The Redskins name..... Tired of the misleading information

[Lavarleap56]

Alright I don't know about you but the media blitz to rush the Redskins into changing their name is infuriating. This topic clearly gets a reaction good and bad and from people of every race. I don't believe the Redskins name and imagery on their helmet is racist of disparaging to Native Americans at all.

Found myself in a lot of twitter " arguments" with some people who regurgitate what they have heard from UnWise Mike or the panel at the symposium. I didn't want to debate with those guys from a position of ignorance, so I have been researching my butt off to find out the real information.

At this moment I agree with the symposium panel that some imagery and mocking of their culture is stereotyping and wrong. I can understand how it would be upsetting to see a "mascot" in the wrong clothes while mocking your dances etc.

The modern day Redskins do not mock the heritage of the Native Americans. I've never seen a mascot making a fool of himself on the field during a Redskins game, no tomahawk moves or chants from the crowd, no wigwams or teepees in the parking lots.

The Redskins logo is stoic, respectful, serious and powerful. It's not like other teams who use cartoon images portraying savages or less serious facial expressions. In fact it's almost identical to the image on the Buffalo Nickel.

UnWise Mike and Suzan Harjo really push " Redskins was a term used for scalps as currency in colonial times. Lets take a look at this Noth Dakots legal case study published in 2012..

BEFORE THE REDSKINS WERE THE REDSKINS: THE USE OF NATIVE AMERICAN TEAM NAMES IN THE FORMATIVE ERA OF AMERICAN SPORTS

(I recommend reading the whole article since I won't link all the information)

http://valhalla.law.und.nodak.edu/LawReview/issues/web_assets/pdf/86/86-4/86NDLR879.pdf

27.See, e.g., Suzan Shown Harjo, Fighting Name-Calling: Challenging “Redskins” in Court, in TEAM SPIRITS: THE NATIVE AMERICAN MASCOTS CONTROVERSY, supra note 2, at 189, 190. Harjo wrote

the term Redskins has despicable origins in the days of Indian bounty hunting in the 1600s and 1700s. Bounties under a dollar were paid for Indian children, women, and men, dead or alive. For ease of commerce, few live Indians were delivered to the marketplace, and trade in dead bodies flourished. It quickly became too cumbersome for bounty hunters to transport wagon loads of bodies and gunny sacks of heads, and too bothersome for bounty hunters to dispose of them. Thus began the practice of paying bounties for the bloody red skins and scalps as evidence of Indian kill.

Harjo made these assertions without offering any specific historical evidence or scholarly support, and none of those who have embraced the story have provided compelling support.......In the digest, Russell mentions Indian bounties but in no way connects the practice with the term “Redskins.” GEORGE RUSSELL, THE AMERICAN INDIAN DIGEST 11 (2d 1993), available at http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED368516.pdf. Russell reproduced a 1755 proclamation from Massachusetts colonial governor William Shirley which did authorize the payment of bounties for killing or capturing members of several Native American tribes. Id. What Russell did not appreciate, however, is that this proclamation was a consequence of the beginning of the French and Indian War. Id. The bounties were available only to soldiers in the colonial army and applied only to members of tribes supporting the French. Id. Tribes loyal to the English, like the Penobscotts, were specifically excluded, which presents a different story than the claims of Harjo

A lot of interesting Redskins info if you read through that 25 page case study.

The next one has in depth background on the Redskins previous case. Not to kill the ending but the University of North Dakota "Fighting Sioux" were allowed to keep their name and their logo because a court ruled it was not a negative representation of a Native American.

WHAT THE SIOUX SHOULD DO:

LANHAM ACT CHALLENGES IN THE POST-HARJO ERA

http://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/Journal%20Issues/Volume%2026/Issue%201/finkelstein.pdf

Here is Harjo using a UnWise Mike snippet in a article from 1992..

[quote The Washington Post editorialized for the team to change its name in 1992, saying that “now is the time to do it.”

The editorial board opined:

“… to say that the use of the term ‘Redskins’ is well-intentioned or that it is not meant to be objectionable sidesteps the real issue. This is not a term fashioned by American Indians. The nickname was assigned to them, just as the pejorative designation ‘darkies’ was once imposed on African-American slaves. That was wrong then; this is wrong now. That the usage is common and innocently repeated out of habit makes it no less of an insensitive or insulting remark to those who are on the receiving end. We can do better.”

]

UnWise Mike is also the writer I had to correct on twitter after he wrote a huge piece defending Jim Haslett while claiming he NEVER RAN A 3-4 defense in his career... Facts are not a big deal to him I guess.

Ives Goddard- “I AM A RED-SKIN”:

The Adoption of a Native

American Expression (1769–1826)

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

The Native American Sources

of Redskin

It is clear from the earliest citations

that redskin was regarded as an

Indian expression. It was at first used

only to translate what Indians said or

as a consciously adopted Indian turn

of phrase employed in formally addressing

Indians. The tribal identities

of the speakers who were quoted

using this word in the period from

1769 to 1822 point to its specific languages

of origin.

Interesting read from SI in 2002 " Indian Wars"

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1025046/1/index.htm

Feel free to add more info and I will do the same.

I found a article earlier talking about Harjo recruiting young adults 18-24 so they could form this new lawsuit vs the team under Blackhorse..

[SkinsHokieFan]

Good stuff LL

3 years ago I got in a huge debate over 5 days at cowboyszone.com. I had tons of resources in that thread I'll try and find and pull over here

[Lavarleap56]

Good stuff LL

3 years ago I got in a huge debate over 5 days at cowboyszone.com. I had tons of resources in that thread I'll try and find and pull over here

I'm not trying to start a fight but the one sided portrayal of the Redskins name in the media is overwhelming. Redskins have a QB and win the NFC EAST... Lets ramp up the name debate. The more I read the more I believe Harjo is spreading what she thinks Redskins means and because of her credentials people are all in no questions asked. Fact is I can't find where the Redskins/Scalping claims don't lead right back to Harjos first assertions.

[SWFLSkins]

I took this personally as I have studied and fell spiritually close to the Native American spirit, I asked three tribes seeking the opinions of who mattered, there is no smoke here only fire.

[2cents]

I'm not trying to start a fight but the one sided portrayal of the Redskins name in the media is overwhelming. Redskins have a QB and win the NFC EAST... Lets ramp up the name debate. The more I read the more I believe Harjo is spreading what she thinks Redskins means and because of her credentials people are all in no questions asked. Fact is I can't find where the Redskins/Scalping claims don't lead right back to Harjos first assertions.

Good luck. I've tried this argument using some of the same facts you do. The problem is when you have this discussion, you are having it with people who don't care about facts, they care about getting their way. That makes it hard. Again...good luck.

[Lavarleap56]

Good luck. I've tried this argument using some of the same facts you do. The problem is when you have this discussion, you are having it with people who don't care about facts, they care about getting their way. That makes it hard. Again...good luck.

I'm not out to fight... Wanted to learn more about it instead of listening to what people tell you should think. I think what Harjo is doing is sad in a way.

[Mark The Homer]

That's all fine and dandy, but the question is, do the majority of Native Americans actually find the name "Redskins" disparaging? Or is it just a tiny minority? And if it is a tiny minority, how large does that tiny minority need to be to justify that they have an issue? I know this may be a sensitive issue, but surely there has to be some sort of defined number or percentage of people that truly find the word insulting before there is some sort of court ruling. Otherwise anybody can go about changing anything.

After all, there is a High School on a Navajo Reservation in Red Mesa, Arizona with a sports team called the Redskins. So how do they explain that?

By the way, the next guy that calls me a "ging-guh", I'm taking to court.

[cphil006]

I've never heard the term used in a derogatory sense. Never. Neither has anyone who claims it is a slur.

According to the Smithsonian, it refers to the red clay and red paint used for war or ceremonial purposes... a badge of honor.

It means something proud. It's ignorant to try and declare it something it is not...

[KCClybun]

I remember saying at some point that I didn't know what the media at large would do once the Redskins started actually winning and turning **** around.

At one point, Courtland Milloy of the Washington Post wrote that the reason RG3 got hurt was "karma" for the name. At which point I kindly stopped giving a ****.

I think there are legitimate reasons to want the name changed. I'd hate to think we were really offending someone. But it seems like a lot of this stuff is second hand information and second hand accounts. And in the case of the Post, it just seems like there was too much good news coming from the team and they needed something profoundly negative to focus on again.

[WVSkinsfan]

I talked to B-Mitch lastnight on facebook chat and I asked him about it.He said he feels they should just go a head and change it so this would'nt pop up every year.I asked him what does he think about the Washington Skins? He said thats exactly what he suggested to somebody but did'nt say who..

[Fan since a Fetus]

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.

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

[elkabong82]

I've also seen the origin of the team name not properly listed in the media. Most often it seems to be assumed that we just went with Redskins to honor Dietz, our Native American coach at the time. It seems that story may be told to add a caveat to Dietz, by implying that despite him, we still went with an "objectionable" name out of the blue.

Really what happened was we started off as the Boston Braves, after the baseball team of the time, a common practice for NFL teams starting out (NY Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers, for example). We moved to Fenway Park for bigger crowds, and the Redsox were there. We wanted to keep the team name as a Native American theme because we had Dietz and he was recruiting several Native American players at the time. So we went with a merging of the theme idea and the baseball team name, and got Redskins.

It is unknown how much of a role Dietz had in the re-naming process, but it is hard to imagine that with us keeping the theme because of Dietz and his recruits and his position as head coach that he wasn't consulted. For all we know Dietz brought the term to their attention since it wasn't a commonly used term.

[Fan since a Fetus]

Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard spent seven months researching its history and concluded that "redskin" was first used by Native Americans in the 18th century to distinguish themselves from the white "other" encroaching on their lands and culture.

When it first appeared as an English expression in the early 1800s, "it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level," Goddard said in an interview. "These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves."

In fact, the earliest usages of "redskin" that Goddard tracked down were in statements made in 1769 by Illinois tribal chiefs involved in delicate negotiations with the British to switch loyalties away from the French.

"I shall be pleased to have you come to speak to me yourself," said one statement attributed to a chief named Mosquito. "And if any redskins do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life." The French used the phrase " peaux Rouges " -- literally "red skins" -- to translate the chief's words.

By this time the original colonial designations of "Christian" and "Indian" were giving way to "white," "red" and, with the increase in slave traffic, "black": "Color didn't originate with Indian-white relations but with slavery," said University of Connecticut historian Nancy Shoemaker. "It is slavery that makes color seem to be a way to organize people."

Like Goddard, Shoemaker said that by the end of the 18th century, Native Americans were using "red" to describe themselves and to assert their pride of being North America's original inhabitants.

And what had begun 100 years earlier as a reasonably amicable trading exchange, Shoemaker said, during the 1700s evolved into an increasingly tension-filled relationship, as rival European countries intrigued for Indian loyalties and Indians attempted to ward off waves of encroaching settlers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139.html

[Lavarleap56]

I've also seen the origin of the team name not properly listed in the media. Most often it seems to be assumed that we just went with Redskins to honor Dietz, our Native American coach at the time. It seems that story may be told to add a caveat to Dietz, by implying that despite him, we still went with an "objectionable" name out of the blue.

Really what happened was we started off as the Boston Braves, after the baseball team of the time, a common practice for NFL teams starting out (NY Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers, for example). We moved to Fenway Park for bigger crowds, and the Redsox were there. We wanted to keep the team name as a Native American theme because we had Dietz and he was recruiting several Native American players at the time. So we went with a merging of the theme idea and the baseball team name, and got Redskins.

It is unknown how much of a role Dietz had in the re-naming process, but it is hard to imagine that with us keeping the theme because of Dietz and his recruits and his position as head coach that he wasn't consulted. For all we know Dietz brought the term to their attention since it wasn't a commonly used term.

Yeah all that is in the first link I posted. Marshall was going to name the team "Indians" to stay with the NA theme after Braves. Cleveland was holding Indians so Marshall went with Redskins.

[praise_gibbs]

Since it is Dan Snyders team. Keep the team name. He should change his name. The team will now be named after him; Daniel Redskin.

[SteveFromYellowstone]

I guess this wasn't Redskins football related enough and had to be moved lol?

This comes up every couple years. They don't care they have fabricated evidence, using color to describe skin is "offensive" (even if it's the native americans who came up with it!).

[Boss_Hogg]

IMO the screaming Indian (Braves), Chief Wahoo (Indians) and the tomahawk chop (FSU, Braves, KC Chiefs) are much more offensive than the name Redskins.

[throwback37]

Since it is Dan Snyders team. Keep the team name. He should change his name. The team will now be named after him; Daniel Redskin.

OK.. that's an AWESOME idea. If this were facebook, I would "like" it.

[DogofWar1]

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.

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

This pretty much closes the book IMO. 10% of people finding something offensive probably means it's not really offensive. Heck, probably more than 10% of the country was offended by Obama BEFORE he was elected just by virtue of him existing. Run these same studies for the N-word among African Americans, or the C-word (or B-word) among women, and those numbers are probably way above 50%. What this seems to imply is that the hubbub is all just media frenzy, with token offended people trotted out to argue.

I think Dan G. over at ESPN needs to see this study.

[hailer21]

So a Harvard educated professor who has pretty much dedicated his life to the study of historical linguistics, particularly Native American ones, finds that the term "redskin" was used by Native Americans as a way of distinguishing themselves from their white counterparts. He supports his findings with tangible documents and evidence.

Suzan Harjo believes the term "redskin" was derived from bounty hunters whom used the term to describe the scalped, bloody skins of the Native Americans they traded. She supports her arguments with revisionist history and the "I'm a Native American" card...

Check out her response to Goddard!

"I'm very familiar with white men who uphold the judicious speech of white men. Europeans were not using high-minded language. [To them] we were only human when it came to territory, land cessions and whose side you were on."

The only point here that even resembles an argument is the bald assertion that Europeans never spoke of Indians other than disparagingly. This is not true. Evidence to the contrary is explicitly cited by Goddard

Yeah, a very sound and factually supported comeback by Harjo there.

Our logo is bold, dignified, and respectful...it's not some derogatory caricature. And according to a distinguished historical linguist, the name is not derogatory, either.

A poll of Native Americans found that only 9% felt the term was offensive. Among college educated Native Americans, a whopping 13% found the term offensive. Is there any chance that that this tiny opposition to the name is simply misinformed or worse yet, a bunch of revisionist historians as well?!

Before I did any research into this subject, I thought the whole name change debate was a stupid waste of the media's time. After reluctantly looking into both sides of the argument, I've found the whole debate is a stupid waste of my time, your time, the team's time, the NFL's time, the court's time, AND the media's time.

[Lavarleap56]

So a Harvard educated professor who has pretty much dedicated his life to the study of historical linguistics, particularly Native American ones, finds that the term "redskin" was used by Native Americans as a way of distinguishing themselves from their white counterparts. He supports his findings with tangible documents and evidence.

Suzan Harjo believes the term "redskin" was derived from bounty hunters whom used the term to describe the scalped, bloody skins of the Native Americans they traded. She supports her arguments with revisionist history and the "I'm a Native American" card...

Check out her response to Goddard!

Yeah, a very sound and factually supported comeback by Harjo there.

Our logo is bold, dignified, and respectful...it's not some derogatory caricature. And according to a distinguished historical linguist, the name is not derogatory, either.

A poll of Native Americans found that only 9% felt the term was offensive. Among college educated Native Americans, a whopping 13% found the term offensive. Is there any chance that that this tiny opposition to the name is simply misinformed or worse yet, a bunch of revisionist historians as well?!

Before I did any research into this subject, I thought the whole name change debate was a stupid waste of the media's time. After reluctantly looking into both sides of the argument, I've found the whole debate is a stupid waste of my time, your time, the team's time, the NFL's time, the court's time, AND the media's time.

Harjo claims that Redskins means bounties for bloody Indian scalps. She then sues the team based on her own OPINIONS that are uncollaberated by anyone else. Where is the evidence or work to show how she determined what it means?

[Mark The Homer]

Since it is Dan Snyders team. Keep the team name. He should change his name. The team will now be named after him; Daniel Redskin.

OK.. that's an AWESOME idea. If this were facebook, I would "like" it.

You stole my comment!

---------- Post added February-13th-2013 at 07:20 AM ----------

Here are some of my thoughts. I actually wrote this earlier and was saving it for the right time, but I guess now is as good a time as any.

What is this issue about? Is it really about the Redskins being viewed as demeaning or racist? I don't think so. I think it's actually about ignorance and arrogance in the media. What I'm referring to is the barrage of articles that have surfaced over the past few months suggesting that the name of our football team be changed because it is racist.

An analogy might be the use of the word "niggardly." In 1999, a top aide to Washington D.C.'s mayor's office used the word to describe how he would manage a fund's tight budget.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm

Some saw the aid's use of the word as racist. But the word has nothing to do with the N-word. It's not even spelled the same. It's meaning has nothing to do with racism. It's a completely legitimate English word. Yet, David Howard was pressured to resign because he happened to use the word. The word was not used incorrectly - but the people who heard it or read it perceived the word as having racist connotations. And that stems from ignorance. So Howard lost his job.

Fortunately, a wrong was righted, and the mayor, after having accepted Howard's resignation, rehired him the following month.

I think we are witnessing the same sort of ignorance now. The articles I have read recently about name-changing have had one thing in common - they are all written by non-Native-Americans! Does that not seem odd? In fact, I haven't seen so much as a single quote from a Native American in any of these articles. In other words, what we are reading are opinions from non-Native-Americans. So, what we are reading is not news. What we are reading are opinions. News belongs in the newspaper. Opinions belong in the editorial section.

But the question remains: Is the name "Redskins" derogatory?

The issue is not whether we believe the name is offensive. The issue is whether Native Americans find the name offensive. And from what I've seen, the vast majority of them do not. Sure, you can find some that do, but that would be the case on any similar sort of issue. From what I understand, most Native Americans do not find it offensive. In fact, from what I've seen, the vast majority of Native Americans are proud of the name "Redskins."

There is a high school in Arizona on the Navajo Reservation that uses the name Redskins as their team name. They call themselves "The Red Mesa Redskins." If the name is insulting to Native Americans, why on earth would a high school that is 99% Native American call themselves "Redskins?"

http://books.google.com/books?id=yh9j9Dd5uoAC&pg=PA118&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&ots=lnUz-DE56b&sig=ACfU3U2u7Dlw5kSu1u8USzhRHJrJNg_4oA&w=685

Let's pretend for a moment that, at some point in the past, the word "Redskins" was fairly commonly used in a derogatory fashion, meant to be demeaning. I'm not saying it was or wasn't, but for the sake of argument, let's say it was. One characteristic of the English language, and any language I suppose, is words and their meanings tend to evolve with time. Today, when people hear the word "Redskins", do they think somebody is being insulting to somebody else? I think when most people hear the name, the first thing they think of is a football team from Washington D.C. Hence, the name is not insulting or derogatory. In this fictional example, one could argue that its roots are less than desireable, but the word has evolved and changed with time into a word with a completely different meaning.

When (now ex-) VP of Redskins Public Relations Karl Swanson commented on this issue quite a few years ago, he said "It is pretty well established that there are words that have come to take on meanings beyond the actual word itself. Not to be trite, but when kids say things are ‘cool,’ that doesn’t mean it’s cold; when they say something’s ‘the bomb,’ that doesn’t mean it will explode. It’s pretty well understood that in football, the Washington Redskins stands for a tradition that honors Native Americans.”

I would expand on that and say that outside of football, the word "Redskins" has evolved to the point where it now is synonymous for "The Washington Redskins" of the NFL, which in turn was named to honor Native Americans.

Regardless, certain members of the media keep writing articles citing that the name should be changed.

Okay. So we know how some members of the media feel. How do Native Americans feel?

Here is a recap from several posts on this issue from another thread from an actual Native American (You may click the little blue arrow below to see the original thread and posts in context):

As a card carrying Native American, I have never been offended by the name...

...There are many ways that I have been insulted with racial slurs: Redskin has yet to be one of those. Trust me, people can get quite creative with their racial insults, and saying you are insulted for being referenced to as a redskin is about as silly as being insulted for being called white.

...

I'm awfully curious; of all the people posting that they think the name is horrid and all that, how many of you are at least 1/4 native blood? How many of you have your tribal papers, have lived on a reservation, and actually know what the true racism portion is like?

Out of all the racism I have heard in my life, I have yet to hear the word redskin used in a derogatory fashion.

About 5 other terms come immediately to mind, but not redskin. If it was such a big deal, why would I have never heard it, except for people complaining about it only with this team?

...

This whole idiocy of "if one is insulted, it should change" crap needs to stop as well. Seriously, if you start going by that rule, you can have any hypersensitive imbecile out there getting you to change all sorts of things, just based on their race. Is that any more fair? There were a great many things done wrong to the American Indian in the past, but this was far from one of them.

The mascot of a team is it's symbol, it's source of pride. You are saying that having a Native American as that source is insulting.

As a race that actually has papers showing how much blood of one type or another we have, we know exactly how to quantify these things. I have found a great many racist Native Americans, especially those that grew up exclusively on the reservation. Of course some of them will say that it's insulting if they think they can get something out of it.

Ever seen what ignorance, poverty, and desperation do to a person? There are ways to help them...changing the name of a team does absolutely nothing in that regard.

Bottom line: It doesn't matter what I think or what you think. What matters is what Native Americans think. We can listen to them. Let's hear what they have to say. If we find that a significant percentage of Native Americans find the word truly insulting, then of course the name should be changed.

Until then, the ignorant and arrogant opinions we keep hearing from non-Native-Americans in the media don't mean a thing.

[Lavarleap56]

Mark- I couldn't agree more with your post, well done. Nighthorse Campbell's "Native American imagery has been used for years and we have not been compensated for it" stood out to me during the symposium. If you're offended why are you even bringing up compensation? Part of me wonders if Snyder tthrew money at the issue if it would disappear for good.

[hailer21]

Harjo claims that Redskins means bounties for bloody Indian scalps. She then sues the team based on her own OPINIONS that are uncollaberated by anyone else. Where is the evidence or work to show how she determined what it means?

Right...so why is this even a debate.

The only way Harjo will win her crusade against the Redskins is if UnWise Mike is serving as the judge on her appeal.

[pjfootballer]

but surely there has to be some sort of defined number or percentage of people that truly find the word insulting before there is some sort of court ruling. Otherwise anybody can go about changing anything.

After all, there is a High School on a Navajo Reservation in Red Mesa, Arizona with a sports team called the Redskins. So how do they explain that?

By the way, the next guy that calls me a "ging-guh", I'm taking to court.

This is the way I feel. And if I'm called "cracker" one more time, I'm going to lawyer up.