Discussion of Whether The Redskins Should Change Their Name

Introduction

The term “politically correct” is becoming more prevalent than ever. Due to this, many organizations are under fire, including the NFL. The NFL has been receiving backlash from activists, with demonstrators protesting ethnic mascots. This includes the controversial mascot of the team, the Washington Redskins. In Richard Estrada’s column for the Dallas Morning News titled “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names,” he criticizes ethnic mascots (Estrada, 1999). Due to increasing political awareness, sports teams must not use ethnic mascots because they will offend the ethnicities displayed.

Tradition vs. Morality

Many would argue that since ethnic mascots have been used for so long, they are core to the identity of the team. The mascot represents the team and has been used for decades. However, even if mascots have been used for a long time, it does not mean it is morally correct. As society advances, humanity realizes what is acceptable and what is not. Many awful things in the past were customary. Racism towards African-Americans was once acceptable. However, since humanity has evolved, racists are considered pathetic and offensive. Cultural sensitivity is an ever-evolving concept that requires constant attention and adjustment.

The Offense of Ethnic Mascots

Ethnic mascots are offensive to the culture of ethnicities inside and outside the field. For instance, on the radio, a father of a Native American child reveals his son was “pressured into participating” for “celebrations of Braves baseball” (para.8) (Smith, 2020). The child was Native American, thus many believed he would join in the commemoration of the Braves. The notion of Natives appreciating the Braves is stereotyping. Race and ethnicity are not determining qualities of identity. A recent controversy in sports is how Redskin fans paint their faces red in tribute to their team. To paint one’s face as a race is not proper outside an arena, so why is it acceptable inside a sports arena? The answer is it is unacceptable. For example, in sports, shoes are important. They sell only several limited edition shoes. If someone sells rare shoes all the time, it loses its value. Native American costumes are being appropriated inside the arena. Their clothing is precious to them, not something worn in a sports game. Ethnic mascots teach fans that dressing as an ethnicity or race is acceptable. Dressing as a race or ethnicity is unacceptable, no matter in the stadium or outside.

Intention vs. Perception

A possible argument is the intention of the mascot and name is not to offend. Therefore, these individuals believe mascots and names should remain the same. The intention of the ethnic mascot or name is not harmful. Although, from the viewpoint of a minority, it may seem offensive. After all, it’s all about perspective. America is a diverse country in ideas and ethnicities. For this issue, the United States should respect the wishes of minorities, not the opinions of privileged individuals who have yet to experience this. The discussion goes beyond personal intent and delves into the impact and perception of those affected (Johnson, 2019).

Cultural Appropriation

In America, an unpleasant result of racial mascots is cultural appropriation. An outcome of this is how society expects Native Americans to be fans of ethnic mascots due to their race. In Estrada’s essay, he expresses a radio segment he listened to. A Native American father exclaims to listeners that for celebrating the Braves, students were “told to dress in Indian garb and celebrate with tomahawk chops” (Estrada, 1999). Ethnicity is not a fashion. By allowing children to take part, schools send the message of approval to dress as an ethnicity in the name of sports. At sports games, fans dress up like their mascots. Specifically, at Redskin games, fans wear traditional Native outfits. Fans should not treat ethnicity, religion, or race as a costume. Attire is something precious to ethnicities and is not something sports fans should steal. An example of precious attire is a hijab. A hijab is a hair wrap used in Islam. If a non-Muslim wore a hijab because they thought it was fascinating, that would be inappropriate because they did not understand the significance behind the hijab. Like the hijab, using a cultural or religious symbol for sports is inappropriate. Society must not use mascots that display a living group of people because it encourages cultural appropriation.

Alienation and Its Effects

A negative aspect of ethnic mascots is alienation. A mascot symbolizes uniqueness. Mascots are strange yet fascinating. Due to this, an average person would not be a mascot. When sports teams use ethnicities as a mascot, the teams are labeling ethnicities as different. When a society pegs a group as strange, they are alienating them. Alienation is offensive because when the general population refuses to associate with an ethnicity it degrades the group. To illustrate this idea is the concept of a two-for-one deal. A two-for-one deal means consumers can purchase multiple products for the price of one. Most individuals would not want the same product at the original price if there was a two-for-one deal. Almost all people desire inclusion, not alienation. Using racial mascots alienates a group as outcasts. Why would an individual want less inclusion? Similarly, Estrada believes using an ethnicity as a mascot is “dehumanizing” because it “sets them apart from society” (Estrada, 1999). Estrada intelligently explains the issues that so many modern, progressive people found with racial mascots. It is offensive to use racial mascots because they portray ethnicities as different.

Rights and Morality

Some would suggest that having an ethnic mascot should remain the same because Americans have rights that should not be taken away by popular opinions. The right to have an ethnic mascot exists; nothing in the constitution prevents it. Nonetheless, this issue is not about what is legal or not. The question should be if ethnic mascots are moral. Minorities are being used as mascots without their permission. Where is their right to decide that? A society that values freedom must also respect the voices and rights of all its members, especially those historically marginalized (Thompson, 2018).

Conclusion

Life is all about decisions. We decide who we are or what we become. America must make a decision: is it acceptable to have ethnic mascots? Is it okay to name a team something that may be considered racially insensitive? To many, ethnic mascots and offensive names are hurtful. Ethnic mascots and names must be avoided because they are offensive to the culture of ethnicities, encourage cultural appropriation, and enable alienation. To continue using ethnic names and mascots is disrespectful. Americans must become more aware of racial sensitivities in this era of political correctness.

References

• Estrada, R. (1999). Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names. Dallas Morning News.
• Johnson, L. (2019). The Impact of Ethnic Mascots on Community Perceptions. Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(3), 45-60.
• Smith, A. (2020). Native American Voices in Sports. Radio Broadcast on Cultural Sensitivity.
• Thompson, J. (2018). Rights and Representation in Modern America. American Law Review, 34(2), 78-102.