Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

Mallory Garrison

Professor Bean
HON 100-106
9/28/13

For the Love of Ignorance

In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. A phrase learned by children around the
country so they can remember when the spectacular Christopher Columbus found the
great United States of America. Unfortunately, kids in school do not often learn about
the genocide that took place shortly after his arrival or the discrimination that took place
after immigrants arrived at Ellis Island. In fact, kids arent often aware that there was
discrimination against the Native Americans, Irish and most other immigrant groups.
They learn about slavery, the one snag in American history that the country has agreed to
concede to. Yet there are so many other groups that have been persecuted throughout the
years that the country has chosen to ignore. Luckily, through the miracle of sports, the
country has found a new and fun way to honor the once persecuted: mascots. In order to
show these groups how terribly sorry everyone really is about the past treatment, the best
idea is to mock his or her traditions, features and culture for public entertainment. It is all
just for the love of the game anyways, why should its accuracy actually matter or play a
role in any way. Now some in those minority groups are offended because they witness
depictions of what they hold dear on display in a stereotypical and inaccurate fashion.
There is nothing noble about what sports teams are doing to the culture of minority
groups in the United States, particularly ones as mistreated as the Native Americans.
Many team names that relate to a culture have very understandable foundations:
the Chiefs, Indians, Fighting Irish but the reasoning for the term redskin is met with many

Garrison 2
variations. A typical misconception is that Redskin is in reference to the act of
scalping, a stereotypical Native American punishment. Even George Preston Marshall,
the owner in 1933, let his wife make this mistake when writing the original fight song for
the Boston Redskins (Gandhi par. 12). The song included chanting of Scalp 'em, swamp
'em we will take 'em big score / Read 'em, weep 'em, touchdown! we want heap
more!" Rather, as stated by Adrian Jawort, It was the Native Americans who first used
the term red in order to differentiate between indigenous, white, and black people
(par. 1). The term gradually formed into a slur used by some that held prejudices against
Native Americans. The term seemed to disintegrate from common vernacular around the
1960s (Gandhi).
While the true thought process behind the owners that chose Native American
mascots is unknown, the result has been detrimental. As stated by Richard King and
Charles Springwood, mascots caricature, mock and dehumanize Native Americans
(128). Perhaps the most offensive team name, and the most controversial, is the
Washington Redskins. In 1933, when the name was originally changed from the Braves,
the name was said to be honoring their Native American coach William Dietz (Crouch
par. 5). This is a very touching story about a teams love for their coach and willingness
to change their name in order to honor him. Unfortunately, the story seems to have many
aspects that make it less sentimental. William Dietz, whose racial identity was called
under question several times, only coached the team for two seasons and he started the
very year that the name was changed (Crouch par. 5). He is hardly an icon held to high

Garrison 3
esteem in the Redskins vast history. In addition, the owner at the time would force Dietz
to wear a headdress on the sidelines during games (Crouch).
The claim for keeping the name is that there is no evidence to support any Native
Americans actually being offended besides Amanda Blackhorse, the plaintiff in a case
against the National Football League. Many of the polling done by Sports Illustrated
along with other sources has come back inconclusive some sources claiming that the
majority of Native Americans approve of the name while others illustrate outrage across
the entire race. This should be a moot point. As pointed out by Art Monk, a former player
for the Washington Redskins, if someone finds a name of any sort offensive, who is
anyone else to deem the offended incorrect. Monks colleague Darrell Green concurred
and said how this sort of controversy deserves a conversation to be opened up. This
could apply to any team name, whether it is the Redskins or the Fighting Irish; if those
the names apply to finds it offensive, a conversation should be started. This conversation
is now coming to the forefront. While 80% of Americans still are in favor of keeping
these discriminatory human mascots, they do not seem to really be thinking about what
they are saying (Cohen and Maese).
When Paula Deen, the beloved host of a cooking show on Food Network, was
discovered to have used racial slurs in a derogatory manner, she received major public
outrage and her contract will not be renewed with the network. This has been the case
with a plethora of other individuals who find that they have the right to use racial slurs
despite how they make other people feel. Yet, the Washington Redskins are not receiving
scrutiny by the vast majority of people as Paula Deen has. Rather, they are leading the

Garrison 4
National Football League with profits and making jokes about the name being offensive.
After the poll came back in favor of the name, the Redskins boasted the triumph by
joking, it is also suspected that at least 50 percent of those in dissent are Dallas
Cowboys fans (qtd. in Crouch). Despite the fact that the majority of Americans are on
their side, the Redskins showed absolutely no tact by claiming that the only reason
anyone would be offended by the team name would be if they werent fans.
One of the teams, particularly the Redskins, primary reasons for resisting a name
change is the cost of rebranding (Cacciola). In addition, why would they rebrand if it has
not been proven that the majority of Native Americans are actually offended. There are
still plenty of high schools with a high percentage of Native American students that
proudly wear Redskins on their chests as they jog out onto the field every Friday night
(Jawort). As stated by Jawort Itd undoubtedly be ironic seeing as the reservation
schools have names like the Browning and Lodge Grass Indians, the Heart Butte and
Pryor Warriors. Perhaps this is true, and it is no longer viewed as offensive; most people
are not even aware that it was ever offensive since it is no longer used as a common
insult.
While all of these are valid points each with their own merit, they still provide
little reasoning for offending someone. First off, considering that the team makes a profit
of around $9 billion a season, some $10 to $20 million to rebrand the team should really
be worth it in order to show the smallest amount of human decency (Cacciola). To the
second point, while not all Native Americans have come out against the name, some
clearly are upset enough to take the case to court. Amanda Blackhorse is in the process of
Garrison 5
suing the NFL for offensive team names. There is no way to dispute that some Native
American high schools have mascots that relate to Native Americans. The main
difference between these high schools and a professional sports team is that the students
on the reservations understand the culture. Professional sports teams have been making a
caricature of a culture they do not understand. How is it even possible to mimic or
satirize something that one knows nothing about?
When Columbus sailed the ocean blue all those years ago in search for India, the
misguided man initiated a never-ending war on the Native American culture. After many
years of abuse and relocation, they are still here. They have suffered far too much and for
the non-Native Americans to take enjoyment out of mocking their traditions in order to
possess the highest level of team spirit proves that football fans have as little tact as the
football team owners. The use of human mascots can be done, as it is at many reservation
high schools, if there is an underlying respect for the culture they are meant to be
honoring. Based on the comments by the Washington Redskins team owner, there seems
to be little respect for the culture. Stereotypes are a result of ignorance and every time the
Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Kansas City Chiefs, Atlanta Braves, Chicago
Blackhawks jog out to their prospective turfs, they are not honoring a culture, they are
honoring ignorance.





Garrison 6
Works Cited
Cacciola, Scott. Risk for Redskins in Makeover of Team Mascot. The New York Times.
The New York Times Company, 29 June 2013. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.
Cohen, Jon, Maese, Rick. Washington Redskins Name: Washington Post Poll Finds
Most D.C. Area Fans Support It. The Washington Post. The Washington Post,
25 June 2013. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.
Crouch, Ian. Redskins Forever? The New Yorker. Cond Nast, 10 May 2013. Web. 22
Sept. 2013
Gandhi, Lakshmi. Are You Ready for Some Controversy? The History of Redskin.
Code Switch. NPR, 9 Sept. 2013. Web. 22 Sept. 2013.
Green, Darrel, Monk, Art. Interview. NFL News. WTOP, Washington D.C., 25 July
2013. Radio
Jawort, Adrian. Redskins Not So Black and White. Indian Country. Today Media
Network, 13 Nov. 2012. Web. 21 Sept. 2013.
King, Richard, Springwood, Charles. Playing Indian, Power, and Racial Identity in
American Sport: Gerald R. Gems
The constitution, Negotiation and Transformation of Racial Identity in American
Football. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 23.2 (1999): 127-131.
Web. 27 Sept. 2013.
---. Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 2001. Print.

Garrison 7
Nuckols, Ben. US Poll Finds Widespread Support for Redskins Name. Associated
Press. Associated Press, 2 May 2013. Web. 22 Sept. 2013.
Smith, Thomas G. Civil Rights on the Gridiron: The Kennedy Administration and the
Washington Redskins. Journal of Sport History 14.2 (1987): 189-208. Ebsco
Host. Web. 22 Sept 2013.

Potrebbero piacerti anche