Sports Teams and Native American Culture: When Does The Name Or Image Need To Be Retired?

The disappointment many Washington football fans expressed after the team revealed its new name, the Washington Commanders, couldn’t even compare to the anger they voiced when team owner Dan Snyder decided to retire the old name Redskins just two years earlier.

And nothing compared to the outrage that pushed Snyder to change the name in the first place.

The wave of pressure to drop all Native American names and logos/mascots from any sports team has been furious. The argument is clear and straightforward: If anything even remotely relates to Native American culture, or can be seen that way, it must be changed.

However, is it really this black and white? It should be, but, in reality, it’s not quite that simple. The reason to change a team’s name, logo/mascot, or both, has layers and a lot of history.

The Washington Redskins became another casualty of a decades-long debate about the use of Native American names and logos/mascots for sports teams across all levels of sports. While the pressure has been applied for generations, with some results, it ramped up the last few years as woke culture gained strength, both politically and socially. For many years, a lot of folks brushed off this controversy as people just being overly sensitive or arguing that the logos/mascots and names aren’t racist, but, in fact, honor Native Americans. Regardless of the stance, teams began to respond first in the early 1970s with several colleges changing their mascots, names, or both. This includes the University of Oklahoma, Stanford University and Marquette University, along with many other smaller schools.

While organizations from semi-professional teams all the way down through high schools continued to change their names and logos/mascots through the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and into the new millennium, major professional sports teams and powerhouse colleges seemed resistant to the idea and carried enough influence to bat away the protestors.

That has changed.

For folks on the left, it doesn’t seem to matter what the logo/mascot or the name is, and it doesn’t seem to matter what the meanings behind them represent. If any of it refers to Native American culture, remotely references Native Americans, or simply could be construed that way, it needs to be changed. End of argument.

For folks on the right, it’s just another extraneous complaint. They have several different arguments that dismiss the issue entirely. One, stop being so sensitive. Two, it’s tradition. Three, it honors Native Americans. Four, most Native Americans today either like the names/logos/mascots or aren’t offended by them. There are subtleties within these common arguments, mostly centered on either downplaying the meaning behind names or suggesting certain names or logos, although referencing Native Americans, isn’t offensive or not specific enough to be offensive.

What we need to realize is there are tiers to this debate. Regardless of which side of the argument you land on, simplistic answers to this issue cannot apply.

So, when should teams change their name, logo/mascot, or both? Let’s start at the top.

1.) If the name is derogatory, it must be changed with no debate. Therefore, the name Redskins must go. Washington isn’t the first to do this. Miami-Ohio University dropped Redskins years before. Other similar names needed to be retired. St. John’s University in New York City dropped their name the Redmen, along with the cartoonish Native American mascot, in 1994. There were two colleges, Dickinson State University and Eastern Washington University, that dropped the name Savages and their Native American logos in the 1970s. These terms, as defined by Merriam-Webster, are derogatory terms. It’s impossible to argue to keep these names.

2.) If the mascot/logo is cartoonish or lampooning, that has to be retired. Most already have been removed, many eliminated decades ago, some of which accompanied the schools mentioned previously. The Philadelphia Warriors dropped their cartoonish image before moving to California and becoming Golden State in 1962, while Arkansas State University dropped their ridiculous logo, as well as the name Indians, in 2008. This all led up to Chief Wahoo, the grinning cartoon logo of the Cleveland Indians, being removed in 2018. This would eventually lead to the Indians changing their name to the Cleveland Guardians in 2021.

3.) If the name is specific to a group without permission to use the name, or the logo is depicting Native American culture, but not lampooning them. Think of names Seminoles, Apaches, or Cherokees, and any logo that attempts to be traditional or more serious in design. This also would include the more generic “Indian” name.

Generally speaking, the name “Indians” is considered offensive by most everyone and needs to go. Not only does it attempt refer to a specific group of people, but it lumps all these different cultures into just one pot and them labels them “Indians,” which is just a generic term for indigenous people (with the exception of folks from India). It’s not even the proper term for Native Americans.

Specific names of a tribe is going to be considered offensive by most everyone unless the tribe/nation has approved its use. The Florida State University Seminoles are a prime example of this. The Seminole tribe approved the use of their name and imagery. If a tribe/nation approves the use, then there should be no argument. It would be just as offensive to tell a tribe/nation they shouldn’t approve others to allow their culture to be used in this way. Essentially, you’re saying no one should be allowed to appropriate your culture, so I’m going to usurp your culture from you to save your culture from being appropriated by others. The same goes for logos and imagery. If a specific tribe doesn’t approve it, it doesn’t matter how traditional or respectful you attempt to make it. However, if a tribe approves it, then arguments against it becomes just as offensive as those who do it without permission.

You see where I’m going with this?

4.) If a team uses any logo depicting Native Americans, but the name is not too specific or can be redirected to mean something else. In this case just change the logo and move away from Native American imagery, but if the name can refer to other things, that shouldn’t change. Warriors is a popular example. Warriors can be a lot of things. Just change the imagery. What about the Braves name? Maybe that name should be changed. It’s malleable, but not too easy to do. What about the Chiefs? That name is much more flexible. It’s probably easier to create a new logo for Chiefs than the Braves. Bottom line, this can be easily debated, but if the logo can be reworked and the name can be redirected effectively toward some other reference successfully, why should the name change? For example, the NHL’s Chicago Blackhawks are named after a specific leader named Black Hawk, a great warrior and leader of the Sauk. If the team changed its logo to a generic black bird, they could easily redirect the reference and keep the name. Some will argue this is a “cheap way out” and will still find the whole ordeal offensive. However, one also could easily argue that if the name can refer to other things, and there is a genuine move to redirect the imagery and reference, that’s perfectly acceptable.

5.) If both the logo and name are not very specific, nothing changes. The problem with this is if both the name and logo do not seem specific, then it probably doesn’t have any aura of Native American influence at all to begin with. The Las Vegas Raiders, for example. What’s a Raider? Someone who raids, right? That could be depicted hundreds of ways. The team opted for a pirate image, but they could have opted for a logo that pointed toward Native American culture or some other image that could be seen that way. Nonetheless, there are very few, if any, non-specific names and logos that could be argued as either Native American or something else. The Kansas City Chiefs may fall into this category. The name Chiefs can be used a lot of ways outside of Native American culture, but the arrowhead logo seems to strongly suggest that it’s targeted toward Native American culture. I think most would say it’s referencing Native American culture. At that point, you could change the Kansas City Chiefs to reference firefighters. They already have red uniforms.

At the end of the day, we need to move toward a more nuanced approach to the issue. Unless a Native American inspired team name and/or logo/mascot design is approved by the tribe/nation that is being referenced, it needs to be changed. However, a blanket attack on all names and logos that some groups feel are referencing Native American culture, as defined by these groups, needs to be quelled. Bottom line, no one has total authority or ownership of words and images, or the meanings of those things. Anyone that believes they do have that power is not trying to right a wrong or solve a problem. They are part of the problem as much as any team that clearly is in the wrong.