By Peter Kaufman 

This is a busy and stressful time to be President of
the United States: The government was until recently shutdown, he’s facing an impasse
with Congressional Republicans, the on-going violence in Syria (not to mention
the rest of the Middle East), the recent commando raids in Libya and Somalia,
the early snags of the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare), and the naming of
the new chief of the Federal Reserve. Despite all of this, President Obama
found time recently to weigh in on a matter that many Americans are probably
more familiar with than most of these other current events: The Washington Redskins football team mascot.  

Recently, President Obama said that if he was the
owner of the Washington Redskins he would consider changing
their name and logo. The President’s remarks come at a time when there is
increasing pressure to replace the mascot of the football team in our nation’s
capital. Recognizing that the mascot is deeply offensive to many individuals
(even the dictionary defines “redskin”
as offensive),
President Obama has sided with those who feel that nostalgia should not trump
“the real legitimate concerns that people have about these things.”  The controversial use of Native American
mascots in sports has been around for decades. As early as the 1970s,
universities began changing their names from Indians, Warriors, Chiefs, and
Redskins to names that were not deemed racist or disparaging to groups of
people.       

Last year, the University of North Dakota
actually took this measure for the third
time. The
Fighting Sioux nickname was first retired in 2010 following pressure from the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). In 2011 state lawmakers passed
a bill requiring that the Fighting Sioux be used as the mascot of the
university. Later that year, the law was repealed in a special
legislative
session but that ruling was put on hold when enough petitions were collected to
put the matter to a state vote. In June 2012, two-thirds of North Dakota voters
(in what was a relatively large voter turnout) favored getting ride of the
mascot for good, and a few days later the state’s Board of Higher Education quickly
voted to retire the mascot.

The timeline in North Dakota reflects the emotions
involved in this issue. Advocates of the continued use of Native American
mascots express deep emotional ties to the tradition and history that these
names hold for them. Such advocates argue that they are honoring Native
Americans, not disparaging them, and that they are using these images in
respectful and meaningful ways. (Here are some examples
of political cartoons depicting the
problems with Native American mascots).

The intensity of emotions that this conflict produces
was captured in the documentary, In Whose Honor, which details the controversy surrounding Chief
Illiniwek, the mascot of the University of Illinois. Chief Illiniwek was the
official mascot since 1926 but in 2007, after a twenty-year struggle, the
University finally retired the mascot.

If you listen to the discourse coming from the ardent
supporters of Native American mascots it is all based on a collective
individualism of emotion: we love our
mascot, we feel connected to it, it is part of who we are. There is even
a deep sense of entitlement in these proclamations: Because we feel this way, no one should be allowed to take it away from
us. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ignores the daily
reality that others are living. In other words, these
arguments are based solely on the emotions of the supporters and not the actual
lived experiences of those who are being affected.   

This point was emphasized in March 2007 when the American Sociological
Association issued a statement advocating for the discontinuation of Native
American nicknames, logos, and mascots in sports. In addition to pointing
out that many Native American individuals and groups vehemently oppose the use
of their names and images as sport mascots, the statement also made the
following important but often overlooked points:  

Social science scholarship has demonstrated
that the continued use of Native American nicknames, logos and mascots in sport
reflect and reinforce misleading stereotypes of Native Americans in both past
and contemporary times; harm Native
American people in psychological, educational, and social ways; and undermine
education about the lives of Native American peoples.

I am not sure if the supporters of
the Washington Redskins, the Cleveland Indians, the Kansas City Chiefs, or any
of the other professional or amateur teams that still have Native American
mascots understand this point. Those opposed to the use of these mascots are
not solely basing their objections on emotions. It’s not just that they may
feel sad that these mascots are being used; rather, their opposition is based
on actual,
measured effects: Depressed self-esteem, a lowered sense of community
worth, and reduced aspirations for achievements among Native American
students. 

One of the great benefits of
studying sociology is that it has the potential to make us more empathetic.
Once we learn about the plight of others and realize that not everyone is
afforded the same opportunities and privileges, we may feel more compelled to
take the perspective of others into greater consideration. The issue
surrounding Native American mascots such as the Washington Redskins is asking
us to do just that: Consider what it must feel like for Native Americans to
continually see offensive renderings of their name used for enjoyment and
entertainment. We would never allow mascots named Blackskins, Brownskins, or
even Whiteskins. So
why do we still allow Redskins?