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
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)
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)
Another “It’s all about Nick Spinelli” thread. What a shame almost every thread ends up this way. Making assumptions about other internet commenters and trying to make them real to others, seems to be the Achilles heel. I suggest it detracts from the conversation and makes some commenters hesitate to even enter the discussion.
Bruce, You can’t speak rationally w/ the irrational. Particularly those who have no first hand knowledge of Indians, or even know any. This has devolved into the Richard Sherman thread. NO ONE in that thread said ANYTHING racist. It was STIPULATED that many who spoke out against Sherman in this county were racist. But Bruce, some want to call you a racist if you are not PC. That is why PC must be fought everywhere it is found. It is illegitimate and Unconstitutional. This thread is just one of many examples over the years on this blog.
Native Americans speak on sports imagery
2/13/13
http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/fandom/post/_/id/18144/native-americans-speak-on-sports-imagery
Excerpt:
As the debate over the use of Native American imagery by sports teams continues to heat up, the discussion is particularly intense in our nation’s capital, where there’s a growing movement to change the local NFL team’s name from a racial slur to something more palatable. Several Washington Post columnists have called for a name change; the Washington Redskins blog Hogs Haven also supports the name change; the weekly Washington City Paper has already begun calling the team by a different name; and just last week, Washington mayor Vincent Gray pointedly avoided using the team’s name in his State of the District address.
But as the arguments continue to pour in on both sides, one fact is inescapable: Most of the voices that have been heard in this debate, including mine, have not come from American Indians. That has led many readers to ask me, “Why do you, as a white person, think you get to speak for Indians on this topic? If this is an issue that affects Native Americans, why can’t they speak for themselves?”
That’s exactly what happened in Washington this past Thursday at the National Museum of the American Indian, which held a day-long symposium on the use of Native American imagery in sports. Most of the panelists were American Indians, as were many of the audience members who spoke during discussion segments. I’m going to devote most of this column to their words.
One of the day’s recurring themes was a strong rejection of the notion that American Indian mascots and team names somehow “honor” Native Americans. Here’s a sampling of thoughts that were offered on that idea:
• From E. Newton Jackson, professor of sports management at the University of North Florida and a member of the Cherokee Tribes of South Carolina: “How does one person tell another that they honor them best? How do we do that when I’m telling you that what you’re saying and doing does not honor me?”
• From Lois Risling, land specialist for the Hoopa Valley Tribes, who attended Stanford University in the early 1970s, when the school’s teams were known as the Indians and were cheered on to “scalp the [Cal] bear”: “We were told it was an honor to have an Indian mascot chosen as the symbol as a great university. When 55 of us presented a petition to have the name and symbol changed, we were told we were all taking it too personal and should just get over it. When we said Prince Lightfoot [the school’s live mascot at the time] was wearing clothing that was wrong, and that his dance was wrong, we were told, ‘Stanford Indians dress like this, and anyone who goes to Stanford is a Stanford Indian, so that makes it OK.'”
• From John Orendorff, a U.S. Army colonel and Native American: “I often feel that the underlying point of these ‘honors’ is that my Indian heritage is owned by others. The message I’m constantly getting is: ‘We own you. We will define how we honor you. Don’t tell us whether you like it or not, because we own you. When we hunt down Osama bin Laden, we can refer to him as Geronimo — which happens to be my son’s name — because we own you. You don’t control how you’re perceived. We control that. Because we own you.'”
• From Robert Holden, deputy director of the National Congress of American Indians: “I’m a sports junkie, but I don’t think the [team] owners understand that they’re not honoring us. Honors like that we don’t need. Please, take it back.”
Bruce,
“Afterall, what’s in a name?”
Um…let me think. Would you think it appropriate to talk about American Indians as “Redskins” in conversation? Would you call an American Indian a Redskin to his/her face? Would you call a Jewish person a Kike? A Chinese person a Chink? A Black person a “N*gger?” Would you call anyone of a particular ethnicity/race a Spic? A Gook? A Greaseball? A Slant-eye?
Elaine: As you must well know as a teacher of standing that it is an existential remorse; and a rhetorical phrase used in literature ever since…
Jul. O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father, and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.
” Rom. [Aside.] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?
Jul. ’Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part 45
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes 50
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.
Rom. I take thee at thy word.
Call me but love, and I’ll be new baptiz’d; 55
Henceforth I never will be Romeo.
Jul. What man art thou, that, thus be-screen’d in night,
So stumblest on my counsel?
Rom. By a name
I know not how to tell thee who I am: 60
My name, dear saint, is hateful to myself,
Because it is an enemy to thee:
Had I it written, I would tear the word.”
William Shakespeare (1564–1616).
The Oxford Shakespeare. 1914.
Romeo and Juliet
Act II. Scene II.
http://www.bartleby.com/70/3822.html
(“Rom. He jests at scars, that never felt a wound.”)
No one chooses an offensive name for himself. Well, maybe not Evil Knievel or Pussy Galore. If the Redskins believe their name is not offensive, then why shouldn’t we respect their right to free speech? There are many English words that translate into foreign words that are smut. This does not give Hispanics the right, for someone named Cameron, for example, to force her to change her name, or else.
Ultimately the issue of naming is superfluous and I have to agree with Nick Spinelli on the merits of attacking it as contentious. Afterall, what’s in a name?
But after all is said and done, it has become another opportunity to broadcast a deeply human message of cultural negligence. One that is difficult to articulate if not actually accentuate in the minds of distracted sports fans that feel interrupted by some sideline controversy. In that regard, where else are you going to get that much exposure to audiences that are that much complacent, from a market that commands that much money and that much popular power & appeal?
nick,
You have no idea what I think about things–except for what I write on this blog. You often make assumptions about people. You have a wealth of preconceived ideas about people, their lives, who they socialize with, what they think, etc. Not all Democrats think alike. As Will Rogers once said: “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”
I don’t want Elizabeth Warren to run for president. I like having her in the Senate.
Pat, Thanks for the info. I never read that. I just know that as an Italian I’m supposed to be ashamed of Columbus. I was in Genoa a couple months ago and man, they love him there.
I forgot, you’re holding out hope for Elizabeth Warren. Well, don’t hold your breath. And, you really don’t understand my utter disdain for the duopoly, do you? I’m not in your duopoly box, and I never will be. I probably won’t even vote for Walker as guv next election. I have already expressed my liking Mary Burke. I believe I introduced you and SWM to her awhile back. So far I like Burke. But, I’ll keep watching and reading. She’s a Dem not a pawn of the teacher’s union. You know I love that.
nick,
There you go jumping to conclusions once again. Hilary is not my 2016 candidate. Who is your candidate? Ted Cruz? Paul Ryan? Scott Walker? Rick Santorum?
I read that Elaine. I was just taking a shot @ your 2016 candidate. We Hillary opponents are just gettin’ warmed up.
Jim Crow Laws??? You either show a fundamental lack of understanding of the horror of those laws, or you reacted too quickly w/ the keyboard. You diminish the cruelty that affected every moment of a black person’s life in the Jim Crow south. If we polled black people in the South under Jim Crow I think they would have been opposed, don’t you raff? Come on, man.
Chuck, I know the epithet game from seeing it played so many times here in the past. Throw it out there, and then when someone objects the accuser says coyly, “Oh, I wasn’t talking about you!” So, I have read all the threads over AGAIN. I see nothing racist in any. What was said here that was racist? I know you won’t take the accusation back. So, back it up.
Did we need a poll to begin ending Jim Crow laws in the 60’s and 70’s?
nick,
Evidently, you haven’t read all of my comments.
Yes, Lanny Davis did Clinton’s bidding back in the day. Now, he’s Dan Snyder’s “butt boy.”
Lanny Davis is a Clinton butt boy. He’ll probably be working for Hillary in 2016.
Chuck, Let’s see, you know someone who knows someone, who fought w/ a courageous Indian. So, my not abiding PC, even though I know Indians, socialize w/ them, have spoken of their greatness as a people and culture, visited reservations, roomed w/ an Indian, makes me a “racist.” I thought that mindset and practice left this blog. Chuck, we simply disagree on the mascot issue. That does not make me a racist and you diminish yourself as a GBer hurling that accusation. I surmise you and Elaine know few if any Indians. As I said @ the outset, when it can be proven to me via a valid poll[Gallup, not Kos!] that the majority of Indians want these mascots abolished, I will join them. I know old habits are hard to break, particularly in the middle of the night, but you need to maybe read the civility rule before shooting from the hip.
“Redskins”: A Native’s Guide To Debating An Inglorious Word
Gyasi Ross
10/16/13
http://deadspin.com/redskins-a-natives-guide-to-debating-an-inglorious-1445909360
Note: GYASI ROSS is a member of the Blackfeet Indian Nation and also comes from the Suquamish Nation. Both are his homelands. He continues to live on the lovely Suquamish Reservation.
Excerpt:
The anti-Redskins movement is driven by a small percentage of Native people. As a result of the “very serious other concerns” enumerated above, most Native people simply don’t really have the bandwidth to push the anti-Redskins agenda, even if they wanted to. A lot of us simply cannot afford to have this in our lists of things to do today. Thus, the topic has been championed by a very small group of Natives who do not have to worry about the lower tiers in Maslow’s hierarchy. Many of us, even those who agree with that stance, are simply too busy keeping the lights on to worry too much about mascots. Anecdotally, there is plenty of support for other Native mascots. Indeed, if a person were to take a poll of reservation/Indian schools, that person would find that a whole bunch the school mascots were Indian in nature: Browning Indians, Haskell Indians, Flandreau Indians, Plenty Coups Warriors, the Hoonah Braves, etc. No such poll exists, of course, but the continued existence of tribal schools with “Indian”-themed mascots is instructive. The point: Most Native people have no inherent problem with Indian mascots; what matters is the presentation of that mascot and name. The presentation of the name “Redskins” is problematic for many Native Americans because it identifies Natives in a way that the vast majority of Natives simply don’t identity ourselves.
Every other ethnic group gets the opportunity to self-identify in the way they choose. Native people do not.
The NFL and fans of the NFL treat Native people qualitatively differently from how they treat members of any other ethnic group. Whether or not the term “Redskin” is inherently racist is the wrong question. The more appropriate question is, “Would it be acceptable to name a professional sports team according to the color of someone else’s skin?” Would it ever be cool to have a sports team called the Washington Blackskins? It seems appropriate; D.C. is Chocolate City. But, um, hell no. San Francisco Yellowskins? Naw, cousin. Won’t work.
None of the above would be cool.
OK, how about a high school team called the Paducah Negroes? “Negroes” is a term that is not necessarily racist, yet black folks choose not to identify themselves as such. People respect black folks’ choice not to call themselves Negro and so people don’t call them by that name. Yet, it’s different with Native people. Somehow non-racist black folks, white folks, and Latinos feel that it’s OK to identify Natives in a way that we simply do not—and do not want to—identify ourselves.
If that is not racist, it is at the very least incredibly racially insensitive.
or perhaps it was the critical historic review in brief?
“While it may well be a great opportunity to raise current communication and consciousness about the ongoing plight of Native abuses at the hands of historic invasion, exploit, persecution, colonization and stealthy theft by the US Government interests (as well as breached treaty agreements, reneging on peace agreements, land thefts as acquisitions, forced marches and recent high level government extortion and corruption, it certainly doesn’t raise to the level of disrespect! In some cases, it seems just a great chance to be heard (in a history entrenched in being suppressed)”
There is a very extensive review on-line about the use of the term
(here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_%28slang%29). As with the very use of the word “Indian” itself, it is base upon misunderstanding,and misnomers by the earliest European who first witnessed ochre used by Indigenous people they encountered. One can argue as to how this became Hollywood’s terrorist branding, but it certainly was used in sports to indicate courage and voracity not negativity.
Bruce,
The following is an excerpt from a speech that Russell Means gave in 1980:
(You notice I use the term American Indian rather than Native American or Native indigenous people or Amerindian when referring to my people. There has been some controversy about such terms, and frankly, at this point, I find it absurd. Primarily it seems that American Indian is being rejected as European in origin—which is true. But all the above terms are European in origin; the only non-European way is to speak of Lakota—or, more precisely, of Oglala, Bruleě, etc.—and of the Dine, the Miccosukee, and all the rest of the several hundred correct tribal names.
(There is also some confusion about the word Indian, a mistaken belief that it refers somehow to the country, India. When Columbus washed up on the beach in the Caribbean, he was not looking for a country called India. Europeans were calling that country Hindustan in 1492. Look it up on the old maps. Columbus called the tribal people he met “Indio,” from the Italian in dio, meaning “in God.”)
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/russell-means-mother-jones-interview-1980
Pat, Great link!
In our time it may well be considered an insult NOT to include native indigenous descendants as ‘American’ and perhaps generally and historically as ‘American Indians’ since the era of exclusion and exploitation must be superseded by a shared experience on this continent. In the largest universal frame we are all of the earth, but we separate ourselves with reduction and exclusion out of both identity and what we perceive as necessity in real time.
consider this perspective written as an attempt to see things from the native shores seeing the arrival of Europeans. After receiving the French
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/early-settlements/essays/native-american-discoveries-europe
Native American Discoveries of Europe
by Daniel K. Richter
…For the Innu, as for most eastern Native Americans, a vast range of “persons” comprised the universe, and only a small minority were humans like us; most were what anthropologists call “other-than-human persons.”
(and)
“…Europeans assumed a role similar to that of those other-than-human persons in this complex world,…”
===============================
Now to keep things in a critical universal perspective, it is necessary to realize that the Europeans (self-called ‘civilized’) had the same assessment of fellow citizens of the world.
check here:
“In the bulls Dum diversas (1452) and Romanus Pontifex (1455) the right of taking pagans as perpetual slaves was granted to Christians. In the opinion of some[who?], these bulls served as a justification for the subsequent era of slave trade and colonialism.
With the realization that the Americas represented regions of the Earth with which the Europeans were not aware of earlier, there arose intense speculation over the question whether the natives of these lands were true humans or not. Together with that went a debate over the (mis)treatment of these natives by the Conquistadores and colonists.
A substantial party believed that these new found peoples were not truly human,…”
Later, and in contrast:
“In Sublimis Deus, Paul III unequivocally declares the indigenous peoples of the Americas to be rational beings with souls, denouncing any idea to the contrary as directly inspired by the “enemy of the human race…”
The Sublimus Dei [English: ‘From God on high’] (also seen as Sublimus Deus and Sublimis Deus) is a papal bull promulgated by Pope Paul III on June 2, 1537.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimus_Dei
=====================================================
What I am trying to point out here is that we are all cut from the same cloth, but we all utilized “distinction” in the formation of identity, and unfortunately reduction, exploitation and even “extinction” appears in the execution of our self service and our own self righteous behavior. The question here is whether football promotion is a perversion of dignity to Native identity and hypocritical to American idealism and consciousness we presumably ALL Share.
Regards to you Pat,
and thanks again for the reference link you contributed!
Elaine: No vulgar words were used whatsoever. References to historic treaty and treatment is made, and a reference to football being a brutal sport is also inferred. I have reviewed my original statement and there is nothing there that is anything but a somewhat satirical use of ‘cowboys and indian childhood’ reference used as a cynical slant against American consciousness.
.