"D.D.B.," 12/16/2005

(Chief opinion: VeryFor)

Although many argue that it is not our place to say that the chief is honorable and should be respected by all (some would say this is to tell the Native Americans what to think), I feel that it is just as important to ask why we have the right to speak for the Native Americans who feel strongly against the chief. Why should we be the ones to decide that the chief is inappropriate, when a Peter Harris Research Group Poll from 2002 showed that 81 percent of Native Americans support the use of Native American logos in collegiate and high school sports, while 83 percent support the use of Native American mascots in professional sports? This research is distorted in the public eye because the Native Americans we see and hear about are the activists, who are mainly anti-chief. And speaking purely in terms of Native Americans, what right do we have to argue and place institutions for what the few have to say against the many? I argue that we should make our decisions based on the common opinions which are seen in the 2002 polls and any others taken in the future. However, I am not without respect for the opinions of those Native Americans who oppose the chief. I believe that some changes can be made to make the chief seem more authentic. I think that an interesting proposition would be the creation of a scholarship for a Native American, who would then perform as the chief does now. In this way, we would eliminate the feelings of some that the person(s) who portray the chief do not have the right to do so. As a summary, I believe that we should listen to what Native Americans have to say about this issue. I do not feel we can rightly make decisions without listening to what the group being portrayed have to say. However, we need to be aware that all Native Americans have a voice, not just those who are activists. In all studies that have been conducted so far, this points to one action that can be taken: Save The Chief.

"D.D.B.," via the web.