Whether or not it is appropriate to use ethnic or cultural mascots is an issue that has proven to be a contentious one on many American college campuses. At the University of Illinois, the use of Illiniwek, Chief of the ôFighting Illiniö as the principal mascot at sporting events has garnered much on and off-campus debate, and has even attracted the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Ultimately, the issue is racism. That a mascot cannot, by nature, be taken seriously is itself an indictment of the use of Illiniwek at the University of Illinois. Mascots are caricatures; depicting a Native American in this way is racist, and works against the sense of self-worth of the greater Native American community. This is wrong, and should not be allowed to continue anywhere in this country.
It is not only Native Americans that have been co-opted for use as mascots. As Charlene Teters of the National Coalition on Racism in Sports recounts, the Hispanic community has successfully protested the use of demeaning mascots such as ôFrito Banditoö and the African American community has done the same with mascots such as ôLittle Black Samboö among others (Krol K1560). There is thus a precedent for discontinuing the use of ethnic and cultural minorities as mascots in this country. Why the Native American mascot has been allowed to persist into the 21st century is a challenge to figure. No less an oppressed people than were the African Americans, no less discriminated against than the Hispanic community, Native Americans have historically contended with genocide, ostracism and stereotyping. Why then do American universities continue to caricature them as mascots?
It is perhaps because, as some have suggested, mascots like Illiniwek are meant to honor the Native American tradition. On this view, the use of the Native American image on football fields and basketball courts is intended to be a show of respect, no...