Native American Names in British Sport: Borrowed Tradition or Imported Racism?

This article originally appeared on VICE Sports UK.

On the surface, the furor surrounding Native American names in sports might seem a distinctly North American issue. Even the planned participation of the Washington Redskins in this year's NFL International Series at Wembley Stadium can be viewed as an overseas debate temporarily relocating to British shores. In their letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell regarding the Redskins' visit, Labour Party MPs Ian Austin and Ruth Smeeth expressed "serious concern about the exportation of a racial slur" to the UK, which they said "directly contravenes the values that many in Britain have worked so hard to instill."

But since the 1970s, an ice hockey team representing the south London district of Streatham has been using the same name, as well as a logo depicting a Native American's head, similar to that of the Washington team – and they are by no means alone.

While the Streatham Redskins will be rebranding themselves this year in response to the ongoing controversy in the United States, many other teams in the UK continue to use mascots that organisations such as the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) say are offensive.

According to NCAI Legislative Associate Brian Howard, such branding promotes a "stereotypical, romanticised" image of Native Americans as the "warrior savage," while the use of tribal names amounts to cultural appropriation.

"The logo creates a narrow view of what our whole people represent; there's so many different language groups, so many cultural practices, and so many different lifestyles," he told VICE Sports. "When you have a stereotypical mascot that narrowly portrays the wonderful diversity that is our people, it's offensive."

Howard says that, despite the continuing lack of action in the United States to address the offence that such branding causes – over 2,000 high schools still use Native American mascots – public awareness has gradually increased since the NCAI began campaigning against stereotyping in 1968. During the decades that have followed, numerous teams have abandoned their names and mascots, and in recent years campaigns such as Change the Mascot have gained significant traction.

Nevertheless, many teams continue to resist such reforms.

Among those to rebuff criticism, perhaps the most high-profile is Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, who insists the name is a "badge of honour" that celebrates the heritage of American Indians, even while public demand for a name change grows. In 2014, the US Patents Office cancelled the team's trademark of the name because it is disparaging. Nevertheless, Snyder continues to wheel out Native Americans – some with questionable heritage claims – who support his cause, ignoring protests from organisations representing hundreds of thousands of American Indians.

In the UK, until last month's letter, media reports on the controversy had framed it as a wholly North American issue. But numerous UK sports clubs have Native American branding, such as football team Bristol Apache, basketball side Tees Valley Mohawks, and ice hockey teams Whitley Warriors and Chelmsford Chieftains.

The Welsh Tomahawks Uniform #BACL #Uniforms #Kit #Red #Wales #Tomahawks pic.twitter.com/Ea75wVUj
— BACL (@OfficialBACL) December 5, 2012

While these UK teams have smaller fan bases and more modest financial resources than professional teams in the United States and Canada, a campaign launched late last year by Adidas to assist amateur teams in North America to eliminate Native American mascots highlighted the need for change all the way down to the grassroots level.

In the case of the Streatham Redskins, that change has been ongoing for the past two seasons – a process team owner Warren Rost says has been implemented slowly because of the costs involved in rebranding a club that attracts no more than 1,000 paying spectators to each game, and has gone through periods of "hand to mouth" living during recent years.

"I realised we had to change the name because the idea that anything associated with this club could be seen as discriminatory or offensive to any group of people is against everything we stand for," explained Rost. "We have been a multicultural club since our formation and we are proud to represent such a richly diverse area as Streatham."

Since 2014, the club has used kit updates as an opportunity to relegate the logo that once filled the chest of the jersey to the sleeves, while the Redskins name has been removed entirely – first from the away kit for the 2014/15 season, and then from the home kit for the current campaign. It has also disappeared from the club's website and social media accounts, and as of the 2016/17 season the team will have a new name and logo – though Rost is not yet able to reveal what it will be.

Rost says the gradual change has also been undertaken to have as little impact as possible on fans, who he insists only associate the word "Redskins" with the team they have supported for years. "To turn around and just say 'sorry that's racist, it has to go' will be upsetting for some, because that is all they have known for decades. But we hope they understand why we have to do this," he said.

One of those fans, who rose through the club's youth ranks as a player and has captained the senior team for the past decade, is Joe Johnston. While sad to say goodbye to a name that has been so important to him his whole life, he says changing it is the right thing to do.

"I grew up watching the Redskins and wanting to play for them, but the club is about hockey and the people and families associated with it. It's more than just a name," he told VICE Sports. "This club welcomes everybody, and I have enjoyed this game with people from all sorts of backgrounds, so if there is any sliver of an idea that the name could not reflect that, then we can't use it."

Streatham Hockey Supporters Club chairperson Dawn D'Anger, who has followed the team for 35 years, shared Johnston's feelings: "I think it's really sad, but I know it's something we've got to do," she said. "It's got to happen and we've all got to move forward."

The club's decision to rebrand has been welcomed by English Ice Hockey Association (EIHA) Equality & Child Protection Officer Charles Dacres. He recognises that giving up a part of a club's history is a wrench, but says he would be pleased to see other teams follow Streatham's lead. According to Dacres, while people in the UK might feel detached from the debate surrounding Native American mascots and see it as "political correctness to the hundredth degree," refusing to adapt to growing awareness of racism and discrimination will eventually catch up with you, "and you don't want to get left behind."

"There's an innocence within people, but innocence is also ignorance," he told us. "It's no different from the Robertsons Golly [a company mascot that faced increasing public opposition for being racist during the 1990s, before being discontinued in 2002]. If you had a team called the Gollies, a few years ago you might have been able to get away with it, but not today."

Yet many of the people involved in UK teams using Native American names and mascots remain oblivious to the controversy or unwilling to discuss it. Both Tees Valley Mohawks' acting Club Manager Steve Butler and Whitley Warriors owner Francis Smith told VICE Sports they had no idea their respective clubs' logos – each cartoonish depictions of American Indians – could be considered offensive. Meanwhile, Chelmsford Chieftains press officer Andy Driver repeatedly ignored messages and calls and failed to set up a promised interview with club owner Derek Bartlett.

Driver previously defended the team's use of a logo depicting an austere looking American Indian wearing a headdress, explaining that it is not meant to be offensive. "We have just always used that," he said. "Whatever goes on over [in the United States] has nothing to do with us, we just play ice hockey, we don't mean to offend anyone."

Yet it is the historical persecution and ongoing subjugation of Native Americans from which the anger of American Indians today is derived – a persecution that the UK is not as far removed from as people may think. Britain controlled much of the eastern coast of the present-day United States for a century before the American War of Independence erupted in 1775, and atrocities were committed against Native Americans throughout that period.

According to Dr. Nicholas Guyatt, an expert on Native American History at Cambridge University, land grabs and brutal campaigns were commonplace throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. However, it would be a mistake to characterise the relationship of the British government and colonists with Native Americans as anything approaching the systematic persecution seen at the hands of the US government after independence.

But Guyatt also points out that, beyond the historical context and stereotype at the heart of the warrior image teams are trying to evoke, the use of Native American names and mascots is unacceptable because they were often originally adopted by sports teams in the US based on the belief that American Indians were destined to disappear.

"For the teams to consider changing [their names and mascots], they are not just getting right with history," he explained, "they are getting right with native people who are still around in the US and still have a voice."

@charlesparkinsn