|
There are several problems with the commentary by Bob Costas as presented to the nation during half time of Sunday Night Football on NBC. (10.13.13). One is the use of the term “native Americans”, a term that came into popularity, in part, because it was favored by academics as a way of referring to those who lived on the North American continent prior to the arrival of European settlers. The other problem, relating specifically to football, is Costas’ claim that using the names of Indian tribes for team names is okay, as long as it is done “respectfully”.
First, on the issue of team names: why is it permissible for the descendants of people who tried to kill American Indians during the frontier days to use those tribal names as team names in football? What makes this all right? It seems that Costas is trying to have it both ways in claiming that the name Redskins could be seen as a slur, yet the use of tribal names, which after all belong to the tribes, not to the larger society, is permissible.
A team name is meant to honor, to show respect, by associating that team with historical forces or just words implying strength, dedication and fortitude. (White Sox and Red Sox, of course, are just names without particular meaning, although they can have historical value as nicknames.) It is more than ironic that a dominant society, which clearly tried and succeeded in subduing the Indian tribes, when then name their football teams after those tribes. It represents a kind of backhand respect, one could say, but this doesn’t explain why it is permissible for the larger society to take over names that belong to someone else.
It would be unthinkable, however, for Costas to go on national television and say that teams should never be called Blackhawks€ť, Seminoles and Chippewas. There would be a national eruption. You think Obamacare is a hot topic? Just try to tell those using those Indian names that they can’t use them any more. In his commentary, he said that these names were “potentially more problematic”, whatever that means. Personally, I find the use of those names more offensive than the term Redskins, but then I am not an American Indian, so my say on that scale doesn’t count for much.
Moving on, the term “native American” has generally fallen out of favor, though, again, Costas took a bow to commonly accepted practice by using it. Here is what is wrong with it: the implication is that those descendants of the European, and other, settlers can never be native Americans. It confuses the issue. Those who are born in this country are, indeed, native Americans, even if their parents got here ten minutes ago. The term itself leaves the rest of America out in the cold: what are we, invader Americans?
Taking it full circle, we now know that those we refer to as American Indians also represent nomadic people from elsewhere. Just looking at the faces of American Indians indicates a possible origin in Asia and recent research using DNA and other methods has indicated that American Indians have probably been here for about ten thousand years. So, they were here first, but they are also travelers, too, people who came here for, whatever reason, and stayed. Most of the world’s populations were originally from somewhere else. The common idea is that we all came from Africa, but this is being challenged by recent findings.
This whole issue gets back to the basic discussion of who has a legitimate claim to where they live. It is part of the origin of the massive troubles in the middle east, a cause of warfare that has killed hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. Each tribe claims that their tribe was in a given area first and this gives rise to a claim that others don’t belong. The State of Israel has been torn apart by these competing claims since its founding more than sixty years ago.
“Native Americans” seemed like a good, respectful idea when it started out, but, in fact, it is a misnomer and one that undermines European and other settlers to North America. I am a native American, but my “tribe” is not natives. (Actually, my tribes are not native, because I am, like most Americans, the product of merging many different national and ethic backgrounds.)
All of this is meant to say that the issue of appropriation of American Indian names and symbols is to easy to untangle. Many people have adopted the idea that we, the (currently) dominant white race are permanently illegitimate in this country. They believe, incorrectly, than a genocide was attempted toward the American Indians. Instead, while there were genocidal elements to the way the conflict was pursued, both sides of the wars between the Indians and the new comers from the 16th through the 19th centuries engaged in fierce, brutal and inhumane actions toward each other. It was a conflict that, in one way or another, was going to happen no matter who came into the North American continent, a conflict between ancient ways of life and the developing modernity of those coming in. The only way to avoid the conflict would have been for outsiders to stay away, something that simply would not have been sustained for centuries.
Should Washington still call its team “The Redskins”? First, we should understand that we, in the 21st century, cannot make up for the brutality of our ancestors by trying to go overboard in showing belated respect. There are those who claim that the term “Redskins” does not refer to the color of the Indian’s skin (more on this soon). We want to be like the peoples our ancestors defeated, we want to be strong, brave and determined, and even fierce, as they were. Does it demean them or honor them? Perhaps the answer is that it does both, depending on your point of view. It is a kind of belated respect, but it is also fair to ask whether we have the right to use terms about a people who became subjected to the settlers of the frontiers.
The answer is all or nothing. It is either right or wrong. If it is wrong, remove all Indian names, symbols and tribal names from professional and college sports teams, unless arrangements can be made with those tribes. There shouldn’t be half way measures. As the old song about the original peoples of Australia said, “It belongs to them/let’s give it back”. ** If the Redskins name needs to be removed, do so and an effort to change all the names should be part of the deal. If the names are not changed, then let’s be adults and admit that we are not a perfect nation with a completely wonderful history. Perhaps a way could be found to respectfully turn the Redskins name into a real tribute to a people who fought back with everything they had but were otherwise doomed.
Doug Terry, 10.14.13
**The song referred to Ayers Rock in the Australian outback.
|
