WHY THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS SHOULD CHANGE THEIR NAME: by Dustin Hills The NFL has had its fair share of image-tarnishing publicity lately, from concussions, to domestic abuse, to child abuse. If weve learned anything about the NFL, its that they lack the awareness or desire to be proactive on social issues that affect their employees, employees families, or their fans. The only factor that plays into the leagues thought process is the almighty dollar. That being said, I dont expect the NFL to take a stand against the use of the “Redskins” name anytime soon. I also dont believe that it is constitutional for the federal government to step in and force the Washington franchise to change its name. So far, the actions of the government have been justified and legal. They simply ruled that this type of word should not be trademarked and used for profit, which I agree with wholeheartedly. What I would like to see however, is for the Washington franchise to make the choice, on its own, to change the nickname of its team. I recently began posting articles and comments on social media, reflecting my views on the subject. First of all, I would like to say that I dont believe that as a white male in America, I have any right to lead a campaign for social justice for any other race of people. My goal here is not to lead a liberal crusade about racism, it is merely to shed light on some longstanding flaws in our country. To show how simple, everyday actions and words play into the preservation of established power structures and to suggest a way to better represent the ideals that many believe this nation were founded upon (whether that is completely accurate or not, I think most of us strive for equality). The most common argument I hear from people defending the football franchise is something to the effect of, “only a few Indians are leading this protest,” or “most Native Americans dont care”. Well, sure, its true. Most Native Americans dont sit around worrying about the name of a football team, and the anti-”Redskin” movement is led by a small minority of people within the Native community. Theres a few reasons for that: Native people are among the most impoverished people in our country; Unemployment in most Native communities is upwards of 50%; many Native people struggle with substance abuse, fatherlessness and suicide. These hardships among Native Americans can be directly traced back to the social injustice and racism perpetuated over centuries. The ugly history of the treatment of Native Americans is real, and the word “redskin” played a part in it all. Its true that most Native Americans are not going to march on Washington to change the name of a football team, most cant even afford to leave their reservations. To use this as evidence of dismissal of the anti-Redskin argument is ridiculous. Consider this in the context of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. Most African-Americans did not march in the streets demanding change, it was, in the beginning a small minority of people who were willing or could afford to take the risk. Many of them feared for their lives, and many more could simply not afford to travel or miss work. Now, obviously at this point, Native Americans need not fear for their lives. That doesnt mean that they can afford to, or have the capability to join this argument. An even more ludicrous argument is, that Native people “should not be offended”. That because the origin of the word is a self-identifier and because some Natives still use the word within their communities today, they shouldnt be offended when a white man uses the word for his own profit. Before I go any further, Ill give a bit of history about the word itself. The origin of the word (or words) “redskin” (“red skin”) has been debated by football fans and historians alike. The most extensive study was performed by Ives Goddard, senior linguist emeritus for the Smithsonian Institute. Any right-minded person would not argue with Goddards findings that the word surfaced in North America in the mid 18th Century, originally as a French translation (peau-rouge) from mixed blood scouts around the Illinois country and Great Lakes region. Goddard states that the word began as “entirely benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians and whites”. As the English empire began to dominate the continent, the word was translated for English speaking settlers, as well as used by many Native Americans and tribal leaders to describe themselves as being different from their Caucasian counterparts. The first recorded public use of the term was by President James Madison in 1812, while addressing tribal leaders during the onset of the second war with Great Britain. Madison said, “The red people who live on the same great island with the white people”. So Goddards (and many supporters of the Redskins nickname) say that the words were first used during a “positive time” between European settlers and Native Americans. Really? A positive time in which Europeans were almost constantly working to steal the homes and destroy the culture of the indigenous people? Those “positive aspects” of relations between the two races, were simply a smoke screen for the genocide to come. Evidence of the British government offering bounties for “Indian” scalps can be found as far back as 1755. So this is the origin of the word itself, a translation of words created by natives themselves. It was used in a “neutral” fashion in the earliest examples, as stated by Ives Goddard. The issue here isnt really the origin of the word, however, its how the word has been predominantly used in our culture. To quote another member of the Smithsonian – Kevin Gover, a member of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and director of the Institution’s National Museum of the American Indian: “I’m really not that interested in where the word comes from,” Grover said. “I know how it was used. And it’s been used in a disparaging way for at least a couple of centuries. Up to and including the time I was growing up in Oklahoma.” Much like the “N” word, the term “red skin” took on a completely different context after white people got a hold of it. The word “nigger” is derived from the Spanish word “negro”, meaning black. However, during the 17th Century in North America, the word was translated from Spanish, to French, to English, to be used as a derogatory term towards African-American slaves on sugar and rice plantations. Now, its origins are just a translation based on skin color, but consider its primary usage in our country. The goal here is not to determine whether the word is racist, but whether or not people of non-Native background should feel comfortable throwing around a word that identifies someone by their skin color and holds so much weight, historically. Native American journalist, Gyasi Ross asks the question, Would it be acceptable to name a professional sports team according to the color of someone elses skin? No, no it would not. Ross writes this in his article, Redskins: A Natives Guide To Debating An Inglorious Word, adding, “Would it ever be cool to have a sports team called the Washington Blackskins? It seems appropriate; D.C. is Chocolate City. But, um, hell no. San Francisco Yellowskins? Naw, cousin. Wont work.” I tend to agree with Mr. Ross. Gyasi Ross also makes a great point about Natives using the words “redskin” or “skin” amongst themselves. Its much like the usage of the “N” word by African-Americans, and even though it has value for those people internally, it is not acceptable for use externally. Ross writes, “ Yet, there is a crucial difference: It is black folks who debate the merits and demerits of the word nigger. White folks understand that, as a matter of propriety, it would be the ultimate in tastelessness and disrespect to take the lead in the discussion of the word nigger. Yet, here are outsiders—black, white, Asian, Latino—telling Native people how we should feel about the word redskins and what we should be offended by. If white people tried to pull the were going to tell you what words you should be offended by shit with the word nigger, there would be serious problems. Apparently, though, while its racist and condescending to tell some people what should offend them, its somehow OK to do the same with Native people.” So again, I will reiterate. I do not presume to know the feelings of all Native Americans on this subject, nor do I want to preach about how racist the word redskin is, or should be viewed as. I want to expose how utterly insensitive it is for a white man (whether it is current Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder or the teams founder George Preston Marshall) to profit off of the use of a word that is undoubtedly offensive to many people. A word that at one time was synonymous with the word “savage” and used in such a way as to single out, alienate and mass murder an entire race of people. Native people and Native communities have every right to determine how they feel, or how they want to use this word. I just feel that it has no place in the NFL, or in public view at the hands of a non-Native. This brings me to the hilarious attempts at defending the use of the nickname by the Redskins organization. For over forty years, the franchise (and recently Roger Goodell) has defended the use of this nickname by claiming that the team changed its original name, the Boston Braves, to the Boston Redskins in 1933 to honor its coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, who maintained at the time that he was a member of the Sioux tribe. It turns out that Dietz was almost certainly not Native American and in a 1933 interview, George Marshall even admits that the team was not named in honor of Coach Deitz or the Native members of the team. It seems that the NFL and the Redskins franchise have been lying for decades. Another laughable defense of the Washington Redskins nickname is the “High schools have it too” argument. Its true, a few Native American high schools around the country use the nickname Redskins. If they choose to do so, its their right. Does that mean its okay for anyone and everyone to use the name? I think not. People also like to say, “if you change the Redskins name, then you have to change every Native American related name (i.e. Indians, Braves, Warriors)”. To answer this I will quote Gyasi Ross one last time (because his article is so great, you should read it. Seriously, read it.) “Most Native people have no inherent problem with Indian mascots; what matters is the presentation of that mascot and name. The presentation of the name Redskins is problematic for many Native Americans because it identifies Natives in a way that the vast majority of Natives simply dont identity ourselves. Obviously the word “brave” or “warrior” doesnt carry the same weight as “redskin” or even “savage” when speaking historically. 19th Century newspapers in the eastern U.S. did not usually tell stories about “braves” attacking wagon trains, or “warriors” defeating the U.S. Cavalry. They used words like “savages” and “redskins” for a reason. Likewise, the use of cartoonish, hook nosed images of “Indians” can understandably be seen as offensive. In fact, I dont think anyone would have a problem with Washington reclaiming the name “Braves” for their football team. As an American, I believe that we owe it to each other to learn from the ugly and often unjust history of our country. I think that a responsible business owner, especially one with several billion dollars in revenue and an impact on millions of people, should set an example. The example currently being set by the NFL and Washington Redskins is unacceptable. Too many people in this nations history have suffered under the heavy foot of oppression and social injustice. A word that has been most commonly used in public as a racial slur has no place in a sport as popular and as enjoyable as football. I would hate to someday have a child of mine see a Native person and think that it was okay to call them a “redskin” just because they saw a football game on TV. In closing, I will once more state that I am a white man. I only voice my opinion as a manner in which to spread information and fuel a conversation that will hopefully enlighten people. Obviously social media may not be the best vehicle for such thoughts and discussions, but hey, it gives me some practice for the future when some idiot decides to pay me for my words. I have attached some photos and links to article along with this long winded post. I would highly recommend reading Gyasi Ross words on the subject, given that he is an actual Native American. Thank you for reading. :)
Posted on: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:21:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015