For those of you who thought the attacks on the name "Redskins" for the Washington D.C. NFL franchise were examples of political correctness gone wild, as the saying goes, "you ain't seen nothing yet." Simon Waxman, managing editor of Boston Review, wrote an op-ed in Friday's Washington Post criticizing the U.S. military for using Native American names. He wrote:
Apache, Comanche, Chinook, Lakota, Cheyenne and Kiowa apply not only to Indian tribes but also to military helicopters. Add in the Black Hawk, named for a leader of the Sauk tribe. Then there is the Tomahawk, a low-altitude missile, and a drone named for an Indian chief, Gray Eagle. Operation Geronimo was the end of Osama bin Laden.
According to Waxman, the use of Native American terms is an example of the false narrative and denial of guilt by the invading westerners. He continued, "The myth of the worthy native adversary is more palatable than the reality — the conquered tribes of this land were not rivals but victims, cheated and impossibly outgunned."
The destruction of the Indians was asymmetric war, compounded by deviousness in the name of imperialist manifest destiny. White America shot, imprisoned, lied, swindled, preached, bought, built and voted its way to domination. Identifying our powerful weapons and victorious campaigns with those we subjugated serves to lighten the burden of our guilt. It confuses violation with a fair fight.
It is worse than denial; it is propaganda. The message carried by the word Apache emblazoned on one of history’s great fighting machines is that the Americans overcame an opponent so powerful and true that we are proud to adopt its name. They tested our mettle, and we proved stronger, so don’t mess with us. In whatever measure it is tribute to the dead, it is in greater measure a boost to our national sense of superiority. And this message of superiority is shared not just with U.S. citizens but with those of the 14 nations whose governments buy the Apache helicopters we sell. It is shared, too, with those who hear the whir of an Apache overhead or find its guns trained on them. Noam Chomsky has clarified the moral stakes in provocative, instructive terms: “We might react differently if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes ‘Jew’ and ‘Gypsy.’ ”
He concluded with a suggestion for the U.S. Senate:
Perhaps the senators outraged by the Redskins name could turn their letter-writing pens on the Defense Department next. And when that’s done, there is the more important step, when these senators, and their constituents, choose not only to be offended on behalf of Indians but also to be partners in improving their lives. War and forced removal have been replaced by high rates of unemployment, poverty, substance abuse, illness and disability; by inadequate housing and education; by hate crimes, police harassment, disenfranchisement and effective segregation. Being a Native American means living, on average, more than four years less than other Americans. The violence is ongoing, even if the guns are silent.
So, sure, rename the football team. But don’t stop there.
It is interesting to note that in writing his polemic about the lack of political correctness of the U.S. military, Waxman insists on using the politically incorrect term "Indians" to describe Native Americans seven time while using the correct term "Native Americans" only twice.
