NCAA bars Indian nicknames, mascots
By Callimachus | Related entries in Bad Decisions, Race, SportsA bold and progressive statement, or political correctness run amok?
NCAA President Myles Brand singled out 18 schools as having “prima facie hostile and abusive” symbols, and advocates praised that list for including what they consider the biggest offenders, such as Florida State, Illinois, Utah and North Dakota.
The trouble is, the NCAA “did not specify exactly what would be considered hostile and abusive.” With “prima facie” they take the Potter Stewart approach to the complicated issue: “I shall not today attempt further to define [obscenity], but I know it when I see it.” That guarantees that the matter will default to the courts.
The list of schools affected by the NCAA’s decision ranges from the generic (braves, Indians, savages) to specific (Chippewas, Seminoles, Illini, Choctaws). Somehow, “Warriors” didn’t make the list, but “Braves” did.
whose Aztecs nickname goes back to the 1920s, escaped the list because the NCAA could not find any organized tribe or group related to the Aztecs, a civilization that dates to at least the 12th century.
As a result, the Aztecs’ spear logo and cultural imagery will not have to be covered up if their teams reach the postseason.
So apparently the issue is whether there is a living identity to the ethnicity in question. Yet there are plenty of Irish-Americans, and Mike Downey of the Chicago Tribune wants to know why the obstreperous leprechaun on the Notre Dame logos isn’t deemed offensive.
I don’t mind a team being called the Irish, I really don’t. I take pride in my heritage. I wish we could live in a world in which a university’s teams could be called the Fighting Italians, the Fighting Mexicans, the Fighting Japanese or the Fighting Germans.
Yet if we get rid of some, mustn’t we get rid of all? Can a school really get away with calling itself the Fighting Irish in the wake of this NCAA posse’s vigilant PC crackdown?
The NCAA seems to have no answer to this. It only says “the Fighting Irish refers to a nationality, not a race of people, and no ethnic group.” Yet you could say the same of Chippewas, Seminoles, Illini, and Choctaws.
In fact, one of the universities originally under the microscope for its “Warriors” nickname got off the NCAA’s list because the NCAA learned it “used the nickname Warriors to depict a Greek soldier in full period combat attire.” Seminoles are a no-no, but Greeks are fair game?
It seems to me whatever good intention underlays the NCAA’s policy is more than undone by its arbitrary qualities.
The NCAA has shown itself capable of making ham-fisted intrusions into complex social issues — witness the boycotts and threats against states whose flags carry design elements held over from the Confederacy. Yet the Confederates borrowed older imagery — most of it Scottish — in creating their flag.
At times, the college sports organization seems more concerned with whether a given symbol offends other people, not those it is meant to caricature. Ole Miss has had to defend its use of its nickname, the Rebels, for a couple decades, and Nicholls State struggled with its mascot, a colonel in Confederate garb, before choosing to keep it.
Meanwhile, fans of the Vancouver Canucks of the NHL can be glad their team is out of the reach of the NCAA.
And the Crusader mascot of Valparaiso University, College of Holy Cross, and other Catholic schools has been objected to by some thoughtful people made queasy by the brutality of the actual Crusaders, and because the word is anathema to modern Muslims. No one, so far as I know, has objected to “Crusaders” because it trivializes the holy purpose of the most pure-hearted and God-fearing among the Crusaders to associate their name with a college basketball team and its cheerleaders.
This entry was posted on Sunday, August 7th, 2005 and is filed under Bad Decisions, Race, Sports. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 7th, 2005 at 10:39 pm
Personally, I think this is a good move. We can go down the list about all of the other instances, but Native Americans have been lobbying for these mascots to be changed for years. I think it’s only respectful that we consider how they feel and take action. I agree that they should do a better job to define what is and isn’t offensive, but this had to happen sooner or later.
August 8th, 2005 at 1:13 am
This particular issue has crossed my own mind a number of times. Although one may be able to cite a few institutions, especially schools with significant enrollment from Indian Country, who remain in close consultation with tribal governments regarding the appropriate use of American Indian images to promote their programs, sadly such consultation appears to be the exception rather than the rule.
It has been painfully clear that most usages tend to perpetuate some of the more irritating misconceptions about native people, either as the ‘noble savage’, the ‘vicious savage’ or sometimes the ‘tragic’ or ‘wretched savage’ by the schools playing against teams with ndn mascots.
Still, a lot of us take it in stride; remember the University of Northern Colorado’s “Fighting Whities” intramural basketball team?
Most of the difference between the use of names like ‘Chippewa’ and ‘Irish’ is that former is property of a domestic nation, while the latter is property of a foreign nation. As such there are different political considerations which must be taken into account, and for some reason, more Americans take the latter more seriously than the former. In fact there are many Americans who are largely unaware that the former, or any other American Indian nation, still exist.
Granted, an ideal course of action may in fact be for those who seek to use _any_ nation’s themes or symbols to gain the consent of the nation to which those themes or symbols originate before adopting or appropriating any of them. However, because of remembered abuses and usurpations against nations in Indian Country (consider for example the Buffalo WV cemetery now stored in lockers at Ohio State University), such consent is unlikely to be granted.
This delicate issue, like so many others in Indian Country, weaves tightly with everything from tribal sovereignty and self-determination to the political economy of cultural preservation and cultural appropriation, and may best be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Hmm… I kind of like the ‘non-savage’ image myself.
August 8th, 2005 at 2:01 am
College/university sports team names the NCAA has no objection to. [culled from this list]
The distinction of “domestic nation” (if there can be such a thing) and “foreign nation” is not in the NCAA rulings. Is there a member of an Indian “nation” in modern America who is not also a citizen of the United States, as a Greek-American or Irish-American is?
Athenians — Mount St. Mary’s College (Los Angeles)
Aztecs — San Diego State University (San Diego)
Britons — Albion College (Albion, Michigan)
Celtics — Carlow University (Pittsburgh)
Celts — University of St. Thomas (Houston)
Dutch — Central College (Pella, Iowa)
Dutchmen — Union College (Schenectady)
Flying Dutchmen — three schools, including Hofstra University
Gaels — Saint Mary’s College of California (Moraga, California), Iona College
Highland Cavaliers — University of Virginia-Wise
Highlanders — five schools, including University of California-Riverside
Moccasins — Florida Southern College (Lakeland, Fla.)
Moundbuilders — Southwestern College (Winfield, Kansas), Southwestern College of Christian Ministries (Bethany, Oklahoma)
Nanooks — University of Alaska-Fairbanks
Norse — Luther College (Decorah, Iowa),
Northern Kentucky University
Pilgrims — New England College (Henniker, N.H.)
Quakers — three schools, including
University of Pennsylvania
Ragin’ Cajuns — University of Louisiana at Lafayette
Saxons — Alfred University
Scots — 10 schools, including College of Wooster
Spartans — 14 schools, including Case Western Reserve University, Michigan State University, San Jose State University, University of Tampa
Trojans — 14 schools, including University of Southern California, Virginia State University
Vikings — 18 schools, including Cleveland State University
Ask yourself, is the NCAA’s way of proceeding more likely or less likely to raise consciousness and improve general public appreciation for the sensitivities of Native Americans and acceptance of minorities’ criticisms generally.
August 8th, 2005 at 3:01 am
It’s my understanding that the Florida tribe of Seminole Indians has no problem with the FSU Seminoles whatsoever (it’s came up several times when I was still living in Florida and every time the tribe said they were okay with it).
Has something changed?
August 8th, 2005 at 8:07 am
The relationship between the United States and the Indian nations is perhaps the most complex and perplexing in all of American politics, especially when looking at case law. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) uses the express term “domestic dependent nations” which has been applied to tribal governments, Also tribal sovereignty as nations has been affirmed as inherent and reserved in cases such as Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883) and Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe (1982), as well as treaties with individual nations dating back to the 18th Century.
A difficulty arises when considering the United States has at times acknowledged limitations in the exercise of political power over Indian Nations as a consequence of specific clauses in the US Constitution and the various treaties, but at other times has not. The language of the (Dawes) Allotment Act of 1887, United States v. Nice (1916), the General Indian Citizenship Act (1924) and the Indian Reorganization Act (1934) appears, at least on the surface, to contradict other stated positions regarding tribal sovereignty and self-determination.
As a result, American Indian nations, especially those associated with federally recognized tribal governments with whom the United States has a trust responsibility (strangely under the Dawes Act as well as treaties and other acts of Congress), exist in a peculiar state of ambivalence, legally bearing treble citizenship–of the tribal nation, of the United States, and of the state.
The term ‘government-to-government relationship’ has been used officially by the United States to describe the current state of US/tribal relations, in place more or less since at least the 1980s. Officially, there are domestic nations.
August 8th, 2005 at 9:16 am
Interestingly, the NCAA list that Callimachus has provided appears to include some references to American Indian/Alaska Native images and symbols, specifically Moccasins, Moundbuilders and Nanooks. Perhaps this reflects a feature of NCAA or American Indian policy that is more subtle than the Sun-Sentinel article on the ruling suggests.
Of course, one must also remember that the NCAA is not a part of the federal government but is instead a private association. Also, the NCAA itself does not have legal standing in the same manner as Indian nations (NCAA attempted to file suit against the Secretary of HEW in 1978, and the case was dismissed on grounds of insufficient standing), and this has protected it from potential lawsuits from tribal governments.
August 8th, 2005 at 10:02 am
That’s a pretty open ended question. It’s yes for some, and no for others. Still, I think you’re missing the point that we essentially took this country from these people by force and now we’re using their likenesses to earn millions of dollars in revenue and merchandising. The same can not be said for your other examples except possible the Mocassins (which could be water mocassins or simply shoes), the Nanooks (which I think refers to a character from a documentary in the 20s) and the Moundbuilders (a much more direct reference to a group of Native Americans who probably had a different tribe name but were dubbed as such because they built…well…mounds).
August 8th, 2005 at 10:04 am
This shouldn’t be seen as a American Indian “nationality” issue. The Fighting Irish comparison is wrong here. If you’ve ever seen a U. of Illinois basketball game and seen some white college kid pretending to do an indian dance, you’ll see how offensive that is. It’s not about just using the indian name or whatever, it is the fact that these universities trample all over those things that were sacred to American Indians. Those dances are not for fun, they are spiritual ceremonies of great importance.
Ask yourself: How much of an uproar would we hear if a predominantly American Indian university’s mascot was the “Flying Jesus’s” and they had their Jesus mascot running around the basketball court doing profane things? It wouldn’t be pretty.
I once heard of an instance (I think in the Dakotas somewhere) where two rival schools (one named the Chiefs and the other named the Buffaloes) had shirts made showing the Buffalo raping the Chief and vice versa. If these schools knew anything about the religious significance of the buffalo in Lakota life (and I’m guessing they did since they lived there) they would know how offensive that image was.
August 8th, 2005 at 10:48 am
For the record, I am in general agreement with Kris on this one. This is why the ideal policy is to approach, and secure consent from, those responsible for keeping the traditions _before_ anything derivative of any nation’s, any people’s, cultural heritage or identity is even considered.
Efforts have been made in the past with other organizations, but it seems that whenever non-Indian organizations become involved with American Indian issues, they either end up stumbling in the dark or going places they shouldn’t.
Issues related to tribal sovereignty, self-determination, as well as cultural and religious protection (which are usually not separable), are inevitably going to apply especially if the issue finds its way into a courtroom.
Much damage has been done; much ignorance and intolerance remains. As Montequieu has said, “I would consider myself the happiest of mortals if I could make it so that men were able to cure themselves of their prejudices. Her I call prejudices not what makes one unaware of certain things but what makes one unaware of oneself.” (_de L’Esprit des Lois_, preface)
Ndaktani shukw el-welixtasit.
August 8th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
Thet’as the first time I’ve seen this “point” raised. It isn’t in the NCAA rulings and minutes, which don’t talk about history but rather “diversity.”
Hell, the French do the same thing with Asterix. Should they stop making that comic series and apologize to whatever Gauls they can find? Should Sir Walter Scott’s novels be banned in Britain out of sensitivity to the Saxons?
“These people?” Which ones, the Lenni Lenape, or the Susquehannocks who killed and enslaved them (“made them women”), or the Iroquois who killed and enslaved the Susquehannocks? I thought the “noble savage” was a bad image.
Not all Indians live on reservations and count themselves members of “domestic nations.” Plenty of them are walking the streets and look like you and me (I had a part-Comanche girlfriend for a few years, but her teams were Georgia and Alabama). Not everyone who claims to be a champion of Indian rights can really prove he’s an Indian (Ward Churchill).
This isn’t the Civil Rights Movement. No one’s being lynched, no one’s being denied the right to vote. It’s about feelings being hurt. The same tactics don’t always work in different situations. What’s the goal here? To punish white/European insensitivity, or to foster greater integration of all of America’s cultures and increase people’s appreciation for one another. You can’t always do both.
August 8th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
There’s a flip-side to this one, you realize. A lot of fundamentalist Christians object to the legions of “devil” team nicknames. Especially when their kids attend that school, and their tax dollars go to buy the uniforms with that name on the back. Their objections fit into the NCAA’s notion of religious sensitivity.
Devise a policy that allows the banning of names that insult Indians or Muslims, but not those that insult Irish or Greeks or fundamentalist Christians. Oh, you probably could do it, with enough legalese, but what would be the point of that? What good would it do for all of us?
But I don’t see the hue and cry about that. I covered one such objection in a high school in a fairly conservative area. I thought it was silly, but I was dismayed to see how the few people who spoke at the public meeting against the mascot were hissed and shouted down loudly by the fans who remembered the state basketball championship of 1973. I thought they were wrong, but I respected them for their courage.
August 8th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Well said, Callimachus, on both counts. What this discussion shows is that ultimately there are no facile “one size fits all” policies when it comes to this issue. It is quite true that dealing only with the federally-recognized “domestic nations” is a problem that cannot encompass all of Indian Country, for there are many persons of American Indian descent who are not citizens of those “domestic nations,” and some whose entire communities had either failed the federal litmus test or were never granted the opportunity. Some choose not to follow the government’s path on the grounds and the belief that the federal recognition policy is inherently either stacked against petitioners or invalid according to tradition. And I am certainly aware that the majority of American Indians, even those who carry their CDIBs, do not in fact live on reservations. This is but one more misconception that must ultimately be rectified.
But one distinction that must be understood is that classical tension between justice and law. Agreed, most have a strong impulse to oppose the insults a degrading caricature represents, and doubtless some rail against the injustice of it. On other instances of equal degradation those same voices fall silent, either because they have no knowledge of it, they do not recognize it, or they silently approve, This is why such cases may be best handled on an individual basis.
Again, much damage has been done, and continues to be. I confess again that I do not know how to fix it, and I am not sure it can be.
For this issue, even those who try to help will hurt and be hurt.
August 8th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
I know this existed between the tribes, just as it did between African tribes. It doesn’t make our actions against these people, and our co-opting of their symbols as mascots, any less deplorable. I agreed with you about the Memen Pinguin scenario. On this one I do not. It’s our country, our history and our responsibility.
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see the Irish or the Greeks objecting to somebody calling them “Irish” or “Athenians”? Once I see sustained efforts by these groups to change these names, I’ll consider it, but until then the point doesn’t hold water except to distract from the real issue with a example that’s transparently “too PC”.
My answer would be because people would cry foul if they brought that up. The NCAA would be viewed in the same light as those who seek reparations for slavery. And besides, now the issue is seen in most circles as one of respect and sensitivity. Jonathon is right when he talks about these symbols and dances being used in religious ceremonies. We certainly don’t see the same thing being used during the Crusaders game. We don’t see thousands of fans kneeling down and praying or making the sign of the cross. To do so would seem offensive and we wouldn’t think of it. But somehow it’s okay to do whooping calls and wear war paint? In my mind it’s not.
The Native Americans existed, these tribes existed, their traditions existed and it’s provable. The devil is a fictional character to many. There’s a big difference.
Well, countless Native Americans were slaughtered, stripped of their traditions and culture and forced to integrate into our society. Then those same traditions and symbols were used by their oppressors in sporting events to make billions. This shouldn’t be seen at as some sort of punishment. It’s about finally paying them the respect they deserve.
August 8th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
It seems like everyone agrees with this decision, but everyone has a different reason for it — and none of them listed here is the same as the reasoning used by the NCAA.
I wonder if some people don’t think it would have been a better outcome of the Indians had been left in possession of what became the United States. History is not kind. But it is done, so all we can do is compensate the losers by … chiding colleges over mascots that, by everyone’s admission bear little or no resemblance to the realities of Indian life.
So I wonder now, will the NCAA move its headquarters and museum out of Indianapolis, Indiana?
Really, what about those state names? Illinois, Arkansas, the Dakotas, Utah … isn’t that exactly the same thing? The “oppressors” laying claim to the very names stripped from the natives?
I’m willing to bet there are plenty of people who find themselves in essential sympathy with the Indians on this one, and who wish this could all be worked out over time between the schools and the tribes, who are revolted and offended by the arbitrariness and illogic of the NCAA’s position.
August 8th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
Justin, I have problems with two of your arguements.
First, you write:
I didn’t realize you were that old!
Seriously, though, a vanishingly small number of people alive today can claim to taken any land from Native Americans. Those days are gone.
The best you can say is that some people alive today have ancestors that took land from various Native American tribes. And I doubt that, for example, a Vietnamese boat person who came over in the 1970s feels any responsibility whatsoever.
Also, Natvie Americans can’t bbe called a “people”. There was great variation amonst the types of cultures. There were many different peoples, just as in Europe, Africa, and Asia.
My second objection is to this bit:
One could just as easily say, “The Christians existed, their denominations existed, their traditions existed and it’s provable. Native America beliefs are fictional to many. There’s a big difference.” Neither arguement is convincing.
And I’m rather distressed that THIS topic is getting way more play than Salman Rushdie’s call for an Islamic Reformation….
August 8th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
Icepick, good points. But this topic is getting the jaw-jaw because it’s one where we agree on large points and disagree on detail. I think we all find Rushdie’s call essentially agreeable, and essentially impossible to implement — at least by him or by any of us.
August 17th, 2005 at 4:56 am
NCAA Politically-Correct Nonsense
I have never understand the cultural insensitivity of university and professional sports teams using native American terms as nicknames and mascots. It seems from news reports and interviews in the media that any mascot name that refers to a native
November 21st, 2005 at 2:45 pm
NCAA Politically-Correct Nonsense
[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 new…
April 11th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Removing nicknames and giving reperations to Native Americans are both not the answer. Instead, colleges and sports teams that use Indian symbols should work directly with the tribe they “represent” and actually represent them. Together they can hlep raise awareness for Native American causes (reservation unemployment, teen suicide, improving the quality of education for Indian children, etc.). These are REAL issues. Instead of pointing fingers at what’s racist, lets bridge the gap between cultural barriers and do something. Colleges are always looking for ways to improve racial diversity. Well, this is a golden opportunity. Support Native American tribes. Help them preserve their treasured culture by allowing them to decide how they want to be represented.