Several weeks ago, the editor of this site posted a question to all the writers on American Football through our private forum. It asked: “What are your feelings regarding the Washington Redskins name? (when we write and discuss the team in Washington at sportseventsguide)”. What followed has been some of the most impassioned and obtuse debate I have witnessed within a small group of people (we have about 20-30 staff writers in the football department, though some are not overly active on the forum normally).
This conversation became a microcosm of the entire debate surrounding the name. I have suggested that other writers give their own for or against argument, but for the purposes of this article I wish only to discuss the ‘why’ of the controversy and parameters for arguments both for and against.
I feel in doing this I will give the reader a sense of how difficult a topic this is for both the NFL and society as a whole.
Why am I writing about this you may ask? Well, for one I am somewhat of an outsider, I have only been to the Americas once and it was nearly 20 years ago. This gives me a somewhat unique place in the debate, as my opinion is not influenced by exposure but more grounded in debate. Place in the world and social standing can be of immense influence in your point of view and I think you must be aware of it when writing on these subjects.
The question is, “Is the term ‘Redskins’ racist?”
For those of you who have been living under a rock in the world of American Football, as I had somewhat been on this issue, there has been a strong movement in recent months (and smaller movements for several years) to get the Washington Redskins to change their name as Native Americans can find it offensive.
This movement gained strength recently, when 50 US Senators sent a letter addressed directly to Roger Goodell asking for him to chance the name. I quote the following,
“The N.F.L. can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur,”
“… and Indian Country has spoken clearly on this issue.” “We have heard from every National Tribe organization, including the National Congress of American Indians, United South and Eastern Tribes, and the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians. These Organizations represent more than 2 Million Native Americans across the country”
This was on top of all these bodies having submitted requests for the name to be changed over the years. While you may scoff at the idea of politicians using this as leverage to get future votes, they are elected officials and should (in theory) represent the thoughts and will of the people.
Why do they think it is a racial slur and why aren’t other team names based on Native American culture regarded in the same light?
This is an argument I have seen several times, for my part on thinking about the question I have to agree that it is a racial slur, the reason is that unlike other sports team names such as the ‘Chiefs’, ‘Indians’, ‘Blackhawks’, ‘Braves’ etc. it distinguishes skin colour as its main focus. It is not the Washington ‘REDS’, it is the ‘RED-SKINS’, and it is singling out a feature that has been used for oppression throughout history–the colour of your skin, your gender, your religion, your sexual orientation, your country of birth. These have all been used to institute some of the vilest acts in human history.
This brings me to another argument I have seen–that of ‘Tradition’. In fact, this has been used by the owner of Washington to condone keeping the name. Quoting traditions are all well and good but you have to be able to argue why they should be kept–some traditions have to change. If you were to keep some traditions, children would be beaten in school for using their left hand to write for example (which was commonplace up to and beyond my parents’ generation as it was seen as a sign of the devil). Societies change. They evolve and become more open, more accepting (sometimes they regress too), but to just use ‘tradition’ as a valid argument does not hold up to scrutiny you have to argue why this tradition is worth keeping.
The question to me comes down to one point and one point only: How do the indigenous people of the Americans feel about it? It is all well and good for me to say it is racist or not racist, but I have not experienced for myself how hurtful the team name can be, and I have not lived in a society that has segregated me or my family in the recent past.
One of the arguments I have heard for keeping the team name, has revolved around a ten-year-old study that was very limited in its approach. It asked a very small section of the native population (768), excluded proportion of the population by not surveying Alaska and Hawaii, it also did not confirm ethnicity when questioning those claiming to be Native American and is outdated at this point. This found that 10% of the native population (within the US) were against the name, which would work out at about 500,000 people today. How many people have to be offended before action is taken? This is a pretty large number in my eyes. This number is most likely considerably higher, and indeed a recent study (again quite a small proportion of the society) found that 60% of Native Americans found the term racist. This study acknowledges that it is a small study within its title.
What will the NFL do?
This is the multi-million dollar question that I have been thinking about for several days, considering other times a nation has been asked to make a stance on a subject, and thinking about the recent controversy in the NBA (to which the Senators referenced). In relation to this, there is one fundamental difference: the NBA did not have to change a team name, they did not have to lose revenue in changing jerseys, merchandise and other fan apparel. They did have something that hasn’t happened yet en-mass in the NFL–the real fear of a boycott during the controversy surrounding the Spurs basketball team. The players asked fans to not show up to games, refused to wear the team jersey during warm-ups and some hinted at not playing. Fans refused to buy the teams goods, money started to dwindle out of the team’s coffers, so the league took note. This was somewhat easier to solve than the Washington issue. At the end of the day the former owner has made 2 billion in all of this. Yes, he no longer owns the team, but he has still made a lot of money.
As long as the NFL is making money off ticket sales, jersey and merchandise sales, they will weather the storm on this subject. There has not been a strong call to boycott the team, to demand change beyond words and rhetoric, this may change in the future and it can happen rapidly when the right voice is heard.
Conclusion
This is an incredibly complex issue, which goes to the heart of American society, American history, its treatment of an indigenous people and cultural evolution. I have not even mentioned the portion of Native Americans who find the name empowering; I have not heard enough of this argument to pass comment on it. If the NFL wants to deal with this issue, the native population are going to have to be consulted heavily. As long as the cost of rebranding the team is more than the potential lost revenue of keeping the ‘Redskins’ title, I do not see the NFL paying more than lip service to the subject.
To the readers and to my fellow writers who have discussed this issue both for and against: I ask you to consider your place in the world, why you have this argument. Do not hide behind arguments such as TRADITION or FIRST AMMENDMENT because these belittle the argument. How long does something have to happen to become a tradition? When are traditions wrong? Take for example the tradition of ‘hazing’ within football. This exploded last year and has left the Miami Dolphins still dealing with issues of racism and bullying.
This is a very difficult issue that goes beyond sports–it goes to the heart of American society, but it has found a focal point in a name. For this writer, I have found myself re-writing this article several times (more than other articles I would have written). I wished to present a clear view of the issues involved, I tried to keep personal opinion out of it as much as possible, although I have failed in part. I have to say I would be less inclined to use the ‘Redskins’ title in the future and I have intentionally used the quotation marks when I mention the name.
