B&G Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/levesque/106471_leve30.shtml What's in a name? Plenty for 'Redskins' By JOHN LEVESQUE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST This much we know. The folks who own the Washington Redskins are as sensitive as a goal post. The NFL team should have changed its name years ago to something that doesn't scream RACIAL SLUR across the sporting landscape, but in the name of something important -- tradition? solvency? institutional obstinacy? -- the new gang Daniel Snyder led into power four years ago has resisted pressure from many groups to get with the program. Case closed. Or not. This week, the Journal Star in Lincoln, Neb., said it would stop using the Redskins name in its coverage of the football team. Of course, these noble gestures take time to trickle down to the staff. Since the announcement, the Journal Star, at least on its Web site, has used the term twice, both in news briefs from The Associated Press. Oh, the hypocrisy! Sorry, couldn't resist. This sort of thing always happens. Some people never get the memo until they've embarrassed the boss. But the Journal Star's new policy does revive an issue that won't die until sports teams using people as mascots understand the danger of uniform bigotry in a polychromatic society. It's not whether the name should be used. Let's hope even those who still would accommodate Indians and Braves and Blackhawks would cringe at the heinousness of Redskins. It's whether the sports pages should reflect reality or promote morality. The Oregonian in Portland doesn't use "Indian" nicknames. The Seattle Times uses the names but bans any images it considers offensive, such as the Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo. The Post-Intelligencer's policy has been to reflect reality, leaving it to editorial writers and columnists to provoke thought and shape opinion while allowing the use of nicknames in news stories. But change may be afoot. "The Native American Journalists Association has asked that newspapers stop using sports mascots and nicknames that depict Native Americans by 2004," said P-I executive editor Ken Bunting. "That has sparked a healthy internal discussion at the P-I and other newspapers. "I'm mindful, however, that a newspaper style rule doesn't change public perceptions, doesn't change helmet logos or the way millions of sports fans refer to a team. Where team names are offensive, it would be much better if the leagues, not the media, took this on." The journalist in me is inclined to agree. We're supposed to be dispassionate, fair and careful not to distort the truth. If there's a team out there called the Redskins, our readers ought to be aware of it, no? But my inner citizen, who clearly has seen too many Keith Jackson telecasts, is thinking, "Whoa, Nellie! If the Pekin Chinks were still around today, would we use the team nickname in the paper?" I don't think so. Pekin, a town in central Illinois not far from Peoria, is thought to be named for the Chinese capital. Its high school teams were the Chinks until 1981, when public sentiment forced a change to Dragons. The sworn enemies of political correctness, aka the friends of coarse and uncivil behavior, will climb all over this and say the Washington Redskins are merely paying tribute to Native Americans -- sorry, Indians -- and shouldn't be pilloried if someone happens to take offense. It's not the team's fault, they'll say. Right. And no one should be offended if the Chicago Bears decide to pay tribute to the city's Polish-American heritage and rename themselves the Chicago Polacks. It's entirely possible that not all ethnic and racial nicknames started life as pejoratives. But when cultural evolution does make them offensive to a segment of society, shouldn't all of society strive to remove the thorn rather than jam it in deeper? Instead of saying, "Deal with it," shouldn't we be bigger than we were yesterday, better than we were yesterday, and seek common ground? The Washington Redskins are reluctant to change names because it will cost them more than a few draft picks. If they repudiate the name they've had since George Preston Marshall changed it from Boston Braves to Boston Redskins in 1933, it follows that they'll have to stop licensing and selling Redskins merchandise, which usually ranks in the top 10 of team-gear sales across all sports. Worse, they'll probably have to spend millions suing the renegade dealers who start selling counterfeit stuff. Hey, nobody said a corporate conscience would be cheap. What about a newspaper's conscience? We make decisions every day on whether something is appropriate for the reader. We'll omit from stories and advertisements the name of a rock group or the title of a fringe-theater production if it's considered profane or explicitly offensive. We'll clean up a quotation or avoid using it altogether if its colorful nature isn't deemed essential to the story. Is that any different from eliminating references to Redskins? Or Chinks? In the editorial announcing the decision to stop using "Redskins," Journal Star editor Kathleen Rutledge wrote: "Many sports mascots were adopted at a time in this country when native people had no voice. Now they have a voice." Newspapers have had voices for centuries. Loud voices. They've used them to speak out against injustice, inequality, insensitivity. The P-I's editorial board cheered when the Seattle School Board voted last summer to end using "Indians" as the nickname of West Seattle High School's teams, even though some Native American groups didn't object to it, even derived some pride from it. Still, it's hard to find anyone who thinks "Redskins" is acceptable, for it would also imply acceptance of Blackskins, Brownskins and Yellowskins at a time in our history when only Potato Skins would be palatable. In that case, newspapers shouldn't wait for the Washington Redskins to take the lead. We need only go back 40 years into our files to remind ourselves they were the last NFL team to employ a black man. P-I columnist John Levesque can be reached at 206-448-8330 or johnlevesque@seattlepi.com Printer-friendly version E-mail this story Get e-mail news updates Subscribe to the P-I Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 I wonder what they are going to do when they see this Army vet/biker dude I met a few years back with his skins Tattoo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 "Still, it's hard to find anyone who thinks "Redskins" is acceptable" This guy's obviously never visited this site... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number twenty-eight Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 This is just ridiculous. Count me among the coarse and uncivilized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 You know, if the Skins logo was put a nice 50 cent coin praising the Native American. People would love it. Nobody woudl complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 I think a swarm of emails to this j@ck@ss may be in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 After spending the day signing up that C yoU Next Tuesday from the Neb paper for every internet site, I now have my orders for the day. I hope he likes spam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CounterTre Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 I usually don't bite, but I did this time and sent this joker an email: Ahhh another member of the media does a lemming leap! 2 things wrong with your argument that a little research (OH perish the thought!) would correct. Indians don’t have a problem with the logo or the name….over 90% polled saw nothing wrong with it and thought that it SHOULDN’T be changed. That’s Native American’s polled by Sports Illustrated in a big study done recently by them. Have an actual conversation with an Indian or two and you will find that they have a problem with the Florida State fans doing “rain dances” and the chop, not “Hail to the Redskins”, a term derived from the Red warpaint, not a racial slur. Look at merchandise sales among Indians of Sports memorabilia. Betcha can’t guess which team is at or near the top on every reservation nationwide. Oh those Indians are sooooo offended! This all comes from sources as credible as an Indian affairs worker I know who is an Indian himself and does a ton of work on several different reservations. He laughs at idiots like you and the rest of the chicken little activists who are making this into something it clearly is not….an issue of importance to Indians. It’s just the guilty white liberal conscience jumping on the bandwagon of yet another empty cause. Notice the only people who ever voice this displeasure are the knee jerk loud mouth activists who don’t represent their respective populations at all? Do us all a favor and find something better to waste the space of a column on, or at least do some research and include ALL of the facts instead of telling a limited story based on a selective collection of half truths.. Who cares what some little rag in Nebraska thinks of the team in Washington? They aren’t going to use the term Redskins…oh boy I’m sure a ton of Redskins faithful will lose sleep over that one…Gimme a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Didnt the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled last year that Redskins have no right to trademark the name? So that argument would be moot. Perhaps teh same emails could be sent to this jackass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSF Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Originally posted by CounterTre I 2 things wrong with your argument that a little research (OH perish the thought!) would correct. Indians don’t have a problem with the logo or the name….over 90% polled saw nothing wrong with it and thought that it SHOULDN’T be changed. That’s Native American’s polled by Sports Illustrated in a big study done recently by them. Have an actual conversation with an Indian or two and you will find that they have a problem with the Florida State fans doing “rain dances” and the chop, not “Hail to the Redskins”, a term derived from the Red warpaint, not a racial slur. Look at merchandise sales among Indians of Sports memorabilia. Betcha can’t guess which team is at or near the top on every reservation nationwide. Oh those Indians are sooooo offended! Very true countertre. I've spent some time on reservations, and I'll tell you 2 things: I did see some Redskin caps and jackets, and Native Americans have much bigger issues to deal with than sports teams' names and logos. I do think, though, certain references like the tomahawk chop can be offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryman of the North Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 every year some jack a55 makes a big deal about this and every year i ad to the thread saying im native north american and have been a skins fan for 22 of my 27 years im getting tired and grumpy as off season traing is kicking my a55 running stairs then reading this crud hurts my feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Murphaaay Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Originally posted by flashback "Still, it's hard to find anyone who thinks "Redskins" is acceptable" This guy's obviously never visited this site... A long ways back, a lot of people felt that slavery and bigotry was perfectly acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Murphaaay Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Originally posted by CounterTre Indians don’t have a problem with the logo or the name….over 90% polled saw nothing wrong with it and thought that it SHOULDN’T be changed. That’s Native American’s polled by Sports Illustrated in a big study done recently by them. Have an actual conversation with an Indian or two and you will find that they have a problem with the Florida State fans doing “rain dances” and the chop, not “Hail to the Redskins”, a term derived from the Red warpaint, not a racial slur. If it is a term derived from Red Warpaint, then why does the Redskins logo a profile shot of an indian man, with no Red Warpaint? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Originally posted by rellim If it is a term derived from Red Warpaint, then why does the Redskins logo a profile shot of an indian man, with no Red Warpaint? This is a silly debate. American Indians were called redskins because of the ruddy-brown color of their skin, though the war paint may have enhanced the connection to the color red in people's minds. It was an improvement over "Indians" because these people were obviously not from India, despite their initial mistaken identities. The British cleaned this up a little and referred to them as "Red Indians" after 1831. The term "redskins" is neutral, just like "whites" and "blacks". Any pejorative connection stems from the fact that white Americans and native Americans were engaged in a centuries-long war for possession of this continent. White people generally didn't like native Americans, as they represented an obstacle to possession of the land and were occasionally butchers of white Americans. (We had plenty of butchers on our side.) I'm sure you can find plenty of pejorative references to "redskins" in the literature, such as, "Those damn redskin savages came in here and butchered our families." But you can also find plenty of pejorative statements about blacks as well. Or whites for that matter. By the time our team was named, native Americans were defeated, and the term "redskins" was obviously a salute to tribes of warriors who had been brave in battle and took no prisoners. In naming a team of players going to battle, this is an honorific reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Rellim.... take a closer look at the logo my friend.... notice the "reddish" tint of the gentleman's face. This can be explained by both the red war paint they wore as well as their almost constant exposure to the sun. I've heard a different version of the Redskin name. It has been said that the name Redskin represents the historic event of the colonials dressing as Indians and painting their faces red and dumping tea into the Boston harbor. The name Redskins was to honor that event, hence the origination of the Boston Redskins. Still, the effing media, due mostly to their liberal views, fails to mention the polling done by SI to Native Americans. It's just like them to "omit" that small detail when arguing their point. Your killing us liberals, and the American public is finally waking up to your ploys to destroy the country as we know it. "They'll be one less of you if you don't shut that hole in your face" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 If we accept the 90% figure ascribed to SI (which I frankly find a bit high to accept at first blush, but that isn't really the issue) ... the fact remains that SOME native americans find the term highly offensive. This one certainly does. As much as I hate to see this issue come up YET AGAIN – not to mention the fact that Blade has said on numerous occasions he would prefer not to see it raised and be the cause of turmoil here for the umpteenth time – the issue that probably should be up for debate is at what point, if a certain threshold number of people find a thing offensive, should it become incumbent on the cause of said offense (in the case the Redskins organization) to take steps to ameliorate it. Should they have to change the name if one person objects? Of course not. How about if 1000 do? I'd have to say no. But what if a hundred thousand do? A million? Two million? What if the SI study had said 90% of polled Native Americans DID find the term highly offensive? If the answer is simply that "enough people have to be offended" before something is done, then it's just a matter of which direction the debate goes in the society in general over time. There may or may not be a groundswell at some point. If, on the other hand, the answer is that this is all just "political correctness" and it will simply go away once the damn liberals are all sent to bed and the real men take over ( ) .... well, it's not. I hate to break it to anyone, but the issue is not going to go away in our lifetimes. Nor do I really think it should. It's a good issue. It matters to people. This really isn't an easy question, though I'm quite sure one or two of our more strident members will soon post something along the lines of "sure it is, you pansy, you just ignore the whining b@stards." Well, fine. Only (happily) most people in this country actually do give a rat's @ss about how their neighbors feel, whether they admit it in anonymous fora like this or not. Fact is, in this country, our society, by fits and starts, tries to remove causes of angst or consternation or offense from the common arena. It doesn't ever happen quickly enough to appease those offended, and it surely happens too fast for those doing the offending and/or just tired of hearing about it. As to this particular "offense," my gut tells me the name will be changed eventually. It also tells me that we'll most likely all survive the trauma, and continue to root for the Washington team. I won't lose a lot of sleep ... as long as the new name and uniform are righteous enough to pass my/our exceedingly stringent standards, of couse. All it will take will be a high-profile enough study, or more likely, a well-known enough name (Senator Campbell?) or celebrity to adopt the cause. When that happens, and/or if Dan Snyder or some future owner comes to find that the cost of defending the right to keep the name outweighs the financial and/or public relations cost of changing it (think a Nation with Jerry Spence, Johnny Cochran and F. Lee Bailey on retainer), it will go the way of late great Stanford Indians or Pekin Chinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 I believe those beating the drums (horrors! another slur) for this change belong to one of these groups: 1. Those who dislike a) the Redskins team, Washington, or c) Daniel Snyder 2. Media – print and radio – looking to get the sap rising in the crowd. 3. Ignorant lemmings, including the white guilt folks. 4. Native Americans and others genuinely offended. What really sticks in my craw is the suspicion that group #4 is by far the tiniest, so small as to be almost nonexistent. But the real possibility exists that groups 1 and especially 2 will continue to push this non-issue until group 3 reaches critical mass. At which time the team is forced to change its name, group 3 has its conscience soothed, group 2 has to find another issue, and group 1 masturbates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckeyeSkins Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Originally posted by Bandit You know, if the Skins logo was put a nice 50 cent coin praising the Native American. People would love it. Nobody woudl complain. It wasn't a 50 cent coin but wasn't that a picture of a Native American on the buffalo nickle? Never heard anyone complain about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SPACESKINS Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 I was in the Air Force stationed at Offutt AFB,Ne. in '87 &'88 and offen took trips to nearby Lincoln(50 miles away).People there sometimes don't even know what planet they're on. I was in Nebraska during SuperBowl XXVII when the Redskins beat the Broncos and I was proudly wearing my Redskins jacket. I got alot of congrats,but some people thought that I was rep- resenting a team in Washington State.I never got the feeling that these people thought that "Redskins" was offensive. I,myself am part native-american as are many in the D.C. area and am more than proud to wear the many Redskin shirts,hats, etc.. When you look at the Redskin logo,does it not represent pride & integrity? -------------------------------------- "I think it's time for another colorful metaphor." Spock "Star Trek IV" -------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SPACESKINS Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Opps!! My fault,I ment SuperBowl XVII. :stupid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SPACESKINS Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 My apologies for dead brain cells. SUPERBOWL XXII!!!!!!!!!!!!! :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 but, of course, if you happen to be a terrorist who planned on bombing the Capitol and 7 other places during the 60s, were convicted for it, and now have been invited to deliver a speech at Duke University...the conservative students who complained about this are shouted down as "once again" undermining the principles of academic freedom and free speech.....the point being that there is a lot of hypocrisy in all of this...... just as long as we're all clear that "offending" some group outweighs freedom of speech - and what is happening in these newspapers is clearly top-down imposed censorship window-dressed as sensitivity......so be it..........it's a power play and more power to them!!!!............ i sure wish someone would put together an approved dictionary that accouts for all the unacceptable nuances and feeling quotients so that we racist, insensitive atavists have a chance of joining our enlightened breathren when it comes to semi-self expression and use of the language...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Brother ‘62, I see we're eschewing subtlely in favor of bombast today. Seems to me this angle would perhaps have been a bit more effective (subtle?) without quite so blithely comparing Howitzers to bows and arrows. Come on man, no one has made the case to repeal free speech in this discussion. Cut to the chase for me. I'll even take it to the extreme to frame the question better: if Dan Snyder was the only guy in the country supporting the name Redskins, and every living soul in the country was offended by the name ... does his right to free speech own the High Road of Moral Superiority (not legally, mind you, just in your own heart of hearts), or does the non-constitutionally mandated "right" of the rest of the country to NOT be offended carry the day? Me, I say the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 OM....I object on principle that language and speech should be controlled by something as nebulous and fleeting as feelings/offense..whatever one chooses to call it ......if it is discriminatory there are laws for this....this is extending social controls beyond the law. it pits my mental state and intentions against the feelings of those who rightly or wrongly believe they are the target. it is dangerous and frankly fascist in my opinion....but enough hyperbole for one Extremeskins afternoon!! as you point out..."this too shall pass"...until the next cause celebre which might strike a little closer to home...but it will be too late by then..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CounterTre Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 OM I am one who thinks that if the majority of the people in question(Indians) are offended that nothing but change is an option. The big problem is that the overwhelming majority of Indians DON'T have a problem with it, so the yapping about offensiveness holds no water whatsoever. If the majority did indeed feel the need for change then the only thing keeping us from doing that would not be whether it was right or wrong, but our ability to deal with change and the discomfort it would bring. I've argued both sides of this point ad nauseum, but after the SI study and talking to some Indians I have come full circle. Until I am convinced that it is indeed offensive to Indians I won't support a change no matter how enlightened someone tries to come off. It's just knee jerk chicken little liberalism IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.