“chief illiniwek”: Only a Dancing Turkey or Federal Criminal?

i wonder how long it will take the rest of the media to catch up with indymedia's investigative reporting?

Julie Wurth of the News-Gazette wrote an article for the Saturday, Jan. 27 issue on the regalia that seems to answer questions about the University’s possession of eagle feathers and other parts of the regalia that the Oglala Sioux want returned, some of which were raised in my article. In the course of doing so the mystique of authenticity that the University has cloaked the "chief" with over the years was largely blown away, like feathers in the wind, by needing to appear to "come clean" on these issues by providing this information to Wurth. It also raises many questions, some of which indicate that the university's possession of eagle feathers connected with the "chief" mascot was legally questionable at various times -- and may still be.

The major claim in the article is that the University sent the eagle feather headdress back to Frank Fools Crow's daughter in 1991 and thus no longer has any feathers that fall under the provisions of the Bald Eagle Protection Act -- and none to return as requested by the Oglala Sioux last week. While the University does have some eagle feathers, they claim that all of them are pre-1940, i.e. from before the Bald Eagle Protection Act went into effect and thus exempt from its provisions. How exactly trade in these pre-1940 feathers is regulated is unclear from what I've been able to find. It is possible that no restrictions apply to these. On the other hand, it seems far too easy for any violator to simply claim a feather in their possession as being pre-1940 exempt feathers. How the USFWS handles claims of this nature is a question that requires more investigation.

But the timeline given in the article raises questions in itself that suggest issues with the University's past possession of eagle feathers clearly regulated by federal law. It states that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a "loan" of eagle feathers to the University, in order to "bring UI into compliance with eagle-protection laws that allow only American Indians to own eagle feathers (for religious purposes)."

If, as the article claims, all the feathers now in the Universitiy’s possession are pre-1940 feathers and thus exempt, where did the feathers that they needed an exception for in 1970 come from? The article does not account for any feathers other than those that are either pre-1940 (exempt) or that were returned to Fools Crow (not exempt and perhaps eventually becoming a legal problem for the University.) So which feathers did the University need an exemption for in 1970? The logic and narrative of Wurth's article simply does not account for any of the feathers that became problematic in 1970 and required an exemption from the USFWS. This requires further investigation -- and answers.

The nature of the 1970 "exemption" from the USFWS is also questionable. This is very clear from reading the current regulations and the permit that is required for any organization other than a Native American that seeks to possess eagle feathers. In fact, the USFWS representative I spoke to clearly and unequivocally indicated that such an exemption was not possible under current law. There is no “dancing at half-time” exemption now. The paperwork and circumstances of the "exemption" indicates that this claim also requires more investigation and verification. Given the "good 'ol boy" nature of Illinois government and the "chief" supporters connected to it over the years, it is entirely possible that if this exemption had been public knowledge it could have been challenged in court and may not have stood.

And this leaves aside the apparently post-1940 missing feathers that the 1970 exemption was needed for in the first place.

Then there is the UI's "Manhattan Moment" in which Gary Smith took advantage of a "destitute" Fools Crow to purchase the regalia from in 1982 for only $3,500. Smith is quoted as bragging in a letter to "chief" supporters that the regalia could "draw thousands more” – but he managed to get it on the cheap. Yes, this part of the "chief's" legend can be set right up against the legend of how the Dutch screwed other Native Americans out of the island of Manhattan for a few beads. "Really put one over on them, didn't ya', white boy? (nudge, nudge)." Perhaps many of the News-Gazette's readers will think this is just one more example of how Illinois government is helping keep costs at the UI down, but I think that the nature of this transaction, legal or not, is seen much differently by Native Americans.

It appears that there are still some lingering questions about the legality of the Smith acquisition of regalia from Fools Crow. Only after the purchase was it clarified in a separate letter that the University was only being "loaned" the eagle feather headdress, unlike the rest of the regalia that it purchased. Was the original purchase considered inclusive of the headdress by the UI, until it was discovered that such a transaction was clearly illegal? Perhaps the UI had a sharper attorney back then than I thought. But a broken law is a broken law. Does the average bank robber or other federal felon get a "do-over"? Usually not. And the way the transaction was structured could call into question whether the feathers in the headdress were actually bartered or rented by the University as part of its payment of $3,500.

The supposed return of the headdress to Fools Crow's daughter by the University also requires more investigation. While Wurth noted the University claims to have returned the headdress in June 1991, this is also a point where she deviates from the otherwise chronological organization of her story. The timeline indicates the "chief" got his turkey feather headdress in October 1990, seeming to indicate that this made the Fools Crow headdress surplus. But it's not so simple, because Rowan also claimed that the eagle feather headdress was returned in a letter sent to the USFWS in May 1991, before its claimed shipping date in June 1991, according to University records.

Did the USFWS withdraw the exemption it previously granted in 1970 and precipitate the need for the return of the Fools Crow headdress? Did the University finally decide it would rid itself of the problematic headdress because the orange turkey feathers make the Sioux-style headdress look more "Illini-ish"? Certainly any claim to authenticity, one of the essential parts of the "chief's" legend, should have been publicly abandoned at that point, but instead we've since seen an intensification of such claims by "chief" supporters. The local wags who've recently suggested that the new UI mascot be the "Fighting Turkeys" in honor of the Urbana wild turkeys were far more on the mark than they ever knew.

It should be noted that Wurth's article contains a bit more chronological lack of clarity that further confuses this whole affair. As I already noted, the separate timeline in the side bar notes that the two turkey feather headdresses were acquired in October 1990, while the text of the main article says they "were made by a Tolono man in 1992." Perhaps the N-G will issue a clarification on what was meant, as the "chief" either has four headdresses now or the justification for the return of the problematic Fools Crow headdress is called into further question by what might have been the real reason for its return.

So there we have it. What seems to be a pretty good alibi for the University’s possibly illegal possession of eagle feathers is clouded by a number of questions that undermine its fundamental premise that the University has come clean about everything. Foremost among these questions is why the University needed an exemption from the Bald Eagle Protection Act in 1970 in the first place, if all the feathers in its possession then were pre-1940, as indicated by Wurth’s article. This simply doesn't make sense. I wish I had the time to pursue this further right now. I hope the USFWS checks the University's alibi a bit more closely, as the University's story still seems questionable.

Here is a link to Julie Wurth's article.

Finally, it looks like the Chief may be laid to rest this year. Even Loren Tate of the News-Gazette has been lamenting the Chief's "last season" in recent sports articles. Whatever has worn down the U of I Administration, whether it be the Rosenstein documentary, "In Whose Honor?" from '92, or the pesky PRC, a few illegal eagle feathers, Nancy Cantor, Stephen Kauffman, Charlene Teters, the faithful native americans who return to demonstrate on campus periodically, or most likely, Athletic Director Ron Guenther's insistence that NCAA post-season tournament games must be played in our palatial stadiums and arenas (the NCAA has prohibited the U of I from hosting post-season tournament games- and a first and second round March Madness Men's Basketball game is a bookoo money night for the U of I Sports Empire) , whatever has done it, the Chief is gone by the end of this year.

In the future, look for tailgaters to revive the "tradition for which he stands" in the parking lots of Memorial Stadium and Assembly Hall. The interesting question is can the Honor the Chief Society borrow the U of I marching band and the U of I cheerleaders to play the 3 in 1 music so the Chief can do the dance next to the barbeques? Can anything that purports to represent the University be involved in a private "honoring" of that once-great university symbol?
I suspect the shrewd Ron Guenther will survey the stadium parking lots from atop his office and gently remind the damn public that the Division of Intercollegiate Athletics is a seperate corporation unto itself, a private business, if you will. It has no ties to the actual school, the business of teaching. It is a private for-profit enterprise, and always has been. Therefore, the Division of Intercollegiate Athletics will permit its guests at their events to excersise their rights to free speech and allow private ceremonies of simulated "Chief performances" to be performed by their paying customers. Blessed is the vendor selling Chief costumes and headresses! Further, Guenther could order the melting of all past sports trophies be poured into a 30-foot cast replica of the Great Symbol, arms raised proudly high, and plant this bemoth sculpture right on the corner of Fourth and Kirby where the Incorporated Division of Intercollegiate Athletics owns the land.
This Chief Dance Thang will stop at the games, on the fields and courts. But what may be unleashed is a mass parody of the thing in the hands of the loyal Illini Nation Season Ticket Holders. You think one white person dressing and dancin' like an injun was bizarre, wait till you see the local yocals re-enact their beloved Chief en masse, unsupervised, with body paint even. This could get real ugly for a moment in time. The No-More-Chief Backlash. Meanwhile, Phil Bloomer and Tim Johnson strategize how Congressman Tim can capitalize on the Chief's removal........

Can you imagine it? The Best Chief Dance Contest at the tailgating parties!!! A radio station could sponsor it and maybe Flex n' Gate could chip in a few tickets to Disney World or something? Maybe an all-expense paid trip to the Indianopolis Museum of Native Americans with two free Pacers tickets! Oskeewowwow!

While the antics of "chief" supporters sometimes can be amusing, such behavior is mostly a depressing example of how the "chief" represents what is essentially a "Little Red Sambo" akin to other disturbing cultural exercises such as blackface and minstrelry.

That some are now suggestng such antics could happen is a strong argument against some of the options available in how the University should extricate itself from the maintaining a legacy based on the use of a racist mascot. Some have said that the University should transfer the rights to the "chief's" image to an "independent" alumni group. But this would simply be one more example of the University again refusing to take responsibility for the pernicious influence of the "chief" on the student body and society. Only if the University maintains effective legal control of any future use -- or, let's be frank, initiating a policy of total non-use of the "chief's" image -- will it really be able to say that it did the right thing. Only by retaining legal control, but _not_ permitting any future use, of the "chief's" image will it solve the problem that the BoT has created by their glacial decisionmkaing process on this issue, whatever it's outcome.

There can be no evasion of future responsibility for ending the abusive nature of the mascot if the BoT truly wants to begin a new, and less racially offensive, chapter in the University's history.

IMO, this includes an absolute ban on any future commercial use of the "chief" by any party nor should any use be permitted of any kind that even appears by either action or inaction to allow the "chief" to dance, inside or outside the stadium or in any venue that is within the University's control.

This is also why some of the News-Gazette's suggestions on what to do with the "chief" legacy on its Sunday editorial page is equally problematic. I have no problem with putting a few items that depict the nature of the use of this racist mascot on display in a properly educational setting. After all, you will sometimes see KKK robes in museums, placed in an accurate historical context of course.

But to suggest, as the N-G did, that such a museum setting should be arrayed around "honoring" the "chief's" memory is patently objectionable and would represent nothing less than the maintenance and continuation of this misleading mythology. Sure, a museum could note that some saw the "chief" as a positive influence, but only if it was pointed out that the reason that the "chief" is gone is because his image became an increasingly divisive influence and that the negative racial implications of maintaining such a figure were incompatible with the University's mission.

(According to http://www2.ic.edu/cochran/ClassPages/208Sp02/Daum/daum-index.html)
In the second paragraph, it says the U of I returned the feathers and is using dyed turkey feathers.