I used to travel a lot more than I do now. I used to love to go to the west and whenever I did, I visited Indian reservations when possible. I looked at the schools and checked out the mascots. Up and down the west coast, from Washington State to New Mexico (I know New Mexico isn’t ON the coast line), I saw school after school with that dreaded name for a mascot–Redskins.
I thought it was sort of neat. That settled the local issue here in D. C. for me. Obviously the term “Redskin” as a mascot certainly didn’t offend Native American kids. As shown in the video, the Redskin mascot is a great source of pride.
Anyone who has ever traveled to native areas or been on reservation, knows existentially of the extreme poverty. Native American people have more than their fair share of health issues from diabetes, obesity and addictions to name a few of the more virulent curses. Unemployment on reservations is often as high as 60%. Basic infrastructure is often lacking. Some of the jewelry Navajo ladies I have known don’t have electricity in their homes. It costs too much to run a line out to their property. Some also still don’t have running water. Air conditioning is non-existent and some families don’t even have a reliable, safe, heating source. Roofs leak when it rains, dust settles in every crack and crevice, roads often don’t be plowed when it snows and safe drinking water is unreliable at best.
These basic needs aren’t just on the Navajo Nation. Many of the Lakota people have even more drastic human needs. Disease, extreme poverty, unemployment, alcoholism and drug use have ravaged many of these folks whose ancestors were Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Red Cloud and Black Elk to name a few icons from this once proud race of people.
Regardless of current political correctness, I saw almost no signs in the west of the term “Redskins” being a name of derision. Kids seemed proud of it and the term was popular as a mascot name. Could this be a case where people only got sensitive once you told them they should be? I have also had Indians tell me they were Indian and to cut the Native American bullcrap.
It appeared that worrying about a name like Redskins when used as a mascot seemed superficial and ridiculous when looking at the real needs of Native people. People just have other things to worry about. The focus should be on improving living conditions for Indians rather than bantering over a mascot name. Calling the Washington Team “the Redskins” isn’t going to matter one way or the other if a person has no electricity or no clean drinking water. It doesn’t give one job to anyone on a reservation. It’s time to deal with real issues, not contrived ones.
I am not going to fall on my sword over our Redskins football team having the right to keep the name. It’s an absurd fight. The media is really pissing me off over it. In the end, I believe the fans will prevail both here and in a little high school, Red Mesa, in Arizona.
The name is HIGHLY offensive. It is utterly demeaning to native Americans.
I mean….what were they thinking…putting WASHINGTON in the name?
Don’t they know what Washington has done to the Indian nations?
The name Washington must be removed immediately.
@Cargo
Snicker
Where does it stop – RedSkins, Cowboys, Indians, Chiefs, Braves, Warriors, Hawks, BlackHawks, RedHawks, WinterHawks……
If Snyder wanted to make money, this would be his opportunity to rebrand the team.
Agree – if people really wanted to put the money where their mouth is….my cousin has spent years with the Blackfeet in Montana. She’ll take whatever resources are being put into this, as you say, superficial idiocy.
A self-applied racial sterotype is one thing. When others do it, the issue changes. There are a significant number of Native Americans who find the label “Redskins” as offensive as many African-Americans would find the term “Darkies” offensive if a professional football team owned by European-Americans used that particular trademark. End of story. Find a better name. It’s not like there are not other choices.
@Lyssa
One of the best looking men I have ever seen in my life was in Browning, Montana. He was a Blackfeet tribal member.
Very poor area. Absolutely. How much money is being dumped into this superficial fight over name. How many people, many of them Native American, if Snyder changed the name from Redskins to something else? How many would see it as a slight? Possibly more than those trying to charge up the masses.
Interesting observation: The Indians who seem to be raising the biggest stink are those who have become more affluent. What are they doing to really “give back?” Where are the jobs? How about some free legal time given by the lawyer?
I am extremely pro Indian. I feel this fight is superficial and silly. PC when there are so many other needs.
Something to ponder. When I went down to La Push to the Quileute tribe rez, there is a sign erected that the first members of the tribe had never seen a white person as late as 1900. That is like yesterday. My father was born in 1917, just to wrap my head around this fact.
Some of you might recognize La Push as the home of Jacob Black. I used to go out to La Push before it became trendy and tied to the Twilight Series.
@Scout
I think we really have to look at who is being offended. This is not an issue I am going to hang myself on.
I just find it absurd that in the west, where “real” Indians live, the Redskin mascot is an object of pride. I also saw the name being used in areas that weren’t rez schools.
I pretty much feel like this is a situation where people are being told to feel offended…so they do. Actually I feel like “squaw” is far more offensive.
I’m sure there’s a wide range of views on this. However, I do know that “redskin” was a term never uttered in admiration by Europeans. It was pejorative. It was an analog of “darkie”, “kike”, “dago”, “bohunk”, “Squarehead” “gook”, “Slope”. “Chink”, “Polak” etc., etc. ad nauseam, ad infinitum. I’m more or less in the George Carlin school of not letting words have too much intrinsic power, but there is not even a teeny-weeny doubt that a lot of people to whom this label is directed find it offensive. That some do not doesn’t resolve the issue. It’s a slur. It was not meant to be elevating. If Navajo kids are comfortable with it in some contexts, I defer to them in those contexts. But for George Marshall , Jack Kent Cook, or Dan Snyder to use it for commercial purposes is not acceptable. There are other names. Two years into a transition, everyone will wonder why it ever was tolerated as long as it was.
I have never heard of bohunk. I thought I knew them all being the daughter of the ethnic slur king (including ethnicities he belonged to)
I didn’t grow up in an area where there were prejudices against Indians. Perhaps that is why I never thought of Redskin as pejorative.
I think elevating redskin to the level of some of those slurs is a bit over the top. We still refer to caucasions as white, African Americans as black…it’s a color not a descriptor rooted in insult. Looking for something to not like, I find the cartoonish mascot of the Cincinnati Reds to be more of an insult that the image of an Indian used by the ‘skins.
But I’m a Giants and Red Sox fan….then again, why is giant acceptable? Would midgets “pass”?
The Cincinnati “Reds” logo doesn’t refer to an ethnic group. It’s a contraction of the original team name of Cincinnati Red Stockings, a term which became Cincinnati Redlegs (they were thus referred to when I was a boy). The cartoon logo doesn’t depict any particular ethnic component of American society. Why does it insult you? I assume that you do not resemble that cartoonish logo any more than you resemble the Pillsbury dough boy, or Bibelot (Monsieur Pneu the Michelin Man).
I don’t think a team named “The Midgets” would be acceptable these days, frankly. It refers to a genetic disability. “Giants” refers to a mythical creature. It is no more troublesome than the term “Dragon” or “Unicorn”.
Let’s face it: “Redskins” was not intended as a term of praise. It was a shorthand word used by European Americans to lump together a broad array of disparate Native American tribal groupings. There was no difference to a European American using the term between a Sioux, a Navajo, or a Cherokee. It was a catchall pejorative. Why would we want it as a term to define the team of the Nation’s capital? Habit? What we’re used to? That’s not good enough, in my view.
Is there a positive reason we want to cling to that terminology? If so, bring it out.
Gigantism also known as Giantism is a condition that a friend of mine has. I must have my logos mixed up. I’ll find what I meant.
Because its less important than actually caring…or doing something. It’s just talk.
Cleveland Indians..
re the Cleveland logo, your point is well taken.
@ Moon–“I didn’t grow up in an area where there were prejudices against Indians. Perhaps that is why I never thought of Redskin as pejorative.”
There weren’t any prejudices because you didn’t look for them and besides many of the Indians that were native to this region have been eliminated. I grew up in Oklahoma (Home of the Red Man) and I can tell you that there was a LOT of prejudice against Native Americans-even wealthy ones. Many were considered second class citizens and I often heard the admonition, “Don’t go out an play with those Indian kids.”
If you want to really understand the plight of Native Americans, I suggest you read “1491”–what was going on before Columbus and all the rest of the Europeans came to our shores. We “whites” killed off over half the people who lived in the Americas-smallpox and influenza did most of the work and white savagery did the rest.
There were large cities in the Americas, perhaps as large as 50,000 people and, in some instances, the entire population was wiped out. In Mexico and South America, these cities had large hewn stone buildings, temples, pyramids, roadways, aqueducts and cultivated farmlands and forests.
In the contiguous U.S., there were large communities, farms and woodlands, all maintained by Native Americans. We whites took care of that. Yes, some Native Americans waged war against whites but it should be remembered that we were the invaders–not the Native Americans. Oh, and the “reservations”-those are a white invention and we made sure these reservations are on some of the poorest land in the nation. You might recall from your American History class that President Andrew Jackson was responsible for much of the relocations of Indians from their prosperous lands to the present reservations. There are some exceptions–those folks relocated to Oklahoma wound up sitting on some of the richest oil deposits in the nation but they were often cheated out of their new found wealth by–guess who? White folks.
This is far off the topic of the name “Redskins” but this article notes there are 2,128 Native American mascots/team names and some have been changed because they were considered offensive. Let’s face it, “Redskins” is offensive. The article is here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-2128-native-american-mascots-people-arent-talking-about/
I agree with Scout and George. Redskins is a slur. That does not mean that something shouldn’t be done to address real problems faced by native Americans. Perhaps this brouhaha will lead to the attention these problems deserve.
The Whiteness Project is an interesting study in showing how many white Americans assume they are the default position in society and have trouble coming up with a definition/description of what it is like to be white in America. Everyone else seems to be defined as being non-white, but what is white culture?
http://whitenessproject.org
A test of whether an ethnic reference is a pejorative slur is whether you would use it in the presence of someone from the ethnic group it describes. I can’t really imagine anyone here in conversation with a Native American calling that person or his family or friends “redskins”. We inherently sense that the term is offensive.
@Scout
Your point is well taken Scout!
For those who haven’t looked at Censored’s recommendation regarding the Whiteness Project, I sincerely recommend you take a look. I think we whites don’t often understand the impact of racial slurs because we don’t usually hear them applied to us as much as they were in the past. Scout’s comment @ #8 lists slurs that were once pretty common among whites when referring to others. Black people may call one another “nigger” but if you aren’t black and you use that term-it is generally considered pejorative.
For Moon: “Bohunk” = someone from middle Europe. My father often used this term when referring Europeans he worked with when he and my mother were some of the “white trash” that went to California during the Great Depression. I don’t think he thought of it as a pejorative because it was so commonly used by “non-Bohunks”.
And speaking of “white trash”-a term those whites who are more affluent still use, often in reference to folks from Appalachia or certain parts of the deep south.
I suppose I think if a word is rude, then it is rude for everyone to use. No exceptions.
I never heard “bohunk” and I thought my old man knew them all. I found one he had never heard of …”bog trotter.”
I never thought “white trash” linked anyone to a region. I always thought it had to do mostly with behavior, in particularly behavior linked to lower socio economic classes. Oh, it did also reference one’s race. When I was growing up, it really was more tied to behavior than lack of wealth.
My mother’s family referenced it frequently. I never heard the term PWT though, until I was a senior in high school.
I bet Gillespie would gain votes if he said that he was going to ask the team owner to remove “Washington” from the name.
Another possible solution, CS, is to change the logo to an image of a potato. Then the problematic ethnic reference would be taken out of the picture (literally), and the team would represent an inoffensive, much enjoyed vegetable.
“Redskin” is a term that came about as reference to the scalps of murdered indigenous people which were used to obtain payment for killing them. Its clear that this term needs to stop being used.
Not buying that one. That seems way too far-fetched for me.
Redskin is a reference to skin tones. Sort of like White, black, yellow, brown.
I also don’t believe that its ok for some people to use terms and not others. If a word is rude, then its rude for all.
I think those terms are used to take the power away from the bigots/misogynists/uniformed who use them. The people at whom these slurs are aimed are saying, “I can use them, but you’d better not dare.I have the power to use them. You don’t.”
Self-applied slurs can be, as Censored indicates, a kind of disinfectant for the negative implications of the slur. But, again, the acid test for whether a term is an insult or offensive is whether you would use it in direct conversation with someone whom the term is intended to describe. I’d be very surprised if anyone here in this thread would address an American Indian to his face as a “redskin” or even use the word to describe others in the presence of a Native American. That pretty much seals the deal as to whether it should be used as a moniker for a sports franchise.
I would if I knew them well….and they had said it first.
I think it all boils down to intent. I wouldn’t call someone, regardless of how well I knew them, “N—–.” That word carries a certain amount of vileness historically that just sets it aside… into the list that you just don’t say and if you are going to, make sure no one hears you.
I am still bothered by the fact that the Indian lawyer is out there trying to stir up people who don’t seem to have a problem with a national football team in Washington, DC. I wish she would devote the same amount of energy to any one of the major issues that afflict most native people.
I don’t like Snyder and I don’t like big wig agitators. I really don’t like the politicians getting involved. How hypocritical.
A long and very interesting Wikipedia article about the origin of the term, “Redskin”. If you read down far enough, you will find that many teams that previously had “Redskin” in their name have changed their name. According to the article, Indians once referred to themselves as Redskins and to whites as Whiteskins. But there is much more to it and to the pejoraration of the term.
Moon, your comment, “…into that list that you just don’t say and if you are going to, make sure no one hears you.” The latter part, “and if you are going to, make sure no one hears you”-classic definition of a bigot.
I think I just got called a bigot.
Oh well. Does that mean I can’t send any more money to St. Joseph Indian school?
I expect most people have words they use that they don’t come out in public shouting from the rooftops.
Forgot the article: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)
NO, I didn’t call YOU a bigot. What I said was that this is the kind of thing bigots do-they look over their shoulder before they use some kind of racial slur; i.e., the person who pretends to like a particular group of people but then, looking over his/her shoulder, uses a racial slur about that group in a conversation. If you or anyone else, including me, does that, then all I can say is, “If the shoe fits, wear it.”
As to your statement: “I expect most people have words they use that they don’t come out in public shouting from the rooftops.” I suggest you may need to heed Will Rogers’ advice-“If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”
I don’t feel I am digging a hole. Let me give you an example. Elena and I use some words when we talk privately among ourselves that I certainly wouldn’t use in public. I might look around to see if anyone was listening before I said one of those words to Elena. A couple I am thinking of have to do with women. Now I obviously am not bigoted against women….if you get my drift.
Another example….I have a few gay friends. When I am with them they sometimes use self-deprecating language. One example would be calling one of their friends an “old faggy drag queen.” (he really isn’t a drag queen) Now I might say that about so and so when I was with that crowd but I surely wouldn’t come out in the general population and call anyone that nor would I probably even call someone a “faggy drag queen” where anyone could hear me. It might give the false impression that I am anti-gay or homophobic. I also might hurt someone’s feelings.
I certainly don’t think I am homophobic or bigoted about gays or women.
“… nor would I probably even call someone a “faggy drag queen” where anyone could hear me. ” I think you may have proven my point-perhaps you should stop digging.
George, may I remind you that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones or do I need to remind you about a certain winery conversation?
Please note this sentence from my #30 post: ” If you or anyone else, INCLUDING ME, [emphasis supplied] does that, then all I can say is, “If the shoe fits, wear it.”.
At least I know I have some prejudices and that I am a bigot about some things but I sure as hell don’t try to deny them or disguise them.
@Moon-howler
Moon,
You’ve stepped over the line, which proves even more that you are…