Where does one draw the line between honoring a group of individuals and discriminating against them? It doesn't seem like it should be that hard, does it? Should be easy enough to tell if you are discriminating against someone or honoring them. Yet, something that would seem like an easy problem to solve has evolved into a heavily disputed argument. This controversy involves the representation of Native Americans on athletic fields as mascots. Many athletic teams and universities, such as the University of Illinois, have a Native American as a mascot. These teams feel the Native American is respected and is honored while Native Americans and other protestors think it is nothing short of racism. Basically what it comes down to is opinions; but everything is opinionated if you think about it. So is one side right and one side wrong? I don't think there is any way to find a perfect solution to this conflict, because it all depends on how you look at it. So the only thing to do is understand both sides of the controversy and then make an educated decision about what you believe in.
             The main point of debate is how and what the mascot is representing. Chief supporters at the University of Illinois believe that Chief Illiniwek stands for honor and tradition. According to a dialogue report to the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Louis Garippo talks about what the Chief stands for. She explains that when Chief Illiniwek was created in 1926 he was to represent "the complete human being- the strong, agile human body, the unfettered human intellect, the indomitable human spirit" (Garippo 7.1). To me, that doesn't seem like an example of racism. For supporters, Chief Illiniwek is more than just a mascot; "he is a nostalgic link for alumni of the University of Illinois and a focal point for school pride and spirit" (Garippo 7.1). On the other hand, how can the supporters feel th...