While Redskin is certainly an insulting term, Indian is not. The belief that it is is merely a creation of an overly PC America

Each year, a Daily writer stumbles on the mascot storyline, something that's been covered in columns annually for literally the last decade and perhaps longer, and acts as though he's unearthed something new and noteworthy. If you have something new to add to current debates (and this article doesn't), fine, but get over Stanford's mascot history.

"Spudd" conveniently fails to mention the disturbing Native American caricature that was part the "Stanford Indian." If you haven't been privy to it, just find a tailgater of older alums. Someone there will have the audacity to sport a button, label, etc. with it.
What organization, particularly a university, has the right to adopt and maintain Native Americans as a mascot, be it a caricature or some "noble" version?
The article references Stanford's history but is primarily about the appropriateness of Indian mascots in general. We'll get "over it" once the American League team decides to alter its own and when stubborn Stanford alums relegate their version to the dusty corners of their attics.

"The Chief danced for the last time in February of this year at a U of I basketball game."

The dance of Chief Illiniwek at U of I games was always tactfully done and I thought it was an appropriate recognition of this country's fusion of American Indian and European cultures.

"His death came as a result of the NCAA effectively banning the use of all 'hostile and abusive' Native American imagery by its member schools."

Sam, I know you didn't mean this, but reading this sentence leads me to believe that the NCAA is most 'hostile and abusive' to the Indians themselves. After all, they killed Chief Illiniwek.

As someone with Cherokee and Algonquin lineage, it is my observation that the PC police on college campuses will not be satisfied until all American Indian heritage is eradicated from the national landscape.

I'm beginning to realize that the vast majority of academia is uncomfortable with Indians and their traditions in their midst. I'm not sure why - perhaps they don't want to be tortured by their "White Guilt." To them, American Indian culture should be solely preserved in museums and books or observed on the reservation like some fascinating foreign species in a zoo.

Believe me, Sam, Stephen Kaufman has an agenda. Those are his figures. Ask most Illini fans and they will tell you the only "hostile and abusive" person around these parts is Stephen Kaufman himself. I would seriously question any statistic he throws out there. There is also a famous Sports Illustrated study done several years ago that said that most American Indians really didn't care or don't have a problem with Native American mascots or, in the case of Chief Illiniwek, an honored and respected SYMBOL. But, as somebody else pointed out, those on campus obsessed with PC seem determined to rid us of OUR history.

This is interesting b/c there's a whole discussion regarding the UND "Fighting Sioux" mascot going on in North Dakota right now. I am an alumni of both UND and Stanford and had to deal with the racism inherent to Native American mascots at both places (although most of my time at Stanford and UND was great). During my time in med school at Stanford (93-98), the Stanford Review tried to resurrect the Stanford "Indian" mascot and use it's associated caricature within it's paper. So I'm sure people like that will continue to make those attempts very 5 years or so. It is good to remember that even Stanford has it's own history of racism. We cannot forget our past or we will repeat it. Eventually UND will get the picture or be forced by the rest of the enlightened world to give up ownership of the identity of Native American people. Another Stanford alumni who has actually done research on this issue, Stephanie Fryberg, is cited on the following website: http://www.aistm.org/1indexpage.htm.