CHAPTER 18 The controversy over sports mascots that some consider offensive is not new. Encouraged by the civil rights era’s increasing emphasis on tolerance, equality, and diversity, the National Congress of American Indians began a campaign against these stereotypes in 1968. In the late 1960s, Dartmouth College became one of the first colleges to drop its Indian mascot. The school was responding to concerns expressed by its Native American undergraduates, who found the war-paint-and-feathers imagery offensive, and also to the Dartmouth board of trustees, who considered this symbolism incompatible with the school’s academic mission. Not everyone supported this action, however. For some Dartmouth faculty, undergraduates, and alumni, the school’s disavowal of its Indian mascot undermined tradition and represented a drift toward hypersensitive identity politics. Since that time, many college athletic programs and sports organizations have dropped their Native American mascots. Others, however—including professional teams such as the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians, and the Washington Redskins—have not.
The broad contours of the debate have remained the same throughout the decades. For their detractors, these mascots evoke offensive, dehumanizing ethnic stereotypes and the specter of historical oppression. Viewed in this light, the Cleveland Indians’ red-faced “Chief Wahoo” logo is insulting to Native Americans. In contrast, defenders of these mascots argue that they capture the collective spirit of a college community, support sports traditions, and even honor the heritage of Native Americans. They argue that, at the college and professional levels, the importance of team logos goes well beyond their value to the giant merchandising industry that has developed around them, and maintain that because these logos are central to regional sports
The two essays that follow explore the key issues of this debate. Jack Shakely acknowledges that the subject of Indian sports mascots may seem “trivial” on the surface, but he argues that these stereotypes are an assault on human dignity. For Ellie Reynolds (who, like Shakely, is Native American), the controversy surrounding the continued use of Indian mascots seems overblown, fueled by political correctness; therefore, she opposes a local bill that would change longtime sports mascots.
This essay was published in the Los Angeles Times on August 25, 2011.
JACK SHAKELY INDIAN MASCOTS—YOU’RE OUT I got my first lesson in Indians portrayed as sports team mascots in the early 1950s when my father took me to a Cleveland Indians-New York Yankees game. Dad gave me money to buy a baseball cap, and I was conflicted. I loved the Yankees, primarily because fellow Oklahoman Mickey Mantle had just come up and was being touted as rookie of the year. But being mixed-blood Muscogee/Creek, I felt a (misplaced) loyalty to the Indians. So I bought the Cleveland cap with the famous Chief Wahoo logo on it.1
When we got back to Oklahoma, my mother took one look at the cap with its leering, big-nosed, buck-toothed redskin caricature just above the brim, jerked it off my head, and threw it in the trash. She had been fighting against Indian stereotypes all her life, and I had just worn one home. I was only 10 years old, but the look of betrayal in my Creek mother’s eyes is seared in my memory forever.2
So maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised when half a century later, a Los Angeles Times editorial about legislators in North Dakota struggling over whether the University of North Dakota should be forced to change its team name and mascot from the Fighting Sioux provoked such a strong reaction. It was an irritant, like a long-forgotten piece of shrapnel working its way to the surface.3
Most stories about sports teams and their ethnic mascots are treated like tempests in a teacup. The Times ’ editorial writer, however, while noting that the solons probably had better things to do, understood the sensitivity and pain that can accompany such a seemingly trivial subject. It is a small matter, perhaps, but far from trivial.4
5
The controversy over changing ethnocentric mascot names is not a simple matter of stodgy white alums holding on to college memories. Indians, too, are conflicted. In a 2002 study on the subject, Sports Illustrated reported that 84 percent of Native Americans polled had no problem with Indian team names or mascots. Although the methods used by the magazine to reach these figures were later criticized, that misses the point. If 16 percent of a population finds something offensive, that should be enough to signal deep concern. There are many things in this country that are subject to majority rule; dignity and respect are not among them.6
And it is dignity and respect we are talking about. Since the creation of the National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media in 1991, that group of Native American organizations has been protesting negative portrayals of Indians, hammering away at what’s behind our discomfort with Indian sports mascots. Many of these mascots—maybe most of them—act like fools or savage cutthroats.7
When I went to an Atlanta Braves game in the 1970s, the Braves name wasn’t the biggest problem. It was that cringe-worthy Chief Noc-A-Homa who came stomping and war-dancing his way out of a tepee in center field every time the Braves hit a home run that got to me. He was dressed in a Plains Indian chief’s eagle bonnet and acted like a village idiot. To their credit, the Braves retired Chief Noc-A-Homa and his girlfriend Princess Win-A-Lot in 1983, amid assertions by the Braves’ home office that the protesters were over-dramatizing the issue.8
Few people complain about Florida State University calling itself the Seminoles. But its war-painted and lance-threatening mascot Chief Osceola is intended to be menacing, and that’s the take-away many children will have. Such casual stereotyping can breed callousness. In the “only good Indian” category, in 1999 the New York Post entitled an editorial about the pending New York-Cleveland baseball playoffs, “Take the Tribe and Scalp ’Em.”9
It isn’t easy or inexpensive to remove ethnic and racial stereotypes from college and professional sports. When Stanford University changed from the Indians to the Cardinals in 1972, recriminations were bitter. Richard Lyman, a friend of mine, was president of Stanford at the time. He said the university lost millions of alumni dollars in the short run, but it was the right thing to do.10
In 21st-century America, to name a sports team after an African American, Asian, or any other ethnic group is unthinkable. So why are Native Americans 11
READING ARGUMENTS
How does Shakely incorporate personal narrative and anecdotal evidence into his argument? Do you find this kind of material convincing? Explain.
What point does Shakely make in his fourth paragraph? How is this point related to his thesis?
In what sense is this essay an ethical argument?
In paragraph 6, Shakely cites a poll that indicated that 84 percent of Native Americans “had no problem with Indian team names or mascots.” How does he use this evidence to reinforce his own position? How might this evidence also support a counterargument?
Where does Shakely make a cause-and-effect argument?
ELLIE REYNOLDS NATIVE AMERICANS HAVE BECOME A POLITICAL PAWN State Rep. Joe Salazar, D-Thornton, is sponsoring House Bill 1165, a misguided effort to ban Native American mascots in Colorado’s public schools. On the heels of the Washington Redskins’ national controversy, Salazar’s legislation would prevent public schools from using a name, mascot, or school symbol referencing Native Americans unless that school is granted a waiver from the originating tribe.1
I grew up outside of the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota. My great-grandfather, Orville Sr. “Paha Ska” Salway, was an honorary chief of the Oglala Sioux tribe. Many of the schools located on the reservations themselves have controversial school names and mascots, too. For instance, the Red Cloud Indian School mascot, the Crusader, uses the symbol of a buffalo skeleton with a Native American on a horse throwing an arrow as their mascot. This symbolizes their history.2
3
The entire purpose of a school mascot is to provide a single rallying symbol from which a community can celebrate unity. In this day of perpetual outrage, the suppression of these symbols will do little more than to further highlight the divide between Natives and everyone else.4
In a society so consumed by political correctness, this bill could be detrimental to its stated purpose and actually prevent meaningful conversations about other cultures and races. Salazar’s bill mentions nothing about Trojans, Vikings, Fighting Irish, or any other historical or ethnic group. He carves out only Native-based mascots for scrutiny and elimination.5
Rep. Paul Lundeen, R-Monument, asked a vital question recently as the bill was being heard in the House Education committee: “What other legislation has been needed to change mascots?”6
Salazar responded, “There wasn’t any.”7
As Lundeen pointed out, throughout history mascot changes based on political correctness have been community initiatives, not legislative answers. More government is not the answer to a community concern. Not only is this not the proper role of government, this bill is a form of government coercion with a bankrupting fine.8
Native Americans have long fought government overreach into our culture. This is yet another example of government going way too far, creating a solution in search of a problem.9
HB 1165 demands that public schools receive special permission from the Native tribe from which their mascot or team name originated for its use. If schools with Native mascots don’t comply with this new legislation, they will be fined $25,000 per month until the situation is remedied. These massive fines will ultimately be paid with taxpayer dollars.10
The fines are so large they could quickly wipe out a high school’s entire athletics budget. They are so clearly designed to be punitive in nature, many schools across the state will just change their mascots rather than risk the fine.11
Yes, some people are offended by Native-based mascots, but it is not the government’s job to prevent every person from ever feeling offended. It sends the strong message to all Coloradans that discussion, celebration of, and rallying behind a Native symbol might be so offensive to someone it requires a special carve-out. Especially to Colorado students, this message will stifle pride and unity. Salazar’s legislation may, in fact, further alienate our culture from the mainstream.12
This legislation doesn’t teach Colorado’s children to engage and to recognize our Native population; it teaches them to avoid offending us by avoiding the conversation at all.13
14
Have we as a country become so haunted by political correctness and censorship that we have created the very barriers we say we want to overcome? When we aren’t free to communicate on issues pertaining to race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, we are doomed to perpetuate the stigma. We can be mindful of how our attitudes and actions are influenced by prejudices and how our words reinforce those prejudices and stereotypes without rules on discourse handed down from government.15
HB 1165, otherwise known as the Mascot Bill, is forceful government censorship, and the cost is real conversation about Native American culture. This bill will affect Colorado public schools, our children, and our communities at the high price tag of our freedom.16
READING ARGUMENTS
Where in her argument does Reynolds appeal to ethos ? Do you find this appeal effective? Why or why not?
Reynolds describes Salazar’s proposed legislation as “well-intentioned” (para. 3). Why do you think she concedes this point? Is this concession consistent with the overall tone of her argument? Explain.
How does Reynolds characterize our current social and political climate? Do you agree with her? Why or why not?
In what respects is this essay a cause-and-effect argument? In what respects is it a definition argument?
Reynolds writes that “it is not the government’s job to prevent every person from ever feeling offended” (12). In the broader context of debates about sports mascots, is Reynolds setting up a straw man ? Why or why not?
AT ISSUE: SHOULD CONTROVERSIAL SPORTS MASCOTS BE REPLACED?
Shakely writes, “If 16 percent of a population finds something offensive, that should be enough to signal deep concern. There are many things in this country that are subject to majority rule; dignity and respect are not among them” (para. 6). How do you think Reynolds would respond to this claim? What is your response?
Reynolds makes several references to “political correctness” in her essay, as when she asks, “Have we as a country become so haunted
According to Shakely, “[C]asual stereotyping can breed callousness” (9). What do you think he means by this statement, particularly in light of his use of the adjective “casual”? Do you agree?
WRITING ARGUMENTS: SHOULD CONTROVERSIAL SPORTS MASCOTS BE REPLACED?
Write an essay that takes a position on the issue of controversial sports mascots. Should they be replaced at the professional, college, and high school levels?
AT ISSUE: SHOULD CONTROVERSIAL SPORTS MASCOTS BE REPLACED?