The Washington Redskins. What's in a name?
Anybody who knows me personally knows how devoted a fan I am of the Washington Redskins. I eat, sleep, and breathe Redskins football. Through the highs and lows of the past thirty or so years, I have stuck with this team. After a great 2012 season with Robert Griffin III and Alfred Morris, I now how to spend the entire off-season listening to arguments about the team name. It seems that a handful of congressmen and women have tried to pressure Daniel Snyder (The Washington Redskins owner) and the NFL to change the name this week. There is a handful of Native Americans who have tried to sue pro football and the Washington Redskins franchise for the Redskins trademark. So, here's what I have to say about all of this.
First of all, I do not want the name changed. I find nothing offensive about the team being called the Redskins. Of course, I am not Native American, so it isn't up to me to decide either way. However, I can (and have) research the name/term to at least educate myself before stepping into the argument. I tend to approach this in terms of education and logic. First of all, here is the logic. If a word is derogatory, and has been for years (I'm talking decades if not centuries), then it is going to be wildly accepted as such from either the group of people who find it offensive, or from people as a whole. This is not the case with Redskin. Some writers and columnists have incorrectly stated that the "majority of Native Americans find the term Redskin offensive". Surveys and polls conducted on Indian reservations have suggested this is not true. While there have been Native Americans to come out and say the term is offensive, there have been as many (if not more) to come out and say the name gives them honor. So, the first thing logic tells me is that the Native American community as a whole does not agree among each other in terms of this word.
The second thing logic tells me is, there should be a vote. Majority wins, this is how we base everything in our country. Let the Native Americans, only the Native Americans, vote on the name. If the majority says it's offensive, change it. If it's 50/50 or majority in favor, the name stays. It is as simple as that. Case closed, move on. I am so tired of hearing people who don't even have an ounce of Native American blood coming out and being so sure of themselves that the name is offensive, yet they cannot tell you why it is, other than it just is.
Now, moving on the education part of this, I did some research on the background of the name of the football team. The Redskins started out in Boston, back in the 1930's, as the Boston Braves. When they moved to Fenway Park where the Red Sox played, they decided to support the Red Sox by changing the name to Redskins. This was to keep the Indian theme, but to "match" the Baseball team's name. This was also in honor of the Coach, who was Native American. When the Redskins moved to Washington, the name stuck, so the franchise kept it. In the 70's, it was an Indian chef who approached the franchise and asked them to change their logo (which was the 'R' at the time) to an Indian head. The chef felt this would honor Native Americans more, and so the team complied. That logo is still used today. Now, going back to logic, if the coach at the time (I think his name was "Lone Star" Dietz) who was Native American, should have been offended by the name change. I've found nothing to indicate that he was. Neither the players that Dietz brought to the team that were also Native Americans.
Next, I move to Ive Goddard, a leading expert in Algonquian languages. His research found no historical foundation to support the stories that Suzan Harjo gave in regards to the "bloody Indian scalp" story. His researched led him to the first documented usage of the term "redskins" in the 1700's. The term was used among the Native American community. The term never had a clear origin of offense. I'm willing to agree that a term's meaning can change over time, but I expect some type hard evidence to support such.
Even though the historical data does not support the belief that the name "Redskins" is a racial slur, people still believe what they believe. The sentiment is, if one person says so, that's enough for me. How ignorant of a stance. The same reasoning for changing the name of the Redskins can be applied to the majority of NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB teams. At what point do we back away from emotion and use logic to solve this issue? Logic is not on the side of changing the name. But, despite that fact, I am open to a name change under certain conditions. As stated earlier, the majority of the Native American population must vote to have the name removed. If they agree the name is offensive, change it. Secondly, the new name should be something we all can live with, without being a huge change.
The only name I agree with, and I think it may in fact be trademarked by the franchise, would be Warriors. I could cheer for the Washington Warriors. We could still have the Indian logo, and the name seems to fit. Of course, whatever the team changes its name to, I will probably still refer to them as the Redskins, not because I'm racist, but because they will always be the "Redskins" to me. I don't support the Redtails, the Federals, the Senators, the Generals, the Pigskins, etc... all stupid names.
So, in closing, I don't want the name changed, and technically, there is no factual, logical basis to insist that the name be changed. However, I am not closed-minded to a change either. Within reason, it could be new and exciting, especially since the team seems to be on the right path with Robert Griffin III as our new superstar quarterback. But, please, I don't want to hear it from politicians, talking heads, or crazy liberals who get offended over everything. I only want to hear from Native Americans. It is up to you to decide the fate of the Washington Redskins.
