I unequivocally condemn the use of insensitive or innately offensive imagery and language to promote academic institutions and athletic teams.
The use of inconsiderate images, costumes, and language referring to specific individuals or groups that are undeniably offensive should be removed from both public and academic spaces to better eliminate negative stereotypes within our society. Appropriating the culture of any group of people — especially those with a marginalized history — has no place in our society.
With that being said, and as I fully understand the limitations of my perspective as a white student at the University of Iowa, I do think that when done correctly and in good taste, specific types of mascots some may deem “offensive” can be allowed to be celebrated for their appreciation and representation of historical people.
This can be the case for some Native American mascots in amateur and professional sports that in recent years have come under fire for being innately “offensive.” I would contend it is far more important to emphasize education of the history of the Native American communities in our country than to view every instance of Native American mascots as automatically offensive.
One prime example of an instance that falls into this “murky” category would be the case of the Florida State University Seminoles.
Some believe this depiction of a Seminole Native American is unquestionably offensive. But there is actually both history and respect amongst the Seminole tribe of Florida and Florida State University’s administration that add a bit of nuance to the conversation.
According to the FSU libraries website, “[t]he Tribal Council of the Seminole Tribe of Florida wishes to go on record that it has not opposed and, in fact, supports the continued use of the name ‘Seminole’ and any associated head logo as currently endorsed by Florida State University.”
The subsection of the FSU library site goes on to explain how the Tribal Council plans to “continue their relationship” and “collaborate on the development of logos and nicknames that all members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida and officials and students of Florida State University can be proud of.”
Of course, this is taken directly from the organization often accused of promulgating the imagery of an offensive mascot, so take that information with a grain of salt.
In 2020, when asked about the FSU and the Seminole tribe’s “partnership,” Seminole Spokesman Gary Bitner made a statement on the matter, claiming that, “The Tribe views the relationship as a multi-dimensional collaboration that provides meaningful educational opportunities and other positive outcomes.”
Now, I fully recognize that not all things about the use and depiction of the Seminole people by Florida State University are kosher.
The perpetuation of racial stereotypes by the school’s football team through the use of the “Seminole War Chant,” better known as the “Tomahawk Chop” during games, is deeply rooted in racism.
However, the many depictions of the Seminole people, such as the physical embodiment of a Seminole warrior via the school’s mascot, Chief Osceola, and his horse, Renegade — whose costumes and regalia are officially approved by the Seminole tribe of Florida — are historically accurate and can therefore be regarded as potentially respectable. Although, there is still the obvious issue of a white student portraying a Native American chief in full costume, which is a quintessential example of cultural appropriation in itself.
Despite this, I do think if there are good intentions, like in the case of FSU and their mascot, we shouldn’t necessarily discourage this type of imagery but rather educate others on how to properly portray those people and communities, both in visual and physical formats.
Another instance in which the general public was outraged by the use of a specific mascot and logo was in the case of the Washington football team, formally known as the “Washington Redskins.”
Although many, myself included, took issue with the use of the derogatory nickname for decades, another aspect of the controversy factored in when the team decided to change their logo.
The original logo depicted a stoic Native American Chief wearing feathers in his braided hair. The original image was intended to resemble John Two Guns White Calf, who was the historic chief of the Pikuni Blackfeet Indians of modern-day Montana. But in 2020, the football team’s long-standing logo was scrapped for a cookie-cutter like “W” alongside a complete branding overhaul.
Since the logo’s excommunication, the great-nephew of the John Two Guns White Calf, Thomas White Calf, has claimed that he and his family want to restore the image of his great uncle and revive the Washington football team’s logo to depict the deceased tribal leader.
In a News Nation article published this past September, Thomas White Calf claimed, “0ur ancestor was the most famous and most photographed native in history,” and he and the rest of the Blackfoot tribe want to help rejuvenate the logo.
The article goes on to point out that the original logo was designed by a member of the Blackfeet Nation, Walter “Blackie” Wetzel, back in the ‘70s, and it still remains one of the most recognizable sports logos of all time, being both notorious and beloved.
Overall, my opinion on the matter will ultimately fall in line with those of the tribe members and the people being represented by these various teams and institutions. And it goes without saying that this debate is far more multifaceted and complex than anything I could express or explain in one column.
Regardless, I would contend that if the depictions and representations of Native Americans in sports are treated with decency, taste, and respect, then it shouldn’t automatically be deemed offensive or derogatory by critics and the general public alike.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published on April 3 and revised on April 23.