Why Tufts needs more Native American studies courses

A few weeks ago, as the Daily reported on Feb. 14, 2003, a distinguished guest speaker, Professor Charlene Teters, gave an excellent lecture at Tufts, "Prisons of Image: Native American Names and Images in Sports and Media." A member of the Spokane Nation and a founding board member of the National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media, Teters spoke eloquently about her involvement in the movement opposing the use of Indian names and mascots for US sports teams. She explained that she first became aware of the issue when she went to the University of Illinois for graduate work and saw the demeaning team mascot of the "Fighting Illini," Chief Illiniwek, prance and cavort at half-time in a mockery of Native ritual and practice.

To prepare for Professor Teters' lecture, I asked my students in English 148, American Indian Writers, to conduct a quick survey, especially here at Tufts, putting to ten people these three questions: (1) What is your opinion of these sports team names: Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Winchester Sachems, Washington Redskins? (2) Should there be an ale named "Crazy Horse Malt Liquor"? (3) Who was Crazy Horse?

We thought the answers would be interesting. They were, instead, appalling. While some people did comment on anti-Indian racism, far more typical are these responses. To the first question: "I don't see a problem with them." "It doesn't bother me." "I think they're fine." "They should be happy there's a positive image of them that's so visible." "It's an honor, not a derogatory thing." "These names don't mean anything." "I don't give a shit." "I don't care." "Totally fine." "I don't think it's a problem because it's not my area to be sensitive about." An Indian yell. "I'm not from the United States, so I don't care." To the second question: "Sure, why not?" "I don't care; lots of Native Americans are drunks." "Don't see why not." "Doesn't bother me." "Sounds fine because it's a product someone made and they can call it what they want." To the third: No one could say with any clarity.

Understanding the racism inherent in the dominant culture use of Indian names and mascots for sports teams and other commercial products in the United States is a mainstay of Native American Studies. As numerous American Indian scholars and allies point out, people in the United States would never tolerate there being a named the Baltimore Blackskins complete with a Sambo mascot to perform a buck and wing at half time. Or how about the Kansas City Kikes with a mascot dressed up as a Hassidic rabbi running around the arena brandishing the Torah? Or there could be the Pittsburgh Priests with fake Holy Fathers tossing Communion wafers to the crowd every time a run is scored. As the Cherokee scholar Ward Churchill says in "Let's Spread the 'Fun' Around: The Issue of Sports Teams Names and Mascots," after providing his own list of similarly offensive possibilities: "Let's get just a bit real here. The notion of 'fun' embodied in rituals like the Tomahawk Chop must be understood for what it is. There is not a single non-Indian example deployed above which can be considered socially acceptable in even the most marginal sense. The reasons are obvious enough. So why is it different where American Indians are concerned?"

It is not different, of course. What is different is the depth of ignorance and indifference that most people in the United States accept when it comes to Native America. And why is that? Why is it easy to find even here at Tufts well-educated, thoughtful students who think that Indian people no longer live in the United States, who can't name on American Indian author or artist, who have no clue who Crazy Horse was, who know nothing about the massacre at Wounded Knee and parallels between it and contemporary world events, who think it doesn't matter if sports teams are named in ways that degrade and objectify indigenous people?

Clearly this ignorance is not accidental. What our education excludes sends a message every bit as important as what it includes. And the educational system in the United States, in its omission and devaluation of Native American material and perspectives, sends a clear message that reproduces and perpetuates the system of colonial domination and erasure of indigenous people that the nation is founded upon. We live in a time that calls upon us to think deeply about United States imperialism, about the history and current practices that make national leaders feel free to dominate and control others, regardless of widespread objections. How different in kind are the apathy, arrogance, and ignorance behind non-Native people's disregard for Native objections to racist representations among them? As long as we refuse to listen to Native people's call for an end to Indian sports team names and mascots and continue to create a curriculum where those voices are silenced, we are saying that US racism and colonialism are okay. Tufts needs to offer students a better education, which means more courses where indigenous voices and issues of concern to Native people can be heard and paid attention to.

Elizabeth Ammons is a Harriet H. Fay Professor of Literature and Professor of American Studies.