What's In a Name?

Assistant editor Jim Rice and I have on several occasions debated whose high school athletic team name is most offensive. He played for the Richland Bombers--the name derived from the nuclear weapons plant that supplied most of the jobs for that Washington state community. I watched from the stands my high school team, the Mandan (North Dakota) Braves. Finally, the argument may have turned in my favor.

The recently completed World Series will be remembered for quite a while. It was a great series, filled with wonderful memories for anyone who loves the summer game.

But it will also be remembered for the demonstrations staged by the American Indian community around the images and actions of the fans from Atlanta, the home of the Braves. The Atlanta devotees had over the course of the season taken to chopping the air with imaginary--and later foam and rubber--tomahawks, wearing war paint, and singing a dreadful rendition of an Indian war chant. American Indians are suggesting that Atlanta be the home of something else, because the team's name is offensive to and demeaning of people of Indian heritage.

These protests will provide the most lasting memories, I think, because the demonstrators will be successful in their efforts to change the names of professional sports teams that use Indian symbols, mascots, or chants. After all, the protesters are right.

Some institutions--mostly colleges--have already recognized the offensive nature of such caricatures and changed their mascots accordingly. The Syracuse Redmen, for example, became the Orangemen (the sexist language is a problem yet to be rectified); the Stanford Indians became the Cardinal. In Minnesota, the state board of education has advised individual school districts to change offensive team names, recognizing that the caricature can become an object of scorn at opponents' pep rallies.

FORMER PRESIDENT JIMMY Carter, during the World Series, defended the Atlanta fans' actions, saying that they only showed honor and respect to the heritage of the Indians. Jack Kent Cooke, wealthy owner of the Washington Redskins, said in response to protests that he is not offended by the name of his team, so he doesn't see why others should be. Not much of a moral barometer in any facet of his life, Cooke parroted Carter's defense that Indians should be proud of the use of their symbols.

Many native people have responded that they don't need or desire that kind of respect. Representatives of the American Indian Movement (AIM) have said that the trivialization of a people's culture and spirituality is not an act of showing respect, especially if those people have been the recipients of discrimination and neglect throughout this nation's history, even to the current moment.

The other common defense of Indian caricatures is that similar typecasting of other ethnic groups takes place; take, for example, Notre Dame's Fighting Irish and the Minnesota Vikings. There are, of course, some notable differences in circumstances. First, I have not heard people of Irish or Scandinavian descent seriously requesting such a change. If such a request were made, it would need to be taken seriously.

The Vikings or the Fighting Irish would risk alienating a large proportion of their ticketholders if they portrayed their mascots negatively. Neither the Redskins nor the Braves live in markets with heavy native populations. Without sizable numbers of indigenous people as potential ticket buyers, the built-in protection of the marketplace does not work. In those areas Indians must rely on the good will of other people to change the stereotyping.

LAKOTA TIMES EDITOR Tim Giago recently wrote: "The sham rituals, such as the wearing of feathers, smoking of so-called peace pipes, beating of tom-toms, fake dances, horrendous attempts at singing Indian songs, the so-called war whoops and the painted faces address more than the issue of racism; they also are direct attacks upon the spirituality of the Indian people."

The United Church of Christ passed a resolution this summer to encourage professional teams to change their names and/or logos. Specifically cited were the Kansas City Chiefs, the Washington Redskins, and the Cleveland Indians. At issue in Cleveland, the new denomination headquarters for the UCC, is the Indians' mascot, Chief Wahoo, a sly-smiling, feathered Indian caricature.

The American Indian Movement and other local native organizations plan to continue protests at various sports sites, pushing owners for more opportunities to express their opinions. Atlanta Braves owner and media mogul Ted Turner has agreed to work with Indian representatives during the off-season to try to find a compromise.

In Washington, D.C., protests led by the Native American Students for Progress and AIM will persist until some headway is made. These groups hope to inform fans rather than debate them, according to press accounts. But they do intend to be present.

The people of Washington, D.C., may be in a good position to join in these efforts. Jack Kent Cooke has been negotiating with city officials for a new stadium in the nation's capital. Reaching out the hand of solidarity, District Mayor Sharon Pratt Dixon and the black-majority city council could take the opportunity to "help" Cooke understand the offense of the name. Perhaps together they could come up with a more appropriate mascot for the Redskins.

Without a doubt, more serious problems confront native communities throughout the United States. The lack of employment and economic opportunities, sovereignty issues relating to land use and fishing rights, fetal alcohol syndrome, and high suicide rates among the young are all issues that confront the vitality of the tribes.

But perception and image are important in our society. No more need we ask, "What's in a name?" In this instance it is abundantly clear: The name offends the very people it refers to. It is time for the "Braves," the "Chiefs," and the "Redskins" to get with the game.

Bob Hulteen was Under Review editor of Sojourners when this article appeared.