Why Culturally-Theme Mascots Are Offensive

Andrew Kessinger
Worthington
English 4
13 December 2013
Why Culturally-themed Mascots Are Offensive With today’s world moving so rapidly into the future, it is important that we not forget our past. Our history has defined generations, instilling within them a sense of appreciation for their own traditions and cultures. The scope of impact that culture has is so large, that it even extends into the world of sports. Thousands of teams across the country derive their names and mascots from ethnic groups, predominantly the Native Americans. Though they claim to be honoring these cultures, the names given to the teams are racially insensitive because they dehumanize, oppress, and discriminate against the cultural identities of these groups.
The Difference Between Tradition and Derision When choosing a mascot, teams generally look for a generic symbol that will represent their resolve, athleticism, and/or tenacity.
Other times, the inspiration is drawn from a local level. At a California high school, the local community cheers on the Coachella Valley Arabs. This mascot has represented the school since 1910 (Landau 1). Naturally, the offensively drawn caricature of a man of Middle-Eastern descent has Arab-American rights groups upset. There is good cause for opposition as the mascot is depicted with a large, hooked nose, head-covering, and beard. The choosing of the Arab seems to be innocent enough; the community has a high Arab-American population and influence. As a symbol of heritage, the mascot was chosen to reflect the people of Coachella Valley. Nevertheless, its depiction is highly stereotypical and mocks the way most people believe they look. "The [Arab] mascot image is a harmful form of ethnic stereotyping which should be eliminated. By allowing continued use of the term and imagery, you are commending and enforcing the negative stereotypes of an entire ethnic group, millions of whom are citizens of this nation” ().
Racially
Insensitive Ask a resident of Washington D.C. who their favorite football team is and odds are they will say, “The Redskins.” The Washington Redskins, like many other teams with Native American ties, have been subject to complaints from different tribes asking to have the name changed. An online survey of whether or not the team should change its name yielded overwhelming support of the proposed logo, the Pigskins. A new name would certainly put years of degradation to rest.
Current owner of the team, Dan Snyder, opts that the name is a celebration of tradition ().In reality, the name itself is one of the most demeaning mascots a team could ever fall behind. Dissent from the Oneida nation has brought this issue to light at a national level. Members of the Oneida nation met with both representatives of the NFL and president Obama himself in an effort to change the offensive name.
“If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team — even if it had a storied history… that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it. I don 't know whether our attachment to a particular name should override the real legitimate concerns that people have about these things” () The fact that the mascot references a people’s skin color is reason enough for it to be changed. If there was a team called the Blackskins, the NAACP would have a fit. When a symbol begins to take on stereotypical or demeaning characteristics in reference to a race of people, it is insensitive.

Dehumanization, Oppression, Discrimination

Racial insensitivity has an effect of dehumanizing the people being mistreated. As far as mascots go, choosing one to represent an entire culture makes them seem less human. After the human aspect is gone, the other more prominent and often the most offensive features are highlighted. Names are then twisted to reflect a desired feeling. The use of the words savages, warriors, Indians, chiefs, etc. are all variations of Native Americans that have been used as mascots in the past 50 years. Furthermore, the use of these characters doesn’t fit in with the animal scheme preferred by most teams today. By making an ethnic group comparable to animals, they become like animals. Society views them as animalistic, wild, and inhuman. Another side-effect of disparaging treatment through use of mascots is that we continuously refuel the oppressive forces that bind them to their names. The oppressed receive less freedom and, in turn, are treated differently because of it. These mascots are rarely chosen at the consent of those they represent. Miami was never given permission to use the dolphins’ likeness. Nor was Ireland asked if Notre Dame could run amok as the Fighting Irish. They don’t get a say in who, what, or how they are being represented. In short, culturally-themed mascots leave the stigma of racism a fresh wound. The continuous mistreatment of ethnic groups warrants change. Mascots should not be allowed to continue using these offensive names and logos even if they are a tradition. It’s not worth upsetting that many people.

Works Cited

Landau, Joel. "California High School to Keep 'Arab ' Mascot Name ." NY Daily News. N.p., 16 Nov. 2013. Web. 13 Dec. 2013.

Simon, Roger. "POLITICO." POLITICO. N.p., 8 Nov. 01. Web. 13 Dec. 2013.

Smith, Thomas G. "JFK, Obama: Redskins Needs to Change." CNN. Cable News Network, 14 Nov. 2013. Web. 13 Dec. 2013.

"Timeline: A Century of Racist Sports Team Names." Mother Jones. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2013.