By Deborah Mathis
Deborah Mathis (Courtesy Photo)
|
(November 3, 2009) - I’m not one who is drawn to superstition. Broken mirrors, black cats, potions and hexes and such don’t get much of a rise out of me.
But, I do believe the universe has its own way of imposing misfortune on us when we refuse to do what we are told, over and over again, is the right thing.
Ergo, the professional football team in the nation’s capital, the dishonorably named Washington Redskins – a name that Native Americans find offensive, as do any other Americans who believe it is cruel to repeatedly, dismissively and unapologetically use an ethnically charged invective as a business trademark.
The team has not had a good season in a good long while; a string of good seasons has been even more elusive. And owner Dan Snyder changes head coaches as often as most folks change batteries in their smoke detectors.
They just can’t seem to get it right.
Maybe if they change the name, the gods will smile on them.
Off and on for years now, Native American and civil rights groups have pleaded the case for change. The name, they argued, conjures up nasty old stereotypes of men who were confronted by foreign interlopers who claimed to have discovered what had long been their homeland, setting off a long-running conflict. As history tells, the natives were not only slaughtered, robbed and uprooted, but their reputations were maligned and distorted, couched in derogatory terms like “redskins.”
Every time the issue has come up, it has been met with widespread resistance. Naysayers are quick to allege political correctness gone amok, hypersensitivity and unwarranted whining. Invariably, someone asks how they would feel if the team were called the Washington Palefaces. Rather than give pause, such comments only make opponents dig in.
Then it dies down—until the next time.
Now comes a sliver from the Keep Hope Alive Department.
Seventeen years ago, Suzan S. Harjo filed a lawsuit against Pro Football Inc., seeking a cancellation of the team’s name. The suit cites a federal law prohibiting the registration of “disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable” trademarks. The trial court agreed. However, the team won on appeal, where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had taken too long to file the lawsuit.
Last month, the Harjo plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court of the United States to decide the case. We will have to see if the justices agree to hear it. If they don’t, the appellate ruling stands.
Given the current ideological makeup of the court – and, forgive me, but the predominance of men on the court has to be factored in too – it would be quite something if the court were to grant certiorari, but it would be a downright stunner if a majority found for the plaintiffs. This is not a court given to underdog sympathies.
But, we can hope that evolution is on the plaintiffs’side – theirs and the great number of organizations that have filed amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs, siding with Harjo.
What a great day that would be to repair an old and wholly pointless injustice. Why such a thing gets people so riled up is a topic that could keep psychologists and sociologists dandruff-free for years. The venom that flows over this issue is not to be believed, especially since the vile name has no function and no effect on the field.
That is, unless the universe is calling the plays. In which case, chucking the bad name might just shed the bad karma.
Deborah Mathis is a columnist with the news Web site, BlackAmericaWeb.com, where this column was originally published.