RSS
Popular and Politically Incorrect
I consider myself a tolerant person, perhaps even bordering on overly PC. Sure, I’m not perfect, but I genuinely cringe at the malicious use of any racial slur and personally support legislation that restricts organized “hate speech.” Of course, that’s a controversial legal stance to say the least. Where does freedom of speech end and sanctuary against persecution begin? Likewise, are there differences between positive and negative freedom that need be taken into account; even in a society founded on the principles of liberty? Perhaps, but this blog post isn’t about that.
What this blog post is about is, in no small part, my favorite NFL team: the Washington Redskins. I think you see where I’m going with this…
There are few things I enjoy more on a Sunday afternoon than Clinton Portis busting his way in for a touchdown. Moreover I grew up around DC, and watching the ‘Skins play reminds me of being encapsulated in the culture of my youth (not to mention a place with a much milder winter than Boston). I may go as far to say the team holds the same sentimental value as a keepsake or heirloom from my old house. Indeed, I don’t think I became a true fan until after I left.
Despite all that, it is undeniable that the franchise name, the foundation for its brand, is completely and utterly derogatory on an unacceptable level. The term “Redskin,” though its exact origins are vague, is widely thought to be a byproduct of European colonists in the 18th and 19th centuries. As one might guess, it probably wasn’t used in the most friendly of circumstances (Note: understatement). In contemporary times, it’s the sort of thing you would be shocked to hear someone call any member of any tribe, particularly to their face. It’s the equivalent of calling an African American “Colored” or referring to someone of Southeast Asian descent as “Yellow.”
And yet the brand has withstood the collective tests of time, law, and finance. It was coined in 1933, back when the team was coincidentally located in Boston; and inspired by the then “Boston Braves” baseball team. It’s rumored that coach William “Lone Star” Dietz came up with it (his mother may or may not have been Sioux). Likewise, past success on the field has brought the team a loyal fan base, keeping ticket sales high and the seats at FedEx field filled. Lawsuits by individuals and civil rights organizations alike have born no fruit.
So naturally, from a business standpoint, there is little incentive to change the name. Thousands of hats, jerseys, and various other pieces of paraphernalia embellished with the brand sell like hotcakes. The fans don’t seem to mind it, and no major authority inside the league or otherwise has condemned it in any forceful way.
Needless to say, though, if a new team were to start today with a name like “The Dallas Blacks,” it’s highly unlikely that there wouldn’t be justified outrage. So I’m left scratching my head as to why the football team of our nation’s capital gets away with it. Perhaps it’s a lack of education, or too small a push from those the name actually may offend; or perhaps it’s the same justification we often use for many of the sillier things we do: tradition.
Then again, maybe the problem is me. After all, in spite of how I feel about the name, I’m still a fan of the team. Food for thought.
P.S. And at least our logo isn’t as bad as Cleveland’s “Chief Wahoo.”
Categories Branding, Outside the Square
Twitter
LinkedIn
Having grown up in Virginia, too, I’m a closet Redskins fan (though I admit to an internal cringe every time I see the name or logo). What is fascinating about slurs, racial or otherwise, is how fast they can change. And, with various oft-slurred groups now claiming the slurs as their own to defuse them, the waters get murkier still.
What, I wonder, is the next currently accepted–but soon to be verboten–word?
And are there any organizations or products that have that in their name?
I am too a life-long Redskins fan and have similar feelings about the name (not necessarily the logo.) As a lawyer as well, I have been following the various court decisions about the status of trademark protection for the name with some interest. The bases for trademark protection seem somewhat contrived – one of which is that the word “redskin” has come to be more associated with the football team and is rarely if ever used with reference or as a slur to “native americans” (who of course cannot be referred to as “indians” anymore.)
What is most interesting to me is how inconsistent the rules regarding the use of native american names and symbols by sports teams are so inconsistently applied (and sometimes unfairly.) My alma mater, William & Mary, voluntarily dropped the name “Indians” for its sports teams several years ago, despite support for the name from several local tribes. Instead, the school adopted the moniker “the Tribe.” But, it kept the dual feather design in its sports-related logo. Recently the NCAA threatened to penalize the school for use of the two-feather design, forcing the school to adopt a new mascot and logo. Sorry for being crass, but what a load of crap. Whereas the “Redskins” name seems to be very un-PC but allowable, the use of a mere two-feather design is innocuous, but the basis of an onerous ruling.
Makes me wonder when some group of former is going to threaten my grad school (University of Idaho) for calling its teams the Vandals. Sheesh.
I definitely agree in that certain terms associated with Native American tribes are considerably less offensive (e.g. “Seminoles, Braves, etc”). There is some grey area, but most of it would have to do with how local members of the particular group the descriptor applied to felt about it. In the case of your college, Geoff, it seems like the graphical change was unnecessary and overblown.
I also agree that the Redskins logo (without the name) is not offensive. However, I do think that the Cleveland Indians logo is probably the most egregious culprit in all major US sports when it comes to lack of political correctness towards Native Americans. It boggles my mind that it hasn’t been changed, and that people defend it.
I don’t see this as a gray issue. Nor is it black, white, yellow or red. The word is bred on hate and is offensive and shouldn’t be tolerated, let alone franchised.
I think this is a case of the squeaky wheel. Not enough people make the connection to the Redskins’ or Indians’ offensive origin – it’s just a moniker for a sports team. And people, money, sports, make it acceptable. I’m don’t think that it is, but not enough people raise a stink about it.
In a similar vein, a phase that really gets under my skin is “I was gypped!” [meaning shortchanged, robbed of, or otherwise screwed over.] Too few people realize that it is a racist term that stems from nomadic ‘gypsies’ who have been stereotyped as criminals.
Finally, handicap or handicapped. If people realized that the origin of this word is “cap in hand” or professional beggar, I doubt that they would use this term to describe people with disabilities.
Thanks for the interesting post, from a closet Indians fan.
When I taught at PSU, I asked my students not to use the term “politically correct,” but rather to be thoughtful in their language. There really is no reason not to be thoughtful, and of course the opposite of thoughtful is thoughtless–often couched as expedience, tradition–all kinds of interesting words. A creek on the Oregon coast, named Pickaninny Creek–oh how the locals defended the use of that term. It was simply historical, not meant to be offensive–etc. and etc. I asked one of them–do you think the term is thoughtful? He said, “Well, no….but….” and the justifications began.
Thank you for starting this conversation.