Linguist Explains Why Redskin Became a Slur

TL;DR

Linguist Geoffrey Nunberg testified that "redskin" was disparaging in the 1960s, aiding the TTAB's cancellation of Washington Redskins trademarks.
Proceedings began in 1995; TTAB ruled in June 2014 to cancel the 1967 marks as offensive under the Lanham Act, pending appeal.
The word carries historical contempt toward Native Americans, making team use inseparable from slur connotations despite claims of honor.

The story at a glance

Linguist Geoffrey Nunberg explains in The Atlantic why "redskin" qualifies as a slur, drawing from his testimony in the trademark case against the Washington Redskins football team. The U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board canceled six team trademarks in June 2014 after petitions started in 1995, ruling them disparaging when registered in 1967. This follows 1960s civil rights shifts that reshaped views on ethnic terms; the team plans to appeal.

Key points

"Redskin" emerged 200 years ago as slang for Native Americans, often laced with contempt, derision, or condescension in books, newspapers, and media.
No dictionaries labeled it offensive before 1967 registration, unlike slurs for other groups, due to cultural blind spots before civil rights changes.
By the 1970s, all major dictionaries marked "redskin" as offensive, tracking shifts like "nigger" to "blacks."
Team founder George Preston Marshall was openly racist; halftime shows featured war-painted players, headdresses, and songs with "Scalp 'um."
Surveys found 35-45% of tribal enrollees view the term as offensive; non-Natives lack exemption to use it.
Context fails to redeem slurs; team name evokes savage stereotypes from Hollywood Westerns, not real Native people.
TTAB decision cancels federal trademark protection but leaves common-law rights intact pending appeal.

Details and context

Nunberg traces "redskin" to English via French translations of Native terms, not scalp bounties, but stresses its ties to white attitudes of disdain. The Lanham Act bars disparaging marks; petitioners proved 1960s usage was derogatory through historical texts showing scorn or "noble savage" sentiment.

Team defenses claim the name honors Native Americans over 81 years, yet mascots parody myths—war bonnet savages—not culture. Fans resist change, but Nunberg calls it manners: if it offends substantial Native people, drop it like outdated slurs.

This fits broader 1960s language evolution, where groups gained self-naming rights amid civil rights laws.

Key quotes

"When you pronounce a slur, you affiliate yourself with the attitudes and actions of all the people who have used it before you, whatever your personal feelings." — Geoffrey Nunberg[[1]](https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/06/a-linguist-on-why-redskin-is-racist-patent-overturned/373198/)[[2]](https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/06/a-linguist-on-why-redskin-is-racist-patent-overturned/373198)
"Names like Redskin aren’t honoring anybody or anything. They’re meant to evoke people and things known for their savagery or inhumanity." — Geoffrey Nunberg[[1]](https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/06/a-linguist-on-why-redskin-is-racist-patent-overturned/373198/)

Why it matters

The ruling spotlights how slurs persist in sports, forcing reckoning with Native stereotypes amid civil rights legacies. Fans and businesses face no immediate name change, but lost federal protection weakens merchandising and invites boycotts. Watch the appeal outcome and potential NFL pressure, though team owner Dan Snyder vows to fight on.[[1]](https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/06/a-linguist-on-why-redskin-is-racist-patent-overturned/373198/)