Nicole Robinson

Answer: “It’s tradition. It’s always been that way.”

Question: “What is the No. 1 reason people will give on why they shouldn’t change their sports team’s American Indian nickname?”

Those “traditionalists” were enraged when the NCAA declared on Aug. 5 that 16 schools’ mascots, logos and nicknames were barred from post-season play because of “abusive and hostile” references to American Indians.

Schools of note included the Florida State Seminoles and the Illinois Fighting Illini, as well as Kenosha’s Carthage College Redmen, whose women’s teams go by the Lady Reds.

It doesn’t mean the teams are not allowed in the post-season, only that the names and imagery must be removed for the playoffs.

It doesn’t seem like it’s asking too much, but it was quite a bold step for the NCAA. Not surprisingly, they backtracked under heavy fire and lawsuit threats. The Seminoles, Utah Utes and Central Michigan Chippewas were allowed to keep their nicknames on the basis of agreements with local tribes.

Those agreements are well and good, and it is duly noted that many Indians have no opinion on the issue either way or even support it.

But at its core, the use of Indian mascots is reason No. 653 why racism continues in this country. To begin to get rid of racism, we must first stop classifying people by the color of their skin.

Of course, it’s easy to say that and quite another thing to actually do it. In our lifetimes, that classification will always exist.

But it’s also why Indians who support their depiction of a mascot are more or less shooting themselves in the foot. If they really wanted to end the discrimination against their race, then getting rid of names like the Washington Redskins or logos like the Cleveland Indians’ would be a good start.

After all, you don’t see any teams nicknamed the “Negroes” or the “Japs.”

So why are Indians the only race portrayed on sports teams? One of the most peaceful ethnic groups, historically, is often chosen by schools because of their supposed “warrior”-mentality.

It is true that many Indians were good, brave fighters. But they were much, much more than that.

Indians placed a high regard on environment and family. When they killed animals, they used every last part of it, letting nothing go to waste. Many tribes practiced strict non-violence within the group.

This doesn’t exactly corroborate the stereotypical John Wayne image that many Americans still have in their minds, so maybe the mascot issue is just society clinging to that belief.

For decades, Hollywood portrayed Indians as the loser and the inferior people. Sadly, that portrayal still exists today.

Further, the Redskins are in the same conference as teams such as the Philadelphia Eagles and Chicago Bears. Does it really seem fair to place Indian mascots next to ferocious and, sometimes, barbaric animals?

This is also why I don’t buy the “we’re honoring Indians” argument. There are plenty of other ways to do that. Name a statue, a street or a town after an Indian, not a mascot.

Or even better, educate the public on why American Indians played such an important role on these lands for hundreds of years.

One might say, well, the Redskins are in the same division as the Dallas Cowboys. Isn’t the Cowboy mascot degrading as well?

The difference between the two is actually quite clear. Which group was pushed off their lands and out of their homes for hundreds of years? Which group was the one that were almost routinely brutally murdered or even massacred by whites? Hint: It wasn’t the Cowboys, nor was it Old Abes, the Lumberjacks or meat packers.

So if Americans don’t want to break the tradition of degrading Indians, then by all means, they should continue practicing the tomahawk chop and establishing makeshift “reservations” in outfields.

Schaaf is a junior political science and print journalism major and staff writer of The Spectator.

And why not? It’s the way we’ve always done it.