The recent hot-button topic in sports has come out of Washington, D.C.: The use of the name "Redskins" for the city's football team. Everyone has given their two cents on this subject, culminating in a Sunday night football halftime sermon by Bob Costas of NBC two weeks ago. I'm not here necessarily to argue in favor of or against the name, but rather provide an alternate perspective on the issue.
A major gripe I have is the reasoning behind the fight. Who is arguing for the name change, and why should they be considered an authority on the matter? Why is someone such as the aforementioned Costas, a white American male with no known connection to Native Americans, making the argument that the name is offensive? Is he offended on behalf of other people? And if so, who exactly are these people and why are they not speaking out if they are so offended themselves?
Finding a name offensive is very subjective to a certain person and, with a diverse population of 300 million and counting in America, controversy is bound to arise.
If we want to get technical, there are several names that could be found to be distasteful depending on who is asked. To a non-sports fan, the Los Angeles Angels, New Orleans Saints and New Jersey Devils all could exhibit clear religious undertones and be found insulting by those who don't believe in religion. Yet complaints have never been made about these.
Oftentimes the active minority is heard over the silent majority because it voices its opinions louder and more passionately. In a recent poll conducted, as many as 90 percent of native people asked were not offended by the term "Redskins." It should be noted that the validity of the cultural credentials of those asked has been brought into question.
Even if we were to use a conservative estimate of 70 percent based on the poll results, this would still show that a significant majority of people with a direct relation to the term do not find it to be an issue. If, in the most recent presidential election, a candidate was supported by 70 percent of the population, but the other candidate won because of his louder supporters, we would consider it an outrage.
Another important question to be raised is why, after being in existence since 1936, has the name suddenly become offensive?
The name has not changed since the mid 1930s, when it was implemented as a way to honor the coach at the time, Lone Star Dietz. Now I know you don't want a lecture on the history of the name, but the message is it was intended - to the best of our knowledge - to be a sign of respect.
Just to be clear, I am not advocating on either side of the name change because I see the merit in both arguments. I do think it is important to note an apparent gap, though, between those who we believe are offended and the reality of the situation.
To a fan, names of teams are seen as a means of support, not exclusion or a controversy waiting to happen. Someone will always be on the other side, but this does not mean they are the majority and should be catered to. The bigger picture should be taken into consideration before making a move of such large magnitude.
The question that needs to be answered is: Does perception match reality? It's necessary in decisions like this to do the proper research, find the results and if the numbers are in favor, then act accordingly. Until next time, those who cater to the minority without taking into account the majority - you're sacked!
Jordan Bean is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major. He can be reached at Jordan.Bean@tufts.edu.
