![Redskins]()
For the most part, every analysis on the fate of the Washington Redskins brand name has centered mostly on the name itself. Whether it’s a couch pundit at the sports bar or a wide range lense take from a legitimate sports junkie sounding off, the debate pretty much splits between those who find it offensive and free speechers who believe we’re being a bit too sensitive about it.
The problem with the conversation is there’s no real political analysis on why, suddenly, the Redskins controversy got elevated to a major policy topic. Few are really asking how that happened, other than an assumption of public epiphany: so, we all woke up one day and realized the name was racist and derogatory all along. But, even after 50 years of desegregation, two terms of the first Black president, and a general sense of social contrition for folks of color (if not complete civil rights and empowerment), it’s not like we didn’t know the team existed or its brand managed to survive several eras of uncertainty sans mass movement to change it.
We did wake up one day noticing a once obscure conversation now strangely off the shelf and dusted for headline consumption. A federal agency outright cancels the Redskins trademark – with scholars across the ideological spectrum weighing in on every angle. Half the U.S. Senate, as if it doesn’t have anything else better to do, signs a hand-delivered letter to the NFL Commissioner condemning the name. The Senate Majority Leader says he’s not attending anymore Redskins games. Members in the House are now regularly jumping into the fray, with static from an unlikely source: House Republicans. Even President Obama chimes in, suggesting that the controversy had reached unprecedented levels in the zeitgeist. Whole talk show segments are consumed with it. A notorious former Republican legislator just found himself nixed from his own Chicago talk show because he couldn’t contain a wild, epithet-filled rant on it.
But, where did that come from? There’s no social media moment, no humiliating hot-mic on YouTube, no grainy video of team owner Dan Snyder giving an epithet-filled tirade before a private gathering of 1 percenters. Typically, we find tipping points in social causes, sudden events that jar us into acquiescence to a particular point of view. This issue just suddenly dropped into the public consciousness as if we had gone through this loop on numerous occasions.
We hadn’t, but the politics behind it had been churning for some time. There’s been an active Native American lobby in Washington, multiple tribes and industrial interests focused on an array of issues from Indian affairs to gaming and natural resources. What is apparent is the rise of a very sophisticated and influential network of Native Americans with enough clout to dramatically alter the Redskins debate in fundamental ways.
Campaign contributions and aggressive lobbying on the part of nations such as Chickasaw, Seminole, Choctaw, Miccosukee and numerous others is more than likely playing a key role. More than 250 clients are lobbying on Native American affairs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The National Indian Gaming Association spent more than $470,000 on government relations in 2013. Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma spent nearly $500,000 that same year, and the Chickasaw Nation just over $400,000. Chickasaw has also dropped $500,000 thus far into the 2014 campaign cycle, spreading money to both Democrats and Republicans (perhaps explaining the strangely bi-partisan tone of anti-Redskin rhetoric from Congress). The Seminole Tribe of Florida is on the low end of 2014 cycle spending at $98,000, but on the high end of lobbying at $750,000 in 2013.
If you were in a market that suddenly aired 60-minute anti-Redskins ads at halftime during the NBA finals, you probably didn’t know that was courtesy of the California-based Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation. But, you also weren’t aware Yocha Dehe spent nearly $600,000 in combined campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures since 2013.
But, changing demographics in the nation’s capital also play an enormous role in shaping the debate. The Washington, D.C. “DMV” metro area is now overrun by a younger, whiter crowd of educated urban professionals sensitive to perceptions of racial bias. Which is a bit rich … given the rapid and disruptive displacement of lower-to-middle income people of color from D.C. as many whites moved in flipping houses and raising property values. Ultimately, new urban residents aren’t as comfortable with their hometown football team sporting a racialized moniker. Pressure ensues, especially as local government officials engage in quiet off-and-on talks with Snyder about moving the team stadium back into D.C. away from its majority-black Prince George’s County suburb. Dominant yuppie constituents in D.C. aren’t feeling that proposition if they have to bear the guilt of supporting a demeaning brand.
The list is thick with Indian political interests able to use it for symbolic muscle flexing. Let’s not kid ourselves: this isn’t – really – about the name. Using the Redskins controversy as a social justice platform creates an entry on other much more complex business issues as nations seek greater influence on the proliferation of casinos and use of reservation land for resource tapping. Concessions can be drawn as easily as blood; if the NFL keeps playing it stubborn, the nations will keep applying pressure by filling up politician war chests. Eventually, that could lead to enough pressure for lawmakers on both sides to reconsider the NFL league office’s tax-exempt status, a prospect that could cut into the obscene salary Commissioner Roger Goodell gets paid – reported at $74 million just between 2011 and 2013. Hitting the Redskins is hitting the NFL where it hurts: Washington’s football team is not only one of the most wealthy in the league, but it’s also a primary vessel for league lobbying due to it’s obvious geography. There are other issues that we are not privy to at work, but something of a complicated political shakedown is occurring.
And while Native Americans count for only 2 percent of the population, their political presence and vote on and off the reservation can impact crucial races; they already account for slim decisive margins in places like Alaska, North Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico and elsewhere. The way the Native American nations are playing it at the moment is how true modern political process works. In it we see something like a gritty poetic justice for indigenous Americans nearly wiped out of existence by white settlers over hundreds of years. We shouldn’t dismiss the irony … and we could learn a thing or two from it.
CHARLES D. ELLISON is a veteran political strategist and Chief Political Correspondent for Uptown Magazine. He’s host of #Uptownhall, Washington Correspondent for the Philadelphia Tribune and a frequent contributor to The Root. He can be reached via Twitter @charlesdellison.
