The Moniker of the Washington Redskins and Its Racial Implications

7/27/2019 The Moniker of the Washington Redskins and Its Racial Implications

1/24

The Moniker of the Washington Redskins and its Racial Implications

If you are a fan of the NFL, then most certainly you have heard of the Washington

Redskins. The team is widely popular and one of the wealthiest franchises in sports. Valued

at 1.55 Billion dollars, the team ranks second only to the Dallas Cowboys.1 The franchise has

won two championships and three super bowls2 as a member of the National Football League

and has produced such Hall of Famers as Joe Theismann, Art Monk and John Riggins. Anyone

familiar with the brand can readily identify them by their unique logo. The logo shows the face

of a red man in his feathered headwear, encircled with two dangling tribal feathers.3 But

where did the logo come from? How did the Redskins become, the Redskins?

To know the answer, youll have to travel back to the teams inception and those

responsible for introducing them to professional football. In doing so, youll discover injustices

committed on a culture that at one time was the only to call our country home.

The team originated in Boston, Mass in 1932 and was then known as the Boston Braves.4

The owner was George Preston Marshall who has often been described as a racist.5 The team

shared Braves field with baseballs famed Boston Braves until 1933 when they relocated to

Fenway Park.6 That same year, the name of the team was changed to the Boston Redskins.7

Some believe the mascot derived by way of honoring then Head Coach, William "Lone Star"

Dietz, whose mother was allegedly Sioux.8 This account has yet to be verified. In 1937 the team

moved to Washington D.C.9

There are many theories about the offensive connotation of the team name and various

opinions to that effect. One theory is the name was used by Native Americans during the 1800s

as a way to distinguish themselves from the fast growing white demographic while another is

that it derived from the Beothuk people of Newfoundland who painted their bodies with red

1


2/24

ochre.10 The Oxford English Dictionary states the term came not from the natural skin color of

the people but from their use of vermillion face and body paint. 11 There is also a theory the

name stems from the earliest battles between the American Indians and European settlers. That

account is embodied in King George IIs proclamation against the Penobscot Indians in 1755.12

King George ordered the scalping of all Indian people in an attempt to eradicate the culture

and through the colonial government, offered lump sum payments for the bloodied scalps which

some believe gave the Redskins its name.13

Whatever the origin, its apparent the name is somehow connected to distinguishing

Indians from the rest of society. It seems to, like the term ni**er have been misused for the

purpose of identifying a culture based on an immutable characteristic. In both instances, this

immutable characteristic has long suffered abusive, discriminatory treatment in American

society.

The name has long been scrutinized as having an overtly racist connotation evidenced by

the Supreme Court trademark battle where Native Americans are attempting to strip owner Dan

Snyder of the rights to the name Redskins14 The plaintiffs there argue the term is a racial slur

and the NFL is endorsing this by allowing Snyder and the franchise to continue its use. The

Supreme Court will find itself in a quagmire should the term be deemed racially offensive in the

case. There is a constitutional implication in this matter because in granting trademark

protection to the team, the government is essentially acting in a manner that possibly violates the

14th amendment. In Shelley v. Kraemer, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts could not

enforce racial covenants on real estate.15 In that case, the plaintiff homeowners association sued

a black couple who purchased a house in St. Louis, Missouri.16 The residents of the street had all

agreed to attach a covenant to their respective lands prohibiting the sale or transfer of property to

2


3/24

African-American families.17 The issue in the case wasnt the covenant itself. Private

individuals have a right to be as restrictive as they please, particularly as it pertains to their

private property. The issue turned on the plaintiffs using the court system to enforce the

covenant which effectively meant the court was complicit in this discriminatory practice,

something the fourteenth amendment expressly forbids. In this case, it may soon be determined

by the U.S. Supreme Court that the trademark protection afforded this private corporation, the

Redskins, equates to a condoning of overt racial discrimination by the government. The

Redskins would in essence have used the government to protect a racially damning moniker to

the injury of Native Americans in this country. While most NFL teams are privately owned,

their integration with government is unmistakable and hard to overlook. After all, the four major

sports estimate that state and local governments subsidized roughly $12 billion in public funding

for new stadiums between 1990 -2006.18 This implicates the entanglement exception of the

constitution whereas a private corporation can be treated as violating the equal rights clause of

the 14th amendment when the business of the corporation is so entangled with the government

actor that any actions conducted on behalf of the corporation could potentially implicate the

government partner. InBurton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, the Supreme Court held the

Wilmington, Delaware Parking Authority violated a patrons 14th Amendment rights when it

leased space in its building to a private coffee shop that refused the patron service because he

was an African American.19 In finding the Parking Authority liable, the court held private

conduct does not abridge an individuals rights unless to some significant extent the state in any

of its manifestations has been found to have become involved in it.20 Furthermore the

Redskins are a member of the National Football League, which is afforded Non-Profit

protection as a 501(c)(6) where U.S. citizens compensate for the tax breaks given to these multi-

3


4/24

million dollar teams organized under the NFL.21 Its plausible that such potential implications go

beyond the owner of the Redskins in that it potentially implicates the National Football League

and the government as well. These implications certainly play a role in giving rise to the issue

before us, though the Redskins are hardly the only team professional or amateur where such

logos could meet their demise.

In 1994, after carrying the team name Redmen for 70 years, St. Johns University

changed its name to the Red Storm after a number of schools were pressured to adopt names

that were more sensitive to the Native Americans.22 St. Johns is a private institution and uses

little to no state funding so there was not likely to be a state actor issue from a 14

th

amendment

perspective. It is possible St. Johns felt that if it continued to brand itself with a racially

insensitive logo, it would make the university a less desirable institution for students.

Ultimately, St. Johns made a public relations decision.

So why the Redskins? Why not the other popular NFL team using a name associated

with Native Americans? The Kansas City Chiefs logo clearly depicts Native Americans, as

does Major League Baseballs Cleveland Indians. Are these harmful forms of ethnic

stereotyping? The Chiefs logo is the tip of an arrow with the letters KC painted therein23 and

its mascot a teddy bear wearing a KC jersey.24 The issue is not so much the naming of these

teams but the context in which the Native American culture is depicted in many of these logos.

The fear is that the identities of these teams were not adopted on account of authentic Native

American sources but rather as Native Americans were envisioned by the European-American

culture25. For years, the National Congress of American Indians has campaigned to dissuade

teams and athletic programs from negatively stereotyping Native Americans.26 Opponents of

Native American team names base a large portion of the argument on negative stereotyping,

4


5/24

unlike say, Notre Dame whose moniker the Fighting Irish has long been associated with a

positive cultural imagery.27 Even the NAACP has passed resolution which calls for the end of

the use of Native American names, images and mascots.28 Of course, proponents of the mascots

and images will tell you there is an inherent positivity in the naming because it pays homage to

the Native American struggle and preserves the memory of an enduring battle to remain a

recognized, integral part of modern American society. Karl Swanson, VP of the Washington

Redskins (1999 2010) was quoted as saying that the name symbolizes courage, dignity and

leadership. Furthermore, the Redskins, symbolize the greatness and strength of a grand

people.

29

If thats the case, maybe we should have the Fairfield F@gs, or the Nashville

Ni**ers. That would certainly pay homage to the civil rights struggles endured by both of

those cultures would it not? By Mr. Swansons account, using a historically racial slur to brand

a sports team, we would be reminding fans all over the world that this group of people had a

troubled existence and that they overcame. This is the least convincing proponent argument.

The most notable context in which we understand the history of Native Americans is one that

includes near eradication, bloodshed, gentrification and boarding schools of the late 19 th and

20th centuries which were erected for the sole purpose of separating young Native Americans

from their families in order to educate them as Euro-Americans.30 Steven Denson a member of

the Chickasaw nation and Director of Diversity for SMU rationalized both sides of the argument,

stating, I believe its acceptable if used in a way that fosters understanding and increased

positive awareness of the Native American culture. And it must also be done with the support of

the Native American community. There is a way to achieve a partnership that works together to

achieve mutually beneficial goals.31 Some teams have even received support from Native

American tribes where those names referred to specific Native nations and do so with respect for

5


6/24

the individual tribal heritage.32 Two examples of such would be the University of Utah which

uses Utes as its team name and Central Michigan University, which uses the name

Chippewas. Originally, the name Chippewas had been placed on the hostile or abusive list

by the NCAA but the Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Nation gave the school its approval and the

school has represented the name ever since.33 However, the University of North Dakotas former

mascot, an Indian figure was dropped when the NCAA determined that the Fighting Sioux

represented an offensive message.34 North Dakota sued in 2009 to have the name retained.35

Other Universities, like the University of Illinois Fighting Illini have been allowed to retain the

name because in this instance, the name Illini was deemed to have been so closely related to

the state name that it did not meet the standard of offensive or disparaging. 36 Even there, the

original mascot, Chief Illiniwek was retired in 2007.37 Some schools like Weequahic High

School of Newark, NJ pay homage to tribes in the name itself. In other words, the depiction is

not in the mascot. The school is named after a Lenape tribal camp in the city and is Lenape for

head of the cove.38 Though, if youve ever been inside Weequahic High School, you would be

hard pressed to cross paths with anyone of Native American descent. The school is

predominantly African American.

Recently, the Oregon Board of Education voted 5-1 to prohibit any state high school from

having any Native American mascots as their team logo.39 From a constitutional perspective, the

state mandated the change on condition that failure to do so would result in a loss of state

funding.40 Critics of the ban cited financial burdens as a concern for municipalities being forced

to rip up gym floors and replace them with new logos. To counter this, many schools have

sought out the support of local tribes and negotiated methods of cost saving alternatives such as

painting over Indian figures and keeping the feathers or modifying other less desirable

6


7/24

depictions. Again, those in favor of the ban cite racism and insensitivity toward the Native

American heritage stating that it reinforces stereotypes and promotes bullying of Native

American students.41 Since 1970, more than 600 high school and college teams in America

have dropped the Native American mascots, and Oregon accounted for 20 of them.42 The

Washington State Board of Education has also taken corrective measures. In 2012, the state

passed a resolution asking all schools in the state to drop Native American mascots as their

respective team names.43 Unlike Oregons financial implications, Washington has not

implemented such conditions on their ban and a number of schools have refused to remove the

logos, including schools that are primarily Native American.

44

Research again cited race

relations and its negative impact on Native Americans as reasons for the change.45

Then there is the Florida State University controversy. The Seminole tribe of Florida has

sanctioned the use of the Seminole and it has been the logo of the University since 1947.46

Despite this, many outside of the state have objected to the sanction. Citing activists Michael

Haney and David Narcomey, general council members of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, the

NCAA was allowing this minstrel show to carry on this form of racism.47 In response, the

NCAA placed Florida States Seminole on its hostile or abusive list of mascots disparaging to

Native Americans.48 Florida State appealed the ruling and residents of Tallahassee argued that

the Seminole is a tradition.49 Anyone familiar with the Florida State Seminoles football team

can identify its mascot,Chief Osceola.50 Each year, a student is face-painted, decked out in

Native American garbs and prior to each home game, trots out on to the field riding a stag named

Renegade branded in FSU apparel. The Seminole rounds the field with a flaming spear in

hand and stops at mid-field before sticking the spear in the large feathered logo at the 50 yard

line. This ritual is one of college sports most celebrated and appears as such even to local Native

7


8/24

Americans. One guess would be that Florida State demonstrates one of the few instances where

the mascot is paying homage to the tribe represented. The history of Tallahassee, Florida

suggests that the land was once inhabited by the Seminole tribe and perhaps it continues as such

today. After all, the Seminole Tribe of Tallahassee inhabited the region as early as 1750.51 A

better argument sways in favor of the name itself. Calling Florida State the Seminoles is no

different than calling New England the Patriots. After all, the Patriots were people who

rebelled against King George during the colonial times. Its a fitting moniker because it

identifies with a deeply rooted history that dates back to the Revolutionary war. This strengthens

the Florida State argument. The mascot is not a depiction as much as it is a factual

representation of the regions history. Many times during the course of an FSU home game, the

marching band will lead the stadium of 82,000 in a war chant where the fans chop in unison

while yelling out the battle cry.52

In May 2013, the Oneida Indians paid an upstate New York school district $10,000 to

retire the Redskins mascot after students requested the name change.53 Cooperstown Central

School District changed the name from the Redskins to the Hawkeyes after the Board of

Education voted in April to forgo any further use of the mascot.54

Recently though, two Republican lawmakers drafted legislation to make the Michigan

Department of Civil Rights pay any schools that are forced to drop American Indian mascots and

nicknames.55 Although 35 schools in Michigan stood to be affected by the change, the article

suggests its likely the complaint, if successful, would have a much greater impact nationwide.56

The bill seeks payments from the Civil Rights Commission to cover the costs associated with

changing the mascot names and rebranding school imagery.57

8


9/24

In 1992, the Redskins found itself at the center of the first major litigation concerning

the teams trademark. InPro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, seven Native Americans petitioned the

Trademark Trial and Appeal board to cancel six trademark registrations used by the Washington

team.58 There, the Board granted the petition but it was appealed and reversed in 2003 on

grounds the evidence submitted by the Native American petitioners was not substantial enough

to support the claim and the suit was barred by laches.59 In other words, the court believed the

Native American petitioners didnt demonstrate to the courts liking that the term was racially

offensive and the statute of limitations had run on the claim. Punting on the issue of whether or

not the trademark is appropriate and whether barred by laches, the District Court for the District

of Columbia affirmed the Circuit Courts finding but did so as to the claims of one individual

petitioner on account the seven year and nine month delay between his reaching the age of

majority and filing his claim rendered the claim stale.60 In 2009, after subsequent appeal, the

Supreme Court again punted on the issue, rendering no opinion on the issues before them,

essentially bringing the case to an end.61 In fact, the opinion as written specifically reads, the

court reiterates that this opinion should not be read as making any statement on the

appropriateness of Native American imagery for team names.62 In its opinion, the court

supported its conclusion by citing possible financial ramifications stating, common sense

dictated that the owner (Redskins) would suffer some economic hardship if its trademark

registrations were cancelled.63

As to the courts issue with the offensive nature of the term, the timeline of efforts to

elicit awareness and affect change dates back as far as 1968, and likely before. An article

published by theNative Village chronicles the plethora of teams, schools and organizations that

9


10/24

have either been forced to change the names or have voluntarily done so. Examples of such

instances are:

1968 National Congress of American Indians first launches campaign targeting Native

American stereotypes.64

1969 Dartmouth College changes name from Indians to Big Green.65

1970 University of Oklahoma withdraws Little Red as a mascot.66

1971 Marquette University changes its mascot from Warriors to Golden Eagles.67

1972 Stanford University drops the name Indians and Dickinson State changes from

Savages to Blue Hawks.68

1979 Syracuse retires Saltine Warrior mascot and St. Bonaventure retires Brown

Indians.69

1980 Southern Oregon rids itself of all imagery and mascots bearing the name Red

Raiders.70

1988 Public schools in Wisconsin 1/3 in all begin changing and dropping logos and

mascots bearing Native American names.71

1991 Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs requests 27 public schools to terminate use

of Indian names and mascots.72

1992 Simpson College drops Redmen and Lady Reds to Storm.73

1993 Arvada High School (Col.) drops Redskins team name.74

1994 Park High School in Cottage Grove, Minnesota receives $10,000 from the Prairie

Island Mdewakanton Sioux Community for retiring its Indian mascot.75

1996 University of Tennessee at Chattanooga changes its team name from Moccasins

to Mocs and discontinues use of its Chief Moccanooga mascot. Miami University of

10


11/24

Ohio drops the Redskins nickname. The Toronto Blue Jays minor league affiliate

changes its name from Chiefs to Sky chiefs. Newtown High School, Connecticut

changes the name Indians to Nighthawks. Freemont High School in Sunnyvale,

California changes from Indians to Firebirds.76

1997 the Canton-Akron Indians, a minor league team changes to the Akron Aeros

and see an increase in sales of merchandise from $60,000 to $1.2 million.77

1998 Southern Nazarene University changes its name from Redskins to Crimson

Storm. Oregons Chemeketa Community College changes its name from Chiefs to

Storm. NCAA Minority Opportunities and Interest Committee deem Indian mascots

that promote Indian caricatures and mimic ceremonial rites do not comply with the

NCAAs commitment to ethnic student welfare.78

1999 Erwin High School in Asheville, NC was investigated by the United States

Department of Justice because of its Indian mascot.79 A three-judge panel of the U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office finds that the term Redskins is a term disparaging to

Native Americans and tends to bring them into contempt or disrepute.80 Though this

decision found the Redskins to be offensive to Native Americans, the Washington team

has yet to be forced to resign the name.

2000 The Canajoharie school district in New York retires the nickname Redskins.81

The District 87 school board votes to retire Bloomington (Illinois) High Schools

American Indian mascot, citing race and origin discrimination.82

2002 The Iowa Civil Rights Commission passes a resolution opposing the use of Native

American images, mascots and team names in Iowa.83

11


12/24

2003 The Chicago Cubs minor league affiliate, the Peoria Chiefs changes its logo from

an American Indian to a Dalmatian fire chief.84

These instances indicate a long history of attempts to dissuade the use of any abusive or

hostile imagery of the Native American culture and more important, it clearly affirms suspicion

that the term Redskins is a racially offensive slur used to identify Indian Americans based on

an immutable characteristic. From a reasonable persons perspective, the term is no different

than uttering the more traditional discriminatory terms. This reasonable standard was first

demonstrated inMcBride v. Motor Vehicle Div., where the Supreme Court of Utah decided that

when determining if the term Redskins was offensive or derogatory, the appropriate objective

was a reasonable person standard.85 In that case, petitioners sought review of the Utah State

Tax Commission denying their request to revoke license plates bearing the name Redskins or

some fashion thereof.86 The Native American petitioners appealed the denial up to the Supreme

Court on account that the term Redskins bore offensive and racial connotation and that a

reasonable standard should apply to the Commissions determination.87 The court found that the

statute implicated should prohibit the Commission from issuing a license plate if a reasonable

person could conclude that the term carries a prohibited connotation.88 The court remanded the

case back to the Commission for further proceeding, requiring the Commission to apply this

lesser standard for offensiveness and racial connotation.89

If thats the case, then the inquiry becomes twofold. First, do Native Americans find the

term racially insensitive or offensive? If the answer is yes, the second inquiry becomes whether

or not a reasonable, non-Native American would be offended if a team were permitted to avail

itself to negative, racially charged depictions of their culture? The court inMcBride touched on

an important issue focusing on why a general public standard was inappropriate. The court

12


13/24

stated it would not be reasonable to rely upon the general publics perception of a certain term

because the general public may be wholly ignorant of a terms connotation.90 What the court

meant was having such a broad standard for determining the offensive nature of the term

increased the chances that those not affected by the connotation would demonstrate ignorance

toward its offensive nature. By shrinking the surveyed population to those who reasonably

understand the Native American assertion, there is a greater likelihood that those surveyed would

reasonably conclude that its inappropriate to allow factions or agencies to use its likeness with

such disregard for the injurious results.

With the evidence heavily in favor Redskins being deemed racially offensive, whats

next? What restitution would be most sufficient to satisfy Native Americans? NFL historian

Matthew Femenella said in an interview, I understand the tradition and pride the Redskins

name carries with the fan base in Washington D.C. Its tough sometimes to separate whats right

and wrong when you are a die-hard fan. Your views are clouded. But in the long run, its only a

game. You have to separate society from competition. There is a term the game will go on.

The game will not go on if this derogatory name is allowed to continue to represent the most

popular game in America.91 Christopher Mad Dog Russo stated on his radio showMad Dog

Unleashedthat it would be hypocritical for most people to make the argument in favor of

barring the use of such terms because they sit and watch the Redskins play,92 despite their

disapproval. He ranted that those who take offense to the naming should not watch either the

Redskins or any other NFL games for that matter because the NFL is essentially complicit. He

furthered that most people who would find it offensive are not fully vested in the interest because

by watching NFL games, they were supporting the wrongdoing.

13


14/24

Contrary to Mr. Russos belief, the issue before us must be considered with as much

scrutiny as was the African-American cause in 1964. By all accounts, Native Americans are as

much a part of history in this country as the founding fathers themselves. In fact, history

confirms that Native Americans are the first to call this country home. Yet, in furtherance of

Americas continued ignorance toward causes that are incidental to their own, this great nation

has once again demonstrated that it is still plagued by the reckless disregard for the democratic

process that purports to ensure all men are created equal. The implausible fear is in the system

failing to remedy this injustice. If the Redskins should succeed in defending its naming rights,

the court will in essence have made it clear that it does not recognize the harmful, offensive

connotation of the term much to the dismay of an entire demographic who believes otherwise. It

would be no different than had the court allowed a team to brand the term ni**er because the

court couldnt find the insulting, racially offensive nature in the language. Ignorance is bliss, but

its also a cover-up for injustice. This level of ignorance deserves justice for reasons beyond

mere reparations. It demands this country acknowledge that it still has yet to rid itself of

oppressive, discriminatory attitudes that sheds light on the black eye this country has continued

to suffer through generations of oppression and inequality. Sure, there is a perfectly reasonable

argument that the country as a whole doesnt believe the Redskins is a racist moniker. But

what even reasonable minds might fail to consider is that judging the issue so broadly is so

unconscionable because it begets blindness toward those who have genuinely considered the

issue and can sympathize with the civil rights movement. More important, it begets

abandonment of Native American concerns because essentially their concerns for their culture

will have been overlooked and cast aside.

14


15/24

One of the lone remaining hurdles in this country is its inability to progress on certain

fronts. It took 90 years from the first Civil Rights legislation to the second. Weve never fully

embraced gays and lesbian causes. Native Americans have been here the longest, were nearly

eradicated, had their land taken from them and are among the last to have their cause recognized

and upheld in the court of law. The census bureau figures there are about 2.4 million pure Native

Americans living in the U.S.93 As generations pass, there has been some progress toward total

equality and perhaps this is an action thats necessary to right many wrongs of the past and

demonstrate this countrys commitment to honoring equality amongst all men. The cost is no

greater than a signature on a document or the drop of a gavel.

On a sports front, its hard not to agree with Christopher Russo. It is quite hypocritical to

agree with the Native American argument yet still sit in front of a TV on Sundays and watch the

NFL. In particular, its hypocritical to support the Redskins. There is a slim chance of getting

the average Redskins fan to agree to a name change but its also not in the best interest of

Native Americans or the country to make the argument from the perspective of a fan. The

argument is best presented from the perspective of a non-Native American member of the

general public whom after researching the history of the term and its racial connotations

determines its racially offensive. At that point, will they decide the term should be removed?

As mentioned previously, ask that person if their culture were depicted so negatively if they

would approve.

Sports have their place in our society. Some view them as killing time, others as a way to

embrace a social society with a common cause, fanatics of a team. Whatever the case, sports are

just a game and have to abide by the rules of ethics outside of those governing play on the field.

There is only so much protection these teams can be afforded before the line is crossed and

15


16/24

morality begins to suffer a lack of regard. All too often however, we have seen time and again

major athletes and teams allowed to live above the law where all indications are they should be

prohibited from doing so. In 1994 the country found itself racially divided when OJ Simpson

was acquitted for double murder when the evidence overwhelmed any arguments in favor of

acquittal. But OJs fame and fortune usurped the justice system and his athletic prowess and

charm created a love affair with popular culture. Was it worth the toll it took on society? Did it

matter that barricades had to be erected to separate blacks and whites as the verdict was read?

Some viewed the verdict as a win for civil rights. That because a black man was acquitted for

killing two whites, times have changed and equality prevailed. Others feverishly argued it a

travesty of justice.94

For years, many of College Footballs most elite programs denied minorities a roster spot

on their teams. In 2008, HBO did a documentary Breaking the Huddle: The Integration of

College Football.95 With the storied history of College Football spanning back as far as the late

1800s, it took the University of Alabama until the 1970s to integrate its all white football

team.96 The key part of that article is that Alabama didnt integrate because it was the right thing

to do; they did it for competitive purposes.97 In other words, even though the Civil Rights act

had passed and Alabama is a state school which would have required it to refrain from such

discrimination, the school integrated because black players were superior athletically and would

help the Crimson Tide remain competitive with other schools. In fact the team was just coming

off a blowout Bowl loss against the University of Southern California which featured African

American running back Sam Cunningham in 1970, forcing legendary Coach Paul Bear Bryant

to decide that he couldnt compete without African-American players.98

16


17/24

At Clemson University, a public institution, there was a time when minorities werent

allowed into the stadium to cheer for the team. Even if they were students, they were forced to

sit outside the stadium on a dirt hill named ni**er hill.99 Again, a state run institution in the

post-civil rights era turned a cheek to blatant discriminatory practices on its campus. According

to Chris Russo however, its hypocritical for the African-Americans sitting on that hill to

attend the games and then complain that it is violative of civil rights.

Keeping with that argument, sometimes hypocrisy isnt a choice, subliminal or otherwise.

Its like complaining of a dorm party on your entire floor but being called a hypocrite because

you were there. All the while your only involvement was being a resident of the hall. We are

surrounded by sports and the cultures they breed but many are involuntarily thrust onto the

scene. Many super bowl parties are attended by folks who have not seen a game all season, if

ever. Does that make them hypocrites? Should they stay home while their significant other

mingles with friends in the name of good times? Hypocrisy is a means to an end for those

opposed to the name change but their argument ends there. The true test as it has been laid out

doesnt include asking fans to give up their choice of team or the NFL entirely. Its merely

asking fans that have a reasonable perspective on societal ethics and moral fabric to put

themselves in the shoes the Native Americans scorned by this racial face slap on behalf of the

Redskins. People often have strong feelings about a controversial issue but wont express their

disapproval. Some out of fear, others dont care, and some who dont think or believe there is a

remedy available. The real hypocrisy here is a congress that up to this point has done nothing to

address the problem all the while sitting in luxury boxes during games chumming up owners for

support and contribution. Few will expect a D.C. legislator to be the first to speak out on the

matter for fear he may lose a very wealthy supporter in the process. Thats hypocrisy.

17


18/24

Whatever decision is reached by the Supreme Court, one final underlying issue persists.

Will Dan Snyder ever demonstrate any level of morality and do what is simply the right thing to

do? Will he own up to the fact that there is an entire demographic, a percentage of the United

States population that is suffering blatant racial discrimination on account of his team moniker?

Secondary to that, are we as a society willing to allow this level of discrimination to go on

unfettered and undeterred because once again the Lochner Era rears its ugly face and big

corporation and big money carry favor with those charged with ensuring socio-economic

balance? One cant imagine that in these modern times such buffoonery can go on unchecked

but there are certainly those out there who doubt the powers that be will budge on the issue.

Maybe the constitutional argument will force the hand of the Supreme Court. One thing that is

certain is once the constitution is implicated in the matter, both Republicans and Democrats will

part the seas to rectify any possible usurpation of our countrys most cherished document. As

mentioned prior, the best and most likely argument surrounds the idea that the federal

government is allowing this practice to continue in violation of the equal rights protection

afforded all citizens of this country. In its simplest form, the Redskins have long had the

pleasure of using the Native American likeness to the detriment and dismay of a culture with

roots in this country as far back as the country itself. The reality is the franchise has been

allowed to racially discriminate under the protection of both the NFL and the courts without

repercussion since 1933. A harsher reality is the fact that this issue must be decided in the court

of law, assuming of course that Snyder remains steadfast in his position. To ask the courts to

determine whether or not a team may continue to brand itself in utter prejudice slaps in the face

all of the Civil Rights leaders and legislation that have endured over time. It sets this country

back over 135 years where courts routinely ruled in favor of discriminatory practice and against

18


19/24

those aggrieved by such actions to their detriment. A little historical role reversal and the

Carolina Crackers would be the topic of conversation. All bets are that the mascot would be

equally protested by members of the Caucasian race and by all others who believe ardently in

equal rights.

Native Americans across the country can rest assure there are members of other races

who sympathize with them. African Americans come to mind as they have suffered generations

of discrimination, bigotry and prejudice. To suspect that the United States would face this

dilemma this day in age is not implausible. At this very moment, gays and lesbians across the

country are awaiting their fate as to whether or not their place in society has been cemented to

the extent that we will afford them the very same benefits and protections afforded all other

individuals. While their particular issue is slightly different, the premise remains consistent.

They are being discriminated against because of who they are. To say that the Redskins

mascot is NOT offensive to Native Americans would be no different than saying gays and

lesbians are not a culture, much like saying blacks dont suffer discrimination. Its again

ignorant in the face of reality and a denial of what is right, out of convenience to the interests of

the mighty and powerful.

Maybe this topic simply needs brighter light shed on it. On Tuesday, May 28, 2013,

ESPN reported that 10 Congressmen sent letters to owner Dan Snyder and NFL Commissioner

Roger Gooddell requesting the team change the name because "Native Americans throughout the

country consider the 'R-word' a racial, derogatory slur akin to the 'N-word' among African

Americans or the 'W-word' among Latinos."100 Snyder has been stern and defiant in the face of

the controversy, stating that he would never change the name.101 Its one thing for Snyder to

decide on his own merit not to change the team name. It will be completely different should he

19


20/24

be compelled to do so. Urging by congress and the courts would finally demonstrate to the

everyday citizen of this country that even the egos of the wealthy must be checked at the

courthouse gates when the constitutional rights of others are being violated. Its even more

urgent when the perpetrator is the government itself.

Finally, at some point in the history of this great nation, these will be the stories told to

grandchildren and great grandchildren of all cultures. The best stories ever told will be those that

end with the powers that be righting the ship. They will have the desired effect of informing

generations of future Americans that this country took corrective measures to ensure that future

generations were not exposed to the hardships endured by those before them. Theyll be able to

live the reality that the deprivation of rights without due process of law in this country is an evil

forever dissolved in the perseverance of the many that have fought and died so that our

constitution can and will always uphold the rights bestowed upon its citizens.

Ryan M. James

20


21/24

Endnotes

21


22/24

1 "NFL Team Valuations". Forbes. September 2, 20092 1937, 1942, XVII, XXII, and XXVI.

3 washingtonRedskins.com4Washington Redskins History: 1930 Washington Redskins5 Newgent, Mark, George Preston Marshall: entrepreneur, racist, examiner.com, (June 4, 2009).6Id.7 Id.8 Mears, Bill, Court rejects appeal over Redskins trademark, CNN.com, (Nov. 2009)9 Povich, Shirley, Third Stadium a Real Charm,Washington Post, (Sep. 13, 1997).10 Clarke, David The Beothuk Indians Newfoundlands Red Ochre People (Sep 17, 2008).11 http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/Redskins12 Phips Proclamation 1755. Abbe Museum13 Jawort, Adrian, Redskins Not So Black and White. Indian Country Today, (November 13,2012).14Blackhorse et al v. Pro-Football Inc.15Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1948)16Id

17id18 Holland, Jesse, Advocates question public funding for professional sports stadiums, USA Today(Oct. 10, 2007)19 Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1961)20Id.21 Weinreich, Mark, NFL targeted by Oklahoma senator for not-for-profit tax status, SI.Com (Oct.18, 2012).22 Call St. Johns The Red Storm, The New York Times (June 9, 1994),

23

2425 Spindel, Carol, Dancing at Halftime: Sports and the Controversy Over American Indian Mascots.New York: New York University Press (2002)26 Hylton, J Gordon, BEFORE THE REDSKINS WERE THE REDSKINS: THE USE OF NATIVE AMERICANTEAM NAMES IN THE FORMATIVE ERA OF AMERICAN SPORTS, 1857-1933 North Dakota LawReview, (01/01/2010).27Notre Dame Fighting Irish - Traditions: The Leprechaun, University of Notre Dame Athletics

28 NAACP 1999 Resolution.29 Emert, Phyllis Raybin (2003). "Native American Mascots: Racial Slur or Cherished Tradition?"Respect(newsletter), New Jersey State Bar Foundation, 2:2 (Winter 2003).30 Resolution Recommending the Immediate Retirement of American Indian Mascots, Symbols,Images, and Personalities by Schools, Colleges, Universities, Athletic Teams, and Organizations
http://www.njsbf.org/images/content/1/1/11134/Respect%20Winter%202003.pdfhttp://www.njsbf.org/images/content/1/1/11134/Respect%20Winter%202003.pdf


23/24

American Psychological Association, 200531 Native-American Nicknames/Mascots, Red Orbit, (June 2, 2005).32http://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/community-and-culture/anti-defamation-mascots

33 http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=214990734 Davey, Monica In Twist, Tribe Fights for College Nickname. The New York Times (Dec 9, 2009)35Id.36 Statement by NCAA Senior Vice-President37 Mallozzi, Vincent, Mascots in Court, Not on the Court,The New York Times, (Mar. 4, 2007).38 First Settlers of Old Lyons Farms,The Staff of the Hillside National Bank, (Nov. 1, 1961).39Oregon bans Native-American mascots in schools, Associated Press, (May 18, 2012).40Id.41Id.42Id.43 Ellin, Abby, Washington State Wants Schools To Ban Native American Mascots, abcnews.com(Sep. 29,2012).44Id.45Id.46 Wiesberg, Steve, NCAA allowing Florida State to use its Seminole Mascot, USA Today, (Aug. 23,2005).47 Giago, Tim, The Powerful Medicine of Michael Haney, Huffington Post, (Nov. 17, 2011).48 Lederman, Doug, The Mascot Mess, Inside Higher Ed., (Aug. 8, 2005).49http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/1678286.html (Aug. 13, 2005).

5051 http://www.seminolenation-indianterritory.org/tallahassee_band.htm52 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxzvcV3XkfU53 New York high school changes Redskins mascot, Oneida Indians donate $10k, Si.com, (May15, 2013).54Id.55 Higgins, Lori, Bill would make state civil rights department pay for schools forced to drop

American Indian mascot(May 15, 2013)56Id.57Id.58Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 567 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2008)59Id.60Id.61 Mears, Bill, Court rejects appeal over Redskins trademark, Cnn.com (62Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 567 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2008)63Id.64 http://www.nativevillage.org/Messages%20from%20the%20People/timeline%20for%20Indian%20Mascots.htm

65Id.66Id.67Id.68Id.69Id.70Id.71Id.72Id.73Id.74Id.75Id.
http://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/community-and-culture/anti-defamation-mascotshttp://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/1678286.htmlhttp://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/community-and-culture/anti-defamation-mascotshttp://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/1678286.html


24/24

76Id.77Id.78Id.79Id.80Id.81Id.82Id.83Id.84Id.85McBride v. Motor Vehicle Div., 977 P.2d 467 (Utah 1999).86Id.87Id.88Id.89Id.90Id.91 Interview Conducted May 12, 201392Mad Dog Unleashed May 10, 2013, Sirius Satellite Radio93 "The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010". U.S. Census. January, 201294 Haltman, Michael, Athletes, Privileges and the Law, The Political Commentator (Sep. 10, 2008).95 Breaking the Huddle: The Integration of College Football. HBO Films, (2008).96 Smith, Michael David, Breaking the Huddle: HBOs Powerful Look at the Integration of College

Football, (Nov 29, 2008).97Id.98Id.99Id.100 U.S. reps urge end to Redskins,The Associated Press, (May 30, 2013).101 Rosenthal, Gregg Around The League, Redskins name change? Congress urge Dan Snyder

The Moniker of the Washington Redskins and Its Racial Implications

Documents

Transcript of The Moniker of the Washington Redskins and Its Racial Implications