Native American mascots are a mark of respect

The argument

Proponents of this position hold that Native American symbolism in the branding of major sports teams is a mark of deep respect rather than of mockery. They point to the stated intent of those responsible for the names: the Washington Redsk*ns' owner, Daniel Snyder, has repeatedly insisted that the team's name was issued as a mark of respect to the courage of Native American tribes. On this account the explanation given by those who hold and defend the branding is the relevant evidence of what it is for. The wider argument rests on what a mascot does. A team chooses its mascot in order to convey strength and success outwardly — to supporters, to opponents and to the public. Whatever symbol serves that purpose is, by the logic of the choice, something the team admires, since no organisation adopts as the image of itself an emblem it holds in contempt. Supporters of the position therefore treat the selection of Native American imagery as a sign of regard for the qualities that imagery is taken to represent. They also reject the premise of the objection. A mascot, on this view, is not used as a joke, as the counter argument maintains; it is used to represent a team rather than to make fun of it, and the two uses differ in function as well as in intent. Proponents concede that Native Americans may in the past have been used as mascots in order to humiliate them, but argue that present usage is far from that, so an appeal to earlier motives does not establish what the imagery does now. Because the names were adopted to honour courage, because emblems express admiration, and because representation is not ridicule, they conclude that Native American mascots are a mark of respect.

Context

Using native American nomenclature and symbolism in sports teams is not disrespectful. In fact, it is designed to be a mark of respect and pay homage to local history.

Premises

Counter-arguments

There is nothing respectful about being a mascot. Their sole purpose is to be laughed at, mocked and the subject of jest. These incidents have a negative impact on the self-esteem of Native American children. If sports teams really employed Native American culture in their names and imagery as a sign of respect, they would also likely avoid using names like “redskin” and “Indians”, both of which are racial slurs. Nor would they use images like the grinning Chief Wahoo, the red-faced caricature and long-time symbol of the Cleveland Indians baseball team. Many of the mascots and imagery used was born in an era of racism and bigotry against Native Americans. They were never designed to be a mark of respect. They deliberately perpetuated negative stereotypes and tropes. For example, the term ‘redskin’ was employed in government announcements in the 1800s in which they called for the bloodied scalps of Native Americans and offered bounties as a reward. George Preston Marshall, the original owner of the Washington Redsk*ns and the one that adopted the name, was a proud segregationist and racist, illustrated by the fact that the Redsk*ns were one of the last NFL teams to integrate. There is other evidence that illustrates that the use of Native American names and mascots was not borne from a place of respect. At the same time as all-white sports teams were beginning to adopt these names and mascots, Native American children were being educated in schools deliberately designed to crush their native traditions and ‘educate’ the savages. While indigenous communities were being forced to abandon their culture, all-white, suburban communities were naming their sports teams and designing their mascots around Native American culture. It was a clear example of the majority hijacking the minority’s culture in a negative and damaging way.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The names and logos were borne from a place of racism and mockery. [Rejecting P2] Therefore, they do not pay any respect to Native Americans.