Small victories in an enduring battle

This post is a rarity for the blog. I am compelled to voice a candid opinion on a newsworthy issue. This week, the US Patent Office canceled the Washington Redskins trademark. The franchise will presumably suffer a blow in profit.  I consider this a small victory in a continuing saga between the voice of Native peoples within the U.S. Admittedly; I was indifferent to the topic as a younger woman*. While at the University of Arizona, I was asked whether I was in favor or against name changes for native mascots. At the time, I accepted the notion that a mascot that referred to a Native tribe honored that group, so long as the tribe permitted its use (e.g Utah Utes, Florida Seminoles). I was not offended by the caricature of the Cleveland Indians mascot, Chief Wahoo. He reminded me of a character in Peter Pan. I never identified with those projected images of an “Indian” in the media and dismissed any similarity drawn to any existing tribe. I was in favor of particular name changes, especially when a specific tribe requested its disuse (UND’s Fighting Sioux) or when the name did more harm than good (Washington Redskins). Logical enough, right? It’s simply application of The Golden Rule. A basic history lesson coupled with dialogue would inform both parties of any wrongs done and the assurance of future healthy relationships. But no, dear me, I realize now that was too idealistic of a solution.

These days, I have shed the rational opinion I once had. On the matter of Native Americans, I add my support and voice to the defense of their culture, their livelihood, and their future. To make it clear:  I am in favor of a mascot name change for the Washington Redskins. I have come to realize that my intuitive grasp of the topic is not shared by others (although Mike Tyson and John Oliver get it) due to ignorance or something beyond my powers of reasoning.  And so, in my attempts to understand the baffling comments and opinions of others, I ignored the emotional bias I have when it comes to Native American history and donned the white lab coat. The scientist** within posed the following questions and began the research to unveil some answers.

What is the origin of the word, Redskins? Is the name disparaging/offensive/insulting? What is the literal definition of ‘disparaging’? How might Redskin(s) be used in conversation? To whom is the word referring, a people bygone or still extant? Why might that matter if they are extinct or still present?

When did Washington [the football team] choose that word as their mascot? How is the image portrayed by the team? Fans? Is it respectful or disparaging?

Have there been name changes in the history of professional sports? Is a name change something feasible?

The answers to these questions, were surprisingly, easy to find. Wikipedia provided a lengthy description of the origin of the word. Basically, it was a ‘benign’ term to describe the color of skin or paint on a native person. Harmless enough, especially when there are documented words of chiefs describing their self as a person of red skin. However, the word takes on a negative connotation when natives were hunted down as bounty in MN (1863).  The disgusting imagery cannot be defended. Native men, women, and children were scalped, and their ‘red-skin’ taken as proof of the kill. So YES, the name is disparaging. It is offensive. It is insulting. It is a racial epithet. The best use of the word is when referencing the team (in their glory days). The worst use of the word is to call a present-day Native American a “redskin”. The word is steeped in a dirty history that refers to a native person. Native Americans represent 2% of the US population today. A minority group even amongst minorities, Natives still exists! This matters because they have rights to voice their opinion, whether it is unpopular or right. 

The Washington Redskins (1937) used to be known as the Boston Redskins (1933) and prior to that as the Boston Braves (1932). It was to honor some guy whose mother was supposedly Sioux (a speculative claim). Interestingly, the name was challenged in 1968, but nothing was done because it required the “adverse reaction of the market” in terms of the sales of merchandise and tickets. (The power to affect belonged to the public.) Anyone can Google the image of the Washington Redskins logo or of Washington Redskins Fans and judge for themselves whether or not it is used in a respectful or disparaging way. (I don’t see any semblance of respect when it comes to the fans.)

To quickly respond to the remaining questions. Yes, there have been many name changes in the NBA, NFL, MLB.  A name change is realistic.

So why was I compelled to write this post? Why did I do this research even though I felt that the name change is warranted? As I read the comments of others who are sympathetic to sticking with the name, I was perplexed with their reasons. I read too many comments about the "sensitivity" of Natives. I read of how the Native voice and representation was too few in number and therefore did not matter***. I read of how the Vikings**** mascot for Minnesota is a parallel case for those of Scandinavian descent. To all of this, all I could do was say, "Really?" 

As a Navajo woman, I broached this topic because the underlying truth is that it impacts me and those I love. It resurrects the injustice experienced by ancestors and it paves a road for those to come. I cannot be indifferent to the rhetoric of this ongoing discussion. I am aware that more questions will be raised with the cancellation of the trademark, but that will be for another day to discuss.

*When I was a high school student in Page, AZ, the humpback chub was declared an endangered species. There was a small contingent of administrators who wanted to change our mascot from the Sand Devils to the Humpback Chub. I was against the change for superficial reasons, not least of which to escape the shame of being called a humpback or a chub by other teams. I understand the influence that tradition exerts on the sentiments of sticking with a name. I also want to highlight, that I could be reasoned with in high school. The suggested name appealed to me in a highly sarcastic and amusing way.

**The scientist is also known as "Doctor X" or "Doc X" 

***In 1924, Native Americans were given the right to vote, except in AZ and NM. It wasn't until 1948 and 1962 that Natives in AZ and NM, respectively, won that right to vote. To put this in perspective, my grandparents voice would not have mattered. The Navajo code talkers, who fought in WWII, who  defended this country would have returned to their homelands without the right to vote.

****I can't draw any similarities with the term Vikings and Redskins?! I mean, come on, Vikings is an accepted word to describe a seafaring group of Scandinavians pre-11th century. It is not an offensive description.