More On Indian Mascots

[stwasm]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111301335.html

Today's football game features the top-ranked Whiteys against the second-place Darkies, who got tarred and feathered the last time the two teams faced off. The Whiteys and the Darkies entered the imaginary league amid complaints that such names were inappropriate and offensive, but owners and fans alike insist the monikers are terms of endearment -- no different than, say, the Redskins.

"Whitey means all-powerful, superior, masters of the game," one fan said. "It has nothing to do with racism, slavery or bilking American Indians out of Manhattan for $24 worth of beads."


Fans for the opposing team are just as adamant.

"Darkie means having melanin, which protects your skin from the sun and lets you work longer on the field," one said. "There is nothing derogatory about it. Back in the day, people would rub a darkie's head for good luck. They wouldn't do that unless they admired them for their magical powers."

The most die-hard Redskins fans no doubt understand. To them, making a mascot out of a people that were nearly exterminated on their homeland is the ultimate show of respect. Makes all the schizophrenic sense in the world.

Orin Starn, an anthropologist at Duke University and author of "Ishi's Brain: In Search of America's Last 'Wild' Indian," puts it this way: "From very early on, there is this dual desire to either kill or remove them [American Indians] to make way for the United States -- and, on the other hand, to romanticize them, to admire them, to be like them."

The latter occurring only after the Indians die, of course.

At the turn of the 20th century, Starn noted, when the demise of the Native American appeared all but imminent, the Indian began to be seen as "a noble, primitive man in touch with nature, a master of the arts of hunting and fishing."

In 1933, George Preston Marshall coined the name "Redskins" for his football team "out of respect for American Indian heritage," as he put it at the time. And to this day, Dan Snyder, the current owner, maintains that the name means "tradition" and "competitiveness" and "honor." Banning demeaning imagery is not about principle, but whether the oppressed group can muster enough protesters to affect the profit margin.

Never mind that the word is a slur -- used as "redskinned devils" in a novel published in 1871, "every greasy redskin" in the Rocky Mountain News in 1890 and "the most treacherous red skins" in the Denver Daily News that same year.

To better understand the adverse effects of using Native American imagery in sports, see the short documentary "If the Name Has to Go . . . " by Quiet Coyote Productions. The film includes efforts by Native American students at the University of North Dakota, home of the Fighting Sioux, to get a new mascot.

"At first, I thought the name an honor. Then I came to realize that it's just a trophy," said Al White, an Iroquois and a student at the university. "I had one friend who took his 4-year-old son to basketball games, and the boy would ask him, 'Dad, why are they saying those things about us?'

"The boy knew he was a Sioux, and the opposing fans were saying things like 'Sioux [expletive]' and '[Expletive] the Sioux,' and his dad couldn't explain it. So rather than allowing his son to be debased, they stopped going to basketball games."

Native Americans argue that there would be an outcry if other, more politically powerful groups of people felt similarly slandered and denigrated. So let's get on with today's fantasy game and find out.

In this classic matchup, the Whiteys have a quarterback who thinks fast on his feet and is very smart when it comes to analyzing the gestalt of the game. Or so the TV commentators say. The Darkies, to their credit, have a quarterback who is strong and, boy, he runs faster than a water bug on crack.

And here come the mascots. For the Whiteys: a giant saltine cracker. For the Darkies: a watermelon rolling on 20-inch rims.

Offensive? Not as long as such newspaper headlines as "Redskins Get Skinned Alive" are upsetting only because the team lost.

E-mail:milloyc@washpost.com

[Ball Coach]

He never said who won, the Whiteys or the Darkies.

[stwasm]

ha-ha-ha :doh:

[RedskinsNation]

The Name Redskins will never change....people need to suck it up and deal with it.

If it has lasted since 1932 it will last until 2032...and beyond. I love how the name surfaces like a leap year. Nothing is going to change, not the colors, not the logo not the word REDSKINS.

[Spaceman Spiff]

He never said who won, the Whiteys or the Darkies.


:laugh: :laugh:

[stwasm]

The Name Redskins will never change....people need to suck it up and deal with it.

If it has lasted since 1932 it will last until 2032...and beyond. I love how the name surfaces like a leap year. Nothing is going to change, not the colors, not the logo not the word REDSKINS.

That doesn't mean it's right.

[Kilmer17]

What percent of people have to be offended by something before a private company has to change?

[National Defense]

you mean what voting %, or what voting % in a place which is not a state?

[PA Skin Fan]

That doesn't mean it's right.

What is right, then goofball!!

Okay, let's bow to your political correctness gone amok. :doh:

I'm Irish, and I'm offended by the name "Fighting Irish" of Notre Dame. Let's ban their mascot too..

Oh, I forgot, I'm in PETA, and am highly offended by anti-animal nicknames. It encourages people to treat animals poorly. So let's ban the Bears, Cowboys (they really hurt those cows and horses on the ranch), Seahawks, Eagles, Bengals, Cardinals, Rams, etc.

You need to get something real to worry about, something that actually matters to people's lives. The only reason this is even an issue is because scared hand-wringing people like you make it one. Most people could care less about the nickname of any sports team.

[Kilmer17]

you mean what voting %, or what voting % in a place which is not a state?


Name the terms.

In any situation, I can make a case for just about every other nickname, mascot whatever as being offensive.

[Art Monk Fan]

I really wish there was a Fightin' Whities team out there, maybe it would finally put an end to all this PC BS -- not one white person would be even mildly offended. And you know I'm buying me a Fightin' Whities jersey -- gotta represent.

[Thiebear]

Courtland Malloy - in the Metro Section.

Ahahahahah, if he would be so kind as to actually put the basis and reason and heritage of the people that started this term, he wouldnt look like such and assclown.

[stwasm]

What is right, then goofball!!

Okay, let's bow to your political correctness gone amok. :doh:

I'm Irish, and I'm offended by the name "Fighting Irish" of Notre Dame. Let's ban their mascot too..

Oh, I forgot, I'm in PETA, and am highly offended by anti-animal nicknames. It encourages people to treat animals poorly. So let's ban the Bears, Cowboys (they really hurt those cows and horses on the ranch), Seahawks, Eagles, Bengals, Cardinals, Rams, etc.

You need to get something real to worry about, something that actually matters to people's lives. The only reason this is even an issue is because scared hand-wringing people like you make it one. Most people could care less about the nickname of any sports team.

First of all, I don't appreciate the name-calling. That was totally uncalled-for.

Secondly, it's not "political correctness gone amok." If you'd bothered to read the entire article -- which you obvious did not do -- you would see that, no matter how you want to spin it, the name is offensive and there's documented proof that demonstrates this fact. And I think if Native Americans are pointing out that they're insulted by the whole thing, that's "something that actually matters to people's lives."

We may differ in opinion, but I'm not calling you a "goofball" for it.

[stevenaa]

First of all, I don't appreciate the name-calling. That was totally uncalled-for.

Secondly, it's not "political correctness gone amok." If you'd bothered to read the entire article -- which you obvious did not do -- you would see that, no matter how you want to spin it, the name is offensive and there's documented proof that demonstrates this fact. And I think if Native Americans are pointing out that they're insulted by the whole thing, that's "something that actually matters to people's lives."

We may differ in opinion, but I'm not calling you a "goofball" for it.

And who gives a rip. If you're offended don't watch are support the team. This country was taken from the Indians by force. That is history. To the victors go the spoils.

[Art Monk Fan]

First of all, I don't appreciate the name-calling. That was totally uncalled-for.

Secondly, it's not "political correctness gone amok." If you'd bothered to read the entire article -- which you obvious did not do -- you would see that, no matter how you want to spin it, the name is offensive and there's documented proof that demonstrates this fact. And I think if Native Americans are pointing out that they're insulted by the whole thing, that's "something that actually matters to people's lives."

We may differ in opinion, but I'm not calling you a "goofball" for it.
Do a search, we had a thread a little while ago when an official report from the Smithsonian Institute came out showing the origin of the term "redskin." It turns out the word was first used by Native American leaders when they officially addressed U.S. leaders during negotiation. It was the way to which they referred to themselves when making a distinction between their peolpe and the whites.

Whether it was used as a slur for a time after that or not, it wasn't originally and isn't now, so what's all the fuss?

[stwasm]

Do a search, we had a thread a little while ago when an official report from the Smithsonian Institute came out showing the origin of the term "redskin." It turns out the word was first used by Native American leaders when they officially addressed U.S. leaders during negotiation. It was the way to which they referred to themselves when making a distinction between their peolpe and the whites.

Whether it was used as a slur for a time after that or not, it wasn't originally and isn't now, so what's all the fuss?

As quoted from the article:

"Never mind that the word is a slur -- used as "redskinned devils" in a novel published in 1871, "every greasy redskin" in the Rocky Mountain News in 1890 and "the most treacherous red skins" in the Denver Daily News that same year."

[Kilmer17]

Your screen name offends me. Change it.

See how absurd that is?

The solution to the issue is for people to not support the team if they dont like the name. If their are enough people doing that to cause financial harm to the team, they'll change their name. Otherwise STFU.

[stwasm]

Your screen name offends me. Change it.

See how absurd that is?

The solution to the issue is for people to not support the team if they dont like the name. If their are enough people doing that to cause financial harm to the team, they'll change their name. Otherwise STFU.

You're comparing apples to oranges. That isn't the same thing. The article shows documented proof about how the name was used as a derogatory term back in the late 19th century. Plus, who are you to say what is and what isn't offensive to a group of people? Unless you've shared in their experiences, it isn't for us to decide. If they say it is, then maybe we need to take a step back and look at it with an open mind.

To be honest, my first reaction was I didn't think it was offensive. As I've heard more about the name's usage and actually heard the name used in a derogatory manner during a few Westerns, that's when I realized there is some legitimacy to the argument. This is not, as you say, "absurd."

[rincewind]

Oh, I forgot, I'm in PETA, and am highly offended by anti-animal nicknames. It encourages people to treat animals poorly. So let's ban the Bears, Cowboys (they really hurt those cows and horses on the ranch), Seahawks, Eagles, Bengals, Cardinals, Rams, etc.



Believe it or not, PETA actually did try to force the Packers to change there name, stating that the idea of Packers (as in meat packing - a thriving industry in the Green Bay area) suggested cruelty to animals.

i am very pro-nature/animals but in most cases PETA seems to take the wrong angles on things

[Kilmer17]

That's precicely my point.

How many people need to say they are offended by something before it is forced to change?

If 1 isnt enough (my example of why your name offends me) then how many?

[stwasm]

That's precicely my point.

How many people need to say they are offended by something before it is forced to change?

If 1 isnt enough (my example of why your name offends me) then how many?

The only thing you said was that my name offended you. Unlike Native Americans and the article I quoted, you never offered any proof as to why it offended you. Obviously, we're not going to agree on this. All I can say is that, unless you know what it's like to be a Native American and really and truly understand their history, most likely you're not going to relate to their feelings or the connotations behind the name.

[zoony]

you never offered any proof as to why it offended you.


Read this statement back to yourself...


tell you what stwasm... if YOU find the name offensive, don't watch. Or anyone else for that matter.

I find SEVERAL things to be offended by... I simply ignore them though. They have their right, as do the Redskins.


When the day comes to pass that I can impose my moral set on private companies, and you can do the same... that will be a sad day indeed.

Be careful what you wish for. VERY careful.

........

[Kilmer17]

Okay, there was this guy in my neighborhood who used to call Hindus Wasi's. Your name is representative of his hatred.

And I'll ask again, how many people need to be offended before action is taken?

And what if a greater number disagree that a name is offensive and provide proof to support their side?

[stwasm]

Okay, there was this guy in my neighborhood who used to call Hindus Wasi's. Your name is representative of his hatred.

And I'll ask again, how many people need to be offended before action is taken?

And what if a greater number disagree that a name is offensive and provide proof to support their side?

And I say it again, you haven't demonstrated why "stwasm" is offensive. There's nothing in "Hindu Wasi" that's even close to my moniker "stwasm" except that the two almost rhyme. Additionally, if you read my earlier posts, you would see that I'm not imposing "my moral set on private companies." The article clearly stated that the name has been used as a derogatory term and my personal experience has heard it used both as a football team and as a negative term. My point is it's something to consider.

[Kilmer17]

But what the article FAILS to do is show how the football team is using the name in a deragatory manner. Only that it HAD been used that way at some point in time by someone.

[stwasm]

But what the article FAILS to do is show how the football team is using the name in a deragatory manner. Only that it HAD been used that way at some point in time by someone.

But, don't you think that, if the name had been associated with some type of negative description about a group, it would be a bad idea to use that name professionally?

[zoony]

And I say it again, you haven't demonstrated why "stwasm" is offensive. There's nothing in "Hindu Wasi" that's even close to my moniker "stwasm" except that the two almost rhyme.


So you are looking for 'proof' that something offends someone? :doh:

...

[Kilmer17]

But, don't you think that, if the name had been associated with some type of negative description about a group, it would be a bad idea to use that name professionally?


Who get's to decide if it's negative? How many people?

And do you really think the Original owner of the team thought "Hey, instead of Braves, let's call the team the Redskins as a way to slight NAtive Americans" That outta sell some merchandise.

[stwasm]

So you are looking for 'proof' that something offends someone? :doh:

...

That's not what I said. The article gives examples as how the team's name was used as a derogatory terms. My colleague, Mr. Kilmer, basically responded by saying that my name offended him. Because he obviously was saying it just to be difficult, I called him on it, asking him to explain to me why he was offended.

[zoony]

That's not what I said. The article gives examples as how the team's name was used as a derogatory terms. My colleague, Mr. Kilmer, basically responded by saying that my name offended him. Because he obviously was saying it just to be difficult, I called him on it, asking him to explain to me why he was offended.


Stwasm... 'offense' is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY arbitrary.

What offends you might/might not offend me, and vice versa.

There is no such thing as 'PROOF' that something is offensive. You will never find it.

Kilmer has every right in the world to be offended by your screen-name. He does not need to offer proof... even if such a thing did exist.

...

[Kilmer17]

I gave my answer. And it's just as valid as those saying "redskins" offend them. Both are based on OTHER peoples experiences with the name. And neither apply to their current use.

[stwasm]

Who get's to decide if it's negative? How many people?

And do you really think the Original owner of the team thought "Hey, instead of Braves, let's call the team the Redskins as a way to slight NAtive Americans" That outta sell some merchandise.

A number of Native American groups have voiced opposition to it. You even had Charles Mann speak out against the name. It doesn't matter if the original owner intended to offend or not. Let me give you an example:

I'm a black man. When I was walking into a hotel one time, a white guy walked up to me and said, "Hey, what's up, homey!" I was offended by that because, in his mind, he thought that's how one should approach a black male. After my friends and I called him on his ignorant behavior, he said that he didn't mean to offend me. While I took him at his word, just because he didn't mean to offend me doesn't make what happened any less painful or insulting to me.

[stwasm]

Stwasm... 'offense' is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY arbitrary.

What offends you might/might not offend me, and vice versa.

There is no such thing as 'PROOF' that something is offensive. You will never find it.

Kilmer has every right in the world to be offended by your screen-name. He does not need to offer proof... even if such a thing did exist.

...

Zoony, believe me, I hear what you're saying. But, in this situation, he basically made the comment to dismiss what I had to say without even thinking about it or hearing me out.

[Kilmer17]

A number of Native American groups have voiced opposition to it. You even had Charles Mann speak out against the name. It doesn't matter if the original owner intended to offend or not. Let me give you an example:

I'm a black man. When I was walking into a hotel one time, a white guy walked up to me and said, "Hey, what's up, homey!" I was offended by that because, in his mind, he thought that's how one should approach a black male. After my friends and I called him on his ignorant behavior, he said that he didn't mean to offend me. While I took him at his word, just because he didn't mean to offend me doesn't make what happened any less painful or insulting to me.


And Ive seen studies showing other NAtive Amercian groups SUPPORT the use of the name.

Who wins?

[zoony]

A number of Native American groups have voiced opposition to it. .


Doesn't matter. AT ALL.

It is a private enterprise. This is not a public institution. Can you not know the difference? Seriously.


Question for you... I, personally, find the KKK offensive, as I am Catholic. I am thinking about taking them to court to get them to change the name 'KKK', because it has derogatory connotations towards Catholics. As a matter of fact, MANY have expressed the same views that I have on this subject...

Think I win in court? Think they'll change their name? Should they?

Seriously... please don't dodge the questions I want to know what you think of this.

[stwasm]

Doesn't matter. AT ALL.

It is a private enterprise. This is not a public institution. Can you not know the difference? Seriously.


Question for you... I, personally, find the KKK offensive, as I am Catholic. I am thinking about taking them to court to get them to change the name 'KKK', because it has derogatory connotations towards Catholics. As a matter of fact, MANY have expressed the same views that I have on this subject...

Think I win in court? Think they'll change their name? Should they?

Seriously... please don't dodge the questions I want to know what you think of this.

Zoony, I understand what you're asking me. But, is the KKK a money-making enterprise like the Redskins? If so, then, yes you have a right.

[stwasm]

And Ive seen studies showing other NAtive Amercian groups SUPPORT the use of the name.

Who wins?

I've seen those studies and I hear what you're saying. Believe me, I do. And I'm also not trying to put you down. But, if there are Native American groups AGAINST the name's use, isn't that enough for a review?

[Kilmer17]

No, it's not. Otherwise 1 person could say a name offends him and get it changed. The fighting Irish would be gone. Giants would offend short people. Jet's offend those with fear of flying etc etc etc.

You dont have the right NOT to be offended.

[zoony]

You dont have the right NOT to be offended.


That is what it ALL boils down to in the end.


Every argument against this point is just spin. spin, spin, spin.

Not sure where the arrogance of Americans comes from... that we all have a right to go thru life and not be offended. :doh:



.....

[stwasm]

No, it's not. Otherwise 1 person could say a name offends him and get it changed. The fighting Irish would be gone. Giants would offend short people. Jet's offend those with fear of flying etc etc etc.

You dont have the right NOT to be offended.

You keep coming back to "one person" could say it's offensive. Is it just one person or is a group of persons who find the name offensive? To me, I've heard enough criticism to at least warrant a listen to what they're claiming.

[Art Monk Fan]

As quoted from the article:

"Never mind that the word is a slur -- used as "redskinned devils" in a novel published in 1871, "every greasy redskin" in the Rocky Mountain News in 1890 and "the most treacherous red skins" in the Denver Daily News that same year."
You have successfully proven that, during the late nineteenth century, the term was used in conjunction with certain adjectives and nouns, ie. devils, greasy and treacherous, to create a derogatory remark. This ignores several very important facts, however:

1. The original use of the term was not derogatory, rather it was a term of respect used by natives in reference to themselves.

2. The current use of the term is commonly accepted as referencing one of several sports teams and not any body of native people.

3. None of the teams employing the name chose it during the period (the late nineteenth century) in which the phrase carried a derogatory connotation.

4. We do not currently exist in the late nineteenth century during which time the use of the phrase constituted an epithet.

5. In the examples you site, it is only apparent that the term is derogatory because of the inclusion of other words (devil, etc.), which begs the question whether the term was, on it's own, derogatory even then?

So, referencing an isolated historical use of an otherwise innocuous term to somehow infer a current intent to insult is, to me, totally specious. One wonders if the aggrieved are actaully seeking offense? :2cents:

[Kilmer17]

Which brings us back to the original ?

How MANY people need to be offended before YOU would force a private company to change?

If 1 isnt enough, how many would be?

[stwasm]

Which brings us back to the original ?

How MANY people need to be offended before YOU would force a private company to change?

If 1 isnt enough, how many would be?

I never said one wasn't enough. My thing is that enough groups/people have made the point in this case that I think it warrants further review.

[zoony]

Which brings us back to the original ?

How MANY people need to be offended before YOU would force a private company to change?

If 1 isnt enough, how many would be?


4,137 would be enough.

If only 4,136 people are offended, then tough

.......

[Kilmer17]

I never said one wasn't enough. My thing is that enough groups/people have made the point in this case that I think it warrants further review.

Based on what number?

"Enough" equals what exactly?

[stwasm]

Based on what number?

"Enough" equals what exactly?

I really don't think you can put a number on a situation like this. The bottom line: people are offended by the name. Let's at least listen to what they have to say.

[Kilmer17]

Then do you agree that we should listen EVERY time someone claims they are offended by something?

Where does it end?

[Art Monk Fan]

I really don't think you can put a number on a situation like this. The bottom line: people are offended by the name. Let's at least listen to what they have to say.
Already been done. They cite you rcalims about the use of the term in the late nineteenth century and often posit the false etymology that the phrase refers to scalping of natives (which has been verifiably refuted). The truth is, the term is not used as an insult. The application of the term as a team mascot is a sign of respect to a brave and noble people who w many whish we emulated more closely. The perception of any slight is blatent grandstanding; there is no issue here.

[stwasm]

Already been done. They cite you rcalims about the use of the term in the late nineteenth century and often posit the false etymology that the phrase refers to scalping of natives (which has been verifiably refuted). The truth is, the term is not used as an insult. The application of the term as a team mascot is a sign of respect to a brave and noble people who w many whish we emulated more closely. The perception of any slight is blatent grandstanding; there is no issue here.

I have to go back to what I said earlier. A number Native Americans associate that word with negative connotations. As a black man, I understand racism, discrimination and insensitive terms and symbols. But, because we don't share the Native American experience, it's hard for us to relate what that word could mean to those of that race. All we know is the football team. What may mean one thing to us could me something totally different to someone else. This isn't grandstanding. It's just trying to understand ALL points of view.

[Kilmer17]

So why wont YOU accept and understand my opposition to your screen name? As a black man, you have no idea how it makes me feel.

[zoony]

I'll throw out the word 'arbitrary' again.

Offense can never be proven.

.......

[Art Monk Fan]

I have to go back to what I said earlier. A number Native Americans associate that word with negative connotations. As a black man, I understand racism, discrimination and insensitive terms and symbols. But, because we don't share the Native American experience, it's hard for us to relate what that word could mean to those of that race. All we know is the football team. What may mean one thing to us could me something totally different to someone else. This isn't grandstanding. It's just trying to understand ALL points of view.
No one has used the term in a derogatory manner in over 100 years. The offense is manufactured for socio-political gain. In our society, you have no identity unless you are the memeber of some aggrieved party, prompting many to manufacture grievances to acheive special protected status. Take off your blinders.

[stwasm]

So why wont YOU accept and understand my opposition to your screen name? As a black man, you have no idea how it makes me feel.

I ask the question again. Why is it offensive to you? Show me why it's offensive. Explain to me your experiences that have led you to feel that my name offends you. What historical reference is there that "stwasm" is as offensive as the n-word to me or the r-word to Native Americans. Unlike you, I'm willing to listen to your point of view.

[paulwhy]

Your beating a dead horse
should we change the name to the washington native americans ?

[stwasm]

I'd settle for just the Skins.

[Thiebear]

Giants: Im offended I'm only 5'1.
Cowboys: Who do you think were scalping and killing the indians?
Redskins: o.k. that ones o.k.
Eagles... animal.. let peta deal with it. (probably put it on endangered cause everyone wanted one..
Bears: Large gay men that like to wear speedo's.. nuff said.
Lions: See eagles
Vikings: Rapers and Thieves..
Packers: "you know"...
Panthers: Lets keep race out of this league
Bucaneers: See vikings...
Falcons: They are shackled to some wannabee god wrist.
Saints: Lets keep the Catholic Church out of the NFL please. Why no Quran or Hindu mentions?
SeaHawks: See Lions
Rams: See Seahawks
Cardinals: Again with the Catholic Church in the NFL one wasnt enough for you?
49ers: Money Grubbing, poor working conditions.. this ones o.k.
Patriots: Your for us or against us: See Braves I'm not a Terrorist lover thread...
Bills: Buffalo Bill Cody. (Buffalo Killer) Carrying the “frontier” theme further, the winning contestant further offered that the team was being supported by Frontier Oil
Dolphins: Save them not exploit them.. see eagles
Steelers: What a horrible working condition, how many died?
Browns: now you just going there.. Named after a guy...
Oilers? no way, just callem the halliburtons
Chiefs: See Redskins
Raiders: See Bucaneers/Vikings/killers/ Rapers...
Titans: Greek Mythology in Football, See Giants and short people.

Wow, i need those 3 minutes back.. time waster, like the original article...

[DCNightHawk]

A name is just a name. The fact is that the native americans actually came up with this term for themselves. It is not intended to become a derogatory word. anyone can turn anything it a bad word. Currently, the word is meant for respect. We are embracing the Native American roots and keeping them alive in our own time. We mean no disrepect. Plus, 90 percent of all indians are not bothered by the word.

[portisizzle]

So will we have to change the name of the state of Indiana?? Indianapolis??

[National Defense]

Indians give a cheer for the name 'Redskins'


By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Ninety percent of American Indians say the name Washington Redskins does not offend them, according to a new national survey.
Only 9 percent of polled Indians say they find the name of Washington's professional football team "offensive," according to the results of the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey. The other 1 percent did not respond.
"I thought more people would have had" problems with the name, said Adam Clymer, political director of the survey, which questioned more than 65,000 Americans of all races and ethnic groups between Oct. 7, 2003, and Sept. 20, 2004.







Mr. Clymer, formerly a reporter for the New York Times and other newspapers, says it was his idea to ask Americans polled who identified themselves as American Indians or Native Americans if they objected to the team name Redskins, a moniker that many Indian leaders and activists have said is offensive.
But Redskins' owner Daniel Snyder has insisted the team will keep the name it has had since 1933, when it was in Boston. The Redskins moved to Washington four years later.
A total of 768 persons from all 48 continental states interviewed in the Annenberg election survey identified themselves as Indians or Native Americans, slightly more than 1 percent of the survey sample and about the same percentage of Indians as counted in the census.
The question was phrased: "The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn't it bother you?"
Data showed that 8 percent of men and 9 percent of women found the name offensive, while 90 percent of each sex said it did not bother them.
Those having more education, higher incomes and being younger and "politically liberal" were more likely to dislike the name than those whose education and income levels were lower, who were older, or who described themselves as "moderate" or "conservative" politically.
For example, 14 percent of those who called themselves liberal said they found the name offensive, compared with 6 percent of conservatives and 9 percent of moderates. Yet, even 85 percent of self-identified liberal Indians said the name did not bother them.
The poll had a margin of error of 2 percentage points.
Karl Swanson, spokesman for the Washington Redskins, said the new poll "confirms what other surveys have consistently showed."
The findings in the Annenberg Election Survey support those of a poll that Sports Illustrated conducted in 2002.
Asked whether they were offended by the name Redskins, 75 percent of American Indians in that poll said they were not. Even among those Indians who live on reservations, 62 percent said they were not offended.
Vernon Bellecourt, president of the National Coalition on Racism in Sports and the Media, said he believes both the Anneberg and Sports Illustrated poll are "flawed."
Mr. Bellecourt, a Chippewa who also is an executive committee member of the American Indian Movement, said he suspects about only about 2 percent to 3 percent of those polled who describe themselves as Native American are correct.
He cited two factors he believes contribute to confusion in this area.
"White persons suffer a real identity crisis, and they romanticize with us mythically. And a white person always will say, 'I'm part Indian and I don't object to the name, Redskins,' " he said.
In addition, Mr. Bellecourt said "about half" of those who claim to be Native Americans wrongly think they are, because "they were born in America."
Mr. Bellecourt says he feels confident "almost 100 percent of Native Americans totally object to our continued use as mascots for America's fun and games."
"Redskins is a slur, and there's a scent of racism in the District of Columbia" with that team name, he said.
He said Indian activists remain committed to eliminating that name and those of other teams that use tribal names such as Seminoles and Illini or call themselves Braves, Indians, or "Savages" or "Injuns."

[stwasm]

National Defense, thank you for posting that. But, my heart does go out to those who view it as a slur.

[Thiebear]

In addition, Mr. Bellecourt said "about half" of those who claim to be Native Americans wrongly think they are, because "they were born in America."


I actually agree with this: My ancestor was in Rock County Wisconsin in 1835 (Point Thiebeau).. I now consider myself a native american :) "Not an Indian". (He was married to two Indians)... How long do you have to be here to be a Native American? 10000 years? 2000 years? 300 years?




(Caleb Blodgett was the first of the settlers. He found at his first visit to this place in 1835, Thiebeau, a Frenchman, who had taken an Indian wife, who pretended to claim a territory somewhat indefinite in extent. This equivocal claim it was the first care of Blodgett to quiet, and in this he easily succeeded. The consideration paid to Thiebeau was $250.)
*Were easy also :)...* http://www.beloit.edu/~libhome/Archives/papers/lyman-history.html

I think the Words have meaning and if you know the Meaning of the words you can no longer attribute them to what they are not.