By Terumi Rafferty-Osaki and Rebecca DeWolf, Ph.D.
On September 25, 2014 of the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, beat reporter Jason Jones interviewed fans of the Washington Redskins on one panel and a group of Native American activists on another. During the last few moments, Jones brought both panels together to create more of a dialogue. Long-time fan Maurice Hawkins, however, protested the move; he argued that he would not have worn his Redskins jacket had he known about the upcoming encounter.[1] This segment also came on the heals of the South Park episode, “Go Fund Yourself,” a satire that questioned the use of the Redskins name to promote a new start up company. During the episode, creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone made light of the fact that the US Patent and Trademark Office canceled the Washington Redskins’ trademark registration this past June. These are only a few examples of the firestorm over the decades-long struggle to change the Redskins team name.
In 1932, George Preston Marshall launched his American football team the Boston Braves. The Braves played in the same stadium as the baseball team with the same name. But after one season, the Braves began playing in Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox, and they changed their franchise to the “Redskins.” Four years later, the fledgling organization moved to the nation’s capital, winning their first Eastern Championship in 1937 and with that began the love affair between fans and the organization.
Sports franchises in Washington, DC are a heartbreaking tale of youth and abandonment. There were four Washington Senators baseball teams beginning in 1891. The final two 1901-1960, and 1961-1971 relocated to become the Minnesota Twins and Texas Rangers of Major League Baseball (MLB) respectively. Furthermore, the Washington Bullets of the National Basketball Association (NBA) were a transplant from Chicago and did not arrive until 1973. Finally, the Washington Capitals of the National Hockey League (NHL) started playing in 1974. Throughout this time, DC had the Redskins.
The title of this piece comes from three scholarly works: Alan Taylor’s Divided Ground, Richard White’s Middle Ground, and Kathleen DuVal’s Native Ground. Collectively, these studies examine the interactions between colonists and Native Americans throughout early American history.[2] The history of the term “Redskin” has been covered frequently in the past year on many popular sites. The goal of this piece is to address the divided, middle, and native contours of the current state of affairs through a historical lens.
Divided Ground:
In Divided Ground, Alan Taylor captures the early history of the American frontier by emphasizing not only landownership politics, but also the violent outbreaks that frequently characterized Indian European relations. Throughout his text, Taylor shows how Native Americans were not simply passive recipients of the changes developing around them; on the contrary, Taylor argues that they were active historical players.
Taylor’s theme of Native Americans’ historical agency is also apparent in the controversy over the Redskins name. Beginning in 1972, Suzan Harjo, then executive director of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) started a campaign to change the name of the Washington team. The team’s appearance at the 1988 Super Bowl brought the name-change campaign to the national media’s attention. The media’s attention, however, unleashed a wave of backlash against the campaign. As Richard Leiby of the Washington Post reported in late 1994, “Team owner Jack Kent Cooke vow[ed] never to voluntarily change the name, and seem[ed] quite prepared to go to his grave fighting the case.”[3]
For many, the beloved team represented Washington, DC. Sports legend, Mike Ditka, for instance, declared, “Its [sic] been the name of the team since the beginning of football. It has nothing to do with something that happened lately, or something that somebody dreamed up. This was the name, period. Leave it alone. These people are silly — asinine, actually, in my opinion.”[4] More recently, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, sneered at the possibility of a name change, claiming, “nine of ten Native Americans support the name…[the team’s name] represent[s] a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context…”[5] Proponents of the Redskins name also contend that such a change would lead to a slippery slope that could necessitate the adjustment of other team names, such as the Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves of baseball, the Chicago Blackhawks of hockey, and the Florida State Seminoles of college football.
Even with the critical backlash, the campaign against the Redskins name has endured, as Native American activists continue to protest what they understand to be a disparaging term that perpetuates negative images. Moreover, there is precedent for changing the names of sports franchises. In baseball, for example, the New York Highlands became the Yankees in 1913 and the Houston Colt 45s changed their name to the Astros. Even more recently, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays dropped “devil” from their names due to the criticisms of their Christian fans. The DC region is also home to a franchise that represents an evolved identity. As recently as 1996-1997, for instance, team owner Abe Pollin changed the NBA franchise from the Washington Bullets to the Wizards. As Dan Steinberg of the Washington Post describes this development, Pollin thought that the original name promoted the violent images that were often associated with the DC area in the 1990s.
Middle Ground:
In the path-breaking study, Middle Ground, Richard White looks at how Native Americans and Europeans worked together to construct a complex and dynamic world that was new to everyone. Thus, White’s work moves away from the various studies that have emphasized conquest and invasion to show how a balance of power did exist, albeit temporarily, between Native Americans and European colonists in the Great Lakes region.
Similarly, the Redskins controversy should not be understood simply as constant conflict without any attempts at accommodation. For instance, as Dan Steinberg explains, in 1972, the team president, Edward Bennett Williams, did send then Commissioner Pete Rozelle a letter inquiring about a name change, or at the very least a sit down meeting between Native American activists and the owners of the NFL. Nevertheless, Rozelle ultimately dismissed the issue; apparently, he was wary of fighting another battle with racial undertones after he had previously led the effort to end the segregation of the Redskins team in the early 1960s.[6] Even though there was a brief attempt at accommodation, the NFL’s official position has continued to adhere to the notion that the Redskins name does not constitute “a racial slur.”
Native Ground:
Kathleen DuVal offers a strikingly different picture from White’s study of Indian European relations. Her work is aptly titled Native Ground, because Native Americans dominate the historical landscape of her text (the Arkansas River Valley from the mid-sixteenth century to the early nineteenth century). As DuVal demonstrates, the Quapaws and Osages peoples shaped the region’s economics and politics far more than the Spanish, French, British, and, at least initially, the American settlers. Overall, she lays out a colonial story in which colonizers have a presence, but they were not the primary historical agents.
Calling to mind DuVal’s theme of native peoples maintaining their own sovereign identities and authority, the NCAI has carried out a fifty-year fight that is dedicated to eliminating conventional imagery that unfairly typecasts Native Americans. As the NCAI puts it, “ From time immemorial, the greatness of tribal nations and Native people has been the foundation of America’s story. From the tribes’ role as America’s first governments, to modern day actors, athletes, and politics leaders, Native people contribute to American greatness every single day.”[7] Yet, as the NCAI also argues, negative stereotypes, especially those perpetuated by sports names and mascots, ignore the reality that Native Americans have contributed to American society in the past and the present. In sum, the NCAI contends that through a process of degrading, mocking, and belittling, these popular, but harmful, stereotypes have not only concealed and misrepresented the diverse and consequential histories of Native Americans, but they have also led to a desensitization that fosters perpetual discrimination against tribal citizens.
While the NCAI continues its struggle against the Redskins name, the organization’s fifty-year campaign has succeeded in reducing over two-thirds of sports mascots and logos that degrade Native American peoples. As the NCAI reports, “Today, there are fewer than 1,000 of these mascots left.” Due to the NCAI’s efforts, the National Collegiate Athletic Association formally condemned the use of disparaging mascots and banned the use of Indian names and logos during its championship tournaments in 2005.[8]
So, what should we make of all this? Certainly, the sense of attachment to a communal identity is a powerful force. And, we should recognize that this feeling of belonging is often strongly felt by people who share a common interest in leisure and recreational activities; moreover, their sense of connection can be just as potent as those who feel it through a shared sense of national identity. But, does this sense of attachment truly justify the continual use of a prominent team name that not only distorts the complexities of history, but also leads to ongoing discrimination?
[1] Ian Shapira, “‘Daily Show’ airs segment pitting Redskins fans against Native Americans,” The Washington Post, September 26, 2014. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/daily-show-airs-segment-pitting-redskins-fans-against-native-americans/2014/09/25/f5d082da-44e3-11e4-b437-1a7368204804_story.html
[2] Alan Taylor: The Divided Ground: Indians, Settlers, and the Northern Borderland of the American Revolution (Random House, 2006); Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (Cambridge University Press, 1991); Kathleen DuVal, The Native Ground: Indians and Colonists in the Heart of the Continent (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007).
[3] Hunter Walker, “ Meet The Native American Grandmother Who Just Beat The Washington Redskins,” Business Insider, June 18, 2014. See: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-native-american-grandmother-who-just-beat-the-redskins-2014-6; Hunter Walker, “How Suzan Harjo Helped Defeat the Offensive Washington Football Mascot,” Slate, June 29, 1994. See: http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2014/06/20/native_american_activist_suzan_harjo_was_a_driving_force_behind_the_u_s.html; and Cabell Sinclair, “Trademark Board calls “foul” on Redskins,” Campbell Law Observer, July 8, 2014. See: http://campbelllawobserver.com/2014/07/1350/. Richard Leiby, “Bury My Heart At RFK,” Washington Post, November 5, 1994. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/2013/11/06/2eb626ee-4720-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html
[4] Scott Allen, “Mike Ditka says Redskins name debate is ‘so stupid it’s appalling’,“ The Washington Post,August 19, 2014. See:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/08/19/mike-ditka-says-redskins-name-debate-is-so-stupid-its-appalling/.
[5] Chris Burke, “Roger Goodell says ‘Nine of 10 Native Americans support the Redskins’ name’,” Sports Illustrated, January 31, 2014. See: http://www.si.com/nfl/audibles/2014/01/31/roger-goodell-washington-redskins-name
[6] Dan Steinberg, “Edward Bennett Williams’s 1972 letter to Pete Rozelle about the Redskins name,” Washington Post, June 18, 2014. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/06/18/edward-bennett-williamss-1972-letter-to-pete-rozelle-about-the-redskins-name/
[7] National Congress of American Indians, “Anti Defamation and Mascots,” see: http://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/community-and-culture/anti-defamation-mascots.
[8] Ibid.