Opinions on Redskins name issue

[RyansRangers]

Native Americans are not the one fighting these court battles its the extreme liberal native american counsels who are like 1/32 native american. native americans do not find this title offensive its the board liberal extremeists who have nothing better to do.. Why doesnt PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) complain about the name Bears or Lions or those poor Dolphins. If the braves,seminoles havent changed niether do the skins...

[RiggoDrill]

I'm left-of-center, but I'd have to agree with Art that the "Redskin" issue has been, for the most part, manufactured by "do-gooders", mostly academic left-liberals with too much time on their hands.

Simply put, no one gets up in arrears when someone orders "mashed redskins with garlic and butter". Therefore:

1) "Redskin" cannot be ONLY an offensive term

2) Following from 1), the use of "Redskins" for a football team cannot unquestionably be determined to be offensive.

3) If context determines meaning, 86,000 fans cheering for those named "Redskins" would seem not to be derogatory, as Art suggested.

Here's another example to make my point:

a) "Henrietta is a beautiful girl"

"You run like a girl"

In this example, "girl" is neutral in a) and derogatory in . Shall we outlaw the word "girl" because it can be used to put people down? I think not.

[dchogs]

excellent points art, and, like i said before, i largely agree with you. the only thing i disagree with is that you think it is impossible for someone to be offended by the word as it is used for our sports team. absolutely, the vast majority of the people raising a stink about this are creating an issue out of nothing.

the problem is that we are rational people trying to make sense of an irrational perception by a group of people. the reality, no matter how illogical it is to us, is that some people are offended by the name redskins. i can tell my son that there are no such things as boogymen and point out all the logical reasons why i'm right, but that doesn't change his mind because logical arguments don't always undo illogical feelings or beliefs. putting "magic" water in a spray bottle to keep the boogymen away did work though.

all i am doing is saying "okay, they're offended. so what, we ain't going to change it." it seems as though you're spending your time trying to convince an illogical person that they shouldn't feel the way they do using logical arguments. granted, your method is better for a wholesale conversion of these people into skins' fans, but we don't need that. i'm not trying to change anyone's mind with my argument; all i'm doing is recognizing that others have a differing opinion and rejecting their opinion. i don't care if they think it is offensive.

as for this:

Because what you're doing is being done TO me.

i wasn't aware i was doing anything to you. we're debating some silly points while basically agreeing. if you perceived an offense, i apologize. if it was a general "you," disregard.

[Art]

DC, I was kind of speaking generally. I don't think you are attempting to redefine me. I was using you as the global, not the specific. I was just meaning to say that when anyone attempts to take a clearly defined word and turn it into something else, then that person is doing something TO the person speaking.

I didn't necessarily mean you were doing that. Sorry for the confusion and here is a perfect example of a sender putting forth a message that the receiver didn't clearly grasp. What was meant may not have been communicated, and that is my fault in this case.

It isn't my fault if some grandma thinks the Washington Redskins is a direct attack on her. That's her fault. .

[Larry Brown #43]

Originally posted by Henry

I still say they should just put a picture of a red-skinned potato on the helmet and that would be the end of it.

Wrong. This could be very offensive to potatoes. Perhaps you should consider sensitivity training.

[jaydean]

i frankly don't like anybody TELLING me what i have to do and when i have to do it. that's why we live in america and have the freedom to say and do what we want. here in south dakota we have many native americans. i have some good friends who are native americans. i wear redskins clothing almost every day, and when i see some of these people i ask if they are offended and they say "no, it's just a football game." in fact, i know some native americans who are fans of the redskins. IT'S A PRIDE THING, FOLKS.... we honor this team and this name and it's symbolism like it's our own family. in fact, sometimes the redskins are closer to us than our own family.

and by the way, i'm 100 percent norwegian...should i be offended by the 'MINNESOTA VIKINGS' name?

[Larry Brown #43]

I think Joe Theismann summed this argument up quite perfectly. After he led the Redskins to a victory in Super Bowl 17, an Indian chief sent him a beautiful Indian headdress as a gift. Theismann recently said, "To this day, that headdress is one of my most prized possessions." It seems to me that all of those advocates for changing the name are indirectly accusing that particular chief of selling out his own heritage. I wonder if you'd be willing to say that to his face?

I knew someone who worked on an Indian reservation, and he told me they were virtually ALL Redskins fans BECAUSE of the name, not DESPITE it. Using gbear's argument against him, it would stand to reason that Native Americans would be more offended by the name "Cowboys," as the "Cowboys" were the ones who did horrible things to the Native Americans. Should we say the Dallas Cowboys need to find a new name? See how ridiculous this whole argument is?

[gbear]

Just curious if anyone here ever wonders why the percentage of Native Americans insulted by the term Redskins on the football field is higher than the percentage offended by Seminoles or Braves.

I think it's fantastic that some have either looked beyond or never knew (more likely according to the lady I sat with). I like that some have taken the team name as a symbol of positive things. I'm sure that's even the way it's meant by most people when used today...best of intentions and all that.

That doesn't invalidate the pain of those that know or care. Like she said, maybe 30 years from now even less will know.

As I said, I still think it's in bad taste. If we had a team with a history called the halocausts, how popular would the name be? On the basis of having called the team "Redskins" in the past, we should keep doing it? Sorry, I'm not a firm believer in perpetuating my mistakes (except maybe making this arguement to a bunch of diehard Redskin fans).

So I'll ask my question this way. If we were to change the name to warriors and keep the old helmet, what would we as the fans have had to sacrifice? Is that too high a price for the peace of mind of some very wronged elders? Are we that selfish?

[flashback]

I'm not a fan of the Redskins, but I do think the term is offensive, and there are perfectly acceptable alternatives without the negative connotations associated with "Redskins".

And if any of you would root less for the Warriors, Braves, or Indigenous Persons, you're not much of a fan, in my opinion.

[NavyDave]

No and No.

I still call Washington pro basketball team the Bullets

Hmm a head of lettuce would offend liberal hollywood types

But if they change it should be to the Washington Special Interests with a pic of a white robber baron smoking a fat cigar light by a benjamin.

But that would offend minorities who cant stand smokers

[CBMGreatOne]

Flashback, I am a fan of the Redskins and so are just about all of the people on this board, and for you to say that somehow we aren't as credible as fans if our fanaticism is affected by a name change is just dead wrong. We are fans of a team with an identity which has been " The Washington Redskins" for more than 60 years. A name change could affect some of us on an individual level and it certainly doesn't mean we're any less of a fan. Most of us would bet all the money that we could come up with that we couldn't be anymore of a fan than we are, and that includes me.

[Larry Brown #43]

Gbear, you haven't addressed my point about the Indian chief who gave Theismann the headdress. Either (a) that chief sold out his heritage or ( this whole argument is much ado about nothing. But you can't have it both ways.

As for these points:

Originally posted by gbear

Just curious if anyone here ever wonders why the percentage of Native Americans insulted by the term Redskins on the football field is higher than the percentage offended by Seminoles or Braves.

The truth is that interest groups have campaigned against the use of ALL references to Native American heritage in sports nicknames. You use the example of the Seminoles, but FSU is currently under pressure to change its nickname. The PC-mongers won't quit until every sports nickname is changed. It's ridiculous. Look at St. John's University...they were the Redmen, now they are the Red Storm. It's a joke.

Originally posted by gbear

So I'll ask my question this way. If we were to change the name to warriors and keep the old helmet, what would we as the fans have had to sacrifice? Is that too high a price for the peace of mind of some very wronged elders? Are we that selfish? [/b]

The problem with this idea is that "Warriors" would insinuate that Native Americans are exactly that -- Warriors. It wouldn't fly. Believe me, they want to start by changing the name "Redskins," but eventually they'll want to change everything from Yankees (it discriminates against non-Americans) to the Wizards (Wizards has KKK conotations).

[gridironmike]

I found an article I had stored in my archives today from the Washington Post Style section (Nov. 6, 1994). The title is "Bury My Heart At RFK" (How the Redskins Got Their Name, and Why Just Maybe It Should Be Changed). It starts out with a "history" of the word redskin. Bounty hunter's trophies were the skins of native men, women, and children. In some areas a male's skin was worth roughly the same as a deer's pelt, or buckskin. This is how the word "buck" came to be applied to Indian men. As the term "redskin" became popular among colonists, so did the word "squaw" as a synonym for "woman." But "squaw" has a precise meaning in Algonquian and Iroquoian language. It means "vagina." How much of this is true? All of it, according to the custodians of Native American history. How much is false? All of it, according to the custodians of white American history. Well, to fast forward further in the article, the first documented appearance of the word "redskins" was found in a colonists letter in 1699 "There would not be so much to feare iff ye Red Skins was treated with such mixture of Justice & Authority as they cld understand." The first Colonial chroniclers believed that the Indians were actually white. "Their skins are naturally white, but altered from their originals by several dyings of Roots and Barks," wrote Maryland settler George Alsop in 1666. "Logically enough," writes historian Alden Vaughan, "redskins' eventually emerged as the epithet for enemies who usually used red paint on the warpath." Today, theories abound as to why George Preston Marshall picked that particular name. In 1933, the new Boston Braves football team wanted to end its association with the Braves baseball team and move to Fenway park, where the Red Sox play. One theory is that it was to honor the Boston Tea Party rebels who dressed as Indians when they dumped tea in the harbor. But according to Marshall's granddaughter and various other accounts, it was to honor coach William "Lone Star" Dietz, the half-German Sioux who is described in a team history book as "a full-blooded Indian." At that point in American history, Indians were gaining respect and social entry through athletics. Dietz played along side Jim Thorpe at the Carlisle Indian School. Thorpe was the first leader of the Professional Football Association (or NFL). Thorpe later played for the Oorang Indians and demonstrated tomahawk throwing during halftime. Anyhow, Dietz brought three Indians to the team with him, "Chief" Larry Johnson, Louis "Rabbit" Weller, and John Orien Crow. Dietz's grandson (actually his grandnephew..but by Indian custom is know as his grandfather), Lloyd One Star (a Sioux who lives in a HUD house on reservation land 14 miles from Rosebud, S.D.), says he would have no trouble testifying- on behalf of the team. It wouldn't suprise him if Coach Dietz himself had suggested the name Redskins. "This was a way to be a fierce team." Suzan Shown Harjo's (the Indian lady spearheading the case versus Pro Football, Inc.) father says there was a name worse than redskin. It was "blanket-***." That made them feel like a cartoon Indian. With all this said, I am going to find a dictionary from the year 1933 and see what the definition was at that time. The 2002 Press Guide has the Redskins official position on the word, and it has to do with the dying of skins with roots, red being the most available color. I think they should keep the name. The only modern definition the word should have is "the professional football team located in Washington, D.C." Hail to the Redskins!

[flashback]

Originally posted by CBMGreatOne

Flashback, I am a fan of the Redskins and so are just about all of the people on this board, and for you to say that somehow we aren't as credible as fans if our fanaticism is affected by a name change is just dead wrong. We are fans of a team with an identity which has been " The Washington Redskins" for more than 60 years. A name change could affect some of us on an individual level and it certainly doesn't mean we're any less of a fan. Most of us would bet all the money that we could come up with that we couldn't be anymore of a fan than we are, and that includes me.

:?: What the hell is an "individual level" anyway? C'mon, its not like they're talking about moving to Memphis or something. I've heard of rooting for the laundry, but rooting for the mascot? Is that how you pick your sports teams? What if they changed the colors, would that affect you on an "individual level"? What about when they changed owners? This whole loyalty to the team name is, to me, ridiculous. But being a tree-hugging, pinko liberal, of course I respect your feelings.

[gbear]

As for the head dress, I meant what I said when I said I'm glad not everyone is offended. As the lady said, many don't know. I'd rather they all took it as a sign of cultural pride that we have a team named after them. I'm sure that's what was intended.

As for those who campaigned against all Native American names, all I can say is that I didn't think to ask. I was mostly curious about the Redskins as I don't particularly follow the rest.

I brought them up here because the name of our loved team seems to bring special pain to some that leads to higher levels of protests to our teams name. As I have tried to point out, it may be because it is more than just a name for a group of people.

[Larry Brown #43]

Originally posted by gbear

I brought them up here because the name of our loved team seems to bring special pain to some that leads to higher levels of protests to our teams name. As I have tried to point out, it may be because it is more than just a name for a group of people.

I disagree with this point as well. When the Indians and Braves played each other in the World Series, protests were rampant outside of the Cleveland and Atlanta ballparks. So much so that they almost upstaged the series itself, which is a travesty.

[gbear]

I was referring to the CNNSI article. From memory, it was our name by a large margin that inspired the highest percentage of objections.

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by gridironmike

I found an article I had stored in my archives today from the Washington Post Style section (Nov. 6, 1994). The title is "Bury My Heart At RFK" (How the Redskins Got Their Name, and Why Just Maybe It Should Be Changed) ...............

.......................

Hail to the Redskins!

Interesting read GIM, thanks

[Displaced Fan]

How can people claim to be honoring someone with something that they find offensive?

[88Comrade2000]

They should not change the name but of they do, I can live with that. I'll still be a fan.

Washington Warriors?

What would make me stop being a fan is if the Redskins left D.C.-one exception to that- they move to where I live.

[Art]

Gbear,

The SI poll you're talking about is as follows.

The poll, based on interviews with 351 Native Americans and 743 fans of different races, found: 81 percent of Native Americans do not think high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames; 83 percent of Native Americans said pro teams should not stop using Indian nicknames and mascots -- and 79 percent of fans agreed.

70 percent in the poll responded that they had no problem with the Redskins name. I'm not sure what your memory recalls, but, again, even the cancellation case against the Redskins showed data supplied by the American Indian plantiffs that only 36 percent of Indians even found the root word "redskin" as offensive. More found "Indian" to be offensive.

And, it doesn't matter. A slur is a disparaging remark. It required intent or a tendency to belittle. And, since there's not even a tendency within the culture we're talking about here, there's certainly no tendency toward belittling.

Flashback,

I question whether you're even a fan of your team. If the Dallas Cowboys renamed themselves the Dallas Monarchs tomorrow and you remained a fan then you don't actually like the Cowboys. I am a fan of the Washington Redskins. That's my team. And if that team ceases to exist, I won't be able to root for them because they won't exist. What's so hard about that?

[flashback]

If the Dallas Cowboys renamed themselves the Dallas Monarchs tomorrow and you remained a fan then you don't actually like the Cowboys.

What?!?!?!?

They could call themselves the Dallas Flaming Queers, and I'd still be a fan of Emmitt Smith, and I'd still think Roy Williams should be getting more Rookie of the Year play, and I'd still hope Dave Campo would start acting like a head NFL coach. Are you kidding? What in the #$%@! does the name have to do with it? I've been rooting for this team since before I was in the first grade. It has nothing to do with what they call themselves. It has to do with familiarity, and personal investment, and loyalty. The guys I like, I cheer hard for. The guys I have a problem with, I hope for the best. What the hell does the mascot have to do with anything?

[Yomar]

If there is a name change, I think the team should be called the Fighting Frogs (special thanks to Maret High School) and this should be our mascot:

[codeorama]

Like I said before, I'm torn on the issue, but let me ask this one question...

What is the difference between a team named "Redskins" and one named "N!ggers"...

The N word was obviously used in a derogatory way to mean "black people".

Redskins was used (and still is in parts of the country with large Native American populations) as a derogatory term for "indians"

While I was in Montana, I noticed more discrimination against a group of people than I have ever experienced. The "Indians" were the root of all evil. They were the drunks, the theives, the rapist...etc... They were viewed by most people as criminals. I worked in a casino and had people say "you let them damn redskins in here?". I have have never been in a similar situation where someone said "you let them damn n!ggers in here?"

I think most people don't understand how looked down upon Native Americans are in many places. There are just fewer of them.

I agree with Art's assesments and the post that told the story of Joe Theisman receiving an Indian Headress... I agree 100%.. this is just a very touchy subject.

Like I said, If someone wanted to name a team the "n!ggers", that would never happen, even though there is no way that it would be derogatory, who would name a team someting negative. I just think there are fewer and fewer Native Americans to be offended.

I think what I am getting at is this:

No one has a problem understanding that Slavery was a bad thing that never should have happened.

Many people do not realize how bad the plight of the Native Americans was. This was their land, they were here first, they were slaughtered, they were moved from their land to reservations.

In my opinion, what happened to the Native Americans was just as offensive if not more than slavery. (I am not in any way minimizing slavery, I am making the point of how severe the Native American plight was)

Than why are we less sensitive to a slang term used against the Native Americans than we are a slang term used against African Americans?

The whole "how the word is used" is true, but it doesn't make the word less offensive to some.

[Art]

Here's a little known fact. In Arizona, the Tribal High School league has a paper it puts out weekly. Know what it's called? "The Redskin". Among American Indians the term "Redskin" means football team. In fact, there's no verified proven display that the term has been used in decades to disparage the American Indian.

And, in fact, the term Indian is still seen as more offensive than Redskin among the native population. "Redskin" has never and will never rise to the level of "n!gger". Redskin was never wielded in the same manner. It never will be. The two words aren't the same.

In South Dakota two native activists were arguing hard against the Fighting Sioux nickname. They yelled. They screamed. They hollered. They said it was not right to have that nickname. One guy was wearing a "Redskins" cap. The other was wearing a "Redskins" shirt. To those two, naming a football team after a nation was an insult, but, they never associated the disconnect between their words and their gear.

Code, if you've never heard n!ggers used as a slap against blacks I'd recommend you get out more.

And, Flashback, I hear what you're saying. You're saying you aren't a fan of the football team, but rather, of the players that make up the football team. So, if Emmitt goes to another team, you'll obviously start rooting for him there too. Say he came to Washington and played against Dallas. To you, you're a fan of Smith, not the Flaming Queers and so you'd root for Williams and Smith on the same play. Right?

In fact, in free agency it is largely impossible to identify a player and say he represents a team. Due to this people are fans of the football team. I don't own a single piece of clothing that has a player's name on it. I own thousands of dollars of stuff with the name Redskins on it. I'm a fan of the Washington Redskins. The composition of the Washington Redskins may alter from year to year. And yet I remain a fan. The Washington Redskins will have NO players on the roster that predate 1999 after this season and yet I remain a fan of the Washington Redskins.

So, again, I'll say to you, you aren't a fan of the Dallas Cowboys. You are a fan of the relative success they've had and you've followed some of the players. But, you aren't a fan of the team. You can't be. Because if the team ceases to exist, then, you'd have to stop being a fan. And since you wouldn't, you aren't .

If the Washington Redskins change uniforms and coaches and players and owners and stadiums and states to play their home games in, the one thing remains constant through it all. They are the Washington Redskins. If they are not the Washington Redskins then they aren't the team I've attached myself to. And, if you don't understand that, it is a reflection on your own passing interest in the sport and not a reflection upon me. That you don't associate yourself with the team is ludicrous.

Obviously, since you like the players so much, if Dallas moved to Los Angeles you'd be one of those people who'd still follow the team. And, as a right-wing nutcase, I don't respect that type of weak fan belief.