There are conversations you have that you remember – often for no particular reason – and they just sort of seem to stick with you. For example, I distinctly recall one time when I was away on a school trip to Washington D.C. and I was assigned to room with three other guys. We all hailed from different parts of the country. One of them, a really nice kid from Oklahoma, did not know who Johnny Carson was because he had never watched television after 8:00 PM. He explained that his family considered anything later than that to be sinful (presumably because it was in prime time and controlled by the networks). That blew my mind. It was on the same trip that another student, this one a black kid from New York, again a really nice guy, told us all that he knew “Rappers Delight” from beginning to end. He knew all the lyrics and performed it cold while we were being bussed from one venue to another. It was the first time I’d ever heard rap music. I remember both of those conversations - one where I felt so much more worldly than the other guy and the other that showed what a bumpkin I was. Of course, what I was really finding out was that it was a big world and I had a long way to go before I could pretend I knew any of it. Still - there were some things I was pretty sure I knew then and that I remain pretty sure I know now, truths that don't change, or, if anything, become more true. One of those things was the subject of a conversation I had some time back that has likewise remained clear in my memory, for whatever reason.
It was one of those bull sessions I remember having when I was in college. This one was about school nicknames – I went to Stonehill, where, at the time, we were the Chieftains. I couldn’t understand, and still can’t, why “Chieftains” was considered an inappropriate nickname. I also don’t understand why “Chiefs”, “Warriors” or “Braves” are offensive to Native Americans. A “Chieftain” could just as easily (and knowing Stonehill, probably did) refer to an Irish Chieftain. The other names are equally multicultural. “What’s the big deal”? we all asked. Still, within a few years all colleges would be asked (and most would agree) to drop any name that could be seen to even remotely be associated with Native American culture. Stonehill’s now the “Skyhawks”. Blah.
There was general dissent about whether “Indians” should be off limits. Some thought it was racial and so didn’t make sense, others said it was as neutral as “Canadiens”. Everybody seemed to agree the Cleveland Indians “Chief Wahoo” mascot was funny, but that if they were Native American it would piss them off to see that as the way they were depicted (see above for proof). I don’t think we even considered whether the Chicago “Blackhawks” name was off-limits, but I think back then we thought the insignia was pretty cool. We might change our mind now.
But out of that whole conversation the one thing I can remember everyone agreeing with was that “Redskins” was way over the line. “How the hell can the Redskins get away with that and colleges can’t call themselves “Warriors”? Didn’t know how then, don’t know how now. Actually – I do know how. The Redskins had a lot more money riding on retaining their name than did Stonehill. Or UMass (“Redmen” became the “Minutemen”), Springfield College (“Chiefs” became “Pride”) or Marquette (“Warriors” became “Golden Eagles”) so they have just pretended that “Redskins” is not offensive. They’ve insisted, against all reason – that any Native American (or anyone else) who takes offense at the name “Redskins” is just “overly sensitive” – or just not smart enough to get the nuances of the meaning behind the name. I didn’t think that was the general consensus back in the day – we were all pretty sure that “Redskins” was over the top. The opinions were pretty blunt –and just so there’s no mistaking things let’s get this right out in the open – one of the comments I distinctly remember someone saying during that whole conversation was “Redskins is just the same as calling the team “N*****s” or expecting everyone to sing “Hail to the Darkies””.
I thought that made sense then, and I think it makes sense now. “Redskins” has nothing to do with being courageous, a leader or a combatant. That attaches to “Brave”, “Chieftain” or “Warrior” and I thought it was silly to remove those terms from the nickname lexicon. But “Redskin”, let’s face it, ties in to a racial characteristic and that’s it. No one’s calling their team the “big noses”, “slant eyes” or “Aryans”. Just because the Washington football team has more money at stake doesn’t mean they get to ignore common sense. They’ve tried to bribe (I mean “hire”) Native Americans to act as lobbyists for the continued use of the name – and only made themselves look foolish. This is sometimes known as the “some of my best friends are…” defense – usually a sure sign of having been caught with your bigotry showing.
The recent trend among people who think the nickname has outlasted its day in the sun has been to just stop using the term “Redskins” in everyday conversation or print – some just say “Skins”, which I view as a cop out. Others resort to the term I used above and just say “the Washington football team” or “the Washington professional football team”. But I think that there should be some punishment meted out until the powers that be for the franchise smarten up. They should be called some type of derogatory term – maybe one that has a local connection, that hurts only themselves.
Yup.
Until they agree to change the name voluntarily they are the Washington “Congressmen” to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment