The scene is set with a majestic sunset from the American Southwest set to the regular, paced strike of a repeating tone. As the image changes from this sunset to a rancher to children playing, the historical mixes with the modern as the viewer is bombarded with a constant stream of photos of the Native American lifestyle. Over this slideshow, a calming yet firm male voice utters a stream of adjectives as well as the names of Native American nations and famous men who came from those tribes. It begins, “Proud. Forgotten. Indian. Navajo. Blackfoot. Inuit, and Sioux.” Later, the list transforms to include, “Mother. Father. Son. Daughter. Chief.” After a minute or so more of this, the photos begin to change more rapidly and the voice says, “Native Americans call themselves many things. The one thing they don’t…” would be “redskins” as the Washington Redskins’ football helmet flashes on to the screen after a cut to black. Finally, the screen fades to gray, and the campaign’s ChangeTheMascot.org logo is the enduring last image.
So why does this advertisement appear now, and what is it trying to tell us about our society’s treatment of Native Americans? Certainly this is not the first time Native Americans have been mistreated by white settlers, and it is also not the first time the collective Native American nations have spoken out against such mistreatment. The beginning of this advertisement has roots way back in 1944, the year that the National Congress of American Indians was founded. Their mission was and continues to be the protection of their rights, laws, customs as well as the improvement of the quality of life for all Native American peoples. Throughout the twentieth century, this group has fought to erase Native American-themed names from sports teams, colleges, and high schools. The former Stanford University Indians are now the Cardinals, the Marquette Warriors are now the Golden Eagles, and most recently, North Dakota University dropped its Fighting Sioux mascot and is prohibited from choosing a new one until 2015 (for a complete list of policy and name changes, click here).
Despite these changes, some sports teams still choose to use mascots with the names of Native American nations or racial slurs as their mascot. The case in point for this advertisement? The NFL football team hailing from Washington, D.C., the Washington Redskins. The Redskins got their name on July 8th, 1933 when the Boston Braves were renamed following a move to Fenway Park. Four years later, the team moved to Washington, D.C. and the current franchise was born.
The progression of the team’s logo from 1933 to the present day. Photo courtesy http://famouslogos.net/images/washington-redskins-logo-evolution.jpg
In 1938, this may have been an acceptable name for a professional sports team, but now, in 2014, the word “redskin” is considered a derogatory racial slur by the United States government. The advertisement created by the ChangeTheMascot campaign clearly asserts that racism in America has not been sufficiently dealt with, and that the Washington Redskins’ team name is extremely offensive to those who are part of Native American nations. With the correct background research, the message is clear, but how does the campaign ensure that we act on this issue?
Honestly, the effectiveness of this ad is questionable. The spot, which runs nearly two minutes, is a bit long to reasonably hold any viewer’s attention. Most television commercials, barring infomercials and the like, usually run 30 seconds to a minute at most. This message takes double, if not quadruple the amount of time a normal commercial would take. The long list of adjectives and names may show the great diversity of the Native American people, but it is simply too long to hold anyone’s attention.
With that said, this spot does do a good job in humanizing the Native American population. Nearly every photo displayed focuses on a person’s face, which triggers an innate reaction in all of us that reaches our core and forces us to examine what it means to be human. When we use the word “redskin”, the person we are offending is no longer some ambiguous concept of a Native American, but someone’s daughter, son, mother, or friend. Who’s going to go out of their way to offend someone’s mom? That’s right, nobody.
Current Washington Redskins owner, Daniel Snyder, who sits at the center of the racially-charged naming controversy. Photo courtesy http://obrag.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/dan-snyder.jpg
This video also brings up an extremely important logical argument about racial slurs. Surely, we would not name a sports team after a derogatory term for African-Americans, so why is it okay to have a football team in our nation’s capital named after an offensive term for Native Americans? If even the United States government has declared this term a racial slur, perhaps we should reconsider our use of the word. This argument is not stated until the final few seconds of the advertisement when the word “redskin” is made known as “the one thing [Native Americans] don’t” call themselves. This important distinction is really the basis for the entire commercial.
So, why exactly is this term so offensive? Simply put, “redskin” not only refers to a poor approximation of the color of Native American skin, but according to Baxter Holmes of the Boston Globe, it dates back to the “institutionalized genocide” of the Native American people. A “redskin” is really the detached scalp of a slaughtered Native American on which the colonial powers of the era placed a great bounty. If you don’t believe now that this is one of the most derogatory terms that can be used to describe someone of native ancestry, read Holmes’s essay for yourself.
While the advertisement has its successes and its pitfalls, its greatest weapon was the time at which it was supposed to air. With all of the attention brought to the Washington Redskins’ name throughout the 2013-14 season, the 2014 Super Bowl was chosen as the best time to show this commercial and get the word out about the ChangeTheMascot campaign. Imagine the scene – millions of people glued to their televisions, all thinking of football. The National Congress of American Indians’ spot comes on, bringing up an argument about the ethical issues surrounding the name of a football team that you’re a fan of, your team has played, or that you’ve at least heard of. Suddenly, this commercial has touched a captive audience that cares deeply about the sport in which this controversial team is playing. Next, social media is bombarded with posts, tweets, and comments all about the effort to change the Washington Redskins’ name. Links appear between Facebook pages and ChangeTheMascot.org, the website shown at the end of the commercial. It’s the perfect kairotic moment, but wait – one small problem. This never happened. The National Congress of American Indians failed to gain approval from the broadcasting company to air the commercial, and they missed out on a great moment in furthering their cause.
This failure paired with the considerable length and relative monotony of the commercial without real meaning or explanation of the cause overshadows the very purpose for which the National Congress of American Indians made this spot. The commercial makes the valid assertion that the use of the word “redskin” in the Washington Redskins’ team name is a racial slur, and that the Native Americans would not use that term to label themselves, nor should others use that word to label them. The claim is strong, yet the support is weak. A shorter commercial would hold viewers’ attention throughout, and would carry much the same effect.
The official logo of ChangeTheMascot.org, sponsored by the National Congress of American Indians. Courtesy of http://findingjustice.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Change-the-Mascot-580×316.png
This advertisement is a study in strong significance but poor execution. The actual spot succeeds in humanizing the Native American people and bringing up logical arguments about the role of racial slurs in our language and how they should not be used as mascots for professional sports teams. We are given ethical and logical arguments, good arguments even, but the real meaning of the commercial cannot be understood unless one does further research on ChangeTheMascot.org. The ultimate goal is to get viewers to visit this site, but as of now, this video is posted only on YouTube and the site itself.
So, we return to the original question – how does the campaign ensure that we act to end this great social injustice in the future? With the resources available on the web, the National Congress of American Indians does a wonderful job of presenting its case. They have gotten media attention from far and wide, but it is not due to this advertisement. In its present state, this commercial’s only hope for catalyzing civic action is the occasional viewer who will type ChangeTheMascot.org into their browser. Something, anything more descriptive than this, something that actually described why the term “redskin” was offensive, would convey the intended message much more clearly and would reach even the most stubbornly opposed viewer on some level. This advertisement may be rather ineffective at the moment, but with some editing and the right viewing audience, it could enact lasting change in the world of racism and professional sports.