In the fall of 2005, the NCAA came out with a new referendum which banned the depiction of Native American mascots at any sanctioned NCAA Championship Event, and furthermore, any school with a Native American mascot or nickname must end their depiction of that mascot, as well as put into motion a plan for changing that nickname. Well, the backlash from this decree was so great that many schools were able to circumvent the referendum, which was eventually changed, and added a portion which stated that any school that could cite tribal approval, could keep their nickname and mascot in place. I'm sure that most of my classmates are aware of the way this rule change affected a school in this state about an hour southeast of ISU (I refuse to say their name due to a enormous amount of disgust and anger I feel for people who wear that school's apparel around campus, and even worse, to our games).
This whole issue, got me thinking about the root of nicknames and mascots in collegiate sports, which led me to do some research at the time, and eventually led me to choose that as my final project (so, um... dibs). What I came to, was that the initial nicknames came from the colors worn during their games - Dartmouth "Big Green", Harvard "Crimson", etc. Other names spawned from certain animals or events which were identifiably from that location - Texas "Longhorns" (the state which produces the majority of the nation's beef), Miami "Hurricanes" (with the eastern coast of Florida being the most popular location for the storm's arrival), etc. Later on, newer schools chose names with the intention of intimidating their opponents, to accomplish this, some schools added the word "Fighting" to their school's self-description - Notre Dame "Fighting Irish", and let us not forget our own school's historic nickname Illinois State Normal University "Fighting Teachers", etc.
The problem comes from when those lines get crossed. The question is if choosing a Native American nickname was meant to represent the area where the school is located, or represent the school's population, or meant to intimidate. If the choice is made for one of those first two reasons, such as the University of North Dakota "Fighting Sioux", and California State University at San Diego "Aztecs", then it is warranted. In my opinion, if they are for the right reasons, there is nothing wrong with Native American nicknames and the depiction of their mascots.
Anger does interesting things to normally rational people. It would seem to make sense that a nick name would be just that, but the people who are using the nick name of another people need to be in good standing with that people in order to not offend.
ReplyDeleteIt is the same reason white people do not get to use the “N” word but black people do. There are also no mascots depicting African tribal ANYTHING due to the volatile relationship this country's power structures have with that group of people. It is the same with the Native Americans. They are angry with the rest of white America so we do not get to use them as a logo.
Doyle, I agree with you on this matter. It seems that more racism is depicted by such fragile treatment of other races and cultures than the racism everyone is so afraid of committing by including these races in cultural icons such as mascots. Sometimes, when people try to over-correct, they simply reinforce the issue which they are trying to avoid. When we say that having a native american as a mascot is racist, we are actually saying that they are different than a knight or trojan or whatever other human mascots we use. By deleting them from the sport front, we are actually encouraging the very racism we are trying to avoid.
ReplyDeleteHeather
Though the name itself doesn't do damage we can also look at organizations like the Redskins to see the interesting connection of George Preston Marshall. Marshall owned the redskins from 1932-1969 and led them to become one of the very last teams to integrate black players. Though he was successful at first, Marshall led the redskins to a slow decline as he micromanaged the team and kept it was white as possible. Until 1969, when Marshall died, the team was not only involved in race relations because of their name, but because of their practices.
ReplyDeleteNow these two elements may just be a coincidence, but then again having that name, and using it as an internal rallying tool might have an impact on what Marshall thought he could get away with. Then again he might have just been a racist old man.
Dan
Doyle, first of all I commend you on not mentioning the name of the most overrated school in Illinois, and I agree too much orange is seen around campus. However, mascot controversies have sparked an interest with me and I am curious to find out how these situations are handled. The hardest thing for me to comprehend is how can it be determined if the “line is crossed.” I would imagine that choosing the mascot to represent a school area or population would have overall good intentions. Yet, by using mascots to intimidate is that just adding fuel to the fire of already overblown stereotypes? The relationship with the tribe being represented and the team obviously should be on good terms.
ReplyDeleteOhhhh boy. For your first post, this is quite the whopper, Doyle.
ReplyDeleteThis is such a great topic, as it adds a whole 'nother layer to race issues that I really don't think you would encounter anywhere else. Non blacks are not supposed to use the N word, that's one thing. But then you look at school mascots, where it's okay for certain schools to mimic an American Indian tribe, but it's not okay for others. I remember in class you brought up that thing about the Seminoles, and how they have tribal approval and everything. I think a good thing to research for your paper would be where these non-tribal approved schools, such as U of I, get their "tribal dances." Are they made up? Do they mimic archived footage of real tribal dance?