Wash.Redskins to change name to Redtails?

Voice of reason

 

Tough issue, there are numerous tribes that have said they dont mind the name. To me, the fact that the name came from the racist mind of the founder George Preston Marshall, a White guy co-opting a term that "can" be construed as a racial slur for a group of people that were literally almost exterminated on this continent is enough for me to want to see it changed.

Plus dont forget that the team already lost a lawsuit regarding changing the name that was overturned on a technicality back in 2003.

Here’s a list of Native American groups who have gone on record, who oppose the Redskins’ name, according to The Washington Post:

http://www.leesvilledailyleader.com/article/20140815/BLOGS/308159994/-1/News

The National Congress of American Indians

The United South and Eastern Tribes

The Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians

The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma

the Comanche Nation of Oklahoma

The Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board

The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians

The Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council

The Gun Lake Band of Potawatomi Indians

The Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona

The Five Civilized Tribes

The Juaneno Band of Mission Indians

The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians

The Menominee Tribe of Indians

The Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin

The Oneida Indian Nation

The Poarch Band of Creek Indians

The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma

The Sault St. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation

The United Indian Nations of Oklahoma

 

Interesting you should mention that...

"Chrysler representatives say that reusing the Cherokee name isn't meant to offend anyone, noting that the company hasn't received any feedback about the name being disparaging. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma has said that the group opposes stereotypes and applauds sports teams and schools for dropping offensive mascots, but has stopped short of criticizing the Jeep Cherokee based on its name. Officially, the Cherokee Nation has no stance on the matter, but spokesman Amanda Clinton says "it would have been nice for them to have consulted us in the very least."

I agree that Chrysler at the very least could have talked to Cherokee Nation.

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/06/27/jeep-cherokee-name-revival-reignites-question-of-cultural-insens/

 

True, but poll numbers of Native Americans on whether the Redskins should change their name is overwhelmingly opposed to it.

How many tradition in this country were established by outspoken racists??

I recently found out the primary sculptor commissioned to carve Mount Rushmore was an avowed racist and affiliated with the KKK.

Nearly all of our U.S. Presidents were racists.

I don't think it's fair to smear the entire legacy of the team with the name of George Preston Marshall.

Marshall didn't win any SBs, or approve the signing of Doug Williams, the first African American to win a SB.

I wish they would take a poll of Native Americans again but I suspect they haven't because the results would be the same.

I'm done with my rant.:smt088

Dan Snyder got dinged in the pocket book by losing his copyright protection, which down the road may make him voluntarily change the name for merchandising and revenue purposes.

 

Some how I just don't see majority of Native Americans agreeing to the team keeping the name of an insult.
You are going to have a few sugh knights who don't mind being called the n-word by the KKK but most won't

 

Rockin it, as usual.

You can comparatively add "or if Greeks got indignant at Fraternities and Sororities using their name in vain" (I know of one Greek organization threatened to sue @ being "offended"), but the reality is... Greeks in general DGAF if Yanks claim 'Greek'/and use the letters to rep your exclusive College clubs.

Speaking of Yanks, what if Yankee Americans were offended by the YANKEES baseball?? lol.

 

precisely, fellas.......lol.

We Ravens fans only "tolerate" the Redskins ONLY because they're in our territory. Redskins can change their name to whatever they wanna' change it to.

Go Ravens!!!!! Lol

 

Interesting etymology of the word Yankee per below, seems it may have started out as an insult.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/506/what-is-the-origin-of-the-word-yankee

My point is this, I fully understand that some words may be offensive to some and not to others, for example, I have never had a problem with Notre Dame calling themselves the Fighting Irish (even though some Irish groups have complained about the name because that university was founded by Irish Catholics. There is a high school on a reservation here in Arizona that uses Redskins for their sports teams, I have no problem with that either as they can call themselves whatever they want.

The fact that the racist owner of the Washington Redskins decided to co-opt another culture, a culture and people that was decimated by racists, well imo they have no right to do that and it is offensive.

 

"In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them."




I still believe they need to do another poll, but it's doubtful the numbers are going to change that much.

 

But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million

When a group that big says they are offended that kind of outnumbers 768.

 

There's about 3 million exclusive Native Americans in North America, so a poll size of 768 is statistically significant.

The National Congress of American Indians represents less than half of all Native Americans in North America.

Official support doesn't mean a majority of those groups find the name offensive.

The difficult part for Native American activists is uniting ALL the tribes behind one cause, because Native Americans really aren't a 'nation'.

Native American traditions and culture are different from tribe to tribe.

It's like saying Africa is a 'nation' of one people. Africa is a land mass and not a single ethnicity or culture.

If she believed the poll numbers would shift, you would think one of those casino rich tribes would pony up a few hundred thousands dollars to commission a new poll.

They haven't done it and there's probably a reason why. It may be within Native American communities there isn't the level of offense associated with the Washington Redskins name that people on the outside would like for there to be.

It's hard telling other disaffected groups what terms they should be offended by, which is it's own form of bigotry.

When the woman who originally brought the lawsuit LIVES on a reservation where the HS team's nickname is the Redskins, the poll results suggest most Native Americans just aren't that bothered by the name Washington Redskins.

 

I don't like the original owners philosophy either, but the word REDSKIN isn't racist. They claim it. What I believe is behind this is the new PC-nonsense of "cultural appropriation" that has been going on...


For example, Pharell...



...was decimated for this cover and photo. He had to apologize.



Does he look like a racist to you? He was called it, ad nauseum.

The Washington Redskins honor the name, not disrespect it.

On a side note @ Notre-dame, you can no longer refer to a police van as a Paddy-Wagon because the Irish are officially offended. In yester-year, so many Irish drunks were routinely rounded up by the cops and put in the wagon, they named it paddy-wagon. :smt030

 

That's a damn shame about Pharell. Wearing that headdress IMO was done IMO respectfully, not to demean or offend.

I'm all for more increased cultural awareness and sensitivity, but many Americans feel, rightly or wrongly, they have a 'claim' on Native American culture.

Almost as if the history of Native Americans is a part of the collective cultural legacy of the United States.

Is a non-Indian woman wearing a sari considered culturally offensive too??

Is this guy's hairstyle considered bigoted??


It can be tricky sometimes to navigate through political-correctness.

 

And dreadlocks. Is that culturally offensive?




The tribal ears, too.

Speaking of tribal, are tribal tattoos offensive?

How about Asian tats?

 

Well, some tribes embrace the name Redskin, others view it as a vile insult, hence the lawsuit that they already won and the list of tribes who have come out against it. As far as Pharell, no I would not call him racist, but perhaps a bit culturally insensitive/unaware, certain headdresses carry deep spiritual meaning to certain tribes and only the most honored or high ranking members get to wear them per below...

"Last year, an official from the National Congress of American Indians told ThinkProgress that wearing headdresses and face paint — – sacred religious aspects of Native American culture — amounts to “making fun of religion and our culture.”
http://thinkprogress.org/sports/201...s-up-in-native-american-headdresses-warpaint/

"I actually didn’t know Aboriginal people were actually banned from wearing them for a period of time in history. It’s de-humanizing, the dollar store kit that people buy and put together. I know people aren’t coming with malicious intent but hopefully people will look into this and make the discovery themselves that what they’re doing is disrespectful."
http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2014/07/29/3465232/why-a-popular-music-festival-banned-headdresses/

I remember the local Catholic church here in AZ voiced displeasure to see some Arizona Cardinal football fans dressing up in full Catholic Cardinal regalia complete with Rosary beads which are considered sacred in that religion.

I too do not like political correctness, but I do think it is important to be aware/respectful of other cultures and their viewpoint. Years ago, in my first supervisory corporate position, I took my team ,which consisted of three devout Hindu code programmers, out to lunch. I very absentmindedly ordered a burger, as soon as I saw their faces, I realized my mistake and changed my order. To me I was not being PC, just being considerate of their beliefs during that one meal.

Did not know the origin of the term "Paddy wagon" thanks for that.

 

NP ^

Reading the comments of the National Congress of American Indians...interesting.
I wonder what they thought of the Cherokee Nation Expelling Blacks? (Freedmen - descendants of slaves once owned by wealthy Cherokees.)
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/19/140594124/u-s-government-opposes-cherokee-nations-decision

@ the Cardinal fans, I always thought it was a bird they rocked. Even so, I doubt the Catholic Church would insist on a name change. Now asking for some licensing money, yes, lol.

Being culturally unaware is not being disrespectful, IMO, but you are treated as if you were.
Your Hindu scenario...While I would never call my choice a 'mistake", I get it Loki, I do, I might have done the same as you did and rescinded my order ..But by the same token, they are in America, and a burger is practically iconic in America's food culture. Why didn't they adjust and respectfully not react at your personal food choice?

 

One more hypothetical...

Imagine if you will, Native Americans file a lawsuit that riding horses for entertainment is an insult to their historical culture of riding horses, along with their associated symbolism (yes I know the Spaniards introduced horses to them but bear with me). What if they insisted that horse riders rode donkeys instead, or pick any other animal, just not horses. Would you change to riding donkeys, even though you lovingly treat and respect horses?

(And what of yelling the word 'Geronimo" while leaping? Culturally wrong now? )

Anyway for me, I am now definitely leaning more toward, if nothing else..that changing the historical name would be an unfair burden to the owner, the franchise, and to their fans.

 

I get what you are saying about the horses, that political corectness can be taken to the extreme. In that scenario, Native Americans cant claim to be the only culture who ride/train/revere horses so I would disagree with any Native American who tried to make that argument. As far as the unfair burden, there have been plenty of colleges who have changed their names, St. John's, Marquette, Dartmouth, come to mind, from Indian themed names to other non offensive names; Redmen became Redstorm, Warriors became Golden Eagles, and Indians became Big Green.

I practically grew up on Dartmouth's campus, going to all the football games, I can distinctly remember the cheerleaders/students doing an in game chant that went; Dartmouth! Indians!..Scalp 'em! As a kid I did not think much of it, looking back as an adult I see how offensive it was.

As far as the Hindus, after their initial silent reaction, they did say that they hoped I did not change my order on account of them, (but come on, I was their boss, what else where they going to say), so I took the high road and said that it was important to me that they were comfortable since it was not a big deal to me to change my order. They really appreciated the gesture and it made us a little closer as a team.

 

Native Americans are also not the only culture to face paint, but they don't want anyone but them doing that, either.
It's a PC slippery-slope when you start telling people they can't wear or do things that represent a culture. A culture is an expression of ideas, not an iron-clad license of ownership ruled by an iron-fist.

Colleges, and the operations they run, PALE in comparison to running and NFL team... trust me. Thus, it's not that simple to just change an NFL name, and I think you know this.

I agree that your chant was/is offensive (despite the fact that Indians scalped), and I too look back on my youth and there are expressions we carelessly used that I wouldn't dream of using today, once I understood the meaning.
But again, your chant was aimed to insult. The Washington Redskins name is to honor, and is said with pride. (unless you're an opposing fan ).


I found your further elaboration on your Hindu employees story quite endearing. Kudos to you for being so thoughtful, as to result in a closer bond for your team. You are probably awesome to work for, no lie.

 

Agree that the NFL is a larger enterprise than colleges, however as recent as 1998 there was a NFL name change due to a relocation (Houston Oilers/Tennessee Titans) and there have been multiple name changes in the NFL over the years http://www.footballhappenings.com/teamnames.htm, so while there are financial and historical factors to be considered, there are plenty of precedents, never too late to do the right thing.

I think we are just coming at this whole name issue from two very different perspectives, which of course is ok, we can agree to disagree on this issue. I do wish there was some clear cut way that Native Americans could have one unified position on the issue, hold some kind of vote, or definitive opinion poll or something.

To me the intent of the current Washington team is irrelevant, its clear that they have repeatedly stated that they feel they are honoring Native Americans with the name, but that seems to whitewash the abject brutal historical and present day factors that Native Americans face, and the loud voices of dissent coming from numerous tribes on the name.