Team Mascots: The Native American Controversy

The use of Indian mascots has been ignored and passed over for far too long. From the Redskins, Braves, Chiefs, and Warriors these terms hold significance for the teams these mascots represent and, obviously, the Native Americans for whom these terms derive and depict. Who, therefore, benefits from these Native American figures and for who is there a negative relation? The answer is quite obvious to many people; yet for others, especially those who have a connection in some way to these mascots, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having an Indian represent their college, high school or professional team. They deem that having a Native American image shows respect and honor to those that were conquered or who once lived in that area. It is my purpose to indicate that these displays of "honor" are not honorable at all, instead displaying and dehumanizing Native Americans in caricatures and representing them as "people of the past". Team mascots generally fall into three categories: animals, objects and occupations. From the Bears, Lions, Rockies and Cowboys, they encompass names used for sports teams, but where do Indians, Braves and Chiefs fit in this mix? Are there really four categories: animals, objects, occupations and Indians?

To fully understand this issue, one must first delve into the past, exploring the ideals and sentiments about Native Americans especially when Indian symbols and mascots began to appear. By the 1930's, already many teams began adopting names and symbols connecting them to Native Americans, during this time Chief Illiniwek was created, dressed in authentic Indian attire for his half-time dance. The influence of having this mascot eventually evolved into people painting their faces as if they were Indian, singing chants, and the famous "tomahawk chop" usually accompanied by the steady beat of a drum. The use of Redskins for a sports team also emerged during the 1930's. Originating in Boston and eventually settling in Washington. With this mascot, "fans urged their "braves on the warpath" to "scalp em"' (King, Springwood 191).

But why this sudden use and spread of using words associated with Indians to represent sports teams? By the 1900's, the threat of Indian hostilities were long gone and all that remained of that legacy were the stories of the brave savages in battle -in some ways, kept alive by the famous Wild West shows that performed internationally, always with the savage Indian chief. The "wild" West had slowly become farms and fences, no longer the wild plains filled with buffalo. From this loss, the West became idealized into "Cowboys and Indians", a romantic scope of whooping braves and courageous, maiden-rescuing cowboys. This "dying breed" perhaps led to the rise in mascot names -an identity placed with a romanticized era. From the Dallas Cowboys, the Denver Broncos, and the Buffalo Bills this evidence remains, as it has with such Indian terms such as Braves, Chiefs, etc: "The conquest of Native America simultaneously empowered Euro-Americans to appropriate, invent, and otherwise represent Native Americans and to long for aspects of their cultures that had been destroyed by conquest" (King, Springwood 191). The primary dilemma with this is that Indians, do in fact, still exist. One may argue that cowboys also still exist, but the term of "cowboy" signifies a profession -not an ethnic group of people. Indians may not ride across the Plains and kill buffalo, but their culture is no less diverse, colorful or complex. By glorifying the West, Native Americans are frozen in that time period.

Ignorance of Native American history and of the present is a huge factor. While the West has been romanticized; worse, it is romanticized from a White point-of-view, which unfortunately, too many people are unaware of. They remember what they were taught in primary school, a summarized version of events from the victor attempting to evoke patriotism for the honorable government and those brave settlers bent on having their own land. What is taught in elementary schools about Native Americans and their culture is generally reserved for Thanksgiving and in relation to Manifest Destiny -as if Native Americans willingly allowed their lands to be farmed for the better good. There is nothing about the many massacres, maybe a somewhat contemporary history book may say, in passing, that many treaties were broken without stating what they were and what the repercussions were for the Indians. Yet even more silent than the absence of Native American history is the present. Ignorance of Native American past and present is a large reason why many of these racial words and phrases still exist, especially in such an overt display in mascots. Many argue that the name Redskin isn't derogatory, yet many people don't even know what Redskin means or where it derived from. Redskin relates to the 19^th Century when bounty hunters killed Indians for profit, instead of returning with corpses to prove their kill, all that was necessary was "redskin" which often meant a scalp, the genitalia of a man or the breasts of a woman. This is what redskin means, obviously it's not a positive word that shows respect to a Native American community -instead it is a reminder for many Native Americans.

So why is redskin still part of this display of almost subtle racism (subtle in terms of someone of fairer skin, of course)? There are no Pittsburgh Krauts to represent an influx of German immigrants to Pennsylvania. There is no team called the San Francisco Nips to represent and give "honor" to the Japanese in that area. Often a comeback argument for retired Indian mascots is the Fightin' Irish: if the Irish have no complaints over that name, why would anybody else be upset? There are several quite large differences between the Irish and the Indians: the Irish have no Bureau of Irish Affairs, have their lands held in trust by the government and removed to geographically isolated locations of the country. Schools, such as the University of Illinois, argue that their mascot brings honor and pride to Native Americans, yet, if they truly wished to honor and educate others about the Native Americans of this country why not fund Native American study programs, sponsor Native American students and hire more Native American professors? The schools and universities using these mascots as a trademark won't suddenly fail or close down. Many schools and universities have changed their mascots and nothing quite drastic has occurred. Professional teams have changed and traded names in the past, the Washington Redskins are an example of the tradeoff of a name. Yet they refuse to yield to activists and others who simply these terms and others as being racial and imperialistic. Having a mascot can lead to unity between people, a Pittsburgh Steelers fan from Pittsburgh can just as easily have a sense of kinship with a Steelers fan from Detroit. Yet the word Steelers represents an occupation, not an ethnicity, there is a huge difference. Another possible reason is quite plainly: an Indian symbol is marketable. From flags with Indian symbols, tomahawks, and paint to car decals and toilet paper, Native American symbols and mascots make money.

Indian mascots have not always been part of our culture and without them the realm of sports will not lose its intensity or the bond that fellow sports enthusiasts share. Using Indian mascots does not promote respect and honor for Native Americans because it doesn't reflect the ideals and culture of Indians today -instead dwelling on the past and taking actions and manners sacred and revered and turning them into hi-kicking entertainment for crowds who do not understand Native American cultures and how they interact with other contemporary societies. However, by educating others from a Native American perspective on both Native American history and tribes in a contemporary setting, one can better understand and appreciate -along with respect and honor Native American culture through their traditions, diversity and complexity.

Sources King, C. Richard and Charles Fruehling Springwood, eds. 2001. Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy. Lincoln: University of NE Press