Just as our views of gender are shaped by the traditional norms of society, I believe the same goes with the tradition of having a specific mascot at a college or university. Although some might view the Indians of Cleveland as a racist mascot, I disagree. I am a strong believer of tradition in sports and believe the past has a very large impact on the present for certain sporting organizations. Roman Catholic High School, which I am now an alumnus of, thrives on the thought of tradition. Our mascot was the Gladiator, is this any different than the Redskins of Washington? It is a type of person from history. Without tradition, there would be no cohesive feel between the players and audience during games. If it weren’t for tradition, we would not have the lighting of the torch before the Olympics every year or even the Olympics themselves. Obviously, the type of person you are is going to decide if you feel the mascot is racist or just carrying on tradition, but I believe it is just a mascot that is not harming anyone. In some cases the situation is a bit more complicated than this. Ole Miss does not focus on the tradition of Colonel Reb enough to make people not get bothered or offended by the racism aspect of it. In Army Of Whiteness by Joshua I. Newman, he says “The Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) handles all the licensing agreements for the University of Mississippi, including player presentations on video games, the use of intellectual properties by third-party vendors, and other uses of the symbols and markers of the institution.” (Newman 2007, p.328). Part of the racism of Ole Miss is the people who support the school. Some fans might support the team for the wrong reasons and display the symbol or logo in a racist way, doing this because they are racist and not so much a fan of the school. Different teams have different degrees of racism with their mascots or logos, and it all depends of the person perceiving how the team is displayed. It is up to you to judge whether or not you believe they are filling the tradition or being racist. I understand some might be offended when Brave’s fans in Atlanta wave their arms forward chanting an Indian chant, but again, in the end no one is being harmed and it is all for the love of the game.

Picture watching a game when you where a kid did you ever think that you where supporting racism. When we look around in sports we see team called “the Indians”, “Braves”, “Chiefs” and many other teams that there mascot our Native Americans tribes or representing a group. Even my favorite team in Sports the Washington “REDSKINS” is a prime example. Is it an honor for team to use mascots representing these groups or an insult to them and there tribe? I think it is a combination of both.

When I was growing up I never really cared if a team mascot was a tradition or even racist I just cared about the game, But then I started to look into after the Washington Bullets had to change there Name to the Washington Wizards because they thought Bullets was to violet and may lead to gang violence. So I was thinking why change the name Bullets because you think will hurts someone but keeping the names of teams that are offensive to Native American or African American. I know teams pick their names that people will remember and for people to admire, but what some may admire other feel it is offensive to there culture and background. I know how I would feel if some team had a mascot of a “Jew” I would be offended.

Schools like Ole Miss with a Mascot called “Colonel Reb” really need to think of changing their views and even there tradition because it is showing there support to the Confederates and the song they sing during the game go back to the times of Slaves.

In the journal “You know, we are all Indians”: Exploring White Power and Privileges in Reaction to the NCAA Native American Mascots Policy” it talks about the controversy of Native American Mascots in the NCAA and how colleges with these mascots will be banned from hosting NCAA championship games.

“On the surface, this seems like a harmless enough claim embedded as it is in feeling of solidarity, a desire to belong to groups for whom one has affection and affectivity. It ease which the claim is made, however that is significant. Most assuredly, the desire on the part of non- Americans Indians who wish to assume the affectations and appearance of being American Indians cannot actually mean that they are Indians or they have authority to speak as Indians”

(Staurowsky, Issue 31;61, page 64).

This quote show how people may seem that they are show significance and show the Indian pride but as they’re not Indians they do not have the right to do this. This will effect the self- esteem of the Indian and they will suffer from being showed off how they our.

Mascots could also be a way to keep their tradition alive but how these mascots are portrayed could make a difference. Maybe if they show more of the Native American Tradition of the Mascots rather then the axe and tom hock type it would so I a different belief.

I believe there is racism in Mascots in Sports but I also believe they could be a good things for Native Americans if they showed the true colors of them and portrayed them differently. There will always be some type of racism in their world we just need to learn how to show less of it through thing we watch or people cheer for.

When it comes to the idea of sporting mascots and racism I would have to partially agree with the idea that there is no other way to view the mascots other than as symbols of racism. Obviously mascots can have different meanings and symbolize different things for certain individuals. However, as critical sporting intellectuals we have dug deeper into the meanings behind these mascots and learned many of the popular sport mascots prevalent in today’s sporting culture do undoubtedly perpetuate racism. Prior to taking this class I had always viewed mascots like the Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians as tributes to our countries history. In some ways, one can view these mascots as a tribute, or a polite way of covering up, and ultimately admitting to the atrocities committed on the Native American people centuries ago. However, when one can dig deeper into the symbolism that these mascots perpetuate it is nearly impossible not to see that these symbols bleed racism and perpetuate stereotypes. Take the idea behind a “Redskin.” To my knowledge this is the equivalent of calling an African American person the N-word. Some would argue that this comparison is a bit extreme, but when you think about it, it truly is. Yet, there is a sports team in the NFL that uses that as their name. What are important to understand are the encoded messages that these mascots present, and the underlying connections to racism that these mascots have. Take Newman’s article regarding Col. Reb. Newman (2007) specifically strips down Ole’ Miss’ mascot, Colonel Reb. Newman (2007) states, “The public has such a problem with the Colonel because he encompasses “whiteness,” and therefore nostalgia for the “Old South” and racism, slavery, and so on…The symbolic system of Ole Miss enacts an anti-humane policy and ideology that to this day maps privilege and works to oppress the marginalized peoples of the region”(316). Newman specifically notes the nostalgia aspect that many of these mascots have. This idea of nostalgia leads directly down to the idea of racism. Whether we want to believe it or not, we were a country founded upon racism. It is nearly impossible not to see that these mascots undoubtedly were founded on the basis of racist ideologies and stereotypes that were one profoundly evident and still are present in modern society. For one to understand however, why these mascots continue to exist, it is important to note the alternate, cleaner meanings that these mascots have. More specifically in Black’s (2002) article, The Mascotting of Native America, he specifically notes “On the one hand, I carry with me a so-called misrepresented identity, a Seminole persona I do not understand but apparently assume through attending football games and hanging framed parchment on my wall. On the other hand, without a lived experience--replete with cultural understanding, prejudicial suffering, and a sense of heritage--how can Florida State University actually refer to me in good faith as "Dear Seminole?”(Black 2002).The reason these mascots continue to exist are simply because those who assume the identities that these mascots symbolize are not fully away of deeper implications that these mascots have and were founded upon.

Personally I do not find that the naming of a team and physical depiction and representation of a mascot to represent racism at all. I do believe that there is tradition that can be called into play when the owners design a mascot or logo, though. There are stereotypes that are embedded in these symbols, but most are seen as “positive ideas of Native Americans: that they are brave, principled, persevering, good fighters. This ‘positive cast’ to the mascot stereotypes leads most to conclude that the mascots are not racist,” as noted by King (p. 394). I am in full agreement that the tradition of the Native Americans to be very war-like and powerful is a positive representation of part of their culture. Many individuals due take mascots literally and see them as negative representations, but I feel they are being too sensitive to the material at hand and are craving attention. When it comes to tradition in the terms of Colonel Reb though, the deep rooted white dominance of the south is clearly shown. Dr. Newman represents it well stating, “The symbolic system of Ole Miss enacts an anti-humane polity and ideology that to this day maps privilege and works to oppress the marginalized peoples of the region” (pg 316).

Tradition and racism are two different things but are two different things that are related. Looking up the definitions of the two words, it was found that tradition is defined as “a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting” and racism is defined as “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races”. While yes, the two words do not sound related, I believe in the terms of the sporting world and sporting mascots, they are. In other posts, students have written that racism has been around since the 1600s, and in posts others have written that it’s been occurring since the beginning of time. Since racism has been occurring since the beginning of time, it would only make sense that it has become a tradition, “a long-established way of thinking or acting” which has been passed on through the generations. Now is this a good tradition to have? No, not at all, and while it does seem to be diminishing, it clearly still occurs. It occurs in the way of mascots in sporting teams, another way that the two are connected. In the case of the Ole Miss mascot, while he might be a racist mascot, he still is a tradition of the school. He is a tradition because he is something that has been passed on through out the generations. It is the same case for the mascot from Illinois. It was a great tradition, being grown and adapted through out the years and practiced by the students and town. While the town does not mean for the tradition to be racist, it seems as though Indians find the tradition to be racist. These mascots end up being like “an imaginary social institution occupied by ideals of supremacy, alienation, and oppression and made real by a history of segregation, racism and intolerance” (Newman) Again, most people think that the two ideas are separate and different they’re actually a lot more alike then originally thought.

As far as racialized symbols go I believe they will always be around, it is whether or not we perpetuate the stereotypes harshly. The racialized symbols at a school like the University of Mississippi are symbols that are apart of the southern tradition that school was surrounded by. Sure some of the references on campus like “ the slave quarters” are still offensive to some, but is It possible for it to be just name that used to mean something but had changed. As long as there are no lynchings and the African American community is not harmed in any way why should the names of symbols from tradition still matter? There are meanings encoding in those symbols but the generations currently attending, can make those racialized symbols have meanings of the past. Take Colonel Reb. He” came to represent the post- civil rights, neo- Confederate articulations of a resistant, yet resilient, Whiteness. The Colonel ‘s presence meant the perseverance of “tradition” a tradition that in its most banal from Southern life, but in a more insatiable function is invisible from the “simper” times of the over determined White authority imbedded in the systems of slavery and segregation,” (Newman, 323) They are preserving their tradition, but isn’t that possible while moving forward with current ideology. Having the Colonel represent the history of not only the south, but American history it not offensive as long as the mascot today is just that a mascot. Tradition is something that is hard to change but you can always add to tradition with new views and rituals while eliminating old prejudice. I think the biggest difference between the white, southern sport tradition and the Native American sporting experience is the way the tradition is preserved and represented.
In Native American sporting experience the culture is taken apart and parts of the culture are represented only in a stereotypical non traditional way. At the University of Mississippi, the white southern tradition is performed to the tee and not altered in anyway. But in the Native American world the tradition is altered and mocked. The argument of the Native Americans being honored through mascots could stand true if actual Native Americans were used. If there was a close connection to the team and the Native American community they are “representing and honoring.” “Many Americans, particularly those interested in sports, can identify Osceola as the FSU mascot, but far fewer know the historic figure. As American Indian anthrolopogist Richard Grounds observed, “There is a doubleness about these Indian names remarking the existence of Native Americans while relegating them to the past, appearing to bestow honor on them while cloking the destructive deeds if Euro- American society,” (King, 384). To honor someone or something you have to know what is being honored. Know that the dance being performed is not just meant to jump in the air and make tomahawk motions but it has a meaning that should be represented. Native American dances performed should be actual tribal dances the “representing” tribe performs. I am sure if the University of Illinois performed traditional battle dances, and reflected the tribe more through community or Native American attendance to the university they would have had a stronger argument for their appeal. If offensive names like the Redskins were not used and replaced by a respectable tribal name then the “activist” would have one less battle for Native Americans and the sporting culture could honor and preserve the Native American tradition just like the white southern tradition at the University of Mississippi.

Aleka Ross

I never thought that having a certain mascot was considered racist. My middle school and high school mascot was a warrior and I always thought that was an honor. Being called a warrior in sport relates directly to the way people consider sport “war”. Warriors are fighters, strong, brave and courageous. I loved being the “Wantagh Warriors”. After this lecture and discussing Indian mascots across colleges, universities, and professional teams I realized that these mascots could be offensive to Native Americans. In my town the Warrior head was posted all over the school, in the gym, the 50-yard line of the football field, the press box, and concession stand, right when you walked into the school, there was even a huge sign outside the gymnasium so that cars driving on the parkway could see. I am sure it used to be posted all over the town too, but in the early 2000s when all this commotion about Indian mascots came about, and how colleges and universities were banning the mascots, they removed the Warrior head everywhere, and replaced them with a large W. We were still allowed to use the Warrior name, but all the logos had to go. Newman states in his article, Army of Whiteness? “..these mascots remain troublesome in that each promulgates long-standing stereotypes and stimulates a course vernacular of surplus value for the sporting entities they signify (i.e., logoed and branded merchandise) (p.315).”
Just recently after attending my younger brothers homecoming football game, on the brand new turf field the school put in, I noticed a huge warrior head on the 50-yard line. Apparently he is back and no one in the town seems to be pissed off about it. For us the warrior is tradition, for so many years the mascot was the face of out athletics, and mascot for our school. No one wanted to ever see the face go, but everyone is happy to see it back.

Kristen S

As a white male, although I am part Native American, albeit as small percentage, do not find Native American mascot as offensive. The one exception being the Washington Redskins, the term redskin is an offensive term for Native Americans, similar to terms such as injun or redman. According to Lindsay, “The history of term “redskin” is clear: far from being a term of endearment (and contrary to claims made by the team owners that the term comes from the custom of dabbing red paint on forehead before battle), the word was first used by whites who paid and received bounties for dead Indians”. However the majority of cases using Native American mascots are meant to be a source of endearment. They are based on the positive ideas about Native Americans as being brave, principled, persevering, good fighters. A quote from a defender of Native American mascots taken from the Lindsay article states, “People do not name teams after thing they hate. A team name is designed to project some quality fans and athletes can admire and emulate, whether it’s toughness, ferocity, or regional pride”. Native American mascots are meant to be a term of endearment, however it is determined that a large percentage of Native Americans find them offensive then they should be changed out of respect for their wishes.
While I defended the use of Native American mascots, the University of Mississippi is impossible to defend. The school is entrenched with traditions from the racist past of the South. The school is usually referred to as Ole Miss. According to author W. Ralph Eubanks, “the school’s nickname came originally for the name slaves used for a plantation mistress- she was the “ole miss”. The fans sing “Dixie”, chant “Hotty Toddy”, and wave the “Southern Cross”. Dixie is a song popularized by black-face performances of a former slave who is homesick for the plantation. “Hot Toddy” is a “resistance song that became popular on the campus during the resistance to James Meredith’s integration of the school in 1962”, according to Joshua Newman. The “Southern Cross” was the battle flag of the Confederacy and was later used by white supremacist. The mascot of the University of Mississippi, “Colonel Reb, might seem innocent enough without all of this knowledge. Once you have the facts it is clear that “Colonel Reb” is meant to depict a plantation owner. The University of Mississippi needs to do everything in its power to distance itself from the name “Ole Miss” and all the racism that goes with it.

There is a difference between tradition and racism. There are certain teams that do have very racist logos and mascots. These teams have images or names or chants that can very easily offend a group of people. These forms of racism can vary in their severity and the situations in which they are offensive to people. A mascot like Colonel Reb is clearly racist as he is dressed like a plantation owner. The fact that Ole Miss refers to themselves with that title and that their colors are that of the Confederate flag show that there is some racism intended with their name and mascot. Certain teams that have offensive names or traditions that mock Native Americans can also be seen as being extremely racist. However, I have heard that certain teams have the full support of the people that they are named after. I believe the Florida State Seminoles are named after the local Seminole tribe. ESPN ran a story a few years ago discussing how the Seminole tribe is proud that their culture is being shared with the rest of the country. This shows where tradition is acceptable to represent a certain group of people. When the tradition supports the people and doesn’t mock them it can be acceptable.
The big difference between being racist and just celebrating tradition is the intent. While team founders and creators may have been ignorant in creating racist logos or names, they may not have been trying to offend anybody. When this is not the case I don’t think that the current team should really be considered racist. Ole Miss fans may do what they do simply because it is their team’s tradition. They aren’t necessarily practicing these traditions because it is racist, but they are supporting their team and doing what their team’s fans do. The same goes for Atlanta Braves fans or Florida State fans that do the tomahawk chop. They aren’t likely doing this to be offensive to anybody. They are just practicing a tradition that is a part of their team’s history. They are showing their team pride by chanting their team’s chant. I think that the intent of today’s fans should be considered before anyone labels a school or a team as being racist for practicing their team’s traditions.
-Josh McGrath

The origin of racism in the United States goes back to the 16th century and, undeniably, it is still present today. Therefore, we could affirm that racism is, in fact, a tradition. However, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, tradition is “an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior”; definition that does not necessarily have a positive connotation. So, in my opinion, the term “tradition” is just another excuse to “justify” racism and most sports fans do not even realize this situation. They often claim that these mascots are meant to honor Native Americans or other races, ignoring the disrespectful effects that most Native Americans experience. The truth is that all those mascots actually dehumanize Native Americans by mocking their culture, language and history with such unflattering caricatures. Particularly in sports, this type of mascots will promote racist behavior from the opposing team’s fans. Unfortunately, the white cultural supremacy that control the sports industry, the media and other institutions have conditioned sports fans to use Indigenous or other non-white cultures as common and harmless entertainment. They take advantage of the fact that they are the dominant class to commercialize and exploit a degrading one dimensional image of Native Americans to reinforce their superiority and power. Idea that perfectly fits the corporative philosophy of the United States where the only goal is to make profit. As Newman states, this kind of mascot is a symbolic structure that creates “an imaginary social institution occupied by ideals of supremacy, alienation, and oppression and made real by a history of segregation, racism and intolerance”. Sporting events could be a great opportunity to unite people in a peaceful and pleasant environment where everybody shares passion for a team that is represented by the mascot. Thus, mascots should be entertaining yet respectful to everybody and they should integrate people instead of creating hatred among fans because this negatively affects the main purpose which is to enjoy the spectacle.

Racism in America and all over the world has gone on for centuries and will continue for more. There will never be a time were racism does not exist in some form in my opinion. Racism now has changed from hatred towards a race but to how we think about and act around them. As for sports teams mascots being racist i feel that is false. There are many groups and organizations that are set up to promote certain ideals and beliefs of a particular race that people outside that race do not agree with. If you are offended by these organizations and their ideals do not consume their message. With the University of Mississippi they mascot is colonel reb a white southern plantation owner or that is what many say he represents. If the black community or any other person from any race does not like Ole Miss for using this mascot and the universities percived racism then they simply should not attend the university or consume its products. "These 'group symbols' comprise a bond between individuals and the institution, and between individuals and a broader intragroup popular reverence for Dixie South Whiteness-a bond that repositions the White subject as central authority of social privilege (Newman 2007)." Newman talks about how white alumni get together before football games and dress up and have fancy parties and he claims that they are celebrating white control. I could not disagree more. They are there to celebrate the university that they attended and which gave them the knowledge and opportunity to be successful allowing them to have the means to attend every home football game and have elaborate parties. They do not have a sign on the door saying "whites only." I'm sure that they would allow any person from any race be apart of their group, it just happens that they are majority white like the general population of the United States. There is nothing wrong with being successful and white. I would guess that many of these same people donate money to the university bettering it not for the white students but all students from every race. There will always be a group of people that oppose certain things. Everyone can't be happy with everything, that is just how the world works. If something was truly over the top offensive they would be forced to change because they would not get any consumers. The world is not perfect by any means but that is what makes it great. If everything was nice and censored and we all looked alike and acting the same, how boring would that be?

I think that while tradition is important, we need to move away from these mascots that prolong the problem of stereotypes. Yes, these mascots were decided upon many years ago when racism was more accepted in the mainstream society, but now we live in a time where that type of behavior isn’t tolerated and shouldn’t be in sport either. This was a tough decision to come to, because for many years I have followed and at some times rooted for teams that display these types of mascots that are offensive to some groups of people. Just because they are successful and revenue-generating institutions, it seems like it is acceptable for them to continue using these mascots and slogans that were obviously originated out of some sort of racist view. Unfortunately the people who strive for these images and mascots to be changed are in the minority so they are being heard as loudly as they could be. Too many people have grown up supporting and loving these teams and mascots that they couldn’t bear to see their favorite college or professional sport team change their name. I believe that it is necessary, though because of all the advancements we have made in trying to eliminate racism and stereotypes, but it seems like sports can’t seem to catch up with everything else that we have done, and this needs to change.

-David Walker

This topic has been difficult for me to respond to. I can’t really find myself siding with one argument because I could justify the means from both ends. Yes, some of these mascots portray utter racism, yet they’ve been around for so long that they cannot be considered anything but traditional. My high school mascot is the Warrior, and for many years the county tried to change that. They claimed that it was condoning racism in some way. In high school, we don’t see this being as big as an issue as we do in larger universities. Once we reach this level, the universities began to catch criticism because they’re making a profit off of “tradition.” As Dr. Newman wrote in his article, “the normative identity politics that have been layered onto the bodily discourses of sport’s most popular hyper-white mascot: the University or Mississippi’s Colonel Rebel” (pg 316). The public has such a problem with the Colonel because he encompasses “whiteness,” and therefore nostalgia for the “Old South” and racism, slavery, and so on. “The symbolic system of Ole Miss enacts an anti-humane polity and ideology that to this day maps privilege and works to oppress the marginalized peoples of the region” (pg 316). Newman continues to point out that there is some sort of “brotherhood” in the south that exudes white power. Within this “brotherhood” one can find a deep network of “money and influence” (318). I found myself wondering how anyone of color could attend this school and support its athletics if their mascot were to be someone like Colonel Rebel. I suppose that at the end of the day I could understand the need to change mascots because they may be too racist, traditional or not.

Racism is a part of our country and there is no way of getting around it. Hopefully one day, in the future, we will all be so diverse that there will no longer be “white people” or “black people.” “Native American mascots emerged (mainly) in the early 1900’s, after threat of major rebellion by natives to colonization had been clearly eliminated,” King et al. (2002). Mascot names started forming over 100 years ago, why was there no discrepancy back then? And if there was why would we go along with the names for so long and keep forming new ones. There were a lot more Native Americans to argue that it was wrong in using their name for a mascot back in the 1900’s.
There is a lot of history with Native American tribes that we may not know. Using their tribe name as a mascot could have been an honor for them back in the 1900’s. Organizations that form through out history to help “protect” the Native American tribes are out there to keep racism in the U.S. I do not feel that the mascots that we have for our teams are a tradition or racism. I feel that our mascots are part of history and we are honoring the tribes that made up this country over 100 years ago. The very few 100% Native Americans that still live in the U.S. should be recognized and if doing it through sports is a way that we know and not offensive, then we should keep it that way. Hawaii has a lot of Native Americans, the University of Hawaii’s mascot is Vili the Warrior. A lot of Native Americans dress like warriors when attending the games to take pride in their team and their tribe.

If the people who the name is representing want the name changed I think it should strongly be considered. The problem is I think that the racist ideas in which they claim to have the name changed in light of are such a part of history that the majority of don't understand why it holds negative connotations. I think those who look at the redskins tend to correlate traits such as their tenacity and aggressive fighting tactics and/or survivor skills; although ignorant, I think there is very little attempt to poke fun at the serious history of native americans'. Most importantly I think tradition is the most important factor when looking at mascots. Its the reason why teams don't change their name on a whim. The reason fans like their teams are the relation to these traditions. The emotional connection would be lost with a name change and inevitably a change in the mass numbers of fans. Colonel Reb gets away with a pass in a supposed "changed" society because the racisms claims are indirect to the character himself; meaning he isnt a slave being paraded through campus...he is the slave owner which is a profoundly different image.

There are many factors that are relative and should be discussed in the issue of ' Tradition or Racism.' Before these factors come into play, there is no question of the existence of racism within modern day sport and some situations should be addressed and possibly changed. The first factor to be considered should be the context in which possible racist issues occur. For example, there is nothing wrong or racist about the Atlanta Braves or Boston Red Sox fans painting their faces red or chanting any Native American culturally based cheers. Native American's are the foundation of civilization of the United States. There is no argument against the mistreatment and blatant slaughter of this ethnicity that took place in the creation of the United States. Those events will also be a tragedy and a disappoint for any American citizen. This wrong doing will never be justified and is a dark event in our history. However, the use of a Native American as a mascot for a baseball franchise should not be frowned upon nor tagged as Racist. It should be celebrated and seen as just that a celebration. We are honoring one of the longest cultures alive in America's diverse population through the most 'American' sport. A mascot's purpose is to represent a team in a manor that transcends strength, community, and lastly bride. The painting of the face is a celebration of a culture that is so profound in our history that it must be represented at larger, in this case Boston, a city that takes bride in our history. The Boston Red Sox, putting aside their history of racial discrimination toward African American players, their choice of mascot is a glorification of the importance and bride our nation has in Native American culture, this is a case of tradition.
With this said, mascots can represent a negative tradition, one that is still continued to be viewed as racist. University of Mississippi or Ole Miss as most know the institution by is a prime example of traditional southern racism that the State University has adsorbed into their culture and tradition. "Black students are thus repeatedly assured that these symbols 'aren't important' and are 'innocent' or harmless,' whereas a majority of White students vigilantly fight to preserve these symbols of 'times not forgotten' - - times when their White ancestors owned the land and ruled over the great-grandmothers and great-grandfathers of their Black classmates" pg (324). For many natives of Mississippi, Colonel Rebel is leader and represents the culture of Mississippi. Whether those people realize the rebel represents a leader of a long tradition of oppression, and are ok with this representation or have they forgot the negatively rooted implications of such a mascot. There are no morally correct arguments for what the Colonel might represent, nor are there justifications for this type of mascot in this contemporary society. A tradition such as this glorifies the ignorance of our past societies, and further hinders the growth of equality in our Nation. When choosing a mascot, as stated above, the choice is made upon what identifies best with strength, pride, and tradition. However, the factor absent at the University of Mississippi is that the Rebel represents all of those things, but represents the negative aspects of strength, pride and especially tradition. If one puts the Rebel's representation in its simplest form, which is a Rich white slave owner, how can any knowledgeable human being feel comfortable praising such a oppressive symbolization. In closing, tradition and racism with sport is very evident, however, tradition alone should be represented in the sports world, traditional racism as subtle as it may be does not have a place in Modern American Society.

Kathryn Lawrence

I believe that racism and tradition will be a topic of discussion regarding mascots for many years to come. Although some people argue that mascots like colonel reb and indians are mocking certain races, I believe that they are just celebrating their past tradition. As far as why the Cleveland Indians mascot is an Indian it is because the area that surrounds Cleveland used to be heavily populated with Native American tribes. Although people will argue that the Indian mascot is an offensive symbol to Native American tribes and should have never been allowed to become the mascot. That may be true, but it has been there mascot for 40 years and I think that there is no point in changing it now. Infact I believe that if so called racist mascots were forced to be changed, it would just provoke more racism and contreversy throughout these communities. Ole Miss tribe to change their mascot of colonel reb because many people argued that it was very racist towards black people and slavery. Ultimately the school decided keep colonel reb because they feared that their would be too much uproar from the community because of going and their tradition and beliefs. The school also believed that the mascot was not racist but just a symbol of Mississippi past. Ryan Newman is quoted as saying “The Chancellor was presented with concerns from alumni and students as to whether Colonel Rebel would remain the university's mascot. His reply was that “The University does not consider it ‘racist' and will not discontinue its use.”” (Newman, 324) This quote reflects the community of Mississippi backlashing about changing their mascot because they believe the mascot is a traditional figure of Mississippi past and not a racist figure.

Tanner Strow

The debate between racism and tradition has always been a heated and controversial one. On one hand, you have the fact that some teams are openly demeaning an entire race with the choice of their mascot and the actions of the fans that go along with that. On the other hand, you have the fact that these mascots are part of a longstanding tradition of the university or professional team. Either way, somebody is going to be unhappy. Weather it is the race that is being depicted or the longstanding fans/employees/alumni/athletes; there is no way to make everyone happy. It is a sad fact, but it is the truth. Another unfortunate truth is that most of the people arguing the tradition side are white. They don’t know what it is like to have a mascot that degrades them or calls them a “racist name” like the Redskins. Dr. Newman speaks to this when he says, “whiteness…thus came to be…unified through privilege and the power to name, represent, and create opportunity and deny access”. It is almost like they do not know what they are doing, but if there was a mascot called the “crackers” or something, there might be an outraged mob at that particular place. The funny part about this whole thing is that it all depends on the particular person and weather it offends them or not. We learned in class what the meaning behind the University of Mississippi and their mascot is. Well, after knowing that, you would think that there would not be any African American students there. That could even be viewed at as being hypocritical. However, I can thing of at least two high profile African American football players that just came out of there recently. Patrick Willis is one of the best and brightest young linebackers in the league and Michael Oher was just drafted in the first round by the Baltimore Ravens. They are both African American and attended Ole Miss. The fact that their not bothered by the mascot shows that it really does depend on the person. Another example would be that my girlfriend’s step-father is an American Indian. He is part Cherokee and is an avid Redskins and Ravens fan. He does not care about the mascot, he just grew up watching them and is has followed them ever since.

I think that this lecture was one of my favorite lectures, but at the same time it was almost difficult to get through. The reason I say that is because growing up I just liked teams because of players and never really paid any attention to the team's mascot. Now as I have gotten older I have realized that I have too have been part of the problem of supporting negative thoughts and traditions. My eyes were opened in high school because I went to a school that had a mascot of the Redskins. Now most of my family and friends had gone to that high school and we all sort of took pride in the thought of the Redskins being the best in the city for any and all sports, at least that's what we thought. But it wasn't until my 11th grade year when there were talks about changing the name because Native Americans felt that we were dishonoring and disgracing their heritage. For a while I thought that was the craziest notion due to my ignorance. I thought we as a school were showing them the upmost in love and respect just because we were fighting any and everyone that went against the school. But then I had to realize how are we fighting for something that we know nothing about? Every since then I have heard numerous occasions where Native Americans had gone through great lengths to get all mascots that were in reference to them to be changed. Some authors believe that; "Non-Native Americans have created an imaginary version of Indianness that they sometimes enact, and they expect real Native Americans to either ignore, affirm, or validate such myths and practices(Deloria, 1998;Spindel, 2000). Similar practices applied to other races/ethnicities, such as "playing Black" or "playing Jewish," would not be accepted in our society today." Their arguments never really struck home until now that I am in this class. Even though I tried to sympathize with their arguments I would and could never understand what it means to be Native American, and for that fact alone who am I to say that it would be right to support mascots that depicted Native Americans in ways that may be displeasing? Then in this class I learned some hard truths. It's just not Native Americans that have the problem, blacks also had them too. This class has taught me about such a tradition and mascot; and that's Colonel Reb of Ole Miss. Newman says that; "the University of Mississippi, more commonly referred to as "Ole Miss," has concurrently surfaced in the public sphere as (a) both a well-respected "Southern" socioacademic institution and (b) an affectively romanticized "living symbol" of White privilege within the region." That alone says alot and with Colonel Reb as their mascot I too began to feel a bit like the Native Americans. I too felt as though at this university of higher education students are supposed to be equipping themselves with the tools to further advance in their respective careers and lives, but at the same time most are still ignorant to the facts of what their university represents. Newman states; "Ole Miss as a symbolic structure serve to substantiate such a claim by constructing an imaginary social institution occupied by ideals of supremacy, alienation and oppression and made real by a history of segregation, racism, and intolerance." So I too ask the question, is it tradition or racism?

This lecture was one of my favorites this semester and it really opened my eyes to this issue. I always knew in the back of my mind that there was something wrong with some team nicknames, but I guess I just never realized how many there were, or the extent to which they were so disrespectful to an entire group of people. It is an embarrassment to have mascots such as Colonel Reb at Ole Miss, yet most (white) fans will not agree to a change of mascot or team nickname because, as Newman states, it presents “political and cultural threats to White male hegemony” (317). It is kind of absurd to think that something so well known that reaches so many people, like a major colleges mascot or a professional sports teams nickname, would face such resistance in an effort to be changed, and all because it is their so-called “tradition”. It is however, extremely easy to sit here and say these things from an outside perspective. I am not saying that I agree with these people or condone what some of these mascots and nicknames stand for, but being a lifelong fan of the Washington Redskins, I can kind of understand where they are coming from. I’ve been a fan of the Redskins for as long as I can remember, and I know that if they were to change the name of the team I would probably be upset and against it. I obviously don’t have anything against an entire race of people, but that is just all I have known and if it were to change I just don’t know how well I would take that. I guess I am just scared of change, and that is probably how everyone else feels as well. It’s not as if Redskins games are overly racist events. The band wears headdresses and Chief Zee dresses up in burgundy and gold Indian garb. At the same time however, it is easy for me to say that this is not a racist atmosphere, being that I am a white male. It is a difficult subject and I guess looking at it now, I am forced to admit that I am a bit of a hypocrite on this issue. On one hand I can stand here and chastise people, franchises, and universities for having these racist nicknames and mascots, but then I turn around and cheer for my beloved Redskins, while at the same time admitting to the fact that I would heavily oppose the idea of changing the name.

I think if racism is in team’s traditions, then they need to change the tradition. It is because of these traditions that we insist to keep racism is still around. I just cannot seem to understand how people put up with racism in traditions. I agree you cannot choose your tradition but you can change it. What is wrong with getting rid of an old tradition that causes conflict and provokes racism to starting a new one that can last even longer than the one before? This world is not going anywhere and a tradition can go for much longer then someone thinks probably. These mascots that cause racial conflict can be changed easily into something none offensive. Changing the colonel would be easy and could still be able to keep him an old, working man. Just because something is changed does not mean the fans or the school has to lose their school spirit. If that was the case I would not go to the school. The mascot should not even be a big deal because they do absolutely nothing to change the outcome of the game. I could care less if they got rid of all mascots just to get rid of any touch of racism involved with them. College students are smart and can easily make up new chants, mascots, or maybe even looks to make our society a bit less racist then what it has left.

The topic of racism in sports and in team mascots has been one that I have had personal experience with. As a student of Franklin High School, and athlete of both the football and lacrosse team there, the question of whether our Franklin Indian mascot was appropriate came up quite often. At one point, I believe in my junior year, the school went as far as having a vote on whether or not the school should change its mascot, and if so, what the new mascot should be. The reaction was much the same as when there was a vote for keeping Colonel Reb. My school argued for a week with each other as the vote went on, many saying that our current mascot was tradition and we could never change it. Others argued that it was racist and should be changed. At the time, I voted against changing it, which turned out to be the consensus. Now, however, I believe that it should have, and still should be changed. In Newman’s Journal of Sport and Social issues he states, “The Chancellor was presented with concerns from alumni and students as to whether Colonel Rebel would remain the university’s mascot. His reply was that “The University does not consider it ‘racist’ and will not discontinue its use.”” (Newman, 324) This is something I would have agreed with in the past, and did with my vote in high school. Now I would vote to change it. When you really sit down and think about it, mascots such as Colonel Reb and Franklin Indians are extremely racist and should be done away with. More so in the case of Colonel Reb, but either way how could somebody not see the racism poring out here? These mascots are offensive, and go against everything sports are about. Fans would undoubtedly not be happy with changes to their team’s mascots, but it is something that needs to happy on a moral standpoint. Yes, tradition does matter, but when that tradition is racist, something needs to change, and the mascots are where to start.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is a lot of racism in sports but I do not think the people who are performing the acts of racism even realize that they are doing it. When you go to a sporting event, all so people care about is just rooting for their team to win when they are doing cheers, they are just following what everyone else is doing and those people are following what the mascots or announcers are saying to do. As mentioned before, doing a tomahawk chop at a Cleveland Indians game might be seen as racist but it is just a form of cheering on your team because your team is called the Indians. People in no way are trying to mock any type of Indian tribe and the people who think it is racist and offensive to them need to shut their mouths because it is doing nothing to their image and if anything it is glorifying their images. In the Of Polls and Race Prejudice article it says “There is doubleness about these Indian names, remarking the existence of Native Americans while relegating them to the past, appearing to bestow honor to them while cloaking the destructive deeds of Euro-American society.”(Richard Grounds p. 299) I agree with this statement when it comes to what these mascots and teams are named because there is some racism there, but I still think people are not trying to offend anyone on purpose and some are really trying to honor some of the tribes but are doing it in ways that are offensive to the people of the tribe. I think that racism is always going to exist in sports because people do not think they are doing anything wrong and most of the time they aren’t but sport is competition that is suppose to be fun and enjoyable and even though there are so many politics caught up in it, there are far more bigger problems that could use the attention that this subject is getting.
Corey Cline

Attending sporting events is always a unique experience because people get to connect with the crowd, argue with other spectators, live off the success or failure of the team emotionally, and get entertained by everything in the arena. Mascots are used as a symbol of the team that everybody supports and is fond of. The team mascot is like a motivator for the fans and a lively character who represents your team. The Ole Miss mascot colonel rebel has been a fixture at the university for many years even though he represents a long history of southern slavery. Colonel Reb is a white male dressed in an all white suit with a huge white mustache and a very large hat. His entire outfit is a duplicate of a slave plantation owner of the 1850’s. I think many people view him only as a harmless mascot that represents the southern culture in general. To others he reminds us of the long history of slavery, oppression, and alienation of African Americans in the south and the resurgence of the southern neo-confederate movement. The deep seeded confederate culture of the south was reinvigorated with energy with the desegregation ruling of Brown versus Board of education in 1956. After years of civil rights victories across America in the 1960’s and 70’s the south became more and more infused with neo-confederate culture and strong white supremacy sentiment. In 1979 Ole Miss debuted their mascot Colonel Reb as a perfect symbol of the new culture of resilient confederate whiteness that most whites embodied and supported whole-heartedly. After Colonel Reb’s debut he instantly “became the symbolic fixture of the sporting Ole Miss signifying system” (Newman, 323). To this day Colonel Reb is the central sporting identity of the University of Mississippi even though he is a quintessential example of commodity racism in our society. Ole Miss finally had to get rid of the physical Colonel Reb mascot when they starting having trouble recruiting top African American football players and the program’s performance suffered as a result. In the end the reason why they removed the mascot was because of possible monetary losses (not the racist history) that could occur from an unsuccessful football program. Even though Colonel Reb the mascot is gone his trademark face is on every kind of merchandise in town and the University still makes up to 4 million dollars a year of his hugely popular symbolic racist persona. In the end the University needs to protect it’s prized football program from incompetence but keeps the dollars rolling in from their Colonel Reb apparel (truly a corporatized university).

The same is true for the University of Illinois mascot chief Illiniwik, who is depicted as a clownish, comical, jeering, dancing, and ridiculous portrait of a Native American chief. Chief Illniwik has a whole performance routine that he does during game breaks. His performance includes tribal dances, leaping moves, and inaccurate chief dances. Native Americans see his portrayal as an inaccurate joke of a stereotype of the Native American people as a whole. The University has stated that since the United States’ Native American population is so small that the mascot doesn’t offend many fans, and it’s okay because their portrayal of a Native American chief is actually flattering and historic. It seems the University is missing the point that mascots should not be offensive or disturbing to anybody.

Evan Johnson

This issue has really opened my eyes. I never really understood or thought about these various mascots and racialized symbols. I also feel that most people or college students look at it the same way I did before the lecture. And that's the thing, most people don't question mascots or other aspects that have racial connotations. Most of them do not know the implications of these mascots and symbols. They also, simple don't care because as a society it is acceptable to paint your face red and go to an Indians game. I mean it's all over ESPN and the media making our society think that these fans are great for being loyal fans and cheering their team on. Which is quite ridiculous if you analyze the situation and look at the hisotrical relevance of these various mascots.
We need to educate ourselves pertaining to these mascots and look at the notorious history of the US. Looking back to the various brutal killings and attacks on the Native Americans, taking all their land and crops, then quarentining them to a specific area. Or the decades of slavery, plantation owners, Jim Crow laws, and discrimination towards African Americans.
After understanding the context regarding these mascots we can now examine the semiotcs of these mascots as well. These mascots act as symbols and represent the histories of these ethnic groups. Newman (2007) describes the situation best, " black students are thus repeatedly assured that these symbols 'aren't important' and are 'innocent' or harmless,' whereas a majority of White students vigilantly fight to preserve these symbols of 'times not forgotten' - - times when their White ancestors owned the land andruled over the great-grandmothers and great-grandfathers of their Black classmates" pg (324). These individuals are fighting and argueing for preserveing their racial, slave driven history. There is a deeper meaning underneath all these factors and just because the majority of our society does not understand or does not see what they are talking about, does not make these views and implications irrelevant. Many of these symbols bring up horrible past memories, stories, and events within these individuals. Individuals are trying to keep their history are just trying to control their way of life and their history supports these individuals. Once these morales and views are questioned and revealed, then people will truly understand the pain, anger, suffering and emotions that are within these symbols. But if our society and the media continue to publicize these symbols an mascots, our society will implicity think that these symbols and mascots are ok. That there is no problem. It's just a sports team and a mascot, we are trying to enjoy the game.
Ryan Kannegieter

“You don’t see a lot of race in Red Sox Nation.” (King-White, Ryan, Playing Their Part: Red Sox Nation 2007 and the Public Nation 2007 and the Public Performance of Whiteness) With the Red Sox and other sports teams including the Cleveland Indians and their fans playing the part of Red Face, racism has been carried on through tradition. In my opinion, these traditions which have been going on for a while now are alright unless the group of people which belong to these stereotypes express otherwise. In Atlanta the Braves fans perform the chop along with a anthem which has caused concern to many Native Americans who find this act offensive. I believe since a large group of Native Americans are against this act the Atlanta Braves organization should be sensitive to their feelings. In the long run I believe that this will hurt their organization. The fact that the organization won’t do anything about this tradition when it comes to Native Americans is a shame and it looks to the public that their organization is in fact racist. This can affect the team’s sales of tickets along with merchandise sales. Imagine it was your group that was getting stereotyped. You would probably feel as if you were being mocked every time this act was performed. Fans of these teams and many others that perform these racist acts will most likely be in uproar over the banning of these traditions but our country and society will be better for it in the long run.

-Mike Levy

While I agree that these mascots may be viewed as a racist representation of their people for certain cultures, I also find it extremely difficult to please everyone. If this were the case, then wars would not exist. The truth of the matter is that we live in the United States of America and everyone has the right to fight peacefully for what they believe in. Yes, racism could be viewed as a type of "tradition" throughout our country's history; one we can only wish never existed, but that probably will never be the case. I do not believe that certain mascots further perpetuate particular types of racism however. These mascots are not purposely prejudging any culture; instead, they are celebrating it. The term imitation is the greatest form of flattery comes to mind. Instead of taking this mascot and looking negatively upon it, why not use it to promote your culture? As far as the usage of "Indians" is concerned, take the limited coverage it may give Native Americans and explain the true differences between your culture to educate people. Then, this could possibly lead to changes in the mascot that a culture could be proud of, a true representation of the culture. I believe picking your battles is a strong attribute to have, and fighting these major American corporations that own the majority of professional sports teams is a battle that is lost before it has even begun. At the same time, cultures who think they are being taken advantage of have every right to fight for the abolishment of certain mascots.

To say that people are too sensitive about political correctness could be an understatement. Anything you say, do or wear now could offend someone without it being your intention, and people overreact for the simplest thing. And nothing can be about the past events, those events are history. Yes for certain that having people dress in Indian costumes and such, perpetuates this vision of the people who were discriminated and suffered at the hands of the majority and is stereotypical (or not even true) about cultures. For many people in the South, both in the majority and the minority realize it will take more time to completely eliminate a certain culture or tradition. And slowly but surly the Confederate symbols and songs are decreasing in each passing generation, and yet the people whose these flags and anthems are targeting are either ignoring these things (at least in public) or possibly becoming too complacent about what this things symbolize.
I may have been born technically south of the Mason-Dixon Line, but I do not consider where I live the South, but most of my family is in the South. I have never worn or displayed the Confederate flag in any capacity, but one of the first non-church hymns I remember learning was “Dixie” (though my mom did somewhat justify this teaching the song to make my very southern grandmother happy). I do not count this as a tradition of mine or my immediate family because I never sing it; I do not remember the words, though I do remember the melody because it is very simple. But it is my history, whether or not I perform it. You can not take history away, but you can shape the way it is told and seen, both in negative and positive lights.
One last comment, if we were suppose to get rid of mascots that offend people and their beliefs because of what it symbolizes, then why have I not heard PETA raising hell about a team with a team or mascot with a name that could show animals in a negative light. Yes I know, it is a weak comparison to groups of people who were not even considered citizens until the Constitution was amended. But people complain about so many things, even if it does not directly relate to them.
~Cory Joiner

I think that in order to get rid of the racism in the so called “traditional” mascots of these professional team the owner would end up loosing money, fans and the community. So what do we do when the majority of society is for these racist remarks and imagery? Well I must say that there is not a lot we can do, except educate people on how these practices are wrong and that they offend the people they are imitating. In terms of the Cleveland Indians they are practicing racism. They may not be racist people, but by painting themselves in red face they offend the many Native American people in this country. The white community does not understand why this is offensive because they as a race have never been offended. Joshua Newman agrees with me by saying “ whiteness…thus came to be…unified through privilege and the power to name, represent, and create opportunity and deny access”. This practice is wrong and should be against the law. To me this reminds me of my grand parent’s story of the black civil rights; mainly because we struggled to get rid of the caricatures of African Americans. This is the Native Americans civil rights, but my only fear is that they will never be where we are today. Native American’s in our society are not given some of the privileges that Whites and Blacks are given. In the reading Of Polls and prejudice: Sports Illustrated’s errant ‘Indian Wars’ the several authors said that “the publishers appear averse to acknowledging Native Americans as real people within the visual context.” In regards to Colonel Reb, I believe that this is immature and backwards. To have him as a mascot means that you respect and believe in his meaning. So, all of those people really love racism and slavery. They want to hold women captive and rap them. Yes these are over dramatizations but I do believe to an extent that these people believe in these ideas. This mascot has so much symbolism that it breaks my heart to hear that people celebrate him. I don’t ever believe that they will change this mascot but not because it’s their “tradition”, but because it makes them feel better when they live in the past.
Alise McDonald

There is a great amount of racism in sports. Much of it goes unmentioned and much of it is unseen by many. After our class, my belief that tradition is not a valid excuse or reason for racism is stronger. Actually, I believe there is no excuse at all for racism. If a mascot is racist or offensive it should be removed without hesitation. No school or sports team or franchise should be allowed to get away with the use of offensive names, mascots, and or slogans. It’s unbelievable to me how many colleges and teams still use racist mascots and names. I do not understand why very popular and long lasting professional sports franchises or teams such as the Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians are given a pass. The term Redskins is one of the most offensive, racist names that can be used to describe Native Americans; however it has been used by Washington for decades and has not even come close to being removed. I never hear anything about the Redskins changing there name, but the former Washington Bullets can have their name changed to the Wizards just for some people thinking that bullets implies violence. The Redskins, being so popular and being from Washington D.C., where there are a diverse group of people should know better. The Cleveland Indians’ use of a Native American caricature for their mascot is just as bad; it is a walking, talking offensive symbol. Also the prevalence of racist mascots and traditions in the southern United States just creates an inaccurate portrayal of the south, which is very diverse in many places.

Travis Macklin