Native American Insensitivity: An American Tradition

This Sunday, the Oakland Raiders of the National Football League will honor Native American Heritage Month at the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum.

Native American Heritage Month recognizes the significant contributions the first Americans made to the establishment and growth of the U.S.

I commend the Raider organization for honoring the contributions of Native Americans, but I question their choice of opponent--the Kansas City Chiefs.

Is it possible to be any more insensitive in the selection of an opponent for an event that began with, what I view as, good intentions?

Try to imagine the executive meeting where the discussion for honoring Native American Heritage Month was first introduced. Since the celebration is in November, the Raiders, with two home games, could have chosen either the Chiefs or the Cincinnati Bengals.

Did someone sitting at the table glance at the schedule and see the Chiefs on November 15, and shout, "Eureka!" Did anyone not see this as a potential problem?

It could have only been worse if the Raiders were playing the Washington Redskins. Fortunately, that game is not scheduled until December 13.

Excluding their immediate fan base, the Chiefs and Redskins carry very derogatory images. Ironically, the Chiefs just released their top running back Larry Johnson for using a gay slur.

This was not Johnson's first offense, but there is something paradoxical about condemning someone for using a derogatory term by an organization whose legacy is built in part on the same.

Is there anyone who cannot see the racism and buffoonery associated with the fiery red "Chief Wahoo" mascot for the Cleveland Indians baseball team? I would love for someone to Google "Chief Wahoo" and share with me the positive images that come to mind.

The Cleveland baseball team may have been looking for a way to honor Native Americans when it decided to name the team the Indians. But does Chief Wahoo achieve that goal?

Imagine a professional team called the Sambos; featuring an African American man adorning a top hat and tails, flashing his pearly whites, all hell would break loose until there was a name change. Isn't that what caused the restaurant chain bearing the same name to file for bankruptcy in 1981?

Too often racism is based on intent. This limits the definition to something that is overt. But there is an equally insidious form that initially presents itself as benign.

It's possible to engage in racist behavior, just as it is for men to be sexist or heterosexuals to be homophobic void of any harmful intent. It can simply be a matter of being part of the dominant culture.

Whatever is normative for that group can still have harmful overtones for anyone outside the group. But it is this benign form of racism that finds nothing wrong with the use of such terms as Chiefs, Redskins, Indians, Braves, and Blackhawks.

Some will also rally their teams with the dreaded "tomahawk chop" and the accompanying music more likely derived from a John Wayne movie than anything from Native American antiquity.

I am also aware of the arguments that cite nicknames such as Trojans, Spartans, Aztecs, Fighting Irish, etc. "Why aren't these names equally offensive?" is how the question is posed. Some may indeed find these mascot names offensive.

But the Native American experience is unique because it is marred by events unrivaled by any other group in our society. So much of America's expansion came at the peril of Native Americans. And the residue of that peril remains evident in far too many Native American communities today.

The policy of Manifest Destiny, in which American westward expansion was divinely inspired, led to 389 ratified U.S.-Indian treaties, with the majority broken in some form by the U.S. Events such as the brutal Trail of Tears continue to stand as dark chapters in American history.

Moreover, any serious attempts to change the names of these Native American mascots would most likely be met by fan fury that will make the Tea Bagger protests look like a youth choir.

Again, I commend the Raider organization for honoring Native American Heritage Month. Their inability to see the contradiction of holding the commemoration on the same day they were playing the Chiefs says more about our society than it does about their individual insensitivity.

 

Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks

Comments

[Eric Penner]

I've always been against naming sporting teams after Native Americans - what if there were a team called the Los Angeles 'Africans' or the Nebraska 'Jews'? I don't see how that's any different from the Cleveland 'Indians', Washington 'Redskins', or the Kansas City 'Chiefs'.

Having a company come up with the nickname for a team is absurd anyway. The best nicknames are the ones that are formed organically and have historical significance. This method exists with all English football clubs, and baseball teams like the Red Sox, White Sox, or Yankees. A more colloquial nickname can make reference to the community in which the team plays, the color of their uniform/kit, or anything uniquely pertaining to the team in question. But I do suppose there is no place for such things in the American sporting landscape, where a team can just pick up and move to another city, thereby relinquishing all ties with the very place that could have contributed to a more affectionate name.

[SeaBlood]

Fortunately for me, I can't stand team sports. No teams, no silly names! What a waste of a Sunday afternoon football is. I'd rather hike with my dog ( and my wife!)

[JMBrodie]

I like football, but not the name of the Washington NFL team. Glad you enjoy your walk.

[PatA]

Yup, the United States sure has been good to the Indians. I have friends on the Navajo reservation who do not have running water, electricity or phones.

People had talking about the names like "fighting irish" and such but we didn't take their homes and land away from them.

[PresidentRobertBooth]

I think the names are supposed to invoke the warrior image of Native Americans


Like calling a missile a "Tomahawk" or an attack helicopter an "Apache"

Same thing applies in sport.

[JMBrodie]

Yes, but saying "Redskin" is the same as saying the N-Word. No honor there.

[righteouskat]

This a very intelligent piece with strong points made about this issue. An African American man once told me image is everything, if they won't listen to you on this one issue, how can they hear you when you speak of other major issues? I know how I felt as a child and NO ONE can tell me I felt honored. How, as a child, did I know this was wrong? The only reason this continues is because our numbers are so small, no one can hear us.

[coolmaiden]

I agree, as a rabid Chiefs fan, that some of the traditions are silly and offensive. The Chiefs did retire their old mascot, Warpaint, long ago, I believe in the late '80s, as it was a man dressed as a Native scout sitting on a horse.
To be a little fair, Kansas City did technically name the team after a former mayor, H. Roe Bartle, whose nickname was "Chief." There is also a sculpture in Penn Valley park, on a bluff, in the center of the city, of a Native scout on a horse. Many Kansas Citians take great pride in that sculpture, as it pays homage to the area's rich Native history while looking ahead to the future.

[overd0g1]

They'd get more love if they'd just invented written language and/or the wheel.

[righteouskat]

yeah, instead they saved those silly people on plymouth rock WHAT were they thinking????