American Indians as a mascot

Today we watched a clip from the documentary about use of Indian caricatures as a mascot in the United States. The part of the documentary that we saw mainly concerned experience of Charlene Teters, and her struggles of trying to deliver a message that native indians should not be a mascot.

After the clip, several classmates had made their own points and experience related to the documentary. Aside from their own experiences, some had questioned validity of Teter's claims, and if I remember correctly, I presume that they had hard time understanding why Teter was offended by University of Illinois mascot, illini.

True, on the surface, Teter's reaction towards her kids responding to Illini mascot during halftime may seem too drastic. Yet however, one could not argue against Teter for having logic behind her claims.

If we were to weigh Teter, and University of Illinois representatives and their fans solely on a subject that states "Does having native indian mascots insult native americans?" It is certain that Teter's argument will be considered more rigid.

Before anything else, she is a "real" representation of what University of Illinois is represented as in basketball games; such an irony for both Teter, and the university. It is as if followers of islam is arguing against prophet Muhammad himself, to protect their own interpretation of Koran. Although such comparison may be drastic, I believe they only differ in degrees , still applicable in terms of fundamental concept. Likewise, she has more to say in the matter than the other.

If Teter had felt differently in the past, the problem may had been avoided. Teter and University of Illinois would not have collided if Teter felt University of Illinois had presented the chief in correct terms and circumstances. Again, she is the one that is being offended, and she has every right to revolt against it. Although she may not be a representative for entire native indian population, it is certain that general opinion on the matter is not much different than that of Teter.

Even more, there already exists a previous examples such as disappearance of black caricutures in market businesses. University of Illinois misinterpreted and misrepresented native indian chief, and they used this unelaborate presentation of chief for their own benefits and purposes. How does one not listen to Teter's argument?