Washington Red Native Americans

[RA1]

I suppose DC has to try to be MORE PC than anywhere else but really why does the Patent Office think they know anything about Native Americans? Will the Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians and others similar be next? Does this mean we can no longer pay our Native American escorts with wampum? BTW, where are our NA escorts?

Where is PETA on such as the Wolverines, Bears, Lions, Tigers, ad nauseam?

Will our sports teams soon be called Sunflowers, Crab Grass, Mighty Oaks, Willows, etc.? Our saps are better than your saps.

The whole thing is silly. However, in answer to such as the NCAA, such as the Florida State Seminoles can keep their name courtesy of a local tribe. Think about how silly that is. What does the NCAA know about patents and copy rights? About the same as both the Patent Office and the NCAA know about Native Americans.

Best regards,

RA1

[Ojibear]

I'm a Native North American (Anishinaabe) and given the history of abuse of Native Americans, broken treaties, poverty, and stereotyping of "Indians", reducing us to caricatures adds insult to injury. There are no sport teams called the New York Jews or the San Francisco Chinamen.

I don't think it's overly PC, just a sign of respect.

[RA1]

I do not disagree with your comment about broken treaties and abuse but I prefer to think that sports teams are honoring Native Americans rather than insulting them.

Respect is an individual prospect and must be earned. Those who do not give respect to those who have earned it need to be scorned, at least.

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

There are no sport teams called the New York Jews or the San Francisco Chinamen.

Redskins is more like New York Hebes or San Francisco Slant Eyes.

RA1, the Redskins issue is being put to the public with a PC/moral spin but, to me, it's much more a pragmatic question. In a big diverse country like ours, it pays to be a little cautious on the ethnic/religious/racial terms allowed in the public discourse. Maybe 50 years ago (when the Catholic ethnics ran the big cities and the Wasps dominated in the rest of the country) It didn't matter so much what the odds and ends folks were called. Now it does.

If you're going to all the effort we in fact do to persuade folks that we're all "Americans", it doesn't help to have terms like "N-----" or "Spick" bandied about in public.

Truth be told, the best argument for keeping the Redskins name is that Native Americans are so few on the ground and so weak and divided politically that we don't have to worry much about insulting them.

[lookin]

Respect is an individual prospect and must be earned.

I'm sure your heart is in the right place, as it usually is, but I can't get behind the above statement. In my opinion, respect for others is the default position and disrespect should follow only when it is earned. It would sure make the world more pleasant.

Ojibear makes some very good points. It's no burden at all for me to call folks what they'd like to be called, and not call them what they don't like to be called. Why wouldn't I respect such a request?

[RA1]

I have no intent to insult anyone. Everyone who has posted thus far has made good points. However, I am willing to stick to my guns and think that most are honoring Native Americans by naming sports teams after them.

Call me silly, call me gay, call me politically incorrect but don't forget to call me for dinner or when I can otherwise help you.

Best regards,

RA1

[Ojibear]

Adjunct to the team name are such things such as the mascot and the fans dressing in "faux" Native American regalia, e.g. headdresses, face paint. For many Native Americans those objects are sacred and should be respected and use with reverence.

[RA1]

No argument from me. Any thing can be carried to an extreme. With "modern" thinking, one can hope for a good deal of rectification.

Think about this. First, the population at large has to become aware that some things are not correct, then, after being educated, corrections can occur. Likely we are in the middle of that process. Please have a little forbearance. No one here and certainly not me is not on your side. But, there is always more than one side to every discussion.

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

Think about this. First, the population at large has to become aware that some things are not correct, then, after being educated, corrections can occur. Likely we are in the middle of that process. Please have a little forbearance. No one here and certainly not me is not on your side. But...

But...all the coloreds just need to be patient until we good folks can educate the red necks to see the error of their ways. Kicking up a ruckus just makes everything more difficult.

Sorry RA1, I can't help but see these kinds of issues through a 1960's filter.

And sometimes kicking up a ruckus is part of the educational process.

[Guest EXPAT]

It's time for these sports teams to change their names. It won't be the end of the world.

[RA1]

Now wait a minute, MsGuy. Do you see the name Washington Redskins as stomping on Native American's civil rights? I see it in light of today's political correctness as insensitive but not necessarily when the name was first applied. Does no one see the civil rights and economic rights of the club owner's being stepped on?

Come, let us reason together and see if there isn't some solution that will benefit everyone. Perhaps a contest to provide a new name that will become effective in a year or two. That could energize the fan base and provide an outlet for all those "souvenirs".

I googled animal rights groups and was amazed at the breadth and width and depth of the list. There is some group out there to correct any real or imagined political incorrectness anyone might imagine.

Best regards,

RA1

[Ojibear]

I don't think the economic rights of the owner of the Washington Redskins extend to exploiting the image of Native Americans.

I think it is important to look at the opinions of Native Americans themselves before coming to any conclusions. The National Congress of American Indians recently (October 2013) released a paper entitled, "ENDING THE LEGACY OF RACISM IN SPORTS & THE ERA OF HARMFUL “INDIAN” SPORTS MASCOTS".

Here is a link to a PDF of the paper: http://www.ncai.org/attachments/PolicyPaper_mijApMoUWDbjqFtjAYzQWlqLdrwZvsYfakBwTHpMATcOroYolpN_NCAI_Harmful_Mascots_Report_Ending_the_Legacy_of_Racism_10_2013.pdf

I'm not offended by your opinion RA1. I think it's important to establish a dialogue about these issues in order to come to a consensus and to educate each other.

In Canada, Aboriginal Canadians (First Nations, Metis and Inuit) have a special status that is protected by the Canadian constitution. In 1982 the Canadian constitution was amended to include section 35 which acknowledges our rights. It was a long hard battle by Aboriginal Canadian leadership. (NB the word "Indian", although a misnomer, is a legal word for First Nations people in Canada). Aboriginal has replaced "Native" as the adjective applied to us.

However, the Aboriginal Canadian population in Canada (1.2 million) represents a much larger percentage (3.4%) of the overall Canadian population (35 million) than Native Americans in the United States. So our numbers and political savvy give us a lot a clout.

Never a day goes by when some controversy about Aboriginal Canadians is in our major newspapers. Most of the controversies are a result of the bungling of our federal government ("Indians" are under federal jurisdiction in the constitution). The Canadian economy is resource based. Most of Canada is covered by "Indian" treaties which means that Aboriginal Canadians have sui generis property, treaty and aboriginal rights (e.g. the right to harvest and protect our culture) and therefore must be consulted and accommodated (e.g. revenue sharing). There are also large areas of Canada where there are no treaties and they are currently being negotiated.

Thanks (Miigwech).

[MsGuy]

Do you see the name Washington Redskins as stomping on Native American's civil rights?

No, I see it as moderately insulting. Not the same thing at all.

I see it in light of today's political correctness as insensitive but not necessarily when the name was first applied.

Right offhand I can't think of any period in American history when calling someone a 'redskin' would have been generally accepted as a compliment. Granted though its verbal force has sometimes been more in line with 'colored' than with the N word, depending on the region of the country and the period in history.

Rather than just poo poo the fuss as too PC, I think it would be more accurate to say that, at the time it was adopted, sports teams had a tradition of selecting Indian related names and no one (or at least no one who mattered) much gave a damn whether they liked it or not.

Does no one see the civil rights and economic rights of the club owner's being stepped on?

Not at all.

1) Mr Snyder can call his team anything he likes, for as long as he likes, unless and until the other NFL owners decide the public fuss is hurting the value of their personal franchises.

2) Which is an entirely different matter than giving 'Redskins' trademark protection. By law the Patent and Trademark Office is charged with implementing a quite reasonable public policy against issuing a trademark that is disparaging to groups of American citizens. Whether it was correct in its ruling vis. the Washington Redskins will be settled in the courts sometime in the next two or three years. Meanwhile Mr. Snyder continues to have trademark rights to the logo and name.

So Mr Snyder is free to exercise his constitutional right to be cantankerous and hard headed to his heart's content and those who are offended, together with their friends and all those folks who don't really give a damn but who find it convenient (or just plain fun) to pile on, can fuss and fume to their heart's content.

What could be more American than that?

[wayout]

I tried my best to look at both sides of the issue and try to balance out the concerns and rights involved.

It is not totally clear but there is a strong argument that the origins of "redskin" came from Native Americans themselves as a self-moniker to differentiate themselves, and as such it was certainly not derogatory in its origins. Whether or not someone outside of that ethnicity should use that term as a general description is debatable but nothing should preclude them from doing so as long as not in a derogatory manner. At some point in time, it seems as though it came to have some negative connotations and/or a strong reaction against non-Native Americans using that term. Sensitive (politically correct) individuals likely would avoid using the term altogether.

In this specific case (and likely in most other sports teams with Native American related terms), we are going back quite a long time to when those names came about. It should be clear that those names weren't used in a way that would somehow reflect negatively on the team but rather they were likely selected, in part, because of some very positive attributes that it evokes in peoples' minds by using the names.

Does that still hold today? Do we somehow associate Redskins with sports that are loved by millions but also associate it in a negative way towards the NA? Or is there actually a positive link between the two...a spillover effect of sorts? Personally I don't see it as negative but then I am not a Native American and their concerns can't be ignored. Which leads me to wonder how important this issue is to them. A google search shows some surveys/polls that indicate a significant majority aren't offended. I can't speak to the scientific robustness of the survey/poll so I have to be cautious about that.

I may be totally off base to say this as a generalization, but it seems as though most of this country pretty much ignores most things related to Native Americans. Couldn't we leverage the positive aspects of connection with loved sports teams to promote greater interest and attention to them rather than try to paint it as a negative? Many of the issues they face are very serious as I have discovered by doing a little searching on this topic. Here are some disturbing details: "American Indians have the highest suicide, teen pregnancy, child mortality and school dropout rates in the country. On large reservations, the extreme poverty rate is more than six times the national average, which is part of the reason why Indians have the lowest life expectancy, too." If we change the names, are we just sweeping things under the rug and ignoring them even more, if that is possible?

There are definitely some things that should be done, particularly in dealing with logos and mascots to help promote a better positive approach. But I am more inclined to think that changing the name would be missing a great opportunity for improvements and could even make things worse in some ways.

[RA1]

Thanks to everyone for posting on this thread. I appreciate everyone's point of view and I especially appreciate no one resorting to vitriol.

Even though it is unlikely that this site will change "America's mind" on anything, still, every possible change starts with two opinions becoming one.

Every one of us is a minority of some description and we all have to decide how and why we deal with any "name calling".

As a US Southerner, should I take offense when a Brit calls me a yank?

Best regards,

RA1

[ihpguy]

I can't help it. I miss Chiefs Illiniwek and Nokahoma. Classless is as class does.

[ihpguy]

We used to have the Pekin Chinks back in the day.

So what's so wrong with calling a kike a kike, a redskin a redskin and a chink and chink.

I read so much about da bruthas and sistas.

Where is Artchie Bunker when we need him now, more than ever?

[RA1]

iphguy-

You are so politically incorrect it is amazing BUT we love you anyway. .....the days Glenn Miller played..............

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

The Patent Office has run amuck!!

I'm offended that the Patent Office can take it upon itself, or rather some bureaucrat sitting in the Patent Office, to determine that a long-existing trademark has become unacceptable. Whether it is or not can be up for discussion but government offices ought not chime in by fiat revoking a long existing trademark. Who made them the arbiters of political correctness.

I think the only acceptable way to revoke this trademark is either by consent of the owner (possibly influenced by legal action or public pressure) or by statute passed by Congress and signed by the President. Else where will this stop.

Personally, I don't feel the term is offensive but then I'm only 1/32 or 1/64 Native American depending on family lore. However, I guess others do and I don't want to be insensitive to them. Nevertheless, I would be disappointed to see the name changed. Realizing that change is probably in the works eventually and noting my disappointment in that change I would strongly consider changing the team name to the Washington Redskin Potatoes if that isn't infringing on someone else's trademark.

[MsGuy]

Realizing that change is probably in the works eventually and noting my disappointment in that change I would strongly consider changing the team name to the Washington Redskin Potatoes

I'm with TampaYankee!

[RA1]

If red potatoes can be called redskin potatoes, why are brown skin potatoes called Irish or white potatoes?

I find it interesting that various fruits and veggies are associated with places different from their origination. I believe potatoes came from South America and tomatoes (famous in Italian cooking and others) came from North America.

This has generally been a thread about Indians or Native Americans which introduced tobacco to Europe and the rest of the world. Was this their possibly unintended "slow" revenge on "whites" for all of their transgressions upon them?

So many questions and, sometimes, even more answers.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

This has generally been a thread about Indians or Native Americans which introduced tobacco to Europe and the rest of the world. Was this their possibly unintended "slow" revenge on "whites" for all of their transgressions upon them?

Not even close. The advent of syphilis in Europe is generally attributed to it being imported from the New World natives, directly or indirectly, by Columbus. Now that's revenge.

The scourge of tobacco was probably seen as a most pleasurable grace by comparison -- its patrons or most of them killed off by many other scourges before tobacco had sufficient time to fully blossom all of its wonders upon them.

[RA1]

And, the Europeans brought smallpox. Plus, it was "on purpose". After the invention of penicillin I have to think the overall numbers and long term effects of tobacco were more deadly and long lasting than syphilis. A legal drug that kills thousands every day is pretty hard to beat.

Best regards,

RA1