The Problem of Native American Mascots
And How to Solve It
A singular fact that one might find intriguing is that when African Americans and whites were faced with a vocabulary test posed by a white proctor, whites did better by 10%. However, when the questions were asked by an African American, the score was the same. This study by the General Social Survey, as well as other gaps found in standardized tests, affirm how negative stereotypes of all types can bring down performance in a measurable way. This applies not only to races, but also to representations of the race. This can also be extrapolated to include American Indian mascots. A furious debate has been raging in recent times on the topic of Native American-based mascots, and, more specifically, if they perpetuate and reinforce negative stereotypes. Some argue that these mascots are racist, while others hold the position that it is all done in fun, and means no harm. It seems next to impossible to come to a solution that appeases both sides. However, it is possible to come to the conclusion that Native American mascots should be ameliorated to include only organizations that respect and work with local Indian tribes. This is due to the abusive nature of some mascots, support for this plan from Native American groups, and the fact that this plan does not eliminate Native American mascots in its entirety, nor keeps abusive mascots that should be done away with.
Many disparaging and vituperative mascots that exist today are self-evident, the most notorious example being the Washington Redskins. Other groups such as the Florida Seminoles are slightly less insulting, but are still in need of revision. A warrant behind this claim is found in the fact that mascots featured at sporting venues do not display the plethora of history and culture that should be perceived. Kevin Grover critiques in a CNN article (Basu, Moni. CNN April 4th, 2013) that “The Indian you see most often in Washington, D.C., is at a football game - at the expense of real Indians, real history, real culture. The petty stereotype has been expected.” Mr. Grover, the head of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of the American Indian, puts into words how a caricature dancing on a field fails to capture the gargantuan amount of history and culture behind Native American life. Another hole in the defense’s paper armor is the rather despondent fact that Native American mascots allow the American people to marginalize the injustice that was dealt, and continues to be dealt, to this prominent minority. The July 14th article “6 Major Pros and Cons of Native American Mascots” wrote upon the way mascots are used today and how they “...make light of [the Native American’s] culture and the suffering of their people. It is disrespectful to the culture and it plays down the injustices that the Native Americans have suffered.” Why should reveling continue in the aftermath of a genocide? The continued acceptance of such intolerable traditions continues to be a mystery. As one could gather, such stereotypes do affect people today. The Chief Editor distinguishes that “Native Americans do not wear head dresses and carry axes. Mascots often promote cultural stereotypes that are hurtful. Many Native Americans work very hard to break the cultural stereotyping and mascots do not further that effort.” After demonstrating how this stereotype can sort people into echelons that only exist in the mind, it is possible to summarize this issue using the words of Shankar Vedantam's Washington Post article, "How a Self-Fulfilling Stereotype Can Drag Down Performance" (2009), “When confronted by challenges that inevitably arise… people threatened by stereotypes get the false message that they ought to be doing something else.” These stereotypes that people are thrusted into in our society can skew their vision of the world, and force a view of reality through dark-colored lenses. The American Psychological Association has articulated this point by calling “for the immediate retirement of the mascots based on studied that showed the harmful effects of inaccurate racial portrayals.” Throughout these inescapable arguments, there is a slight chance that there are vestiges of doubt lingering in the dark corners in the mind. These dark patches may gesticulate wildly to the fact that a significant figure of Native Americans voice their opinion that it does not affect their mentality, and that there is no reason for it to not continue. An example of this would be the fact that the Florida Seminole tribe has allowed Florida State University to use them as their mascot. For these Native Americans, and the dark splotches in one’s mind, it would be wise to counter this with a pivot to Vedantam’s article, in which he states that “... the [stereotype] threats do not have to take place at a conscious level. When volunteers in experimental studies that have found huge stereotype-threat differences in performance are told about the phenomenon afterward, they invariably tell researchers that the theory is interesting[,] but does not apply to them.” From this, it can be gathered that it is not necessary for one to be consciously aware of these stereotype threats for them to have a tremendous affect on them. In the specific example in Florida, it could be pointed out that other Seminole and American Indian tribes have expressed their dissatisfaction. Throughout this, it has been learned that mascots do not display even a fragment of the American Indian culture, therefore trivializing the dreadful history that exists in our nation. This creates an atmosphere that reduces the performance of Indians today. To counter these problems, a comprehensive plan is needed that eliminates insulting mascots, but keeps mascots that have been model stewards of Native American Culture.
A strong case for this plan of a limited ban on Native American mascots is in the making. However, to fully develop this plan, it is necessary to incorporate the overwhelming support for this plan from a variety of groups and organizations. The first of these pledges of support comes from an interview with Frank Cloutier, the Saginaw Chippewa’s public relations director, with Paul Lukas. “If they’re using a menacing-looking Indian and trying to intimidate the other team because they might get scalped, that’s innappropriate,” said Cloutier. “ But if they’re using an image that evokes spirit and competition, and they’ve celebrated the culture, then they’ve done their job and they’ve earned the right to proudly display that logo.” What Cloutier points out is that the organization using the Native American mascot should work with the local tribes to facilitate an environment and a culture of learning. In the case of Cloutier and a nearby college, Central Michigan University, the student body is addressed about the culture and meaning behind the mascot that they are using. Around campus, there are places devoted to the Native American tribe and their contributions. It is this environment that this plan proposes to emulate through the acceptance of culture by organizations using a Native American mascot. This is also supported by the NCAA, or the National College Athletics Association. In a recent declaration, the NCAA has banned all “hostile” and “abusive” American Indian mascots from tournament games. This decision has rocked the athletic universe, angering powerful groups such as the Florida State Seminoles. However, the NCAA has stood strong against such powerful opposition, signaling that “they [the colleges] would have to abide by it [the ruling].” Such spirited support for the plan of a limited ban by such an influential group confirms the plan’s legitimacy and practicality. Despite some opposition to the plan from some colleges, this is not the norm. Carol Spindel, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign postulates that mascots “were a reflection not of native people, but those who invented them.” Spindel was a strong supporter of the disbanding of the mascot Chief Illiniwek, and continues to fight those that want that mascot back. What Spindel concludes is true. These mascots represent who the people who believe in the are, not what they see. As of now, they show them at a low point. It is found to be necessary to voice opposition, and for that reason, it is found necessary to adopt this plan. However, a few voices rise in protest. As there is opposition for going too far, there is always opposition for not going far enough. There is an inkling of support for having a blanket ban on all American Indian mascots, uniforms, marketing materials, etcetera. One of these voices of confidence comes from Suzan Shown Harjo, who feels that the diminishing American Indian population will make it hard in the years to come to create dialogue to “do away with racial stereotypes. For refuting this, one would again turn to Cloutier. When asked about states that have adopted this ban, he responds that he thinks it is “missed opportunity for the type of cultural exchange” that was described earlier. So it is found likely that a limited ban has the best chance of eliminating existing problems, while encouraging positive dialogue. This is different from a total ban, which would be self-defeating in creating a movement. Such a limited but effective plan that does not eliminate all mascots has support from all sides. Organizations and identities such as the Saginaw Chippewas, a American Indian tribe, the NCAA, and a professor at the University of Illinois all have voiced their support for the plan. It is necessary to strike a balance, and calculate how this will influence the equilibrium between the two extremes.
This balance is extremely delicate, and needs to be preserved if a satisfactory plan is to be implemented. This sacred middle ground will only be found if a limited banning of American Indian mascots is adopted. On one side, this is a prevalent problem that needs to be solved. It can only be solved by eliminating stereotypes. Vedantam provokes the idea that “Stereotype threats are diminished when race and gender are not made salient in academic or workplace settings.” Only by eliminating these can these organizations function as a coherent group for the advancement of every person. And these mascots are hostile. The Chief Editor conveys in the article that “Many Native American groups do feel that it is insulting and that is a mockery. It makes them feel uncomfortable. Ultimately if you are not Native American you cannot decide what is appropriate or not for your group or how it is perceived.” This explains how sitting on the bench and hoping a case of serendipity makes everything turn out right cannot be our method. Action is needed in order to remedy the problem. For those teams that do have names that are unacceptable, the course of action is clear. Schools can easily change names to more appropriate versions. Some schools that have done this were “St. John’s (from Redmen to Red Storm) and Marquette (Warriors to Golden Eagles),” (CBS/AP). This plan is now proven to be easy to implement, and does not go too far in its quest to rid the world of offensive Native American mascots. Groups that have American Indian mascots and that work with local organizations should be allowed to continue with their work. The NCAA agrees with this stance. They have exempted schools that have mascots that are not offensive and that have followed its guidelines. An example of this would be “North Carolina-Pembroke - which uses the nickname Braves - will also be exempted because Brand said the school has historically had a high percentage of students, more than 20 percent, who are American Indians.”(CBS/AP August 5, 2005) And again, it is not necessary nor appropriate for a ban on all such material in this category. “... I don’t think that a menacing looking brave on the backboard of a basketball hoop is going to marginalize that child…” articulates Cloutier. He goes on to prove that these colleges and organizations have an obligation to teach, especially considering our country’s horrific past when it comes to the terms of treatment of American Indians. It is necessary to encourage discussion about one of the world’s “largest genocides [that] happened right here on American soil, and it happened to Native Americans… If Native children are struggling, hopefully this kind of education and outreach [can] help identify why, instead of having us blame it on a mascot.” A fair number of these mascots were created with the intent to honor the history and spirit of the American Indians, and that still holds true for a number today. “The goal is to emulate highly regarded traits that are associated with Native American Tribes,” explains the Chief Editor . The fact that some mascots represent and highlight the epitome of some factors of American Indian Spirit is not the only one preventing us from instituting a blanket ban. A significant proportion of mascots celebrate the diversity that exists in this country, educating and enlightening citizens upon the topic of their own culture. These points explain how the proscription of such inadmissible mascots is nonpareil.
Therefore, it is found thoroughly necessary to implement a plan of retiring derogatory American Indian mascots. Organizations that collaborate to ensure the education of Native American culture and values would be encouraged to propagate, whereas agencies that do not would cease using such mascots. This would end the debate on the topic of Native American mascots. Instead of siding with those who would do nothing, or those who would impose their subjective will on a vast group of people, it is necessary to create a plan to solve the problem of these mascots that pleases both parties and ensures cooperation for the foreseeable future. When one sees an image of an American Indian on a gymnasium wall, or on a uniform, it should come with the knowledge of the culture and spirit behind the paint or thread. It is with a moral imperative that this plan is implemented without delay, in order to end the history of subjugation that has sadly existed in this country, and continues to exist to this day.
And How to Solve It
A singular fact that one might find intriguing is that when African Americans and whites were faced with a vocabulary test posed by a white proctor, whites did better by 10%. However, when the questions were asked by an African American, the score was the same. This study by the General Social Survey, as well as other gaps found in standardized tests, affirm how negative stereotypes of all types can bring down performance in a measurable way. This applies not only to races, but also to representations of the race. This can also be extrapolated to include American Indian mascots. A furious debate has been raging in recent times on the topic of Native American-based mascots, and, more specifically, if they perpetuate and reinforce negative stereotypes. Some argue that these mascots are racist, while others hold the position that it is all done in fun, and means no harm. It seems next to impossible to come to a solution that appeases both sides. However, it is possible to come to the conclusion that Native American mascots should be ameliorated to include only organizations that respect and work with local Indian tribes. This is due to the abusive nature of some mascots, support for this plan from Native American groups, and the fact that this plan does not eliminate Native American mascots in its entirety, nor keeps abusive mascots that should be done away with.
Many disparaging and vituperative mascots that exist today are self-evident, the most notorious example being the Washington Redskins. Other groups such as the Florida Seminoles are slightly less insulting, but are still in need of revision. A warrant behind this claim is found in the fact that mascots featured at sporting venues do not display the plethora of history and culture that should be perceived. Kevin Grover critiques in a CNN article (Basu, Moni. CNN April 4th, 2013) that “The Indian you see most often in Washington, D.C., is at a football game - at the expense of real Indians, real history, real culture. The petty stereotype has been expected.” Mr. Grover, the head of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of the American Indian, puts into words how a caricature dancing on a field fails to capture the gargantuan amount of history and culture behind Native American life. Another hole in the defense’s paper armor is the rather despondent fact that Native American mascots allow the American people to marginalize the injustice that was dealt, and continues to be dealt, to this prominent minority. The July 14th article “6 Major Pros and Cons of Native American Mascots” wrote upon the way mascots are used today and how they “...make light of [the Native American’s] culture and the suffering of their people. It is disrespectful to the culture and it plays down the injustices that the Native Americans have suffered.” Why should reveling continue in the aftermath of a genocide? The continued acceptance of such intolerable traditions continues to be a mystery. As one could gather, such stereotypes do affect people today. The Chief Editor distinguishes that “Native Americans do not wear head dresses and carry axes. Mascots often promote cultural stereotypes that are hurtful. Many Native Americans work very hard to break the cultural stereotyping and mascots do not further that effort.” After demonstrating how this stereotype can sort people into echelons that only exist in the mind, it is possible to summarize this issue using the words of Shankar Vedantam's Washington Post article, "How a Self-Fulfilling Stereotype Can Drag Down Performance" (2009), “When confronted by challenges that inevitably arise… people threatened by stereotypes get the false message that they ought to be doing something else.” These stereotypes that people are thrusted into in our society can skew their vision of the world, and force a view of reality through dark-colored lenses. The American Psychological Association has articulated this point by calling “for the immediate retirement of the mascots based on studied that showed the harmful effects of inaccurate racial portrayals.” Throughout these inescapable arguments, there is a slight chance that there are vestiges of doubt lingering in the dark corners in the mind. These dark patches may gesticulate wildly to the fact that a significant figure of Native Americans voice their opinion that it does not affect their mentality, and that there is no reason for it to not continue. An example of this would be the fact that the Florida Seminole tribe has allowed Florida State University to use them as their mascot. For these Native Americans, and the dark splotches in one’s mind, it would be wise to counter this with a pivot to Vedantam’s article, in which he states that “... the [stereotype] threats do not have to take place at a conscious level. When volunteers in experimental studies that have found huge stereotype-threat differences in performance are told about the phenomenon afterward, they invariably tell researchers that the theory is interesting[,] but does not apply to them.” From this, it can be gathered that it is not necessary for one to be consciously aware of these stereotype threats for them to have a tremendous affect on them. In the specific example in Florida, it could be pointed out that other Seminole and American Indian tribes have expressed their dissatisfaction. Throughout this, it has been learned that mascots do not display even a fragment of the American Indian culture, therefore trivializing the dreadful history that exists in our nation. This creates an atmosphere that reduces the performance of Indians today. To counter these problems, a comprehensive plan is needed that eliminates insulting mascots, but keeps mascots that have been model stewards of Native American Culture.
A strong case for this plan of a limited ban on Native American mascots is in the making. However, to fully develop this plan, it is necessary to incorporate the overwhelming support for this plan from a variety of groups and organizations. The first of these pledges of support comes from an interview with Frank Cloutier, the Saginaw Chippewa’s public relations director, with Paul Lukas. “If they’re using a menacing-looking Indian and trying to intimidate the other team because they might get scalped, that’s innappropriate,” said Cloutier. “ But if they’re using an image that evokes spirit and competition, and they’ve celebrated the culture, then they’ve done their job and they’ve earned the right to proudly display that logo.” What Cloutier points out is that the organization using the Native American mascot should work with the local tribes to facilitate an environment and a culture of learning. In the case of Cloutier and a nearby college, Central Michigan University, the student body is addressed about the culture and meaning behind the mascot that they are using. Around campus, there are places devoted to the Native American tribe and their contributions. It is this environment that this plan proposes to emulate through the acceptance of culture by organizations using a Native American mascot. This is also supported by the NCAA, or the National College Athletics Association. In a recent declaration, the NCAA has banned all “hostile” and “abusive” American Indian mascots from tournament games. This decision has rocked the athletic universe, angering powerful groups such as the Florida State Seminoles. However, the NCAA has stood strong against such powerful opposition, signaling that “they [the colleges] would have to abide by it [the ruling].” Such spirited support for the plan of a limited ban by such an influential group confirms the plan’s legitimacy and practicality. Despite some opposition to the plan from some colleges, this is not the norm. Carol Spindel, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign postulates that mascots “were a reflection not of native people, but those who invented them.” Spindel was a strong supporter of the disbanding of the mascot Chief Illiniwek, and continues to fight those that want that mascot back. What Spindel concludes is true. These mascots represent who the people who believe in the are, not what they see. As of now, they show them at a low point. It is found to be necessary to voice opposition, and for that reason, it is found necessary to adopt this plan. However, a few voices rise in protest. As there is opposition for going too far, there is always opposition for not going far enough. There is an inkling of support for having a blanket ban on all American Indian mascots, uniforms, marketing materials, etcetera. One of these voices of confidence comes from Suzan Shown Harjo, who feels that the diminishing American Indian population will make it hard in the years to come to create dialogue to “do away with racial stereotypes. For refuting this, one would again turn to Cloutier. When asked about states that have adopted this ban, he responds that he thinks it is “missed opportunity for the type of cultural exchange” that was described earlier. So it is found likely that a limited ban has the best chance of eliminating existing problems, while encouraging positive dialogue. This is different from a total ban, which would be self-defeating in creating a movement. Such a limited but effective plan that does not eliminate all mascots has support from all sides. Organizations and identities such as the Saginaw Chippewas, a American Indian tribe, the NCAA, and a professor at the University of Illinois all have voiced their support for the plan. It is necessary to strike a balance, and calculate how this will influence the equilibrium between the two extremes.
This balance is extremely delicate, and needs to be preserved if a satisfactory plan is to be implemented. This sacred middle ground will only be found if a limited banning of American Indian mascots is adopted. On one side, this is a prevalent problem that needs to be solved. It can only be solved by eliminating stereotypes. Vedantam provokes the idea that “Stereotype threats are diminished when race and gender are not made salient in academic or workplace settings.” Only by eliminating these can these organizations function as a coherent group for the advancement of every person. And these mascots are hostile. The Chief Editor conveys in the article that “Many Native American groups do feel that it is insulting and that is a mockery. It makes them feel uncomfortable. Ultimately if you are not Native American you cannot decide what is appropriate or not for your group or how it is perceived.” This explains how sitting on the bench and hoping a case of serendipity makes everything turn out right cannot be our method. Action is needed in order to remedy the problem. For those teams that do have names that are unacceptable, the course of action is clear. Schools can easily change names to more appropriate versions. Some schools that have done this were “St. John’s (from Redmen to Red Storm) and Marquette (Warriors to Golden Eagles),” (CBS/AP). This plan is now proven to be easy to implement, and does not go too far in its quest to rid the world of offensive Native American mascots. Groups that have American Indian mascots and that work with local organizations should be allowed to continue with their work. The NCAA agrees with this stance. They have exempted schools that have mascots that are not offensive and that have followed its guidelines. An example of this would be “North Carolina-Pembroke - which uses the nickname Braves - will also be exempted because Brand said the school has historically had a high percentage of students, more than 20 percent, who are American Indians.”(CBS/AP August 5, 2005) And again, it is not necessary nor appropriate for a ban on all such material in this category. “... I don’t think that a menacing looking brave on the backboard of a basketball hoop is going to marginalize that child…” articulates Cloutier. He goes on to prove that these colleges and organizations have an obligation to teach, especially considering our country’s horrific past when it comes to the terms of treatment of American Indians. It is necessary to encourage discussion about one of the world’s “largest genocides [that] happened right here on American soil, and it happened to Native Americans… If Native children are struggling, hopefully this kind of education and outreach [can] help identify why, instead of having us blame it on a mascot.” A fair number of these mascots were created with the intent to honor the history and spirit of the American Indians, and that still holds true for a number today. “The goal is to emulate highly regarded traits that are associated with Native American Tribes,” explains the Chief Editor . The fact that some mascots represent and highlight the epitome of some factors of American Indian Spirit is not the only one preventing us from instituting a blanket ban. A significant proportion of mascots celebrate the diversity that exists in this country, educating and enlightening citizens upon the topic of their own culture. These points explain how the proscription of such inadmissible mascots is nonpareil.
Therefore, it is found thoroughly necessary to implement a plan of retiring derogatory American Indian mascots. Organizations that collaborate to ensure the education of Native American culture and values would be encouraged to propagate, whereas agencies that do not would cease using such mascots. This would end the debate on the topic of Native American mascots. Instead of siding with those who would do nothing, or those who would impose their subjective will on a vast group of people, it is necessary to create a plan to solve the problem of these mascots that pleases both parties and ensures cooperation for the foreseeable future. When one sees an image of an American Indian on a gymnasium wall, or on a uniform, it should come with the knowledge of the culture and spirit behind the paint or thread. It is with a moral imperative that this plan is implemented without delay, in order to end the history of subjugation that has sadly existed in this country, and continues to exist to this day.