Related Posts


  1. too sensitive and a complaining people as this is how we as a country of Canadians have become instead of focusing on better our self’s this is the type of baloney that takes the front stage where u cant anything that will bug somebody, don’t forget we are in not great but ok country where in other places are not as fortunate, but we complain about the dumbest things like this and the change of Tim coffee cups, focus on more important things in life and maybe just maybe u wont miss out

  2. Well, think about this. Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.

    And I still think those logos with Indians are a complement to the strong will, tenacity, courage and fighting spirit of Indians.

    That’s what those team do. They fight the other teams.

    Why would a team chose that sort of logo if didn’t show strong will, tenacity, courage and fighting spirit?


    Statement by the National Congress of American Indians

    “Indian” sports brands used by professional teams were born in an era when racism and bigotry were accepted by the dominant culture. These brands which have grown to become multi-million dollar franchises were established at a time when the practice of using racial epithets and slurs as marketing slogans were a common practice among white owners seeking to capitalize on cultural superiority and racial tensions. Over the last fifty years a ground swell of support has mounted to bring an end to the era of racist and harmful “Indian” mascots in sports and popular culture. Today, that support is stronger than ever. Rooted in the civil rights movement, the quest for racial equality among American Indian and Alaska Native people began well before the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) established a campaign in 1968 to bring an end to negative and harmful stereotypes in the media and popular culture. While these advances have been positive, equality still remains elusive in everyday life for Native peoples. Native peoples remain more likely than any other race to experience crimes at the hands of a person from another race. Native youth experience the highest rates of suicide among young people. With studies showing that negative stereotypes and harmful “Indian” sports mascots are known to play a role in exacerbating racial inequity and perpetuating feelings of inadequacy among Native youth, it is vital that all institutions—including professional sports franchises—re-evaluate their role in capitalizing on these stereotypes. Since 1963, no professional teams have established new mascots that use racial stereotypes in their names and imagery. In 2005, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) established an extensive policy to remove harmful “Indian” mascots. There has also been a strong trend to remove harmful “Indian” mascots at the high school level, including 28 high schools that have dropped the “R” word as their mascot’s name. Hundreds of tribal nations, national tribal organizations, civil rights organizations, school boards, sports teams, and individuals have called for the end to harmful “Indian” mascots. Yet, contrary to industry best practices, calls for name changes by tribal nations and Native peoples, and a sea change at the youth, amateur, collegiate, and professional sports levels, a number of professional sports leagues and teams have opted to retain harmful “Indian” brands, rather than truly honor Native peoples. The most discussed in the media of late has been the Washington football team, which uses the term “Redsk*ns.”


    derogatory name was created in 1932 – while the federal “Civilization Regulations” were still in place, confining Native people to reservations, banning all Native dances and ceremonies, confiscating Native cultural property and outlawing much of what was traditional in Native life. That also was the year before owner George Preston Marshall instituted what would become a 13-year league-wide ban on African-American players from the NFL. (The Washington football team did not integrate until 30 years later, when Marshall was forced to do so). The following document outlines the position of NCAI, the nation’s oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native advocacy organization, which has a clear position against derogatory and harmful stereotypes of Native people—including sports mascots—in media and popular culture. The information provided also includes historical and contemporary background information on “Indian” sports mascots and the widely supported efforts to end the era of harmful and racist mascots. This document focuses primarily on the NFL’s Washington football team, which is currently engaged in a trademark lawsuit brought by Native youth. The document reviews the link between the name of the team and a legacy of racism established by the team’s owner George Preston Marshall. More importantly, the document outlines why this issue is directly tied to racial equity and social justice and calls on professional sports organizations such as the National Football League and other professional sports leagues and affiliated businesses to bring an end to the era of harmful “Indian” sports mascots.


    APA Statement on the use of Aboriginal Mascots

    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association recognizes the potential negative impact the use of American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities have on the mental health and psychological behaviour of American Indian people;

    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association encourages continued research on the psychological effects American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities have on American Indian communities and others;

    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association encourages the development of programs for the public, psychologists, and students in psychology to increase awareness of the psychological effects that American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities have on American Indian communities and others; AND

    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association supports and recommends the immediate retirement of American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities by schools, colleges, universities, athletic teams, and organizations.

  5. Why didn’t anyone complain when the name Thorold Blackhawks and the logo were first considered?

    And I always thought imitation was the finest form of flattery.

    Couldn’t the name Thorold Blackhawks and the logo be considered a complement to the strong will, tenacity and fighting spirit of Indians?

    By the way, are there any boys with Indian blood on that team and, if there are, how do they feel?

    And here are some of the names of Six Nations of the Grand River sports teams.
    Six Nations Warriors
    Six Nations Arrows
    Six Nations Chiefs

    And those teams have logos that are caricatures of Indians but that doesn’t seem to offend the Six Nations Indians.

    And, boy, I hope Indians never use any English names for any of their teams, businesses, etc. I would hate to see non natives offended.

    1. Mr. Horsnell,

      As I read your at least Five (Later Six) comments on every article in this exciting fledgling blog, I often wonder what you hope to add to the dialogue. I am sorry that your worldview exists only in the glory days of racism from 1701 to the 1960’s and that all your quotes come from those times, but what real addition to this dialogue are you hoping to achieve?

      I must admit that your sticks and stones argument is a compelling one, but I think you have overlooked an important thing: It’s time to change the name.

      1. People from the Six Nations of the Grand River bring up agreements and treaties that go back to the 1600s all the time.

        For example, the Haudenosaunee Wildlife and Habitat Authority and Six Nations Hauneonausee hunters are using the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty to justify hunting in public parks outside of the reserve.

        I simply pointed out the following quotes from that 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty.

        1) “Wee say upon these and many other good motives us hereunto moveing have freely and voluntary surrendered delivered up and for ever quit claimed, and by these presents doe for us our heires and successors absolutely surrender, deliver up and for ever quit claime unto our great Lord and Master the King of England called by us Corachkoo and by the Christians William the third and to his heires and successors Kings and Queens of England for ever all the right title and interest and all the claime and demand whatsoever which wee the said five nations of Indians called the Maquase, Oneydes, Onnondages, Cayouges and Sinnekes now have or which wee ever had or that our heirs or successors at any time hereafter may or ought to have of in or to all that vast Tract of land or Colony called Canagariarchio beginning on the northwest side of Cadarachqui lake and includes all that vast tract of land lyeing between the great lake of Ottawawa and the lake called by the natives Cahiquage and by the Christians the lake of Swege”.

        2) “for ever quit claime unto our great Lord and Master the King of England”

        3) “wee having subjected ourselves and lands on this side of Cadarachqui lake wholy to the Crown of England”

        4) “wee have lived peaceably and quietly with the people of Albany our fellow subjects”

        That shows the Five (later six) Nations Haudenosaunee surrendered land in what is now southwestern Ontario to the British Crown, “for ever quit claime” to that land so they can’t claim it now and said they had subjected themselves to the Crown.

        But when I point out quotes from that treaty, some Six Nations people get all upset. They say they never surrendered land to the Crown. They say they are allies of the Crown not subjects of the Crown and they suggest that treaty is invalid.

        If Six Nations people want to use that 1701 treaty to justify hunting in public parks outside of the reserve, then I should be able to point out what it says in that treaty.

        If there some Six Nations people who don’t like what it says in the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty and think that treaty is invalid, then maybe they should take their complaints to court and challenge the validity of that 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty in court.

        1. Mr. Horsnell,

          I respect the fact that you hold a strong view and are willing to go to great lengths to promote that view. Basically my point is that your trolling of this start-up newspapers articles isn’t helping the conversation, imho. I personally take no exception to your views, you reflect a muted version of strong oppositions to any form of sovereignty and understanding oppositions part of the path to finding solutions. Obviously centuries of legal authority supported by colonial constructs are going to offer a favorable interpretation of your view.

          If I had gotten all upset it’s only because you keep repeating the same sorts of things over and over again, though the sticks and stones thing is new. It is your right to continue to troll as you see fit.

          I still hold that changing the name, and respecting sovereignty are in the best interests of both “Canadians” and Haudenosaunee people. If Onkewhawe can reclaim the strength of nationhood it will restore balance to a country that is in danger of losing its future to a narrow world view.

          One way to reclaim strength is to work with local officials and leaders, like
          Mitch has done, to improve the community by eliminating a mascot that is ill-advised at best and deeply offensive and/or outright racist at worst.

        2. Are people from the Six Nations going to change and get rid of the logos their sports teams have of caricatures of Indians?

        3. I see I got some thumbs down. Well, if people from the Six Nations of the Grand River are going use the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty to say they have hunting rights in southwestern Ontario, they can’t have or keep their cake and eat it too.

          They have to abide by what it says in the whole treaty, not just the parts that suit them.

Comments are closed.