Hail to the Racists
So Dan Snyder got 50 letters from Senators asking him to change the name.
I’m personally not that bothered by the name, but feel it should probably just get changed if it’s going to cause this much fuss. I grew up in Ravens/Redskins territory, so the name Redskins never bothered me. I never even thought about it till after college. It was a name ingrained to me. To me, Redskins was the name of a football team, and it represented Native Americans and the team celebrated the culture. By wearing feathers and shouting war whoops.
I still think that, really. I do not believe the name was ever intended to harm, and while the usage of Native American symbols for merchandise and marketing is a little tacky I still don’t think it was ever done as an insult, even on a team with a history of racism like the Skins (The last team to integrate). I’m just not that bothered by it. Whether they change the name or not I’m largely indifferent to. Thanks to all my years rooting against the Skins, I’ll probably always call them the Skins anyway. Or just refer to them as Washington.
This is a difficult situation to bring up, because I’m sure, in some ways, maybe the reason I’m not bothered is because I’m a suburban born white dude. I was never marginalized by a team name. My culture isn’t bastardized and marketed to sell tickets. There is no team called “The Honkeys” or “The Crackers” (Except maybe the Ritz Cracker factory company softball team). So maybe I just don’t get it because it doesn’t really affect me at all. There also isn’t a Native presence in DC or the east coast at all. Out here in the west where I now live, I meet a lot more, and driving through a reservation can really drive home the points you never really experienced reading history books. It’s one thing to read about what we did, it’s another to see the effects, even decades later.
I think ultimately the word is a slur, or can very much be used/confused as one. They probably should change it. If it bothers that many people, including those Native tribes we have mistreated, then why not. Throw them a bone for once. It won’t affect most of us in any meaningful way, so why not? What’s the harm? Why insist on keeping a name that might be degrading for tradition’s sake? It might have been made to honor those people, but at this point is it anymore? Doesn’t seem like it.
Also I like watching Dan Snyder squirm so anything that makes him uncomfortable is okay in my book.
As long as a suitable name is brought up I think they should change it. “Washington Warriors” is not a suitable name, it sounds like the name of a basketball team in the rec league for a city in Washington state. Alliteration is bad and begets failure, just look at how bad Jacksonville Jaguars or Tennessee Titans or Buffalo Bills are. For the longest time the Seattle Seahawks were bad, too.
Chiefs would work if KC didn’t already have it. I actually like “Washington Seminoles” – that’s good enough for FSU to get away with(Before anyone says it’d be a marketing issue, tell that to Louisville and Arizona, or Colorado State and St. Louis, or FIU and Carolina, or you get the picture), and you can still keep all the logos/mascots/etc. the same.
What really does bug me though is that the Cleveland Indians get none of the crap the Redskins get. Chief Wahoo is much more offensive than “Redskins” in my mind.
Actually, Cleveland has gotten a lot more flak this year than in years past over Chief Wahoo. Every opening day there has been a small group of Native Americans protesting outside the ballpark, but this year during cactus league play it really got a boost from media stoking the fires of racist controversy. Now that the regular season is well underway, the story has been buried under Manziel Mania and won’t resurface until next preseason/ opening day.
I think the only reason it keeps popping up in Washington is 1) the name “Redskins” is by itself more racist than merely “Indians” or “Braves” and 2) the team is front and center in our nation’s capital.
I personally don’t have any issues with the names or logos (ok Chief Wahoo is pushing it a bit, and I’m a Tribe fan) as I believe they are meant to honor and draw strength from a fierce and proud people. The team in Cleveland was renamed the Indians in honor of a Native American who played for them- I believe he was the first to do so for a Major League ballclub. The point is these names were never meant to be racist or derogatory- who wants to insult or belittle their own team?
That would make sense then. Like I’ve said before, I live in this weird area between Baltimore and Philadelphia, so I was unaware of the stuff that the Indians got over it at spring training/opening day/etc., just thought about it a few days ago since the Orioles were on TV rather than the Nationals or Phillies, and they were playing the Indians, so I started thinking about all of this.
I honestly have no issue with “Indians” or “Braves” – given Oneida’s full name is “Oneida Indian Nation”, I don’t think that term is racist, and the only connotations I can think of to the term “brave” are positive – but Chief Wahoo feels like, if it weren’t almost 70 years old, would never have stood. A visual stereotyping feels more harmful than a word to me.
As a Cleveland Fan through and through, I would also like to point to the fact that Cleveland uses a “C” as their logo for the most part, and the Mascot is SLider, who is decidedly NOT racist. (Maybe the guy in the suit is, I dont know him) That being said, if the team in our Nations Capital wants truly wants to honor the First Nations people of this country with their team. If their soul purpose is to draw off of the fierce and proud heritage of the original peoples of this land, then here is what I purpose: Call all the leaders of all the First Nations tribes that you can, and get as many of them as will participate to come to DC. Then make them into an exploritory commity thats soul purpose is to work together to come up with a name, logo, and mascot that will still hold the fighting spirit and Native Pride that they claim they get from “Redskins”. Then take that name and logo and mascot, and change the team to reflect what the people that you are trying to respect and honor think is respectful and honorable.
I like alliteration random commentor and would like the Washington Warriors, though the Braves would be fine if they went that way. Seminoles is lame and the Seminoles weren’t native to that area. If they went with the Washington Iriquois or Washington Mohawks it would be at least a bit more accurate.
The most accurate would be the Washington Powhatan which would be cool imo.
The Seminole Tribe never lived anywhere outside of northern florida
If they’re going to change the name and keep with the Native American theme, I’d go with the
Washington Tomahawks.
The word is a slur, because some people at the dawn of political correctness decided it ought to be. It did not originate as one, it was not intended as one, and suggesting that history and intent don’t matter is handing a frightening amount of power to thought police.
To look at it from another perspective, Yankee was– and often still is– a word intended to marginalize a group of white folks. Namely, Americans. It’s far worse than honkey, at least in its origin, far worse than cracker. But, we embraced it. We took derision, and we ran with it, and we kicked ass with it, and now even some Southerners would wear it with pride. Y’know, circumstances depending.
The Fighting Irish is hardly less insulting, a drunken leprechaun and all that. And don’t for one second tell me that the Irish weren’t marginalized– their history with England is every bit as horrific at times as the American Indian history is with America, or Canada, or even Spain (who, frankly, were more barbaric than either the British or Americans ever were)– disease was less an issue, which is where most of the deaths came from with the culture clash, but as far as violence, subjugation, and the like, the Irish were horribly marginalized. Even in America, the Irish were often considered *lower* than American Indians in culturalist and racial terms– basically white blacks, really. They were deemed stupid, violent, drunken louts with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and today we’re so obsessed with skin color that we gloss over what they went through, we poo-poo it as being a horrific experience because, well, the Irish here mostly got over it, and by the 1920s were able to disappear into a larger white culture. But they embraced the stereotypes, they refused to let them give power over them, and now one of the most celebrated icons in all of sports is one that rose from some of the grossest, most marginalizing attitudes America has had.
Changing the name because of political correctness– and that’s all this is– is wrong. It is letting a brief history of hate matter more than a longer history of respect. It is ignoring the origins, and originators, of modern football. Instead of taking the name, and using it as a learning tool, as a tool to overpower and *DENY HATE ITS POWER*, it is simply shifting the issue to another thing. When you let a label, particularly one born as physically descriptive and without baggage of value or worth, upset you, you have already lost, because someone can then pick any word they like, and tell you it’s derogatory, and you are offended again. There are some people simply filled with hate– changing the name won’t take that hate away, but changing the name removes your power to control and determine the conversation. It removes the opportunity to acknowledge a deeply flawed history, and to assert ones authority over one’s own identity.
The suggestion that it’s only offensive because it’s not white bothers me, in light of the fact that two of the most iconic teams in American sports are exactly the same thing– arguably worse, in that both terms *ORIGINATED* as insults. It shows a profound lack of historical perspective, a deep desire to simply marginalize a group and decide it needs Whiteys protection to protect their image. Few things are more disgusting than White Man’s Burden, and this exemplifies it to a tee.
I don’t necessarily agree here. Mainly, adhering to tradition for traditions sake is also dumb. Society changes. Words change their meaning. It doesn’t mean some politically correct guy just decided that something was now offensive. Yankee may have once been a bad term, but these days it means something different. Changing the team name from Yankees bevause of what it traditionally meant would be dumb. But keeping the Redskins name because of what it tradionally meant is just as dumb. It used to be a bad thing to refer to African Americans as “Black”. These days it’s not a big deal. Times change. Meanings change. The tide has turned on the term Redskin, maybe its time to accept that.
Your point about the Fighting Irish is a good one. That’s a pretty bad stereotype and no one ever argues about that one.
Lastly, if they keep the name Redskins, Dan Snyder wins. And that is an unacceptable outcome.
Yankee is still used internationally much as we would use Ruskie, Kraut, or Jap. There are some places in the South where it has the same connotation.
While I agree entirely that the term has become perjorative, seeking to change strikes me as folks trying to take “nigger” out of Huckleberry Finn. Yeah, it’s not acceptable now– I would not be in favor of a new team being named “Redskins”, because it doesn’t fit the new context. But trying to erase things from history– including names given in historic times– is trying to cover the issue, not confront it.
As for when Redskin got offensive, it really came in an era of hypersensitivity (a lot of that has frankly died down since then, on a great many areas). As for whether it’s offensive? It’s not universal, by any means. Most polls show that American Indians (the only group really in a position to judge its offensiveness), have tended toward “no opinion” or “not offensive”. When poling American Indians who live on the res, it becomes even more skewed to that end. Frankly, I’d rather get to a point where people learn to not let a label define or bother them, than dwell on giving one group power over another, either in demeaning or forbidding the use of words.
However, your point of Dan Snyder winning *does* make me think that history can be damned, and change it just because Snyder.
Huck Finn is a product of it’s time though. It very much speaks to that era. It shouldn’t be changed at all and people who want it to are stupid.
The Redskins name is different. It’s an ongoing thing, not an artistic representation of an era, but one that changes with society. Honestly again I’m not that bothered by the name at all, for me Redskin is a word that only means Football Team. But for a name meant to honor and support Native Americans, none of us would call a Native American a Redskin to their face even if we think of it as a good term, and I think that’s food for thought.
The Yankees name may have once been offensive, but when the team becomes the champions of the world every year, the name becomes associated with champions and the slur part is completely forgotten
So there are also Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Blackhawks, and Seminoles. If it was about racism, then these teams would get a ton of protests too. I think they are all just cowboys or eagles fans
Actually some of them get permission to use the name of the tribes. See the Florida State Seminoles. Honestly I keep wondering why Snyder doesn’t just change the name to like that.
Not to mention, from what i’ve been told, most native americans just want to be known by their tribes. I wouldn’t be opposed to any team with such “indian”-type names just be renamed to a historic local tribe. Thus DC would get Powhatan, Atlanta (braves) could get Cherokee, etc.
They could be lazy and change it to the Washington Reds. I like it enough to not care about Cincinnati.
Dave, when are you doing the 2014 draft pics. I have been waiting since the draft.
For what it’s worth, Bruce Allen has released a much more intelligent response than Snyder:
http://files.redskins.com/pdf/letter-from-pres-bruce-allen.pdf
Don’t entirely agree, but worth reading.
George Preston Marshall was a racist jerk though and he’s the one who came up with the name.
The issue to me is very simple. I would never go up to one of the Native’s in my area that I either work with or play sports with, and call them ‘redskin’ in conversation. There are many questionable names in sports, but one that directly references the color of a person’s skin (whether it started out as such or not makes no matter to me).
When you say “I don’t think it was intended to harm,” I think the historical context is important here. The team was founded by George Preson Marshall, a virulent racist who refused to integrate his team until Congress literally forced him to. They originally started as the Boston Braves until Marshall moved it to DC and renamed it “Redskins,” in addition to making the (white) head coach out on the field in a headress and shit.
Like you, I never thought about the name much, because the word is so antiquated I only ever heard it in the context of a football team. But now that I know the history behind it, and the man who invented it, I feel embarrassed to say it aloud in public.
Also lost in this debate is the most obvious fucking logical move ever–just call them the Pigskins, their fans already dress up like pigs.
Problem with that though is it’d carry the implication that “native americans = pigs”
Not really. Only if they kept the same logo. Pigskin is a long accepted term for football. It only becomes offensive if they keep the Native American theme going, and even then its still a bit stretching. I doubt they’d be that dumb anyway if they change the name to avoid offense in the first place.
That’s the thing though, Dan Snyder is such a cheap bastard I guarantee you he’s looking for the option that makes him need to do as little as possible. If he had to change the logos on all of the uniforms, merchandise, TV networks, stadium, etc. on top of the name, it’d be a lot more work and a lot more money than just changing the name. And let’s be perfectly honest, Dan Snyder is stupid enough that he probably would change it to Pigskin without changing the logo.
Great idea. We can still call them the skins and all you need to change is a logo and a few song lyrics
The name is offensive. You wouldn’t call a Native American you just met “redskin” to their face, because it would piss them off. It’s that simple. But if I must go deeper: this is a group that has endured a history of mistreatment by the United States government, with the historical support of the majority. The whole time, policies and attitudes have focused on “civilizing” or eliminating their culture, except the parts that have been appropriated for profit/other. Even now, when they are finally heard in the national conversation, their concerns are dismissed by many who think they should just get over it.
As for the “but it’s a tradition, blah blah blah…” argument, should a tradition really stand if it’s offensive? Political correctness can cross a line, but this is a clear case of a derogatory slur being used because people do not care about it’s ramifications.
I don’t even know why I’m arguing online, but I had to make these points.
Well yeah, you wouldn’t call a black person you just met an “african american”. Not because “ITS RACIST” but because it’s just weird to bring up race like that.
Plus, it’s pretty offensive how people are making it seem like its derogatory to have red skin.
Also, I’m calling you out about the whole “their concerns are being dismissed”. It’s not “their” concerns, most of them (pretty much all of them) think the term is not offensive, and they like the representation they receive in the NFL. Because they aren’t pussies who get offended by words. (like white people are)
Tradition is stupid. But making a word mean something that it does not is even more stupid.
The thing that continues to confuse me here is that you’d think that Dan Snyder would be jumping at the chance to market a name change. All new stuff for people to buy! Charge for attendance to multiple renaming ceremonies and uniform/logo unveilings! New naming rights and marketing opportunities! Of all people, Snyder is the last person to pass up an attention-grabbing (and probable money-making) moment.
Washington Griffins. They’re not only the mythical creatures but also RG3 but I highly dislike him for his rac- OH LOOK AT THE TIME I HAVE TO LIE TO THE MEDIA ABOUT ME NOT BEING RACIST GOODBYE!
It’s not entirely true that there is not Native American presence on the east coast. The Lumbee aren’t recognized on a federal level, but they are a presence in NC (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the east coast).
…Is it a bad thing that I’m a Redskins fan and like watching Dan Snyder squirm?
No its
DID YOU KNOW THAT
The first use of red-skin or red Indian may have been limited to specific groups that used red pigments to decorate their bodies, such as the Beothuk people of Newfoundland who painted their bodies with red ochre. Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint.
DID YOU KNOW THAT
Oklahoma’s name is derived from the Choctaw words okla and humma, meaning “red people”.
DID YOU KNOW THAT
The original name for the then-Boston based team was the Boston Braves, but was changed to Redskins in the 1930s in honor of head coach Lone Star Dietz, a Native American
DID YOU KNOW THAT
Native Americans don’t care one bit whether Washington continues calling their football team the Redskins, many even being flattered by it
http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/
http://www.timesdispatch.com/sports/professional/football/redskins/article_26b0f8d8-eb22-52f0-87df-c05e24bbfc0e.html
>But it is clear that the Boston Redskins, who moved to Washington in 1937, sought to capitalize on their Indian players and coach: The team played wearing red war paint. And Indian players from the time considered the name and trappings an honor. So does Walter Wetzel, former chairman of the Blackfoot tribe and president of the National Congress of American Indians in the 1960s. By the early ‘60s, the Redskins had dropped any reference to Indians in their logo, uniforms and merchandise. Wetzel went to the Redskins office with photos of Indians in full headdress. “I said, ‘I’d like to see an Indian on your helmets,’” which then sported a big “R” as the team logo, remembers Wetzel, now 86 and retired in Montana. Within weeks, the Redskins had a new logo, a composite Indian taken from the features in Wetzel’s pictures. “It made us all so proud to have an Indian on a big-time team. . . . It’s only a small group of radicals who oppose those names. Indians are proud of Indians.”
DID YOU KNOW THAT
Wellpinit High School in Washington State is in a school district that is 94% Native American, and they proudly call their team the Redskins. They have no plans to change it.
Kingston High School in Oklahoma is 58% Native American- mostly Choktaw and Chikassaw – and they’ve been the Redskins for more than a century. They know the name Oklahoma is a Choktaw word that means “red-skinned people.” They’re clearly not offended by the name.
Red Mesa High School in Arizona is in the heart of Navaho country. Their district is 99+% Native American, and they’re also the Redskins. Nobody foisted that name on them, and they can change it any time they want to, but they haven’t.
NOW YOU KNOW
I really hate how people are calling Dan Snyder a racist. Look what he has to deal with: Either he changes the name, appeasing the media, but effectively angering most of the Washington fanbase, or keep the name, appeasing the fanbase but making him out to be a racist. It’s not an easy decision for him.
And yet I still see nothing for the Cleveland Indians. I hope it’s just me.