MASSAPEQUA, NY – My hometown is a great place to live. Its geographic location situates me between a 15-minute drive to scenic beaches and a one-hour train ride into bustling Manhattan. It’s where I grew up with my family and friends, and for that reason, it will always be important to me. But there are a few unsavory aspects of Massapequa as well. The Chief, our town mascot, has been newsworthy recently in the context of a much broader New York State (NYS) initiative to ban offensive Native American imagery in public schools. Rather than accepting the policy, adapting to the current social climate and apologizing for centuries of upholding insensitive stereotypes (like other New York towns did), Massapequa is challenging the ban.
Before its settlement in the 17th century, Massapequa was inhabited by an Algonquin-speaking Indigenous group known as the Lenape. The town’s name is even derived from the Lenape term for “Great Waterland” due to their observation of bountiful freshwater springs. Lenape leader Sachem Tackapausha eventually signed a deed that gave the land to white settlers in the mid-1650s, and since then the Native American presence in Massapequa has dwindled dramatically.
Fast-forward to November 2022, a cultural landscape where some U.S. governing bodies are, slowly but surely, trying to reflect more inclusive attitudes. The New York State Education Department released a memo announcing that public school districts would be “prohibited from utilizing Native American mascots” because the characterization is no longer defensible under the logic that it is “respectful” of Native Americans. In the statement, Senior Deputy Commissioner Jim Baldwin supported the ban with evidence that the use of Indigenous imagery contributes to the “creation of a hostile environment” and causes “emotional harm” to students. Baldwin and the NYS Education Department set a deadline for the end of the 2022-23 school year for administrators to comply with the initiative, or else the district could be penalized with the “removal of school officers and the withholding of State Aid.”
Although NYS school districts technically have until the 2024-25 school year to replace logos on buildings, fields and uniforms, many schools have already decided on their new mascot. For example, the town of Glens Falls voted to update its name from “Indians” to “Black Bears” after holding a logo-design contest to generate excitement rather than criticism.
My hometown of Massapequa has gravitated in the opposite direction. A Change.org petition has been circulating on social media, urging Massapequa residents to fight the ban in the name of Chief pride. A new mural was designed adjacent to Massapequa High School, where the district-approved decision to continue painting the Chief logo was opted for instead of using the blank wall as an opportunity to start over. The mandate has been met with a rallying cry that reverberates throughout the town: “Once a Chief, always a Chief.” This same phrase is recited at every graduation, proudly sewn into Massapequa merchandise and adorns the walls of the high school as a constant reminder of school spirit. Overall, the Chief is regarded as a harmless symbol rather than an insensitive stereotype – because Massapequa is an overwhelmingly white population.
Members of the board of education, who are seeking litigation to keep the Chief logo and name, believe that Massapequa respects and honors its Native American history. In a video meant to “highlight our heritage” (featuring multiple white people and zero Native Americans), a retired teacher states that “everything Massapequa is everything Native American.” This could not be further from the truth.
In reality, the most recent American Community Survey points to the fact that Massapequa is home to a mere 0.28 percent Native American population. In my experience of growing up in Massapequa, the town’s Native American origins are not incorporated into the educational curriculum. Nothing about the town (or the people who govern it) suggests that they honor the culture represented by the Chief logo, so why are they claiming that their intentions are good?
There was an opportunity to bow out of the debate with dignity. New York State’s initial memo mentioned that “approval from a recognized tribe” would permit schools to retain the name and mascots. However, one of Long Island’s more prominent Indigenous tribes – the Shinnecock Nation – made clear that they support the state ban. In a letter addressing any schools attempting to challenge the mandate, Shinnecock leaders profoundly declared that Indigenous peoples “are not things to bring good luck, are not fictional characters, [and] are not to be used to represent your town, school, sport team, organization, or business.” Town Assemblyman Michael Durso’s promise to “do it respectfully,” then, has fallen short as Massapequa forges ahead with its ignorant crusade in defiance of the Shinnecock Nation’s wishes.
The issue of removing offensive Native American portrayals should sound familiar to sports fans. In 2020 and 2021, respectively, both the Washington Redskins (now Commanders) and Cleveland Indians (now Guardians) changed their team names and logos after years of backlash. While it was initially difficult for these organizations to separate themselves from storied histories and iconic moments under those names, both teams now admit that the renaming is more important and should have been done sooner. Guardians owner Paul Dolan said he anticipated that “some people would disagree” with the change, but he was also confident that they were “doing the right thing.”
The most frequently cited counterargument to the removal of Native American imagery is that there is nothing derogatory about the “chief” title and that it is actually a sign of qualities like leadership and dignity. While this sentiment may be valid, it is ultimately not a verdict that should be determined by anyone other than the recipient of the label. In other words, if the leadership of multiple tribal nations expresses frustration or distaste for how their culture is being portrayed, then people need to listen. If policymakers in Massapequa or elsewhere truly want to be respectful, then they need to abandon any ulterior agendas and simply listen.
In Massapequa, the ulterior agenda seems to be a stubborn opposition to change. The “Once a Chief, always a Chief” slogan is a prime example of the inexplicable allure of permanence to this town. In general, people never want to give up a beloved old way of doing something in favor of an unpopular new way. But as history has repeatedly proven, tradition is not an excuse to uphold outdated ideals.
Zooming out of the microcosm of Massapequa and refocusing on a broader perspective reveals that this debate is only the tip of the iceberg in achieving justice for Indigenous peoples. Grassroots organizations like the Landback movement fight for things like returning land to Native Americans through an “organizing, political and narrative framework.”
The decision-makers in my town need to take a look in the mirror and question if protecting their pride is really more important than taking a small step toward correcting centuries of mistreatment and stereotyping. If the answer is yes, then Massapequa should prepare to cement its place on the wrong side of history.
