White House gets Redskins question

Democrat blasts Redskins for 'disturbing' refusal to change NFL team's name

By Mike LillisRep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) is intensifying the pressure on Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder to change the team's nickname.

Snyder this month vowed he'll "never" rename the Redskins, despite the growing criticism from Native Americans and some members of Congress that the moniker debases the country's first inhabitants.

Norton on Thursday called Snyder's position "disturbing," arguing that the derogatory nature of "redskin" is something Snyder should recognize given the sensitivity he's shown surrounding his own Jewish heritage.

Snyder in 2011 fought the Washington City Paper over a series of critical articles, claiming, among other things, that a photograph of him scribbled over with horns and a goatee was anti-Semitic.

"The centerpiece of his suit was a photo that he said disparaged him as a Jew. So here is a man who has shown sensibilities based on his own ethnic identity who refuses to recognize the sensibilities of American Indians," Norton told MSNBC's Luke Russert.It would be wrong for the media to start referring to Dan Snyder as the "Kike" owner of the Washington "Redskins." But he might get the point, finally.

White House spokesman punts on Redskins team name question

By Justin SinkWhite House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday he wasn't sure whether President Obama has an opinion on the controversy surrounding the Washington Redskins team name.

Earlier this week, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and nine House Democrats, sent a letter to Redskins owner Dan Snyder urging a change of the team name, which Native American groups protest as racially insensitive.

"That's a good question, and it is outside the box. I’ll give you credit for that," Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One. "I haven’t had a chance to speak with him about it, so I don't know if he has an opinion."

But the question could prompt the president to weigh in on the brewing controversy, which has dominated sports talk radio and opinion pages in the nation's capital.Wow! When the White House gets questioned on an issue, it's serious.

Retired Native American Chief Would Be Offended If Redskins Did Change Name

By Chris LingebachDays ago, ten members of Congress sent letters to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, and the team’s stadium naming rights holder FedEx, along with the league’s 31 other franchises, urging them to have ‘Redskins’ changed due to the name’s offensive nature.

In response, the longtime chief of a major Virginia-based tribe went on the record to say he’d actually be offended if the team DID change the name.

Robert “Two Eagles” Green, who retired from his presiding role over the 1300-member Patawomeck Tribe in March, was a guest on SiriusXM NFL Radio’s “The Opening Drive” on Wednesday.

He gave a detailed account of the origin of the term Redskin, why so many people are offended by it, and how political correctness has allowed this story to fester far longer than it should.Like most people, Green dodges the actual arguments against "Redskins" with his counterarguments. One, it doesn't matter how the word originated since it evolved into a racial slur. Two, the logo is stereotypical and misrepresents today's Natives whether it offends anyone or not.

Redskins not offensive to you? How about the Washington N-Words?

By Mike FreemanThese members of Congress are doing something extremely bright. They're making sure people who aren't around American Indians, or don't know the history of the use of that word, understand what it truly means.

And it only means one thing: It's a slur.

This is something blacks should get, but shockingly large numbers of black Washington fans stay silent on the issue, or they say, stupidly, the name Redskins is used to honor.

So, fine. OK, then. The city of Washington, D.C., my birthplace, is approximately 50 percent black, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. We used to call it Chocolate City.

The team shouldn't be called the racist name Redskins. There is no significant population of American Indians. The percentage of American Indians in D.C., the Census states, is 0.6 percent.

Thus the more correct correlation for a team name is the Washington N-Words.And:If a new team in Los Angeles called themselves the L.A. W-Words, you can bet, with the city of Los Angeles having a significant Latino population, there would be outrage. And with the United States having a large Latino population, there would protests all over the country.

Also, if the Redskins were called the N-Words, then all of these hypocritical African-American Washington fans, who back the use of Redskins, would suddenly understand if the team was called the Washington N-Words.

So, from now on, let's call them that, and pull from our rectums that the word is used to honor blacks.

Sure, there will be some Uncle Tom American Indians who will say Redskins honors them, just like there were some Uncle Tom blacks who once didn't mind being called colored.I presume the website wouldn't let Freeman use the words "niggers" and "wetbacks." He should've fought for permission to use them, because it would make his argument stronger.

And comparing the Redskins' bland logo to a caricature like Little Black Sambo or Chief Wahoo is a bit over the top. It's not a caricature, but it's still stereotypical.

But Freeman, a black sportswriter, nails the key points. 1) Using "Redskins" is akin to using other ethnic slurs. 2) Black Redskins fans who demand racial justice for themselves but not for American Indians are hypocrites. 3) Indians who support stereotypical Indian mascots are essentially "Uncle Tomahawks."

For more on the Washington Redskins, see Online Redskins Poll Demonstrates Bias, Redskins Player Defends "Redskins" Name, and "Inuit Chief" Supports Washington Redskins.

Below:  A fan demonstrates how "Redskins" stands for warlike savagery.