Andrew C. Billings, Jason Edward Black. Mascot Nation: The Controversy over Native American Representations in Sports. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2018. Illustrations. 256 pp. $14.95 (e-book), ISBN 978-0-252-05084-8; $99.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-252-04209-6; $24.95 (paper), ISBN 978-0-252-08378-5. Reviewed by Jennifer Guiliano (Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis) Published on H-AmIndian (October, 2019) Commissioned by F. Evan Nooe (University of North Carolina, Charlotte) A Path Forward? The Limits of Public Surveys for Understanding Indigeneity and Mascotry In Mascot Nation, Andrew C. Billings and Jason Ed- Spirits: The Native American Mascot Controversy (2001) ward Black, professors of broadcasting and communi- and King’s edited volume The Native American Mascot cation studies respectively, deploy “empirically driven Controversy: A Handbook (2010) with more recent his- social scientific data and a humanistic approach under- toriographical work, including additional case studies. girded by both rhetorical and cultural criticism” to un- For nonspecialists, Mascot Nation fills a gap by casting a derstand what Native American mascotry is and how wide net and offering conclusions backed by the diverse it plays out in public spaces (p. 15). Establishing self- cast of disciplines that are engaged in mascot research. categorization theory (chapter 1) and postcolonialism The work of Jacqueline Keeler, Jay Rosenstein, Laurel (chapter 2) as its foundational underpinnings, Mascot Na- R. Davis, Brenda Farnell, King, Springwood, Sudie Hoff- tion delves into “the public” and the public’s understand- man, Ellen J. Staurowsky, James V. Fenlon, Lawrence R. ing of the naming, visual imagery, and ritualized perfor- Baca, Carol Spindel, Stephanie Fryberg, and others allow mances surrounding mascots and associated debates. Billings and Black to incorporate a wealth of deep and complex research. Brief histories, contextual vignettes, Readers get a glimpse of fan commentary on YouTube and short narrative arcs about selected high schools, col- videos (chapter 3), the discourse around naming for the leges and universities, and professional teams move the University of North Dakota and the NFL’s Washington reader between local, institutional, and virtual environ- football team (chapter 4), the cartoonish logos associated ments as needed. This allows the authors to illustrate the with mascots and their offensiveness (chapter 5), and the complexity of mascotry as cultural phenomenon without rituals of Florida State University and the Cleveland Indi- bogging the reader down in any one single case study or ans (chapter 6). Billings and Black also provide a compar- issue. ative case study of mascot eradication at the University of Illinois and Florida State University (chapter 7) before Billings and Black combine this with their own orig- concluding with an analysis of the 2017 Supreme Court inal research, which considers the acceptability of mas- decision regarding the Washington team and the more re- cot names, logos, and rituals via a comprehensive sur- cent decision regarding disparaging trademarks and the vey of “attitudes about Native American mascots—and Lanham Act. also some oft-mentioned mascots as potentially troubling outside of Native American terrain (e.g., the Notre Dame Mascot Nation serves to update C. Richard King and ‘Fighting Irish’)” (p. 63). They surveyed 1,073 respon- Charles Fruehling Springwood’s edited collection Team 1 H-Net Reviews dents using the Mechanical Turk (MTurk) service. Specif- the readers in grappling with the ethical and functional ically seeking to differentiate self-categorized sports fans issues associated with using MTurk for data collection. from non-sports fans, Billings and Black identify a clear In the last eight years, researchers have found not only pattern that non-sports fans find Native-themed names that MTurk’s worker pool is paid way below the man- less acceptable than self-identified sports fans. Their dated federal minimum wage but also that MTurk re- analysis shows that “the gap between the name ‘Braves’ spondents become de facto experts at taking surveys.[1] and some of the names scoring lowest on the scale (e.g., They also are less representative than other survey popu- ‘Redskins’ and ‘Savages’) is as wide as the gap between lations. They are usually “more educated, more underem- ‘Braves’ and most any other mainstream mascot name” ployed, and less religious when compared with the gen- (p. 74). More revealing is their conclusion that respon- eral population.”[2] Thus, if their survey responses show dents were “uncomfortable” with name changes pro- that “the public” knows little of Native America and its moted by government agencies and laws, educational tribes, then the question Billings and Black pose about systems, corporations, private parties like the National the acceptability isn’t can surveys tell us about mascotry Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and public or- but rather should surveys be considered reliable on Na- ganizations, including anti-mascot organizations (p. 82). tive American mascots when the respondents readily ad- mit they know little, if anything, about indigenous peo- The challenge of this original research is its very ples. premise as a method of studying mascotry within a post- colonial framework. In their introduction, Billings and In trying to capture all sides of the debate the au- Black ask “can the acceptability or offensiveness of any- thors are validating that it is public opinion that matters thing be determined via national poll?” (p. 2). They de- in the mascot debate rather than the voices of tribally scribe the failures of the May 2016 Washington Post poll connected Natives who have a valuable lived experience. and its methods: an inability to substantiate that the re- They do include an interview with Jaqueline Pata, execu- spondents were actually Native, the age representation tive director of the National Congress of American Indi- skewed older in comparison to the current median age of ans (NCAI) regarding NCAI’s campaign to eliminate Na- Natives in the US, and the polling questions themselves tive American mascotry. Her role is to introduce readers “did not use polar opposites” (p. 3). Their methodol- to the historical roots of the anti-mascot debate as well ogy implies not only that national polls are useful but to serve as a vehicle to tell readers that polling is a prob- also that they are a legitimate form of scholarly research lematic mechanism for understanding public sentiment. about Native peoples. They also include a very brief coda that sees a hopeful future where this debate has been resolved. Billings and Black are careful to point out to the reader that their survey “featured a near-equivalent gen- The strength of the text for nonspecialists is ulti- der split…, with racial demographics very close to census mately its greatest weakness. Continually, Billings and data for the U.S. population (e.g., 69 percent white)” (p. Black note that they are “isolating” a variable in their 63). They also note that they did not seek nor eliminate analysis. This allows nonspecialists to focus on just that any Native American respondents. Methodologically, particular aspect of mascotting. Logos are divorced from the reliance on US census categories is quite problematic. rituals. Online comments on YouTube are separated from The survey mechanism does not account for indigenous- explorations of fan behaviors like the Tomahawk Chop. centered epistemologies, which is a key intervention by Polling data is separate from oral interviews. Experts the postcolonial and indigenous scholars whose work though will recognize that by isolating particular aspects frames their analysis. A two-category gender choice does from one another, Billings and Black are neglecting to not recognize the postcolonial critiques of binary gender reckon with the messy nature of mascots and their exis- as reductivist. Nor do Billings and Black reveal how mul- tence. They are ceding to the premise that it is the “pub- tiracial individuals were expressed in their survey. The lic” who should determine acceptability or not, rather authors would have been well served to provide a com- than Native people who are culturally connected. plete reproduction of the survey instrument either in an Charlene Teters faced insults, taunts, thrown objects, appendix or via the inclusion of citation to published raw data. They also might have considered how the lack ofre- and even death threats, but University of Illinois students spondents’ knowledge of Native tribal names much less continually responded as part of polls that Chief Illiniwek specific historical and contemporary information might was acceptable. Stephanie Fryberg’s research has shown invalidate their survey. They also might have assisted that there is a direct link between the existence of mas- 2 H-Net Reviews cots and students’ (not just Native students) perceived of Inexpensive, yet High-Quality, Data?,” Perspectives on self-worth. Anti-mascot protestors have faced real con- Psychological Science 6, no. 1 (2011): 3-5. sequences for their activism. Their engagement is not just rhetorical or virtual. It is putting their bodies on the [2]. D. Jake Follmer, Rayne A. Sperling, and Hoi K. line in the face of threats of violence. Suen, “The Role of MTurk in Education Research: Ad- vantages, Issues, and Future Directions,” Educational Re- Because Billings and Black are seeking the “middle searcher 46, no. 6 (2017): 332. For more on MTurk ground” and the “path forward” from the debate, Mascot as a social science/behavior research environment, see Nation is ultimately limited in its use by specialists who Steven V. Rouse, “A Reliability Analysis of Mechani- might seek to extend postcolonial theory to decolonial cal Turk Data,” Computers in Human Behavior 43 (2015): research practices. 304-7; and Adam J. Berinsky, Michele F. Margolis, and Michael W. Sances, “Separating the Shirkers from the Notes Workers? Making Sure Respondents Pay Attention on [1]. Michael Buhrmester, Tracy Kwang, and Samuel Self-Administered Surveys,” American Journal of Political D.