One of the more prominent sports-related stories recently has to do with the NCAA's banning of Indian team nicknames.  Link

This is a really interesting issue.  One can understand that schools have a long-standing tradition of using (or maybe "honoring") indian archetypes as mascots.  Also, one can see that objectifying a race as a mascot can have the effect of trivializing intricate cultures which are still observed.

I doubt that any institution (or fans of a team) that uses an Indian nickname intends to trivialize a race.  I honestly believe that using such names is intended to pay some sort of honor to the spirit of a group.  (Note the verb: intend)

However, using a racially-based name as a mascot may easily be construed as disrespectful toward a group of fellow humans.  (Even though it may not bother any individual or groups of Indians specifically.)  As in: sure, we've all heard of The Seminoles.  They must have been strong fighters, because they have a football team named after them.  There's more to it than that.

In my academic career I have read many well-constructed arguments against Indian nicknames and mascots.   I am also positive that the use of such nicknames/ mascots is intended to be respectful, even though it doesn't necessarily seem that way to some observers (Chief Knockahomer and the Tomahawk chop).

I'm on the fence as far as the appropriate use of said nicknames goes.  It would probably be best to avoid contraversy by simply phasing out the "objectionable" names.  (But of course that flies in the face of what is supposed to be a reverential tradition.)

Sorry.  I have no answers...

(Please no: "I'm Irish, but I'm not offended by the "Fighting Irish" or "The Celtics" nickname arguments.  That is not my point.)