DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Daniel Snyder and NFL Embarrassed as Washington Name Change Support Grows

Daniel Snyder and NFL Embarrassed as Washington Name Change Support Grows


By
Stephen Sonneveld
(Correspondent) on July 8, 2013



On June 21, celebrity chef Paula Deen, a Caucasian, was fired by her television network and subsequently lost a bevy of endorsement and publishing deals in the wake of admitting under oath to having used used the “N-word” during her life.

Yet, in that same week, former football star Joe Theismann, a Caucasian of Austro-Hungarian descent, revealed for the first time to a South Dakota newspaper that his 12-year career playing for the Washington “R-words” was, in fact, to “honor Native people,” and that when he put on his uniform, he was representing more than just the team, he “was representing the great Native American nations that exist in this country.”

Theismann's official biography lists many accomplishments, but makes no mention of his wanting to honor Native Americans.

Theismann would have had the same distinguished career no matter what the team name had been. Fans would possess the same love for this franchise, no matter what the name had been.

The issue at stake is that the longer team owner Daniel Snyder and the NFL refuse to step into this century and change the name from a racial slur into anything else, the more all those sportive accomplishments and cherished memories will forever be overshadowed and intertwined with racial controversy, just as Deen's story is now tainted.

The longer Snyder and the NFL refuse to concede, the less options they're going to have left for themselves.

On the municipal level, Washington D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray expressed to reporters in January that if the franchise were ever to return to the city, at least discussions of a name change would need to take place.

By spring, D.C. Councilman David Grosso introduced a resolution calling for a change to the “racist and derogatory” name.

On the federal level, Congressman Eni F.H. Faleomavaega of American Samoa introduced a bill in March, cosponsored by 19 Members of Congress, that “seeks to cancel the federal registrations of trademarks using the word “redskin” (hereinafter “R-word”) in reference to Native Americans.”

In May, Faleomavaega and nine other Members of Congress, including the co-chairs of the Congressional Native American Caucus (Tom Cole (OK) and Betty McCollum (MN), Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ), Gwen Moore (WI), Michael M. Honda (CA), Donna M. Christensen (VI), Zoe Lofgren (CA), Barbara Lee (CA), and Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)), sent a letter to NFL officials urging them to change the name on the basis that is it is not only hateful language, but for the Penobscot nation, also a “reminder of one of the most gruesome acts of . . . ethnic cleansing ever committed against” them.

In terms of public support, Funny or Die contributors have satirized Snyder and the league, a Kickstarter campaign was started last year that sought to establish a new franchise name, and there is currently a petition on the White House website that calls for the Obama Administration to support a measure that would seize any and all funds earned from official and bootleg merchandise containing disparaging trademarks. (Note: Editorial policy prohibits linking to that page.)

All of these goings on are in addition to the ongoing legal battle Native Americans have been waging against Football, Inc. to have the Washington team's trademark barred.

Converse to this sea-change, Snyder was quoted by USA Today:

“We'll never change the name,” he said. “It's that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.”

Despite Native American voices speaking out against the team name, Snyder has stonewalled any talk of changing the name for years, yet was not above using his influence and resources to ban fan signage that disparaged him, or from suing the Washington City Paper and journalist Dave McKenna for publishing a litany of Snyder's suspicious business dealings and price gouging.

What's worse, Synder's record of race relations is proving to be as unreliable as team founder George Preston Marshall's, which was detailed in a previous article.

Snyder's Six Flags Theme Parks operation caught the ire of the Japanese American Citizens League for employing the “outdated, debilitating stereotype only perpetuates the idea that Asians can’t speak English properly,” during a 2008 commercial in which “casting directors were specifically looking for an Asian man who could emulate Charlie Chan or who could 'talk like [his] grandfather.'"

In more recent months, Snyder and the NFL desperately trotted out Stephen Dodson, a Washington-area tow truck company employee claiming to be an Alaskan tribal chief, to proclaim how much Native Americans use and love the “R-word.”

Dodson's dubious claims were debunked, but not before NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell included the fake chief's remarks in the NFL's official response to Congress.

Goodell's response also included poll numbers showing the name is popular and echoed his comments from the Super Bowl press conference three months earlier that the team name represents respect and pride.

Like Snyder, however, the NFL was not above exerting its influence when Football, Inc. was suffering from perceived disrespect, in the form of ESPN's highly rated and acclaimed drama “Playmakers,” which focused on the lives involved in a fictional professional football team, including a manipulative owner and players who abused drugs.

According to the New York Times, then-NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue condemned the show, alleging it was “one-dimensional and traded in racial stereotypes, and I didn't think that was either appropriate for ESPN or right for our players.”

That the same organization which was earning millions of dollars off a team named “redskins” justified the removal of a fictional show from the airwaves because it “traded in racial stereotypes,” only illuminated the fact that the NFL was incapable of living up to its own standards.

A decade later, the racist name remains, proving that things haven't changed for the NFL and even its business partners.

Wal-Mart and Target were two of the retailers who terminated their partnerships with Paula Deen Enterprises as a result of the “N-word” scandal. Yet, a search for “NFL redskins” on Wal-Mart's website yielded five pages' worth of results, while the same search on the Target website produced 51 items for sale branded with the racist moniker.

By distancing themselves from a tangential association with one racial slur, both retailers have only magnified their continued and direct association with another.

Unless Wal-Mart and Target practice double-standards when it comes to racial tolerance, then they have a moral obligation to stop carrying items emblazoned with a trademark that Indian activists have stated time and again is a racist slur and “insults the principle of justice.”

Victoria's Secret and the rock band No Doubt have pledged to no longer defame Native Americans in their works, and these retailers should do the same, especially in light of their recent business decisions.

Daniel Snyder, Roger Goodell and the NFL owners, meanwhile, embarrassingly demonstrate that they can neither be shamed nor reasoned with when it comes to the fact “redskins” is a racist term that needs to be removed. They held steadfast to their intransigent views, and now the tipping point has passed. They have left it to courts and congresses to determine the financial future of the Washington team.

For men who claimed holding on to the outdated name was a matter of pride, pride may be all they are left with.



http://bleacherreport.com/articles/16967...e-support-grows

Rush Limbaugh on the Redskins name



By Dan Steinberg, Published: July 2, 2013 at 9:32 amE-mail the writer



“You can use the Redskins issue to argue anything,” I wrote Monday morning. That was prophetic, as it turns out. Because Monday afternoon, Rush Limbaugh chimed in on the issue.

This happened after Limbaugh began discussing the federal government’s potential involvement in student-loan rates, and the creeping loss of freedom he believes this could cause.

“Now, there’s another example of this kind of change,” Limbaugh said. “The pressure on the Washington Redskins — talking about the NFL — the pressure on the Washington Redskins to change the name from Redskins to something else. And of course the modernists among us — well, you can’t continue to call them Redskins. I mean, you wouldn’t run around in real life calling, ‘Hey, lookit, you’re a Redskin!’ you wouldn’t say that to somebody’s face, and so a team shouldn’t be named that.

“And then the people who oppose it might posit an argument, ‘Well, you know, if you do that, where are you gonna stop? Are you gonna start saying you can’t name teams after animals next? Where is it gonna stop?’

“And then the change advocates say — see, see, you just construct this straw man, where you manufacture disaster as a result of change. That’s not the point. In the case of the Redskins name, who is everybody advocating change looking to to make it happen? The federal government. And this is the problem. Lookit, change is unavoidable. Change is constant. And it does need to be embraced. But I’ll tell you, all of the change being advocated now — at least [from] the change advocates, the people who think they’re hip and modern — all they’re actually doing is advocating the government take more control of things.

“Okay, so the Redskins may not be a popular name with some people. Let the NFL figure it out. Why does the government have to get involved? Why does Obama or Congress or anything need to get involved? We don’t need McCain and the boys involved in this. Why should they be? But the advocates, those people who are now just fit to be tied over the name Redskins, what they really want is to empower the federal government some more. They’re willing to turn over all kinds of powers to the federal government in order to bring about what they want.

“So these change advocates are nothing but a bunch of liberals who are, in truth, seeking to empower the federal government with more power over everybody. And it’s incremental, and sometimes it’s tiny, and sometimes it’s considered insignificant. C’mon Rush, what harm could there be getting rid of the name Redskins, it offends some people. Fine. But why do you want the iron fist of the federal government involved in this? It’s an NFL thing; let them deal with it.

“The NFL and the owners deal with the Redskins. And the fans, if it were really that upsetting to the fans, nobody would be going to FedEx Stadium. And FedEx Stadium is sold out every week. It obviously isn’t upsetting too many people. And yet you want the federal government to come in here with their jack-booted thugs, or iron-fist people, and do what?

“Now look, I’m not one of these people that is routinely, uniformly, formulaically against change, because you can’t stop it. But the change advocates are a bunch of leftists who simply want to empower the federal government to impose what they believe under the name of change. What they want you to believe is [that this is] simply societal change. In the case of the Redskins name, what they want you to believe is that our country and our society is maturing and is understanding that it’s just reprehensible and unfair and mean to have a team named Redskins.

“Well, the fact of the matter is, our society is NOT that offended by it, and DOESN’T think that it’s that big a deal, as evidenced by Redskins sell-outs and high TV ratings. So the advocates, the people who don’t like the Redskins names are just a bunch of PC jerks. They’re politically correct liberals who want the federal government to come in – wah wah wah wah, we don’t like Redskins, and we don’t want to have to see it.

“And there ISN’T a groundswell to change it, so they want the federal government [to]. Well, it’s the same thing here with the student-loan program, or it’s the same thing in so many other areas of life. Change, must have change. You want the federal government to do it, you’re not talking about change, you’re talking about imposition. You’re talking about imposing things that liberals want. And you’re also talking about the incremental loss of freedom — a little bit here, a little bit there — that adds up someday to be big.”


web page

j/c Why not poll the native North Americans (I'm trying to be extra politically correct here) and see if they are offended by the name? And if not...

I don't typically support the politically correct side, but that name is offensive. Think we'll have a team in SF called the Yellow Skins? A team in Detroit called the Black Boys? How about the New York Krauts? The Jersey Wops? The Boston Drunken Potato Eaters?

Calling them the Redskins does nothing to honor Native Americans. Their freaking skin isn't even red. It's insulting. Get rid of it and to hell w/your marketing and tradition.

I am 25 percent Indian myself (I have no clue as to what Tribe) but I don't find the name Indians, or Redskins offensive in the least. I am also 25 percent German, and 25 percent Irish, and the other 25 percent God only knows as My grandfather grew up in an orphan and the orphanage burned down losing all records.

J/C

It's a tough issue. I can see the one side and I also see how tradition, one that is harmless IMO needs to remain.

In the end, I think I am like most, I don't care how this ends up. It's pretty much a non-starter.

How about the Washington Spinmeisters?

Never liked the Redskins anyway but man is this stupid . PC be damned.

I do remember...but I'd like to know how much of that flack came from people born after 1981.

And I don't remember him getting any flack at all...

j/c

If you had a friend who is legitimately Native American (GMdawg is not legitimately NA), would you ever refer to him/her as "redskin"? Why or why not?

I think I've posted this here before.

I was at Miami University at the time they proposed changing the name and was in student government and got to hear the debate. It was led by the English department who believed the term "redskin" was an insult and they eventually got the Miami tribe to change their position on it.

Before the whole name change debate the elders of the tribe appreciated the term "Redskin" and the association that people had with the university. They worried that if they did change the name that people would forget about the contemporary "Miami Tribe of Oklahoma" and the bonds forged over the decades.

Now....

I don't know how they'd feel about it. I wonder how many younger posters here know that Miami is a tribe. And that there was a direct affiliation still with the Miami indians.

It's been the Redhawks for about 17 years now.

Knowing what I know I'd bet they regret their change of position and wish the Redskin name remained.

The Blackhawks is the most badass logo around.

Quote:

---

Go ahead and poll every native American on the planet, regardless of the voting, it doesn't change that the word is offensive

---

"regardless of whether or not the people that it purports to offend actually find it offensive, it is offensive"



At least you don't think too highly of your own opinion

Quote:

---

I don't think I can explain why I think the Blackhawks are fine

---

If you cannot articulate the difference, how can you see one?

They are both cartoonish caricatures. Does it bother you that Wahoo is smiling while Blackhawks merely smirk?
Or, is it that "Wahoo" sounds like "Yahoo" and you somehow take that to think that he's making a mockery of Indians instead of it just being a name from a bygone era?

Here was the Miami Tribe official position in a resolution dated September 9, 1972 and reaffirmed over the years, finally in 1993 which concludes (and I'm going to type in full off a pamphlet given to all incoming 1993-1994 freshman about the Miami tribe):

WHEREAS In the territory of what is now Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan our ancestors once lived in peace among the forests and long waters under the hand of the Great Spirit, and;

WHEREAS At Oxford, Ohio, where there once stood a village of the Miamis, there stands today a University bearing the name Miami and bestowing upon its young athletes the name Miami Redskins, and;

WHEREAS It is our counsel that the name Redskins is a revered and honored name in the eyes and hearts of the people of Miami University, and that it signifies to them as to us the qualities of courage, self-discipline, respect, kindness, honesty, and love exemplified by generations of young athletes;

THEREFORE Know all peoples, that we of Miami blood are proud to have the name Miami Redskins carried with honor by the athletic representation of Miami University on the playing fields of Mid America and in the arena of the world in International Olympic competition. We, the Miami Redskins of Indian blood, and our namesake, the Miami University Redskins have a mutual and cherished heritage. May it be blessed by Moneto as long as the winds shall blow.

This is where I have to completely disagree.

If the people that it is supposed to be offensive to don't find it offensive - and as Held pointed out, perhaps even take pride in it... then WHAT exactly is the problem?


Just as with the cartoons.... I'd say that the entire problem exists solely in your mind and your perspective, your interpretations. The problem is your projection of your own feelings.
Perhaps you feel uneasy because the nickname contains both a color and the word "skin" and you automatically think that you should find it offensive?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But I would hope that some people realize how ill informed their opinion is.

Talk to a native american that continues a tribal affiliation. Inform yourself.

In my instance, in the Miami University name change debate, I was able to talk to tribal members.

Their two biggest worries (with the ones I spoke to) were being isolated and forgotten.

They were being told by a faction of the university that the Redskin name was being used in a derogatory fashion against them and that they should be offended by the continued use of a derogatory term.

It was in their isolation that they didn't know whether or not that the Redskin name continued to be used with pride (as I and many other students told them it was, the professors rejected).

And it was with reservation that they made the decision.

Now they've been forgotten and I can't help but think the tribal members that I spoke to now regret the decision to support the name change.

I understand you're point, you're saying if 99% of NAs think the Redskin's name isn't offensive, neither should I. Sure, that's understandable.

But on the flipside, say I had a sports team I was re-naming, would I need to poll AAs across the country to determine if "blackskins" would be offensive? No, I would just know it is.

I think we're both right and wrong at the same time.

Don't Native Americans protest Indians games from time to time? So therefore, they find Chief Wahoo, and maybe the name "Indians" offensive.

I think it would be cool if they could somehow come to a happy medium where they change the name but keep the spirit of the Native Americans in the name, kind of how the University of Miami did with the Miamis.

Absolutely. They weren't offended. They were told that they needed to be offended.

PC run amok. And it really was a shame in their instance.

Hmmm... you would think that they would have at least offered up some beads for them to give up their pride.

It's hard to find actual statistical information on this, so if you have anything beyond anecdotes, I'd like to see it. I did find one study conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center in 2004 which concluded that only 9 percent of Native Americans think "redskins" is offensive. That's an incredibly low number and seems to support the view that, if they don't care, neither should anyone else. But I'd like to have this one study corroborated with a more recent study.

I have solved the problem. Keep the name, dump the logo. Stick a potato on the helmet.


Actually, it fits, we have many Mr. and Madam Potato Heads inside the beltway.

That's rich! I like it.