It’s Thursday and I have to apologize for the missing blog post yesterday. Apparently there was a technology issue that prevented it from going live at 5:00 AM. So this morning’s post is what I had intended for yesterday. It’s a longer one, but there’s so much to address. Anyway, here goes.
On Monday the Washington Redskins football team announced that they are retiring the team name and logo. The move comes in response to years of public and private pressure to change the name which, apparently, some Native Americans find offensive.
The Washington Post summarized the history of the name and logo:
“The name lasted 87 years. It saw a move from Boston to Washington, three Super Bowl titles, the creation of a unifying Washington institution and, in recent years, the deterioration of a flagship North American sports franchise. It saw former owner George Preston Marshall’s racism and Hall of Fame coach Joe Gibbs’s understated brilliance. It saw Sonny Jurgensen’s gunslinging, John Riggins’s power and Art Monk’s grace. It saw seats shake at RFK Stadium and sections removed at FedEx Field. It saw one World War and 14 United States presidents. It made people proud, ashamed, comforted and enraged. And now it is gone.”
Believe me when I tell you that the Post is only pretending to sound sad about this development. But what they just described is everything that goes into making a strong brand; the history, traditions, shared experiences, heroic figures, loyalty in times of loss, pride in seasons of winning. All of that is infused in the name and logo, and all that goes away when the icons go away.
It would be like Coca-Cola being forced to change its name and logo, even though it’s still the same drink. Yeah, it’s the same, but it’s not really the same. The new name does not carry the same associations.
Who Speaks for the Natives?
Also, not every American Indian found the name and logo offensive. In fact, Lance Wetzel, the son of the man who designed the logo—Walter “Blackie” Wetzel—was proud of the fact that there was a Native American represented on an NFL team.
“Everyone was pretty upset (about the change),” Lance Wetzel said. “Everyone understood the name change we were all on board with that. Once they weren’t going to use the logo, it was hard. It takes away from the Native Americans. When I see that logo, I take pride in it. You look at the depiction of the Redskins logo and it’s of a true Native American. I always felt it was representing my people. That’s not gone.”
But the activists are in charge now. Here’s what Ray Halbritter, Oneida Nation representative and head of the Change the Mascot campaign had to say on Monday.
“This is a good decision for the country — not just Native peoples — since it closes a painful chapter of denigration and disrespect toward Native Americans and other people of color. Future generations of Native youth will no longer be subjected to this offensive and harmful slur every Sunday during football season.
“A painful chapter of denigration and disrespect”? Teams chose names like the Redskins, Braves and Indians because they admired the fierce nature of these people—they were warriors in the classic sense of the term. But in our age of wokeness, those attributes are considered “offensive, racist and derogatory.”
Native youth in the future “will no longer be subjected to this offensive and harmful slur”? The complaint is that the term “Redskins” is to Native Americans as the word “Nigger” is to African Americans.
That’s a distressing comparison. All I can say is that, outside of Native American population, I’ve never heard of anyone who understood “Redskins” to be such an ugly slur, while the majority of Americans know that the N-word is such a slur. In fact, for some time both Natives and whites used the term “in a respectful, non-offensive manner.”
Halbritter goes on:
“We have made clear from the start that this movement was never about political correctness, but seeking to prevent unnecessary harm to our youth, since we know from social scientists the many harmful effects this mascot has had on Native Americans’ self-image. Today marks the start of a new chapter for the NFL and the Washington franchise, beginning a new legacy that can be more inclusive for fans of all backgrounds.”
Note that he refers to “social scientists” and “the many harmful effects” the “mascot” has had on Native Americans’ “self-image.” A few observations: 1. He cites no studies from social scientists; 2. He cites no data or any of the “many harmful effects”; 3. I thought we were talking about a logo, not a “mascot,” which is associated with cartoonish oversized foam suits (and which the Redskins do not have); and 4. If this “mascot” is powerful enough to damage someone’s “self-image,” then maybe it’s not the mascot that’s the problem.
When You Depend on Others’ Money, You’re No Longer in Charge
It wasn’t just the Native American activists. Corporate money was the final shove that toppled the iconic brand. According to Adweek, 87 investment firms and shareholders asked corporate sponsors FedEx, Nike and PepsiCo to terminate their relationship with the organization unless it changed their name. It was the mighty dollar—potentially hundreds of millions in lost advertising revenue—that did it.
At least one indigenous activist is also crediting the Black Lives MatterTM organization with the name and logo change. In addition to the buildings they’ve burned, statues they’ve destroyed and people they’ve murdered, the Marxist BLM can add another scalp to their belts.
“Gratitude goes from Native people right now to Black Lives Matter because they have, from the beginning of their founding, had it baked in to their whole process to defend other minorities as well,” said Dunbar-Ortiz, herself a veteran activist in the American Indian Movement of the 1970s.
What’s Next?
It is true to say that the Washington Redskins is a thoroughly Americanized institution and the term “Redskins” has been thoroughly sanitized over the 87 years it has been in use. Americans watch the team play without ever thinking, not even once, that it’s a slur.
But even if that is true, it’s not allowed. “It becomes part of [the team’s] identity. Only it’s not their identity. It’s an appropriation, a caricature. And when fans don feather headdresses and paint on their faces?” It “perpetuates the stereotype of us as blood thirsty.”
Really? Because I think it perpetuates the image of a strong and brave warrior. But because a minority of people think it’s racist, it has to go. There are more scalps to be had, and plenty of offended Native Americans to juice the grievance train.
Next up?
The Kansas City Chiefs. And the Cleveland Indians. And every single high school in America that uses “Redskins” or “Redmen” or “Chiefs” or “Indians” in its nickname.
And don’t forget all the Pop Warner and Pee Wee football leagues. And all the youth baseball, ice hockey, basketball, lacrosse and rugby teams. Believe me, it will happen. Just listen to what Carla Fredericks, the director of the American Indian Law Clinic and director of First Peoples Worldwide, said:
“We’re just taking a very hard line on all of this, that anything that relates to Native American people or is evocative of Native American people has no place in professional sports. The hard line is important because of the lack of understanding about Native American people in our communities, so the clarity would go a long way toward better behavior by sports teams and fans.
There you have it—Native American culture may not be used in professional sports. And if it can’t be used in professional sports, we don’t want the kids getting any ideas about using those terms, so let’s make sure they’re scrubbed from an early age. Especially if it will result in some undefined “better behavior.”
Walter “Blackie” Wetzel, who designed the logo from the likeness of Chief Two Guns White Calf, would be crushed if he knew what was happening today. In an interview with the Washington Post in 2012, he said, “It made us all so proud to have an Indian on a big-time team. It’s only a small group of radicals who oppose those names. Indians are proud of Indians.”
That “small group of radicals” say they want understanding, but what they’re really asking for is obscurity. Mark my words: once they strip all sports of any references to themselves, it won’t be long before they complain that they’re not represented anywhere in America—even on our butter.