A Redskins Shirt At The Holocaust Museum

[82_28]

This isn't a real controversy. If anything the name of this team should be parlayed into increased education as to the plight those who came before us brought upon others. Here's another thing. We're talking about football here. Do you really think that they chose that name way back when in order to have some "pansy assed minority" as their mascot and namesake? No, they chose it because it meant bravery and strength. They chose it out of not racism but I propose the "mystery" of how strong the namesakes of said team was to be thought of. This isn't to say that the founders of said team weren't racist for their day, but the name, "Redskins" in and of a football team is just their name not a statement of entrenched racism that exists to this day, rather what was perceived at the time to be a name that would strike fear in opponents. The logo depicts a noble Native American as he or she was thought to look like at the time in conventional understanding. Moreover, this whole thing adds to the long saga of the hardships endured by Native Americans, because it accentuates the history of how we think about shit we didn't do but must remain aware and educated of.

Also, I think that yes, there are racists among us, but yesterday I was trying to think of one particular group of people (at least in Seattle I suppose) that the normal day to day person thinks is below them and I cannot think of one. Being racist doesn't compute in big cities (at least) any longer and we all go to an "Indian Casino" from time to time. I remember as a kid when my grandpa would notice when a black person would come into a restaurant or something and bring it up. It meant that this certain person wasn't in his part of town. It's all stupid and really I don't give a fuck. 82_28's recommendation is to not give a fuck about it. It's all part of the history we all share and it continues as it should. Changing the name of a fucking football team isn't going to change shit, other than the name.

[Iamwhomiam]

Sorry 82, but I disagree strongly. While you recognize the inherent racism in the team's name, you at the same time say there's no controversy, but there is. Kevin Brown, Chief of the Pamunkey Tribe of Virginia, is the leader of 200 members of his tribe. 196 agree with his point of view, or so he claims. He certainly doesn't speak for a majority of American Indians, or today's descendants of the original peoples of the US.

And we, who object to the derogatory team names and caricatures chosen for their iconography speak for no one but ourselves.

82, surely you wouldn't call a dark-skinned customer a "nigger," though they might indeed refer to their same-skinned companion in this way, nor do I believe you would call any American Indian customers "redskins." There would be a direct and negative result if you did and your employer caught wind of it.

The shame is that any American Indian who accepts this terminology shows its desired affect.

Now, our new commentator, Carol feels "Native American" to be an acceptable descriptor to the descendants of our original peoples, but that's far from true, as anyone born in North or South America would be considered a "Native American."

Yes, and they can speak for themselves, they don't need you to do it for them...in fact, I'd bet most would prefer you didn't. FYI, most prefer you refer to them by their nation name, not as Indian or Native American, although there are some members of the various nations who prefer Native American and even some who prefer Indian, but they're fewer than you would think, or would be led to believe.

And yet here is Carol speaking for those she claims we have no right to speak for!

And it will always matter whenever one group applies a derogatory label to another group, 82, and it always should be objected to, especially by those whom are not members of the group being disparaged.

We have such rules right here that disallow such labeling.

Hey, here's a thought... and I'm only speaking for myself... How about we all label Carol an asshole? I'm sure she wouldn't mind.

[Iamwhomiam]

well you seem to think you can speak for all babies

That is true. I would imagine sadistic pedophile rings are thankful for your speaking for babies, as well. You've given them carte blanche cover to traumatize young toddlers and infants since you, as their spokeperson, said trauma doesn't affect them. I find your smug confidence in the context of this forum as it relates to babies to be grotesque in the extreme. It's a known fact that victims of MC visit these haunts. In fact, there's a thread open right now about victims of MC. Many of these victims were tortured and abused as young children, some no doubt even before they started encoding conscious memories. For you to smugly assert this at this forum to score points is callous disregard for those who have suffered trauma at the hands of monsters. I'm equally disturbed that the topic of the thread is what MC survivors should do. One would think one thing they could do is step up when someone diminishes, marginalizes and dismisses a young toddler's or infant's capacity to be scarred by trauma.

You mean like objecting to a racist team's name for the benefit of all our poor defenseless red-skinned babies? You sure do like to give voice to those you do not represent.

But in seeing this is at least your second fall-back displacing yourself in argument in place of other victims, I have to ask, Are you a victim of such abuse as you describe above? I am not attempting to 'out' you as such and you are entitled to your privacy, but if you are such a victim of childhood abuse, it might be wise for you to connect with some here who are.

Your verbal abuse of of others is not appreciated one way or the other.

[82_28]

No. My point is that it exemplifies the total scope of the history of what it is -- here and now. I have a last name that signifies that my German "heritage" singles me out as "my people" were downtrodden and would never rise above the circumstances of whatever the fuck it was they went through. Apparently we were basement dwellers. But I have no idea, yet I retain the name. When people, at least in America, see the name "Redskins" they think football team.

Here's an idea, why not take the "S" off the end of the name. Making it The Washington Redskin. Etymologically adding the plural does connote genocide. However a team is composed of many players thus just thinking about it, every single team ends with an "S". The history is in the history -- this is part of it. History is to be remembered.

Like I said. Would Upton Sinclair care for the name Packers? Would my German grandfather care for the name Steelers that the steel industry cost him an early death? 49ers and so on and so forth. Everything is named after something. It's all part of our history. Changing the name of the Redskins would only add to ugly further stereotypes. Sensibly, the name in my opinion, should just stay as is. Hate to say it, but I find it neutral while also recognizing the concerns. We're not all helpless "minorities" except all people of conscience no matter who you are are in the same boat. There's nothing we can do about the past. The name is the name and it has now lost the ugliness that we in the future from the time it was named have now had to unearth in order to make it ugly again.

[seemslikeadream]

Back not so long ago, when there was a bounty on the heads of the Indian people… the trappers would bring in Indian scalps along with the other skins that they had managed to trap or shoot, Trappers and hunters began using the term ‘redskin’ …they would tell the owner that they had bearskin, deerskins…and ‘redskins.’ The term came from the bloody mess that one saw when looking at the scalp …thus the term ‘red’…skin… So, you see when we see or hear that term…we don’t see a football team… we don’t see a game being played…we don’t see any ‘honor’…we see the bloody pieces of scalps that were hacked off of our men, women and even our children… we hear the screams as our people were killed…and ‘skinned’ just like animals. So, yes, …you can safely say that the term is considered extremely offensive.” Tina Holder, Blackfeet, Choctaw

February 14, 2013 By Richard Boyden

[82_28]

How about we go after this one first?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache

[Joao]

Here's an idea, why not take the "S" off the end of the name. Making it The Washington Redskin.

How about just adding a space: Reds' Kins. Signifying solidarity with their proletariat fanbase, support for the workers' struggle against the bourgeois oppressors, and alignment with the international Communist Party.

Tractors at halftime instead of fighter jets, cheerleaders holding Marx placards, etc. "A specter is haunting the American capital. The specter of Superbowl championship."

[peartreed]

It’s an issue about respect and consideration in today’s more enlightened and more sophisticated understanding of race relations, ethnic heritage and group labels.

The name being that of a football team isn’t the point either. Sports has always been just another vicarious outlet for competition, war, battle and blood lust organized into a spectator sport, like the original gladiator fights to the death in the Roman coliseum, to channel human aggression into a somewhat safer audience outlet as entertainment. The name itself as a slang racial epithet and caricature is the issue.

To original motivation behind its selection is also irrelevant, even though it might have been admirable in intent to associate the team with savage, primitive power.

Even the rationale and argument about its relative social insignificance as an issue amidst today’s more serious problems is an attempt to deflect, diminish and ignore an offensive vestige and venal reminder of decades of demeaning discrimination.

Those who would accommodate it haven’t lived its impact or felt its social shame.

And they probably still display cute lawn jockeys on their landscaping for fun.

[Iamwhomiam]

I'm in favor of a name change. Let the present become the past, why repeat it?

I wish I had the eloquence of expression of peartreed. Thank you.

Speaking of repeating past mistakes, how about we just get rid of the attack helicopter and give back some honor to the tribe?

[JackRiddler]

Great comment.

To original motivation behind its selection is also irrelevant, even though it might have been admirable in intent to associate the team with savage, primitive power.

Even the rationale and argument about its relative social insignificance as an issue amidst today’s more serious problems is an attempt to deflect, diminish and ignore an offensive vestige and venal reminder of decades of demeaning discrimination.

Those who would accommodate it haven’t lived its impact or felt its social shame.

Absolutely, every word.

And they probably still display cute lawn jockeys on their landscaping for fun.

Probably not. In the vast majority, not.

[Joao]

Perhaps an effort to rebrand the name's connotation is in order...

Redskin (subculture)
In the context of the skinhead subculture, a redskin is a left wing (socialist or communist) skinhead. The term combines the word red, (a slang term for socialist or communist) with the word skin, which is short for skinhead. Redskins take a militant anti-fascist and pro-working class stance.

The most well-known organization associated with redskins is Red and Anarchist Skinheads (RASH). Other groups that have had redskin members include Anti-Fascist Action, Red Action and Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice (although SHARP does not have an official leftist ideology). Bands associated with redskins include: The Redskins, Angelic Upstarts, Blaggers I.T.A., Skin Deep, Kortatu, Skalariak, Banda Bassotti, The Burial, Negu Gorriak, Opció k-95, Los Fastidios, Direttiva 16 and The Press. One record label associated with the subculture is Insurgence Records.

Apparently they're "anti-racist skinheads," for the record. Presumably they're still confrontational enough to be embraced by American culture, however, and militant anti-fascism is unbelievably ripe for co-opting by the advertising industry, as well. Prime opportunity for a collaboration between Ruder-Finn, Grey Global, the NFL, Insurgence Records, and Wal-Mart. I smell billions.

[82_28]

When I say "I hate the Redskins" people know that means I hate that particular football team because it is a given that for most people they know the history of the actual people. When I say I hate "Indians" in my mind that is a completely different context and something I would never do, say or feel. The former is understood and I believe is unoffensive. I understand the offense, but as I said upthread why not turn it into a source for further education? I get what iamwhoiam and peartreed are saying and completely agree. However, changing the name A, isn't going to happen and B, will in fact, if changed will forever seem petty to most.

Also trotting out the whole warrior culture thing and how sick our society is through sports is also an ineffective argument. As an anti-racist and anti-war of all types entity on Earth, I still love football. So it is OK to be both. Again I work in an environment with wayyyy more football than the typical RI member. It is around me 24/7. Yet, a fact just dawned on me that the Redskins fans I know and have ever known refer to them as just "The Skins". "Oh, you're a Skins fan huh?" I'm just saying it's more of an issue than it needs to be. I get why it is an issue, but why it is an issue is the issue to me. Why? Most people (this includes myself) are totally aware of our history and totally see the name "Redskins" as neutral. Why not be proactive about the name? Ultimately, I couldn't really care less if they change the name since I really do hate the Redskins, but there really is a continuity in history whether we like it or not and this is simply the continuance.

[seemslikeadream]

The Joys of Racism



My former high school in suburban Ohio prides itself on having zero tolerance for racism. But does it really? The administration and faculty seem to think they know blatant racism, but what about the subtle type that happens every day? The school's team name and logo, the Redskins, is evidence of their lack of sensitivity toward the Native American community.



In my two years at this school, I observed many subtle racist actions regarding the Redskin name. Banners reading "Let's scalp them" were hung on the walls before sporting events. The human mascot (an Indian with a tomahawk) at football games would walk along the sideline, haranguing and pretending to scalp the other team's cheerleaders. My family and I were horrified at these not only politically incorrect, but also racist, actions.



Many students and staff have no problem with this offensive name, even after complaints were aired by several Native American organizations. One man told the school board, "We are viewed as a baseball team [and] a basketball team ... I ask you to give some dignity back to the American Indian people."



In response, this closed-minded community formed a committee called "S.O.S. - Save Our Skins." Most of the students associate the nickname with school traditions. "Why should we change the name of our school just because it offends someone?" one sophomore asked during a heated class argument.



No one seemed to care about the Native Americans' perspective.



When a sports reporter wrote an editorial about the refusal of the school to change its name, he referred to the supporters as "Blockheads." People became incensed at his label and could not understand the analogy.



After reading the editorial, my mother took the opportunity to inform the principal of the mascot's embarrassing antics at football games. He replied, "And you think that's racism?" He tried to explain to her that we should revere the Redskin name as noble and strong. "This is the reason," he explained "that we took the name." Apparently he didn't know the term "Redskin" is a Dutch name given to the scalps of American Indians killed for bounties. If the name "Blockhead" angered residents of this town, then the name "Redskin" surely offends Native Americans.



After much heated debate, and knowing that the Native American community finds it offensive, the school board decided to keep the name Redskins. Racism comes in many forms, and retaining the offensive nickname exemplifies the insensitivity toward those of another culture.

http://www.123helpme.com/assets/12769.html

[82_28]

Again, I am not one iota upset about any of this, either side. Here, however is a cut and paste from my first comment:

When I was in high school, named Arapahoe HS, our mascot was a warrior. We were the Arapahoe Warriors. But for years, way before me, the logo was like a cartoon logo of "an Indian". I think it was possibly the only school assembly I ever went to, in fact. The school and the Arapaho (spelled correctly) tribe met in order to make the logo more respectful. So they brought a huge contingent of "their people" down and they had a big dance on our gym floor, gave speeches and rendered prayers. This also was back when you were allowed to smoke on school grounds. Anyhow, long story short, the school allowed them to design the logo and have apparently, from what I know, have remained close with the school.

My school literally made amends and kept the Arapahoe Warriors moniker while allowing the Arapaho people the respect they deserved by letting them design a proper logo and we were all able to introduce ourselves to one another and witness a ceremonial dance.

[peartreed]

Again, the offense is specifically in the name “Redskins” as an historically derogatory term incorporated into the team name and, in other applications, the depiction of an outdated native stereotype as a cartoon caricature. There is no issue with naming a team or a quality product after a tribe, like Apache or Arapaho – or even Indian.

I’ve been a sports fan generally and a football fan specifically most of my life too.

The problem is in perpetuating a prejudicial epithet in nomenclature due to uncaring ignorance or indifference to the sensitivity of the First Nations objecting collectively to that derogative designation, and a blatant disregard for their dignity and respect.

If you truly “understand” and “get” that point, it is then utterly inexcusable to try to rationalize and sanction the continuation of the insulting offense as petty and overblown because the majority of society today has since allowed it to prevail.

Other attempts here to change the term’s connotation to its use for a different subculture is simply a diversion, changing the argument instead of addressing it.