D.C. mayor wants the Redskins to consider changing their name

most viewed right now
 155
NFL So lets speculate what the Antonio Brown injury might be
23 comments
@sports
most viewed right now
 96
NFL JuJu turns the hit on Vontaze Burfict that got him suspended into a TD cel..
18 comments
@sports
most viewed right now
 84
Video inside US DEPARMENT OF DEFENSE RELEASES NAVY JET ENCOUNTER WITH UFO VIDEO :mjd..
65 comments
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 56
Frequent Flier Series: Brazil
18 comments
@thotsdimesetc

section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter   Share this on Facebook
 

Props Slaps
 5 years ago '04        #61
HotBYoungTurk 13 heat pts13
space
avatar space
space
$11,720 | Props total: 2019 2019
sh*t is racist.. i've met a few people that said they love RG3 but will never root for the redskins simply b/c of their name.

change it.. its long over due.
 5 years ago '04        #62
HotBYoungTurk 13 heat pts13
space
avatar space
space
$11,720 | Props total: 2019 2019
 Megamind said:
I know an Indian (Navajo) girl and she's a fan of the team and she's not from DC.... I think a lot of Indians actually do root for the team
Do you know where "Indians" are from? dumb @$$..
 5 years ago '07        #63
Ghost Terp 18 heat pts18
space
avatar space
space
$15,628 | Props total: 3274 3274
 chief dee said:
for you fools who are mad at the suggestion at changing the name, are you guys too shallow to grasp the fact that there are other less offensive native american themes you could replace "redskin" with right and still keep your native american logo, colors, etc? You could be the warriors, and still have your native american logo. This is an easily reversable issue, no one is asking you to make a dramatic change. Yall act like the world would end if the nfl nolonger had the "redskins". Hell, half the country forgot yall existed before rg3, so what does it matter to the average football fan if we lost the redskins and gained the warriors?

Nobody is saying yall cant be native americans anymore, just be native american in a different fu*king way like how the chiefs and seminoles are a native american theme but being a "chief" is not offensive. Damn, it's that simple. Fu*k your redskin name, you'd still be a native american based team after changing the name to warriors or something else. Redskin fans cant be this shallow and protective over a racist name that can be easily reversed with the snap of wrist.

tldr...
 5 years ago '07        #64
Ghost Terp 18 heat pts18
space
avatar space
space
$15,628 | Props total: 3274 3274
 HotBYoungTurk said:
sh*t is racist.. i've met a few people that said they love RG3 but will never root for the redskins simply b/c of their name.

change it.. its long over due.
n*gga, we have enough fans. Why would we care whether or not random people you know like the team? Lol, fu*k out of here
 5 years ago '08        #65
M 2 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$16,199 | Props total: 5322 5322
 Smoke500 said:
This is honestly one of those issues where people are looking for an issue. Making Redskin seem like the N-word is comparing apples to apples without perspective or context
explain how it's different . Explain how an NFL team using a racial slur as a team name is not an issue.


It's not an issue to idiots who are so used to hearing it as a NFL team that they don't even realize what the word means
 5 years ago '07        #66
Ghost Terp 18 heat pts18
space
avatar space
space
$15,628 | Props total: 3274 3274
 M said:
explain how it's different . Explain how an NFL team using a racial slur as a team name is not an issue.


It's not an issue to idiots who are so used to hearing it as a NFL team that they don't even realize what the word means


Shut up trick


Most Indians Say Name of Washington “Redskins” Is Acceptable While 9 Percent Call It Offensive
Friday, September 24, 2004

Most American Indians say that calling Washington’s professional football team the “Redskins” does not bother them, the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey shows.
Ninety percent of Indians took that position, while 9 percent said they found the name “offensive.” One percent had no answer. The margin of sampling error for those findings was plus or minus two percentage points.

Because they make up a very small proportion of the total population, the responses of 768 people who said they were Indians or Native Americans were collected over a very long period of polling, from October 7, 2003 through September 20, 2004. They included Indians from every state except Alaska and Hawaii, where the Annenberg survey does not interview. The question that was put to them was “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?”


 01-10-2013, 08:38 AM         #67
Braz 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
It's crazy that the name hasn't been changed already. This is 2013 right..?
 5 years ago '08        #68
M 2 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$16,199 | Props total: 5322 5322
 Ghost Terp said:
Shut up trick

@ 768 being "most" Native Americans


And I'm gonna go out on a limb and say most of the people who were surveyed are morons who have a grandma that is 1/16 Cherokee
 5 years ago '06        #69
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 M said:
explain how it's different . Explain how an NFL team using a racial slur as a team name is not an issue.


It's not an issue to idiots who are so used to hearing it as a NFL team that they don't even realize what the word means
 5 years ago '08        #70
M 2 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$16,199 | Props total: 5322 5322
And I guess the 768 that were anonymously "surveyed" trump the 2000+ who actually showed up to protest at the 1992 SB
 5 years ago '07        #71
Ghost Terp 18 heat pts18
space
avatar space
space
$15,628 | Props total: 3274 3274
 M said:
@ 768 being "most" Native Americans


And I'm gonna go out on a limb and say most of the people who were surveyed are morons who have a grandma that is 1/16 Cherokee
Shut up bi*ch


Somehow that message is lost on most of Mills's fellow Native Americans. Asked if they were offended by the name Redskins, 75% of Native American respondents in SI's poll said they were not, and even on reservations, where Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most intensely, 62% said they weren't offended. Overall, 69% of Native American respondents--and 57% of those living on reservations--feel it's O.K. for the Washington Redskins to continue using the name. "I like the name Redskins," says Mark Timentwa, 50, a member of the Colville Confederated Tribes in Washington State who lives on the tribes' reservation. "A few elders find it offensive, but my mother loves the Redskins."

Only 29% of Native Americans, and 40% living on reservations, thought Snyder should change his team's name. Such indifference implies a near total disconnect between Native American activists and the general Native American population on this issue. "To a lot of the younger folks the name Redskins is tied to the football team, and it doesn't represent anything more than the team," says Roland McCook, a member of the tribal council of the Ute tribe in Fort Duchesne, Utah.

I can keep going
 5 years ago '08        #72
M 2 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$16,199 | Props total: 5322 5322
So can I...yeah you can keep bringing up bullsh*t statistics all you want. Like I said 2000 Natives showed up at the SB to protest the name and many tribes have even sent letters to the team to change the name, but go ahead, keep posting statistics.
 5 years ago '07        #73
Ghost Terp 18 heat pts18
space
avatar space
space
$15,628 | Props total: 3274 3274
Four days before I sat down to write the above information onHarjo, et al v. Pro-Foorvall, Inc./ I was on a road trip, going north to the portion of the Navajo Reservation in Utah to meet with a BIA representative and do some "responsibility evaluations" for several abandoned oil and gas wells on Reservation land. I had caught a ride with a Navajo friend, also a tribal employee, who was headed to the same area. My friend is older than I am and is considered by several of my Navajo colleagues and me to be an"elder" from whom we can sometimes seek advice.

On our first day our, we were driving past Red Mesa High School, a state high school within the Arizona part of the Reservation. I had never been to the small community of Red Mesa before. As we passed the school's events sign along the highway, which announced a Valentine's Day dance, my jaw dropped open and my eyes got wider when I noticed the name of the school's team-the "Red Mesa Redskins." My friend saw the sign, too, but he showed no surprise- it was obviously not new to him.

Because the Washington Redskins trademark case was on my mind, I asked my friend what he thought about the "Redskins" names used bask east and at Red Mesa. He said that neither one really bothered him. He thought that the football "Redskins" had chosen their name because it was something they could be motivated by. He felt the high school "Redskins" had a right to use the same name; especially because the student body had chose the name themselves and the student population at Red Mesa was probably about 99 percent Navajo. He then asked me if any of my Indian students at Northern Arizona University ever wore hats, shirts, or coats- like some of the high school kids on the Reservation do- with logos on them "from the professional baseball and football teams like the Redskins, Indians, Braves, or Chiefs." I answered yes, because a small number of my students had indeed worn these things, and he nodded.

Ya bish
 01-10-2013, 09:33 AM         #74
Braz 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
M is really ridin for native americans like that?
 5 years ago '08        #75
M 2 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$16,199 | Props total: 5322 5322
 Ghost Terp said:
Ya bish
Calling me a bi*ch and a trick really gets your point across

You think I can't find articles online about Natives who are offended?

Obviously there are some not offended, but there are A LOT who are, the ones protesting and filing law suits....but those ones dont matter because they have a different view than you do.
 5 years ago '04        #76
regularjoe 58 heat pts58
space
avatar space
space
$36,550 | Props total: 13169 13169
 5 years ago '07        #77
Ghost Terp 18 heat pts18
space
avatar space
space
$15,628 | Props total: 3274 3274
 brazidee said:
M is really ridin for native americans like that?
Let me drop this one last ether on her a.ss

THE ORIGIN OF REDSKIN


The controversy over the Washington Redskins trademark has attracted considerable attention, here and elsewhere. We have had quite a few previous posts about this. It began with a petition by seven American Indian activists led by Suzan Harjo in 1992 to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the US Department of Commerce requesting cancellation of the trademark on the grounds that the word redskin was and is a pejorative, derogatory, denigrating, offensive, scandalous, contemptuous, disreputable, disparaging and racist designation for a Native American person

In 1998 the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decided in favor of the petitioners and cancelled the trademark. Pro Football, Inc. appealed to the United States District Court, which in 2003 overturned the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and reinstated the trademark. It gave several grounds for its decision:
  • that there was an absence of evidence that the term redskin is disparaging in the particular context of the name of the sports team;
  • that the TTB did not sufficiently articulate its inferences and explain how it decided between competing pieces of evidence. In particular, the District Court was critical of the fact that the TTB ruled on the basis "of the entirety of the evidence" but did not review that evidence in any detail and made few findings of fact;

  • that the petitioners' claim was barred by the doctrine of laches, which provides that a right or claim should not be enforced if the long delay in a.sserting it puts the respondent at an unreasonable disadvantage. In this case, the Court held that opposition to the mark should have been a.sserted when the mark was issued in 1967 or shortly thereafter and that the delay of twenty-five years was unreasonable.

The case was appealed to the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit. In its 2005 decision, the Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of laches did not in principle bar the suit of one of the petitioners, Mateo Romero, the youngest, because he was only one year old in 1967 when the trademark was registered. (In US federal law, the clock for laches starts when the petitioner reaches the age of 18.) It therefore returned the case to the District Court for further consideration of whether laches should bar the suit on the part of Mateo Romero.¹ The Court of Appeal did not address the question of whether there was sufficient evidence that redskin is disparaging in the context of the name of the sports team because there is no need to decide that question if the suit is barred by laches.²

Although the main topic I want to discuss is a linguistic one, I've reviewed the legal history because I think that much of the discussion of the case has been rather misleading. To a large extent the decisions of the courts have focussed on the "technicality" of laches, not on the question of whether redskin is disparaging. The District Court did not simply ignore overwhelming evidence as some commentators suggest. Indeed, even in its holdings on the disparagement issue, the District Court's criticisms of the TTB were that it did not sufficiently address the question of whether redskin is disparaging in the context of the name and that the TTB did not make sufficient findings of fact. And in overturning the District Court, the Court of Appeal made no judgment whatever as to whether redskin is disparaging. Its decision dealt exclusively with laches. In short, the decisions of the courts have been concerned largely with technical questions, not with the linguistic issues.

I think that it is well established that redskin is taken by most people today to be disparaging. What is more interesting is whether it has always been so, as Harjo et al., as well as various others, claim. One interesting piece of evidence is the origin of the name Washington Redskins. In 1933, George Preston Marshall, the owner of the team, which was then located in Boston, renamed it the Boston Redskins in honor of the head coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, an American Indian.³ When the team moved to Washington in 1937 it was renamed the Washington Redskins. George Marshall clearly did not consider the name disparaging.

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

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

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

The response to Goddard's paper is disappointing. Other than reiterating the unsubstantiated and implausible theory that the term owes its origin to scalping, Harjo and others have merely waved their hands, a.sserting that as Indians they know differently without presenting any evidence whatsoever. A typical example is found in this Native Village article, which quotes Harjo as follows:

I'm very familiar with white men who uphold the judicious speech of white men. Europeans were not using high-minded language. [To them] we were only human when it came to territory, land cessions and whose side you were on.

The only point here that even resembles an argument is the bald a.ssertion that Europeans never spoke of Indians other than disparagingly. This is not true. Evidence to the contrary is explicitly cited by Goddard. What is more disturbing is that Harjo's primary response to Goddard is ad hominem: that as a white man what he says is not credible. Whether he is white, red, or green is of course utterly irrelevant, as thinking people have known since at least the Middle Ages. Goddard presents his evidence in detail, with citations to the original sources. You can evaluate it yourself, and you need not rely on his statements of fact but can, if you are willing to devote some time and effort, check out the sources yourself. Furthermore, without the slightest evidence Harjo imputes to Goddard not merely bias but racism, a charge which, based, as her own words reveal, entirely on racial stereotyping, merely reflects back on herself.

So, there you have it. On the one hand an utterly unsubstantiated and implausible theory advocated by Suzan Harjo, who exhibits no knowledge of the history of English usage of redskin, of American Indian languages, or of the early history of relations between Indians and Europeans. On the other hand a detailed account with numerous explicit citations to original documents by Ives Goddard, who has dedicated his entire life to the study of American Indian languages and the documentation thereof. It is always possible that some new evidence will be brought to bear, but for the present I don't think that there can be any ambiguity as to which is the more credible account.

Notes:
¹ The District Court held that Romero's suit was not barred by laches simply as a matter of the length of time that had elapsed since the cancellation petition was filed only seven years from the date of his majority, but might nonetheless be barred by laches if the delay of seven years put Pro Football at an unreasonable disadvantage. For this reason it is important to understand that laches is distinct from the doctrine of statute of limitations. A suit is barred by the statute of limitations if there is legislation setting such a time limit. In contrast, laches is an equitable doctrine and is based on the principle that too long a delay is unfair to the respondent, not on any particular time limit.

² Similarly, the District Court never addressed Pro Football's arguments that section 2(a) of the Lanham act, under which Harjo et al. sued, is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment right of free speech and the Fifth Amendment right of due process because it overturned the TTB's decision on other, non-constitutional, grounds.

³ Harjo et al. question this story of the origin of the name, but as the Circuit Court noted (p. 13, footnote 6), they provide no evidence whatever to the contrary and give no convincing reason to disbelieve the primary source, a newspaper article presenting the account by Marshall's grand-daughter. Some authors have also claimed that Dietz was not an American Indian. The articles cited, however, do not cite their sources, so it is difficult to evaluate their claims. It is, however, undisputed that Dietz presented himself as an American Indian and that George Marshall publicly presented him as one. George Marshall surely thought that Dietz was an American Indian, which is really what counts here.

⁴ A point that has not, as far as I know, been mentioned in this context is that scalps or other body parts presented as evidence of k!lls would not, in general, have been red. As I can attest from personal experience with the processing of animals k!lled by hunters, mammalian blood is bright red when fresh but darkens quickly as it oxidizes. When dried it retains a dark red tinge if thin but in any thickness is black. Under most circumstances bounty hunters did not present their trophies for payment until days or weeks after the k!ll, by which time the blood would have been more black than red. The suggestion that such trophies would give a primary impression of red is due either to a false idea that they would usually have been presented when fresh or to a lack of familiarity with dried blood. A further difficulty with Harjo's hypothesis is that, although whites did indeed collect Indian trophies as evidence of k!lls, the popular image of scalping was and is that it was an activity engaged in primarily by Indians who mutilated the corpses of their white victims. There was therefore no reason to a.ssociate bloody trophies, red or not, with Indians. If anything, the a.ssociation would have been with the white victims of scalping.

Take your L bi*ch

Riding for people that are lying and trying to get millions from lawsuits


Last edited by Ghost Terp; 01-10-2013 at 09:51 AM..
 5 years ago '08        #78
M 2 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$16,199 | Props total: 5322 5322
 brazidee said:
M is really ridin for native americans like that?
My girls are Native, I can guarantee that if anyone walked up to them or my ex and called them a redskin they'd get their a.sses beat
 5 years ago '07        #79
Ghost Terp 18 heat pts18
space
avatar space
space
$15,628 | Props total: 3274 3274
Read the article I just posted
 5 years ago '04        #80
regularjoe 58 heat pts58
space
avatar space
space
$36,550 | Props total: 13169 13169
Bet you're wrong.
Home      
  
 

 






most viewed right now
 60
Steph Kegels
120 comments
20 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 58
Video inside Unseen 50 & Yayo footage in 2000 for cash money Tour!
35 comments
18 hours ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 50
Image(s) inside Bx, can she be saved? Or is she Too Far Gone?
87 comments
20 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 38
Video inside Death of Barry Sherman (Apotex founder) and his wife, December 15, 2017
21 comments
18 hours ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 38
Nicki Minaj speaks up against White rappers taking over the charts
320 comments
19 hours ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 35
Video inside Jimmy Interviews The Roots' Black Thought About His Epic 10-Minute Free..
100 comments
1 day ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 32
NBA Shane Larkin trolls a BX member
16 comments
18 hours ago
@sports
most viewed right now
 28
Image(s) inside Dec 16 - Virginia woman killed by her pit bulls in ‘grisly mauling’
171 comments
21 hours ago
@news
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy