Photo by Katidid213
by John Hirschauer
The issue of calling a team the Redskins runs much deeper
than “overly PC left wing shenanigans”. It lies moreover in the public’s double
standards and a great misrepresentation of who is justifiably
offended.
There is no collective societal doubt about the degrading and inappropriate nature of utilizing the “N-word” in reference to African-Americans. Then why can’t we respect similar sentiments from the Native American community?
By its very nature, “redskin” is an archaic and antiquated term. David Plotz of Slate notes that “redskin” is “extremely tacky and dated—like an old aunt who still talks about ‘colored people’ or limps her wrist to suggest someone’s gay”. Like “oriental” and “negro”, “redskin” has entered the realm of vernacular irrelevance and bears the connotations of the era in which it was created. “Negro” carries with it the atrocities of slavery, something that is universally lamented as a crime against humanity. Why doesn't “redskin”, a term coined during the mass exodus and genocide of Native Americans, carry the same uneasiness and apprehension?
The inconvenient truth in the matter is that “redskin” is no different than “negro”. The reason it is not treated as such is our nation-wide irreverence for the cries of American Indians. The collective outrage of blacks and Natives are equally
justified and vindicated, yet those of African-Americans tend to carry much greater weight in a national forum. This is a combination of the perhaps more vile past of white treatment of blacks, but also points to a greater unawareness
of atrocities committed to the Indian people.
Something that rightfully clouds public opinion on this issue is people with little or no Indian background claiming great reprieve over the Redskins name. They have little connection to their minute Native heritage but for the sake of taking offense cry foul to feel important or wronged. These people are entitled to arguments and opinions, but more in a theoretical or academic context than claims of personal offense.
The Oneida Indian tribe, however, who just spoke to the NFL, is an entirely different entity. These people live on a reservation and follow traditional Native culture. They are not pettily crying foul just to garner attention. They should have complete control over how they are represented, because for all intents and purposes, they are the mascot.
They are the rallying cry, the logo, and the helmet. If they feel they are being misrepresented or are victims of epithelial portrayal, should not the source of the imagery be the highest authority on such an issue?
But wait, what about the Cowboys and the Fighting Irish?
Unfortunately, mirroring those names to Redskins compares apples to oranges. Used correctly, “Seminoles”, “Indians” and even “Chiefs” can be fine. It is not so much the concept of human mascots, but the epithelial nature of “Redskins” that makes the name offensive. A perhaps larger question: have cowboys ever been forced from their homeland, taken on a vicious “trail of tears” through the snow to slowly die of starvation? It is because of the tender past with Natives that we rightfully treat our depictions of them more carefully.
The Redskins employ a slur as their team name, and we cannot and should not belittle the cries of true Natives who are offended and degraded by our use of a sobriquet as a team nickname. Removing the Redskins name would be a step toward equal treatment of all racism, not just the slander directed at the African-American community.
by John Hirschauer
The issue of calling a team the Redskins runs much deeper
than “overly PC left wing shenanigans”. It lies moreover in the public’s double
standards and a great misrepresentation of who is justifiably
offended.
There is no collective societal doubt about the degrading and inappropriate nature of utilizing the “N-word” in reference to African-Americans. Then why can’t we respect similar sentiments from the Native American community?
By its very nature, “redskin” is an archaic and antiquated term. David Plotz of Slate notes that “redskin” is “extremely tacky and dated—like an old aunt who still talks about ‘colored people’ or limps her wrist to suggest someone’s gay”. Like “oriental” and “negro”, “redskin” has entered the realm of vernacular irrelevance and bears the connotations of the era in which it was created. “Negro” carries with it the atrocities of slavery, something that is universally lamented as a crime against humanity. Why doesn't “redskin”, a term coined during the mass exodus and genocide of Native Americans, carry the same uneasiness and apprehension?
The inconvenient truth in the matter is that “redskin” is no different than “negro”. The reason it is not treated as such is our nation-wide irreverence for the cries of American Indians. The collective outrage of blacks and Natives are equally
justified and vindicated, yet those of African-Americans tend to carry much greater weight in a national forum. This is a combination of the perhaps more vile past of white treatment of blacks, but also points to a greater unawareness
of atrocities committed to the Indian people.
Something that rightfully clouds public opinion on this issue is people with little or no Indian background claiming great reprieve over the Redskins name. They have little connection to their minute Native heritage but for the sake of taking offense cry foul to feel important or wronged. These people are entitled to arguments and opinions, but more in a theoretical or academic context than claims of personal offense.
The Oneida Indian tribe, however, who just spoke to the NFL, is an entirely different entity. These people live on a reservation and follow traditional Native culture. They are not pettily crying foul just to garner attention. They should have complete control over how they are represented, because for all intents and purposes, they are the mascot.
They are the rallying cry, the logo, and the helmet. If they feel they are being misrepresented or are victims of epithelial portrayal, should not the source of the imagery be the highest authority on such an issue?
But wait, what about the Cowboys and the Fighting Irish?
Unfortunately, mirroring those names to Redskins compares apples to oranges. Used correctly, “Seminoles”, “Indians” and even “Chiefs” can be fine. It is not so much the concept of human mascots, but the epithelial nature of “Redskins” that makes the name offensive. A perhaps larger question: have cowboys ever been forced from their homeland, taken on a vicious “trail of tears” through the snow to slowly die of starvation? It is because of the tender past with Natives that we rightfully treat our depictions of them more carefully.
The Redskins employ a slur as their team name, and we cannot and should not belittle the cries of true Natives who are offended and degraded by our use of a sobriquet as a team nickname. Removing the Redskins name would be a step toward equal treatment of all racism, not just the slander directed at the African-American community.