By Trevor Baratko
Last week, a bipartisan trio of lawmakers in the Old Dominion launched the “Redskins Pride Caucus” to, among other things, “oppose the inappropriate involvement of Congress in issues surrounding” the NFL’s Washington Redskins, and to “give a voice” to the team’s fans and season-ticket holders, according to the announcement, which came less than a week after a federal trademark board ruled the Redskins name is disparaging to native Americans and took away the team’s trademark protections (the Redskins ownership is likely to appeal).
What started with three Virginia delegates and senators had grown to nearly 30 by last last week; all of whom knowingly signed on to the always-hot-button Redskins debate.
If you’re unaware, the Washington football team is headquartered and practices at “Redskins Park” in high-end Loudoun County in Northern Virginia, and the team holds training camp in Richmond, hence the involvement from the state.
Public relations stunt, maybe? (One of the caucus’s founders, state Del. David Ramadan, has tweeted or retweeted about his new caucus 849,234 times by my count (rough estimate). But there remains legitimate questions and human emotions in play here. Anyone who doubts this should, if they haven’t already, check out that anti-Redskins commercial that ran during the NBA Finals. Despite where you come down on the issue, it’s tough to dispute the clip was well done and underscores that, yes, people are hurt by the term.
Obvious ponderings surface: Is this caucus the best use of elected officials’ time, be it on the state or federal level? What can this group achieve? And, of course, is the name racist?
Let’s work backwards. It’s a profound struggle to decipher how the term is not racist. Just because something isn’t offensive to all, doesn’t mean it isn’t offensive to some. In this case, the “some” is at least thousands of original Americans.
Let’s look objectively, something fans of the team logically can’t do; if you’re a fan of the team, obviously there’s bias. The Merriam-Webster dictionary notes the word is an “usually offensive” term for “American Indians,” and sociologist Irving Lewis Allen argued that “slang identifiers for ethnic groups based upon physical characteristics are by nature derogatory, emphasizing the difference between the speaker and the target,” according to Wikipedia.
The National Congress of American Indians, the oldest and largest American Indian and Alaska Native organization (admittedly a biased organization, but arguably that with the most skin in the game, pardon the pun), calls “the ‘Redskins’ trademark disparaging to Native Americans” and claims it “perpetuates a centuries-old stereotype of Native Americans as ‘blood-thirsty savages,’ ‘noble warriors’ and an ethnic group ‘frozen in history.’”
A common response from advocates for keeping the name is, “Well, polls show a majority of Native Americans don’t mind the team name.” Again, just because some, or even most, people don’t believe “redskins” is derogatory doesn’t mean a term isn’t sincerely distressing to others. This doesn’t need to be — it shouldn’t be — a matter of majority rule.
What can these lawmakers achieve?
It’s unclear. In the wake of the announcement, it seems little more than a state and regional pep rally for fans.
It’s curious that the caucus’s founders chastise Congress’s involvement in the Redskins controversy by … creating a government-sanctioned group to weigh in on the Redskins controversy. Perspective is critical here. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. The 50 members of Congress who signed a letter to Redskins management urging a name change were exhibiting their First Amendment right, just as Redskins proponents are. And it’s not like members of Congress went so far to create a “Redskins Mortification Caucus.”
As for the patent board’s decision, which indeed is open to thoughtful debate, it was not plainly out of step with the law. It was a judgment.
Finally, is this the best use of elected officials’ time?
Bafflingly, the caucus announcement came the same day Virginia’s state lawmakers returned to Richmond to finalize a two-year state budget — this after months of political dueling between Republicans and Democrats over whether to accept federal funds to expand Medicaid.
A state government shutdown was less than two weeks away, and this is what lawmakers spent their time discussing?
Initiatives like creating a new caucus don’t just happen at the snap of the fingers. There had to be, at the very least, a couple days of planning. So, with about 10 days left before the new fiscal year, after months of nasty political brinkmanship in a state formerly known for civility, these three lawmakers were focused on creating a caucus to protect one of the richest franchises in professional sports?
In the end, I suppose I just can’t grasp why the name is so damn important to fans and management. A mascot change doesn’t morph the players on the field or eradicate the franchise as the “hometown team.”
And a name shift would likely be beneficial from a business standpoint. As D.C.’s delegate to Congress Eleanor Holmes Norton noted, think of how much revenue the team would generate with the unveiling of new logos and uniforms and other merchandise.
I don’t disagree with Norton, but it’d be refreshing if this debate could be framed outside the context of money and capitalism. I’ve always thought Americans should strive to be the best representation of society they can be. Strive to be pure and honest and humble. Strive for enlightenment and not blatantly offending people, be it one person or one million.
Trevor Baratko is a writer and Virginia News Group reporter based in Northern Virginia. Follow him on Twitter: @TrevorBaratko.
