What’s in a Name?

Since the 1990s, various sports teams at all levels have gone through a transformation.  These teams were among those who had, as a nickname, some reference to Native Americans.  While various tribes have authorized some use as legitimate or while others benefit from their ambiguous names, others still find themselves in the crossfire.  Throughout the controversy, one team has been more criticized than others – the National Football League’s Washington Redskins.  While the pinnacle of opposition coincided with the team’s appearance in the Super Bowl in the early 1990s, there have been renewed attempts, namely the Oneida tribe, to convince the team’s ownership to change.  

There are three types of Native American-connected names the subject of debate over the last several decades.  One dealt with teams whose names are a direct reference to a tribe such as schools like the Utah Utes, Florida State Seminols and Eastern Michigan Chippawas.  The second are those who use as their moniker more indistinct names that do not reference a particular tribe such as MLB’s Atlanta Braves, NHL’s Chicago Blackhawks and NBA’s Golden State Warriors.  The last category are those who have used names that have either an obvious or vague racist tones such as the Redmen of St. John’s University, the Louisiana-Monroe Indians and the aforementioned Washington Redskins.  St. John’s and Louisiana-Monroe have changed their names but the football team that calls the nation’s capital its home has stood resolute. 

I do believe that racism exists and I do believe that the Washington Redskins are on the wrong side of this issue.  Its name is clearly a reference to the more racist connotations of days gone by.  Having said that, I’m reluctant to mandate a change.  In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy used his muscle to force the Washington to accept black players, the last NFL team to do so.  A combination of political and economic forces compelled the team to do what public opinion did not.  However, if Washington changes its name, it must come from the marketplace.  I mentioned in an earlier article about the Boy Scouts of America that I feel a little queasy when organizations or individuals are forced to do something.  This is no different but I understand the backstory. 

For Native Americans, their recent history is one of societal, economic and political subjugation.  They have endured racism and worse, near ethnic annihilation.  Since the heyday of the Native American civil rights movement and the militancy of groups like the American Indian Movement (AIM), activists have tried to right wrongs.  For the most part, the American public has agreed and has supported changes that favor America’s indigenous population.  However, groups like AIM have not always been disciplined in their attacks and have subsequently unleashed their efforts on things that are questionable.  Therefore, when a real case emerges or a real argument is put forth, people have begun to tune it out.  This could be the case with the Washington Redskins.  

I don’t believe the team or its administrative staff are racists nor does it have a predilection towards racist overtones.  Yet, it would be better if Washington changed its name.  The Oneida tribe has made it clear that they are going to protest and push until the organization does so.  However, the fans have not been a part of the chorus, at least to the point where they have chosen not to attend games or purchase merchandise.  If the Oneida tribe can do what many other activists could not do – convince the fans that this is a racial issue – so be it and we are probably better off for it.  If they can’t, the name should remain the same.