Published: January 17, 2006 09:40 pm            

A case for removing ‘Redskin’

I like the Gazette, and I often like David Arkin’s work, but I think you’re missing the point in (Friday’s) discussion of the Washington Redskins. “Redskin” is a pejorative, unlike the more neutral “Indian” or the more positive “Braves” or “Chiefs.” The Redskin nickname seems to me to be a direct reminder to Native Americans of a tragically genocidal time in North American history when they were referred to with these kinds of terms shortly before they were slaughtered, and so the nickname is a slap in the face. I would recommend you read Dee Brown’s “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” for an authoritative view of that unhappy period in our shared past.

As a long-time journalism professor and writer, I should point out that the AP Stylebook finds a number of disparaging Native American terms troublesome and warns against their use. Also, the NCAA’s current struggle with the nickname issue at the college level is, at least, an indication that the problem is a lively one and needs to be thought through seriously rather than dismissed out-of-hand. You might serve your readers better by considering their opinion on the matter, and some significant part of your readership, I suspect, has Native American blood in its veins. Why offend your readers needlessly by defending the use of an obvious slur? I can see some defense for the use of an honorific (as in Braves) or a tribal name used with permission (as in Seminoles). But it’s hard to find ways to defend such a blatantly derogatory term as Redskins. Note the reference to the American Heritage dictionary meaning of “redskin,” which makes my point perfectly well, as does a quick glance at Dictionary.com (Offensive Slang: Used as a disparaging term for a Native American). 

Chad Smith, principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, which is the second largest Indian tribe in America behind the Navajo Nation, offered these comments to me: Portraying Native American people as mascots relegates us to second-class citizenship. Mascots are for entertainment. They are fun. They are objects of ridicule for the opposition. And they are told to leave the field of play when the main event, the game, begins. No one would tolerate such treatment of African-Americans or Hispanics. Those ethnic groups are not subjected to the ‘honor’ of being mascots. Even here in Oklahoma, where Native Americans make up the largest minority group in the state, we have mascots that sport war paint and are called the Redskins.

The American Heritage Dictionary definition of “redskin” is the same as the definition for “the n-word,” which newspapers avoid printing and broadcasters avoid saying. Yet those same broadcasters and writers will use the term “redskin” without a second thought. The slap in the face is just as real, but verbally assaulting Indians, as opposed to other ethnic groups, is apparently not taboo in the media. Indian mascots instill into mainstream society stereotypical, offensive and factually incorrect notions of what Native Americans were and are.

Rick Wilber is a professor at the School of Mass Communications, University of South Florida.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.