Why the Redskins Will Change Their Name

The last few months have seen mounting pressure on the Washington Redskins football franchise to change the team's nickname on the grounds that it is ethnically derogatory.

So far, that pressure is coming almost exclusively from a small but politically and socially privileged minority. Public opinion polls show widespread public support for the team keeping its nickname, which suggests that either (1) the American public is bigoted against American Indians, or (2) (far more likely) people have no derogatory intentions when they use the term "Redskin." Interestingly, most American Indians do not consider the nickname offensive, if the findings of this 2004 poll are still representative. Some American Indians even take pride in the name.

So it would seem there's not much reason to change the name, and for now the franchise and the National Football League vow to stick with it. But name change is coming to the Redskins—and likely very soon.

Wikimedia

The Redskins name and insignia are symbols--objects that signify some idea. Symbols are remarkably malleable, capable of taking on meanings very different from what was intended by their creators or previous users. To appreciate this, think about public perception of the ancient suastika symbol, which denotes good luck or auspiciousness.



Wikimedia

Regardless of intended meaning, great care needs to be taken with the use of symbols. Consider the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia (commonly but incorrectly called the Flag of the Confederacy). It has/had dramatically different symbolic meanings for such folks as Confederate veterans (recalling love of country and of brothers in arms), critics of centralized government (signifying the challenging of authority), and African Americans (representing a political and social regime that enslaved and persecuted their ancestors).

In appreciation of that last symbolic meaning, many Southern state and local governments have removed the flag from government buildings or relegated it to specifically historical displays—American government is supposed to benefit all citizens, after all, and so government buildings shouldn't display a symbol of oppression for some of those citizens. But in appreciation of the flag's other, more respectable meanings, it's wrong to consider all displays of the flag as insulting.

The Redskins football franchise took its current nickname in 1933, when it operated in Boston, MA. The team was founded a year earlier and originally took the name "Braves," associating it with the then-Boston Braves baseball team. Presumably, the American Indian names were intended to invoke ideas of courage, determination, and power—characteristics that would compliment a football team. Those characteristics also seem to be reflected in the Indian warrior who graces several versions of the team logo.


Famouslogos.net


Redskins fans and the general public likely associate the "Redskins" name with those characteristics today.

But what of tomorrow? As already noted, many critics of the Redskins name are among the nation's most politically and socially privileged. As such, they have a disproportionate ability to shape national perceptions—including the ability to change the common meaning of symbols. Once there is adequate public perception that the Redskins name is derogatory, the franchise will have a strong economic incentive to change it. Ultimately, businesses follow economic incentives.

In order for the Redskins critics to get rid of a nickname they consider derogatory, they will first have to make it derogatory. The critics seem determined to do so, and their considerable social and political privilege gives them the ability to do so. I'm sure those critics will succeed—and surprisingly quickly.