Views » October 7, 2005

Accepting the Slurs

By Salim Muwakkil

How do black players on the NFL’s Washington Redskins reconcile their team spirit with the racial slur that is their team’s name?

The word “Redskins” derives from the genocidal practice of scalping Native Americans to earn a bounty. Certain parts of the country valued these bloody clumps of flesh and hair (red skins) as currency.

How could African-American athletes, who need only look to their own history to find similar demeaning slurs, tolerate such overt disrespect of another historically oppressed group?

This is a question not just for black ball players.Public acceptance of the Redskins mascot reveals America’s race consciousness (or lack of it) better than any politician’s speech hailing American democracy. What’s more, how can we allow such a symbol of savagery to be the name of a sports team in America’s capitol city?

These thoughts occurred to me as I pondered the recent decision of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to implement a limited ban on Indian mascots. In May, the NCAA decided to prohibit the use of American Indian mascots and logos by sports teams during postseason NCAA tournaments.

The rule, which goes into effect August 1, 2008, prohibits displays of “hostile or abusive” references on uniforms of teams, cheerleaders and bands during postseason tournaments. And beginning February 1, 2006, the group will ban institutions with such mascots or imagery from hosting any NCAA championship event.

Of particular interest are the names of 18 college mascots: Seven of the mascots are “Indians;” six are specific tribal names, like the Chippewas or the Utes; three are “Braves;” and the remaining two are the “Savages” and the “Redmen.” This long standing practice of adopting Indian mascots is in itself an act of dehumanization, but one often compounded by garishly costumed performances and insulting gestures.

And although several colleges and universities have banished demeaning mascots, the impulse to stereotype dies hard in a culture that long has normalized cultural slurs. That difficulty is evident even in the NCAA ruling, which, while better than nothing, is still rather weak. For example, the group limits its prohibition to post-season games.

The persistence of such biased portrayals into the 21st century is as much a failure of progressive politics as it is a product of racial atavism. Why, for example, haven’t major civil rights organizations been at the forefront of protest against mascots demeaning Native Americans? Where are the armies of D.C.-area progressives in the battle against the name “Redskins”—a slur that repudiates the democratic principles of the nation whose capital the team represents?

The silence from rights groups is one reason black athletes have failed to see their kinship with Native American groups struggling against biased depictions. It also helps explain why an allegedly progressive hip-hop group like OutKast shamelessly promoted racial stereotypes by donning “Indian” costumes and dancing cartoonishly during a 2004 performance on the televised Grammy Awards show. Several Native American groups filed complaints to CBS about Outkast’s minstrel-like performance.

The group later apologized for any offense they may have caused, but these “conscious” rappers’ initial lack of sensitivity to Native American concerns was surprising. Stereotypical depictions of America’s indigenous people are cultural assumptions with deep roots.

“The real issue is about power and control,” wrote Cornel Pewewardy, an assistant professor of education at the University of Kansas and widely published writer on Native American issues, in a 1999 essay. He argues that negative images of Native Americans still nourish this nation’s frontier legacy. “Through the politics of colonization, indigenous peoples were socialized into stereotypes that we were inferior, stupid, lazy, thereby fulfilling the need to be everybody’s mascot.”

Nearly 15 years ago, the American Indian Mental Health Association of Minnesota tallied the toll of these images. The group wrote, “We are in agreement that using images of American Indians as mascots, symbols, caricatures, and namesakes for non-Indian sports teams, businesses and other organizations is damaging to the self-identity, self-concept and self-esteem of our people.” Since then several other groups have joined to denounce the cultural impact of negative depictions.

The reasoning that links the purpose of such mascots to their debilitating effects, likewise applies to the stereotypes deployed (and still utilized) to depict African Americans. The struggle to decriminalize the image of African-American men, for instance, is part of the same struggle to banish the Redskins.

If the civil rights community is truly serious about attacking racist stereotypes it must full heartedly join ranks with Native American groups to demand that we cease and desist in demeaning our indigenous hosts.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  I suspect more non-American Indians are bothered by this than those of such ancestry. When my father was a kid the term “Swede” was considered derogatory in his neighborhood. I consider the Minnesota “Vikings” to be a complement.

  Playing word games, including “Native American” (No one can be more native than being born here.) benefits nobody and probably increases negativity. Get over it — there are REAL problems.

  This country will die of terminal sillyness.

  Posted by whattheheck on Oct 7, 2005 at 2:34 PM

  Yeah, I have Indian friends (Eastern variety and American too) and they call me the “white guy” all the time. I don’t see it as a slur against me.

  Some of these Indian friends are sports fans and root for the teams with ” racial slur ” names. Does that make them self-hating somehow?

  I come from a German heritage and it doesn’t bother me when non-German people get dressed up in lederhosen and get drunk for Oktoberfest

  As whattheheck says ; terminal sillyness.

  Posted by David in Canada on Oct 7, 2005 at 3:31 PM

  I always thought it had to do with the wonderful reddish tint many native americans have to their flesh. Silly me.
  I don’t think it’s acceptable to be derogatory to anyone and I consider this issue part of the greater struggle…social justice for all human beings. This small battle is only part of the bigger war. Each has to pick their own battle..some for women’s rights, some for peace,some for workers’ rights, etc etc etc.
  I’m glad somebody thinks this battle is important, but I don’t think it’s a battle won that will make much difference.

  Posted by robin on Oct 7, 2005 at 4:44 PM

  I equate the word “Redskin” to the word “Nigger.”  Would the Washington team “honor” African Americans by calling their team the Wahington Niggers?  I think not!

  Growing up, “Redskin” was one of the kinder terms hurled at me and my fellow students.  It is a shame that so few Americans, including American Indians, know very little of the true history of this country.  Another common “white” word is “squaw” which refers to female genitalia.  I can think of many English words that could be substituted for this “honoring” word and always smile when I think of the public outcry if all landmarks that contain the word squaw were to suddenly be changed to them.

  It is time to stop complimenting the American Indian by imitating their dress and beliefs as well.  And yes, I grew up cheering Roy Rogers, the Lone Ranger, and all the other cowboys that fought to civilize this country and save it from the dastardly Indians!

  Posted by Klamath on Oct 7, 2005 at 5:05 PM

  Accordint to http://www.yaelf.com/questions.shtml

  (Etymology)

  ‘Squaw’ is one of a number of words in English that were borrowed from Eastern Algonquian languages, sometimes via French, during the early contact period. The source in this case is conventionally Massachusett squas (Webster’s New World Dictionary, 2nd Edition). The term meant ‘young woman’ in Massachusett and is attested as early as 1624. In fact, related words derived from Proto-Algonquian *et^kwe:wa (t^ represents a theta - a th sound) ‘woman’ occur throughout the Algonquian language family. Mostly they’re fairly similar to the proto-form and each other (cf. Cree iskwe:w), though in a few languages the descendant form is so modified by accumulated sound changes that only someone familiar with the changes involved would recognize it, e.g., Arapahoe híthei. Bright’s useful summary of this cites Cutler 1994 and Goddard 1996, 1997 for the etymology of the term.

  And according to
  http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/redskin.html

  He says ::As a lot of people tell it, the word originally referred not to skin color, but to the bloody Indian scalps that whites paid bounties for. It’s true that there’s no way to tell for sure, since the origins of the word are lost in the late 17th century. But as best I can tell there’s no historical record that connects redskin to the bounties for scalps, and in fact nobody seems to have mentioned the connection until about a dozen years ago. So it’s almost certain that the word was originally a reference to skin color—after all, people refer to Indians as the red man, too, and that couldn’t have anything to do with scalps. Not that Indians are really red, any more than people of other races are really white or black or yellow.

  So, I guess I can liken it to how many fundamentalist look at Halloween around here.
  They see kids in witches costumes and assume they will all be (or are) devil worshippers. I see kids having a good time.

  I never thought of these terms as deragatory.

  Posted by robin on Oct 7, 2005 at 5:26 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 59 posts.

Also featured New Orleans Defendants Lost in Legal Swamp
Men Growing Up to be Boys
Piling it High

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!