No 'R-word': US groups call to
drop NFL team name
NEWS / UNITED STATES
WATCH 10:03
Taking a knee: NFL as a
platform for race
politics
Sport United States NFL
Racism US & Canada
SIGN UP
Snyder has said Washington 'will never change
the name of the team' [Dan Mullan/Getty Images]
Civil rights groups in the US are calling
on broadcasters not to use the name of
a National Football League team
playing in a nationally televised
Thanksgiving Day game because they
say it is "offensive" and "denigrating
[to] Native people".
The Washington Redskins football team
will take on the New York Giants on
Thursday - Thanksgiving Day in the US -
in a game that will be broadcast across
the country.
Civil rights and indigenous groups have
called for Washington to change its
name for several years, but they say
using the team's name on Thanksgiving
- a national holiday that many Native
Americans associate with genocide and
mark as a "National Day of Mourning" -
is especially harmful.
"Thanksgiving is often the only major
American holiday that brings Native
people and their history into the
national conversation," nearly a
dozen groups said in an open letter
published this week.
Advertisement
"Using the holiday to promote the
Washington team’s derogatory name
will further marginalise Native
Americans who have already
experienced histories of oppression and
violence."
The letter was signed by the National
Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP), Asian and
Pacific Islander American Health
Forum, National Congress of American
Indians and the Oneida Indian Nation,
among other organisations.
"Media organisations can do their jobs
by reporting on the team, but also
refrain from using the slur and
denigrating Native people," the letter
continued.
Widespread criticism
Change the Mascot, a public campaign
that seeks to educate the public on the
adverse effects the team's name can
have on Native American youth, has led
calls for Washington and other sports
teams to change their team names.
In recent years, a handful of school
districts across the US have banned
team names that can be considered
racial slurs against Native Americans.
Others are also discussing potential
bans.
Critics say
using
derogatory
team names
can have a
negative effect
on the self-
worth of
Native
American
youth in
particular.
In 2013, several members of the US
Congress urged the NFL and the
Washington franchise to change the
team's name.
"In this day and age, it is imperative
that you uphold your moral
responsibility to disavow the usage of
racial slurs. The usage of the word
'redskins' is especially harmful to
Native American youth, tending to
lower their sense of dignity and self-
esteem," they wrote in a letter.
NFL defends name
However, Daniel Snyder, the owner of
the Washington NFL team, has
staunchly defended the name.
"We will never change the name of the
team," Snyder told USA Today in 2013.
"As a lifelong Redskins fan, and I think
that the Redskins fans understand the
great tradition and what it's all about
and what it means, so we feel pretty
fortunate to be just working on next
season."
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has
also come out in support of the team's
name, which he described as "a
unifying force that stands for strength,
courage, pride and respect".
"The Washington Redskins name has
thus from its origin represented a
positive meaning distinct from any
disparagement that could be viewed in
some other context," Goodell said in a
letter sent to the US lawmakers,
according to ESPN.
Earlier this month, Dave Zirin, the
sports editor at The Nation, said that in
giving the Thanksgiving Day game to
Washington, NFL owners have shown
"their true colours".
"It’s as if NFL owners, by having
Washington host this game, are having
their own private joke at the expense of
the players, fans, and commentators
who care about these issues," Zirin
wrote on November 17.
"In this season of racial dissent and
dialogue over racism, the Washington
team name has been erased from the
discussion," Zirin continued.
"Perhaps this Thanksgiving we can
centre it exactly where it belongs, and
understand that a league that
celebrates racial slurs can never be an
engine for racial justice."
Why are British Muslim marriages unprotected by law? FEATURE / ISLAM MUSLIM MARRIAGE IN THE UK 60 percent Muslim marriages religious-only, unregistered 28 percent do not realise Islamic ceremony not legally recognised 66 percent know union has no legal status 50 percent do not intend to have marriage legalised - Source: Channel 4 survey Aina Khan Aina Khan is a journalist focusing on race, faith and identity. She's reading a masters in religion in politics at SOAS. @ ainajkhan United Kingdom Islam Europe, Maureen, right, was not entitled to financial support after her husband Rashid - the father of her child - passed away [Courtesy: Maureen] London, England - When Maureen wed her husband Rashid in a Muslim ceremony in 1973 in Bradford, she knew that should the relationship fall apart, she would not be entitled to share his assets. Her marriage was sanctified in the eyes of God, but in the eyes of the state it was "unregistered", not legal, and so financial protection...
Comments