Adopting Native American Names - Abandoning Redskins - Research Paper Example

Adopting Native American Names - Abandoning ‘Redskins’ Introduction Adopting Native American names and symbols for the mascots, names, and insignias of sports teams has been a common tradition in both amateur and professional sports in the United States over the years. While amateur teams do not normally hold trade marks on such symbols and names, almost all professional teams have legalized them as trademarks. Controversial cases of adoptions of Native American symbols and names for the emblems, mascots, and names of sports’ teams are the ‘Chief Wahoo’ mascot, supporters’ ceremony named the ‘Tomahawk Chop’, the professional basketball team Atlanta ‘Braves’, and possibly the most notorious of all, the name of professional football team—Washington ‘Redskins’ (Yiannakis & Melnick 204).Native Americans and other groups have been demanding to eradicate this tradition as they regard it to be disrespectful, insulting, and racially prejudiced. This paper argues that racial stereotyping as such, whether ‘good’ or ‘bad’, is damaging, and condemns the notion that such team names like ‘Redskins’ value Native Americans. Therefore, this paper argues that the Washington, D.C. professional football team should change its name/mascot in response to recent criticism. Colman McCarthy of the Washington Post argues that “’Redskins’ is a slur name that smells with the stench of racism” (Yiannakis & Melnick 204). Almost all of the new supporters of the team are not aware of the historical framework of the team’s racial prejudice. The ‘Redskins’, not once acclaimed for broad-minded race dealings, were the last team in the National Football League to accept African American athletes and were only forced to do so by the 1957 Stadium Act (Stapleton 15). What’s in a Name? The way racial minority groups call themselves—for instance, ‘Native American’, ‘black’, or ‘Negro’—is very important for those belonging to these groups. The way other people see them not merely works as a proof of the nature of intergroup relationships or affairs, but can actually be a critical, momentous issue. Racial insults, whether caused by deep-seated hatreds or of thoughtless stereotypes, breed hard feelings or enmity and usually deteriorate into violence or aggression (Stapleton 38). In an effort to show higher cultural respect, several academes, such as Stanford, Miami of Ohio, and Eastern Michigan, have given up their old Native American-based team labels. In numerous cases, opponents have criticized these movements as confirmation that political correctness is going berserk on universities (King 29). Yet, professional leagues currently struggle to shun any indications of racial discrimination within their dominion. In this situation, it is particularly interesting that no professional team has yet abandoned its Native American-based name, the most offensive of which is obviously the ‘Redskins’, a label that the Chicago Tribune criticized as ‘patently offensive’ (Yiannakis & Melnick 204). But the team managers justify this name as “reflecting positive attribute of the American Indian such as dedication, courage and pride” (Yiannakis & Melnick 204). Names and mascots of sports teams have been heavily criticized by Native Americans as they aspire to gain equal standing as a distinguishable ethnic group in America. Only Native Americans confront this issue, and the uniqueness of the problem demands thorough discussions. No sport team has its symbols, mascots, and names used to disgrace or insult another distinguishable ethnic, racial, or religious group. A particular reason could be the traditional practice of racially discriminating indigenous groups (Surhone, Tennoe, & Henssonow 54). This form of racial prejudice is firmly embedded in the American consciousness that makes it extremely difficult to get rid of. Nobody really embraces such beliefs as a conscious portion of their worldview (Surhone et al. 54-56). However, in a spontaneous reaction, this deep-seated racial prejudice emerges rapidly in consciousness and is manifested before the person grasps what s/he has done or said. With persistent determination not to give up sports teams’ symbols and names, many hear the defense that the use of the name is a way of honoring Native Americans. Such awkward justification makes it supporters seem ridiculous. Apparently, if insensitive logos, insulting jingle, humiliating cheers, and loud costumes are the crux of honor, then the different sports hall of fame have to completely redesign the symbols of their honorees (Putnam 106). The defense, being weak, should hide something deeper, which cannot be communicated by those giving Native Americans honor. Native Americans are consistently shown as the ‘other,’ a remnant of the past or a bygone community, which is outside the grasp of the ordinary individual. The idealistic representation of the Native American has limitless capacity for mental distraction, and that hindering a progressive force in American society, Native Americans will constantly confront the form of prejudice embodied by offensive sports teams’ mascots and names, like ‘Redskins’ (Putnam 106-8). The Native American symbolizes a freedom totally in harmony with nature. Such freedom is appropriate and can be understood at times by everybody, but it forms an idea that only Native Americans experience it continuously. Native Americans hence are very different from the rest of the society, and the rift between and everybody else is overwhelming. Similarly crucial, Native Americans symbolize the history of the American society, and Americans and Europeans have been avoiding from their history since the age of expedition and colonialism (Stapleton 83). If entire nations had displaced the Native American nations, a quick population displacement would have taken place, and the common features of a particular nation would have been a sufficient replacement for the history and culture of the former inhabitants. Yet, North America was inhabited by people who were constantly escaping civilization and advancing westward. Despite the splendid patriotic history of the U.S., the truth is that people were isolated and estranged right from the start. The Native Americans therefore are a reminder to them that they are not the true inhabitants of the land but simple settlers (King & Springwood 328). Peckerwoods and rednecks can claim such idea continually, but the experience of being ‘other’ or strangers cannot be removed (King 117). Headway is seen in numerous places in the United States as education institutions reform their names and uses objective, unbiased mascots and symbols. With more and more sports teams abandoning their previous, offensive names, those that refuse are on changing, collapsing position, and as a result, it is now obvious that stubborn racial prejudice is arising—for instance, the owner of the Washington Redskins, who is determined to retain its name (Surhone et al. 74). Nobody understands the American image perceived by the other cultures across the globe—in the country’s very capital the football team owns the most insulting, belittling name and mascot in the world. Some argue that American Indians should not focus on or be bothered with these names and mascots because Native Americans certainly confront more crucial issues, from poverty and infant mortality to substance abuse (King & Springwood 330). Such belief commits a number of major errors. And there are valid reasons why Washington ‘Redskins’ should abandon their name and mascot. Primarily, the abovementioned idea argues that only American Indians would question Indian names and mascots, when the issue is far more complex. Without a doubt, a large number of people dislike mascots or symbols, some strongly enough to rally against them. Basically all American Indian associations with a national electorate have protested to them and many others with regional and local affiliations also protest to them (Stapleton 85). Not merely have a number of Euro-Americans, even though certainly a minority, together with other ‘colored’ people (e.g. African Americans), raised their disapproval of such images and names, but they have also attempted, usually alongside American Indian groups and individuals, to end them (King & Springwood 331). Yet, some Native Americans, perhaps a few, as attested by King and Springwood (2001), approved such names and images. Moreover, such idea is disadvantaged by a core misunderstanding of the essence of representation. Names and mascots are not petty symbols or plain acts. Rather, representation is a dynamic, involved process wherein people both create and interpret messages (King & Springwood 331). Therefore, it has actual, important consequences. It is an active connection. It influences the way in which people interpret and relate to others and themselves. In addition, because names and images often have been linked to schools, colleges, and universities, they have substantial impact on how American Indians and others gain knowledge about themselves. As components of more profound historical and larger cultural practices of representation, they enable the development of undesirable self-images and poor self-worth (Surhone et al. 92). Consequently, these impaired self-concepts have a bigger inclination toward substance abuse, depression, suicidal tendencies, and other social problems. Oddly, biased, traditional supporters of names and mascots generally see these social problems as more crucial (King 88). Furthermore, the customary practice of American Indian mascots, if seen in a general historical framework, creates an opportunity to thoroughly and correctly understand American history. Native American mascots are fascinating, even problematic, to anybody who wants to accurately understand American society, specifically due to the passion and force with which their histories and cultures are supported and protected. More essentially, such names and mascots are important because they are strongly related to common worldviews, beliefs, and values—about being an Indian (Zografos 82). Such names and images are attached to thoughts or ideas about people and life. Social identities are attached to history and culture and American Indian mascots are viewed by the public in a way that they create interpretation of the believed dissimilarities between non-Indians and American Indians. This does not mean that the Atlanta Braves’s ‘tomahawk-chopping’ supporters in some way acquired real knowledge of the histories and experiences of the American Indians (King & Springwood 332). The non-Indian Americans are aware of—as general fact—the aspects hidden in names and mascots and accept that Native Americans produce famous names and mascots whereas African Americans cannot. Non-Indian Americans are already aware of the traditional traits that seem to place the ‘Native American’ as a ‘suitable’ athletic icon (King & Springwood 332). Such stereotypes about Indians inhibit the ability of numerous non-Indian Americans to treat American Indians as conscious, feeling human agents with whom they share many commonalities. Critics of campaigns to persuade professional teams to give up American Indian names and symbols has been largely recognized by Indian protesters, who mostly have realized the uselessness of trying to change public opinion on this matter. For that reason, recently, they have tried a more subtle but capably more successful technique (Zografos 84). Unable to trigger a public uproar that would oblige team owners to give up the offensive team name, they have resorted to courts. Their legal argument has been aimed not at the right of the Washington team to adopt the name ‘Redskins’, but to bask in the federal guarantee for it, in obvious breach of the Federal Trademark Act’s Section 2(a), which rejects guarantee to any brand or name that “consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute” (Zografos 85). The assumption behind the trademark claim has been that the risk of possible profit lost may force the team to give up its name willingly. Whether this move will in the end succeed will be fraught with uncertainty until it has gained significant attention in federal courts. What appears definite thus far is that the courts are a more favorable, appropriate site for contesting this issue than are other institutions, such as the mass medi (Yiannakis & Melnick 208). As argued by a renowned legal expert (Yiannakis & Melnick 208): Due to the size of the Native American population, and the inability of many Americans to relate to the problem, the movement opposing the use of Native American team names has failed to apply significant political pressure on team owners. Without judicial intervention, the notion that more speech, more talking, more preaching, and more lecturing can counter this practice is appealing, lofty, romantic—and wrong. Therefore, those who fervently contest Indian names and mascots must not just be widely informed of histories but should be open and shrewd on this matter. It is time to discontinue addressing the advocates, protesting merely among agreeable supporters. This is even more crucial when dealing with a famous and influential professional sports group like the Washington ‘Redskins’. An activist’s success in a trademark case provides almost no guarantee that a name change will be imminent. A letter-writing drive or signature campaign intended to persuade the Washington Post to prohibit the publication of the name must be focused on and prioritized (Putnam 77); demands for a publication prohibition or for forbidding the acquisition of ‘Redskins’ products should be attended by programs to raise awareness of the purposes of such decisions. Conclusions The Washington ‘Redskins’ football team is still the focus of Native American resentment and objection. The name ‘Redskin’ is broadly considered as a serious insult, which is the main reason why the football team should abandon its name and mascot. However, despite the objections, the Washington ‘Redskins’ have stubbornly retained their name. It would be absurd nowadays to adopt an African-American icon as a name and mascot, so why is it difficult to understand that names such as ‘Redskins’ should be fully abandoned? Works Cited King, C. Richard. The Native American Mascot Controversy: A Handbook. UK: Scarecrow Press, 2010. Print. King, C. Richard & Charles Springwood. Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2001. Print. Putnam, Douglas. Controversies of the Sports World. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999. Print. Stapleton, Bruce. Redskins: Racial Slur or Symbol of Success? New York: iUniverse, 2001. Print. Surhone, Lambert, Mariam Tennoe, & Susan Henssonow. Washington Redskins Mascot Controversy. New York: Betascript Publishing, 2011. Print. Yiannakis, Andrew & Merrill Melnick. Contemporary Issues in Sociology of Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2001. Print. Zografos, Daphne. Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010. Print. Read More