The Washington Redskins

Several times throughout the semester we have discussed the racially disparaging mascots and team names in use by American sports teams. I have a confession to make. The truth is, I grew up outside of Washington D.C. and have rooted for Washington ever since I can remember, and it is only in the last five or six years that I have come to appreciate how offensive their name is.

My family moved to D.C. when I was in the second grade. Now, back then, as a kid, I’d no concept of the racial overtones to this name, or how offensive it could be, all I knew was that the city was absolutely football crazy, everyone rooted for "the 'Skins", people dressed up like Indians at the game (or at least that was what they showed on on television), there was a “fight song” that we sang in school, and the Dallas Cowboys were our mortal enemies.

The area I grew up in was heavily populated by recent immigrants to the US, and it now seems slightly bizarre to remember myself, along with a bunch of Latino, Afghan, and Pakistani 9-year-olds, sitting in a classroom singing a song that called for “braves on the warpath” to “fight for old D.C.” While I have crystal clear memories of these sing-alongs, I have no recollection of anyone ever discussing the derivation of the name or how offensive it was, much less floating the idea of changing it.

I came across this article in the Washington Post the other day, by Robert Barnes,and it seems that the fight to do something about this name is well under way:

"Native American activists are trying to get the Supreme Court involved in its long-running dispute with the Washington Redskins about whether the team's name is so offensive that it does not deserve trademark protection.
The group is asking the court to review a decision this year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that the group waited too long to bring its claim.
The dispute started in 1992, when seven activists challenged the Redskins trademark. They won seven years later in a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The team appealed to the federal court.
Judges at the district and circuit levels said the activists' trademark cancellation claim was barred by the doctrine of laches, which serves as a statute of limitation against claims that should have been made long ago. Attorney Philip J. Mause's petition says such claims can be brought at any time and cites a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which was written by then-judge, now-Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
The Supreme Court takes only a fraction of the petitions it receives, and probably will not decide on this one for months."

I know the owner of the team, Daniel Snyder, is a very, very rich man, and so it will be interesting to follow this case and see what his money can buy.