SOW| Native Americans Speaking Out In Support of Redskins Name

[Spaceman Spiff]

The university of Pennsylvania spent over a year talking to hundreds of natives, in every one of the lower 48 states. They don't have mechanisms set up to survey Alaska and Hawaii. Their results were pretty much constant across every state. Their results did change with level of education, but only by a few percent.

And, frankly, their results don't SOUND like a drunk Internet poster who's trying to inflate his own opinion by claiming that not only does the universe agree with him, but it does so unanimously.

Now, yep, it's certainly possible that opinions have changed. The survey was done 10 years ago. (I don't think it's possible that the percentage offended has gone from "8%" to "every single person except diehard Redskin fans". But it's certainly conceivable that its doubled, say.).

And I'll believe it, when somebody runs ANOTHER public, open, poll.

Hey man, preaching to the choir here. The 90% poll doesn't get enough publicity. Maybe some good folks on ES that have too much time on their hands should conduct a similar poll. It's about time that the Native American's who like the name or don't care about it should get some airtime.

But that won't change the opinion of the white guilt buddy of mine who says the name "makes me uncomfortable" no matter how much evidence I threw in his face. I showed him the 90% poll, the paper from the Smithsonian that Goddard wrote (it was actually really good. A bit dry, but good), the HS out in New Mexico that has the team name Redskins....and...nothing. He didn't care. Didn't acknowledge any of it. It's still a racist name, according to him.

[RFKFedEx]

And, frankly, their results don't SOUND like a drunk Internet poster who's trying to inflate his own opinion by claiming that not only does the universe agree with him, but it does so unanimously.

Larry, have you had the name discussion with people who are not B&G, or even NFL fans? People who wouldn't have reason for bias like all of us in here?

[elkabong82]

Outside perspectives that don't have a keen interest in the team fall victim to the same ignorance, which is that since the term Redskin has skin and a color in it, it must be racist.

The term wasn't racist when the team adopted the name (in fact, the name was used to recruit Native American players), it didn't become a racial slur between then and now either. It only became viewed as a racial slur when the PC crowd gained prominence and also confused the term due to ignorance and assumption.

Frankly, other teams' fans who are clueless about the situation and make the same ignorant assumption about the term Redskin don't have valid opinions. When you hold that assumption, it's hard in this culture to hold a differing opinion because you run the risk of being labeled as a racist. Anyone of us Redskins fans can easily see WHY the name is confused as racist, and it easily is, so it is an uphill battle.

The benefit is that the affected party, Native Americans, are 90% on our side to keep the name. The other argument is pushing the name change to the extreme by asking how far is too far. Oklahoma means red man, Buffalo Bills honor a man who killed NA people and slaughtered buffalo, their livelihood, and then had them parade around in his hows, disgracing them. The Buccaneers and raiders honor rapists, murderers, and thieves. The Vikings is offensive to Nordic folk, the fighting Irish is offensive to some Irish. But those teams don't make the headlines, instead we do because of the on-the-surface team name, even though it isn't actually racist, was a term started by NA folks themselves, and isn't used as a racial slur today either.

Those other teams also don't have birdbrained local media members with an agenda against the team who bring up the issue when they don't have anything else to whine about.

This anti-name cause is astonishingly ignorant to the roots of the name and other team names that actually do have offensive roots.

[Larry]

Larry, have you had the name discussion with people who are not B&G, or even NFL fans? People who wouldn't have reason for bias like all of us in here?

No. I have never discussed the issue with a single person who was not wearing a redskins jersey at the time.

Do I really need to put a sarcasm tag on that, when I repeat what it is that you're accusing me of, back at you?

----------

How's this? I personally know of four native Americans, very well. (Myself, my father, and my two brothers).

NONE of them find the name offensive. (And I'm the only Skins fan).

Now, given that fact, i suppose I COULD start bombastically announcing that every single person in the country, except for a handful of political activists and extortionists, approves of the name.

But somehow, I think that a scientifically conducted poll is probably more accurate than taking a few conversations and claiming universal unanimity.

[Hubbs]

Funny.

An extensive, public, public opinion poll says that 90% of Native Americans, when asked the question "is the name Washington Redskins offensive?", answered "No".

An Internet poster, pulling opinions out of his ***, announces that the entire universe, except for "a bunch of diehard Redskins fans and literally nobody else" agrees with him.

Hmmm. Which to believe? Which to believe?

When did I say anything about specifically referring to Native Americans and only Native Americans?

The university of Pennsylvania spent over a year talking to hundreds of natives, in every one of the lower 48 states. They don't have mechanisms set up to survey Alaska and Hawaii. Their results were pretty much constant across every state. Their results did change with level of education, but only by a few percent.

And, frankly, their results don't SOUND like a drunk Internet poster who's trying to inflate his own opinion by claiming that not only does the universe agree with him, but it does so unanimously.

Damnit, I hate when someone so accurately and completely summarizes something that I said. Well done, good sir. I completely retract that time when, completely hammered and cackling like a maniac, I declared at the top of my lungs, "EVEN MICROBIAL LIFE FORMS ON PLANETS THAT ARE MILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS AWAY AGREE WITH ME! I KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE BECAUSE OF THE SUPERPOWERS I GAINED AFTER ROLLING AROUND IN NUCLEAR WASTE! I CAN SEE AND KNOW ALL THINGS! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

...or, it could just be that this PR war has been lost so badly that there are journalists across the country who won't even publish/say our full team name anymore, and I didn't consider the possibility that there were still people who apparently think that all is well in the court of public opinion before I wrote my previous post.

[Larry]

When did I say anything about specifically referring to Native Americans and only Native Americans?

When you neatly divided the two sides of he debate into "a bunch of diehard Redskins fans and literally nobody else in the country"?

Oh, wait. I get it. 90% of all Native Americans are "a bunch of diehard Redskins fans". They all find the name non-offensive because they are all blinded by their Redskins fandom, right?

[RFKFedEx]

Outside perspectives that don't have a keen interest in the team fall victim to the same ignorance, It only became viewed as a racial slur when the PC crowd gained prominence and also confused the term due to ignorance and assumption.

EB, please don't take this as a personal attack. This is a very emotional issue for all of us.

Do you truly believe that Native leaders like Suzan Harjo and Ben Knighthorse Campbell are confused by our good intentions?

I see where you're going with "ignorance and assumption" angle. Long forgotten in the internet era, some SEC sports fans were vehemently defending their right to display Confederate flags at NCAA sporting events, as recently as 30 years ago. Defenders cited the opposition members as PC, do-gooders, who were confused about some Southern fans' true intentions to honor their heritage. The flags have since faded away and nobody thinks much of it today, until you Youtube some Herschel Walker highlights from his amazing Georgia years. Watch him cruise to the endzone, and nearly every time you'll see the Stars and Bars proudly waving in the stands. First time I saw those highlights on ESPN Classic (in the 2000s) I was like 'damn!, they were still allowed to do that in my lifetime?' Many people would raise hell about those flags today, even in the South where football is king.

Point of the story is that people and public opinions change, sometimes rapidly after decades, and even centuries of convential wisdom.

[elkabong82]

EB, please don't take this as a personal attack. This is a very emotional issue for all of us.

Do you truly believe that Native leaders like Suzan Harjo and Ben Knighthorse Campbell are confused by our good intentions?

I see where you're going with "ignorance and assumption" angle. Long forgotten in the internet era, some SEC sports fans were vehemently defending their right to display Confederate flags at NCAA sporting events.... Many people would raise hell about those flags today, even in the South where football is king.

Point of the story is that people and public opinions change, sometimes rapidly after decades, and even centuries of convential wisdom.

I truly believe Harjo is part of the younger crowd that assumes the term is racist and willingly ignores other NAs who like the name and even name their school's team Redskins as well. Harjo even tried to claim that the Redskins term came from whites scalping NAs, which has been proven to be false and of which could not be backed up in court with any kind of primary source. Do you truly believe that someone propagating such a myth, even after proven false, just to further their cause is worth following?

I'm living in TN, for 6 years now, and I was a history major in college and I teach history now, so I don't need the unrelated conversation about the Confederate flag. It's history is representative of pro-slavery as part of its heritage and I disagree with displaying the flag, though I understand it is people's rights. Down here, people still display the flag proudly. Redskins, again, was a term created and used by NAs, and doesn't have the infamous history like the Confederate flag does. That is a rather weak attempt on your part to try and make a connection between the two.

Point is, in the case of Redskins the opinion has changed based on a false assumption that "red" and "skin" is racist. Again, it wasn't when we donned the name, Native Americans played for us because we had the name, and between 1932 and now Redskin wasn't used as a racial slur and it isn't used as such today either. But you and others seem incapable of understanding the origins of the name and only see "red" and "skin" and stick with the baseless assumption created by the PC wave. PC is fine in many cases, but there are overreactions, and this is one case.

Care to comment on the Bills, Raiders, Buccaneers, and other team names that can be construed as offensive?

[RFKFedEx]

I truly believe Harjo is part of the younger crowd

She's eligible for social security.

That is a rather weak attempt on your part to try and make a connection between the two.

Both are symbols of pride, tradition, history, emotion, and character. Neither is foreign to controversy.

But you and others seem incapable of understanding the origins of the name

There are many credible theories on how the name evolved. It doesn't change what the term has come to represent in the court of US public opinion in 2013.

Care to comment on the Bills, Raiders, Buccaneers, and other team names that can be construed as offensive?

I've been to other forums and mingled with opposing fans at B&G road games. Nobody ever mentions controversy with their franchise themes, just ours.

[Hubbs]

When you neatly divided the two sides of he debate into "a bunch of diehard Redskins fans and literally nobody else in the country"?

Oh, wait. I get it. 90% of all Native Americans are "a bunch of diehard Redskins fans". They all find the name non-offensive because they are all blinded by their Redskins fandom, right?

There's a difference between not giving a **** either way and being part of "widespread support" for the hypothetical person who becomes the leader of the Keep the Redskins Named the Redskins Movement. I was responding to the earlier claim that he or she would enjoy "widespread support." I imagine that Native Americans who don't oppose the name, but also don't give a **** about the team, merely don't give a **** about the name, either, rather than actively supporting it.

If you'd care to stop arguing about this particular tree, however, the rest of the forest has actually grown into the words "PR cluster****," which is my larger point. Now, whether or not you choose to care about that sort of thing is up to you. I was on the other side of this debate until very recently, but eventually I was just overwhelmed by the number of straws trying to break our collective camel's back. It's not particularly enjoyable to constantly have people tell you how racist your team is, even if you know that the "evidence" backing up the claims of racism is questionable at best. I'm just tired of it. I'd rather pick a tribe, make sure it fits into the song, and be done with it. Or, barring that, just make sure that the new name has a strong connection to our past. I'd begrudgingly accept Warriors as long as we kept the logo. You can squeeze the last two syllables into one for the song, and I can't possibly imagine that any future lawsuits seeking to force us to drop the logo would be successful.

[Guest Spearfeather]

http://www.uni-watch.com/

I was recently contacted by a representative of attorney James McCarthy, who’s a partner at the intellectual property law firm McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff. McCarthy was described to me as “a sports-loving lawyer” who had previously written about sports branding, and who could therefore help sort out some of the issues regarding the current trademark litigation involving the Redskins’ team name.

UW: I’m told that you believe that even if the Redskins lose their trademark protection, it will not impact them financially. Why not?

JM: Even if the REDSKINS trademark registrations are cancelled, they still have very valuable, nationwide common law rights based on the extensive and continuous use of the mark. These rights are exclusive and enforceable.

In addition to the basic trademark rights, the team has a First Amendment right to “commercial speech” that probably protects its ability to use the term REDSKINS, even if the trademark registration is lost

UW: Okay, so you’re basically saying anything is possible — but we all knew that already. I’m asking you what you think will happen.

JM: Fifteen years is a long time. Certainly opinions can change — it was only about 15 years ago that President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act that was just challenged in the Supreme Court. Based on the state of the laws today, however, I would guess that the Redskins will still be the Redskins 15 years from now, especially since it has been over 20 years since the trademark was originally challenged.

[Hubbs]

Has Harjo ever explained where her claims about the term coming from the practice of scalping came from? I mean, we're not theorizing that she found the name so repugnant however many years ago she first began this process that she just completely made the whole thing up, are we? That seems like something that a person who was trained in the law would know to avoid.

[Guest Spearfeather]

Several months ago, Prince George’s County resident Stephen Dodson reached out to the Washington Redskins in an effort to share his perspective on the team name.

Dodson is a full-blooded American Inuit chief originally from the Aleutian Tribes of Alaska, and said he was tired of being spoken for as a Native American.

“People are speaking for Native Americans that aren’t Native American. Being a full-blooded Indian with my whole family behind me, we had a big problem with all the things that were coming out [of the discussion],” he said. “I think they were basically saying that we were offended, our people were offended, and they were misrepresenting the Native American nation.

“We don’t have a problem with [the name] at all; in fact we’re honored. We’re quite honored.”

“It is [an honor], it’s a heritage. There’s a lot of respect in it. A great pinnacle part of who we are as a nation has to do with pride and honor. And the Redskin name is that,” he said. “That’s one of the things we use as honor and respect toward each other.

http://www.redskins.com/news-and-events/article-1/Native-American-Chief-Talks-About-Redskins/cdb3c94e-f5c6-4d98-9acd-18d7fb768bb7

[Larry]

Doesn't count. He's Inuit. They aren't real Indians.

(Do I really need to put a sarcasm label on this?)

[Bang]

Why listen to him?

he's just going to say what they don't want to hear, and if there's one thing this thread has proven, it's if the native says something other than "i'm offended' he's to be ignored, or most likely, to be taught the error of his ways by the white man. (again.)

And Spearfeather, you better have permission from at least 3 self appointed Native advocacy groups before using a name like that, and the photo you've got there is a violation under the "You're the Wrong Race" clause.. unless you are native, at which point, you may use the images, but clearly need some more schoolin' on what offends you.

~Bang

[Fan since a Fetus]

Why listen to him?

he's just going to say what they don't want to hear, and if there's one thing this thread has proven, it's if the native says something other than "i'm offended' he's to be ignored, or most likely, to be taught the error of his ways by the white man. (again.)

And Spearfeather, you better have permission from at least 3 self appointed Native advocacy groups before using a name like that, and the photo you've got there is a violation under the "You're the Wrong Race" clause.. unless you are native, at which point, you may use the images, but clearly need some more schoolin' on what offends you.

~Bang

I like this post.

The problem with Dobson, is the general media thinks they know what is best. He obviously does not know what is best for him. His view does not meet their view. So, his story outside of Redskins Nation, will never be heard.

Also, I still want to know what the 'Red' means in Red Radio. You know, the radio program that Harjo used to run.

[E-Dog Night]

Instead of posting a new thread on this, I thought I'd post my write-up on this issue here (I make the best argument I know how to make):

http://sonofwashington.com/2013/05/07/the-name-remains-the-same/

[pjfootballer]

E-Dog,

Why don't you send the article out to people like UnWise Mike, Wilbon and even Harjo herself? I loved it. Very well written (I did find a couple of typos, but I won't tell unless you want me to) and backed up with facts.

[Fan since a Fetus]

I too, enjoyed the article E-Dog. You should send it out to more than Wise, Wilbon, and Harjo. Try sending it to some of the larger national news sites. Skip the little guys like W and W and go big! Wise, Wilbon, and Harjo won't do anything but trash it anyways.

[SWFLSkins]

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?381441-CherokeePheonix.org-Poll-finds-support-for-%93Redskins%94-name

WASHINGTON (AP) – It’s been a rough offseason for the NFL’s team in Washington, D.C., and not just because of the knee injury to star quarterback Robert Griffin III.

The team’s nickname, which some consider a derogatory term for Native Americans, has faced a barrage of criticism. Local leaders and pundits have called for a name change. Opponents have launched a legal challenge intended to deny the team federal trademark protection. A bill introduced in Congress in March would do the same, though it appears unlikely to pass.

But a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows that nationally, “Redskins” still enjoys widespread support. Nearly four in five Americans don’t think the team should change its name, the survey found. Only 11 percent think it should be changed, while 8 percent weren’t sure and 2 percent didn’t answer.

---------- Post added May-8th-2013 at 11:58 AM ----------

The above article quotes people who are against the name, yet they are not NA, and yes there were five NA who originally petitioned the Trademark, five. How many NA are there in America?

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmcensus1.html

Find out how many American Indians live in the United States, where they live, the languages they speak, and more.

Population

2.9 million

As of 2010, the estimated population of American Indians and Alaska Natives. They made up 0.9% of the total population.

Read more: American Indians: Census Facts | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmcensus1.html#ixzz2SiXL9LQ4

---------- Post added May-8th-2013 at 12:08 PM ----------

I sent the above email relating to the article.....

Pertaining to the above article. First and foremost why are the Native Americans that are so offending by this not being quoted, there are 2.9 million NA's in the US. Second why were only negative quotes from random persons used? The article did not represent good journalism standards by investigating and presenting different angles of opinion.

I will say this, I am a Redskins fan, and an Native American fan. The circle of life is one of my favorite books, By David Audlin a nondenominational minister who studied Native culture and ritual. I have asked tribes myself or NA's I ran into, they either stated that they could care less or made no opinion because it had no value to them.

I would love to see a media source actually dig into this and do some work and produce some solid info. I consider the Redskins logo and name as a tribute to the sheer grit and determination by which the NA's survived the arrival of non-natives to their land. I also think we could learn more from them then we have taught them to date. Their elder council still makes sense, and could fix Washington. I say all this with interest to get to the truth, seems much mud is being slung without actually asking those who would or may not be offended what they think, not just a small representation.

Thanks for your time.

[Guest Spearfeather]

Doesn't count. He's Inuit. They aren't real Indians.

(Do I really need to put a sarcasm label on this?)

No, .... I gotcha.

And Spearfeather, you better have permission from at least 3 self appointed Native advocacy groups before using a name like that, and the photo you've got there is a violation under the "You're the Wrong Race" clause.. unless you are native, at which point, you may use the images, but clearly need some more schoolin' on what offends you.

~Bang

And you too.

[jnhay]

http://www.redskins.com/news-and-events/article-1/Native-American-Chief-Talks-About-Redskins/cdb3c94e-f5c6-4d98-9acd-18d7fb768bb7

I posted this in Breaking News, and found it pretty compelling. I know it's coming from the most biased source imaginable, but the opinion of a Native American chief should hold some weight.

I just wish there were surveys that just came out and asked "Do you support Washington's use of 'Redskins' as their official mascot", or do you not support it, or are you indifferent? If there's just a 25% population of American Indians that fully support the name, it'd be really hard to come out with a blanket statement that it's obviously racist. You wouldn't see even 1% of Black or Latino people supporting a team called the Blackskins or Brownskins, and people constantly want to make it sound like the names are completely analogous. People are too lazy to look deeper into the topic, and most of the assumptions they make are just wrong. But they always say "obviously" to make it sound like the argument is self-explanatory, and anyone who thinks differently is stupid.

These people might as well go up to the Native American wearing a Redskins hat and say "You're an idiot."

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

Ours was designed by he Blackfoot tribe at the request of Walter Wetzel, the then president of the National Congress of Native Americans. The other looks like it was designed by Walt Disney.

Do you have a source for this? I'm trying to look this up and so far haven't found much.

I've always heard it was supposed to be the face of Lone Star Dietz, the first head coach after we changed our name to the Redskins. I know a variation of the logo was used as far back as 1933, and was even documented in the court case as having been used back at least as far as 1937.

But Walter Wetzel was president of the NCAI (not the NCNA) during 1960-1964. This is the wrong time frame from what SonOfWashington's blog says here:

FACT : By 1965 the Redskins moved away from the Native American logo and changed to a spear (1965-1969), followed by the Vince Lombardi “R” logo in 1970. Walter Wetzel, President of the NCAI (National Congress of American Indians) at the time went to the Washington Redskins with photos of Indians in full headdress’ and said, “I’d like to see an Indian on your helmets.” The Redskins drew up a logo from the features within the photo and was approved by Wetzel who said, “it made us all so proud.”

So either the former President Wetzel approached us around 1970ish and we changed back to the what we know in 1972 or something else happened? If he approached us while he was president of the NCAI about changing our logo to what we currently use, it wouldn't make sense for the next 7 years of our franchise to use a different logo.

[TK]

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2148127

Daniel Snyder says Redskins will never change name

by Erik Brady, USA TODAY Sports

Updated: 05/09/2013 04:45pm

Daniel Snyder is owner of the Washington pro football team he grew up adoring. Would he ever consider changing the team name that many American Indians and others believe is a racial slur?

"We will never change the name of the team," Snyder told USA TODAY Sports this week. "As a lifelong Redskins fan, and I think that the Redskins fans understand the great tradition and what it's all about and what it means, so we feel pretty fortunate to be just working on next season."

What if his football team loses an ongoing federal trademark lawsuit? Would he consider changing it then?

"We'll never change the name," he said. "It's that simple. NEVER — you can use caps."

Snyder does not often speak to the media about the case. He talked to USA TODAY Sports very briefly about it Tuesday afternoon, following a longer interview with him and his wife Tanya about her selection as mother of the year by the American Cancer Society.

Later Thursday, USA TODAY Sports will publish a story about Amanda Blackhorse, who is Navajo and the named plaintiff in the trademark suit. She said if she ever had the chance, she'd ask Snyder if he would dare to call her a redskin to her face.

"I think the best way is to just not comment on that type of stuff," Snyder said. "I don't know her."

[Guest Spearfeather]

What if his football team loses an ongoing federal trademark lawsuit? Would he consider changing it then?

"We'll never change the name," he said. "It's that simple. NEVER; you can use caps."

I'm glad he finally came out and said it.

Hail to the REDSKINS