Intent and Perception of Mascots

Since the conception of modern sports, mascots have been employed. Mascots are a symbol that is supposed to distinguish a team and give the fans something to represent. They are used to bring the team luck and strength. The intent of a mascot is to help a team and portray a positive image, not hinder and or hurt it. Problems arise with mascots though when they represent or are associated with a sensitive issue. When mascots are chosen, they are almost always held in high esteem. They are not something to negatively affect a team’s interests and image. The way mascots should be perceived is by the intent and authenticity to the symbol it represents.

Many controversial mascots were chosen at times when the issue was not so sensitive, or was not seeing public light. Through time though, many atrocities and negative stereotypes have been correlated with the mascots because of historic events. The problem is that the mascot was chosen most likely with good intent, but because of past and current issues, they are protested and changed or eliminated. A strong example of this can be used from the class discussion of Jay Rosenstein’s “In Whose Honor.” In 1926, the University of Illinois needed a mascot, and the assistant band director chose a Native American chief. The chief represented was Chief Illiniwek of the Sioux. The expression Illiniwek meant “the complete human being - the strong, agile human body, and the indomitable human spirit.” The meaning of Illiniwek is a prime example of good intent. Also, not only being a picturesque symbol, the chief would do a “traditional” dance created by student who was an Eagle Scout that studied the Native American Culture. As time progressed, people started to remember the atrocities suffered by the Sioux Indians and that the use of a Native American image for a mascot is borderline unacceptable. The leader of the protest was a University of Illinois graduate student from Spokane, Washington named Charlene Teters. She stated that the mascot was not an authentic portrayal of an Indian chief and it was very offensive because of its mockery of sacred Native American culture. Many students and faculty at the University of Illinois believe that the Chief may not be as authentic as it could be, but it is a traditional symbol of the school and is held in the highest regard among fans. As aforementioned, the intent of the mascot was to represent and respect the Native American culture, not demean and parade it around.

The difficulty is that there are so many different kinds of people who come from different backgrounds; it is hard to satisfy them all and not cause problems. There are going to be sensitive issues and people surrounding every mascot. What complicates things more is people do not always see eye to eye. The thing that seems to matter most is what people perceive the mascot to symbolize, not the intent. So likewise, there are going to be many controversial mascots. What needs to be done, instead of eliminating an image (like the retirement of Chief Illiniwek), is a change of one. If a mascot is misrepresenting, then steps towards making it acceptable should be made. People do no need to get melodramatic, they need to look at the issue from both sides; they need to recognize the intent and not selfishly concern themselves with only their perception because looking at the intent aids in perception.