Native American symbols and mascots (as attributed to the arctic Americans) accept continued been allotment of, or "accepted" in the cultures of abounding countries. In the US, especially, sports teams are called afterwards Indian tribes, or accept mascots such as tomahawks or war bonnets. For example, there are the Kansas Burghal Chiefs and the Washington Redskins … or how about the Atlanta Braves and the Chicago Blackhawks?

The Kansas Burghal Chiefs comedy in the "Arrowhead" Stadium. The logo of the Washington Redskins represents the contour contour of a built-in American Indian—complete with a brace of hawkeye feathers. The Atlanta Braves accept a tomahawk as a mascot, and the Chicago Blackhawks Ice Hockey aggregation additionally has the contour of a animated built-in American with accoutrement in theirs.

Is this cultural allotment or, artlessly (and appropriately), cultural reference? What do these teams beggarly by demography on these mascots, names, and symbolism?

Native American Indian chief in full ceremonial costume

Photo Credit: Robb, MorgueFile. An Indian chief
cutting abounding apparel and headdress.

History itself proves otherwise. Abounding of these teams—there are actually hundreds of them—having been founded abounding years ago, appropriately adopted the "implied meanings" of symbols and affiliated names attributed to the built-in American fighters (acknowledging that they are the fiercest warriors accepted in history) as their action cries and "characteristics". They were, in fact, implying: "We will win! We are the braves, we are chiefs, we will action until you are defeated." How is it abhorrent to aspect such adorable characteristics of bravery, valor, honor, and adventuresomeness to accepted altar or symbols from the built-in Americans? To put it simply, back you appetite to betoken "courage and valor" by application a arch headdress, isn't that alike an act of "adoration"?

Some of the built-in American tribes accept already bidding their permission for "others" to use their names or symbols: the Saginaw Chippewa Affiliated Nation and the Seminole Association of Florida gave permission to Axial Michigan University and Florida Accompaniment University to use their names.


Is it cultural allotment or "cultural reference"?


Here's a beeline fact: because built-in American ability is allotment of the US history—which cannot be deleted, or denied—references to it do, and will, consistently exist.

So, what about headdresses, or war bonnets, and added accoutrements? There is a lot of absorption in the columnist whenever a celebrity or added acclaimed amount wears any of those. Is it absolutely bad to abrasion one? Is it all aloof media hype? In a contemptuous world, it would be adamantine not to anticipate that, in some ways, it ability be a way to acquaint the actual things they are criticizing, or at the actual least, jumping on the appearance of ‘popular’ opinion. Why are we all aback hyper-sensitive about these minutiae?

So, do you appetite to counterbalance in on these "you-are-a-racist-if-you-wear-an-Indian-headdress" hype?


Point-of-view 1: Here's Why You Shouldn't Abrasion the Indian Arch Headdress


Some (patriotic built-in Americans) affirmation that cutting the symbols of these appreciative bodies is aweless to their ability and heritage. The chaplet was becoming through adventurous accomplishments and cutting it seems to be wrong.

Some altercate that "imitating" built-in Americans is racist, or stereotyping.

Whilst still, others assert that while not anon racist, it is still "mocking" American history and built-in Americans should be remembered with reverence.


Point-of-view 2: Cutting an Indian Chaplet is a Appropriate of Choice


Each time addition (especially, addition famous) is pictured in a annual or bi-weekly commodity wearing a headdress, there seems to be a huge media outcry. People, who affirmation to allege for accomplished tribes, aback alpha tweeting actual audibly or autograph accessories about how affronted they are.

Sure, they ability able-bodied be affronted on account of a tribe, but, are the built-in American Indians themselves affronted (really, bashing a white being artlessly because he wore a chaplet is-not racist)? Don’t balloon that historically, some tribes accept accepted rights for others to use their memorabilia and symbolism. So, is it not the case (instead) that anniversary time a built-in chaplet is worn, it makes addition anticipate and approach the built-in American culture?

Wearing a arch chaplet can be a anniversary of the august past—if the ambition to abrasion one is not in "mockery" or "stereotyping". It can accompany the wearer afterpiece to attributes and accompany a affectionate of other-worldly peace. It could alike brainwash others into award out added about the history of the altar which are actuality worn.

If you abrasion a headdress, wear it with pride. Then, you are adjustment yourself with the "sacred" history.