argument top image

Is it offensive for sports teams to use Native American mascots? Show more Show less
Back to question

Teams like the Washington Redskins, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians have always used Native American imagery and mascots in their branding. Advocacy groups accuse them of cultural appropriation and playing on racial slurs. Are their claims justified? Is the use of Native American imagery a sign of respect for their culture? Is their offence justified?

No, it's not offensive for sports teams to have Native American mascots Show more Show less

The use of Native American names and mascots is appropriate because it's a mark of respect and Native Americans aren't offended by it.
< (2 of 2)

Double standards in using Native American Mascots

Using knights as mascots is acceptable. They are European warriors. Why would using Native American warriors as mascots be any different?
< (1 of 4) Next argument >


If a sports team called themselves ‘the Knights’ and had a mascot of a knight in shining armour, it wouldn’t be offensive. Knights are European warriors. But if a sports team has a Native American warrior with a spear as its mascot, the imagery immediately becomes offensive.

The Argument

There are evidently double standards at play. The fact that using a historical European knight, or a Viking as a mascot is acceptable and a Native American historical warrior is not, promotes inequality and double standards. This can foster resentment towards Native Americans and increase racial tensions.

Counter arguments

There are two things wrong with this argument. Firstly, European knights have not suffered the same level of historical marginalisation as native American tribes. White Europeans were the dominant race at the time of their existence. By contrast, Native Americans have endured a long and ugly history of state-sanctioned racism. Therefore, the parallel with the European knight is not accurate. A better parallel to the use of Native American mascots would be to imagine if sports teams used caricatures of black people that played on negative stereotypes of the appearances of the black population, then gave themselves names like the Washington n****rs. This would be unequivocally racist and offensive. There are no double standards at play. Sports teams that employ Native American names and imagery do so in an offensive way against a population that has endured centuries of oppression and marginalization. Secondly, the use of Vikings as mascots is also inoffensive because there are no Vikings still living that would take offence to this. The same is true of Roman gladiators, Ancient Egyptian mascots or mascots depicting any other extinct ethnicity or civilization. The fact that Native American people still exist means that there are people to take offence, therefore, the act becomes offensive by definition.


[P1] It is not offensive to use a knight or a viking as a mascot. [P2] Knights are European warriors and vikings are Scandinavian warriors. [P3] People take offence when a Native American warrior is depicted. [P4] This highlights a double standard.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P4] A knight has not endured centuries of repression. There are also no vikings still living to take offence at their depiction as a mascot.


This page was last edited on Thursday, 10 Sep 2020 at 11:46 UTC

Explore related arguments