In 1974, Dartmouth’s Board of Trustees denounced the use of “the Indians” to represent Dartmouth on the field. Forty years later, it’s hard to imagine Dartmouth’s official publications and athletic wear featuring the Indian mascot, and it’s even harder to think of a legitimate criticism of the Trustees’ decision. The persecution and forced assimilation of Native Americans relied upon the premise that Native Americans were savages who needed to be tamed. The use of Native Americans as a mascot for a predominantly white institution perpetuated the dehumanization of Native Americans and disrespected the hardship and cruelty that Native Americans have endured at the hands of white Europeans and Americans.
What could be worse than naming a team after a racial group? Naming a team after a derogatory slur for a racial group.
Recently, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the Redskins trademark because federal law does not permit trademarks that are “disparaging” to any racial group. This will certainly reinvigorate a controversy that has faded in and out of American discourse for decades. As the debate wears on, Redskins owner Dan Snyder, fans of the team and other political and social leaders should not view the call for a name change as political correctness run amok, but rather a chance for the team to abandon its association with a racial slur that invokes a painful history of genocide.
Simply put, “redskins” is a degrading and offensive term for Native Americans. Few would argue that a widely condemned slur like the ones against, say, African Americans or gay men would be appropriate names for a football team, so why should the “Washington Redskins” be an exception?
Furthermore, the name “Redskins” incites harmful levels of cultural appropriation from the team’s fans. While there is, to an extent, some merit to celebrating another culture by practicing its traditions, Redskins fans often take this practice way too far. Fans frequently paint their faces to look like Native Americans, mockingly wear headdresses and feathers considered sacred within Native American culture and imbibe massive amounts of alcohol, disregarding the alcoholism that the legacy of colonization has inflicted upon some Native American communities.
Meanwhile, the term “redskin” is deeply rooted in the American tradition of displacing and eradicating Native American communities. In fact, the term was once used to reference a bounty provided to those who had killed Native Americans; an 1863 newspaper promised “$200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory,” according to Esquire Magazine. Regardless of the team’s intent, the term perpetuates a long and cruel tradition.
Many fans argue that the team instated the name to celebrate Native American coaches and players, but this claim ignores concrete and irrefutable evidence. In 1933, George Preston Marshall, then the team’s owner, explicitly stated that the team’s Native American head coach “has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins.” In fact, Marshall picked the name so he could continue to use the Native American logo, as the team had previously been the “Boston Braves,” according to the Washington Post.
Others assert that, regardless of the name’s origin, Native Americans support and even feel honored by the name. While there is little evidence to support this claim, apart from a methodologically flawed poll and various incidental anecdotes, there is no shortage of Native American criticism of the name. Most prominently, 77 tribes have publicly endorsed a name change, CBS News reported.
A name is simply one of many elements that unite a community, and if the Redskins community is truly a strong one, a name change will not diminish what they have. With a new name, Redskins fans could still unite around the team that they love, while simultaneously becoming more appealing and inclusive as they are no longer bound to a hostile slur.
