Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

Should People Be Mascots?

7/21/2020

9 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

After evading public pressure for decades, financial concerns have finally sacked the National Football League’s (NFL) Washington franchise, causing it to change a name that Merriam-Webster defines as “offensive.”  While it’s good that Native Americans will no longer be subject to that denigration, a broader question remains:  Should any sports team’s mascot be a person?
 
High school, college, and professional sports are peppered with teams named after people groups.  In 2014, USA Today reported that of the 10 most popular high school mascot names, three had human connections: Vikings (#4), Warriors (#9), and Knights (#10).  People names are also prevalent in Division I collegiate athletics, e.g., Knights and Spartans.  Then there are professional sports franchises like the Dallas Cowboys, Milwaukee Brewers, and Cleveland Cavaliers.
 
In fact, nearly a third of teams in the United States’ four major professional sports leagues use people as mascots (39/123 = 31.7%).  Here’s the breakdown by league:
  • Major League Baseball (MLB):  13/30= 43.3%
  • National Football League (NFL):  13/32= 40.6%
  • National Hockey League (NHL):  9/31= 29%
  • National Basketball Association (NBA):  4/30= 13.3%​
 
To argue to change a team name that serves as a racial slur is pretty straightforward, but what about the dozens or hundreds of other anthropological nicknames?  Is society failing to see now a practice that in years to come will be deemed abhorrent?
 
Apparently, few people objected in 1933 when George Preston Marshall changed the name of the then-Boston-based football franchise from Braves to the current one.  Likewise, few appeared to challenge the  U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision in 1967 that gave the name legal protection. 
 
In 1972, a variety of Native American organizations asked team president Edward Bennet Williams for a name change, but their plea evidently gained little public support and ultimately failed to alter his attitude.  
 
The point is this:  Just as the majority of the population was apathetic about the need for the Washington football team name change for most of its history, people might look back 20 years from now and wonder, “How could individuals in 2020 have been so ignorant to have people as mascots for sports teams?”

Now, however, many see being chosen as a team mascot as a sign of respect.  After all, sports are about competing and winning.  So, teams tend to pick mascots that are known for strength, speed, or ferocity or that possess some other desirable qualities that might reflect positively onto the franchise.  Although sports teams called Acorns and Spudders actually exist, they are the exceptions.  Instead, most team names are chosen because they suggest power and inspire confidence, like Wildcats and Warriors.
 
Picture
 
At first glance, Merriam-Webster’s definition of mascot reinforces the notion that being chosen as one is a positive thing:  A mascot is “a person, animal, or object adopted by a group as a symbolic figure especially to bring them good luck.”  How many people, however, want to be someone else’s good luck charm?  Most people probably want to be the one enjoying success, not the token symbol responsible for helping someone else win.
 
A mascot, therefore, is a kind of ‘second class citizen,’ more of a possession or pet than a person.  Of course, many mascots are actual animals, kept in cages or put on leashes and paraded in front of fans on gameday.  Although mascots are typically chosen for their prowess, it's strength subdued in service to another.
 
At this point, some of you may be understandably thinking, “Relax!  They’re just mascots.  Sports are supposed to be fun!”  I get that.  I’ve appreciated mascots for many years and still do.
 
When I was much younger, I played for Danville, PA’s high school basketball team, whose mascot name still is the “Ironmen” (granted, not very gender friendly); the town was a key player in America’s 19th century iron industry.  I’m also a long-time fan of the NFL’s Pittsburgh Steelers.  Honestly, I never thought much about implications of these mascots being people . . . until now. 
 
Would an iron mill or steel mill worker mind that their occupation was selected for mascot status?  I'm speculating, but my guess is they wouldn’t; in fact, they might even feel honored.  Their reputations as occupations that require unique physical and mental toughness probably makes their selection seem complimentary.
  
These two examples, however, help identify a potentially important distinction:  Not all human mascots involve occupations, which people self-select.  Some mascots are based on demographics like race and ethnicity (e.g. Cleveland Indians), over which people have no say.
 
That lack of choice is compounded by the issue of stereotypes.  Any human mascot suggests a certain image for all those belonging to the demographic.  For instance, the name Braves implies that all Native Americans are courageous and strong.
 
But, what could be bad about being perceived as strong and courageous?  Aren’t they attributes that anyone would want?  Perhaps they are, but the reality is, not everyone has them to the same extent.  For Native Americans, that 'positive stereotype' might negatively impact them in at least two ways.
 
First, the Braves mascot stereotype might make those who weren’t born with as much natural strength or courage feel inadequate, like they’re not living up to an important social standard.  Second, a seemingly positive stereotype still pigeonholes people, or presents an unnecessarily narrow or inaccurate view of their abilities.
 
For example, I’ve been around sports enough to know that African American men are often stereotyped as great athletes.  At first blush, that stereotype may seem positive, but if you’re an African American man, you may not appreciate people assuming that you played and/or excelled in sports, especially if you never did.  You also wouldn’t like it if people discounted your intellect, as they sometimes do for athletes, inaccurately assuming that a strong body means a weak mind.
 
There really is no such thing as a positive stereotype.  Unfortunately, mascots perpetuate stereotypes, which may not be an issue for animals or inanimate things but can be problematic for people if the mascot is tied to a demographic like race or ethnicity that individuals do not choose.
 
In more recent years, it seems that sports leagues have become more ‘enlightened,’ as it’s rare for expansion teams to be given human names.  For instance, since 1976, six new teams have entered the NFL, but only one was given a people name—the Houston Texans, which is not directly tied to race or ethnicity. 
 
The Washington Post reports that the Cleveland Indians are now considering a name change.  It may not be long before other teams named Indians, Braves, Chiefs, etc. do the same.  Projecting further into the future, it’s conceivable that some of sports’ most storied franchises, e.g. Celtics, Fighting Irish, will do the same.
 
Mascots related to occupations, which people choose, can likely stay.  However, team names based on race or ethnicity should be retired because of the narrow and unfair stereotypes they project.  Years from now, if not sooner, people will see such team names and call them “Single-Minded Marketing.”
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
9 Comments
Clayton Holmes
9/3/2020 07:25:03 pm

I honestly never thought about how dehumanizing it could be for an entire demographic to be a mascot. Thinking ab out it now, they're silly characters. Fun, often obnoxious, you best summed it up: "How many people, however, want to be someone else’s good luck charm?...Although mascots are typically chosen for their prowess, it's strength subdued in service to another." I also found it helpful when you pointed out the fact that even when they're compliments, there still exists a problematic nature surrounding unfair standards to live up to. Very insightful and helpful article that broadened my perspective.

Reply
Marshall Nixon
9/4/2020 11:51:09 am

I personally do not view using names that refer to groups of people to be derogatory or dehumanizing. In fact, I see choosing a name of a group as a sign of respect that often times pays homage to the culture and history of the group. While a mascot may be seen doing outlandish things for the purpose of entertainment, the more important purpose of a mascot is to be the face of a franchise and a symbol that fans can rally behind. Teams choose names that symbolize strength and ferocity, ones that should instill fear in their opponents and feature the qualities that the team hopes to live up to. This is why we have the Carolina Panthers and no the Carolina Kitty-Cats. For this reason, I see naming a franchise after a group of people to be a big compliment to that group. The Atlanta Braves, for instance, references Native American Warriors. It is not a stereotype that says all Native Americans today are courageous, but a symbol that emphasizes the courage of those warriors, while also keeping that piece of history relevant. The situation with the Washington Redskins is different since that title can be used as a slur, so I understand why people were upset by that name. Perhaps the stipulation should be made that as long as the name alone is not offensive, then naming an organization after a group is not offensive, but honorable. In my opinion, changing the name of a franchise to spare the feelings of people who do not see it as a sign of respect is not worth the extreme financial burden or the disruption it brings the fanbase. Additionally, if we extend the idea of changing mascots named after all groups of people, we would find ourselves in situations of renaming the Washington Wizards for the sake of magicians who don't feel strong or competitive, and that would be simply unreasonable.

Reply
Brady Guyer
9/16/2020 10:49:21 am

Before reading this article, I never took the time to actually think about some mascots and how they can create stereotypes or project racism. When watching a game, whether it be football, baseball, or any other sport, I would not want to be offended by the team's mascot. I agree that this is "single-minded" marketing, and I think NFL teams should start taking a closer look at their mascots, or even nix them all together. This article definitely helped me to see things from a different standpoint.

Reply
Hunter Rinehart
9/17/2020 09:21:30 am

After reading this article it gave me a whole new perspective on how mascot names could possibly offend people. I do think that being chosen as a mascot name is a sign of respect and honor. In high school my mascot was a Viking. I thought that this was powerful to our school and was a great mascot name to have. However, I also am understanding how some people could find this offensive. It might have only affected a few people at my high school but, think about how a name can affect a whole demographic group. It can be considered dehumanizing. I think that being named after sports team is a compliment, there are other people that find it offensive.

Reply
Kyle Costello
9/17/2020 01:09:48 pm

I have heard many stories like these, where Sports teams are being asked to change their mascot because they are offensive to specific a ethnicity or gender. My mascot in high school was a Wildcat and in our huddles before games and after practice we would say "Wildcat Pride". To me this always represented the unity of our teams and our community. We have so much prided for our school and we always work together as a team. However, I can see that if our team was named after a group of people that it could be offensive to that particular group. Likewise, many girls teams at school are called the female version of their mascot because they don't associate themselves to the male version, which can be offensive to the as well. I know I have never heard of a mascot named after a female animal or entity, because they are not associated with power and strength. This is something that I could also see changing in the future with the likes of the US women's national soccer team competing for equal pay and rights as the men's side.

Reply
Aysia Johnson
10/26/2020 01:17:33 pm

 Being an athlete, I have heard this argument thousands of times. I lean towards the side that there really is no such thing as a positive stereotype, therefore no mascot can make everyone happy. No matter what, somebody is going be offended, that is just how the world is. People can identify as anything they want; therefore, anything can make someone fell offended. There are obviously some mascots that are more offensive than others, which should be handled accordingly. I agree with the article that the “single mindedness” is compounded by stereotypes. Stereotypes is constructed by society’s opinion. In all honestly, it’s our own fault for feeling offended because we are the ones who constructed the stereotypes. I do not want to be insensitive to the topic, but the purpose of the mascot is to bring empowerment to a team. I think it is Higley unlikely that when a team picks a mascot they did it out of spite or to mock those who are associated with it.

Reply
Jack Farrah
10/28/2020 04:46:25 pm

There's a TV show I watch called Community. This show is about a community college and their mascot is literally a human being. They tried to make a mascot that is all-inclusive and non-offensive. What they ended up creating was a monstrosity that came straight from my nightmares. All this to say that, ultimately, you can't please everyone. While, sure, maybe you shouldn't have a mascot that's racist. That's a given. But, I would disagree that no mascot should have human ties. The Spartans, for example, were strong, brave, and ferocious warriors. Did they commit questionable acts? Sure. But, having a team named after them isn't supporting those acts. It's simply comparing their strengths to those of the team. You could celebrate the good actions of someone and have a mascot be Gandhi, but that defeats the entire purpose of a mascot and sports in general. Sports were originally created to test the strength of a nation's warriors, not their social conscientiousness. To put it simply, mascots are meant to display physical strength and power. Besides, if we couldn't name a sports team after humans, we'd have like four teams named "the bears" in the NFL.

Reply
Jared Donnel
10/30/2020 02:05:29 am

Everyone is going to be super mad at me after this, but where to voice one's opinions if not on a blog? I think that this whole idea that mascots are especially made to target people is ridiculous. Mascots are a symbol of pride and strength for a city or state or high school. People will try to turn anything into something racist these days, and just because a sports team is named after a human character doesn't mean that team is racist! Sports teams are the pride and joy of their respective surroundings, in which case it makes no sense to dish out hate to those in charge of those teams. I think Jack Farrah nailed this one right on the money. His comment is well made.

Reply
CJ Hall
2/6/2023 07:53:14 pm

After reading this article, I realized how so many mascots can be considered offensive to people. Washington's NFL team was a very obvious one, but there are plenty of others that are not as blatant that are still just as offensive. Mascots that represent people groups always lean into a stereotype, and nobody likes to be stereotyped. Changing of certain team mascots should definitely be looked into farther because personally, I wouldn't love a stereotype of any group that I affiliate myself with to be the basis behind a mascot, so I can't other people being particularly happy about it either.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing    & author of Honorable Influence

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly