1
Derrick Miles
Holly Hansen
English Composition 1113
10 March 2012
Essay 3
Stereo-typing of any form is not acceptable. Joe LaPointe in “Bonding Over a Mascot”
and Barbara Munson in “Common Themes and Questions About The Use of ‘Indian’ Logos”
make compelling arguments on what should and shouldn’t be considered stereo-typing, whether
it is intended or not. Both essays are similar in the way they are trying to stop the stereo-typing
of American Indians. However they differ in that Barbara Munson’s objective in “Common
Themes and Questions about the use of ‘Indian’ Logos” is to prohibit the use of any Native
American image or artifact at sporting events such as mascots or slogans whether it is respectful
or not. Whereas Joe Lapointe’s objective in “Bonding Over a Mascot” is to leave the decision to
the appropriate tribal leadership.
The two essays definitely are different in their overall objective of the essays, even
though the underlying meaning is to cut out the stereo-typing of Indians. Barbara Munson in
“Common Themes and Questions about the use of ‘Indian’ Logos” takes a hardline stand against
using any Native American image or logo at sporting events whether it is respectful or not.
While Joe Lapointe in “Bonding over a Mascot” believes that it is an honor, a tribute to Native
American culture.
2
In “Bonding over a Mascot” Joe Lapointe interviewed a Seminole woman, a NCAA
representative, an official from Florida State, and a Seminole tribal leader. Although each person
had a different perspective, they all seemed to agree that as long as the mascot is respectful and
not stereo-typing their culture it is an honor for the use of Seminole as the mascot for Florida
State.
Seminole woman and Florida State student Toni Sanchez stated that she is proud to have
her Seminole culture honored by the use of the mascot at Florida State. Of the Seminole imagery
for the university’s sports, she said, “I’m so proud of it.” In regard to the NCAA citations issued
in August 2005 for “mascots, nicknames, or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race,
ethnicity, or national origin” Ms. Sanchez called the edict “beyond idiotic and offensive.” Myles
Brand, the president of the NCAA, said of the organizations decision to limit the use of Native
American mascots unless approved by the appropriate tribal leaders “What we’ve accomplished
in part is to raise the level of awareness nationally about how we treat Native Americans”. This
is a necessary action because it becomes an important role to stopping the stereo-typing of
Indians.
The President of Florida State and tribal leader Max Osceola both agree that disrespectful
images depicting Native American culture should be banned, however artful representations are
a tribute to Native American culture. In fact including Florida State, five programs cited by the
NCAA “have received permission to continue using their imagery because the received approval
from the specific Indian groups.” Max Osceola stated “If I had a child and named it after you
would to consider it an honor?” Joe LaPointe has brought together several different viewpoints
3
supporting the general idea that the use of Native American images should be approved on a case
by case basis by the governing tribal leadership.
Barbara Munson takes an oppositional stand on the stereo-typing of Indians in “Common
Themes and Questions About the use of ‘Indian’ Logos. She considers any use of the Indian
iconology in any form is a form of institutional stereo-typing. Munson uses Native American
traditions and statistics rather than interviews to support her stance of the issue. She states that
the use of “Indian” logos no matter how respectful the image is a “mockery of our cultures”. It is
a valid point, one that most of us wouldn’t think about, especially when she states that the use of
words like (excuse these offensive words) “Pollacks, Niggers, Gooks, Spics, Honkies, or Krauts”
would have never been allowed.
Although the term “Indian” does not evoke more negative responses than those terms,
and it has been widely used and accepted for many years the last two centuries is it not a term
that the Native American cultures are proud of, no matter how accepted it has been. Munson
states that “the term ‘Indian’ was given to indigenous people on this continent by an explorer
who was looking for India, a man who was lost and who subsequently exploited the indigenous
people.”
When addressing the subject of why the image of a proud warrior is offensive as the
distasteful caricatures, Munson responds that both are stereotypes that place the Native American
culture in the past, ignoring their present culture.
4
According to Munson’s essay, a history of systematic genocide has decimated over 95%
of the indigenous populations of the Americans. Today the average life expectancy of Native
Americans males is age 45. The suicide rate is several times higher than the national average.
Stereotypes, ignorance, silent inaction, and even naïve innocence damage and destroy individual
lives and whole cultures, Racism kills.
Those who persist in depicting “Indians, Warriors, Chiefs, or Braves” as their school or
team mascots leads to the remembrance of Native American men and not the women and
children as that is what those names represent. It also teaches other cultures that it is alright to
“participate in culturally abusive behavior.”
Both authors raise important perspectives. Munson’s use of personal knowledge, cultural
research and statistics is every bit as LaPointe’s use of personal interviews and opinions.
Munson raises several issues that most of us would not have thought of. However her zero
tolerance stance is perhaps too rigid to win over die-hard athletic programs whose traditions is
tied to their Native American mascots.
Joe LaPointe’s essay seems to support letting the governing body of whichever Native
American tribe have jurisdiction over that particular school team make the decision whether to
allow the use of that mascot, which makes his take easier to support.
It is easy to see that this issue will be argued many times over before it is finalized. After
reading these two articles it seems that leaving each Native American Nation the final decision is
the way to go since when it comes down to it, it is their culture and their image being portrayed.
5
As both essays are trying to cut out the Indian stereotype, they raise different issues that
Native Americans face and should be acted upon. Munson’s points are rigid, but also valid. She
states that the terms cut out part of Native American history and the names don’t include the
women and children that were a part of the history just as the men Warriors or Chiefs were.
LaPointe’s points makes a lot more headway to me because he supports letting the Native
American group decide and that is the right way to go because after all they are the only people
that can really tell if a team or sporting event is really using the Native American iconology in
the wrong way. I think both authors make way for the cutting of Indian stereotypes.