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”

  4. Elaine —

    You are a valiant warrior but to what end? There are those who would rather their minds be closed by belief than opened by wonder. They readily self-identify by bandying about words like “politically correct” or “elitist” – expressions used by those called out for failing to recognize or respect the basic human dignity of others and usually accompanied by misconstruing a threat to privileged status as an attack on freedom.

    I have spent more than 25 years closely working with native American tribes and their members among whom I first heard the use of “r-word” well over a decade ago. I live among almost a million Latinos, a near majority of which speaks only Spanish and, yes, the Frito Bandito is a racist animation.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/racist-company-mascots-2011-9?op=1

  6. By the reasoning of the PCers, shouldn’t they be all over the NAACP. Or, is it impossible for black people, or in this case, colored people, to be non PC. Are they, by definition, exempted from any PC violations?

  7. “Savages” I can certainly see. But, “Warriors,” Chief Illini, Indians, etc. If I were a university prez I would have agreed w/ changing Savages in a heartbeat. The question is how do you persuade Dan Snyder. It’s HIS TEAM.

  8. Elaine, Whom have I stifled. PC is @ its CORE the stifling of speech. And it works for many people who cower.

  9. Here is an interesting discussion of what can happen when a university has had a long history with a mascot that five decades later was to be changed due to society’s objection to the message it conveys.

    It is the story of the mascot of Eastern Washington University, formerly the Savages and later the Eagles. It might offer some insight into what might be expected with the football team and the controversy in the change.

    http://easterneronline.com/2013/03/07/no-salvaging-savages/

  12. American Indian Activist Russell Means Powerful Speech, 1989
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVYShOZkZGs

    {Excerpt}
    ‘Russell Means has been called the most famous American Indian since Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse by the Los Angeles Times and recognized as a natural leader with a fearless dedication and indestructible sense of pride.

    He took pride in having instituted programs for the betterment of his people: notable, the Porcupine Health Clinic (the only non government funded clinic in Indian Country) and KILI radio, the first Indian owned radio station.

    Today, one of his principle goals has been the establishment of a “Total Immersion School”, which is based on a concept created by the Maori people of New Zealand, where children are immersed in the language, culture, science, music and storytelling of their own people.

    Russell wanted to adapt this total immersion concept to the Indian way of life and philosophy which is taught from a perspective that will nurture a new generation of proud children educated in the context of their own heritage.”

  13. State organizations support anti-mascot bill
    By Will Chavez Staff Writer
    http://www.cherokeephoenix.org/20079/Article.aspx

    Excerpt:
    TULSA, Okla. – Several state organizations held a press conference Jan. 30 in downtown Tulsa to announce that a bill to prohibit Indian mascots was being reintroduced in the state Senate.

    Louis Gray, president of the Tulsa Indian Coalition Against Racism, said the press conference was to show support for Senate Bill 765, the Oklahoma Anti-Discriminatory Mascots Act, which seeks to prohibit Oklahoma public schools from using “racially derogatory or discriminatory Native American school or athletic team nicknames and mascots.”

    The act, which was introduced by state Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre, D-Dist. 11, also provides for penalties and enforcement and would become effective Nov. 1, 2009, if approved. McIntyre introduced a similar bill four years ago, but it died in a Senate committee.

    “We are just eternally grateful for the courage and wisdom of Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre. We’re going to try this again. We’re more prepared. We truly believe there are a lot more thoughtful Oklahomans to make the kind of courageous change that we are seeking,” Gray said. “This is not about calling anyone racist. What we are saying is the images and practices are harmful.”

    Specifically, the act requires all public schools to stop using team names, mascots or nicknames, including savages, redskins, any other Indian tribal name and any other racially derogatory or discriminatory school or athletic team name, mascot or nickname.

    “I’m not a redskin; I’m not a savage; I’m a person,” Gray said. “When we objectify people in a negative way it has meaning and it changes people. It changes the person that you call a savage and it changes the person who is calling the person a savage. So we want to end that practice…and make it illegal to do so in this state.”

    Gray said the legislation would not apply to schools such as Sequoyah High School and other area public schools that may use “braves, warriors and chiefs,” although he said TICAR believes those names objectify Indian people but are not racial slurs such as redskin and savage.

  14. Bron,

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

  15. Stereotypes about indigenous peoples of North America
    “There are more numerous and varied stereotypes about indigenous peoples than about any other ethnic group in the Americas. While some of the worst portrayals of natives as bloodthirsty savages have disappeared, oversimplified or inaccurate portrayals remain, particularly in movies, which are the main source of popular images not only in the Americas but world-wide”

    Stereotypes about indigenous peoples of North America
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_about_indigenous_peoples_of_North_America

    Contents

    1 Ethnic terminology
    2 American Indians / Native Americans
    2.1 Physical characteristics
    2.2 Cultural misconceptions
    2.2.1 Religion
    2.2.2 Substance abuse
    2.3 Historical misconceptions
    3 Inuit stereotypes
    4 Effect of stereotyping
    5 Overcoming stereotypes
    6 See also
    7 References
    8 External links

  16. Elaine:

    Honestly, I dont care how Italians, Indians, whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc. are portrayed. Dont watch the Redskins play if you dont like it and boycott FedEx.

    Political correctness is BS and it is used to stifle speech. Women arent as strong as men, western culture was superior if the metric is improving human life, animals are not equal to humans, trees are for making houses, etc.

    Do I care if a bunch of native people killed a bunch of white people 200 years ago and then were killed themselves? Not really, humans have been killing each other for thousands of years, I wish they wouldnt but I doubt they will ever figure it out. Indian society is a mess and they worry about an offensive name? That is like having a broken arm and being worried about doing your nails.

    I dont like Dan Snyder but if I were him, I would say no to changing the name. If sales went down, I would change the name. Let the market decide.

    By the way Charles K. is a neo-con so his opinion doesnt really matter too much to me. He is almost the same philosophically as liberals.

    By the way here is a good article on the subject by Dr. C. Bradley Thompson:

    http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/03/07/c-bradley-thompson/neoconservatism-unmasked

    “What, then, are the core principles of neoconservatism?

    1.Neoconservative Metaphysics: The neocons take the “political community” or what Irving Kristol called the “collective self” as the primary unit of moral, social and political value. They accept Plato’s premise that the polis or the nation is the only community adequate for the fulfillment of man’s natural end or telos, which they associate with what they variously call the “public interest” or the “common good.” The actual content of the “public interest” is whatever wise and benevolent men say it is, which is precisely why it should never be defined. The highest task of neoconservative statesmanship is to superimpose ideological unity on the “collective self” in the name of an ever-shifting “public interest.”

    2.Neoconservative Epistemology: Neoconservatives begin with the Platonic assumption that ordinary people are irrational and must be guided by those who are rational. According to Irving Kristol, there are “different kinds of truth for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy.” The highest truth in Strauss and Kristol is restricted to the philosopher, while the common man is and must be limited to “knowledge” of a different sort: to myth, revelation, custom, and prejudice. Neoconservatives believe the opinions of the nation must therefore be shaped by those who rule. To control ideas is to control public opinion, which in turn is to control the regime as a whole. Ultimately, the vulgar must be ruled by faith and by faith’s necessary ally, force.

    3.Neoconservative Ethics: If you believe, as Straussianized neocons do, that there are “different kinds of truth for different kinds of people,” then you must believe that there are and must be different moral codes as well. Ordinary people need some form of conventional morality that is easily learned, followed, and transmitted from one generation to another. The vulgar many need piety and patriotism as the ordering myths by which to live. For the neocons, morality is conventional and pragmatic. Because they regard the nation as the primary unit of political value and because they identify the “public interest” with the purpose of government, they regard moral good and virtue to be that which works—not for the individual, but for the nation. Morality is therefore defined as overcoming one’s petty self-interest so as to sacrifice for the common good.

    4.Neoconservative Politics: Central to the neoconservatives’ philosophy of governance is the conceit that it is possible, in the words of Kristol, for a small elite “to have an a priori knowledge of what constitutes happiness for other people.” Because common people cannot possibly know what they really want or what constitutes their true happiness, it is entirely appropriate for a philosophically trained political elite to guide them to their true happiness and to prevent them from making bad decisions. The highest purpose of neoconservative statesmanship is therefore to shape preferences, form habits, cultivate virtues, and create the “good” society, a society that is known a priori to those of superior philosophic wisdom. The neocons therefore advocate using government force to make “good” choices for America’s nonphilosophers in order to nudge them in certain directions—that is, toward choosing a life of virtue and duty. As Strauss made clear in his most influential work Natural Right and History, wise statesmen must learn to use “forcible restraint” and “benevolent coercion” in order to keep down the selfish and base desires of ordinary men.”

    Sure does sound like liberal/progressive ideology to me. Whoops.

  17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_name_Geronimo_controversy

    Code name Geronimo controversy
    “The code name Geronimo controversy came about after media reports that the U.S. operation to kill Osama bin Laden used the code name “Geronimo” to refer to either the overall operation, to fugitive bin Laden himself or to the act of killing or capturing bin Laden”

    “Geronimo’s great-grandson, Vietnam War veteran Harlyn Geronimo, issued a statement requesting explanations and apologies.[19]

    On 8 May 2011, President Obama was interviewed by 60 Minutes saying “There was a point before folks had left, before we had gotten everybody back on the helicopter and were flying back to base, where they said Geronimo has been killed, and Geronimo was the code name for bin Laden.”

  18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Native_American_issues_in_the_United_States

    Contemporary Native American issues in the United States

    Contents

    1 Demographics
    2 Societal discrimination and racism
    2.1 Affirmative action issues
    3 Native American mascots in sports
    4 Historical depictions in art
    5 Terminology differences
    5.1 Common usage in the United States
    6 Gambling industry
    7 Crime on reservations
    8 Public health
    8.1 Alcoholism
    8.2 Suicide
    8.2.1 Prevalence of suicide among Native Americans
    8.2.2 Suicide prevention
    9 References

  20. National Congress of American Indians slams Redskins
    Erik Brady, USA TODAY Sports 1
    October 11, 2013
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/redskins/2013/10/11/national-congress-american-indians-report-redskins-name/2965075/

    Excerpt:
    The National Congress of American Indians issued a 29-page report Thursday on the moral and social reasons why the shrinking number of sports teams that hold on to their Indian names should shed them.

    The NCAI, which bills itself as the nation’s oldest, largest and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native advocacy organization, has held similar positions since 1968. Its report, which focuses particular attention on the Washington pro football club, comes one day after owner Daniel Snyder defended use of his team’s name, citing history and tradition.

    “There is one thing that we can agree with the Washington football team about — the name ‘Redsk*ns’ is a reflection of the team’s legacy and history,” NCAI executive director Jacqueline Pata said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the team’s legacy and history is an ugly one.”

Comments are closed.