REDSKINS: A SIMPLE SOLUTION

Recently there have been some stirrings of controversy—regarding ethnic sensibilities—when it comes to the name Washington Redskins.  The first part, Washington, is apparently OKAY since the city was named for the Revolutionary War Hero AND First President of the United States.  So where’s the problem?  With “Redskins” of course!

The question arises: does this “old-fashioned term” convey a negative stereotype about Native Americans?  There are public calls for the team owner to change the name for that very reason but I believe there is a better solution.  Instead of changing this team’s name we should simply consider adding the word “skins” to describe other groups.  Let me indicate how this might look in practice.

George Washington—the patron saint of the District of Columbia and hence the etymological driving force behind the team’s name--was Caucasian, don’t you see?  So instead of names like “Redskins” being perceived as an insult, we start using the color of skin for everyone else.

George Washington becomes identified as a White-Skin.  That will give us White-Skins, Black-Skins, and Yellow-Skins for starters.  This would equalize the playing field and is far easier than renaming a team and all that merchandise.  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. becomes known as that great Black-Skin leader and Amy Tan as that great Yellow-Skin author.  Sure, it might sting a little at first but I know my countrymen can get used to anything if they try!    

I do not see how anyone could object to such a simple yet elegant system of correctly identifying people by color.  We no longer would have to spell out Caucasian, Negro, African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic-American and all them other hyphenated people; we just say White-skin, Black-skin, Yellow-skin, and Brown-skin.  It’s easy, fast, and accurate.

Now some of you may object and say wait a minute: what about mixed marriages and the children?  No problem!  You just add the right number of colors needed so then you get White-Black-Skin: someone whose parents are both white and black.  Another example is Yellow-White-Skin, which means kids who are Asian and White.  You see how simple it is! 

I admit there are some people who have more than two lines of racial ancestry, but this new system is so excellent it can easily expand to include them, too!  For a person of very mixed-up ancestry--three or more races--we can say White-Black-Yellow-Skin to indicate all three.  We could even create shorter terms--such as Hybrid-Skin or Mestizo-Skin--but I’m not sure the general public is ready for a foray into such advanced thinking.

The length of the name is a concern, granted, but by introducing abbreviations we overcome this picky objection, such as W-B Skin for President Obama.  That way it’s not a secret who is a Hybrid Mestizo and who is not an H-M but a P.S. (Pure-Skin) . . .

One problem remains: what color to use for Hispanics, also known previously as Latinos (and before that as Mexican-Americans and before that as dirty greasers.)  If we try “Brown” we run into the “B” problem since we already have B for “Black” and if we use “Red” we run into the “R” problem since we already have R for “Red”.  I think doubling up letters will solve it easily.

We use “BL” for “Black” and “BR” for “Brown”.   If we have to, we can use “R-BL-BR” for very dark-skinned Hispanic Mestizos with triple ancestry: that should take care of it right smartly.  I am tempted to use “H” for Hispanic instead of "BR" but that runs into a conflict since “H” is already being used for “Hybrid”.  I suppose we could use “HI” for Hispanic and “HY” for Hybrid to distinguish between the two: that might work!  

I think this new system makes everybody happy.  It totally defuses the looming crisis over the perceived racial insult in the name “Red-Skins” because now we can just keep on liking that name and not feel awful about it, knowing that in the stands there are plenty of White-Skins, Black-Skins, Yellow-Skins, and Hybrid-Skins, too.  Everybody’s a Skin--nobody loses, everybody wins! 

Sure, I get it, if the team were called the Washington N-Word (“Negro-Skins”) the outcry would be huge but that’s because there are 40 million Black-Skins and only about . . . well I don’t know how many Redskins are left but it can’t be very many.

If ignoring Native Redskins’ feelings is too cruel, I offer my original solution: let’s use skin color designations for everyone to make things equal!  Surely every American, from President Obama down to the most ordinary person, would be cool with this solution.  

Who could object?  Each individual is being treated exactly the same with letters and colors and in the same fair manner as everyone else.  This will work if we only give it a chance!    

      One last objection to my name change plan might be: what happened to the notion of American in which we recognize that America is a nation of diversity and it is this very diversity which gives us our strength?    

         That we should spend less time on identifying people by race and color and more time appreciating those fundamental virtues of human character found among all peoples across the entire rainbow spectrum of skin hues? 

         That we should work together to nurture those bedrock principles of democratic thought that gave birth to our nation and which is the secret of our true greatness? 

         That we should continue to advance those wondrous ideas of color-blind constitutional equality and fairness so that we may come together as one people?

         That we encourage everyone to think of themselves as human beings with basic human rights and that we all belong to the same family of mankind?

          That, whatever other reasons we may have for pride in enjoying our distinctive cultural and ethnic heritage, we continue to acknowledge that we share with all other peoples of the nation and the world similar character traits and moral values?

If we care about one, we care about all.  If our Native American brothers and sisters feel the name “Washington Redskins” is a derisive insult that gives them pain, this by itself should be enough to give us serious pause.  In the words of the great Sioux nation:

                                     Mitakuye oyasin . . . “We are all related!”

We thinking feeling Americans alive today are far more aware of the great moral and spiritual wisdom of Native Americans than any earlier generation which preceded us, especially that first wave of insatiable land-grabbing culture-destroying militaristic European-American colonists with their incessant and excessive displays of murderous intolerance and unabashed bigotry.  

We today are in a position to open our minds, our eyes, our ears, and our hearts in a way that previous generations could not conceive.

Are we to remain sensitive only to our own needs and ignore those of others?  

Americans can and must set the highest standards of ethical consideration for all peoples to maintain fidelity to our nation's founding principles and to continue to serve as a beacon light of hope and liberty to all the world’s people, including our own Native Americans!   

                -Prof. Rosenberg