The Oneida Indian Nation, which, according to a recent report: "spent $3.5 million on lobbying and political contributions over the last eight years, more than any other entity involved in gambling in New York," attempted to use MLK's legacy to push their Redskins name-change agenda by running radio ads on the issue in Seattle, Denver, and DC on MLK day. The Oneida's position on this issue puts them in a very small minority among Americans, and an even smaller minority among Native Americans---a fact which many in the media have conveniently ignored. A poll conducted in 2004 found that 90% of Native Americans were not offended by the DC football team's moniker. In fact, many native americans still embrace the term "redskin," and some high schools on Indian reservations chose it for their nickname---like the Red Mesa Redskins on the Navajo Nation reservation. A recent poll by the leftist group, Public Policy Polling (PPP), found that 71% of Americans are opposed to the Redskins changing their name, with only 18% saying that they should change it, and 11% being unsure. While these polling numbers would be bouncing like pinballs off the walls of the liberal media's echo chamber if they were reversed---i.e, if they matched they matched a poll of the Washington Post, New York Times, or Boston Globe editorial boards---they are buried in favor of the manufactured outrage of professional activists posing as aggrieved victims.
Suzan Shown Harjo, the leading activist for changing the Redskins name, dismisses the fact that the overwhelming majority of Native Americans claim not to be offended by the term, as she states: "(This) is really a classic case of internalized oppression...People taking on what has been said about them, how they have been described, to such an extent that they don’t even notice.” It must have been this lack of awareness, this "internalized oppression," that led Harjo to produce an Indian radio program called "Seeing Red." Furthermore, Harjo's excuse---that Natives accept "redskin" because non-natives subtly forced the term upon them---is fundamentally undermined by term's origin. The Oneida Nation's own newspaper, Indian Country Today, reported in 2012: "It was the Native Americans who first used the term “red” in order to differentiate between indigenous, white, and black people." The article cites a book written by Ives Goddard, a senior linguist at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of History; the book is titled, I am a Redskin: The Adoption of a Native American Expression (1769-1826), and the article reports that Goddard's work proves that "the earliest uses of 'red skin' were in recorded statements from Natives by the French who generally traded amicably with them. The French were careful to denote the 'red' distinction was made by Natives themselves."
It was the Natives who referred to the Europeans as "the white man" and distinguished themselves as "the red man;" the article backs this assertion with a quote from Sitting Bull: “I am a red man. If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place.” The article also cites J. Gordon Hylton, an historian and professor of law who wrote an essay titled, "Before the Redskins were the Redskins: The use of Native American team names in the formative era of American sports, 1857-1944;" Hylton wrote: "…throughout the nineteenth century, the term (redskin) was essentially neutral when used by whites, reflecting neither a particularly positive or particularly negative connotation.” The article finishes with the author conceding that, as a Native American, he sympathizes with those who find the name offensive, and admits that he is "annoyed by shirtless white guys putting on fake war paint and headdresses," but concludes: "Remember, in the study of history, one should not let their own passions of today override existing facts of the past just because they don’t fit our own modern version of political correctness." In other words, Native Americans are entitled to their own feelings about the word, but they are not entitled to rewrite history in accordance with their current feelings.
While the Indian Country article makes clear that Natives self-identified as "red"---an association that was adopted by the "Red Power" movement of the 1960's, which essentially attempted to re-write history so as to create a homogenous, unified concept of Native Americans, and portray them as the original green, pacifist hippies---the term "redskin" was also used in reference to artificial skin color. The Oxford Dictionary states: "Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint." The entry goes on to say that the term went through a process of "pejoration"---through which a positive or neutral term becomes negative---but gives no indication as to when, how, or to whom the term became offensive, or in what regard.
Another issue that must be fleshed out is how the term "redskin" relates to the abstract concept of a team's nickname; why would a franchise affix its own players with a disparaging nickname? If you name your team the redskins, then the players are, by definition, redskins; if the name is disparaging, then it is the players who are directly disparaged. Furthermore, the coach at the time the name was chosen, William "Lone Star" Dietz, was of Native American descent---so in addition to being theoretically disparaging to the team, the name would have been personally disparaging to its coach. Imagine for a moment that team owner Daniel Snyder decided to change the name from the "Redskins" to the "Aryans;" while such a name would be considered offensive by almost everyone, not a single person would claim that the name represents an attempt to disparage Aryans---it would be without question viewed as an attempt to glorify that term. This is due to the nature of a team's nickname---its fundamental purpose is to glorify and/or identify, not to disparage---a disparaging nickname contradicts its own purpose, and is disparaging, first and foremost, to the franchise itself and the players who represent it. And if you think this controversy is simply based on the fact that "redskin" is a reference to skin color, how do you explain opposition to the Indians, the Braves, the Seminoles, or the Fighting Sioux?
Suzan Shown Harjo, the leading activist for changing the Redskins name, dismisses the fact that the overwhelming majority of Native Americans claim not to be offended by the term, as she states: "(This) is really a classic case of internalized oppression...People taking on what has been said about them, how they have been described, to such an extent that they don’t even notice.” It must have been this lack of awareness, this "internalized oppression," that led Harjo to produce an Indian radio program called "Seeing Red." Furthermore, Harjo's excuse---that Natives accept "redskin" because non-natives subtly forced the term upon them---is fundamentally undermined by term's origin. The Oneida Nation's own newspaper, Indian Country Today, reported in 2012: "It was the Native Americans who first used the term “red” in order to differentiate between indigenous, white, and black people." The article cites a book written by Ives Goddard, a senior linguist at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of History; the book is titled, I am a Redskin: The Adoption of a Native American Expression (1769-1826), and the article reports that Goddard's work proves that "the earliest uses of 'red skin' were in recorded statements from Natives by the French who generally traded amicably with them. The French were careful to denote the 'red' distinction was made by Natives themselves."
It was the Natives who referred to the Europeans as "the white man" and distinguished themselves as "the red man;" the article backs this assertion with a quote from Sitting Bull: “I am a red man. If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place.” The article also cites J. Gordon Hylton, an historian and professor of law who wrote an essay titled, "Before the Redskins were the Redskins: The use of Native American team names in the formative era of American sports, 1857-1944;" Hylton wrote: "…throughout the nineteenth century, the term (redskin) was essentially neutral when used by whites, reflecting neither a particularly positive or particularly negative connotation.” The article finishes with the author conceding that, as a Native American, he sympathizes with those who find the name offensive, and admits that he is "annoyed by shirtless white guys putting on fake war paint and headdresses," but concludes: "Remember, in the study of history, one should not let their own passions of today override existing facts of the past just because they don’t fit our own modern version of political correctness." In other words, Native Americans are entitled to their own feelings about the word, but they are not entitled to rewrite history in accordance with their current feelings.
While the Indian Country article makes clear that Natives self-identified as "red"---an association that was adopted by the "Red Power" movement of the 1960's, which essentially attempted to re-write history so as to create a homogenous, unified concept of Native Americans, and portray them as the original green, pacifist hippies---the term "redskin" was also used in reference to artificial skin color. The Oxford Dictionary states: "Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint." The entry goes on to say that the term went through a process of "pejoration"---through which a positive or neutral term becomes negative---but gives no indication as to when, how, or to whom the term became offensive, or in what regard.
Another issue that must be fleshed out is how the term "redskin" relates to the abstract concept of a team's nickname; why would a franchise affix its own players with a disparaging nickname? If you name your team the redskins, then the players are, by definition, redskins; if the name is disparaging, then it is the players who are directly disparaged. Furthermore, the coach at the time the name was chosen, William "Lone Star" Dietz, was of Native American descent---so in addition to being theoretically disparaging to the team, the name would have been personally disparaging to its coach. Imagine for a moment that team owner Daniel Snyder decided to change the name from the "Redskins" to the "Aryans;" while such a name would be considered offensive by almost everyone, not a single person would claim that the name represents an attempt to disparage Aryans---it would be without question viewed as an attempt to glorify that term. This is due to the nature of a team's nickname---its fundamental purpose is to glorify and/or identify, not to disparage---a disparaging nickname contradicts its own purpose, and is disparaging, first and foremost, to the franchise itself and the players who represent it. And if you think this controversy is simply based on the fact that "redskin" is a reference to skin color, how do you explain opposition to the Indians, the Braves, the Seminoles, or the Fighting Sioux?
RSS Feed