Dear Anti-Racist Parent:
I recently read an article in my local newspaper, “Indian spirit carries Brimfield girls to state,” about a local basketball team. I could not believe that a local school would still be using Native Americans as mascots—something that I know is offensive to many indigenous peoples and to ME as well. I posted a comment to the article and on my blog, expressing my feelings. They were not well-received, but one response to my comment in particular troubles me. It is from my pastor, who wrote to me:
Another way of thinking…
My son… who is a Brimfield Indian…two nights ago at dinner, waxed eloquently in his dinner prayer about thanking God for the Indians who were here first, and took care of the land…yada…yada…yada…which caused J and I to both look up, during his prayer.
So we asked him… and he said his teacher had been teaching them about the debt of gratitude we owe to the Indians.
So maybe a mascot is a term of respect, of honoring the people that were here first.
Why do we have to find things to be offended by?Just my thought… as a parent.
I know I should be able to respond, but I really need help.
Holly W.
From the Editor:
It amazes me how resistant many people are to hearing that something is offensive to a marginalized racial group. The very idea that something might be racially offensive makes people indignant, defensive and righteous in their claims that the world has gotten “to P.C.”
Why do we have to FIND things to be offended by?
The implication is that if mainstream white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant society does not find a thing beyond the pale, then it is acceptable, no matter what anyone else says.
When I am exposed to this attitude, I hear this: “I am drunk on my own privilege. Your feelings are not as important as my intentions. If I deem my actions well-meaning, then their consequences scarcely matter. I cannot be bothered to change—even if changing is painless for me—to spare another from pain.”
People like the ones who shouted you down in the comments to original article are rarely interested in hearing why something might be offensive. For those that do care, in a position paper on the subject, the National Congress of American Indians says:
For most Americans the days of overt and institutional racism where thought to have become a distant memory. At one time symbols like the “Black Sambo” and “Frito Bandito” were commonly accepted by mainstream America as playful marketing tools. That was the past, times have changed and America has supposedly grown up and away from such potent symbols of racism. However, for American Indians this practice continues. From the racially-derived “Washington Redskins” to the war-like “Florida Seminoles”, American Indian mascots are found at the professional sports level as well as the high school and college levels. Far from honoring Native Americans, these mascots are a national insult, and represent the last vestiges of a time thought long-past when such stereotypes were commonplace. Just as “Sambo” served to perpetuate racism and bigotry toward the African-American community, these mascots and team names serve to keep Native Americans in a similar position. Read more…
Wikipedia also sheds some light on the issue:
Opponents of Native American mascots feel that the mascots breed insensitivity and misunderstanding about native people. Opponents also highlight the seeming double standard for racial mascots where there are no mascots based on African Americans, Mexican Americans, or Asian Americans depicted in sports. The University of Notre Dame’s “Fighting Irish.” and the University of Louisiana Lafayette’s “Ragin’ Cajuns” are notable exceptions to the debate, as those schools selected symbols that represent themselves historically. Another exception is the “Braves” of the University of North Carolina at Pembroke, a school originally created to educate Native Americans.
“ (Trudie Lamb Richmond doesn’t) know what to say when kids argue, ‘I don’t care what you say, we are honoring you. We are keeping our Indian.’ … What if it were ‘our black’ or ‘our Hispanic’? ”
—- Amy D’orio quoting Trudie Lamb Richmond, March 1996, Indian Chief Is Mascot No MoreA big issue in the Native American mascot debate is the use of Indian mascots by elementary, middle and high school sports teams. Opponents of Native American mascots feel that children should be exposed to realistic and positive portrayals of American Indians during their educational years. Kathy Morning Star, director of the American Indian Cultural Support, states that “It is the responsibility of educators to set the example and teach the youth of today to respect other ethnic or minority peoples – NOT to exploit or disrespect them by using them as ‘mascots’ or stereotypical ‘images’ which perpetuates racism.”
Many opponents also take offense to proponents of Native American mascots that claim they are simply paying tribute to native people. Considering many Native Americans’ stance on this issue, opponents of Native American mascots feel that the mascots should be deemed offensive by the people being imitated, not by those who are imitating. Barbara Munson of the Oneida nation states “When someone says you are hurting them by your action, if you persist – then the harm becomes intentional.”
Opponents also deem it insensitive when unconscious phrases like “Kill the Indians” or “Murder the Redskins” are yelled during sporting events (the latter of which is particularly yelled by Cowboys, Eagles, and Giants fans, due to long-standing NFL rivalries), referring to the team playing, but also creating a negative view of Native Americans. Read more…
So, how to appeal to your pastor? You might share some of the above information with him, particularly this:
Considering many Native Americans’ stance on this issue, opponents of Native American mascots feel that the mascots should be deemed offensive by the people being imitated, not by those who are imitating. Barbara Munson of the Oneida nation states “When someone says you are hurting them by your action, if you persist – then the harm becomes intentional.”
I think this part is important. This issue, at its core, isn’t even about race. It’s about human decency and respect. No one wants to offend and cause another person distress. For those who cannot grasp the racial issues here, they should consider that most of us make little alterations to our behavior every day for the benefit of others.
Consider how the people that your pastor encounters might change their actions in the presence of a professed man of God. Even if I do not share your pastor’s level of religiosity, I would not use certain language in his presence. I may avoid certain topics. I would respect him and his beliefs. But what if I knew that certain things offended your pastor’s sensibilities, but I arrogantly refused to acknowledge this. What if I dropped the occasional “F-bomb,” held forth on several racy topics and ranted about the folly of creationism knowing that my actions, though benign to me, were making him uncomfortable? Would the worse person be your pastor for perhaps voicing his discomfort–finding something to be offended by–or me for willfully disregarding his feelings?
Readers, weigh in.
A friend of mine sent me this link, which I thought might be helpful.
http://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2009/03/effects-of-american-indian-stereotypes.html
I linked to a specific post, but should have mentioned that this author and professor researches and blogs about American Indians representation in children’s literature.
Just a few years ago, the college at which I work changed their mascot from one of Native representation (okay, let’s be real, it was “Native characterization”) to a more generic mascot (a bird). There was such huge resistance from alumni of the college and certain members of administration about changing their “beloved” mascot. But, thankfully, those who were in a decision making position had enough awareness to realize that our Native mascot absolutely was NOT done out of any sort of pride, respect, etc. Instead, it followed pretty stereotypical “hey, let’s use a Native person as our mascot!” mentality.
I think the Pastor confuses the two issues with the prayer and the honoring piece. Yes, we owe a huge gratitude and owning up to the horrors that were committed against Native people — and many of those atrocities continue today. But, that’s a different issue from the Mascot issue. I hated hearing the excuse of “We have Native mascots to honor the Native Americans” when many of these institutions (athletic, academic, etc) don’t even do anything within the Native community.
I hosted a dialogue workshops a few months ago and found some great YouTube clips that were conversation starters around the “I am Not a Mascot” theme. I work in a religious college, and there was a fantastic clip someone had put together that showed the Bishop dancing around. Naturally, the largely Catholic audience was horrified. Then,the filmmakers juxtaposed it with a “spiritual leader mascot” doing the same thing at an athletic event — really brought the issue home for many in the workshop about just how offensive we are being with using a Native mascot as a source of entertainment.
All people are not necessarily against such nicknames, even on Indian reservations:
http://nativetimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1247&Itemid=37
I’ve seen Indians wearing Fighting Sioux sweatshirts. I don’t know if the majority will favor changing it or not, but I suspect that some opinions are in favor of keeping it and others don’t care one way or another. The fight to change it is being led by a pretty small and vocal group. The debate has been going on at UND, my old university, for more than 30 years and continues to be heated. This time around it probably will be changed to something else, but there’ll be a lot of resentment when it is. In the last online poll my newspaper did, 80 percent said the name should NOT be changed, while 20 percent thought it should be.
I’ll add that the usual argument made by people here who favor keeping the name is that the nickname is intended to honor the Sioux tribe, is used respectfully by the university (drum groups at games, for instance.) UND spends a ton of money on American Indian scholarships and academic programs (Native American studies, Indians into Medicine, Indians into Law, a spring pow wow, etc.) People also will point to the Minnesota Vikings and the Fighting Irish at Notre Dame and say “What’s the difference?”
Granted, there’s still a lot of prejudice in the state as well, but I don’t think the debate is necessarily cut and dried here.
It is all about human decency and respect. Love this article and thank you, every parent can benefit (and families consequentially) from this post!
I had previously posted a comment about searching for a more diverse school. One of the questions I asked all the schools we visited was what activities they do for thankgiving and what they are trying to do to educate students about sterotypes of American Indians in literature. I was really facinated by the results as they totally ran the gammet. One Catholic school responded that the Thanksgiving holiday is very small for them as they have a much larger celebration of All Saints Day before, though they still have a “feast”. The next Catholic school was a bit defensive about the question and stated that though the children dress up as pilgrams and indians, that the celebration is a show of friendship and sharing. I was most shocked by the response of the final school as there were blatant sterotpical images of Indians throughout the whole school. When the principal was asked the question, he very quickly engaged us in a conversation about the issue and admitted he had never thought about it before. Throughout the conversation, he went back to the topic and remarked that he would be bringing the issue to his next staff meeting to talk with the teachers about how they will actively go about educating themselves about American Indians and what is a sterotype. Overall, it was a pretty interesting experience as I found a lot of the responses we talk about here from minimizing the issue, to defensive behavior, to someone that was actually listening.
I remember seeing a student project posted in my school about stereotypes of Native people in popular culture – the noble savage etc…. The mascot/team name was one of the topics. The gist of the argument against Native mascots was that they objectify Native people. Most team names are objects or animals with just a few groups of “historical” people. That is, in professional sports, for example, Braves, Redskins, and Indians get thrown in with the likes of
Pistons
Red Sox
Flames
Tigers
Bears
Bulls
Bruins
I don’t think using the objects argument is going to be inherently successful. I know I wouldn’t be swayed by it given the other historical people also used as names.
There is a pretty decent amount of names of other historical people too. Packers, Steelers, Cowboys, 49s, Patriots, Vikings and that is just NFL.
Indeed Ann, there are several other historical people/professions. Is that to say that Native people are _history_?
Karen, you are changing the subject and putting words in my mouth. I was addressing your argument that Native American names were lumped in with names of objects which is NOT a complete argument as I pointed out with examples.
If you want to truly address the second argument that you proposed on its own merit (not something I was assurting at all) it should be remembered that when some of the teams were named they were NOT history. The Steelers were named when the steel mills were still a major industry as with the Packers and to a small extent the Cowboys.
These are quick examples and not meant to argue for the use of Native American mascots but to form a better arguement against them.
Oops, I just realized how I worded my first comment and that I used the term ‘historical’. Taking it to mean that I meant that Native Americans were ‘historical’ was too far fetched. I do apologize for my mispeaking in my first comment and my attitude in the second comment.
But I stand my my second point that not all the teams were named for ‘historical’ people. The Packers were actually named for the Indian Packing Company that supplied their uniforms and cowboy is still a profession and probably was a more prominent one when the team was first named.
The Minnesota Vikings and the Fighting Irish and the Fighting Sioux are basically all historical figures. The Sioux figurehead is a side profile of a Sioux man with feathers in his hair. It would be impossible for anyone living here to think that “Native people are history” given that most of us go to grade school, high school and college with American Indians, work with them, and sometimes socialize with them or marry them.
The Indians I know are a very 21st century group, with social problems and tensions between groups, personal and economic successes, a high birth rate and a growing community (one of the few in the state), a tribal government, a tribal court system, a tribal college. Some of those things cause tension with neighboring white communities, but no one romanticizes them or thinks of them as a “historic” people except maybe some Wannabe Indian professors who come to the state to teach at one of the colleges.
They wear jeans, for the most part, and don’t wear jingle dresses or eagle feathers, except at pow wows or religious ceremonies and they don’t live in tipis. It surprises me every time I hear that people think Indians died out or think of them as they were in the 19th century.
Also, this is just a quick note, as a UL student, our athletics team name (the “Ragin Cajuns”) is also controversial. Ethnicity is always a slippery and touchy issue, and some groups have taken exception to the use of “Cajun” to define the south Louisianian population to the exclusion of other, not indigineous but traditional groups, such as the Creoles, furthering the monolithic preconceptions of culture in south Louisiana.
Just to say that using any ethnicity as a sports team name is not generally a good idea. Maybe the Fightin’ Irish don’t mind, but even the Ragin’ Cajuns have their problems.
Ann, Sorry, I really didn’t mean to put words in your mouth, nor attribute that thought to you personally. I replied too quickly.
I was only partly being rhetorical. I was actually asking, do you think that people (not you necessarily) find the use of Native mascots acceptable because, in their minds, Native people and culture ARE history?
Of course, Steelers, Packers, and Cowboys were not history at the time of naming (or even yet, necessarily). However, as others have pointed out, there is a BIG difference between naming your team after yourself and naming your team after another group. This is magnified when it is a dominant group using the likeness of a marginalised group. This feels like using people to me, which slides quickly into objectification.
It seems so clear to me that using someone else as your _mascot_ is objectifying. Mascots cannot be rich representations of people. It is tough enough for minority groups to be taken seriously as rich and complex individuals and cultures. At best, a mascot can represent only one dimension of a people, which is not a problem if popular culture has umpteen more parallel representations of a people, as is the case for the dominant group. Most mascots are naturally cartoonish or caricatures. It feels wrong to do that to other people.
One-dimensional people are not people; they are objects. At worst, the single dimension presented is itself a stereotype or outdated.
I guess objectification is a weak and/or subtle argument and thus to be avoided lest it derail conversation into hairsplitting over Vikings (in a town of people with Nordic roots) and Redskins. Best to stick to stereotyping.
The Minnesota Vikings was chosen because Minnesota is a largely Scandinavian-American state. The Fighting Sioux nickname was chosen because the University of North Dakota at Grand Forks is located very close to a Lakota Sioux reservation — the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. At the time, I do think they saw the nickname as a way to honor the Indian heritage of the area and of the state. The tribe endorsed it at one time and UND has quite a few Indian students, as do the other institutions in the state.
There was and is a lot of prejudice against Indians in this state and the arguments over the nickname have gotten ugly over the years, but I do think UND made more effort than a lot of institutions to honor the Lakota Sioux and to treat the name with respect. And, as I said above, there are Indian students and fans who wear the Fighting Sioux sweatshirt and there’s a group of Lakota Sioux on the Spirit Lake Indian reservation who are trying to get the question on the tribal ballot because they want to keep the nickname. There are others who believe the nickname is stereotypical and racist and want it gone. But there’s an ongoing debate even among the tribe.
“Your feelings are not as important as my intentions. ”
This is a brilliantly simple, understandable way to grab people’s attention about this, and to get them thinking in purely human terms – as you say, human decency and respect are really at the root.
I come from Cleveland and live in DC, so I’m surrounded by these images. The tips in this post will therefore be well-used.
A brief note to those of you who think Native Americans being offended is much ado about nothing. I’m no expert on Native American culture but I have learned enough to know about the horrendous treatment and physical violence they have received in the distant past and recent past. I can’t comment about alot of physical violence now cause I don’t know but I do know they are still looked down upon. So, yeah, I can imagine that watching people that look like the people that slaughtered your ancestors and still mistreat you today running around in a goofy looking caricature (sp?) to make of your people money for their sports team just might be……slightly……offensive.