Nicknames and Mascots, Part 2: Native People are NOT your Mascot
Jan Plotczyk • March 16, 2021
Read Part 1 here.
The nation is currently debating whether it is wrong to use Native American nicknames and mascots for schools and athletic teams. Five of Maryland’s Eastern Shore high schools still use Native American nicknames. While some of those schools have taken steps to discontinue the use of more offensive images and characterizations, the question remains: should Native American nicknames and mascots be used at all, especially by schools, or are they racist appropriations that knowingly or unknowingly perpetuate stereotypes?
Many fans and members of affected school communities have reacted negatively to name changes or even suggestions of name changes. They cite political correctness run rampant and decry the "cancel culture" of today’s society. Defenders of the names claim they draw on tradition. Most who object to changing the names and mascots claim that their use is intended to honor or commemorate Native Americans, not to denigrate them. They claim that Native people support the use of these nicknames and mascots. Theirs is a defensive posture claiming to preserve history.
But who should write the history of Native peoples? And what are the effects of these nicknames on Native Americans and on society?
To examine these questions, Ezra J. Zeitler wrote his 2008 geography doctoral thesis on this subject: Geographies of Indigenous-based Team Name and Mascot Use in American Secondary Schools. In it he makes the case that “the issue of Native American mascots is an important one in the struggle for Indigenous autonomy and self-definition.” He contends that the nicknames and imagery are harmful because they communicate a false image of Native people as being characteristically and stereotypically belligerent and warlike.
Zeitler goes on to say that when these nicknames and images are used in learning environments, they take on added authority, and that the significant influence of teachers and peers can reaffirm racial stereotypes.
The American Psychological Association passed a strongly worded resolution 15 years ago calling for the immediate retirement of all team nicknames, mascots, and other derogatory representations based on Native American heritage. It based this position on key findings from a wide range of psychological and sociological research that shows the harmful effects of racial stereotyping and inaccurate racial portrayals.
The APA wrote that racist and derogatory nicknames and mascots can establish an unwelcome and hostile learning environment for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) students. But just as importantly, these mascots undermine the educational experience of all students, particularly those with little or no contact with Indigenous people — as in our Eastern Shore high schools. The symbols, images, and mascots teach non-Indian children that it's acceptable to perpetuate mistaken beliefs about American Indian culture.
A 2001 statement from the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights (calling for an end to the use of Native American images and team names by non-Native schools) explains: “The stereotyping of any racial, ethnic, religious, or other groups when promoted by our public educational institutions, teaches all students that stereotyping of minority groups is acceptable, a dangerous lesson in a diverse society. Schools have a responsibility to educate their students; they should not use their influence to perpetuate misrepresentations of any culture or people.”
The APA also found that these representations have a direct negative impact on the self-esteem of Native American youth. Dr. Stephanie Fryberg, the leading researcher in this area and a psychology professor at the University of Arizona, states that “American Indian mascots are harmful not only because they are often negative, but because they remind American Indians of the limited ways in which others see them. This, in turn, restricts the number of ways American Indians can see themselves.”
There is no good reason to limit children’s image of themselves and of what they can be.
Cierra Fields, a Cherokee and member of the National Congress of American Indians Youth Cabinet, says in the APA paper: “When I see people wearing headdresses and face paint or doing the tomahawk chop, it makes me feel demeaned. The current society does not bother to learn that our ways, customs, dress, symbols, and images are sacred. They claim it’s for honor but I don’t see honor in non-Natives wearing face paint or headdresses as they are not warriors who have earned the right. My heritage and culture is not a joke. My heritage and culture is not a fashion statement. For me, it ultimately boils down to respect. Respect our heritage by not using a caricature of a proud people but by learning about our history.”
IllumiNative is a new nonprofit project, created and led by Native peoples. It is designed to increase the visibility of — and to challenge the negative narrative about — Native Nations and peoples in American society. Their website announces that “Native People are NOT your Mascot.” The organization advances several arguments that support the end of the use of Native American nicknames, mascots, and imagery.
First, contrary to dominant culture claims, Native peoples do not support Native mascots. Flawed opinion polls have been used to silence Native people on this subject and to justify the perpetuation of Native nicknames and mascots. New peer-reviewed scientific studies show, however, that Native peoples are overwhelmingly offended by team names that are racist slurs, and by Native mascots and racist fan behavior.
Next, as mentioned above, research on the psychosocial effects of Native American mascots on Native youth shows these damaging effects: lowered self-esteem; increased rates of depression, self-harm, and substance abuse; and increasing discrimination in schools against Native students.
Finally, racist imagery desensitizes us all to violent and oppressive behavior toward other people. Degrading and humiliating stereotypes dehumanize entire groups of people. Use of these images encourages fans to mock Native people, defame Indigenous cultures, and perpetuate negative stereotypes by “playing Indian” — doing things like wearing sacred headdresses, shouting war whoops, and doing the “tomahawk chop.”
The Center for American Progress, in a 2014 report, recommended among other steps that State-level boards of education and education agencies should identify schools in their state using Native American nicknames and imagery, examine their impact, and develop recommendations to remove harmful representations. Perhaps it’s time for the Maryland State Board of Education to update its 2001 guidance on stereotypical nicknames and mascots, since virtually no progress has been made since then.
There is also no reason why local government agencies cannot get involved. The Montgomery County School Board prohibited the use of Indian names or racial, gender, or cultural stereotypes for mascots, logos, and school team names in 2001. If the state will not mandate this, perhaps the local school boards will.
Finally, the time has never been better to raise this issue with the Cecil, Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester boards of education. Yes, there’s still covid-19, but that should not stop these conversations. Be prepared for a major money objection; the few schools that have changed names recently have needed about $80,000 for rebranding — everything from signs to stationery to uniforms. The alumni/ae community will probably be against such a move, citing tradition, but the current students may well be more empathetic than their parents and grandparents.
The spotlight is on discriminatory and racist behavior and institutional racism, and it is time to address the negative impacts of Native American nicknames, mascots, and imagery in sports, schools, and society. There is really no reason to retain them. The use of disparaging Indigenous-based nicknames not only negatively affects Native Americans, it affects everyone.
Racism hurts us all.
Sources:
Zeitler, Ezra J., "Geographies of Indigenous-based Team Name and Mascot Use in American Secondary Schools" (2008).
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=geographythesis
American Psychological Association, “Summary of the APA Resolution Recommending Retirement of American Indian Mascots,” (2005).
Statement of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on the Use of Native American Images and Nicknames as Sports Symbols (2001).
https://www.usccr.gov/press/archives/2001/041601st.htm
https://illuminatives.org/change-the-name/
Fryberg, Stephanie A, Eason, Arianne E, Brady, Laura M., “Unpacking the Mascot Debate: Native American Identification Predicts Opposition to Native Mascots” (2020).
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550619898556?journalCode=sppa&
Davis-Delano, Laurel L., Gone, Joseph P., Fryberg, Stephanie A., “The psychosocial effects of Native American mascots: a comprehensive review of empirical research findings” (2020).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13613324.2020.1772221?journalCode=cree20
Phillips, Victoria, and Stegman, Erik, “Missing the Point: The Real Impact of Native Mascots and Team Names on American Indian and Alaska Native Youth” (2014).
https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1003&context=fasch_rpt
Resolution of the Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs (2001).
https://aistm.org/maryland.resolution.2001.htm
Jan Plotczyk spent 25 years as a survey and education statistician with the federal government, at the Census Bureau and the National Center for Education Statistics. She retired to Rock Hall.
Common Sense for the Eastern Shore
Congressman Andy Harris is facing a steady stream of criticism on social media following his vote against releasing the full files related to Jeffrey Epstein in July. The House of Representatives blocked the release of the files on a 211 to 210 vote. Since his vote, commenters on nearly every post from Congressman Harris’s official Facebook page have repeatedly raised the issue, questioning his decision and asking for an explanation. The comments are often similar in wording and appear across different topics, from agriculture updates to health care policy. In addition to individual commenters, local advocacy pages such as Decency for District 1 have been highlighting Harris’s vote since July 31. The page has consistently called for greater transparency, arguing that constituents deserve to know why their representative opposed making the records public. Despite the visible online pushback, no major Eastern Shore news outlet has yet reported on Harris’s vote or the public response to it. Neither local television stations nor regional newspapers have published stories on the controversy, leaving the discussion largely confined to social media platforms. The Epstein files vote has drawn national attention in recent weeks, as lawmakers in both parties have faced questions about whether more information should be released. In a town hall at Chesapeake College, Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen talked about the importance of transparency and the need to release the files; he offered an amendment in the Senate to force the release. Rep. Harris, the Eastern Shore’s lone representative in Congress, has not issued a public statement addressing his position beyond his recorded vote. For now, the conversation remains one-sided. Constituents continue to press the question online, while traditional media outlets in the district have yet to engage with the story. Jan Plotczyk spent 25 years as a survey and education statistician with the federal government, at the Census Bureau and the National Center for Education Statistics. She retired to Rock Hall.
Donald Trump promised he would lower costs on Day One. A lot of people believed him. (Some still do.) But instead of addressing the economic concerns that got him elected, he pushed his One Big Beautiful Bill into law. Instead of lowering the cost of energy and groceries for regular folks, his OBBB gives handouts to the rich. The Democratic National Committee has put together a website that details all the ways we lose and the rich guys win. They’re calling it the Trump Tax. Here’s what they have to say. Nationally,
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” It applies to all seizures of a person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest. As interpreted by the Supreme Court in an immigration context, except at the border, the Fourth Amendment prohibits immigration enforcement officers to make detentive stops unless they are aware of “specific articulable facts that reasonably warrant suspicion” that the person detained may be illegally in the country. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on “generalizations” that, if accepted, would cast suspicion on large segments of the law-abiding population. On June 6, 2025, federal law enforcement arrived in Los Angeles to participate in what federal officials have described as “the largest Mass Deportation Operation . . . in History.” U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents and officers were sent to join officers from the Enforcement and Removal Operations directorate of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) to carry out “Operation At Large” in Los Angeles, California. This operation involved teams of three to five agents who temporarily detained individuals in public places such as streets, sidewalks, and publicly accessible portions of businesses, and made arrests for immigration violations. On July 2, five individual plaintiffs and three membership associations sued twelve senior federal officials, who share responsibility for directing federal immigration enforcement in the Los Angeles area, alleging a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Perdomo v. Noem (C. D. Cal). The complaint asserts that by an ongoing policy and/or practice, detentive stops in the Central District of California were being conducted without reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law. Reviewing the evidence offered by the plaintiffs in support of an injunction pending further litigation, the district court found that circumstances surrounding the stops were coercive enough that the interactions were not consensual. The district court also found that the plaintiffs are “likely to succeed in showing that seizures were based only upon four enumerated factors” or a subset of them. Those factors were (1) apparent race or ethnicity; (2) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; (3) presence at a particular location; and (4) the type of work one does. The district court then concluded that in the context of the Central District of California, those four enumerated factors — even when considered together — describe only a broad profile and “do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop.” Moreover, the court determined that, despite there being no evidence of an “official policy” of making stops based only on the four factors and without reasonable suspicion, there was sufficient evidence to show that defendants’ agents were routinely doing so. Premised on these conclusions, on July 11, the district enjoined the defendant officials from relying solely on the factors below, alone or in combination, to form reasonable suspicion for a detentive stop: Apparent race or ethnicity; Speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; Presence at a particular location (e.g., bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day laborer pick up site, agricultural site, etc.); or The type of work one does. The administration appealed the district court’s order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which refused to intervene. Perdomo v. Noem (July 28). The three judge panel determined that “a characteristic common to both legal and illegal immigrants does little to arouse reasonable suspicion.” In the U.S. generally, apparent Hispanic or Latino race or ethnicity generally has limited probative value, because large numbers of native-born and naturalized citizens have the physical characteristics identified with Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Speaking Spanish and speaking English with an accent are likewise characteristics that apply to a sizable portion of individuals lawfully present in this country. As to location, the Supreme Court has made clear that an individual’s presence at a location that illegal immigrants are known to frequent does little to support reasonable suspicion when U.S. citizens and legal immigrants are also likely to be present at those locations. US v. Brignoni (1975). Like location, the type of work one does is at most “marginally relevant” to establishing reasonable suspicion, even if it is work commonly performed by immigrants without legal status. Evidence that a particular employer is employing a large number of undocumented workers does not create reasonable suspicion as to each individual employee. On August 7, the administration once more sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court. In doing so, the Solicitor General asserts that the injunction entered puts “a straitjacket on law-enforcement efforts.” Although this case arises out of ICE activities in Southern California, the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision will have obvious implications for the practices of ICE agents nationwide. John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
Across the U.S. food supply chain, more than one in five jobs is carried out by immigrants, the equivalent of 14 million workers across the sector. But many of these foreign-born workers — regardless of legal status — are afraid that they’ll be swept up in the administration’s illegal and cruel arrest, detention, and deportation actions. So, they’ve started staying home. The long-term effects of losing a substantial portion of the workforce will send a shock through the industry: crops will not be harvested, livestock will not be processed, grocery shelves will thin out, restaurants and food trucks will close, and food will get more expensive than it already is.
Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge is threatened by federal budget and staffing cuts. We are fortunate to have this unspoiled, undeveloped public land in Kent County. More than 70,000 people visit ENNWR annually for recreation and to enjoy its natural beauty. In April, Common Sense for the Eastern Shore published an article asking for help in spreading the word about the threat to ENNWR. The need for support in the face of this threat still exists. If you’d like to know more and would like to pitch in to help, Citizens Connect is holding an informational session: Monday, August 18, 5-6:30 pm Unitarian Universalists of the Chester River, 914 Gateway Dr, Chestertown The presentation and discussion will be led by members of the Board of Directors of Friends of Eastern Neck, Bill Burton, president, and Bonnie Ford, vice president. The session will cover how drastic budget cuts to the US Fish & Wildlife Service jeopardize the health of the refuge and threaten its survival. Without adequate staff, Eastern Neck could be “shuttered," public access curtailed, and the Visitors Center closed. Invasive plants would grow unchecked, migratory waterfowl would be at risk, and hunts would end.
Mayor Randy Taylor is once again at the center of controversy after being involved in a traffic incident Monday morning, his fourth car accident in less than two years since taking office. According to Mayor Taylor’s official statemen t, the accident occurred around 8:30 a.m. on South Boulevard and involved a pedestrian using a walker. Taylor described the incident as “minor,” claiming that only the wheel of the pedestrian’s walker made contact with the rear of his city-issued vehicle. He further stated that the pedestrian refused medical treatment and that all protocols were followed. However, eyewitness accounts and photos circulating on social media paint a different picture. A bystander who witnessed the event posted that the mayor struck the pedestrian in the crosswalk and initially continued driving as if he had “hit a cone,” before returning to the scene. The witness described a delayed police response and expressed frustration that no other vehicles stopped to assist. Photos of the aftermath show a visibly shaken pedestrian, leaning on his walker, with Mayor Taylor standing nearby inspecting the damage. The images have sparked widespread outrage across the community. “This is not an isolated event,” said one resident in a viral post. “This is his fourth accident since taking office, and every time it’s brushed off as a ‘minor issue.’ How many more ‘minor issues’ will it take before there’s real accountability?” The mayor’s track record with city vehicles has drawn sharp criticism, with many Salisbury residents demanding answers about why repeated accidents have not resulted in consequences. Previous incidents have ranged from parking lot collisions to property damage, all involving city vehicles. Calls for transparency have intensified, with community members pressing for clarity on whether mandatory post-accident drug and alcohol tests were administered, as required by city policy. Mayor Taylor maintains that all procedures were followed and has promised to share a final report of the incident within 10 days. In the meantime, public confidence continues to erode, with many expressing frustration over what they see as a dangerous pattern of recklessness. “Four accidents in two years,” another commenter posted. “If a city worker had that record, they’d be gone. Why does the mayor get a free pass?” Neither the Salisbury Police Department nor Maryland State Police has issued an official report yet.
