WP:Drop ‘Redskins’ name? Time to take a stand. (By Robert McCartney)

[Larry]

Hey, there's a good way to dispute a poll. ("Good" as in "more credible than speculating that maybe there might be some factor that you could disagree with")

Run another poll.

I hear Dick Morris is available.

[TheGoodBits]

Hey, there's a good way to dispute a poll. ("Good" as in "more credible than speculating that maybe there might be some factor that you could disagree with")

Run another poll.

I hear Dick Morris is available.

good point

I was mostly hoping for something a little more thorough in hopes that we can finally end this ridiculous debate.

[Destino]

Tell you what. How about you decide who's Native enough for your standards, and then have somebody conduct a poll with that criteria?

I think heritage is often mostly meaningless. The culture one was raised in and around matters more than the DNA in terms of how a person thinks or behaves. So I'd say its simple, are your parents Native American and were you raised in that culture? I've run into so many "Hispanics" in the US that I'm fairly confident in saying having a Mexican grandparent or two doesn't mean ****.

That's just my opinion however and again I'm not tracking DNA for the distribution of benefits or membership.

[RFKFedEx]

Wait, wait, wait. You have actually asked people identifying themselves as Native American if they can prove it to you with a DNA test? Seriously?

That is more stunningly offensive that anything else I've seen in this thread. I can't believe you've actually done this.

I've met a few Natives here in DC and they've shed light on some of the different processes required to prove membership throughout the various Nations. As of about 2006 when I was last schooled on the subject, Cherokee Nation required no DNA testing and they had a welcoming 'open membership' policy. As a result, a lot of non Natives claim Cherokee heritage, and nobody can tell them otherwise. Other Nations are stringent about who can claim heritage, DNA testing has revolutionized the study of genealogy.

[Tweedr01]

If the team reflected your typical posts then they would have 30 play drives :pfft:

Hahaha, I was thinking the same thing.

[Larry]

I think heritage is often mostly meaningless. The culture one was raised in and around matters more than the DNA in terms of how a person thinks or behaves. So I'd say its simple, are your parents Native American and were you raised in that culture? I've run into so many "Hispanics" in the US that I'm fairly confident in saying having a Mexican grandparent or two doesn't mean ****.

That's just my opinion however and again I'm not tracking DNA for the distribution of benefits or membership.

I've met a few Natives here in DC and they've shed light on some of the different processes required to prove membership throughout the various Nations. As of about 2006 when I was last schooled on the subject, Cherokee Nation required no DNA testing and they had a welcoming 'open membership' policy. As a result, a lot of non Natives claim Cherokee heritage, and nobody can tell them otherwise. Other Nations are stringent about who can claim heritage, DNA testing has revolutionized the study of genealogy.

Just out of curiosity, can either of you pass this test (or tests) that you think the "not offended Native Americans" should have to pass, if they want their opinions to count?

:halo:

Edit:

BTW, I just went and checked, and gee, now their rules for membership are:

Today the Cherokee Nations is nearly 300,000 citizens strong, young and old. To be eligible for Cherokee Nation citizenship, individuals must provide documents connecting them to an enrolled lineal ancestor who is listed on the Dawes Roll with a blood degree. CDIB/Tribal Citizenship is traced through natural parents. In cases of adoption, CDIB/Citizenship must be proven through a biological parent to an ancestor registered on the Dawes Roll.

Guess they must have gotten rid of that pesky "a lot of non Natives claim Cherokee heritage, and nobody can tell them otherwise" policy.

[Destino]

Just out of curiosity, can either of you pass this test (or tests) that you think the "not offended Native Americans" should have to pass, if they want their opinions to count?

:halo:

I'm Hispanic not Native American. I haven't claimed to know who is or isn't offended. I've also not made absurd arguments demanding that a full majority be personally offended in order to consider a term offensive. I've not ignored the fact that the NMAI is why this is once again in the news and that this issue isn't entirely contained in the evil news media.

What I've said is that from my personal experience in this country having a grandparent or relative that has some DNA, doesn't matter much. I often find very little that is recognizably Hispanic in permanently tan Americans that have one set of Mexican grandparents. I doubt that its terribly different for any group that has its own culture.

[JimboDaMan]

I've met a few Natives here in DC and they've shed light on some of the different processes required to prove membership throughout the various Nations. As of about 2006 when I was last schooled on the subject, Cherokee Nation required no DNA testing and they had a welcoming 'open membership' policy. As a result, a lot of non Natives claim Cherokee heritage, and nobody can tell them otherwise. Other Nations are stringent about who can claim heritage, DNA testing has revolutionized the study of genealogy.

Fair enough.

I think everyone can agree that when used if the context of the burgundy and gold the word "Redskin" is not intended to be derogatory. Nobody calls their team the Washington Dumbasses or the Washington Scumbags. Well, there was the Gerbils, but that's another story.

The issue is whether the name is perceived as derogatory, and who it is that has this perception.

Some argue that the name is offensive simply on its own because it's offensive to use color as an identity. I disagree, because 1) we use terms like "white" and "black" all the time without offense meant or taken, and 2) most often we find the word's origin refers to the paint worn by Native Americans, not their skin color. In that context "Redskins" is no more offensive than "Kilt Wearers" or "Horned Hats".

But I can see how some might legitimately see it differently. If I come across solid evidence that a majority of Native Americans are offended by the term I reserve the right to change my opinion. So far I've not seen evidence of that. And I hope I never do, but if I am ever shown different I will agree that a name change is in order.

[Destino]

If I was Dan Snyder I'd change the name right now. The team is improving and its a great time to embrace the future because this issue isn't going away. I think its going to get worse and i wouldn't want to risk anything bringing negativity onto this team right now. Like I said before however, I don't have a dog in this fight big enough for me to draw a line in the sand. I have my redskins gear and I will continue to wear it happily. I'm not convinced that the name is viewed as offensive as much as its viewed as a name that should be offensive, but I could be wrong.

[Larry]

I'm Hispanic not Native American. I haven't claimed to know who is or isn't offended. I've also not made absurd arguments demanding that a full majority be personally offended in order to consider a term offensive.

Well, that's mighty white of you, Lieutenant. (That's a Dirty Harry reference. )

Considering that I haven't made such an "absurd argument", either.

I do, however, appreciate your simple, unsupported, claim that, if someone were to argue that, in order for a term to be considered offensive, people have to consider it offensive, then such an argument would be an "absurd argument".

Ranks right up there with spending several pages flipping back and forth between claiming that the term's only use is pejorative, and admitting that well, of course we all know that it's actually used almost exclusively as a reference to a pretty good football team, and nobody uses it as a pejorative any more, and then going right back to announcing that the term is purely offensive, and that that is it's current usage.

I've not ignored the fact that the NMAI is why this is once again in the news and that this issue isn't entirely contained in the evil news media.

Confess that I have no idea what the first half of this sentence is about. But the attempt to announce your contempt for yet another claim that I don't think anybody has made? That I got.

What I've said is that from my personal experience in this country having a grandparent or relative that has some DNA, doesn't matter much.

Funny.

1) It seems to matter to the tribes. (But I know, their opinions aren't as important as yours.)

2) And I seem to recall reading that it was within my lifetime that the race of one's grandparents was really important, for all kinds of laws. It could determine which places you were or weren't legally permitted to enter, or use.

I often find very little that is recognizably Hispanic in permanently tan Americans that have one set of Mexican grandparents. I doubt that its terribly different for any group that has its own culture.

Well, I will defer to your authority to pronounce who you consider to be real Hispanic or not.

[zoony]

Does it matter that Native Americans painted their face red before they went into battle?

[Switchgear]

I would like to see more information about this. Maybe a more extensive study with stats per state and especially pay attention to what folks who live on reservations say.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

It was even already posted in this thread.

Most American Indians say that calling Washington’s professional football team the “Redskins”

does not bother them, the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey

shows.

Ninety percent of Indians took that position, while 9 percent said they found the name

“offensive.” One percent had no answer. The margin of sampling error for those findings was

plus or minus two percentage points.

Because they make up a very small proportion of the total population, the responses of 768

people who said they were Indians or Native Americans were collected over a very long period of

polling, from October 7, 2003 through September 20, 2004. They included Indians from every

state except Alaska and Hawaii, where the Annenberg survey does not interview. The question

that was put to them was “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the

Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it

bother you?”

Some Indian leaders have called upon the team to change the name, but the Redskins’ owner,

Daniel Snyder, has insisted it will keep the name it has had ever since 1933, when it played in

Boston. The team moved to Washington in 1937.

There was little variation among subgroups of Native Americans. Eight percent of men and 9

percent of women said the name was offensive, while 90 percent of each sex said it did not bother

them. Ten percent of Indians under 45 found the name offensive, compared to 8 percent of those

45 and older.

Thirteen percent of Indians with college degrees or more education said “Redskins” was

offensive, compared to 9 percent of those with some college and 6 percent of those with a high

school education or less. Fourteen percent of Indians who called themselves politically liberal

said the name was offensive, compared to 9 percent of moderates and 6 percent of conservatives.

Among Indians with household incomes of $75,000 or more, 12 percent found the name

offensive, compared to 9 percent of those with incomes between $35,000 and $75,000 and 8

percent of those with incomes below $35,000.

This happened 9 years ago, so who knows what the numbers would look like now. I did find it interesting that those who had more education and higher income also had higher "offended" percentages.

As for why the people pushing for the name change don't do a poll now, I'd assume it's cost prohibitive, and likely not to give the result they want.

UniWatch asked for feedback from Native readers, and I think it's good to see actual feedback (even if it is self selected).

http://www.uni-watch.com/how-do-native-americans-feel-about-their-culture-being-depicted-by-sports-teams/

“My great-grandmother was a full-blooded Cherokee Indian. I have no problem, whatsoever, with the use of Native American logos. None at all.” — Randy Rollyson

———

“As a member of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, I generally don’t have any qualms with teams using Native American imagery. The only one I see as kind of offensive is the Redskins, just because of the racial epitaph that is associated with it.” — Garrett Alley

———

“I’m a member of the Penobscot tribe of the Wabanaki nation. Tribes and nations are owners of their own culture, and culture cannot (or rather, should not) be taken. It can, however (and should), be shared. If the Wyandotte want their cultural and historic ties to Eastern Michigan (either the area or the school) to be displayed prominently, then that’s more than acceptable.

“What is completely unacceptable is the use of iconography that reinforces the ‘Myth of the Redman,’ instead of the actual people of this land. The Braves, the Redskins, and the Indians base their icons on the popular image of Native people that was fed to Eastern Americans in the late 19th century, through the Wild West Show. This Redman, of course, is a myth, whose culture and way of life is so far removed from the actual lives of native people that it’s hard to see that representation as anything more noble than the black-faced performers they replaced in Vaudeville shows.” — Joe Curran

———

“I am of Cherokee descent and by and large have no misgivings regarding the use of Native American namesakes or imagery in sports — with the exception of the Redskins. I don’t care for that name, although I also don’t feel strongly enough about it to demand its removal. I like the Braves — it is a strong, honorable term, and the team’s tomahawk logo looks great, no different than a sword being used for a team called the Knights.

“Forcing schools to drop long-held mascots (like the Fighting Souix) is much more damaging to societal welfare than keeping them. I am afraid it could create a backlash unto the communities it is trying to ‘protect.’” — Mendy Alvernaz

———

“I am one-quarter Hopi and I have been a sports fan for as long as I can remember. I have never liked the use of Native American imagery in sports. I see it as disrespectful. It would not be okay to use other racial imagery, so why should it be okay to use Native American imagery? There are teams that are more offensive than others (Washington’s football team, Cleveland’s baseball team), but I don’t see a place for it anywhere. My father is one-half Hopi and he dislikes the use of Native American imagery as well.” — Kory Sekaquaptewa

———

“I am a member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. Team names the like Redskins, Indians, etc. are all racially insensitive. These names are an attack on my culture. The teams that have been given permission to use tribal names are fantastic, and keep the Native American culture alive. But the ones that are broad, out-dated stereotypes need to be erased. … The fact that few people see the problem with these names saddens me, and people saying that it doesn’t matter angers me.” — Payton Guthrie

———

“I am not an official member of any tribe, but I have a lot of Native American heritage in my family tree. … Chief Wahoo and the name Redskins are horrible and racist, no doubt about that. But other names, like Chiefs and Braves, and even the tomahawk, do not offend me (people often call me Chief as a nickname, and I like it). I do feel that if a team wants to use a specific tribe name, like Huron, that they should get the OK from the tribe. If actual members of a tribe have a problem with a team nickname, then I defer to their opinion.” — Tony

———

“I can trace my family lineage directly back to Joseph Brant (Thayendanegea), a Mohawk political and military leader who was named a war chief in 1772, and my third great-grandfather was an Indian translator for Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show. … When it comes to the Native American iconography in sports, I’m have mixed feelings. I think schools like Illinois, North Dakota, Utah, Florida State, and so on are fine in their use of the tribal names. As long as the name is used respectfully and the school has made overtures to work with the tribe in representing its history and culture, I actually think it’s a great thing.

“For most pro teams, like the Indians and Braves, I don’t have an issue so much with their name as I do with their stereotypical mascots. Chief Noc-a-homa and Chief Wahoo both cross the line and are more of a caricature of Native Americans than a tribute. I realize Noc-a-homa is long gone, and therefore I’ll give the Braves a pass. I don’t have a problem with the tomahawk on their uniforms; I think it works with their name. But the Indians definitely need to do something to get away from Chief Wahoo.

“As for the Washington Redskins, I honestly don’t see how this team can still exist in this day and age. ‘Redskin’ is essentially a racial epithet. … The Redskins, located in our nation’s capital of all places, need to change their name and iconography. No matter how much they try to spin it, it’s nothing more than a racial slur.” — Gary Mattox

———

“I’m a member of the Choctaw Nation. I absolutely support almost all uses of Native American iconography in sports. The only example I don’t support is the Cleveland Indians. I’m not even worried about the logo, even though many find it offensive. I just hate the misnomer ‘Indians.’ I’m not from India, I’ve never been to India, why use the wrong term? Plenty of tribes would lend their name. Or they could even use their nickname ‘the Tribe’ full-time.” — Anonymous

———

“Indigineous peoples are distinct nations/cultures — we aren’t all one. It’s not my place as an Odawa to tell a Seminole what’s acceptable. So if the local tribe approves the mascot and associated imagery (Florida State, for example), then I’m fine with it. I realize this can get complicated when some bands within a tribe might approve and others within the same tribe might disapprove, as was the case with North Dakota.

“Generic nicknames (Redskins, Braves, Indians, Warriors, etc.) are generally offensive, as are the activities associated with them, like the tomahawk chop. I see little value in retaining them.

“Bottom line: Our historical relationships with outside groups are fraught with broken treaties, agreements, and promises. As a result, we are generally distrustful of outside groups. Thus, we have a problem when an outside group tells us we ‘should feel honored’ by their usage of Native imagery. Rather than telling us to feel honored, let us decide how to be honored. And if that means dropping the imagery, please respect our culture.” — Scott Sochay

———

“I am one-quarter Apache (my father was the son of a full-blooded member of the Apache nation) and I have absolutely no problem with Native American iconography as it is currently being used. One of my two favorite baseball teams, in fact, is the Atlanta Braves. I have no issues with the tomahawk logo. And I really think that there are far more important issues facing my Native American brothers and sisters than whether or not some portion of our culture is being used by a sports team.” — Jack Bagley

[zoony]

Does it matter that Native Americans painted their face red before they went into battle?

And also wondering if Picts is an equally offensive term.

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

In all honesty, is there even realistic chance that the name will ever change? There have been zero rumblings of it anywhere.

That's why I think this whole debate is pointless. We're a billion dollar franchise. If the name isn't costing them money, they aren't gonna change it

[zoony]

The PC police just can''t fathom the fact that many just don't construe the word "redskins" as a perjorative. Conversly the ONLY contex that the word is used is in connection with a football team.

They just won't go away. It's the annual lets just try this lame argument yet again and ignore some real problems that affict the native american population. All of them. pathetic & predictible.

Pretty much. A lot easier to write articles and whine about injustice on the Internet rather than work for social change.

I do think, and have said, that Snyder should donate and partner with NA foundations and charities

[Spaceman Spiff]

I knew it. Not that this doesn't get brought up every year already, but I knew as soon as the Redskins got good again and got a bit more national recognition for winning games and having one of the leagues most exciting players, this debate would pick up more steam.

Maybe it's just me, but these articles have seemed to pop up more frequently since the playoff run.

The hell goes on over at the WaPo? "Slow week, that awkward time between football and baseball...the Wizards and the Caps suck and March Madness is still far away...hey, why don't we have someone write a post about the derogatory Redskins name?"

[skinfan2k]

The hell goes on over at the WaPo? "Slow week, that awkward time between football and baseball...the Wizards and the Caps suck and March Madness is still far away...hey, why don't we have someone write a post about the derogatory Redskins name?"

i brought it up to Steinberg and how the WP has an agenda against the skins since the skins took away their tickets lol. He was saying it wasn't their sports folks who wrote these articles

[DC9]

i brought it up to Steinberg and how the WP has an agenda against the skins since the skins took away their tickets lol. He was saying it wasn't their sports folks who wrote these articles

No, this was a mass-planned attack.

1) Wise at the Super Bowl asking Goodell

2) Articles over the last week

3) All leading up to the "rally" today

Wise lost his show because of this act and he lost ratings. The WaPo better be careful.

[skinfan2k]

The thing is i would understand articles after today's summit at the national american "native american" museum in DC. I refuse to call them indians because these people are not indians. Maybe i should bring up a case to the Supreme Court that these people should not be called indians. How would they like that?

[Destino]

I do, however, appreciate your simple, unsupported, claim that, if someone were to argue that, in order for a term to be considered offensive, people have to consider it offensive, then such an argument would be an "absurd argument".

Ranks right up there with spending several pages flipping back and forth between claiming that the term's only use is pejorative, and admitting that well, of course we all know that it's actually used almost exclusively as a reference to a pretty good football team, and nobody uses it as a pejorative any more, and then going right back to announcing that the term is purely offensive, and that that is it's current usage.

here you go:

I have said in this thread, and others agreed, that if it was clear that the majority of NA folk thought the redskin term was derogatory that we would all, or most of us anyway, support a name change and that in all likelihood the name would have already been changed.

You joined the numbers game by running around with a 90% figure. Elkabong requires a simple majority, what's your threshold for when it's offensive?

Confess that I have no idea what the first half of this sentence is about. But the attempt to announce your contempt for yet another claim that I don't think anybody has made? That I got.

It helps if people click on they article the are responding to. I believe you have the first response in this thread and you somehow missed the 4th sentence in the article posted.

"The Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian is holding its first symposium on the topic Thursday."

You see the story didn't just pop up again because the post wanted to talk about it some more. The NMAI (National Museum of the American Indian) organised a chat about it. I posted the details in post #20.

Funny.

1) It seems to matter to the tribes. (But I know, their opinions aren't as important as yours.)

2) And I seem to recall reading that it was within my lifetime that the race of one's grandparents was really important, for all kinds of laws. It could determine which places you were or weren't legally permitted to enter, or use.

Well, I will defer to your authority to pronounce who you consider to be real Hispanic or not.

I'm glad to see that I got my point across so clearly. I was worried you might play dumb and build a ridiculous strawman.

[8181]

Not that I expect it to change, and I personally don't find it offensive but some food for thought...

The N word was not generally considered offensive for a long time. Gook/Oriental wasn't considered offensive when they were first used either.

If we do another poll and the trend is that more and more people, particularly educated folks, find it offensive... Well then....

[Renegade7]

Pretty much. A lot easier to write articles and whine about injustice on the Internet rather than work for social change.

I do think, and have said, that Snyder should donate and partner with NA foundations and charities

I agree very much so with Snyder reaching out to Native American communities, especially on the reservations. Not just because it would look good, but because somebody needs to do it. Alcoholism four times the national average and dropout rates that rival the inner cities, its a big reason I can't stand this argument to change the name because it comes across as so disingenuous. What is it with people ignoring history and even reality now these days???

[burgundyrush]

In all honesty, is there even realistic chance that the name will ever change? There have been zero rumblings of it anywhere.

That's why I think this whole debate is pointless. We're a billion dollar franchise. If the name isn't costing them money, they aren't gonna change it

"The best chance to change Snyder's mind would likely be to hit him in the pocketbook by getting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to void the Redskins trademark. A group of American Indians made progress on that front during a 17-year court battle that came to a halt in 2009 because it was ruled that the plaintiffs waited too long to file their original case. There is now a new case filed by younger plaintiffs that is due for a hearing next month."

This is from a USA TODAY article on the issue posted a little over an hour ago. Look like this story is gaining steam. So much for WaPo picking on the Redskins.

[Going Commando]

Bill Clinton is white. Herman Cain is black.

Did I just say something bad?

Go up to Herman Cain and say, "Hi Blackskin" and see what happens.

I hear a couple of folks in this thread saying that. In my experience its simply not true. I don't come across people in my day to day life who think the name Redskins is bad. Maybe you do, but I do not. If I start to come across a growing number of people who genuinely think this I might change my mind. So far the rare times I've heard anything of the sort its been from fans of another NFL team looking to taunt. And the next thing out of their mouths is sometimes a variation of "and your owner Jewy McJewboy sucks". So much for heartfelt outrage at cultural faux pas.

You're pretty much arguing that, because there are so few Native Americans left, who cares if we offend them? They aren't numerous or powerful enough to make me care about being sensitive to them. It's true. But that doesn't make it right.

Why is it OK to use a slur that delineates Native Americans by their skin color and not for any other ethnic group? Answer: because there are barely any of them out there anymore and thus we don't really care about them.

But it doesn't even matter really. Everyone knows that it's wrong to identify and refer to people by their skin color. Redskins fans are motivated to ignore what everyone else generally accepts--Redskins is a racist nickname. How damaging and offensive it really is varies by person, but no objective observer thinks it's a good thing and most think it's a derogatory term with connotations linking it to very ugly racist pieces of the past. Ultimately the name is a liability that's going to seem increasingly offensive over time. The name will get changed just like the offensive lyrics in HTTR got changed. It's only a matter of time.

[Special K]

Time to take a stand?

OK. How about everyone stops being a bunch of PC pansy asses and argue about something less pointless.

That's my stance.

I'm now going to not waste my time by doing something much more important, like picking at my cuticles.