Native
Americans & Sports Controversy
Anyone
who plays sports, is a fan of sports, or lives in the United States of America
is sure to be familiar with teams like the Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians,
Washington Redskins, or the Kansas City Chiefs. But what, aside from being well
known sports teams, do they all have in common? Nothing much, other than the
huge controversy concerning their names and mascots. Get rid of the mascots or
don’t? It seems like a simple concept, but it turns out that people have varied
opinions on the subject, and I think it is one that has to be given some
serious thought.
There
are some who support leaving the names and mascots be, and they have many
reasons. Proponents say that the mascots pay respect, and “promote a better
understanding of their cultures,” (Wikipedia, Native American mascot
controversy). To which in itself could be called a misunderstanding, especially
as in the case of the Florida State University Chief Osceola figure, who rides
a horse named Renegade. Actually, it could be classified as a “romanticism,” in
that the actual Seminole war leader Osceola never was a chief according to
historians. To put it plainly, there’s a chance of portraying false
information.
Then
there’s the argument that the mascots represent the tribes in a powerful way,
and they provide a sense of pride with those affiliated with them. In fact,
there was a poll (2004) done by the Public Policy Center at the University of
Pennsylvania (similar to that of the Sports Illustrated poll), that found that
“91% of American Indians surveyed in the 48 states on the mainland USA didn’t
have a problem with the name Redskins.” But does that settle the issue?
Reasoning against keeping the mascots says otherwise.
The
NCAI (National Congress of American Indians) believe that such mascots produce
negative stereotypes. In April 2001 the U.S Commission on Civil Rights stated,
“the stereotyping of any racial, ethnic, religious or other group, when
promoted by our public educational institutions, teaches all students that
stereotyping of minority groups is acceptable, which is a dangerous lesson in a
diverse society.” Stereotyping is not something that should be promoted, even
unintentionally. It often creates negative images, and labels people in ways
that are hurtful and potentially harmful.
A
statement partly in protest from the director of diversity for Southern
Methodist University, Steven Denson (also a member of the Chickasaw nation) says
otherwise. “I believe it is acceptable if used in a way that fosters
understanding and increased positive awareness of the Native American culture.
And it must also be done with the support of the Native American community.
There is a way to achieve a partnership that works together to achieve mutually
beneficial goals.” In general most
people are one sided on the issue, so the cooperation of all involved would be
needed for that kind of reasoning to work.
There
was a lot of controversy about the Marquette University Warriors, until they
changed the name to the Golden Eagles in 1994. The president of the school
said, “We live in a different era than when the Warriors nickname was selected
in 1954. The perspective of time has shown us that our actions, intended or
not, can offend others. We must not knowingly act in a way that others will
believe, based on their experience, to be an attack on their dignity as fellow
human beings.”
Wisconsin
in 2010 passed a law to get rid of “race based nicknames, logos and mascots in
schools,” but they can argue to keep their “race based mascot if they have
permission of local Native American tribes.” I believe this is a good step
forward in dealing with the problem. There’s a fine line between respect and
stereotyping. A lot of it comes down to opinion and situation, but for me the
bottom line is this; if a school’s biggest problem between its students and
community members is a mascot, then it needs to be changed.
No comments:
Post a Comment