Native American Mascots and the NCAA ban
Determining whether any conflicts involving race involve racism depends on how one defines racism. To me personally, I feel that racism not only includes intentional words and actions, but also unconscious feelings, ideas, and stereotypes towards any group of people based on ethnicity or skin color. Historical context plays a large role in how racial symbols and terms are viewed today. A Native American mascot by itself is not an obvious symbol of racism. However, when coupled with the historically derogatory term “Redskins,” the mascot and the team name are easily viewed in a derogatory manner. Assuming that the team mascot and name were created during a period in American history when racial sensitivity was (in the least) lacking, it is easy to understand why a group of Native American students would object to the continued use of the mascot and name. The mascot and name, looked at in historical context, brings to mind not only the past decimation of Native American’s culture and human rights, but also the lingering effect such decimation has on the quality of life in native communities and their continued stereotyped image in the consciousness of America’s elite (mostly white) class.
Recently the NCAA banned schools with Native American mascots and team names from using such symbols during NCAA sporting events. The NCAA is experiencing a backlash from many sports fans, including the Governor of Florida, for this decision. These opponents view the new NCAA rule as without meaning in today’s “equal” society. I couldn’t disagree more. Why does the stereotyping of Native Americans continue to be a socially acceptable practice for the white majority? If the NCAA had banned the use of derogatory terms of other racial minorities, the rule would be praised by the majority. We couldn’t imagine in today’s society having our teams named “The Brownskins” or the “Yellowmen,” coupled with stereotyped mascots of fierce African Americans or Asian Americans. Why does such blatant stereotyping still exist for Native Americans?
In my mind, Native Americans still exist as America’s property in the unconscious psyche of Americans, based on the way in which they were conquered and continue to be controlled by white settlers. Another factor is that Native Americans continue to be segregated from the western influenced American majority, not only through their “replacement” into reservations, but also by their quasi-independence created by tribal governments. A third factor may be that Native American equality movements have lacked the level of political, social, and economic support as gained by other minority movements. Because of these methods of separation, actual Native Americans have not been accepted as a part of modern American culture, but have been maintained as an antidotal and stereotypical symbol of the county’s history. Native Americans have every right to be upset by the use of such symbols, and if football fans and Jeb Bush don’t like it, too bad. Hopefully this country’s majority is finally granting, however small, some of the same social recognitions of inequality to Native Americans, as those that have been shown to other American minorities.
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the Seminole Tribe of Florida completely support FSU’s use of their mascot and the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe support CMU’s Chippewa?
If the tribe and school is in support what right does the NCAA have in blanket removing all Native American symbols? I agree with the absolute ignorance of names like the Redskins, and/or anything derogatory. But when the mascot isn’t demonizing in anyway I can’t help but agree with FSU and CMU.
What if an opposite effect were true? Instead of looking at these mascots as stereotypical or negative look at them as a potential teaching tool. How many of these students knew not only of the imagery but also the name of Chief Osceola prior to attending FSU? Also, it’s not as if these students have contempt or hate for their own mascot, they actually hold it as a symbol of pride. Albeit misguided pride but I propose instead of removing these symbols simply educate the student body on their background.
One last note: The truly racist thing in my mind is the NCAA’s removal rule getting more attention than the true problems of Native Americans. With rampant poverty, drug abuse, and under-education caused by centuries of oppression against them taking a backseat to every other minority stuggle a debate about mascots is the least of worries.
I remember hearing somewhere that certain Seminoles not residing in Florida were the ones pushing to have the name changed/banned.
Personally, I think that using the proper names of ethnic groups is not offensive. I am not offended by the “Fighting Irish” moniker or the Milwaukee Brewers lederhosen-clad mascot “Bernie Brewer”, despite my Irish and German heritage. However, no racial group has been as badly mistreated in this country as the American Indians, so the NCAA is right to defer to them if they are offended by the nicknames. As you guys both said, no one can argue that a name like the “Redskins” is not offensive. One could only argue that to change it would be detrimental to the tradition of the particular sports team, which is not a very strong position to defend. I would argue that using a tribal name like “Chippewas” or “Seminoles” is not offensive, but of course that’s not my heritage so it isn’t my place to decide. And a name like the “Braves”, which is neither a proper name nor a derogatory term, is just a toss-up I guess.
Jeff, do you know if the rule applies to peoples native to areas outside of the US (i.e., the Aztecs of San Diego State U.)?
I’ve heard several reports concerning this over the last year or so on NPR. Each time I thought about it, I moved further and further away from taking such a sensitive stance on the issue. This is not to say that, like Tony said, a term like “redskins” isn’t offensive, because at the core it is. But, doesn’t it seem that we’re getting just too damned PC about things? Seriously. Aren’t there more things to worry about? I think that being politically correct to an extreme, or even to a small fault, just distorts the real issues at hand. Labeling is going to be a fact of life no matter the time period. What happened to Native Americans (and, of course, what happens to them now…) is the true meat of this meal (or the Riblet, in Randy’s case…was I not being PC enough? Ha ha…). Names, monikers, labels; all these tend to shift the discussion to the surface tensions as opposed to what lies beneath.
Cas, I agree entirely.
Is the reason America views Native American’s as their property because of sport mascots or as Cas said, is the mascot just “surface tension” that disuades from the core issue of racism in this country? Jeff, the possessive attitude you key onto I agree wholeheartedly with. However, I don’t think mascots deemed as a result of that possession fix much of the source of the attitude. What that source springs from is where the conversation should turn.
I tend to agree with you, Cas, but it’s hard to tell someone that they shouldn’t be offended by something like this. If American Indians had been well-treated throughout American history I would say they have no right to complain about the use of these names. But I think it’s a “you murdered, displaced, and degraded my ancestors and now you want to put some frat boy on a horse in our traditional garb in order to promote your footbal team – screw you!!” kind of situation. Of course there are more important things to worry about – but everyone worries about semi-important things all the time and this is another example.
In response to Tony, I want to make sure that it is clear that I don’t think that anyone should be told not to be offended by such things. Sure, we’re all prone to be offended by ANYTHING, really, but to allow it to come to such a head, to such a national concern, is the problem. I find myself offended by certain things that may seem strange to anyone else, or even my wife, but I don’t expect legislation or changes in the grand scope of our lives to compensate for it, that’s all. Now, back to my meat…
I’d like to see a discussion on the more serious problems facing Native Americans too. But one more point about the name issue – I don’t think petitioning the NCAA equates to demanding “legislation or changes in the grand scope of our lives”. If there were a sports team nicknamed the “Polacks” and their logo was a submarine with screen doors, would you be offended to the point of wanting them to make some changes? Especially, if most of the guys on that team descended from those who had been brutal to your ancestors. Sure, there are greater issues to tackle, but you still might speak up and say “hey guys, this is wrong”.
What was the impetus for the ban on Native American mascots in the NCAA? As mentioned above, it is my understanding that certain universities, including Central Michigan, have partnerships with Native American tribes. In fact, I recall hearing a frustrated CMU administrator explain that the NCAA completely neglected to recognize this fact (apparently, the university submitted a rather lengthy document describing the pact). I guess I don’t understand what brought this about.
A few years back, Eastern Michigan U. dropped the “Huron” mascot and adopted the Eagles. The eagles have no historical/cultural significance to the area. I’m not too sure why this happened. It’s strange, seeing that we have the Huron River and Huron High School in Ann Arbor.
From the NCAA’s statement announcing the changes:
“Three events prompted initial discussion on mascots within the Association in April 2001-membership feedback; ongoing issues surrounding the Confederate Battle Flag; and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights” statement on the use of American Indian imagery as sports symbols.”
While I completely agree with what everyone has said, I think you might have overlooked the fact that the ban only applies only to teams in post-season events (tournaments).
Sports Illustrated has an article online about the situation, and outlines the new ruling.
I see. So while the NCAA does not have the authority to ban the use of these names/mascots except during certain events, schools might be individually pressured by advocates of certain Native American groups whose efforts will be bolstered by this new rule. And it was interesting to read that the NCAA is encouraging schools not to schedule games against “offending” teams. (However, they cite the Univ of Iowa as an example of a school that adheres to this policy. Meanwhile, they are scheduled to play a football game against the Univ of Illinois Fighting Illini on 10/1.)
What’s wrong with submarines that have screens?
In response to something like that, I’d more than likely wonder why they would even adopt such absurdity, but that’s where it would end. It’s easy to say this, of course, not having run into it. Polacks have had their share, surely, of tasteless jokes levied against them and for the most part, they’re funny. I’m only offended if the joke is a bad one in general. People are associated very often with culture, social class, or race and very often groups have varied idiosyncrasies to exploit because they’re different, strange, or unusual. Chris Rock uses this to his benefit for his stand up performances! Am I wrong?
By the way, I ended up eating a vegan burrito for lunch. Scratch those meat remarks.
It is true that many team names are not offensive and are in fact endorsed by the local tribes from which they get their names and mascot garb. My original post is a little out of context because it was in response to Native American students protesting the use of the name “Redskins” and a stereotypical mascot. I completely agree that symbolic representations of Native Americans and their culture can be done with great respect. However, historically this has not been the case. While FSU and Central Michigan may have made amends with the native tribes from which their mascots have been fashioned, this is not true across the board. Personally, I think a hard line rule may be going over board, but it sure has made a wave of discussion of how this country views and treats Native Americans. There is no better remedy for past discrimination than promotion of dialogue and education. Did the NCAA make a mistake in not considering respectful uses of native names and mascots? Yeah, probably. Would it have been better to have left the issue alone? Definitely not.