The history of the Braves’ ‘Chop,’ and the damage it causes today

With the World Series being played in Atlanta for the first time since 1999, new eyes are on the Braves. With this attention comes examination and criticism of “The Chop,” the fan chant carried out every Braves home game, which has yet to be condemned by Major League Baseball, despite other teams in sports choosing to cease the use of Native American stereotypes.

The debate will reach a fevered pitch on Friday night with Atlanta set to host Game 3 of the World Series. The team, and MLB commissioner Rob Manfred are firmly behind supporting the use of “The Chop” despite pressure around baseball and beyond, so now we take a look at this history, the criticism and the evidence of why the tradition needs to be a relic of the past.

Origins of “The Chop” in Atlanta

Despite erroneous claims, there is no longstanding tradition of the chant being used in Atlanta for the Braves. From 1966 when the team moved from Milwaukee to 1991, there is no record of fans performing “The Chop.” It wasn’t until the late 1980s when team organist Carolyn King Jones began playing the “tomahawk song,” after being inspired by Florida State that the tradition was born.

The first recoded acknowledgment of “The Chop” took place in 1991. Atlanta Journal Constitution writer Jeff Schultz spoke with King about the traditional, which she admit came from FSU.

“King feels strange inciting fans (who respond with sort of slow-motion karate chops) with a tune that basically consists of two notes. i “My music teacher would be real proud of me,” she jokes. “A and G: that’s my life.” King said she’s been playing it for years, but this is the first season fans caught on, mimicking fans at Florida State football games.”

The Braves began to feed on the phenomenon, and soon began handing out tomahawks made out of foam for fans to use during “The Chop.” The was criticized almost immediately by Native Americans, who had their concerns brushed aside.

“We’ve had a few complaints that the tomahawk is demeaning to native Americans,” said Jim Schultz, the Braves’ director of public relations. “But we consider it a proud expression of unification and family.”

When King Jones retired in 2004 as the Braves organist the spoke once again to the Atlanta Journal constitution, expressing guilt for not understanding the ramifications of bringing “The Chop” to Atlanta.

“I was a young person and didn’t understand my role politically.” When Native Americans protested outside the stadium in the ’91 postseason, “I found one of the chiefs and told him, ‘I’m the one playing The Chop. I started it. What’s my responsibility?,’ ” Jones said. “He said, ‘Your responsibility is to your family, to play the organ. If you leave, they’ll find someone else [to play]. You playing is not going to change anything.’”

Native American groups would continue to protest the use of “The Chop,” wanting to see systemic change from the organization, but had been rebuked at every turn while the team continued the tradition.

What’s the impact of “The Chop?”

There has been a widespread tendency to over-generalize when it comes to addressing the concerns of Native people as it pertains to labeling in sports teams. Proponents of “The Chop” say the tradition is meant to be an honor rather than offensive — that it presents Native people as strong, and is therefore okay. However, there’s increasing evidence that all stereotypes are extremely damaging to the psyche of young Native people, and their perception of their culture.

Stephanie Fryberg has spent years investigating the effects of stereotyping Native Americans in sports. A psychologist at the University of Michigan and member of the Tulalip Tribe, Fryberg found that all depictions of Native Americans cause harm, particular in the youth of native communities — not just those that are overtly offensive, like the Washington Football Team’s former name of “Redskins.”

“In her studies, she found that exposing Native American teenagers to Native sports mascots decreased their self-esteem, lowered the achievement-related goals they set for themselves, and diminished both their sense of community worth and belief that their community can improve itself.”

It’s Fryberg’s belief that the argument that these stereotypes “honor” Native people are hollow. Any idea of “honoring” these communities needs to begin by listening to their concerns, rather than deciding what is or isn’t offensive on behalf of these people.

“Americans need to ask themselves, ‘Why do I want to hold on to something, especially if I know the science tells us it’s harmful to that group?’” Fryberg said. “Either you really want to honor Native people or not. Just say it: You don’t care, and you don’t want to honor Native people. You’re fine if it hurts them. You just want to ‘play Indian.’”

This is not simply a case of people being offended, as is often the claim. There are quantifiable and fundamental examples of these names and acts having far-reaching effects on children, which in turn damages the pride, and proliferation of culture. When young people feel ashamed or embarrassed of their heritage they are far more likely to stop practicing traditions, and engaging in their culture.

Complicating the issue is an insidious tactic by teams using racist native iconography to find native communities to donate money to, before asking them to speak publicly about a team’s use of racist branding. Native communities, many of whom continue to struggle with poverty, undoubtably benefit from the money supplied by sports teams in these donations. However, this raises serious questions whether these positive statements about being “honored” by sports franchises are being given willingly, or whether they’re given because of a feeling of obligation.

This relationship was examined by Stephanie Bollinger of the Brigham Young Law Review, specifically as it pertained to how Florida State has licensed the usage of its team name from the Seminole Tribe.

Also, some tribal mascot-use agreements should be ruled as unenforceable if it can be shown that they were not entered into voluntarily by Indian tribes. Many Indian tribes are currently dealing with high levels of poverty; their strong financial need, coupled with the lavish monetary incentives dangled by the various sports and educational institutions in exchange for authorized use of the tribal name, calls into question “the degree of voluntariness” surrounding the formation of these agreements.

Why is Atlanta so resistant to change?

It’s been shown that teams will not move away from racist iconography unless there is significant financial pressure. Native communities protested the name “Redskins” for years with Washington using every tactic at their disposal to avoid rebranding, but it wasn’t until they faced significant withdrawal from advertisers that the team quickly announced it was dropping the name.

As it stands the Braves simply aren’t being pressured enough to care. Rebranding costs money, requires creativity, and teams would traditionally rather keep the status quo than do the work to change — even if it’s the right thing. Marc Normandin wrote of this dynamic.

“This lack of pressure is why Atlanta keeps half-heartedly saying they’re having conversations with Native American leaders, or that they’re considering making some changes, or why in some situations they feel confident enough to just straight-up say they’re going to keep things exactly as they are.”

The team would rather keep all its fans, racists included, than risk losing any in a rebrand. The Braves have largely benefitted from having a less offensive name in the wider conversation of racist native stereotypes allowing them a modicum of cover while the strongest protests are against teams with more obviously offensive names and traditions. However, with Washington now picking a new name, and the Cleveland Indians rebranding after pressure, the number of professional teams utilizing these kind of stereotypes are dwindling.

MLB commissioner Rob Manfred is standing by the organization, basically saying the Braves need to appeal to their local market, not worry about how they’re perceived nationally.

Saying the quiet part loud, Manfred essentially said that money is more important than how Native people feel about “The Chop.” In response the National Congress of American Indians fired back, asserting this is not simply a local issue, but one that effects everyone in their community.

“the name ‘Braves,’ the tomahawk adorning the team’s uniform, and the ‘tomahawk chop’ that the team exhorts its fans to perform at home games are meant to depict and caricature not just one tribal community but all Native people, and that is certainly how baseball fans and Native people everywhere interpret them.”

That’s what makes the World Series game in Atlanta so important.

The Braves now face national attention, in baseball’s most-watched event, with fans poised to perform “The Chop” on live TV for the world to see. Ready or not, Atlanta is about to be faced with the biggest challenge to its racist traditions, but no amount of public outcry will be enough to inspire change. When advertisers and the money get involved and risk hurting the Braves’ pocketbook, then we will see the change Native people have been asking for over the last 30 years.