|
| FILE - In this Oct. 13, 2014 file photo, Juan Mancias, of Floresville, Texas, a member of the American Indian Movement of Central Texas, holds a sign as he joins others in protest before an NFL football game between the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys in Arlington, Texas. The U.S. Patent Office ruled Wednesday, June 18, 2014, that the Washington Redskins nickname is "disparaging of Native Americans" and that the team's federal trademarks for the name must be canceled. |
Something is happening
just beneath the fight over the name of a certain Washington, D.C., pro
football team: America is working through the process of determining
what is - or is not - racially offensive.
What
is a slur, and who gets to decide? How many people must be offended to
tip the scales? Why should some be forced to sacrifice their traditions
out of respect for others?
We are a long way
from consensus on these questions, judging by the response to a federal
ruling that the "Redskins" team name is disparaging and its trademarks
should be canceled.
The team is appealing the
decision, and even if it loses its trademark, it can still use the name.
But this latest development highlights the limitations of how America
wrestles with certain racial statements, and our struggle to balance
free speech and social good.
A rapidly diversifying nation has more need than ever to figure out what is racially offensive.
Some
offenses are undeniable: NBA owner Donald Sterling earned universal
condemnation for asking his mistress not to bring black people to his
games.
Yet in an era of blunt and sometimes
coarse online discussion and political debate, Americans continue to
disagree about the nature of calling Hispanics who cross the border
without documents "illegals," or the propriety of images that depict
President Barack Obama as a "witch doctor."
And
it took years of discussion to win makeovers for Aunt Jemima and Uncle
Ben, the stereotypical black faces used to sell syrup and rice.
Jim
McCarthy, a lawyer who followed the Redskins trademark case, said he is
not offended by the name, but "there's no denying the fact that a
certain percentage of Native Americans are offended. We don't know if
it's a minority, a majority, but it's a fact."
"If
we want to be the best version of ourselves in our society, do we want
to promote that, or do we want to minimize that?" he asked.
"I'd love it to be different where people just cooperate to effect change," he said. "But we're a very adversarial society."
Michael
Lindsay, who was lead attorney for a group of Native Americans in a
prior trademark case, said there are two ways to determine if something
is offensive.
"The first is the legal path.
The other is out in the real world. The legal test, it seems to me,
actually does have something to teach the real world," said Lindsay, of
the Dorsey and Whitney firm in Minneapolis.
Here
is what the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, ruling Wednesday in a
case first filed more than 20 years ago, tried to show the real world:
-What matters is if "Redskins" is disparaging to Native Americans - whether other ethnic groups are offended doesn't matter.
-A
"substantial" percentage of Native Americans must be offended - not a
majority. The judges defined that threshold at 30 percent.
-A
disparaging term does not require intent: "Redskins" can still be
disparaging even if the team says it is intended to show honor and
respect.
Based on testimony from linguistics
and lexicography experts, and a review of how the term was used in
dictionaries, books, newspapers, magazines and movies, the board ruled
2-1 that the term was disparaging to Native Americans.
The
dissenting opinion was not a ringing endorsement of the term: "I am not
suggesting that the term "redskins" was not disparaging ... Rather, my
conclusion is that the evidence petitioners put forth fails to show that
it was," the judge wrote.
All of which left Paul Calobrisi, co-founder of http://www.savethewashingtonredskins.com , quite unsatisfied. In his opinion, there's a simple way to determine whether something is a slur: The majority rules.
"I
think an overwhelming majority of Native Americans should be against
the name before we change it," said Calobrisi, who grew up in Virginia
rooting for the team.
He resisted the idea that a few people could decide something is offensive when he did not intend to offend them.
"If
they think we're demeaning them, if they think we think they are
mascots, if we were doing it in any negative way, they are wrong ... As
Redskins fans, we love them. Cowboys and Indians, we were the Indians.
We cherish these people."
But intent is
irrelevant to Lindsay, the attorney: "When a substantial percentage tell
you this is offensive, you should stop. It's really that simple."
"Even if you meant no offense, if you keep using it, what does that say about you?"
It
says that some people care more about their traditions than determining
what is offensive, said Gillian McGoldrick, editor-in-chief of the
school newspaper at Neshaminy High School in Langhorne, Pennsylvania.
Neshaminy's
mascot is the "Redskins." Her newspaper recently chose to no longer
print the name, but school administrators ordered them to do so. When
McGoldrick and her staff resisted, administrators briefly confiscated
the newspapers.
At first, McGoldrick thought
the name honored Native Americans. But when an Indian school parent
objected, she researched the history and usage of the word and changed
her mind. She doesn't think those who support the team name have fully
investigated the issue.
"I don't think they
want to," she said. "I think they want to decide the word for
themselves. But that's not how this works. We have dictionaries for
that."
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says the
term is "very offensive and should be avoided." But again, given
today's confrontational discourse on the Internet and in politics, do we
really care about giving offense? Or has that value gone the way of
curtsies and tipping hats?
"As a general
culture, I think we care about offending certain people," said Karmit
Bulman, executive director of the Conflict Resolution Center in
Minneapolis. "We are still very much a power-based society. We care if
we offend those in power. We don't care if we offend those who we see as
irrelevant and invisible."
"You can look at
this (Redskins case) as a trivial dispute, it's just a name," she said.
"Or you can look at it as demonstrating how we still have huge clashes
between people who we see as different than we are. And that our systems
that we use to try to address those issues are really unsatisfactory."
