Skip to content

Another high school drops “Redskins” name

Washington Redskins v Tampa Bay Buccaneers Getty Images

As the Washington Redskins continue to combat claims that their team name is a racial slur, they frequently point to the fact that many American high schools use the “Redskins” name, too. But an uncomfortable fact for Washington’s NFL team is that many of those high schools are coming to agree with the American Indians who say the name is offensive, and dropping the name.

The latest high school to do so is Canisteo-Greenwood in New York, where Superintendent Charles H. Clemens told the local newspaper that after meeting with a representative of the New York State Office of Native American Services, the district will not “keep the Redskins name.”

Canisteo-Greenwood is the second high school in New York to eliminate the Redskins name this year. High schools in Massachusetts and California that were once called the Redskins have also changed their names. Miami University in Ohio once called its teams the Redskins but switched to RedHawks in 1996.

Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder insists that he will never change the name of his team. If that’s true, his franchise may end up being the last sports team anywhere that still uses the name Redskins.

Permalink 74 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, Washington Redskins
74 Responses to “Another high school drops “Redskins” name”
  1. rc33 says: Jun 10, 2013 1:24 PM

    Redtape.
    The Washington Redtape.
    Everyone should be agreeable to that.

  2. cajunaise says: Jun 10, 2013 1:27 PM

    Some people who are fighting to retain the “Redskins” name couldn’t name six players on the team if they tried. They are more interested in parties of the tea variety than the NFL.

  3. helix828 says: Jun 10, 2013 1:27 PM

    Hi. Proud member of the Onondaga Nation here.

    Please go find someone else to be offended for, thanks. 99% of us aren’t, why are you?

    Half the Rez are Skins fans anyway.

  4. Stiller43 says: Jun 10, 2013 1:27 PM

    Theres a million possible names out there…

    Start with your cities history (steelers, 76ers, 49ers, oilers, …heck, even take a cue from across the city and nationals and capitals, etc…)

    If nothing from your history works, choose one of the 10 million animals out there (even badgers and ducks have successful programs, they dont have to be fearful animals all the time…who thinks a cardinal or a blue jay is really a B.A. animal?)

    Point is, with ALL the possibilities, its ridiculous to think you’d be named after a race of people.

  5. gtorlone says: Jun 10, 2013 1:28 PM

    The Washington Redskins were established in 1932. Why did it take until 2013 for this issue to really get some legs to it?

  6. steviemo says: Jun 10, 2013 1:31 PM

    I’m down with the “Washington Big Brothers”, in honor of George Orwell.

  7. oranjellojones says: Jun 10, 2013 1:34 PM

    Nah MDS that won’t happen because of one thing this site seems absolutely loathe to admit or print…the FACT that REDSKINS is top 3 for names Indians name their own sports teams on Reservations across the Nation. That’s not anecdotal evidence, that’s FACT! For once I wish you guys would include some of this data that doesn’t mesh with this site’s clear agenda on the topic. The people who are the subject of this topic have spoekn loud and clear time and time and time again to the tune of over 85%…they DON’T want the name changed. I know you guys won’t let it go but the least you could do is cut out the disingenuous entries that literally only represent one guilty, white, liberal side of the issue.

  8. thegreatgabbert says: Jun 10, 2013 1:35 PM

    They don’t want to be associated with the NFL team of the same name.

  9. camdenyard says: Jun 10, 2013 1:37 PM

    The Slurskins need to get with the program.

  10. sparky151 says: Jun 10, 2013 1:41 PM

    Really? Now it’s news on ProFootballTalk when a high school somewhere changes its team nickname? You guys are getting desperate in your crusade.

    It’s also worth noting that the high school made the change not at the request of a tribe but at the request of another government agency. So the change doesn’t really support the point you’re trying to make.

  11. Iknoweverything says: Jun 10, 2013 1:42 PM

    The Washington Filibusters.(Always much talk but no walk)
    Owned by Mr. Inept Snyder.
    Led by FalseHope FraudIII Bob Marley wannabe

  12. Iknoweverything says: Jun 10, 2013 1:43 PM

    The leagues most embarrassing franchise, with the leagues most overrated QB, owned by the leagues most inept owner, with the leagues most clueless fans

  13. guppies66 says: Jun 10, 2013 1:48 PM

    Snyder is either greedy and a racist, or he is stubborn stupid.

  14. nineroutsider says: Jun 10, 2013 1:50 PM

    Until other owners start talking about it there isn’t much of a story here. I’ve stated before the reasons I hope that they don’t change their name so I won’t bore you again with that, but if large groups of natives are offended by it then they should change it. The name is actually meant to venerate, not disrespect, Native Americans.

  15. golfongrass311 says: Jun 10, 2013 1:51 PM

    WHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO CAAAAARRRREEESSSSSSS , get over being “offended” if you dont like it. dont associate with it. you have 31 other teams to cheer for

  16. redpillmindstate says: Jun 10, 2013 1:52 PM

    With the history connected to the name and the blatantly racist mindset and behavior of the Original Redskin’s owner this should be a no-brainer … Dan Snyder’s hubris in this matter is nothing but bad PR for his team and legacy is a poor poor excuse to continue….. This is America though not perfect we strive to correct the social ills brought upon us by previous generations…. it’s what we do … and to continue down this course when Everyone knows its wrong smacks of arrogance, elitism and priviledge exactly what you’d expect from a sheltered billionaire more concerned with brand recognition and a dollar than promoting morale sensibilities that make us all better in the long run

  17. westcoastraider says: Jun 10, 2013 1:52 PM

    The team name was made in a time where you could be blunt like that about certain things and it was ok due to the nature of the men in power being nothing but racist money grubbing dbags… However we live in a new world where money grubbing dbags are no longer the only ones with a voice and people who take pride in their heritage see that as a shot against them and their ancestors… I can agree with a Snyder, his money his team he can do what he wants, but in that same respect if your pissing off a group of people that identify and take pride in what that stands for, maybe it’s worth looking into…

    Plus I’m sure if there was a sports team called the washington wide eyes or the Washington pale skins the team name would have been changed…

  18. buccaneerjeremy says: Jun 10, 2013 1:56 PM

    Why is it every time the name “Redskin” is mention be it from Pop Warner to Professional, we have to hear about it? Also almost every time in what is clearly you position of changing the name & not as a news or journalist piece of non partisan?

    I get it you want the name changed BUT they 1) Own the team 2) Already said they aren’t interested in changing it.

    As much as you hit this “Story” with “Facts” (Items which support you Political Correctness) we can see that it’s honestly not the general public that cares as much as you or what ever political career the stand might make.

    It’s just obvious that you want the name change at this point, which is fine that’s your freedom of Speech but it works both ways.

  19. truthfactory says: Jun 10, 2013 1:56 PM

    You know how I know its not a derrogatory word? Because I can say jt in public and not have to look over my shoulder and worry if anyone heard me.

    How about this: I’m offended that they are offended. Therefore, you should stop being offended. Isnt that how it works?

  20. jhig713 says: Jun 10, 2013 2:10 PM

    red·skin (rdskn)
    n. Offensive Slang
    Used as a disparaging term for a Native American.

    And no, it’s not the same as fighting irish or seminoles because they arent negative terms. Most dont find Redskin offensive because they dont have many native americans living near them. Would you call a native a Redskin to his face? Didnt think so.

  21. firedog784 says: Jun 10, 2013 2:11 PM

    The owner may refuse to change the Redskins name but the networks have the power to refuse to use it. Why can’t they stop referring to them as the Redskins and just refer to them as Washington?

    Touchdown, Washington. First down, Washington. And so on and so forth. I would think they have a responsibility too not to use a “slur” if that’s what this has come down to.

  22. smithj874 says: Jun 10, 2013 2:15 PM

    Here we go again.

    The only folks who seem to be concerned about this issue is PFT and the Washington Post. Sane, rational people understand that the history of the term “Redskins” has no racist background. This is nothing more than political correctness gone amuck, advocated by liberals who feel like anything that remotely smacks of anything to do with ethnic background or race is automatically wrong. In this case: (a) the term “Redskins” is not a racist term, and (b) the team is using as a term of honor. Go find another silly, useless cause.

    And I’m part Cherokee, by the way.

  23. asimonetti88 says: Jun 10, 2013 2:20 PM

    If PFT really felt strongly about this, they would stop reporting on the Redskins altogether. They would not report on the games the play, the players that play for them, or even on the name they so clearly dislike. That would send a far stronger message than the one they are currently sending.

  24. sampsonswag01 says: Jun 10, 2013 2:20 PM

    If it doesn’t matter to some people then keeping it or not keeping SHOULD have zero relevance to you…….i.e…..then don’t comment…..unless you really do care but you care more about ‘not’ caring……..

  25. b3nz0z says: Jun 10, 2013 2:21 PM

    When George Preston Marshall died in 1969, he left some money to set up a foundation in his name. He attached one firm condition: that the foundation should not direct a single dollar toward “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form.”
    His second coach was a man whose mother was thought to be part Sioux. And on that flimsy basis, Marshall changed the name, in this coach’s “honor” (even though Marshall fired him after two seasons), from Braves to Redskins.
    This is a man who ordered the Redskins marching band to play “Dixie” right before “The Star-Spangled Banner” prior to every game—up into the 1960s.
    Marshall was the last owner to accept a black player—15 years after the ban was lifted. And his team drafted an African-American then only because it was forced to by the government—RFK Stadium was built on Department of Interior land, which Kennedy to order the the team to adhere to federal nondiscrimination policies.

  26. wcman says: Jun 10, 2013 2:24 PM

    oranjellojones says: Jun 10, 2013 1:34 PM

    Nah MDS that won’t happen because of one thing this site seems absolutely loathe to admit or print…the FACT that REDSKINS is top 3 for names Indians name their own sports teams on Reservations across the Nation. That’s not anecdotal evidence, that’s FACT! For once I wish you guys would include some of this data that doesn’t mesh with this site’s clear agenda on the topic. The people who are the subject of this topic have spoekn loud and clear time and time and time again to the tune of over 85%…they DON’T want the name changed. I know you guys won’t let it go but the least you could do is cut out the disingenuous entries that literally only represent one guilty, white, liberal side of the issue.
    _________________________________

    Best post I’ve read on the subject which is why I felt it needed to be posted again. This whole issue is about the needs of some self obsessed justice fighters, who have jumped on their soap boxes to defend something that doesn’t need or want to be defended. Time and again we see this being brought up without the backing of a high percentage of Native Americans putting their name behind it. Know why? Because they don’t care. It’s a Football team and the name has been explained to show it was not taken in a derogatory manner. Some people just can’t live without trying to conform others to their way of thinking, and it’s pretty sad that PFT continues to post crap like this.

  27. smithj874 says: Jun 10, 2013 2:26 PM

    Iknoweverything says:Jun 10, 2013 1:43 PM

    The leagues most embarrassing franchise, with the leagues most overrated QB, owned by the leagues most inept owner, with the leagues most clueless fans
    __________

    It’s very ironic that a poster with the screenname “Iknoweverything” has shown the world how much he or she doesn’t know.

    I guess RGIII”s 65% completion rating, 800-something yards rushing, 5 interceptions all year, and offensive rookie of the year award mean nothing to you , huh?

    We Redskins fans continue to root for our 3-time Super Bowl winning franchise. 3 Super Bowls better than many franchises. That doesn’t sound so clueless to me.

  28. huskerd says: Jun 10, 2013 2:27 PM

    American schools also suspend students for biting toaster pastries into the shape of guns, so I wouldn’t worry about what politically correct institutions like schools do.

  29. coolgato13 says: Jun 10, 2013 2:29 PM

    Washington Warriors.
    Nice alliteration and no need to change the logo.

  30. floratiotime says: Jun 10, 2013 2:29 PM

    I thought this was a pro football site?

  31. FinFan68 says: Jun 10, 2013 2:33 PM

    gtorlone says:
    Jun 10, 2013 1:28 PM
    The Washington Redskins were established in 1932. Why did it take until 2013 for this issue to really get some legs to it?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Because up until recently, most people had something better to do than make up causes to be offended by. Now, it seems everybody wants to be famous or seen championing a cause. It doesn’t matter how frivolous because they somehow feel better about themselves. It’s probably similar to why “reality” TV is so popular. The Redskins name is not and has never been offensive. This movement is simply a group of people suddenly becoming “offended” by a word they assigned a new meaning to. I’ve posted several links that show the history and intent of the word but the author never seems to let that opposing viewpoint be heard so they never make it on the page. Cool form of censorship, huh. Look it up and do some research to see for yourselves.

  32. root4cleveland says: Jun 10, 2013 2:33 PM

    The Washington Phonetappers!

    Oh wait…that would offend Feinstein!

    “Mr. Snyder! I resemble that remark!”

  33. claymaker says: Jun 10, 2013 2:34 PM

    I think a cool name would be the Washington Renegades!!!

  34. eagles512 says: Jun 10, 2013 2:36 PM

    What a joke. I’m an eagles fan but 100% behind Snyder on this.

  35. b3nz0z says: Jun 10, 2013 2:37 PM

    i mean i’ve seen a lot of arguments for why it isn’t offensive, but those arguments usually come down to ignoring the actual history of the team and the term, a generalized complaint about “PC culture,” and the phrase “oh come on!”

  36. colts01 says: Jun 10, 2013 2:38 PM

    Dear MLB,

    Please stop calling Boston the Red Sox my socks are offended by that racial slur of a name towards them for the color of their cotton!! Also Chicago your white socks are suppremists and need to change their name too!!

  37. jaykray says: Jun 10, 2013 2:39 PM

    oranjellojones says: Jun 10, 2013 1:34 PM

    Nah MDS that won’t happen because of one thing this site seems absolutely loathe to admit or print…the FACT that REDSKINS is top 3 for names Indians name their own sports teams on Reservations across the Nation. That’s not anecdotal evidence, that’s FACT! For once I wish you guys would include some of this data that doesn’t mesh with this site’s clear agenda on the topic. The people who are the subject of this topic have spoekn loud and clear time and time and time again to the tune of over 85%…they DON’T want the name changed. I know you guys won’t let it go but the least you could do is cut out the disingenuous entries that literally only represent one guilty, white, liberal side of the issue.

    —————————————————

    Not really a great argument. “They say it so can I” doesnt work so well when it comes to racial slurs. Go walk down the street today and try it out, which ever one you want, and see how that works out for you.

  38. skinsfanwill says: Jun 10, 2013 2:39 PM

    I just wanna know if my other team will soon be forced to change their name as well. Florida St Seminoles ride an Indian out on a horse before each game and he throws a spear in the ground. Is anyone offended about that? Snyder must not be greasing enough politician palms in DC for this to even be an issue.

  39. swagger52 says: Jun 10, 2013 2:45 PM

    Whitey Ford must be banished from Baseball Hall of Fame, or his name removed because I find it offensive. 35 years ago, I was called Whitey and I am offended by his name, just like Redskins are offended for something 125 years ago?

    What about Cowboys..Didn’t they shoot and harass Indians?

    Where does it end?

    Take on something more important…Like Climate change, we are all about to be Redskins.

  40. mdpgc says: Jun 10, 2013 2:52 PM

    That’s good for that Team. When will we be dropping this topic altogether cause its NEVER gonna happen!

  41. wiley16350 says: Jun 10, 2013 2:57 PM

    I was thinking the other day, why aren’t people in arms about the Cleveland Indians and trying to force them to change their name. Why is it o.k. to call Native Americans Indians in the first place? They aren’t Indians. I would think that name would offend them just as much, if not more. Redskin is a term that can be deemed offensive, neutral or even appropriate depending on intent and context. Where, calling them Indians is completely wrong and offensive since it is a term that has nothing to do with who they are, where they lived or their history.

  42. logicalvoicesisnotlogical says: Jun 10, 2013 2:57 PM

    Just slap a potato on the helmet and all will be forgiven

  43. whoisgregtoler says: Jun 10, 2013 3:03 PM

    Iknoweverything says:
    Jun 10, 2013 1:43 PM

    The leagues most embarrassing franchise, with the leagues most overrated QB, owned by the leagues most inept owner, with the leagues most clueless fans

    Dude they’re talking bout the Redskins not the Seahawks

  44. dpj1022 says: Jun 10, 2013 3:13 PM

    Honestly, the pc media is just spinning its wheels. Snyder has said NEVER and the team’s fan base is against a change. The media can kick and scream all it wants. It isn’t going to win this one.

  45. kerryc21realty says: Jun 10, 2013 3:20 PM

    What a shock, the public schools being politically correct and marketing stupid decisions

  46. irishnativeson says: Jun 10, 2013 3:21 PM

    It used to be common knowledge that pointing out some physical difference or cultural idiosyncrasy a certain race of people had was in poor taste. Because it came from a time or a society which deemed it acceptable should have no bearing on it’s definition or intent today. Names such as the Chiefs, Braves and Warriors are walking a fine line. The Cleveland Indians could be placed in the same category with caveat that while the nickname, in and of itself, carries no particularly negative connotation, the cartoon caricature represented on their uniforms could hardly be characterized as venerating. Unfortunately our society has become anesthetized to some subtle and some not so subtle characterizations of indigenous populations simply because they have continued for so long. While specific tribal names, most would find acceptable, more loosely used terms, such as Chiefs and Warriors aren’t necessarily complimentary to the race they are intended to represent. The subtlety I mentioned earlier can have several facets. In the particular case of the Washington Redskins it does cut in a different direction. While the depiction they use is iconic and noble, it’s the name Redskins that carries the the negative connotation and while opinions vary, even among those who’s race or ethnicity is represented, it doesn’t change the fact that the term Redskins is, always has and been and always will be, a racial slur, demeaning a culture and ambivalence to it, accepting it, or defending it’s institutionalization are a sad commentary on our society. Much more so than political correctness can ever hope to achieve.

  47. robgilman says: Jun 10, 2013 3:33 PM

    Notwithstanding the protests of activists, a 2002 poll commissioned by Sports Illustrated found that 75% of those American Indians surveyed had no objection to the Redskins name. The results of the poll have been criticized by American Indian activists due to Sports Illustrated’s refusal to provide polling information (i.e. how participants were recruited and contacted, if they were concentrated in one region, if one ethnic group is over represented and the exact wording and order of questions). But in 2004, a poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania essentially confirmed the prior poll’s findings, concluding that 91% of the American Indians surveyed in the 48 states on the mainland USA found the name acceptable and setting out in detail the exact wording of the questions.

  48. jmblosser82 says: Jun 10, 2013 3:43 PM

    It would be weird to hear Washington be called another name, being almost 100 years old. But how about paying a group of fans some credit and call the team the Washington Hogs, cheerleaders can be called the Hogettes. They wore dresses for 30 years to support the team, IMO not a bad way to guy for some good press.

  49. seaeagle707 says: Jun 10, 2013 3:44 PM

    So schools in three “blue” states decided to give in to the decidedly liberal PC crowd. Is anyone surprised? I’m not.

  50. thirdistheworrd says: Jun 10, 2013 3:49 PM

    Regardless of how you feel about the issue, the really offensive thing is how the writers here feel like the have to be the sole engine of social change for Native Americans.
    If Native American groups really wanted to make a big deal out of the nickname, they would. The fact that this website’s staff seems to feel like Native Americans are somehow incapable of speaking out; having their voices heard; or advocating for themselves: and that sportswriters are the only ones who can do it; is not only arrogant, but far more belittling than anything one could construe from Washington’s team name or logo.

  51. b3nz0z says: Jun 10, 2013 3:55 PM

    see, you can’t even defend the name without more namecalling: “liberal, PC, whiny, guilty.”

  52. gregorysykes says: Jun 10, 2013 4:02 PM

    The name is never going to change. Get over it and worry about more important things in life.

  53. thirdistheworrd says: Jun 10, 2013 4:06 PM

    robgilman says: Jun 10, 2013 3:33 PM

    Notwithstanding the protests of activists, a 2002 poll commissioned by Sports Illustrated found that 75% of those American Indians surveyed had no objection to the Redskins name… 2004, a poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania confirmed the prior poll’s findings, concluding that 91% of the American Indians found the name acceptable
    ______________
    Fair point– I would have opened with the Annenberg study though. A poll by one of the nation’s premier public policy and opinion centers has more credence to it than a poll by SI.

    To further establish the Annenberg study’s credibility, consider that their sample size was 200 times that of an average Gallup poll (widely considered the world’s most accurate survey).

    Gallup polls are accurate enough to have a significant effect on congressional legislation and executive decision-making. And again, with a sample size 200 times larger than studies that affect every aspect of public and corporate policy, UPENN’s Annenberg Center concluded that 92% of of Natives approved of or were not bothered by the name, while only 8% found the name unacceptable.

  54. critter69 says: Jun 10, 2013 4:17 PM

    gtorlone?

    Sorry to break your bubble, but I moved to the DC area in 1973 (before the blackout of all home games was lifted), and there was discussion at that time about whether the Washington NFL team should or should not change its name.

    So, sorry to tell you, but this discussion has been going on for more than just this year.

  55. formyministy says: Jun 10, 2013 4:20 PM

    now i’m reading “HighSchoolFootballTalk”?
    sheesh.

  56. b3nz0z says: Jun 10, 2013 4:21 PM

    wasn’t Gallup recently humiliated by getting their presidential election polls completely wrong?

  57. sc711 says: Jun 10, 2013 4:22 PM

    Lets see…..first 2 posts were deleted…..so allow me to be eloquent.

    It would be really sweet of the wonderful Dan Snyder if he could tweak his teams name.

    Please with sugar on top.

  58. thirdistheworrd says: Jun 10, 2013 4:24 PM

    And, for my next trick (Illusion, Michael), I will end this argument.

    Just Google “Native American Chief Talks About Redskins”. If PFT would post that, the whole issue could be over. Unfortunately, there’s way too much money in non-Natives BSing around on the internet.
    Stephen Dodson is a hereditary chief of the Aleutian People, here are some of his choice quotes:

    ““People are speaking for Native Americans that aren’t Native American…we had a big problem with all the things that were coming out [of the discussion]…they were basically saying that we were offended, our people were offended, and they were misrepresenting the Native American nation… Redskin’ isn’t something given to us by the white man or the blue eyes, it was something in the Native American community that was taken from us. [It’s] used also as a term of respect, because that’s how we were. We respected each other with that term… It just bothered me that somebody would twist something so negatively when it’s a positive.”

    “[Much of the discussion over the Redskins name is led by non-Natives, and that makes me] Irritated. Irritated is a polite term to say… When you have people trying to represent our nation, you should be from our nation. Don’t represent our nation if you don’t even have an ounce of blood in you.”

    Well, I think that about wraps that up.

    Dodson certainly doesn’t speak for all Natives, but his opinion about who should be speaking for all Natives seems very conclusive.

    Goddamn, does anybody remember when this site was about football?

  59. sc711 says: Jun 10, 2013 4:57 PM

    So he got an eskimo.

    BTW, Inuits do not even fall under Canadas Indian Act. Not exactly a spokesperson for the 5 civilized tribes.

  60. sc711 says: Jun 10, 2013 5:07 PM

    BTW, the reason they call them Inuits in Canada is because the term “eskimo” is offensive to them.

  61. oneilistheone says: Jun 10, 2013 5:13 PM

    Share on twitterShare on facebookShare on more 189 up, 84 down

    1. redskin

    An offensive and derogatory term refering to native americans. Comes from when the government paid for each ‘indian’ one killed. Instead of carrying the bodies they would take the scalps to prove they had murdered a native american.

    When plural the name of a NFL team from Washington DC

    It seems there is a too common belief that the word redskin is not offensive so I dare those who believe that to go try that word out on a native american person and see their reaction.
    At a casino on a reservation a customer refered to one of the native american employees as redskin. The customer was shot by that employee. So obviously it is offensive.

  62. romoscollarbone says: Jun 10, 2013 5:24 PM

    We forced you off your lands, but we named a few sports teams after you. Hooray!

  63. irishnativeson says: Jun 10, 2013 5:28 PM

    To completely obliterate your point with your own post thirdistheworrd. You obviously don’t have any Native American heritage so what exactly qualifies you to interject some obscure interview with an equally obscure Inuit, as opposed to Aleutian chief? The Aleutians are an archipelago, a geographic term as opposed to Inuit a term to describe a group of culturally similar indigenous population ranging from Russia to Canada. Are you trying to suggest that this particular chief speaks for an entire people, the majority of which he has and never will meet?

  64. herrcules13 says: Jun 10, 2013 5:40 PM

    They should move to Boise and change the name to Potato Skins.

  65. lanjoith says: Jun 10, 2013 5:59 PM

    You people do realize that “diversity” means being different right? What makes this nation great it that you can worship Satan, say the N word, use your middle finger, burn the flag, call our president a monkey moron, believe the world is 6k years old & be against gay marriage all because we are free. This utopian society that some of you long for is a pipe dream and who wants a world full of like-minded thinking people anyway? I have too much fun making fun of nut job liberals to ever want them to go away!

  66. sc711 says: Jun 10, 2013 6:05 PM

    Inuiti did not have much contact with Europeans until 1940, not to mention that this is like having a Latino speak about black societal issues.

    Duane Champagne, director of Indian studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, studied the etymology of the word and published a report.

    According to Herrod, who is “50ish,” Champagne’s report shows the word “redskin” was coined in the 1800s when the British Crown put a bounty on the capture of Indians. Bounty hunters couldn’t be paid without turning in skin of murdered Indians.

    “The bounty called for their scalps, or the skin from their fingers or anywhere else,” Herrod said. “This skin was called redskin, because it was the bloody underside of the skin. There is no honor in that name, no matter how it may have evolved to in the minds of people today.”

  67. goodguyattorney says: Jun 10, 2013 7:50 PM

    If you’re going to write about politically correct topics, at least use the PC terms. It’s native Americans, not American Indians. This ain’t a John Wayne movie.

  68. thirdistheworrd says: Jun 10, 2013 9:03 PM

    irishnativeson says:
    Jun 10, 2013 5:28 PM
    To completely obliterate your point with your own post thirdistheworrd. You obviously don’t have any Native American heritage so what exactly qualifies you to interject some obscure interview with an equally obscure Inuit, as opposed to Aleutian chief? The Aleutians are an archipelago, a geographic term as opposed to Inuit a term to describe a group of culturally similar indigenous population ranging from Russia to Canada. Are you trying to suggest that this particular chief speaks for an entire people, the majority of which he has and never will meet?
    _________________
    To completely obliterate you right back, did you read a single word of the post? What gives any of us the right to interject anything? I never claimed to have any Native blood, and I would never claim to speak for any Natives, but I thought we should all read Mr. Dodson’s take on the issue of non-Natives debating the Redskins’ name. And the point was not to defend the name “Redskins,” it has little to nothing to do with that– the point was that non-Natives really shouldn’t have a say in this issue.

    Secondly, the Mississippi is a river, so therefore there can’t possibly be a Native culture associated with that name, can there? Or Massachusetts, or Appalachia, Cayahoga, Huron, Onondoga, or Missourri? That would be ridiculous.

    Obviously the Aleutian Islands are an archipelago (really a chain, archipelago implies a nearby coastline), but why do you think they’re called the Aleutian Islands? Maybe because of the Aleut People? No way, that would make way too much sense

    Lastly: “Dodson certainly doesn’t speak for all Natives, but his opinion about whoshould be speaking for all Natives seems very conclusive.” My exact words.

    In summary, this is an argument that belongs to Natives and nobody else. Maybe if you had bothered to read the interview you would know that.

  69. thirdistheworrd says: Jun 10, 2013 9:04 PM

    Jun 10, 2013 4:57 PM
    So he got an eskimo.
    BTW, Inuits do not even fall under Canadas Indian Act. Not exactly a spokesperson for the 5 civilized tribes.
    ___________________
    sc711 says:
    Jun 10, 2013 5:07 PM
    BTW, the reason they call them Inuits in Canada is because the term “eskimo” is offensive to them.
    ________________
    1. So a man of 100% Native ancestry doesn’t have the right to say that he thinks this is a debate for Natives and Natives only?
    2. “The 5 Civilized Tribes?” Seriosusly? I mean are you trying to destroy your own argument with pejorative terminology from the early 18th century that implies that all other Native Nations (ie. the vast majority) are uncivilized?
    3. sc711 4:57 PM”So he got an eskimo.”
    sc711 5:07 PM”the term “eskimo” is offensive to them.”
    Anybody else see a disconnect here?
    4. And “Eskimo” is not offensive, it’s just incorrect– “Inuit” is the generally accepted terminology, and they’re referred to as Inuits everywhere, not just Canada.

  70. thirdistheworrd says: Jun 10, 2013 9:23 PM

    sc711 says: Jun 10, 2013 6:05 PM

    Inuiti did not have much contact with Europeans until 1940, not to mention that this is like having a Latino speak about black societal issues.

    Duane Champagne, director of Indian studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, studied the etymology of the word and published a report.

    According to Herrod, who is “50ish,” Champagne’s report shows the word “redskin” was coined in the 1800s when the British Crown put a bounty on the capture of Indians. Bounty hunters couldn’t be paid without turning in skin of murdered Indians.

    “The bounty called for their scalps, or the skin from their fingers or anywhere else,” Herrod said. “This skin was called redskin, because it was the bloody underside of the skin. There is no honor in that name, no matter how it may have evolved to in the minds of people today.”
    _____________
    This is getting ridiculous. I can cite my sources on Google Scholar, but a simple look at Wikipedia will show that every one of these statements is patently wrong.

    1. “Inuiti” is not a word. Anywhere. “Inuits” is the correct pluralization of “Inuit”.

    2. Inuits have had a longer contact with Europeans than any other Native cultural group beginning with the Norse in the 11 century, resuming in the 16th century and continuing on to the present day.

    3. Are you seriously trying to claim that Inuits are not indigenous Americans? Inuits make up around 90% of Canada’s Native population, and nearly 20% of the United States’.

    4. This explanation of the origin of the word “Redskin” is not supported by any historical evidence. The academic concensus is split into two main schools of thought on the subject, and this is not one.
    A. What would the “British Crown” be doing in America in the 1800′s?
    B. Were European settlers barbaric, vicious, and cruel towards Natives? Absolutely. But why would there be a bounty for murdering Natives? It makes no sense. Among a thousand other reasons, who exactly would be paying for freelance homicide? There’s no monetary gain to murder, and therefore no economic incentive.
    C. The word “Oklahoma” means “[land of the] Red People” in Choctaw
    D. Even if it was true; the word had clearly been repurposed by 1967, when Walter Wetzel, president of National Congress of American Indians, not only encouraged the Redskins to continue using the name, but redesigned the logo himself.

  71. skinsfansince71 says: Jun 11, 2013 12:54 AM

    Iknoweverything says: Jun 10, 2013 1:42 PM

    The Washington Filibusters.(Always much talk but no walk)
    Owned by Mr. Inept Snyder.
    Led by FalseHope FraudIII Bob Marley wannabe

    Iknoweverything says: Jun 10, 2013 1:43 PM

    The leagues most embarrassing franchise, with the leagues most overrated QB, owned by the leagues most inept owner, with the leagues most clueless fans

    I thought you knew everything not nothing.

  72. goodellisruiningtheleague says: Jun 11, 2013 9:43 AM

    Can we get a High School Football Talk tab?

  73. lorinatidc says: Jun 11, 2013 2:02 PM

    Top tier ‘Things” will always be a target for those seeking fame and fortune undeserved. Being a 2-3 most valuable franchise in NFL history and forseeable future sales will always leave the ‘Skins a target for this fight.

    Cowboy was a term for robbers and thieves and swindlers. Ranchers were what we think of as Cowboys today. So meanings change, names then should not when rooted in history. We’d have to change so many franchises in Pro Sports.

    I think Wizards should be offended, today PC is Magician. Dark art names should be attacked by the religious wings as well!! This is all so ridiculous.

  74. 3mcstb says: Sep 7, 2013 2:42 AM

    Canisteo-Greenwood DID NOT change their mascot. “once a Redskin, always a redskin”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!