| |
||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
I GREW UP IN A TOWN 35 miles north of Manhattan called Ossining, New York. It is a village of 30,000 residents with a growing immigrant population, a dilapidated downtown, and a public school system that repeatedly boasts of its incredible diversity. For 73 years, the mascot of Ossining High School was the "Ossining Indian." The Ossining Indian could be seen all over town. He wore a big, feathered headdress, two painted stripes on each cheek, and a stoic glare. At homecoming games and pep rallies he could occasionally be seen dancing in leather moccasins. Fans enjoyed cheering the Indians to victory with their rendition of the "tomahawk chop." In unison, dozens of people would cup their left hand over their right elbow and then repeatedly move their right arm up and down in a chopping motion. This was intended to show the opposing team that the Indians planned to cut them into little, tiny pieces and then dispose of them. Ossining would prevail. In all these respects, Ossining was like many other towns. Thousands of public and private schools across the United States have some sort of Native American-themed mascot, not to mention the professional athletic teams like the Cleveland Indians and the Washington Redskins. However, hundreds of these schools have changed their mascots over the last several decades. Organizations like the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League, and the National Congress of American Indians have recognized the disturbing messages inherent in naming a sports team after an ethnic group, especially one whose history includes dislocation and genocide. Stanford University and Syracuse University are among the national institutions that have phased out the use of a Native American-themed mascot, often to the dismay of wealthy alumni donors. Along with several other students, a favorite Social Studies teacher, and the school district administration, I spent over a year attacking Ossining's use of the Indian mascot. I gave speeches, wrote editorials, and engaged in impassioned debate. Last June, under the threat of lost funding from the State Education Department, Ossining's school board voted to change the mascot. I should probably feel some sense of triumph, but I don't. The long fight to convince people that our mascot was stereotypical, inaccurate, and racist had failed. Several weeks after Ossining became the "Riverhawks," a bond vote took place to provide tax dollars for, among other things, a new track and new sports fields. Thanks in part to a boycott from a well-organized group that opposed the mascot change, the bond failed. It seems like the majority of Ossining residents remain either apathetic or opposed to changing the mascot. Speaking out I figured that Brown was as good of a place as any to try and figure out where Ossining went wrong. Why were my community and many others so divided over this issue? Where was the disconnect between the traditionalist locals who supported the mascot and the liberal "carpetbaggers" who fought to eradicate it? After talking to Professor Evelyn Hu-DeHart, director of the Center for the Study of Race and Ethnicity and a history professor at Brown, along with Native American members of the Brown community, I came to a new understanding of the issue. Not every Native person is unilaterally opposed to the use of Native American-themed mascots, and it had been naïve and inappropriate for me to try to represent the opinions of an entire group of people. Nitana Hicks B'05 told me that although a poster arguing against the use of such mascots is the first thing she sees when she walks into her tribal council (the Wampanoag of Massachusetts), she is open to the idea of Native mascots existing. "I don't have a problem with the Cleveland Indians, or anything like that," she told me. "I have a problem with their logo. That's more my issue than the actual naming of the team, how it's visually represented." Often compared to a black Sambo or a picture of a large-nosed Jewish person holding gold coins, the Cleveland Indian logo is a cartoon face with bright red skin, one feather in his hair, a toothy grin, thick eyebrows, and a large misshapen nose. Jennifer Edwards, who grew up on the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in North and South Dakota and is the Student Program Coordinator at the center for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, understands Hicks' viewpoint, but feels differently. While Hicks indicated that she would support a Native American-themed mascot if it were accurately and respectively represented, Edwards responded, "The fact is that it's rarely done accurately or respectively. So few Americans know everything about Native culture, especially in a contemporary context. There really are Native people who have real religions and real cultures, and the mascots are such a caricature." But there is more to fear than mere ignorance. Depicting a group in a stereotyped fashion undoubtedly creates a potentially hostile environment for a member of that group. Edwards told me that her cousin received death threats at the University of North Dakota after he vocally opposed their Fighting Sioux mascot. He left the school, but thanks to some wealthy alumni donors, Fighting Sioux remains. There is no doubt that the Ossining Indian was a crude caricature of a Native American as what Hu-DeHart calls the "particularly ferocious" warrior, one whose tactics border on the savage. Furthermore, the visual representation bore no resemblance to the Sint Sinck tribe, or to any tribe that inhabited the New York area. Hicks and Edwards said that while they knew of schools on reservations and schools with predominantly Native student bodies that used specific tribe names as mascots, this use was done in an accurate way by the people representing their own culture. Similarly, Hu-DeHart told me that the Florida State Seminoles have the blessing and the guidance of the Seminole tribe. The tribe works closely with the university to ensure that its representations serve as positive references to the Seminole's culture and history. The mark of history Back in 1755, the Boston General Council would pay between twenty and forty pounds for the scalp of a Native man, woman, or child. These scalps were called "redskins," a reference to part of a murdered human being's body. This meaning of the word may come as a surprise to fans of the Washington Redskins. One fan told me that he thinks of the term as referring to red war paint. Thus, "redskin" has multiple meanings for different fans. Just like the Confederate flag, it represents regional pride for some, while being inextricably linked to institutions such as slavery and genocide for others. Three years ago, the Washington Redskins franchise was sued and stripped of seven of their trademarks because they were judged to be akin to hate speech under civil rights law. If this decision holds up under appeal-and it may reach the Supreme Court-the Redskins could be forced to abandon their mascot. The opposition has hit the team in the pocketbook, stopping them from merchandising with specific depictions. Across the country, people feel little need to change their public school mascots when so many high-profile teams have not done so. The conception in Ossining is that the only people in town who are truly offended by the mascot are the liberals who think they have the moral superiority in opposing it. There is a grain of truth in this-only one Native person has stepped forward to oppose the Ossining Indian. However, the evidence is clear: there is a trend to move away from the use of these mascots. At the time of the mascot change, Ossining had already been on lists of schools noted for their inappropriate use of Native American-themed mascots. Charlene Teters, a member of the Spokane Nation and a founder of the Coalition Against Racism in Sports and the Media, visited my high school and said she would not recommend Ossining as a home for a Native family. Time for a change The major mistake made by the school district and those who supported its decision to eradicate the mascot was that it did not encourage the push for change to come from within the community. For communities dealing with this issue, a few steps can be taken to encourage people to think critically about Native American mascots: 1 Make a real commitment to including Native history and contemporary issues in the curriculum. Hu-DeHart said, "There is a resistance at worst and inability at best to deal with the issue of Native people. We don't know them, and it's easy for us to offend people we don't know." Children in our school system need to be introduced to the idea of Native Americans as a contemporary people. Edwards suggested that Columbus Day and Thanksgiving might be good times for school children to be exposed to some of the issues facing Native communities, since these are holidays when Native American history, however misrepresented, is usually addressed. "A lot of native people don't think of those as holidays that they want to celebrate" Edwards said. If students are familiar with historical and contemporary Native American issues, they will be less shocked when they are asked to examine their school's mascot use. Give students the facts so that they can form an educated opinion on controversial issues. 2 Perform a complete historical analysis of local Native tribes. People who are opposed to eradicating the Ossining Indian often suggested the compromise of modifying the mascot to make it reflect the local Sint Sinck tribe. This might be impossible, due to the fact that history is written by the victors. Official village documents say that the land that became Ossining was "purchased" from the Sint Sinck tribe "peacefully," and that the tribe then moved into the Connecticut River Valley. These documents do not tell the whole story of the Sint Sinck tribe. The property sales have an unconventional connotation here as well as throughout American history. During World War II, the federal government gave Japanese Americans one week to "sell" their property and businesses before illegally sending them off to internment camps during World War II. What would have motivated the Sint Sinck people to "sell" their land? There is no way to know until the research is done. 3 Fight against the idea that "it is better to be incorrect than repressed." The Ossining School Board was seen as a "fascist" entity for pushing forward with changing the mascot. In communities across New York state people are calling for referendums in order to vote on this issue. "It is better to be incorrect than repressed," one Ossining High School graduate posted on www.ossiningindiansforever.com. While referendums are an option, they are by no means a requirement. In our democracy, the right to free speech stops at the point of hate speech. School boards need to consider the hurtful effect stereotypical mascots have on Native students, no matter how small their population. Even if there are currently no Native students who are adversely affected, there may be in the future. The only solutions to the problem of Native American-themed mascots are to work with a Native tribe to create a respectful and historically accurate representation, or to eradicate the offensive mascot and seek to remember Native culture not on the sports field, but in the classroom. In communities like my hometown, both sides need to move on from the issue in a constructive way. School districts must get serious about reforming the curriculum on Native American issues, and the opposition must accept the fact that fighting the change is a losing battle. State funds to sports programs will be lost if Indian mascots remain. After a time, I believe that most parents will agree that it is the experience of playing on an organized, well-funded athletic team that benefited their child, not the experience of having that team represented by any particular name. Dana Goldstein B'06 isn't in Ossining anymore. |
copyright © 2002, The College
Hill Independent
last updated 11 22 02
Dana Goldstein takes on