Changing Nicknames, Changing Attitudes

Former alternate logo for the Washington Redskins (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Washington's National Football League franchise, known as the Redskins, has been in business since the Great Depression of the 1930s.  That was an era when few folks cared about the impact a sports nickname can have on certain ethnic groups.

Its original owner, George Preston Marshall, reflected the racism of professional sports at that time.  While other NFL teams brought in African-American players after World War II, for example, Marshall's team was the last to integrate--in 1962.

In the last couple of decades, movements to rid athletic programs of offensive nicknames considered demeaning to Native Americans have had mixed success.  High schools and universities have done the most in that department, exchanging Indians and Redskins for the more benign Blaze or RedHawks.  The NCAA forced the University of North Dakota to drop its Fighting Sioux nickname, but has allowed Florida State University to keep the name "Seminoles".  It seems that the Seminole tribe gave their blessing to the name, while North Dakota's tribes did not.

As for the pros?  In the NFL, we still have the Redskins and the Kansas City Chiefs.  In Major League Baseball, there's the Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians.  The National Hockey League has the Chicago Blackhawks.  Despite protests, no real effort has been made to change those names.

The most recent attempt to get rid of the Redskins nickname is apparently going to fall flat.  Ten members of Congress, including Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), have urged the NFL to force the Washington team to find another name.  NFL commissioner Roger Goodell replied that the Redskins' name "is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect".  How patronizing.

Current Washington owner Dan Snyder's response can be summed up in one word:  Never.

It's not hard to see why.  Names like Braves and Redskins are too well-established in the public's mind and make too much money to make a change for the sake of the political correctness crowd.  The owners don't care whether their fans are black, white or yellow.  All they see is green, as in the color of money.

These same owners complain that name-changing will cost too much.  Let's see . . . In the NBA alone, the Washington Bullets became the Wizards.  The New Orleans Hornets became the Pelicans.  The Charlotte Bobcats want to change its name back to the Hornets.  And there have been several relocated franchises that have had to change their identity, such as the original Cleveland Browns becoming the Baltimore Ravens, the Houston Oilers turning into the Tennessee Titans, and the Seattle Supersonics morphing into the Oklahoma City Thunder.  So it can be done.

Changing offensive nicknames is one thing.  Changing the attitudes we have about Native Americans is quite another.  From the day white Europeans first landed in North America, Native Americans were vanquished and sent to reservations.  In the movies and on TV, if they're not portrayed as savages who kidnap white women and children (only to be rescued by the likes of John Wayne), they could also be portrayed as simple-minded dunderheads who say nothing but "how" all the time. (Some of these actors weren't even actual Native Americans.)  More often than not, they're ignored and called names.  They don't have the political or financial clout needed to get more respect in Washington, unless you count the few tribes who have profitable casinos on their reservations.

Is it too much to ask professional sports owners to get rid of nicknames that claim to "honor" Native Americans, but really don't?  And for the rest of us to have an attitude check regarding the people who inhabited North America first?  Don't hold your breath.