In the age of political correctness and the pursuit of a sterile non-offensive universe, the case of the Washington Redskins (and occasionally the Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians) comes up as a hurtful image to the population currently called native-Americans or even indigenous-Americans, the descendents of the North American population who inhabited these lands before the first Europeans colonized this land.
The argument is that the use of these native-American images perpetuate negative stereotypes of that population and that in the case of the Washington Redskins, the term, Redskins, is particularly negative as it was used as a slur, a racist verbal assault. If that is so, then they truly do have a case for outrage. However, in the case of the Atlanta Braves or Cleveland Indians, is that any different than perhaps the Minnesota Vikings, Notre Dame Fighting Irish, or maybe even Dallas Cowboys. Given the way American history has become so politicized and downplayed, could it not be argued that these sports teams might be a huge vehicle to keep their legacy alive?
Could perhaps, Chief Wahoo, the insignia of the Cleveland Indians, be seen as an insulting caricature? Perhaps that’s in the eye of the beholder. However, in the big scheme of things, is there any intent on the part of sports to demean native-Americans by using their images to identify their teams.
Logic tells us, no team would select an insulting image. Don’t teams want to create an image that creates strong fan identity?
Is our culture getting to the point where all we need is one identity group or even a very persistent angry individual to get a possibly offensive image sanitized out of existence?
When looking at today’s advertising and television programming, we see many choices made specifically not to hurt anybody’s feelings. Of course the other extreme such as “shock jocks” and certain other figures pander to the other extreme.
Now a group of Native Americans are appealing to the Supreme Court to intervene on their behalf to get rid of the name Redskins for the Washington NFL team. Does this seem like the ultimate political “hail Mary” (not said to offend passionate Catholics)?
To petition the Supreme Court, would there not have to be some specific law raising constitutional issues that has been run through the lower levels of justice finally reaching the Supreme Court?
We see this as a bold move to publicize the issue but not a genuine attempt to accomplish the stated goal of getting Supreme Court consideration.
Their grounds are to attempt to get the Redskins trademarks ruled invalid. In 1999, a US Patent and Trademark Office panel ruled in the Native Americans’ favor. All legal appeals have gone against them thus the move to attempt to get the high court involved.
In the interest of the first amendment, free speech and likewise free enterprise, shouldn’t a sports franchise be able to name itself whatever it pleases?
The Redskins name is a matter for the teams’ ownership, the NFL and football fans to deal with. If the term, Redskin, is truly a racial slur then the Native Americans who want to pursue their grievance, perhaps their best bet is to attempt to educate the population and create sensitivity for their cause?
Regardless, we think this is a matter for those concerned to resolve not the government. Imagine if the NFL team that plays in Landover, Maryland attempted to come up with a name that reflected the notable people in Washington, DC such as the folks on Capitol Hill. Now that would be offensive!!!
Honest Injun!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment