Borrowing Power: Racial Metaphors and Pseudo-Indian Mascots

Abstract

CR: The New Centennial Review 4.1 (2004) 189-209 On 1 October 2003, rush limbaugh, perhaps best known for his popular radio show that regularly offers acerbic assessments of social affairs, resigned from ESPN's "Sunday NFL Countdown." The previous Sunday, the conservative icon had suggested that the media overvalued and even hyped Philadelphia Eagles star Donovan McNabb because they wanted a black quarterback to succeed. Although Limbaugh, like Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder before him, had his supporters, many of whom insisted that the radio-talk-show host had meant no harm, that his comments were not really about race, and that the media firestorm was little more than political correctness run amok, his comments sparked a public outcry. Presidential candidates Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, and Al Sharpton issued statements demanding the ouster of Limbaugh, while the NAACP rebuked the commentator for what it termed "bigoted and ignorant" remarks. And Jeffrey Lurie, the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, labeled the incident an example of institutional racism, imploring "Let's not hide it. Let's not make believe the problem is a single person. It's far from that." ("Rush to the Exit," Sports Illustrated,2 October 2003). [End Page 189] The day before Limbaugh resigned, the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., overturned a ruling by the Trial Trademark and Appeal Board (TTAB) that had cancelled federal protection of Washington Redskins' trademarks. Whereas the TTAB had found the team's trademarks to be disparaging, bringing Native Americans into contempt or disrepute, the District Court decided that the plaintiffs, a collection of six American Indian intellectual and political leaders, including Suzan Shown Harjo, Vine Deloria Jr., and Manly Begay, had not met the burden of proof and had failed to file their complaint in a timely fashion. Little indignation greeted the decision. In fact, much of the press and public hailed the ruling. While critical comments circulated in editorials and conversations, General Clark, Dr. Dean, Rev. Sharpton, and the NAACP all remained silent. Even Jeffrey Lurie, the perceptive critic of institutional racism in the Limbaugh affair, did not mention the ruling in his remarks, nor connect race and power to the upcoming game between the Eagles and the Redskins. Less noticeable was the manner in which individuals reacted to the ruling: it was not just a victory in the culture wars, though many would assert this, nor an occasion to celebrate the Redskins and the propriety of their pseudo-Indian imagery, though this happened as well; rather, for some it was an opportunity to challenge and rearticulate common-sense notions of race, expanding them beyond black and white through racial analogy. An online discussion at freerepublic.com nicely illustrates this pattern (http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/993089/posts). A sampling of comments: