Should the Washington Redskins Change Their Team Name?

[jcalhoun]

Hey all,

While we're at it:

Screen Shot 2013-10-06 at 12.59.15 PM.png

Cheers,

James

[Sir Purrcival]

I can't get into this discussion. There isn't a name anywhere you can't find an issue with somehow. Picking names for new clubs etc. should be done with some attention to sensitivity, but some of these names have been in play for many years and often reflect a different era. History is important too. I know the Wizards changed their name from Bullets in response to the number of gun deaths in DC and wanting to change an image but you don't want to paint yourself into a corner by having to change names of things every few years just because it is a bit out of fashion. Everything falls somewhere on a sliding scale. There may well be a few people are offended by a name such as the Redskins but if a poll was taken, I bet the majority would probably say it doesn't matter.

[KnowItAll]

anyone here be offended by palefaces, gringos, etc Not me

[South Pender]

"There may well be a few people are offended by a name such as the Redskins but if a poll was taken, I bet the majority would probably say it doesn't matter."

You're right; the majority do say it doesn't matter. Even a lot of Native Americans themselves. In a recent Washington, DC poll, only 25% said they "disliked" or "hated" the name, with nearly all respondents not Native American, of course. But is that the issue? If some Native American tribes are insulted and upset with it, should the majority force its will on a small, and largely helpless, minority? Maybe the poll question should be worded differently, such as "Given that several Native American tribes have indicated that they find the team name "Redskins" offensive, should the team change its name?" Phrased that way, I think we'd see different poll results.

[Sir Purrcival]

Maybe but then again, maybe not. In short, that is life. We get all bent out of shape when it seems like the majority has to cater to the minority don't we. Can we say Quebec, Natives, the 1 percenters to name but a few but then if the majority gets its way, we starting worrying that we are oppressing the minority. If we gave into every minority group on every issue, abortions would be illegal, segregation would still be legal, and bike lanes would be everywhere (ok bad example) but you get where I'm coming from. There is a balancing act on everything. Some objections have more merit than others and this one seems pretty meaningless in the greater picture. Changing the name isn't going to end discrimination or reduce poverty or any of the other issues that are being tenuously connected to the name.

The world is filled with terms that mean different things to different people and the bottom line is you can't please them all. Natives have far bigger fish to fry than the name on a football or baseball team. I wouldn't necessarily endorse the name for a new team but it seems like a waste of time to go around changing things up because a minority of people don't like it. It isn't an obvious slur in today's verbiage. In fact, I doubt anyone uses the term in regards to Native Americans. At least I have never hear anyone in my 50 years refer to "Redskins" and mean natives. Thus, I would say just leave it. If people, native or otherwise are so upset by it, let them seek a remedy in a court of law and pay for the attendant costs. I often find people's level of outrage is inversely proportional to how much money it costs them.

[South Pender]

It isn't an obvious slur in today's verbiage.

It is.

At least I have never hear anyone in my 50 years refer to "Redskins" and mean natives.

Probably because people know it's a slur and avoid it. You probably haven't heard people of your acquaintance use the term n*gger either.

[Sir Purrcival]

There is a remedy for those offended if they choose to avail themselves of it. If the outrage isn't sufficient enough for those who might actually have a case for being offended to pursue it, then, that is their business. I won't criticize them for doing it or not doing it as the case may be.

[South Pender]

There is a remedy for those offended if they choose to avail themselves of it. If the outrage isn't sufficient enough for those who might actually have a case for being offended to pursue it, then, that is their business. I won't criticize them for doing it or not doing it as the case may be.

They (the American Indians) are doing it. They're appealing--so far without any success--to Dan Snyder to change the name. What else can they do?

[Sir Purrcival]

We could go back and forth about this ad nauseum. Whatever you and I say about it simply boils down to matter of respective opinions. Some take issue with the term, some don't. I prefer to leave it to those who at least have a prima facia stake in the matter. You can sue anybody for anything provided you have the $$$ to do it. You may not win but that is the roll of the dice you take with any civil action. I wouldn't choose the term for a new franchise because clearly it does offend some. But there are a plethora of high school teams, various other franchises and so on that use the term. Are we gonna compel them all to change their names? I know that polls don't necessarily count for much but of the two I found that brought the issue to natives directly suggest that less than half are inclined to take issue with it. As a group, they are free to do whatever they want. They could save some lawyer fees and offer Snyder a whack of money to change the name. Might work but perhaps it would be more effective make some agreement with Snyder to use the branding to help the plight of Natives through educational sponsorship's, job training programs, what have you. Rather than try and force a name change down people's throats, take the opportunity to use the media spotlight to illuminate the challenges faced by natives and take some positive steps to better their situation. Whether you like or hate the name, that would be far better use of people's time and money and might actually do something to improve the plight of natives. Just think of the opportunities, the Braves, the Warriors, the Indians. I bet they could all be brought on board.

A stick with some Olive Leaves might just be way more effective than a club.

At any rate, I'm out now.

[South Pender]

Interesting, albeit very brief, discussion about the Redskins' name issue tonight on Anderson Cooper 360. They had Lanny Davis representing the Redskins (he's a former legal counsel to President Clinton), and a round-table discussion with Jeffrey Toobin, Christiane Amanpour, and some others. The segment was pretty brief. Lanny Davis's main point was the it was not the intention of the team to insult Native Americans, and that they were willing to work with the Native American groups who objected to the name. How that "work" would work out was left unexplained, and it sounded like PR bumf. Toobin made what I thought was the best point: that whether or not the team wished to insult the target groups was irrelevant if, indeed, the groups were in fact insulted. It was the effect, rather than the intention, that mattered. Unfortunately, before the discussion could really get deeply into the issue, Anderson Cooper cut it off and flitted off onto another story....sigh.

[South Pender]

Here's something from Pro Football Talk on this issue:

Oneida Indian Nation invites Snyder to explain his position to Native Americans directly
Posted by Mike Florio on October 9, 2013, 8:44 PM EDT
Snyder AP

As pointed out earlier today by MDS, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder has written (i.e., someone who makes a lot of money per hour has written for him) a letter explaining the team’s decision to keep its name.

Snyder, whose prior remarks on the topic consisted simply of five words — “never, you can use caps” — has spent more time and care crafting a message that ultimately is the same. He’s not changing the name.

The letter contains predictable techniques and strategies for shaping and shifting public opinion. There’s an image of a young Daniel Snyder, beaming in pride as his father sang “Hail to the Redskins” with a smile on his face. Likewise, the letter rattles off a string of factors pointing to keeping the name in place: (1) the 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center poll in which 90 percent found the name not offensive; (2) the April 2013 survey in which 79 percent said the name should not be changed; (3) the column from Paul Woody of the Richmond Times-Dispatch in which he found three leaders of Virginia Native American tribes who said the name doesn’t offend them; and (4) radio comments from Robert Green, recently retired Chief of the Fredericksburg-area Patawomeck Tribe. (Meanwhile, Rick Reilly likely wonders why his column on the issue was omitted. Maybe Snyder has seen Leatherheads.)

Wisely, the letter opts not to point to the many-but-ever-shrinking high schools that use the name. Under that “some of my best friend’s schools are called Redskins” logic, the decision of enough of those schools to change the name would put the Redskins in an even more untenable situation.

Of course, the letter also omits reference to Native Americans who have spoken out against the name, including the symposium organized earlier this week in Washington by the Oneida Indian Nation. (More on that in a bit.)

Perhaps the biggest problem with Snyder’s letter comes from the effort to pull George Allen, father of current Redskins G.M. Bruce Allen, into the debate.

“In 1971, our legendary coach, the late George Allen, consulted with the Red Cloud Athletic Fund located on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota and designed our emblem on the Redskins helmets,” Snyder writes. “Several years later, Coach Allen was honored by the Red Cloud Athletic Fund. On the wall at our Ashburn, Virginia, offices is the plaque given to Coach Allen — a source of pride for all of us.”

Here’s the thing. George Allen created the Red Cloud Athletic Fund.

And so Snyder makes his case for keeping the name based in part on consultations Allen had with a group he created regarding the design of the current logo. Snyder then provides justification for the ongoing use of the name and the logo by pointing out that Allen was later honored. By the group he created.

But if Snyder, whose letter should for now be regarded as nothing more than a belated effort to undo the damage of months of misguided P.R. efforts, really means what he says, he should accept the invitation that came from the Oneida Indian Nation to listen and learn from Native Americans who oppose the name.

“In the spirit of the dialogue that Mr. Snyder says he is willing to engage in, we are inviting him to join the NFL delegation in its upcoming meeting at our Homelands,” Oneida Indian Nation Representative Ray Halbritter said in a release issued in response to the letter. “During his visit, we will organize a special meeting of Oneida Nation families where Mr. Snyder can personally explain to them why he believes they deserve to be called ‘redskins.’ He can then hear directly from them why that term is so painful.”

Here’s where it gets really simple. If Snyder means what he (i.e., someone on his behalf) wrote in his letter, he’ll attend the meeting. If he doesn’t mean it, he won’t attend.

[notahomer]

Loved some of the replacement names discussed in todays Province. How about the Fatcats, Hogettes, the Washington Shutdowns etc... Good for a chuckle although I recognize this isn't a laughing matter. It is just another way of getting the discussion going.

I know there are racial slurs for the ethnic group I was born part of and I would be frustrated if an NFL team fielded a team using any of those slurs. So I understand if others are offended by Redskins. I'm not going to speak FOR them but certainly support them.......

President Obama even seems to be gently hinting 'it might be time'.....

[South Pender]

Loved some of the replacement names discussed in todays Province. How about the Fatcats, Hogettes, the Washington Shutdowns etc...

Yeah...wasn't that hilarious. I guess we don't feel it too much in Canada, but right about now (and actually for the last several years), Washington, DC is easily the most-hated city in America--by Americans. Their government doesn't work anymore, and the ordinary citizen out there is suffering. Complete dysfunction. I never thought I'd say this, but thank God for the parliamentary system we have in Canada!

[South Pender]

For those watching last night's game between the Cowboys and Redskins, you might have heard Bob Costas' discussion of the "Redskins" name. Here it is:

First, Mike Florio notes on Pro Football Talk: "The Redskins would love the controversy regarding the team’s name to go away. It isn’t.

The past eight days have seen multiple developments, culminating in Bob Costas of NBC delivering an essay during halftime of Sunday night’s game between Washington and Dallas."

And here are Costas' comments interwoven with more from Florio:
___________________________

“Think for a moment about the term ‘Redskins’ and how it truly differs from all the others,” Costas said regarding the Washington name and other team names referring generally to Native Americans or specifically to tribes. “Ask yourself what the equivalent would be, if directed at African-Americans. Hispanics. Asians. Or members of any other ethnic group. When considered that way, ‘Redskins’ can’t possibly honor a heritage, or a noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term.

“It is an insult, a slur, no matter now benign the present-day intent,” Costas added. “It is fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended, but if you take a step back, isn’t it clear to see how offense might legitimately be taken?”

For more on the topic, and to read owner Daniel Snyder’s letter defending the name, check out a special page that has been created on the issue at NBCSports.com.

We’ve got a feeling there will be more developments in the coming days and weeks.
___________________________

I think Costas has this right. First, it's not about intentions. Instead, it's about effects on targeted people. Second, those who say that "Redskins" is like the words Braves, Chiefs, Warriors, or even Indians--none of which are racial slurs--have it wrong; "Redskins" is a racial slur. I think his sentence: “Ask yourself what the equivalent would be, if directed at African-Americans...." sums it up perfectly. I think Cromartie's post (the second in this thread) says it powerfully and succinctly.

[South Pender]

More from Pro Football Talk:
Effort to defend Redskins name continues to backfire
Posted by Mike Florio on October 13, 2013, 9:34 AM EDT
Snyder AP

The effort to continue to defend the Redskins name continues to backfire.

From the reliance on high school teams using the name (which has been quietly abandoned) to the “all caps never” approach (which has been publicly abandoned) to stubborn reliance on the results of a nine-year old poll (which should be abandoned) to Rick Reilly misquoting his father-in-law (which could lead to Reilly’s wife abandoning him), it has been a mess for the Redskins.

And now it gets even messier.

In his “we hear the opponents but we don’t care” manifesto to Redskins fans, owner Daniel Snyder shoehorned a reference to one of the most popular figures in team history.

“In 1971, our legendary coach, the late George Allen, consulted with the Red Cloud Athletic Fund located on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota and designed our emblem on the Redskins helmets,” Snyder wrote. “Several years later, Coach Allen was honored by the Red Cloud Athletic Fund. On the wall at our Ashburn, Virginia, offices is the plaque given to Coach Allen — a source of pride for all of us.”

Apart from failing to mention that George Allen created the Red Cloud Athletic Fund, Snyder and/or his people also neglected to check with the group about its views.

In response to Snyder’s letter, the primary beneficiary of the Red Cloud Athletic Fund has denounced the ongoing use of the team name.

“As an organization, Red Cloud Indian School has never — and will never — endorse the use of the name ‘Redskins,’” leadership of the school wrote in a letter to the Washington Post. “Like many Native American organizations across the country, members of our staff and extended community find the name offensive.”

The group also contends that Snyder misrepresented the Red Cloud Athletic Fund’s role in the development of the team’s helmet logo.

“We call on Dan Snyder and managers to engage in further discussion with Native groups across the country and, ultimately, to move toward changing the name, once and for all,” the letter states.

So the people who gave that plaque to George Allen — the plaque that according to Snyder remains on the wall at the team facility as a source of pride — want Snyder to change the name.

On Sunday morning, Oneida Indian Nation called upon Snyder to write a new letter acknowledging the errors and omissions in his first letter.

“Mr. Snyder must set the record straight and immediately send a new letter to season tickets holders highlighting these misrepresentations and omissions,” Joel Barkin, Vice President of Communications for the Oneida Indian Nation, said in a statement. “Mr. Snyder should stop trying to rewrite history and instead rewrite his misleading and inaccurate letter and stop pretending that the targets of the R-word slur support his agenda.”

Meanwhile, if Snyder or any other members of the organization dial up while in Dallas the Cowboys’ flagship radio station, they possibly will hear a commercial touting the bipartisan opposition to the name.

“This country may still be politically divided, but as leaders of both parties this week said, we should all be able to agree that racial slurs are unacceptable, and they shouldn’t be used to market this country’s capital city,” Ray Halbritter of the Oneida Indian Nation says in the ad. “As Native people who heard this painful slur when we were taken at gunpoint off our lands, we aren’t asking for anything more than basic respect. We don’t deserve to be treated to racial slurs. We deserve to be treated simply as what we are: Americans.”

It’s unclear what the next step will be, but it is clear that, no matter how badly Snyder wants this controversy to go away, it isn’t. The debate now has legs in large part because of the way Snyder’s organization has handled it.

Correction, mishandled it.