There
are many factors that play a role in the shaping of the ways in which someone
comes to think about or understand someone or something. Social ideologies, or the web of ideas and
beliefs that people use to give meaning to the world and make sense of their
experience, the way in which a narrative or idea is presented, and the context
in which it is framed, strongly influences ones perception, and subsequently
over time, their perspective of the narrative or idea being presented. That
being said, it is my belief that Native American mascots such as the Chiefs,
Braves, Indians, and Redskins, are no more or less offensive than American
mascots such as the Patriots and the Nationals.
Depending on the narrative and context in which each of these mascots is
presented, perceptions regarding whether or not they are offensive ultimately
lie in the eye of the beholder.
Many current popular press articles have portrayed Native
American mascots as offensive and derogatory in nature. The Washington Redskin’s have been at the epicenter
of this controversy, as some perceive the term Redskins to be a racial slur,
while others have labeled it as a term of “honor”. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell defended the
name as the embodiment of "strength, courage, pride and respect" in a
June 5th letter to 10 members of Congress who had earlier urged team owner Dan
Snyder to change the name of the team. Snyder has repeatedly vowed to never change
the name, saying, “After 81 years, the team name 'Redskins' continues to hold
the memories and meaning of where we came from, who we are, and who we want to
be in the years to come. I respect the
feelings of those who are offended by the team name. But I hope such
individuals also try to respect what the name means, not only for all of us in
the extended Washington Redskins family, but among Native Americans too.” As mentioned, perception plays a major role
in deciding which side of the argument one ultimately agrees with. A closer look at the narrative and context in
which some American mascots are presented helps to make more sense of why
perception is so important. In doing so,
it becomes easier to see and understand how almost anything can be perceived as
offensive depending on the audience and the way in which the information is
being presented.
The Patriots and the Nationals. Both nicknames/mascots are embodiments of
what we commonly depict the United States of America as representing. Words like strength, courage, honor,
sacrifice, determination, and commitment are all words that come to mind and
have been used to describe these terms.
However, this is because of the narrative and context in which America,
and what it stands for, has been presented to people. Yet, one could easily flip these terms upside
down and present them in a way that would paint an entirely different picture
of the United States of America and what it represents. What do I mean by this?
Simply put, the U.S. is a country that was founded on bloodshed,
robbery, racism, and sexism. However,
these are characteristics and aspects that are seldom mentioned when talking
about the U.S. Why? Because the media and others in positions of
power have framed the U.S. in a way that highlights and celebrates the
accomplishments of this country, while minimizing or even failing to mention
any of the wrong doings and traits that might defer us from thinking anything
less than America as the greatest country on earth. The way in which the term ‘Redskins’ is being
presented and exemplified by the Washington Redskins is not at all the way in
which the media is portraying it. The
media is depicting it in a way that encompasses the negative connotation
associated with it in its entirety, while conveniently choosing not to include
what it is that makes Native American mascots desirable. How is naming a public high school after
George Washington any less offensive than a sports team having a Native
American mascot? After all, George
Washington was a slave owner among other things.
Or what about the fact that that many
Native American people here in the U.S. take pride in the term ‘Redskins’,
finding it anything but racist or offensive.
American Indian Daniel Thomas had this to say regarding the controversy
surrounding his beloved Redskins, “I can’t speak for everybody, but I’m proud
of my team, I support my team, and I stand behind my team. I don’t want them to
change the name.” Thomas would go onto
to say that he could understand if other Native Americans feel differently, but
he is not offended by the moniker. Instead, he pointed to a team name that
conjures images of another time in history that he said should bother American
Indians more. “If you’re Native
American,” he said, “and you root for the Dallas Cowboys, I think that’s a
problem.” Thomas is spot on with this
comment, and it reiterates the importance that narratives and context has on
framing perceptions of individuals.
Daniel Thomas is not the only American
Indian who takes pride in the nickname ‘Redskins’. Wellpinit Washington High School, which has a
student body population that is 91.2 Native American, takes great pride in the
‘Redskins’ name and they proudly display it across their chest. Yet, if this were indeed an offensive and
derogatory slur aimed at the marginalizing of Native Americans, why would Native
Americans willingly do such a thing?
Again, it is ultimately ones own perception and perspective that marks
something as offensive or inoffensive. "I've talked to our students, our parents
and our community about this and nobody finds any offense at all in it,"
says Tim Ames, the superintendent of Wellpinit schools. "'Redskins' is not
an insult to our kids. 'Wagon burners' is an insult. 'Prairie n-----s' is an
insult. Those are very upsetting to our kids. But 'Redskins' is an honorable
name we wear with pride. … In fact, I'd like to see somebody come up here and
try to change it." This perspective
is polar opposite to that of which the media is depicting and stories such as
this one are far, few, and in-between in the popular press. Shouldn’t it be the voices of these people
that are being heard in the popular press?
Shouldn’t they be the ones who ultimately have the greatest impact
regarding this controversy and whether or not it should be considered offensive?
One might think so, however this is not the
case. Instead, it’s white men, such as
Bob Costas, whose perceptions and perspectives are being heard and distributed
largely among popular press. During
halftime of a recent Cowboys VS Redskins game Costas ask the viewers to think
about what the equivalent would be if directed towards African Americans,
Hispanics, Asians, or any other ethnic group.
He goes on to state that when considered in this way, the term ‘Redskins’ can’t possibly
honor a heritage or noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a
neutral term. Rather, he pigeonholed it
as an insult and a slur, no matter how benign the present day intent might be. Does Costas have a point? Absolutely. However, one must not forget to consider the
way he is presenting his narrative and the context of which he is presenting it. But in all honesty, what bothers me the most
is that Bob Costas’s perspective is considered and offered as superior to not
only your perspective or mine, but most importantly that of Native Americans
and Indian Americans who are the very ones whom these mascots and nicknames are
allegedly offending and insulting.
What is important to
remember is that social ideologies, or so called societal “norms”, are not only
deeply rooted within a particular society, but they are also ideas proposed by the
dominant class of a society to all members of that society. Or in other words, those of power, or those
having the ability to influence the behaviors of other people, have largely
shaped these ideologies. Simply put, the
societal notion of what is constituted as good or evil, moral or immoral, right
or wrong, just or unjust, acceptable or unacceptable, and offensive or
inoffensive, are all theories that have been given meaning by those possessing
power. Perspectives regarding these adjectives ultimately rest in the eye of
the beholder. It is our own
responsibility to make sure that we are not basing these perspectives solely on
the narrative and context in which it may be presented to us. Rather, it is important to consider the many
narratives and context in which particular information can be presented to us,
then, and only then, should one decide whether or not this is something they
agree or disagree with.
Links
https://email.uiowa.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=49hq0ENjHEWOZqYYNRjXuboELjAcuNAIM8wUrUpj2QL7NAhlqJcEfyUQwg8SQciAAfdddnCHmAA.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2flocal%2fone-indian-says-he-loves-the-redskins-and-doesnt-want-dan-snyder-to-change-the-name%2f2013%2f11%2f16%2fbbeade76-4ef8-11e3-9890-a1e0997fb0c0_story.html
https://email.uiowa.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=49hq0ENjHEWOZqYYNRjXuboELjAcuNAIM8wUrUpj2QL7NAhlqJcEfyUQwg8SQciAAfdddnCHmAA.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.cnn.com%2f2013%2f10%2f12%2fus%2fredskins-controversy%2f
https://email.uiowa.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=49hq0ENjHEWOZqYYNRjXuboELjAcuNAIM8wUrUpj2QL7NAhlqJcEfyUQwg8SQciAAfdddnCHmAA.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wtae.com%2fsports%2f-%2f9681176%2f19967552%2f-%2f75tjcoz%2f-%2findex.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/10/13/bob-costas-on-redskins-name-its-an-insult-a-slur/
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds
No comments:
Post a Comment