Sports have been in the news quite a bit lately, and for many issues bigger than sports themselves. Issues of domestic violence child abuse have brought the arena of sport a great deal of attention in recent weeks and months, moving sports from the sports page to the front page. Some of these issues have recently made their way into the mainstream, and some have commanded a place in the media spotlight for quite a while. The insensitivity of the mascots of certain teams, such as, perhaps most visibly, the Washington Redskins, is yet another issue which has been at the forefront of social conversation recently.
Many public figures, such as President Obama and actor Matthew McConaughey, have taken sides on this issue of perceived callousness. Some, like Obama, believe the Redskins should consider a name change, while others, like Dan Snyder, the team’s owner, and even McConaughey himself, believe the franchise should be allowed to keep its name while shedding the negative publicity accompanying it. Cries of hypersensitivity on one side and of bigotry on the other contribute to a great deal of white noise on either side, which makes intentional conversation on the topic between the two perspectives almost impossible.
One topic to address in the midst of this controversy is the natural tactlessness of the word. The nickname is insensitive. About this much we can be sure. To characterize a group of people by the color of their skin is wrong. The word “redskin” is even listed in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as a “usually offensive” term. In a 2013 CNN article, Ray Halbritter, leader of the Oneida Indian Nation, offered his own commentary on the issue saying, “It’s a racial epithet. It’s a racial slur.”
Shouldn’t we support diversity and relish different perspectives? Perhaps the reason this name is still even a name, even amidst the controversy, is because the nickname “Redskins” has been a fixture in the National Football League for over eight decades, and the American population at large takes the term for granted. Perhaps it is because not everyone knows someone who is directly offended by the term. The origin of the term is critical to understanding the offense that comes with it. Halbritter said, “Its origin is hate, use is hated, it was the name our people — that was used against our people when we were forced off our lands at gunpoint… So, it has a sordid history. And it’s time for a change…”
An equally important question to ask is to what degree are the people referenced by the term offended? This question is more difficult to answer. According to FiveThirtyEight.com, there is not a wealth of data on this topic, and the data available from the National Annenberg Election Survey is at least 10 years old. However, according to this survey, only nine percent of American Indians felt the nickname “Redskins” was offensive. Conversely, the National Congress of American Indians in a 2013 press release said, “(It’s) time for the NFL and the Washington football team to join the 21st century and leave the mockery and racism of the past where it belongs, in the past.”
The data and the statements of the National Congress of American Indians, in addition to other groups, appear to be at odds. However, what is undeniable is the number of groups who take offense to the word “redskin.” It is worth noting and taking into consideration as we, as a society, try to resolve this disagreement.
NBC broadcaster Bob Costas brings attention to the nickname as a dictionary defined racial slur, which makes the argument against the term robust. Phil Simms, former NFL star and current NFL commentator, has committed to trying to stop saying the word “Redskins” because “it offends a certain group of people,” according to a Sept. 25 article in The Washington Post.
The offensive nature of the term seems obvious. No amount of history or pageantry is worth the offense. Ultimately, it seems bold at best and nefarious at worst to tell a population which words should and should not offend them. Would we find it acceptable to attach a nickname to a professional sports team which marginalizes other ethnic groups? If the answer is no, then the next question is why is it acceptable in Washington?
