Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

But the Indian activist Suzan Shown Harjo, who has filed a lawsuit seeking to strip the “Redskins” trademark from the football team, said the poll neglected to ask some crucial questions.

“Are you a tribal person? What is your nation? What is your tribe? Would you say you are culturally or socially or politically native?” Harjo asked. Those without such connections cannot represent native opinions, she said.

Indian support for the name “is really a classic case of internalized oppression,” Harjo said. “People taking on what has been said about them, how they have been described, to such an extent that they don’t even notice.”

In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them.

It was a white man who applied it to this particular football team: Owner George Preston Marshall chose the name in 1932 partly to honor the head coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, who was known as an Indian.

“The Washington Redskins name has thus from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context,” NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell wrote in June to 10 members of Congress who challenged the name.

Marshall, however, had a reputation as a racist. He was the last NFL owner who refused to sign black players — the federal government forced him to integrate in 1962 by threatening to cancel the lease on his stadium. When he died in 1969, his will created a Redskins Foundation but stipulated that it never support “the principle of racial integration in any form.”

89Hen wrote:I especially liked these parts...

In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them.

Pwns wrote:What do you want them to do, hen? Conduct DNA tests? That's the way it works with any type of poll that looks at opinion by race, it's always self-reported, including the US census.

And any professional sports franchise that was old enough probably has some coach or owner or founder who was a supporter of segregation in sports. What does blacks in sports decades ago have to do with NA mascots today?

89Hen wrote:

Pwns wrote:What do you want them to do, hen? Conduct DNA tests? That's the way it works with any type of poll that looks at opinion by race, it's always self-reported, including the US census.

And any professional sports franchise that was old enough probably has some coach or owner or founder who was a supporter of segregation in sports. What does blacks in sports decades ago have to do with NA mascots today?

A 2004 poll of 768 people who "identified themselves as Indian" is not a lot to hang your coat on IMO.

As for the second part, one of the BIG tenets of Redskin supporters was how the name was given as a term of respect. I think it's EXTREMELY relevant that folks know the name was given by the last holdout of segration in the NFL.

grizzaholic wrote:

89Hen wrote: A 2004 poll of 768 people who "identified themselves as Indian" is not a lot to hang your coat on IMO.

As for the second part, one of the BIG tenets of Redskin supporters was how the name was given as a term of respect. I think it's EXTREMELY relevant that folks know the name was given by the last holdout of segration in the NFL.

This discussion is moot. The NFL doesn't own the name, Snyder does. There will always be advertisers and people willing to put their name up in that stadium, if any of the current sponsors decide to pull their names...which is a bitch move IMO.

Hope Snyder tells the rabble rousers to go pound sand niggers.

89Hen wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
This discussion is moot. The NFL doesn't own the name, Snyder does. There will always be advertisers and people willing to put their name up in that stadium, if any of the current sponsors decide to pull their names...which is a bitch move IMO.

Hope Snyder tells the rabble rousers to go pound sand.

The discussion is only moot if it never leads to a change. The more it's discussed, the more likely there will be a change. BTW, that was pretty racist there at the end.

kalm wrote:1). Indians got a raw deal.

kalm wrote:1). Indians got a raw deal.

2). Snider should be able to decide the name of his franchise

3). Snider is a douche.

4). I'm ok with Portland State and the Minnesota Vikings.

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:1). Indians got a raw deal.

2). Snider should be able to decide the name of his franchise

3). Snider is a douche.

4). I'm ok with Portland State and the Minnesota Vikings.

Agreed on all.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:1). Indians got a raw deal.

Yeah, but they got the last laugh, didn't they?

grizzaholic wrote:

89Hen wrote: Agreed on all.

Well...while we are at it

Chiefs, Buccaneers, Cowboys, Giants, Packers, Patriots, Raiders, Saints, Steelers, Texans, and Vikings all should be replaced with new names.

89Hen wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
Well...while we are at it

Chiefs, Buccaneers, Cowboys, Giants, Packers, Patriots, Raiders, Saints, Steelers, Texans, and Vikings all should be replaced with new names.

Why?

Chizzang wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:

Yeah, but they got the last laugh, didn't they?

Um... not really
But you go ahead and believe that if it makes you feel better

I'm not talking about white guilt
I'm talking about the extermination of a group of peoples / we killed their best and brightest
It's a sad sad story

Think how much we could have learned from these people
Their top men were special

It would be kinda like killing the top 90% of White people
(as far as leadership and intelligence and physique)

Guess what you'd have left


If that's all we had to go on to determine the value of "white folks"
Imagine that

Ibanez wrote:How about the Chicago Blackhawks and Atlanta Braves?


I understand that Redskin is offensive to them and Blackhawk and Brave aren't. I guess they aren't. Hell, I don't know.

Bronco wrote:-

I'm offended that the Indians are still on the Govt dime

That money was never meant to be permanent

Weird that Obama never mentioned the Blackhawks when he said Redskins name needs to be changed

The team's first owner was coffee tycoon Frederic McLaughlin, who outbid grain magnate James E. Norris for the franchise. McLaughlin had been a commander with the 333rd Machine Gun Battalion of the 86th Infantry Division during World War I.[3] This Division was nicknamed the "Blackhawk Division", after a Native American of the Sauk nation, Black Hawk, who was a prominent figure in the history of Illinois.[3] McLaughlin evidently named the hockey team in honor of the military unit, making it one of many sports team names using Native Americans as icons. For many years, the name was spelled "Black Hawks." This ambiguity was finally settled in the summer of 1986 when the club officially decided on the one-word version based on the spelling found in the original franchise documents.[4]

Chizzang wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:

Yeah, but they got the last laugh, didn't they?

Um... not really
But you go ahead and believe that if it makes you feel better

I'm not talking about white guilt
I'm talking about the extermination of a group of peoples / we killed their best and brightest
It's a sad sad story

Think how much we could have learned from these people
Their top men were special

It would be kinda like killing the top 90% of White people
(as far as leadership and intelligence and physique)

Guess what you'd have left


If that's all we had to go on to determine the value of "white folks"
Imagine that