Indians to protest at Super Bowl

Native community divided on mascotsLost in the enthusiasm of Super Bowl XLII is a story line without pompoms and foam fingers: Many local Native Americans are struggling to pass a metaphoric peace pipe to an organization that allows team imagery viewed as demeaning by many tribes.

"It is, simply, inconsistent with the human right of people," said Rebecca Tsosie, the executive director of the Indian Legal Program at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law.

Sunday's game is expected to attract protesters who question the NFL's tolerance for the mascots of the Kansas City Chiefs and Washington Redskins. The D.C. franchise is the most controversial and the subject of a petition filed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cancel the trademark.The NFL's relationship with Indians:The NFL had an early relationship with American Indians. Its first league president was Olympic track standout Jim Thorpe, a Sac and Fox Indian whose nickname was Wa-tho-huck (Bright Path). During the 1922 and 1923 seasons, an entire team of Native Americans including Thorpe--the Oorang Indians of LaRue, Ohio--played in the league.

The first 1,000-yard rusher in the NFL was a Native American. Beattie Feathers was a Chicago Bears rookie in 1934 when he hit the milestone. Others who have come through the league include Hall of Fame halfback Joe Guyon, a member of the Chippewa tribe, and Sonny Sixkiller, a University of Washington standout who played briefly with the Los Angeles Rams.An Indian who "supports" mascots:For Val Northrup, who sold crafts at the Arizona Indian Festival, she has no trouble seeing Native American imagery used for team logos and mascots.

"At least they know we're out there," said Northrup, who lives on First Mesa on the Hopi Reservation.An Indian who opposes mascots:Several booths down, Alison Francisco of the Tohono O'odham Culture Center and Museum bristled.

"Am I bothered?" she said. "I think that 'bother' is not a strong enough word that fits how much it affects us. It doesn't make me angry, it doesn't make me sad, it makes me feel separate."

Francisco believes the NFL's Chiefs and Redskins are "false representing" themselves.

"Walk around here, you don't see people dressed like that. Maybe the dancers, but they're interpreting dances from long, long ago," she said. "What the games are doing aren't interpreting dances, so why?"Other Indians send mixed signals:Many believe the Native American community is sending mixed signals. A Peter Harris Research Poll in 2002 reported that 83 percent of Native Americans interviewed on reservations said they didn't believe pro teams should stop using Indian nicknames, mascots and symbols.

"I don't know who they're interviewing. They need to continue listening to us," Francisco said. "Because just like football is going to stay here, we're going to stay here, too."Comment:  No one knows who Peter Harris interviewed, since their methodology is shrouded in secrecy and most likely bogus. See The Sports Illustrated Poll on Mascots for why.

So the only argument offered for mascots is "better offended than invisible." I'd say the "nay" side wins this mini-debate.

Below:  A real Indian (Sonny Sixkiller) and an Indian mascot.