Davis (2002), delves into the stereotypes that resonate from a misunderstanding of American Indian culture. He states that there are two common stereotypes of Native Americans – the “warrior like savage” and the “noble savage”. In their depictions as mascots, the former is often most portrayed accompanied by spears, arrowheads, and a headdress to signify the team’s readiness to compete. With this stereotype come aggressive traits such as bravery and hostility - admired in athletic spheres. So much so, in fact, that other than animals, Native American mascots are the most widespread throughout sports. Is it not wrong that a culture is perceived in the same way as lions, tigers, and bears? These fallacious stereotypes have integrated themselves as a truth, rather than myth, and facilitate the misguided ways in which America has made a mascot out of its original people. Davis discusses this on a more granular level, stating how the mascots clump all Indian tribes together, diminishing the unique traditions and customs to each tribe. These tribes are scarcely represented to be able to fight back against this discrimination, especially considering most sport owners (such as Dan Snyder of the Redskins, who vehemently opposes any change to the team name) are old, rich, white men. Only about 1% of the United States population identifies as Native American. A further topic of importance with any debate on prejudice and discrimination is the intent behind the actions. Most, if not all, supporters of Native American mascots do not intend to be hurtful, but rather, view the mascots as being in the aforementioned “positive” or “celebratory” nature. Despite this, that does not give credence to the label. There are many examples in today’s world of well intentioned, yet hurtful, behavior, and the naming of American Indians as a sports mascot
Davis (2002), delves into the stereotypes that resonate from a misunderstanding of American Indian culture. He states that there are two common stereotypes of Native Americans – the “warrior like savage” and the “noble savage”. In their depictions as mascots, the former is often most portrayed accompanied by spears, arrowheads, and a headdress to signify the team’s readiness to compete. With this stereotype come aggressive traits such as bravery and hostility - admired in athletic spheres. So much so, in fact, that other than animals, Native American mascots are the most widespread throughout sports. Is it not wrong that a culture is perceived in the same way as lions, tigers, and bears? These fallacious stereotypes have integrated themselves as a truth, rather than myth, and facilitate the misguided ways in which America has made a mascot out of its original people. Davis discusses this on a more granular level, stating how the mascots clump all Indian tribes together, diminishing the unique traditions and customs to each tribe. These tribes are scarcely represented to be able to fight back against this discrimination, especially considering most sport owners (such as Dan Snyder of the Redskins, who vehemently opposes any change to the team name) are old, rich, white men. Only about 1% of the United States population identifies as Native American. A further topic of importance with any debate on prejudice and discrimination is the intent behind the actions. Most, if not all, supporters of Native American mascots do not intend to be hurtful, but rather, view the mascots as being in the aforementioned “positive” or “celebratory” nature. Despite this, that does not give credence to the label. There are many examples in today’s world of well intentioned, yet hurtful, behavior, and the naming of American Indians as a sports mascot