The American Football Squadron Based In the Nation's Capitol

I am a fan of the Washington football team.  I have been for twenty-six years, and I plan to continue to be for the rest of my life.  However, I have grown to not be a fan of the team name.  I have been on the fence about this—privately—for about fifteen years, but I have recently realized the disrespect and hurt it causes or may cause others.  Regardless of the statistics of the number of people that are on record as being offended, people are offended.  It could be one percent of the population, but why do the feelings of that one percent not matter?

I in no way believe that the organization itself or supporters of the name are racist.  But just because you’re not racist doesn’t mean the name isn’t.  I do believe that blind loyalty (which never leads to anything good) to the franchise or an adamant opposition to being labeled as PC is a major part of the issue here.  When it hits close to home, people don’t want to admit—or recognize—doing something wrong.  The “tradition” argument doesn’t hold up.

Just because you don’t think something is wrong doesn’t mean others should “man up” to accommodate your views.  Great, you have thick skin.  That doesn’t mean those who don’t are weak; that means that they have feelings.

A good friend asked how the name is racist.  How is it not?  To use the clichéd argument, would you call a Native American a Redskin to their face?  She then asked if I would be upset if they were called the Whiteskins.  I would.  I wouldn’t necessarily be offended, per se, as we are labeled as white; but why would a mascot like that be appropriate?  Even though some African Americans prefer to be called black, I don’t think they would be comfortable with a team being called the Blackskins.  Oh, and do you know why Redskin could be taken as offensive?  While “white” and “black” are common labels for Caucasians and African Americans, I’ve never heard Native American being referred to as “red”.

I remember as a teenager seeing a clip from a Chris Rock stand-up special.  “Washington Redskins?” he asks in his usual loud way.  “How about the New York Niggers?”  Or what about the San Jose Spics?  The Bronx Wops?  I’m surprised Dave Chappelle never did a skit about a league with these names.

Why shouldn’t Vikings or Pirates or Buccaneers be forced to change their names?  Apples to oranges.  While one might feel that they are inappropriate monikers—because they glorify violence, rape, pillaging, etc.—and think they have no place in sports leagues, the argument doesn’t fit with one about a name like Redskins.  It’s a valid argument, but it is based on glorification of those things—and based on a chosen occupation.  Not on one’s skin color.  Something they’re born with.  As a pacifist and a teetotaler, I think the names Warriors and Brewers send a wrong message.  But that’s a discussion for another day.

This shouldn’t just apply to Redskins, but I also disagree with the sentiment that anything Native American should be targeted.  Names like Braves and Chiefs are in fact honorable.  Seminoles are named after a tribe and the Blackhawks are named after a Native American leader.  None of these make reference to skin color.  Their mascots or logos might be offensive, but the names themselves?  Not so much.  The Cleveland Indians is a misnomer, as—even though it’s a common and somewhat accepted name—they are not from India; this is another name I feel should be dropped.  People don’t call me Filipino; I wouldn’t necessarily take offense to that, because they’re a good people, but that’s not who I am.  (Note: I am in no way trying to say that Native Americans or people of Native American descent can’t or don’t find the names in this paragraph disparaging, but I wanted to point out reasons why I think they shouldn’t be used in the same argument as Redskin.)

I have no doubt that the Redskin moniker in some people’s minds is a sign of honor, and that may have been the idea when the team was founded.  There is the argument that it is a term of endearment.  But times have changed.  But why wasn’t it offensive eighty years ago?  I’m sure it was.  Again, times have changed.  Back then, it was a white man’s America.  Minorities couldn't speak out against things like this back then without being ostracized even more or worrying about their safety.

I will acknowledge that there are many Native Americans who support the name and oppose a mascot change, and, while I obviously do not agree with them, I respect their opinion and the right to that view.  However, I pose this question: what do you stand to lose in the case of a name change?  What do those who feel offended and insulted have to gain?  Their dignity.  Their self-worth.  Respect and being seen as equals.

Many people online have equaled a name change to censorship; how many of you making this comparison wouldn't be upset if your child heard the f-bomb or any other profanity on the radio?  (Not everyone, but a lot of parents would not be happy about that.)  Let's take the legal name change and censorship out of the argument, and strip it down to this basic question: Why do you insist on using a name such as this when you know--agree with it or not--that it offends people?  Is it in your nature to hurt people's feelings?  Or is it more about getting a point across and standing up for free speech, at others' expenses?

Maybe the government shouldn’t be getting as involved in this issue as they have been.  Why should they have to?  They wouldn’t need to if the appropriate steps were taken.  When it’s getting to the point when outside pressure is needed and the patent office strips your trademark, that should say something.  Whether it’s one percent or seventy-five percent of the population, they need to be respected and heard (I’ve heard enough of people who aren’t of that background saying those that are shouldn’t be offended; and non-Native Americans saying they’ll be offended if the name is changed obviously don’t know what “offended” means*).  As hypocritical as this may sound, I will continue to support the team, but I cannot support the name; as treasonous as this may sound, it’s time for the name to be changed.  And, as I’ve said a million times before, I hate the term political correctness: it has nothing to do with politics; it has everything to do with being a decent human being.

In the end, loyalty to a name or a brand gets pushed to the back-burner.  As a fan of the football team, I do miss the camaraderie of singing the fight song, especially during the (few-and-far-between) highs of the season.  If, by some miracle, they are successful in the near future, I will feel awkward celebrating their success while denouncing the name.  But, as a human being, I don't and I won't.  Not one bit. 

*I do realize I’ve opened the door for “Well, the Native Americans who ARE offended if the team changes its name need to be heard, too,” and I get that, but I think the hurt caused by the name is MORE offensive than those upset by the changing of a name.