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)
Charlton,
Krauthammer was definitely spot on. Thanks for posting that video.
I don’t regard any of those slurs Nick throws out to be fit speech in any context. Especially among educated people. Crude, impolite and insensitive. But then I consider the source.
Dr. Charles Krauthammer is spot on in this piece.
Elaine, people who use such slurs to describe people from differing races and nationalities tend to be ignorant and uneducated, or asocial. When I hear people using these slurs I try hard to consider the source.
From the “Democracy Now segment”, posted yesterday by Elaine M.:
Excerpts:
BOB COSTAS: Objections to names like Braves, Chiefs, Warriors and the like strike many of us as political correctness run amok. These nicknames honor rather than demean. They’re pretty much the same as Vikings, Patriots or even Cowboys. And names like Blackhawks, Seminoles and Chippewas, while potentially more problematic, can still be OK, provided the symbols are appropriately respectful, which is where the Cleveland Indians, with the combination of their name and Chief Wahoo logo, have sometimes run into trouble.
A number of teams, mostly in the college ranks, have changed their names in response to objections. The Stanford Cardinal and the Dartmouth Big Green were each once the Indians. The St. John’s Redmen have become the Red Storm. And the Miami of Ohio Redskins—that’s right, Redskins—are now the Redhawks. Still, the NFL franchise that represents the nation’s capital has maintained its name.
But think for a moment about the term “Redskins” and how it truly differs from all the others. Ask yourself what the equivalent would be if directed toward African Americans, Hispanics, Asians or members of any other ethnic group. When considered that way, Redskins can’t possibly honor a heritage or a noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term. It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent. It’s fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended. But if you take a step back, isn’t it clear to see how offense might legitimately be taken?
…
CLYDE BELLECOURT: First of all, my traditional name, my spirit name given to me by the creator, is Nee-gon-we-way-we-dun, or the Thunder Before the Storm. But when I was born 77 years ago, I was not allowed—no Indian people were allowed—to have an Indian name. We couldn’t pray, sing, dance, carry on our traditional spiritual way of life.
Last night, as one of the monumental walk took place, from the heart of the Indian community in South Minneapolis, one of the largest concentrated Indian communities in America, over a thousand mostly Native people, some of them in their full regalia to show the beauty of our culture, went along with us, marched on the stadium, carrying banners that said, “The ‘R’ word is no different than the ‘N’ word.” “The ‘R’ word is no different than the ‘N’ word.” Little Red Sambo has to go. Little Black Sambo is gone, and now it’s time for Little Red Sambo to go.
It’s not really the names. It’s not just the names. It’s the behavior created when they get a little bit behind, you know, the Washington team or Cleveland, they start hollering “Scalp them f—in’ Twins!” “Scalp the Vikings! Massacre them!” And our children grab our arms—our nephews and nieces, our sons and daughters. “Come on, Dad. Come, Grandpa. Let’s go home. Let’s go home. Let’s get out of here.” It has a tremendous psychological effect on Indian people.
And if Dan Snyder knew where the word “Redskin” comes, truly understood it, I think he would make that change—a man knowing what a holocaust is and what genocide is. Goes all the way back to Governor Kalb [ phon. ] in Newfoundland in the 1500s. When they started their Western expansion, the Indian people were in their way, so he put out a bounty on Indian people. It was perfectly legal to kill Indians then. And they were bringing them in by the wagon loads. Women, who didn’t have any rights back then, and the church started speaking out about it. It became to cumbersome financially to bury them. So he said, to prove that you killed an Indian, now that’s all you had to do was bring in their skull. And they said they were bringing them in by gunny sacks, bushel baskets, bringing wagon loads to collect their bounties. The women spoke out again, put pressure, pressure on the governor, Kalb. And he said, “To prove you that you kill an Indian, that’s all you have to do now is bring in a lock of their hair.” So when they cut that scalp off the Indian people’s head, now they could go after little children, babies, and collect more money. That blood would run down their face, that red blood, and down their bodies. They’d put those pouches, the pouches on their leg, their scalps, and come in and collect their bounty. Henceforth, there’s been over 60 tribes that have been totally erased from the face of the Earth, no longer exist. And Dan Snyder should understand that, being Jewish himself. There are Jewish people still here, but there are tribes that have been totally decimated. And that’s where the word “Redskin” comes from. And we’re demanding that that change. The “R” word is no different than the “N” word, and Little Red Sambo has to go.
This may help: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity
nick,
Maybe people in your world use those words. What’s PC to you may not seem PC to others. I had never before heard of the word “beaner.”
I would never call an American Indian a Redskin. Call me an elitist. I don’t care. I’d wear it as a badge of honor in that case.
Bruce,
I’m glad you liked the link. I am assuming you read the entire speech. Your mentioning papal bulls made me think of this this one about the Doctrine of Discovery. How many time, just within the last year, have you heard or even said: “We are a nation of laws”? Yes, laws that justify our presence here derived from papal bulls:
http://ili.nativeweb.org/sdrm_art.html
I am really, really tired not haven slept and I hope what I write makes some sort of sense. But it seems to me that this whole question of naming a football team the Redskins is just a continuation of policies that resulted in the genocide of 120 million people ( North and South America). And of those First Peoples that are left cultural genocide is alive and well by being stripped of language, culture and religion.
Geronimo has been mentioned on this thread as has Apache. Well, Geronimo’s name was Goyathlay; the Apache were the Mescalero-Chiricahua until the europeans re-branded them. I knew this having read a book titled The First Hundred Years of Nino Cochise about ten years ago (grandfather the legendary Chief Cochise, son of Tahza; one uncle, his mother’s brother, Goyathlay). But here are the Wikipedia links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geronimo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mescalero-Chiricahua_language if you are interested.
One last thing before I sleep: Nick is totally correct when he states that most American Indians have more pressing problems than the naming of a football team. Problems like freezing to death in North Dakota. Fighting the gas and oil companies that are fracking their lands. Fighting the KXL pipeline, not only to keep their lands and waters from being polluted, but also the man camps of workers that have brought even more rape, violence and drugs to their communities on the rez. Dealing with the sequestration cuts that have about wiped out the few jobs left on the rez such as law enforcement.
It just seems to me that the renaming of a football team is but one small thing they ask. Would it REALLY be all that inconvenient compared to what they have gone and are going through? To not be viewed as a character?
Emailing from Alaska – Thank you for posting this.
20% of our state population is Alaska Native – my better half, a Marine who served this country in Vietnam is Cupik
PC word usage:
Honky: That’s OK
White Trash: Still OK
Mick: The M-word.
Dago: The D-word
Fat Conservative Cracker: Ha, ha ha. Of course its OK.
Redneck: Allowed even w/ profanity like “F@ckn’ Redneck.”
Beaner: B-Word.
The “R-word,” which I first saw here today, is priceless. It shows the mindset and pathology of the word police.
Sounds real elitist to me, all that social media stuff —
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/02/08/inside-notyourmascot-super-bowl-twitter-storm
I see the PC folks are giving “Redskin” r-word status. This is a new tactic by the Word Police. It is pernicious.
There you go! So, if you want to use “b!tch,” just use “putana” instead.
See Samantha, wordpress didn’t pick up on “schmuck.” Let’s try a word used a lot where I grew up, “Putana!” That’s a banned wordpress word.
Samantha, I would venture a guess @ least 80% of people don’t know the origins of “Schmuck” a word thrown out cavalierly. It’s “penis” in Yiddish but has become something more benign in US culture. The core of PC is controlling speech. Unconstitutional. I think we have some folks who would feel more comfortable in Great Britain, France, Iran and The Kingdom.
In the contemporary United States, “redskin” is often but not universally regarded as a racial epithet.[20] The term is considered by some to be extremely offensive (an r-word for Native Americans equivalent to the n-word for African-Americans),[21] but neutral by others.[22] The American Heritage style guide advises that “the term redskin evokes an even more objectionable stereotype” than the use of red as a racial adjective by outsiders,[23] while others urge writers to use the term only in a historical context.[24] The consensus based upon a comparison of current media usage and dictionary definitions is that the term has negative or disparaging connotations.[25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_%28slang%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_is_a_rose_is_a_rose_is_a_rose
The sentence “Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.” was written by Gertrude Stein as part of the 1913 poem Sacred Emily, which appeared in the 1922 book Geography and Plays. In that poem, the first “Rose” is the name of a person. Stein later used variations on the sentence in other writings, and “A rose is a rose is a rose” is probably her most famous quotation, often interpreted as meaning “things are what they are”, a statement of the law of identity, “A is A”.”
see: Variations by others (at the above link)
Annie,
Now you’ve been labeled too. Welcome to the “elitist” group.
(1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_civil_rights
(2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff_Indian_lobbying_scandal
specifically see in this linked article of Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal:
the subheading: “Derogatory references to Native American clients”
And the elitist testimony continues. I stipulate elitist Indians abhor mascots. Of course, that didn’t work w/ your guy Richard Sherman either. Maybe someone should start commenting as “Strawman.” At least you’ll be linking rebuttals for SOMEONE!