[Originally Posted: Wednesday, 17 August, 2005]
I have never understood what is so wrong when university and professional sports teams use American Indian names as team nicknames and mascots. Is this the cultural crime of the century? It seems from news reports and interviews in the media that any nickname or mascot name that refers to a native American (American Indian or native American, who knows?) or tribe is in some way offensive and racist. What is so offensive about the Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, Kansas City Chiefs and Fighting Illini?
In the past I have generally dismissed these claims as politically correct over-sensitivity from a tiny few. However, the new NCAA policy prohibiting colleges or universities with "hostile or abusive mascots, nicknames or imagery from hosting any NCAA championship competitions" is just plain dumb. The NCAA says that...
...as a national association, we believe that mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin should not be visible at the championship events that we control.
...The NCAA objects to institutions using racial/ethnic/national origin references in their intercollegiate athletics programs," said NCAA President Myles Brand. "Several institutions have made changes that adhere to the core values of the NCAA Constitution pertaining to cultural diversity, ethical sportsmanship and nondiscrimination.
What the NCAA failed to articulate exactly what is "hostile or abusive" about the 18 schools that are identified as having offensive nicknames. Concerning the term hostile, this must be understood as a degreed property. How upset or offended could someone be reading the name of the school on the scoreboard? How irritated, concerned, uncomfortable (rightly or wrongly) does one have to become to be considered offended? Does someone have to be able to idendify what exactly it is about these icons that offend? If so, the NCAA has failed to make these details known.
These nicknames and mascots are tokens of school and team identity; icons that students and fans emblazoned on flags, stickers, apparel, and the 50-yard line. 
Schools do not choose nicknames that are effeminate, cowardly, weak or passive. Instead, they choose nicknames and mascots that evoke strength, courage, power and valor. This is one main reason many native American names have historically been used. The nobility and strength of the native American race has been the main reason for their popularity as team names and mascots. Objectively, there is nothing hostile and abusive in these names.
Some American Indians, and others (and others) would not agree and claim that they are deeply offended, not just by the misuse, but the very use of American Indian names. A recent LA Times article states...
"The whole reason behind it is, it harms our children," La Marr said, citing not only stereotypes and caricatures but also the nicknames themselves..."A sports team creates a division because one team wins and one team loses."
Given Cindy La Marr's reasoning, I don't know why she is not campaigning to outlaw competitive sports all-together. If the American Indian community is so sensitive that they are vulnerable to insult when an Indian mascotted team loses, then we should just give them their own sovereign land and let them be their own nation. Oh wait...
In truth, I think the average American Indian should be offended by what the NCAA, Cindy La Marr at the Capitol Area Indian Resources, the Alliance Against Racial Mascots, and Susan Shown Harjo at Indian County Today say as they speak on behalf of the entire race (as should most women be offended at NOW, or blacks at the NAACP; do these organizations speak for all women and blacks, are people really that easily defined?).
The writer at Donkelphant notes that "At times, the college sports organization seems more concerned with whether a given symbol offends other people, not those it is meant to caricature." These groups don't speak for Max B. Osceola Jr., a member of the Seminole Tribe of Florida's Tribal Council. In an article from the St. Petersberg Times, he says...
"Here's another example of non-Indians telling Indians what's good for them," he said. "No one from the NCAA came to our tribe to ask us directly. These are people who never lived a day on the reservation who are now saying how we should or should not use our name."
Another interesting aspect of the NCAA's new policy is its limited focus to American Indian names and mascots. If the mention of specific ethnicities, like American Indians, is so hurtful, hostile and abusive, why not ban all names that mention any enthnic groups at all? Is the Fighting Irish demaning and abusive? What about the Celtics, the Saxons, or the Trojans?
Finally, what are we to say to those American Indians (possibly a majority) who do NOT find these nicknames and mascots demeaning but inspiring and honoring to their historic legacy? Nothing. Those individuals do not have a voice because small but powerful (and loud) political lobbying groups convince organizations like the NCAA that they speak for Indians everywhere and that these names like 'Indians,' 'Seminoles,' 'Illini' and 'Utes' are hostile and abusive . The 'who cares-common sense' majority has no lobbying group- why would you hire a group to protect what just seems OK and good?
Is there something fundementally wrong with these nicknames and mascots? There may be but not just because some people don't like them. If political correctness has sunk as low as personal preference, they will be modifying their policies as soon as PETA (the Tigers, the Cougars, ect.), the Audubon Society (Golden Eagles, Cardinals, the Jayhawks, ect.), the Weather Channel (the Hurricanes, Crimson Tide), and Alcoholics Anonymous (the Boilermakers) can get lawyers to sign retainers (thanks to Ray Ratto at ESPN.com).
Comments