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. The National Museum of the Native American is severely under-endowed and probably would not even exist if it had not been built around the donation of an extensive private collection of native American Artifacts. If Mr. Grover’s very necessary fund raising activities seem unseemly, you can help rectify the situation by becoming a member for an annual fee of only $25.

    http://nmai.si.edu/support/membership/

  4. Bruce,

    Well-heeled means having a lot of money/being prosperous. I didn’t read too much into your statement. I went be the definition I know for the word.

    You perceived some sort of “intonation.” I didn’t know what you meant when you said that he was “as white as me when it comes to opinion.” That statement leaves itself open to a lot of interpretations. That’s why I asked if you could explain what you meant by that. What is the institutional compromise that you speak of?

  5. Elaine: He is well healed is simply a polite way of saying he is very distant from the problems that exist. You read too much into it. The fact that he seeks money from successful Indian casinos is a horse of many spots (humor). The question is as to why he has not become involved in the question of how casino money has been utilized for more living natives rather than his museum interests? There are critical perspectives upon museums too, it is not all about preserving knowledge and often edges upon exploitation itself. But is this really the issue? I have to wonder if, by your own intonation, you think that a “white opinion” is automatically wrong? the fact that Mr. Gover lives and breathes the institutional compromise is a white perspective, not a Native one.
    It is as simple as that.

  8. Bruce,

    “Mr. Gover is well healed. It is of interest that he is seeking casino support to help finance the Museum. His success does not reflect the vast majority of Native Indians and reservation life itself. He’s a good man, but as white as me when it comes to opinion.”

    *****

    He’s well-healed? Good for him! Is there a problem with his seeking funding for the museum from tribes that have made money from casinos? Why do you say he’s as white as you when it comes to opinion? What do you mean by that? Do you think his opinion about mascots is ” a white one?”

  9. Education Group Fights To Rid Wisconsin Schools Of Native American Stereotypes

    By Travis Waldron on February 12, 2014

    Months after Gov. Scott Walker signed legislation making it harder for schools to drop Native American mascots, the Wisconsin Indian Education Association asks 31 schools to change their names.

    ……..and 42 other articles concerning the issue, all here:

    http://thinkprogress.org/tag/washington-redskins/

  13. Native Mascots and Other Misguided Beliefs
    By Kevin Gover (Pawnee), director of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian
    http://nmai.si.edu/sites/1/files/pdf/seminars-symposia/Fall2011-Director.pdf

    Excerpt:
    Further, these characters represent Indians of the past. Television, movies and books almost never portray Indians as contemporary characters. We are confined to the past, as though the government’s policies directed toward the deconstruction of Native nations had succeeded universally. The practice of using Native people as mascots largely emerged at the very time government policy was to deliberately destroy Native language, Native religion and Native identity. In this respect, the mascots served very directly the government’s purpose by portraying Indians as a proud and noble figure, but only a figure of the past. Government policy and the popular culture assumed that, certainly by the end of the twentieth century, there would be no more Indians.

    These policies find their roots in the misguided beliefs of the nineteenth century in racial hierarchy and the ranking of cultures from primitive to civilized. It hardly bears noting that the so-called “science” of race in the nineteenth century always concluded that white people, “Anglo-Saxon” or “Nordic” white people in particular, were the pinnacle of human development and their civilizations were the best ever achieved. This foolishness has long since been discredited as simple racism, as have the policy ideas that arose from it. The popular culture, however, has kept alive the “vanishing red man” stereotype that is at the foundation of the phenomenon of Native mascots.

    The celebrations of our extinction turned out, of course, to have been premature. However, certain ideas and themes in the popular culture remain persistent and influential. Native mascots are primary offenders in perpetuating these stereotypes. Consider why a franchise or university might choose a Native image to represent its team or teams. We are told that they are meant to honor Native American qualities such a bravery, strength (physical, not mental), endurance and pride. Certainly Native people had and have those qualities in varying degrees, though I do not believe that they had or have them in greater quantity than other peoples. And why is it that Native people are not chosen to represent positive human qualities such as intelligence, piety, generosity and love of family? I suppose the answer is that we are far less interesting to mascot makers when revealed to be ordinary human beings, with all the virtues and failures of other human beings.

    At the National Museum of the American Indian, we address a public that has been deeply influenced by the failings of formal education and the misinformation imbedded in the popular culture. The existence of Native American mascots is partly responsible for this misinformation. Mascots stereotype Native people employing imagery and ideas that arose from the racism of the nineteenth century. We relish the opportunity to challenge these stereotypes with the authority of the Smithsonian Institution. We are very grateful for the one and a half million visitors who choose to come to our museum each year, an expression of their willingness to learn and move beyond the stereotypes that they have been taught. And we are grateful to the Congress, the Native nations and the Indian and non-Indian people who support the museum for creating the opportunity to learn and teach at the National Museum of the American Indian.

  14. Bron,

    I wasn’t referring to you. I apologize if my reply made it seem that I was. I don’t think you’re the type of person who tries to stifle the arguments of people with whom you disagree.

  15. “Dan picked up the conversation.
    ‘That’s something you should think about, Nerburn’
    ‘Huh?’ I blurted.
    ‘Freedom and honor.’
    It sounded like a military slogan. ‘what do you mean?’ I said, only vaguely interested.
    ‘This is important’ Dan emphasized. ‘I want you to get it down’.
    ‘Okay – he said – Ready?’
    ‘Ready’ I really wasn’t.
    ‘This is something I’ve thought about for a long time. It’s about white people and why they don’t understand us. I think I know why. I think it’s because the most important thing for white people is freedom. The most important thing for Indian is Honor. This is why white people have listened to the black people more than us Indians. the black people want freedom too, just like white people. And since the white people took freedom from black people, the whites feel guilty about the blacks. but the Indian has always been free. We are free today. We have always been freer than the white man, even when he first came here. When you came to our shore your people wore clothes made out of chains. Our people wore nothing at all. Yet you tried to bring us freedom. The white world puts all the power at the top. When someone gets to the top, they have the power to take your freedom. When your people first came to our land they were
    trying to get away from those people at the top. But they still thought the same, and soon there were new people at the top in the new country. It is just the way you were taught to think. In your churches there is someone at the top. In your schools too. In your government. In your business. there is always someone at the top and that person has the right to say whether you are good or bad. They own you. No wonder Americans always worry about freedom. You have so damn little of it. If you don’t protect it, someone will take it away from you. You have to guard it every second, like a dog guards a bone. When you came among us, you couldn’t understand our way. You wanted to find the person at the top. You wanted to find the fences that bound us in – how far our land went, how far our government went. Your world was made of cages and you thought ours was, too. Even though you hated your cages you believed in them. They defined your world and you needed them to define ours. Our old people noticed this from the beginning. they said that the white man lived in a world of cages, and that if we didn’t look out, they would make us live in a world of cages, too. So we started noticing. Everything looked like cages. You put fences around your yards so they looked like cages. Everything was a cage. You turned the land into cages. Then you made a government to protect these cages. And that government was all cages. All laws about what you couldn’t do. the only freedom you had was inside your own cage. then you wondered why you weren’t happy and didn’t feel free. We Indians never thought that way. Everyone was free. We didn’t make cages of laws and land. We believed in honor. To us the white man looked like a blind man walking. He knew he was on the wrong path when he bumped into the edge of one of the cages. Our guide was inside, not outside. It was honor. It was more important for us to know what was right than to know what was wrong. We looked at the animals and saw what was right…..We saw how every animal had wisdom and we tried to learn that wisdom. We did not look for what was wrong. Instead we always reached for what was right. It was that search that kept us on a good path, not rules and fences. We wanted honor for ourselves and our families. We wanted others to say ‘He is a good man. He is as brave as the bear and clean as the fox’. We had freedom so we did not seek it. We sought honor, and honor was duty. The man who sought freedom was just running from duty, so he was weak. The only time freedom is important is when others are trying to put you in chains. We had no chains so we needed no freedom. Does this make any sense to you? The world your people brought saw everything in term of freedom. We have always had our freedom so you had nothing of value to give us. All you could do is take it away and give it back to us in the form of cages. That is what you did when you took our land and tried to give it back to us in allotments. You took all our Indian land and gave it back to us and said ‘You now have the freedom to be farmers and ranchers’. We didn’t want to be farmers and ranchers. We had been farmers when we had to. But we didn’t want to be told to be farmers. When we didn’t farm you got angry and couldn’t understand. ‘We have given you the freedom to have your own land and be farmers and you aren’t doing anything’. To us all you had done is given us our own cage. All you were doing was taking away our honor. Yes, that is what you did to us. Either accept this cage or be killed is what you told us. You took our honor and gave us your freedom, even you know that is no freedom at all. It is just the freedom to live inside your own locked cage. Here is what I really think. White people are jealous of us. If it hadn’t been for your religion you would have lived just like us from the first minute you got to this land. You knew we were right…You came to this country because you really wanted to be like us. But when you got here you got scared and tried to build the same cages you had run away from. If you had listened to us instead of trying to convert us and kill us, what a country this would be!’

    Neither Wolf Nor Dog……….Kent Nerburn

  16. Elaine:

    “Some people use the tactic of accusing other people of being PC and elitist in order to stifle those with whom they disagree.”

    I think I said PC is BS, I dont think I accused you of being PC.

    “Political correctness is BS and it is used to stifle speech.” Nope, I didnt accuse anyone of being PC. Be PC all you want just dont expect it from other people.

    1. Oro Lee: Thanks for the links, I am filing them and will pass them on as well.

      This is a good historic review from more of a Native perspective: Ironically, it utilizes a term in its title that is quite at odds with the premise of this blog entry.
      Red Cry (Doc.) – Today’s Genocide in America

  20. Kia mau ki te Kaupapa ! (Hold fast to the Vision)
    http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/curriculum/Articles/GrahamSmith/
    Indigenous Struggle for the Transformation of Education and Schooling

    http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/curriculum/Articles/GrahamSmith/

    Professor Graham Hingangaroa Smith

    The University of Auckland, N.Z.

    Keynote Address to the Alaskan Federation of Natives (AFN) Convention.
    Anchorage, Alaska, U.S

    October 2003
    [Excerpt]
    Introduction: Maori Case Study

    The New Zealand case study examines the period of the 1980’s in New Zealand that has produced a range of societal changes for Maori, some which are still impacting in 2003. More importantly perhaps, the Maori example is a practical one in that it is not simply a set of ideas removed from practice. In considering the Maori example, there is a need to be clear what the real revolution was that occurred in New Zealand in the 1980’s. The revolution was not so much about the stunning language revitalization initiatives, (which is the popularly espoused interpretation of the revolution); in this view these were merely the outward visible signs of a much more profound revolution. The ‘real’ revolution of the 1980’s was a shift in mindset of large numbers of Maori people – a shift away from waiting for things to be done to them, to doing things for themselves; a shift away from an emphasis on reactive politics to and an emphasis on being more proactive; a shift from negative motivation to positive motivation. These shifts can be described as a move away from talking simplistically about ‘de-colonization’ (which puts the colonizer at the center of attention) to talking about ‘conscientization’ or ‘consciousness-raising’ (which puts Maori at the center). These ways of thinking illustrate a reawakening of the Maori imagination that had been stifled and diminished by colonization processes.

Comments are closed.