Native American mascots are racist

The argument

The Washington Redsk*ns original owner, George Preston Marshall, chose to use the name Redskin in 1932, and the date matters as much as the choice. During this period, the American government was pursuing policies deliberately designed to terminate and marginalise Native American communities. The name was therefore adopted at the moment those communities were under direct official attack, not in some later period of forgetfulness about what the word had meant. The scale of that attack is what gives the timing its weight. Under the Civilian Regulations act, Native American dances and rituals were forbidden. The movement of Native American people was restricted, and they were confined to designated reservations. The act sought to outlaw Native American culture. To take a name from a people at the very time the state was suppressing their ceremonies and controlling their movement is to treat that people as material available for use, rather than as a community with any stake in how it is depicted. George Preston Marshall knew this. He did not give his team its name as a gesture of solidarity with the plight of the Native American people. In fact, he was a renowned segregationist and racist, and the rest of his record leaves no room for a charitable reading of his intentions. He was instrumental in bringing about a 13-year, league-wide ban on African American players in 1933. Under his ownership, the Redsk*ns were also one of the last NFL teams to integrate and allow black and white players to play on the same team. Marshall succumbed only when the league forced him to do so in 1963. A name chosen by a man who spent his career excluding people by race, during a period when the government was dismantling Native American culture, originated in racism rather than in respect.

Context

Team names referencing Native Americans and the use of Native American mascots were not borne from a place of support and respect. They came from an era of racism and were designed to mock Native American culture and propagate negative stereotypes. The intent behind the names makes them offensive. The intent is what separates inoffensive comments from offensive ones. Names born from racism, no matter how innocuous or seemingly benign, become offensive.

Premises

Counter-arguments

They were not borne out of racism. Many were borne out of historical notions of masculinity. By the 1930s, the rugged cowboy and Indian imagery associated with the American West had become synonymous with stoicism, fortitude, bravery and resilience. Sports teams used these names, not to deprecate, but to tap into tap into this imagery and symbolism. For example, the Atlanta Braves originally assumed their name for these reasons. The team began in Boston as the Boston Braves in 1911. James Gaffney, the club’s president, was a member of the Tammany Hall political party, which had sourced its name from Tammamend, a renowned and respected Native American chief from the Delaware Valley. The Tammany Hall political party adopted the headdress as its logo and its supporters became known as the Braves. For the aristocratic Bostonians, the Braves and its link to democratic values resonated more than the Doves, the team’s former name. Not all teams’ Native American names and logos were borne from racism. Some were borne out of respect and the desire to pay homage to the Native American histories of the region. To dismiss all Native American team names and mascots as offensive overlooks this poignant fact.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Not all sports teams carrying Native American nomenclature and imagery adopted it for racist purposes. [Rejecting P3] Many did so as a mark of respect. Therefore, the act alone is not offensive.