Pauline Turner Strong. Caricatures of American Indians ... lead of Michel-Rolph Trouillot (1991), might be called the âmascot slot.â4. Like the allegorical form of ...
JOURNAL 10.1177/0193732503261672 THE MASCOT OF SPORT SLOT & SOCIAL ISSUES ARTICLE / February 2004
THE MASCOT SLOT Cultural Citizenship, Political Correctness, and Pseudo-Indian Sports Symbols Pauline Turner Strong Caricatures of American Indians that would not now be tolerated if they portrayed other racial or ethnic groups are institutionalized in school, university, and professional sport teams and disseminated by local, national, and international media outlets. Drawing on Aihwa Ong’s concept of cultural citizenship and adapting Michael-Rolph Trouillot’s notion of the “savage slot,” this article argues that the “mascot slot” assigned to Native Americans is an allegorical form of cultural citizenship that offers a significant obstacle to full participatory citizenship. Demolishing the mascot slot is a prerequisite for full cultural recognition and participatory citizenship for Native Americans. Keywords: Indian sports mascots; cultural citizenship; political correctness; Native Americans
A
s a recent book by Philip Deloria (1998) makes clear, the use of pseudo-Indian names, mascots, logos, rituals, and slogans by amateur and professional sports teams is but one of many forms of “playing Indian” characteristic of U.S. popular culture.1 But it is a form of playing Indian in which there is an unusual degree of economic and emotional investment. It has, therefore, shown itself to be especially persistent and impervious to critique. Opposition to Indian mascots and logos is often dismissed through the rhetoric of “political correctness”—a rhetoric that caricatures those who oppose these symbolic practices no less than these practices themselves caricature Native Americans.2 In this case, the discourse of political correctness not only reflects hostility to what Charles Taylor (1992) has called “the politics of recognition;” it also indexes the unique place reserved for Native Americans in U.S. public culture. In other words, those who dismiss opposition to Indian mascots and logos as “political correctness” unintentionally reveal the distinctive form of “cultural citizenship” allocated in the United States to Native Americans. The concept of “cultural citizenship” was originally formulated by Aihwa Ong (1996), Renato Rosaldo (1994, 1997), and others (Flores & Benmayor, 1997) concerned with the subjective experiences and cultural claims of Asian Americans and Latinos within the United States. Extending Journal of Sport & Social Issues, Volume 28, No. 1, February 2004, pp. 79-87 DOI: 10.1177/0193732503261672 © 2004 Sage Publications
80
JOURNAL OF SPORT & SOCIAL ISSUES / February 2004
this concept to Native Americans, this article claims that viewing the continued existence of various teams of “Redskins,” “Braves,” “Warriors,” and “Chiefs” through the lens of cultural citizenship illuminates the distinctive positioning of indigenous people in the United States.3 That is, in “playing Indian,” athletes, sports franchises, and fans allocate Native Americans to a unique and allegorical form of cultural citizenship—one that, following the lead of Michel-Rolph Trouillot (1991), might be called the “mascot slot.”4 Like the allegorical form of cultural citizenship once consigned to women— who, while lacking political representation, served symbolically to represent Liberty, Purity, Nature, Motherhood, and the North American continent itself—the allegorical citizenship of Native Americans is a significant obstacle to full participatory citizenship.5 Understanding the mascot slot as a manifestation of Native Americans’ distinctive cultural citizenship addresses a troubling question that many discussions of Indian mascots leave unanswered—that is, What accounts for the persistence of this blatant form of racist representation? This question is posed dramatically by considering two well-known examples of what Michael Rogin (1996) calls “racial masquerade.” The first is Chief Wahoo, the official logo of the Cleveland Indians; the second, an advertisement developed for Bamboozled, Spike Lee’s (2000) satirical film about a millennial revival of the minstrel show. The original Bamboozled ad featured an offensive image of a watermelon-eating “pickaninny,” but it was modified after it was rejected for publication by The New York Times.6 Perhaps the editors reasoned that readers would not necessarily understand the satirical nature of the image. The very same publication, however, routinely prints images of the equally offensive Chief Wahoo.7 The striking similarities between Chief Wahoo and the censored advertisement reveal the extent to which Indian mascots perpetuate the otherwise discredited American tradition of minstrelsy.8 Both caricatures utilize the same palette of black, white, and bright red, and both feature the huge, grinning mouth of the blackface tradition—a feature that, as Lee demonstrates in Bamboozled, signifies animal instincts and appetites as well as a desperate eagerness to please Whites (see also Rogin, 1996, pp. 121-157). Both Chief Wahoo and the censored Bamboozled ad also include an iconic feature identifying the caricature as a particular kind of primitive “other”: a watermelon in the case of the ad and a feathered headband in the case of the sports mascot.9 How do these two images differ, apart from the fact that one is considered too offensive to print, even as a satire, whereas the other, as Ellen Staurowsky (2001) has demonstrated, is omnipresent and generates huge revenue for the Cleveland Indians franchise? For more than 30 years, activists have attempted to persuade school officials, team owners, courts of law, and the public that mascots and logos such as Chief Wahoo are legacies of a racist past.10 A poster produced in 1987 for a Minnesota group called Concerned American Indian Parents makes this point in a graphic, if sanitized, manner. A Cleveland Indians pennant featuring Chief Wahoo is juxtaposed
THE MASCOT SLOT
81
with imaginary pennants for the Pittsburgh Negroes, the Kansas City Jews, and the San Diego Caucasians. The caption reads, “Maybe now you know how Native Americans feel.” Perhaps. But the posteri omission of visual caricatures of two privileged ethnic groups, Jews and Caucasians, is telling. Subsequent versions of the poster remove human figures from every pennant except that of the actually existing team, the Cleveland Indians. A similar illustration—Tony Auth’s 1997 cartoon, “Can You Imagine?”—is more blatant, demonstrating the semiotics of racist stereotyping shared by blackface performances, war propaganda, and advertising.11 The answer to Auth’s question is clearly “No.” We cannot imagine a team today called the “Cleveland Africans,” the “Cleveland Asians,” or the “Cleveland Hispanics.” Nor can we imagine official sports logos in which the grinning minstrel’s mouth is affixed to a caricature of an Asian, African, or sombrerowearing “Hispanic.” We surely cannot imagine the football team of the nation’s capital bearing another color-coded label as derogatory as “Redskins”—a point made forcefully by Ward Churchill (1994) in “Let’s Spread the Fun Around,” which proposes, tongue-in-cheek, that sports teams be named after the full panoply of unmentionable racial slurs. In a similar vein, an intramural basketball team at the University of Northern Colorado has dubbed itself The Fighting Whites, adopting a “suit” as its mascot. The multiracial team took on the name in February 2002 as a protest against a local high school team, The Fighting Reds. Their protest soon took on national significance, and articles of clothing bearing their “suit” logo became something of a cult item. In one year, the team raised $100,000 for endowed scholarships for Native Americans and other minorities.12 Parodies such as The Fighting Whites, “Can You Imagine?” and “Let’s Spread the Fun Around” demonstrate the extent to which a double standard prevails when it comes to contemporary racial slurs and masquerades. Compared to Chief Wahoo, the Washington Redskins, the “tomahawk chop” of the Atlanta Braves, or the Sundancers of my local high school, the symbolism of The Fighting Whites is singularly inoffensive. “Redface” caricatures that would not now be tolerated if they portrayed other racial or ethnic groups are institutionalized in our school and university systems, youth organizations, sports franchises, and media outlets. They form part of a larger system of commodified representations that are perpetuated, as well, by the tourism industry (with its teepees and totem poles, its kivas and kachinas), the U.S. military (with its Apache, Chinook, and Black Hawk helicopters), and the auto industry. As Rosemary Coombe notes of the latter, it is “inconceivable that a vehicle could be marketed as ‘a wandering Jew,’ but North Americans rarely bat an eyelash when a Jeep Cherokee passes them on the road or an advertisement for a Pontiac flashes across their television screen” (1998, p. 78). According to activist Suzan Shown Harjo (2001, p. 193), nearly 1,000 school and university teams have retired their Indian logos and mascots in response to the antimascot activism of Concerned American Indian Parents,
82
JOURNAL OF SPORT & SOCIAL ISSUES / February 2004
the National Congress of American Indians, the American Indian Movement, the Morning Star Foundation, and other organizations. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment are being employed effectively against mascots in public schools, as Baca demonstrates in this issue. But professional franchises and certain school teams, most notably the Washington Redskins and the Fighting Illini of the University of Illinois, have dug in their heels (Harjo, 2001; Spindel, 2000). 13 As demonstrated in Jay Rosenstein’s (1996) documentary In Whose Honor?, teams and their fans often utilize what Brenda Farnell (2004 [this issue]) calls the “discourse of honoring”—maintaining, with varying degrees of credibility, that the use of Indian mascots honors the Native American warrior tradition. The discourse of honoring underscores the allegorical nature of Native American cultural citizenship. Because members of the dominant culture “identify” with the invented tradition of Indianness embodied in mascots, they believe that their intention to honor the Indian warrior tradition carries more weight than the dishonor and disrespect experienced by many Native Americans. As analyses of the “vanishing Indian” stereotype suggest, this is because images of a pseudo-Indian past serve to crowd out and discredit statements by actual Native Americans, who inevitably fail to fulfill the expectations of authentic Indianness produced by stereotypical imagery.14 A 1999 resolution passed at the annual business meeting of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) summarizes many of the arguments that have been lodged against Chief Illiniwek of the Fighting Illini and other Indian mascots. “The persistence of such officially sanctioned, stereotypical presentations,” it states, “humiliates American Indian people, trivializes the scholarship of anthropologists, undermines the learning environment for all students, and seriously compromises efforts to promote diversity on school and college campuses.” The resolution urged a moratorium on holding annual meetings in Illinois until Chief Illiniwek is “retired” and replaced with a symbol “that does not promote inaccurate, anachronistic, and damaging stereotypes of Native American people, or indeed members of any minority group.”15 Economic imperatives may eventually succeed where ethical arguments have failed. The Chicago Tribune, for example, has supported the campaign to retire the “Chief.” But public resistance to ethical reasoning on this issue is important to scrutinize, especially given the disparate attitude toward caricatures of Indians and those of other racial and ethnic groups. It is certainly appropriate for a national organization such as AAA to weigh in against the Chief, but it was necessary because of the deafness of the regents of a public institution, the University of Illinois, to the protests of a student and faculty constituency considered less significant than chief-loving alumni. This points, once again, to the issue of cultural citizenship. Opposition to Indian names, mascots, logos, slogans, and rituals is often expressed in the discourse of respect, which Rosaldo (1997, p. 38) claims is “a defining demand for cultural citizenship” (here, meaning full
THE MASCOT SLOT
83
participatory cultural citizenship).16 Institutional deafness to this demand is a form of denying Native American claims to recognition within a multicultural society (see Taylor, 1992). Opposition to Indian mascots has also been couched in the political and economic discourses of sovereignty, appropriation, exploitation, and equal protection.17 All these forms of opposition may be seen as claims to be recognized as political rather than allegorical citizens. When reframed as “politically correct,” such opposition is, at best, dismissed as humorless hypersensitivity to playful symbols and imagined slights or, at worst, magnified into a concerted attack on the very identities of those who employ the appropriated symbols. This “Indians ‘R’ Us” syndrome, as Churchill (1994) has called it, is grounded in appropriative practices central to organizations that socialize the young, such as the Boy Scouts, Camp Fire, the YMCA’s Indian Guides, summer camps, and public schools.18 Given this pattern of socialization, many non-Indians come to feel deeply invested in Indian mascots, as Charles Springwood suggests in “I’m An Indian Too!” (2004 [in this issue]). Such an emotional investment is a form of White privilege akin to that analyzed more generally by George Lipsitz (1998). In identifying themselves with pseudo-Indian symbols, nonIndians come to feel authorized to appropriate and even to profit from these symbols as well as to determine what is an accurate and respectful representation. Native American opposition is simply not recognized as legitimate. Paraphrasing Gayatri Spivak (1988), we might ask, “Can the mascot speak?” Activists carrying signs reading “I’m Not a Mascot” implicitly address this question.19 Although some argue that the prevalence of Indian logos and mascots are not among Native Americans’ most pressing concerns, the framework of cultural citizenship emphasizes that the demeaning objectification accomplished by these racist symbols is not disconnected from other forms of subordination. The use of and continued tolerance for disrespectful and exploitative caricatures in the face of repeated and vigorous objections exposes the limits of Native American cultural citizenship. Let us consider this argument more fully by returning to Aihwa Ong’s theory of cultural citizenship. For Ong, cultural citizenship offers a way to conceptualize “how the universalistic criteria of democratic citizenship variously regulate different categories of subjects.” As a Foucaultian process of “self-making and being made” within “hierarchical schemes of racial and cultural difference,” cultural citizenship defines who does and does not belong within the nationstate and civil society (Ong, 1996, p. 737). These categories of belonging are reproduced, notes Ong, in “cultural performance” and “everyday . . . activities of inclusion and exclusion” (p. 750 & p. 740, respectively). The use of Indian sports mascots, logos, and rituals are just such normalized everyday activities; they exclude contemporary Native Americans from full citizenship by treating them as signs rather than as speakers, as caricatures rather than as players and consumers, as commodities rather than as citizens. Just as the use of what Jane Hill (1995) calls “mock Spanish” reproduces hege-
84
JOURNAL OF SPORT & SOCIAL ISSUES / February 2004
monic stereotypes of Mexican American inferiority, so the continued use of pseudo-Indian sports symbols exemplifies and reproduces the subordinate place of Native Americans within the dominant society. To insist that the mascot slot be viewed as a matter of cultural citizenship rather than political correctness is to make a point that extends beyond the realm of halftime war dances, celebrative tomahawk chops, and commodified logos. As a number of scholars have stressed, the charge of political correctness is a common way of dismissing claims for recognition on the part of subordinated groups—a way of trivializing their interests, visions, and aspirations.20 Indeed, such charges are themselves part of the process that generates subordinated forms of cultural citizenship, what Virginia Dominguez calls “unequal spaces of belonging to a nation-state” (1996, p. 751). Charges of political correctness serve to maintain unequal spaces of belonging and unequal forms of recognition, whereas opponents of pseudoIndian mascots and logos seek to do just the opposite—that is, to establish an equal space of belonging for Native Americans and a participatory rather than an allegorical form of cultural citizenship. From the vantage point of the concept of cultural citizenship, then, the mascot controversy is not at all a diversion from more pressing political and economic concerns. Demolishing the mascot slot—no less than the “savage slot” of which it is a part—is a prerequisite for full recognition and participatory citizenship for Native Americans.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The ideas expressed herein were first conceived in response to an invitation by Ellen Hertz to participate in a panel on political correctness at the 2000 annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association (AAA). A year later, I had the opportunity to develop them further while serving as a discussant for an AAA session on mascots organized by Richard King. I am indebted to the organizers and participants of both sessions and to Leighton Peterson, Daniel Segal, and Barrik, Katie, and Tina Van Winkle for providing me with illustrative material.
AUTHOR Pauline Turner Strong is an associate professor of anthropology, cultural studies, and women’s studies at the University of Texas at Austin.
NOTES 1. For the long history of “playing Indian,” see Deloria (1998), Green (1988), Huhndorf (2001), and Strong (1998). 2. Throughout this article “Indian” is used in reference to mascots and other representations, whereas the terms “Native” and “Native American” refer to indigenous individuals and groups. Exceptions include quotations, the titles of publications, and the names of organizations. 3. For other aspects of this positioning, see Strong and Van Winkle (1993). 4. Trouillot (1991) has analyzed the role of anthropology in filling a preexisting “savage slot,” constituted as an “other” to the rational and orderly (i.e., “civilized”) Western self (see also Strong [in press-a]).
THE MASCOT SLOT
85
5. On allegorical representations of women, especially Indian women, see Faery (1999), Fleming (1965), Green (1975), Kasson (1990), Kolodny (1975, 1984), SmithRosenberg (1993), Stedman (1982), and Strong (1999). 6. I became aware of the censored advertisement through an article published in The Daily Texan on November 13, 2000. It remains posted on New Line Cinema’s Web site at http://www.newline.com/sites/bamboozled 7. For Chief Wahoo, see the Cleveland Indians Web site, http://cleveland.indians.mlb. com/NASApp/mlb/index.jsp?c_id=cle 8. The Ojibwe/Shoshone poet Dennis Tibbetts expresses this idea in a powerful poem, “Minstrel Show” (King & Springwood, 2001, pp. v-vi). 9. For the symbolism of the watermelon, see Rogin (1996); for the feathered headband, see Bird (1996) and Root (1995). 10. Harjo (2001, p. 193) dates this strategy to a 1972 letter to the attorney of the owner of the Washington Redskins. See also Helmberger (1999), which includes reproductions of both versions of the poster discussed in the next sentence. 11. See http://www.aistm.org/cartoons6.htm.This page links to other similar cartoons. 12. The logo may be found on the team’s Web site, http://www.fightingwhites.org 13. Farnell (2004), Prochaska (2001), Rosenstein (2001), and Spindel (2000) analyze the controversy over Chief Illiniwek and the Fighting Illini. 14. On the trope of the “vanishing Indian,” see Dippie (1982), Farnell (2004), Mihesuah (1996), Stedman (1982), Strong (in press-a). On “invented tradition,” see Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983). 15. The American Anthropological Association (AAA) statement is reproduced on “The Mascot Issue” home page at www.nativeculture.com/lisamitten/mascots.html, which is maintained by Native American librarian Lisa Mitten and has a broad array of resources. 16. Ong’s concept of cultural citizenship, focused on subjective experiences, differs significantly from Rosaldo’s emphasis on cultural claims (see Ong, 1996, p. 738). I find Ong’s concept more useful and have followed it in this article; hence, my qualification of Rosaldo’s “cultural citizenship” as “full participatory cultural citizenship.” Cultural claims are, I believe, better understood in terms of Taylor’s (1992) “politics of recognition.” 17. On political and economic discourses, see Coombe (1998), Harjo (2001), and Baca (2004). 18. On the appropriation of Indian symbolism in U.S. youth culture, see Deloria (1998) and Strong (1998, in press-b). 19. Such signs may be seen in Jay Rosenstein’s documentary film, In Whose Honor? (1996) and in the cover photograph of King and Springwood’s Team Spirits (2001). 20. Useful analyses of the rhetoric of political correctness in relation to the politics of recognition are offered by Aufderheide (1992), Choi and Murphy (1992), Foster and Herzog (1994), and Friedman (1995).
REFERENCES Aufderheide, P. (1992). Beyond PC: Toward a politics of understanding. St. Paul, MN: Graywolf. Baca, L. (2004). Native images in schools and the racially hostile environment. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 28(1), 71-78. Bird, S. E. (1996). Dressing in feathers: The construction of the Indian in American popular culture. Boulder, CO: Westview. Choi, J. M., & Murphy, J. W. (1992). The politics and philosophy of political correctness. Westport, CT: Praeger. Churchill, W. (1994). Let’s spread the fun around. Indians are us? Culture and genocide in Native North America (pp. 65-72). Monroe, ME: Common Courage. Coombe, R. J. (1998). The cultural life of intellectual properties: Authorship, appropriation, and the law. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
86
JOURNAL OF SPORT & SOCIAL ISSUES / February 2004
Deloria, P. J. (1998). Playing Indian. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Dippie, B. (1982). The vanishing American: White attitudes and American Indian policy. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Dominguez, V. (1996). Comment on Aihwa Ong, “Cultural citizenship as subjectmaking.” Current Anthropology, 37, 751-752. Faery, R. B. (1999). Cartographies of desire: Captivity, race, and sex in the shaping of an American nation. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Farnell, B. (2004). The fancy dance of racializing discourse. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 28(1), 30-55. Fleming, E. M. (1965). The American image as Indian princess, 1765-1783. Winterthur Portfolio, 2, 65-81. Flores, W. V., & Benmayor, R. (Eds.). (1997). Latino cultural citizenship: Claiming identity, space, and rights. Boston: Beacon. Foster, L., & Herzog, P. (Eds.). (1994). Defending diversity: Contemporary philosophical perspectives on pluralism and multiculturalism. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Friedman, M. (1995). Codes, canons, correctness, and feminism. In M. Friedman & J. Narveson (Eds.), Political correctness: For and against (pp. 1-45). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Green, R. (1975). The Pocahontas perplex: The image of Indian women in American culture. Massachusetts Review, 16(4), 698-714. Green, R. (1988). The tribe called Wannabe: Playing Indian in America and Europe. Folklore, 99, 30-55. Harjo, S. S. (2001). Fighting name-calling: Challenging “Redskins” in court. In C. R. King & C. F. Springwood (Eds.), Team spirits: Essays on the history and significance of Native American mascots (pp. 189-207). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Helmberger, P. (1999). Indians as mascots in Minnesota schools. Burnsville, MN: Friends of the Bill of Rights Foundation. Hill, J. (1995). Mock Spanish: A site for the indexical reproduction of racism in American English. Language and Culture Symposium, 2. Available at http://www. language-culture.org/colloquia/symposia/hill-jane Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (Eds.). (1983). The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huhndorf, S. M. (2001). Going native: Indians in the American cultural imagination. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kasson, J. W. (1990). Marble queens and captives: Women in nineteenth-century American sculpture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. King, C. R., & Springwood, C. F. (Eds.). (2001). Team spirits: Essays on the history and significance of Native American mascots. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Kolodny, A. (1975). The lay of the land: Metaphor as experience and history in American life and letters. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Kolodny, A. (1984). The land before here: Fantasy and experience of the American frontiers, 1630-1860. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Lee, S. (Writer/Director), & Kilik, J. (Producer). (2000). Bamboozled [Videotape]. United States: New Line Home Entertainment. Lipsitz, G. (1998). The possessive investment in Whiteness: How White people profit from identity politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Mihesuah, D. A. (1996). American Indians: Stereotypes and realities. Atlanta, GA: Clarity. Ong, A. (1996). Cultural citizenship as subject-making: Immigrants negotiate racial and cultural boundaries in the United States. Current Anthropology, 37, 737-762. Prochaska, D. (2001). At home in Illinois: Presence of Chief Illiniwek, absence of Native Americans. In C. R. King & C. F. Springwood (Eds.), Team spirits: Essays on the history and significance of Native American mascots (pp. 157-185). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
THE MASCOT SLOT
87
Rogin, M. (1996). Blackface, White noise: Jewish immigrants in the Hollywood melting pot. Berkeley: University of California Press. Root, D. (1995). Cannibal culture: Art, appropriation, and the politics of attire. Boulder, CO: Westview. Rosaldo, R. (1994). Cultural Citizenship in San Jose, California. POLAR [Political and Legal Anthropology Review]17(1), 57-63. Rosaldo, R. (1997). Cultural citizenship, inequity, and multiculturalism. In W. V. Flores & R. Benmayor (Eds.), Latino cultural citizenship: Claiming identity, space, and rights (pp. 26-38). Boston: Beacon. Rosenstein, J. (Writer/Producer). (1996). In whose honor? American Indian mascots in sports [Videotape]. United States: New Day Films. Rosenstein, J. (2001). In whose honor?, Mascots, and the media. In C. R. King & C. F. Springwood (Eds.), Team spirits: Essays on the history and significance of Native American mascots (pp. 241-256). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Smith-Rosenberg, C. (1993). Subject female: Authorizing American identity. American Literary History, 5(3), 481-511. Spindel, C. (2000). Dancing at halftime: Sports and the controversy over American Indian mascots. New York: New York University Press. Spivak, G. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271-313). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Springwood, C. F. (2004). “I’m Indian too!” Claiming Native American identity, crafting authority in mascot debates. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 28(1), 56-70. Staurowsky, E. J. (2001). Sockalexis and the making of the myth at the core of Cleveland’s “Indian” image. In C. R. King & C. F. Springwood (Eds.), Team spirits: Essays on the history and significance of Native American mascots (pp. 82-106). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Stedman, R. W. (1982). Shadows of the Indian: Stereotypes in American culture. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Strong, P. T. (1998). Playing Indian in the 1990s: Pocahontas and The Indian in the Cupboard. In P. C. Rollins & J. E. O’Connor (Eds.), Hollywood’s Indian: The portrayal of the Native American in film (pp. 187-205). Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Strong, P. T. (1999). Captive selves, captivating others: The politics and poetics of colonial American captivity narratives. Boulder, CO: Westview. Strong, P. T. (in press-a). Representational practices. In T. Biolsi (Ed.), A companion to the anthropology of North American Indians. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Strong, P. T. (in press-b). “To light the fire of our desire”: Primitivism, progressivism, and nationalism in the Camp Fire Girls. In S. A. Kan & P. T. Strong (Eds.), New perspectives on Native North America: Cultures, histories, and representations. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Strong, P. T., & Van Winkle, B. (1993). Tribe and nation: American Indians and American nationalism. Social Analysis, 33, 9-26. Taylor, C. (1992). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann, C. Taylor, S. Wolf, S. Rockefeller, & M. Walzer (Eds.), Multiculturalism and “the politics of recognition.” Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Trouillot, M.-R. (1991). Anthropology and the savage slot: The poetics and politics of otherness. In R. G. Fox (Ed.), Recapturing anthropology: Working in the present. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
