Sunday, Economics Professor Walter E. Williams of George Mason University posted an opinion piece in The Oakland (Michigan) Press. The article is a bit of a rambling mess, but the core if it is his insistence that efforts to get the Washington Redskins to change their name is nothing short of creeping fascism. Actually, the word he used to describe advocates of a name change is “tyrants.”
Williams’ essay is worth a read for comedic value if for nothing else. At one point, he goes on a rant about how much better things were back when everyone was smoking all the time. I shit you not.
I usually don’t publicly respond to cranky, extremist nonsense, whether right wing or left wing. But as a professor of American Indian history, I felt compelled to not only challenge his spurious interpretation of the Redskins issue, but more importantly, to correct his factual errors regarding the relevant court case. I posted the following retort in the online comment section of the article, which of course was met with the requisite ignorance and insults. I now present it here as an open letter.
Please Note: Although I signed the online comment as Akim Reinhardt, Towson University, and am republishing those comments here, this site is not affiliated with Towson University in anyway; rather, it is my personal website and reflects my personal opinions. Furthermore, the comments as reprinted here have been mildly edited for clarity. With that in mind . . .
An Open Letter to Prof. Walter E. Williams
Dr. Williams’ logical flaws are compounded by his misunderstanding of the facts.
The 2009 case was not about whether the Redskins “have a right” to use that name. Of course they do. No one denies that. Rather, it was about U.S. law not permitting the trademarking of racial epithets.
The U.S. Trademark/Patent office cancelled the Redskins trademark in 1999 because “Redskin” is in fact a racial epithet. The team sued and won on a technicality: a lower court ruled that the trademark stands because the original complaint was filed in 1992, 25 years after the trademark was registered in 1967. The statute of limitations on filing a complaint had expired.
As for the U.S. Supreme Court, you are incorrect in stating it has ruled on the matter. In fact, it made no ruling whatsoever. As with the vast majority of appeals put before it, it simply declined to hear the case.
To be clear, no court has ever ruled on the merits of the case itself. Lower courts have merely ruled on the timeliness of its filing, and the Supreme Court has not heard the case at all.
As to case’s potential legal merits, anyone ignorant enough to maintain that “redskin” isn’t an epithet, should go bandy it about willy nilly on a reservation and see where that gets them.
As far as the author noticing that the United States military has named equipment after both Indian tribes and animals, and thinking this somehow proves that sports teams using Indian names is therefor a non-issue, his argument inadvertently reveals precisely the opposite to be true. After all, a nomenclature that equates Indians with animals is, by definition, dehumanizing. And it is precisely why the military most certainly does not name equipment after Jews, Chinese, or Blacks.
Thankfully, all of those ethnic groups and many more have enough media presence and political clout in America to raise a sufficient uproar if the military ever started launching “Jewish Missiles” or flying “African American helicopters.” Unfortunately, American Indians do not have the same media presence or political clout, so they remain subject to such disrespect, and when they speak up, are self-righteously condemned by Dr. Williams and countless others who can be classified as nothing other than willfully ignorant.
And the smoking part? Christ, I don’t even know where to begin. No, you’re right. Let’s bring back smoking in public places. Remember when we all stank of stale cigarettes and people smoked in elementary schools, theaters, and hospitals? That was awesome.
-Sincerely, Akim Reinhardt