Skip to content

Defense of Redskins name includes fake Chief

Washington Redskins v Tampa Bay Buccaneers Getty Images

In their zeal to defend the name Redskins against disorganized and scattered opposition that gradually is becoming more organized and less scattered, the NFL team bearing that name has had a tendency to seize in knee-jerk fashion upon anything that supports the position that the name isn’t offensive.

The two primary tactics having entailed citing the various high schools that still use the name (there are fewer all the time) and trumpeting the opinions of Native Americans who have no problem with the name, and who ostensibly would regard as a compliment the greeting, “What’s up, redskin?”

As explained by Dave McKenna in an item published earlier today by Deadspin (yeah, I know that one of the morons who works there recently called me a moron . . . again), a supposed Native American Chief whom the Redskins recently trotted out in support of the name isn’t a Chief, and may not even be a Native American.  But the Redskins, who apparently have chosen to dispense with steps like vetting a guest, put the guy on their in-house web show, described him as a Chief, and had him explain why he supports the name.

And, yes, the guy actually said that Native Americans on the “reservation” actually great each other with, “Hey, what’s up, redskin?”

Complicating matters for the league is that Commissioner Roger Goodell recently pointed to the same non-Chief-possibly-non-Native-American in a letter to member of Congress defending the ongoing use of the name Redskins.

The full item is worth a read, even though it’s a little lengthy.  Also, it probably should include a disclaimer that the author once triggered a defamation lawsuit from owner Daniel Snyder, which gives McKenna a natural bias.

But the point has been made.  Yet again, the Redskins end up looking bad while trying to make their name look good.

If nothing else, we now know why they’ve hired Frank Luntz.  Then again, maybe they think he’s a Chief, too.

Permalink 71 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, Washington Redskins
71 Responses to “Defense of Redskins name includes fake Chief”
  1. thegreatgabbert says: Jun 27, 2013 4:30 PM

    Shut um up, Redskins.

  2. Rick Spielman is a Magician says: Jun 27, 2013 4:32 PM

    Keep the name if you like it, but don’t try to convince us that it’s an honorable name that doesn’t offend anyone.

  3. rcotner says: Jun 27, 2013 4:33 PM

    Just change your name to the Hogs and be done with it.

  4. Jimmy says: Jun 27, 2013 4:33 PM

    In fairness to the Deadspin guys, you did brag about your page views to a mascot.

  5. cowboyhater says: Jun 27, 2013 4:34 PM

    Enough already!!!!!!! It’s the Redskins, deal with it…. Not trying to be insensitive here, but the many reports about this is getting a bit tiresome, and annoying. Once the season starts up, we will no longer be discussing this.

  6. b3nz0z says: Jun 27, 2013 4:36 PM

    oh that’s too, too good.
    by the way, george preston marshall had to be forced by the federal government to integrate his team, years after the rest of the league had done so on their own.

  7. seaeagle707 says: Jun 27, 2013 4:41 PM

    I want the names, Vikings, Raiders, Buccaneers, Cowboys, Bills, Packers, and Patriots changed as they are all offensive to certain white people. I also want the name Saints changed as it popularizes blues singers who were black and descended from Southern slaves. The name Titans, gives honor to a group of pagan deities and is offensive to Christians. Then you must scrap all the names that refer to those people who were here before us. Finally, I want all animal, bird, and fish names changed as these are offensive to PETA.

    Which leaves only the Jets, which is okay as inanimate objects have no feelings to hurt.

  8. hummer53 says: Jun 27, 2013 4:42 PM

    Well, Massachusetts elected a fake Indian to the U. S. Senate. So what the hell.

  9. lks311 says: Jun 27, 2013 4:44 PM

    Pathetic.

    And, what b3nzoz said about Marshall? All true.

    But, I know you blind followers aren’t hearing it. The name was borne from racism. But, I don’t care if they keep it or not—though, you can’t hide from the truth, folks.

  10. apmn says: Jun 27, 2013 4:45 PM

    Was it Mel Brooks?

  11. uniquelyunbiased says: Jun 27, 2013 4:45 PM

    Lmaooooo this is too great!
    I wish I could see Snyder’s face when he found it.

  12. FlyFromTheInside says: Jun 27, 2013 4:46 PM

    Sooner or later this dead horse may get beaten back to life

  13. reesesteel23 says: Jun 27, 2013 4:47 PM

    His name is Chief White Hawk from the tribe of Billionaire owners hired puppet

  14. watermelon1 says: Jun 27, 2013 4:48 PM

    So the team is finally showing some promise, some potential to be good for the next 5-10 years…

    And NOW you want to push hard to change the name? I’d say THAT is more defamatory to native Americans than anything else!

    How dare you let the team keep the name while being horrible… But then when they are about to be good, NOW they can’t use the name anymore? That’s messed up!

    And if Redskins are forced to change their name than a few other teams should have to change theirs. Patriots? Cowboys? Browns? All derogatory!

  15. beckybarnett19655 says: Jun 27, 2013 5:02 PM

    All of who use the Browns as an example of a derogatory team name need to have dunce caps stapled to your heads.

  16. eaglesnd18 says: Jun 27, 2013 5:09 PM

    This is ridiculous! What’s next? The Colt’s being suspended for drafting a white QB over a black one. People are too sensitive these days.

  17. baddegg says: Jun 27, 2013 5:10 PM

    The Redskins should not let a guy who is a non-Native American say that the name is ok.

    On the other hand, countless media and politicians who are non-Native Americans CAN say that the name is offensive.

    Got it.

  18. learysdisciples says: Jun 27, 2013 5:22 PM

    I am guessing…Robert Parish.

  19. lowlifenebula says: Jun 27, 2013 5:38 PM

    like others have said, the name was born from racism. Regardless of what you want to claim the name means now, it started as a derogatory word. Any argument saying it honors native Americans would be akin to saying a team named the n word is honoring blacks. Political correctness has nothing to do with it. When all of you walk around and freely use all racial slurs regardless of the company with you, then maybe there’s some validation to your argument. As it stands, it is an nfl team name and it won’t hurt you in any way if the name changes.

  20. bmoreravens1012013 says: Jun 27, 2013 5:39 PM

    As a redskin hater , (largely due to logicalvoice and his silliness) I hope they don’t change it because then they won’t be the deadskins anymore. Then again, if they change it to potato redskins , ill love it !

  21. criminalelement707 says: Jun 27, 2013 5:41 PM

    Redskin, please

  22. Stiller43 says: Jun 27, 2013 5:46 PM

    Baddegg,

    As a white male, im aware that a certain N word is offensive to black people.

    As non-black person, i wouldnt go out and say the N word is cool with black people.

    You can be aware what is offensive without being that type of person, and thus argue against use of that offensive thing. But its ludicris for people that arent in that offended group to argue its okay.

  23. clarkwgrizz says: Jun 27, 2013 5:46 PM

    Florio…stop. They are named the Redskins, don’t report anything else on this until they are not named the Redskins.

  24. keiteay says: Jun 27, 2013 5:56 PM

    +1 Jimmy

  25. db3300 says: Jun 27, 2013 5:57 PM

    I’m not a Redskin fan. I’m a redskin Cowboy fan whose grandmother lived on the reservation of the Cherokee Nation. If Snyder wants a real redskin as a spokesman, I’ll stand up to the racists who want the name changed.

    You heard me right. If you’re against Snyder honoring the native Americans with the team’s name, you’re a racist. Hell, that stupid argument has worked for the Democrat party for the last 5 years.

  26. jturner71 says: Jun 27, 2013 6:03 PM

    @seaeagle. Im white and in no way offended by the Patriots, Packers, Bucs etc. These aren’t racial slurs of any sort. Now I might take offense to the Dallas Crackers or the Houston Honkies- but of course everybody recognizes that this would be offensive. Your argument has zero merit.

  27. prmpft says: Jun 27, 2013 6:06 PM

    listen – the full of crap politically correct SOBs who continue to pound at this issue – and that would include this site if anyone could tell what you were trying to accomplish with this thread – are all full of false doctrine designed to give people without brains a place in society – that place does not exist – you’re all still crybaby, weak, non-productive idiots and when you ultimately fail – all of the rest of us will still laugh at your sissy asses!

  28. jda129 says: Jun 27, 2013 6:09 PM

    How about get rid of any Native American imagery. Go back to the “R” logo on the helmet. Really play up the bergundy on the uniform and that it refers to the color the players wear with zero connection or attempt to honor or denigrate anyone. Just a literal description of guys on a football field wearing red unis. It’s a team of many races so now when they put on the uniform they are united as Redskins carrying on their tradition as warriors of football not the warriors of Native American battles past.

  29. manderson367 says: Jun 27, 2013 6:10 PM

    No one would walk up to a Native American and say “Hi Redskin” because no one thinks that way. The only time anyone would even think of say “Hi Redskin” would be to a player on the Washington Redskins. That’s the stupidity of this argument.

  30. b3nz0z says: Jun 27, 2013 6:11 PM

    Fact: Their fight song used to say “scalp em swamp em . . . We want heap more.”
    But yeah, the franchise is all about dignity.

  31. iamthorny says: Jun 27, 2013 6:32 PM

    I thought Mant Te’o got drafted by the Chargers, isn’t acting as a consultant to the Redskins a conflict of interest?

  32. floratiotime says: Jun 27, 2013 6:33 PM

    It used to be ‘fight for old Dixie’ … and not ‘old DC’. Paula Deen tweeted her approval.

  33. b3nz0z says: Jun 27, 2013 6:37 PM

    I hope seaeagle is aware that fish and birds are in fact animals. Too pc for ya?

  34. mrrico247 says: Jun 27, 2013 6:45 PM

    I’m a mechanic in Prince Georges county and I met Chief Dodson when he was towing a car to our shop. I just seen his interview the night before on Redskins nation tv show so it was kinda surreal that he walked in our shop the next morning. He is 100% real Native American and a authentic/genuine person.

  35. cuda1234 says: Jun 27, 2013 6:46 PM

    “the NFL team bearing that name has had a tendency to seize in knee-jerk fashion upon anything that supports the position that the name isn’t offensive.”

    Meanwhile, the media and PC police have a tendency to seize in knee-jerk fashion upon anything that supports their position that the name IS offensive.

    What’s the difference?

  36. thebigtim2012 says: Jun 27, 2013 6:51 PM

    Do you also hate the Disney classic Peter Pan? There’s a great song in there called what makes the red man red.

  37. upperdecker19 says: Jun 27, 2013 7:00 PM

    Creating a fake chief to legitimize your cause is pathetic.

    Regards,
    Manti Te’o

  38. hawkforlife says: Jun 27, 2013 7:01 PM

    So the Redskins hired Paula Deen’s PR genius.

  39. upperdecker19 says: Jun 27, 2013 7:01 PM

    It’s not easy being green either.

    Regards,
    Kermit the Frog

  40. digirootune says: Jun 27, 2013 7:01 PM

    There’s only one Redskins Chief…

    Chief Zee. HTTR

  41. the3taveren says: Jun 27, 2013 7:29 PM

    People need to stop with the GPM was a racist so the name has to be a racial slur, because you make yourself look really dumb.

    The name Redskins was chosen after the NFL Boston Braves who at the time played on the same stadium as the MLB Boston Braves. When they moved to Fenway Park wear there REDsox play they wanted to keep the NA association and combine a connection to the REDsox, so REDskins skinswas was a natural choice.

    It is that simple. Nothing to do with racism and by the way you can be racist to just one race and have no problem with the others. The fact that GPM’s vet first coach was NA doesn’t prove that he didn’t have a problem with Native Americans, but neither does the fact that he didn’t want African Americans on his team. A team at the time that was the NFL team of the South. Yes, “fight for Old Dixie” wasthe the official lyrics in HTTR. The Redskins was the NFL team for Dixie. Maybe, just maybe, GPM was pandering to the racist views of his viewing audience.

    Stop embarrassing yourself by saying GPM didn’t want AA on his team (whatever his motivation was) so he must hate NA and the name has to be a racial slur.

    A slur that is no longer used. So if a word is no longer used in a derogatory manner and is only associated in a positive light with an NFL team is it still a racial slur.

    Do you think people that are fans of the Raiders, Vikings, and Bucaneers actually condone groups known for piracy, rape, murder, and theft? Of course not! Do you think Disney supportsthe the same? Even though they have made four movies glorifying murders, rapist, and thieves.

    And yes, piracy still exists and they are still murdered, rapist, and thieves.

    If someone finds flight with the name Redskins you should definitely find fault with the Raiders, Bucs, and Vikings.

    By the way the word Yankees is every bit as vile (meaning not at all, but could be seen that way) as Redskins.

  42. laserw says: Jun 27, 2013 7:40 PM

    And most of those who want the Redskins to change their name aren’t even indians. They are all people who have nothing better to do than to harass a sports team that does lots of community service and good for the country. And some of those people are even fakers – they jump on the bandwagon anytime race is involved because they profit from creating cries of racism.

  43. desmondclee says: Jun 27, 2013 7:45 PM

    The argument that the name Redskins is offensive because George Preston Marshall was a bigot is inane. If you want to use history to bootstrap a point about racism, how about the fact that the Democratic party used to be the party of slavery? Should that dark chapter in the party’s history long ago be somehow used to impugn their ranks today?

    While it’s unfortunate that Marshall was a jackass, he
    was an owner from a long, bygone era. Whatever misgivings he was guilty of back nearly 80 years ago, that’s clearly inapplicable to what’s going on today.

  44. fxstc111 says: Jun 27, 2013 7:55 PM

    OMG, Whats next , a witch hunt to get the U.S. Navy to get rid of the rank of Chief?

  45. fxstc111 says: Jun 27, 2013 8:03 PM

    P.S. and I am a retired CHIEF!

  46. jetsjetsjetsnow says: Jun 27, 2013 8:03 PM

    I’d wouldn’t agree but at least I’d have some respect for ya’ll (Redskins folk) if you just said “Deal with it! We’re keeping the name like it or not! rather than continually try to justify such an obvious offensive name.

  47. raideralex99 says: Jun 27, 2013 8:17 PM

    For all those that want to keep the name and think it’s not offensive … Go into a native America bar and call someone a redskin and if you do come out alive … Tells us how it’s not offensive.

  48. germanstingray says: Jun 27, 2013 8:54 PM

    Please don’t drag KC into this irrational fray.

  49. FinFan68 says: Jun 27, 2013 8:54 PM

    Why is this site so afraid of credible dissenting viewpoints with credible citations/sources?

  50. FinFan68 says: Jun 27, 2013 9:31 PM

    raideralex99 says:
    Jun 27, 2013 8:17 PM
    For all those that want to keep the name and think it’s not offensive … Go into a native America bar and call someone a redskin and if you do come out alive … Tells us how it’s not offensive.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    This is a ridiculous argument. Nobody is going around calling anyone (other than Washington players) redskins. “Ballerina” isn’t offensive but if you use that in your scenario you would likely get the results you would expect from “redskin”.

  51. ravensbob says: Jun 27, 2013 10:11 PM

    They should change the name to something that really screams D.C.-losers!

  52. seaeagle707 says: Jun 27, 2013 10:16 PM

    jturner71-My “argument”?!?!? What argument??? I was satirizing all of you easily hurt people that have taken up the “cause”, because its “so trendy” to do so. I like the Redskins name, as I think it honors those people to whom it refers. All of this non-sensical hubbub over the micron thin covering of the human anatomy.

    But being in an area that is heavily dependent on fish sales for its economic health, I do take issue with a commercial football team naming itself after those who process meat. It shouldn’t be allowed (cough! cough!).

  53. btellington says: Jun 27, 2013 10:26 PM

    Can you go back to using Tebow to try and drive traffic? The Redskins thing is getting old.

  54. thewizardofbs says: Jun 27, 2013 10:29 PM

    No One has remarked about the fact that the official name of the Redskin cheerleaders is the Squaws.

  55. seaeagle707 says: Jun 27, 2013 10:31 PM

    raideralex99- Your argument won’t stand up, bud. Do this, go into a crowded Philadelphia inner-city bar and yell, “The New York Giants are the best team in football!!!”

    I and the ambulance driver will wait out front for you.

  56. thirdistheworrd says: Jun 27, 2013 10:39 PM

    Rick Spielman is a Magician says: Jun 27, 2013 4:32 PM

    Keep the name if you like it, but don’t try to convince us that it’s an honorable name that doesn’t offend anyone.
    ____________________
    That’s exactly the opposite of the point. While the argument that Dodson is not Native is very circumstantial, the simple fact is that it doesn’t really matter.

    The issue here is not whether the name is right or wrong: the important thing is who should decide if it’s right or wrong.

    The important thing is Dodson’s last paragraph.
    “”[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.”

    He may be Native, he may not be Native. The name be OK, the name may not be OK. The point is it’s not for you to say; it’s not for me to say; it’s not for the media to say: it’s up to Natives to decide whether or not the Redskins mascot should stay or go.

    In that sense it doesn’t matter whether Dodson is a chief or a Native or a Norwegian Ski instructor- it’s not up to the public to speak for the Natives; it’s up to the Natives to speak for the Natives.

  57. thirdistheworrd says: Jun 27, 2013 10:43 PM

    First off, I think it’s interesting the media did not pick up on this story in the two months since the interview.

    More importantly it’s time we realized that it’s the offseason. And whether or not the Redskins’ team name is offensive, what journalists and politicians and are trying to do is cash in on a social issue in order to generate readership/political posturing.

    If the name is offensive, taking advantage of Native social issues as a cheap gimmick to generate website hits is far more offensive.

    If the name is not offensive, then they are just stirring the pot for no reason; permanently stigmatizing both Natives and the Washington franchise; and creating the impression that Natives are weak, impotent, and unable to take a stand for themselves. Creating a social crisis out of nothing is unprofessional, antisocial, and insulting to all of us as human being and media consumers.

    Point is, whether or not the team’s name is offensive, Natives are being taken advantage of, and by arguing back and forth we are playing right into the media’s game.

  58. purpblooded says: Jun 27, 2013 10:55 PM

    A native American had an article in our local newspaper that said the name came from the skin attached to the hair on a scalp that was turned in for a bounty. Even a white guy could say that the name is offensive, if that is true!

  59. lagg1 says: Jun 27, 2013 11:11 PM

    Regardless what they are called-the Washington franchise has not won a SB title in 21 years- in fact they have only been to the playoffs 4 times in those 21 years. That’s pretty bad!

  60. iismathias3 says: Jun 27, 2013 11:25 PM

    The whole “you wouldn’t walk up to a Native and call him/her Redskin” argument is pathetic. Of course no one would do that. It’s not the word, but the intent that’s offensive. It’s the same reason you wouldn’t walk up to a black person and say “hey, you African American.” African Amercan isn’t offensive, but when it’s said with that intent it is offensive.

  61. the3taveren says: Jun 27, 2013 11:59 PM

    fxstc111 says:
    Jun 27, 2013 8:03 PM
    P.S. and I am a retired CHIEF!
    __________________________________

    A retired even Chief hear!

  62. the3taveren says: Jun 28, 2013 12:17 AM

    jetsjetsjetsnow says:
    Jun 27, 2013 8:03 PM
    I’d wouldn’t agree but at least I’d have some respect for ya’ll (Redskins folk) if you just said “Deal with it! We’re keeping the name like it or not! rather than continually try to justify such an obvious offensive name.
    ___________________________________________________

    You mean a word that was introduced to the white man by the Idians. A name they called themselves. Then at some time it might have become offensive, however is now only associated with the Washington Redskins and in a positive light.

    So it wasn’t offensive, then it was and now it isn’t.

    Do you know what the oldest known symbol is. It is more than 3000 years old, used by almost every civilization, and represented peace and good luck for all of 3000 years until the 1930′s. You may or may not have guessed it, but here is a huge hint. Aldolf Hitler changed how it is viewed! So is the swastika(sp?) A symbol of peace and good luck or a symbol of evil? In Japan it is still the former.

    What does this have to do with the Redskins? Names change. The meaning behind words change. Redskins is no longer an offensive word and didn’t start that way.

  63. censormynameandmycomments says: Jun 28, 2013 12:23 AM

    The next time a girl walks up to me and says,”Hey blue eyes,” I’ll know she’s a racist for pointing out my obvious physical characteristics.

  64. gpete1962 says: Jun 28, 2013 6:22 AM

    Obama is going to appoint RGIII to run Obama care and rename the team the IRS-kins.

  65. Indybear says: Jun 28, 2013 7:21 AM

    The fact they hired Frank Luntz for their PR work speaks volumes about why this happened and where this train wreck is going. Frankly, if anyone REALLY cared about the welfare and senstivities of Native Americans, then they would do all things possible to eliminate the poverty, alcoholism and rampant domestic violence that exists on the reservations.

  66. beeronthefridge says: Jun 28, 2013 9:22 AM

    The 2009 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision affirmed that the Redskins have the right to call themselves Redskins.

  67. thirdistheworrd says: Jun 28, 2013 1:29 PM

    jetsjetsjetsnow says:
    Jun 27, 2013 8:03 PM
    I’d wouldn’t agree but at least I’d have some respect for ya’ll… rather than continually try to justify such an obvious offensive name.
    ___________________________________the3taveren says: Jun 28, 2013 12:17 AM

    You mean a word that was introduced to the white man by the Idians. A name they called themselves. …

    So it wasn’t offensive, then it was and now it isn’t.


    The meaning behind words change. Redskins is no longer an offensive word and didn’t start that way.
    ___________
    Both of you have good points. I agree with 3taveren’s defense of the name, but I would side with jets’ argument that he shouldn’t use it.

    Just because you, or I, or you, or anyone, agrees with your argument doesn’t mean squat. I’m black, and you guys are… white(?) Anyway we’re not Native. Point is, however you look at it, this an issue for the Native community to decide- it’s not up to you or me, no matter how convincing your argument (from either side).

    Until a reliable poll shows that the Native community is opposed to the name, it shouldn’t change. Obviously, if our Native population wants the name to change it should change immediately. However, if they don’t, then the issue should be dropped immediately, out of respect to them.

    So far the only poll done on the subject showed that 92% of Natives were not bothered by the name. Until a new study shows something to the contrary, this should stop being a topic of discussion.

    So for those who just skipped to the end, my central thesis is that it should be up to the Native community to determine whether the name stays or goes. It doesn’t matter if it’s a “term of respect” it doesn’t matter if you “wouldn’t say it to a Native’s face”; what matters is whether or not Natives want the name done away with.

    Basically thumbs up if you think Natives have a right to decide, thumbs down if you think you should decide for them.

  68. defscottyb says: Jun 28, 2013 1:49 PM

    Hey, what if you went up to a New Yorker and said “what’s up Yankee” he may punch you in the face. Why, not because the name Yankee is offensive but because of the context of it. Same thing if you walked up to an Irish person and said “hello you fighting irishman” they may slap you, again not because the name is offensive in itself but because of the context. Hey Cowboy, may get slapped… Sup Brown? Hello Saint, Greetings Viking, hey you Patriot, you freakin Celtic! Sup Bucco, Good morning Giant! Probably get punched or at least offend them all and why? Not because of the name but because of the context. Same thing as the Redskins name. Also, “RED” in Redskins is in re: to Red War Paint NOT skin color. Do some research please.

    Several months ago, Prince George’s County resident Stephen Dodson reached out to the Washington Redskins in an effort to share his perspective on the team name.

    Dodson is a full-blooded American Inuit chief originally from the Aleutian Tribes of Alaska, and said he was tired of being spoken for as a Native American.

    “People are speaking for Native Americans that aren’t Native American. Being a full-blooded Indian with my whole family behind me, we had a big problem with all the things that were coming out [of the discussion],” he said. “I think they were basically saying that we were offended, our people were offended, and they were misrepresenting the Native American nation.

    “We don’t have a problem with [the name] at all; in fact we’re honored. We’re quite honored.”
    As the eldest member of his blood line, Dodson represents more than 700 remaining tribe members and talked to Redskins Nation about the positive power of the Redskins’ name.

    “It’s actually a term of endearment that we would refer to each other as,” he explained. “When we were on the reservation, we would call each other, ‘Hey, what’s up redskin?’ We would nickname it just ‘skins.’”

    “‘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.”

  69. thirdistheworrd says: Jun 28, 2013 1:51 PM

    purpblooded says: Jun 27, 2013 10:55 PM

    A native American had an article in our local newspaper that said the name came from the skin attached to the hair on a scalp that was turned in for a bounty. Even a white guy could say that the name is offensive, if that is true!
    _________________
    It doesn’t matter whether the name is offensive or inoffensive, what matters is who should decide if the Redskins should change their name.

    That was not the origin of the name (I’ll get there in a minute) but, hypothetically, let’s say it was. If the Native community still did not want to do away with the name, it should not be done away with. The origin doesn’t matter, it’s the opinion of the Native community that matters.

    As to the scalping story, that is a widespread urban legend. If you go on Google Scholar, there are several dozen academic papers concerned with the origin of the word. There are two main schools of thought:
    Either it originated among Natives to describe an individual who showed prowess in battle, referencing body paint or possibly the blood of their opponents, as a word that would essentially mean something along the lines of “brave” or “tough guy” or “bad@$$”.

    The other theory is that it originated in dealings between Natives and European settlers: a generalization of the difference between the Northern Europeans pale skin and the Natives’ ruddier skin.

    Either way, simple logic should explain how ludicrous the scalp theory is.
    Were European settlers frequently barbaric and cruel towards Natives? Absolutely. If a settler wanted to kill a Native, would he? Sure. But why would anyone pay a bounty for a scalp? It makes no sense. Among a thousand other reasons, who exactly would be paying for the freelance homicide? There’s no monetary gain to murder, and therefore no economic incentive.

  70. thirdistheworrd says: Jun 28, 2013 3:59 PM

    Indybear says: Jun 28, 2013 7:21 AM

    The fact they hired Frank Luntz for their PR work speaks volumes about why this happened and where this train wreck is going. Frankly, if anyone REALLY cared about the welfare and senstivities of Native Americans, then they would do all things possible to eliminate the poverty, alcoholism and rampant domestic violence that exists on the reservations.
    ____________
    I agree 100% on the second half of your point, but Frank Luntz and his role in this may be one of the most misunderstood points in this entire issue.

    First off, Luntz is not doing PR. He is not, and never has been, a PR guy. He’s a public opinion analyst, and he was brought in to work with focus groups on the issue. Although even “brought in” is a strong term: there were discussions between Luntz and the organization about potential focus group meetings, but he is in no way employed by the Redskins, paid by the Redskins, nor has he done any work for them yet.

    Moreover, there’s been talk flying around about what a right-wing nutjob Luntz is, but the fact is that Luntz is a well respected statistician, strategist and opinion analyst; employed by Republicans, Democrats and internationally.

    Luntz does skew right, the same way Carville skews left, but both are respected on both sides of the aisle as honest, accurate, and fully capable experts in their field. Just like Carville, Luntz appears on CNN and MSNBC as much as he does on FOX.

    The point is, even if Luntz is brought in to work on the issue, there is no connection between Luntz, politics, and the Redskins team name– he is simply good at what he does.

  71. dallascowboysdishingthereal says: Jun 30, 2013 10:34 PM

    Moral superior seeking liberals need to study the history of the term “Redskin” and how the team adapted the Redskin mascot to begin with.

    Originally the term Redskin referred to red war paint native americans applied to their faces.

    “Therefore, contrary to popular, and misguided opinion, the original name was never meant to imply anything other than the color of war paint. It was only much later that people wrongly applied the name to mean something derogatory.” -from visionquest yahoo contributor.

    The team adapted the Redskin name in 1933 from their native american coach William “Lone Star” Dietz. A soux who felt the name brought honor to his people.

    “He (Dietz) saw the name as bestowing an image of pride and recognition for the Native American people. Therefore, the name itself came from a Native American who saw nothing wrong with the name.” -visionquest yahoo contributor

    But don’t let the facts stand in the way of a liberal agenda that will not improve life for native americans in any way.

    OK you can delete me now.

Leave a Reply

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