Analysis Of The Documentary 'In Whose Honor'

In the documentary In Whose Honor? Director Jay Rosenstein focuses on protests of a then University of Illinois graduate student, Charlene Teters. She is a Spokane Indian whose campaign against Chief Illiniwek, mascot of the University of Illinois. The beloved mascot team of University of Illinois, turned a college town upside down and made many people rethink the larger issues of culture and identity. Started in 1926, the mascot has undergone many changes, but has largely remained a very stereotyped Indian image. Initially coming to the U. of Illinois from Santa Fe, and recruited to help bring diversity to the university, she recalls first seeing the Chief at a basketball game, and watching the reaction of her children. On other hand her

daughter tried to "sink into her seat" from embarrassment and her son tried to laugh, but both were embarrassed at being Indian. After her introductory protests, a lot of national Indian parties got with her to protest a hole dimension of sports group.
In her interviews Teters solemnly praises her Native American ancestors for their strength and perseverance: “Our people paid with their very lives to keep what little we have left. The fact that we even have anything today speaks to the strength of our ancestors”. She feels it is her job to protect and fight for the rights of Native Americans. Teters confesses that if she had known about what she was about to face, she would have never attended the University of Illinois. The whole controversy of chief getting to front of new paper. Indian women children didn’t get entry to foo
The film jumps to a scene from an average Saturday at a University football home game. Home games at the University of Illinois are about more than just football. They are about business, profits, politics and pleasure. Students, faculty, alumni, and townspeople all gather to support the team, the Fighting Illini. “Everywhere is the symbol of University of Illinois, a fictitious Indian American character called Chief Illiniwek,” describes the narrator. The film shows us scenes of tire covers, shirts, tablecloths, and banners stamped with the face of a Native American in a large red headdress.
The next scene is of a student dancing across the football field dressed in Native American garb, and a headdress.

Univ. of Illinois Trustee Susan Gravenhurst claims: “He draws the community, the student body, the faculty together”. An alum of the university, Rick Winkel, believes the Chief’s performance is “nothing but inspiring”. Chief Illiniwek has been the mascot of the school for over 63 years, and in that time, no one stopped to ask how Native Americans feel about that. All that changed in 1989 when Charlene Teters attending a basketball game with her children.
Teters was reluctant about attending a university basketball game so she warned her children beforehand what they would see. What she was not able to warn her children about how they would feel. The chief came out in buckskin, a long-feathered headdress, and performed what was considered at the time an authentic Indian dance. Upon seeing the chief Teters’ children sunk in their seats. “I saw my daughter try to become invisible.” Tethers explains as she fights back tears. In that moment Teters realized she could no longer be a bystander to what she was witnessing. She needed to address the

issue.
Using a fictitious Native American Chief as a mascot in sports can be recognized as cultural appropriation.

Cultural appropriation is defined as the “use of one culture’s symbols, artifacts, genres, rituals, or technologies by members of another culture— regardless of intent, ethics, function, or outcome” (Rogers P. 476). When Native American symbols are used as mascots in sport, it is appropriating their culture. Teters explains that her “children have been taught to respect the person who has earned the right to wear an eagle feathered headdress”. In her interview Teters talks about what it was like being raised in Spokane, Washington, nearby a reservation. She was taught to have the highest respect for the eagle feathers, the chief, the dance, and the face paint. All those elements were sacred in Teter’s community, and she raised her children with those same values.
Teter’s fight began after that fateful basketball game. She began holding protests on the campus, often alone. She suffered through ridicule and threats from students who disagreed with her cause. One October night in 1989 the current Chief Illiniwek decided to give a talk at the student union about the history and tradition of the chief. As Teters arrives at the event she sees Chief Illiniwek headdress being held up like a trophy. When it is Teters moment to talk the media turns their microphones and cameras on

her.
The film transitions into a narrative about Chief Illiniwek and his history at the University of Illinois. Upbeat big band music plays while we learn about the evolution of the chief. Chief Illiniwek was creating in 1926 merely as a halftime stunt. He garnered such a positive response from students that students continued to pass down the role of the Chief. As years passed the craze with the Chief only escalated. The University landscape was covered in Native American caricatures with stereotypical features like large nose, and ears. In an instant the music becomes somber while the narrator reminds us what else was happening in these times. The film pauses on images of University of Illinois students and TV personalities wearing black faces. Striking similarities are raised between Chief Illiniwek and extinct racist stereotypes such as Little Black Samba and Frito Bandito. This film remind that it helps us to remember the people who lived on this land long before the university was never dreamed of.