U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

66–994 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 112–37

STOLEN IDENTITIES: THE IMPACT OF RACIST

STEREOTYPES ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 5, 2011

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

LORETTA A. TUELL, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

DAVID A. MULLON JR., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 5, 2011 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Johnson ................................................................................ 21

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 1

WITNESSES

Fryberg, Stephanie A., Ph.D, Associate Professor of Social and Cultural Psychology, University of Arizona ............................................................................ 27

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29

Hall, Hon. Tex G., Chairman, Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara Nation; Chairman, 

Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association; accompanied by Tina Marie 

Osceola, representing the Seminole Tribe of Florida ........................................ 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4

Harjo, Suzan Shown, President, The Morning Star Institute .............................. 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8

Spencer, Chaske, Actor/Producer, Partner, Urban Dream Productions .............. 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

Teters, Charlene, Studio Arts Faculty, Institute of American Indian Arts ........ 17

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19

Warne, Jim E., President, Warrior Society Development .................................... 42

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46

APPENDIX

Aleiss, Angela, Ph.D., Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of California—Los Angeles; Professor, California State University—Long Beach, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 55

Borrero, Roberto Mukaro Agueibana, President, United Confederation of 

Taino People Office of International Relations and Regional Coordination, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 72

Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator, Retired; Former Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, prepared statement ............................... 53

Cleveland, Bonita, Chair, Quileute Tribe, prepared statement ........................... 54

Geronimo, Harlyn, on behalf of Geronimo, historic Apache leader and his 

surviving lineal descendants, prepared statement ............................................ 63

Gipp, David M., President, United Tribes Technical College, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 57

Gunderson, Harvey S. and Carol S., articles on race-based nicknames ............. 82

Indigenous Peoples Working Group, prepared statement with attachment ....... 64

Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Resolution 0411 ................................................. 79

Osceola, Tina Marie, Historic Resources Officer, Seminole Tribe of Florida, 

prepared statement with attachments ............................................................... 73

Pesata, Levi, President, Jicarilla Apache Nation, prepared statement .............. 70

Steinfeldt, Jesse A., Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Counseling and Educational 

Psychology, Indiana University—Bloomington, prepared statement .............. 67

Zeller, Joe, President, Indian Arts and Crafts Association, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 76

(1)

STOLEN IDENTITIES: THE IMPACT OF RACIST 

STEREOTYPES ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLE 

THURSDAY, MAY 5, 2011

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Udall, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you all for being here today. I call the 

meeting to order. 

Unfortunately, Chairman Akaka had a minor accident at home 

that precludes him from being at the hearing today. I know that 

he really wished to be here. On his behalf, I would like to welcome 

you to our hearing entitled Stolen Identities: The Impact of Racist 

Stereotypes on Indigenous Peoples. 

In this hearing, we will explore how Indian mascots, common 

caricatures and prevalent mis-portrayals of Native people have farreaching impacts on the identity and sense of self-worth of Native 

peoples, and negatively impacts how all of our Nation’s people perceive and relate to each other. It is my hope that this hearing will 

help bring more understanding about the real impacts of these 

common mis-portrayals to light, so that we can as a Nation resolve 

these concerns. 

I would especially like to thank Ms. Charlene Teters for being 

here today, a professor from the Institute of American Indian Arts 

in my State of New Mexico. The Institute is a great asset to young 

Native artists and to the Nation as a whole. I appreciate Ms. 

Teters’ work and the work of the Institute to create beauty, retain 

cultural knowledge and move aggressively in a new era of technology and creativity. It is my hope that the young artists coming 

out of IAIA will brandish strong and creative talents that can help 

to wash away the ugly stereotypes and perceptions of the past. 

In the last couple of days, most of us in this room have heard 

the news reports on the association of Geronimo being used as a 

code word associated with the successful mission to kill Osama bin 

Laden. It goes without saying that all of us feel a tremendous 

sense of relief and pride toward our military personnel, intelligence 

community and Commander In Chief, both past and present, for 

accomplishing this mission. This is especially relevant for Native 

Americans, who historically have the highest per capita rate of 

2

military service of any ethnic group. Tens of thousands of Native 

Americans serve in our military today, defending their homeland, 

just as Geronimo did. 

Here today we also have the President of the Navajo Nation, Ben 

Shelly. Ben and I both know that 11 Navajos have died in military 

service since 9/11. Just last night, our local New Mexico news stations, KOAT–7, interviewed Geronimo’s great-grandson, Joseph Geronimo, who explained the offense he feels based on the report’s of 

his ancestor’s name being used. My office has tried to get clarification about the code name from the Department of Defense. Their 

protocol prohibits the release of information regarding operation 

names. As a result, the details of how Geronimo’s name was used 

are unclear. 

I find the association of Geronimo with bin Laden to be highly 

inappropriate and culturally insensitive. It highlights a serious 

issue and the very issue we have come here to discuss today: a socially ingrained acceptance of derogatory portrayals of indigenous 

people. 

I hope that we can use this hearing as an opportunity to communicate to the Nation the importance of recognizing and rejecting derogatory stereotypes. And since no other members of the Committee have joined us quite yet, I think there will be others here, 

some of them may give opening statements. I may interrupt based 

on schedules and things. But at this point, we are going to go directly to the panel. 

First, to let you know that all statements, all of your full statement will be included in the record. So you can use your five minutes to summarize or talk as you wish. There is limited time to 

conduct this hearing and we want to hear from all who want to 

participate in the discussion. 

The hearing record will be open for two weeks from today and 

I encourage everyone to submit your comments through written 

testimony. I want to remind the witnesses to please limit your oral 

testimony to five minutes. I would like to invite the first panel to 

the table, you all are here and ready to go. First, I would like to 

welcome the Honorable Tex Hall, the Chairman of the Mandan, 

Hidatsa and Arikara. Chairman Hall also serves as the Chairman 

of the Great Plans Tribal Chairman’s Association and is joining us 

from New Town, North Dakota. 

We will also hear from Suzan Harjo, President of the Morning 

Star Institute, who is here in Washington. I think, Suzan, you have 

had a long acquaintance with these issues, and I believe you have 

written articles and books. We are very happy to have you here 

today. 

And as I mentioned earlier, our final witness on the panel will 

be Charlene Teters, a professor with the Institute of American Indian Arts in Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

Welcome to everyone. Chairman Hall, we are ready to go with 

you and then we will just go down the line. Great to have you here 

today. 

3

STATEMENT OF HON. TEX G. HALL, CHAIRMAN, MANDAN, 

HIDATSA & ARIKARA NATION; CHAIRMAN, GREAT PLAINS 

TRIBAL CHAIRMAN’S ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY TINA 

MARIE OSCEOLA, REPRESENTING THE SEMINOLE TRIBE OF 

FLORIDA 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Chairman Udall. My name is Tex Hall, I 

am the Tribal Chairman of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Tribal Nation on the Fort Berthold Reservation in New Town, North 

Dakota. I see our Chief Forebears is hanging from the wall here, 

a fabulous portrait of our great Chief. So it does bring to mind the 

comments that you made, Chairman, of Geronimo and the implications of what that means to the Mescalero Apache people. 

I too would be very saddened if our forebears were included in 

a code name for Osama bin Laden. So this is a misfortunate incident that we need to acknowledge and try to rectify. 

But I also want to congratulate President Obama and the military for the capture and the killing of Osama bin Laden for the 

many wrongs that have been inflicted upon the United States of 

America. 

I also wanted to mention that in my State of North Dakota, we 

have the Fighting Sioux nickname at the University of North Dakota. The Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association passed a resolution in opposition of using Native Americans for mascots and 

how discriminatory and stereotypical this is, especially when you 

talk about human rights and the rights especially of our young people in education, to go to education and to be free to participate 

fully, to get the highest level of educational achievement they can 

without discriminatory and stereotypical derogatory mascots.′′

I really noticed a billboard here, it really jumps out at you, as 

we see the Washington Redskins and the Atlanta Braves and the 

Cleveland Indians, these are real negative stereotypical images 

that really makes us think again back home of the University of 

North Dakota Fighting Sioux. You would think that we in North 

Dakota would be beyond this by now, but we are not. Fortunately, 

the National Collegiate Athletic Association has stood by the tribes. 

And in 2007, finally trying to get conclusion on this issue of not 

using the Fighting Sioux nickname and the mascot, they said 

something very honorable, that the University of North Dakota 

would have to get the consent of the Spirit Lake Sioux and the 

Standing Rock Sioux. 

The Standing Rock Sioux have always not given consent, and you 

would think that would be pretty black and white, pretty plain. 

But unfortunately, the North Dakota State legislature just passed 

a bill to retain the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux nickname. It is really unfortunate, because none of the tribes were consulted and none of the Native American citizens of the tribal nations in North Dakota were included at that table for that bill to 

be passed. 

So a recent meeting was held, and the NCAA was invited to 

North Dakota, and I am happy to report that the NCAA stood by 

their decision and said, unless the tribes of North Dakota, the 

Standing Rock Sioux and the Spirit Lake Sioux, are included and 

give their consent, you will no longer be able to use the nickname, 

even though you passed a bill. 

4

So Mr. Chairman, that is a quick summary of where we have 

come from in North Dakota. We are still trying to get beyond the 

use of the Fighting Sioux nickname and mascot at the University 

of North Dakota. 

Mr. Chairman, I have one minute left, I was wondering if I could 

have a guest of mine make a comment if she would, please, Tina 

Osceola, from the Seminole Tribe. Tina, are you here? 

She is coming on behalf of Chairman Mitchell Cypress. 

Ms. OSCEOLA. Thank you, Chairman Hall, and thank you, Senator Udall. Tina Marie Osceola, for the record, representing the 

Seminole Tribe of Florida. To be real brief and no go over chairman 

Hall’s allotted time, we wanted to make sure that we were heard 

on the record, that we wanted to elevate this issue to the President 

of the United States, and we did in March, because it was incredibly harmful to have Seminoles compared to al Qaeda terrorists. 

What we are looking for is not just a verbal apology or something 

written for Seminoles. It is about all Native people. As we have 

been deeply embroiled in the issue of mascots and the use of images for years, this isn’t about just images, or just hurt feelings 

and those being offended. Senator Akaka is right, this is about the 

future, this is about building a legacy for our people. 

And this is also about building a better tomorrow. We can’t do 

that without relevance. We can’t do that without being real to both 

the President of the United States, to the Senate, to the House of 

Representatives. This is about sovereignty. 

Our issue was about sovereignty. The tribal council was able to 

make a decision, just like the Senate, just like the House of Representatives. We understand what our sovereignty means; we understand what the future of its protection is; and we understand 

that if we are considered enemies of the State, we understand what 

that means. We understand what the implications are, what the reality is. That is not good for America. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TEX G. HALL, CHAIRMAN, MANDAN, HIDATSA & 

ARIKARA NATION; CHAIRMAN, GREAT PLAINS TRIBAL CHAIRMAN’S ASSOCIATION

I am testifying today on behalf of the Mandan, Hidatsa & Arika Nation and the 

Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association. 

I wish to thank the Committee and the Chairman for bringing this important 

topic into the public spotlight. As you know, where I am from, this is quite the controversial issue. The University of North Dakota’s continued use of the name and 

image of ‘‘The Fighting Sioux’’ has landed us in the middle of a national media 

firestorm. 

Too often though, the debate rages all around us, while we, the First Americans, 

often have the last word. I hope that this hearing will bring our voice to the forefront of the debate and provide some clarity and guidance for schools and people 

across the country. 

As you know, there are many who view the use of Native American images by 

colleges or universities to be heroic, spirited, or just generally positive. On the other 

hand, there are many others who argue that the use of such images as promotes 

negative stereotypes, which can be offensive, demeaning and insensitive. 

While I cannot speak for every single Native American in this country, I can 

speak from my experiences as a schoolteacher, sports team player, coach, and tournament administrator, as well as the elected leader of my tribe and a representative 

of many more. 

5

Position of the MHA Nation and Great Plains Tribes 

My position, and the position of my Tribe, and many others is this—we find the 

use of Native American mascots to be dehumanizing and disrespectful. I have submitted a resolution passed last month by the Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association supporting the NCAA’s efforts to eliminate the use of American Indian mascots, and supporting the University of North Dakota’s Senate, the University’s Student Senate, the North Dakota State Board of Higher Education and the North Dakota Senate Education Committee’s call to stop the University from using the 

‘‘Fighting Sioux’’ nickname and logo. 

UND Fighting Sioux Controversy 

As you know, the University of North Dakota reached an agreement with the 

NCAA in 2007 to stop using the nickname and logo by August 15, 2011, unless it 

received approval from two of North Dakota’s tribes—the Spirit Lake and Standing 

Rock Sioux Tribes. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has been firmly opposed to the 

use of the ‘‘Fighting Sioux’’ and thus the University, if it is to comply with its own 

promise, must stop using the name and logo this year. 

This situation has been complicated by a law passed this year by the North Dakota Legislature, and signed by the Governor, requiring the University to keep the 

‘‘Fighting Sioux’’ name and logo. The law has also raised the issue of whether the 

North Dakota Attorney General will sue the NCAA. 

The NCAA just reminded the University that nothing has changed since 2007 and 

that the settlement agreement still stands. And, since the Standing Rock Sioux 

Tribe has not authorized the University to keep the Fighting Sioux mascot, then the 

University has to no choice by to abide by the terms that it agreed to and retire 

the Fighting Sioux mascot. Otherwise, the NCAA could impose sanctions including 

barring UND teams from hosting post-season tournaments or wearing proscribed attire during those tournaments. The NCAA also said that in its view, the North Dakota law ‘‘cannot change the NCAA policy nor alter the contracted terms of the 

agreement.’’

As I testified earlier, our tribe and the Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association stand with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe on this issue and call on the University to start shopping for a new mascot and logo. 

Our Concerns 

My Tribe’s concerns arise out of our concern for our children. We believe that 

every child has the potential to be a great leader, athlete, scholar, president, or 

medicine man or woman. We try and teach them that nothing can hold them back. 

But at the same time, we recognize that there are forces built on institutional racism and economic reality that can sometimes hold them back. My administration 

is built on hope and opportunity and one thing that we can do something about is 

challenging negative cultural stereotypes. 

The sad reality is that most mascot names that refer to Native Americans reinforce negative cultural stereotypes: Redskins, the Fighting Sioux, and the grossly 

demeaning Cleveland Indians logo. We want to make sure that all of our children 

have the opportunity to create his or her own image for themselves and not have 

images created for them, whether by the universities, high schools, or the media. 

The American Psychological Association summed up this issue by stating:

‘‘The use of American Indian mascots as symbols in schools and university athletic programs is particularly troubling because schools are places of learning. 

These mascots are teaching stereotypical, misleading and too often, insulting 

images of American Indians. These negative lessons are not just affecting American Indian students; they are sending the wrong message to all students.’’

—Former APA President Ronald F. Levant

We believe that the use of Indians mascots create a negative environment for our 

Native American students, and other students too, by creating a hostile learning environment, by reaffirming negative stereotypes of American Indians that most of us 

grew up with, and by grossly misinforming students (and adults) who have had no 

or little contact with Native Americans in the first place. The negative environment 

perpetuated by Indian mascots undermines our cultures, our traditions, and our 

spirituality. And, as with most forms of institutional racism, the use of those images 

are perpetuated by institutions which have power. 

And that is why I am glad to be here to speak to these powers. And that is why 

I am glad to have your support and friendship, Mr. Chairman, and Committee members. Together, we can fight power with power. 

6

To this end, I would like to remind the Committee that we do not stand alone. 

The National Congress of American Indians, the National Education Association, 

the American Psychological Association, and the NCAA stand with us. 

Conclusion 

NBA legend and University of North Dakota graduate Phil Jackson asked the 

University not too long ago, ‘‘What is to be gained by keeping the Fighting Sioux? ’’ 

The ‘‘objectification of people is limiting to ourselves’’ as well as to the people we 

objectify. ‘‘We have a chance to do the right thing.’’

We have a chance to make a change for the better, to make our children’s lives 

richer and to lift the bonds of oppression surrounding them. 

I hope that the University of North Dakota, and all schools, do indeed take the 

chance and do the right thing.

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. Now we will move on to 

Suzan Harjo. Suzan, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF SUZAN SHOWN HARJO, PRESIDENT, THE 

MORNING STAR INSTITUTE 

Ms. HARJO. Thank you, Senator. Well, yes, we must start with 

Geronimo, the man and the leader and the person who has become 

a fine role model for our children all over Indian Country. For him 

to be compared to a terrorist and to be called an enemy is shocking, 

really shocking, that this happened. 

It wasn’t just that his name was used, although that would be 

bad enough. Because what happens in America is that our names 

are not our own, they are stolen, our tribal names, our personal 

names. Then we are renamed in order to control us, very frankly. 

That has been going on for a very long time, and was made official 

through the ‘‘Civilization Regulations’’ from the 1880s to the 1930s, 

which banned religious ceremonies, banned the Sun Dance and 

other so-called religious ceremonies, as they say; banned any act of 

medicine man, the so-called medicine man; confined Native people 

to reservations. 

This was 50 years of generational religious suppression that 

forced a lot of the Native languages and religions underground, and 

most of them never re-emerged, certainly not as full as they had 

been in the past. It was in this time that Geronimo was captured 

and his people were prisoners of war on the Fort Sill Apache Reservation, and were never permitted to go back to their territory in 

New Mexico. He was not permitted to stay in Fort Sill Apache, and 

the indignities that have been heaped upon him don’t begin or end 

with Yale University, but certainly they have been prominent there 

in the Skull and Bones Society, which purports to open every meeting with the head of Geronimo, that Prescott Bush and others said 

they dug up in Fort Sill. We don’t know the answer to that, if it 

really is the head of Geronimo or if they just say it. How awful, 

in either case. 

So for all that he went through and his people went through, 

having every Native action criminalized to now be called an enemy, 

Geronimo EKIA, that is the stunning thing, enemy killed in action, 

Geronimo, enemy killed in action. My father was a World War II 

hero in the storied Thunderbird division, the 45th Infantry Division. And his company, Company C, was comprised solely of Indian 

young men from Chilocco Indian Boarding School. They, who had 

grown up in Euchee Indian School and then Chilocco Indian School 

and had their languages beaten out of them, it was hoped, by the 

7

people who did the beating. They didn’t succeed. So here all these 

enterprising Chilocco Indian boarding school guys on the troop ship 

to North Africa made up their code of the languages, phrases and 

words from the languages that were spoken by the students in secret at Chilocco. And the coordinates were the structures and the 

landscapes of Chilocco. 

My dad was not an enemy when he helped win World War II or 

when his legs were almost shot off at Monte Cassino. He was not 

an enemy when he served in Allied Forces Southern Europe with 

NATO in Napoli. He was an ally. 

We take very seriously our treaties of peace and friendship. They 

promise, we promise, the United States promises in our treaties of 

peace and friendship that we are going to be peaceful and friendly. 

Some Native nations even declared, in World War II, war on Japan 

and on Germany, so that they could fight alongside the United 

States and their young men would not be drafted, they would be 

loaned. Onondaga was prominent in that respect. 

Our history is very complicated. But this is our Country in a way 

that it is no one else’s Country, because no one brought any land 

here with them. This will always be our Country. So when we are 

slurred in public in this way, we all take offense. 

It is a logical outgrowth, I think, of people working in this racially charged Washington Metropolitan area, where Native people 

are almost not safe on the streets, there is such a toxic environment during football season. The Washington football team has 

been something that Native people all over the Country object to, 

because it is the team in the Nation’s Capitol, and it is the worst 

thing that we can be called. We have, I have and others, spent 17 

years litigating this issue. We won after the first seven years before 

the Patent and Trademark Board, in a three-judge panel decision, 

unanimously in our favor, saying that the term is disparaging, 

holds us up to contempt and ridicule and so forth. And then we 

spent the next 10 years defending the agency’s ruling, because that 

is how it works with the Patent and Trademark Board. 

We lost, ultimately, the Supreme Court did not grant certiorari. 

But the circuit decision said that this was not on the merits, this 

was solely on a matter of laches, the loophole of laches, which 

uniquely was interpreted in our instance to mean that we didn’t 

file our lawsuit soon enough after we had reached our majority. So 

we organized another lawsuit, when it looked like it was going that 

way in 2006, of Native young people, the identical case, and they 

who were 18 to 24 when they filed, presumably will not have laches 

problem. 

I don’t know if we have to give a lawsuit to every young Native 

person when they turn 18 or what we are going to have to do. But 

at some point, we are going to have to get rid of all of these Native 

references in sports. The good news is we have eliminated twothirds of them since the first one fell in 1970, ‘‘Little Red’’ at the 

University of Oklahoma. There were over 3,000 at that time, and 

now there are under 1,000. 

So there is a societal sea change, and people are understanding 

the problem with these race-based mascots and names and behaviors. And they are doing something to change. But something has 

to be done in professional sports. We have suggested a piece of legVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:35 Aug 03, 2011 Jkt 066994 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\66994.TXT JACK
8

islation that we prepared for the convenience of the Committee. I 

will be happy to respond to any questions about that, and of course, 

to meet with the staff and members. 

Thank you so much for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Harjo follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUZAN SHOWN HARJO, PRESIDENT, THE MORNING STAR

INSTITUTE


505a1.eps
9


505a2.eps
10


505a3.eps
11


505a4.eps
12


505a5.eps
13


505a6.eps
14


505a7.eps
15


505a8.eps
16


505a9.eps
17

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

Charlene Teters, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLENE TETERS, STUDIO ARTS FACULTY, 

INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN INDIAN ARTS 

Ms. TETERS. Thank you, Chairman Udall. And thank you, Mr. 

Johnson, for being here. 

My name is Charlene Teters. I am a member of the Spokane 

Tribe in Washington State. I am honored to serve as Senior FacVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:35 Aug 03, 2011 Jkt 066994 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\66994.TXT JACK

505a10.eps
18

ulty at the Institute of American Indian Arts in Santa Fe, New 

Mexico. 

We have amongst our student body some of the brightest young 

talents and future leadership for Native America. These young people are amongst our best representation for our Native nations and 

our culture. 

You have my written testimony, so I would like to focus on the 

last part of what I testified about. It has to do with what we have 

been talking about here. 

I have an MFA, a Masters in Fine Art. So I have been asking 

myself what I can add to this discussion at the level of the United 

States Senate. There are so many who have better training, better 

ability to speak about institutionalized racism. Those better trained 

to speak about the social impact, the emotional impact, the spiritual impact, or even the financial impact of these stereotypes. 

But the struggle for freedom from organized insult, public ridicule, and national collusion is my story. And it is Native America’s 

story. These stereotypes and community attitudes are an unnecessary burden. They are an unnecessary burden for those who go to 

school where they have these images. 

I went to the University of Illinois, it was a chief mascot there. 

It can easily be alleviated by eliminating this use. 

But I think it is important to step back and look at history. Because history plays an important role in defining acts and practices 

as racist, regardless of the intent of the larger community. When 

the history is one of domination and subordination, as is the history of the indigenous people in the United States, then what 

counts is how the minority group understands its portrayal. History is very powerful. Depending on who is telling the story, it can 

be used to demobilize a people or it can be used to inspire a people. 

When the Administration used our historical hero, the name of 

our hero Geronimo, a family member, in this connection with military action it takes from us. It takes from us our heroes. 

Before this land was the United States, it was the homeland of 

many Indian nations. And yet many Americans know very little 

about us. They know very little about the people whose land they 

occupy. But we are here. We are here. We survived manifest destiny, not just physically here, we are culturally here. As parents 

and teachers, we work hard to instill in our children a sense of 

pride in our culture, our story, our names to ourselves. Our historical heroes, our family members, people like Chief Pontiac, Chief 

Joseph, Geronimo. 

And yet we must compete with mass media’s image or the military’s use of our historical heroes as code for this Country’s enemies. 

In part, I am here to ask, as an aunt, my two nephews fought 

in Iraq and Afghanistan. In part, I am here to ask the question, 

how do we ask American Indians who serve this Nation in uniform, 

who have sacrificed life in defense of this Nation in so many wars 

in so many places, and do so with dignity and honor and commitment, is it possible at this moment of national triumph that the 

deepest insult was not delivered upon al Qaeda abroad, but to a 

small population here at home? 

19

There are more than 500 Indian nations within the U.S. We all 

have a rich history, language, culture. To turn us into stereotypes 

is to stop seeing us as individuals and to trap us in someone else’s 

mistaken idea of who were are. These images are so powerful that 

many non-native people do not see us as modern people with a valued history, living culture, language or a future. When school 

teams use us as mascots, it goes against education’s highest goal, 

to teach history, instead of reinforcing stereotypes. And these 

schools graduate people who go on to become teachers, judges, governors, presidents, who impact Native people no matter where we 

live in this Country. 

When the United States military uses these terms and symbols, 

it goes against its greatest honor. Our military discharges people 

who go on to become teachers, judges, governors and presidents, 

who impact Native people no matter where we live. 

Many American Indian people have done their part to win the 

hearts and minds of their neighbors. Yet we are still imaged as the 

enemy. Now it is time for our national government to do its part. 

This may not require new laws, but it does cry out for action. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Teters follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLENE TETERS, STUDIO ARTS FACULTY, INSTITUTE OF

AMERICAN INDIAN ARTS

Introduction 

Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and distinguished 

members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. My name is Charlene Teters; 

I am a member of the Spokane Nation in Spokane Washington. I am honored to 

serve as a senior faculty in Studio Arts at the prestigious, Institute of American Indian Arts. We have amongst our student body, some of the brightest young talent 

and future leadership for Native America. These young people are among our best 

representation of our native nations and our culture. 

Let me first share with the Committee a short personal story that brought me 

to speaking out about the impact of racist stereotypes on Indigenous People. I was 

one of three American Indian students recruited to the University of Illinois’ (UIUC) 

masters program in studio arts in 1988. When I received my letter of acceptance, 

it was a dream comes true; to pursue an advance degree in studio arts, a dream 

that soon became a nightmare. When we were recruited, not one of us 

asked... what is your mascot? Who would think that you would need to ask that 

question? Our university systems must be places where all peoples’ identity is respected. What the three of us witnessed was anything but honoring or respectful 

of Indian people. 

We witnessed a university community deeply embedded with AI stereotypes because this publically funded university’s creation and use of ‘‘Chief Illiniwek’’ as its’ 

mascot. We witnessed sororities and fraternities playing with things central to our 

spiritual way of life while drinking heavily. We witnessed the mascot dance to Hollywood’s version of our drums and songs. Found images meant to represent Indian 

people on welcome mats, wallpaper, whiskey bottles, toilet paper; anything these 

stereotypes could be put on it was, and if it could be sold at a profit the university 

licensed it. 

The student body at UIUC numbers was near 45,000. Once one of the three of 

us, meaning the only three students on campus who could prove they were American Indian, criticized the use of our culture for the university’s athletic identity the 

push back was fast, furious, harsh, threatening and devastating. In no time there 

were few public places that felt remotely safe. We could not go out to eat, buy groceries, gas, the mall, a movie, let alone a sporting event without being told how unwelcome we had become. I, with young children in public school, heard and saw the 

emotional assault that took place on my 2 children. While UIUC is a very large university, it exists in a small college town. In the end one of three left, another and 

I stayed, but not without being effected for life. 

20

There were those who stood with us. Organizations familiar with the struggles of 

people attacked for what they were born: AJC, NOW, NCAI, AIM, SCLC, SPLC, and 

others, who at a distance lent what support they could. Close in there were the courageous: YWCA, African American House, and Progressive Students Alliance. These 

may have been small, but in a sea of hostility, welcome support. 

These community and often tax-supported stereotypes are the definition of ‘‘Tyranny of the Majority,’’ not simply because American Indians are such a small segment of the general population, but because this gateway racism comes in under the 

guises of community good, community identity. Candy coated for children and consumption, profiting adults and organizations, woven into the fabric of everyday life, 

it is tortuous for those who have bought in to see the horror of racism in these images they love and cheer. However, these grinning ‘‘Little Red Sambos’’ dig at the 

pain of history, the reality of religious and cultural oppression and hurt both Indian 

people and the prospects of reconciliation. No one really comes out ahead where racism sets the table. 

I have been asking myself what can I add to this discussion at the level of the 

United States Senate. There are many who may be better trained to speak of institutionalized racism, those better trained to speak about social impact, emotional impact, spiritual impact, even financial impact. But this struggle for freedom from organized insults, public ridicule and national collusion is my story. It is Indian people’s story. I believe one day these stereotypes will be looked upon with the same 

distain and wonderment that Frito Bandito, Sambo and other effigies of historic racial attitudes are seen today. No one is clamoring to return these symbols to American’s popular landscape. These Indian symbols and mascots are no different. 

Often in cases of symbols, as these seen as innocuous, the question is asked, 

‘‘What harm do they do?’’ A thing can be wrong without a quantifiable injury to be 

pointed at. With that said, I want to share with the Committee my experience with 

my family, students and friends made along the way. Serious depression and suicidal tendencies are rarely spoken of in the moment. It was many years before I 

heard from others how close my own children came to taking suicide as a way out 

of the pain. For them they were attacked and bullied at school and in public both 

for who they are, and of course who their parents are. Others unrelated to the conflict that raged in Illinois felt the pain deeply, too. Just last month I spoke at the 

University of Utah and discovered how devastated many of the few Indian students 

there feel, some in deep depression, at least one genuinely suicidal. 

University of Utah Utes. Here is a case where it may well be that a tribal council 

is playing along to get along. Fill in the blank: ‘‘do you mind being myllllll?’’ 

Even the question is repugnant, frankly, its’ cowardly. 

It may be difficult for those of mainstream persuasion and socialization to understand the impact of daily insults on even a strong psyche. Already the isolation an 

American Indian student can feel separated from tribe, community, familiar customs and faces is all too real when attending a university, or moving to an urban 

setting. Too few make it through the educational system to the post-secondary level. 

These stereotypes and community attitudes are an unnecessary burden, a burden 

that can be alleviated by elimination of these symbols. 

But the daily insults are not limited to athletic team identities. Well documented 

are the film stereotypes that continue to be introduced to new generations through 

cable and Internet. Screenwriters continue to use ‘‘Chief’’ and derogatory references 

from a time some feel has gone by. Deeply concerning is the continued use of American Indian references by the United States military. General Norman Schwarzkopf 

telling the world that Desert Storm was ‘‘like going in to Indian country,’’ hardware 

and weapons names, and now we who are Indian can not escape ‘‘Geronimo’’ is dead 

and all the other proclamations we will now have to endure in the moment and in 

the future. Did anyone stop to think, would American Indians want to be synonymous with Osama bin Laden? I think not. This United States Senate Committee on 

Indian Affairs has picked a salient moment to ask the question, why not! 

Not only do we not ask the question: should we continue today as we have done 

in the past with these ever present relics of racism; should we continue to mascot 

American Indians. We do not ask what else happens as a result. To me the answer 

is plain as day, too few if any who roots for this Nation’s capitol Washington Redskins asks how American Indians feel when the opposing fans yell ‘‘kill, beat, 

defeat... the redskins!’’ no one ever asks the question. We who have answered 

it without having been asked understand how few want to know. As a nation we 

appear not to want to hear the answer, so the question is avoided. 

In part I am here today to ask this question, how do we ask American Indians 

who serve in uniform, who have sacrificed life in defense of this young nation in 

so many wars in so many places, to reconcile the irreconcilable, to defend the indefensible, and to do so with dignity, honor and commitment. Is it possible that at 

21

this moment of national triumph that the deepest insult was not delivered upon al 

Qaida abroad but to a small population here at home. And if anyone, who will apologize? 

Before this land was the United States, it was the homeland of many Indian nations. And yet, many American’s know very little about us. We survived manifest 

destiny not just physically, we are here culturally. As parents and as teachers, we 

work hard to instill in our children a sense of pride in our culture, our stories, our 

names for ourselves, our historical heroes. Like Pontiac, Chief Joseph, and Geronimo and yet we find we must compete with mass media’s image, or the military’s 

use of our historical heroes as code for the country’s enemies. 

History plays an important role in defining acts and practices as racist, regardless 

of the intent of the larger community group. When the history is one of domination 

and subordination as is the history of the Indigenous people in the US, then what 

counts is how the minority group understands its portrayal. History is very powerful, depending on who is telling the story. It can be used to demobilize a people or 

it can be used to inspire. When the administration uses our historical heroes name 

‘‘Geronimo’’ in connection with military action, it takes from us, our heroes. 

Conclusion 

There are more than 500 Indian Nations within the United States. All have their 

own rich history, language and culture. To turn us into stereotypes is to stop seeing 

us as individuals and traps us in someone else’s mistaken idea of who we are. These 

images are so powerful that many non-Indian people do not see us as modern people 

with a valued history, living culture and language or a future. When school teams 

use us as mascots it goes against education’s highest goals. These schools’ graduate 

people who go on to become, teachers, judges, governors, and presidents who impact 

native communities, no matter where we live. When the United State military uses 

these terms and symbols it goes against its greater honor. Our military discharges 

people who go on to become, teachers, judges, governors, and presidents who impact 

native communities, no matter where we live. 

Many American Indians have done their part to win the hearts and minds of their 

neighbors. Now it is time for our national government to do its’ part. This may not 

require new laws. This does cry out for action.

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Senator Johnson, for joining us. I will let you proceed 

with questioning at this point, and I may also have questions in 

a little bit. I am sure we will have others joining us. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A question for Chairman Hall. What impacts have you seen as 

a result of negative stereotyping on your ability as a tribal leader 

to interact with other governments, businesses and the local community? 

Mr. HALL. Thank you for the question, Senator Johnson. It is 

good to see you. 

As a tribal leader, in our State of North Dakota, when we talk 

about the Fighting Sioux nickname and you talk about education 

and you talk about government to government cooperation and 

partnership, working together, it is all good on words, it is all good 

on paper. When you pass laws, like our State legislature did, without consultation, without cooperation, without consulting and getting consent from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, it goes against 

those words. So they become empty words. It is hard to move to 

other issues, like health care, like energy development, like economic development, like natural resource development. It is hard 

to get to those issues, because it is like you couldn’t get the proper 

respect and proper dignity and relationship with the tribes, and the 

consent and the partnership in the first place. 

22

So it makes it hard to get beyond that if it is just on paper. So 

we are kind of in a difficult situation. 

Senator JOHNSON. How do you respond to the points that, when 

there is the ‘‘Fighting Sioux,’’ but how do you respond to the issue 

of, there is the Fighting Irish and the Vikings and the Padres and 

so on? Other teams are nicknamed legitimately. How do you distinguish those as a different category? 

Mr. HALL. It is really easy for us, I guess, Senator Johnson, because we have been used as negative nicknames and negative mascots for so many years. Even looking at Burt Lancaster, looking at 

the movies, we were portrayed negatively where, if Burt Lancaster 

or John Wayne took one shot, ten Indians died. So our children 

grew up seeing negative stereotypes that the Indians are always 

the enemy. We are not just the enemy, with the Fighting Irish football team, that is pretty limited to the Notre Dame football team. 

But the Fighting Sioux seems not to be just limited, but expanded 

to all areas of life for the Native American. 

And again, especially for our youth and our education. 

Senator JOHNSON. Ms. Harjo, has the 2005 NCAA policy been effective in eliminating the use of indigenous-based mascots and imagery? Are there other policies that have been successful in eliminating the use of indigenous-based mascots and imagery? 

Ms. HARJO. I think it has been very successful for those schools 

that haven’t convinced an Indian tribe or nation that that tribe or 

nation should give them their name or let them denigrate their 

name. So we have a lot of education to do in our own communities. 

That is a problem for us. I understand that some Native peoples 

think, well, if we just give them this, maybe they will leave us 

alone on gaming or leave us alone on water rights or other things, 

we will just let them have a little bit of racism. 

The problem is that racism knows no bounds, and there is no 

such thing as a little bit of racism or a name that is just a little 

racist or an action that is a little racist. Racism is huge and can 

overwhelm you. 

As far as public policies, the NCAA has done a good job. I felt 

the legislation that my Cheyenne brother, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, introduced at one point, with the companion bill in the House 

by Representative John Lewis, to not let the RFK Stadium be used 

for any purpose that, for any entity that would comment on or 

characterize a person’s physical attributes, including skin color. 

That of course preceded, and maybe was the impetus, for Jack 

Kent Cooke moving the team to other places, to the suburbs of 

Washington, D.C. 

What we need, the legislation that I am proposing deals with the 

Washington football team name. But it really goes to who should 

provide for the Federal Government’s mistakes. The U.S. Patent 

and Trademark Board has admitted that it made a mistake in registering the trademarks for the team name and logos and associated the cheerleaders’ trademarks and that sort of thing. So it already admitted that it made a mistake. 

Yet we seven plaintiffs had to go on and have our own counsel 

and litigate this case for 17 years, because that Federal entity 

doesn’t go to court. It is the competing parties that go to court. And 

we were terribly out-matched and out-monied. We weren’t just 

23

dealing with the Washington football team, we were dealing with 

the NFL, which wasn’t a party, but which paid for all the litigation 

for the first seven years. 

So we were fighting Pepsi, backed up by Coke. Just huge 

monoliths. And had we not had pro bono counsel, we would have 

not been able to make it as far as we have. And now the burden 

of that entire litigation falls to six young Native people who have 

all their lives before them, and they need to get on with them. Yet 

they have this burden for the whole of Indian Country and for the 

whole of the Nation to make things right. 

Senator JOHNSON. Ms. Teters, you have been a leader on this 

issue for over 20 years. Have you seen a change in the attitudes 

of school officials? Are they more aware of the impacts of Nativethemed mascots? 

Ms. TETERS. Yes and no. I do an awful lot of speaking on other 

campuses and where the issue is being debated. I was just at the 

University of Utah a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately what I 

find is the quality of the debate really doesn’t improve much. It is 

like we keep going around in these cycles. And it is like at the University of Illinois, where I was a student, and where we challenged 

the use of Chief Illiniwek mascot there, it was a 20-year struggle 

to retire that mascot. And so the outward images are gone, but the 

attitudes are still there. 

Senator JOHNSON. With respect to the 2005 NCAA directive? 

Ms. TETERS. Well, that was the reason why they did retire it, because it did come down to basically money for them. You would 

hope that people would retire these for the right reasons, because 

it is the right thing to do. But often, for us, this is very, very difficult for us to address these issues, because we are not a large 

group of people . And we are not a large voting block. So it is very 

difficult sometimes for us to even get at this level, where you are 

listening to us. And I appreciate this time. 

Senator JOHNSON. Over to you, Chairman Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson. 

I think he opened an area of inquiry that I want to follow up on 

a little bit. The NCAA 2005 policy, I noticed that in your testimony, 

Ms. Harjo, that since 1970, these ‘‘Indian stereotypes,’’ there were 

3,000, they have come down today to less than 1,000. Do you think 

the policy that was put in place in 2005 accelerated that or not? 

What is your perception of that? 

Ms. HARJO. Oh, it definitely helped. I don’t know that it accelerated it. But every time some entity, whether it is the Civil Rights 

Commission or this good Committee holding this particular oversight hearing, every time the National Education Association 

makes a statement or some entity outside our immediate circle 

steps in and says, this is racism and we can’t have this, then it 

helps. It always helps. 

So the NCAA did good and mighty work. That is still helping and 

still bearing fruit. Of course, there are those in North Dakota who 

don’t like it, and those in certain States who don’t like it. But these 

are toys of racism that people have gotten used to and you can’t 

pry them away from them. They are like aberrant children who 

cling to these things. 

24

We are often asked, why do you waste your time on these things, 

don’t you have more important things to do? And first of all, no one 

who has ever asked that question has ever done anything for our 

people. We are the ones who do that work, the hard work on the 

important issues. And this is one of them, because it is fundamental, it is overarching, it is undergirding. This is the stuff that 

determines what kind of public policy there is going to be for us. 

And members of Congress don’t make good public policy for cartoons. A lot of people perceive us as not quite human, because 

those are the messages that come down to us through popular culture, that we are less than human. The list that Senator Johnson 

ticked off before was so instructive of what people are saying to 

him, like the Fighting Irish. People compare us to the leprechaun. 

Well, the leprechaun is not a human. And on that issue, the Fighting Irish, that was a self-description. It is sort of like an Indian 

team calling itself warriors or something. That is a different thing 

from name-calling from the outside. 

And with the Vikings and others, we are not descendants of the 

Native people. We are the Native people, same languages, same religions, same cultures, same dances, same songs. We are the people. Yet we are compared to cowboys, that is a profession, or Vikings, an era. We are not an era, we are human beings. That is 

the big news about us in America is that, yes, we are a small population, and sometimes we are an invisible population. So racism 

against us is also not perceived. 

And what this Committee does in holding this hearing is help 

break through that and enable a few people to say, oh, of course, 

what were we thinking of. Let’s change this, let’s do something 

about this. If the Sioux people don’t want Fighting Sioux, it 

shouldn’t be around. That is so simple. 

So yes, we are down to a little over 900 of these so-called Native 

references. But they are the tough nuts. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. I hope that as you have 

described it, the hearing that we are having today will also, like 

the NCAA policy, open the doors, make people think and continue 

to push the trend, as you talk about, in terms of a sea change, 

those numbers going down. We hope they go down dramatically. 

Charlene, you talked, I know in your written testimony, about 

your experience at the University of Illinois, as a masters student, 

I think you were one of three Native students in a large university. 

And the mascot there was challenged. I think your description was 

that the backlash was fast, furious, harsh, threatening and devastating. Why was that? What do you think was at the root of that? 

Is there any way to have the discussion without having that backlash, do you think? You have real experience in this area, I think 

all the panelists do. 

Ms. TETERS. When I was there as a student, there were three of 

us recruited. And that was my first thought, was, this is an educated group of people. I will tell them, Marcus will tell them and 

they will get it. 

But what was saw was a pattern of hostility. It was hostile before we opened our mouths. So when the three of us got there, and 

it was a dream come true for all of us, we were all first generation 

to work on an advanced degree, to go to a Big 10 university. So it 

25

was Marcus Ammerman who spoke out first, and wrote a letter to 

the student newspaper, who became targeted. People were riding 

him and belittling him. He lived in a student dormitory type setting. And really couldn’t separate himself from the hostility that in 

the community, because he dared open his mouth about how he felt 

with this community that was permeated with stereotypes of Native people. 

And as much as the university and a lot of these universities and 

organizations always describe theirs as different, ours is dignified 

somehow, ours is noble. But you can’t control what the community 

does with these images. So we saw all kinds of things. There was 

a Miss Illini squaw contest, there was a bar in downtown in the 

campus town that had a falling down drunken Indian, over and 

over again. This is where the sorority and fraternity brothers and 

sisters would go and act out their negative stereotypes of us. 

So when a university has this as their identity, it becomes a platform for people to act out things. Because let’s face it, Americans 

know very little about us. At the root of what was going on in 

terms of the hostility at this university, and it is not so different 

other places, is that they don’t know much about us. They may 

even be surprised that we are still here. Because I have heard that, 

what, Indians are still here? Sometimes they will say things like, 

well, gee, you don’t look Indian. What they really mean is we don’t 

look like the stereotype that they manufactured. 

So it is insult on top of insult. And so Marcus was targeted. And 

you would call it, it is hate crime, what was happening to him. He 

was targeted in a way that pushed him out. And we are pushed 

out of these universities and schools more than any other people, 

because it becomes so hostile. 

One of the professors who recruited all three of us told the two 

of us left, keep your mouth shut. Get your degree and get out. So 

we really aren’t given much choice in terms of how to deal with 

this. We are almost always told to just shut up, internalize it, don’t 

you know we are honoring you? Stuff like that. It is really, what 

I am describing is a hostile environment. 

And I was there with my children, who also had to witness this 

hostility that is being played out by the community. Because one, 

they don’t want to know that what they are doing is possibly racist. 

So they immediately, the backlash is immediate. That is what I 

mean, immediate. They targeted my children. 

The only reason I was able to survive that hostile environment 

is I had a lot of help. There were a lot of people who came and 

stood with me, people who understood racism. One of those organizations, the American Jewish Committee, who was doing research 

for a document called Bigotry on Campuses. And as an expert on 

anti-Semitism and hate, he recognized the pattern of hate, by looking at some of the newspaper articles. The news was also being 

used as a tool to target me, to make me look stupid and ridiculous. 

That is often, when we address issues that are of concern in our 

community, the press is often used as a tool. So it is more time 

than we have in terms of talking about how hostile that was. But 

I was able to survive it, I did get my MFA from there. But I had 

a lot of help, had a lot of people from different organizations, racial 

justice groups, who stood with me. And a lot of people, and Suzan 

26

came to our campus, a number of people came to lend their voice 

to the student struggle on that campus. That is why we were able 

to push it. 

But it was a 20-year struggle on this campus. And I really resent 

that this is left on the shoulders of the few Native people in these 

communities to try to push this forward. Because it is not just a 

hostile environment for Native people. It is any people of consciousness who are addressing these issues become targeted as well. 

So it needs to be seen as, this is not a Native American concern, 

it is a concern of racism. It is racism, and address it in that way. 

Senator UDALL. Chairman Hall, one of the things she just mentioned there was the impact on her children. I think that is something that is a thread through all of your testimony, is that we 

want to break the cycle, we don’t want this passed on to our children. Do you have any thoughts on that, and in hearing the other 

testimony? How can we do that? How do we approach it in that 

way? What are the strongest things we could do to make sure that 

our children don’t grow up with that kind of imprint and feeling 

and it impacting them in a derogatory way? 

Mr. HALL. A great question, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of 

thoughts. First of all, I have a daughter that is graduating May 

29th. She can’t wear her eagle feather. She is in a non-Native 

school. And we have another tribal member graduating, a boy, and 

same thing, he can’t—or she was going to bead her cap, and he was 

going to wear eagle feather, and they can’t do that. 

So all the parents are concerned. They are going in and they are 

going to talk about what the eagle feather means. It is the highest 

honor, so graduation is a high honor. They come from a sovereign 

tribe, these young students who are graduating, they are a member 

of a federally-recognized sovereign tribe. So the school needs to be 

educated. 

To the second point, Mr. Chairman, I really think that we can’t 

stop with not continuing to educate about what an eagle feather 

means and what a member of a sovereign federally-recognized tribe 

and its member, and that significance. Because only Native Americans can possess eagle feathers. So this is not to be offensive to 

that non-Indian school, it is part of the honoring of that Native 

American student. So that education is real key. 

If there is proper education like that, and there are advocates, 

and it has to come from more than just a couple of folks, as 

Charlene and Suzan have mentioned, I as a tribal chairman have 

to advocate for those students. I can’t sit back as a tribal leader 

and say, oh, leave it to the parents, let those guys do that. Tribal 

councils and tribal leaders have to step forward and say, or pass 

resolutions to the schools, and half of our students go to the nonIndian public schools. Working groups, resolutions, I think the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs could establish a working group, 

Mr. Chairman, especially when it comes to the name of the Geronimo chief with the code name for Osama bin Laden, working with 

Defense, the military, White House, tribal leaders, the testimony 

that was given today. I can’t just say that without volunteering, so 

I would volunteer myself, Chairman Udall, to be a part of that 

working group and do whatever I can to continue to help educate 

and advocate for the right thing to do. Our tribes are sovereign 

27

governments, and things as eagle feathers are a high honor. They 

are not to disrespect a non-public school or anything else. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Chairman Hall. I really 

want to thank this panel for your testimony. I think you have addressed this issue in a very thoughtful way. I hope that our action 

here today will move us in a positive direction. 

At this point I am going to excuse this panel, and we have a second panel that I am going to call forward. Thank you again. 

So we want our panel two members to come forward. I would like 

to invite them to the table. 

As they are coming up, let me do introductions. Testifying first 

is Stephanie Fryberg, the Associate Professor of Psychology at the 

University of Arizona in Tucson. The next witness after Ms. 

Fryberg is Chaske Spencer, a Lakota actor, producer and partner 

with Urban Dreams Productions in New York. Mr. Spencer is best 

known for his portrayal as Sam in the Twilight films. 

Then our final witness will be Mr. Jim Warne, President of the 

Warrior Society Development in San Diego, California. 

Welcome to all of you. It is great to have you today. 

Ms. Fryberg, why don’t we start with you and move to the left. 

Thank you for being here today. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE A. FRYBERG, PH.D, ASSOCIATE 

PROFESSOR OF SOCIAL AND CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY,

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 

Ms. FRYBERG. Chairman Udall and Members of the Committee, 

please allow me to express appreciation for the opportunity to 

speak on behalf of 154,000 members and affiliates of the American 

Psychological Association about the use of American Indian mascots. 

My name is Dr. Stephanie Fryberg, and I am an enrolled member of the Tulalip Tribes in Washington State. [Greeting in native 

tongue.] I want to take a moment from my tribe and my family to 

express our thanks and to express our greeting. 

I am an associate professor of social and cultural psychology at 

the University of Arizona and a researcher dedicated to alleviating 

education disparities for American Indian and low income children. 

I have conducted many studies on the psychological effects of using 

American Indian mascots, and I am the author of a number of published articles on the topic. 

In terms of the use of American Indian mascots, the carefullyhoned research methods and theories in the field of psychology provide a basis for examining and assessing the psychological consequences for American Indians, non-Natives and race relations in 

American society. In my statement, I will provide a brief overview 

of the empirical research on the psychological consequences of 

using these mascots. 

In summary, the research finds that American Indian mascots 

have negative psychological consequences for American Indians, 

positive psychological consequences for European Americans and 

negative effects on race relations in the U.S. 

Let me begin by discussing the psychological consequences for 

American Indians. A growing number of studies revealed that 

American Indian mascots have a wide variety of negative psychoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:35 Aug 03, 2011 Jkt 066994 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\66994.TXT JACK
28

logical consequences. Exposing American Indian high school and 

college students to American Indian mascots decreases self-esteem, 

feelings of community worth and achievement-related aspirations 

and increased levels of anxiety and depression. In fact, one study 

found that being exposed to an American Indian mascot lowered 

self-esteem significantly more than being exposed to a set of negative stereotypes, such as alcoholism, high school dropout rates and 

suicide. 

Beyond these psychological consequences, American Indian mascots have also been shown to negatively influence the campus climate. American Indian students at a large university with an 

American Indian mascot reported more threats to personal safety 

and more experiences of discrimination than non-Native students. 

Thus, American Indian mascots in school context have the potential to cause short-term and long-term harm for American Indians. 

Now, as we turn to the effects for European Americans, past research has shown the stereotypes typically exacerbate inequality by 

producing negative effects for the stereotyped group and positive effects for the high status group. This pattern holds for the use of 

American Indian mascots. In contrast to the negative psychological 

consequences for American Indians, research reveals that European Americans may benefit from the use of American Indian mascots. One study showed that European Americans exposed to an 

American Indian mascot reported a boost in self-esteem compared 

to European Americans in the no-mascot control condition. Another 

study revealed that European Americans reported liking and feeling more similar to a European American wearing an American Indian mascot tee-shirt than to the same person wearing an Irish teeshirt or a plain tee-shirt. These psychological benefits may partially 

explain the tenacity with which some Americans cling to American 

Indian mascots. 

Taken together, the work summarized above highlights the discrepancy of psychological consequences associated with American 

Indian mascots. After exposure to an American Indian mascot, 

American Indians reported reduced feelings of self-esteem and community worth, and fewer achievement-related aspirations, whereas 

European Americans, when exposed to the same mascots, reported 

a boost in feelings of self-worth. And rather than being seen as culturally or racially insensitive for endorsing stereotypes of American 

Indians, they were liked more by their European American peers. 

Consistent with the stereotyping literature, American Indian 

mascots foster racial and ethnic inequality in this Country. 

Finally, I will address the negative consequences for race relations. Mounting research reveals that American Indian mascots undermine race relations by activating negative stereotypes of American Indians and by increasing the likelihood that non-Native individuals will negatively evaluate and interact with American Indians. For example, one study examined 1,699 user comments from 

an online internet forum that was created in response to a newspaper article about the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux 

mascot. UND mascot supporters expressed not only negative attitudes and stereotypes about American Indians, they believed that 

American Indians owed them something. That is, that American 

Indians should be grateful to them for using the mascot. 

29

The issue with respect to race relations is not simply that the 

use of American Indian mascots activated negative stereotypes of 

American Indians, but rather that these mascots influence how European Americans, particularly those who support the use of American Indian mascots, think and act toward American Indians and 

other racial and ethnic minority groups. One study found, for example, that European American students who agreed with the use 

of American Indian mascots were more likely to engage in racial 

prejudice and discrimination against American Indian students 

than European American students who disagreed with the use of 

American Indian mascots. 

The research findings on the use of American Indian mascots are 

proving to be remarkably consistent across studies, and in terms of 

how the studies align with past research on stereotyping and prejudice. American Indian mascots reveal negative consequences for the 

targeted minority group and positive consequences for the mainstream majority group. 

Hence, the use of American Indian mascots not only promotes 

the development, endorsement and activation of negative attitudes 

and behaviors toward contemporary American Indians, but they reinforce inequality, and in so doing, undermine race relations in this 

Country. 

I want to express my gratitude for the opportunity to be here, 

and I look forward to hearing your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fryberg follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE A. FRYBERG, PH.D, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Barrasso, and Members of the Committee, 

please allow me to express appreciation for the opportunity to speak on behalf of 

the 154,000 members and affiliates of the American Psychological Association (APA) 

about the use of American Indian mascots. My name is Dr. Stephanie Fryberg. I 

am an enrolled member of the Tulalip Tribes in Washington State, and I bring 

warm greetings from my family and tribal community. I am an Associate Professor 

of Social and Cultural Psychology at the University of Arizona, and a researcher 

dedicated to alleviating education disparities for American Indian and low-income 

children. I have conducted many studies on the psychological effects of using American Indian mascots and I am the author of a number of published articles on the 

topic. 

APA, as an organization, has a long-standing commitment to using psychological 

knowledge to improve people’s lives and to benefit society. The membership includes 

researchers, practitioners, and educators whose work has played a pivotal role in 

facilitating the resolution of personal and societal challenges in diverse, multicultural contexts. In terms of the use of American Indian mascots, the carefully honed 

research methods and theories of our field provide a basis for examining and assessing the psychological consequences for American Indians, non-Natives, and race relations in American society. 

In my statement, I will provide a brief overview of the empirical research on the 

psychological consequences of using American Indian mascots. In summary, the research finds that American Indian mascots have (1) negative psychological consequences for American Indians, (2) positive psychological consequences for European Americans, and (3) negative effects on race relations in the U.S. 

Negative Psychological Consequences for American Indians 

A growing number of studies reveal that American Indian mascots have a variety 

of negative psychological consequences for American Indians. Exposing American Indian high school and college students to American Indian mascots decreased selfesteem, feelings of community worth (i.e., the belief that one’s community can improve itself), and achievement related aspirations (Fryberg, Markus, Oyserman, & 

Stone, 2008; Fryberg & Watts, 2010), and increased levels of anxiety and depression 

(LaRocque, 2004). In fact, one study found that being exposed to an American InVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:35 Aug 03, 2011 Jkt 066994 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\66994.TXT JACK
30

dian mascot lowered self-esteem significantly more than being exposed to a set of 

negative stereotypes (i.e., alcoholism, suicide, teen-pregnancy, high school dropout 

rates) (Fryberg et al., 2008). Also notable, another study showed that even when an 

American Indian mascot represented an American Indian university, the negative 

effects were the same as when the mascot represented a largely non-Native organization (e.g., University of Illinois or Cleveland Indians Major League Baseball team; 

Fryberg et al., 2008). 

Beyond these psychological consequences, American Indian mascots also negatively influenced the campus climate for American Indian students. American Indian students at a large university with an American Indian mascot reported more 

threats to personal safety and experiences of discrimination, and higher levels of 

stress and tension than non-Native students (LaRocque, 2004). Thus, American Indian mascots in school contexts have the potential to cause harm, both short term 

(e.g., on self-esteem) and long term (e.g., negative campus climate) to American Indians. 

Positive Psychological Consequences for European Americans 

Stereotypes typically exacerbate inequality by producing negative effects for the 

stigmatized target group and positive effects for high status groups. This pattern 

holds for the use of American Indian mascots. In contrast to the negative psychological consequences for American Indians, research reveals that European Americans may benefit from the use of American Indian mascots (Fryberg & Oyserman, 

2011). One study showed that European American students exposed to American Indian mascots in a news article or on a t-shirt reported a boost in self-esteem compared to European Americans in the no mascot control condition. Another study revealed that European Americans also reported liking and feeling more similar to a 

European American wearing an American Indian mascot t-shirts than to the same 

person wearing an Irish t-shirt or a plain t-shirt. These studies suggest that European Americans may benefit from both exposure (i.e., feel better about themselves) 

and using (i.e., are liked more) American Indian mascots, and that this benefit may 

partially explain the tenacity with which some Americans cling to American Indian 

mascots. 

Taken together, the work summarized above highlights the discrepancy of psychological consequences associated with American Indian mascots. After exposure to an 

American Indian mascot, American Indians reported reduced feelings of self-esteem 

and community worth, fewer achievement related aspirations, and higher rates of 

anxiety and depression. In contrast, European Americans, when exposed to the 

same mascots, report a boost in feelings of self worth and are liked more, rather 

than being seen as culturally or racially insensitive for endorsing stereotypes of 

American Indians. Consistent with the stereotyping literature, American Indian 

mascots are one of the taken-for-granted features of everyday life that serve to foster racial and ethnic inequality in this country. 

Negative Consequences for Race Relations 

Mounting research reveals that American Indian mascots undermine race relations by activating negative stereotypes of American Indians and by increasing the 

likelihood that non-Native individuals will negatively evaluate and interact with 

American Indians (Nelson, 2009). For example, one study examined 1699 user comments from an online Internet forum that was created in response to a newspaper 

article about the University of North Dakota (UND) Fighting Sioux mascot 

(Steinfeldt et al., 2010). Reflecting antipathy toward American Indians, 32 percent 

of the comments attacked the credibility and legitimacy of American Indians who 

opposed the use of American Indian mascots, 21 percent responded disparagingly toward American Indians (e.g., just get over it), 21 percent noted that American Indians should be grateful that the mascot ‘‘honors’’ them and 7 percent directly vilified 

American Indians (e.g., savages, drunks). Moreover, revealing a lack of empathy for 

American Indians, 20 percent reported that American Indians are not the victims, 

but rather that the users of American Indian mascots are the true victims because 

their mascot was banned. In summary, UND mascot supporters not only expressed 

negative attitudes and stereotypes about American Indians, they believed that 

American Indians owed them something (i.e., they should be grateful) for using the 

mascot. 

Beyond explicit (conscious) attitudes and stereotypes, American Indian mascots 

may also elicit implicit (i.e., unconscious) attitudes and stereotypes (Nosek et al.,

2007). A recent study revealed that exposure to American Indian mascots brought 

to mind negative and positive implicit stereotypes of contemporary American Indians (Stone, Focella, Fryberg, & Covarrubias, 2011). Notably, however, the study 

found that the ease with which negative stereotypes came to mind was significantly 

31

quicker than the ease with which positive stereotypes came to mind, which suggests 

that American Indian mascots more readily yield implicit negative stereotypes of 

contemporary American Indians. Moreover, while the negative stereotype effect was 

limited to the American Indian mascot condition, the positive stereotype effect was 

found in all three mascot conditions (i.e., American Indian mascot, Irish mascot and 

non-ethnic mascot). This result suggests that the sports mascots in general seem to 

bring forth positive stereotypes of contemporary American Indians, but only American Indian mascots elicit negative stereotypes of this group. 

The issue, with respect to race relations, is not simply that the use of American 

Indian mascots activated negative stereotypes of American Indians, in important 

contexts such as education, but rather that these mascots influence how European 

Americans, particularly those who support the use of American Indian mascots, 

think and act toward American Indians and other racial-ethnic minority groups. 

One study, for example, found that European American students who agreed with 

the use of American Indian mascots were more likely to engage in racial prejudice 

and discrimination against American Indian students than European American students who disagreed with American Indian mascots (Gonzalez, 2005). In terms of 

other racial-ethnic minority groups, two studies revealed that European American 

participants who were exposed to American Indian mascots endorsed more antiAsian American stereotypes relative to participants who had not been exposed to 

the mascots (Kim-Prieto, Goldstein, Okazaki, & Kirschner, 2010). This research 

demonstrated that once a person starts thinking in stereotypical terms about one 

racial-ethnic minority group, the same type of stereotypic thinking can spill over 

onto other stigmatized groups. 

The research findings on the use of American Indian mascots are proving to be 

remarkably consistent across studies and in terms of how the studies align with 

past research on stereotyping and prejudice. The research empirically demonstrates, 

for the first time, that the negative stereotypes promoted by American Indian mascots reveal negative consequences for the targeted minority group and positive consequences for the mainstream majority group. Hence, the use of American Indian 

mascots not only promotes the development, endorsement, and activation of negative attitudes and behaviors toward contemporary American Indians, but they reinforce inequality and, in so doing, undermine race relations in this country. 

As I conclude, I want to express my gratitude for the opportunity to discuss the 

relevant research with you today. I look forward to hearing your questions and welcome the chance to respond. Thank you.

32

Senator UDALL. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Spencer? 


505a11.eps
33

STATEMENT OF CHASKE SPENCER, ACTOR/PRODUCER, 

PARTNER, URBAN DREAM PRODUCTIONS 

Mr. SPENCER. Hello. My name is Chaske Spencer. I am an actor 

and a producer. I am here to testify today as someone who has 

been directly impacted by racist stereotypes of indigenous peoples. 

Although I have experienced this as a Native man, it is not a Native issue, I believe it is a human issue. I believe we need to approach it as humanistic approach that fosters dignity, equality, and 

value and diversity in all cultures. 

I wish to thank the Committee and the Chairman for bringing 

this important topic into the public spotlight, for inviting me to 

speak at these proceedings. I am honored and grateful for this opportunity to express my thoughts and stand on the matter. 

As a child, I was very confused when I saw mascots and propaganda about Native Americans. I experienced feelings of shame, 

guilt, and since a lot of media and propaganda portrayed us as savages, people of ignorance, and lack of sophistication, I spent the 

majority of my childhood struggling to understand my people and 

identifying with the current day role models, since most of my Native heroes were historical. 

I was frustrated, because I was the target of racism as a child. 

I was called many negative names, so bad I prefer not to repeat 

them here. I went to one school where the vast majority of kids 

were Caucasian. I was one of four or five Native kids, and we were 

ignored most of the time. Needless to say, I got into some fights 

as a kid. Throughout the years, I learned to deal with it in better 

ways, but underlying frustration still remains. 

When our children are targeted with racist comments and actions, regardless of their race, religion, culture, et cetera, it impacts 

them for life, whether they show it or not. Their self-worth, their 

drive, their relationships they create with other people are affected 

in a myriad of ways. In today’s society, it is almost impossible to 

escape the influence of stereotypes in the media, sports, entertainment and politics. There are people in the spotlight who have transcended stereotypes such as Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Jennifer Lopez, Oprah, Hillary Clinton, Halle Berry, President Obama. 

For the most part, the vast majority are still impacted daily by 

them. 

Where team names and mascots are concerned, all I will say to 

you is that I have never seen a team called a wetback. A lot of people just don’t understand the negative impact. 

A couple of hundred years ago, Native Americans were considered terrorists to some people. These stereotypes still prevail in 

media today. For example, the hunt for bin Laden is portrayed 

with wild west imagery and has been nicknamed Geronimo, when 

in reality it is thanks to the Native American’s legendary bravery 

that the two elite Army units received the legendary nickname Geronimo. 

Whether it is intentional or unintentional, we need to be more 

conscious of the associations we make. When we associate Geronimo with someone like Osama bin Laden, even if it is used to depict 

the courage necessary to capture him, the negative impact is inevitable. 

34

As a culture, we need to focus on expanding the opportunities of 

all peoples. After all, we are in the land of opportunity. Any stereotype of any people will narrow the opportunities of that people. 

As a young actor, I was faced with limited opportunities in terms 

of roles, other than stereotypically Native roles. These roles I had 

to take, because I needed to work at that point. But at some point, 

I might pass on some. While this has dramatically shifted over the 

years, it is still by no means where it could be. We have seen the 

struggle for women throughout the years standing for equality-empowering portrayals, in all forms of media. Yet women still earn 

less than a man in this Country in the same jobs in many instances. We see it with almost every ethnic group you can think 

of. While it is moving in the right direction, without a concentrated, without united effort, without new legislation, without 

new accepted practices in industries and in communities, the movement will not match the much-needed paradigm shift. 

I do think things are changing. In this younger generation, the 

teens have a more positive view of Native Americans. I think that 

is because of movies such as Twilight, which really has a lot of 

young people looking at Natives in a different light. Recently I 

have turned down roles that somehow portrayed Native American 

people in negative light. It is a pivotal time where I have unique 

opportunity to break down the stereotypes. I try to make decisions 

in my career that support that as much as possible. 

I have been fortunate to have opportunities to go beyond the 

stereotypes with such projects as Twilight. As a producer, my company and my partners are Urban Dreams Productions are conscious only to choosing material that is not stereotypical in nature, 

whether it be stereotypical to Native people or any people. Stereotypes by inherent nature limit the opportunities of that group of 

people. 

I am committed to expanding opportunities for people of all 

kinds. The work that companies like summit are doing is crucial 

to positively impacting young people all over, not only Native 

young people. But when I go to conventions for Twilight, what becomes obvious is that all youth from every race or community is 

excited about these modern, beyond-stereotype roles that are being 

portrayed by young Native actors. We are not just Native actors, 

we are actors. I have seen more and more roles being open to any 

ethnicity which has impacted the opportunities that I have been 

privileged to have. It is rare that specifically Native roles go beyond what has been traditionally known as leather and feathers, 

stereotype roles. That is why films like Twilight are so important 

to us as people. 

The reason I chose to do my last film, and independent film 

called Shouting Secrets, is because it was about a family. It could 

be a Caucasian family, an African American family, an Asian 

American family. Really any family, and it happens just to be a 

Native American family. That factor is the biggest reason I was attached to the project. 

One of the biggest opportunities I have now as a Native actor, 

given the mainstream spotlight and attention, is to help shine the 

light on issues that have impacted us for decades and in some 

35

cases, generations. Again, I would like to thank you for having me 

here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spencer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHASKE SPENCER, ACTOR/PRODUCER, PARTNER, URBAN

DREAM PRODUCTIONS


505b1.eps
36


505b2.eps
37


505b3.eps
38


505b4.eps
39


505b5.eps
40


505b6.eps
41


505b7.eps
42

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Warne, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JIM E. WARNE, PRESIDENT, WARRIOR 

SOCIETY DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. WARNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee. I am 

very pleased that we are here today to discuss this. I am not 

pleased that it is necessary that we have to be here to discuss this. 

But it is a key time, I think, in our history and our history to 

be made, that this will make some big differences for Indian people. Your support and your actions from your positions in the Senate will obviously bring this to light to much more people than it 

has in the past. 

My name is Jim Warne. My Lakota name is [name in native 

tongue]. So you can stick to Jim if you prefer. 

Again, my experiences, I am a member of NFL alumni. I was 

drafted by the Cincinnati Bengals out of Arizona State. I played 

against teams that use mascots in college as well. I was the one 

Indian mostly on most of my teams, I was the one Indian. A lot 

of my Samoan and Hawaiian brothers adopted me on some of those 


505b8.eps
43

football teams. So it was nice to have some of that indigenous perspective with my teammates. 

My work in Warrior Society Development, that is my company, 

and I work a lot with Indian youth. I do a lot of camps. They are 

there for the athletics, and to learn that, and have fun. But I really 

incorporate a lot of education on the importance of language preservation, culture appropriateness, attainment of education. And my 

work at San Diego State University, I work there half-time at the 

Center for American Indian Rehabilitation and Continuing Education at Interwork Institute at San Diego State University Aztecs. 

It is something that we experienced at San Diego State where we 

did a survey of students as well as faculty, and 95 percent of the 

folks still wanted to keep Monty Montezuma as the mascot. Fortunately, President Weber decided on his own to go ahead and get 

the mascot out of there, because 5 percent was enough for him that 

were being insulted. So they did, but there is an unofficial mascot 

that has made its return, to the great happiness of our fans, which 

is unfortunate. 

I remember being at a football game at San Diego State as a 

spectator with my son, Ryan. He was about seven years old at the 

time. At the time, the Aztec mascot was still part of the university. 

He came running by in his outfit and blowing his conch shell. He 

goes, ‘‘Dad, there is an Aztec.’’ I said, ‘‘No, son, that is a white guy 

doing a very bad job of imitating an Aztec.’’

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WARNE. It was an interesting dichotomy, in that sense of sitting there, wanting to be a fan, but then explaining some of the 

cultural inappropriateness that comes with institutionalized racism. And that is what we are really discussing. When you look at 

the board here that I shared with the Committee, you can see that 

some of these things are quite ridiculous. How could they even be 

considered? 

Yet unfortunately, there is something that is true, we don’t have 

to imagine this ridiculous perspective. I doubt that the Trademark 

and Patent Commission would even allow these mascots these days 

to be incorporated into organizations. To have the New York Jews 

or the San Francisco Chinamen, or the Cleveland Asians or Cleveland Hispanics, Cleveland Africans, is ridiculous. Yet Cleveland Indians is okay. 

And that is again, from my point, the three points that I think 

are why we are sitting here today, is education, the lack of education in our history. Our kids go to school and they cut out paper 

feathers and pilgrim hats and suddenly they have an Indian history. And the curriculum is something that needs to be changed. 

We need to say that we did not experience help when Columbus 

was lost in the Caribbean in 1492. As a result of his European contact, if you will, over 90 percent of us perished in a 400-year conflict. Over 90 percent of us perished as a result of Columbus arriving in the Caribbean at the time. 

And of course, with the Thanksgiving issue, and that is primarily 

what our curriculum for our young kids is, how Indians and Pilgrims lived together in harmony. That is obviously the initial part 

of the story. But they do not get into the comparative analysis of 

colonialism, which is what we prefer in this Country, as compared 

44

to other examples of holocaust and genocide. When you think of the 

numbers that happened here in America, it is indeed a great genocidal effort that happened. 

But 10 percent of us survived at the time in 1890, when my people decided to stop fighting the U.S. troops after the Wounded Knee 

Massacre. Every year, I go home for sun dance. I will be back there 

in summer solstice. My son is with me. He is growing up in urban 

San Diego, and his mom has Irish-German heritage, and he does 

not look Indian, if you will, as we have been saying, you don’t look 

Indian, right? 

But it is an interesting experience for him, because his peers and 

his teachers are free to think, share their perspectives of Indian 

people. Fortunately, his Lakota heart is strong and he challenges 

them. In fact, he has gotten in trouble for challenging his teachers, 

and I have had to make my appearance at that point with administration. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WARNE. So some of these things, with the education, it is 

just so limited that people think it is appropriate to have this symbol, compared with all these other symbols. The only thing I can 

see is they are all similar and they must have the same dentist in 

these pictures. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WARNE. They are all characters that are negative. Media, I 

have been fortunate to act in a few movies, I don’t really consider 

myself an actor, and I am in movies. That is when they need a big 

Indian, they give me a call. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WARNE. The reality of my portrayals, I have never been 

asked to audition as a professor at the university, an educator, an 

administrator, doctor, lawyer. What do you think my roles are that 

I audition for? It is the big bad guy. One of my roles was literally 

big Indian, they didn’t even bother to give me a name. 

So again, that is some of the media misrepresentation. And of 

course, people ask, why do you do those roles? Because I would 

never have acted and gotten an opportunity to infiltrate the Hollywood system, is what I say, so the next generation of actors will 

have a better experience than I did in terms of those stereotypes. 

I was in one movie audition, and the producer and the star of 

the movie came up to me, we were at Sony Studios and we were 

doing a full cast read of the movie. And he came up to me prior 

to us reading and he said, ‘‘I need you to sound more foreign.’’ I 

go, ‘‘Foreign? What do you mean?’’ And he goes, well, and I go, 

‘‘You mean stereotyped Hollywood Indian.’’ And he kind of took a 

step back, and I just realized I lost that role. They did change the 

role, they did get another person to be more appropriate in their 

eyes from an American standpoint that we got our stereotyped Indian back. 

Actually, I have the original script. The writers did something 

amazing, in my perspective, is that they made the Indian character 

articulate, and that he was supposed to be doing sports commentary with an ESPN person, and that is something I have always wanted to do on the side anyway, is be part of the sports network and be articulate. Of course, the thought would be, oh, here 

45

comes another stoic Indian. And then I would break out. I did my 

audition with that, but the producer and the star decided, no, I 

don’t like that, I want the stereotyped Indian. Unfortunately, that 

happened. 

There are so many issues in Indian Country. I know you have 

been on other committees with Indian issues, lack of education, disability rates that we face, mortality and suicide rates, and the 

dropout rates that we have in our education system. I remember 

being a young college student at Arizona student university and I 

would go with another Indian guy to some of the Indian meetings. 

There would just be a few of us. 

At the time, I would like to acknowledge our Indian women, because they have been more prevalent and more represented in our 

education systems. At the time, it was me and another Indian guy 

and a bunch of Indian women. I was a single guy, so that was 

okay. 

But at the same time, I was going, where are my Indian brothers? Where are my warrior society brothers, out here playing football or sports? They weren’t there, because they weren’t getting 

through the education system. Our dropout rates are disgusting, 

when you think of that. 

And I agree in terms of, my frustration is that my son faces and 

I face and many other Indian people, we are sitting there in a 

classroom and they are telling us what it is to be Indian. As they 

say, you don’t look Indian. You don’t look like we prefer you to 

look. That is something that, of course, the Indian with the feather 

and the buckskins and all that. It is something that has been very 

challenging. 

Civil rights was resisted as well back in 1964. Other issues in 

human decency and respect have been resisted in American history. There will be resistance to this, as we have faced for many, 

many years. And now the opportunity that this Committee has is 

you can influence your peers. I think that is what we really need, 

is peer support. As Indian people, we have been doing it for years. 

Obviously it has not worked. We have done some, as the Committee members, we have had a long fight. I was part of that in 

terms of they started this fight when I was still playing against the 

Florida State Seminoles and everything else. 

But we need to know sovereignty. We need more education. We 

need to know that media does not portray us accurately. There has 

been other media changes, as you see in my written testimony. I 

added some pictures of old advertising that were insulting to Asian 

Americans, African Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans. 

Again, this is something we can imagine. Could you imagine other 

teams doing that? 

I assure you that if another team did that and had that as their 

mascot, you could do a survey and find individuals from their culture that would say, I am okay with it. That is what they are 

doing, is a few people from Indian Country are okay with the mascots. Many of us aren’t. What is the number that it takes to indeed 

make that change? 

In closing, I just want to quote somebody. I find this interesting 

that we celebrate this holiday every year of being discovered. I 

would venture to say that I am the first Oglala Lakota tribal memVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:35 Aug 03, 2011 Jkt 066994 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\66994.TXT JACK
46

ber that is a member of the NFL alumni that has been in this 

room. So I have therefore discovered you. You don’t have to give 

me a holiday. But that is the reality. My brother is the first Oglala 

Lakota to graduate from Stanford Medical School. So he has discovered Stanford Medical School. 

So in conclusion: ‘‘They willingly traded everything they owned. 

They were well-built with good bodies and handsome features. 

They do not bear arms and do not know them. They would make 

fine servants. With 50 men, we could subjugate all of them and 

make them do whatever we want.’’ That is Columbus’ first log. 

That is the way we started with European American contact. Here 

we are today, discussing these issues, when other cultures in the 

United States that have come over have gotten this respect. We 

ask for that equality. 

I don’t see anybody from other communities protesting that they 

are not mascots. Why don’t we have the Blackskins, Whiteskins, 

Brownskins, and Yellowskins included? I daresay that none of 

them want to be a mascot. 

So thank you again for bringing this to light. Hopefully we will 

see some change as a result of these efforts. Thank you for your 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Warne follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM E. WARNE, PRESIDENT, WARRIOR SOCIETY

DEVELOPMENT

Introduction 

Good morning Chairman Akaka and distinguished Committee Members; 

It is an honor to be invited to provide testimony before the Senate Committee on 

Indian Affairs. I am Jim E Warne, member of the Oglala Lakota Nation of the Pine 

Ridge Reservation, South Dakota. I am president of Warrior Society Development, 

former professional National Football League Player, Actor, Educator at San Diego 

State University, and Ph.D. Candidate of University of Northern Colorado. I am also 

a life-long supporter of organized sports from youth sports leagues, collegiate athletics, and professional organizations. During the summers, through my company, 

Warrior Society Development, LLC, I provide a sports education to children of different Tribal Nations providing athletic activities integrated with cultural and traditional values. 

I am a proud Oglala Lakota Tribal member and I am a proud American citizen 

with some Euro-American ancestry. I am a member of the Consortia of Administrators for Native American Rehabilitation. I am the Director of the Center of American Indian Rehabilitation and Education (CAIRE) at San Diego State University 

Interwork Institute. I coordinate the Post Employment Training American Indian 

Rehabilitation Post-graduate certificate program under CAIRE. 

Thank you for the invitation to present at this important hearing regarding ‘‘Stolen Identities: The impact of Racist Stereotypes on Indigenous People’’. I want to 

share my perspectives and experiences as a retired professional football player, 

actor, educator and advocate for Indian issues and disability awareness. 

Testimony for U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Oversight Hearing on 

‘‘the impact of Racist Stereotypes on Indigenous People’’ is only one of the many 

pressing and challenging issues facing American Indians and Alaska Natives. My 

wife, Jill Sherman-Warne is a member of the Hoopa tribe and former elected leader 

of the Hoopa tribe often expressed frustration about the Mascot issue, seeing it as 

a distraction from the pressing issues of everyday reservation life where the struggle to meet basic needs like sanitary housing, potable water, access to health care 

and adequate food are deemed basic priorities to be considered before intellectual 

discussion of mascots. 

While I believe it is important to address the racist stereotypes, I do acknowledge 

that there are so many important and pressing issues facing Indian country including: attacks on Tribal Sovereignty, cuts to the already meager funding of Indian 

Health Services, Indian Education (opportunities for Indian to receive an education), 

growing environmental justices issues, increasing rates of disability, mortality and 

47

suicide followed by the continuation of higher unemployment rates than another minority group. The Economic Policy Institute in its December 2009 issue brief acknowledge that Indian experienced double digit unemployment rates for most or all 

of 2009. Indian people and Tribal Nations continue be the lowest socio-economic 

population in the US. Some will quickly refute this idea by pointing to the success 

of Indian gaming; however, those tribes experiencing significant financial success 

number less than 25 tribes impacting less than 50,000 tribal people nationwide. 

My people, the Oglala Lakota Nation on the Pine Ridge reservation located in 

Shannon County, is one of the most economically depressed counties in the nation, 

and five of the top ten poorest counties in the country correspond to reservations 

in South Dakota. 

Each of these issues deserves its own hearing to ensure that the issues are adequately addressed followed by major budgetary and funding considerations. I urge 

the committee reflect on the need to address these other pressing issues that challenge Indian Country. 

From my perspective, there are multiple obstacles to eliminating the racist stereotypes in the US as it relates to Indian people. These include inaccurate and incomplete history classes in American schools, a long history of accepted use of inappropriate Indian imagery in the American mainstream media, lower socio economic status of American Indians and subsequent lack of political power and representation, 

and a general lack of respect for Tribal Sovereignty. Today I will focus on educational and media issues. 

Education—Improve History Classes in American Schools 

The American educational curriculum typically does not adequately address Indian history, if it did, we would not be here today addressing this issue. History 

is taught from the White perspective. For example, we often hear that Columbus 

‘‘discovered America’’ indicating that the millions of indigenous people already here 

are somehow less than human. In recognizing and honoring Columbus, do we bother 

to even acknowledge the thousands of people he enslaved, tortured and killed? Do 

we learn about the significant contributions made by American Indians to this nation? For example, how many people are aware that the U.S. Constitution is based 

on the organization of the Iroquois Confederacy? 

I raised my son, Ryan, to respect the traditional values of the Lakota way. Ryan’s 

educational experiences have not always been positive. On occasion he has had to 

challenge his peers and his teachers regarding inappropriate views and instruction 

on Indians. A few times, his teachers have punished Ryan because he would provide 

the Indian perspective to the American historical perspective being taught. 

In our schools, Indians are more often thought of as ‘‘Braves’’ or ‘‘Redskins’’ or 

‘‘Savages’’, and non-Indians dress up in their version of a stereotyped Indian to support school sports. In this setting, wearing feathers, war paint and doing the ‘‘tomahawk chop’’ is offensive and reinforces racism and stereotyping of our people. If the 

Atlanta Braves were the Atlanta Slaves, and the White fans wore shoe polish on 

their faces and did the ‘‘Spear Chuck’’ it would be seen as terribly offensive. However, this society allows for mockery of our culture and continued degradation of our 

people and traditions. This occurs in professional sports and in our public schools. 

If the educational curriculum was truthful and sufficient to educate the next generations of citizens, they themselves would have realized that these images are racist and do not belong in our American culture. 

Today’s average U.S. education about Indians is reduced to cutting out construction paper feathers, coloring book tepees and tomahawks, and Pilgrim hats for 

Thanksgiving. We celebrate Thanksgiving and teach our kids that Indians and 

Euro-American settlers lived in harmony and shared dinners together—this is considered Indian history in our school systems! 

Most Americans do not even know about the recognized holiday the Friday after 

thanksgiving. I appreciate that Congress finally decided to recognize Native American Heritage Day, yet the US population is unaware of this holiday as it was placed 

the day after Thanksgiving so that an additional federal holiday was not to be enacted. Most Americans are not are aware of this holiday that honors Indian people, 

yet they are probably aware of Martin Luther King day, Cesar Chavez Day in California and other holidays that honor certain populations. 

If the American educational curriculum provided accurate information on Tribal 

sovereignty, the conflicts and massacres, the breach of contract (treaties) and a comparative analysis of Colonialism–Holocaust–Genocide, we probably would not have 

to be here discussing racist American Indian stereotypes. If there was a stronger 

focus on Indian and Tribal perspectives and not just that of the conquerors, awareness would improve and the racist use of Indian imagery would not be tolerated. 

48

The use of Indian imagery in mascots promotes socially accepted racism and 

stereotypes. 

Many schools and universities are using Indian Mascots. For some, a school mascot may be the only education they receive about Indian culture and history. San 

Diego State University had the Monty Montezuma mascot, and the issue was addressed. 95 percent of the students and faculty that participated in the survey indicated that they still wanted the mascot that offends. SDSU is exempt from NCCA 

sanctions (i.e. Sweet Sixteen for the men’s basketball this year), as the Aztec Tribe 

has no federal or state recognition in the U.S. 

My son Ryan and I were at an SDSU Aztecs football game and the mascot walked 

by and Ryan, who was 7 at the time, said, ‘‘Hey dad, there is an Aztec!’’ I indicated 

that it was a ‘‘White guy doing a very bad imitation of an Aztec!’’

Shortly after this incident, I was proud that SDSU President, Dr. Stephen Weber, 

made the decision to no longer sanction the Monty Montezuma mascot as a result 

of the 5 percent of students and faculty that indicated it was inappropriate imagery 

of the Aztec culture. SDSU faced a lot of resistance to the change, but SDSU administration made this decision and supported the NCAA policy regarding the ban on 

the use of negative cultural imagery. 

Media—Recognizing the Continued Use of Stereotypes 

I have been fortunate to pursue my dreams of professional football, acting and 

higher education. My experience in Hollywood film and television has been interesting. I have a particular look and physical size that impacts the roles that I can 

play. Do you think I get to audition for a character of a doctor, lawyer, educator 

or ‘‘good guy?’’ No. My roles have included Bull (a Seminole contracted killer), 

henchmen, bodyguard and one role was literally ‘‘big Indian’’ with no other reference. 

Hollywood and Television 

There are many examples of film and TV show that have portrayed Indian people 

in a stereotypical way. I was auditioning for a role and the star and producer can 

up to me at Sony Studios during the full cast script read and he said that he ‘‘wanted me to sound more foreign’’. I indicated that he wanted the ‘‘stereotype Hollywood 

Indian’’. I did not get the part. The script was changed to portray the stereotype 

Indian that he preferred. 

Media and Advertising 

The need for respecting other cultures has been recognized, and inappropriate imagery has been removed from many organizations, institutions and advertising (i.e.

Pickaninny, black face, yellow face, Sambo, Lazy Peon, Pillsbury Funny Face drink 

mix and more recently the Wong Brothers advertising campaign by Abercrombie 

and Fitch). 

America’s awareness and consciousness of other cultures inappropriate imagery is 

proven, yet, American Indian inappropriate imagery continues, why? 

Unfortunately, we can imagine these images, and indeed have to experience these 

types of images, as it is present today for Indian Country. 

As American Indians, we are simply asking for the same respect that has been 

shown to other cultures whose imagery was inappropriately used. 

Conclusion 

They willingly traded everything they owned . . . They were well built, with good 

bodies and handsome features . . . They do not bear arms, and do not know 

them . . . They would make fine servants . . . With fifty men we could subjugate 

them all and make them do whatever we want. 

(Columbus’ log on first contact in the ‘‘Indies’’ 1492) (Zinn 1995).

Chairman Akaka and Members of this Committee, thank you again for the opportunity to highlight for you some of the mascot and media imagery issues we face 

in Indian Country. I hope you will agree with me that this form of racism has no 

place in modern American society. 

When appropriate, I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

**The pictures and attachments to Mr. Warne’s statement have been retained 

in Committee files.**

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Dr. Fryberg, really for the whole panel, but Dr. Fryberg, we will 

start with you. You heard the first panel testify here, and many 

questions were raised and issues came out. I just wonder if you 

49

have any thoughts on what you heard there, and then maybe I will 

follow up with a couple of questions. 

Ms. FRYBERG. Could you be more specific? 

Senator UDALL. Specifically with your testimony, you focused on 

the negative consequences of race relations and stereotyping and 

the impacts it would have. You heard Charlene Teters talk about 

going to school at a Big 10 university and she had her children 

with her and the impact there. That is something that is obviously 

reproduced on a regular basis at many of our colleges and universities around the Country. 

Could you get into that a little bit more? 

Ms. FRYBERG. The research really supports the view that 

Charlene is making. I think her work is very much a part of what 

has inspired the research that has been done. Even in studies 

where attempts have been made to control for different types of biases of experimenter, you really find consistently across studies a 

variety of negative psychological consequences. 

I really see the research as merely something that can be used 

as a tool to really support and give evidence, though not to overshadow their individual voices. I think they are very important 

voices, and certainly as someone who has benefitted from being one 

generation behind many of these distinguished guests, I am in 

great respect and appreciation of their time and efforts. 

Senator UDALL. You talked a lot about research, research that 

had been done on this issue. Where is it being done and how are 

we better able to bring that out and bring it to light and get it to 

be better known in our society as a whole? 

Ms. FRYBERG. One thing I would like to say is, I think part of 

the importance in what the research shows is a need to make the 

educational environments better for Native children, more identitysafe for Native children. I think once we get there, we will actually 

have more researchers and professors and people who can do more 

of this research. We are seeing most of the research coming out of 

universities that are in States that have higher proportions of 

American Indians, at universities that have mascots. Much of the 

work I have done has not been in those locations, well, actually 

that is not true. Definitely in States with higher populations, but 

not where there have been Native mascots. Which is important, because it actually means that it extends beyond those universities, 

in effect. 

Senator UDALL. That is good. Thank you. 

Mr. Spencer, congratulations on being a part of these very successful Twilight films. 

Mr. SPENCER. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. What advice would you give to Native youth and 

artists who want to redefine how Natives are portrayed in the 

movie industry? Should they go under directing, acting? What is 

the potential there? 

Mr. SPENCER. It has been my experience that you have to do it 

yourself. Hollywood has a lot of closed doors. It is like what Jim 

said, I have gone through the same experiences as he has. The auditioning process, there is a stereotype in Hollywood. For me to 

give a young Native actor or actress advice would be, when I was 

coming up, I had to take a few roles where it was just very stereoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:35 Aug 03, 2011 Jkt 066994 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\66994.TXT JACK
50

typed. And I was told by a director to speak more savage. I needed 

the job, and I needed the money. So I had to do it or else they were 

just going to get some other guy, there is another guy in the back 

corner waiting to come in. 

So I made a point right then and there to really try to work on 

my craft as an actor, to be really good at what I do, so that I am 

able, if I go up against a role that is just open to any ethnicity or 

open to anybody that I would be able to do that through what I 

have learned through my craft as an actor. But when I started 

Urban Dreams with my production partners, it is basically to find 

vehicles for me that I am not playing Native, number one, or Indian guy. I could play anything, a lawyer, doctor, athlete. 

But yes, it is hard work, and one thing about Twilight is that it 

has opened a lot of doors for me. I am able to audition and be seen 

for other roles besides Native American roles, which I am very 

thankful for. The people before me, the Graham Greenes, Jim here, 

Rodney Grants, they had to struggle. It has been almost 25 years 

since Dances with Wolves came out. And we have a term called, 

some say like B.C., before Christ, we have Before Costner. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SPENCER. What he did with Dances with Wolves was give a 

pride, a pride. I remember seeing it, and the only Natives I knew 

were like Burt Lancaster and Paul Newman on the big screen. And 

it was when Dances with Wolves came out I thought maybe I could 

do this as a job. And you could see throughout the history, we have 

Smoke Signals, Adam Beach and Irene Bedard, and finally New 

Moon, where it is really, with Twilight, we just happen to be Native and it is cool. Because it is a fantasy film that doesn’t really 

throw us into stereotype. It is just, we just happen to be this group 

of people. And it doesn’t go too much into our background and 

make the leather and feather thing of what usually Hollywood 

does. So I am very grateful for that. 

But it is hard work, and for the next actors up and coming I 

would suggest, it is almost that you have to do it yourself, because 

no one is going to give it to you. But it is hard work. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Warne, Jim, you brought your sense of 

humor to this, as Mr. Spencer has. I wonder if you have any 

thoughts of humor breaking down some of the barriers and how 

you have utilized that in terms of your pushing forward and standing up for what you really believe in? 

Mr. WARNE. Well, Indian humor is something that we are well 

aware of in Indian Country. We utilize that laughter, and many 

times we have to laugh, because the alternative is just pain. 

Again, I think the key issue is to allow the non-Indian people to 

self-actualize the ignorance that they have been going through. It 

is just an amazing reality that the majority of American people 

think, why are you doing this? There is so many other things in 

Indian Country which I fully believe in. My wife is Hoopa from 

Northern California, and she was on her tribal council. And she 

was really working and advocating for Indian Country. And again, 

the mascot issue was down the line, because there were survival 

issues of getting potable water, housing, elders’ access to their 

homes and everything else, disability rates that are rampant, diabetes has gotten so many of our communities. 

51

All these things are there, so I see that the intellectual elements 

of this issue of institutional racism may be seen from some people 

that are just surviving on the reservation as something on the back 

burner. Because they are not sitting in the stands, looking at the 

non-Indian people dressed up and mostly inebriated, and unfortunately they are holding the hands of their children. And those kids, 

the next generation, are learning that oh, this is okay, to mock Indian people. 

And when I have learned that we should not mock people, but 

fortunately, in an athletic environment, I can mock Indian people. 

And the reality of using humor from Indian Country, again, is a 

way I think also to try to make it how ridiculous it truly is that 

we are dealing with this in 2011. It is amazing to me as an elder 

in training that our elders that have led us, our traditional educators, our wisdom keepers, have been utilized and mis-used in so 

many ways, in media and imagery and mascots is part of that. 

I will admit, when I was playing at Arizona State, I thought it 

was cool when the guy ran out with the Seminoles on his horse and 

threw the burning spear down. And of course, I would never have 

a burning spear, and he was in the wrong outfit as well. But there 

are so many things . And then I saw him and I go, wait a second, 

that is a white guy. And I was going, boy, oh, well, and unfortunately we didn’t beat them. I wish we did. 

But the reality is that these mascots and this imagery allows for 

ignorance in American society. Again, we must educate and truly 

address the issues that happen here in America once Columbus arrived, and then of course the 400 years of conflict and the past 100 

years of assimilation attempts. We are not going to assimilate. 

Some of us have. But many of us, and I believe the next generation, will not. 

We are asking for your support to influence your peers, the voting public, to hopefully see us in a different light, but more important, see that this is inappropriate and that we would never allow 

this with other cultures. And the seventh generation is here, Black 

Elk after the Wounded Knee Massacre said it would take seven 

generations to heal the circle. And those are the youth of today. 

They are going to be great leaders some day. I am a firm believer 

that one of those from that generation will be President of this 

United States. That is my dream. 

Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. I think that is a very appropriate 

way to close. I want to very sincerely thank all of our panelists 

today. I notice all the first panel is still here. I would just say to 

all of you, I think you have done a tremendous amount of good 

today in the testimony that you put forward. It was thoughtful, sincere, very powerful testimony. 

I hope that what will come from this, as we have talked about 

at the beginning of this hearing and many of you have talked about 

in your testimony, is that we all have a commitment to do away 

with these kinds of derogatory stereotypes. 

Thank you very much, and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(53)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR, RETIRED; FORMER CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

Chairman Akaka: 

I want to thank you and Vice Chairman Barrasso for the opportunity to share my 

thoughts today with the Committee. 

As you may be aware, in 1993, the Washington, DC professional football team, 

nicknamed the ‘‘Redskins’’ was seeking a new stadium to replace RFK Stadium. At 

that time, I introduced legislation to allow the District of Columbia to construct a 

new football stadium at the end of East Capitol Street. However, the bill also ensured that the new facility would not be used to demean any racial group by prohibiting the use of the new stadium by any person or organization exploiting any racial 

or ethnic group or using nomenclature that included a reference to real or alleged 

physical characteristics of Native Americans or any other group of human beings. 

I received a call from the Redskin’s owner at that time, Mr. Jack Kent Cooke. Mr. 

Cooke pointed out to me that changing the mascot would be very costly, and besides, 

polling data at that time found that over 80 percent of Redskins fans liked the nickname. I pointed out to Mr. Cooke that if you commissioned a poll in 1900 asking 

if people approved of giving women the right to vote, the vast majority would have 

said ‘‘no’’, but that didn’t make it right. Of course the Redskins kept their notorious 

moniker and simply built their stadium in Landover, MD. 

Redskin fans were very angry about my desire to pressure their team into changing its mascot name, citing that it was not meant to be derogatory, and that the 

team and their fans were respectful toward the image of the team. However, it was 

not the imagery I was taken aback by. Redskin is a very demeaning term for Indians that hails back to the days when Indian people were hunted, and bounties paid 

for scalps, i.e. red-skins. Some argue that the reference was to the skin-color of Indian people. My skin is not red, and I don’t know of any of my relatives who are. 

Can you imagine the outcry if the team had placed a proud, stately African American image on the side of their helmets, but then used a pejorative name such as 

the ‘‘N’’ word, or referenced his skin color. The imagery doesn’t matter when the 

name is patently offensive. It should also be noted that Redskin founder, George 

Preston Marshall, was the last owner to allow his team to integrate, and that was 

not until the early 1960’s when he traded for Bobby Mitchell, only after being pressured by the NFL to integrate. Bobby Mitchell famously tells the story that at his 

first public appearance as a Redskin, he was encouraged by Mr. Marshall to sing 

‘‘Dixie’’ with him. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether George Preston 

Marshall was concerned if the team name he chose was derogatory. Thankfully, my 

dear friend and fellow Cheyenne, Suzan Harjo of the Morningstar Foundation, continues to fight this fight with the support of the National Congress of American Indians and many in Indian Country. 

As an American Indian, I am disturbed that individuals, organizations, and 

groups continue to use terms and slogans that are disparaging and disrespectful to 

racial and ethnic groups. Although Native American people represent one of the 

smallest population groups, they seem to be disproportionately singled out when it 

comes to being caricatured as sports mascots. It is unfortunate, because as you and 

the Members of this Committee well know, the contributions Indian people have 

made to this country’s rich history have been significant. 

From the Navajo code-talkers of World War II to the ongoing war in Afghanistan, 

Native American men and women have served their country with distinction, in 

higher numbers per capita, than any ethnic group in America. Many of the foods 

we eat and medicines we use today have their origins in American Indian culture. 

In fact, the form of government, practiced within these very walls is rooted in the 

governmental practices of the Iroquois Confederacy. Yet, little respect is accorded 

Indian people in the name of ‘‘team spirit’’. 

Mr. Chairman, a few years ago I recall a similar situation that involved the Atlanta Braves baseball organization, when many people in the Indian community 

54

were offended, not only by the name ‘‘Braves’’ but also by the so-called tomahawkchop cheer. Although the Braves organization asserted the name and chants used 

during the games were in recognition of the power, strength, and reverence of Indian warriors, and intended to pay respect, not disparage Indian people; I will tell 

you that these practices are not only offensive to Indian people, but even if their 

intent is innocent, they perpetuate the stereotype that society has of Indian people. 

I would like to see more pro-active steps taken to stop stereotyping. For instance, 

during the 102nd Congress, Congress enacted the Treasury Appropriations bill of 

1993 with a provision that prohibited the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 

from appropriating any funds to approve any application for a certificate of label approval that authorizes the use of the name ‘‘Crazy Horse’’ on any distilled spirit, 

wine, or malt beverage product. Using the memory of Chief Crazy Horse, a revered 

leader of the Lakota people, to sell and market alcoholic beverages was appalling 

and insulting to the generations of Native Americans who have suffered from the 

ravages of alcohol abuse. That was a pro-active position on this issue. There are 

many more steps we can take to end destructive stereotyping. 

I sincerely appreciate the support Members of this Committee and others in Congress have demonstrated in recognizing the seriousness of actions taken that disparage Native American people. I would like to commend those dedicated individuals 

whose efforts have fostered positive debate and understanding. Times are changing 

and many individuals and groups are becoming aware of the delicate nature of the 

use such terms and slogans. 

In my home State of Colorado, a principal at a Denver area high school took it 

upon himself to have the team mascot changed from the name ‘‘Redskins’’ to a more 

appropriate term, after recognizing the negative connotations of the term. I commended principal James Melhouse on the floor at that time for his courage and conviction. When you’re in a position of authority, you sometimes have to make decisions that create a lot of animosity and anger. It takes great courage to make some 

of those decisions, as people take great offense when you want to change their traditions, especially at their alma-mater. In one southeastern Colorado town, not far 

from the site of the Sand Creek Massacre, where women, children and elderly Cheyennes were butchered by Colonel John Chivington and his regiment of Colorado Militia, there is a high school whose mascot is the ‘’Savages’’, with accompanying Indian imagery. When it was suggested that they change their name, the students and 

alumni were incensed, the standard retort was that they were ‘‘noble Savages’’. 

Well, there is nothing noble about being a ‘‘Savage’’ and if they want to call themselves that, I wish they would put a picture of Colonel Chivington on their uniforms, 

because my grandparents were not savages. 

As I said, societal norms are slowly changing all around this country. That doesn’t 

mean we should not fight racism, intentional or not, to continue to improve the atmosphere for all people. I am happy to report that some folks don’t need to be prodded, for instance: Use of the term ‘‘Indians’’ as a mascot may not be offensive to 

many, but still seems, at the very least, unnecessary. That was the same conclusion 

drawn by two colleges in my home state, Adams State College and Colorado State 

University at Pueblo, who changed their team names to the ’‘Grizzlies’’ and 

’‘Thunderwolves’’ respectively. I’m a great believer in traditions, but believe me, 

there’s a big difference in what a name means to Indian people and what it means 

to everyone else. I applaud those who are willing to make new traditions. 

I am aware that some schools and sports teams have taken the names of tribes 

as their official mascot. I do not see a problem with that as long as the entity in 

question has obtained written permission from the tribal leadership of the named 

tribe and uses respectful imagery. I have no desire to influence folks one way or 

another on those tribal decisions. 

I am not unsympathetic to those who note the high cost of marketing for new 

mascots, but often the price of doing what is right proves to be an investment in 

the future. I truly believe the good will generated will pay bigger dividends for 

teams over the long run, and true fans will gladly cloak themselves in the new regalia that celebrates a new age for their team. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for bringing attention to this important issue. I thank 

you for your many years of service to Indian Country. Most of all, I thank you for 

your friendship. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BONITA CLEVELAND, CHAIR, QUILEUTE TRIBE

Three weeks ago, this Committee held a hearing on Senator Cantwell’s tsunami 

protection legislation, S. 636, to help save our children and elders. Since that time, 

there have been many media stories on the tsunami danger to our Tribe and the 

55

legislation. For the most part, the response to the legislation has been very positive, 

and the Tribe is very grateful for this support. Unfortunately, some of the on-line 

responses to the reports and editorials have reflected the worst of racist stereotyping, the subject of today’s hearing. On behalf of my people, I want to express our 

sadness about this stereotyping, and we are very appreciative that Mr. Chaske 

Spencer would agree to submit the Tribe’s statement for the record of the Committee’s hearing. 

The Quileute Tribe first wants to congratulate Mr. Spencer on his dedication and 

perseverance to his craft as a Native American actor. His service to Native American communities through his United Global Shift philanthropic program has been 

significant and cherished by Native Americans. Mr. Spencer understands both the 

important and severity of today’s hearing topic as an artist who is dedicated and 

determined to shift negative mindsets and stereotypes. Our Tribe commends Mr. 

Spencer on his artistic choices, and his continuing desire to create a positive impression of Native Americans in films and TV. 

From his starring roles in the ‘‘Twilight’’ movies, Mr. Spencer has become aware 

that the reality of the Quileute Tribe is far different from Hollywood’s portrayal. 

The Quileute Tribe is enormously appreciative of Mr. Spencer’s understanding of the 

real tsunami dangers faced by Quileute children and elders. We are also grateful 

for the many expressions of concern from ‘‘Twilight’’ fans for the real-world tsunami 

danger faced by the Quileute Tribe. While the Tribe has been appalled at some of 

the racist statements made regarding our people, we have faith that Mr. Spencer 

and Twilight fans will continue to fight against racism whenever it occurs. 

We are very proud that Mr. Spencer is appearing before the Committee as a 

strong voice against stereotypes. On behalf of the Quileute people, I say Wa-ta-lichta asoos ta. Wa-ta-lich-ta asoos ta. Wa-ta-lich-ta asoos ta. Translation: Thank you 

from the bottom of my heart. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANGELA ALEISS, PH.D., VISITING ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA—LOS ANGELES; PROFESSOR, CALIFORNIA STATE

UNIVERSITY—LONG BEACH

I am currently a Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of California, Los 

Angeles and also teach at California State University, Long Beach. I received my 

Ph.D. in film history from Columbia University and am the author of the book Making the White Man’s Indian: Native Americans and Hollywood Movies (2005). In 

1994, I was a Fulbright Scholar as a part of the Canada-U.S. Fulbright Exchange 

Program at the University of Toronto where I studied Native Canadian images in 

film. 

Chairman Akaka and Honorable Members of the Committee, I am honored to 

have received your invitation to submit testimony on this important issue. My focus 

will be specifically on a few topics that are often overlooked but nevertheless influence today’s Native American images in motion pictures. 

One of the recurring and disturbing themes that I’ve noticed in my research is 

that Hollywood Westerns virtually dominate Native American images. That’s not 

surprising given that Native Americans traditionally have been associated with the 

Western myth: from the Dime Novel tales and the paintings of Frederic Remington 

to the Wild West shows of Buffalo Bill Cody and the popular Western movie and 

TV series, Indians appear to be inextricably linked to a remote frontier era. Their 

portrayals have ranged from sympathetic to negative; nevertheless, Indians rarely 

appear in contemporary stories. If I may say so, the confinement of Native Americans to nostalgic Westerns is a bit like restricting African Americans to the antebellum days in the Old South. The practice ignores the fact that Indians are people 

here among the rest of us with individual identities and problems of their own. 

American audiences are partly to blame. Unfortunately, when non-Western films 

with an Indian theme do appear, moviegoers show little interest. When I researched 

my book, I was amazed to discover that throughout Hollywood history, box-office 

grosses for Native American stories in non-Westerns were considerably lower than 

Westerns. As far back as 1930s, the unknown but compelling film Eskimo (the dialogue was in the Inuit language and subtitled in English) and the Pulitzer Prizewinning story of Laughing Boy disappeared from screens after barely a week in 

movie theaters. Conversely, a few years later, The Plainsman, a rousing Cecil B. 

DeMille Western about the exploits of Buffalo Bill Cody and Wild Bill Hickok, followed by Stagecoach, Texas Rangers, and Union Pacific, drew enormous lines at box 

offices. As the Native American filmmaker Chris Eyre (Smoke Signals, Skins, Edge 

of America ) once told me, the problem in Hollywood is that supply and demand dictate that Indians are romanticized and continue to be romanticized in the Western. 

56

The Westerns of today, although a far cry from the hostile warriors of The 

Plainsman, still dominate the Native American’s image: Dances With Wolves earned 

a whopping domestic total gross of $184 million followed by Maverick’s $102 million. 

But non-Western Indian-themed stories like Powwow Highway ($284,000), 

Thunderheart ($23 million), Smoke Signals ($7 million), Windtalkers ($41 million), 

The Education of Little Tree ($323,000), and Flags of Our Fathers ($34 million) continue to show that few Americans accept contemporary Indian life as entertainment. 

David Robb, former writer of minority and legal affairs for the Hollywood Reporter,

believes that this pattern affects not only our perceptions of Native Americans but 

Indians themselves: ‘‘It relegates Indian people to a distinct past. It stigmatizes Indian people and makes them non-existent today.’’

That brings me to my next point. The novels and movies of the popular Twilight

series are set in contemporary society and feature Quileute Indians who can transform into wolves. Twilight’s supernatural stories have earned tremendous revenues. 

Others have already pointed out that Twilight’s Native Americans have significant 

roles in the series. 

But beyond Twilight’s teen love triangle are a few disturbing traits of its Quileute 

characters. The theme of individual choice is essential to Twilight: the stories’ vampire hero Edward consistently refers to his moral obligation to exercise individual 

choice. On the contrary, Twilight’s Native Americans lack self control and the ability 

to choose: Edward’s Quileute rival Jacob transforms into a wolf because, he says, 

‘‘I was born this way. It’s not a lifestyle choice. I can’t help it.’’ (The Twilight Saga: 

New Moon) Furthermore, Jacob’s last name is Black and in the novel New Moon,

he is described as having russet skin and a quick, uncontrollable temper. 

Jacob’s wolf traits can be dangerous. In New Moon, Jacob warns his human friend 

Bella that if he gets too upset, he will turn into a wolf and she might get hurt. Jacob’s Quileute friend Sam Uley also has a capricious temper: in New Moon, Sam’s 

fiance ́e Emily has three thick red lines on the right side of her face that ‘‘extend 

all the way down her arm to the back of her right hand.’’ Apparently, Sam lost control during one of his wolf transformation episodes and left deep scars on Emily. 

I doubt Twilight’s author and filmmakers intended to invoke misleading stereotypes. But the references of ‘‘dark’’ to the Quileute, their impulsive and irrational 

nature, and their inclination toward violence are a reversion to the negative images 

we hope to eradicate. As a professor, scholar, and writer, I believe that cultural 

awareness and education will help curb these problematic representations. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present this testimony before the 

Senate panel. 

57

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID M. GIPP, PRESIDENT, UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL

COLLEGE


505c1.eps
58


505c2.eps
59


505c3.eps
60


505c4.eps
61


505c5.eps
62


505c6.eps
63

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HARLYN GERONIMO ON BEHALF OF GERONIMO, HISTORIC

APACHE LEADER AND HIS SURVIVING LINEAL DESCENDANTS

Whether it was intended only to name the military operation to kill or capture 

Osama Bin Laden or to give Osama Bin Laden himself the code name Geronimo, 

either was an outrageous insult and mistake. And it is clear from the military 

records released that the name Geronimo was used at times by military personnel 

involved for both the military operation and for Osama Bin Laden himself. 

Obviously to equate Geronimo with Osama Bin Laden is an unpardonable slander 

of Native America and its most famous leader in history. 

And to call the operation to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden by the name Geronimo is such a subversion of history that it also defames a great human spirit and 

Native American leader. For Geronimo himself was the focus of precisely such an 

operation by the U.S. military, an operation that assured Geronimo a lasting place 

in American and human history. 

The Encyclopedia Britannica (1967, Volume 10, page 362) has described the real 

Operation Geronimo in the following words:

During this last campaign, which lasted 18 months, no fewer than 5,000 troops 

and 500 Indian auxiliaries had been employed in the apprehension of a band 

of Apaches comprising only 35 men, 8 boys and 101 women, who operated in 

two countries without bases of supply. Army and civilian losses totaled 95; 

Mexican losses were heavy, but unknown; Geronimo’s losses were 13 killed, but 

none from direct U.S. Army action.

Geronimo was not killed and was not captured. After the Chiricahua Band of 

Apaches were taken from reservations in Arizona Territory and New Mexico to Ft. 

Marion, Florida, Geronimo and his warriors saw no chance of reuniting with their 

people except by surrender with the promise that they would be reunited with their 

tribe. 

General Miles promised: ‘‘There is plenty of timber, water, and grass in the land 

to which I will send you. You will live with your tribe and with your family. If you 

agree to this treaty you shall see your family within five days.’’ None of the promises were kept. 

Nearly half the Chiricahua band, the band of Cochise, died in Florida and later 

in Alabama within several years before being moved to Ft. Sill, Oklahoma. Geronimo was held a prisoner of war for the remaining 23 years of his life, though he 

was a major attraction at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis in 1904 

and was second only to President Elect Theodore Roosevelt in the applause received 

along the Inaugural Parade route of 1905. 

But Geronimo died a prisoner of war at Ft. Sill in February 1909. His bodily remains, if none were removed as has been alleged, are to this day in the Ft. Sill 


505c7.eps
64

Apache Prisoner of War Cemetery despite his repeated requests to return to the 

headwaters of the Gila River in the Gila National Forest and within what was the 

first forest wilderness area designated in the U.S., in western New Mexico. 

As the son of a grandson of Geronimo, who as a U.S. soldier fought at Omaha 

Beach on D Day and across West Europe to the Rhine in World War II, and having 

myself served two tours of duty in Vietnam during that war, I must respectfully request from the President, our Commander-in-Chief, or his Secretary at the Department of Defense, a full explanation of how this disgraceful use of my great grandfather’s name occurred, a full apology for the grievous insult after all that Native 

Americans have suffered and the expungement from all the records of the U.S. government this use of the name Geronimo. Leaving only for history the fact this insult 

to Native Americans occurred in all its pity. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES WORKING GROUP

On behalf of members of the Indigenous Peoples Working Group, we thank the 

Committee for shining a spotlight on the crucial issue of the impact of racist stereotypes on Indigenous peoples by holding its important hearing earlier this month. 

The IPWG is a project of the Social Investment Forum and is comprised of various 

socially responsible investors. Further we work closely with members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility that are concerned about these issues too. 

As investors, members of the IPWG have called upon partners and sponsors of 

the Washington National Football League (NFL) professional football organization, 

including the FedEx Corporation and Bank of America, to cease their support of the 

team’s racist name. We would like the owners of the Washington professional football organization to cease using the team’s disparaging name and to change it to 

something that does not offend any peoples. We are gravely concerned about their 

use, sponsorship and promotion of such an egregious affront to Native American nations and people. 

The Washington NFL franchise uses a name that is a racial slur and we understand that it traces its origin to colonial times when bloody skins of Native men, 

women and children were exchanged for bounty and traded like animal hides. The 

name was not a honorific then and it is not one now. 

All the major Native American organizations have called for the end of the modern commodification of their peoples and symbols in sports and in popular culture 

generally, and all have called for the name of the Washington team to be eliminated. The Glass Ceiling Commission’s report by American Indian scholars, ‘‘Barriers To Workplace Advancement Experienced by Native Americans,’’ concluded that 

‘‘stereotypes and negative tags’’ have a detrimental impact on American Indian people in the work environment. 

In 1992, seven prominent Native American people filed suit before the U.S. Patent 

and Trademark Office (USPTO), seeking cancellation of trademark protection licenses for the football team’s name. In 1999, three judges of the USPTO issued a 

145-page opinion that sided with the Native American plaintiffs and cancelled the 

trademark licenses. The trademark judges ruled that the Washington team’s name 

is disparaging and holds Native Americans up to contempt and ill-repute. 

The seven plaintiffs wrote to the new owners of the NFL franchise, requesting a 

meeting, and thirteen national Native American organizations wrote to the NFL 

commissioner, imploring him to order a name change and to accept the ruling of 

the USPTO. Neither the owners nor the commissioner bothered to respond to the 

letters. Instead, the new owners appealed the USPTO decision, which the Native 

American plaintiffs and their pro bono attorneys were forced to defend for the next 

ten years. Their case ended when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a federal appellate ruling, not on the merits, but on the technicality of laches, which the 

trial court defined as the plaintiffs having waited too long after reaching their 18th 

birthdays to file their case. 

The USPTO, in 1994, had rejected all of the NFL franchise’s affirmative defenses, 

including laches, because there is an overriding public policy issue at stake: whether 

the federal government should provide trademark benefits and protections that disparage Native Americans. The USPTO admitted it made a mistake in granting 

trademark licenses for the NFL team’s name, but the Native American plaintiffs 

had to bear the burden of the federal government’s mistakes in issuing licenses for 

racist material. 

In 2006, a second group of Native American people–young people between the 

ages of 18 and 24, who do not have a laches issue as defined by the federal courts–

filed the identical legal action before the USPTO. Now, these young people and their 

65

pro bono counsel are seeking a decision on the merits of the case. We trust and hope 

that the USPTO will rule on their side. 

We are concerned that these young Native American people then would be burdened with protecting the USPTO’s ruling in the federal courts. It is for this reason 

and for the broad goal of ending federal protections for anti-Indian racist stereotypes that members of the IPWG supports the legislation proposed by The Morning 

Star Institute to recognize the USPTO’s errors in granting trademark licenses to the 

Washington football franchise, to uphold the USPTO’s 1999 decision on the merits 

in Harjo et al v. Pro Football, Inc., and to cancel the existing trademark licenses. 

Members of the IPWG would be honored to work with the Committee to address 

this important issue. The Committee has the power to advance remedies to the violations of human, civil and international rights experienced by Native American 

peoples on a daily basis, so long as these discriminatory, racist slurs are tolerated, 

especially in the U.S. Capitol. 

Thank you for adding this statement to the hearing record. 

Attachment

66


505c8.eps
67

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JESSE A. STEINFELDT, PH.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, 

COUNSELING AND EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, INDIANA UNIVERSITY—BLOOMINGTON

Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspectives and participate in these 

hearings. This is a very necessary area of inquiry, and I am pleased that the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs has taken the steps to engage in a discussion about 

this serious issue. The use of American Indian culture and imagery by sports teams 

(e.g., Indians, Redskins, Fighting Sioux) is a practice that has a longstanding history and tradition in our society. The omnipresence of these images gives members 

of mainstream society the misperception that this is an accepted practice that honors and respects the American Indian communities depicted. Subsequently, we need 


505c9.eps
68

to provide opportunities for members of society to have an informed and civil dialogue about this harmful practice that is hegemonically woven into the fabric of society. In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) produced a resolution 

recommending the immediate retirement of American Indian mascots, symbols, images and personalities by schools, colleges, universities, athletic teams, and organizations (APA, 2005). To date, over 115 additional professional organizations (e.g.,

American Counseling Association, Society of Indian Psychologists, United States 

Commission on Civil Rights) have produced similar resolutions condemning this 

practice. Some of the prominent reasons cited by these resolutions are based on Native-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos: (a) misusing cultural practices and sacred spiritual symbols; (b) perpetuating stereotypes of American Indians (e.g., the 

noble savage; the bloodthirsty savage; a historic race that only exists in past-tense 

status; one singular pan-Indian culture); (c) denying American Indians control over 

societal definitions of themselves; (d) creating a racially hostile educational environment for all students; and (e) negatively impacting the psychological functioning of 

American Indians. 

My research and clinical experiences can provide support for all of these reasons, 

but I am in a unique position to testify about how this practice negatively impacts 

the psychological functioning of American Indians. I am a psychologist and an assistant professor of Counseling Psychology at Indiana University. Furthermore, I am 

a man of Oneida heritage, and I have conducted clinical work with American Indian 

populations at the Oneida Behavioral Health Center on the Oneida Reservation in 

Wisconsin. As such, I have heard first-hand the negative impact that these 

stereotypic images can have on the psychological functioning of American Indian patients. American Indian communities are disproportionately impacted by serious 

mental health issues (e.g., depression, anxiety, substance abuse, suicide), and a societal environment wherein American Indians are readily stereotyped and discriminated against contributes to the onset and entrenchment of these mental health 

issues. In addition to the misinformation and stereotypes produced by Nativethemed mascots, nicknames, and logos, ‘‘an increase in accurate information about 

Native Americans is viewed as necessary for the achievement of other goals such 

as poverty reduction, educational advancements, and securing treaty rights’’ (King 

et al., 2002, p. 392). 

In addition to providing psychological services to American Indian communities, 

I have conducted and published research that addresses the psychological implications of Native-themed mascots, nicknames, and logos (e.g., Redskins, Indians, 

Fighting Sioux ). Situated within an emerging body of empirical evidence that has 

empirically and consistently demonstrated the existence of stereotyping, discrimination, and harassment that accompanies Native-themed mascots, nicknames, and 

logos, my research (e.g., Steinfeldt, Foltz, Kaladow, Carlson, Pagano, Benson, & 

Steinfeldt, 2010; Steinfeldt, Foltz, LaFollette, White, Wong, & Steinfeldt, in press; 

Steinfeldt & Wong, 2010) indicates that this practice perpetuates stereotypes and 

facilitates discrimination and racism against American Indians. In one study 

(Steinfeldt et al., 2010), my research team analyzed 1699 online forum comments, 

and we found that the majority of comments expressed negative attitudes toward 

American Indians. We coded the comments over a two year period, and our results 

indicated that these online forum comments were organized within the themes of: 

(a) surprise about how the nickname/logo could be construed as negative; (b) power 

and privilege exerted in defending the nickname/logo; (c) trivialization of issues salient to American Indians; and (d) denigration and vilification of American Indian 

communities. The results indicated that American Indians are subjected to not only 

continued societal ignorance and misinformation about their culture, but they are 

also being actively excluded from the process of prioritizing which issues they need 

to address. Results also indicated that a critical mass of online forum comments represented ignorance about American Indian culture and even disdain toward American Indians by providing misinformation, perpetuating stereotypes, and expressing 

overtly racist attitudes toward American Indians. While some online forum comments examined in the study contained the words honor and respect, the results indicated that the sentiment underlying and surrounding these comments did not reflect a genuine sense of honor or respect—instead, these comments expressed entitlement, privilege, power, and even subjugation and oppression. 

We interpreted these findings within the tenets of Two-Faced Racism theory 

(Picca & Feagin, 2007), an emerging conceptualization of contemporary racism in society. According to this framework, boundaries for the expression of racial attitudes 

exist within shifting social contexts. Subsequently, racial ideologies—particularly 

those about members outside of the dominant culture (e.g., American Indians)—

exist, but the expression of these ideologies take place in private (i.e., backstage) 

settings rather than public (i.e., frontstage) settings. Because public opinion has 

69

shifted to condemn blatant racist attitudes and behaviors in public settings (Picca 

& Feagin, 2007), explicit expressions of racist attitudes have begun to find a home 

in electronic communication formats (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Melican & Dixon, 

2008). As it relates to the findings of our study, the relative anonymity afforded to 

online forum participants provides the privacy experienced in traditional backstage 

settings. Expressing these ideas in contemporary backstage settings (e.g., weblogs, 

online forums) allows people to avoid the negative social consequences that these 

attitudes might receive in physical frontstage settings. For example, an online forum 

commenter might more readily call an American Indian a derogatory name in an 

online forum comment, but it is likely that (s)he might not say the same thing aloud 

at a social gathering for fear of social repercussions. Subsequently, due to the omnipresence and power of the internet, the presence of a Native-themed nickname and 

logo can facilitate the posting of virulent racist rhetoric in online forums. And because these types of racist messages are able to electronically spread out with greater ease to a larger audience, the daily ritual of reading the newspaper can subject 

an American Indian to content that can negatively impact his/her psychological 

well-being. Our study suggests that Native-themed nicknames and logos significantly contribute to this process by creating an environment wherein stereotypes 

and discrimination are allowed to flourish. We concluded that the presence of a Native-themed nickname and logo can threaten the psychological functioning of American Indians by providing misinformation, by activating stereotypic representations, 

and by facilitating the expression of discriminatory and explicitly racist attitudes toward American Indians. 

Along with this and other published studies of mine, there is an emerging body 

of psychological research that demonstrates the deleterious psychological ramifications of race-based mascotery (e.g., Fryberg, Markus, Oyserman, & Stone, 2008; 

Fryberg & Oyserman, 2011; Gonzalez, 2005; Kim-Prieto, Goldstein, Okazaki, & 

Kirschner, 2010; LaRocque, 2004; Steinfeldt et al., 2010; Steinfeldt et al., in press; 

Steinfeldt & Wong, 2010). To this point, it is important to note that there has not 

been any empirical evidence that refutes the findings of these stuies. Furthermore, 

there is empirical evidence (e.g., Fryberg & Oyserman, 2011) that suggests that 

White Americans experience psychological benefits to using race-based mascots, 

nicknames, and logos. Thus, while this practice has a negative impact on the psychological functioning of American Indians, the insidious nature of race-based mascots, nicknames, and logos is further evidenced by its ability to improve the psychological functioning of members of the dominant culture at the psychological expense 

of members of a marginalized group in society. 

In the absence of any credible scientific evidence, the arguments of history and 

tradition are not indefensible reasons to maintain a practice that inflicts harm on 

another group. Slavery was a longstanding tradition in our country. Not allowing 

women to vote was part of our history. And in regard to contentions that this practice ‘honors American Indians,’ it is reasonable to ask: if honoring a group involves 

ignoring their pleas to stop doing so, then is this practice truly honorable? Furthermore, the omnipresence of these images does not justify their continued existence. 

These images are firmly entrenched into the natural order of society (Davis-Delano, 

2007), and members of the dominant culture—particularly White Americans—are 

the most zealous defenders of this practice (Farnell, 2004). This ardent support, 

combined with the small population of American Indians (i.e., less than 2 percent 

of the U.S. population; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006) and the lack of resources available to American Indian communities (i.e., the rate of American Indians living below 

the poverty line is twice the rate found in the overall population; Merskin, 2001; 

National Center for Education Statistics, 2005), highlights how American Indians 

have lacked the power and privilege other minority groups have exerted in removing 

comparable racist stereotypes (e.g., Frito Bandito, Li’l Black Sambo; Steinfeldt, 

Hagen, & Steinfeldt, 2010; Westerman, 1989). Just because the Cleveland Indians’ 

Chief Wahoo is seen frequently on ESPN doesn’t make it right. Just because the 

Seminole Nation of Florida gave consent to Florida State University to use their 

name doesn’t mean that all American Indians approve of it, let alone all Seminoles 

(the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma has produced a resolution against this practice). 

Having a cultural icon like Chris Berman provide colorful commentary on Washington’s pro football team doesn’t mean that such a hateful racial epitaph (i.e., Redskin) 

doesn’t hurt people—rather, it means that the people using this hateful term have 

become desensitized to the fact that they are hurting people with their historical 

tradition of dishonor. Despite how members of mainstream society want to frame 

the issue, this is NOT an issue of mere sensitivity, offensiveness, or ‘‘political correctness.’’ Rather, this is an issue involving oppression, stereotyping, and inflicting 

psychological harm—and it is important that societal dialogue about this issue is 

70

accurately framed in these terms so that we can have meaningful discussions about 

the nature of this practice. 

As a result, another reasonable question to ask is: in 30 or 40 years from now, 

when we look back at our current period of history, how will people judge our society’s continued engagement in this racist practice of appropriating another culture 

for use as sports mascots, nicknames, and logos? I imagine that people will look 

back at history books and think, ‘‘Wow, they used to name their sports teams the 

Redskins? Ugghh, what was wrong with those people?’’ Similarly, it seems so obviously objectionable when we use hindsight today to look back at other periods of 

our history. When I look back at the time in our society when Black people were 

not allowed to drink from the same drinking fountains as White people, it is easy 

for me to think, ‘‘Wow, what was wrong with those people?’’ However, it is important 

to understand that at the time, racial segregation (just like race-based mascots 

today) was a practice that was hegemonically woven into the fabric of society—it 

was seen by the majority of people as part of the normal order of society, and it 

took legislative efforts (e.g., Civil Rights Act) to accelerate the process of change. 

The reality is that, right now, WE are those people who will be judged by history 

for continuing to allow our sports teams to be named Redskins and Indians. Thus, 

legislation (such as the recently passed legislation—WI Act 25—against race-based 

mascots, nicknames, and logos in Wisconsin) can be an important component of a 

multifaceted approach to encourage people to stop the practice of marginalizing and 

psychologically damaging another culture through the use of race-based mascots, 

nicknames, and logos. Doing so can hasten the process by which this contemporary 

practice becomes a historical footnote about stereotypes and civil rights violations, 

rather than an ongoing practice of stereotyping and violating the civil rights of a 

group of people. This can ensure that a harmful and outdated 20th century practice 

doesn’t continue well into the 21st century. I trust that the Senate Committee on 

Indian Affairs will be able to use the testimony provided in these hearings to work 

toward positive societal change. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share 

my perspectives with you today. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEVI PESATA, PRESIDENT, JICARILLA APACHE NATION

Introduction 

On behalf of the Jicarilla Apache Nation (‘‘Nation’’), I would like to thank this 

Committee for convening this hearing to gather testimony on the impact of racist 

stereotypes of indigenous people. The Nation is a federally recognized Indian tribe 

located in north-central New Mexico. Eighty-five percent of the tribal population 

lives on our Reservation in the town of Dulce, which serves as our tribal headquarters. The Nation has over four thousand (4,000) tribal members who are proud 

people with a rich history and culture. We are isolated in geography, and further 

isolated through cultural misunderstanding and racism. 

Recent United States Military Operation 

Like the rest of the world, the people of the Jicarilla Apache Nation learned on 

May 1, 2011, that one of this country’s greatest enemies, Osama Bin Laden, was 

captured and killed by United States Navy SEALS. Osama Bin Laden earned his 

spot on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s lists of the Ten Most Wanted Fugitives 

and Most Wanted Terrorists through his actions in founding al-Qaeda, organizing 

the devastating attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, and having 

a hand on numerous other mass-casualty attacks against civilian and military targets. He has orchestrated the senseless killings of thousands of people. And the War 

on Terror, of which Osama Bin Laden has been the major target, has resulted in 

countless civilian deaths in several countries. 

The Nation commends President Barak Obama, the United States Navy SEALS, 

and the Central Intelligence Agency on the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden. 

Ending Bin Laden’s reign of terror is essential to winning the War on Terror, and 

the Jicarilla Apache Nation is elated and grateful that the United States’ number 

one enemy has been neutralized. 

Codename ‘‘Geronimo ‘‘

The codename for the operation and, it appears, the codename for the most wanted man in the world, Osama Bin Laden, was ‘‘Geronimo.’’ As you may know. ‘‘Geronimo’’ is the name of a revered Chiricahua Apache leader who defended our Apache 

homelands from unlawful settlement by Mexican and, later, American settlers during the so-called Apache Wars. He defended our people with bravery and valor for 

years, before his eventual capture by the United States. Apparently, ‘‘Geronimo’’, 

71

was the first message sent when the United States Navy SEALS recognized Osama 

Bin Laden. CIA Director Leon Panetta relayed the message to the President, reporting: ‘‘We have a visual on Geronimo.’’ Once shot and killed, the code ‘‘Geronimo—

E KIA’’ was sent, which triggered feelings of relief for those watching the raid alongside the President in the Situation Room. The E stood for ‘‘enemy’’ and ‘‘KIA’’ for 

‘‘killed in action.’’

It is terribly unfortunate that the name, ‘‘Geronimo’’ was the code name given by 

the United States to the Bin Laden operation and, apparently, to Bin Laden himself. 

This is not a criticism of the accomplishments of our service men and women, and 

the Obama Administration. Those accomplishments are extraordinary and their significance cannot possibly be diminished. But, the Jicarilla Apache Nation wants to 

take this opportunity to express the disappointment and hurt our people and other 

Apaches feel concerning the misuse of the name of one of our greatest Native American leaders. 

Native Americans, and indigenous people throughout the world, constantly battle 

static stereotypes defining us as ‘‘savage,’’ ‘‘bloodthirsty’’ and ‘‘uncivilized.’’ Geronimo 

was none of these things. Nor was he a terrorist. He defended our Apache homelands from unlawful acquisition and theft in violation of treaty-based promises of 

protection. The United States has apologized to the Apache people and all other Native Americans for the ‘‘long history of official depredations,’’ sanctioned by the 

United States, regarding our Native nations. See, Native American Apology Resolution of 2009, Pub. L. 111–118 (2009). Those depredations included the unlawful acquisition of recognized tribal land, the theft of tribal resources, and the failure by 

the United States to honor its treaties with our Native nations. See, Preamble to 

Native American Apology Resolution, S.J. Res. 14, 111th Cong., 1st Sess. (2009). To 

have the United States directly link one of our leaders with a world-wide terrorist 

has a profound and detrimental impact upon the way the world perceives Native 

Americans, and also, how our own children perceive our communities. The killing 

of Osama Bin Laden will be embedded in history books, and an unnecessary link 

between terrorism and Native Americans will endure forever. 

This link is unjustified. For generations, native people have defended the interests 

of the United States, at home and abroad. The Preamble to the Native American 

Apology Resolution states that, ‘‘despite the wrongs committed against Native Peoples by the United States. Native Peoples have remained committed to the protection of this great land, as evidenced by the fact that, on a per capita basis, more 

Native Peoples have served in the United States Armed Forces and placed themselves in harm’s way in defense of the United States in every major military conflict 

than any other ethnic group,’’ See, S.J. Res. 14, 111th Cong., 1st Sess. (2009). 

Presidents George W. Bush and Barak Obama have recognized the service of our 

Native people to this country, including our service following the harrowing attacks 

of September 11, 2001. Just months after those attacks, President Bush issued a 

Presidential Proclamation in which he stated that:

Almost half of America’s Native American tribal leaders have served in the 

United States Armed Forces, following in the footsteps of their forebears who 

distinguished themselves during the World Wars and the conflicts in Korea, 

Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf. Their patriotism again appeared after the September 11 attacks, as American Indian law enforcement officers volunteered to 

serve in air marshal programs.

Presidential Proclamation 7500 (Nov. 32, 2001). See also, Presidential Proclamation 7735 (Nov. 14, 2003) (recognizing the many thousands of Native Americans 

serving on active duty and as reservists in the U.S. Armed Forces). Similarly, in 

2009, President Obama issued a Presidential Proclamation in which he recognized 

that, ‘‘[f]rom the American Revolution to combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan,’’ 

Native Americans, ‘‘have fought valiantly in defense of our Nation as dedicated servicemen and women.’’ Presidential Proclamation 8449 (Oct. 30, 2009). 

The National Congress of American Indians reports that 77 American Indians and 

Alaskan Natives have died defending the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq. More than 

400 have been wounded. 

Indian Country Outrage 

Steven Newcomb, a columnist for the weekly newspaper Indian Country Today, 

wrote ‘‘[t]he death of bin Laden is arguably the most important news story of the 

year, and embedded within it is a message that an Indian warrior, a symbol of Native American survival in the face of racial annihilation, is associated with modern 

terrorism and the attacks on 9/11.’’ The Onondaga Council of Chiefs agrees. In a 

statement released May 3, 2011, the Council said, ‘‘Geronimo is arguably the most 

recognized Native American name in the world, and this comparison only serves to 

72

perpetuate negative stereotypes about our people.’’ The misuse of Geronimo’s name 

is yet another example of how Native American culture and history has been misappropriated by mainstream America and used disparagingly. 

Steps Forward 

It is unclear if any action by the United States can undo the damage done by 

naming the operation and, apparently, Osama Bin Laden himself, ‘‘Geronimo.’’ The 

misuse of Geronimo’s name has divided our people from mainstream America and 

detracted from our ability to celebrate this shining achievement by the Obama Administration with the rest of our fellow Americans. On behalf of the Nation, I sincerely hope that this misstep in history can be used as a stepping stone towards 

educating mainstream America and the world on another chapter in American history. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERTO MUKARO AGUEIBANA BORRERO, PRESIDENT, 

UNITED CONFEDERATION OF TAINO PEOPLE OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

AND REGIONAL COORDINATION


505c10.eps
73

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TINA MARIE OSCEOLA, HISTORIC RESOURCES OFFICER, 

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA


505d1.eps
74


505d2.eps
75


505d3.eps
76

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE ZELLER, PRESIDENT, INDIAN ARTS AND CRAFTS

ASSOCIATION

Introduction 

Good afternoon Chairman Akaka and Vice Chairman Barrasso. My name is Joe 

Zeller, and I am the President of the Indian Arts and Crafts Association (IACA) 

based in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I am an Ohio native having spent over 40 years 

with major multi-national advertising agencies developing advertising programs and 

directing media efforts of major corporations such as Kraft Foods, Procter & Gamble, Ford, and others. I have a bachelors degree in communication arts from the 

University of Notre Dame and a masters degree in radio and television from Ohio 


505d4.eps
77

1 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Arts and Crafts: Size of Market and Extent 

of Misrepresentation Are Unknown, GAO–11–432 (April 2011). 2 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Indian Arts and Crafts: A Case 

of Misrepresentation, Rpt. No. E–EV–OSS–0003–2005 (June 2005). 3GAO–11–432. 

University. I am a founding member of the Amateur Hockey Association Illinois, 

served as the association president from 1979 through 1981, and inducted into the 

Illinois Hockey Hall of Fame in 2005. As an avid collector of American Indian art, 

I opened the doors to River Trading Post upon retiring from the advertising business in 2000. I opened my first gallery in the Chicagoland area. In the following 

years, I opened River Trading Post galleries in Scottsdale, Arizona, and in Santa 

Fe. My galleries feature a blend of antique and contemporary Native American art 

from over 80 different tribal groups. 

On behalf of the Indian artists and craftsmen, wholesale, retail and collection 

members of the IACA, I thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the misrepresentation of American Indian art and crafts. 

Background on the Indian Arts and Crafts Association 

Established in 1974, the IACA is a not-for-profit trade association whose mission 

is to support the effective protection, ethical promotion and preservation of American Indian arts and crafts. Headquartered in Albuquerque, NM, IACA was formed 

by American Indian artists and reputable businesses when imitation goods began 

flooding the marketplace. The founders of the IACA realized that by joining forces 

they could work more effectively to promote authenticity and find ways to educate 

the buyers and public about American Indian art. 

Today, IACA is a well-respected trade association which represents all facets of 

the American Indian arts and crafts industry—artists, retailers, wholesalers, cottage 

industry, museums, other related organizations and businesses (such as suppliers, 

educational institutions, book publishers, studio photographers), as well as collectors. IACA promotes ethical business standards within the Indian art market 

through education, publicity, authentication, and use of its logo to certify reputable 

businesses. As a member, each artist or business agrees to honestly and ethically 

represent their merchandise and to abide by all applicable state and Federal laws. 

Federal legal authority governing the industry and the labeling of authentic arts 

and crafts produced by Native Americans has helped maintain the integrity of our 

industry and we are proud that the State of New Mexico has enacted similar legislation to give further protections. 

How Misrepresentation Harms Indian Artists and the Indian Art Market 

The arts and crafts industry is critical to American Indian economies and small 

businesses. Income from a single artist often provides the only income for their family and, more often than not, to an extended family. In addition to providing primary and supplemental income, the arts are a source of strength and pride, reinforcing our cultures and traditions within our communities. 

Misrepresentation is one of the biggest threats to the integrity of the American 

Indian art industry and its market. Not only does our industry have to compete with 

the larger, diluted market, but we must compete with those who copy and counterfeit the work of American Indian artists. According to the April 2011 report by the 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, while the actual size of the Indian arts and 

crafts market, and the extent of misrepresentation is unknown, the sale of goods 

falsely represented as authentic Indian-produced arts and crafts has been a persistent and potentially growing problem in the United States.1

In addition, according to a June 2005 report by the Inspector General for the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, the annual loss in revenues to Indian artisans as a result of counterfeit Indian arts and crafts is between $400 and $500 million or up 

to half of the total value of the Indian arts and crafts market.2 Similarly, consumers 

of Indian art suffer from misrepresentation by fraudulently being led to believe that 

imitation products purchased are authentic thereby resulting in financial loss and 

questions the value of authentic Indian arts and crafts.3

Improvements in transportation and increased world trade together encourage a 

situation in which original Indian art is duplicated offshore for less cost and passed 

off as authentic. For example, dealers can send an original, Indian-made piece or 

a photograph to locations such as the Philippines or Thailand and have the pieces 

duplicated or mass-produced for a fraction of the cost of the original. The U.S. Customs Service and Border Patrol have estimated that an average of $30 million in 

78

4 Rpt. No. E–EV–OSS–0003–2005. 

Indian-style arts and crafts is imported annually from countries such as the countries above and Mexico, Pakistan, and China.4

Reputable businesses and artists cannot compete with cheap imports, and the loss 

of revenue is putting the artists and small business owners out of business—out of 

their livelihood. Fakes and imports damage the overall image of American Indian 

arts, hurting not only the tribes, but also the nearby communities whose economies 

are dependent on Native arts. Along with the Downtown Business Association in 

Santa Fe, we have held Town Hall meetings on authenticity to help educate the retailers and customers about the laws and to encourage the support of authentic 

American Indian arts. 

As an industry, we fear that the continuing loss of integrity will ultimately result 

in the largescale demise of authentic, American Indian arts. We must enable and 

encourage the current and future generations to continue the arts but today, artists 

have found little recourse when their products are copied—and great frustration as 

they see imported items being misrepresented as American Indian handmade. Most 

importantly, Indian art is an expression of cultural pride and identity, so in addition 

to hurting the artists and reputable businesses, it damages the public by removing 

this educational connection and by the consumer unknowingly taking an imported 

item home. 

The Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2009 (P.L. 111–211) 

The IACA would like to thank the Committee for supporting the passage of the 

Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2009 (P.L. 111–211). This statute authorizes: (1) any Federal law enforcement officer to conduct an investigation of an 

offense involving the sale of any good that is misrepresented as an Indian produced 

good or product that occurs within the jurisdiction of the United States; and (2) authorizes the Indian Arts and Crafts Board (Board) to refer such an alleged offense 

to any Federal law enforcement officer for appropriate investigation. The measure 

further authorizes a Federal law enforcement officer to investigate such an alleged 

offense regardless of whether such officer receives a referral from the Board. 

The law also requires that the findings of an investigation of such an alleged offense by any Federal department or agency be submitted to: (1) a Federal or state 

prosecuting authority; or (2) the Board. The bill also revises the requirements for 

the initiation of civil actions for misrepresentation of Indian produced goods by authorizing the Board to recommend civil actions to the Attorney General and clarify 

the requirements for the initiation of civil actions, as well as penalties for the misrepresentations of such goods. In addition, the law places new penalties for goods 

offered or displayed for sale or sold. 

The Value and Necessity of Federal Prosecution and Civil Lawsuits 

As far back as the early 1930s, Congress recognized the need to promote the economic welfare of Indian tribes and individual Indians by fostering the development 

of Indian arts and crafts and the expansion of the market for the products of Indian 

art and craftsmanship. 

In 1935, therefore, Congress passed the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1935 and 

created the Indian Arts and Crafts Board within the U.S. Department of the Interior (DoI) to further these goals through market research to optimize product sales, 

technical research and technical advice, the creation of trademarks of genuineness 

and quality, and other undertakings. 

Under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 (P.L. 101–644), as amended, the 

Board is authorized to refer complaints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 

investigation, and may also recommend to the U.S. Attorney General that criminal 

proceedings be initiated. The Board is also empowered to recommend that the Interior Secretary refer matters to the U.S. Attorney General for civil actions on behalf 

of a member of an Indian tribe, an Indian tribe, or an Indian arts and crafts organization. 

The Indian Arts and Crafts Enforcement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106–497) amended the 

1990 Act to expand the pool of potential defendants by authorizing civil actions 

against persons who ‘‘directly or indirectly’’ offer or display for sale or sell goods in 

contravention of the Act. In addition, the Act authorizes Indian individuals to bring 

civil actions on behalf of himself or herself and Indian arts and crafts organizations 

to bring civil actions on behalf of itself. 

Nearly three-quarters of a century after the Federal Government acted to protect 

the welfare of Indian artisans, their tribal communities, and the Indian art market, 

the U.S. government has failed to prevent the dilution of the market for legitimate 

arts. To-date, the Federal Government has brought zero criminal prosecutions reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:35 Aug 03, 2011 Jkt 066994 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\66994.TXT JACK
79

sponsible for importing, advertising, and selling counterfeit goods. By all accounts, 

the U.S. Government has rendered the Act a failure by its own failure to take legal 

action. As is the case in other areas of the law, there is value of having a highprofile criminal case filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) against a kingpin or importer of large volumes of fake goods. Such a case or cases would send the 

message that this behavior will not be tolerated. Perhaps dividing the responsibilities and functions of the DoI and DOJ will improve enforcement against such illegal activities by giving the DOJ’s Office of Tribal Justice the responsibility of enforcing the law with the Board providing marketing and education. Other methods may 

have to be used by the Federal government to effectively tackle this problem including, for example, enforcing international trade laws. 

Conclusion 

Thank you, Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and the Members of this 

Committee for allowing us to express our position regarding the misrepresentation 

of Native American arts and crafts. Your continued support of Native American 

communities is truly appreciated, and the IACA is eager to work with you and your 

professional staff on any and all issues pertaining to American Indian arts and 

crafts. 


505e1.eps
80


505e2.eps
81


505e3.eps
82


505f1.eps
83


505f2.eps
84


505f3.eps
85


505f4.eps
86


505f5.eps
87


505f6.eps
88


505f7.eps
89


505f8.eps
90


505f9.eps
91


505f10.eps
92

Æ


505f11.eps