I graduated from University High School in Los Angeles, whose list of famous alumni, according to Wikipedia, include Elizabeth Taylor, Sandra Dee, Roddy McDowell, Judy Garland, Marilyn Monroe, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme (she’s never made it to the reunions), Randy Newman, James Brolin, two guys from the “Doors,” one guy from the “Partridge Family” (David Cassidy) and some long-haired, anti-social, non-joiner of a student who just wanted to grow up to be the next Jim Murray (alphabetically, I’m ahead of Nancy Sinatra, whoever that is).
Our high school’s nickname: The Warriors. The “Warrior” also was the name of the school newspaper. If it occurred to any of us budding muckrakers in the late 1970s that we were using a nickname deemed potentially offensive to Native Americans, we probably would’ve written screaming editorials. But nobody seemed to care about our nickname, like nobody seemed to care about our 1-10 football team.
Thirty-seven years after graduation, I care.
“Redskins” is as blatantly racist a nickname as you’re going to find in sports. It’s just this side of the “N” word. If you’re not offended by Redskins, then you wouldn’t be offended by Blackskins for African-Americans or Yellowskins for Asians. Redskins is as offensive as any moniker that takes a perceived trait of a race, creed, gender or religion and turns it into a cartoon, whether for a weak joke or a name on a football jersey.
In a stunning ruling that could force one of pro sports’ most famous franchises to change its name, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the Washington Redskins’ trademark on the basis that it is “disparaging to Native Americans.” It’s the most significant blow against the team and its owner, Daniel Snyder, who has been under increased pressure to change the name. (The ruling, which will be appealed, does not affect the team’s logo.)
Fifty U.S. Senators, all Democrats, recently drafted a letter urging NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to force Washington to change the name of the team. Snyder also had had some public relations missteps in recent weeks, including a Twitter campaign in which fans were asked to send Twitter messages to Senate majority leader Harry Reid and use the hashtag #RedskinsPride. But the campaign backfired, with many sending Tweets like, “#RacialSlurPride”
PETA might have had the best idea: keep the name “Redskins” but change the logo to a redskin potato in the middle of a circle with twigs of rosemary (instead of feathers) coming on the side. (There is some debate whether the idea originated with the Washington Post’s Tony Kornheiser or political commentator Rush Limbaugh.)
The debate of the Redskins’ name — and to a lesser degree the Braves, Indians, Chiefs, Warriors and Blackhawks in sports, from high schools to pros — isn’t new. I saw the protests at the 1992 Super Bowl in Minneapolis between Washington and Buffalo. Pickets were lined up downtown, a few blocks from where families were taking pictures of ice sculptures. Honestly, the name, “Redskins,” didn’t bother me back then.
Many believe we’re more of a politically correct society today. I believe we’re just more aware and more sensitive to the thoughts and actions of others. That’s a step forward, not backward.
The fact we can look at a 1960s Disney cartoon now and see how Native Americans were portrayed – red face, big nose, skipping around a fire, doing the hand-over-the-mouth-war chant thing – and now shudder doesn’t mean it was right then and wrong now. It was wrong then.
Society changes. Uni High is now the Wildcats.
Snyder isn’t emotionally attached to the team’s name. He’s attached to the brand and the revenue it produces. But this is still the NFL and the Washington, D.C., football franchise. Neither is going bankrupt because of a name change.
The U.S. Patent office can’t force Snyder to do anything. But if a team’s trademark isn’t protected, it’s like telling Pepsi, “OK, you can market a product named Coke now.”
A joint statement from the Oneida Indian Nation and the National Congress of American Indians in Washington, D.C., read, in part: “If the most basic sense of morality, decency and civility has not yet convinced the Washington team and the NFL to stop using this hateful slur, then hopefully today’s patent ruling will.”
It remains to be seen how this affects the Braves. In the 1991 and 1995 World Series, they were targeted with protests over their name and the use of the “Tomahawk Chop” at home games. On the eve of the ‘95 Series against the Cleveland Indians, Michael Haney of the American Indian movement told CNN, “Tomorrow you’re going to see two teams come together in the largest mass demonstration of cultural cross-dressing in this nation’s history.”
Joel Barkin, a spokesman for the Oneida Indian Nation, said Thursday that the Redskins have been their primary focus, adding that the nickname is a “dictionary-defined slur that no one would ever use in polite conversation.”
As for the Braves, he added, “A larger discussion needs to take place about Native American mascots in general. Are they appropriate and are we truly honoring the culture? Native Americans are trivialized as mascots or relics from the past.”
The Braves declined comment. It’s logical to assume they won’t say something unless there’s extreme pressure to do so. But as Barkin said, while the Braves’ name is a worthy topic for debate, Redskins isn’t even close.
About the Author
