[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 37 (Monday, April 11, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
DROP THE CHOP! INDIAN NICKNAMES JUST AREN'T RIGHT
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, no native American journalist has
made a greater impact on the Nation than Tim Giago, whose newspaper has
chronicled what is happening in the American Indian community.
One of the last vestiges of racism in the United States is our use of
Indian nicknames for athletic teams.
There is a great deal of subtle and not so subtle racism in the
United States, but nothing else as blatant as that.
For that reason, some years ago I took a stand in opposition to the
American Indians as athletic mascots by the University of Illinois. It
is not the most popular stand I have ever taken, I can assure you.
But recently, Tim Giago, had an item in the New York Times explaining
why we should discontinue this practice.
I ask to insert his article at the end of my remarks. Let me, at the
same time, commend our colleague, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, for
his efforts in this field. I am pleased to cosponsor his legislation
regarding the use of Redskins for the Washington professional football
team.
One of these days, I hope we will mature to the point that we will
discontinue this offensive practice.
The article follows:
Drop the Chop! Indian Nicknames Just Aren't Right
(By Tim Giago)
The radio and television personality Larry King once wrote:
``The best way to measure a team's nickname is to ask
yourself: `Would you name it that if it were just starting
out?' In other words, would you call a team the Redskins or
the Redmen? Hardly. So change it now--only because it's
right.''
In fact, some teams are changing their nicknames, including
two prominent teams making news in this month of basketball
frenzy--St. John's (Redmen) and Marquette (Warriors). Both
are in the process of changing nicknames, and presumably
mascots. Nevertheless, long after March Madness had ended,
the nation will still be watching the Indians, the Braves,
the Chiefs and the Redskins.
Is this right?
Those of us who have ventured into the turbulent waters of
questioning the use of American Indians as mascots for
America's fun and games have discovered hell hath no fury
like that of a fanatic sports fan. When I wrote an article
for Newsweek magazine the week of the Super Bowl held in
Minneapolis featuring the Washington Redskins, the editor
chose the unfortunate headline, ``I hope the Redskins lose.''
The intent of the column was to educate white and black
America to the way Indians feel about being used as mascots.
not the same thing
In the aftermath, I received some of the worst hate letters
I have ever received. The mildest insult was that I was
trying to be politically correct. No! I was trying to be
racially correct, and there's a big difference.
``It's a tradition'' or ``it's honoring us'' are no longer
valid arguments. Comparisons to the use of Steelers, Cowboys
or Packers as good reasons to use Indians as mascots insults
our intelligence. Steelers, Cowboys and Packers are not an
ethnic minority.
The biggest argument is: What about the Minnesota Vikings
or the Irish of Notre Dame? When is the last time you saw a
genuine Viking? They are historical references that no longer
exist. Indians do. The Irish were named from within by the
early Irish priests and bishops. Although Notre Dame is a
Catholic university, you do not see students using the Pope
as a mascot nor do you see the fans in the stands attempting
to imitate the worst characteristics of the Irish.
``Redskins'' is a word that should remind every American
there was a time in our history when America paid bounties
for human beings. There was a going rate for the scalps or
hides of Indian men, women and children. These ``redskins''
trophies could be sold to most frontier trading posts. Along
with coon skins, beaver skins and bear skins, the selling of
``redskins'' was also profitable.
On a recent radio talk show, I spoke with a young lady who
had been a cheerleader for a team called the ``Indians.'' She
said, ``When I put on my feathers and war paint, donned my
buckskins and beads, I felt I was honoring Indians.'' I asked
her, ``If your team was called the African-Americans and you
painted your face black, put on an Afro wig and donned a
dashiki and then danced around singing songs and making
noises you thought to be African, would you be honoring
blacks?'' Her answer was ``No! Of course not! That would be
insulting to them.'' End of discussion.
Go to a Kansas City Chiefs football game or to an Atlanta
Braves baseball game and watch the fans instead of the game.
You will see everything Indians hold sacred insulted. The
tomahawk chops mean ``kill them.'' The smirking faces painted
in Dayglo colors tell us that our spiritual application of
paint is fair game for sports fans. The turkey feathers
protruding from their heads insult another spiritual practice
of most Plains Indians. The eagle feather is sacred. It is
given to the recipient in a religious ceremony, usually to
honor, to thank, or to bless.
Suppose the New Orleans Saints used real saints as mascots,
or used the crucifix to do the ``chop,'' or wore colorful
religious attire in the stands? Suppose Kansas City changed
its name to the Kansas City Jews, Kansas City Blackskins or
Kansas City Latinos? This simply would not happen, you say?
Then, why is it all right to use American Indians as mascots
and to insult our way of life and our religion in the
process?
There are those who realize that Indians are politically
and numerically weak, and they try to help. The Portland
Oregonian will not allow words considered to be racist, such
as Redskin, to be used in the newspaper. The Minneapolis Star
Tribune recently dropped the use of all Indian nicknames. A
couple of radio stations, including one in Washington, will
not use words they consider to be racially insulting on the
air. A number of high schools and colleges have dropped
mascots that insulted Indians.
As American Indians find the formats to air their
grievances realistically and intelligently, a number of white
and black Americans are listening. They are allowing us to
present our viewpoint. They are seeing things through our
eyes.
Even when they hear the other tired arguments that Indians
have more important things to worry about or that there are
some Indians who don't mind, they have come to understand
that the vast majority of Indians do take exception to being
used as mascots. Two hundred years of tradition does not make
using Indians as mascots right.
How does one measure self-respect and self-esteem? When
Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, did it
help the black economy or solve all of their problems? No.
But it gave blacks a small victory in restoring self-respect
and self-esteem.
lost to assimilation
Simply put, Indians are human beings, not mascots.
The media will always find those Indians who don't mind
being mascots. Most of them have been totally assimilated
into the mainstream. They have lost their language, culture
and traditions. In other words, they have become
Americanized. They are in dire need of learning about their
traditional values and we are attempting to educate them.
With more news people lending their voices to continued
Indian efforts to be heard, we believe the battle will be
won. Perhaps we will never educate the Jack Kent Cookes or
the Ted Turners, but we will take the small victories as they
come.
As Larry King said, ``. . . only because it's
right.''
____________________