Supreme Court should force Redskins to drop racist name, legacy

in Politics Sports by griffn — September 23, 2009 at 9:00 am | 14 comments

redskins_logo Last week, a group of Native American leaders asked the Supreme Court to rule that the Washington Redskins team name is too offensive to be protected by U.S. trademark law. The law states that trademarks will be refused if they consist of “matter which may disparage … persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” The Redskins franchise has argued that the name is not meant to be offensive. Native American writer, lecturer and curator Suzan Harjo, the lead plaintiff in the case, has summed up the debate like this:

“The argument has always been the same,” Harjo said. “‘We are honoring you,’ they say. ‘No, you’re not,’ we reply. ‘Shut up,’ they say. That’s pretty much the divide for 17 years.”

The Redskins can claim the name is not meant to be offensive, but consider this. It was chosen by their first owner, George Preston Marshall, a virulent racist who pushed to segregate the NFL for a decade (from 1934 to 1945) and refused to sign black players to the Redskins until 1962, when he was forced to by the federal government. According to Wikipedia:

[Marshall] is best known for his intractable opposition to having African-Americans on his roster. According to professor Charles Ross, “For 24 years Marshall was identified as the leading racist in the NFL”. Though the league had previously had a sprinkling of black players, blacks were excluded from all NFL teams just one year after Marshall entered the league. Ross asserts that Marshall propelled the NFL to institute a “color barrier” akin to that of its baseball brethren. …

While the rest of the league began signing individual blacks in 1946 and actually drafting blacks in 1949, Marshall held out until 1962 before signing a black player. Moreover, the signing only came when Interior Secretary Stewart Udall issued an ultimatum – unless Marshall signed a black player, the government would revoke the Redskins’ 30-year lease on the year-old D.C. Stadium (now Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium), which had been paid for by government money and was owned by the Washington city government…

The flipside of this argument is that Marshall picked the name Redskins to honor the team’s Native American coach William “Lone Star” Dietz, and thus the name was not originally meant to be offensive. Bill Poser, writing for a University of Pennsylvania’s blog on linguistics, argues:

I think that it is well established that redskin is taken by most people today to be disparaging. What is more interesting is whether it has always been so, as Harjo et al., as well as various others, claim. One interesting piece of evidence is the origin of the name Washington Redskins. In 1933, George Preston Marshall, the owner of the team, which was then located in Boston, renamed it the Boston Redskins in honor of the head coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, an American Indian. When the team moved to Washington in 1937 it was renamed the Washington Redskins. George Marshall clearly did not consider the name disparaging.

Notice that Poser begins his argument in favor of the name Redskins by acknowledging that the name is “disparaging” to most people today. Really, that’s the end of the discussion right there, since “matter which may disparage” is not protected under trademark law. As for whether the name was always disparaging, it doesn’t matter. American history is filled with words that were acceptable 70 years ago that are not today. Whether a racist like Marshall considered the name disparaging in 1933 is irrelevant. At the least, it speaks to a man who saw everything through the prism of race. Marshall could have named the team the Washington Lone Stars, after Coach Dietz’s nickname. Instead, he chose to single out Dietz’s race. What would the response be if the Rooneys “honored” head coach Mike Tomlin by changing the Steelers name to the Pittsburgh Coloreds? (Another word that has evolved over time.)

But the worst thing about the Redskins name may be that it forces millions of fans to be complicit in the franchise’s history of racism. It’s one thing to be a fan of a team with an ugly past– most Major League Baseball teams fall in that category. It’s another thing to preserve and pass down that legacy to fans too young to remember commercialized racism and segregated sports leagues. Every dollar that goes to the Redskins is a validation of George Marshall’s belief that basic respect of other human beings is secondary to entertainment. It’s an embarrassing testament to the unwillingness of Redskins fans and ownership to face up to their franchise’s original sin.

There are already a number of newspapers around the nation who refuse to use the word Redskins, and most of them are in areas with significant Native American populations. There’s no question the name is disparaging. In 1962, it took an act of federal government to force George Marshall to integrate his team. It’s amazing that 47 years later, long after his death, it may take a Supreme Court ruling to finally put his ugly legacy to rest.

UPDATE: Gather round, kids, it’s analogy time. It’s not a perfect one, but it’ll do. Here’s what anyone who defends the name Redskins basically amounts to.

Imagine we’re living in the Jim Crow South and segregated drinking fountains have just been outlawed. And imagine there’s a large group of people who want to keep the “Whites only” and “Coloreds only” signs over the fountains, even though the signs no longer have any power. People can drink from whatever fountain they want, they just want to keep the signs up because they’re a part of our history and it would be too much of a hassle to change them. Of course, African-Americans feel angered and humiliated by the signs, and they fight for decades to get them taken down, but that’s only because they don’t realize the signs aren’t meant to be offensive.

That’s what Redskins fans and ownership amounts to. They’re people who see no problem with keeping “Whites only” and “Coloreds only” signs over the fountains.

Tags: football George Preston Marshall Mike Tomlin Native Americans NFL Pittsburgh Steelers racism supreme court Suzan Harjo trademark law Washington Redskins William Dietz

Author:

I'm a young black man with a 401(k) plan.

4 Tweets

14 Comments

Cynthia Kay Rhodes
2009-09-24
11:00:52
Well, I don't think this is right. I think the "Redskins" should beable to keep their name. You know, a similar situation happened in my home town, Abilene, Texas. We have three universities one of which was know as the McMurry Indians. It is my understanding that one of the founders of the university was actually a Native American, and the name Indian was used as their scool's symbol for years. It was not meant derogatory in anyway, but it was meant as a tribute, out of respect for our Native Americans. Someone pitched a fit about it recently and told the university if they didn't drop the name "Indian" they would not receive special funding. Well, needless to say, the university did drop the name "Indian". It is are now currently known as simply McMurry.
forbesave
2009-09-24
13:24:34
It is time for the Redskins to change their name. http://bit.ly/o2tXv #washington #redskins #sblog #nfl #football

This comment was originally posted on Twitter
negrostotle
2009-09-24
11:49:18
Eh, I think I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with the comment above me. I'm not convinced these situations are the same, anyway. First off, "Redskins" is a derogatory term. Indian is the actual name of the race. Its like the difference between "black" and "darkies"; its apples and oranges.

Secondly, I think past intentions shouldn't even come into this debate. Like the article says...you wouldn't have a football team with the name coloreds in it, regardless of the fact it wasn't meant in a derogatory fashion, why redskins then?

More to the commenter's point, you wouldn't have a team called the blacks, or the whites, or the japanese...so why is it okay for the Indians?

Previous intentions are irrelevant, people now have the "burden" of have to be socially responsible in 2009. Even responsible for those decisions of the past.
rellevent21
2009-09-24
13:54:51
agreed RT @sports_business: RT @forbesave: It is time for the Redskins to change their name. http://bit.ly/o2tXv

This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Cameron Rose
2009-09-24
13:28:02
amazing article
cx2020
2009-09-24
23:00:39
'Really, that’s the end of the discussion right there, since “matter which may disparage” is not protected under trademark law. As for whether the name was always disparaging, it doesn’t matter.'

It kinda does. Anyone can claim to find something disparaging. If there aren't enough American Indians raising a fit about the name, then from a business perspective it should matter whether the name was intended to offend. Why cut off a businesses profitability cuz some wacko is offended. Not saying that is the case here, but just sayin.

"It’s an embarrassing testament to the unwillingness of Redskins fans and ownership to face up to their franchise’s original sin."

It's pretty clear that it is a stupid name. The demographic area in which the skins reside is largely liberal and open minded. Many fans would like to see the name changed and actively avoid using or representing the name. I no longer own any team apparel, teach kids not to say Redskins, and turn down free tickets to the games, simply because I don't want to support Dan Snyder even with a food purchase. Let's not make broad statements about the fans that are unwarranted.
griffn
2009-09-25
03:27:47
@ Cynthia - I see your point, but in general I think it's ridiculous to name sports teams and mascots after ethnicities, regardless of the reason. I understand the desire to uphold tradition, but we live in a different America than when these teams were named and trademarked. Certain parts of our history belong in a museum, not on T-shirts and bumper stickers. There are actually a lot of sports teams, like the former McMurry Indians, who changed their name out of respect for Native Americans. (Here's a list of them, courtesy of Wikipedia.) There are other teams, like the Florida State Seminoles, who have earned the support of the Native American community; and as long as that's the case, they should keep their name. But I think the fact that the name Redskins isn't just an ethnicity but an ethnic slur combined with the franchise history the name carries with it combined with the fact that no Native American group anywhere supports it warrants government intervention.

@ cx2020 - I don't buy the profitability argument. Teams make tons of money every year by coming out with new jerseys and logos, which their fans then scramble to purchase. I realize you're not arguing this in the Redskins case, but in general if your sports team is using the name of an ethnic group and that ethnic group is protesting your use of their name, I think you have to back down regardless of what the accountants say. I don't know where the line is-- one protester, a hundred, a thousand?-- but I would err on the side of the people who actually are those ethnicities, not the universities and franchises who are using those ethnicities to recruit students and sell tickets.

"I no longer own any team apparel, teach kids not to say Redskins, and turn down free tickets to the games, simply because I don't want to support Dan Snyder even with a food purchase. Let's not make broad statements about the fans that are unwarranted."

That sentence I wrote about the unwillingness of Redskins fans and ownership to face up to their franchise's history doesn't apply to you. I preceded it with "Every dollar that goes to the Redskins..." Those are the fans I was talking about. I realize there are a good number of Redskins fans who, like you, are actively boycotting, and I respect that tremendously.
cx2020
2009-09-26
08:33:42
I realize there are a good number of Redskins fans who, like you, are actively boycotting, and I respect that tremendously.

So i guess we aren't starting a flame war here. How unfortunate. Well, i should probably say thanks but instead i say, Die slow! My .44 makes sure all yall kids dont grow!!!!

re: profitability. Its true that snyder will make a lot of money on merchandise (assuming he doesnt totally disenfranchise his fanbase before then). But I question who has the right to make him earn that money. He knows that he will be forced to change the name sooner or later. theoretically, he might as well make as much money as he can while he can on the old name. Where the line is drawn is a subjective, yet important issue. What if you become a world famous writer and create a brand using your name, griffn, and i, as a hypothetical mythology fan, claim that your name is an offensive bastardization of my chosen god the Griffin. How many fellow worshipers should it take to undermine your billion dollar brand? Realistically, some judge will have to make a judgment call because its reasonable for two logical people to come to a different conclusion regarding the number.
griffn
2009-09-26
14:55:49
Yeah, I'm kind of disappointed too with how civil it got in here. I feel like I dropped the ball somewhere. I see what you're saying about protecting our capitalistic society against crazy people (both sincere and cynical). I'm not an ethics professor, I don't know where the line is-- although that is an interesting conversation. That's what our flawed judicial system is for. I'm just arguing that in this case, it's clear that the argument against the Redskins is both sincere and justified. And the offense is great enough to warrant revoking a multimillion dollar trademark. Which you agree with. So we can still talk with guns, convo till the police come if you want, or we can hug it out and go get some Jamba Juice.
cx2020
2009-09-27
12:15:15
I'm just arguing that in this case, it's clear that the argument against the Redskins is both sincere and justified. And the offense is great enough to warrant revoking a multimillion dollar trademark. Which you agree with.

While I think the idea of objectifying a class of people in the form of a mascot, as the dc skins, cle indians, and ND fighting irish have done should lead to the loss of the trademark, I don't think a name change based on the offensiveness of the term redskin alone is justified. It is common practice to refer to groups of people by their skin color, e.g. "being black in america". Black is short for black skinned, right? Why is it then wrong to use the term red or redskin? redskins is no more offensive than black or white, so i dont think the term should be singled out and lead to the undermining of the trademark and the term itself, not the objectification of a group of people is the basis of the suit.

p.s. Let us save you some trouble son. What size suit you is? This way after the Ruger shoots through a few clips, you can lay in your casket just as you is. We appreciate the target practices, we'll be sure to send flower baskets kid.
sports_business
2009-09-27
18:09:30
Yes, it is insult to injury. Time for a Redskins name change http://bit.ly/o2tXv #redskinsfail #nfl

This comment was originally posted on Twitter
negrostotle
2009-09-27
16:20:10
This whole conversation is irrelevant. The skins just lost to the Lions. Of Detroit. The team should be disbanded, making the name change completely moot.
cx2020
2009-09-27
19:19:34
The lions, skins and steelers all have the same record. what is your point?
negrostotle
2009-09-27
21:30:38
ha! admittedly, the Bengals aren't good. But you cannot tell me that the Steelers losing to the Bengals is equivalent to the skins losing to the Lions. The lions of the (we haven't won a game in 19 games) fame? Read D.C. papers tomorrow and read Pgh papers and you tell me what people are taking harder. Sure, people in PGH are going to be mad...but seriously, its the Lions.