By now, I'm sure that any site readers who follow college sports have already heard this story. The NCAA has decided to ban the use of Native American nicknames, logos or mascots at any of its national championships, beginning in February. For now, the ruling doesn't affect Division IA football directly, since there is no NCAA playoff in the high profile sport. The Bowl Championship Series, though, is considering a similar ban. Teams with such logos or names will be prohibited from hosting post-season tournaments in other sports.
The response, to say the least, has not been favorable from certain segments of society. Conservative white alumni are irate:
But alumni of universities with Indian nicknames accused the NCAA of enforcing political correctness without consideration for their schools' traditions and the feelings of local Native American groups.
The "politically correct" charge is usually the first defense of the racists who oppose the change. It also shows a completely lack of knowledge of the history of these names, the history of Native American-white relations and a selective choice of which Native Americans should be listened to and which should be ignored. People also often forget that the second word of "politically correct" is "correct." Shouldn't we be doing the correct thing?
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush goes with another conservative canard, saying that liberals who are sensitive to minority concerns are condescending and insulting those minorities:
"I think they insult those people by telling them, 'No, no, you're not smart enough to understand this. You should be feeling really horrible about this.' It's ridiculous,'' Bush said.
This is intellectually dishonest and so far from reality as to be laughable. Guilty white people didn't make up this issue, they were asked to do this by Native Americans, the vast majority of whom reject the use of their race as sports mascots. It is Bush and people like him who are insulting Native Americans by suggesting that they don't have the ability to lodge their own complaints and have people pay attention to them.
My school (I'm currently completing my third degree from the university) is right in the middle of the conflict -- Florida State, which calls its sports teams the Seminoles. This could have a big impact on the school, whose entire marketing campaign is based around the Seminoles name and logo and whose sports teams often find themselves not only playing in the postseason, but often hosting postseason tournaments as well. That will now be in jeopardy.
FSU president T.K. Wetherell, usually a sensitive and level-headed guy (I've been acquainted with him since he was president of Tallahassee Community College) has drunk the Kool-Aid on this issue. He had this to say:
That the NCAA would now label our close bond with the Seminole people culturally 'hostile and abusive' is both outrageous and insulting.
This statement is either deliberately obtuse or shows a complete ignorance to the issues at hand. The NCAA isn't saying the bond between FSU and the Seminole Tribe is hostile and abusive, they're saying that the "War Chant," the white guy dressed up in Native American clothing and tossing a flaming spear, the "Tomahawk Chop," the school fight song with the "Scalp 'Em" phrase in the second line, constant references to scalping and going on the warpath, the 'Nole bastardization of the Tribe's name and the sentiments, words and actions of the legion of moronoic FSU fans are hostile and abusive (note that I'm not saying all FSU fans are morons, but I've been to enough games and been in enough conversations -- and a few fights -- to honestly say that many of them are).
Wetherell is clearly not exhibiting much sensitivity on the issue, as this remark shows:
Wetherell, who was angered by the decision, said he had it in his mind "to paint (the Seminole logo) three times as big on the field (at Doak Campbell Stadium)."
He also made reference to the fact that the battle over the name is going to be "fun." Clearly, his No. 1 interest is not the feelings of the Native Americans involved.
Defenders of the Seminole name point to the "fact" that the Seminole Indians completely support the school's use of the name. As with most issues and most people, those who make this argument completely simplify and gloss over the reality in order to support their own agenda. To say that the "Seminole Indians" completely support this mascot is just not true.
It is true that the Tribal Council of the Seminole Tribe of Florida did vote to support the use of the name in June. And it is correctly pointed out that the vote was unanimous. What is usually left out is that only five people voted. While these Council members are elected, I'm certain they weren't elected because of their stance on this issue. And their decision didn't get a lot of input from the average Seminole, since council meetings are held without any input, questions or comments allowed from anyone who isn't on the council. This wasn't exactly open government with input from the people. I've seen no poll of the actual Seminole people, only the questionable word of five men.
And there are clear reasons to question the motives of these leaders. They're being investigated by the IRS for millions of dollars of unpaid taxes.
And it seems that this decision wasn't as straightforward as most claim (including most of the media) and that there might be specific reasons behind the Council's approval that had little to do with the honoring of the tribe by the university. In addition to "licensing fees" (which I couldn't find a dollar figure for), the tribe now gets:
- Assistance starting a charter school on the Brighton Reservation where Florida Gulf Coast University already runs a summer enrichment program;
- Help with medical services at the Immokalee Reservation through the FSU College of Medicine in Sarasota;
- Establishment of a Center for Seminole Heritage and Culture on the Tallahassee campus;
- Bringing Seminole master builders to Tallahassee to construct a traditional Seminole shelter called a "chickee" on the campus.
- FSU instituted "Seminole Scholars," members of the tribe who receive 80 percent tuition scholarships.
Now let me make it clear that I support these initiatives, but should the be done in response to the selling out of the tribal name? And why is the school so late in offering these things? Could it be for other reasons that altruism?
And don't forget that there is more than one tribe of Seminole Indians in the U.S. and only one of them supports FSU's use of the name. The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma says that using Indian imagery to promote sports is demeaning.
Republican Senator Jim King rejects the Oklahoma Seminoles views on this issue:
"They're the ones that gave up and went to the reservation," King said of the Oklahoma tribe. "If the Seminole tribe of Florida were offended, I'd be the first to propose making a change."
King is a liar. The Seminoles of Oklahoma didn't "give up," they were taken away:
The Seminoles in Oklahoma are descendents of Florida tribes that were forcibly removed in the 1830s, Spain said. They were taken in chains by boat, to lessen their chances of escape on land.
"The Seminoles were removed by water - shipped from Tampa to New Orleans, and up the Mississippi, and then up the Arkansas River to Oklahoma," Spain said. "Half our tribe died defending our homeland in Florida."
People have been saying for years that the Seminole Tribe has approved of the FSU name use issue. But the first official vote of the Tribe came in June of 2005. Before that, the "approval" of the Tribe came from one person, James Billie, who was ousted from his leadership position in the tribe because of alleged financial improprieties. When the Tribe was originally asked about the mascot issue the response from then-Tribal Chair Howard Tommie was a dry "nice horse." Those who wanted the name took that as an endorsement, missing the joke, as always. And that was in 1978. Prior to that, the college never asked the Seminoles what they thought. And while the school did ask the students what they thought, the students' choice was ignored. The student body elected the Dolphins as the sports mascot, but the university overruled them, instituting the Native American name instead.
Things haven't necessarily changed much. FSU home football games are all accompanied by protests against the name from Native Americans, including Seminoles. A lot of people don't see this, though, since the "official" protest area is hidden behind the stadium. I've been to enough games, though, and seen it enough times to know it's there.
And it isn't like FSU has a sterling history in dealing with Native American students, so the use of this name and these stereotypes in conjunction with other treatment don't paint a picture of "honoring" the Tribe.
Look, the Seminole names is far from the worst in use (Redskins, Savages, Redmen), but the images and songs used in conjuction with the name are no different than those other names in their hostility and abusiveness.
Some people (notably white people. Notably white guys) don't understand why these mascots, particularly those such as Florida State's, might be offensive to some.
Rachel Maddow summed it up by saying that no group of people should be used as a mascot based on their race. I agree, looking up the definition of mascot gives you this:
A person, animal, or object believed to bring good luck, especially one kept as the symbol of an organization such as a sports team.
So a mascot is a good luck charm for a sports team and nobody thinks that it is offensive to make a race into a good luck charm?
Native Americans, themselves, say it best:
When one human being serves as the mascot for another it demeans and makes the person or persons so belittled a "lesser" human being. This second class humans status is very much key to many of these "more important issues" we do, in fact, worry about.
This is particularly true because every team that has Native American mascots has them represented as violent, warlike savages. People don't think referring to a race as violent, warlike savages is demeaning or hostile?
A common defense of the names goes something like this: If the Native American names are offensive, why doesn't anybody say anything about names like the Fighting Irish or the Ragin' Cajuns. The answer is, of course, simple. The people in question (Irish and Cajuns) have never complained about the names or characterizations and neither of those groups has faced nearly the level of discrimination from American institutions and the American population that Native Americans have. Only two groups have faced a similar history of discrimination and hatred -- African-Americans and women -- and we don't have any teams called the "Fighting Negroes" or the "Monthly Visitors." But, somehow, Native Americans, who are a lot smaller group of people, don't get the same level of respect.
What do Native Americans think about the issue? First off, they are the instigators of the whole issue:
Williams said: "These groups (American Indians) came to us. We are not in the business right now of reviewing every single mascot and trying to make a determination as to whether it's hostile or abusive.
Second would be public opinion amongst Native Americans:
- In a survey by Indian Country Today, 81 percent of respondents indicated use of American Indian names, symbols and mascots are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans.
- Only 10 percent of respondents indicated use of American Indian mascots is a respectful gesture and predominantly honors Natives.
- Seventy-five percent of respondents also believe use of American Indian names, symbols and mascots at non-Indian schools, colleges and universities should be in violation of anti-discrimination laws.
- Seventy-three percent of respondents also indicated that American Indian mascots create a "hostile educational environment" for Native American students. Seventeen percent indicated that it did not create a "hostile educational environment" while 10 percent did not know.
Additionally:
More than 500 Indian national Native American organizations are on record as being opposed to the use of mascots, in all known instances where a Federally recognized tribe, nation or band has taken an official position on mascots the position has been against the use of mascots. [This last statement technically changed with the June vote from the Seminoles].
Many Native Americans reject all Native American mascots:
Native leaders and educators, including the American Congress of American Indians, list mascots and anti-defamation as one of the important issues facing Native people.
Native people want to be in our institutions of higher education, not as mascots and sports souvenirs, but as equals and contemporaries â€" as students, faculty and staff. They want their history taught truthfully in the classroom, not presented in a false pageant of white longing.
Native Americans in Florida agree.
Chad Smith, principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, is supportive of the NCAA's decision:
This is a great first step to stopping the ridicule of Indian people through the use of Indian mascots.
Leigh Jeanotte, director of American Indian student services at the University of North Dakota, and a Turtle Mountain Chippewa, said:
Jeanotte said naming sports teams - whether professional or college - inevitably leads to derogatory remarks from fans of opposing teams.
"There's to way to control the spectators," Jeanotte said. "The goal of the opposing team is to poke fun. You can't control that. And, because its about a group of individuals - a race of people - it's not appropriate."
Sure, there are Native Americans that support the use of these names, but they are a small minority. And there are women and homosexuals who argue that they don't deserve equal rights. The arguments of a tiny minority do not carry any weight when it comes to the use of the name or names of an entire diverse community.
There are other potential problems with the use of such mascots.
Children see those stereotypes and don't question them, said Vernon Bellecourt, president of the National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media. "It corrupts their minds at a very early age, so they grow up being tomahawk-chopping morons at Atlanta Braves and Florida State games," Bellecourt said.
Is it really a good idea for us to be raising our children to think that Native Americans are warlike, scalping savages? Would the very same people defending these mascots defend, in the words of Chris Rock, the "Denver Dykes" or the "New York Niggers"? No, probably not, but since they don't recognize Native Americans as people, or Americans, they apply a different standard.
I will say I have some problems with the NCAA decision, though. Like for instance, the fact that it only applies to the postseason and it doesn't apply to all schools. One, in particular, that baffles me is where one school is given an exemption because they have a high population of Native American students. What? Of the 30 schools with such names, only 18 are targeted. The NCAA seems to be trying to have things two ways here -- taking a stand against the racist name use, but not wanting to actually go all the way and ban it -- either have the courage to do it right or don't be hypocritical and try to play it both ways.
Initially, the timing struck me as odd. It seemed like this decision came out of the blue. In fact, though, the NCAA recently completed a four-year study of the issue and now that the study was complete, it was time to come to a decision and a policy.
Those objections noted, I still support the ban and long for a time when none of these names are used in any sports. I've long been on board with this idea. I minimize the use of such names in the sports coverage on my site, I don't wear clothing with the names or logos of teams with Native American mascots and, even as a lifelong FSU fan, I never do the "War Chant" or "Tomahawk Chop" or yell "Scalp 'Em" along with the rest of the sheep in the stands.
So what happens next? Lawsuits. Many of the schools involved, including FSU, are mulling lawsuits against the NCAA about this decision. And many, including many conservatives, support the lawsuits. Forget that the conservatives supporting these lawsuits are the same people whining about "frivolous" lawsuits. And these lawsuits are certainly frivolous. The NCAA will win these cases, as a number of legal experts have already stated. The NCAA is a voluntary organization and members don't have to stay involved if they don't like the rules. They do, however, have to comply by NCAA rules if they stay members. Financially, few schools will want to leave the NCAA, because of the large sums of money they take from the organization. The loss of that revenue would be devastating to most schools. In the long run, this means that the college mascots and nicknames are on the way out. It will be a slow process, but money will win out in the end, as it usually does. This time, though, morality will win out as well.
tangent has more, although I must take issue with his characterization of FSU athletes as criminals. Sure there are some, but no more so than any other comparable program such as Miami, Nebraska or the like and not really any different than the non-athlete population of the same age and SES.
The Talla-Hustle chimes in, too.
Jeff Alworth at The American Street asks the following question:
I'm not really sure what the point is, but here's a question: Why is it so hard to imagine that a university honors Scots but not Seminoles? Why is a European nickname never racist but a Native American one always is?
The answer, Jeff, I think, is that the Native Americans have said the use of their name is racist and the Europeans have not.