Commentary: America’s history of offensive mascots and statues is long with disturbing bigotry treated as a normal occurrence. Mascots and statues have been controversial social markers. Mascots and statues commonly laud a person, usually a white male in heroic terms at the expense of demonizing an entire ethnic group by featuring their defeat, inferiority, or otherwise criminal demeanor. The ‘gun slinging cowboy’ proposed as New Mexico State University’s mascot fulfills that stereotype in multiple ways. An “aggie”, short for agriculture, refers to an agricultural farm figure rather than a pistol carrying cowboy figure. In fact, other universities whose Aggie mascot designation is a ‘dog’ or ‘dawg’ does not connote offensive thoughts or feelings as does a pistol carrying cowboy. Historical context is instructive: an Aggie mascot in many colleges in the United States was started in the land grant tradition of Agricultural and Mechanical institutions focused on cutting-edge technical practices within the agricultural sciences, not pistol carrying cowboys.
The notion of a Pistol Pete as an Aggie Mascot is as offensive as NMSU’s Year Book titled “Swastika.” Ironically, the swastika is an ancient symbol of fortune and good luck used by some Native American nations. As we all know, the swastika became a symbol of Nazism as early as the 1930s. NMSU held on to the misplaced swastika tradition for approximately fifty years (1907 to 1983) before dropping the swastika symbol and renamed it “The Phoenix” in 1984. NMSU should not become entangled in this regretful predicament again with a gun-toting mascot such as Pistol Pete on a Horse.
Not all monuments or mascots are created for pleasing everyone regardless of history or heritage but instead end up promoting forms of disparagement detested by many. This mascot would stand out as a heroic figure to a small portion of the student population rather than a symbol of competitive sports that embraces NMSU’s rich cultural diversity, which is not what a
Cowboy Pete with a Pistol connotes. Mascots and statutes are permanent and inflexible in relation to historical nuance, which is always changing and expanding. Some statues do not deliver a public comprehension of events but rather offend and ostracize diverse, multicultural communities, celebrate some, erase others, and obfuscate a fast-changing student population. Consider the Indigenous mascots by sports teams and the Confederacy figures of recent national debate. Please consider the notion of diversity in its broadest reach. Is pistol carrying Pistol Pete on a Horse representative of an entire student population enrolled in a modern-day land-grant comprehensive system of education? Most likely not.
Placing this limiting depiction as a mascot on the NMSU campus would misrepresent the university as a knowledge generating institution and instead promote it as a warped historical fantasy as a knowledge regulator organization. Mascots and statues should be appraised as a public good and should not be recklessly placed without a thoughtful consensus to everyone’s participation and relationship with them, especially on a university campus. Native Americans, Women, LGBTQs, Latinx communities, African Americans, Jews, and other diverse communities on the NMSU campus would likely not feel represented by the proposed mascot. If anything, it conveys a Hollywood-esque ‘Cowboys and Indians’, ‘us versus them’ depiction of a romanticized history that underplays the role of difference among the various campus participants; i.e., students, staff, faculty, administrators and others. There are more creative Aggie mascots that can be considered lest NMSU risks another image fiasco as it did with the Swastika year book.
Hermán S. García, Regents & Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Rudolfo Chávez Chávez, Regents & Distinguished Professor Emeritus