THIS PAST week was a good one for the Redskins. Seriously. Of course, this statement may seem ridiculous to anyone who witnessed Sunday's heartbreaker in Philadelphia, but it's true. While Patrick Ramsey's failed two-point conversion pass will certainly haunt my dreams nightly for the foreseeable future, I can't help but be pleased by a separate, off-the-field win. The victory I speak of involved lawyers, not Laveranues, and it was settled by a federal judge, not a line judge.
In Washington last week, a U.S. District Court overturned a 1999 Patent and Trademark Office ruling that would have banned the Redskins team from marketing its trademarked name and logo. This original decision came as the result of an objection to the team's name raised by a Native American activist group, who claimed that the term "Redskin" is a slur that defames their ethnic group. The district court's reevaluation relies on the fact that the activists didn't formally register their complaint until 25 years after the trademarks were established, and the evidence presented was similarly dated.
The district judge, basing her opinion on technical merits, declined to comment on whether the trademark was actually derogatory. Even so, it is plain to see that any racism embedded in the Redskin name has been artificially constructed.
From the onset, the Redskins organization never construed its name to be offensive. The popular myth is that the Redskin label was coined to honor a coach of the team with Native American heritage. Other versions of the story include references to the Boston Tea Party (the 'Skins' original city was Boston) or the red clay used ceremonially by certain Native American tribes. Regardless of which of these is the true origin, none of them involve any negative connotations on behalf of the Redskin name.
It would be ludicrous for any football team to name itself something insulting. Team nicknames are designed to evoke pride, as they are the symbols that fans rally themselves behind. Sports rely on projecting images of toughness, a notion that would have been purposefully undermined if the Redskins had chosen a name associated in the public mind with mockery. The Redskins cannot be accused of insulting Native Americans, because doing so would entail that the Redskins were also insulting themselves.
Traditionally, Redskins fans have avoided utilizing their team's nickname to exploit Native American culture. Missing from the stands at FedEx Field are FSU-style tomahawk chops and pseudo-tribal chants. The Redskins' fight song, "Hail to the Redskins," was even given new wording that didn't make explicit references to Native American stereotypes, as the original did. If anything, the actions of the Redskins organization throughout time constitute a shift away from possible offensiveness.
One would be hard-pressed to find anyone today who hears the term "Redskin" and doesn't associate it with football. In a modern context, the primary definition of Redskin is a team coached by Steve Spurrier, not a descendant of North America's original residents. How many readers of this column believed my opening sentence referred not to the football team, but to the Native American activists who initiated the case? Over the years, Washington's football team has crafted an image surrounding its name which has virtually eliminated its presence in the non-football lexicon.
Today, the only place where the word Redskin constitutes an intentional slur is within the walls of Texas Stadium. Refusing to take into account the contemporary interpretation of the word, these activists have fixated on the notion that because "Redskin" could be used offensively, it inevitably objectifies and exploits their culture. These activists fail to see that Redskins fans have succeeded in changing a potentially offensive name into a symbol of beloved tradition and memories. By insisting that the word Redskin must be treated as negative, the activists deny the Native American image the ability to evolve past its existence as an insulting stereotype.
The crusade to erase the Washington Redskins' name and logo has not yet come to an end, as the activists have indicated that they wish to appeal the court's ruling. Future courts would be wise to view such appeals with skepticism. As long as the issue is examined from a rational viewpoint and not with a desire for unnecessary political correctness, the prohibition of the Redskins' trademarks is about as likely as a Bengals-Cardinals Super Bowl.
(Chris Kiser is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 17 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 3 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
