Not that I agree, but I understand why we were taken to court!
Over several years now, some aboriginal Americans have been trying to influence the Washington Redskins to change their nickname. They tried to fight through the courts in a copyright case, but a judge ruled last fall they could keep the name.
Tex G. Hall, president of the National Congress of American Indians, said at the time: "The use of the term Redskins is an insult and does nothing to honour the native peoples of (the U.S.). This term originated at a time when there was a bounty paid for every `redskin'or scalp of an American Indian brought in. Use of such a term as a mascot simply perpetuates racism and bigotry toward Native American people."
The Redskins, for a long while the only team operating below the Mason-Dixon line, were the last team in pro football to employ a black player, in 1962, forced to do so by President John F. Kennedy. Owner George Preston Marshall once said: "We'll start signing Negroes when the Harlem Globetrotters start signing whites."
The original version of the fight song "Hail to the Redskins!" implored fans to "Fight for old Dixie!" rather than the current "Fight for old D.C.!" Where the current version implores: "Beat 'em, swamp 'em, touchdown! — Let the points soar!," it once went, "Scalp 'em, swamp 'em — We will take 'em big score!"
If I can find it, there's actually another article explaining the opposite. A journalist wrote an article a couple years back about how he interviewed 100's of Native Americans around the country on the subject and an overwhelming majority said they had no problem with the name. This is more a result of lawyers trying to make a buck than anything. I'm just throwing the other side out there. I'll try and dig up some facts or this article.
The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.
Oh man, I had no idea BOTH of my favorite teams were the last in their sports to hire an African American player... that stinks.
Anyway, the Redskins have made significant strides since the early days... but I still think eventually, be it in 10, 15, or 20 years they'll have to change the name... Would the Washington Braves really be so bad? We wouldn't even have to change the colors or the logo...
"Guess [Ryan Kerrigan] really does have a good motor. And is relentless. And never quits on a play. And just keeps coming. And probably eats Wheaties and drinks Apple Pie smoothies and shaves with Valvoline." -Dan Steinberg DC Sports Bog
It's an obvious term of endearment, a nickname for the best team in all of professional sports!
Seriously, this "debate" comes up every offseason. I spoke with a guy from Sports Illustrated last year on the subject... being part Cherokee - the name is only offensive to the extremely vocal minority of Native Americans with nothing better to do than bitch. They could focus on any number of substantive issues within their respective communities - but they pick this one because it grabs headlines.
Anyhow - steping down from my soap box -
Hail to the Redskins!
Skinsfan55 wrote:Oh man, I had no idea BOTH of my favorite teams were the last in their sports to hire an African American player... that stinks.
Anyway, the Redskins have made significant strides since the early days... but I still think eventually, be it in 10, 15, or 20 years they'll have to change the name... Would the Washington Braves really be so bad? We wouldn't even have to change the colors or the logo...
not feel'n that at all...here's to all the people that don't like the name REDSKINS
"People that think they know it all are especially annoying to those of us who do."
Anyway, the Redskins have made significant strides since the early days... but I still think eventually, be it in 10, 15, or 20 years they'll have to change the name... Would the Washington Braves really be so bad? We wouldn't even have to change the colors or the logo...
There was talk that the 70th Anniversary celebration and retro uniforms w/ the arrow on the helmet were kind of a test by Snyder to get fan reaction in case they lost the settlement and had to change their name. He's was throwing around the idea of changing it to Warriors if he lost the suit (incidentally, that's the name he would give to an Arena Football Team if he ever brought one to DC). Like I said, this is all rumor but thought I'd throw it out there. I hope the name never changes!
The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.
Remember the ateempt by PETA to pressure the Packers to change their name because it promotes the slaughter of animals?
The "Cowboys"; It's gender exclusionary and should be changed to "Cowpeople" immediately.
The "Vikings"; Very similar to the "offensive" native-american names except this time targetting those of Scandinavian descent.
The "Lions"; Very demeaning to Christians who suffered these horrible beasts in ancient Rome.
The "Saints"; Atheists, heck even non-Catholics should be up in arms over this blatant imposition of religion. The Superdome did receive some public funds.
These are just some of the lawsuits waiting to happen.
This space reserved for BTP......If he ever wins it.
Geesh I always thought Redskin meant the color of the team after we whupped them every year.
No but seriously the name Redskin does not offend me. I have had discussions with small Native American Government subcontract holders and they do not find it offensive, but that maybe becuase they are to busy trying to get more government subcontracts and trying to get there piece of the pie.
Some of them fell that if sports teams were not named in some type of context with Native Americans, then they would be forgotten all together.
What they do find offensive is things like HALIBURTON.
Oafusp...you and I would get along very well...I was thinking the same thing..."Damn liberals."
Did anyone notice that the writer of the article was so politically correct that they referred to Native Americans as "aboriginal" Americans. Apparently, the term "Native Americans" is no longer the politically correct way to say "Indians"..it's now "aboriginal" Americans.
As John Stossel would say "Gimme a Break!"
"I've got a fever. And the only prescription is more cowbell."
While I suspect it's true that most Native Americans don't really care about this topic much, it's likely there will come a day when the name will be changed. I just hope that it's something like "Potomacs" - something that honors a local tribe. I just don't buy the argument that ANY Native American name is offensive. For instance, I don't have a problem with the "Cleveland Indians", but I can see how their silly mascot could irritate some. On the other hand, I think we all agree that that Native American portrayed on the Redskin's helmet is quite noble.
This is a very controversial subject, but I am compelled to bring some historical perspective to this discussion. There was a time "when the west was being won", where rewards were given to any settler who could prove that he/she had killed a native american. One of the ways that this was done, short of bringing back the body was for a portion of the native american's scalp to be brought back, as evidence. THAT'S RIGHT, you read that correctly. Scalping has long been attributed to native americans, but the practice itself started with the settlers. One was said to have been bringing in some "Redskin" in order to prove that a native had been killed! Given that practice, I would certainly agree that the name itself is racist, for all of the historical baggage that it brings.
The requirement for something to be racist, does not lie with the person or persons who are not offended. No one can judge that but those offended. One other historical note for those interested and who live in the area. Have you ever heard of Indian Head Highway?? Where does that road get its name from? It comes from the practice of decapitating native americans, and sticking their heads on the ends of sticks in the ground, to serve as a warning (today defined as terrorism) to other Native Americans of the ill will towards them. No, I am a conflicted burgundy and gold fan because of it. I understand that the name should change, and I suspect that if Mr. Snyder had someone levy a religious epithet towards him, that his opinion on the matter would quickly change.
Do you expect us to believe that when Preston Marshall brought the Boston Braves to D.C. that he thought, "Hmm. lets change the name to Redskins to reflect on our scalping heritage!" Can I suggest a dose of common sense go with your flawed logic?
How is choosing the symbol of a Native American, to best describe excellence in intelligence, athleticism, determination and teamwork, somehow degrading to the Native American population? As usual, it reeks of liberal biased media and politicians, who feel it is their duty to tell you, the degenerate masses what is right and what is wrong. They couldn't possibly expect us to think for ourselves!
To fleetus I would only say that George Preston Marshall is the reason why Washington was the last franchise to integrate. His history is there for all to see, just do a little homework. There is no logic in history. I would ask you to tell me where the name originally came from, since you seem to be an authority on the matter. I await your response.
One other thing, "truth crushed to earth, shall rise again". Didn't mean to confuse you with THE FACTS.
if a word offends u maybe u need to grow up?.... sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.......
no one even uses the word redskins anymore unless there talking about my team....
like was said if your going to be offended by something then be offened by Haliburton... or the G8... or the fact that there are no good paying jobs being created... unless its a goverment job...where the tax payers pay the bill...and not the corperations.....
grow up!!!!!!
"These are the times that try men's souls......Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." --Thomas Paine
JohnJack, So your argument is because Mr. Marshall was a possible racist, he wanted to degrade Native Americans for years to come by naming his beloved franchise after them? Assuming you are also a Redskins fan, what do you think of when you consider the name of your favrite team? Scalping heads? Degenerate behavior? You're proving my point for me!
I'm offended about a number of things - mainly about the fact that we have more mediocre wide receivers than there are fans that we can fit into Jack Kent Cooke stadium.
I dont think anyone knows how the name originated - therefore the number of different stories of how the name arose. Maybe Ill ask my dad he was there (DC not Boston) near the beginning.
Whatever the reason for the name what I find absurd is that people would feel the name was chosen to denigrate some one or something. Team names are chosen to instill pride and respect - noone in their right mind would name something in order to be direspectful - especially an owner with an eye on their bottom line.
The Skins did win in court last fall with this didnt they?
Fleetus, I see that you do not understand what the word "conflicted" means. If you merely look at its root, you will see "conflict". That is what I feel about the term. I do not like it, and I have been a fan for at least 30 years so I have seen and rooted for the team for many years, possibly more than you. It is an offensive term, and I do not refer to the team in that manner. I say Washington, or burgundy and gold.
I need not really discuss this much further with you since you would even utter the words that suggest George Preston Marshall "MIGHT" have been a racist. If you can get over your aversion to books, read about his history, its all there in black and white. Your unwillingness to deal with the facts, bears this out. By the way, getting back to the original question posted, where did the name Redskin come from? Still waiting for you to drop some knowledge on me, and everyone else. Did good ol' boy G P Marshall originate it himself? Again, sorry to keep bringing up the facts, since you choose to deal in fantasy.
The change will never happen. Not in a billion years. Any talk of a change is political correctness gone ape-wild. No, I mean no offense to apes! I live a few miles from a Reservation - when driving through, at the restaurants, in the casino... the overwhelming team logo is? Right, Washington Redskins - not Cowboys, Braves, not Yankees... just the B&G. If Native Americans in New Mexico can find pride in the logo - odds are they probably aren't offended by the term "Redskins."
No offense meant, none should be taken. If anyone is offended - they should wake up to a new planet where real concerns exist. They could even get involved and help a neighbor, some kids are someone facing other challenges... there must be at least 50 things the 'offended' could do.
Okay, JohnJack, here's the origin of the term Redskin as chosen by Preston Marshall for our football team. "He chose Redskins in honor of Lone Star Dietz, the team's coach and an Indian who often wore an eagle feather headdress, beaded deerskin jacket and buckskin moccasins. Dietz brought four to six — accounts vary — Indian players with him to Boston from the Haskell Indian School in Kansas, where he had coached for four years."
JohnJack, in your efforts to come off sounding like an intellect, you again neglected to state really anything of substance. Might you be in local politics (or perhaps law?). There is only one word I used in description of Marshall's racism. It was "supposed". Use your dictionary again to look up its meaning. I think you will fail to find any similarities to "aversion". I simply stated supposed because YOU said Marshall was racist. I honestly don't know, or care. He's long gone. If you want to read something factual, try this article:
How about "The Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons"... I wish I could take credit- I found it on the internet....
Anyway. I too am conflicted. I'm not Native American, or what ever the current PC term is, but I can definitely see where the term could be construed as offensive. On the other hand, I think the symbol is one that shows a proud people and honors their heritage.
Generally, when speaking of any person or persons one can find any number of things to be offended by. This, in my opinion, is why teams should probably not be named after individuals or groups.
Example: The Washington Reagan's. Some may feel that you are honoring one of our great Presidents who helped expedite the fall of the former Soviet Union, while others would feel you are promoting gay bashing due to his lack of acknowledging the AIDS epidemic throughout most of the 1980s.
How about The Washington Elvis's. Again, icon or racist?
The Washington Ali's?? Hero or Traitor?
Naming a team after a countries can be even worse!
You see the dilemma.
Oh- One of the comments seemed to be about Marshal naming the team Redskins knowing this was a racist term or that he called them that because he was racist? Racist against whom? It seems evident he was racist against blacks, (Sorry to any of you who happen to have more melanin in your skin that I do but I refuse to use the phrase African American. We ALL came from somewhere else. Lets just call each other Americans and be done with it. OK?), but is makes no sense to think he was racist when it came to Native Americans. What I mean is, assume a member of the KKK owned a football team. Would he call them The Nig*ers or some other term that is derogatory towards black people??? I think not. Why would he want to name his team something that he hated?? It just does not make sense.
Have pet sitting needs in Rockville, Gaithersburg, Olney or Montgomery Village? Contact me. I own Fetch! Pet Care of Rockville - Gaitthersburg.
It is an offensive term, and I do not refer to the team in that manner. I say Washington, or burgundy and gold.
wait...you CAN'T be serious...a redskin fan who refuses to call the team the REDSKINS?! i guess it's pretty hard to sing" hail to the Blank"...that's good stuff, i needed a good laugh today...thanx johnjack
"People that think they know it all are especially annoying to those of us who do."
I recall reading that the term Redskins referred to the Algonkians who painted their skin red with berry juice before entering battle. I think it is on the Washington Post website. I will see if I can find it again.
RIP 21
"Nah, I trust the laws of nature to stay constant. I don't pray that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't need to pray that someone will beat the Cowboys in the playoffs." - Irn-Bru
wormer wrote:How about "The Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons"... I wish I could take credit- I found it on the internet....
Anyway. I too am conflicted. I'm not Native American, or what ever the current PC term is, but I can definitely see where the term could be construed as offensive. On the other hand, I think the symbol is one that shows a proud people and honors their heritage.
Generally, when speaking of any person or persons one can find any number of things to be offended by. This, in my opinion, is why teams should probably not be named after individuals or groups.
Example: The Washington Reagan's. Some may feel that you are honoring one of our great Presidents who helped expedite the fall of the former Soviet Union, while others would feel you are promoting gay bashing due to his lack of acknowledging the AIDS epidemic throughout most of the 1980s.
How about The Washington Elvis's. Again, icon or racist?
The Washington Ali's?? Hero or Traitor?
Naming a team after a countries can be even worse!
You see the dilemma.
Oh- One of the comments seemed to be about Marshal naming the team Redskins knowing this was a racist term or that he called them that because he was racist? Racist against whom? It seems evident he was racist against blacks, (Sorry to any of you who happen to have more melanin in your skin that I do but I refuse to use the phrase African American. We ALL came from somewhere else. Lets just call each other Americans and be done with it. OK?), but is makes no sense to think he was racist when it came to Native Americans. What I mean is, assume a member of the KKK owned a football team. Would he call them The Nig*ers or some other term that is derogatory towards black people??? I think not. Why would he want to name his team something that he hated?? It just does not make sense.
If they change the name it will be the "Washington Warriors"!
not feel'n that at all...here's to all the people that don't like the name REDSKINS 
sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me....... 
or the G8... 
or the fact that there are no good paying jobs being created... 
unless its a goverment job...where the tax payers pay the bill...and not the corperations..... 
i guess it's pretty hard to sing" hail to the 
