The use of Native peoples as sports mascots is a phenomenon of American pop culture. While some can trace roots as far back as the late 19th century, the bulk of Native sports mascots were created by non-Native entities beginning around 1910 and peaking in the decade of the 1930’s. The rationale for creating Native mascots most commonly revolved around the idea of saving what America saw as “vanishing cultures”. Organizations as old as the Improved Order of Red Men made popular this premise and in the decades following 1900 it became a common practice in non-Native spaces including schools, colleges and professional sports teams. The creation of Native mascots at this time almost universally did not involve Native people. By 1900, only approximately 250,000 Native peoples were left in the United State in total. Until 1924, Native peoples were not citizens of the United States and due to various laws could not legally leave reservations except under special circumstances in nearly all parts of the country. Even after citizenship was granted, many of these community laws would remain in place and Native people were still often confined to Indian Country during the peak of creation of Native mascots. As a result, many were created as interpretations of Native cultures by non-Natives through the Euro-American lens and created and perpetuated a number of American pop culture stereotypes about Native peoples and cultures throughout U.S. History continuing to this day.
In 1969, the National Congress of American Indians issued its first statement against the stereotypical misrepresentation of Native peoples in media including the portrayal of Native peoples as sports mascots. In the 51 years that followed, Native people have largely been successful in this effort. In 2020, an estimated two-thirds of all Native sports mascots have been retired and over 90% of stereotypical Native imagery has been removed from American pop culture including media and advertising.
Akomawt Educational Initiative supports this Native-led, multi-generational effort and this page is designed as a resource guide for intelligent and productive dialogue on this ongoing discussion. ----------
Tips for Respectful Discussion or Debate
Though the effort has been successful, over 2,000 Native sports mascots remain in the United States in all levels of sports including professional, semi-professional, amateur and college with the overwhelming majority still represented at the high school level. Debates about changing professional and college mascots often take place in the public media, but the debate over high school Native sports mascots are local debates and often times divisive. Much of the divisiveness happens with accusations thrown both ways and a lack of productive discussion. The conversation can be derailed by emotional exchanges and completely miss the point of discussing the appropriateness of mascotting living cultures. These are a few tips to remember for a respectful debate:
No matter your position, whether for or against a mascot, remember to be respectful and not to resort to name calling. The creation of a defensive atmosphere by either side of the debate eliminates any chance of creating a common understanding.
Discussion of the offensivenes or non-offensiveness of a word is a pointless exercise. If a Native mascot uses a generalized English language term to describe all Native peoples under that term whether Indians, Redskins, Savages, Braves, Redmen, even Natives etc...they are ALL EQUALLY WRONG. English words that singularize the plurality and complexity of Native cultures are all misleading regardless of intent. Native peoples identify by their tribe/nation/clan. Generalized terminology for Native peoples in North America is a European language concept developed first in Europe and adopted by English language speakers in America.
Positive stereotypes and negative stereotypes created by Native mascots are equally as harmful. Believing a Native mascot represents romanticized interpretations (i.e. proud, brave, etc) or violent/negative interpretations (i.e. war-like, fierce) of Native cultures and acting on those beliefs have the same negative impact on the self-esteem of Native youth.
Not all Native people have the same opinion on this matter. No single Native person can speak for all Native peoples. Consider the sources. Akomawt Educational Initiative generally recommends that advice on education on Native content should be Native-led by Native educators and Native sources whenever possible.
The objection by countless Native individuals, organizations and tribal governments to Native mascots is focused on the stereotype-led behavior of sports fandom. Regardless of how culturally accurate a mascot is, the presence of a Native mascot in a sports atmosphere creates an environment where behaviors many Native people deem as offensive/racist are socially acceptable to non-Native fans. The negative stereotypical behaviors/imagery/language are the focus of any opposition and these behaviors come from both the team with the Native mascot and fans of opposing teams. Cultural accuracy does not eliminate stereotypical behavior by sports fans.
----------
Polls
There’s lots of arguments against the use of polling data as justification of issues that involve morals and education that goes without saying. Poll data is easily manipulated to support the narrative of whoever is quoting the poll and the same poll can be interpreted in a multitude of ways depending on who is doing the interpreting. On the subject of the offensiveness of the word "Redskins" there are dueling polls with completely different conclusions about whether Native peoples are offended by a word. This information is then extracted outward and represented as the ending argument on either side of the debate. Native populations are notoriously extremely difficult to poll accurately, therefore, Akomawt Educational Initiative does not recommend the use of polls as conclusive data. However, they are often a distractive argument and two polls in particular, The Annenberg Poll of 2004 and the Washington Post Poll of 2016, are the most quoted as justification for Natives not feeling offended by mascots.
Mascot supporters (specifically the Washington Redskins) first began reporting of the results of a poll run by the Annenberg Survey in 2004 and in this debate it’s commonly referred to as the Annenberg Poll. The poll focused on the offensiveness of the word “Redskin” and is most cited by the Washington Redskins organization as well as their fans. There’s many things to criticize about the poll which many Native writers and scholars have done. In 2015, an internal memo from the Annenburg Survey agreed with the criticisms against their 2004 poll and declared their own poll as “unrepresentative”. 12 years later the Washington Post repeated the poll, the methodology and the wording (which is part of the criticism) and came up with the same result which the Redskins then added to their campaign. Both polls concluded that 90% of people who self-id’d as Native over the phone without naming a tribe were not offended or bothered by the term “Redskin”. These links provide insight on the efficacy of these two polls.
In 2015, reporters asked the Annenberg Survey themselves about what they thought about the way their poll has been used and Annenberg agreed with the criticisms and declared their own poll “unrepresentative”
In a complete contradiction of their 2004 press release here’s the most relevant portion:
“…the goal of the study was never to generate nationally representative estimates specifically for the Native American population. The design and implementation of the 2004 NAES was appropriate for the main research goal of the study, which was to generate a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. Even very large probability‐based samples, like the 2004 NAES, are not always effective for generating representative samples for all possible subgroups that may be of interest. Some subgroups, including Native Americans, have unique characteristics (e.g., multiple languages, unusual residential patterns) that require specialized survey designs if they are to be measured rigorously. Native Americans are well known to be a relatively small and difficult to survey population. As noted in the memo, landline telephone penetration rates on reservations are significantly lower than they are elsewhere in the U.S. The experiences and attitudes of Native Americans living on reservations may very well be different from those living elsewhere. A survey designed specifically for Native Americans would therefore need to have a special protocol for reaching those living on reservations. Given that our goal was never to generate nationally representative estimates for Native Americans, these initiatives were not built into the design. Due to the above reasons, it is not appropriate to use NAES data to study this population.…We feel it would be more appropriate for those engaged in this discussion to consider more recent research from studies designed specifically for the Native American population.”
In 2016, the Washington Post published their own poll using the same flawed methodology.
In Whose Honor (1997 with updates) documents Charlene Teters successful fight against Chief Illiniweck at the University of Illinois -director Jay Rosenstein
More Than a Word (2017) is a recent Native produced documentary about the Redskins and Native mascots -directed by John Little and Kenn Little (Standing Rock Sioux Tribe)