The Redskins are changing their name. For some, the move is far too late. For others, it is not even warranted.
The stark polarization surrounding the Washington Redskins name debate is emblematic of a toxic modern political environment, in which unreasonable absolutes are pedestaled, veiled as stances of strength, and not the avenues to ignorance which they are.
Some feel that the term “Redskins” does not slander Native Americans, but instead honors them and upholds their representation as they attempt to rebuild. Others feel that the term has always had a pejorative connotation as a slur, and mobilizes a sports franchise to profit off of the exploitation of a dwindling, desecrated nation.
Corporations have moved past this discussion on the origins and meanings of the term. They have already levied the judgement that the name is no longer fit to accompany a professional sports franchise, and they have made their position known to Dan Snyder. Several business partners, such as FedEx and Pepsi, have requested a name change, and Nike has pulled all of its Redskins gear off of its site.
Members of one extreme applaud the stand taken by these companies, and question the morality of those who still support the name due to their emotional ties to the franchise. Members of the opposite extreme dismiss the movement to change as correction gone too far, and disregard the possibility of offense toward Native Americans.
The truth, as is almost always the case, lies somewhere in the middle, at the center of a suffocating crossfire exchange. In this article, we will try to reach it objectively, and help both sides understand the complexity of the issue, and foster empathy for opposing viewpoints.
Development of the term “Redskins”
The term “Redskins” has early roots in both colonial context and Native American context, to some extent, and those early roots are not as contentious. In a thorough study of the term’s history, Nancy Shoemaker, a professor of Native American history at Connecticut University, wrote that Native Americans, in some capacity, referred to themselves as “red” and “Red-Skin” as early as the 1720s.
The association of the color red by Native Americans was used as an identifying tool amidst contact with Europeans, but Shoemaker asserts that, in its early years, the use of “red” to describe Native Americans was more often used by Native Americans themselves than European settlers. Shoemaker eventually reasoned that Native Americans used the term “red” to contextualize themselves, in relation to white Europeans.
It’s worth noting that not all Native Americans described themselves in this way; Shoemaker makes the distinction that the association to the color red was primarily indigenous to the southeast region of the United States. But elsewhere, there have also been affiliations with vermillion war paint and red-earth origin stories.
A strong correlation slowly developed over time, and European use of the color association increased exponentially. There was no malice in the early use of the term, but over time, as relations between Native Americans and Europeans deteriorated, a derogatory connotation was formed. Shoemaker details this in the following quote:
“Appearing in the novels of James Fenmore Cooper, captivity narratives, and dime novels, ultimately to be taken up by tobacco advertisers and national sports teams, the noble ‘Red Man’ and the brutal ‘Redskin’ evolved into demeaning and dehumanizing racial epithets.”
At the peaks of conflict between Native Americans and the United States, the term “Redskins” was used in ads offering rewards for scalping Native Americans. By 1898, the Webster’s Dictionary definition of “Redskin” described the word as “often contemptuous”, and in western cinema in the early-to-mid 1900’s, “Redskins” were often the antagonistic, adversarial figures by default.
Some proponents of the name will say that the word was originally used by Native Americans. This is true. Some will say that it was at times a term of respect between Native Americans. This is also true in some contexts.
But the term, much like other derogatory expressions that began rather harmlessly, ultimately underwent a development, which saw it become a slur in use by oppressive forces, forever pairing it with the suffering of Native Americans. As noble as the term’s origins may have been, one cannot selectively prioritize that over what the term ultimately became.
The meaning of the term today
There has always been measured resistance to the team name “Redskins”. Since 1940, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has been fighting to end the use of such mascots in professional sports.
The intentional derogatory use of the term “Redskins” has since faded, but the history of the word, and its ties to the deterioration of the Native American population, is still very much on the forefront in today’s social climate.
The meaning of the term “Redskins” is ultimately subjective on an individual level, even among Native Americans — some find value in simply being represented, by a logo that appears stoic and respectful. But it cannot be denied that the specific term in question was, at one time, used en mass in a disparaging manner, and was in a way representative of the dehumanization of Native Americans amidst United States expansion efforts.
Given the term’s history, it’s not up to one individual to decide whether the term “Redskins” is offensive or not, and as much as Redskins fans might want to, it is impossible to speak for the Native American community as a whole on this issue.
The Native American community is not in consensus on the issue of the Redskins name, but a meaningful portion does find the name offensive. Dozens of tribes have officially resolved against the name, and various other organizations have also followed suit.
Sample size is an issue when searching for opinions on both sides of the issue. The list of tribes linked above does not come close to encompassing the entire North American native population, but a widely-referenced survey from the Washington Post back in 2016, asserting that 9 out of 10 Native Americans accepted the name, only polled 504 people.
The voice of the Native American nation has faded as the population has dwindled, but the Native American community is the only group with the inherent authority to make a decision on the Redskins name. Since the term was originally directed at them, they have the right to determine whether or not it is acceptable in today’s context.
Some Native Americans may not have an issue with the term, and some even regard it with positive emotions. But some Native Americans conversely view the name as derogatory, and that alone is enough to warrant a change — to seek out a name that all can cherish, and not only some.
A message to Redskins fans
There was a comment on a piece of mine recently that I’d like to respond to, not because I wish to engage in any argument, but because I want to offer my perspective publicly, as I feel that it may hopefully have value.
“Ian, when will you change your name?”
I understand the argument that’s being made here — some feel that “political correctness” has gone too far in modern society — but there’s a very big difference between a name, like Ian, and a term that was once a racial slur, like “Redskins”.
That may no longer be its primary function in the eyes of some, but that history is deeply rooted, and to some Native Americans, the term continues to inflict damage. Words are not being targeted at random. The Redskins name has been a subject of controversy for a long time. This movement to change the name is not the resultant of an over-sensitive society, but instead the culmination of a decades-long discussion, and the precipitant of a complex oral history.
If a term has a history of being a slur, and if groups of people feel disrespected and dehumanized by its perpetuation, shouldn’t the decision to keep or remove the name be an easy one to make? To sacrifice continuity and tradition for the ensured sanctity of equal human value? To sacrifice a name for the comfort of a fellow American?
I understand how Redskins fans may feel as if they’re under attack in the wake of this movement. Fans, in some cases, have been invested in the Redskins for decades, building strong emotional bonds. A fan’s support of the Redskins is in no way a cause for others to make character judgements. A Redskins fan’s experience is unique, and in a way, it can help them better relate to those who take offense to the team name.
As a Redskins fan, likely from an early age, you assigned a meaning to the term “Redskins” based on your unique, individual experiences with the term — experiences that likely carry a predominant relation to the sports team. These experiences endeared the team to you, helped you develop friendships, formed stronger familial relations, and became a large part of your life.
No one else forged that meaning for you; others may have played a hand in introducing you to the team and emboldening the message, but it was ultimately your mind that made the connections which now pervade in your perspective.
Can the meaning of a word change for the better, just as it was changed for worse? Perhaps. But that’s not a change anyone can judiciously impose on Native Americans who oppose the word. No one can tell a Native American, “this name is meant to honor you”, when they may not glean honor from their unique, irreplaceable experiences with the word. It’s important, in the face of emotionally-charged anger, to understand that.
One Native American may look at the logo, and see a world that has unceremoniously passed them by, and continues to exploit their image, eroding at their history until nothing is left but a shell. And as long as this perception exists in one, there is a reason to change the name.
As long as it exists.