Panelists answered the following: Do you support Luis Alejo’s bill aiming to ban Redskins as a mascot at public schools?
Ruth Erickson: The Merriam-Webster Dictionary describes Redskin as “a North American Indian.” Not all American-Indians agree that that term is derogatory. How many words in the dictionary will we have to change?
Bill Mifsud: No. I think Mr. Alejo should fight for better wages for teachers. Being that my wife is a teacher they are grossly under paid and this should be a priority, not whether a mascot is offensive.
Nants Foley: I dislike government dictating what people can and cannot do. But having said that, I would hope human beings would choose on their own to discard names and labels which could be demeaning or hurtful to others. Wouldn’t it be nice if we all chose to be kind to one another?
Jim West: Yes. Why not? We’ve already turned ourselves inside out under the guise of “political correctness” so what difference does it make anymore?
Mary Zanger: Yes. Selecting a mascot is not a problem but selecting “Redskins” is a problem. Mascot names are chosen purposefully to connote aggression. Racial slurs or words originating as racial slurs must be avoided. Names such as these uncover embedded racism. Racism must be exposed and “rooted out” in order to change thinking and behavior.
Ann Ross: Yes. Even if the term’s likely benign origin was used by both cultures to differentiate Indigenous Americans from Europeans, the continuous pejoration of the term arguably began when “redskin” slang became a slur referring to American Indian scalps used for proof for bounty killing during one of the ugliest times in U.S. history and cultural disrespect in early 20th century Westerns.
