Daily Beast: The Racist Redskins

[McD5]

Before anyone reads this, please, take a deep breath. I'm not the author, nor do I particularly respect him. IMHO, he tends to be a hack.

However, I have verified a few things in this story that most Redskins fans have probably never been told--and they are true. Like the playing of Dixie before games.

So is the condition on his grant; that is public record.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

For the record, I have spent the last hour on FB defending the name. But this article is at least interesting:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/01/the-racist-redskins.html

Thoughts?

 

[McD5]

And the Russian judge gives it a 7. . Love you Mike. I mean that.

But I think this article points out a few things that are factual, and beyond dispute. If someone does feel otherwise, please tell me to STFU.

1. Our owner was incredibly racist. Severe racism. Does anyone deny that?

2. He did play Dixie before the games.

3. We were the last team in the league to employ an african american. And we were forced to do so. According to the article, which I have not verified, the author claims that RFK stadium required it.

4. So we had an extreme racist as an owner. Are we in agreement on that? Does anyone dispute that?

So, we are supposed to believe the Larry Michaels version of the story that this extreme racist decided to name the team the Redskins out of respect? Does that truly make sense to anyone here? I've read the Boston accounts, but does anyone truly believe that he suddenly changed, and felt he should honor native americans?

Is the defense that yes, it likely was racist, but it no longer carries that connotation? I'm not trying to be an asshole. Is that the defense?

Yes, it probably was racist, but it no longer is, and not enough people care about it? Is that it?

And finally, what is the exact benefit of keeping the name? A childhood memory that we all strive to keep?

I loved Tarhog at ES. That's why I came here. I love Boone at BGO. The name change doesn't change the person he is.

What is the benefit again of keeping the name? Is it defiance? Stubbornness?

Not arguing. Please help me understand.

 

[burgold]

There's no question that George Preston Marshall was racist esp. by today's standards. The question really boils down to who finds the name racist and offensive. Is it the Native American High School who chose to name themselves the Redskins (is that a sign of self-love or self-hate) Is the poll of Native Americans in which only 10 percent said the name was offensive and about 80 percent said they have no problem with the name whatsoever.

I'm leery of historical revisionism. There was a trend in sports to name teams after indian groups... would they do that because they wanted to mock and insult their own team? Seems unlikely. Think of the vast number of NA names in sports today from the Seminoles to the Braves to the Indians and our own Redskins and you will see that Washington is part of a group.

Neither the song, current logo, or anything in relation to the 'skins is particularly insulting. That said, I can't know what offends you. That's why I look to these national polls and what various speakers say. Right now, there seems to be more pride associated with the name Washington Redskins than insult.

Historically, there seems to be mixed notes about whether Redskin was offensive too and who used it. There seem to be some NA groups who used it themselves and that was how they identified themselves. Others look at a historical insult. On that note, remember that the origin of Cowboys was an insult that ranchers on the use to get so lonely they'd sleep with their cattle. That's also why they called them cowpokes.

Should we banish the name Cowboys whose origins are unambiguously offensive and insulting? Is it possible to find any name that won't offend some small subset of a subset?

 

[fansince62]

in a day and age when exercising our rights to criticize the President ends up labeling one a racist...why should anyone care?

the game IS ALREADY LOST.

btw...I eagerly await Mr Tomasky's next diatribe against Woodrow Wilson...one of the greatest racists of all time who wielded REAL power. or, for that matter, Mr Farrakhan, Sharpton, and 10 dozen other racists. yo see, the goal here isn't anything remotely connected to racism...it's about power and silencing dissenting points-of-view. if, especially today, one cannot see the real dimensions of what has been going on for quite a while now...well....they are part of the problem.

 

[Ax]

1. Our owner was incredibly racist. Severe racism. Does anyone deny that?

No. So what?

2. He did play Dixie before the games.

So, you're saying we need to change our flag too?

3. We were the last team in the league to employ an african american. And we were forced to do so. According to the article, which I have not verified, the author claims that RFK stadium required it.

And?

4. So we had an extreme racist as an owner. Are we in agreement on that? Does anyone dispute that?

No. So what? Bet most of us had/have racists ancestors/friends. Should we change our names because of it?

So, we are supposed to believe the Larry Michaels version of the story that this extreme racist decided to name the team the Redskins out of respect? Does that truly make sense to anyone here? I've read the Boston accounts, but does anyone truly believe that he suddenly changed, and felt he should honor native americans?

Do you really think there is any chance in hell that he named the team as an insult to Indians? It defies logic.

Is the defense that yes, it likely was racist, but it no longer carries that connotation? I'm not trying to be an asshole. Is that the defense?

The answer is, there's no need to defend it in the first place.

Yes, it probably was racist, but it no longer is, and not enough people care about it? Is that it?

It was descriptive. That's why Indians used it to describe themselves.

And finally, what is the exact benefit of keeping the name? A childhood memory that we all strive to keep?

However small the benefit might be, it is a thousand times bigger than any BS supposed benefit, to Indians, by changing it.

I loved Tarhog at ES. That's why I came here. I love Boone at BGO. The name change doesn't change the person he is.

Yeah, it didn't make his life better either. Or solve any health, wealth, or worth issues. Your point is?

What is the benefit again of keeping the name? Is it defiance? Stubbornness?

No. It serves no serious, meaningful purpose, to change it.

Other than serve the PC police.

 

[CounterTrey]

And the Russian judge gives it a 7. . Love you Mike. I mean that.

But I think this article points out a few things that are factual, and beyond dispute. If someone does feel otherwise, please tell me to STFU.
.

Man McD...really? Your take is reminiscent of someone who's NOT a Redskins fan and HASN'T been educated about the actual facts behind the name's origin AND the word origin.

The fact that Marshall was bigoted against blacks says absolutely nothing at all about how he felt about Indians.

"So, we are supposed to believe the Larry Michaels version of the story that this extreme racist decided to name the team the Redskins out of respect? Does that truly make sense to anyone here?"

No, what doesn't make sense is thinking that ANYONE would name their business and sports passion after something they not only had disdain for but absolute racist contempt for even an ardent racist like Marshall. That makes no sense on any level whatsoever. Basic logic doesn't even jibe with your take. The guy had an Indian for head coach who many attribute the actual credit for coming up with the name to. So it makes sense to not only hire one of these minorities you have racial contempt for and actually put him in charge, but to let him come up with the name too? Come on...really?

"Is the defense that yes, it likely was racist, but it no longer carries that connotation? I'm not trying to be an asshole. Is that the defense"

No it's not a defense it's a strawman argument since the actual history of the word once again doesn't jibe with that argument. It NEVER carried that connotation except in the minds of what appears to be VERY few and not a single documented case or instance of it's use in print or anywhere else as a pejorative. Linguistic research along with anecdotal accounts say it was NOT a pejorative in and of itself and was in fact a word that Indians gave and used in reference to themselves. That's not "Larry Michael's defense", it's a fact base truth.

"What is the benefit again of keeping the name? Is it defiance? Stubbornness? "

Very simple...the difference between fact and fiction, right and wrong and not allowing yourself to be bullied by someone who is willfully and outrageously ignorant. The converse of your argument is true...who is it actually hurting, the vast majority of the subjects of this word are adamant about NOT wanting it changed. So who's "feelings" are more important...the actual quorum of "voters" or the willfully ignorant history revisionists who want to force their tyrannical PC agenda on the rest of the world? You question isn't a defense of changing it, if anything it's an indictment and representative of exactly why this is happening...absolute lack of factual basis for an argument. Some idiots have convinced themselves that 1, this is racist and that 2. changing it will make any difference whatsoever in their lives.

Let's flip it...what is the benefit of changing it? We're talking real world benefit here, not some imaginary benefit that doesn't exist on this plane.

seriously if you didn't know this stuff, my apologies but I alone have posted it multiple times in this forum let alone others who have done it elsewhere too. Please...read this stuff, especially the one about the Smithsonian study.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycen...munication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/magazine/08/17/indian.wars030402/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139.html

Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard spent seven months researching its history and concluded that "redskin" was first used by Native Americans in the 18th century to distinguish themselves from the white "other" encroaching on their lands and culture.

When it first appeared as an English expression in the early 1800s, "it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level," Goddard said in an interview. "These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves."

 

[Boone]

There's no doubt Marshall had race issues. And political correctness didn't exist with regards to things like playing 'Dixie'. But there's a leap here that isn't logical.

No one names a football franchise in order to make a political or personal statement. You give a football team a name you want to root for. You mentioned my username change. To me, that name had a lot of baggage, some of it negative. I didn't want that connotation, so I changed it.

One can acknowledge that our early franchise days reflected the times - there was some ignorance and racism evident. Taking that acknowledgment and leaping to the assumption that the team name was selected as a result of that racism - it makes no sense. Sorry. At most, one could argue that, just like everywhere else in America, when the franchise decided to move from Boston, and was considering what team moniker worked, they didn't have the filter of sensitivity and political correctness that is almost automatic today.

But again - the idea that anyone, in the history of naming teams anywhere, has ever selected a moniker they intended to carry a negative connotation with - it's just ludicrous.

 

[Dead Money]

SO now we're reaching beyond the name itself, the people it supposedly affects to argue about the intentions of the man who brought the name to the team? Weak. I'm not here to help you understand points that have no bearing on whether or not enough Native Americans actually find the naming of our football team offensive enough to change the name.

See I just don't see the racial epithet that all of these white people on their soapboxes are screaming about. I'm 42 and have met a fair share of Native Americans, never has the word Redskins been brought up about anything other than football. Never have I thought "dirty redskins" because that's hollywood's fault, not the NFL's. I've yet to meet someone with a problem with the name that doesn't have a problem with a lot of other things in this world that I don't feel should change.

In short, lets stick to the main topic, is the name offensive? I don't believe it is. Are people offended by it? Some. I don't believe enough people are offended by it (in the communities that matter) to warrant a change. Lets drop all this "IF ONE PERSON IS OFFENDED ITS TOO MUCH.." bull****. That's not the world we live in. Some would love it to be, and those people should watch the fine film called "Idiocracy."

 

[Boone]

I have no issue with MCD5 or any other Redskins fan who thinks we should change the name. I really don't want to see anyone questioning someone's 'fandom' based on that issue. But what many like this author do is, having decided the name is an affront and needs to be changed, go about constructing any argument whatsoever (and one rife with assumptions) to justify that position.

There is really only one salient argument for changing the team's name - and that's that is is offensive to Native Americans. Any discussion that focuses on anything other than whether that's truly the case or not, isn't worth reading.

 

[fansince62]

SO now we're reaching beyond the name itself, the people it supposedly affects to argue about the intentions of the man who brought the name to the team? Weak. I'm not here to help you understand points that have no bearing on whether or not enough Native Americans actually find the naming of our football team offensive enough to change the name.

See I just don't see the racial epithet that all of these white people on their soapboxes are screaming about. I'm 42 and have met a fair share of Native Americans, never has the word Redskins been brought up about anything other than football. Never have I thought "dirty redskins" because that's hollywood's fault, not the NFL's. I've yet to meet someone with a problem with the name that doesn't have a problem with a lot of other things in this world that I don't feel should change.

In short, lets stick to the main topic, is the name offensive? I don't believe it is. Are people offended by it? Some. I don't believe enough people are offended by it (in the communities that matter) to warrant a change. Lets drop all this "IF ONE PERSON IS OFFENDED ITS TOO MUCH.." bull****. That's not the world we live in. Some would love it to be, and those people should watch the fine film called "Idiocracy."

Dead...I love your passion and endorse your thinking.

but I reiterate....in the end this has very little to do with racism. it's all about power and controlling what is acceptable discourse and correct thinking. that is how the Left operates. not to wander too far off target (but these things are connected) what the heck do folks think the IRS scandal is, in the end, all about?

I trust everyone tracked the statements Eleanor Holmes made last week vis the team name.

as for matters of principle...what has priority? some threshold number for people offended...or the right to free speech? where does discrimination lay off and free speech begin? what are the differences between actions and thoughts when it comes to crafting and enforcing anti-discrimination legislation?

 

[McD5]

Awesome responses......all of them.

For the record, I'm on the fence. I don't want the name changed. Nor do I think I would feel some incredible loss if a change does happen in the future.

I do find it ludicrous that any owner would name his team after something he didn't take pride in. And I don't believe many are really offended by it.....great points brought up here by several different members.

 

[Shi no Tenshi]

Any time a change is proposed, the question that should be asked is: "What do we gain for making this change?", not "Why shouldn't we change it?". I find that sort of thing especially important in a bullying environment, where people are attempting to smear and guilt and harass a group into changing.

In this case, all I see as a gain for changing the name is appeasing a few whiny PC police. No lasting gain will come of it. There will be no Natives helped. The only thing I see the whole discourse doing is giving the racists something to throw at somebody different from them. While redskin was never used as an epithet before, I guarantee you some will use it as that now.

The revisionist attempts people are making, are doing nothing but harm. There is actual evidence showing that redskin was not racist, was not used in any manner even close to the n-word. To say it is anything close to that is disingenuous, and marginalizing the meaning the n-word actually has. Only people with a political agenda are arguing for the name to change.

Something I have said before is: if you are for changing it, what do you think it should be changed to? How will that change make it more beneficial to Native Americans? The stupid crap people are coming up with (like redtails) don't benefit Natives at all. The important thing should be to honor the Natives with the name, right? As that is the stated intent. I don't see any of these apologist white knights saying how they are going to do that.

People that bully, and only try to argue from force, should not be rewarded with victory. They should be ignored, and shut out. They are not trying to look at the evidence and hold a belief from that; they are trying to find a way to construct evidence to support their belief. As a society, we should be showing those people that we won't put up with their ****. That is how that sort of bully gets dealt with: by the group slapping them down.

The problem I see in this whole mess isn't the name. I see the issue as a few thinking they can tell others what to think. When shown evidence to the contrary of their belief, they ignore it, or downplay it, or try to construct a scenario where they can say it doesn't matter. We should stop enabling them.

 

[CounterTrey]

Any time a change is proposed, the question that should be asked is: "What do we gain for making this change?", not "Why shouldn't we change it?". I find that sort of thing especially important in a bullying environment, where people are attempting to smear and guilt and harass a group into changing.

In this case, all I see as a gain for changing the name is appeasing a few whiny PC police. No lasting gain will come of it. There will be no Natives helped. The only thing I see the whole discourse doing is giving the racists something to throw at somebody different from them. While redskin was never used as an epithet before, I guarantee you some will use it as that now.

The revisionist attempts people are making, are doing nothing but harm. There is actual evidence showing that redskin was not racist, was not used in any manner even close to the n-word. To say it is anything close to that is disingenuous, and marginalizing the meaning the n-word actually has. Only people with a political agenda are arguing for the name to change.

Something I have said before is: if you are for changing it, what do you think it should be changed to? How will that change make it more beneficial to Native Americans? The stupid crap people are coming up with (like redtails) don't benefit Natives at all. The important thing should be to honor the Natives with the name, right? As that is the stated intent. I don't see any of these apologist white knights saying how they are going to do that.

People that bully, and only try to argue from force, should not be rewarded with victory. They should be ignored, and shut out. They are not trying to look at the evidence and hold a belief from that; they are trying to find a way to construct evidence to support their belief. As a society, we should be showing those people that we won't put up with their ****. That is how that sort of bully gets dealt with: by the group slapping them down.

The problem I see in this whole mess isn't the name. I see the issue as a few thinking they can tell others what to think. When shown evidence to the contrary of their belief, they ignore it, or downplay it, or try to construct a scenario where they can say it doesn't matter. We should stop enabling them.

A-freaking-men! I especially liked and agree with the last paragraph but the whole post is spot on.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

You know, the more I think about it, the more I agree with CounterTrey. It just doesn't make sense that he would name his TEAM something racist, it just doesn't. He was a well-documented bigot against black people - does anyone think for one second he considered naming the team the Washington N-Words? There's no chance.

I think he named the team The Redskins because Indians are viewed as a noble, strong warriors, which is the image one wants to evoke for a football team. CounterTrey is absolutely right; why in the world would he want to name the team something he had no respect for or looked down upon? It just makes no sense.

 

[Goaldeje]

As has been said, if a sufficient number of Native Americans said it truly bothered them, perhaps then a change should be considered. But to be quite honest, I'm not even sure what a sufficient number looks like.

As it stands now, I get a bit tired of hearing white people take up the "cross" for the Native American groups. If the NA's are that unhappy, I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about it by now. Hell, I can load up Twitter and find out when Amanda Bynes takes a crap; I'm fairly certain that Native American genuine unrest with the term "Redskins" would register these days.

I would ask the author of this piece what he is doing to improve the lives of Native Americans? This? Is this it? Cause really, what long term help is this going to accomplish? Anything? Does it make YOU feel better? For how long? Is that self satisfaction through self aggrandizement so awesome? If you really want to make a difference, get involved through politics or giving money or something. Changing a name might make people feel better for 5 minutes (if there are actually people genuinely offended by the name), but then what?

 

[Jugband McGillicuddy]

I just checked. The New York AL baseball team is still called the Yankees.

Until that changes, cry me a got damned river.

 

[Dead Money]

Any time a change is proposed, the question that should be asked is: "What do we gain for making this change?", not "Why shouldn't we change it?". I find that sort of thing especially important in a bullying environment, where people are attempting to smear and guilt and harass a group into changing...................

Well done sir. I think we can close yet another thread about the name change

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Shi no Tenshi]

Well done sir. I think we can close yet another thread about the name change

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

I wasn't actually trying to kill the conversation....

 

[Dead Money]

I wasn't actually trying to kill the conversation....

You misunderstand, not the conversation but the thread itself. We have the conversation itself going in the other thread. OR keep it all over here? Whichever.

 

[Win4us]

****ing Mara.

I blame any/all misfortunes the skins may face on that pig molesting son of Lilith.