The Trouble With “Redskins”
When I realized I was most likely going to stay in Washington, DC and write about politics forever and ever and ever, I decided to abandon my New York sports heritage and adopt DC’s teams. I know it’s a minority view, but I don’t think it makes sense to let the dead hand of where you happened to spend the first 18 years of your life dictate behavior for decades and decades going forward. And even though the Giants won a Super Bowl since I abandoned them and the Redskins don’t look very good this season, I stand by that decision-making.
That said, it really is true that it’s ridiculous to have a team named “Redskins” in this day and age. The lawsuit currently aiming to force a change doesn’t seem to me to be particularly persuasive-sounding as a legal matter, but this is totally right:
More important, dropping the Redskins moniker would be the right thing to do. I’m certain that offending Native Americans is the furthest thing from the minds of fans or franchise. I suspect the truth is that most of us simply don’t think about it. We’ve become comfortable with the word, complacent. And that has made us unwilling to challenge our own thinking or our assumptions about whether it might be offensive to those whom it describes. But can you imagine anyone in their right mind today trying to coin the name Washington Wetbacks? How about California Chinks? Or Kentucky Krauts? It wouldn’t take a legal challenge from Hispanics, Chinese or Germans to put the kibosh on those ideas. It shouldn’t take a lawsuit now to bring an end to such an unfortunate and hurtful name.
Conversely, Washington Bullets was a perfectly good name (and a great song).
120 Responses to “The Trouble With “Redskins””
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 19th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Name change for 2010
Washington Whiteys: a celebration of our past
September 19th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
How about the Washington Red-inks?
It’s not like the deficit or the debt are going to be under control anytime soon.
And then they still have nearly the same name, minus one letter.
September 19th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Or I suppose the Washington Red Ink (since the Jazz and Heat prove you can be singular/plural at the same time)
September 19th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
I’m of Irish decent, and Notre Dame Fighting Irish doesn’t offend me… I do have to wonder what Jacoby Ellsbury thinks whenever the Red Sox play the Indians or the Braves.
But if they want a name that reflects Washington, they could just sell the naming rights to a whatever special interest will pay the most.
September 19th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
look north my friend to the baltimore ravens. we win just enough that you are guaranteed to have fun and enjoy yourself as a fan. i highly recommend it.
September 19th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Yeah, it’s a stupid name. Also, separately, the fact that it offends Native American groups, for unarguable reasons, is sufficient reason for it to go. But I’d dislike the team even if it were renamed — Snyder ruined it, I doubt I’ll ever go back, and lot of Washingtonians are with me. It’s OK not to like your home team if the front office is obnoxious.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
any team called the Washington Filibusters would surely put an end to any progress the opposition could hope to make.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I think team names are overrated. The Washington Football Club would suffice for me.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
I’m sure that all the squareheads are mortally offended by the existence of the Minnesota Vikings.
In real life, when the Cleveland Indians played against the Atlanta Braves back in 95, the kids on the res thought it was cool.
Yglesias, you are indeed a fool.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
“I’m sure that all the squareheads are mortally offended by the existence of the Minnesota Vikings.”
…because “Viking” a racial slur?
September 19th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
The term Redskins is irredeemably offensive.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
The Washington Fatcats.
The logo could be an FDR-ish looking cat’s head with the glasses and the cigarette holder.
Go see the ‘Cats.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Indians. Braves.
As opposed to…
Redskins. Are you really this dumb, or are you faking?
September 19th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Of course Matt never mentions either the Braves or the Indians, neither of which are particularly offensive terms. So I’m not exactly sure what point you’re trying to make gcochran.
Redskin is equivalent to the words Nigger or Gook. It was used specifically to dehumanize and denigrate this continent’s native population. The only difference is that it’s directed towards what is now a tiny, poor, minority population.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I could be okay (well, say indifferent) with the Cleveland Indians if they ditched that awful logo (and they do seem to be using it less frequently). Braves isn’t so bad even though the tomahawk chop is lame (not racist lame, just lame). But “redskin” is simply a slur; the comparison to “chinks” is perfectly apt. Instead of “Minnesota Vikings” how about “Minnesota Honkeys”?
September 19th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
God, I hope they get renamed the Filibusters.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Warriors then? They don’t even have to change the iconography.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
How about the Washington Lobbyists? That seems fairly apt.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Add my vote to the “Filibusters” tally.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
There once was a (highschool) team named the “Chinks”:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/pekin-il/T2C4RQ4JEDONS0FPU
“Redskins” is just as stupid
September 19th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Kevin,
How would you feel about the Notre Dame Fighting Micks? That would be a better analogy.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Redskins. Are you really this dumb, or are you faking?
I’m gonna vote yes, and go Filibusters!
September 19th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Kevin,
How would you feel about the Notre Dame Fighting Micks? That would be a better analogy.
More like the Starving Micks, if they were named by Oliver Cromwell.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
It’s just lazy reporting from the Post. Every year they print this same basic story. At this point I’m pretty much desensitized to it. The name is offensive. It probably should be changed. That decision is up to Daniel Snyder, who doesn’t seem to be motivated much by the condemnation of his fellow man. Becoming the most hated man in Washington hasn’t caused him to change course one iota — so it’s hard to see how (another) article in the Washington Post is going to have any impact whatsoever.
How about a deal? We get rid of Snyder AND the name! Whatever objection there is to the name change would most certainly go away if getting rid of Snyder were part of the deal.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
One would think that the owners of the Redskins and Indians would seize upon the incredible merchandising opportunity that comes in changing the team name and uniform. Add in the excellent P.R. that would result and it appears that doing the right and making a boatload of money in the process aren’t mutually exclusive in this instance.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
How would you feel about the Notre Dame Fighting Micks? /em>
It’s the fighting part that is offensive. The Notre Dame Irish would be fine. The leprechaun mascot is also offensive.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Conversely, Washington Bullets was a perfectly good name
Changing the name to something from soem other field would involve changing the uniforms perhaps and the like. I have a better idea. My thought was, why not drop redskins in favor of one of the local Amaerindian tribes? So, digging around, I found, for example, the Piscataway tribe. Probably too long for the name of a football team, but it seems a small core of the Piscataway managed to hang on in the DC area down to the 20th century. That’s when we Turkey Taya was born. It seems that ‘tayac’ is the name of the leaders of the Piscataways
Bonus: it seems the Piscataways were reclassed as blacks in the 18th century:
Better! The carrier of the name was a veteran!
And:
Moyaone happens to lie in Prince George… so, there ya are.
Bonus: apparently about 75% of Amaerindians are not terribly offended by Redskins – so ‘Tayacs’ would be able to use the same logo and colors.
max
['But it would be less generic and not a racial epithet!']
September 19th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Screw Filibusters, give me the Washington Swamp Things! It would be, without a doubt, the most badass name in the league. Oozing uniforms optional.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
You could rename the Fighting Irish the paddy’s or the mick’s or whatever and I’d think it was funny. Redskins is more like renaming them the muck-savages and I wouldn’t think that was one bit fucking funny.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Annenberg Center poll, 2004:
“A poll of American Indians found that an overwhelming majority of them are not bothered by the name of the Washington Redskins.
Only 9% of those polled said the name of the NFL team is “offensive,” while 90% said it’s acceptable, according to the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey.”
But what do they know?
September 19th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I know it’s a minority view, but I don’t think it makes sense to let the dead hand of where you happened to spend the first 18 years of your life dictate behavior for decades and decades going forward.
Matt, this is unconscionable. You should stick with your teams. (Though, if any teams could be abandoned morally, it would be NY teams.)
September 19th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
And you’re right about “Redskins.”
September 19th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
To be fair, when we choose to call a team the “braves”, the “indians”, the “redskins”, or “vikings”, or whatever, what we mean is that those groups have qualities that we admire and would like to emulate. That being said, the fact that members of the group consider the designation offensive is sufficient reason to change it.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Add my vote to the “Filibusters” tally.
If the team is going to be called the “Filibusters,” the last way that change should happen is by direct majority vote. That would be a travesty.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
And since the overwhelming majority (90%) of the group in question aren’t offended and don’t give a shit – what then ?
September 19th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Is anyone up in arms yet over the Browns? How about the Reds? If I were a commie, I might be offended by that! Celtics, only pronounced wrong? Why the Redskins and not the Chiefs?
September 19th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
If you did a poll to see if Native Americans (or any group) thought that the team name “Pirates” or “Jets” was offensive, do you think you would get 9% saying yes? Of course not; the poll would be absurd. What do you think the percentage of “yes” respondents should be before we decide that naming a team after a racial slur is offensive—50%+1?
September 19th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
How about the Washington Scalpers?
Or, I like the Washington Pork.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Matt didn’t ditch hid NY teams for moral reasons… but instead for the sad, sad, sad reason of creating a workable narrative for his servitude to DC. Wow, he has a mental map projecting forward decades, yipee. Go Yankees… Go Giants.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Or, why not, the Washington Scandals.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
This is so tiresome.
“Is anyone up in arms yet over the Browns?”
A reference to the color of the uniform, not a race of people. Here’s a test: do you think “the Brownskins” would be an acceptable name?
“How about the Reds? If I were a commie, I might be offended by that!”
Hilarious. “Reds” is also a reference to the color of the uniform (well, the socks). “Redskins,” on the other hand, can’t be interpreted to be about anything other than a person’s skin.
“Celtics, only pronounced wrong?”
“Celtics” is not a racial slur.
“Why the Redskins and not the Chiefs?”
“Chiefs” is not a racial slur.
Please, bring us more of these arguments, we’re so impressed by them..
September 19th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Matt, this is unconscionable. You should stick with your teams. (Though, if any teams could be abandoned morally, it would be NY teams.)
Lorax, I wish I could abandon the Mets. They’ve certainly abandoned me.
And let’s not go into the fact that the Knicks stopped being a professional basketball team ten years ago.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Is anyone up in arms yet over the Browns? How about the Reds? If I were a commie, I might be offended by that! Celtics, only pronounced wrong? Why the Redskins and not the Chiefs?
The Browns were named after coach Paul Brown. The Reds started as the Redlegs because they wore red socks, but everyone called them the Reds so the name was shortened. Redskins is a demeaning nickname, while Chiefs is totally innocuous.
Thus endeth Mack’s history lesson.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Pardon me for getting the Browns’ origin wrong; thanks to Indigo for the correct version.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Matt didn’t ditch hid NY teams for moral reasons… but instead for the sad, sad, sad reason of creating a workable narrative for his servitude to DC. Wow, he has a mental map projecting forward decades, yipee. Go Yankees… Go Giants.
I meant only that it if it was morally permissible to leave any set of teams, it was NY teams. (And just joshin’, I’m a Chicagoan–Go Bears! Go Cubs!)
September 19th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
@Greg
Lorax, I wish I could abandon the Mets. They’ve certainly abandoned me.
Greg: The ‘69 Mets give the Mets enough lovability for all time.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Indigo Carmine, tomemos:
It was a freaking joke. Get over yourselves.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Pray tell, why do all of you proudly PC types think that Washington (Boston, actually, since that where they were when the name originated) named it’s team after a racial slur? Why would you name a team after someone you look down on?
Maybe, just maybe because it was not, and is not, a racial slur, but a attempt to hitch the team up to a warrior tradition? Just like the Indians and Braves. The only reason you all THINK it’s a racial slur is that you can’t imagine anyone wanting to associate themselves with American Indians, who you regard as objects of pity. The reason 90% of Indians don’t mind is that they don’t so consider themselves, and are proud of their past and proud that people would want to associate themselves, however tenously, with it.
I agree with Gcochrane – just how stupid are you people?
September 19th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
As long as we’re grousing about sports teams, I’m a lifelong Nebraska fan. But my fanbase is being taken over with teabaggers, and I find this tough to take. It’s just as tough as the last 10 years of results have been.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
While we’re on the subject of changing team names, there’s no Jazz in Utah and few lakes in L.A.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDMt2XCE-YU
September 19th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
The Reds started as the Redlegs because they wore red socks, but everyone called them the Reds so the name was shortened.
This is not true. For a short period of time in the late 50’s the Reds changed their name to the Redlegs for public relations reasons. The club started as the Cincinnati Red Stockings, but changed their name to Reds upon entry in the NL around 1890. In fact, the Boston Red Sox were started by ex-Cincinnati players who stole the name because they were being called the Boston Beaneaters. This team from Boston eventually became the Braves, now of Atlanta.
You could rename the Fighting Irish the paddy’s or the mick’s or whatever and I’d think it was funny. Redskins is more like renaming them the muck-savages and I wouldn’t think that was one bit fucking funny.
This makes you a condescending racist dickhead.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
I know it’s a minority view, but I don’t think it makes sense to let the dead hand of where you happened to spend the first 18 years of your life dictate behavior for decades and decades going forward.
There is a word for people like that and it is ‘Fraud’. Especially if you drop your ‘old team’ for your ‘new team’ within the same division? That is 100% unacceptable…
Cancel my subscription! Oh wait…
September 19th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Because we, unlike you apparently, are actually familiar with the term’s history and meaning.
It’s both. The image of the barbarian as fierce warrior is quite old. Think of the word “spear-chucker.”
Those are racial slurs. As has been pointed out half a dozen times already. Want me to do it again? OK: Redskin is a racial slur, like Chink or Hebe. Indian and Brave are not. They’re neutral references, like Celtics.
Uh, no, the reason we think it’s a racial slur is because it has always been a racial slur, and has always been used that way. Read a book for a change, so you don’t end up sounding this ignorant.
Hence, everyone on the thread who has held out Indians and Braves as neutral, non-insulting examples of associating your team with American Indians. Please, tell us what we think again! You’re don’t suck at it at all!
September 19th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
He’s got a point there.
Root for the Ravens if you need a local team.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
The new name is obvious: the Rednecks. If rednecks have a problem with it, maybe they’ll learn something.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
“What do you think the percentage of “yes” respondents should be before we decide that naming a team after a racial slur is offensive—50%+1?”
If we’re going to give every group that accounts for roughly 1/3000th of the US population a veto on names, life will become intensely interesting.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
I’m not much of a football fan, but “Warshington Ofays” works for me. The r in Warshington is important
September 19th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
or, in the spirit implied by gcochran, the Washington Medians
September 19th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Most people move more than a few times so adopting a new team in each city means you never get a sense of the history of any one team. You can still go to the games in your new town and root for them, just not against your old team. That means you suck.
September 19th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Honestly Matt, you need to become a Ravens fan. They’re close enough to be a logical point. They have a team name with its origins in local literary culture (Poe’s the Raven).
But far more importantly, they give most of their political donations to Democrats. Washington gives 99% of its donations to Republicans (odd, considering that it is located in Md, in a Democratic district in a Democratic state represented by two Democratic senators.
BTW, the 99% isn’t hyperbole – check out opensecrets.org to see the numbers.
September 19th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Sorry, 97% to Republicans. 99% was indeed, hyperbole. Or a rounding error.
September 19th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
I haven’t figured out yet why the North Dakota Fighting Sioux (OK – they should be the Fighting Lakota) are bad but the Notre Fighting Irish are cool. The name “Redskins” is atrocious, but their logo is magnificent. My suggestions for the Redskins is to officially rename them the “Washington Americans” and let the Redskins name fade out.
September 19th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Dame
September 19th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
I know it’s a minority view, but I don’t think it makes sense to let the dead hand of where you happened to spend the first 18 years of your life dictate behavior for decades and decades going forward.
But you do feel it’s appropriate to root for a team based on the arbitrary circumstances of proximity?
Bah. Also, too, humbug.
September 19th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Of course other motives may play a part in that poll: some fraction of that 9% of Amerindians who object to “Redskins” may simply dislike the team. Perhaps their loyalties lie elsewhere. For example, the Acoma tribe are for the most part intense partisans of the Dallas Cowboys.
> “I worry we’re losing our traditional ways,” Concho said, sitting on a bed in his shrine, his feet tucked into Cowboys socks and moccasins. He abruptly switched topics. “And tell Romo to stay away from Jessica,” he said. “We have a game to win this weekend.” >
September 19th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
It is just a team name, there is no reason not to change it. If anyone can give a justifiable reason why names can’t change, then give it. I can give two great economic reasons why they should change it:
1. How can you trademark “redskins”? Native Americans should just copy the redskins memorabilia and sell it cheap. Then when taken to court, simply get a ruling that you can’t trademark a derogative term. The Washington NFL team will change their mascot in a heartbeat to protect a trademark. For Pete’s sake, the SciFi network changed its name after two decades to SyFy because they couldn’t trademark SciFi.
2. Changing their mascot will get their entire fan base to either buy new jerseys or to buy more old jerseys in protest. Think, New Coke.
September 19th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
fostert for the win!
September 19th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Anthony Damiani: I admit do not follow sports except for special occasions like when the my local baseball team wins the World Series for the first time in 86 years, but I think it’s significantly less arbitrary. Your present proximity to the team affects your ability to enjoy the game. If you live ten miles from home games, that’s a lot easier to participate in than if you live 250 miles from home games, all other things being equal. Where you grew up doesn’t actually effect you. They don’t check your birth certificate when you show up to FedEx Stadium.
Now, since my local baseball team is that team that won the World Series for the first time in 86 years a few years ago, I’m fully aware that people can feel deep and profoundly irrational emotional bonds with particular teams. But it’s not the only way to enjoy the game.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
The name’s not changing. 99% of the world could not care less. What’s Goldman Sachs up to these days?
September 19th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
The name’s not changing. 99% of the world could not care less. What’s Goldman Sachs up to these days?
Goldman Sachs isn’t changing either.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Matt, I think you’d have a hard time finding actual evidence that significant percentages of Native Americans find the term offensive. When I went to Miami University, the school was in the process of changing our mascot from the traditional Redskins to the idiotic RedHawks (wretched intercaps included). I was on a student paper at the time and so I called the chief of the Miami Tribe (now in Oklahoma) and asked him what he thought. He told me he found the Redskins name an honor, and that nobody he knew of in his tribe was bothered by it. The only ones who were bothered, he said, were the administrators at Miami, none of whom were Native American.
I say this as a proud liberal, as somebody who thinks many teabaggers are racists and xenophobes: I think your claim is probably lacking in evidence.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Speaking on behalf of the Krauts, we would be fine with being a nickname.
Just don’t let the Pollocks or the Ruskies into the stadium.
For the curious, Goldman Sachs is looting the world, as we type.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
I agree that Redskins is not the same thing as “chinks” or “wetbacks”–terms that were offensive from their invention and can only be used as slurs. “Redskins” is at least outdated, though. And like the stupid “Wizards”, it has nothing to do with the city. The sad fact is that once you get beyond stuff like “nationals” and “senators” apparently no one can think up a mascot that actually suits DC.
Matt *should* become a Ravens fan. They have the coolest mascot in American pro sports.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
The Chippewa Tribe in Michigan runs tribal pride tv ads featuring the Central Michigan Chips sports teams.
Course the university is a mile from the rez and very good for the tribal economy. As is the casino…..
September 19th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
The real danger is that if they do change it, the team will switch a racist mascot for a really stupid one. Washington Wizards? Come on.
I was living in Baltimore when the Ravens came along. Ravens! Get it? It’s a literary allusion! I guess another city had already claimed the Tell Tale Hearts, or something.
On the other hand, I have often wondered how much control the various leagues have over the names. NASCAR let’s some guy drive a Viagra car. Could I buy the Redskins and call then the Washington Erectile Dysfunction Treatments? Or something like the Washington Dickheads?
Or, finally, can you still just name the team after an owner or coach? That’s how the Cleveland Browns actually got their name. (Paul Brown) It would be really sweet if someone with a better name tried that. Like, say, The Washington Percy Goldsteins, or something.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Go, Alpha Centauri Znirgleg’gexes! Rah! Rah! Rah!
September 19th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
1.) Dan Snyder already has a registered trademark for the “Washington Warriors,” ostensibly for an Arena league team he was thinking about buying but really in case “Redskins” were invalidated as a trademark.
2.) For some unclear reason, my middle school started out as the “Vikings,” then became “Indians,” and then became “Redskins.” I thought this was weird even in 1991.
3.) If you can choose which teams to root for, you are a lucky man. I’ve not lived in Philly for some time, but I can’t quit them. Besides, longevity made the “World F–king Champions” season last year all the sweeter.
4.) For all the people praising the Ravens as an alternative, while the team name is not racist (+1), it is misleading. Poe has a stronger connection to the following cities than Baltimore: Boston (born), Richmond (grew up), Philadelphia (wrote most of his important works), and the Bronx (wrote “The Raven”). Baltimore should name themselves after something from Mencken or “The Wire” (the Baltimore Lake Trout?) or just kept the old Colts name and logo and let Indianapolis become the “Little Orphan Annies,” after Indiana’s own James Whitcomb Riley. Point being, as the discussion of the Wizards/Bullets shows, there’s more than one way for a nickname to be stoopid. The “Eagles” are, after all, named for an unconstitutional price fixing cartel, being formed the same year as the National Industrial Recovery Act.
September 19th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
[...] moving and sports teams By bottomofthe9th In a post on another topic, I thought this was interesting: When I realized I was most likely going to stay in Washington, DC and write about [...]
September 19th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
I have always referred to the Washington DC football team as the “Potatos”. This is the only non-offensive interpretation of their name.
September 20th, 2009 at 1:59 am
Can you imagine if the University of Notre Dame’s football team’s name was The Fighting Irish and their mascot was a drunken, pugnacious leprechaun putting his dukes up?
September 20th, 2009 at 2:05 am
Can you imagine if the University of Notre Dame’s football team’s name was The Fighting Irish and their mascot was a drunken, pugnacious leprechaun putting his dukes up?
Whereas if it were a picture of a soldier from the 69th New York Volunteers kicking the shit out of a bunch of racist, slave-owning fucks, it would be beyond cool.
Since that’s where the bloody fucking nickname came from; one of the two best units in the Army of the Potomac, the Irish fucking Brigade.
Oh, and did I mention that it was one Robert Edward Lee who gave them their nickname? Because they were kicking the shit out of his troops?
September 20th, 2009 at 2:35 am
I decided to abandon my New York sports heritage and adopt DC’s teams.
Why did you feel the need to adopt any team at all?
September 20th, 2009 at 2:42 am
Steve Sailer provides the same high-quality commentary on racial issues we have come to expect. Read the fucking thread, Steve.
September 20th, 2009 at 3:07 am
The Washington Aboriginal Americans really turns me on.
THE WABOS for short.
GO WABOS !
YAY !
September 20th, 2009 at 3:36 am
Also, if you pull a lame move like changing your allegiance from one team to another, you don’t pick a rival in the same division. You should have picked the Ravens, not Washington, if you were going to go all Benedict Arnold on the Jints.
September 20th, 2009 at 3:45 am
I nominate the Baltimore Barksdales. It’s alliterative and everything.
September 20th, 2009 at 3:57 am
The only reason you all THINK it’s a racial slur is that you can’t imagine anyone wanting to associate themselves with American Indians, who you regard as objects of pity. The reason 90% of Indians don’t mind is that they don’t so consider themselves, and are proud of their past and proud that people would want to associate themselves, however tenously, with it.
This, exactly. I bet anything that if the name were changed, more than a few Indians would be offended at the elimination of the reference.
But then unlike most of you, I’ve actually met some Indians.
September 20th, 2009 at 4:07 am
Can you imagine if the University of Notre Dame’s football team’s name was The Fighting Irish and their mascot was a drunken, pugnacious leprechaun putting his dukes up?
Oh, I forgot one other thing, Steve. The fathers at Notre Dame chose that nickname as a badge of honor. You might be surprised to learn that, at the time, they and the student body were Irish.
That’s the difference. People can choose to call themselves whatever they want, but they also have a right to insist others don’t use racist nicknames. Witness the history of the N-word.
September 20th, 2009 at 8:04 am
This is by far the best Yglesian comment thread ever.
September 20th, 2009 at 8:59 am
I’ve read books from the 19th century and early to mid 20th century that refer to Native Americans as Redskins without meaning it in a derogatory sense. I don’t think it was used to denigrate them, it was just the word used to refer to them. Perhaps it developed along those lines later, but in that case it’s not as obviously inappropriate. However, if Native Americans find it offensive, then I think it’s obvious that they should change it.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Re: The reason 90% of Indians don’t mind is that they don’t so consider themselves, and are proud of their past and proud that people would want to associate themselves, however tenously, with it.
Don’t be ridiculous. The entire purpose of “R*dskins” is as a racial slur. If you went to a Navajo community in Arizona and started calling them R*dskins, I’m sure they wouldn’t like it much. It’s rather ridiculous we have to wait till 2009 to perceive that having a team named after a racial slur for Native americans is rather a bad idea.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Re: I’ve read books from the 19th century and early to mid 20th century that refer to Native Americans as Redskins without meaning it in a derogatory sense.
The late Malcolm X used to refer to his ethnicity as American Negroes. Doesn’t mean its a good idea today to refer to African Americans as Negroes, or Colored People, or whatever else they used to say.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Baltimore should name themselves after something from Mencken or “The Wire”
I nominate the Baltimore Barksdales. It’s alliterative and everything.
…and everyone on the team will either be a first- or second- Stringer.
Sorry.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Matt, you have been officially served.
September 20th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Do they still dress up in hog noses and dresses? So many reasons to be ashamed.
September 20th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
How about the Washington Insiders? Or the Washington Elitists?
September 20th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
The cover story is that the Redskins — originally from Boston — were named after the hooligans who particpated in the Boston Tea Party, for which they dressed up (not very convincingly) as Indians.
But it doesn’t matter. The meaning of the name in present day is whatever most people perceive it to be. I grew up here rooting for the team, and I believe they should change it. Others have noted that he’s already trademarked “Warriors.” It’s a good time to do it since they’re not going to win a Super Bowl any time soon. He should just do it already.
September 20th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
This thread is a great illustration of Yglesias’s longstanding point on conservative anti-anti-racism.
Anyway, I think that “Redskins” and “Indians” are both poor choices for a team name — “Braves” is fine, since it refers to tough warrior types. “Redskins” is a slur. “Indians” isn’t, really, but both team names refer to a group of people who, like (virtually) all societies, have warriors, but aren’t uniquely warlike. “Braves” and “Vikings,” unlike “Indians” or “Norse,” refers specifically to the tough warrior types. Similarly, “Samurai” would be a better team name than “Japanese,” “Knights” would be a better team name than “Franks,” “Legionaries” than “Romans,” “Mujahideen” than “Muslims,” “Crusaders” than “Christians,” etc.
September 20th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
“Mujahideen” than “Muslims,”
I’m pretty sure there’s an alternate/future history novel where America goes for Islam, and I think one of the NFL teams is actually called like the Seattle Mujahideen or something.
I also recall that they stop play in order to do afternoon prayers.
September 20th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Can you imagine if the University of Notre Dame’s football team’s name was The Fighting Irish and their mascot was a drunken, pugnacious leprechaun putting his dukes up?
First off, the difference is that the name was self-applied. Guess what, there were a lot of Irish at Notre Dame when they chose the name (still are). How many Indians were involved in the Boston Redskins organization when they chose the name?
Second of all, what makes you think the Notre Dame leprechaun is drunken?
September 20th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
If we’re going to link to Washington Bullets-related songs, one cannot ignore “You The Man,” an exciting promo video produced by the team (and run on television, presumably as paid advertisements).
Why the video includes a random shot of a Washington Capital remains a mystery, albeit no more mysterious than the question of how the Bullets managed to obtain all the players featured in the ad.
“The USAir Arena is the place that’s gonna heat up.” Indeed.
September 20th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
This thread is a great illustration of Yglesias’s longstanding point on conservative anti-anti-racism.
I’m not a conservative, and I’m not an anti-anti-racist. What I’m against is a facile politics of point-scoring convenience, which uses minorities, the poor, etc., as props for one’s personal progressive righteousness rather than engaging them as human beings. It’s an armchair exercise that does nothing for anybody, and the stupid focus on such things is a big part of why there’s so little movement on actual progressive policy.
Instead of sitting around wallowing in your ideological purity, why don’t you guys all call your congresspeople this week and tell them you demand a public option?
September 20th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
@62 The UND Sioux and their hockey arena are an interesting study in the power of rich racist alums. Nazi fanboy Ralph Engelstad built a $110 million dollar arena and put the Sioux logo everywhere he could. When the university was debating dropping the name/logo he threatened to stop construction and walk away.
UND has to reach agreements with two local tribes by October 1 or it will have to give up its nickname.
September 20th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
” As has been pointed out half a dozen times already. Want me to do it again? OK: Redskin is a racial slur, like Chink or Hebe.”
As has been pointed out many times, there is no evidence that it has ever been used as a slur, now or in the past. You think it is slur because you think any reference to “skin” is a slur. You remind me of victorians who insisted on covering up piano legs lest someone look at them naked and have impure thoughts…
September 20th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
When I realized I was most likely going to stay in Washington, DC and write about politics forever and ever and ever, I decided to abandon my New York sports heritage and adopt DC’s teams
You deserve a shit ass team like the redskins to rout for just for that reason alone.
September 20th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Yglesias will sell you out for better cocktail chatter.
September 20th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Oh come on “les Amerloques”, get a grip, it’s a name, and one that the ideologically unencumbered (or outsiders such as myself) find difficult to hear as offensive: “peau rouge”, où est le mal? Do you really think that the greatest offence done to the native population by the colonising one was semantic?
September 20th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Is the fact that we largely exterminated the Indians at all pertinent to this discussion?
September 20th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
What, a hundred and eight comments and nobody remembers Chris Rock’s rant (mid-Weekend Update, iirc) about this, in which he suggested that it was analogous to having a team named the “New York N—–s”?
September 20th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
[...] 20, 2009 · Leave a Comment Matthew Yglesias – in The Trouble With “Redskins” – reveals how he came to follow Washington’s NFL [...]
September 20th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Native Americans should be the ones to determine what is a slur to them or not a slur to them. The ones I’ve talked to about this seem pretty unanimous that it’s a slur, but that’s anecdotal.
But the fact that I’m Irish and don’t see “Fighting Irish” as a slur as many people have pointed out here is irrelevant to the discussion. We’re talking about how Natives feel about the slur, it’s not about what white people think since it’s directed towards Natives.
September 21st, 2009 at 9:23 am
I hate to be post #112.
But this takes me bask to the debate in the 1980s about the name of the athletic teams in a small town in central Illinois…the Pekin Chinks…and I am not making this up…
You’d think it would be self-evident that calling your athletic teams the “Chinks” was wrong, and that changing the name would be right…The school district sued to retain the name…(The teams are now the Dragons).
September 21st, 2009 at 9:45 am
A search of this thread fails to turn up the word “Boston.” As in the Boston Resdskins, which is what the Washington Redskins were before they moved to Washington.
There seems to be a sparsity of documentation concerning how the Redskins got their name. But think on this: Native Americans were kicked out of the Boston area very, very early in the history of colonial America; once we’re past the first Thanksgiving, there’s little historical association between what’s now the Boston area and persons whose skin is red of hue. Native Americans were more numerous for much longer pretty much everywhere else in what’s now the United States.
But there’s another, much later instance of ‘redskins’ making the history books in the Boston area: some hotheaded colonists dressed up as American Indians, then dumped a whole bunch of tea in Boston harbor.
If there’s a reason behind ‘Redskins’ as the moniker for a sports team originally from Boston, this has to be the most likely one.
September 21st, 2009 at 11:29 am
Washington Bigots? Or, more topically, Washington Torturers?
September 21st, 2009 at 12:24 pm
@112: a couple of my dad’d cousins grew up in that area and played HS sports at Pekin HS … and was a proud Chink! I shi’ite you not.
September 21st, 2009 at 3:53 pm
low tech cyclist: what thread are you searching? Did you not see my comment @97?
September 21st, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Wow, it took me a long time to find any links calling the word ‘redskin’ offensive. Yeah.
September 21st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Mack Says:
September 19th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Is anyone up in arms yet over the Browns? How about the Reds? If I were a commie, I might be offended by that! Celtics, only pronounced wrong? Why the Redskins and not the Chiefs?
========================================================
Actually, in the early Cold War era, the Reds management started referring to the team as the “Redlegs” in an attempt to get away from the commie associations
September 21st, 2009 at 5:43 pm
low-tech cyclist Says:
September 21st, 2009 at 9:45 am
A search of this thread fails to turn up the word “Boston.” As in the Boston Resdskins, which is what the Washington Redskins were before they moved to Washington.
There seems to be a sparsity of documentation concerning how the Redskins got their name. But think on this: Native Americans were kicked out of the Boston area very, very early in the history of colonial America; once we’re past the first Thanksgiving, there’s little historical association between what’s now the Boston area and persons whose skin is red of hue. Native Americans were more numerous for much longer pretty much everywhere else in what’s now the United States.
But there’s another, much later instance of ‘redskins’ making the history books in the Boston area: some hotheaded colonists dressed up as American Indians, then dumped a whole bunch of tea in Boston harbor.
If there’s a reason behind ‘Redskins’ as the moniker for a sports team originally from Boston, this has to be the most likely one.
==========================================
Remember the NL Atlanta Braves were originally the Boston Braves
September 21st, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Bosch’s Poodle Says:
September 19th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Matt, I think you’d have a hard time finding actual evidence that significant percentages of Native Americans find the term offensive. When I went to Miami University, the school was in the process of changing our mascot from the traditional Redskins to the idiotic RedHawks (wretched intercaps included). I was on a student paper at the time and so I called the chief of the Miami Tribe (now in Oklahoma) and asked him what he thought. He told me he found the Redskins name an honor, and that nobody he knew of in his tribe was bothered by it. The only ones who were bothered, he said, were the administrators at Miami, none of whom were Native American.
I say this as a proud liberal, as somebody who thinks many teabaggers are racists and xenophobes: I think your claim is probably lacking in evidence.
=========================================================
Well, you can certainly see what happened to Miami’s football fortunes since the name change. Now the doormat of the MAC