Representations Of The Other Paper

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Matthew Eder

Dr. Lila Rakoczy

Public History 3388.01

Representations of ‘the Other’ Paper

Sports ignite people and their passions for them in a way that can not be explained with just any simple answer. A highly debated argument in today’s world of sports that has been on going for many years revolves around the usage of mascots that resemble Native American culture or Native Americans themselves. "Sports fans love to don paint and feathers to cheer on the Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, the Florida State Seminoles, and the Warriors and Chiefs of their hometown high schools. But outside the stadiums, American Indians aren't cheering--they're yelling racism" (Spindel). In light of this anti-Indian mascot movement many high schools and colleges have changed their Native American mascots, to mascots that portray a non-Native American image and name. Carol Spindel’s Dancing at Halftime: Sports and the Controversy over American Indian Mascots examines both sides of this issue. Spindel stated in an interview that, "For starters, I simply wanted to understand why, at the university where I taught, a student dressed up as an Indian named Chief Illiniwek and danced at sports events" (Publishers Weekly). This question soon peaked her interest to learn the real history that this Chief Illiniwek came from and not just his role as a mascot for the University of Illinois. Along the way she examines the role the Indian mascot plays in American sports. From the high school to the collegiate level, administrators are besieged by both sides with emotional pleas. Professional organizations find Native American names and logos are highly contested in the legal system. It makes you wonder, if these types of imagery are found offensive by the peoples they reflect, then "why are fans so determined to retain the fictional chiefs who plant flaming spears and dance on the fifty-yard line" (Spindel)? I will attempt using both Carol Spindel’s book and other sources to show both sides of this debate and give each side their deserved voice and answer.

First, let us examine what is a sports fan. ‘Fan’ has often been referenced as an abbreviated form of the word fanatic (marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion). A sports fan does not openly welcome change or negativity presented towards his respected team. That is why, "The uproar over the use of Native American images as sports team mascots mystifies many in America's majority culture. How can Chief Illiniwek, the regal dancing warrior at the University of Illinois's football games, be perceived as insulting when the intent, his supporters claim, is to honor this country's Native American past" (Davis)? But these views are not shared by the Native Americans themselves, they instead feel as if these images help foster and nurture sentiments of misunderstanding about the Native American people. They feel it allows for fans to develop a sense of apathy towards how this depicts them and their culture. It instead helps develop stereotypes that these mascots then portray. While stereotypes may not always be inaccurate, they are however usually very deficient of the whole. Native American mascots and names take on caricatures to help represent their team and in doing so they open the door to cheapen and disrespect the people they are supposed to be representing and the supposed ideals they feel that they represent. The main antagonist of Spindel’s book is Chief Illiniwek the mascot for the University of Illinois. Native Americans that protested against this particular mascot, "say he looks like ‘a Lakota who got lost in an Apache dressing room riding a Nez Perce horse’" (Rector). This opinion from the local Indians shows that they did not feel honored or proud of such a poor representation of the Illinois Confederation or the Illiniwek as they are referred. The United States Commission on Civil Rights addressed all non-Indian schools in 2001 about this issue stating, "the use of the imagery and traditions, no matter how popular, should end when they are offensive", this helps strengthen Native Americans fighting for their voices to be heard (qtd. in Rector). Spindel explains that blatant racism is not seen due to it being socially unacceptable, but instead is shown thru other means, "Modern racism is often expressed indirectly through a strong desire to hold onto traditional values which disadvantage non-whites. If the social psychologists are right, defending mascot traditions is an acceptable way to publicly express anti-Indian sentiment" (287). There are different degrees in which Native Americans view team names or mascots/logos as offensive or racists. The most offensive would most likely come from caricatures that pose a degrading image or have a team name that is viewed as a racial slur (i.e. Redskins, Braves, and Chiefs). The actual portrayals of a mascot or the actions of the fans which are based off of famous images also help demean the authentic Native American culture.

On the other side of this debate you have those that love and cherish these mascots and just don’t see why you want to take away something that is meant to honor and pay tribute to a culture. They feel that Native American mascots are respectful to Native American people. They argue that Indian mascots exemplify the bravery, strength and fearlessness of a people and culture and do not degrade Native Americans. The Redskins vice-president Karl Swanson stated to Sports Illustrated that his team’s name "symbolizes courage, dignity, and leadership, and that "Redskins symbolize the greatness and strength of a grand people" (SI.com). To many these mascots give them a feeling or sense of belonging or unity with the other supporters of the particular team. Spindel quoted a group from a University of Illinois football game tailgate stating, "We would be disassociating thousands of people, we would be destroying a link between the past, present, and the future. These people wouldn’t know what their university stood for any more" (23). A student that Spindel identifies as Jim feels that Native Americans in the area have no claim to be offended by their Chief Illiniwek because non are descendants of the Illini and thus have no cause to be [paraphrase]. There are those on this side of the issue that also understand the concerns of Native Americans and seek a way to answer these concerns while still holding onto ‘their heritage or culture’. The supporters are also quick to bring to light financial costs and how they might be harder to bear than negative sentiment toward their mascot by Native Americans. This most likely would not be felt too hard by certain institutional levels, but most definitely would be felt by small colleges and secondary schools who would be forced to pay the rebranding of merchandise, uniforms, and other paraphernalia out of limited funds. All materials with the deemed inappropriate branding would also become completely useless.

This issue has been highly contested from both sides and I feel both have been handling the best way they know how. I understand tradition and a sense of unity and belonging that a group of people feel when together rooting for their team. I also am able to understand and appreciate how a minority of people that do not have a strong voice. They just want to be heard and have their grievances answered and addressed. We as a society have made strides to improve the relations with the voices against Native American mascots and team names, and Native Americans have also allowed and help improve certain team’s mascots to help represent the culture that they try to embody. Some states such as Wisconsin have seen fit to remove any racial names, logos, and mascots from their state schools. They have the ability to petition to keep these items if they have the backing and permission of the local Indian tribes. In 2005 the NCAA Executive Committee instituted a policy that, "prohibit NCAA colleges and universities from displaying hostile and abusive racial/ethnic/national origin mascots, nicknames or imagery at any of the 88 NCAA championships" (NCAA.org). They also understand what kind of affect this would have on schools so they also put forth steps to help institutions deal with this matter and setup a process for case by case review for each affected institution. One such case of a waiver being granted was at Florida State University, and removed them from the list of colleges using inappropriate imagery toward Native Americans. Their mascot is the Seminoles, and they have strong ties with the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Andrew Powell of The New York Times writes, "The tribe helped university boosters create the costume for the Chief Osceola mascot, approving the face paint, flaming spear, and Appaloosa horse that have no connection to Seminole history" (Powell). Bernard Franklin, the senior vice president for governance and membership stated, "‘in its review of the particular circumstance regarding Florida State, the staff review committee noted the unique relationship between the university and the Seminole Tribe of Florida as a significant factor"’ (Powell). This is just one example of where I feel that both parties are happy with the outcome. The chief and council president for the Seminole Tribe has even stated that he feels "honor" being linked with FSU. There are other instances where other Indian tribes have come out in support of schools using their tribe names, and view them as paying homage to them. Things have been heated at times from both sides but where change has occurred it has been very reasonable and understanding. The NCAA policy I feel is very fair and well put together, it helps address the issue that outrages parties on both sides while not showing favoritism to either side of the argument. Honestly, I’m not sure I would do things much different than the NCAA did when forced to address this issue in 2005. It had an affect, "Fourteen schools have removed all references to Native American culture or were deemed not to have references to Native American culture as part of their athletics programs" (Williams). It is at the secondary school level where the majority of this issue is still located and many states are presenting and passing laws to force schools away from names and mascots that are deemed demeaning.

This issue is highly debated and each side has my understanding and sympathy towards their side of the argument. I come down in the middle of this debate not knowing how you can confidently support just one side or the other. The best approach I would have to take is find some sort of common ground because there are lots of extra things that arise if an organization is forced to change to appease a smaller group that feels slighted by you name, logo, and/or mascot. The offended party wishes you to change, so you as an organization have your eyes opened and feel for these people. As you begin this process things such as financial cost will most definitely arise. When faced with this obstacle now put in your path how should you proceed as a small organization with limited funds to expend? You want to do the right thing by these people but in doing so do they expect you to also take on the enormous weight of the financial undertaking? I’m not sure it’s fair or right that in changing decades of tradition your identity, albeit the right thing to do, you should now be forced to burden this alone. I feel that both sides need to be involved and a willingness to communicate and work together for change to occur. There are plenty of examples of where a common ground that did not hurt either side has been found. I would try to take the approach of schools that have kept their mascots and names. Seek out the tribe or group your institution associates themselves with and try to get and understanding where you better pay tribute to them and they take no offense in your representation. The NCAA did what they saw best, and I feel when faced with what is right and being able to act on that as an institution are not always the same thing. Some of the schools that have not complied with their mandate are small universities and do not have the resources to change. Native American peoples have every right to their stance and I understand their outrage, but I cannot see how they can accept a complete turnover across the board of every name, image, or mascot without finding a way to help in the change. Demanding something and getting it down involve different mind sets. It is our responsibility as the majority to pay attention and heed the concerns of ‘the Other’ as small groups in the minority has been labeled.