Uncategorized

Proud to Be: A Native American Ad That Wasn’t Aired During the 2014 Super Bowl

Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor

Here is one ad that never aired during this year’s Super Bowl:

The Proud to Be video was made by Change the Mascot, a national campaign that was launched by the Oneida Nation. The video was released by the National Congress of American Indians a couple of days before this year’s Super Bowl. Change the Mascot’s aim is to end the use of the term “redskins” as the mascot for Washington, D. C.’s NFL team. The campaign “calls upon the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell to do the right thing and bring an end the use of the racial epithet.”

Not being a wealthy organization, the National Congress of American Indians couldn’t afford to “buy a television slot during the Super Bowl to run its ad.”

Writing for ThinkProgress on January 31, 2014, Alyssa Rosenberg said the following:

It’s a gorgeous ad, and it’s a strikingly effective illustration of why the word “Redskin” is so troublesome. It’s not just that the term has evolved from its origins as a basic explanation of physical difference, to a slur that was used to reduce Native Americans to the value of their skins, for which literal bounties were offered. In a less violent but no less significant sense, “Redskin” collapses the remarkable particularity of Native American experiences into a single identity and set of attributes.

The NCAI ad is a forceful and often beautiful reminder that Native Americans aren’t a monolithic community. That’s a term that subsumes hundreds of specific identities, a huge range of cultural and artistic practices–and yes, as the ad doesn’t neglect to leave out–specific sets of social and political issues.

“Native American” may be a blanket identity category, but it’s one that invites curiosity, asking hearers to consider what came before the political and territorial consolidation of the United States, and the fact that American identity is rich and multifaceted, rather than a single way of being. “Redskins” is both a slur, and a term that invites the listener to skip over the work of thinking about what it means. “Redskin” reduces Native Americans to simply the color of their skin, and to the attributes we associate with football (a practice that’s also a product of a very specific marketing history, as my colleague Travis Waldron reported in his epic look at the fight against the Washington football team’s name): physical strength, maybe speed, and not much else. Not only is that kind of thinking profoundly lazy and racially reductive, it’s a tragedy both for the people who are subjected to it, and the people who deny themselves the experience of more of the world by practicing it.

The NCAI ad is a reminder of precisely what they’re missing out on, making all of these points without having to spell them out the way I do here. That’s great advertising, in service of a critically important message.

Last May, Daniel Snyder, owner of Washington, D. C.’s NFL team was quoted as saying, “We will never change the name of the team.” He then repeated himself when a reporter followed-up on his comment, “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.”

Then last June, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said that the Washington Redskins‘ nickname was a “unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect.”

Clem Ironwing (Sioux) doesn’t think the word “redskin” is a term of respect. In 1996, he spoke at a public hearing in Wichita, Kansas, on the subject of Wichita North High School’s sports mascot. He talked to those present at the hearing about having been removed from his family by the government when he was a young child and forced to live in a Catholic boarding school. Matthew Richter posted the comments that Ironwing made at the hearing. Here is an excerpt of what Clem Ironwing said:

“When my hair was cut short by the priests, I was called a “redskin” and a savage. When I spoke my native tongue, I was beaten and called “redskin”. When I tried to follow the spiritual path of my people, I was again beaten and called a “redskin”. I was told by them to turn my back on the ways of my people, or I would forever be nothing but a dirty “redskin”.

           “The only way “redskin” was ever used towards my people and myself was in a derogatory manner. It was never, ever, used in a show of respect or kindness. It was only used to let you know that you were dirty and no good, and to this day still is.

Is it time to change the mascot? What do you think?

Submitted by Elaine Magliaro

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers.  As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

SOURCES & FURTHER READING

Change the Mascot Website

Wichita North Redskins “Remarks by Clem Ironwing, Sioux, during a public Mascot/Identity Committee hearing.” (The People’s Path)

House Dem: ‘Redskins’ as offensive to Indians as ‘N’ word is to blacks (The Hill)

An open letter to Dan Snyder (Grantland)

The Harmful Psychological Effects of the Washington Football Mascot (Change the Mascot)

American Indian Boarding Schools Haunt Many (NPR)

Why ‘NEVER’ Abandoning ‘Redskins’ As His Team’s Name Might Soon Cost Dan Snyder A Lot Of Money (ThinkProgress)

Redskins, NFL Take Heat From Congress Over Team Name (Only a Game)

Members of Congress urge Redskins to change name (Big Story)

Read Roger Goodell’s Letter To Congress Defending The Redskins Name (DeadSpin)

NFL is ‘listening’ to those who oppose Redskins’ name, Roger Goodell says (Washington Post)

A slur or term of ‘honor’? Controversy heightens about Washington Redskins (CNN)

Native Americans Tackle Redskins at Press Conference: On the heels of an NFL conference, the Oneida Indian Nation confronts the organization for its use of what the deem a racial slur as a mascot (Time)

Bob Lutz: North High, it’s time to change the nickname (The Wichita Eagle)

The Other Redskins (Capital News Service)

Hundreds rally in Minn. against Redskins’ name (Yahoo/AP)

The Super Bowl Ad You Never Saw (Huffington Post)

ICTMN Exclusive: NCAI Releases R-word Video Ahead of Super Bowl (Indian Country Today Media Network)

Monk, Green: Mull name change (ESPN)

ENDING THE LEGACY OF RACISM IN SPORTS & THE ERA OF HARMFUL “INDIAN” SPORTS MASCOTS (National Congress of American Indians)

National Congress Of American Indians Releases Anti-Redskins Ad (Deadspin)

Here’s an ad about R–skins that its makers don’t have the money to show during Sunday’s Superbowl (Daily Kos)

The Best Ad You’ll See This Super Bowl Weekend (ThinkProgress)

The Epic Battle To Save The Most Offensive Team Name In Professional Sports (ThinkProgress)

Roger Goodell defends Washington Redskins’ nickname (NFL)

248 thoughts on “Proud to Be: A Native American Ad That Wasn’t Aired During the 2014 Super Bowl”

  1. Samantha, You have me confused. What does ” I’m so sick of this wants-it-both-ways PC and attack on free speech, not to mention always being blamed for something my ancestors had done, never mind that all had lived in foreign lands during the 1800s” mean?

    Video: ‘If the Indian Mascot Could Speak,’ a Poem by Preston Wells
    Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/01/17/video-if-indian-mascot-could-speak-poem-preston-wells-153150

    http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/01/17/video-if-indian-mascot-could-speak-poem-preston-wells-153150

    1. Sorry for the confusion. After re-reading my comment, I’m confused, too. Goes to show that you should not try to write a comment while at the same time watching the Olympics.

  3. I think the best way to change the name of the football team would be to convince the fans to demand the the name be made something else. Having the gov’t do it is not going to work based upon first amendment protections. Once the team owners decide it is a liability based upon their projected revenue decline then the change will happen rather quickly.

  4. So what if Indians call themselves everything under the sun but redskins? They have that right, the same as the Redskins have a right, too. Nothing but a variation on censorship. While they are at it, why don’t they try to get blacks to quit calling whites, whitey, or Mexicans calling whites, gringos? I’m so sick of this wants-it-both-ways PC and attack on free speech, not to mention always being blamed for something my ancestors had done, never mind that all had lived in foreign lands during the 1800s.

  5. I wonder if anyone noticed the visual slight-of-hand at the end of that video. Since the Washington NFL team has copyrights on both the team name and the logo, they got around that by a simple photo of a helmet. As someone said a long time ago, a picture is worth a thousand words. There was no way the NFL or the team could legitimately issue a take-down complaint to YouTube.

  6. “Most Native Americans are not offended by the name.”

    *************************************
    Really? The word “most” implies more than 50%. Have you conducted a poll? How about actually asking a few. How about asking Meteor Blades, one of the senior editors at Daily Kos what he thinks. Never mind, you won’t have to ask. Here is his opinion at the link, along with comments from a number of Native Americans.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/31/1274027/-Here-s-an-ad-about-R-skins-that-its-makers-don-t-have-the-money-to-show-at-Sunday-s-Superbowl

  7. It seems to me that the term is another meant to dehumanize those that we war with. Terms like gook, jap and kraut, make them a lot easier to kill.

  8. Redskins refers to the use of tribal warrior use of a red war paint. The uneducated progressive left has been irrational on this issue. Most Native Americans are not offended by the name. The most outraged? Young white emotionally charged youth with poor to no education on the history of the origin.

    They see the name Redskin and out of blind ignorance, automatically assume it is racial.

    We are continually seeing the rewriting of history by stupid people.

    1. During the entire history of America until the turn of the Twentieth century, Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly removed from their lands by European settlers.[13] This includes the paying of bounties beginning in the colonial period with, for example, a proclamation against the Penobscot Indians in 1755 issued by King George II of Great Britain, known commonly as the Phips Proclamation.[14][15] The proclamation orders, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.” The colonial government paid 50 pounds for scalps of males over 12 years, 25 pounds for scalps of women over 12, and 20 pounds for scalps of boys and girls under 12. Twenty-five British pounds sterling in 1755, worth around $9,000 today —a small fortune in those days when an English teacher earned 60 pounds a year.[14] Since the proclamation itself does not use the word, citing it as the origin of “redskin” as another word for scalp has also been called “revisionist history”.[16] However, an historical association between the use of “redskin” and the paying of bounties can be made. In 1863, a Winona, MN newspaper, the Daily Republican, printed among other announcements: “The state reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.” [17]

      A linguistic analysis of 42 books published between 1875 and 1930 shows that negative contexts in the use of redskin were significantly more frequent than positive usage.[9] The use of the word Indian in a similarly selected set of books was more balanced though negative contexts were still more frequent than positive contexts.[9] The term was in common use in movies during the most popular period for Hollywood westerns (approximately 1920-1970), with “redskins” usually being used to refer to Native Americans as primitive and warlike.[18] As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term’s appropriateness.[19]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_%28slang%29

  9. The majority of American Indians don’t care about this mascot controversy. We’ve gone over this previously. When the majority say they want mascots names changed, I will be a supporter. Not until then.

  13. http://news.msn.com/us/landowner-asks-dollar39m-for-part-of-wounded-knee-site

    Excerpt:

    SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — One of the country’s poorest Native American tribes wants to buy a historically significant piece of land where 300 of their ancestors were killed, but tribal leaders say the nearly $4 million price tag for a property appraised at less than $7,000 is just too much.

    James Czywczynski is trying to sell a 40-acre fraction of the Wounded Knee National Historic Landmark on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation to the Oglala Sioux Tribe. The land sits adjacent to a gravesite where about 150 of the 300 Lakota men, women and children killed by the 7th Cavalry in 1890 are buried.

  14. “Is it time to change the mascot? What do you think?”

    Change the name, the mascot will follow. Honor the treaties and we will not have this:

  15. This story is made all the more toxic by the millions in explicit and implicit government subsidies to the Washington NFL team and the NFL. e.g, 2012, Virginia gave a $4million subsidy for a training facility. When you have a significant government investment, the name of the team ceases being a private matter between the owner, the team and the fans.

  16. 60% of high school history teachers never took a college level history course. That in part explains why this issue is seen by the majority as trivial. There were at least three migrations of people thousands of years apart that became Native Americans. Yet, our government considers them all the same. We can not un do the past, but we can stop perpetuating the past. Remember the truth, not the white wash.

  17. Great Article Elaine!

    I think that there are a few college teams with degrading Native American names (or use a certain Native American tribe’s name and or culture in a degrading manner)?

    Using this term is similar as using the ‘N’ word for African-Americans.

    Could you imagine a team such as the Newark ‘Ns’? Or how about the California ‘Crackers’? Or the Houston ‘Hs’?

  18. I saw that just before the Super Bowl. It wasn’t surprising that something of value wasn’t aired during SB commercials, since football is not a values game but a big money game. NFL (non-profit status?!) for years was willing to harm its players by hiding concussion data and ignoring medical proof about the potential long term damage of concussions. If they can ignore that human tragedy, these white NFL executives can comfortably ignore a racist team name for years to come..

Comments are closed.