【by Reese San Diego】
Remnants of violent colonial pasts pervade modern-day life. From ideologies to physical commemorations, colonial legacy discreetly shapes our present reality. The question of coloniality is particularly applicable to higher education institutions as the framing of history influences knowledge production on such sites. In Dalia Gebrial’s article, “Rhodes Must Fall,” she discusses the tension between the university and coloniality, describing a student movement to remove a statue of a British colonialist, Cecil Rhodes, on Oxford University’s campus. Through her analysis, Gebrial emboldens institutions to critically examine their unconscious endorsement of colonial ideologies. Colonial iconography is ubiquitous on college campuses––Oxford is just one of many institutions with monuments to problematic colonial figures. Following Gebrial’s line of reasoning, in this paper, I will analyze the controversy surrounding the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s (UIUC) retired mascot, Chief Illiniwek, illuminating how decolonial efforts are often undermined by individualization and the invisibilization of colonial aftereffects.
Countermovements often hinder decolonial efforts by circumventing the very conversations decolonial movements are trying to start. That is, counter-movements shift the focus of discussion toward individualized perceptions of the colonial object in question and away from the larger systems of hegemony that underpin them. In Gebrial’s article, she discusses how Oxford was averse to the removal of the statue of Cecil Rhodes as it was seen as a type of historical censorship; as classicist Mary Beard puts it, she saw it as a “dangerous attempt to erase the past” (Gebrial 22). In the case of Oxford, the conversation was no longer about Rhodes’ colonial ties, but rather about issues of censorship: “The campaign was immediately inserted into pre-existing conversations…despite none of this language coming from its original call to action, which was working towards something much deeper” (Gebrial 22). When opposition makes these personal claims and attachments to colonial objects, it blurs the focus of the decolonial movement. Issues are reframed as a claim to hold on to history and tradition––this can likewise be seen in the controversy surrounding the UIUC mascot, Chief Illiniwek.
Chief Illiniwek was a beloved and famed mascot at the UIUC; his removal did not go uncontested. Leading up to the official retirement of the mascot in 2007, controversy sparked and activist groups formed in opposition to Chief Illiniwek’s removal. Many people were concerned with the mascot as a breach of tradition, often overlooking the deeper implications of the mascot for Indigenous communities. People were hyper-fixated on the chief’s essence as a communal symbol with little regard for the adverse effects on Indigenous communities. Chief Illiniwek was portrayed by a student wearing traditional Indigenous regalia and performed a dance during the halftime of Illinois football, basketball games, and volleyball matches. This halftime performance was beloved by Illinois fans and was a prevalent argument for keeping the Chief:
“I remember when I was a junior in high school and our coach took the team to see the Illini in 1963. My first college game. The Chief came busting out of the band at halftime. It was the most exciting thing I had ever seen. Memorial stadium went nuts. Bring him back now!” (Viet; Students for Chief Illiniwek Facebook)
This individual who posted this comment to the Facebook page of “Students for Chief Illiniwek” is wholly concerned with their fond memories––this reasoning alone should be enough to “Bring him back.” In individualizing this issue, people who opposed the removal of the Chief were inattentive to the deeper colonial implications of the mascot. In a blog post titled “Illinois’ Chief Illiniwek: The Greatest Tradition in American Sports,” the author likewise speaks to the sentimentality of the Chief, simultaneously trivializing the harm it has caused and continues to cause Indigenous communities:
“While those against the University’s use of the Chief as a symbol claimed that it somehow harmed Native Americans, those who have ever witnessed this halftime event at a U of I football, basketball or volleyball game will tell you that it is the most revered and solemn tradition in sports” (Reitano).
The author of this article suggests that the harm caused by the Chief is nonexistent: the harm is merely a “claim” and a “somehow.” Similar to how the controversy of the Rhodes statue was reframed as an issue of censorship, people reframed the Chief’s removal as a conversation of tradition and school pride. They saw it as an attack on their own personal contentment and enjoyment of sporting events, turning a blind eye to the deeper implications of coloniality––those that exist violently and evidently.
In a statement by the Native American Rights fund from July 2023, they detail the numerous adverse effects Chief Illiniwek and Indigenous iconography have on Indigenous people. The report explores the various ways “Native imagery,” such as Chief Illiniwek, legitimizes discrimination against Indigenous communities and also impacts identity development and self-efficacy among Indigenous youth. For Indigenous students, being presented with these undesirable, caricatured images of Indigenous people can foster a sense of inferiority and lack of belonging; such hostile environments often result in lower academic achievement and success rates (Campbell 2). Moreover, the presence of uncontextualized “Native imagery” on campus often reinforces stereotypes about Indigenous people:
“I had to watch my classmates make posters saying we are going to ‘skin’ our sports opponents. The other teams would make posters that said they are going to send us home on a ‘trail of tears.’…I had a classmate say that Natives don’t exist anymore, so no one should be upset by the mascot issue. I asked, ‘Well, am I real?’ He said, ‘You don’t live in a teepee, so no’” (Campbell Fund 6).
Comments such as the ones above are born out of ignorance and subscription to colonial ideas that subordinate Indigenous populations as ahistorical. Without proper contextualization and education, the existence of the mascot can instigate and/or reinforce misinformed perceptions that “[portray] Native Americans as a ‘culture of people frozen in time’” (Campbell 3). Due to this perception of Indigenous history as static and in the past, people often perceive the issue of the Chief as irrelevant to the present. The Chief may be hypervisible, but his colonial context is invisibilized. However, as the Native American Rights Fund makes clear, the adverse effects on Indigenous individuals and Indigenous communities more broadly are exigent.
Decolonial movements are also challenged in terms of relevance; countermovements claim that colonial monuments are irrelevant and have no effect on the present. However, in reality, the simultaneous “invisibility and hyper-visibility” of these monuments illuminates the covert mechanics of colonial ideologies (Gebrial 26). Monuments and iconography (such as the Rhodes statue or the UIUC mascot) exist in the public consciousness. They are always visible, however because of their omnipresence, their existence is also taken for granted, rendering them and their colonial effects invisible: “[The statue] is an always present, shaping political, economic and cultural force, but goes unnamed and unseen” (Gebrial 26). The existence of mascot Chief Illiniwek has incited and continues to incite harm to Indigenous communities; “While Officially retired in 2007…he never really went away” (Otwell). However, these effects are often invisibilized, given that Chief Illiniwek is hypervisible as a symbol removed from discussions of colonization.
Misdirected attention regarding colonial objects such as the Cecil Rhodes statue and Chief Illiniwek often reframes their controversy as personal rather than systemic. While decolonial movements seek to unearth the deeper-rooted ideologies that these objects represent, countermovements shallow the depth of conversation and individualize the issue. Moreover, these countermovements take for granted the harm that persists on account of colonial iconography, neglecting how its omnipresence is indicative of the staying power of colonial hegemony. While calls to remove Chief Illiniwek as a mascot were founded on decolonial motivations, the retired mascot remains a contested issue of personal value removed from discussions of colonial past and present. To truly retire mascot Chief Illiniwek would be to destabilize and confront the colonial ideologies behind his existence.
Works Cited
Campbell, Matthew. Retired Illinois Mascot Still Causing Harm – Native American Rights Fund. https://narf.org/illinois-mascot-still-causing-harm/. Accessed 11 May 2024.
Gebrial, Dalia. “Rhodes Must Fall: Oxford and Movements for Change.” Decolonising the University. Pluto Press, 2018, pp. 19-36.
Otwell, Rachel. “Chief Illiniwek Is Gone ‘Officially,’ But The Former Illinois Symbol Remains Controversial.” Northern Public Radio: WNIJ and WNIU, 15 May 2018, https://www.northernpublicradio.org/illinois/2018-05-15/chief-illiniwek-is-gone-officially-but-the-former-illinois-symbol-remains-controversial.
Reitano, Mary Ann. “Illinois’ Chief Illiniwek: The Greatest Tradition in American Sports.” Bleacher Report, https://bleacherreport.com/articles/515588-illinois-chief-illiniwek-the-greatest-tradition-in-american-sports. Accessed 11 May 2024. Viet, Jerry Michael. Post by Students for Chief Illinwek. Facebook, November 15, 2023, https://www.facebook.com/students4chief/. Accessed 11 May 2024.