Native American Mascot Controversy - Financial Impact of Change

Financial Impact of Change

Many supporters of Native American mascots feel that the financial cost of changing mascots would far outweigh the benefits. Sales of merchandise with team mascots and nicknames ranging from t-shirts to beer cozies generate millions of dollars in sales each year, and teams contend that a change in team mascots would render this merchandise useless. The cost of removing images from uniforms and all other items, which must be paid out of local school funds, is a greater factor for secondary schools.

Opponents, however, are unconcerned with the cost of changing, and view mascots as caricatures of real Indians that do not honor them, but rather trivialize and demean important Indian dances and traditions. Opponents feel that despite the cost of a change in team mascots, it should be done to prevent what they believe is racial stereotyping. Clyde Bellecourt, director of the American Indian Movement stated: "It's the behavior that accompanies all of this that's offensive. The rubber tomahawks, the chicken feather headdresses, people wearing war paint and making these ridiculous war whoops with a tomahawk in one hand and a beer in the other; all of these have significant meaning for us. And the psychological impact it has, especially on our youth, is devastating."

One attempt to affect the use of mascots financially began in 1992 when five Native Americans filed a petition to remove the trademark status of the Washington Redskins team name, which would have allowed sales of branded merchandise without payment of royalties. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in 1999 ruled in favor of the petition and cancelled the trademarks. Following appeals, in 2005 the D.C. Court of Appeals in Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo reversed the cancellation, ruling that there had been insufficient evidence to support the finding of disparagement and holding that the majority of the petitioners were barred by laches from maintaining the suit. On 16 November 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court, refused to hear an appeal from Harjo; however a second case Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc. with younger plaintiffs whose standing is not hindered by laches is now proceeding.