Skip to content

Native American activists criticize Washington Post poll

mascotGettyImages Getty Images

The Washington Post poll that supporters of the local NFL team’s name believed would end the debate has potentially reinvigorated it — along with sparking a new debate over whether there should even be a debate about the propriety of the name.

On Friday, a group of Native American leaders and activists (i.e., not “white liberal journalists”) held a conference call aimed at further criticizing the poll.

Via the Associated Press, California State San Bernardino sociology professor James Fenelon called the poll “immoral.” He also echoed concerns that the poll was not representative of Native American communities. Likewise, Amanda Blackhorse, who serves as the lead plaintiff in the case attacking the team’s federal trademark protection, called the poll “misguided,” adding that it won’t diminish attacks against the name.

“This issue is not about polling,” National Congress of American Indians executive director Jackie Pata added. “This issue is about human rights.”

Some would say that these voices carry much more weight that 450 unverified self-identifying Native American adults who said in response to a series of questions about the name that the name doesn’t bother them. Moving forward, those voices need to find ways to get their message across in an effective and meaningful way.

As worthy as the cause may be, the opposition to the name has been at times disorganized, ebbing and flowing and all too often operating on a reactive instead of proactive basis. The movement would benefit greatly from a skilled and experienced P.R. professional who would launch a sustained assault on the name featuring, for example, conference calls occurring at a time other than the Friday of Memorial Day weekend. No matter how compelling the quotes, the messages sent Friday will rarely register on the national radar screen.

To launch the kind of P.R. push needed to impose pressure not on the team or the league but their sponsors, the movement first needs money. Stockpile enough of it through donations from those who believe that the name should go, and the Native American groups opposed to the name will have the foundation for devising ways to persuade Native Americans who oppose the name and non-Natives who agree with them to take the case to those truly in a position to compel a change.

Permalink 88 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, Washington Redskins
88 Responses to “Native American activists criticize Washington Post poll”
  1. markpackman says: May 28, 2016 9:06 AM

    So why aren’t Scandinavian Americans screaming about the “Vikings” mascot???

  2. pftcancer says: May 28, 2016 9:11 AM

    No one is forcing you to watch or support them. My advice, stay off sports channels during football season.

  3. mazenblue says: May 28, 2016 9:12 AM

    Native Americans still do not want to be part of USA. I hope they understand its over with and the damage is done. Lets remember history and move on in a positive way. That team name in Washington is straight up derogatory.

  4. summacca says: May 28, 2016 9:17 AM

    Was “Viking” used as a derogatory term? Weren’t the Vikings doing the pillaging where as the redskins were the pillaged? In my opinion that was a fairly dumb question.

  5. abninf says: May 28, 2016 9:18 AM

    What does the National Congress of American Indians have to say about the Red Mesa High School Redskins? And why have you avoided writing about them? And why did you stop carrying on about the Redskins trademark issue? And why do you choose to continue living on land taken from the indians?

    Oh, I think we know those answers.

  6. The Snake says: May 28, 2016 9:20 AM

    I am offended that Indians don’t pay taxes on their casino profits, either pay up or shut-up, go take some peyote and visit the spiritual world .

  7. tim2200 says: May 28, 2016 9:23 AM

    A nation of whiners….

  8. sparky151 says: May 28, 2016 9:23 AM

    The quote from Jackie Pata sums up why her cause is failing. There is no “right” to not be called names. If someone called President Obama the “n” word, I’d think less of them but the President’s rights haven’t been violated. Since most Native Americans don’t find the term Redskin objectionable, the poll is stronger evidence for editing the dictionary reference to it as a slur than for a name change for a pro football team.

    Frankly, Native Americans would do better to take ownership of the word. Other terms like queer or black have had negative connotations at some point in their history but have also been embraced as points of pride by the allegedly stigmatized.

  9. themayorofcrackerville says: May 28, 2016 9:25 AM

    It’s time for you to drop it and realize that you’re a member of a very small minority of people who want the name changed
    I’m starting to think that these posts are written in a cynical attempt to get clicks because this topic and Manziel and anything having to do with Brady’s appeal seem like they’e responsible for the majority of the traffic on this site
    Personally I’d like to hear A LOT less about all three of them

  10. fmc651 says: May 28, 2016 9:26 AM

    They polled 500 people and from that they think they got an okay. Absurd.

  11. srector1224 says: May 28, 2016 9:29 AM

    I’m gonna say that the majority of people don’t really care one way or the other. Honestly, I would like to see it changed but I don’t think it will be changed because the average American does not care about the plight of the Native American that much. It’s unfortunate but true.

  12. srector1224 says: May 28, 2016 9:31 AM

    Also how read some other studies 500 people is more than acceptable as a test group and not out of the norm.

  13. truckinmack says: May 28, 2016 9:31 AM

    “Not White Liberal Journalists” Nope, Native America Liberals. You can always find a group of Liberal Victims anywhere, and White Liberal Journalists will tout their complaints. Stop the presses! A Liberal is complaining.

    Even on PFT.

  14. wayne1693 says: May 28, 2016 9:32 AM

    PLEASE find another issue to screech about, perhaps more important stuff…like uniform colors, thread-count of jock-straps, players eating during half-time, physics of football air-pressure during cold-weather games, stadium liability for slip-&-falls when players run out of bounds, composite mixture of the uprights…You know, stuff like that.

  15. dandeman19 says: May 28, 2016 9:35 AM

    Considering what hate and violence the word represents in our history, anyone who is for the word is in my opinion insensitive

  16. nite2al says: May 28, 2016 9:40 AM

    markpackman says:
    May 28, 2016 9:06 AM

    So why aren’t Scandinavian Americans screaming about the “Vikings” mascot???
    ___________________________________

    I hate stupid replies like this…

    Because they’re not screaming about the mascot!

  17. 13timenflworldchamps says: May 28, 2016 10:00 AM

    One can assume now , on the heels of ” Political Correctness” we cant refer to a bunch of little kids running around like
    “A wild Bunch Of Indians ” Then the Cleveland Indians name will be next to be axed.

  18. socalcharger says: May 28, 2016 10:02 AM

    They should change their name to the Washington White Devils. I bet merchandise would fly off the shelves.

  19. jets4thewin says: May 28, 2016 10:02 AM

    They polled self identifying Native Americans. This includes people as little as 1/32 Native American.

    If you polled people who were 1/32 black and let their opinion be representative of black people there would be an uproar.

  20. yourmadre says: May 28, 2016 10:02 AM

    I don’t really care either way what they do with the name; at the same time, I do understand why some some native Americans have a problem with it. That being said, their argument here that the poll is “immoral” is ridiculous. She’s arguing that her opinion (name should be changed) matters but the opinions of everyone who was polled don’t. There’s nothing immoral about gathering information. Secondly, to call this a human rights issue is also a huge stretch. Native Americans have historically suffered from many human rights issues in this country, having a pro football team named after them is not one of them.

  21. bigdawgdaddy says: May 28, 2016 10:08 AM

    Waaaaaaaaa…. everyone’s a victim.
    I’m 3/4 “native” American and I could care less what the Redskins call themselves. I’m not offended by it at all, but then again I’m not some butt hurt PC agenda driven crybaby either.

  22. charger383 says: May 28, 2016 10:10 AM

    Still tilting at windmills?

  23. asparatame says: May 28, 2016 10:15 AM

    Let’s clear up the ‘liberal’ thing once and for all.

    To begin, I like liberals. Real liberals’ ideas and policies come from a place of guilt in one hand and a sense of justice in another. The most ardent supporters of free speech, liberals never protest a person’s right to be heard and never shout them down. Political discourse is welcome to liberals.

    By stark contrast, there are progressives. A disgusting mutation of liberalism, progressivism’s followers hate free speech, political discourse, and basically anything that doesn’t line up with their agenda of social justice.

    The easy way to tell is the actions. If a group of students are trying to force their way into a Ben Shapiro lecture shouting it down, They’re progressives. If a petition is being circulated to remove Condi Rice as the commencement speaker at a university, it was made by progressives. Social Justice youtube videos? All progressive. Telling you what you can and cannot say? Progressive again. The dogma of progressivism is followed so devoutly it rivals religious fundamentalism. (and wins sometimes in its adherence)

    Hope that clears things up. Best to have your own ideas about every issue. Lets get back to discourse and solving issues. The gridlock of progressivism and its unwillingness to compromise through the use of sympathetic language (for itself) is killing us. Reject Progressivism, you don’t have to reject liberalism, we can still talk.

  24. FinFan68 says: May 28, 2016 10:16 AM

    The thing about activists is that they are rarely thoughtful or rational. They press forward solely on their own emotions. What everybody else feels is not only irrelevant to them but also insulting if it differs in any way. Thoes people who scream about tolerance and acceptance are usuually the most intolerant of others. The bottom line for the anti Redskins groups is that the name SOUNDS bad therefore it must BE bad. I bet none of them have heard the word used in a derogatory fashion towards them and all of them reject the facts of how the word was derived and used in history and replace it with their own sensationalistic garbage to try and recruit people too dumb or lazy to research on their own.

  25. fordmandalay says: May 28, 2016 10:23 AM

    You know, back when I was a kid in the ’60s, the ‘Political Correctness’ RWers hate so much today was what we called ‘Respect for Others’, ‘Showing Kindness’, ‘Being Polite’, and ‘The Golden Rule’. But that was in the days back before people like FOX ‘News’ and Rush Limbaugh made being a hate-filled, bigoted racist cool again.

  26. h0c2000 says: May 28, 2016 10:29 AM

    It’s a sad commentary when a derogatory term needs a PR effort.

  27. willycents says: May 28, 2016 10:29 AM

    If Snyder would write out a check for several million dollars to the National Congress of American Indians, the whole issue would go away.

  28. ricko1112 says: May 28, 2016 10:36 AM

    I was born in the U.S. That makes me a Native American who happens to be white. Someone is an African American only if they were born in Africa, then became an American. Otherwise they’re simply Americans who happen to be black. Most of these “activists” seem to be 0.00001% indigenous. Phonies…

  29. evrybdyhas1 says: May 28, 2016 10:46 AM

    What ever way this eventually goes the politically correct view point should not re-write history. The term Indian and Redskin were interchangeable as a derogatory term in English text of the period. That is because they were promoting the genocide of Native Americans by offering bounties for the scalps of those killed including women and children. Native Americans saw themselves as individual tribes and did not associate themselves as a single entity or race until treaties with the US forced them to do so. They proudly chose the name red people. The name of state of Oklahoma means red people.

    I really do not understand why people think a team would want to call itself a derogatory term and demean Native Americans. Viewed with a long sense of history it could also be used as a term of pride. Perhaps the debate will at least remind all Americans of the suffering of Native Americans, Redskins, Indians, Original North Americans or whatever term is politically correct. That is far more important than being in vogue.

  30. romosmicrodongs says: May 28, 2016 10:55 AM

    The first known use of the word redskin to be published contemporaneously, as reprinted in Niles’ Weekly Register (Baltimore) for October 14, 1815, from an issue of The Western Journal (St. Louis) that does not survive. Shown is the first paragraph of the official translation of the speech that the Meskwaki chief Black Thunder made on July 20, 1815, in the treaty council at Portage des Sioux, Missouri Territory. Addressing Gov. William Clark according to Indian convention as “My Father,” he referred to Indians and Europeans in the Meskwaki language as “red skins and white skins.” These were idioms current in several Indian languages of the area which were translated into Mississippi Valley French as Peaux-Rouges and Peaux-Blanches, and from French into local English.

    Education will set you free

  31. oregonraider says: May 28, 2016 10:55 AM

    sparky151 says:
    May 28, 2016 9:23 AM

    The quote from Jackie Pata sums up why her cause is failing. There is no “right” to not be called names. If someone called President Obama the “n” word, I’d think less of them but the President’s rights haven’t been violated. Since most Native Americans don’t find the term Redskin objectionable, the poll is stronger evidence for editing the dictionary reference to it as a slur than for a name change for a pro football team.

    Frankly, Native Americans would do better to take ownership of the word. Other terms like queer or black have had negative connotations at some point in their history but have also been embraced as points of pride by the allegedly stigmatized.

    Stupid comment of the day.
    If you call someone the “N” word and they pop you upside the head it’s probably a slur. Go up to a male native American and call him a “Redskin” to his face and find out for yourself whether or not it’s a slur. I’m only part Mohawk but I’d be willing to help you decide.

  32. araidersfan says: May 28, 2016 11:21 AM

    “Likewise, Amanda Blackhorse, who serves as the lead plaintiff in the case attacking the team’s federal trademark protection, called the poll “misguided,” adding that it won’t diminish attacks against the name.”

    ===========================

    Kind of hypocritical of Amanda given that her own surname (Blackhorse) should also be viewed as ‘highly offensive’ by the standards of the high priests of political correctness.

  33. Bizzareslantpass says: May 28, 2016 11:40 AM

    SMH. Social Justice Warriors. If it offends 1%, the other 99% doesn’t matter. Im I the only person who thinks this is weird?

  34. illogicalvoicesinmyhead says: May 28, 2016 11:45 AM

    Keep blowing the horn of hypocrisy, no one is listening.

    REDSKINS

    Hail

  35. NinersRule says: May 28, 2016 11:49 AM

    Face facts already– that 90% poll killed any chance of a name change. Get over it and move on.

  36. boogerhut says: May 28, 2016 11:55 AM

    yourmadre says:
    May 28, 2016 10:02 AM
    I don’t really care either way what they do with the name; at the same time, I do understand why some some native Americans have a problem with it. That being said, their argument here that the poll is “immoral” is ridiculous. She’s arguing that her opinion (name should be changed) matters but the opinions of everyone who was polled don’t. There’s nothing immoral about gathering information. Secondly, to call this a human rights issue is also a huge stretch. Native Americans have historically suffered from many human rights issues in this country, having a pro football team named after them is not one of them.

    Oh c’mon. There will be no talking sense here man.

  37. jmc8888 says: May 28, 2016 12:01 PM

    Amanda Blackhorse is no MLK.

    Her dream is that one day she would live in a country where they didn’t judge her on a sports team name that deals with the color of her skin but rather the content of her character. Guess what no one does. It’s all in her head. That’s HER PROBLEM.

    Her character is lacking. Millions of Americans of ALL COLORS, RACES, and CREEDS love the Redskins. That’s not a bad thing. That’s a great thing. She is basically arguing what ‘is’ is. She can’t tell people what cheering for the Redskins should be like. But she is trying to make it seem like people are hating on Native Americans because of the name, instead of loving it.

    This issue is a joke. It doesn’t need PR. People are sick of PR, spin, and all other sorts of manipulations. It’s a team name, one that is revered by millions, including MANY Native Americans.

    Amanda Blackhorse is a crusader without a cause. This isn’t a cause. We have to stop having crusaders whose only point is something in this world bothered them. Especially when REAL issues with REAL consequences are abound.

    I think many more Native Americans care more about Andrew Jackson and the trail of tears, and traitor to this country for other reasons being on the $20 bill…. and guess what, he’s being replaced. That is a victory, because he ACTUALLY represented ACTUAL crimes against Native Americans and the United States in general. That is a symbolic issue that was worthy of a change. But that wasn’t enough for Mrs. Blackhorse. Maybe because SHE wasn’t leading the charge.

    Both aren’t huge issues when compared to the crimes of our gov’t against it’s people going on. Maybe Mrs. Blackhorse needs to read up about bail-in, or extrajudicial killings, or the fake war on terrorism, or the fake rationale to spy on people, or the fake illegal wars Native Americans along with everyone else is dying in. Native Americans will have their money stolen to pay creditors of a derivatives daisy chain implosion as well.

    Nobel Peace Prize president Obama, after starting numerous dumb wars is starting a new cold war needlessly against Russia for no reason other than being a moron and wanting Russia to kneel before him. That could easily turn into WWIII. The list of REAL ISSUES goes on and on.

    Going after this sports team name issue is a 1st world problem, and by doing so, we won’t be in the 1st world for long. It’s simply a joke. Pay attention to what matters. Fight for what matters. A team name doesn’t.

    Mrs. Blackhorse needs to get a clue. If she wins, many Native Americans will be mad, upset, and lose something they pride themselves in. What makes HER viewpoint matter more than them? Her viewpoint is idiotic, self-centered, and far too sensitive for reality.

    But she’ll have her 2 minutes of pointless fame before an economic collapse or flash of a nuclear bomb. To her even in the end it would probably be worth it. No, she is no MLK. MLK would be ripping Obama for his war crimes, his lack of activity to help the african american community, and all the war on terror crap that is fake as a $3 bill. Mrs. Blackhorse, is fighting to change a sports team name. She is not for ‘justice’, she’s the PC police. MLK was not the PC police. He went after REAL ISSUES.

    Seriously people need to understand the difference and stop wasting our time.

  38. FinFan68 says: May 28, 2016 12:07 PM

    oregonraider says:
    May 28, 2016 10:55 AM
    Stupid comment of the day.
    If you call someone the “N” word and they pop you upside the head it’s probably a slur. Go up to a male native American and call him a “Redskin” to his face and find out for yourself whether or not it’s a slur. I’m only part Mohawk but I’d be willing to help you decide.
    ~~~~~~~~
    Not after your post it isn’t. The word itself is not what is offensive; it is the way it is used and the intended meaning behind it. Go up to that same male native American and call him a “woman” and you would likely get the same results. Does that mean “woman” is a slur in your world? If you say no, it must be because of context. That is exactly the point of those who have no issue with Redskins as a team name. The meanings of the word might be debatable but in this context it is intended to be an homage not a slur.

  39. hyprcaffeinated says: May 28, 2016 12:16 PM

    I believe Amanda Blackhorse has also called for the Chiefs to change their team nickname, citing that the same issues, proving that this is indeed a slippery and never ending slope we shall slide down into the abyss which shall end our civilization.

    How about addressing real issues.

  40. magnumpimustache says: May 28, 2016 12:34 PM

    If you take a poll of racist names people can call white people. You may find that white people don’t really care.

    However I am sure there will be some white people who are offended to their core and need to protect the children.

    And will hold press conferences

  41. footballfan72 says: May 28, 2016 12:35 PM

    Meanwhile in New Orleans all the sinners on bourbon street are offended by the Saints…..

  42. romosmicrodongs says: May 28, 2016 12:45 PM

    @oregonraider

    “I don’t like what you say so I’ll use physical violence to change your behavior” is the definition of fascism

  43. keys2heat says: May 28, 2016 12:57 PM

    100% Native, so is my family. The team name Redskins doesn’t bother us nor any of us on the rez up here in Devils Lake North Dakota. It’s a football team name. Hey white libs, stop being offended for me, I’m a big boy with a brain who can think for himself.

  44. greymares says: May 28, 2016 1:09 PM

    I’m in favor of anything that ticks off a Washington, New York or Dallas fan. Just saying.

  45. backintheday99 says: May 28, 2016 1:31 PM

    asparatame says:
    May 28, 2016 10:15 AM
    Let’s clear up the ‘liberal’ thing once and for all.

    ———————————

    You sound like someone who just finished your freshman year in college and your Prof just got her PHD last year.

    The irony is the change from what once was considered ‘Progressive’ to this whole conversation.

    So go look all that up and good luck in college.

  46. davearnone says: May 28, 2016 1:38 PM

    They are “activists.”

    Of course they are offended, that’s what activists do, they spend their time being offended.

  47. rcali says: May 28, 2016 1:43 PM

    The Cowboys Play the Redskins on Thanksgiving this year. Anyone else find this amusing? And I mean those who don’t spend every minute of their lives being offended by something.

  48. jonathankrobinson424 says: May 28, 2016 2:34 PM

    …..I’ve been actively watching NFL football for over 50 years and NEVER EVEN ONCE have I used or thought of the name REDSKIN as derogory. For crying out loud its the name of a pro football team in the District of Columbia. This crap’ola needs to stop.

  49. jcashman23 says: May 28, 2016 2:52 PM

    dandeman19 says:
    May 28, 2016 9:35 AM
    Considering what hate and violence the word represents in our history, anyone who is for the word is in my opinion insensitive
    ————————————————–

    Guess what?? We are allowed to be “insensitive!” The day someone if forced to remove or change their name/brand because a small percentage of the population is offended is the beginning of the end. It is truly a slippery slope.

  50. dandeman19 says: May 28, 2016 2:53 PM

    Native Americans removed sometimes forcefully from their lands and that word represents that yet we allow it
    Blacks enslaved in this country no teams named for that
    Japanese forcefully at times placed in internment camps during WWII no teams named for that
    women’s suffrage not allowed to vote til 1920 no teams named for that
    Gays in the past treated horribly having to seek their own liberation no teams named for that
    There are many other groups as well ex: Muslims who have been mistreated and placed in situations of suffrage. Yet no teams are named for any of them. that is because we as reasonable ppl would be up in arms over that. Yet we are ok with the word Redskin? It has a negative place in history much like the Confederate flag. Gee what happened their? We should remember and honor the shame of some of our historical events and not celebrate them at sporting events

  51. adrianbeatason says: May 28, 2016 3:02 PM

    I am 1/64th Native American and I have no problems with The Redskins name, so therefore Native Americans have no issues with it.

  52. unoduotres says: May 28, 2016 3:09 PM

    Unfortunately. the only offensive name associated with the Washington football team is Dan Snyder, whose antics continue to stir up the situation. If the NFL billionaire Snyder were that concerned with the plight of these financially underprivileged people, he should set up a plan e.g. whereby 3-5% of parking revenues would be set aside for the aforementioned Indian nations. This would result in a “win win” which apparently escapes the NFL’s attention and charitable objectives.

  53. streetyson says: May 28, 2016 3:16 PM

    srector1224 says:
    May 28, 2016 9:31 AM
    ..500 people is more than acceptable as a test group and not out of the norm.
    —————————–
    The problem in this case, as well as a previous one on the subject, was that there was no testing over whether they were really American Indian. And the answers given by many to some of the questions (such as a significant proportion not being at all aware of any debate or even ever any potential issue over the use of the word), seems highly suspicious.

    My argument is not over the redskin word but that the billionaire inheritors of a culture who committed near-genocide against the natives should not now get to own, cheapen, and make money out of the identifiers of the people who were victimized. It’s tasteless. However, if a native owner or school wants to use the term, that’s ok by me.

  54. therick5000 says: May 28, 2016 3:36 PM

    The whole argument about approaching a Native American and what to say to their face is being twisted around. Ok, sure you wouldn’t go up to them and call them a Redskin, but it has nothing to do with being offensive. It has to do with being inappropriate. You call people, ALL people, by their name. Or if you don’t know their name, then it’s ‘sir’ or ‘ma’am’.

    Why would anyone go up to a person and say ‘hi, white boy’ or ‘excuse me, Catholic lady’? If someone called me something like that, I would not be offended, I would just think they’re a fool. In this context being debated, it’s referring to a football team, that’s it.

    Was Redskin ever used in an inappropriate fashion? I have no doubt. But so were other terms..like ‘you $%@! Native’ or ‘damn Indians’…during times of war for example. Should those terms be considered a slur? I don’t think so.

  55. laserw says: May 28, 2016 3:52 PM

    There is no such thing as a “native American”.

    First, these people did not enter America; America was created after them and there were people who arrived at the creation of the name so that makes everyone who arrived at that time “native” and that makes the term useless.

    Those who arrived here were squatters – they were the first squatters – they assumed that being here first gave them rights to property that they didn’t own nor had a claim to; since the later arrivals operated on the same premise, it was up to the cultures to fight for which one was superior and the one that won proved that it was superior to first squatters. This is how history has always been. The loser gets to set no terms and thus have no right to how they are portrayed or called.

  56. tomtravis76 says: May 28, 2016 4:59 PM

    The NFL owners don’t care if people like the name or hate the name, the only way the owners will move on the issue is when it starts hurting their wallets.

    If a study was done and it said that changing the name would bring in a ridiculous amount of money, the owners would get Snyder to change the name. But right now all of this talk is increasing Skins merch sales with supporters of the name.

    It’s always going to be about money and nothing else. The NFL allows franchises to leave cities because it is more money in the owners pockets. They don’t care what the team’s names are or the history and especially how fans feel about a name.

  57. udontknowjaq says: May 28, 2016 5:04 PM

    I find it funny that people cry so hard when the issue of changing a football teams name comes up. A country full of excuse makers now. Got all kinds of excuses to keep a name that a race of people want changed. Why? Cause they had it for so long. If it changes now what next? Maybe decency..

  58. ebdug says: May 28, 2016 5:35 PM

    This indian council has no sympathy for those who self-identify as Native Americans.

  59. henry53 says: May 28, 2016 5:42 PM

    They’re not called “Activists” anymore,
    They’re SJW’s, Social Justice Warriors. They are the worst kind of Progressive bs artists. They don’t care about the supposed ‘victims’ in any of theses cases, only about beating people into submission.
    This PC bs is one of the main reasons Trump is doing so well, people are tired of it.

  60. ebdug says: May 28, 2016 5:55 PM

    In another poll it was found that self-identifying Native Americans ARE offended by activists claiming to represent them.

  61. tx526 says: May 28, 2016 6:24 PM

    I’m half Cherokee and personally, I’ve always loved the “Redskins” as a team name. Hate the owner and people like Deangelo Hall, but I’ve always loved the name and their uniforms.

  62. shlort says: May 28, 2016 7:31 PM

    “Activist” is a nice way of saying “Radical”. The radical tries to sway public opinion to bring about change because they have no legal standing to change anything. What the radical claims is support for their cause is simply people giving in to stop the whining. It has proven effective over the years, but people are growing tired of the tactic. The tactic is being use so much these days that it has all turned into white noise to the ears of the public. “Activists” are going to have to develop a new tactic.

  63. bighoser says: May 28, 2016 7:48 PM

    So, Redskins supporters, would the “Washington Blackskins” be okay? How do you think that term would go down when all you’re changing is the color? Also, why is it in almost every John Wayne or Clint Eastwood movie is the term “redskin” clearly used as a slur on par with “pale face”? (See “Outlaw Josey Wales” for instance)

  64. bagadeez04 says: May 28, 2016 7:52 PM

    Very interesting that 9 in ten Native Americans don’t care about this issue, yet their media appointed “leaders” do.

    This group just wants to win official victim status. Not sure what that actually accomplishes but it’s the way of the world today…being a victim is now considered an enviable thing. So weird and dysfunctional.

  65. Fly Eagles Fly says: May 28, 2016 8:22 PM

    What I realize is that most people are just dumb. If you can’t figure out which group in this debate I’m referring to, you just prove my point.

  66. nyneal says: May 28, 2016 8:24 PM

    Wow. I can’t believe the way this country is headed. Anyone who wants to claim to be a victim only needs to find something to complain about and then start beating the drums (pun intended, Redskins).

    What’s next? Is there anything that isn’t deemed offensive by someone? I think not.
    In my lifetime, the funniest comedians were the ones who would poke fun at people. Like Red Skelton, Don Rickles, and Richard Pryor, for instance. And the loveable lush Foster Brooks, who always made everyone laugh on the Dean Martin Roasts, too.

    Do you realize that the only one of those guys who could still get away with what he did is Richard Pryor? And he was the most foul mouthed of them all. How’s that for an irony?

    So all you drum beaters (pun intended) keep rattling your chains about some stupid thing that “offends” you and one day none of us will be able to say anything without fear of being called a racist.

  67. udontknowjaq says: May 28, 2016 8:28 PM

    10 in 10 don’t care about any other football team name. If 5% of a whole race of people find a name offensive why not change the name? It’s only a game?

  68. psychoraider904 says: May 28, 2016 8:38 PM

    Imagine that. Something else to get offended over. When does it stop? Why is everybody so sensitive?

  69. t81o says: May 28, 2016 8:53 PM

    It’s funny to me that some people want to say that it’s liberals crying again and blaming someone else, or that it’s a “pc” issue. First, do you realize when you constantly blame the “liberal media” that you too are blaming someone for something? And let’s not pretend any side of the political aisle ever takes responsiblity for their own issues.

    As for the pc issue. If you are overweight, bald, and ugly, is it ok for people to always tell you that you are all of those things? Because in your “non pc” world, we should stop being so sensitive and say everything we are thinking. And if your child is a dummy (face it, there are a lot of dumb kids out there), is it cool with you if i point that out to you? I mean, yog wouldn’t be too sensitive to that, right? I’d never say it to the kid of course,because that would be mean. But as such an advanced adult, you can surely handle the truth. You see, the issue with people wanting to end the “liberal pc-ness” of our country is that it goes with everything, not just what you or i want to say. It’s more about being good people to our community members vs being pc. But sure, if you want to be “non pc” with me, I’m happy to do the same with you. I’ve noticed a few of my friends have gotten quite angry with me when i returned the “non pc” talk with them.

  70. Native Languages says: May 28, 2016 9:01 PM

    This team name was made in 1933, an era when wearing blackface was acceptable. We have moved past blackface and we should move past this derogatory name. I don’t presume to speak for anyone but myself and that is all I have to say.

  71. orangeraider says: May 28, 2016 9:05 PM

    These politically correct leftists should worry about the salt marsh mouse or some shrimp or a particular snail.
    Leave sports alone as you are slowly wrecking our society, morals and overall livability of the USA

  72. TheWizard says: May 28, 2016 9:29 PM

    Did anybody check in with Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren?

  73. bowhunter8355 says: May 28, 2016 9:52 PM

    Amazing, “keys2heat” is 100% Native and as of now 5 people actually gave him a thumbs down for not being offended at a nickname involving him. SMH

  74. FinFan68 says: May 28, 2016 9:53 PM

    bighoser says:
    May 28, 2016 7:48 PM
    So, Redskins supporters, would the “Washington Blackskins” be okay? How do you think that term would go down when all you’re changing is the color? Also, why is it in almost every John Wayne or Clint Eastwood movie is the term “redskin” clearly used as a slur on par with “pale face”? (See “Outlaw Josey Wales” for instance
    ~~~~~~~~~
    Really? You are using Hollywood movies and ‘Spaghetti Westerns’ as an example of the word being derogatory? Those are scripts not historical representations.

    Was ‘blackskins’ ever used by black people to denote pride? No? Then it is more than simply changing the color in the word. These are the kinds of arguments that the change seekers hang their collective hats on. It goes back to the word sounding bad. That is where much of the strife is coming from. People ignore the true etymology and replace it with small-minded definitions based on nothing more than how the word sounds. That is absurd. Google Ives Goddard I Am A Redskin’, read that and then note the man’s credentials and expertise on the subject and you should see the fallacy in your arguments.

  75. henry53 says: May 28, 2016 9:54 PM

    “It’s funny to me that some people want to say that it’s liberals crying again and blaming someone else, or that it’s a “pc” issue.”

    Maybe, but when it’s these same ‘pc’ Social Justice people that want to allow your trans buddy into the same bathroom as my 10yo daughter, then I’m going to fight back.
    If you can’t see where your harmless, liberal ‘pc’ issues have lead us, you’re a total fool.

  76. dreadnok89 says: May 28, 2016 10:43 PM

    My god, go away

  77. ivanpavlov0000 says: May 28, 2016 10:46 PM

    When an NFL team in the South is willing to call itself the “White Trash”, I’ll be cool with DC using the name “Redskins”. Charlotte, NC – this is your big opportunity.

  78. ivanpavlov0000 says: May 28, 2016 10:47 PM

    “If you can’t see where your harmless, liberal ‘pc’ issues have lead us, you’re a total fool.”

    I thought liberals all used Macintosh?

  79. dandeman19 says: May 28, 2016 10:51 PM

    actually it is people that police the bathrooms that scare me. They are the threatening ones. I mean if a woman who identifies herself as man comes into the men’s rm how ya gonna know? It is not like she’ gonna use the urinal

  80. nachofacefakeindian says: May 29, 2016 3:52 AM

    Mohawk by birth, living in Louisiana. My school is Ringold with the proud name of the Ringold Redskins. Absolutely not offended by, nor feel denigrated, by the word Redskins. It’s a word, a moniker, a name of a professional football team. The mascot is a native, and the team fight song is of pride and power. Wake up people and go to the Bureau of Indian Affairs website and look at “Reservation Life and Issues”, see where “team names” falls under the heading ISSUES. Let me save you the time, it doesn’t. This is an agenda-driven crusade that is not native-led, I promise you that. It’s embarrassing and is a waste of time and money. This is the typical white pc-guilt trip that wastes energies that should be diverted elsewhere. Leave us alone, ok? Go Saints and Hail to the Redskins forever. See? I’m not offended.

  81. blowfishes says: May 29, 2016 5:35 AM

    I’m English by birth and am hoping to open a casino in the Boston area. I feel that the local professional sports team name is derogatory towards me… oh and can I open my casino and pay minimal taxes and also prevent any other casinos from opening within a 50 mile radius from mine?

  82. defscottyb says: May 29, 2016 8:29 AM

    FinFan68: You totally mailed it dude. Esp the part about “if it sounds bad it but be bad”. Redskins is not even about akin color, it’s about Red War Paint worn in battle but activists just see Red and Skin… therefore it HAS to be about akin color and racist/offensive. Also, the white man didn’t cook the name Redskin, Native Americans did as a greeting term for one another in the 1700’s. Okla-humma means Red People in Choctaw (Oklahoma). To me the 1849ers aka 49ers is much worse as the name comes from the Gold miners of the Gold Rush of 1849. These miners forcibly removed and murdered 100K Native Americans during this time while raping their women and children. Oh yeah, they also did the same to the Chinese and others who came to stake their claim. No one ever talks about this.

  83. defscottyb says: May 29, 2016 1:01 PM

    *Must be*, *skin color*, *coin* (not cook). Sorry, I was typing on a tiny phone screen.

  84. gofor2with3pointlead says: May 29, 2016 2:57 PM

    araidersfan says:
    May 28, 2016 11:21 AM
    “Likewise, Amanda Blackhorse, who serves as the lead plaintiff in the case attacking the team’s federal trademark protection, called the poll “misguided,” adding that it won’t diminish attacks against the name.”

    ===========================

    Kind of hypocritical of Amanda given that her own surname (Blackhorse) should also be viewed as ‘highly offensive’ by the standards of the high priests of political correctness.

    You can’t possibly be that ignorant, or can you? If you have no skin in the game, don’t comment. I have yet to see a salient argument from someone supporting a nickname that denigrates indiginious Americans.

  85. FinFan68 says: May 29, 2016 7:10 PM

    gofor2with3pointlead says:
    May 29, 2016 2:57 PM
    You can’t possibly be that ignorant, or can you? If you have no skin in the game, don’t comment. I have yet to see a salient argument from someone supporting a nickname that denigrates indiginious Americans.
    ~~~~~~~~
    Nobody has to have skin in the game in order to comment but your stance is typical of those who ‘know better’ and believe they have the right to control or censor others. If you haven’t seen a salient argument against your side, you simply are too stubborn to notice or have been lying to yourself. There are plenty on this page alone. Chief of which is the one that challenges your belief that ‘Redskin’s denigrates indigenous Americans. It simply doesn’t and there is a good amount of proof in that claim. Research the actual etymology of the word. You will find the true meaning and usage. Too bad you will likely ignore it because it must be wrong since it differs from your emotionally driven opinion.

  86. jakkks15 says: May 30, 2016 1:10 AM

    I was born in the U.S. That makes me a Native American who happens to be white. Someone is an African American only if they were born in Africa, then became an American. Otherwise they’re simply Americans who happen to be black.
    ————————————-

    So what do you refer to someone born in this country but has Asian ancestry.

  87. hawkwind8 says: May 30, 2016 12:32 PM

    I’m in favor of anything that ticks off a Washington, New York or Dallas fan. Just saying.

    Great comment, too bad you had to add “Just saying”.

  88. pftcensor1 says: May 31, 2016 4:17 PM

    “Some would say that these voices carry much more weight…”

    This is the root of the PC problem. To claim that one person’s voice or opinion has more value or importance or more merit than any other person’s voice is very Orwellian (please do yourself a favor and read Animal Farm some day soon).

Leave a Reply

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