Smithsonian Museum

[fetus]

Well it was meant to honor them.... You can't change the way people feel about something, some feel like you and some feel like me.
I don't feel that the organization has done anything to market the name as derogatory, and this argument that seems to come up every offseason is nothing more than a poor attempt at pushing all of us toward political correctness that the government so desperately reaches for.

[SkinsJock]

When the term Redskins is used in the context and marketing of the Washington DC franchise, I very much doubt that most Native Americans take it to be abusive towards them

I certainly agree that the term could be derogatory when used in describing a Native American but that's not what is happening here

AND

why do some of the comparisons come up - why would any franchise want to use a derogatory term in marketing their product

[Deadskins]

I certainly agree that the term could be derogatory when used in describing a Native American

Why is that more derogatory than describing a Caucasian person as white?

[Chris Luva Luva]

I certainly agree that the term could be derogatory when used in describing a Native American

Why is that more derogatory than describing a Caucasian person as white?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you're Caucasian... Am I right?

[DaveD1420]

I don't think we can look at the historical use of the term to justify its use today. Just because the American Indians themselves used the term hundreds of years ago doesn't mean it's OK to use today. You can't view today through a lens developed that long ago. With all of the stupid things I said and did as a kid (all of which were deemed acceptable at the time, or at least viewed differently than today), I wouldn't even want my own childhood viewed through today's lens.

[Deadskins]

I certainly agree that the term could be derogatory when used in describing a Native American

Why is that more derogatory than describing a Caucasian person as white?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you're Caucasian... Am I right?

OK, why is it more derogatory than calling an African-American (a term I don't like because I think it just serves to further divide people) black? The point is, it's only offensive if you have the predisposition that having skin that has reddish pigmentation is bad. The word is not a label given to Native Americans by Europeans, it comes from Native Americans themselves. In this way, saying it is equivalent to using the "n" word, or other racial epithets is simply not logical.

[Chris Luva Luva]

OK, why is it more derogatory than calling an African-American (a term I don't like because I think it just serves to further divide people) black? The point is, it's only offensive if you have the predisposition that having skin that has reddish pigmentation is bad. The word is not a label given to Native Americans by Europeans, it comes from Native Americans themselves. In this way, saying it is equivalent to using the "n" word, or other racial epithets is simply not logical.

So, I'll take that as a yes...

If Native Americans feel as if it's derogatory, who are we to tell them different? You're not in their position.

I'm not saying that I want it changed tomorrow, but that I understand why people feel a change is needed.

[HTTRRG3ALMO]

I certainly agree that the term could be derogatory when used in describing a Native American

Why is that more derogatory than describing a Caucasian person as white?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you're Caucasian... Am I right?

OK, why is it more derogatory than calling an African-American (a term I don't like because I think it just serves to further divide people) black? The point is, it's only offensive if you have the predisposition that having skin that has reddish pigmentation is bad. The word is not a label given to Native Americans by Europeans, it comes from Native Americans themselves. In this way, saying it is equivalent to using the "n" word, or other racial epithets is simply not logical.

Spot on. Couldn't agree with your logic more.

[HTTRRG3ALMO]

OK, why is it more derogatory than calling an African-American (a term I don't like because I think it just serves to further divide people) black? The point is, it's only offensive if you have the predisposition that having skin that has reddish pigmentation is bad. The word is not a label given to Native Americans by Europeans, it comes from Native Americans themselves. In this way, saying it is equivalent to using the "n" word, or other racial epithets is simply not logical.

So, I'll take that as a yes...

If Native Americans feel as if it's derogatory, who are we to tell them different? You're not in their position.

I'm not saying that I want it changed tomorrow, but that I understand why people feel a change is needed.

Last I checked this was a Democratic country. You are aware that Native-Americans did a survey and less than 10% found the name offensive right? Some argue that was 20 years ago but 90% of the Native American population are not going to change their opinion. The over 90% liked them name. End of story; move on; the people have spoken.

[DarthMonk]

The French texts were described as “an Exact Copy” of what the chiefs’ French interpreter had written. The first has “si quelques peaux Rouges” translated as “if any redskins,” and the second has “tout les peaux rouges” translated as “all the redskins.” The first appearances of redskin in English are thus as literal translations of what would be in standard French Peau-Rouge (in both cases the plural Peaux-Rouges), which is itself in a translation from a dialect of the Miami-Illinois language.

Here is what Goddard is telling me. The earliest reliable instance one can find of the phrase "redskin" in print in English is a translation of a translation of a phrase used by a certain tribe to describe themselves.

As the words are quite simple I have faith in the translation.

A few observations:

This does not mean this occurrence is the first printed occurrence in English. It might be, it might not. It is simply the earliest reliable surviving instance.

Even if it is the first printed occurrence in English that does not imply the phrase was not used earlier by others.

Even if it was not used earlier by others that does not imply all subsequent uses of the phrase stem from this printed occurrence in English.

Even if all subsequent uses did stem from this "first use" that does not imply the term cannot become pejorative.

Having said all that, and being part Blackfoot, the name never bothered me. However, during a large part of my lifetime it has clearly been pejorative in almost all contexts outside its use as a name for our NFL team. You'll never hear a newscaster refer to a meeting among "redskins" unless it concerns our team. What you'll hear is are things like "tribal leaders" and "native Americans" - never "redskins."

Here is what another writer says on this:

A highly regarded study by Ives Goddard, a senior linguist in the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of History’s Department of
Anthropology, has demonstrated the term “redskin” originated as a
translation from Native American languages. The term was used by Native Americans for themselves, and throughout the nineteenth century, the term was essentially neutral when used by whites, reflecting neither a particularly positive or particularly negative connotation.

On the other hand, it does appear that during the era of the “Hollywood Western,” from roughly 1920 to 1970, the term “Redskins” was used regularly to refer to Native Americans who were especially primitive and war-like and rarely in ways that were flattering.

Many contemporary Native Americans and non-Native Americans alike perceive the term to be a racial epithet, but how the transition in meaning occurred is not at all clear.

The situation is further complicated by evidence that many Native
Americans apparently do not believe the use of Indian team names is
objectionable.

A widely-cited poll of Native Americans by Sports Illustrated magazine conducted in 2002 reported that a significant majority of Native Americans supported the continued use of Native American team names.

Moreover, a number of Native American-controlled schools still use Indian nicknames for their sports teams. For example, the Haskell Indian Nations University of Lawrence, Kansas calls its teams the “Indians” and uses a drawing of an Indian in full native headdress as its logo, and the
University of North Carolina at Pembroke, founded as a state university for Native Americans, has a special dispensation from the NCAA to call its
teams “Braves.” The teams of Red Mesa High School on the Navajo
Reservation in Teec Nos Pos, Arizona are known as the “Redskins.”

I (DarthMonk) imagine that if we had grown up with a team named the Braves (the original name of our team) there would be absolutely no issue whatsoever. I have never heard "Braves" used as a pejorative. Most all of us would be arguing against change.

For the record, George Preston Marshall changed the name from Braves to Redskins but not to honor anyone. The rent was about to be raised at Braves Field and Marshall had just finished losing $46,000 in 1932. He moved to Fenway Park and changed the name to suggest a kinship with the Red Sox while keeping the connection to an Indian theme similar to the Braves.

PS - Hail to the Redskins

[Deadskins]

I (DarthMonk) imagine that if we had grown up with a team named the Braves (the original name of our team) there would be absolutely no issue whatsoever. I have never heard "Braves" used as a pejorative. Most all of us would be arguing against change.

For the record, George Preston Marshall changed the name from Braves to Redskins but not to honor anyone. The rent was about to be raised at Braves Field and Marshall had just finished losing $46,000 in 1932. He moved to Fenway Park and changed the name to suggest a kinship with the Red Sox while keeping the connection to an Indian theme similar to the Braves.

PS - Hail to the Redskins

A couple of things on this. The team name was changed to differentiate them from the baseball Braves. And you would be incorrect in assuming that using the name Braves as the team mascot, would not be seen as offensive to some. I remember going to the World Series games in '91 and '92 at Fulton County stadium here in Atlanta, and there being Native American protesters outside with bullhorns, demonstrating against the Braves use of that name for their team.

[SkinsJock]

maybe it's just me but I do not call a race or a group of people a name that they do not like or want to be called - that's just me

when I use the word Redskins, I am ONLY referring to an NFL team - I am not using a derogatory word - that is the name of the franchise


IMO - there are some that are offended by just about anything

[Chris Luva Luva]

Last I checked this was a Democratic country. You are aware that Native-Americans did a survey and less than 10% found the name offensive right? Some argue that was 20 years ago but 90% of the Native American population are not going to change their opinion. The over 90% liked them name. End of story; move on; the people have spoken.

Yes, because Native Americans are properly represented and treated with so much dignity in this country. LMFAO Please, stop. Seriously. LOLOL

[Deadskins]

Last I checked this was a Democratic country. You are aware that Native-Americans did a survey and less than 10% found the name offensive right? Some argue that was 20 years ago but 90% of the Native American population are not going to change their opinion. The over 90% liked them name. End of story; move on; the people have spoken.

Yes, because Native Americans are properly represented and treated with so much dignity in this country.

So that invalidates the poll?

[The Hogster]

It's just a football team. Changing the name will not change the history, or get them off of reservations, so it's really a pointless outrage. I'm always skeptical when the native american civil rights movement is being lead by Mike Wise.


Besides, I don't hear fat people complaining about the NY Giants, or gay people about The Cowboys.

[Countertrey]

^^^ Heh, heh, heh...

[DaveD1420]

OK, why is it more derogatory than calling an African-American (a term I don't like because I think it just serves to further divide people) black? The point is, it's only offensive if you have the predisposition that having skin that has reddish pigmentation is bad. The word is not a label given to Native Americans by Europeans, it comes from Native Americans themselves. In this way, saying it is equivalent to using the "n" word, or other racial epithets is simply not logical.

So, I'll take that as a yes...

If Native Americans feel as if it's derogatory, who are we to tell them different? You're not in their position.

I'm not saying that I want it changed tomorrow, but that I understand why people feel a change is needed.

Last I checked this was a Democratic country. You are aware that Native-Americans did a survey and less than 10% found the name offensive right? Some argue that was 20 years ago but 90% of the Native American population are not going to change their opinion. The over 90% liked them name. End of story; move on; the people have spoken.

The United States is not, nor has it ever been, a decomcracy.

[Deadskins]

The logo was added in 1972 at the request of Walter Wetzel, president of the National Congress of American Indians, and chairman of the Blackfoot tribe. He said, "I'd like to see an Indian on your helmets. 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."

[HTTRRG3ALMO]

Last I checked this was a Democratic country. You are aware that Native-Americans did a survey and less than 10% found the name offensive right? Some argue that was 20 years ago but 90% of the Native American population are not going to change their opinion. The over 90% liked them name. End of story; move on; the people have spoken.

Yes, because Native Americans are properly represented and treated with so much dignity in this country. LMFAO Please, stop. Seriously. LOLOL

The inevitable result of a statement like this is that you're claiming to understand the current conditions/public fairness to all Native-Americans, especially in the context of their representation when surveyed.

Do you have inside information/proof of misrepresentation in this survey or is this just a generalized smoke screen response?

I don't have information on how "valid" this survey is, but it IS an official poll. By going on record as a staff member (assume true) on a site that could be categorized as a type of news media outlet (granted, unlikely), it might be wise to have tangible evidence to support your claim/insinuation.

Again, this survey is the only official record we have on the issue where more than just a handful of people and opportunist journalists are "petitioned" (so to speak). Its the largest demographic survey we have on Native-American's opinion about the name of this football team.

So I'm sorry but no, I will not stop; I will not be *sh$t* by opportunists. Not you, but the opportunists/overly sensitive (my opinion).

On the other hand, if a new survey is widely taken and the majority say change the name, well, depending on the interpretation of discrimination laws, we may very well have ourselves a name change. I wouldn't be happy with it for personal attachment reasons, but I would have no right to say otherwise because this is a Democracy.

All this said, nothing personal against you, I've agreed with many of your comments on this board. This is just a topic that others are blowing out of proportion without majority opinion evidence. That's why I pissed about this.

[Chris Luva Luva]

If you need proof that Native Americans aren't represented fairly in this country than enough has already been said.

They do not truly have a voice. And I know that you cannot possibly relate. Nothing personal, it is what it is.

I'm not saying I want it changed. But if Native Americans are geniunely offended, than I understand.

[Deadskins]

But if Native Americans are geniunely offended, than I understand.

Does that mean any NAs, or the majority? Because, clearly, some are genuinely offended by it. Either way, I still don't understand how you are saying discrimination and lack of legislative representation invalidates this survey.

[DarthMonk]

And you would be incorrect in assuming that using the name Braves as the team mascot, would not be seen as offensive to some.

Yes. Had I assumed that I would be incorrect. Note my uses of the word "imagine" and "probably." I can say with confidence that I have never heard the word "Brave" used as a pejorative.

We could rename the team The Washington Americans and find protests.

[emoses14]

OK, why is it more derogatory than calling an African-American (a term I don't like because I think it just serves to further divide people) black? The point is, it's only offensive if you have the predisposition that having skin that has reddish pigmentation is bad. The word is not a label given to Native Americans by Europeans, it comes from Native Americans themselves. In this way, saying it is equivalent to using the "n" word, or other racial epithets is simply not logical.

So, I'll take that as a yes...

If Native Americans feel as if it's derogatory, who are we to tell them different? You're not in their position.

I'm not saying that I want it changed tomorrow, but that I understand why people feel a change is needed.

Last I checked this was a Democratic country. You are aware that Native-Americans did a survey and less than 10% found the name offensive right? Some argue that was 20 years ago but 90% of the Native American population are not going to change their opinion. The over 90% liked them name. End of story; move on; the people have spoken.

The United States is not, nor has it ever been, a decomcracy.

Shhh. They might hear you.

[emoses14]

So retarded... let's really focus on this as the biggest world issue

Yes. Until all "big" world issues are resolved we should not spend any time on any other issue. Never mind that the Smithsonian isn't really handling any of those other issues, so talking about the Redskins name isn't slowing down the search for a cure for cancer.

Lookit, I love my Redskins, but I can also understand that if IFIFIFIFIFIFIFIF it is in fact offensive to many that my team is named "Redskins", then it is at some point going to end up with a change of their name. It won't be the end of the world.

Excuse my sarcasm, but this is a yearly pointless offseason argument, on par with Brett Favre retirement plans of the past.

The team uses this name to HONOR Native Americans, not in a derogatory sense.

If every person who got offended by anything got their way we would all have bleached skin, wear nothing, eat the same food everyday at the same time, have our voice boxes cut out and have shaved heads. Everyone would be a thoughtless clone, a zombie, taught to never think for themselves and not able to formulate an opinion.

I hear you. and I was taking issue with the sarcasm, not the spirit behind it.

I have to admit, though, that I've never really thought about this issue beyond an eye roll whenever it comes up; primarily because I believe that the name will not change until a judge orders it so (which will not happen until the outrage sufficient to support my next point comes to pass) or there is enough of a groundswell to actually put a dent in Snyder's bottom line. And that's not a shot at Snyder.

For me, the issue of offensiveness is not a black and white issue, but one that has to be weighed in terms of its harm to some class of people. Unfortunately, the only class that matters here are Native Americans and until someone shows me some kind of disparate impact associated with the use of that name, historical connotation that is so derogatory that it offends the senses of any reasonable person (and no, not just Cause hounds), or some other indicia of offensiveness, I'm positive the name isn't going to change.

[HTTRRG3ALMO]

If you need proof that Native Americans aren't represented fairly in this country than enough has already been said.

They do not truly have a voice. And I know that you cannot possibly relate. Nothing personal, it is what it is.

I'm not saying I want it changed. But if Native Americans are geniunely offended, than I understand.

Again, I agree with you that if majority are proven to be genuinely offended, I understand as well even though I'd still be bitter for personal attachment reasons.

We're good brother.