On September 14th, a group of American Indians who find the Washington Redskins' name offensive wants the Supreme Court to take up the matter.
For those of you who don’t follow professional football, here’s the logo:
A shows that approximately 80% of respondents a) don’t have a problem with the name “Redskins” and b) wish to continue the name’s “tradition.” However, the American Indian group’s lawyer spoke for his clients, “This is a derogatory term for Indians that sticks out like an anomaly. No other group still has to deal with this kind of a term being used” in such a public and widespread way. According to Suzan Shown Harjo, the woman leading the petition, the term is offensive and akin to the "n-word" for African Americans."It is the worst thing in the English language you can be called if you are a native person," she told The Independent. "It is basically characterising a person by their skin. How wrong is that?"
To me personally the icon itself is flagrantly racist as it portrays the American Indian, complete with feather and braids, as a historic artifact rather than a real and modern people. At first I was absolutely for abolishing the mascot and all it’s racist connotations. To me its one of the worst and most prominent examples of today’s society continuing to represent Native American culture as static, unable to evolve and change, to be a modern civilization, in effect disregarding Native Americans as a real people in modern society.
Then I read another poll. A poll in 2004 conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found that 91 per cent of Native Americans did not find the term offensive (telegraph). That’s even more support from Native Americans for the mascot than what comes from the general population. And who am I to decide what Native Americans should find offensive? If Native Americans generally have no problem with the mascot, I feel I have no right to be offended on their behalf.
My question is, who gets to decide what representations are racist or not, and what role, if any, can people not of the targeted race have in the discussion?
1 comment:
I don't think you need to be an American Indian to make a call on whether or not the term is offensive. For example, some women may not be offended by being called a girl, while some men may take offense. Like all words, 'redskins' serves multiple purposes (does different and sometimes contradictory 'work' as Phyllis Jackson would say.) On the one hand, it paints a static picture of American Indians, and draws on a history of race-fueled bloodshed. The term invokes the genocide against them. However, (and now I'm sort of reaching in the dark here) perhaps today it serves as a reminder that we have American Indians in our culture... or something. I'm not sure what positive work the word is doing for American Indians, but the choice to be offended or not seems to weigh the pro's and cons of the word, no? Anyone can decide. (Because also, racism is bad for the oppressor as well! so even if you aren't AI, their racist oppression supports your racist oppression, or if you're white, your dehumanization, anxiety, etc.)
Post a Comment