NFL WASHINGTON REDSKINS-AN INSULT

[Cliff Krainik]

NFL WASHINGTON REDSKINS - AN INSULT TO NATIVE AMERICANS


Team Name Belongs in A Museum

By Courtland Milloy
Wednesday, September 22, 2004; Page B01

Watching and reading media reports about the recent football game between Washington and New York, along with stories and photographs about the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian, I was struck by the clash of images: of real Indians and of gung-ho Redskins fans impersonating Indians.

"Redskins Lose to Giants," read one headline, while another, about the museum, quoted an Indian as saying, "We're Finally Being Recognized."

Mind-boggling.

During a tour of the museum, which opened yesterday, I felt that many exhibits had been set up simply to introduce American Indians as human beings. In a region that is host to one of the most potent stereotypes in professional sports, that was no small order.

An electronic sign at the museum's entrance shows a sequence of 150 Indians greeting visitors in their native languages. They appear as ordinary people who are proud of their heritage and deserving of respect.

"I want people to understand the complexity of being Native rather than holding onto a very limited and one-dimensional view of the 'noble savage,' standing at the edge of the forest," W. Richard West Jr., director of the museum, told me.

By many accounts, "redskin" was a term used by bounty hunters to describe the scalps taken from Indians they had killed.

"I think in the view of most Native people, the name is simply pejorative," said West, who is a Southern Cheyenne from Oklahoma. "If you asked a majority of Natives if they would like to have life with or without that name, you'd find that they would all be better off without it."

Team owner Dan Snyder has ignored such sentiments. During a talk at the National Press Club in 2001, he said: "Number one, we're never going to change the name of the Washington Redskins. And I think, from a bottom-line perspective, what it means is tradition, what it means is competitiveness, what it means is honor. It is not meant to be derogatory."

On the other hand, never say never to a Native.

"Native people, who sat at the beginning of the cultural heritage of this hemisphere, have a saying that is a bit of counsel from the Mohawk," West said. "The saying is, 'You cannot see the future with tears in your eyes.' And I take that to mean this: We have experienced genuine tragedy from a human and cultural standpoint through the millennia. But the most important fact is that we are still here. By our patience and constant focus on the future, we have learned how to turn negatives into positives."

Truman Lowe, a Ho-Chuck from Wisconsin and curator of contemporary art at the museum, didn't really want to discuss the team's name -- at least not inside the museum, which is regarded by many as sacred space.

"This place is not about the term; the term is really about a team," he said. "There is a difference. When you come into this space, that is something one leaves outside."

That said, however, Lowe noted: "I think their season was really terrible last year and even denigrated the term, 'redskins.' Even from that point of view, it's the wrong name."

Lowe continued: "The most important thing for us is that when we identify another person, we want to do it in a manner that is respectful. The question is: Is the name really respectful?"

Suzette Brewer, a publicist for the museum and a Cherokee from Oklahoma, said an international "groundswell of goodwill" has marked the opening of the museum. "It's a global phenomenon," she said. "I've never seen anything like it."

And yet she added: "It's a bitter irony. Indians are the only group in this country subject to having a pejorative word used as the name of a sports team."

As the museum grows and matures, perhaps the team's outdated name and logo will be made part of an exhibit on cultural destruction. Meanwhile, the struggle for respect continues.

"There are 40 million Native people in this hemisphere, but there is still a cultural and physical invisibility," West said. "It's hard to honor that which you don't see. That's one of the reasons we have our First Americans Festival. It is more difficult to deny their existence if they are standing in front of you."

Assuming you don't mistake them for football fanatics.

E-mail: [e-mail]

Cliff Krainik

[Robert Braun]

Suzette Brewer, a publicist for the museum and a Cherokee from Oklahoma, said an international "groundswell of goodwill" has marked the opening of the museum. "It's a global phenomenon," she said. "I've never seen anything like it."

And yet she added: "It's a bitter irony. Indians are the only group in this country subject to having a pejorative word used as the name of a sports team."

Hmmmm... Suzette Brewer should contact the high school in Pekin, Illinois and ask the school what they called THEIR sports team in the 1970s!

Bob.

[Cliff Krainik]

Re: NFL WASHINGTON REDSKINS - AN INSULT

Bob - you wrote -

"Hmmmm... Suzette Brewer should contact the high school in Pekin, Illinois and ask the school what they called THEIR sports team in the 1970s! "

Yes, Bob - that was thirty years ago. Welcome to the 21st century - and now, about the current offensive name of the Washington team ...

Cliff

[Robert Braun]

Cliff said:

Yes, Bob - that was thirty years ago. Welcome to the 21st century - and now, about the current offensive name of the Washington team ...

Cliff

Cliff--

My point was that Suzette doesn't know what she was talking about-- but that's apparently OK, because the media clearly doesn't see a need to fact-check comments, positons, evidence and opinions with which they agree.

Can someone find me ONE source that shows the term"redskin" referred to the scalp taken by "bounty hunters?" Just one.

For dear Suzette's edification, Pekin (Illinois) High School carried the name of the "Pekin Chinks" until the early 1980s-- and it was a bitter battle to change the name to the current "Pekin Dragons."

Sources indicate the Washington Redskins football team has used the name since 1933, or more then 70 years, and the franchise steadfastly refuses to change the name. Heck-- were's the ACLU when we need 'em?

I am perfectly willing go go along with changing this name, provided we are also willing to be consistent and remove every reference to "white" settlers, "white" militia, and "white" soldiers that we constantly read in every article, book, website, and reference to what the pc crowd defines as "caucasian Euro-Americans" related to the Black Hawk War.

[While we're at it, we need to remove the 'Native" from "Native-American" because according to every generally accepted "Asian land-bridge" theorist, Indian people are not native to America. I guess as it turned out, no one is. From first to last, it looks like we are a nation of immigrants. ]

And.. let's not forget we need to purge every team name derogatory to the Christian faith as well--- Angels, Cardinals, and Padres...

Regards,

Bob

[Mike Thorson]

Hey Bob I'm hearing that Marquette, your alma mater, is considering changing their name back to the Warriors. Think it will happen? Is alumni $$ the biggest reason for this?

[Robert Braun]

Mike said:

Hey Bob I'm hearing that Marquette, your alma mater, is considering changing their name back to the Warriors. Think it will happen? Is alumni $$ the biggest reason for this?

I was on campus during Fr. D'Ulio's (sp?) fake campaign to change the team name. It wasn't the "bold move" described in the newspaper article below... it was a de facto change made by the administration, without comment, without input, and without consideration for dialogue.

MU turned down $2M alumni donation to change the team name back to "Warriors" in May, 2004... but it looks like the name-change is back on the table-- sans ANY reference whatever to "Native Americans." And I absolutely HAVE to laugh at the current president's comment: "This resolution makes it clear that we will not make any decisions that are in opposition to our Catholic, Jesuit values."

(HAHAHAHAHAHA! SINCE WHEN? )


This article appeared in the campus newspaper this week...

============================

Board of trustees to reconsider Warrior

Lindsey McKee
Tribune Staff

The board of trustees' Wednesday meeting ended with a resolve to consider bringing back the Warrior sports nickname, as long as it doesn't include Native American imagery in the logo or mascot.

At the first of the board's four annual meetings, the trustees discussed reversing the university's 10-year-old decision to change the name from the Golden Eagles to the Warriors.

Discussion will continue at the board's December meeting, said Brigid O'Brien, director of university communication.

O'Brien said University President the Rev. Robert A. Wild will consider the opinions and wishes of Marquette students, faculty and alumni when deciding.

Wild will seek input from the Native American community, and O'Brien said the board passed a resolution that there will be no references to Native American culture.

"We feel strongly that the use of Native American imagery in our athletics can offend and stereotype members of our human family," Wild said in a statement. "That was part of our past, but it cannot be part of our future. This resolution makes it clear that we will not make any decisions that are in opposition to our Catholic, Jesuit values."

Debate arose after trustee Wayne Sanders said he and another trustee would each donate $1 million to resurrect the Warrior moniker.

"This is an issue that has been important to many in the Marquette community for the past 10 years," Sanders said in a statement. "My intention was only to put the idea of a name change on the table for discussion."

In May, Wild declined the monetary offer for the name change.

Students, faculty and alumni have varied opinions about the controversial topic.

"I think it's good that they're changing the name. It's part of Marquette tradition," said Jessica Craig, a junior in the College of Health Sciences.

Other students feel the name should never have changed.

"There was no real reason to change it in the first place," said Casey Benander, a student in the College of Professional Studies. "Nothing indicates that a warrior has to be of Native American descent," Benander said.

Carl Schrank, a student advisor for the College of Communication, was a student at Marquette when the athletic teams became the Warriors and was a faculty member when it changed to Golden Eagles.

"I think it was a very bold move" of Sanders to suggest the name change, Schrank said.

Donna Farrell, president of the Alumni Association, said alums tell her they would feel better and more proud of their alma mater if its athletes were Warriors.

The university will have the support of the athletics department no matter what, according to Assistant Athletics Director for Media Relations Mike Broeker.

Director of Marquette University Bands Nicholas Contorno said the name is irrelevant.

"We are the same great university whether we're the Eagles, the Warriors, or the Hilltoppers," Contorno said. "Marquette is bigger than the Warriors, bigger than the Golden Eagles. I wear a sweatshirt that says Marquette."


Regards,
Bob.
Marquette Warrior
Class of 1980.

[Cliff Krainik]

MASCOTS - Redskins origin of the term


The Term Redskin

Dear Editor; It was brought to my attention that some were asking if the term "redskin" was really offensive to Indians and that they would like to hear from us on this subject. Well, here you are...I am Blackfoot, Cherokee and Choctaw...and yes, the term is extremely offensive to me. Let me explain why. 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. These scalps brought varying prices as did the skins of the animals. The trappers would tell the trading post owner or whoever it was that he was dealing with, that he had 2 bearskins, a couple of beaver skins...and a few scalps. Well, the term "scalp" offended the good Christian women of the community and they asked that another term be found to describe these things. So, the trappers and hunters began using the term "redskin"...they would tell the owner that they had bearskin, deer skins....and "redskins." The term came from the bloody mess that one saw when looking at the scalp...thus the term "red"...skin because it was the "skin" of an "animal" just like the others that they had...so, it became "redskins". 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, Mr./Ms. Editor...you can safely say that the term is considered extremely offensive.

In Struggle,
Tina Holder
Mesa, Az.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Proclamation issued in 1755


Given at the Council Chamber in Boston this third day of November 1755 in the twenty-ninth year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Second by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Iceland, King Defender of the Faith.
By His Honour's command
J. Willard, Secry.
God Save the King
Whereas the tribe of Penobscot Indians have repeatedly in a perfidious manner acted contrary to their solemn submission unto his Majesty long since made and frequently renewed.
I have therefore, at the desire of the House of Representatives ... thought fit to issue this Proclamation and to declare the Penobscot Tribe of Indians to be enimies, rebels, and traitors to his Majesty. And I do hereby require his Majesty's subjects of the Province to embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing, and destroy all and every one of the aforesaid Indians.

And wereas the General Court of this Province have voted that a bounty.... be granted and allowed to be paid out of the Province Treasury.... The premiums of bounty following viz:

For every scalp of a male Indian brought in as evidence of their being killed as aforesaid, forty pounds.

For every scalp of such female Indian or male Indian under the age of twelve years that shall be killed and brought in as evidence of their being killed as aforesaid, twenty pounds.

[Robert Braun]

I stipulate the practice of paying for scalps by both the English and the French.

However, it would appear that Ms. Holder, like some of the commentators from the article that opened this thread, presents opinion as fact. She does not present a factual basis for the claim that "redskin = scalp."

The burden of proof remains with Ms. Holder... and not on the reader.

Regards, Bob.

[Cliff Krainik]

"redskin" = scalp or not

REDSKINS = AN HONOR NOT AN INSULT

"How smooth must be the language of the white, when they can make right look like wrong, and wrong look right."

MA-KA-TAI-ME-SHE-KIA-KIAK


There is none so blind as he who will not see

"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it."

George Bernard Shaw
(1856 - 1950)

Cliff Krainik

[Robert Braun]

Because I don't automatically leap to side with the imagingings and opinions of others-- regardless of "policial correctness" or the prevailing winds of popular conventions-- does not mean I am "blind" as defined by Mr. Shaw. Speaking only for myself, there are several instances on this board where fact-based, reasoned pursuasion has caused me to modify or change my viewpoints. And I have so stated in this public discussion board venue.

However.... playing the "ad hominum" card by quoting BH or Shaw does not relieve Courtland Milloy or Tina Holder of providing a factual basis or reasons for their opinion that the term "redskin" is associated with scalping.


Regards, Bob.

[Robert Braun]

Hmmm... cursory research indicates that ol' Courtney, an op-ed writer for that bastion of impartial journalism, the Washington Post, has been railing against the nickname "Washington Redskins" for at least five years--- maybe more.

One would think that in that five years, he could have come up with something more than another ad populum rant transparently disguised amid the story of an opening of a new D. C. museum.

Regards, Bob

[Cliff Krainik]

Gentlemen:

Other than the discussions regarding the inappropriateness of the name REDSKINS, has anyone on the BHWMB actually used the term in referring to Native Americans?

Cliff Krainik

[Cliff Krainik]

IN RESPONSE TO MY POSTING OF -

There is none so blind as he who will not see

"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it."

George Bernard Shaw
(1856 - 1950)

Bob Braun wrote -

"Because I don't automatically leap to side with the imagingings and opinions of others-- regardless of "policial correctness" or the prevailing winds of popular conventions-- does not mean I am "blind" as defined by Mr. Shaw. Speaking only for myself, there are several instances on this board where fact-based, reasoned pursuasion has caused me to modify or change my viewpoints. And I have so stated in this public discussion board venue."

Well said Bob, however, I was presenting that statement for both sides to consider.

Cliff

[Jeffrey]

These posts were interesting enough that I went to Google and typed in "Origin of term Redskin" to get some sense of the thinking out in cyberspace. Second post up from an entymology site says:

"We like facts here at TOWFI, not revisionist history with no evidence to back it up. So far we have no evidence that redskin meant anything other than "person with red skin" just as black when used to describe a person means "person with black skin" or white means "person with white skin". The earliest recorded example of the term redskin is contained in the following quotation from 1699: "Ye firste Meetinge House was solid mayde to withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins." Why would a meeting house be built to withstand Indian scalps that were exchanged for money? That's absurd. Clearly the earliest use of the term refers to people, not scalps. All of the examples cited by the OED again refer to people and not the scalps of those people. We are fairly certain that the OED editors are not willing to hide a word's history just to preserve the image of their putative ancestors.

Is your professor someone with an agenda that would benefit from the word redskin deriving from "scalps"? Sure sounds that way, especially if she is standing by her derivation without a scrap of evidence. Doesn't sound like she deserves to be a professor, and she certainly shouldn't be teaching students, unless this is all some sort of trick she's playing on you!

Please note that we are not suggesting that scalping was not practiced by non-American Indians. It just has nothing to do with the etymology of redskin. Please also note that most American Indians (Melanie is among them) do not take kindly to the term. So while we have discussed its etymology here, we do not suggest that you use it in conversation. "
---
Further I noticed that Webster defines "redskin" as a derogatory term. That's enough to make me think that Washington needs a new mascot.

I was wondering whether the mascot might be: "The Washington Native Americans," as we have the "Ann Arbor Pioneers," the "New England Patriots, etc." I suppose the idea is that the mascot celebrates something virtuous in the social group identified in the title.
But then I'm thinking this is pretty silly. I played competitive sports all my life and waste a lot of time watching teams on television. Never once did "Wolves," "Celtics," "Huskies," or our own "DeKalb Barbs" have one shred of meaning to either how I played sports or how I identified with teams. It's some holdover from when mankind was more primitive and tribalism was important to us. My favorite team is the Detroit Pistons--I suppose the suggestion is they play basketball like a well oiled machine. Whatever, I'm for non-descript mascots.
----Jeffrey

[Robert Braun]

My sincere appreciation to Cliff for his clarification, and to Jeffrey for his search into the term "redskin."

Jeffrey's posting appears to support the contention that, absent historical evidence, linking the term "redskin" to the scalping of Native people is sounding more a modern construct-- a "factoid" tossed out to evoke a visceral, rather than an intellectual response.

I have made a similar point regarding the modern swirl of "controversy" surrounding the word "squaw."

Clearly, "fact checking" applies only when media sources disagree with the given subject matter. Worse-- it also suggests that the "means" ALWAYS justifies the "ends," regardless of how intellectually disingenuous the "means" may be.

To Cliff's query--- I rather doubt that the term "redskin" has been used in ordinary discussion on this board. I suspect the reason for this is a blend of the appropriate, the concern for good taste, and the desire to keep the discussions on this BHW Board on an elevated plane. (In my own experience, the use of terms and phrases from history in modern discussion invariably shifts the discussion away from the original points, and to a tangent focused solely on the "appropriateness" of terms and phrases from history. )

Despite modern "thought," the historical term "red skins" was not always used in the perjorative. For example, my reading of Henry Dodge's talk to the Winnebago on May 25th, 1832 does not suggest a negative connotation (nor does it refer to scalps!):

My Friends.--Mr. Gratiot, your father, and myself have met to have a talk with you.

Having identified us both as your friends in making a sale of your country to the United States, you will not suspect us for deceiving you.

The Sacs have shed the blood of our people. The Winnebago Prophet and, as we are told, one hundred of your people have united with Black Hawk and his party. Our people are anxious to know in what relation you stand to us, whether as friends or enemies.

Your residence being near our settlements, it is necessary and proper that we should explicitly understand from you the chiefs and warriors whether or not you intend to aid, harbor or conceal the Sacs in your country. To do so will be considered as a declaration of war on your part.

Your great American Father is the friend of the Red Skins. He wishes to make you happy. Your chiefs who have visited Washington know him well. He is mild in peace, but terrible in war. He will ask of no people what is not right, and he will submit to nothing wrong. His power is great; he commands all the warriors of the American people....

In the same wise, if we can use terms like "white" settlers and "white" soldiers on this Board--- which is done periodically and without embarassment or perceived insult, we should be able to use terms like "red" people or "red" soldiers...

... should we not?


Regards, Bob.