City Paper - Redskins Segregationist Past, and Efforts to End It, Recalled

[repo_4]

I don't see how this is a jab at Snyder. It's all based on true events.

Our team's racist past is largely why I continue to support a name and logo change for our franchise.

It's called Karma.

I dont agree with you here. My family is Nansemond River Indian and I have no problem with the name or logo. It is just people looking for their 15 minutes.:2cents:

[trimee]

This is getting a little off topic (sorry Dan); but when a very small minority of the American Indians in the US are the only ones complaining, why should we be forced to change our name and logo that has nothing to do with the racist policy's of our past?

Anyone seriously suggesting the Washington Redskins name and logo are racist have an ulterior agenda and honestly aren't worth the time of day.

Hail.

My mother is married to an American (Shoshone) Indian for over 30 years (my step father). Their child (my half sister) is 50% Caucasian and 50% Shoshone Indian. I was raised in a Redskins household, and they are HUGE Redskins fans. Out of my fathers tribal friends (I was raised around them my whole life), I don't know of a single ONE that thinks the Redskins name is racist, and many of them are very proud of it as a matter of fact. The name Redskin is almost a badge of honor to them. The only people I have ever heard of that think the name is racist, are not even of American Indian decent.

[stwasm]

I consider myself reasonably well read, and I have NEVER heard that explanation for the origin of the term "redskin."

Edit: A little google searching casts serious doubt on that explanation for the term.

That information actually came from the mouth of a Native American woman who spoke at my job about the plight of Native Americans. I asked her point blank if the name was racist and that was the answer she gave me. Maybe it's true. Maybe it isn't. But, that scene I mentioned in "The Long Ranger" episode is something to think about.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I dont agree with you here. My family is Nansemond River Indian and I have no problem with the name or logo. It is just people looking for their 15 minutes.:2cents:

My mother is married to an American (Shoshone) Indian for over 30 years (my step father). Their child (my half sister) is 50% Caucasian and 50% Shoshone Indian. I was raised in a Redskins household, and they are HUGE Redskins fans. Out of my fathers tribal friends (I was raised around them my whole life), I don't know of a single ONE that thinks the Redskins name is racist, and many of them are very proud of it as a matter of fact. The name Redskin is almost a badge of honor to them. The only people I have ever heard of that think the name is racist, are not even of American Indian decent.

There ya' go. From the mouths of the alleged 'offended.'

What's more disturbing than those with an ulterior agenda that continue to run with this B/S, is those amongst our number that actually try give them credence by agreeing and suggesting we should bend over for the minority and sacrifice the name all but 4 years of our entire history has been built on. That I'll never understand.

Hail.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

That information actually came from the mouth of a Native American woman who spoke at my job about the plight of Native Americans. I asked her point blank if the name was racist and that was the answer she gave me. Maybe it's true. Maybe it isn't. But, that scene I mentioned in "The Long Ranger" episode is something to think about.

Then she's clueless or has an agenda.

http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/redskin.html

That should help add some clarity to the issue.

[stwasm]

They beat every college (most of which are state institutions) in a major conference that was south of them. I'm not saying that they should get a pat on the back, but they were not the only guilty party here. The Redskins fan base was in a area that was still full of Jim Crow laws at the time. If you look at the area that they catered to geographically compared to the rest of the NFL at the time, it only makes sense that they were the last team to integrate.

You also have to keep in mind that at the time many NFL teams took local college players to help increase the gate. There were zero top level programs that had African-American student-athletes in their fanbase area at the time.

While they weren't the only guilty party, that doesn't make the way they operated right.

[Crazy Levi]

It's a great article.

Marshall was a world-class douche and this is an interesting historical piece about a time in Redskins history that most people don't know much about. It also helps explain why the Skins were such a terrible team back then.

This has nothing to do with Dan Snyder and dismissing the article because Mckenna wrote it is ridiculous. This is history, not opinion.

[stwasm]

Then she's clueless or has an agenda.

http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/redskin.html

That should help add some clarity to the issue.

Thank you for sharing that. To me, I still think that if a group of people are complaining about the name, no matter how small it may be, I really think we should at least listen with an open mind, tradition be darned.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Thank you for sharing that. To me, I still think that if a group of people are complaining about the name, no matter how small it may be, I really think we should at least listen with an open mind, tradition be darned.

I agree that a conversation is (or was) needed. I'm just not all that keen on infecting that conversation with myths and half-truths that have--due to being repeated often enough--transformed into undeniable "truth". If ANY decision is made, it should be made with as much factual information as possible.

[stwasm]

I agree that a conversation is (or was) needed. I'm just not all that keen on infecting that conversation with myths and half-truths that have--due to being repeated often enough--transformed into undeniable "truth". If ANY decision is made, it should be made with as much factual information as possible.

Agreed,

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

It's a great article.

Marshall was a world-class douche and this is an interesting historical piece about a time in Redskins history that most people don't know much about. It also helps explain why the Skins were such a terrible team back then.

This has nothing to do with Dan Snyder and dismissing the article because Mckenna wrote it is ridiculous. This is history, not opinion.

There's no question that this is an important and shameful part of our history that should never be forgotten. Nor is it a bad thing for that history to be factually retold for generations that may not know of it.

But down to McKenna's previous history in attacking this organization, both singularly and along with it's owner; it's hard to take ANYTHING he writes at face value and not suspect there isn't an ulterior motive both in the piece and the timing. I hate when we gripe about the media being anti-Redskin, but this moron patently is.

---------- Post added September-7th-2011 at 09:42 AM ----------

Thank you for sharing that. To me, I still think that if a group of people are complaining about the name, no matter how small it may be, I really think we should at least listen with an open mind, tradition be darned.

No problem there, but where do you ultimately draw the line? Would it be right to compromise and appease the minority over our tradition/ history and the majority? All in the name of what, political correctness because we're being pressured into it?

Hail.

[Crazy Levi]

But down to McKenna's previous history in attacking this organization, both singularly and along with it's owner; it's hard to take ANYTHING he writes on face value and not suspect there isn't an ulterior motive both in the piece and the timing. I hate when we gripe about the media being anti-Redskin, but this moron patently is.

Hail.

Who cares if there is an "ulterior motive?"

You are trying to undermine the piece, and you have no basis for doing so. I'm sorry that you have a hard time taking McKenna's writing at "face value," but unless you are accusing him of innacuracies, plagarism, or some other journalistic faux paux you really don't have any basis for complaining.

It sounds like YOU have an ulterior motive. It's either an accurate,well-written article, or it isn't.

It clearly seems like an accurate, well-written article to me.

hail.

[SwampEm]

While they weren't the only guilty party, that doesn't make the way they operated right.

I agree with you 100%. It was a terrible policy.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

It clearly seems like an accurate, well-written article to me.

hail.

Fine man, and that's your prerogative. I've stated mine and why anything McKenna put's out on the Redskins is gona' be questioned.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on him/ his work; or else we'll just go around in circles.

Hail.

[grhqofb5]

For those of you who believe that the Redskins are a "racist" franchise due to their history, that label is misplaced. GPM may have been a racist, and as the owner of the team implemented his "no black guys" policy for as long as he could. But he's been gone for more than 40 years now.

Think of the team like a classic car driven by GPM. The car isn't racist. The owner is. Once the title is transferred, the new owner projects his own image upon the car. In fact, now that the car has been owned by individuals for 40+ years who are not racist (although they possessed their own faults), it may even be seen as a matter of pride. Sort of like taking over the palace of some foreign dictator (no names please).

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Who cares if there is an "ulterior motive?"

You are trying to undermine the piece, and you have no basis for doing so. I'm sorry that you have a hard time taking McKenna's writing at "face value," but unless you are accusing him of innacuracies, plagarism, or some other journalistic faux paux you really don't have any basis for complaining.

It sounds like YOU have an ulterior motive. It's either an accurate,well-written article, or it isn't.

It clearly seems like an accurate, well-written article to me.

hail.

Many Skins fans on this board often claim that Snyder does not deserve the benefit of the doubt on ANY of his actions, and that he'll have to "prove it first" over a span of several years before they give up the default setting of mistrusting his actions, no matter how benign.

See the parallel?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Many Skins fans on this board often claim that Snyder does not deserve the benefit of the doubt on ANY of his actions, and that he'll have to "prove it first" over a span of several years before they give up the default setting of mistrusting his actions, no matter how benign.

See the parallel?

Fantastic, VERY pertinent analogy when it comes to Mr McKenna. *Appluads, as I can't find the darn clapping smiley.

Hail.

[joe]

Just for the record, there was a similar article in the Outlook section of last Sunday's Washington Post. This is because there is a new book on the subject that has been published. The Post article was actually a book review. Basically, the Post article said that the book was interesting, but did not really reveal anything that was not already known.

Shirley Povich should be given a lot of credit for the eventual desegregation of the skins. He was a great writer. One of my all time favorite headlines was taken from the Post sports page after the Cleveland Browns had crushed the skins. "Jim Brown Integrates Redskins Endzone Three Times" Tell me that is not classic.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Fantastic, VERY pertinent analogy when it comes to Mr McKenna. *Appluads, as I can't find the darn clapping smiley.

Hail.

...

I can be of service when we're on the same side of an issue, huh lol

Just for the record, there was a similar article in the Outlook section of last Sunday's Washington Post. This is because there is a new book on the subject that has been published. The Post article was actually a book review. Basically, the Post article said that the book was interesting, but did not really reveal anything that was not already known.

Shirley Povich should be given a lot of credit for the eventual desegregation of the skins. He was a great writer. One of my all time favorite headlines was taken from the Post sports page after the Cleveland Browns had crushed the skins. "Jim Brown Integrates Redskins Endzone Three Times" Tell me that is not classic.

Shirley Povich was a GREAT writer :yes:...and that headline is classic

[Crazy Levi]

Many Skins fans on this board often claim that Snyder does not deserve the benefit of the doubt on ANY of his actions, and that he'll have to "prove it first" over a span of several years before they give up the default setting of mistrusting his actions, no matter how benign.

See the parallel?

I absolutely do not see the parallel, and I think you are working with fallacies here.

Please point the parallel out to me. This isn't an opinion piece. Unless you can prove that there is something wrong with his article, I don't see where the "mistrust" comes in.

As I said - unless you can prove, or even raise any legitimate concerns about the accuracy of the article, there is no basis for dismissing it beyond your own personal prefudices.

[Dan T.]

Just for the record, there was a similar article in the Outlook section of last Sunday's Washington Post. This is because there is a new book on the subject that has been published. The Post article was actually a book review. Basically, the Post article said that the book was interesting, but did not really reveal anything that was not already known.

Shirley Povich should be given a lot of credit for the eventual desegregation of the skins. He was a great writer. One of my all time favorite headlines was taken from the Post sports page after the Cleveland Browns had crushed the skins. "Jim Brown Integrates Redskins Endzone Three Times" Tell me that is not classic.

Great headline! Shirley Povich was an amazing guy. He reported sports and wrote meaningful, relevant columns for the Post for 75 years. Think about that. Seventy five years.. He has to be considered one of the top sports journalists in American history. Certainly among the most prolific.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I absolutely do not see the parallel, and I think you are working with fallacies here.

Please point the parallel out to me. This isn't an opinion piece. Unless you can prove that there is something wrong with his article, I don't see where the "mistrust" comes in.

I also think you are overlooking the fact that many (most) of us here do NOT "mistrust" McKenna, nor do we think there is anything wrong with his previous reporting on Snyder.

But yet you do see the mistrust in ANYTHING the owner now try's to do right, like the last 18 months. No, the irony isn't lost on me either.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Hail.

[Crazy Levi]

But yet you do see the mistrust in ANYTHING the owner now try's to do right, like the last 18 months. No, the irony isn't lost on me either.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Hail.

What does any of this have to do with Dan Snyder?

McKenna wrote an article about Marshall. By all appearances it is an accurate and informative piece about the Redskins' distant segregationist past.

Why do you keep bringing up Dan Snyder? Is that the only thing you know how to argue about?

There is no irony here. There is no story here. What are you trying to convince me of? That I shouldn't "trust" McKenna? That the article is filled with lies because he doesn't like Dan Snyder?

Those woule be outrageous and even libelous claims.

You are one endorsing a "parallel" here.

Please clearly describe the parallel - I don't understand it.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

What does any of this have to do with Dan Snyder?

McKenna wrote an article about Marshall. By all appearances it is an accurate piece about the Redskins' distant segregationist past.

Why do you keep bringing up Dan Snyder? Is that the only thing you know how to argue about?

There is no irony here. There is no story here.

The irony I was pointing out is you seeing continued mistrust in one and not the other; and not seeing Cali's excellent analogy between the two.

Hail.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I absolutely do not see the parallel, and I think you are working with fallacies here.

Please point the parallel out to me. This isn't an opinion piece. Unless you can prove that there is something wrong with his article, I don't see where the "mistrust" comes in.

This is ridiculously easy to answer...I'm actually surprised you needed me to do so.

The parallel is that both men (Snyder and McKenna) have built up a deep reservoir of mistrust in a sizeable percentage of Redskins fans...to the point that neither is given the benefit of the doubt automatically by most of these groups of people. Even when you don't agree with the mistrust, it's not difficult to understand where the mistrust comes from.

Hell, JLC gets so much wrong that when he states something...anything...most here will make the half-joking/half-serious claim that it "must" be wrong because JLC reported it. He deserves his reputation, regardless of whether or not what he says turns out to be true. Snyder and McKenna deserve their doubters as well.

And the mistrust comes from why he wrote the article and why it's published now instead of some earlier date. Since someone stated that the WP had a book review about the same topic, it's not too far-fetched to believe McKenna was lazy and got his article idea from seeing the review in the Post. Then again, maybe he's been saving this piece for release and publication right before the Skins start the season. Remember how so many claimed that Snyder filed his lawsuit during Super Bowl week in order to get attention? Do you think the same might be said about McKenna and publishing this article during the week before the NFL season starts, maybe?...