This 'Redskins' Thing

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 7:47 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote:First, if you go to a tribe and say, "yo, you guys OK if we use your regionally appropriate name for our sportsgameteam... we promise no shitty mascots and no guy painted in red riding in a horse and shooting a flaming arrow into the ground or any of that shit..." And they say, "sure, just don't be assholes... we're watching." I think that's pretty OK. I mean, that would be a nice way to handle it, but I'm pretty OK if they don't ask and just use the name, as long as they aren't assholes about it. (Mostly, don't do caricatures, and be REALLY careful with pulling shit like they do down at FSU... that's some borderline shit.) In other words, I think most reasonable people agree that Braves, Blackhawks, Hurons, Chippewas, etc are acceptable (with the asshole caveats.)

Just compensate them. Some blankets, shiny beads and firewater should do the trick.

SportsDoc · Post by **SportsDoc** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:19 am

This is an Op-Ed from a Native American group here in ND. These are not my words, but theirs. And, yes, I am aware there is more than one Native American opinion on this issue, and the bigger issue of Native American Nicknames and imagery.

We are very disappointed in the decision by the US Patent Office to cancel the trademark for the Washington Redskins, and we would be in shock if we had not just gone through this same deception in North Dakota with the Fighting Sioux issue.

We believe there is an agenda to eliminate all true Native American history and remove us from view. One can only guess as to why. The intention, we believe, is to make us a forgotten people by using the divide and conquer tactic. Just as the Fighting Sioux name was removed – not by Native Americans but a handful of non-natives who were able to use a small group of Native Americans as a pawns.

Make no mistake there is a national effort to remove us, which includes Native American tribes being denied use of their own heritage. For example, in the Oregon Public Schools System which has banned Native American themed nicknames and logos.

We can only say to those who are offended by our appearance: Don’t go to the Redskins games, don’t go to the Seminole games, don’t go to the Aztecs games, don’t go to the Blackhawk games, and don’t go to the Atlanta Braves games. We could go on and on about these honorable names and images, but if we are that offensive to you, don’t make us go into hiding.

Just close your eyes.

A CNN reporter stated that 30% of Native Americans are offended by the names and logos, but what about the 70% of us who support and take pride in those names and images? Don’t we count for anything? Other independent surveys have found 80 to 90% support names and images. Sports Illustrated and Attenburg Election Survey among others have found this to be true. They don’t have a dog in the fight, so we put more stock in them.

But even 70 percent is a large number.

The US Patent Office for 80 years has recognized the Redskins as legitimate and not hostile, what has changed? They also found the UND Fighiting Sioux logo and nickname – also trademarked – to not to be not hostile. The Patent Office is supposed to follow the law, not political agendas. And this is political agenda.

Is it Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed with way too much power that has caused this? He has used that power to divide, not unite?

It is none of his business and we ask him to quit speaking over us Indians, as if he were a God. Harry Reid’s comments towards the Redskin name are nothing new from corrupt politicians. Politicians have always used a small handful of Native Americans to achieve their personal agenda and goals. If he really cared about us, he would talk to all Native Americans, not just those that fit his agenda.

Where is the true racism in that? Not with the Redskins nickname.

On a different topic but same agenda, in 1900 there was 54 million acres of Indian land. Now there are less than 11 million acres. Most non-Natives might think we sold it, but that’s not true! In treaties it says “Only enrolled members can live on these lands, but in 1904 Proclamation our reservations lands were illegally reduced size and then opened to white settlers in violation of treaty laws.

Why? For politicians’ benefit is why.

Taking our land is an effort to take the last of what we still. Taking the pride we have in our nicknames and logos is just another step towards that goal of not assimilation but genocide. Removing all references to something is the first step in removing it entirely.

This column was written by Eunice Davidson, Archie Fool Bear, Frank Black Cloud and LaVonne Alberts. All members of the Committee of Understanding and Respect established among North Dakota’s Sioux people to support and promote the Fighting Sioux nickname at the University of North Dakota.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:23 am

"A CNN reporter stated that 30% of Native Americans are offended by the names and logos, but what about the 70% of us who support and take pride in those names and images?"

On quick read, my immediate guess was this was a 3 choice question with "don't have a strong opinion" or similar wording getting lumped in with "celebrate the name Redskins" by the author.

SportsDoc · Post by **SportsDoc** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:44 am

mister d wrote:"A CNN reporter stated that 30% of Native Americans are offended by the names and logos, but what about the 70% of us who support and take pride in those names and images?"

On quick read, my immediate guess was this was a 3 choice question with "don't have a strong opinion" or similar wording getting lumped in with "celebrate the name Redskins" by the author.

I agree with you, Mister D. I was just presenting another Native American opinion (the whole of the opinion, by the way), which is more prevalent than we might think.

These people represent a Sioux Tribe in ND that voted 67% to keep the name at UND, which was a Yea or Na vote by their tribe, no third option. They were then denied access to the conversation between the NCAA and state officials on settling the issue, though they asked to be allowed to be involved, and were directed by their tribe to represent them.

They have a large mistrust of real or perceived white man's political maneuvering, and I think that is understandable.

Post by **brian** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:59 am

SportsDoc wrote: These people represent a Sioux Tribe in ND that voted 67% to keep the name at UND, which was a Yea or Na vote by their tribe, no third option. They were then denied access to the conversation between the NCAA and state officials on settling the issue, though they asked to be allowed to be involved, and were directed by their tribe to represent them.

Can't you just admit you're biased because you're pissed off the NCAA made you get rid of your nickname and we'll move on?

SportsDoc · Post by **SportsDoc** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:11 am

Brian, you are correct. I am biased. You may move on.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:31 am

SportsDoc wrote:Brian, you are correct. I am biased. You may move on.

I'm not ready to move on yet. I find it very odd that white people (I'm presuming, which in itself may be a stereotype) are deciding what is offensive to other races. If the Sioux don't mind the term fighting, then keep it. If there was some sort of racist meaning to fighting and they are offended, change it.

It seems like a lot of Native Americans are offended by Redskins, but the media doesn't give much attention to those that are not offended. I do have to disagree with the commentary by the Sioux guy SportsDoc cited. This isn't about wiping Native Americans from culture or being offended by their presence. Quite the opposite, it is a (possibly) officious attempt to protect them from insult.

Post by **brian** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:40 am

The Sybian wrote:
SportsDoc wrote:Brian, you are correct. I am biased. You may move on.
I'm not ready to move on yet. I find it very odd that white people (I'm presuming, which in itself may be a stereotype) are deciding what is offensive to other races. If the Sioux don't mind the term fighting, then keep it. If there was some sort of racist meaning to fighting and they are offended, change it.

It seems like a lot of Native Americans are offended by Redskins, but the media doesn't give much attention to those that are not offended. I do have to disagree with the commentary by the Sioux guy SportsDoc cited. This isn't about wiping Native Americans from culture or being offended by their presence. Quite the opposite, it is a (possibly) officious attempt to protect them from insult.

Every case is different though. You're talking about different tribes, different politics -- if you've ever dealt with a major Native American tribe's tribal politics (like I have) you'd be shocked at how little the tribes agree upon amongst themselves even. I'm not going to dispute the figures as it relates to the Sioux nickname, especially since that's not the issue at hand anyway. The point is there's a world of difference in nicknames like Sioux (even with the "Fighting" adverb attached), Seminole, Huron, Chippewa, etc. and "Redskins". How anyone could argue otherwise baffles me.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:59 am

brian wrote: Every case is different though. You're talking about different tribes, different politics -- if you've ever dealt with a major Native American tribe's tribal politics (like I have) you'd be shocked at how little the tribes agree upon amongst themselves even. I'm not going to dispute the figures as it relates to the Sioux nickname, especially since that's not the issue at hand anyway. The point is there's a world of difference in nicknames like Sioux (even with the "Fighting" adverb attached), Seminole, Huron, Chippewa, etc. and "Redskins". How anyone could argue otherwise baffles me.

Absolutely has to be case by case. No doubt. I agree that Redskins has a racist connotation, while a tribe name seems like honoring the regions roots. I could see certain tribes being pissed off by being used as a mascot, which could be sort of dehumanizing. If the Lower East Side of Manhattan had a team called the LES Jews with a cartoon logo of a Hassidic guy with the hat, beard and curly sideburns, it would probably not go over well. Not much difference there.

SportsDoc · Post by **SportsDoc** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:10 am

brian wrote:
The Sybian wrote:
SportsDoc wrote:Brian, you are correct. I am biased. You may move on.
I'm not ready to move on yet. I find it very odd that white people (I'm presuming, which in itself may be a stereotype) are deciding what is offensive to other races. If the Sioux don't mind the term fighting, then keep it. If there was some sort of racist meaning to fighting and they are offended, change it.

It seems like a lot of Native Americans are offended by Redskins, but the media doesn't give much attention to those that are not offended. I do have to disagree with the commentary by the Sioux guy SportsDoc cited. This isn't about wiping Native Americans from culture or being offended by their presence. Quite the opposite, it is a (possibly) officious attempt to protect them from insult.
Every case is different though. You're talking about different tribes, different politics -- if you've ever dealt with a major Native American tribe's tribal politics (like I have) you'd be shocked at how little the tribes agree upon amongst themselves even. I'm not going to dispute the figures as it relates to the Sioux nickname, especially since that's not the issue at hand anyway. The point is there's a world of difference in nicknames like Sioux (even with the "Fighting" adverb attached), Seminole, Huron, Chippewa, etc. and "Redskins". How anyone could argue otherwise baffles me.

Brian, I agree with you. If you look at my original post, remember 2 things I stated: 1) I was uncomfortable with the issue of governmental intervention; and 2) I would change the name Redskins if it were up to me, without hesitation.

The bigger issue here, to me, is not whether to change the name, it is the mechanism being used to try to force the change.

I think this is a great issue for discussion here and brings up certainly both generational differences (I'm old, most of you are not) as well as regional, political and heritage differences (I'm Scandinavian, most of you are not).

We can all have opinions that are well thought and defensible, though may be different. This is the beauty of a free society at its very best, as long as we don't attempt to use PC speak to attempt to silence those who disagree (and I'm speaking of the general discussion outside this venue, not the discussion here).

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:15 am

I'm not sure what other mechanism can be used here. Even if native americans were 100% united on the issue, they make up less than 1% of the population. Given that they're split and prone to apathy just like everyone else, a larger, more powerful advocacy group is a necessity in driving change here. Just because the faces of the issue are white doesn't mean its an entirely white issue, it just means the most powerful people in this country remain by and large white.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:37 am

SportsDoc wrote: Brian, I agree with you. If you look at my original post, remember 2 things I stated: 1) I was uncomfortable with the issue of governmental intervention; and 2) I would change the name Redskins if it were up to me, without hesitation.

The bigger issue here, to me, is not whether to change the name, it is the mechanism being used to try to force the change.

I think this is a great issue for discussion here and brings up certainly both generational differences (I'm old, most of you are not) as well as regional, political and heritage differences (I'm Scandinavian, most of you are not).

We can all have opinions that are well thought and defensible, though may be different. This is the beauty of a free society at its very best, as long as we don't attempt to use PC speak to attempt to silence those who disagree (and I'm speaking of the general discussion outside this venue, not the discussion here).

The government only intervened wrt to the trademarks. The government issued the trademark, and due to changing times and a proper challenge to the TMs, decided that they would no longer enforce the trademark. That is a much different scenario then if a government entity, on its own volition, involved itself.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:42 am

brian wrote:You're talking about different tribes, different politics -- if you've ever dealt with a major Native American tribe's tribal politics (like I have) you'd be shocked at how little the tribes agree upon amongst themselves even.

That's a big reason that a small foothold on the coast grew into a taking over of a continent.

SportsDoc · Post by **SportsDoc** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:45 am

mister d wrote:I'm not sure what other mechanism can be used here. Even if native americans were 100% united on the issue, they make up less than 1% of the population. Given that they're split and prone to apathy just like everyone else, a larger, more powerful advocacy group is a necessity in driving change here. Just because the faces of the issue are white doesn't mean its an entirely white issue, it just means the most powerful people in this country remain by and large white.

Well, I didn't say I had the answer (even though I offered an example in my first post)!

I would say, if even 60% of the Native American population opposed the name, a change would happen. I firmly believe that, even if Dan Snyder was not the one to implement the change, it would change. The NFL could mandate the change.

What would happen if the "face" of the current Redskins, an African-American, came out against the name? Could RG III have an impact on this issue, especially if other players, both Redskins and other NFLers, came out in support of him? I think it could. But, I could be wrong. Snyder's an ass, and that makes it harder.

My follow up would be what about the Chiefs, Braves and Blackhawks? Are they different? I think so, but I'm just a white male.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:56 am

Logos aside, I would think Braves is at a different (worse) level than Chiefs and Blackhawks.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:54 pm

mister d wrote:Logos aside, I would think Braves is at a different (worse) level than Chiefs and Blackhawks.

At least the other two don't do that horrid tomahawk chop chant and arm wave. I've never seen a Blackhawk fan in warpaint and headdress, either.

Bensell · Post by **Bensell** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 1:57 pm

Johnnie wrote:That 'Red Clouds' option Brian previously linked needs to happen.

I have been an advocate of this name since I first heard it. Dan Synder really needs to read this book:

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 2:18 pm

sancarlos wrote:
mister d wrote:Logos aside, I would think Braves is at a different (worse) level than Chiefs and Blackhawks.
At least the other two don't do that horrid tomahawk chop chant and arm wave. I've never seen a Blackhawk fan in warpaint and headdress, either.

The Chiefs do the tomahawk chop. Or did, anyway.

ETA: It also bears mentioning that the Chiefs were named for a Kansas City mayor and not for Native Americans (despite the arrowhead logo)

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 3:46 pm

The Seminoles love the tomahawk chop don't they?

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:46 pm

my high school has changed it's team name from Redmen to Redhawks

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/107931 ... gh-school/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:50 am

degenerasian wrote:my high school has changed it's team name from Redmen to Redhawks

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/107931 ... gh-school/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My university has kept the nickname "Redmen," but there has never been - as far as I know - any connection with the First Nations. It's "Redmen" just because they wear red.

As you can see from the logo - no connection to our Natives.

Odd - my high school's teams were also the "Redmen."

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Wed Aug 20, 2014 10:12 am

The great Mike Carey got himself excused from reffing any WAS game for the last 8 years and almost nobody knew

Johnny Carwash · Post by **Johnny Carwash** » Wed Aug 20, 2014 10:30 am

Ryan wrote:The great Mike Carey got himself excused from reffing any WAS game for the last 8 years and almost nobody knew

Proof that avoiding Redskins games makes you look 30 years younger than you are.

rass · Post by **rass** » Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:07 am

Steve Yzerman allowed himself to play 105 games against the Blackhawks in his career.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:14 pm

That's because not playing in those games would have (selfishly) drawn attention to himself. But don't think for a second he didn't take a silent, personal stand ...

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:54 am

Am I wrong in assuming that "Black Hawks" references a specific tribe and isn't a slur?

Post by **brian** » Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:02 pm

Pruitt wrote:Am I wrong in assuming that "Black Hawks" references a specific tribe and isn't a slur?

It's a specific Native American.

Would be hard to argue the nickname is racist. The logo? Might have a case there.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:10 pm

I think its was tribal occupation. (The occupation wasn't wearing feathers.)

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:11 pm

Oh damn.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:28 pm

brian wrote:
Pruitt wrote:Am I wrong in assuming that "Black Hawks" references a specific tribe and isn't a slur?
It's a specific Native American.

Would be hard to argue the nickname is racist. The logo? Might have a case there.

Though really the team is named after a military unit (the 86th Infantry Division) which is in turn named after the chief)

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:31 pm

brian wrote:
Pruitt wrote:Am I wrong in assuming that "Black Hawks" references a specific tribe and isn't a slur?
It's a specific Native American.

Would be hard to argue the nickname is racist. The logo? Might have a case there.

Little known that technically it is not named for the Native American, but named for the military division named after said Native American.

wikijeeves wrote:McLaughlin had been a commander with the 333rd Machine Gun Battalion of the 86th Infantry Division during World War I.[4] This Division was nicknamed the "Blackhawk Division", after a Native American of the Sauk nation, Black Hawk, who was a prominent figure in the history of Illinois.[4] McLaughlin named the new hockey team in honor of the military unit, making it one of many sports team names using Native Americans as icons

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:32 pm

The real Black Hawk was a lot cooler looking than the lazy cartoon stereotype ...

Post by **brian** » Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:35 pm

BSF21 wrote:
brian wrote:
Pruitt wrote:Am I wrong in assuming that "Black Hawks" references a specific tribe and isn't a slur?
It's a specific Native American.

Would be hard to argue the nickname is racist. The logo? Might have a case there.
Little known that technically it is not named for the Native American, but named for the military division named after said Native American.

wikijeeves wrote:McLaughlin had been a commander with the 333rd Machine Gun Battalion of the 86th Infantry Division during World War I.[4] This Division was nicknamed the "Blackhawk Division", after a Native American of the Sauk nation, Black Hawk, who was a prominent figure in the history of Illinois.[4] McLaughlin named the new hockey team in honor of the military unit, making it one of many sports team names using Native Americans as icons

Kind of a technicality given the team's logos. The logo isn't a machine gun or a tank.

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:40 pm

brian wrote:
BSF21 wrote:t is not named for the Native American, but named for the military division named after said Native American.

wikijeeves wrote:McLaughlin had been a commander with the 333rd Machine Gun Battalion of the 86th Infantry Division during World War I.[4] This Division was nicknamed the "Blackhawk Division", after a Native American of the Sauk nation, Black Hawk, who was a prominent figure in the history of Illinois.[4] McLaughlin named the new hockey team in honor of the military unit, making it one of many sports team names using Native Americans as icons
Kind of a technicality given the team's logos. The logo isn't a machine gun or a tank.

Totally understand what you're saying. It's just an interesting facet of the story I think. IMO the Blackhawks and FL St and the like are miles away from this whole Redskins thing. It's one thing to dissent against what has commonly become known as a racial slur. Its another when it comes from a place of respect for the people that inhabited the land before you. I guess that gets a little tickytack but that's the way it works in my brain.

Post by **brian** » Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:42 pm

BSF21 wrote:
brian wrote:
BSF21 wrote:t is not named for the Native American, but named for the military division named after said Native American.

wikijeeves wrote:McLaughlin had been a commander with the 333rd Machine Gun Battalion of the 86th Infantry Division during World War I.[4] This Division was nicknamed the "Blackhawk Division", after a Native American of the Sauk nation, Black Hawk, who was a prominent figure in the history of Illinois.[4] McLaughlin named the new hockey team in honor of the military unit, making it one of many sports team names using Native Americans as icons
Kind of a technicality given the team's logos. The logo isn't a machine gun or a tank.
Totally understand what you're saying. It's just an interesting facet of the story I think. IMO the Blackhawks and FL St and the like are miles away from this whole Redskins thing. It's one thing to dissent against what has commonly become known as a racial slur. Its another when it comes from a place of respect for the people that inhabited the land before you. I guess that gets a little tickytack but that's the way it works in my brain.

I agree completely. I have zero issue with the Blackhawks nickname even if it were specifically named for Black Hawk. I've said in this very thread that if Washington changed their name to the Red Clouds that would be an awesome nickname.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:43 pm

Crazy Horses.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:12 pm

mister d wrote:The real Black Hawk was a lot cooler looking than the lazy cartoon stereotype ...

The logo on his medal is racist.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:07 am

Rush2112 wrote:
brian wrote:
Pruitt wrote:Am I wrong in assuming that "Black Hawks" references a specific tribe and isn't a slur?
It's a specific Native American.

Would be hard to argue the nickname is racist. The logo? Might have a case there.
Though really the team is named after a military unit (the 86th Infantry Division) which is in turn named after the chief)

Interesting as the Maple Leafs are also named after a military division.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Fri Aug 22, 2014 3:13 pm

You know it's getting tough when even the hometown newspaper won't use the team nickname.

Pro Football Talk wrote:The editorial board of the Washington Post has announced that it will stop using the team’s name, most of the time.

“While we wait for the NFL to catch up with public opinion and common decency we have decided not to use the slur ourselves except when it is essential for clarity or effect,” the newspaper said.

While it’s unclear why or how the Post would need to use the name for clarity or effect, it’s smart to leave a loophole, since the newspaper is in, you know, Washington. The broader loophole comes from the fact that the newsroom will keep using the name.

The Washington NFL team, through spokesman Tony Wyllie, called the move “no surprise.”

“The editorial board has been opposed to the Washington Redskins name for more than 30 years,” Wyllie said, inadvertently gutting one of the knee-jerk argument from the name truthers, who insist that opposition has arisen only recently. “We just wish they would have had taken us up on our offer to visit several reservations to see how much Native Americans embrace and value the name and use it as their own logo and mascots across this country.”

That position ignores the reality that the National Congress of American Indians actively opposes the name. Which is no surprise, since the franchise generally continues to ignore the fact that the NCAI actively opposes the name. If the franchise had simply ignored the debate in 2013 instead of attempting to engage or debunk it, the franchise probably wouldn’t be dealing with an issue that has now grown to the point where the editorial board of the biggest newspaper in the team’s market now refuses to use the name.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:45 am

Apologies if this was posted elsewhere...

Put this in the "You Can't Make This Shit Up" category - last year, the Redskins found a real Indian Chief to defend their name.

I won't say anything more, as I don't want to ruin this story - it is a classic:

http://deadspin.com/redskins-indian-chi ... -590973565