Lately, anyone who's anyone has been weighing in on the debate over the Washington Redskins' name. Wise columnists have addressed such questions as: Is the name racist? Is 'redskin' a slur? Are Native Americans offended by it? What if one carefully selected Native American leader says he is not offended by it? Then can we definitively declare that, 'It's okay, everyone, they aren't offended; we don't need to change the name?'
Things to consider. Except not really.
Here's my take: Of course the name is offensive. Of course it's harmful. Last year, I addressed that point in this space, and I'd be happy to discuss it further another time. (The crux was that, regardless of whether 'redskin' is a slur, Native American mascots dehumanize and stereotype an oppressed group of people.)
But we are not asking the right questions. To ask merely whether the name is racist is to oversimplify an issue that exists within a much larger social framework. The debate needs to shift away from racist versus not racist, offensive versus inoffensive, and be placed in its appropriate historical and present-day context.
Before even beginning a discussion about the Washington Redskins, two things should be abundantly clear. One is that Native Americans were victims of genocide here at the hands of white Europeans. The mere fact that Native Americans still exist in this country is something of a miracle.
The other, which is less publicized but just as significant today, is that Native Americans are still oppressed. Many live on reservations that lack proper infrastructure and are exposed to radioactive and toxic waste. Unemployment and alcoholism are rampant among Native populations. Out of all U.S. ethnic groups, Native Americans have the highest rates of suicide, child mortality and teen pregnancy. They also have the lowest life expectancy.
Native Americans remain outsiders in their own home, and so far they have not wielded the power necessary to change that. Without first acknowledging this fact, an argument about mascots misses the point.
Redskins owner Dan Snyder, along with countless other Native American mascot apologists, likes to claim that the names, images and rituals associated with his team are intended to honor Native American heritage. He claims they are signs of respect.
But these "signs of respect" are not only misguided; they are also worthless. If you want to show respect for Native Americans - if you truly value their legacy and continued presence in the United States - then start by advocating for them. Demand their human rights. Open your pocketbook - especially if it's as deep as Snyder's - and lobby for equal treatment. Tell policymakers that Native Americans are human beings, not mascots.
A jarring analogy here may be helpful. Imagine a German soccer team using a Jewish figure as its mascot - say, for instance, the "Berlin Rabbis," or the "Munich Hasids." Here, as in the case of the Redskins, people who were victims of genocide are used as mascots in the country where that genocide occurred. Like Native Americans in the United States, Jews in Germany are still trying to find their footing. (Although, unlike 'rabbi' or 'Hasid,' 'redskin' is a slur.)
I don't mean to suggest that a discussion about Native American mascots has no merit. Symbolically, it's a step in the right direction. Momentum is currently working against D.C.'s football team, and that's a good thing.
But let's not forget what we're really talking about here. While we grapple over a name, Native Americans are fighting to survive.
Maybe, once we move past the mascot thing, we can start talking about survival.
