There’s something very wrong with a society that obsesses over the nickname of a professional football franchise but sees nothing wrong with the everyday use of the word “retard.”
Since the new NFL season started, I’ve seen lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth over whether the Washington Redskins should change their name. Neil Irwin of The Washington Post described it as “the most patently offensive name in pro sports” and President Obama also came out in favor of a name change.
Columbus Day Weekend stirred the pot (because, contrary to what I was taught in grade school, Columbus is a controversial figure) so NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell weighed in on Sunday night, as did NBC Sports’ Bob Costas, who devoted almost two and a half minutes of halftime to the “controversy” (along with a shameless plug for NBC Sports’ dedicated Redskins name website).
Some of the debate centers around the meaning of the name – is it a slur, or a term of honor? – and there’s been a lot of people asking, “What if it was the slur for X, Y, or Z groups instead?” That question is (at best) an imperfect analogy because clearly the original intent for choosing the nickname was to rally the fans and call to mind a brave warrior, not to disparage an ethnic group. But is that defense good enough?
Frankly, I don’t give a damn.
While a bunch of predominantly white male sportswriters are wringing their hands over the nickname – and note that many are intentionally choosing to omit the word in their reporting – columnist Maureen Dowd of The New York Times is also voicing her disdain for the name by stating that “The term ‘redskin’ is never a compliment.” Many Native Americans would disagree.
But do you know what word is truly never, under any circumstances, a compliment? Retard.
Unlike the Redskins, no sports teams have chosen retard as their nickname, either. Spend a little while cruising social media and the comboxes of some of the news stories and blog posts about the Redskins’ name, however, and you’ll find plenty of folks who feel no qualms about calling one side or the other in the debate “retarded” or “retard”.
Can you say “tone-deaf”?
When sportswriters and journalists start giving a damn about the pervasive use in all of our society – not just within the confines of a single football franchise – of the REAL r-word, then I’ll start caring about the Washington Redskins’ mascot.
Until that day comes, the only thing I’ll worry about is whether the Saints finish ahead of them in the NFC postseason.
———-
Addendum: Lest anyone assume that I am indifferent to the concerns of Native Americans – don’t. The historical treatment of Native American peoples has been shameful and abhorrent. Language is powerful, but I believe the current obsession with the Redskins’ name is a lot of self-righteous posturing that’ll accomplish very little in the end – regardless of whether the name is changed – because “redskin” isn’t part of most people’s vernacular today in any context other than football. Meanwhile, the ID community’s pleas for elimination of the r-word continue to fall on deaf ears.
Brilliant post Andi, well written, and poignant.
Thanks, Todd! I’m sure it ruffled some feathers. 😉
The part I was confused about in Costa’s rambling monologue was that he said that hardly anyone, even Native Americans, found Redskins to be an insulting name. The Cleveland Indian, with his goofy portrayal would be the one I would think would cause more issue. Redskins is a tough name, invoking a mighty warrior, but that’s a white woman’s opinion. If it was making fun of Native Americans, then I could see the issue, but it’s not. It’s calling them bad ass warriors. It’s a compliment and I think that is how Native Americans see it, for the most part.
The R-word is not ever said as a compliment. Totally different.
You are right … to a point. As Millie pointed out below (and I agreed in my reply), sometimes even a positive connotation isn’t a good thing (though it’s hard to argue that saying “people with Down syndrome are always happy” is a slur, which is kinda what Costas did). The reaction from the Native American community is mixed, at best.
Your post did ruffle my feathers a little. I think we should all be sensitive and precise about all of our language. I think the lack of sensitivity is why the word retard is used….people feel as though it doesn’t impact them, they don’t know anyone who is offended, so why not use it. It is the same with race-based team names, it doesn’t feel as though it affects anyone, but it does, so we should all care. If we all start paying attention to how language and all slurs affect others than the word retard would be used less. As to comment on the comment above if the term redskin evokes an image of a warrior that that is a problem….it is evoking a stereotype about Native Americans. Just my thoughts. Be sensitive, it might not offend you, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem, and perhaps the popularity that this slur is getting will start the conversation about other slurs.
Good. 🙂 The post was written in a provocative tone (somewhat) intentionally because I want people to pay attention – not so much to the words in question, but the hypocrisy and self-righteousness in the media. I agree wholeheartedly with you that we all need to be cognizant of the power of language. As you pointed out, even when a word has a positive connotation, it can still be a hurtful or harmful stereotype (like “people with Down syndrome are always happy” is a positive statement, but it ignores the fact that they have feelings just like everyone else and opinions that should be heeded and not dismissed).
I see a few problems with the current name controversy – one is that many Native Americans have said that they aren’t offended by the name, and some even consider it a badge of honor – there’s been no mass outcry from the very people who are affected. I believe a better discussion would involve the history of the name, the history of the people, and a focus on the impact that the name has on the people it represents … today. In my childhood history classes, much attention was paid to the Civil War being fought to abolish slavery, but very little to the Trail of Tears. Instead of an honest conversation, though, we have folks like Bob Costas – who as far as I can tell, has no connection to any of the above – lecturing people on air when they’re trying to watch a football game. If our society is going to have a conversation about the harm done to Native Americans, let’s get real and discuss the high rates of suicide, poverty, alcoholism, and the like that are a result of what our country did to generations of them, rather than obsess over a football team mascot. With that honest conversation, a name change might occur naturally and organically without all of the melodrama.
Which brings me to the other big problem I see with this whole name controversy – it’s a lot of posturing that makes (some) people feel like They Are Doing Something. Pure motives certainly aren’t required to do the right thing – the right thing to do is still the right thing to do – but this swarm of media coverage feels to me like a bit of a mob mentality. Media is a powerful tool for changing minds and hearts, and I get the sense that much of this frenzy is a power trip for the media – a way to triumph over Dan Snyder and the Washington fans who support keeping the name – rather than honest concern (and I’m basing that belief – which is only MY belief, of course – on the fact that the mantra we keep hearing is that it’s a slur/offensive but that’s about as deep as the talk goes).
All of that to make the point that people may change what they say or how they act in public based on the pressure that they receive, but until they internalize the reasons why one word or another should be eliminated, their hearts won’t be changed, and resentment will grow. Proponents of ending the R-word often get challenged with “free speech!” and “censorship” declarations because they are tired of being told what they should or shouldn’t say. I don’t want to censor anyone – I just want people to understand how their choice of words impacts other people, and to make decisions with that in mind.
I hope you don’t think I’m picking on you – I’m not at all, because I agree with you! Your comment provided a great opening to make a few points that I omitted (somewhat intentionally) from the original post. Hopefully future readers will scroll through the combox. 🙂
Millie, I wasn’t agreeing or disagreeing with Andi. I just felt like Bob was preaching from both sides of his mouth. Labels are labels and while I don’t have too much of a problem with the term Redskin, I’m not Native American, and would feel differently if I were, I’m sure. I personally feel like being a warrior is applicable to football and is a good thing in that context, however, Andi’s reply about “people with Down syndrome are always happy,” gives me pause and I see what she means. Here is an interesting article on the Redskin subject:
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/
The comment section raised an interesting question: Boston Celtics?
I should have said I do not have a problem with Redskin bc I thought of it as complimentary, not that I was okay with it if it bothered Native Americans. Didn’t want to be misunderstood. Oh, and totally not arguing with you about your comment. Just wanted to reply since you reference me in yours. 🙂 It is probaby an issue of education, just like with the R-word. Once people understand why it is offensive, they stop using the term. I will research further on Redskin and see what people other than a sportscaster have to say about it. No offense, Bob. 🙂
Thought-provoking article. I found it interesting how Ms. Harjo basically waved away the non-concern of the Native Americans who don’t agree with her position. Apparently she doesn’t believe one can be an authentic Native American and have a different opinion. That’s a common occurrence with any community that’s lumped together as one but has a wide variety of members – not unlike the “People First” camp vs. those who prefer “Autistic” over “With Autism.”