Long Live Lightfoot!
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
Politically charged student debate has recently emerged around the reappearance of Stanford University’s former mascot, the Indian. Following the display of several t-shirts featuring the former Indian logo—replete with original details: feathers, braided hair, and bulbous-nose—the Stanford American Indian Organization (SAIO) has initiated a formal protest of the mascot’s use to President Hennessy. In an open e-mail circulated by the organization, representatives Jenny Patten and Jackson Brossy claim the “racist images and terms” used by the t-shirt creators are in direct opposition to official university policy dating from the mascot’s removal in 1972. They have asked for the University’s help in “discouraging future use of these Stanford ‘Indian’ images and terms.”
We must recognize that the Stanford Indian, our mascot for Stanford’s first eighty-one years, was from another time. With today’s severe consideration for such politically sensitive topics as race, few organizations would willingly choose a stereotypically feathered, bulbous-nosed Native American caricature as a mascot or logo. I too would oppose such a poorly-drawn mascot for its egregious and offensive nature. However, I would feel the same if a modern team proposed a stereotype of my Caucasian heritage—say a scrappy leprechaun (especially if the team was called the Fightin’ Irish).
Truth is, many collegiate traditions are unfortunate when placed in a modern context (can anyone say Full Moon?). This means that they should be reasonably reconsidered and transitioned, if possible, to satisfy modern concerns (e.g. endless admonoitions, Listerine booths and Queer Moon). But our past isn’t only something to be assaulted, torn down, and removed. If I’ve learned one thing from studying abroad in Europe, it’s that we Americans are obsessed with replacing all things deemed obsolete—even if that means the sacrifice of precious artifacts in our nation’s already scant history. To prevent destroying our history entirely we ought to appreciate the complex, detailed, and very human aspects of our traditions, before we judge them. Like much of history, the reality of our past can’t fit neatly within modern labels (RACISM) rubber-stamped by a PC-obsessed university administration. The very human story behind the Stanford Indian is a case-in-point.
As first reported by The Stanford Daily in October of 2005, our Indian mascot was once represented by Timm “Prince Lightfoot” Williams. For twenty years, Williams, “attended nearly every Stanford football game, home and away. At each game he performed traditional Yurok tribal dances in traditional regalia —without taking a break.” Activist opponents to Williams’ work claimed his actions, “unnecessary, inappropriate and ‘a mockery of Indian religious practices,’” and in 1972 succeeded in having the mascot changed to the inoffensive cardinal, and Williams barred from future performances.
However, Williams was no Shopping-Mall-Santa-Claus knockoff—he was deeply involved in the Native American community. A close friend of Williams claims, “[he] danced out of a love for Stanford and a desire to teach Native American culture,” and went on to list the numerous community efforts Williams undertook in pursuit of these causes—efforts which included Congressional appearances and which earned him death threats from anti-civil rights wackos.
I mention this because it’s too easy to assume the cut-and-dried, mascots are racist stance. Take the debate within the Native American community itself: in a 2002 poll, Sports Illustrated asked “if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83% of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols.” Thus SAIO’s virulent, knee-jerk reaction, arguably, isn’t even representative of most Native Americans.
Additionally, SAIO’s demands continue an unfortunate purge of Stanford’s precious, and few, historical traditions. If we take these PC-policies to their extreme, anything even remotely offensive has got to go—this includes Baccalaureate (too religious), the Ax (too violent), Full Moon (too sexual), or even the rivalry with UC Berkeley itself (too militant). Such an outcome would be most unfortunate, and would destroy even our own memory-filled, tradition-laden college experience.
Finally, in rethinking Stanford’s traditions, we ought to recognize that for many of our aging alumni the Indian mascot remains one of their strongest and fondest memories (especially given the sincere efforts of Timm Williams). Imagine yourself in their shoes—at the age of 70 or 80 years, returning to campus perhaps for the last homecoming of a long and full life. However, rather than a well-deserved welcome, they’re told by a political campaign that they’re outdated: their time has passed, their memories are unappreciated, and at least one of their closest traditions is now considered an unfortunate blot on Alma Mater’s history. Such behavior hardly demonstrates respect for one’s elders.
The best resolution for this debate is simple: do nothing. I feel confident that the Stanford Indian is, for better or worse, whether fair or not, fully and comfortably retired. He’s not coming back folks—certainly not with a handful of t-shirts donned by a small group of students supporting their alumni’s legacy. So let the memories live! Let us remember the positive aspects of our dated traditions, rather than endlessly bemoan the negative. To do otherwise would be faithless to our past and unfair to our future.
