Is the United States Congress prepared to legally ban the term, “redskin?”
As readers of these web-pages know, USAonRace.com and its sister publications ongoing coverage of this debate about whether the term “redskin” is a racial slur not to be used, such as in the name of the Washington D.C. National Football League team. Some say it’s a harmless term and it’s much ado about nothing. Others counter, that it’s a racially-insensitive slang term that carries much negative connotation.
Now it appears the United States Congress is about to end the debate once and for all. A recently introduced-bill called the Non-Disparagement of Native American Persons or Peoples in Trademark Registration Act of 2013, would strip the Washington football team of its trademarked name and stop it from profiting from selling sweatshirts, tee shirts, caps, coffee mugs, and dozens of other products. Co-sponsored by approximately six Democratic congressional representatives, the bill would prohibit any future trademarks that use the term.
Knowing the history of the term “redskin” may help readers determine if the term is racial discrimination and or not it is offensive. In 1755, Spencer Phips, the Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, issued the Phips Proclamation. It essentially directed all Massachusetts citizens to kill Native Americans of the Penobscot Nation by any means possible. Their crime was that they refused to turn over their ancestral lands to the English. For every bloody Penobscot scalp they brought in, people would receive payment. They called the bloody scalps “redskins.”
Doesn’t sound so benign there, does it? Daniel Snyder, owner of the Washington football team, recently came out and said the team would “never” change its name. He invoked that hoary old ghost “tradition” as the reason. A recent poll also found that 80 percent of Americans think the name should stick.
What do you think?