Sorry, this is long.
So, the local professional football team (Washington Redskins) is making headlines again because of its name. Certain Native Americans (NAs) have stated the name is offense, and a recent symposium was held at the National Museum of the American Indian on the topic of the use of NA imagery in sports. Participants were strongly against the Redskins name, and most also opposed any use of Indians or Indian-related imagery as sports mascots.
Im of two minds on this topic, but Im not certain of my opinions on this, and am still considering other viewpoints.
First, team mascots are generally selected because they reflect strength, aggression, courage, or other attributes the team hopes to display. For example, teams named after birds are the Falcons, Hawks, Eagles, etc., not the Pigeons, Doves, etc. Other animal names tend to reflect predators/carnivores the Lions, Bears, Timberwolves, Grizzlies, Panthers, etc. Teams named after human groups are usually named after groups like the Raiders, Vikings, Spartans, Pirates, or Warriors groups associated with war and conquest. Teams are sometimes named for innocuous things, persons, or occupations (Red Sox, White Sox, Stars, Wizards, Steelers, etc.), but nothing players might be embarrassed to represent, at least.
With that being said, I dont consider team names or mascots reflecting NA culture to be offensive (Indians, Braves, Seminoles, etc.), as I think the intent was to pay tribute to this group, and the strength and courage represented by them. A group would not pick a team name or other imagery from a thing or group they did not respect or wish to honor any more than early airborne troops would not give themselves Mohawk haircuts if they did not respect the warrior ethos reflected by the tribes that wore that hairstyle.
That all being said, Im not NA, so whats my opinion worth? I dont know. Do only Indians get to comment on this topic? What if they differ? Who decides? I do have some Irish blood, and the use of Irish imagery in sports (Fightin Irish, Boston Celtics) doesnt bother me in the least. I see no intent to offend, and I dont have a problem with it. Is the use of Irish culture in sports different from the use of NA culture? Im not sure.
The name Redskins is a special case my thought was that while names like Braves and Indians were intended to honor and were not themselves offensive, Redskins was essentially an anachronism and should probably be changed. It just sounded offensive. The intent was fine but the name was wrong, similar to a team wishing to honor the Tuskegee Airmen (a noble concept by itself) by calling themselves the Flying Darkies (a very flawed execution of a noble idea). But then, pro-Redskins people pointed to a survey a few years ago which allegedly showed that the majority of Indians didnt have a problem with the name (havent found a link for this study) and that the term was common (and not considered offensive) in Indian communities for years. Allegedly, one of the first recorded uses of the term was by an Indian chief, speaking of relations between the "redskins and the whiteskins". A Navajo reservation high school (Red Mesa High School in Arizona) even uses the name Redskins. So if a majority of Indians say theyre fine with Redskins, its OK, and the minority who oppose it are out of luck? I dont know the ultimate answer to all this, but Id be interested in hearing other thoughts.
So, the local professional football team (Washington Redskins) is making headlines again because of its name. Certain Native Americans (NAs) have stated the name is offense, and a recent symposium was held at the National Museum of the American Indian on the topic of the use of NA imagery in sports. Participants were strongly against the Redskins name, and most also opposed any use of Indians or Indian-related imagery as sports mascots.
Im of two minds on this topic, but Im not certain of my opinions on this, and am still considering other viewpoints.
First, team mascots are generally selected because they reflect strength, aggression, courage, or other attributes the team hopes to display. For example, teams named after birds are the Falcons, Hawks, Eagles, etc., not the Pigeons, Doves, etc. Other animal names tend to reflect predators/carnivores the Lions, Bears, Timberwolves, Grizzlies, Panthers, etc. Teams named after human groups are usually named after groups like the Raiders, Vikings, Spartans, Pirates, or Warriors groups associated with war and conquest. Teams are sometimes named for innocuous things, persons, or occupations (Red Sox, White Sox, Stars, Wizards, Steelers, etc.), but nothing players might be embarrassed to represent, at least.
With that being said, I dont consider team names or mascots reflecting NA culture to be offensive (Indians, Braves, Seminoles, etc.), as I think the intent was to pay tribute to this group, and the strength and courage represented by them. A group would not pick a team name or other imagery from a thing or group they did not respect or wish to honor any more than early airborne troops would not give themselves Mohawk haircuts if they did not respect the warrior ethos reflected by the tribes that wore that hairstyle.
That all being said, Im not NA, so whats my opinion worth? I dont know. Do only Indians get to comment on this topic? What if they differ? Who decides? I do have some Irish blood, and the use of Irish imagery in sports (Fightin Irish, Boston Celtics) doesnt bother me in the least. I see no intent to offend, and I dont have a problem with it. Is the use of Irish culture in sports different from the use of NA culture? Im not sure.
The name Redskins is a special case my thought was that while names like Braves and Indians were intended to honor and were not themselves offensive, Redskins was essentially an anachronism and should probably be changed. It just sounded offensive. The intent was fine but the name was wrong, similar to a team wishing to honor the Tuskegee Airmen (a noble concept by itself) by calling themselves the Flying Darkies (a very flawed execution of a noble idea). But then, pro-Redskins people pointed to a survey a few years ago which allegedly showed that the majority of Indians didnt have a problem with the name (havent found a link for this study) and that the term was common (and not considered offensive) in Indian communities for years. Allegedly, one of the first recorded uses of the term was by an Indian chief, speaking of relations between the "redskins and the whiteskins". A Navajo reservation high school (Red Mesa High School in Arizona) even uses the name Redskins. So if a majority of Indians say theyre fine with Redskins, its OK, and the minority who oppose it are out of luck? I dont know the ultimate answer to all this, but Id be interested in hearing other thoughts.
