Copyright © 2000 NLThomas
All Rights Reserved

REDWOOD CITY, OK - When it comes to being offended by something, it's not up to someone else. It's up to you. If it offends you, it really doesn't matter whether someone else thinks you're wrong to be offended.

There may be more room for forgiveness if no insult was intended, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that an offense was committed.

If you know something you do offends someone and you continue to do it, at what point are intentions no longer relevant?

And how long should someone be expected to tolerate an offense or an insult if that person is exposed to that offense on a regular basis?

Such questions are at the heart of an issue I wrote about recently -- the effort by some students at Sequoia High School in Redwood City to remove the Cherokee as the official school mascot.

It's an effort for which I expressed support, and which prompted, as you might expect, an outpouring of opposition from Sequoia alumni.

Virtually all of them argued that the Cherokee mascot is a tradition as old as the 105-year-old school and that it is a symbol of pride, respect and honor.

"The Cherokee people are a proud nation, and we are not defaming them by using the Cherokee as a mascot", wrote Sequoia alum James L. Redman, Sr.

"There is no insult intended here", said Brian Grey. "There is honor and respect and an opportunity for education and growth."

Well, again, that depends on your point of view.

The Cherokees themselves would prefer not to be someone's mascot.

"By definition, a mascot is demeaning", said Chad Smith, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, in a telephone interview this week.

"What that defines is a relationship of patronage and paternalism", said Smith. "I don't believe any class of people should be subject to institutionalized patronage or paternalism. By definition, I have a problem with Cherokees being used as a mascot.

A mascot is defined as a token of good luck", he said. "By making Cherokees a mascot, it's indicating they're second-class citizens, because they're mascots.

"In that sense, any mascot is intended to be a second-class citizen, whether it's the Stanford Tree, Tommy Trojan or the Phillie Phanatic.

"The mascot is free to prance around on the field of play but expected to get out of the way when the players return and the sports contest resumes in earnest.

"The mascot doesn't belong in the real contest, but on the sidelines, as a source of amusement, whether it's comical amusement or school spirit.

"The use of a people as a mascot invites caricature and stereotyping, said Smith, and that does untold damage.

"For example, the Cherokee people never wore the kind of full headdress worn by the Cherokee in Sequoia logos, nor does the Cherokee have the stereotypical profile in the same logo.

"It creates a distorted image of Cherokees. We're not Indians on wooden nickels. We're a vibrant class of people, with a sophisticated education system, an outstanding infrastructure with our own courts and a 90 percent literacy rate in our own language", Smith said.

If any mascot has the potential to be offensive, why are we more comfortable with the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame or the countless Vikings and Spartans and Trojans?

Who knows? The point is that the Irish and Trojans and Vikings have to decide for themselves if they're offended. And no one can decide for them.

Those who support the Cherokee mascot say it is part of the way the school honors Sequoyah, the Cherokee scholar who codified the Cherokee language, started his people's first newspaper and was honored by having the indigenous California redwoods named for him.

The high school takes its name from the tree and, indirectly, from Sequoyah.

"But Sequoia is already honored by having the school named for him. If he were to be used as a symbol of education -- if a historically accurate portrait were used on the diplomas, for example -- that would be an honor", Smith said.

"That's not a mascot, that's a true symbol of learning", he said.

Smith stopped short of demanding that Sequoia drop the Cherokee mascot.

"I'm not going to tell them not to (use the Cherokee). I personally would prefer they not, but changing the icon is not as important as ... going through the analysis as a learning exercise. "It's the awareness of why people are married to this image, and it's a recognition of the lack of historical understanding that is really valuable,'' he said. ``If they see the true history of the Cherokees and they see the falseness of this image, it's a real growth pattern and there won't be any desire to have this image anymore."

And as for the students who are pushing for the change, "I would encourage them not to lose faith. It's an issue worth pursuing", he said.