Many universities dropped their connections to Native American mascots after the NCAA ruled the symbols are hostile to Indigenous communities.
Yet the image of those mascots still lingers on many campuses, including at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. The school retired Chief Illiniwek, its fictional Native American mascot, in 2007, but some alumni have pushed for the mascot to be reinstated.
Thousands of high schools across the country also continue to support Native mascots. Lawmakers in Illinois introduced bills last year to prohibit Native American mascots and those referencing disabilities across the state. Those measures passed the State House but did not pass through the Senate.
Joseph Gone has spent decades studying the impact of Native American mascots. He is a psychologist and professor at Harvard University, a member of the Aaniiih-Gros Ventre Tribal Nation, and a former U of I graduate student who campaigned for the university to retire the Chief in the 1990’s.
Gone is giving a lecture at the Spurlock Museum called “The Trouble with American Indian Sports Mascots” on Jan. 22.
Brian Mackey, host of Illinois Public Media’s The 21st Show, spoke with Gone about his experience as a Native American U of I student — as well as what the research shows on Native American mascots.
Interview Highlights
On why he thinks Chief Illiniwek is an inaccurate representation of Indigenous culture:
“If the University of Illinois leadership at that time had cared about Indian people, they would have hearkened to what we had to say. They would have found ways to support and be more inclusive of the Native community, community there, et cetera. And that’s not what happened. So the problem with these mascots is that they’re not about Native people at all. They’re about, you know, white people fantasies about Native people, which have to do with a bunch of complicated psychological dynamics, again, that have nothing to do with Indians.”
On how Native American mascots affect Indigenous and non-Indigenous students:
“Exposure to the mascot versus a condition which did not expose them to that mascot led them to have shortened ideas, less ambitious ideas about what they might do in the future … Native young people can have foreshortened futures relative to their expectations and ambitions in life just by simple exposure to a mascot. Like I said, there are 19 studies … a lot of them are about what happens to non-Native people who are exposed to these mascot representations, and those also show that people end up, surprise, surprise, endorsing stereotypical portrayals, not being as supportive of Native rights and modern native people in all kinds of ways.”
On Illini fans celebrating the Chief to celebrate school spirit:
“Many people, you know, celebrated the mascot with good intent and for good feelings and for connection to the university, et cetera. And my question to them, in response to that recognition, was, ‘well, how come we can’t pick a mascot where all of us can feel that connection and this ability to celebrate this great institution?’ How come it has to be on the backs of a harmful racial stereotype against a certain group of people, including some of us who study at the University of Illinois.”
On a better way to honor Indigenous culture:
“You can’t say you honor Indian people through promotion of a mascot. Honoring Indian people would mean seeking out and honoring personal relationships with living, breathing, modern, Native peoples. And so until you do that, I think that your rhetoric about honoring us just isn’t compelling or persuasive, and we need more personal interactions, personal relationships. That’s the solution to racial difference and racial animosity in our country more generally.”