Say “No” to Redskin

By Velma J. Korbel, Director — Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights

What often happens when people like me decide to express our outrage at what we deem to be an injustice is that we sometimes offend where we attempt to support and defend. I start this opinion with a disclaimer. I hope that any words used here do not further offend or objectify the people for whom I seek to show respect. I do not speak for you. I speak with you.

“Playing Indian” or “Cowboys and Indians” was a widespread game and a common pastime among children in the United States throughout the early to mid-Twentieth Century. Somewhat similarly, white actors with black painted faces used to amuse white audiences during that era. Thankfully, such practices are no longer widely socially acceptable.

Most Americans now recognize that blatant cultural appropriation disguised as entertainment is actually a not-so-subtle form of racist oppression. Unfortunately, some of the last explicit vestiges of socially acceptable bigotry live on in the mascots and team names of professional sports franchises. Perhaps the most outrageous example is the unabashed and proud use by the National Football League, the Washington D. C. NFL team, and football enthusiasts across the country, of the racial slur “redskins.”

Inexplicably, many still do not consider it problematic to use imagery depicting indigenous people as wild savages or conversely – docile, meek and unable to think for themselves. It is unthinkable that in 2013, Native Americans are apparently still considered, “noble savages” as depicted in twentieth century literature, and thus underserving of the basic respect and recognition of human dignity we all demand.

Let’s look at a lesson learned from our neighbor to the west. The University of North Dakota changed its mascot and logo after a long and protracted campaign of public pressure and criticism. More specifically, in 2005, the NCAA identified nineteen different member institutions, including the University of North Dakota, that used offensive nicknames and threatened to ban certain uses of these names. The effect would have meant no postseason tournaments (controlled by the NCAA) played at these schools and perhaps a loss of membership in different institutional organizations and leagues.

The University of North Dakota sued the NCAA over its threatened ban. A legal settlement in that case helped lead to the eventual demise of that school’s mascot.

I know the NFL is not the NCAA. And who are we to throw stones at Washington when our NFL team’s mascot were seafaring pirates who raided and pillaged northwestern Europe for centuries? When I did a quick web search of the word “viking”, I got a very much romanticized version of the real thing. The difference here is that when I did the same type of search for the word “redskin” the words used in defining it were “offensive”, “disparaging”, “insulting”, and “belittling”. Also different is that Minnesota fans seem to claim ownership of the romanticized version of viking while many Native Americans are opposed to a sports team co-opting their legacy in this very negative way.

The Washington D. C. NFL team will be in town on Thursday. They will bring with them a racial slur, disguised as a trademark, cloaked in the mantle of free speech. Exercise your own right to free speech. Stand up and say “no more”.

This entry was posted in Civil Rights Department. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Say “No” to Redskin

  1. Waterboy4928 says:

    i believe the relevant difference between team names like the Redskins and European or majority culture imagry like the Vikings is the cultural context. Whenever a dominant group commits crimes against humanity against a second group and then culturally appropriates the second group’s likeness, figures, nicknames, and traditions, I think it is safe to presume the use of the nicknames is not “an honor” or “out of respect” as is so often claimed. Use of the oppressed group’s imagry and names by the very culture that oppressed and continues to oppress them is inherently disparaging. The term Redskin is used in a context where the majority culture fought against, ceized the land of, committed massacres against, killed off the staple food of, intentionally brought disease to, and worked to destroy the language of those labled as Redskins. Indian Country still suffers extreme poverty relative to other US population groups. To my knowledge, the dominant culture of the United States never occupied, invaded, stole land from, brought disease to, oppressed the Vikings of Scandinavia. There is no cultural context that makes the use of the term inherently disparaging.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s