From The Archives -- Native Americans, Inc.
Today I thought it be a good idea to take a break from the budgetary staredown and run a repeat of a column I wrote all the way back in 2007. Now, sometimes what seems like a bright idea when I write a column winds up sounding pretty silly, even a few months later. But this one has stood the test of time, I think, and it is currently relevant because President Obama actually weighed in on the debate recently, when asked about it in an interview.
The issue of the offensiveness of the Washington Redskins' name brings to mind a very old sketch on Saturday Night Live by the comedy team of Franken and Davis [Note: It's from the show (Season 1, Episode 9) hosted by Elliot Gould with Anne Murray as musical guest, for those who have access to back episodes online -- sorry, but I could not find a free link to it -- and the sketch is named "Powwow With The Press," if that helps.] It's an improv sort of sketch, with the two of them acting out what America would be like if the Native Americans had, in essence, won -- and were now the majority of people in the country. It is a hilarious (but very edgy) take on sports teams' names, from the point of view of sportscasters in their imagined future. The Native American sportscasters talk about sports teams such as "the Kikes" and "the Dagos" and other offensive racial and ethnic slurs (there's an ad for a new "Polack" car model, too), and then delve into the supposed character of such ethnic groups. As I said, it's edgy. So edgy that they'd never get away with it today, even on a show that airs past midnight.
Edginess aside, though, they had a point.
Washington Redskins is an offensive name for a professional sports team. Some in the sportswriting industry have stopped using the team name in their writing, using instead "the Pigskins" or just "the Skins." Some even call them things like the "Washington Racist Team Name." But so far, the major networks haven't started doing so, which would truly be a tipping point. The reason this is back in the news (other than the start of football season) is that a band of Native Americans has decided to sue over the name, so we'll be hearing more about it in the future. So I thought this column was worth re-running now, because I really think the solution my wife came up with is an elegant way out of the mess, for all concerned.
Originally published September 27, 2007
I'd like to offer a modest proposal in an area I've never written about before -- sports.
My wife and I were watching the Washington Redskins attempt to play football last weekend, and I noticed the rather bizarre helmets they were wearing, which looked like they had become the Washington Registered Trademarks. The announcer cleared things up by explaining they were "period" uniforms, since the Redskins are celebrating their 75th anniversary this year.
This brought up the subject of their regular logo:
Now, this logo has been around for years. The logo and the team's name are seen as offensive by Native Americans. While I can't say that I blame them about the name, the logo is actually pretty tame, as these things go. Compare it (for instance) with the Cleveland Indians logo, the maniacally-grinning "Chief Wahoo":
It's pretty obvious that this one has actually been designed to be offensive. And today, no team in America would consider using such a disrespectful logo or team name about, say, African Americans. Can you imagine the Cleveland logo in blackface to go with a team named the "Cleveland Negroes" in today's America?
Which means there is a double standard at work here. Native Americans are still OK to ridicule, while other ethnic groups are not.
Native Americans have actually been making progress on this front, at least at the collegiate level and below. Stanford University decided to retire "Indian" in 1972, and today they have a pine tree which cavorts on the sidelines of their games. More recently, Chief Illiniwek, the mascot of the University of Illinois, was retired this year -- but it took the NCAA banning them from postseason play for them to do so. Pro sports, however, can't be pressured by alumni or the NCAA to change mascots.
So here's my modest proposal. [OK, it's actually my wife's brilliant idea, and I just reappropriated it as my own.] What would happen if the NFL and MLB and all the other professional sports leagues in this country forced teams with Native American team names or mascots to license these names every year?
Make them pay into a corporation (call it Native Americans, Inc. for example) each and every year they continue to use their Native American imagery to make money. This way, everybody wins. The fans are happy (fans never want to change team names), the teams are happy (they can assuage their guilt at the team name by paying for it each year), and the Native Americans are happy (the money could go to every tribe in America that doesn't have a casino, for instance).
Licensing is already taking over pro sports, and is making its way into collegiate sports as well. On the pro side, it's mostly stadium names (so far). On the collegiate level, it's mostly bowl games (so far). But if you can sell the naming rights to a stadium, then the Native Americans should be able to be compensated as well.
They could even set up a sliding scale of fees. Since "Indian" is offensive, but only mildly so (since it just reaffirms that Columbus didn't even know what continent he was on), the Cleveland Indians would only pay... say... five million dollars a year to license it. Since "Redskin" is much more offensive, the Washington Redskins would pay ten million, or maybe fifteen million. But since the Indians logo (Chief Wahoo) is incredibly offensive, they'd have to fork over thirty million or fifty million a year to use it. The Redskins logo is more respectful, so they'd only pay five million. The key point: Native Americans, Inc. gets to decide. They set the rates. They'd have to come up with a price for the Atlanta Braves (with a special surcharge for that offensive "tomahawk chop" chant they do), the Kansas City Chiefs, and all other pro teams using Native American imagery. College teams could license images and names for less money, of course, but they'd still have to pay to use them as well.
The teams could either decide to make their logos less offensive, or make the fans pay for it. They could change their team name at any time, and not have to pay license fees any more. It would be totally up to them to decide.
Some may argue this plan is not perfect. What about other ethnic groups? Would people who can prove Scandinavian descent get paid by the Minnesota Vikings? Well, no. We didn't steal North America from the Vikings, after all (the Danes even still own Greenland). There's no history of genocide against Cowboys, or Packers, or Texans, or 49ers, or any of the other team names, so there's no reason to make restitution to them. This is, after all, guilt money. This plan would not involve the government or taxes in any way (although they might have to pass a federal law to impose such a scheme, but that's easy since the NFL and MLB both have special dispensations from the government to run what are, in essence, monopolies).
The more I think about it, the more sense this idea makes. Sure, it probably will never happen, but that doesn't make it any less a good idea.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Washington Redskins is an offensive name for a professional sports team.
90% of Native Americans don't have a problem with the Washington team using "Redskins"...
The Left should learn to quit making problems where none exist...
Michale
Well I don't find the term cracker offensive, mind if I call you that from now on? I know! I'll even make a new sports franchise, the Michale Crackers. After all it only matters if a majority of people find it offensive. After all, you have been talking all week about how majorities aren't legitimate way to decide issues in this country.
After all, you have been talking all week about how majorities aren't legitimate way to decide issues in this country.
I never claimed that.
I simply state (with the facts to back it up) that ya'all only want to talk about Majority rule when Democrats have the majority.
When Democrats have the minority, the Left whines and complains about the "tyranny of the majority"...
All I ask for is a little consistency...
But asking for consistency from partisan ideologues enslaved by Party dogma is like asking the sun to rise in the west and set in the east.
It likely ain't gonna happen...
Of course, amongst the Left here in Weigantia, there ARE exceptions. Ya'all know who you are.. :D
Well I don't find the term cracker offensive, mind if I call you that from now on? I know! I'll even make a new sports franchise, the Michale Crackers.
I don't mind. Up until recently, I thought the "cracker" racist slur came from the fact that saltine crackers are white.. :D
After all it only matters if a majority of people find it offensive.
You might be right. But, in THIS case, the majority of people find the moniker NOT to be offensive..
Just in case you failed elementary math, 90% is a pretty big majority.. :D
Michale
Hay YoYo,
If it's all the same to you, can you refer to me as "Honkie Michale"...
I have always liked the sound of the racial slur "honkie"... :D
Reminds me of someone's pet goose...
Michale
Speaking of racial slurs..
Top WH adviser accidentally tweets the 'N' word...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/10/dan-pfeiffer-tweet-n-word-bigger.html
Sure, it's obviously a typo..
Not any really big deal..
Except for the fact, of course, that the Left would have gone utterly and hysterically ballistic if this same typo had occurred in a GOP Administration...
I'm just sayin'.....
Goose... Gander...
"If only... If only..."
-Hades, HERCULES
Michale.....
Well I've had my coffee, two after alls in a row? sloppy.
In any event, the point isn't what you or I find offensive, or even what percentages find the term redskins, or other racial slurs offensive. (Source please for the 90%)
Brief aside, cracker is a very old term, goes back to the pre-civil war era in which it referred to poor white southeners. Still offensive, as it has big negative connotations, but yah, nothing to do with 20th century saltines.
The point is that the Washington football team could pick any number of Native American related names, but the one they have is the one that denigrates Native Americans based on skin color. It's offensive, it's more than a bit racist, and it's shameful that people only really want to keep the name because that's just how its been. It's a sports Franchise for crying out loud, it's not like the world will end if they switched their name to something that didn't lump an incredibly diverse and artistically rich culture together by skin color, and a false assumption of skin color no less.
Further, the history of United States and it's relationship with Native Americans is one of the most shameful, violent, and despicable threads of our history. I'm not sure into how much detail I need to go into here, but most people have at least heard of the trail of tears and smallpox blankets. And those two incidents are just the tip of the iceberg.
Just because it doesn't offend you, doesn't mean a team in the most popular sport in America needs to emblazon the fact that we haven't treated Native Americans with the respect they deserve as human beings until very recently in our history. (and even then not very well)
In any event, the point isn't what you or I find offensive, or even what percentages find the term redskins, or other racial slurs offensive. (Source please for the 90%)
In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them.
Tommy Yazzie, superintendent of the Red Mesa school district on the Navajo Nation reservation, grew up when Navajo children were forced into boarding schools to disconnect them from their culture. Some were punished for speaking their native language. Today, he sees environmental issues as the biggest threat to his people.
The high school football team in his district is the Red Mesa Redskins
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/
Brief aside, cracker is a very old term, goes back to the pre-civil war era in which it referred to poor white southeners.
I had recently learned (or thought I had learned) that "cracker" comes from a person who employed a whip against slaves...
The point is that the Washington football team could pick any number of Native American related names, but the one they have is the one that denigrates Native Americans based on skin color.
There is something called "tradition" here in this country. I know, I know, the Left would have Americans give up EVERY tradition we have, because there is ALWAYS someone who might be offended.. Or WANTS to be offended... Or LOOKS for things to be offended about...
Brings to mind a while back a bunch of snotty liberal types came down here to my neck of the woods and started making a stink about the FL Seminoles college football team.
The chief of the Seminole tribe not so kindly told those agitators to kindly shut the frak up, that the Seminole Tribe was honored to have their name as the Florida State team..
An important lesson for the Left to learn, if they weren't so stuck up as to think that they know what's best for everyone else..
And that's my whole point..
The Left should take a lesson from the venerable Sarek...
"There can be no offense where none is taken"
Michale
but the one they have is the one that denigrates Native Americans based on skin color.
I am also constrained to point out that there is nothing denigrating in the word 'red skin'...
Blacks use the n-word constantly to refer to themselves and others.
So, obviously, the word itself is neither good nor bad..
It's the INTENT at the time it's deployed that is the determining factor..
Again, the wisdom of Sarek shines thru...
"There can be no offense where none is taken."
Michale
Did you even read the rest of the article?
First of all, 768 people is a really small statistical sample, especially when the article you reference says that there is around 5.2 million Native Americans. Further, supporters of the suit include (again from the same article) the National Congress of American Indians, which represents 1.2 million Native Americans. So on one side we have 691 people, who are anonymous, their actual demographic information is also unknown, which doesn't exactly bode well for the poll being a representative sample. And on the other we have 1.2 million people who find it offensive.
...
Also the person who named the team? A serious racist.
" He was the last NFL owner who refused to sign black players — the federal government forced him to integrate in 1962 by threatening to cancel the lease on his stadium. When he died in 1969, his will created a Redskins Foundation but stipulated that it never support “the principle of racial integration in any form.” "
And this is all from your article Michale.
Tradition is a really dumb reason to keep doing things btw. I am not beholden to racists who have been dead for over 40 years. Am I against every tradition? Of course not, I work on a case by case basis. Lots of traditions are innocuous and fun. Like holidays for example, most of them are pretty arbitrary, though they do tend to have a deep historical context. Take Christmas for instance, a celebration near the winter solstice? Why then? Well because the Romans had big mardi gras/halloween bash called Saturnalia at that time of the year. And then it was co-opted by the early Church because it was a popular way to get people celebrating Christianity, but I do love presents.
Also the person who named the team? A serious racist.
Doesn't matter..
The ONLY relevant data available is that poll..
And that said 90% of Native Americans do not give a rat's ass...
You wouldn't have a problem with the poll if it said what you wanted it to say..
You don't think it's current?
Fine.. Commission another one..
Until you do, the data stands as fact...
Michale
Tradition is a really dumb reason to keep doing things btw.
Changing things because of a few snooty liberal malcontents who get offended at the drop of a dime is a much dumberer reason to change things...
http://www.stanfisk.com/Special/DemocraticSeal.jpg
Pretty much says it all.....
Michale
Look, you have the ultimate power.. If you don't like the Washington Redskins, DON'T WATCH THEM!!
But liberals who set themselves up as the Politically Correct Police are trying to impose THEIR values on other people.
This country would be a lot better off if they would just get a life and leave everyone to their own lives...
Michale
More Dem civil war...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-mayor-gray-confronts-reid-on-capitol-steps-over-shutdowns-impact-on-city/2013/10/09/02577428-3103-11e3-89ae-16e186e117d8_story.html
Anyone wanna talk about that??
No???
Didna think so.. :D
Michale
“Democrats, at this critical moment, have abandoned their long-held principles. It's shameful to hold the city’s local funds hostage to make a federal point.”
-District Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton
Ya see.. It IS the Democrats who are taking hostages...
One of those pesky facts ya'all LOVE to ignore...
Michale
Awww crap!
Grrrrrrr.... Sorry... Those should have been posted to the previous commentary..... It's hard to keep things straight when so much is happening...
My apologies...
Michale
YoYo,
What it all boils down to is the wisdom of Sarek..
Once you understand that simple concept, all of the whining and crying of the Left over the PC rules becomes moot...
Michale
It's not PC rules Michale it's simple common sense. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the tremendous injustices inflicted on Native Americans in the last 500 years?
So let me punt this back at you, explain to me how lumping together all Native Americans based on skin color isn't racist?
Third question, regardless of the poll (which as your article points out has serious problems in proving it has a representative sample (THE WHOLE POINT OF POLLING)) if one of the largest blocs of Native Americans are actively saying the name is offensive, and further are seeking legal recourse, how is that irrelevant?
It's not PC rules Michale it's simple common sense. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the tremendous injustices inflicted on Native Americans in the last 500 years?
Because we're not talking about the tremendous injustices of the last 500 years.
We're talking about the name of a football team..
As far as issues go, the two simply are not on the same planet...
So let me punt this back at you,
yuk yuk yuk... :D
explain to me how lumping together all Native Americans based on skin color isn't racist?
Simple..
Because it DOESN'T lump all Native Americans together..
It lumps all members of a football team together..
Third question, regardless of the poll (which as your article points out has serious problems in proving it has a representative sample (THE WHOLE POINT OF POLLING)) if one of the largest blocs of Native Americans are actively saying the name is offensive, and further are seeking legal recourse, how is that irrelevant?
Because the group you mention is a POLITICAL group..
Ergo, it's nothing more than Political Correctness run amok...
Again, let's keep it in context.
We're talking about a football team...
Until there is another poll done, the current poll is the only relevant data..
And it says that 90% of Native Americans don't give a flying fig about the Washington Redskins...
My *guess* is that said 90% think there are more important things to worry about than a frakin' football team name..
And I would have to agree...
Michale
For clarification's sake:
explain to me how lumping together all Native Americans based on skin color isn't racist?
Simple..
Because it DOESN'T lump all Native Americans together..
It lumps all members of a football team together..
Michale
Until there is another poll done, the current poll is the only relevant data..
Another clarification..
Until another poll is done that has such a widespread of respondents..
If you were to poll every member of the Political Group, CHANGE THE REDSKINS NAME BECAUSE IT'S OFFENSIVE!!, you would likely get a 100% of Native Americans who have a problem with the Washington Redskins...
But that wouldn't tell the story, now would it??
Which is why I always have a long standing (and consistent, I might add :D) against polls in general..
They are, for all intents and purposes, useless. They usually indicate the biases of the poll takers more so than the biases of the poll'ees..
The ONLY reason I use them is to tweak the tails of Weigantians who put so much faith in polls. At least the polls that "prove" the things they agree with.. :D
Your reaction to that Native American poll is a perfect example. If that poll had said that 90% of Native Americans think that the Washington Redskins name is offensive, you would not have had problem one with the methodology or the swath of those polled..
But, because the poll didn't support your position, it's (all of the sudden) a flawed poll...
That's always my side point when I use polls in my comments. :D
Michale
It lumps all members of a football team together?
...
I don't even know what to say, their logo explicitly depicts a stereotyped Native American, big nose, red skin, f**king feathers in the hair. 17th century woodcuts showed more tolerance for diversity than that.
And frankly I'm really disturbed how you dismiss polling, nuance and specifics. Polling is incredibly useful, if it adheres to certain commonly established rules. AKA all sources are not created equal. There's whole disciplines dedicated to it, just because you never took statistics in college doesn't mean it's bullshit. Further, nuance and specifics are the WHOLE of any argument.
And frankly? We owe a serious debt to the Native Americans in the grand ole US of A. WE have treated them in the most despicable way possible for CENTURIES. Changing an obviously offensive and racist sport team name is the very LEAST we can do in righting those wrongs.
You can get all huffy about all you like, post all the pictures of crying babies as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that your poll is terrible, fails to reach a representative sample, and is the worst source possible for your argument. Also the article you reference goes out of its way to emphasize how the poll is not representative.
You ever wonder why minorities never vote Republican? Cause every time they have a legitimate grievance you scream bloody murder about nonsense traditions, political correctness, and defend the decisions of racist white dudes who have been dead for decades.
I don't even know what to say, their logo explicitly depicts a stereotyped Native American, big nose, red skin, f**king feathers in the hair. 17th century woodcuts showed more tolerance for diversity than that.
Uh.. No..
The logo you are referring to would be the Cleveland Indians logo..
The Redskins logo is a very dignified silhouette of an American Indian...
Polling is incredibly useful, if it adheres to certain commonly established rules.
Key word being "IF"....
Few, if ANY polls, adhere to any sort of rules.
In and of themselves, 99.9% of all polls are useless. They are only good for showing the bias of the poll takers..
Give you a perfect example..
And frankly? We owe a serious debt to the Native Americans in the grand ole US of A.
Did you have anything to do with that??
I know I didn't..
That being the case, you and I and every American today has absolutely NO DEBT whatsoever in this matter..
Me?? Get huffy?? NEVER!! :D
Cause every time they have a legitimate grievance you scream bloody murder about nonsense traditions, political correctness, and defend the decisions of racist white dudes who have been dead for decades.
And anyone who has oppressed another race has ALSO "been dead for decades" Lots and LOTS of decades..
So, why are today's Americans obligated to atone for the acts committed by ignorant uncivilized people a hundred years ago???
Michale
"So, why are today's Americans obligated to atone for the acts committed by ignorant uncivilized people a hundred years ago???
Michale"
Because we still directly benefit from the decisions made a hundred years ago, and Native Americans are still actively being hurt by those same decisions. It's called consequences, or cause and effect, or Newton's third law.
One of the most obvious examples of this is land. Apparently you live in Florida Michale, I live in Ohio. You know what both of those places have in common? The removal by FORCE of Native American populations. We didn't pay for the land, get it in a reasonable treaty settlement, no we went in with guns and murdered till they left.
Or how about the incredibly famous massacre of wounded knee?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt
or that bit, in which we engaged in biological warfare.
Why do we have to atone? Because the very house you live in only exists because of the murder of Seminole Native Americans Michale. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
We didn't pay for the land, get it in a reasonable treaty settlement, no we went in with guns and murdered till they left.
I don't know about you, but *I* sure as hell paid for my land...
I did not take it by force or deprive anyone of it, save the bank...
What you fail to comprehend is the Survival Of The Fittest reality..
The Native Americans were a conquered people. Such is life...
Are Germans still paying reparations for all the damage the Nazi's did???
No...
If you want to feel guilty about what was done to Native Americans a hundred, two hundred years ago, that is your right.. By all means, give your money, your possessions, your life to the service of those who ALSO haven't lost anything in their life..
But why should *I* have to suffer for YOUR skewed values???
If you want to do penance, knock yerself out..
But don't impose YOUR "morality" on others...
Or how about the incredibly famous massacre of wounded knee
Were you there???
Was I??
Was anyone alive today, there???
No???
Then why should anyone today have to suffer???
Let's say it was discovered that your great great great great grandfather killed my great great great great grandfather because of a drunken brawl..
Am I entitled to compensation from you???
Of course not...
THAT would be ridiculous, right???
MIchale
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-to-pay-772-million-euros-in-reparations-to-holocaust-survivors-a-902528.html
The Germans as you so eloquently put it, paid out reparations in may. As that was just several months ago, its obvious that you were right. #yourefullofshitanddontknowwhatyouretalkingabout
I mean I had to do some serious research to find that article, googling "German reparations holocaust" took fucking hours out of my day. It was a real burden.
You need to acknowledge historical reality. You need to acknowledge that actions taken centuries ago affect the world we live in today. You can insist that not having basic empathy is a virtue, and that violent conquest justifies the ends it creates (you having a house on former Seminole land). OR........
you could look up the Nuremberg trials. You wanna know the basic crime of Nazi Germany? Not all the other awful inhuman shit they did, but the basic bit of international law they violated? They waged unprovoked aggressive war. And that was the legal justification for hanging them.
I realize I might have failed to address a bit of sophistry that is apparently very prominent in your mind. The fact that you paid for you land, and therefore you're in the moral free and clear.
I could point to comparable situations in Ireland or Israel/Palestine or other similar areas, but obviously, you and rational arguments decided to divorce many years ago.
Now I'm not advocating that you give up your land, or otherwise impoverish yourself. But what I am saying, and what is inherently obvious, is that the chain events that led up to you purchasing said land began with the murder of Native American populations. You need to know this, hell, I live within a mile of the last battle Tecumseh fought in Ohio. The continental United States is premised on the idea that it was ok to wage unprovoked aggressive war on Native Americans. It is a national shame. It is an indelible black mark on our history. It ranks with slavery. Changing the name of a football team that will be fundamentally unaffected by said change? It doesn't even rank.
I don't really care about offensiveness.
I care about threat: genuine coercive threats are essentially actions, not speech, even if they take the form of speech. They are therefore entirely beyond the protection of freedom of speech.
I care about what I say. Accordingly, I care about what my country says, insofar as it speaks on my behalf. Likewise my end of the political spectrum, my country's allies, my subculture, any organization I belong to, and so on, all in proportion to the degree to which they speak for me. Trying to influence these things isn't abridging freedom of speech: it's participation in the political process (or cultural, or whatever).
I care about the results of various deliberations, and the actions of all the groups alluded to in the previous paragraph. So when something is said, that will affect people's actions in a way I don't like, I consider that reason to respond -- not by suppressing speech, but by disagreeing. Only in right-wing crazy-world does "freedom of speech" mean a guarantee of not having to have anyone disagree with you.
True hate-speech involves coercive threat, as I define it. Sometimes it's subtle, but it's always there, or else the speech doesn't count as true hate-speech in my book. The use of offensive racial team names and logos does not constitute such threat, as far as I can see. So there's no grounds for suppressing it.
It does fit the other categories, though. As a member of the (privileged) white subculture, I don't want us saying that, and I don't want us treating people the way that will contribute (slightly) to having us treat them.