Non-Indigenous people’s commercial use of indigenous symbols constitutes cultural appropriation, perpetuating stereotypes and marginalizing contemporary Indigenous people.

*Mentions of domestic violence and sexual assault in the shrunk portions of the card

When non-Indians use Indian names, imagery, iconography, and other symbols—particularly for commercial purposes and without Indian input— Indian tribes and individuals increasingly claim that such usages constitute “cultural appropriation.”9 Wide-ranging examples include Victoria’s Secret models walking the runway in Indian headdresses,10 Urban Outfitters marketing “Navajo Print Wrapped Flasks” and “Navajo Hipster Panties,”11 Boy Scout Troops mimicking Pueblo Indian dances,12 and the many sports teams with Indian mascots.13 These examples and a multitude of others just like them are seemingly such a part of mainstream American society that they are often overlooked.

While the law hasn’t fully grappled with issues of cultural appropriation, scholars in Native studies, led by Philip Deloria and Shari Huhndorf, offer important insights. They argue that for centuries non-Indians have appropriated Indian culture for their own purposes, largely concerned with identity formation. Deloria, for example, locates the practice of “playing Indian” deep in the country’s origins, examining the way in which newcomers sought to forge a uniquely “American” identity that variously embraced or rejected images of Indianness.14 While Americans relished the idea of the Indian as an emblem of “freedom,” they were careful to distinguish their own behavioral mores from Indian “savagery.”15 Later, those very same stereotypes made their way into laws that discriminated against and even authorized the oppression of Indians. As Robert A. Williams Jr. has argued, foundational Supreme Court jurisprudence invoked images of the Indian as “savage” to deny Indian land rights, thereby setting in motion a regime that would legalize the dispossession of Indian property.16

Today, non-Indians continue to adopt images and representations of Indians and Indian iconography, with little regard for the experience of contemporary Native people. Like with the historical examples, these instances also reflect the glorification of Indian imagery, often by and for the benefit of non-Indians, but they simultaneously subordinate Indian people. As fashion icons use Indian feathers in photo shoots, Indian religious leaders cannot obtain eagle feathers for ceremonies. Rock stars seductively portray the ravished Indian maiden, while real Indian women experience extreme rates of domestic violence and sexual assault. Multinational companies secure patents on genetically modified “Indian wild rice,” while Indians cannot protect their own varieties from cross-contamination. And as the NFL defends the R-skins mascot, Indian teenagers suffer discrimination in schools that employ the same term for sports teams.17