelligence.
You know...... don't take in personal, don't make it personal. In the US, Sandhills are one of the birds they hand raise and lead their migration with someone in an ultra-light playing Mama. The Sandhills came to mind because of a recent news item saying this year's migration to Florida resulted in all but one of the babies being killed by tornados.

This very sad picture of Five Crows, at his grandsons Arlington funeral, was in the Washington Post, a couple months ago. A lot of people saw this picture in the paper and on the net.
I refuse to believe that ANYONE seeing this picture thinks of Wahoo. Or seeing Wahoo in the spring, they will think of Five Crows. :(

You can only be insulted if you are a pussy with low self esteem. You choose to be insulted or not.
I am both Irish and Native American, I see them for what they are, caricatures, nothing more or less... people need to get a damn life.

Huh, never thought of it THAT way. I always figured the pussies with low self esteem were the ones who didn't speak up for what they believed in. :p

They're the ones that get insulted.
The opposites know someone is trying to insult them, but can't, because they refuse to let it happen. It's the old sticks and stones thing.

Hey blue, I have a question. You said I see Indians in 18th/19th century terms, or some words to that effect, and you would rather teach people about where Indians are today.

But whenever I see Indians going to a venue to communicate with the general public, they only demonstrate dances, crafts and skills they have been practicing for centuries....and usually in costume. The heritage, the old ways, if you will.

I know there are rug weavers, jewelry makers and potters that are doing innovative modern designs, but this rarely is publicized, if you don't have contact with the actual artists/craftsmen, in their own environment.

Am I just traveling in the wrong circles or when they show this modern stuff, they don't convey that they are in fact Indians. Now my ex always ridiculed me for being thick, because she could rattle off ethnicity, heritage, religion and a host of other information at a glance. She was often right if I got a chance to check.
But I never cared that much about that stuff so I developed no skill. I may be missing Indians around me every day other than the two that told me.

I guess that was a long winded way of asking if most Indians, outside of Indian communities, keep a low profile or am I just missing it? :confused:

That's a tough question to answer. From my own perspective, I don't really see the low-profile thing. Out here on the east coast, I only occasionally participate in social, political or spiritual activities (if someone doesn't tell me about them, I'll look them up myself--a lot of events are on the internet), but sometimes I get approached and approach others, try to keep up on the news, and go back to visit my family somewhat regularly in New Mexico.

You might've missed out on a good opportunity with you ex--she sounds like she really knew what was going on in the Indian world. ;) But you mentioned you're Scottish...threatened with death, I couldn't begin to tell you the significance of kilts or what tartan belongs to what clan. So maybe we're in the same boat.

As for the old ways...they're just the continuing ways. The ways of dress in religious rites, well, how long have Catholic priests worn robes? It's not all that different.

Ha, you don't know my ex. She had no particular insight on Indians, she was only on the lookout for reasons to be judgmental and catty. :haha:

Sure, for conducting a traditional funeral ceremony, Five Crows wore traditional robes, but in his day to day, he probably wears the same thing most of the men is his region wear. If you look at his son sitting next to him, he looks like Joe Anybody, homogenized American.

That can be a good thing in that it give us more in common, and makes one less hurdle to trust and acceptance. On the other hand it does make life a little more bland....less colorful.