Angry Asian Man wrote about two East High Schools–in Rochester, New York and Akron, Ohio–with a peculiar mascot: the Orientals.
East High School merch (Rochester, New York):
Screen shot of the East High School website (Akron, Ohio):
Notice the Asian-y font and the stylistic dragon.
When high schools and sports teams recruit a type of person as a mascot, it objectifies and caricatures them. It also encourages opposing teams to say things like “Kill the Orientals.” This can only be okay when we aren’t really thinking about these kinds of people as real humans beings.
This reminded me: As an undergraduate, I went to the University of California, Santa Barbara. Our mascot was the Gaucho, which I remember being described as a Mexican cowboy (though South American cowboy may be more descriptive). I went by the UCSB website and found these two logos. There is a story about the first identifying it as a brand new logo; the second is for kids:
I am troubled by the Gaucho mascot for the same reasons that I don’t like the Orientals mascot, but at least authentic gauchos are not likely to enroll at UCSB the way that “Orientals” are likely students of the East High Schools.
Then again, this is the image on the front page of the UCSB athlectics website:
It does indeed read: “GLORY. HONOR. COURAGE. TORTILLAS.” This seems to invalidate any argument that the use of the Gaucho mascot is “respectful.”
Thinking about the Orientals and the Gauchos, alongside the many American Indian mascots still found in the U.S., Notre Dame’s Fighting Irish, and the soccer team in the Netherlands who call themselves the Jews, may give us some perspective on this mascot phenomenon that thinking about one at a time doesn’t. If we feel that one of these mascots is less discriminatory than another, what drives that feeling? And is it logical? Or does it stem from a trained sensibility that isn’t applied to all marginalized groups across the board? Or is it in response to different characteristics of these different groups? Or different contexts?
Maybe all five mascots are equally offensive and offensive for the same reasons. But thinking about them together may also be useful for teasing out how, exactly, they are offensive. What do you think?
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Comments 61
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist — September 15, 2009
only in America.
Andrew — September 15, 2009
I tried to work up some outrage by imagining other bad-taste team names. The Nebraska Negroes? The Houston Homosexuals? The Tampa Bay Trannies? The Hermosa Beach Hermaphrodites? How about an all-male team called The Women?
The whole exercise just left me laughing hysterically, along with the others in the room...with the notable exception of the Germans, who for some potentially-sociological reason didn't get the joke.
I went to a high school with a team called the Vikings, which had no notable effect on the kids and faculty of Nordic extraction. Someone else I know attended a Bible-belt school with a team called the Demons. Southern Baptist kids went around everywhere in school-spirit T-shirts decorated with Satan cartoons. And so on.
I'm sure all of this stuff is offensive to some, and perhaps that's the point. It's still considered macho to express no fear of causing offense, so perhaps making concessions to a more PC self-presentation would make a team seem weak somehow. Does any athlete break a sweat before squaring off against the Santa Cruz Banana Slugs?
Jillian C. York — September 15, 2009
My college's old mascot was - no joke - the Colonials. They changed the mascot in 2004 to the Bearcat, a mythical creature that was also pretty lame, but at least not offensive (well, at least not to cats - maybe to bears).
My high school, on the other hand, was the Green Wave. Three cheers for inanimate mascots!
jfruh — September 15, 2009
Gauchos are strictly speaking (a) a "southern cone" phenomenon (i.e., Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay) and (b) a profession, not an ethnic group. In theory it's no more a racial slur than having a team called the Cowboys. But of course the very fact that the name is in Spanish provides a layer of other-ness that makes for some cultural ick.
As it happens, tortillas (in the sense that Americans would understand the term) seem to be almost entirely Mexican in origin. (In other Spanish-speaking countries, "tortilla" means what Americans would call an omlette.) The connection between tortillas and gauchos may be a product of grouping together divergent Latin cultures by Anglos; or it may be that they aren't intended to relate to each other on the sign at all, though I'm not sure what the significance of tortillas would be otherwise. For what it's worth, as one might expect at a university in a state with a large Latino population, a significant (though not overwhelming) number of players on the UCSB men's soccer team have Spanish surnames.)
I think one reason why the "Fighting Irish" get a pass is because Notre Dame has always had significant Irish enrollment; it's a name used largely by members of the named group, rather than being appropriated by non-group members.
Oh, and fun fact on racist team names: The only NFL team whose name isn't a registered trademark is the Washington Redskins, because the US Trademark Office won't register ethnic slurs.
John Hawthorne — September 15, 2009
I believe they have since changed the mascot, but there was a high school in Illinois that used to be the Pekin Chinks. Yes, seriously. Mascot complete with coolie hat.
jfruh — September 15, 2009
Also, I imagine that the origin of East High School's Oriental mascot comes from the fact that they're East High School, with "oriental" meaning in origin simply "eastern," with the ethnic connotation of "East Asian" coming more recently. One they've done with it since is fairly troubling, obviously.
Alina — September 15, 2009
The school I graduated from, the University of Utah, calls its football team "The Utes". A few years ago there was a push from the NCAA to remove all Native American mascots and references, and the Ute tribe of Utah rallied loudly to the defense of the name, saying that the University had only ever presented it in a respectful way and had been more than helpful to the tribe. The university was allowed to retain the name.
Tiago — September 15, 2009
I think a mascot has to be seen as a social thing you're doing, it can't be merely for amusement. The very least you can do is actually understand what character you are using, which the Gauchos are clearly not doing, honestly this ad reminds me of the time machine from "Idiocracy"...
maybe if the place where this team plays had lots of immigrants from Argentina and Brazil, there would be cultural identification with gauchos through the drinking of mate, which persists today and is widespread in those areas, they could enjoy actually bringing their mate to the stadium and drinking it while watching the Gauchos play, it's a small but effective harmonization of their new immigrated lifestyle with their origin, it can be a way to validate people's cultural identity and maintain it by encouraging them to live it publicly. And if there's not already a strong existing identification with a certain stereotype on the people's part (or if it would alienate other sections of your market), then there are lots of things you can do, you can just make a reference to something physical about the area, like some geographical feature everyone in the area is familiar with, or something more generic, and you can build some sort of new connection with your public through the players and the sport, which will later extend to the team nickname and mascot. But the answer is not to base it on an outside view of someone that exists elsewhere...
you know, I doubt that real world native americans enjoy going to a Washington Redskins game because they feel like it's "their" team, I think "Redskins" in this case stands plainly for savage and everything else we're supposed to know about them, and meanwhile, the real world native americans are the aliens here, because the concept of Redskins that we're talking about is one owned entirely by white man and not at all embraced by the people it represents. It's like let's not expose our own selves, let's talk about someone that's not here and make them a silly and clumsy character. Then, at the stadium, fans will even be amused to impersonate that character, even innocently, not remembering that they exist in the real world and are human beings.
The thing is if the character that we are using is not alive in the community that the team plays in, it can only be there to be mocked and to play on preconceptions about it, and we don't have the right to use other people's identities in this way.
Someone may argue that it's sometimes harmless, but the point is that it is far less than ideal, there's just a lot more you can do with the team mascot thing, if we just have a little more sensibility... So in my opinion, more importantly than it being offensive or not, it's just futile.
Sara — September 15, 2009
My brother's high school was the Indians - they had to change it to the eagles, but the town kept the name on their water tower. Ah, community solidarity in the face of racism! The problem with team names like this - orientals, indians, redskins (which is, really, just horrible - it's like having a team called the negroes or something) - is that they effectively "other" the groups the teams refer to.
Brad — September 15, 2009
It's sort of different though. While "Redskins" can't possibly be considered okay, some of the others could be depending on context.
Florida State is certainly a "context" example. The Seminole Tribe in Florida is officially for FSU getting to use the Seminole nickname, logo, and even Chief Osceola as a mascot.
North Dakota is kind of interesting as well. The "Fighting Sioux" nickname certainly could be considered to be offensive. The logo as well, but then again the logo was designed by a Native American artist. North Dakota doesn't have a mascot. From what I've heard they have a good Native American studies program and 1 in 4 Native American doctors comes from the University of North Dakota. The NCAA took the right stance; they're leaving it to the UND and the tribes to decide. If the tribes aren't for UND using the Sioux name, then UND has to change it (which they are now in the process of doing so).
If the tribes themselves vote on it (without having their vote coerced in any manner) and are fine with it, then we should be fine with it as well.
Brad — September 15, 2009
Another great example of context is Central Michigan University. CMU uses the Chippewas nickname with the consent of Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.
Lisa — September 15, 2009
As some others have pointed out, it all depends on context and whether the term used is offensive or not. For instance, a gaucho is simply a cowboy from the pampas (plains) of a Southern Cone country. The term gaucho is descriptive and not derogatory in any way. Oriental on the other hand, is a very offensive way to refer to a person of Asian descent. Perhaps when the East High Schools named their mascots, "Oriental" was not derogatory or offensive as it is today, but since it is no longer an acceptable term, I think the mascot should be changed. Also, since "Oriental" refers to an ethnic group that is most likely an othered, oppressed minority in the towns with that mascot, it makes it more derogatory than it might be in a place with a larger Asian population. For instance, in Southern California, there is a significant population of people from countries where there are gauchos, so the gaucho does not represent so much of a cultural "other".
However, I must say that tribal/ethnic mascots bother me in general, and except in cases such as those mentioned above where a tribe has given specific permission, I think the mascots should be changed. Then again, I don't really have a problem with the Vikings being used as a mascot, probably because people of Scandinavian descent are not an oppressed minority in this country and because the term Viking carries specific connotations of power and prowess that seem to be honoring the Vikings, not mocking them. Also, the Vikings lived a long time ago so using them as a mascot is not reinforcing racist stereotypes about extant groups the way Oriental or Indian mascots do.
Maria — September 15, 2009
interesting this should come up today- and sorry if someone mentioned it already, i kept coming back and reading the comments at diff times of the day i may have missed it. ANYWAY- the Washington Redskins are back to the Supreme Court this week:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/09/15/skins.ap/index.html?eref=si_mostpopular
Xauri'EL — September 15, 2009
When I was at high school there was an outbreak of controversy regarding our athletics team name, the 'Redmen' (the icon was the profile head of a native man with feathers in the braids, rendered not cartoonish or axaggerated but in a more realistic manner). Honestly, I always had a problem with this, but I never cared about athletics and at that time I was less than concerned with this type of thing. After a few of the parents petitioned that the team names be changed out of sensitivity to the native community, the student body including the vast majority of native students spoke out in support of the Redmen name and icon. I'm still not certain why - scholastic patriotism? As far as I know nothing has changed.
auktastic — September 15, 2009
I agree with others who have posted above -- in theory, "gaucho" as a team mascot should be no more offensive than "cowboy," since both refer to professions rather than particular ethnic groups. However, when taking context into consideration (which we always have to do), the use of the Spanish word "gaucho" *does* identify the mascot with a particular ethnic group and effectively others that group, and the connection between Mexican tortillas and South American gauchos shows the typical Anglo conflation of all Spanish-speaking countries. Also, there is a difference between "cowboy" and "gaucho" when those terms are used in the US, since our culture reveres cowboys (rugged macho men) but has serious racism issues with people of Hispanic descent (like gauchos).
What struck me most of all, though, was the artistic rendering of the gaucho mascot. It's very reminiscent of the old "Frito Bandito" character that showcases so many unpleasant stereotypes of Hispanic people.
Jess — September 15, 2009
My high school had the Matadors, and I never found it any more offensive than the rival Knights... Basically juste men who do jobs involving large animals and killing with spears...
Then again, I come from a veeery ethnicially homogenous town, so things that seem racially sensitive in other places generally go unnnoticed here...
And the spanish (and well, especially matador) population of the area is really pretty slim...
rebecca — September 15, 2009
My high school's mascot was the Wasp. The students and surrounding towns that fed into this one rural school were all almost completely white and christian. The high school name started with a W, so defenders of the mascot said it was for the alliteration, and to show that the athletes were formidable, of course. Using the Wasp for a WASPy town is clearly different than using "the orientals." So in this case the mascot becomes not a way of making fun of the Other, but instead of inscribing and reinforcing who gets to be seen as legitimately a member of the school community.
Back to the question at the end of the post. My first instinct is to say that the fighting Irish are not like the other mascots because currently Irish people and their descendants are not discriminated against in American society.
tiffany — September 16, 2009
About the tortillas: While the logos are definitely horrible, as all of the names mentioned here, I don't know if the tortillas are offensive. Where I live we have similar food culture to parts of California (specifically Tex-Mex and Mexican)and our shirts would say similar things. We were the Hornets, and I guess it gains dark connotations when added with that mascot.
(I have never understood how Schools can have mascots who look nothing like their namesake. That particular one for instance was Flamenco hat wearing bandit, not a cowboy. If the visuals matched the title, I can see how the Gauchos could be empowering.)
Jay Livingston — September 16, 2009
Speaking of WASPs, in the city where I live, the local team is called the Yankees. Nobody seems to mind.
Andrew — September 16, 2009
"As far as the word “Oriental” goes, semantically, it does denote a particular stereotype; Webster’s lists it as an offensive term for “Asian,” which means it connotes every stereotype of East Asians in the book..."
You do understand the difference between DEnote and CONnote, right? ;-)
This reminds me a bit of the debates that tend to flare up in LGBT magazine op-eds about the word "queer." It's still quite abhorrent to the self-identified gays from a generation when it was a caustic slur, and regard it as a barrier against acceptance as "normal." But it's an inclusive and empowering term to their successors, who feel they've fully reclaimed it from the days when it was wounding. The time has probably come for "Oriental," too, though I doubt a suburban high school is in any position to lead the charge.
Actually, this is not meant as an argument for or against anything you said - I just really, really want some Red State school to have a team called The Queers! And then Lisa can post photos of the mascot.....
Hata — September 16, 2009
I grew up in Rochester and always wondered why it was okay for East High to still be the Orientals. East High is a predominately populated by urban/black low to middle class students. I have a feeling if this school was in the more suburban/predominately white parts of Rochester, there may have been more pressure to change the mascot long ago.
Also, I think their mascot is some sort of big furry creature, which reminds me of the Syracuse Orangemen, which is an interesting story too: http://archives.syr.edu/history/mascots.html
The suburban school I attended was the "Chiefs". Through the initiative of some more thoughtful students, it was eventually changed during my time there to the Patriots (because the new mascot was left for a popular vote by students, and it being months after 9/11...does that count as being ironic?). Every once and while I will get facebook friend requests from a fellow classmate in which their "about me" proudly states "Chief Forever!". I will never understand.
Erin — September 16, 2009
My middle school was built in 1969. At the time the students voted for their mascot to be the Panthers, as the story goes the mascot wasn't approved due to concerns that it would be associated with the black panthers. Instead they became the Patriots. Fast forward to 1998 or so, they decided that the Patriots was an inappropriate mascot because it was a minuteman. The students voted once again and picked the Panthers. I just find it ironic that the ended up with the mascot they initially feared.
Shana — September 17, 2009
At first glance, Orientals did not bother me. Oriental simply means East as Occidental means West. I thought it appropriate for a school called EAST high school. However, The "Asianesque" font and dragon symbol puts a spin on their choice of mascot. On the one hand, the mascot inspires and excites the school, and the crowd at sporting events. It is an honor to be chosen as your school mascot. (Ask the teenager wearing the big cartoon-like Tiger costume at LSU) But, as you point out, they also become the target of the opposing team. This would be all in good fun except that it reinforces negative feelings and stereotypes covertly.
Sandrágoras — September 21, 2009
What I think is the sadest thing of this all, is that those mascots belong to educative institutions. What does a Gaucho has to do with a Tortilla? It makes me think in that USA map where everything that is not USA, is unknown ground and everybody who's not an american look the same.
Well, I feel sorry for the students.
Regards from México City.
juglar del zipa — September 21, 2009
some sports commentators in south america use nicknames for soccer national teams. aboriginal (imperial) groups: peru are the "incas" and paraguay the "guaraníes". weird case of pars pro toto: "cariocas"--people from the city of rio de janeiro--is used for the whole brazilian team. the colombian team are the "cafeteros" (as a colombian i can only say it sounds way weird, i guess because soccer is related with the caribbean coast). the guys from venezuela are the "patriotas"--bolívar, i guess. and then come uruguay (the "charruas") and argentina: the gauchos!
now, calling someone gaucho in argentina is a class-racial insult--just ask borges. but the gaucho--as the aboriginals in the rest of latin america--have this contradictory yet useful pride-shame value: "we're all the proud descendants of these good savages but god forbid we're still as poor and uncivilized as them. wtf, we're just not them."
Thursday Blogwhoring « random babble… — September 23, 2009
[...] Sociological Images: Orientals Vs. Gauchos: Who are you rooting for? [...]
Alice — October 15, 2009
So none of you guys have heard of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites
(and I LOVED the comment about the yankees.)
The Ragin’ Cajuns » Sociological Images — November 8, 2009
[...] the Ragin’ Cajun controversy in light of the other mascots we’ve covered: the Orientals, the Gauchos, the Jews, the Fighting Irish, and the Indians. Leave a Comment Tags: education, [...]
Roger Freedman — January 18, 2010
A very quick Google search for the words "UCSB" and "tortillas" brought up this Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Santa_Barbara_Events_Center
An excerpt from this article:
'In the early 1990s, it became customary for the students to toss tortillas onto the court like frisbees after the first UCSB basket of the game. The team would then be assessed a technical foul for delay of game while the tortillas were cleaned up, which became infamously known as the "Tortilla Technical." Despite continued pleading from the players and coaches to stop the practice, students continued the behavior.
'During a game televised by ESPN, tortilla fragments got into one of ESPN's professional video cameras. The school had to purchase a replacement for the network. The school established a policy of searching students for tortillas as they entered the arena and eventually the novelty wore off. While the tortillas have stopped flying at The Thunderdome, raucous students have brought the practice to Harder Stadium, home of the 2006 NCAA champion UC Santa Barbara Gauchos men's soccer team where no such penalties are enforced.'
This explains the reference to "tortillas" in the UCSB soccer poster. I suspect that the UCSB students who first used tortillas as projectiles in the 1990s were motivated primarily by their low cost, portability, and Frisbee-like aerodynamics.
I note that Professor Wade graduated from UCSB in 1996 (http://departments.oxy.edu/sociology/Wade%20cv.htm), during the years that the tortilla-throwing fad was going on and was being reported in the UCSB student newspaper. Perhaps she had forgotten the history of the tortilla throwers when she wrote this piece.
The following piece from the Santa Barbara Independent is also of interest:
http://ucsbgauchos.cstv.com/genrel/042209aah.html
Reminder: Racist Mascots are an Industry » Sociological Images — March 4, 2010
[...] not just a poor choice. It would be much more difficult to field a team called the Indians, the Gauchos, or the Orientals if there were no pre-made costumes to buy. var addthis_language = 'en'; 1 Comment Tags: [...]
M. Arango — June 14, 2011
Gauchos are from Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay and in none ate tortillas. The Mexican cowboy is called Charro
Brian — October 29, 2013
The tortillas has nothing to do with Gauchos. It is a tradition at UCSB to celebrate goals by throwing tortillas frisbee style onto the field. We also used to throw them after the first point of the basketball season invoking the "tortilla technical" but that tradition has faded away.