How does one define cultural appropriation and how does it frame the discussion of the appropriation of native culture? Too often in today’s society, minorities are left to deal with the ongoing crisis of their culture being used as a trend. While cultural appropriation can be a number of things from wearing a native headpiece for Halloween or Hitler’s use of Hinduisms swastika ultimately, cultural appropriation is wrong and is demeaning to the offended cultures. Cultural appropriation is defined by the English Oxford Living Dictionaries as, “the unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practises, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society”. Through consideration of this definition one can relate this directly to the use of Native American objects and people for sports. In Richard Kings novel, The Native American Mascot Controversy: a Handbook the author explains that flutes, whistles and drums are essential for ceremonies and have a spiritual component and through using them in improper scenarios such as halftime shoes it dismisses their significance (9). Explanations for the use of Indian mascots is that those who created the mascot symbol did not see it as insulting. King explains, “not being from an Indian culture, they find it hard to understand that things that are not offensive to themselves might be offensive or even harmful to someone who is from a native culture” (17), therefore applying to the concern that the use of these mascots is cultural appropriation. Not only are ceremonial objects used in halftime shoes but so are spiritual songs. An interview subject in Kings novel explains, “I compose memorial songs, I compose burial songs for my grandmothers and my grandfathers, my family. And when people (imitate) that at an athletic event, like at a baseball game, it hurts me, to see that people are making a mockery of me.” (25). It is inappropriate to imitate another culture even if it is done accurately. The reason for this is even with the accurate imitation it appears the group is mimicking or taunting it, especially when it is done at a sporting event. Supporters of Mascots claim they are honoring Native American culture when there has been little acknowledgment for tribal customs (King 9). The use of Native American culture in another’s game adds to society’s complication of cultural appropriation. Their culture is used as a caricature for one sole reason, to make a game more spectacular.
The use of Native Americans as mascots is seen widely in professional sports, from the NHL’s Chicago Blackhawks, to the NFL’s Washington Redskins, and the MLBs Cleveland Indians. According to King, “when all the mascots representing Native Americans are considered (e.g., Indians, Redskins, Braves, Chiefs), it turns out Native Americans are the most common mascot in the U.S. sport” (24). Native American mascots have been used for many decades to almost the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Salamone 194). The origin of the Chicago Blackhawks mascot comes from the leader of the Sauk people in Chicago, Illinois, Black Hawk. He fought for the reclaiming of their land in the Black Hawk War but was unsuccessful. Later on, in World War 1 his name was given to a military unit and in the 1920s was reused to name the now famous hockey team (Inskeep). One of the most controversial names in sports history is given to the Washington Redskins, the team that uses a slur in the name. The emergence of the name of this team begins in 1933 when the owner of the Boston Braves, George P. Marshall changes the name to Boston Redskins to steer clear of having the same name as the city’s professional baseball team (Shapira). Marshall chose Redskins because, he wanted to incorporate Native American image and the colour red due to the love for the Red Sox since they were sharing the same playing field (Moore). Lastly the Cleveland Indians who’s name dates back 1915 and who have a caricature Native American called “Chief Wahoo” as their logo. The origin of the Cleveland Indians is believed to be named after Louis Sockalexis, a Native American baseball player who played for Cleveland in the late 19th century (Posnanski). Chief Wahoo’s commencement began in 1947 when the Owner of the Indians hired a 17-year-old named Walter Goldbach to draw a logo for them. The logo we see today is a red skinned, has a large smile and a feather on his head. The name Chief Wahoo was a common name for any Indian character in comics during this time but, the logo wasn’t given the name until 1950 (Ricca). While the use of Native Americans in pro sports is popular, universities, colleges, and high schools also adopt this trend as Salamone explains, “today, over two thousand schools, including more than seventy-five colleges and universities, employ pseudo-Indian imagery” (194). Unfortunately, Native Americans are victims to an unjust trend where they are used as the faces for a game.
Through the appropriation of Native Americans negative consequences arise which is adverse stereotypes. Through these negative stereotypes many problems arise: the stereotype that all Native Americans are savages or brave, it gives an inaccurate representation of historic native struggles, and it limits Natives to the stereotype they’ve been given. King explains the image of Native American mascots, “the symbols mascots use-tomahawks, spears, war whoops, and head-dresses-also are a stereotyped vision of Native Americans as savages-and certainly not as a people who are among us today” (9). Moreover, King describes the two stereotypes that have been raised due to these mascots, “the “bloodthirsty savage”, which conveys the notions that Native Americans are wild, aggressive, violent, and brave: and the “noble savage,” which conveys the notions that Native Americans are primitive, childlike, silent, and part of the natural world” (23-24). Through these stereotypes an inaccurate depiction of historical European aggression is portrayed. With regards to this, “belief in this stereotype works to obscure the oppression, violence, and genocide initiated by European Americans against Native Americans, and serves as justification for these acts” (King 24-5). Many do not see the mascots of Native Americans as stereotypes and racist since they convey a “positive” image. This assumes that all Native Americans are brave which is troublesome because many Native Americans do not fit this stereotype. It can also be very difficult for Native Americans to feel comfortable in their school when they are persistently surrounded by offensive stereotypes. As mentioned earlier that most mascots in the U.S. are Native American, the other most common mascots are animals which makes a mockery of Native Americans by associating them with animals therefore enhancing the stereotype that Native Americans are aggressive. Salamone expands on the fact that stereotypes limit Native Americans, “Native American mascots rely on stereotypes and clichés. They reduce indigenous peoples to a limited set of cultural features: the feathered headdress, face paint, buckskin paints, warfare, dance, and the tomahawk (chop)” (195). By portraying Native Americans as mascots, it gives the idea that these people can be nothing but a sports caricature. These people are contributors to a society but their right to identify their culture has been forgotten.
From the appropriation of Native American Culture negative stereotypes are formed which create undesired psychological effects in Native and non-native people. In the Retirement of American Indian Mascots by the American Psychological Association, Stephanie Fryberg, a PhD at the University of Arizona states, “American Indian mascots are harmful not only because they are often negative, but because they remind American Indians of the limited ways in which others see them. This in turn restricts the number of ways American Indians can see themselves”. This unfortunate result is very dangerous for Native American children as seeing mascots at a young age impairs their self-esteem and for non-native children, it teaches them that Native Americans should be caricatured therefore taking away the respect that they should have for Native Americans (Burtka). Furthermore, mascots remind Native Americans of the restricted and minimal ways that society views them (Sommers). In a number of studies done by researchers at Arizona, Stanford, and Michigan it was determined that mascots have negative psychological effects: “Perhaps most problematically, in a final study a variety of Native American mascots were shown to different groups of college student respondents. Afterward, students were asked to write about what their life would be like in one year. Those Native American students exposed to mascots were significantly less likely to use achievement-related language in anticipating their future than were students in a control condition. That is, having seen and read about mascots, Native Americans became less likely to make achievement-related predictions for themselves regarding good grades, graduating, finding a job, etc” (Sommers). The appropriation of Native Americans affecting Native American children’s self-esteem and self-image: “One activist tells the story of how she instilled pride in her children regarding their Native American heritage and she thought her children were secure-yet when she took them to a game with a Native American mascot, she witnessed a major “blow to their self-esteem” as they “sank in their seats,” not wanting to be identified as Native American” (King 27). From diminished self-esteem and self-image suicide risk increases through mascots, “today the average life expectancy of Native American males is 45. The teen suicide rate among Native people is several times higher than the national average. Stereotypes, ignorance, silent inaction, and even naïve innocence damage and destroy individual lives and whole cultures” (King 17). This crisis is not just affecting “feelings” but lives are at stake when we demean a culture through appropriating Native American culture.