By Larry Jent

A couple of months ago I was a guest of honor at a roundtable discussion, along with Dr. Richard West, director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian (a Cheyenne chief and a United Methodist lay person). In our discussion, Dr. West and I were both using the terms "Native American" and "Indian" interchangeably. After about 20 minutes, one of those present asked us why we were still using "Indian," a term he considered politically incorrect.

Dr. West laughed, and said he used to keep a mental stopwatch to see how long it took before that question came up. He explained that both "Native American" and "Indian" were incorrect, but it was difficult to find a catch-all phrase for indigenous people--and that, frankly, it was not a top-drawer issue for him. There are many more important issues facing Native people today.

That is the way I feel about the mascot issue. It is not my first priority. For example, the fact that pastors in the Oklahoma Indian Mission Conference are still paid less than U. M. missionaries to Sri Lanka--and MUCH less than pastors to white suburbia--is a major issue of equity and justice that we COULD address as a denomination. It seems to me that we spend too much energy addressing matters of the culture at large that we cannot change, and too little time addressing injustices within our own denomination that we CAN change.

Having said that, I would also hasten to say that I understand the concern about mascots. Native people have historically been denied the right to their own name or image. Do a Web search on our great leaders, like Tecumseh, Pontiac, or Black Hawk. You will find images of automobiles, engines, and helicopters. Even a Web search on "Cherokee" will bring back Jeeps and clothing lines. We have no right to say how our names will be used or how our images will be appropriated. If we tried to market a line of furniture called the "John Wayne Collection," you can bet that his heirs would clamp down with a cease and desist order--but Native people have not had such rights.

"But," supporters of mascots will say, "we are honoring Native people--not degrading them." For those who have never had a chance to name themselves, the choice of when and how to honor is still an important right. As I have listened to Indian people articulate this yearning, the most cogent argument I have heard is this: the thing that all of these mascots have in common is that they portray Native people as (nearly fictitious) images from the past. As I travel to various churches speaking on Native concerns, I sometimes ask children if they have ever seen a real Indian, or if they know anything about Indian people. Without fail, one of the children will respond that Indians are people who lived long ago. When I explain that I am an Indian, their response ranges from fear to wide-eyed wonder. A few will even argue with me. "You can't be an Indian! Where is your horse?"

That response is cute and humorous--but cryptic. At a very early age, these children have absorbed the message that Native people are not part of the fabric of life in 21st century America. We are ghosts of the past--interesting but frightening. Here is the thing: Anglo children are not the only ones who absorb that message about Indians. Native children absorb those same messages. We grow up feeling we need to deny our very identity in order to function in daily life. If we accept that message, it will mean death to our culture--and that message is largely being perpetuated in non-verbal means by mascots.

On a pragmatic level, I would say that this matter of mascots is something we should take up with Ted Turner (owner of the Atlanta Braves), Daniel Snyder (owner of the Redskins), et al, not the city of Richmond (which has had little or no choice in the naming of the R-Braves). In truth, however, we are not likely to sway the hearts of rich people who own tremendously profitable franchises.

What can we change?

As I said above, we certainly can start by examining our own denominational attitudes and behaviors, but we can go further. The Native tribes of Virginia have not yet been recognized by the federal government as Indians. They have been in a legal catch-22, as the federal government requires documentation of continuous government as an Indian tribe since the 19th century in order to qualify for federal recognition. In the 20th century, the government of Virginia seized and destroyed all such documentation and made it a felony to try to re-create any of those documents. Now the Commonwealth has apologized and offered to reproduce those documents (for anyone who can prove that they were Indian--which usually requires documents that have been destroyed).

That still does not satisfy the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which says that the new documents are not old documents and are, therefore, unacceptable. The tribes have been lobbying congress to bypass the catch-22 with the BIA, but representatives stand to benefit little by approving such a request for such a small group of people without wealth or means. Some represent other Indian groups who feel that they would have a smaller piece of the federal pie as "new" groups are recognized. Some represent conservative groups who feel that the only reason Indians want to be recognized is to build casinos. Others think that people only want to be recognized to get on the federal gravy train (this in spite of the fact that federal recognition does not seem to have brought affluence to many Indians).

The Native tribes of Virginia could use the help of United Methodists in their quest for recognition, whether GC comes to Richmond or not. If the tribes are recognized before 2012, that could be something to celebrate. If not, it could be something to work toward.

Either way, it is my hope that wrestling with the text of our Book of Resolutions may lead us toward positive actions rather than negative reactions.

Larry Jent
NDN Staff Person

---