I tend to largely agree with Jonathan Adler's post on this; but I thought that I'd add some data, for whatever it's worth (I realize that different people have different views of how relevant or dispositive such data is):
1. A 2002 Sports Illustrated survey reports:
Asked if they were offended by the name Redskins, 75% of Native American respondents in SI's poll said they were not, and even on reservations, where Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most intensely, 62% said they weren't offended. Overall, 69% of Native American respondents--and 57% of those living on reservations--feel it's O.K. for the Washington Redskins to continue using the name. "I like the name Redskins," says Mark Timentwa, 50, a member of the Colville Confederated Tribes in Washington State who lives on the tribes' reservation. "A few elders find it offensive, but my mother loves the Redskins."
2. The Annenberg Public Policy Center National Annenberg Election Survey 2004 (conducted in 2003-04), reports:
Most American Indians say that calling Washington’s professional football team the "Redskins" does not bother them, the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey shows.
Ninety percent of Indians took that position, while 9 percent said they found the name "offensive." One percent had no answer. The margin of sampling error for those findings was plus or minus two percentage points.
Because they make up a very small proportion of the total population, the responses of 768 people who said they were Indians or Native Americans were collected over a very long period of polling, from October 7, 2003 through September 20, 2004. They included Indians from every state except Alaska and Hawaii, where the Annenberg survey does not interview. The question that was put to them was "The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?"
3. There are obvious problems with polling American Indians -- the difficulty of getting reliable data from such a small group (which the Annenberg pollsters solved by asking a vast number of people, and which the Sports Illustrated pollsters solved by oversampling in census tracts which have a high fraction of American Indians, and then weighing the responses accordingly), the uncertainties about who really is an American Indian, the danger of undersampling Indians who are too poor to have telephones or alienated enough from white culture that they want little to do with pollsters, and so on. Nonetheless, while this may not be perfect data, it's the best data that I've seen, and it's certainly better than people's perceptions of what Indians think, which are of course prone to much more serious problems of representativeness (since such perceptions may be heavily skewed by one's own preconceptions, by one's circle of friends, or by the tendency to hear more from activists -- in any group -- than from rank and file members).
4. Finally, while I'd have thought that most Indians would indeed be offended by the term "Redskins," given that it has often been used as a pejorative, the results that the surveys report are not at all implausible: Given that naming a team after some person or group is usually a sign of respect -- one would rarely name a team after something that one thinks is weak or contemptible (the U.C. Santa Cruz Banana Slugs are a rare and facetious exception) -- it seems quite reasonable that many Indians would focus on that more than they would on disrespectful uses of the same term in other contexts.
Related Posts (on one page):
- American Indians' Views of the Redskins:
- Hail to the Redskin Potatoes:
It matters to the extent that many people are bothered only if the people who the nickname generally refers to are offended. I could find "Fighting Irish" offensive, because it plays into stereotypes of the Irish as overly aggressive and prone to fight. Indeed, the nickname was bestowed upon Notre Dame by the national press because of exactly those stereotypes. However, the Irish and Notre Dame fans tend to not be offended by the nickname.
And of course then there are other controversies, like the Eskimo one. "Eskimo" refers to a group of languages or a group of people, of which the Inuit is one. The Inuit have recently decided (at least in Canada) that they dislike the term Eskimo and wish to be called Inuit. Other Eskimo language groups/people include the Inupiak and the Yup'ik. The Yup'ik have no issue with being called Eskimo or Yupik Eskimos. They really hate being called Inuit, though.
Well-meaning people try to say, "well, you shouldn't say Eskimo, you should say Inuit." The problem is that they aren't synonyms. It's like saying "You shouldn't say Oriential, you should say Chinese." It's complicated, because there's no term for all the peoples collectively that all are happy with, and downgrading and marginalizing the Yup'ik and Inupiak isn't really right either.
See, I suppose, for an example, the name change of another Washington team, the Bullets.
I don't see why feelings of discomfort, even from someone from a majority/privileged/whatever class, over using what certainly was (and possibly is still today) an epithet shouldn't be given at least some weight.
I'm not saying that you necessarily dispute that, only that I think that discussing solely whether American Indians are offended over the name should lead to a name change is missing part of the picture.
Not if your the fighting irish.
We don't name our clans and totem animals because we think it insults them. Names like "redskin" and "brave" and "seminoles" are chosen for teams because it represents bravery, determiniation, fighting spirit. What's to complain about?
AttorneySF, you can be offended by anything that pleases you, but considering that these names generally don't offend *us*, it seems excessively hypersensitive.
What about yankee? It is term of derision in the south, somewhat ambiguous in intent in england, and a label of pride in the Northeast.
Is this true? I would think that either 1) it is actually easier to get reliable data from a small group (there are fewer of them, thus a smaller sample would accurately reflect their views), or that 2) the reliability of a sample isn't impacted by how large the group is, it is only impacted by how large the sample is. Any statisticians out there?
Steve
Frankly, I'm offended by your offendedness (:)). A nickname, that is not intended as an insult, and not received as an insult, should nevertheless be changed because a third party sees how it could be insulting if either the speaker or recipient of the name interpreted it differently? I think you would have to defend your insultedness, and barring either intent of the speaker or perception by the receiver, I'm not sure how you would defend it.
Steve
Though this is not a scientific sample, and what you'd find on a native american community college may be very different from what you'd find in more representative areas of the reservation.
The real aspect of your post was your self-reasoning about how unreliable the polling data you provide is. Once you realized how unreliable it was, you probably owed it to Professor Adler not to push it as a force to disagree with. If the evidence that countered Professor Adler's point has no evidentiary value, I'm not sure what you accomplish by raising that evidence.
The Portland (OR) Oregonian some years back banned "offensive sports teams names (such as Indians or Braves)" from the paper. However, they continued to use the local professional basketball team's name: Trailblazers. That name was meant to honor the Lewis &Clark expedition, something that might be more offensive to American Indians, considering the expedition was the first step in conquering many tribes.
Go to local rez. Call out, "What's up redskins?"
Run like hell.
I guarantee that it will be perceived as offensive, even to those here who say that they don't believe that it's offensive.
By the way, while I can't speak to the details of differences between reservation and non-reservation Indians, the Annenberg survey does note a (small) tendency in favor of Redskins being seen as more offensive by the more educated and more prosperous, and less offensive by the less educated and less prosperous:So according to the survey, an Indian at a community college is not materially more likely to be offended by the name than an Indian who never went to college. (I wouldn't say is materially less likely, because I think the difference is not quite statistically significant.)
We need to force the NFL to adopt the same enlightened policy as the NCAA that requires teams to not use these offensive names. Except, the NFL policy needs to go farther: We need to get rid of not just the name Redskins. We need to get rid of the Cowboys, Vikings, Raiders, Buccaneers, Giants, etc. All these names are offensive to some group or another and should be banned. Rather than allow these teams to choose a new name that some future generation will find offensive, we should insist that the teams be called by the name of the city where they play, such as the "Irving, Texas, Professional Football Team (Go ITPFT!)." This will prevent the unjustified hurt that would otherwise result when some realize that they've failed to take proper offense at an obviously offensive team name.
But you didn't take a representative sample of Indians in general. You took a sample of Indians who are all in one place. It wouldn't be unusual for such a sample to have opinions different from the population at large.
BT, since you comment on my arrogance and insensitivity, I can only assume we've met. My arrogance and insensitivity are legendary, often referred to as my groundless arrogance and indurate insensitivity. (Two of my better qualities.) Wanting to live up to this fame, I am sorely tempted to say something crass about Euless, such as "Euless? Didn't Texas revoke its charter for lack of interest?" Having lived in the Metroplex for eight glorious years, I know Euless too well to make any such remark. The "Pokes" will be the EPFT in our home from now on.
You mean they weren't named after those life-saving protective devices???
I do think most nicknames are supposed to be groups that the teams want to associate themselves with. That would make sense, since they are, in fact, associating themselves with those groups. You see this with little kids, too: if a group of kids are out playing football, and one of them says, "I'm Brett Favre", he's not trying to explain the interception he's about to throw. Rather, he's living out his fantasy.
By the way, the Little Fuzzy Bunnies did quite well in their league. Also, I'm a Packers' fan and I love Brett Favre, but ball control has never been his forte.
The NFL teams should be designated in numerical order, from . to .---- (binary code, using dots and dashes), with the order to be established through a random drawing of lots.
Of course, Annenberg doesn't figure the Dine into this at all - most Dine live in such poverty that they only have one or two phones per village - living in huts that lack electricity or running water (or, this is important for this particular subject, telephones or television), which is available only via a "community center"
Well, if they "live in such poverty," then they probably have a lot better things to worry about than the name of a football team. (Besides, without television, they probably don't watch Redskins games very often, do they? So what's the big deal?)
As for David Walser's "we, their moral betters, do find it offensive" that claim is more insulting than the team names.
No insult intended. By amplification, I was attempting to satirize expressions such as the following: Does the racial status of those who are offended matter? I'm white, but I find the name Redskins offensive.... By using the phrase "their moral betters", I thought I had made the ironic intent obvious. Most likely just poor writing on my part.
Since the irony was not obvious, allow me to clarify: I don't consider myself part of any group that is morally superior to any other. Nor do I consider myself qualified to determine for the rest of society what terms are so morally offensive their use must be banned by sporting franchises. While I admit to lacking omniscience in this area, I'm not so humble as to forgo a deep mistrust of those who do feel qualified to set the standards the rest of us must follow.
(Maybe I've been in Texas too long, but I've never heard "slopes" before, except in reference to geometry and skiing.)
Steve
Let me emphasize that I'm not suggesting that Native Americans who aren't offended by the term "Redskins" are doing anything wrong, or are examples of internalized racism, or are "less authentic", etc., etc. I'm only saying that I think the "not weak or contemptible" theory may be dubious as an explanation of why some names cause more offense than others.
I am also amused to note that the organization that did the polling is based at a school which uses an entire religion as a mascot ("Kill 'em Quakers!" As we used to say).
Yea, that's the spirit.
Professor Volokh's post cited data that suggests many American Indians alive today are not bothered by the name "Washington Redskins." As one of the commenters rightly points out, this data is useful if your decision to be offended by a potentially-racist moniker is based on whether members of the group are, in fact, offended by the potentially racist moniker. And I grant there are many people who fall into this "I will be offended if they are" group.
But that's not the basis of why I dislike the name of the Redskins. I don't like it because it's *racial* slur. As someone who dislikes all forms of race-based identification and classification -- hence my opposition to affirmative action in all forms (still a guilty white liberal?) -- using an outdated term like "Redskins" reinforces, ever so subtly, the notion that native Americans are "red," and that color is important to classifying Americans. The fact that it was once used to disparage native people just adds to the odious quality of the name.
This isn't an issue that keeps me up at night, and I understand fans of "the 'Skins" feel a deep allegiance to their team and its name. That's why I second Gregg Easterbrook's great idea to rename the team after a local tribe -- seems to me that changing the name is relatively costless, and could even be an improvement.
By the way, the mockumentary movie "The Confederate States of America" has some great-albeit-squeamish commercials updating products that were really sold in the 1800s and early 1900s, such as "Nigger Hair Cigarettes" and "Aunt Jemima" syrup.
Nobody calls American Indians "redskins" anymore; the word fell into disuse - except as a name for sports teams.
I'm sure some (i.e., not none) Quakers would be upset about it, but, seriously, what are they gonna do? Leave Lancaster to invade West Philly? Picking your mascots based upon pacifists and then attributing violent characteristics to them seems to be the most innovatively uncontroversial mascot. Anyone in favor of the Duke's "Deadly Decapitating David Dellingers"? Or the "Brazenly Beatdown Buddhists"?