The issue of American Indian mascots has been a topic of heated debate within the Native American community for years. Some feel that the mascots of sports teams such as the Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians are antiquated, racist stereotypes, while others feel that they are meant as tribute, and should be received accordingly.

Dr. Bruce Stapleton began researching the issue of Native American mascots when he read of a defamation lawsuit that seven American Indians had filed against the Washington Redskins. He eventually wrote a book on the topic of Native American mascots, titled Redskins: Racial Slur or Symbol of Success? Last night, in the Student Union Ballroom, Stapleton delivered a lecture on the topics covered in his book, and discussed the ideological gap within the Native American community regarding the names.

“These mascots are based on some type of stereotypical Hollywood version of Native Americans,” Stapleton said. “Native Americans are everyday people. We don’t run around with ponies, with tomahawks in hand. These images of Native American life are so distorted.”

Most of Stapleton’s lecture dealt with the different schools of thought surrounding the issues.

Stapleton, a District of Columbia resident, focused most of his lecture on the Redskins. He began his speech by giving a short history of the team and its controversial mascot. He explained that, although the Redskins have faced intense pressure from politicians and Native American groups to change their name, the organization has refused to do so.

He described the historical context of the word “redskin”. The first known usage of the word is found in the letter of a European colonist, who in 1699 wrote, “There would not be so much to fear iff ye Red Skins were treated with such mixture of Justice and Authority as they cld understand”.

Despite the fact that the word “redskin” has traditionally appeared in similarly negative contexts, Stapleton said, there remain many people, both within the Native American community and outside of it, who do not find the word offensive. A recent survey found that only 36.6 percent of Native Americans find “redskin” offensive [as compared to 46.2 percent of the general population]. This placed it well behind words like “injun” and “squaw”, with 50.6 percent and 47.2 percent of Native Americans finding them offensive, respectively.

Nonetheless, the word is generally defined as being derogatory. Stapleton displayed the American Heritage Dictionary’s recent definition for “redskin” and compared it to the virtually identical definitions of words like “nigger” and “kike.”

In researching his book, Stapleton asked Redskins fans for their attitude about the controversy. He shared several of their responses, most of which expressed indignation at protestors.

“Just another example of the politically correct left making an issue out of a non-issue,” said one respondent. “To hell with any American Indian tribe that feels bad about it,” said another.

But while many fans may feel the team name is inoffensive, many Native Americans disagree. Suzan Shown Harjo, the Cheyenne/Muscogee activist who filed a lawsuit against the Redskins, calls it “an odious word with lineage to bounty-hunting days.” Indeed, one of the possible origins of the “redskin” refers to the practice of offering rewards for Native American flesh.

Still, there is no consensus among American Indians regarding the names. Some see the mascots as symbols of respect, while others feel the issue is unimportant. Stapleton mentioned that Barbara Simeroth, a Cherokee, has said that the name is one of only few ways in which Indians are still remembered.

Stapleton, though, ultimately feels that the names are unacceptable. He displayed a political cartoon that asked, “Would African-Americans like to be mascots?” Below the question were two cartoons of blacks with swollen lips and bones through their noses, wearing helmets that read, “Washington Blackskins” and “Kansas City Zulu Chiefs”.

He said that he feels that the reason the names are widely accepted owes to the abundance of their use.

“Any propagandist will tell you that if you repeat something enough times to people, they’ll start believing it,” he said. “The Nazis were masters of that. [They knew that] if you hear that Jews are despicable people enough times, you’ll accept it.”

At the end of his lecture, he discussed scenarios in which the name could potentially be changed. He suggested that if the team were to lose its appeal of the defamation lawsuit, it would improve the chances that the name would be dropped.

“A ticket or merchandise boycott probably wouldn’t work, though,” he said. “The fans are giving them unconditional support, no matter what.”