Native Americans and the term Redskins

Post Reply New Topic

Brilliant! But, NFL contracts aside, don't team owners have the legal right to determine if and when name changes are desired?

Last edited by AspieUtah on 26 Jun 2014, 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm poor,white and Southern.

My ancestors from Georgia were so poor, white and Southern, they attended the plantation's slave-taught school (true story). But, can we legitimately criticize those who oppose a name change of an NFL team because it offends some people, while enjoying racist humor ourselves?

I would suggest they use names that are positive to Natives,I see nothing wrong with the names such as the Chiefs,Braves,Warriors etc,these are positive and proud.Redskin has always been a derogatory name on the same level as the N word.Do you think it would fly if there was a team called the Ni**ers?
I don't think the fans of the team mean any harm,but the Native people have gotten the shaft for so long in this country that it's time to show some respect.I may use the word cracker in a political joke to make a point,but I would never call a person that here,it would be considered an insult.But as Raptor said,some take pride in being a cracker in certain states.No one who is Native refers to themselves as a Redskin or takes pride in being called that.
I have a very small stake in this,I'm mostly white,but I have a small amount of Native blood also.

Here in Australia our sportsmen back in the 1930s and 40s used to have nicknames like Edwin Stanley "Ni**er" Brown. Fans used to call Stanley Brown by his racist nickname rather than his first name. There are plenty of others.

Unbelievably rugby fans in the state of Queensland (a fair number) want to retain this name on a sports ground and are furious that it should be removed
http://jacksonsdetails.wordpress.com/ta ... own-stand/

Just rename them "The Washington Reagans" with the Gipper as their logo; that would provide entertainment inside and outside the league,

I recall years ago when Chris Rock had been talking about this very subject of the Red Skins, and pointed out how it would be no different from a team called the New York N*ggers.

I would respect whatever decision the team OWNER(S) would make about this matter. It is their decision, not ours. If the name is changed, fine. If it isn't, fine. Even "a team called the Ni**ers" would be legal (aside from relevant NFL contractual requirements), and its owner(s) would still have the authority to choose what is right for their business. I have my opinion about what names are and aren't appropriate (largely the same as yours), but it isn't legally my choice. That has been my point all along. I don't see why people assume to involve themselves in this matter beyond simply offering their informed opinions. As I have described here, I have seen otherwise well meaning people make a complete mess of a good thing and actually harm the very people who were thought to need their help all in the name of assuming authority that isn't theirs in the first place.

What are you talking about?

Of course it would. Thats the very point!

If Japanese investors owned a major league American team and called it the "Round Eyes" that would upset the OP. And so the OP assumes that others would also be upset if the shoe were on the other foot.

In the case of the Washington Redskins the shoe is on the other foot.

OK, so everybody agrees that "Redskins" is a slur, right? The satirical uses of white slurs in return kinda got the point across that slurs aren't positive things.

"Utes" isn't a slur. Yes, the Utes should have been consulted to get their opinion about the tweaking of the mascot. That's what the Florida State Seminoles and Central Michigan Chippewas have done, although many Native Americans disagree with the use of any Native American imagery as mascots.

The video decrying the use of "Redskin" was produced by the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation. The Oneida Indian Nation was also one of the first tribes to speak out about the name. They didn't wait to be consulted about their opinion. They put it out there to let people know the words and names that Native Americans have used to proudly describe themselves, and that "Redskin" is not among those terms.

Daniel Snyder doesn't have to legally change the name. He also doesn't own the rights to the name anymore since the U.S. Patent and Trademark office stripped the trademark from the Redskins because the word is a slur. The Washington Redskins is a business, and consumers have a right to make their opinions known about a business and to boycott it.

The use of the term "Redskin" wasn't always considered racist. And surprisingly, one of the first to use the term was a native american. Here is a quote from back then. It wasn't used in a hateful way, we have just made it hateful.

"One of the earliest known citations of its use is in a speech (first transcribed in French and later into English) by a Native American called Chief Black Thunder [15] in which he is recorded as stating, "My Father?Restrain your feelings, and hear ca[l]mly what I shall say. I shall tell it to you plainly, I shall not speak with fear and trembling. I feel no fear. I have no cause to fear. I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me."

This usage was the first or one of the first recorded usages of the term. Surprisingly it was by a native american. I am not saying that it is ok in these days and times. But I hate to see those of european decent vilified for creating it when they most likely did NOT create the term.

Actually research seem to suggest the vast majority American Indians do not care about the term Redskin.

Nope.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/lindseyadler/na ... acial-slur

Oke, I stand potentially corrected. And the research I did link to did indeed not mention if they had checked if their responded indeed had the racial/tribal background they claimed they had. So a valid point there. However the research the article you linked to refers to, alto claiming such verification had been done, does not make an additional subdivision in to social-economic status. Which also could have an influence how such things are being perceived.

One proposal I've seen suggested the name Washington Americans. That might be a decent/inclusive way to go.

And it's a bit in keeping with the name Washington Nationals (the baseball team of the same city).

He may have been one of the earliest persons recorded using it. But it doesnt mean that he, nor his tribe, invented the term.


What Ive always read is that some of the tribes of eastern woodland North American Indians have a distinctive copper cast to their skin. So the 17th Centurey European colonists referred to members of those tribes as "redskins". Then the term gradually came to be applied to all indigenous Americans. In my childhood in the mid 20th Centurey Native Americans would express, not so much offense, as bewilderment, at the term because if you compare individuals of the two races you will always see more red on the body of a "White" person than on the skin of American Indian. So I seriously doubt that Native Americans invented the term "Redskin" for themselves because apparently it's kinda foriegn to them to think of themselves as being that color. But that doesnt mean that a Seventeenth Century Indian chief couldnt adopt the term if thats the label his audience used because it had already become current for both races to use it.