Another Stereotype of the Month entry:

Rob's reply
First of all, let's note that Skeet didn't address the argument that the prancing Chief Illiniwek is a clownish stereotype. His failure to address this central issue is telling.

Since he can't attack the message, he blames the messengers, calling them a "powerful grievance industry." It's a transparent debate dodge used by those who have no worthy arguments.

I covered the "waste of time," "political correctness," and "Indians support mascots" arguments in Why FSU's Seminoles Aren't Okay. My responses to these arguments remain valid.

The Sports Illustrated poll is bogus, since it's impossible to poll Native Americans accurately. See The Sports Illustrated Poll on Mascots for details.

You gotta love the list of organizations Skeet considers part of the "grievance industry." Apparently Skeet believes there are no political prisoners (Amnesty International), no disparities in education (the NEA), and no racism (the NAACP). Must be nice to live in Fantasyland with a fairy-tale attitude.

Actually, these organizations have broad, inclusive missions. In particular, the National Congress of American Indians represents almost every Indian on almost every issue. It's a "special interest" only in the sense that all Indians are a special interest.

The 12-year-old opinion of a former Peoria chief is irrelevant. What matters is the current opinion of the entire Peoria Tribe. This resolution makes the tribe's position clear:

The anti-Illiniwek activists would've accepted changes to the Chief's dance and costume, but the University of Illinois and fanatics like Skeet opposed any compromise. Skeet is fabricating history if he thinks the school offered a compromise and the activists turned it down.

Skeet is wrong about the Pledge of Allegiance too. The Supreme Court ruled it legal despite its obvious violation of the 1st Amendment.

Skeet's "pride and comradeship" argument is as worthless this time as the last thousand times someone offered it. See Smashing People:  the "Honor" of Being an Athlete for why.

I explained the differences between the Fighting Irish and the Fighting Sioux (and Fighting Illini) in my Fighting Sioux vs. Fighting Irish posting.

In conclusion, Skeet seems to be the only one who's whining here. Boo-hoo, you big baby. You'll have to live without your stereotypical mascot. Try not to hurt yourself with your "juvenile, desperate, and ridiculous" tantrum.

See the original posting for more comments on Skeet's diatribe.

Skeet replies
On 7/18/07, Christopher Skeet e-mailed me the following reply. He prefaced it by quoting the remarks above. (FYI, these remarks were actually a compilation of short comments I posted at the end of Skeet's original essay.)

Now, I'd like to respond. If I may.

First, I noticed you didn't respond to me directly, probably in hopes that your criticism of my article would go unnoticed. Let me say that I don't mind criticism. I welcome it actually, so long as it is constructive and logical. Yours failed on both counts.

As I look over your "reply", if I dare degrade the word, there's not much to reply to. Your profile says you are 49 years old. And this is how you respond? Your reply is one long silly mud-sling I'd expect to hear on a grade school playground, not from some (presumably) educated activist working to promote a serious cause. Nonetheless, I'll sink down to your level and respond to the best of my abilities.

First and foremost, you obviously missed the entire point of my article, which was that it would behoove the Native American community to focus on more pressing issues, such as unemployment and poverty. In this, I "attacked the message" quite directly. You obviously disagree. That is fine. We have the right to disagree. If you think college mascots are the biggest obstacles the Native American community faces, go right ahead. On that note, I have a bridge to sell you.

I stand by my assertion that the groups I listed constitute a self-perpetuating, power-driven grievance industry. In your suggestion that political prisoners exist (I assume you mean within the U.S. prison system...we're well aware that they exist in Cuba, Iran, and other actual dictatorships), if you could be so kind as to name a few without resorting to the standard college socialist responses such as Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier, etc. The facts of those cases are well known, and it's my opinion that remorseless murderers belong behind bars regardless of their ethnicity or political affiliation. Unfortuantely, there are too many extremists out there who want certain "political" prisoners released, regardless of their crimes, because it would be considered a victory for their particular ideology.

Amnesty International has proven itself time and time again to be an agenda-driven organization, favoring specifically radical left-wing causes. Of course, Amnesty International has every right to do so, but to designate it a neutral organization would be to support a lie in which fewer and fewer people believe.

There certainly exists racism, and I never suggested anything close to the contrary. The NAACP, however, owes its existence to the perpetuation of said racism, as do self-appointed "leaders" such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The NAACP has morphed from supporting civil rights into yet another "group rights" organization. If you seriously need explained to you the dangers of separating this country into groups, each with separate rights, then please stop reading right now. You will not comprehend anything more I have to say. As far as the NAACP is concerned, the fact that its membership is the lowest its been in decades should be telling as to how many black Americans support the organization.

The NEA? Are you serious? The NEA is the biggest cause of "disparities in education". The NEA is one of the most powerful unions in the country, concerned more with their own benefits and pay hikes than the education of our nation's children. Riddle me this, Rob. Why is it that teachers at private schools get paid less and receive less benefits, yet their pupils come out smarter than those from public schools? It seems the more money we dump into public schools, the worse they get. The NEA, by the way, is consistently instrumental in blocking school voucher programs, programs which, if enacted, would benefit the poorest students from the worst public schools.

In short, there are political prisoners, there are disparities in education, and there is racism. But in your hyper attempt to point the finger and pass blame, you've attacked the wrong sources. And instead of backing up your assertions with any sort of facts or evidence, you wrapped up your argument with, "Must be nice to live in Fantasyland with a fairy-tale attitude". Very sophisticated, Rob. You're 49, you say?

"The 12-year-old opinion of a former Peoria chief is irrelevant", you claim. Hmm...not sure he would agree with you. He's a Native American, after all, so his opinion regarding Indian affairs should matter somewhat. Or does his opinion not count because it doesn't agree with yours? Maybe he shouldn't be allowed to vote in elections, Rob, since his opinion is "irrelevant". What say you? Maybe he should be denied the freedom of speech and press because his opinion is "irrelevant". Your type of thinking...that opinions different than your own should be silenced, censored, and ignored...is dangerous to the principles of democracy, free thought, and human rights.

"The Sports Illustrated poll is bogus", you claim, and this is your strongest point (which isn't saying much). ALL polls are bogus, in that no poll can ever be 100% accurate unless 100% of the population being studied is polled. Even then, people can intentionally lie in their answers to sway the poll's results.

I'm not "fabricating history" (please cite examples if you think so) and I'm not a "fanatic" who "opposed any compromise". Personally, I don't care an inkling for school spirit, and I don't attend school sporting events. Whether the University of Illinois has a mascot at all does not concern me.

You claim the Pledge of Allegiance is an "obvious violation of the 1st Amendment". Oh, so now you're a defender of the U.S. Constitution? Great! Welcome to our side. But regardless, the Supreme Court consists of nine judges whose entire lives have been devoted to the study and practice of U.S. and Constitutional law. Methinks they've a better grip on the subject of constitutionality than you do, my friend. Despite the efforts of Michael Newdow and a tiny fringe minority of militant atheists, the Pledge of Allegiance is legal and will remain so for the foreseeable future. I agree with you that the courts should not be legislating, but without activist judges I don't see how the far left could achieve any of its goals here in the United States.

As for your defense of the "Fighting Irish" mascot, have you discussed the matter with any Irish? I myself am of Irish descent. Have you discussed the matter with me? You assume I don't take offense because of your loose translation of the term "fighting" as it relates to Irish culture and history. But have you really bothered to consult with Irish-Americans before assuming their position on the matter? Or are their opinions, as you like to say, "irrelevant"?

Your comparison of George Bush with Adolf Hitler is stale, unoriginal, and quite frankly, extremely childish and ignorant. Regardless of your opinion of Bush, to compare him to one of history's worst dictators is irresponsible and insulting. Bush is a democratically elected leader whose policies you personally disagree with. Bush will step down from office in January 2009, for the next elected president. Hitler was never elected, he was appointed chancellor in 1933 by the Reichstag. He immediately set about securing absolute power, which he attained through a series of emergency laws and decrees. But despite your seeming admiration for the man's alleged leadership characteristics, Hitler was not "bold", "fearless", or "uncompromising". He was actually an extremely indecisive man who preferred to let events work themselves out rather than make any difficult decisions. Had you taken the initiative to inform yourself of some basic history instead of trying to score cheap, empty political points, you may have known this.

In conclusion, you need to come at me with something alot better than what you did if you intend on winning any sort of debate. I've already wasted enough time responding to your infantile rant. I'm living just fine without my "stereotypical mascot". Let me ask you something though, Rob (can I call you Rob? I didn't even ask. How rude). Now that you've won your little mascot battle with the University of Illinois, has the status of the Native American community drastically improved? No? Hmm....perhaps if you'd been spending your time tackling actual problems, the Native Americans you claim to care so much about might be doing a little better. As it stands, there still exists severe problems for Native Americans. But hey! Rob helped get rid of the evil mascot!!! And at the end of the day, that's what's most important, right Rob? Sticking it to "the man"! It's just like the 60's, bro!

There's something hilariously ironic about being called a "big baby" by a 49-year-old man who writes comic books for a living. By the way, how are sales going Rob? Skyrocketing as usual? Are your Blue Corn Comics just FLYING off the shelf? Stan Lee, eat your heart out? You up for a Pulitzer yet? No? Hmm....perhaps it's time for you to get a real job, Rob. An office job though...no manual labor of any kind. You're above that, I know. Leave the manual labor to the cretinous masses whom you secretly despise yet claim to fight for. And besides, we wouldn't want to ruin your precious manicure, now would we? Is Starbucks hiring, Rob? Chipotle? Whatever upscale, cultured haunt you frequent in which upper class, white leftist burnouts moan about how the world would be a better place if only everyone else would just LISTEN to them?

If you wish to have a serious, mature debate about this issue, feel free to respond to this. If not, I consider the matter closed, and I wish you good luck in your future endeavors. And I mean that, most sincerely.

Christopher Skeet

Let the debate begin
Christopher,

>> Now, I'd like to respond. If I may. <<

Go ahead. And then I'll respond to you.

>> First, I noticed you didn't respond to me directly, probably in hopes that your criticism of my article would go unnoticed. <<

You think I posted my comments publicly rather than e-mail them to you because I didn't want people to notice them? Don't be ridiculous. If I had wanted them to go unnoticed, I would've e-mailed them to you and not posted them publicly.

Actually, I didn't e-mail them to you because it's pointless to try educating people one person at a time. It's a waste of time. I posted them publicly to reach the greatest number of people in hopes of educating them all.

>> I welcome it actually, so long as it is constructive and logical. Yours failed on both counts. <<

Helping you understand your mistakes and omissions so you won't replicate them is constructive.

>> As I look over your "reply", if I dare degrade the word, there's not much to reply to. <<

Kind of like your original column then, eh? Good, so it shouldn't taken you long to reply, and I won't have to waste much more time educating you. One can only hope.

>> Your reply is one long silly mud-sling I'd expect to hear on a grade school playground, not from some (presumably) educated activist working to promote a serious cause. <<

Actually, it was a series of short replies, not one long anything. Oops.

Posting information on the Peoria resolution, the Sports Illustrated poll, and several other core issues is a "silly mud-sling"? A worthless opinion, but okay, if you say so.

>> First and foremost, you obviously missed the entire point of my article, which was that it would behoove the Native American community to focus on more pressing issues, such as unemployment and poverty. <<

I didn't miss it. I addressed it when I wrote:

I covered the "waste of time," "political correctness," and "Indians support mascots" arguments in Why FSU's Seminoles Aren't Okay. My responses to these arguments remain valid.

But it's true I concentrated on your false or misleading assertions rather than your "waste of time" argument. That's because I addressed it on my website and don't like to repeat myself.

In fact, I've addressed the so-called point of your column so often that I'm tired of it. But I'll do it again for your sake. It's your opinion only that issues such as unemployment and poverty are more pressing. Many Natives believe these issues are inextricably linked to the pervasive racism and stereotyping in America. Here's what some of them have said on the point:

You can find more such quotes under The Harm of Native Stereotyping:  Facts and Evidence.

Mascots the biggest obstacle?
>> If you think college mascots are the biggest obstacles the Native American community faces, go right ahead. On that note, I have a bridge to sell you. <<

I think people are perfectly capable of addressing many issues at the same time. It's called multitasking. That's how I can post information on suicide and alcoholism as well as on sports mascots.

I doubt there are many mascot opponents who don't also care about and work on other Native issues. But if you can find such a singleminded advocate, let me know.

>> I stand by my assertion that the groups I listed constitute a self-perpetuating, power-driven grievance industry. <<

And I stand by my criticism of your assertion.

>> In your suggestion that political prisoners exist (I assume you mean within the U.S. prison system...we're well aware that they exist in Cuba, Iran, and other actual dictatorships), if you could be so kind as to name a few without resorting to the standard college socialist responses such as Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier, etc. <<

You're the one who gave Amnesty International as an example, not me. Therefore, why should we limit ourselves to US political prisoners? You implied AI is part of the "grievance industry"—i.e., that it's manufacturing the cause of political prisoners (here or overseas) to gain something (money? power?) in the US.

If you're "aware" that AI is addressing legitimate cases of political prisoners overseas, then how is it part of an illegitimate "grievance industry"? See, you're the only one who's being illogical here. You want to attack AI as part of your diatribe, but when I call you on it, you back off and suggest AI isn't part of the "grievance industry" after all.

Well, which is it? Either it is or isn't part of your "grievance industry." Pick one answer and stick with it.

If you meant to say that only a small part of AI is in the "grievance industry"—that the vast majority of its work is legitimate and admirable—you failed to do so. This is why I'm a 49-year-old writer and you're not. I know how to express myself clearly.

Your question about political prisoners in the US is irrelevant, but I'll answer it anyway. According to many reports, most of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are innocent of the charges against them. But we can't be sure, because they're being held incommunicado and denied their rights under the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. That makes them political prisoners.

>> The facts of those cases are well known, and it's my opinion that remorseless murderers belong behind bars regardless of their ethnicity or political affiliation. <<

Wow, what a courageous stand you've taken here. It's so brave that even I can't disagree with it.

>> Unfortuantely, there are too many extremists out there who want certain "political" prisoners released, regardless of their crimes, because it would be considered a victory for their particular ideology. <<

I don't particularly care about Mumia Abu-Jamal. Leonard Peltier may be guilty but I doubt he got a fair trail. Justice would be giving him a new trial and convicting him or not based on all the facts and evidence.

>> Amnesty International has proven itself time and time again to be an agenda-driven organization, favoring specifically radical left-wing causes. <<

There you go. Here's evidence that you don't think the cause of freeing political prisoners overseas, AI's primary goal, is legitimate. Just as I thought.

>> Of course, Amnesty International has every right to do so, but to designate it a neutral organization would be to support a lie in which fewer and fewer people believe. <<

Neutral? There's absolutely no requirement that an advocacy organization be neutral. Few of them are, since they're championing a cause opposed by many people.

Name an advocacy organization that fights for a political or social cause but is "neutral," in your opinion. Good luck with your answer.

>> There certainly exists racism, and I never suggested anything close to the contrary. The NAACP, however, owes its existence to the perpetuation of said racism, as do self-appointed "leaders" such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. <<

The NAACP is one of the leading organizations, if not the leading organization, devoted to combatting racism. Yet you've chosen to single it out as part of the "grievance industry." That strongly implies that everyone else combatting racism is also part of the "grievance industry."

If you disagree, name all the advocacy organizations fighting racism that you believe are not part of your fictitious "grievance industry." Again, good luck with your answer.

>> The NAACP has morphed from supporting civil rights into yet another "group rights" organization. <<

Hm-mm, sure. So you're not a typical right-wing bigot who opposes every effort to recognize and fight racism? Good, then it'll be easy for you to list lots of efforts to recognize and fight racism that aren't part of the "grievance industry." Go ahead...I'm waiting.

>> If you seriously need explained to you the dangers of separating this country into groups, each with separate rights, then please stop reading right now. <<

Are you talking about how the biggest self-interest group—white Christian males—go out of their way to maintain their stranglehold on power and keep others out? No, probably not.

I don't need the "dangers" explained because they're nonexistent—a figment of your imagination. Our nation was founded by ethnic groups who were proud of their heritage and happy to denigrate and attack people of other heritages. The country was riven by these group differences: religious persecution, the Civil War, the Indian Wars, race and immigrant riots, etc. There's never been a time when the US was more tolerant of its diverse racial and religious groups than it is today.

I explained all this in postings such as Outside the So-Called Ethnic Box almost ten years ago. I imagine you were a snot-nosed kid then who had never heard of racism or the NAACP. But if you have an argument I haven't read and refuted 100 times, let's see it.

Really, son, you're beginning to bore me here. I guess you're too young to realize that anyone over 30 has heard these pathetic assertions many, many times. I won't even call them arguments because they have no substance whatsoever. They're the most worthless of worthless opinions.

You don't like how the country is growing increasingly diverse and multicultural so you squeal like a stuck pig...yawn. That may have been a novel "argument" when Richard Nixon complained about blacks and Jews in the '70s or Pat Buchanan launched the culture wars in the '90s, but it's old news now. Come up with a fresh argument that isn't double or triple your age so I don't fall asleep here.

NEA responsible for bad education?
>> The NEA? Are you serious? The NEA is the biggest cause of "disparities in education". <<

I love the way you put "disparities in education" in quotes as if it's not real. I'm surprised you didn't put "racism" and "political prisoners" in quotes also.

The NEA is the biggest cause? Then what's the second biggest cause? Show me you don't believe the disparities are just another manufactured "grievance."

Again, tell me all the educational organizations that fight disparities in education but aren't part of the "grievance industry." I'm betting you can't, which will prove my point.

>> Why is it that teachers at private schools get paid less and receive less benefits, yet their pupils come out smarter than those from public schools? <<

One, that's an exaggeration if not a myth. See articles such as these for details:

Two, the reasons for this alleged superiority are well-known. Prominent among them is the fact that private schools don't have to deal with poor kids from troubled backgrounds who don't speak English well. But hidebound unions are also part of the problem and few people deny that.

Again, if you meant to say that the NEA is devoted to protecting its members but thousands of other educational organizations are fighting the real problem of disparities in income, you failed. By attacking the biggest and most well-known educational organization, you implied its stated mission—to provide great schools and the funding they require—is illegitimate.

If you need help saying what you mean the next time you write, just let me know. I'll give your column my professional evaluation free of charge.

>> It seems the more money we dump into public schools, the worse they get. <<

It seems that way because you're a conservative ideologue who is regurgitating talking points from Fox News rather than looking at the evidence. If you had researched and read articles like the ones I just listed, you wouldn't be so adamant about your position. And you wouldn't be spouting off so ignorantly in your columns.

>> The NEA, by the way, is consistently instrumental in blocking school voucher programs, programs which, if enacted, would benefit the poorest students from the worst public schools. <<

Vouchers are another conservative talking point and another joke. Actually, the evidence for them is mixed at best. But you don't care about the evidence, obviously.

>> In short, there are political prisoners, there are disparities in education, and there is racism. <<

Judging by your "Whining Illini" column...no, there aren't. You implied all these causes are part of the "grievance industry." You didn't give any examples of legitimate advocacy organizations that aren't part of the "grievance industry."

>> And instead of backing up your assertions with any sort of facts or evidence, you wrapped up your argument with, "Must be nice to live in Fantasyland with a fairy-tale attitude". <<

Yep. A letter to the editor or comment on a Web posting is meant to state one's position quickly and provocatively, not to provide a detailed case. I referred readers to the pages on my website where I've presented many detailed cases. Read them and address them if you can.

>> Very sophisticated, Rob. You're 49, you say? <<

Yep. And how old are you...19?

Most people probably couldn't guess my age based on my sophisticated but youthful writing style. I'm glad you agree with them. That style has helped me stay in business as a freelance writer.

>> "The 12-year-old opinion of a former Peoria chief is irrelevant", you claim. Hmm...not sure he would agree with you. <<

A tribe is the final arbiter of whether a school can use its name on a sports team. The former Peoria chief's opinion is irrelevant to that final arbitration. It's not irrelevant to the debate as a whole, but it's only one opinion on that matter. It carries no more weight than anyone else's opinion about whether the University of Illinois can use the "Illini" name.

>> He's a Native American, after all, so his opinion regarding Indian affairs should matter somewhat. <<

The issue in question wasn't "Indian affairs" or even "sports mascots." It was "Who speaks for the descendants of the Illini Indians about whether the University of Illinois can use the 'Illini' name?" Answer: The present Peoria tribe, not the former Peoria chief.

>> Or does his opinion not count because it doesn't agree with yours? Maybe he shouldn't be allowed to vote in elections, Rob, since his opinion is "irrelevant". What say you? Maybe he should be denied the freedom of speech and press because his opinion is "irrelevant". Your type of thinking...that opinions different than your own should be silenced, censored, and ignored...is dangerous to the principles of democracy, free thought, and human rights. <<

So there's "not much to reply to" in my comments, but you're wasting time writing these long paragraphs of irrelevant verbiage? Illogical.

Luckily, I don't have time to waste, unlike you. You misunderstood the issue so your response is irrelevant. I addressed the actual issue with my response above.

Nice try to shift the issue from the Peoria Tribe's resolution to the former chief's opinion. I guess you were hoping I wouldn't notice that you failed to address my argument. Too bad...I noticed. Try again.

"All polls are bogus"
>> "The Sports Illustrated poll is bogus", you claim, and this is your strongest point (which isn't saying much). ALL polls are bogus, in that no poll can ever be 100% accurate unless 100% of the population being studied is polled. Even then, people can intentionally lie in their answers to sway the poll's results. <<

Great, so you're not totally out of touch with reality (e.g., facts, evidence, statistical methods). Too bad you didn't take this position in your whining essay—er, I mean your "Whining" essay.

>> I'm not "fabricating history" (please cite examples if you think so) and I'm not a "fanatic" who "opposed any compromise". <<

Most of your column is a fabrication of history as far as I'm concerned. You've fabricated the historical intent of organizations such as Amnesty International, the NAACP, and the NEA. Not to mention the thousands of Native organizations and individuals who oppose Indian mascots for legitimate reasons. You've ignored their legitimate reasons and instead fabricated a motivation for them: to perpetuate a "grievance industry."

How about the thousands of University of Illinois students, faculty members, and alumni who oppose Chief Illiniwek? Are they also part of the "grievance industry"? Give me an example of someone who opposes Chief Illiniwek for sincere reasons—i.e., who isn't part of the "grievance industry."

>> You claim the Pledge of Allegiance is an "obvious violation of the 1st Amendment". Oh, so now you're a defender of the U.S. Constitution? Great! <<

Yep. Just like most liberals, who clearly care about civil rights more than most conservatives. Which is why conservatives think the ACLU is a "liberal" organization even though it frequently opposes "liberal" positions. And why the conservative Bush administration has orchestrated the biggest assault on our rights since the conservative Nixon administration.

>> Welcome to our side. <<

I've been arguing for our right to speak and worship freely, to be free of illegal searches and seizures, etc. since before you were born, sonny. Welcome to the civil rights movement I first experienced in the 1960s.

>> But regardless, the Supreme Court consists of nine judges whose entire lives have been devoted to the study and practice of U.S. and Constitutional law. Methinks they've a better grip on the subject of constitutionality than you do, my friend. <<

Hm-mm, sure. That's why they split on so many issues with 5-4 votes, with conservative justices on one side and liberal justices on the other. Yep, it's because they're all reading the law impartially, without political bias. Wow, are you really this naive?

>> Despite the efforts of Michael Newdow and a tiny fringe minority of militant atheists, the Pledge of Allegiance is legal and will remain so for the foreseeable future. <<

Yes, because conservative judges control most of our courts despite the whining of you conservatives about "liberal activists."

>> I agree with you that the courts should not be legislating, but without activist judges I don't see how the far left could achieve any of its goals here in the United States. <<

Without activist judges, Al Gore would've been president in 2000. Or are you totally ignorant of how the Supreme Court ignored precedence and states' rights to rule in Bush's favor?

We would've achieved a lot more of our goals if Gore had succeeded Bill Clinton as president. Which would've happened if the right wing hadn't invented impeachment charges against Clinton. We also would've achieved more if Bush's incompetence hadn't let 9/11 occur on his watch. The resulting war that Bush concocted was about the only way he could've reversed his failing presidency and won in 2004.

But don't you worry your pretty little head about us liberals. Once the voters saw through Bush's lies, we and they crushed the opposition in the 2006 elections. This trend is likely to continue in 2008.

>> As for your defense of the "Fighting Irish" mascot, have you discussed the matter with any Irish? <<

Yes. See the Readers Respond section at the end of my Fighting Irish posting for evidence.

Meanwhile, have you discussed it with any Indians? Because I've done that too.

>> Have you discussed the matter with me? You assume I don't take offense because of your loose translation of the term "fighting" as it relates to Irish culture and history. But have you really bothered to consult with Irish-Americans before assuming their position on the matter? Or are their opinions, as you like to say, "irrelevant"? <<

More worthless verbiage. Really, you should try reading the pages I send you to so I won't have to point out your ignorance.

>> Your comparison of George Bush with Adolf Hitler is stale, unoriginal, and quite frankly, extremely childish and ignorant. <<

I don't recall mentioning Bush or Hitler, and they aren't in the list of my comments you helpfully provided. Is this another of your fabrications?

>> Regardless of your opinion of Bush, to compare him to one of history's worst dictators is irresponsible and insulting. <<

Okay, then let's just say he's the worst president ever.

>> Bush is a democratically elected leader whose policies you personally disagree with. <<

Actually, he was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2000. He short-circuited the democratic process by begging the conservative activists on the Supreme Court to save his butt. See Antonin Scalia:  Supreme Court Doofus for more information.

Comparing Bush and Hitler
>> He immediately set about securing absolute power, which he attained through a series of emergency laws and decrees. <<

You're talking about Hitler here, not Bush, right?

>> But despite your seeming admiration for the man's alleged leadership characteristics, Hitler was not "bold", "fearless", or "uncompromising". He was actually an extremely indecisive man who preferred to let events work themselves out rather than make any difficult decisions. <<

With the exception of exterminating the Jews, presumably.

>> Had you taken the initiative to inform yourself of some basic history instead of trying to score cheap, empty political points, you may have known this. <<

I've probably written a lot more about Hitler and his shortcomings than you have. See Adolf Hitler:  A True American for details.

Gee, I'm sure glad that there wasn't much to reply to in my response. Otherwise, you would've gone on and on about things that are totally unrelated to the "Fighting Illini" issue.

>> In conclusion, you need to come at me with something alot better than what you did if you intend on winning any sort of debate. <<

That's funny. I think you need to "come at me" with something better than your original essay or this response. Sadly, you haven't rebutted a single one of my points.

You didn't even address many of them—presumably because you couldn't. So I'll simply repeat them and see if you can do better next time:

First of all, let's note that Skeet didn't address the argument that the prancing Chief Illiniwek is a clownish stereotype. His failure to address this central issue is telling.

Since he can't attack the message, he blames the messengers, calling them a "powerful grievance industry." It's a transparent debate dodge used by those who have no worthy arguments.

I covered the "waste of time," "political correctness," and "Indians support mascots" arguments in Why FSU's Seminoles Aren't Okay. My responses to these arguments remain valid.

Actually, these organizations have broad, inclusive missions. In particular, the National Congress of American Indians represents almost every Indian on almost every issue. It's a "special interest" only in the sense that all Indians are a special interest.

The anti-Illiniwek activists would've accepted changes to the Chief's dance and costume, but the University of Illinois and fanatics like Skeet opposed any compromise. Skeet is fabricating history if he thinks the school offered a compromise and the activists turned it down.

Skeet's "pride and comradeship" argument is as worthless this time as the last thousand times someone offered it. See Smashing People:  the "Honor" of Being an Athlete for why.

>> I've already wasted enough time responding to your infantile rant. <<

Which is ironic considering you introduced your reply with your gratuitous "there's not much to reply to" remark. Luckily I knew you'd go on and on about all the things you wanted to reply to even though they supposedly weren't there. It was as predictable as the sunrise.

>> Let me ask you something though, Rob (can I call you Rob? I didn't even ask. How rude). <<

Sure, you can call me Rob.

>> Now that you've won your little mascot battle with the University of Illinois, has the status of the Native American community drastically improved? No? <<

I didn't expect the status of the Native American community to improve drastically. There are 500-plus years of injustices to overcome. This is just one of thousands of them. But a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, to coin a phrase.

But the status of Natives is improving generally. Indians are opening more casinos, which boosts their economic standing. They're producing more art—paintings, books, movies, etc.—which helps get their message across. Etc. These things are aided by a climate of respect and acceptance, which is aided by a diminution of racism and stereotyping. Including racist and stereotypical mascots.

Another quote may help make this point:

>> Hmm....perhaps if you'd been spending your time tackling actual problems, the Native Americans you claim to care so much about might be doing a little better. <<

Another worthless opinion. You don't have a clue what I spend most of my time on.

>> As it stands, there still exists severe problems for Native Americans. <<

Ho-hum. See The Worst Native Problem for one response.

>> But hey! Rob helped get rid of the evil mascot!!! And at the end of the day, that's what's most important, right Rob? Sticking it to "the man"! It's just like the 60's, bro! <<

Are you too afraid to address my point: that the prancing Chief Illiniwek is a clownish stereotype? Go ahead and address it or I'll have to conclude you're an intellectual coward.

Skeet gets personal
>> There's something hilariously ironic about being called a "big baby" by a 49-year-old man who writes comic books for a living. <<

There's something hilariously ironic about a blowhard saying there's not much to reply to and then going on and on, page after page, replying to it.

Yeah, I feel terrible to be in the company of such multitalented stars as Frank Miller, Neal Gaiman, Kevin Smith, and Joss Whedon. Boo-hoo...woe is me.

>> By the way, how are sales going Rob? Skyrocketing as usual? <<

They're doing about as well as most self-published comics, thanks. I'll be glad to let you know when we publish the next edition.

No Pulitzer Prize yet, but my comics have been featured in two museum programs so far. Not bad for my humble self-publishing efforts.

>> Hmm....perhaps it's time for you to get a real job, Rob. An office job though...no manual labor of any kind. <<

Says the college student. I've supported myself for almost 30 years. How about you, youngster?

But office jobs aren't real jobs? You aren't prejudiced much, are you? I suppose you think liberal politicians, academicians, and the media control the country, not corrupt Republican politicians and amoral Republican businessmen. Maybe you'll learn better when you grow up.

>> Leave the manual labor to the cretinous masses whom you secretly despise yet claim to fight for. And besides, we wouldn't want to ruin your precious manicure, now would we? Is Starbucks hiring, Rob? Chipotle? Whatever upscale, cultured haunt you frequent in which upper class, white leftist burnouts moan about how the world would be a better place if only everyone else would just LISTEN to them? <<

I'd be happy if only Bush would listen to the majority of Americans. You know, the majority who disagree with him on such issues as stem cell research, environmental protection, and the disastrous war on Iraq?

Anyway, I don't go to Starbucks and I don't get manicures. I've never even heard of Chipotle. I live like a college student. How about you? Are you supporting yourself, or are mommy and daddy paying your way through school?

So you think I'm a rich elitist and also a poor bum who can't hold a real job? Can you say "cognitive dissonance"? Look it up and then explain why your two mutually exclusive beliefs aren't foolish and contradictory.

Actually, people are listening to me, since my website gets 60,000 or so hits a day. That's something like two million page impressions a year. How about you? How does the readership of your "Whining" essay compare to that?

Something about shooting the messenger because you can't handle the message comes to mind here. Oh, yeah...that was the problem with your original screed, too. At least your writing is consistent; it's as weak and whiny in private as it is in public.

>> If you wish to have a serious, mature debate about this issue, feel free to respond to this. <<

Yeah, I can tell that's what you're interested by how you dodged so many of my arguments. Better luck next time, kid. You'll need it.

Rob

Addendum
I think I figured out where Skeet's Bush/Hitler reference came from. It wasn't from one of my comments on Skeet's original essay—the comments reproduced above. Skeet must've gone to my Fighting Irish page and found the following:

This is further evidence that Skeet has some sort of learning deficiency and needs my help. I wasn't comparing Bush and Hitler in any context except as possible mascots. I explicitly listed the qualities I thought would make them good mascots: being bold, fearless, and uncompromising. The only point of this exercise was to ridicule the concept of "honoring" people as mascots—not to denigrate Bush. I've done that enough elsewhere that I don't need to do it here.

Incidentally, it's easy to find claims that Hitler was bold, fearless, and uncompromising. But if you don't like these adjectives, try fierce, warlike, and unforgiving. The point is to show that Bush and Hitler are typical warriors who could serve as typical mascots. It isn't to nitpick at exactly which words describe them best.

Duh. If you don't understand this, Skeetster, perhaps it's not too late. See if your college offers a course in Comprehension 101 and take it ASAP.

Related links
Team names and mascots

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .