Reconsidering The Redskin Mascot

I grew up in the South, where racism still exists. It may not quite be like the racism of the 1960’s, but it’s still there.  If you were to drive through certain small towns at night, you would see burning crosses in the fields. On the news, you would still hear stories about murder and assault, many times with a racial motive. People hung the confederate flag from their houses. Kids wore t-shirts displaying the same flag across their chest, many not truly understanding what the flag stood for.

Every year, my high school football team would play Strom Thurmond High School, a school named after a man who had a history with racism himself. Their mascot of choice? The Rebels. I’m not talking about the Rebels in Star Wars—that would have been awesome. Their mascot was in honor of the Confederacy. Yes, that Confederacy—the guys that fought for their right to own slaves. Some years, groups would push for the name to change, but none have succeeded yet. It’s 2014, 8 years since I’ve even put on a football helmet, and they still have the same mascot.

On a national stage in the NFL, there is another team with a questionable mascot—the Washington Redskins. Unlike the Rebels of Strom Thurmond High, however, this team will likely have a different name soon.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board cancelled the 6 federal trademark registrations owned by the Washington Redskins. The name and mascot has been deemed a racist one, and the team is under more pressure than ever to reconsider its nickname.

 Owner Daniel Snyder vowed in 2013 that he would never change the name, and he has yet to indicate that his mind has changed. The team was originally based in Boston, known as the Braves. They changed their name to the Redskins in 1933, and moved to the U.S. capitol in 1937.  Fans don’t want to see another change. After all, it’s been the team’s name for over 80 years. Why change it now?

In order to understand why there needs to be a change, we must understand what it means now.

What exactly is a “redskin”?

According to writer Baxter Holmes, the nickname traces back to a 1750’s genocide instituted by the Colonial Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, Spencer Phips. Phips called for, on behalf of King George II, a termination of the Native Americans. There were awards given to those that took part in this massacre. A scalp of an adult male could sell for 50 pounds, while the scalps of women and children would earn the murderer up to 25 pounds.

Holmes’ ancestors have passed down this story from generation to generation. According to the history of his people, the term used for a scalp was a “redskin.” I don’t see any reason why we should discredit their history. It may have not been written, but it was their history.

True, one care argue that the first instances in recorded history that the term was used reflected good relations between the Natives and the settlers, what the word became (a racial slur) is what we should truly consider. While some Native Americans don’t take offense to the word at all, there are many that do. To them, the word “redskin” is just as offensive a word as the “N-word.” That is, ultimately, what the word has come to mean.

Why now?

                

          Many wonder why this has suddenly become an issue now. Santana Moss, in an interview with USA Today, said, “For all these years, now it’s a problem? That’s the only thing I ask myself, and after that, I just leave it alone because I’m wondering what makes it so offensive now than it was when it was first generated or whoever brung it up the first time.”

However, there have been attempts to change the name as early as 1992. Suzan Shown Harjo led a petition to rid the team of the name. But, Harjo ultimately lost her battle in part because her lawsuit was considered to have taken too long to file. In 2003, she recruited four younger petitioners, including a man name Blackhorse, who has pointed out, “If people wouldn't dare call a Native American a 'redskin' because they know it is offensive, how can an NFL football team have this name?"

                To answer Santana Moss’s question, it has always been an issue. Unfortunately, it wasn’t until recent years that issue has been even capable of being solved. Racism was pretty strong in the U.S.A . until the 1970’s, and the Native Americans have been silenced and suppressed for over 200 years. A petition against the mascot would have pointless when the team adopted the name.

Why the Redskins and not the Braves or Seminoles?

                

                Defenders of the Redskins have pointed out the Florida State Seminoles, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, Chicago Blackhawks, and many more have names that are also representative of the Native Americans. They say the Redskins are no different, and they celebrate Native American heritage.

                I beg to differ.

                The word “redskin” does not reflect anything but the skin color of the Native American. It doesn’t celebrate a specific tribe, and has been used in the past as a racial slur. Seminoles, Brave, etc., are representative of specific tribes—kind of like the Trojans of USC. The warriors and heritage of those tribes are celebrated by the team. And, honestly, have you ever heard someone refer to someone as a Brave or Seminole in a derogatory way? I know I haven’t. “Redskin,” on the other hand, can most certainly be considered an insult. Polls have shown that 70% of Native Americans don’t find the name offensive, but that leaves a 30% that do. That’s quite a bit.

                 

Conclusion                

                Many of the advocates for keeping the name complain that the world today is becoming too easily offended. While I agree that there are certain areas that Americans may be too sensitive about, I believe that this is something that should be changed. True, it would be politically correct to get rid of the name, but what is wrong with some political correctness? I’m a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It would drive me up the wall if there was a professional football team named “The Polygamists.” I’m sure it would tick off a lot of people in Alabama if there was a team there named “The Rednecks” or “The Honkies.”

                I’m just trying to put myself in the shoes of the offended. I think that if we all try to understand where their sensitivity is coming from, we might be able to relate to them better. If we can relate to them, we will see why they find the term offensive. Ultimately, we will also deem the term offensive and support their cause.

 Washington fans don’t really have anything to worry about. I am having a hard time understanding their sensitivity to the possibility of a name change. The NFL isn’t getting rid of the team. RG3 will still lace up his cleats this fall for a team based in D.C. The only thing that will change is the name. Everything else will stay the same.

A more tolerant world does not make it soft or weak. It simply makes it better. With the Redskins changing their name, the football world will be getting stronger, headed in a more positive direction.

Maybe, just maybe, those Rebels at Strom Thurmond will take note.