Braves or Brave Hawks at UNCP:
A Philosophical Review of a "Native" Mascot

Presentation by Associate Professor of American Indian Studies, Jay Hansford C. Vest, Ph.D., an Enrolled member of Monacan Indian Nation and direct descendant of Opechancanough.

Preface: This commentary is a conceptual paper written with the intent to have some fun, while generating, I hope, wisdom characteristic of a traditional Native American ethos.

In early 2005 at the behest of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the University of North Carolina at Pembroke (UNCP) has been asked to review and justify it "Braves" nickname, logo and mascot. On the surface, this topic may appear to be an innocuous subject with little or no consequences attending diversity and cultural sensitivity. There are, however, some matters of consequence at stake in the outcome. First, there is the very real problem of offensive stereotypical sports nicknames, logos and mascots that readily give insult to Amerindians. We need only look to the nation's capital to find such a demeaning sports image in the characterization of "Redskins." It is unlikely that either a "Baltimore Blackskins" or a "Washington Whiteskins" with in kind logo and mascot would fair well with the affected racial constituents, particularly given the history of race relations in this country. Notwithstanding, as American Indians, we are told to "grin and bear it" while Cleveland's "Chief Wahoo" with feather in his hair grinningly touts the "Indians" baseball franchise. There are, of course, the Boston-Milwaukee-Atlanta Braves, who carry a name commemorating the disgraceful Indian wars as New England's colonial founders repaid Massasoit's hospitality in making the "first" Thanksgiving possible.

What is it with such sports nicknames, logos and mascots that bare our ire? Among Natives Americans, red is, in fact, a sacred color commonly associated with the life giving Sun and many Natives painted their faces red sharing this sacred power. Amerindians, however, were never "redskins," but called so only in derision. Likewise Amerindian people are fond of a good joke, even celebrating foolery with a trickster grinning anti-hero in traditional oral narratives. The trickster fool, superficially akin to the idiotic image of a grinning Chief Wahoo, however, is a moral trope designed to teach the normative ideal, mores and morals, through reverse psychology. In this intellectual juxtaposition, Natives cleverly preserve the will, well-being, and integrity of their children and encourage them to act independently and think for themselves.

Perhaps these "Redskins," "Indians." and "Braves," among others, are examples of ironic stereotypes, but certainly Amerindians have brave warriors whose "braves" fought valiantly to protect their lands, families, and way of life during the interminable conquest and dispossession of Native America. Indeed, the "Braves" nickname, logo and mascot is, "surely," an example of an intrinsic representation of Native patriotic courage and valiant resistance. In fact, aboriginal resistance by Native "Braves" might supply a contemporary model for patriotic America's war on terrorism. But again, we might ask in whose name and in whose home do we acquit our justice?

In Native philosophy, words born on the wind of breath bear the power of creation. Speaking of creation, singing is power and words merit careful use and respect. Just as word and song can revivify and renew, they can also mock and revile. It is in the case of the later action, that negative stereotypes born of an atypical context can create serious harm and impairment to those so caricatured. Contextually then sports nicknames, logos and mascots have the power to enrich, as well as, the ability to debase those persons or classes of persons so depicted.

When the NCAA directed UNCP to review the university nickname, logo and mascot, it may be easy to assume that they were simply picking on an innocent victim that bears a significant Amerindian heritage. We might conclude that this demand is simply a case of political correctness and deem it a matter of indigenous resentment at taking what is "ours" -- that is "our" Amerindian heritage at UNCP. Founded in 1887 to educate Amerindians, UNCP is today among the most ethnically diverse campuses within the nation. Established by and situated amid the Lumbee tribe, the largest Amerindian nation in the east, the university retains a significant Native population and commitment to the aboriginal community. In fact, UNCP has the distinction of offering the sole baccalaureate degree in American Indian Studies at a public university east of the Mississippi River. Steadfastly proud of this Amerindian heritage, the university, the community and the tribe have partnered to save the "Braves" name, logo and mascot. Indeed, UNCP and its allies, the Pembroke Town Council, the Lumbee Tribal Council and the local Chamber of Commerce have jointly resolved and requested that the NCAA give the university an exemption when insuring cultural sensitivity to Natives. But is this decision and appeal a wise course of action? Is it one that will insure ethical respect for Native Americans, for their life ways and cultures? Might we turn to the old adage, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" in our reply?

In UNCP, we have a university valiantly founded by the Lumbee Indian Nation out of the miasma of apartheid segregation in man's inhumanity to man, indeed it is a campus bearing the rich intellectual and cultural heritage of the First Americans. In championing its "Braves," can there be no mistake? In initial response, we may turn to an assessment of the nickname, logo and mascot. "Braves" is a Latin derived term conveying the virtues of bravery, courage and honor in war. Might these qualities be exactly that which we wish to bring to the field of athletic competition where our scholar athletes honorably learn the lessons of fair play and good sportsmanship? Or, is there a hint of something else that suggests combat and conquest in a notion bespeaking warfare? Featuring an American Indian figure in silhouette with a hawk perched on his or her shoulder, the UNCP logo would seem to exemplify an ideal Amerindian imagery. Unlike the Atlanta tomahawk adorning the breasts of ball players and thereby personifying an implement of war and destruction, UNCP's logo is invested with the personification and dignity of Native America. As mascot, the hawk rides the Indian's shoulder and hints a spiritual power that is magical and mystical in characterization of Amerindian religious practice. There is, however, a bronze hawk with outstretched wings atop a boulder located in front of the Chavis University Center that conveys another message. Upon inspection the plaque commemorating the hawk named "Tommy" seems innocent enough, however, there is a clever sense to it that rings in the ears and demands a second take. Shall we view "Tommy Hawk" as a cool irony or is it simply a bad joke in poor taste?

Resolved in retaining the name, logo and mascot, UNCP seeks to honor its Amerindian heritage and continue its proud pedagogical legacy among American universities. The prima facie conclusion among students, staff, faculty and community is "Why must we give up our Native culture to serve cultural sensitivity?" Is this not, after all, something like "throwing the baby out with the bath." Apparent in this conclusion, "Braves" is a Native name historically implied in "our" logo with a "traditional" hawk mascot. By sovereign right, "we," the Indian community have chosen this "Native" name, logo and mascot to represent our university and its Amerindian heritage. In fact, "we" are an Amerindian community and "we" sanction the name giving it "our" blessing and full support, so "why must the NCAA pick on us? and take all that we have left of our heritage?" So goes the argument of culturally sensitive sovereignty, the Natives have spoken, it is time to accept "our" sovereign rights as demanded by the university's aboriginal founders. University administrators and community leaders agree cuckolding this sovereign right to retain the name, logo and mascot as they stand in symbolizing Native America. Do community intent, university goodwill and sovereign right, however, constitute the good? Might there be a mistake in this determination? Can Amerindians, and their friends, make culturally sensitive mistakes when representing the Native heritage?

In response, we might turn to the consideration of a classical view of Amerindian religious traditions. By classical, I am seeking to exclude non-Native, particularly Western ideological and philosophical, axioms, theologies, values and ways of knowing. In large measure, scholars classify Amerindian traditions amid an animism rubric. The term animism suggests an indwelling spirit, while it may also convey an indwelling soul. The intent of these notions is to acknowledge the Native metaphysic of nature where everything is recognized to have a spirit and a soul. By spirit, however, there is no sense of ghost as is common among Westerners. The "spirits" are nature persons and indwelling "spirit" is cognate of species. For example, every wolf partakes of the wolf spirit, as every corn plant partakes of the corn spirit, and every thunderstorm partakes of the thunder spirit, ad infinitum, throughout the natural world. Spirits are thus tied with their organic referent or biological form; moreover, spirits are linked to organic species that may be mineral, element, plant, or animal that is in composite the Nature Persons. The notion of indwelling soul, however, is unique and individual. Everything, all nature persons, have a soul and evidence of this unique soul is often linked to fingerprints and other such whirls like the hair at the top of the head. In some cases, fingerprints, as soul stuff, are taken from a corpse and ground into powder for witchery. The Navajo, for instance, give reference to such practices and persons knowing them as "skinwalkers" and one must be in constant vigilance of these evildoers.

Mascots, logos and sports-names have their origins in what is called totemism suggesting a guardian spirit or helper. The traditional ideal is that power rests in nature and we human persons are nothing and powerless. It goes that we humans were the last forms created and, as such newcomers, we are not endowed with spirit power. Whereas nature is elder and more powerful than we humans. Humans may, in turn, access power by soliciting the spirits and acquiring the help of a guardian spirit, a practice that bonds humans with their guardian helper or spirit guide in form or species and to its habitat. Without the organic form, that is species of nature persons, and outside its habitat, there is no power or power to be derived. It is a spiritually demanding tradition of organic referents, that is species, and proximity to their respective habitat.

A failure of this kind of organic totemism is evident in examples from the National Basketball Association where teams have relocated while retaining their original names, logos and mascots. For example, there are no grizzlies in Memphis and these spirits have never made their home in this southern habitat. In the case of the New Orleans Hornets, the name derived from a Cherokee tradition that identified a mound from antiquity located in Charlotte as the place of the hornet’s origination. While hornets may be found in the New Orleans habitat, the city is not associated with the origin of the species, hence the name, logo and mascot are mere simulations abstracted out of context. Analogous claims may be made for the Lakers and Jazz franchises, as respectively displaced from Minneapolis and New Orleans to Los Angeles and Salt Lake City.

Since human persons are powerless, it is incumbent upon them to acquire power; one does so by eliciting the pity of sympathetic spirits or nature persons. Commonly throughout Native America, a spiritual influence or guardian helper, is obtained in the solitary retreat of a ritual popularly called the vision quest. In such cases, a human person is directed in dream and vision to observe a ritual fast, usually lasting four nights and days while taking no food or water and in a remote locale removed from human occupation and development. Observing a human in this spiritual vigil, it is understood that the nature persons or spirits are moved to pity for the fasting supplicant. These spirits, in turn, decide to help the pitiful and powerless human offering him or her spiritual power that is fundamentally associated with the spirit's respective ecological disposition. There is usually a vision granted that will guide the lamenter through his or her life and the spirits typically give a song that acts to, henceforth, revivify and renew the supplicant's life force. From this indigenous religious ritual, we humans become bona fide persons, that is, until one acquires a guardian spirit or a helping influence, he or she is a nothing person, powerless before all.

In such ritual observance, one is forever transformed and obligated to his or her spirit helper or guardian who as such constitutes his or her totem. In this practice, one might acquire visual images that are painted, etched or embroidered on one's material property, such as clothing, shield, lodgings, etc. In fact, ritual fetishes, such as the helper's claw, feathers or skin and etc., may be obtained and used to create a sympathetic magic or power association. Transformation including the acquisition of a name is a traditional outcome of this ritual experience. In consequence, totemism as practiced by Native Americans supersedes the name, logo and mascot of popular American sports imagery and practice.

Acknowledging this traditional Amerindian ritual custom, we must observe the organic philosophical requirements. Here virtue is associated with the referent nature persons and it is not a divorced abstraction. The reason exemplified in this philosophy is born of an associative reasoning in the presence of the object vice that of a detached reasoning in the absence of the object. For example, bravery might be associated with a loyal dog defending the camp from intruders. Among Plains Indians, a warrior society is not composed of "braves," but of "brave dogs," constituting what I call a simile of association as a virtue where bravery is organic in the disposition of a nature person or spirit – e.g. the dog. In other Native cultures, wrath is a serpent striking with anger and an owl is a shaman seeing into the night as one looks beyond into the nether world. Again, the Plains Indian "warriors" are commonly referenced in organic metaphor as "Brave Dogs" associating their power with the referent nature persons that are canine in nature. There are no "braves," as in human warriors, because humans as a class possess no intrinsic natural power. Power in this view is, moreover, vacant without an organic referent.

Given these examples, we might want to reconsider the notion of "Braves" as a traditional and an appropriate Native totem, suitable as name, logo and mascot for UNCP. In so far that "Braves" implies human warriors, who traditionally alone without the spirits have no power association, the term conveys an empty abstraction. Within a traditional Native ethos, virtue, such as bravery, must be defined by referent example and in an experiential quality as possessed of a class of nature persons. Accordingly, there are no "Braves" among the Natives. Considering the UNCP logo, we can, however, note the image with a hawk perched on the human's shoulder, thereby implying a traditional totem conveying hawk power to the "brave." A "brave" with such a totem is a "Brave Hawk," an empowered being, but he or she is nothing, in this case without the hawk.