Indian Mascots

"I ask, why do the mascots have to represent the LOCAL Indian groups, they don"t have to be similar in order to honor them, and this does"t show how they are offensive." The qualities placed on the majority based on perceived images of the few is hardly representative of the Native American population. This is the definition of stereotyping, very close to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary"s simple definition of stereotyping ("to believe unfairly that all people or things with a particular characteristic are the same," http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Native Americans are called Indians, they call themselves Indians and they perceive themselves as Indians. Yet the Mascots are caricatures that they cannot identify with. This type of stereotyping, even if it was meant to honor, even if some Native Americans like them, lowers their overall self-esteem according the Fryberg study above. Meaning that with the dearth of positive images of Indians, the few national perceptions of Native Americans as mascots, the best they can do is to become something they are not. It seems that we have introduced a couple of concepts for this point. I am not actually arguing that Indian Mascots are offensive, just that they do not represent Native Americans. There is such a variety of portrayals out there, some offensive, some not so much. But I will argue that the stereotype has a detrimental effect. "Indian mascots do not necessarily have stereotypes about them, maybe they need changed but they aren"t inherently bad." Once again the studies from Fryberg above show otherwise. The Indian Mascots are associated with stereotypes. Once again based on the studies of Dr's Chaney, Burke and Burkely from above, the Indian Mascot elicits negative imagery of Native Americans by non-natives. This in itself makes the mascots, as presented, inherently bad. Combining the Fryberg"s study (p8) that Indian Mascots also increases the self-esteem of non-natives, fits the definition of racism, where one group feels superior to another. If you are arguing that the Indian Mascot needs to change under the influence of the registered tribe"s guidance, I would agree and admit that my original statement may have been too vague. "The rate of suicide is easily attributed to other things, such as the living conditions, http://www.nrcprograms.org...... https://www.pbs.org...... as you can see many natives in reservations live below the poverty line as well as there being various other problems with them, therefore the rates of suicide are not easily attributable to something as insignificant as a mascot." Indian Mascots may not be the one and only reason for the poverty, alcoholism and suicides but it plays a significant part. The two links you provided are great examples of community efficacy, a reality that influences perception. When these community members are exposed to Indian Mascots they do not believe their community can get better, it lowers their expectations of what their community can do, (Fryberg p6). The stereotypes have an effect on how Native Americans feel they can pull themselves out of poverty. The general feeling of despair is exacerbated by the negative perspective they have of themselves and their community when exposed to Indian Mascots. "As you can see the mascots are actually approved "California Indian Tribe Backs School's 'Redskins' Mascot." Breitbart News. N.p., 01 Oct. 2015. Web. 16 Jan. 2016. <http://www.breitbart.com......;. http://washington.cbslocal.com...... Now Native American schools actually use this term as well as you can easily see, so therefore it is not actually too unapproved. History doesn"t mean how it"s used today, and I ask you this, would having a mascot that happens to be white be offensive to whites, (i.e. a cowboy)" Once again if you are arguing the need for change under the aegis of the registered tribes I won"t argue that and apologize for the vagueness of my original statements. Twice in one round can"t be good. However, for the rest of your last comment. The difference between a Caucasian Mascot and an Indian Mascot is the power imbalance between the two. The dominate culture has a plethora of images they can draw on to make themselves feel good. The cowboys, pioneers, prospectors, homesteaders, even the farmer, all have positive images associated with them. When the dominate culture co-opts Native American imagery and re-cast if for themselves they are exerting their privilege to take what they want, when they want from the minority group. This creates the minority into a second class citizens which, as I stated above, is not part of our political philosophy. When using white Mascots the dominate culture is crafting positive imagery to boost their self-esteem. When co-opting Native American Mascots they are creating positive imagery to boost their self-esteem but at the expense of the Native American"s. When Native American schools use Indian Mascots they are crafting their own identity with their own history, not at the expense of another group.