Opinion Editorial
Editorial

Cut your losses, Washington Redskins, and sack the slur

50 U.S. senators say enough is enough: You can't call Washington's NFL team the Redskins
Linguistic roots aside, Redskins is now an ethnic slur; it's time for it to go

What's in a name? In the case of the Washington Redskins, a lot of history — and an irrefutable ethnic slur that ought to embarrass the National Football League enough to finally force some action.

Citing the speed with which the National Basketball Assn. reacted to Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling's racially charged remarks about African Americans, 50 U.S. senators on Thursday urged the NFL to put pressure on Redskins owner Dan Snyder to drop the franchise's offensive name.

It is regrettable that Virginia's two Democratic senators, who represent a large portion of the team's fan base, opted not to sign the letter. (Republicans, for some reason, were not invited to sign.) Tim Kaine said he supports the name change but didn't like the tone; if so, maybe he should have sent his own concurring letter. Mark R. Warner's office said he didn't think it "was for Congress to dictate what the league does" and that "team names will change to reflect the times," implying the problem will resolve itself.

Warner is right in one regard: It is not up to Congress to dictate this change. But this was not a piece of legislation; it was a personal statement of 50 senators' objections to a patently racist term. It's hard not to conclude that Kaine and Warner, unlike Maryland Sens. Barbara A. Mikulski and Benjamin L. Cardin, put fear of losing fan votes ahead of taking a principled stand.

And it is a slur. Defenders of the name point to an etymology that began with Native Americans calling themselves "red skins" to differentiate themselves from the European settlers, the "white skins." Those linguistic roots, however, do not trump the evolution of the term into an ethnic slur; it's been a pejorative for a very long time. The National Congress of American Indians and other tribal organizations have strongly objected to the term, and as targets of the slur, they are in the best position to call it so.

The team has been called the Redskins since moving from Boston in 1937. That's 77 years; we don't think a team called the "Darkies" would have been tolerated for that long, although there's really not much difference. The team's owners have complained over the years that renaming the team would anger fans and make meaningless the millions of dollars that have been spent marketing the team. To which we respond: It's past time for a change. Cut your losses.

We should note too that the NFL, as a business association, is tax exempt (though the individual teams are not), which means American taxpayers are an unwilling party to this embarrassment. This page has argued before that Snyder should drop the offensive name, and we renew that call now. Change the name, and end the insult.

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Bob Costas: Why 'Redskins' is racist
    Bob Costas: Why 'Redskins' is racist

    In response to my remarks on NBC about the Washington Redskins team name controversy, Jonah Goldberg writes of his love and respect for words. So why, then, play so fast and loose with them? 

  • Redskins' owner helps Native Americans yet clings to racist team name
    Redskins' owner helps Native Americans yet clings to racist team name

    So Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins professional football team, visited 26 Native American reservations over four months and discovered a reality that just about everyone else in the country already knew. Native Americans on reservations are disproportionately mired in poverty;...

  • Can a high school paper nix the name 'Redskins'?
    Can a high school paper nix the name 'Redskins'?

    A long time ago, I was an editor on my high school paper and something of a troublemaker. So I have some sympathy for the editors of the student newspaper at Neshaminy High School in eastern Pennsylvania. On Tuesday, the editors will meet with the school principal to address a controversy...

  • Obama's fourth-quarter foreign policy surprises
    Obama's fourth-quarter foreign policy surprises

    Six months ago, President Obama's foreign policy looked stymied. Negotiations with Israel and the Palestinians were at a dead end. Russia was gaining ground in eastern Ukraine. U.S. efforts to end the war in Syria were ineffective. A new extremist army, Islamic State, was marching into Iraq.

  • Ukraine should put Russia to the test
    Ukraine should put Russia to the test

    Ukraine is now strong enough to seize the initiative to create a lasting cease-fire in its Donbas Rust Belt, currently occupied by Russia and its proxies. And Russia may be weak enough to be receptive. It is in Kiev's interest to do so. A state of permanent war with Russia would damage...

  • The great fear of the great outdoors
    The great fear of the great outdoors

    Americans find ourselves in a period — arguably, the first in our nation's history — when our unease about being in nature is coming to outweigh our desire for it. We have a growing intolerance for inconvenience, a feeling well captured by the suburban fifth-grader who memorably...

Comments
Loading