Indian imagery used by athletic teams references both the Noble and Ignoble Indian. Beginning in the early 20th century, high school, college and university, and professional sports teams used “Indian” names, mascots, and logos on everything from clothing to mugs to toilet paper. A national movement led by Indian activists began in 1989, with the goal of ending the use of Indian imagery by athletic teams. As of 2000, about 600 schools in the United States still used American Indian team names (Braves, Warriors, Chiefs, Squaws, Indians) and mascots. In Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, however, this imagery was gradually retired for the most part. Most colleges and universities dropped this imagery—including Miami University in Ohio, the University of Michigan, University of Wisconsin, and University of Eastern Michigan. In 2006, the National Collegiate Athletic Association banned the use of Indian mascots during postseason tournaments without tribal consent. The University of Illinois refused to retire “Chief Illiniwek” until 2007.

Read about the struggle to retire the name “Chippewa” from an athletic program.

This essay describes an adventure of Wennebojo, the rhetorically explosive and forever elusive trickster of the Anishinaabegs. . . . During this adventure Wennebojo travels to Mount Pleasant, Michigan, with the intention of examining the continued use of the “Chippewa” name by Central Michigan University. . . . On the way to Mount Pleasant Wennebojo stopped and visited his friend Makwa (Bear), who lived on the Isabella Reservation . . . . “What brought you here?” asked Makwa. Wennebojo replied “I’m on a mission. I need to question the mascot at CMU.” At the library the receptionist greeted Wennebojo and Makwa by giving them forms to fill out about their research. After completing the paperwork, the two of them waited for the files to arrive. . . . Looking through the file, Wennebojo located the former mascot. “Are you the former mascot?” asked Wennebojo. “I am,” said the mascot. “What happened? Why are you a former mascot and not the current mascot?” asked Wennebojo. “There is no mascot at CMU anymore,” the former mascot replied. . . . The former mascot began, “I was first introduced to CMU back in 1942 by a member of the coaching staff. I replaced a Bearcat mascot who had replaced a Dragon mascot. I was used for pageantry, but that changed, too. I became a symbol of ferocity, a warlike spirit. I was the CMU Chippewa mascot until 1972. At that point I was transformed into a logo—actually two logos. One logo was a Native American Indian profile. I’m not sure if the profile was from one tribe or a mixture of many tribes. . . . The other logo was a combination of a block C with spear points and feathers. . . . The two logos were discontinued in March 1989. This resulted from an October 1988 Michigan Civil Rights Commission report that said the use of nicknames, logos, and mascots depicting Native American Indians by Michigan educational institutions was racist. . . . CMU President Jakubauskas responded to the MCRC report by creating a committee to study the issue. . . . The committee provided the president with recommendations, including retaining the Chippewa nickname. The Native voice on the committee was outvoted. . . . The . . . later official president, Leonard Plachta, . . . sought to retain the logo. There was concern for alumni contributions diminishing if the logo was changed. . . . In September 1992, Plachta ignored the recommendations of the Academic Senate and decided to retain the Chippewa name,” said the mascot. “CMU decided to retain the logo even though the MCRC identified nicknames, logos, and mascots as perpetuating racial stereotypes. CMU openly used the word “Chippewa.” Is that correct?” asked Wennebojo. “That is true,” said the former mascot. . . . “What have you concluded,” asked Makwa? . . . . “While the more overt forms of racism surrounding the mascot and logos have diminished, the covert forms persist with the continued use of the Chippewa name by CMU. . . . It is going to be a difficult task to end what the general public sees as a softer and gentler form of racism.” From Richard Clark Eckert, “Wennebojo Meets the Mascot,”pp. 64-79 in Team Spirits, eds. C. Richard King and Charles Fruehling Springwood, 2001.

What is the history of Chief Illiniwek?

Still, the owners of professional teams balked, arguing that these were privately-owned businesses. In 1999 the federal Trademarks Trial and Appeals Board ruled that the Washington Redskins could not use “Redskins” as a trademark because it disparaged Native Americans, that is, the team organization could not profit from items sold with the logo. They retained the name “Redskins.” In the Midwest, protests have focused on “Chief Wahoo,” logo of the Cleveland “Indians.”

Sports imagery emphasizes “Indians” of the past, especially Plains Indians—the buffalo-hunting groups that attacked Colonel George Custer and U. S. soldiers in the late 19th century. “Indians” often are caricatures with big noses. Their clothing suggests 19th century Plains style garb, including feathered headdresses. They carry objects associated with the past. As symbols of Ignoble Indians, they have tomahawks and face paint and they “whoop”—all associations with warfare against White pioneers. As mascots, however, they are no longer a threat and the warrior’s bravery can be appropriated by team players. As Noble Savages, they may carry pipes, and they appear in a helpful role, that is, they are helping the team win.

These mascots and logos have their supporters. Sports fans resist efforts by Native American activists to retire this Indian imagery. Proponents of the continued use of Indian imagery argue that the views of the “majority” should prevail, and Indians represent a small minority in the United States. Proponents maintain that the Indian imagery “honors,” rather than insults Indians, and those who insist otherwise are “kooks” or “radicals.” Sports mascots, in their view, also help build support for teams (“team spirit”).

The opponents argue that this Indian symbolism reinforces stereotypes that dehumanize Native people by validating inappropriate, inaccurate, and harmful representations. They point out that the use of sacred symbols, such as feathers or pipes, is sacrilegious, and the use of political symbols, such as chieftainship, trivializes a position that had to be earned. Opponents of Indian imagery in sports also argue that it harms contemporary Native people by emphasizing the past instead of their present role in society and by treating them disrespectfully in a public way. They explain that psychologists and educators have found that those stereotypes hurt Native children’s self-esteem. Opponents also point to the fact that violent crimes against Native Americans are two and a half times the national average and that 60 percent of these crimes are perpetuated against Native Americans by White Americans. They see a connection between crime and disrespect.

How would you answer these questions about sports imagery?

Do you agree that, of all the minorities, only Native Americans are still caricatured and depicted in stereotypic ways? Why?

Is the opposition to Indian imagery in sports merely a matter of “political correctness”?

Why has Indian imagery in sports been referred to as “cultural wallpaper”?

Why does Indian imagery in sports “sell”?