October 25, 2008

And the "Racists" thing has gotten old, in my opinion, true or not.

Well, if the Washington Racists changed their name, fraze would probably stop calling them that.

Using your logic, if a racist term is used for a long enough period of time, it ceases no longer derogatory. Is that right?

posted by tommybiden at 11:28 PM on October 25, 2008

Dude, I've been advocating this for more than 20 years. Other people who are on board with me:

The US Commission on Civil Rights The American Counciling Association The American Psychological Association

I have asked actual Natives. I've interviewed them about it. What a surprise -- they didn't seem to be much in favour of the word "redskin" being used by Washington. They aren't big fans of Chief Wahoo, either, which is no different than some NBA team adopting a Sambo as its mascot.

You admit the word has racist connotations, and yet you think Native Americans should just suck it up?

Tell you what -- find a strong Catholic or Christian, walk up to them this holiday season and says, "Happy FakeAssedWhiteGuyInTheSky Birthday!" and see how they handle it.

posted by wfrazerjr at 10:58 PM on October 26, 2008

We've had this discussion a few times, so I don't need to air it out again.

Keep it up Fraze. As long as they keep that name, keep pointing out what it is.

posted by tahoemoj at 12:40 PM on October 27, 2008

I agree with fraze. Each member of the team and organization is a racist. Let's face it, if they weren't racist, they certainly wouldn't play for a team called the Redskins. You gotta be on board to get on board.

I mean, I root for the team because I grew up rooting for them (and because I'd rather be fucked to death by androids than root for the Ravens), but they gotta stop drafting all those racist players and staff, seriously. It's a blemish on my heretofore unsullied conscience. Redskins, o Redskins; wherefore art thou such racists?

Oh, and on second thought, I'd rather be fucked to death by androids than just about anything; 'tis a consummation devoutedly to be wished. Hell, those racists could win five Super Bowls in a row and I'd still be hoping for sweet robotic release.

posted by Hugh Janus at 02:42 PM on October 27, 2008

Okay, I root for them because I'm racist too, like my whole family and all my friends who are 'Skins fans. I love the way the word "redskin" drips off my lip. Ain't no big "if." Shit, any player on any team who would line up for entertainment's sake against such a crew of racists, and anyone working for any league that would sanction such a contest, is racist down to their little bitty soul.

I mean, you're going to continue to be a fan of a sport that tolerates such bald racism? Shame on you. You're going to publish betting lines for a league that allows such an atrocious injustice to stand in this day and enlightened age? Racist! Racist! Racist!

Until the Redskins change their racist name, every player, every team organization, every referee, every partnered TV network, and yes, every fan of NFL football is complicit and therefore a racist.

You say you follow the NFL but you deplore Washington's racist name? Deplore harder.

posted by Hugh Janus at 04:14 PM on October 27, 2008

It's a shame the US Patent & Trademark Office doesn't solve this problem by refusing to continue allowing a well-documented racial pejorative to have trademark protection. Tradition, shmadition. If Washington couldn't make money off the mark, they'd change the name at record speed.

posted by rcade at 07:35 PM on October 27, 2008

With regards to Native Americans, I live near the Seneca Nation, and I can tell you without a doubt, they could care less about the football team's name. You're talking people who have basically forgotten COMPLETELY about their heritage, favoring only quick, easy money from cheap gasoline, tax-free cigarettes, and casino gambling. They have allowed their native language to be lost altogether, to the point it will never be taught again to any future generations. They have no pride in themselves anymore, so why should the Washington Redskins be more concerned than they (the Native Americans) are? There are a lot more pressing concerns to focus on, and slapping the "racist" tag on it for the sake of some B.S. on a sports site is misguided at best. Instead of everyone thinking their comments make them somehow above the rest when it comes to racism, why not take a trip to the places where it actually may be felt and see if it actually makes any sense at all.

posted by dyams at 08:28 PM on October 27, 2008

They have no pride in themselves anymore, so why should the Washington Redskins be more concerned than they (the Native Americans) are?

Good one. You're the new Oscar Wilde.

And while we're at it, I want the Notre Dame Fighting Irish to change their mascot.

How about the Virgin Mary?

posted by Hugh Janus at 09:34 PM on October 27, 2008

This place is surreal.

posted by Hugh Janus at 09:55 PM on October 27, 2008

Unfortunately, sometimes it's all too real.

BTW, it was clear that I was joking about the Fighting Irish, no?

While we're at it, l_b_b, your screen name is offensive to all the repressed large_blonde_bats of the world.

posted by THX-1138 at 11:09 PM on October 27, 2008

What color are the team uniforms in the RFL? Would they all be black and white? Or red and yellow? Or limited to some combination of those four colors? Do racists classify people by any other colors? Why is a question mark shaped that way?

posted by THX-1138 at 12:10 AM on October 28, 2008

I'd have to agree with bob that sport and politics don't usually blend well, especially when we get to issues that people such as fraze feel so passionately about, and in my opinion for good reason. An argument like this seems to pop up around at least one team every year, but yet nothing ever changes. I might be remembering wrong, but I believe there was a stink a couple years ago over the Seminoles of Florida State, again as bob mentioned. It's an issue that should continue to be examined, but it seems to merely create bad blood among friends here.

I'd also bring up the point that if animals were intelligent and disagreed with our naming mascots after them, whatever would we do? No mascots ever.

posted by boredom_08 at 02:59 AM on October 28, 2008

In amongst all my hyperbolic stupidity, there's a serious question: why don't folks who boycott the 'Skins do the same for the entire NFL? The league supports the Redskins name by not demanding it be changed, and the other teams still play in Raljon. The NFL backs racism.

You castigate the individual fan for not caring about or ignoring the racism of the team name; why stop there? The league supports this racism, your favorite team supports it, and you support it by being a fan and writing these columns.

Well, first off, you're assuming that "the folks who boycott the 'Skins" are some monolithic entity who all move in lockstep. They're not, and some number of them no doubt do boycott the NFL for exactly the reasons you stated. Second, the "why stop there" argument is a distractor, a seeming justification for inaction. Too many people look at this "argument" and say, "Yeah, why don't they?" and take that as a blessing to do nothing. This is like reasoning that you shouldn't stop a lynching because somewhere else, in some other state, some cracker used the n-word and you didn't put a stop to that. There's a difference. The logo of the Washington team promotes racism. Those who support them, support a racist act. There is a meaningful difference, however, between those who wear the logo and those who don't (and particularly between those who wear the logo proudly and spray spit at the notion that there's anything racist about it, and those who cheer for the Giants and call a racist logo for what it is).

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:19 AM on October 28, 2008

Interestingly enough: (from wikipedia)

Notwithstanding the protests of activists, a 2002 poll commissioned by Sports Illustrated found that 75% of those Native Americans surveyed had no objection to the Redskins name.[36] However, the results of the poll have been criticized due to Sport's Illustrated's refusal to provide polling information (i.e. how participants were recruited and contacted, if they were concentrated in one region, if one ethnic group is over represented and the exact wording and order of questions).[37][38] But in 2004, a poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania essentially confirmed the prior poll's findings, concluding that 91% of the American Indians surveyed in the 48 states on the mainland USA found the name acceptable and setting out in detail the exact wording of the questions.

posted by BoKnows at 10:39 AM on October 28, 2008

Whoah there, l_b_b; I think you're putting words into my mouth. In order not to get into a bicker over what you said I said, or I said what, or whatever, let me boil some of my thoughts down (and yeah, I haven't helped myself with the reductio ad absurdam of my first couple comments). It's my fault for not being clear and consistent:

I grew up just north of Washington, DC, and since most of my friends and my family were Redskins fans, so was I.

Some time in the '80's (my teens) I learned that my team's name was a racist slur and not just an anachronism.

I've enjoyed watching football since I was a kid, and think the NFL's product is the best.

While I agree that the name is racist and shameful, I don't really think every DC fan is racist for not boycotting the team.

I think the fault (and the only solution the the naming problem) lies with the team ownership and with the NFL. I have signed my name to petitions for a name change, but the owners have shown little interest in what the fans think on this issue and many others.

The only entity that can sway the Redskins' ownership (aside from maybe Congress, which, considering their penchant for show hearings about sports, might be a good option) is the league, including its member teams. If the NFL said, "No TV until you change your name," or if the other teams said to the league and the 'Skins, "No games until you change your name," we'd see a name change immediately.

So if we're extending the blame for the racist name to each individual Redskins fan, for not boycotting the team or protesting outside the stadium, we ought also to blame the other teams and especially the league leadership for tolerating this racism. Any team who takes the field against the Redskins is party to that racism, because that team could do a hell of a lot more than any individual fan could to change this situation.

The way I see it, if I am a racist for supporting my home team, then the league and all its fans are racists for supporting them as well.

I take no issue with the idea that "Redskins" is a harmful racist slur. I just don't think I'm more culpable for it than anyone else, simply owing to an accident of birthplace.

Yes, I could switch to another team, but I'd sooner quit watching the NFL altogether, since the problem is with the whole league. But I find football entertaining. Maybe someday I'll take a stand, but it's unfair to call me a racist until I do, since we're all in the same boat.

posted by Hugh Janus at 11:51 AM on October 28, 2008

Fair enough, Hugh. We're a lot more in agreement than disagreement, I think. I don't personally think that being a fan of The Washington Team makes someone a racist, but I do believe that doing so is probably condoning racism to some degree, and also that certain fannish behaviors, when done in conjunction with The Washington Team's name or logo, could be considered racist. Your argument seems to be that every NFL fan is equally culpable, and I don't quite see it that way. The ownership of The Washington Team has told so many people to go to hell over this issue so many times, I think it's fair to say that some of us have leverage and some of us do not. People who would otherwise buy the team's logo gear refusing to buy it, have leverage that I do not. People who buy seats in their stadium have leverage that I do not.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:37 PM on October 28, 2008

Hugh, if you heard someone at a Wal-Mart use the word "nigger", would you attempt to engage that person -- or would you try to shut the entire Wal-Mart corporation down?

I agree the NFL has been complicit by not forcing Washington to change its nickname. I have written letters to the NFL, urging them to force a change. I have also turned down tickets to a game where the home team was playing Washington. I don't watch games involving the Redskins.

However, I'll also agree -- it makes me a racist. My love of football is so great, I'm willing to overlook the NFL's greed and fear to get my fix. And every time I watch and see Washington's name come up on the ticker or in a highlight, I'm honestly shamed.

But I also don't think attempting to bludgeon the entire NFL would work, for the Wal-Mart reason I mentioned above. You don't shoot the whole platoon because one fellow deserted (well, maybe if you're Stalin). I look at it like a stone into a pond -- the greatest splash (or blame) lies at the centre, with the culpability diminishing as you move away.

Having read your updated thoughts, Hugh, I agree, aside from one point -- why is it that we must expect the NFL or Congress to make this happen? Shouldn't Washington be held accountable for this?

Bobfoot, in almost every instance you named, there is no negative connotation to the team's nickname. Is calling someone a "Viking" likely to get you a smack in the chops? The glaring exception is Cleveland's Chief Wahoo, which I hold in even more contempt than Washington's nickname (if that's possible).

Dyams, since you've now generalized all Native Americans as money-grubbing sluggards who care little about their past, I think we can dismiss your opinion. There's obviously a contingent not happy about being slurred -- otherwise, there would be no protests and/or lawsuits. Whether it's 1%, 10% or 100%, it's still wrong.

I also find some of this disheartening. I raise the well-known specter of racism in this instance and people immediately jump to the defense of Washington. How? How is it possible to justify the name? Would it be okay if the Giants switched to the Blackskins? If the 49ers became the Yellowskins?

posted by wfrazerjr at 04:15 PM on October 28, 2008

I apologize for generalizing that "all" Native Americans are "money-grubbing sluggards," as wfrazerjr said. I obviously can't speak for each and every one. The problems on the reservations I speak of are genuine and overwhelming, though, and they, as group of people, have let each other down. A very, very few "haves," versus a huge, huge number of "have-nots" is at the root of the problems facing many of these groups. That's why I absolutely do believe that not many really care about this team-name issue.

Also, I always believed a name of a well-respected and well-loved team to be, for the most part, a compliment. I'm assuming a NFL team wanted to be named for a group they considered tough, proud, and strong. Otherwise they wouldn't have called themselves the Redskins, rather they could have been known as the "Washington Lily-White Middle Class Yuppie Pussies." You can view the name as racist, if you choose, but you can also look at it as a sign of respect. And just as I was wrong to generalize the idea that ALL Native Americans are a certain way, don't go assuming just because a few people choose to protest something that they represent the views of an entire group either.

posted by dyams at 06:38 PM on October 28, 2008

Whether or not the majority are offended or protest something isn't really the basis on which to judge a term. If it's inherently racially biased or derisive is fairly objective, even if a small amount of those being described that way are offended. Take, for example, my heritage. I am of European descent from a protestant family. Does the term WASP offend me? No, and probably most feel the same way. However, it is a loaded term and not meant to be in any way complimentary. It is meant to somehow marginalize, mock, or otherwise stereotype me any way you look at it. Perhaps Redskin should be looked at similarly. I don't care if 2%, 20%, or 92% are offended by it, there isn't a nice connotation to the word.

Or, more to the point: yes, I personally know Indians who are very offended by the word, and think it's bullshit to continue to name teams that word in this supposedly enlightened age. It's downright silly to think it could ever be construed a compliment. To many, the term carries the same insulting weight as any bigoted term against any race or nationality, whether you respect their feelings or not.

posted by tahoemoj at 09:31 PM on October 28, 2008

I'm not entirely familiar with why Washington's team originated the mascot as a "redskin"?

The term Redskin (as explained here) is offensive not because Native Americans have red skin but because of this country's bloody past with regard to treatment of Native Americans.

posted by bender at 08:22 AM on October 29, 2008

Get on it and do that "kike" research your talking about lbb. There has been research done on the Native American topic. I'm sure you can find a few folks walking around that don't mind being called "assholes" either. BoKnows referred to a few studies of Native American's reactions. Now you're the one throwing out "what ifs" with nothing to stand on

Several people have already made the point that you can't "prove" the offensiveness or inoffensiveness of a term through "studies" or polls. Why does this idea bother you so much?

hey've been known as the Redskins since 1933, so the opposition has never been all that tremendous.

Meaning that a "tremendous" opposition would have sorted the matter out long ago, and that only a "tremendous" opposition is worthy of respect? It was nearly eighty years between the enactment of the first "separate but equal" Jim Crow laws and Brown v. Board of Education; does this mean that for those 78 years, the opposition to Jim Crow was not "tremendous" and therefore not worthy of support?

As I've alluded to before, make a visit to a Native American reservation and see where their real concerns lie. I doubt the Washington Redskins and their name will get much of a rise.

Maybe they will, and maybe they won't. Probably it depends on what you mean by "much of a rise" and "real concerns". If, by the latter, you mean the foremost concerns in most native people's minds, I suspect those would be bread-and-butter issues, as they tend to be for most people. So tell me: do you only care about bread-and-butter issues? It seems to me that most people, particularly those in need, are primarily focused on bread-and-butter issues in terms of where they put their energy...but that doesn't mean they don't care about anything else.

Right or wrong, regardless of how many different directions anyone can take this "name" thing, other issues have deemed this one basically a non-issue.

Feel free to speak for yourself, and to say that as far as you are concerned, it is a non-issue.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:31 AM on October 29, 2008

I can see why you're so up in arms over this, fraze. The number of nuanced opinions on this topic pales in comparison to the ridiculous level of intentional ignorance and false conclusions of those who think the name isn't racist enough to be offensive, or that somehow the legacies of oppression that plague today's Native Americans keep them too busy to care.

As far as why Congress or the NFL would need to be the ones stepping in, I suggest them as the only entities with the power to sway the Redskins' ownership. After all, the fans and the city and all sorts of Native American groups have been trying for decades.

Say what you will about the Wizards (the less the better, really) but Abe Pollin would change the racist name if he was the owner. Now that the team plays in Maryland, the District should be able to refuse the team the right to use "Washington" until they drop "Redskins.". They've probably tried that, though.

And dyams, your imaginary survey of the Seneca is scant justification for running around with your fingers in your ears. Listen to more than just your own opinions and you might learn something useful. Your reasoning is all wrong.

posted by Hugh Janus at 11:05 AM on October 29, 2008

Couldn't they just be referred to as "Washington" and let the discussion be about football? Just wondering.

posted by steelergirl at 03:37 PM on October 29, 2008

The idea of a football game in Fenway Park just messes with me.

Howard_T:

The Redskins are the focus of this thread, but why has there been no mention of team names such as the Rebels? While not a directly racist word, it nonetheless has racist overtones in the deep South.

It's come up in other discussions on the same topic. In one of those threads, I told a story that was told to me by Suzan Harjo, about a new high school that needed to decide on a name for its sports teams. Someone suggested the White Knights, and one of the female athletes said, "So what are we supposed to be, the Damsels in Distress?" The school eventually settled on Jets as a team name. It's a humorous story, but I think it does serve to illustrate how human-based team names are prone to backfiring. And yes, there have been moves to get rid of various non-native mascots because something that worked fifty years ago is maybe a little awkward today, but my sense is that this is generally worked out on a local level. The Washington Team is the only one I've heard of which was the subject of a federal lawsuit based on trademark law, though. I think that, combined with NCAA ruling on the same subject, raised the profile of native team names/mascots beyond that of other names which could also be problematic.

steelergirl:

Couldn't they just be referred to as "Washington" and let the discussion be about football?

Most people I've known who are active in the move to get the team to change its name (and I believe not a few sportswriters and sportscasters too) refer to it as The Washington Team, or just Washington. Might be something to look for next time you're reading the sports pages or watching a broadcast -- see if I'm right about that.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:11 PM on October 29, 2008

Careful, you don't want to start a discussion!

posted by tahoemoj at 02:50 AM on October 30, 2008

Careful, you don't want to start a discussion!

Good thing Week Nine is a haiku week!

posted by wfrazerjr at 02:00 PM on October 30, 2008

Even the most cursory google search will show that a significant number of Native Americans find the term offensive:

Here's a (long) passage from Wikipedia that outlines a number of protests:

"In recent years the name has become controversial, with some Native American groups and their supporters arguing that since they view the word "redskin" as an offensive slur that it is inappropriate for a NFL team to continue to use it, regardless of whether any offense is intended. In contrast to amateur teams governed by the NCAA or other organizations, which can level sanctions against member schools, the professional Washington Redskins franchise and nickname are subject only to the other clubs in the NFL and, presumably, approval or disapproval as expressed through ticket and merchandise receipts, or lack thereof, from the public. As there has apparently been no adverse market reaction, there has been little or no incentive to change the name.

An attempt to revoke the trademark registration of the Washington Redskins team name failed when an initial revokation of the trademark was reversed the 2005 court case of Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo.

In 1997 Jill Cadreau, a Milford High School student, became a young activist for Native American rights when she demanded the word "Redskins" stop being used as the name for the school's mascot and sports teams. Jill and much of the American Indian community thought the word carried a negative connotation and attempted to justify racism that still existed in the school. After long meetings with the Milford School Board and much support from the local American Indian community, the Huron Valley Board of Education ruled in favor of a Native American victory with a 6-0 vote in 1997. Jill was a leader for the campaign that forced her high school to eliminate all references to American Indians in the names and images of school mascots.

Another non-NFL controversy over the term "redskin" took place at James S. Rickards High School in 2000, when the mascot had to be changed from Rickards Redskins to Rickards Raiders due to perceived racial implications of the word.

In 2001, under threats from the Native American Bar Association, Consolidated School District 158 in Huntley, Illinois had to ban use of the Redskin slogan from its high school, changing to the Huntley Red Raiders.

In California, a bill, presented by Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, to ban the use of the name Redskins as a public school mascot was vetoed more than once. There were many supporters against the bill, including students from schools with the Redskin mascot, most prominently Tulare Union High School in Tulare, and Chowchilla Union High School in Chowchilla, as well as members of the Tachi-Yokut tribe who deemed the fact that schools had Redskin as a mascot incited a sense of pride.

In April 2001 the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights called for an end to the use of Native American images and team names by non-Native schools, stating, "These references, whether mascots and their performances, logos, or names, are disrespectful and offensive to American Indians and others and are particularly inappropriate and insensitive in light of the long history of forced assimilation that American Indian people have endured in this country." The commission declared that "the stereotyping of any racial, ethnic, religious or other group, when promoted by our public educational institutions, teaches all students that stereotyping of minority groups is acceptable, which is a dangerous lesson in a diverse society," and noted that "false portrayals encourage biases and prejudices that have a negative effect on contemporary Indian people."[2]

posted by cjets at 03:30 PM on October 30, 2008

As always, two sides to every issue. From the following link: itre.cis.upenn.edu

"The term redskin of course goes much farther back than 1933. The details of this history have recently been explored by Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution, in a paper conveniently available on-line. Some of the evidence is available in greater detail on Goddard's web site. You can read speeches by the Meskwaki chief Black Thunder and the Omaha chief Big Elk in which the expression redskin is used, and early nineteenth century examples of the Meskwaki usage of terms meaning redskin and whiteskin.

I won't review the evidence in detail because Goddard's paper is short enough and accessible enough that if you are interested you should read it yourself. I'll just summarize it. Goddard shows that the term redskin is a translation from native American languages of a term used by native Americans for themselves. Harjo's claim that it "had its origins in the practice of presenting bloody red skins and scalps as proof of Indian kill for bounty payments" is unsupported by any evidence.⁴ The term entered popular usage via the novels of James Fenimore Cooper. In the early- to mid-nineteenth century the term was neutral, not pejorative, and indeed was often used in contexts in which whites spoke of Indians in positive terms. Goddard concludes:

Cooper's use of redskin as a Native American in-group term was entirely authentic, reflecting both the accurate perception of the Indian self-image and the evolving respect among whites for the Indians' distinct cultural perspective, whatever its prospects. The descent of this word into obloquy is a phenomenon of more recent times.

posted by dyams at 10:41 AM on November 08, 2008