Skip to content

Opposition to Redskins name follows team to Minnesota

Browner AP

Regardless of whether the Redskins were or weren’t concerned about protests that did or didn’t happen inside FedEx Field on Sunday, the opposition to the team’s name will follow the team to Minnesota for its Thursday night prime-time game against the Vikings.

Oneida Indian Nation has purchased advertising time on KFAN in Minneapolis, with a spot opposing the name to be broadcast on Thursday.

“Americans agree that hateful, derogatory slurs against ethnic groups are unacceptable and yet the Washington NFL team continues to perpetuate such speech on a national and international stage.” Oneida Indian Nation Representative Ray Halbritter said in a release. “The Change the Mascot campaign to end the use of the damaging R-word is not going away.”

The support of the name isn’t going away, either, and it primarily consists of:  (1) pointing out that Native Americans aren’t saying they’re offended by the name; and (2) denigrating and/or disregarded those Native Americans who say they’re offended by the name.

Meanwhile, former Vikings safety Joey Browner, who says he’s 3/4ths Native American, plans to participate Thursday in a “conscience walk” organized by the American Indian Movement.  The walk will span the one mile from the AIM headquarters to the Metrodome to oppose the team’s name.

It should be changed,” Browner told the St. Paul Pioneer Press. “It should have been changed a long time ago.  [The Redskins are] making multi billions over a word that was something they put a bounty up [historically] for hunting season for [indigenous] scalps. . . .  Other organizations have changed their names and come back thriving. . . .

“I want to show that I’m indigenous and I want to show a conscious awareness to the world.  We need to change the imagery presented to our children.”

And so we’ll now wait for someone who supports the name to attack Browner’s claim that he’s 75-percent Native American, or to perhaps point out that Browner’s opposition to the name comes from the 25-percent of him that necessarily is hopelessly liberal.

Permalink 39 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill, Washington Redskins
39 Responses to “Opposition to Redskins name follows team to Minnesota”
  1. logicalvoicesays says: Nov 6, 2013 1:55 PM

    The name stays and the our trophy cabinet gets bigger with another Lombardi in February 2014. #HTTR

  2. scoboscobs says: Nov 6, 2013 2:03 PM

    How long have the Redskins been around….and now, all of a sudden, everyone’s offended? Why is that….could it be they’re just looking for attention? Everyone’s looking for a reason to be offended these days. I’d bet almost everyone who says they’re offended by this are just saying so because they think that’s what they’re supposed to feel.

  3. dolphin80 says: Nov 6, 2013 2:04 PM

    Who changed the definition of the word Redskins from referring to Indians who painted themselves with red clay and their horse when in warrior mode to all of a sudden being scalps of indians?

    THE NAME STAYS…..get your definitions right, people.

  4. thegenoatkinsdiet says: Nov 6, 2013 2:05 PM

    We all know how this is going to end. Now it is just a matter of seeing how long it will take for Snyder to accept it and pick a new name.

    #WashingtonBravehearts

  5. snowlock2013 says: Nov 6, 2013 2:05 PM

    If the Redskins name is racist, and I’m not saying it isn’t, then what does that say about the people who accept money from the Redskins?

  6. deddmunnie says: Nov 6, 2013 2:08 PM

    ONEIDA NATION INCORPORATED.

    ITS A COMPANY, NOT A GROUP OF PEOPLE. The actual nation of Oneida American Indians has not sactioned any of this. The money comes from a business and a casino founded on false pretenses. Halbritter is a sham just trying to further his own agenda, while the real Oneida people are being robbed of their rightful claims to land by this businessman.

  7. fan72redskins says: Nov 6, 2013 2:08 PM

    Whatever you can do we can do better Hail to the Redskins

  8. fan72redskins says: Nov 6, 2013 2:11 PM

    Synder will NEVER change the name learn it, live it, love it Ha!!!

  9. mark0226 says: Nov 6, 2013 2:13 PM

    From this day forward, I will scroll past all posts about the Redskins name change issue.

  10. stixzidinia says: Nov 6, 2013 2:15 PM

    Funny how Ray Halbritter doesn’t have the stones to show up at a Redskins home game. Nice to see he’s spening that Onieda money on everything but what he’s actually supposed to be doing with it…….distributing it back to “his” own people. But then that’s been a cheif complaint (no pun intended) for some time amongst the Onieda………that ol’ Ray likes to pocket most of that money for himself.

  11. nflofficeadmin says: Nov 6, 2013 2:19 PM

    Unfortunately, none of the defenses for the name that I’ve heard have come from anything except emotion (as opposed to logic). The thing about red clay is a hoot, as most as weak at the Oklahoma tribe language argument. If the name wasn’t offensive why would the Indian Nation have an issue with it? What exactly do you think they have to gain by protesting? (If you think this is about a settlement you will be in for a surprise.)

  12. blackandbluedivision says: Nov 6, 2013 2:19 PM

    dolphin80 says:
    Nov 6, 2013 2:04 PM
    Who changed the definition of the word Redskins from referring to Indians who painted themselves with red clay and their horse when in warrior mode to all of a sudden being scalps of indians?

    THE NAME STAYS…..get your definitions right, people.
    ________________________

    “Redskins” isn’t a Native American term or from the original language. So I don’t think it was them who referred to themselves as such.

    You’re getting your quote mixed up from what the Redskins PR team is telling you. What they’re saying is that it is a tribute to those who did the actions you described. Meaning it wasn’t Native Americans (not Indians as you call them. Indians are from India) who called themselves that but, once again, everyone else who called them that.

  13. desertviking64 says: Nov 6, 2013 2:24 PM

    I wonder if Joey would have turned down a pay check if he had played for the Redskins? Where does it end?, is the Viking name going to offend the people of Scandinavia decent?

  14. skinsfan91 says: Nov 6, 2013 2:39 PM

    Native Americans came up with the word “redskins” they also called white people “whiteskins”. Nothing to do with scalps. This has proven by Smithsonian historians. I’m not saying the word is appropriate but it has nothing to do with scalps.

  15. blackandbluedivision says: Nov 6, 2013 2:42 PM

    deddmunnie says:
    Nov 6, 2013 2:08 PM
    ONEIDA NATION INCORPORATED.

    ITS A COMPANY, NOT A GROUP OF PEOPLE. The actual nation of Oneida American Indians has not sactioned any of this. The money comes from a business and a casino founded on false pretenses. Halbritter is a sham just trying to further his own agenda, while the real Oneida people are being robbed of their rightful claims to land by this businessman.
    __________________________

    Hmmm. So you’re #2 here:

    The support of the name isn’t going away, either, and it primarily consists of: (1) pointing out that Native Americans aren’t saying they’re offended by the name; and (2) denigrating and/or disregarded those Native Americans who say they’re offended by the name.

    I’ve heard of no other people from the Oneida tribe come forward and argue against this. Heck I’ve haven’t heard of any Native American who has come forward and argue against this.

  16. umakenosense says: Nov 6, 2013 2:47 PM

    Just shows how stupid Washington’s owner is. He has a great opportunity to change the name because a group finds it racist. He should welcome the change just think new name new logo. All the Washington fans would buy new hats , shirts and jersey’s etc.. I would change it tomorrow. Just like Jordan and Kobe changing jersey numbers. Cha Ching!!!

  17. steaderic says: Nov 6, 2013 2:49 PM

    “Unfortunately, none of the defenses for the name that I’ve heard have come from anything except emotion (as opposed to logic). The thing about red clay is a hoot, as most as weak at the Oklahoma tribe language argument.”

    ——————–

    Please read I Am A Red Skin by Ives Goddard, Sr. Linguist at the Smithsonian. One of the revelations of the paper is that the entire notion that “Redskins” comes from a bounty on Indian scalps comes from one letter that is a known forgery. There is no record in history that bears out that story. This is the lie that Ray Halbritter continues to push knowing full well that it simply isn’t true.

    What can be documented and proven is that Red Skin was coined as a differentiator by Natives when distinguishing themselves from the “white” man.

    Why the media continues to promote Mr. Halbritter’s lie is beyond me.

  18. rabiddawg19 says: Nov 6, 2013 2:52 PM

    blackandbluedivision says: Nov 6, 2013 2:19 PM

    “Redskins” isn’t a Native American term or from the original language. So I don’t think it was them who referred to themselves as such.

    um…not so much. try reading Ives Goddard’s essay on the term (“I Am A Red-Skin”), pretty clear they used the term back in the day, it’s their term to differentiate between the white man, black man and themselves…wasn’t offensive and definitely had nothing to do with scalping anyone.

  19. nationwright1987 says: Nov 6, 2013 2:54 PM

    Let me post something that actually makes sense. There are over 500 different tribes in this country, so for someone to say Indians are fine with the name Redskin, is wrong. 1 or 2 tribes might have said they’re fine with the name but there are still 498 more tribes to consider. personally if you call me a Redskin I’ll punch you in the mouth. Ask an African American person if they would want to be called the “n” word. And those of you defending the name, know your facts!!!

  20. skids003 says: Nov 6, 2013 2:57 PM

    Who’s paying for all this?

  21. goodlookingmonkey says: Nov 6, 2013 2:58 PM

    Im sorry, but NOW the name offends Oneida Indian Nation, Bob Costas, and others? So back in 2012, it was cool. Not a peep. 2008, nothing. 2005, nope. 1990, nope. But now the Oneida Indian Nation are offended. Im sorry, but with this being such a sensitive issue, it should of been a sensitive issue for years. Not just when the spotlight shines on you.

  22. chaddukesthebuttpirate says: Nov 6, 2013 2:59 PM

    there is a much larger group following this team to Minnesota, called REDSKIN FANS!
    Hail!

  23. purpleguy says: Nov 6, 2013 3:03 PM

    Wait a second, I thought all these Washington fans and the team were saying that native americans didn’t find the name offensive? Once again, it doesn’t matter what a bunch of anglos think about the name, regardless of their team affiliation — it’s what native americans think.

  24. sonnyandsam says: Nov 6, 2013 3:06 PM

    Linguistic historians, including Ives Goddard from the Smithsonian Institution and an expert in various Native American languages, traced the phrase “red skin” back to American Indian chiefs who used the phrase to describe themselves and their people when speaking with representatives of the Federal government. It is an English translation of various American Indian languages. There is no single “Native American language. “Native American” is a new term created within the past 20 years or so.

    The word “redskins” has NEVER referred to bloody scalps. That is an internet myth and one that is continued to be used incorrectly by people with their own anti-name agenda.

    And if “Redskins” is such a horrible word, please explain why so many Native American high schools on reservations or are predominantly Native American use the name and are proud of it. Do you really think those students, parents and administrators would use “Redskins” if it meant bloody scalp? Really?

    As recently as the early 1990s, a new Native American high school was created on a reservation in Arizona. Explain to the students at Red Mesa HS that their Redskins mascot is racist or derogatory.

    This is another recent attack by the PC police trying to redefine the word “redskins”. Notice how none of them can provider video, newsreel, news stories, etc. of the word being used in a derogatory manner?

  25. patsbrat says: Nov 6, 2013 3:12 PM

    Not taking any sides here, but what if they do change the name?

    Would the team be allowed to participate in games wearing throw-back unis?

    Would die-hard fans pull a Prince and call them ‘the team formerly known as the Redskins?’

  26. maddenboy says: Nov 6, 2013 3:13 PM

    mark0226 says: Nov 6, 2013 2:13 PM

    From this day forward, I will scroll past all posts about the Redskins name change issue.

    ——

    There’s at least two per day. Every single day.

    I’m with you Mark. Enough already. I come here for football, not politics.

  27. migoli says: Nov 6, 2013 3:16 PM

    I’ve never understood the thought that you can’t be offended by something in the present because people in the past weren’t offended. I mean there was slavery, woman not being allowed to vote, and so on but all these things changed because people opened their eyes.

  28. boyshole25 says: Nov 6, 2013 3:17 PM

    Halbritter is going to get ousted by his own people really soon he should worry about that

  29. lbeezyse says: Nov 6, 2013 3:18 PM

    Next up…… Green Bay Packers. They offend the G & L communities. Or you could say they cater to them with ARodg as their spokesman. Goodbye: Cheifs, Braves, Blackhawks, Indians, Reds?.

  30. revskip says: Nov 6, 2013 3:35 PM

    goodlookingmonkey says: Nov 6, 2013 2:58 PM

    Im sorry, but NOW the name offends Oneida Indian Nation, Bob Costas, and others? So back in 2012, it was cool. Not a peep. 2008, nothing. 2005, nope. 1990, nope. But now the Oneida Indian Nation are offended. Im sorry, but with this being such a sensitive issue, it should of been a sensitive issue for years. Not just when the spotlight shines on you.

    ————————————————————-

    The name has been under fire as racist for decades. During the last Super Bowl the Washington team was involved in (1992) there were protests against the name outside the stadium. In the 80s a Supreme Court case called the name into question with the court deciding that the people who brought the suit lacked standing.

    Anyone who thinks this issue just popped up is was either born after 92 or hasn’t been paying attention for a long, long time.

  31. harrisonhits2 says: Nov 6, 2013 4:03 PM

    The origins of the word are irrelevant.

    It eventually came to be used as a racist term used by Caucasians of European descent to refer to Native Americans in a derogatory manner.

  32. sonnyandsam says: Nov 6, 2013 4:15 PM

    Those of you who say it is a racist term please provide 1) proof; and 2) explain why so many Native Americans are not offended by it (80-90%) and 3) why Native American high schools use the word as THEIR mascot with pride.

    Can’t? Thought so.

  33. nflofficeadmin says: Nov 6, 2013 4:31 PM

    Black men used to be cool with being called “coloreds” too, so the argument around, where were you 10, 20, 30 years ago is a bogus argument because language is always changing.

    Here is the only question that needs to be asked, would you feel alright walking up to a Native American man and referring to him as an “R word” to his face? The correct answer is, No, I would not feel comfortable because I think there is a good chance I would offend him.

  34. slugdc says: Nov 6, 2013 4:36 PM

    “a word that was something they put a bounty up [historically] for hunting season for [indigenous] scalps”

    The above is a lie.

  35. nativealltheway says: Nov 6, 2013 4:42 PM

    There is a website named “Change the Mascot” that will answer all of your questions. Please take the time to educate yourself before you post ignorant questions. We could all use a little more knowledge regarding the R word. I’ve posted on several different pages and they won’t let me spell the N-word. R word = N-word. Plain and simple.

  36. mancave001 says: Nov 6, 2013 5:39 PM

    Yeah, because anyone who disagrees with this stupid fake “movement” MUST attack people personally, right?

  37. gregmorris78 says: Nov 7, 2013 12:37 PM

    People join these things when its easy and risk free…

  38. pftcensor1 says: Nov 7, 2013 1:53 PM

    @patsbrat

    I believe if the name is considered offensive then for consistency the position of those that advocate a change includes the provision that it be changed retroactively. This will ensure the offending term cannot cause further damage.

    1. No throw back uniforms ever
    2. Digitally revising all league owned video, audio, and still images
    3. A method to buy back or trade in all fan merchandise with the offending term or logo
    4. A removal of the term from all records, game books, or other historical narrative
    5. Adjustments as necessary at the Pro-Football Hall of Fame

  39. defscottyb says: Nov 7, 2013 4:26 PM

    Adrian Peterson is a great player but he won’t be enough to beat us tonight. Redskins 35, Vikings 17.

Leave a Reply

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