So the Washington Redskins are to retire their name and logo, which they've had since 1933. So what to think of this? Is it the long overdue correction of an offensive name, or just the latest noise of today's cancel-culture?
The Redskins franchise has a long history celebrating, they claim, the Native American motif. The controversy isn't new however, the clamour to change it, from many sectors including the Native American community, has been going on since the 90s.
And fair enough. There's plenty of evidence to suggest the name IS upsetting to Native Americans. I guess where I'm having pause for thought is: why? Is it because the name is overtly offensive, or have they been convinced that it is offensive? 'Redskin' wasn't originally a pejorative term, even to them, it's only in more recent times that it gathered its negative slant.
What of other teams in a similar position? Kansas City Chiefs? Atlanta Braves? Cleveland Indians? They have a Native American theme too. But...they are different in my book. Redskins is considered derogatory, I think, solely because it references skin colour.
But all are meant to be warrior emblems. Sports teams 'borrow' them all the time to big themselves up, to convey the idea of power and strength. Minnesota Vikings is the same.
Perhaps its hard for some Redskins fans to see that negative slant in their name, as it's 'institutionalized' in their minds by 90 years of football history. Yet I very much doubt any one of them would ever call a Native American 'a redskin' to his or her face!
I definitely see that argument, but I still think there's more going on here, something deeper than 'the name is racist'. If it's racist now, it was racist last year, and 20 years ago, and 50. I'm not alarmed that the Redskins have decided to change it - I'm in favour of that. But I am somewhat alarmed by the brute force nature that persuaded it. It doesn't stem from a shift in social conscience (the fans didn't call for this, and certainly the owners didn't), it comes purely from the politically correct cancel-culture lobby, and that is alarming. Who is deciding who or what they target? Are they motivated more by goodness, or more by hate? Where does this 'power' begin or end?
I would be curious to know what would happen if owner Daniel Snyder decided to rename the franchise "Washington Natives". With the Native American motif retained, but any mention of skin colour banished, would it then not be racist anymore? Or would just a new twitter storm begin?
----
Hopefully no one will be triggered by this post and fly off the handle. This is not about racism per se, more about what's in a name. I'm simply airing thoughts and asking questions.