Schaunaman 1

Elijah Schaunaman
Professor Lohmeyer
Eng. 101 Composition
17 November 2016
Racist Mascots in Sports
Congratulations to the Cubs for winning the World Series, but special thanks to the
Cleveland Indians for resurfacing the idea of racist mascots in sports. A number of journalists
have published that some sports teams have racist meanings behind their brand. In their articles,
Craig Calcaterra, Matt Connolly, Ian Gordon, Jamie Utt, Marc Tracy, and Richard King have put
out harsh criticisms on professional to high school teams for having a racist theme, or what they
believe to be racist. At the same time, I feel that some teams have a racist idea, I also think that
the purpose was not intended. After all the years, the teams from their creation, did not have to
face the criticisms when they are not, why now?
Five journalists discussed the issue of racist mascots. They were not direct responses to
one another, but the articles mostly leaned one way in the arguments. That direction was against
the mascots. In Craig Calcaterra's argument, he describes the racist caricature about the
Cleveland Indians baseball team and identifies the flaws about the mascot design. Marc Tracy
wrote an essay that specified in on the racist themed mascots, and even put them on a scale
Meh- $%&!. Another author, Richard King, put his input on the teams with Indianness
stereotypes within them, that could be viewed as offensive. This article also shines the light on
some teams where they arent offensive due to location. The last two pieces that put their word in
on the debate were, Jamie Utt, Matt Connolly, and Ian Gordon. Within their publishments

Schaunaman 2
contained the unbiased view on the racist stereotypes through time. The articles main subject
were based on the Indian branded teams.
Through time, some of the athletic teams in the nation are being critiqued on their
mascot, and brand name. The issue was not brought up until 1978, when Syracuse University
was confronted by their Native American students, about the Saltine Warrior (Mother Jones). The
caricature of a Native American was offensive and called the character racist and degrading
(Mother Jones). These issues possibly could have been brought up due to the civil rights that
were granted through time. If the inalienable rights permitted sooner, the problem would not
have been such a deal. However, recently this year the U.S has seen a series of race riots due to
discrimination, and injustices in effect. Due to the events earlier this year, I believe the nation is
becoming race sensitive.
Team nicknames were built upon the founding of the team. The team was not entirely
titled to a name but was named after the state or city from which the team came from. One
example is the Arizona Cardinals, the team was known as the St. Louis team, until they bought
their jerseys from the University of Chicago, and were noted for the cardinal red color
(Mental_floss). Their namesake came from the jersey color, the Cardinals. According to Scott
Allen, the label of the Kansas City Chiefs, came from the Native Americans [who] had once
lived in the area (Mental_Floss). It was also named after the mayor who was nicknamed The
Chief. Two teams that are the main focuses of these publishments are the Cleveland Indians, a
baseball team, and the Washington Redskins, a football team.
The Cleveland Indians hail from the state of Ohio. Their moniker comes from the
Boston Braves, after winning the World Series. The controversy comes from mascot, which
shows a red-skinned Native American logo Chief Wahoo (Mother Jones). Chief Wahoo has

Schaunaman 3
the descriptions of a stereotypical Native American. The mascot has the description provided by
Craig Calcaterra, red-faced, big-toothed, hook-nosed, feather-wearing abomination (NBC).
This sketch of the character was compared to having a team named the Charleston Sambos
(CFW). With this in mind, the mascot seems to be racist and not so much the name.
Journalists are making a big deal about the logo of the athletic teams across the nation.
The logos are the main factors in which this became an issue, which seems to make sense. A
name is only a title, and in some cases, it can be offensive. The Cleveland Indians name is not
offensive in the name calling subject, that will be mentioned later. Using such distasteful imagery
in using the stereotypes in any connotation is bad, and is taught at a young age to anyone.
Creating a new logo is easily done, going through several processes to do so. The new logo
would create less attention to the team. However, using a racist caricature could bring a type of
marketing is unwise.
Looking at the football team, the Washington Redskins is a group known for their racist
brand name. There were multiple occasions in which the team was told that their name was
offensive. The team subsidies by Native American across the nation. A commercial made this
confrontation public in the casting of Proud To Be (Mascot). Within the marketing, it identifies
that the natives that they are proud to call themselves, strong, brave, but one thing that they are
not proud to be called is red-skinned.
The Washington Redskins former name was the Braves, and that the name was to honor
the former head coach, William Dietz, who was Native American. This has been brought up on
multiple occasions because some wonder if Dietz was Indian. The Redskins is an example of the
name title issue. The name is utterly ridiculous, but it was able to pass through without meaning
when the team was founded in 1937. The team did not have to worry about what was racist or

Schaunaman 4
offended people at the time because they had more pressing matters. Most of the protestors who
are against the Redskins team name are not even from the District of Columbia region. The
professional football team is not representing the nation, but that area that it to get a movement
going literally. Those who are against the team name hail from the Lakota Sioux tribe from the
Heartland, or the Pueblos from the Southwest. The Indian teams that are being represented are
paid off with subsides because of the use of that title is offensive, and get this they accept it.
A brief history lesson, in the 1930s, the United States of America was going through
a period called the Dirty Thirties. It makes sense because there was dust flying about due to the
dust storms that swept across the nation. Not only was that affecting them but they were also
trying to reconstruct the economy after the first world war. Many families were struggling to pay
off debts, and some already in the deep end of the pool of poverty. Because of the countries
concerns about the dirty thirties, racism is sports was not necessarily a concern in the 1930s.
They could have cared less about these factors. Some people even believe that such amusements
were created to distract the public from what is happening in the outside world, or what the
economy is going through.
As time progressed from the 1930s people also have been given more civil rights,
allowing them to speak out. Not that this is a bad thing, the civil rights have also broadened the
view of racism. The people have gotten equality by protesting, because believe it or not the
government has to listen to the people. If they fail to do so, the people have the right to change it,
as stated in the Constitution. Like the government depending on the people so do market regimes
like professional teams.
Teams get paid on different levels, from attendance to amount of viewers that watch
them on the tv, and listeners on the radio. If someone were to complain about the issue of

Schaunaman 5
wanting a team to stop using their current logo because it is offensive, they would need to get a
movement going. The chances of a team which has stuck with the same logo and name for
several decades, the probability of them changing their name is unlikely. They have the money to
pay off the protesters, not through bribery but funds. These funds will help that community in
different ways because they do not get the aid through the government. An example is the
Washington Redskins. The Redskins can keep their name because they pay subsidies to the
natives within that area, and that is whom they represent, practically.
In conclusion, the fuss about racist mascots has logical meanings but the chances of it
ever changing are slim to none. The journalist who have published their works about the teams,
who they believe to have racist themes behind their logo, are practically side conversations. The
amount of work that it would take to change a teams name that has been around for decades is
unlikely to happen because they can pay off those who they represent. If there would be any
chance of changing the team name the population would have to stop watching sports as whole
in protest. Americans like sports and they like the tradition, and one that theyll have to get used
to is the racy team names in sports.

Schaunaman 6

Works Cited
Utt, Jamie. "Redskins, Sambos, and Whities Racism in Sports Mascots." Change From Within.
Change From Within, 10 Dec. 2010. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.
Connolly, Matt, and Ian Gordon. "Timeline: A Brief Yet Infuriating History of Racist Team
Names." Mother Jones. Mother Jones, 1 Nov. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.
Calcaterra, Craig. "Its Time for Major League Baseball to Take a Stand on Chief Wahoo."
HardballTalk. NBC Sports, 20 Oct. 2016. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.
Tracy, Marc. "The Most Offensive Team Names in Sports: A Definitive Ranking." New Republic.
New Republic, 2016. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.
Allen, Scott. "What's in a Nickname? The Origins of All 32 NFL Team Names." Mental Floss.
N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2016.
Allen, Scott. "What's in a Nickname? The Origins of All 30 MLB Team Names." Mental Floss.
N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2016.