FTC, I think you hit it right on the head. I've always figured that it had a lot to do with the fact that it wasn't the Native Americans themselves who named the teams, and initially most of the mascots and associated images/cheers were quite insensitive (for example, the 'Tomahawk Chop' or 'Chief Wahoo!'). It amounted to your identity being taken by outsiders, treated solely as a way to make money. That's pretty offensive. Sometimes I wonder what the deal is with the Fighting Irish. I'm Irish in heritage, and I went to ND for grad school. I think the issue there is that it was Irish Catholics who chose to use the name, and the "fighting" is used to symbolize toughness in the face of adversity which the Irish really felt. The fact that it might be understood differently (speaking to the stereotype of the drunken, violent Irishman) by outsiders only adds to the pride "the Irish" take in the mascot. It's as though only an insider knows the true meaning - in this case it's the cooptation and reimagination of a stereotype. Clearly, in the case of teams like the Cleveland Indians or the Washington Redskins there were not Native Americans on the inside when the teams were named, and it's the history and identity of a people being used without their consent. However, I think it's unfair to say that every team with a mascot referencing Native Americans was named with less than pure intentions. This is especially the case at the college level, where often the intent is to honor a region's history. Nonetheless, if the naming occurs without the participation of the native tribe, an honorable intention might still be interpreted as the misappropriation of sacred tradition and history. You can understand why that would be offensive. All that said, the Stanford Cardinal just doesn't make any sense. Your name is a color but your symbol is a tree? Too postmodern for me.