In Whose Honor Literature Analysis

The film “In Whose Honor” follows the activism of Charlene Teters, a brave Native American woman who fought for the respect of her culture. Teters made the move from Santa Fe, New Mexico to the University of Illinois after being recruited by their art department to add diversity (Rosenstein, 1997). Upon arrival, she was told to be quiet, get her degree, and attempt to ignore the mockery of her culture and spirituality (Rosenstein, 1997). Teters, raised in a traditional Native American community, attempted to follow this advice but after taking her children to see a basketball game at the university, she could no longer bite her tongue at the pure mockery and trivialization of her culture and tradition (Rosenstein, 1997). The University of
Symbols tend to unite individual members of a group together, a positive act of solidarity. At the same time, symbols have a negative impact as they separate one group from another, an example clearly seen within the world of gangs where symbols are often tattooed on the body to declare membership. Eitzen (2016) in Fair and Foul examines the way in which some symbols such as names, mascots, logos, and flags chosen by institutions such as schools may be derogatory to some other groups (Eitzen, 2016). It is clear that in the case of Teters and the University of Illinois the use of a Native American in the form of a caricature for a logo, the use of a Native American for a mascot, and the use of Native American practices such as dress, dance, and music were degrading and belittling to a living people’s spirituality and way of life (Rosenstein, 1997). Supporters of the symbol Chief Illiniwek declared that Native Americans should be honored to have their people and culture displayed as brave, resourceful, and strong as the mascot is a tribute to their culture (Eitzen, 2016). Teters and those who oppose the use of Native Americans as symbols for sport, argue that the mascot is a symbolic leader, another way for the white men in power to show their ownership over indigenous people (Rosenstein, 1997). It is difficult for people to see Chief Illiniwek
This change in heart by institutions may also be linked to the NCAA declaring in 2005 that teams with Native American nicknames would be prohibited from hosting NCAA postseason contests and from competing in games while wearing the logo (Eitzen, 2016). Although, the NCAA ruled that the Native American nickname and mascot would be acceptable and the institution would not face penalties as long as the school had received permission and approval from the specific Native American tribe to utilize the symbol (Eitzen, 2016). Despite this ruling some schools, such as the University of Dakota, resisted and continued on the argument that the Native American nickname is part of the school heritage, despite most schools not having a Native American heritage or even a significant student population of Native Americans (Eitzen, 2016). Perhaps the biggest resistance to change to prevent cultural appropriation and mockery comes from the world of professional sports. The NFL Washington “Redskins” franchise has openly expressed their position on the use of Native American nicknames for sport teams with Daniel Snyder, the team owner, expressing that they will never change the team name (Eitzen, 2016). The biggest problem with the Washington franchise is that the term