What's in a name?

Is racism fine as long as there's a uniform that comes with it?

A few weeks ago, the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian held a symposium to discuss the growing controversy on the use of Native American imagery in American sports.

The discussion has heated up recently after the Atlanta Braves decided to scrap the idea of reviving their "screaming Indian" logo, but for decades, Native American organizations, individuals and allies have protested the use of imagery in the marketing of athletic teams. The Braves, Chicago Blackhawks, Kansas City Chiefs, Cleveland Indians and, most notably, the Washington Redskins are all part of a choice group of teams that use Native American names, some considered to be more offensive than others.

'Skins owner Dan Snyder argues the team's name and mascot pay homage to Native Americans and aren't meant to promote negative stereotypes. But the point is they do. Though many consider Redskins to be a neutral term, many more find it extremely distasteful and demoralizing. With every argument someone can make to keep it, there will always be a counterargument to get rid of it. To progress, it's necessary to abandon offensive imagery and names in our sports.

Many organizations have rightfully begun to stray from the term. The National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Education Association, the NAACP, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and the American Psychological Association have all publically opposed the use of names or imagery.

Some media organizations have stopped using the full name of Washington's team, including The Kansas City Star, Washington City Paper and DCist. Even the NCAA banned the use of imagery and nicknames in 2005, spare for a few exceptions (the Florida State Seminoles, for example, are exempt from the rule because the university has a strong relationship with the Seminole Tribe of Florida and an agreement to use the name).

It's obviously not just a problem in professional sports, though it's a problem that has reduced significantly over the last 40 years. In 1970, about 500 high school team names fell into the "red slur" category (e.g. Redskins, Red Raiders, etc.); now there are fewer than 100. High schools and professional teams that understand the implications of the name but continue to use it are only maintaining racist stereotypes and telling the people who support their teams that it's OK to also support the terms. In both cases, they're teaching fans at a younger age that the derogatory terms are acceptable.

If something is so blatantly offensive, why give it the attention? Well, no one has ever argued against the power of money. There's enough demand for the 'Skins name, and because there's been no apparent backlash in terms of sales, there is also no immediate financial incentive to change it. It's easy to choose marketing over morale if the money is pouring in.

But restructuring team names and images to something that doesn't alienate an entire group of Americans will bring in the people of that group who are interested. Not only that, returning fans will not only continue to pay for tickets and merchandise, they will have to update their merchandise.

Native American imagery in American sports creates a barrier, turning Native people into objects of entertainment rather than human beings. We should be at a point in society where derogatory, racist terms aren't flashed around on banners and jerseys.

Email: editorial@ubspectrum.com