Stereotypes turn Indians invisible

In response to Ecoffey's and Davies's downplaying of racism, I posted:

How do people not get this? Mascots and stereotypes => no understanding of Indian country => lack of laws, services, jobs, etc.

The following article explains the direct connection between stereotypical thinking and lack of philanthropy:

Implicit Bias and Native Americans: Philanthropy’s Hidden MinorityAccording to Michael Roberts, a member of the Tlingit tribe and president of First Nations Development Institute, a nonprofit institution and grantmaker that has been a fixture in philanthropy for almost 35 years:

“I would say that American Indians are mostly invisible to philanthropy, and where there is some semblance of awareness, that there is definitely implicit bias. [For] most foundation program officers, most of what they know is what they were taught in school. Generally, Indians are examined in one of two ways, that they are either relics of the past (lived in tipis, hunted buffalo and were either savages or at one with nature; the mythical Indian), or that the study of them is like a tourist visiting a culture.”

Rick Williams, a member of the Oglala Lakota tribe and former president of the American Indian College Fund, the largest and arguably one of the most successful Native nonprofits, noted:

“The current myth of wealthy Indians not needing help relates directly to misguided media presenting only information about [Native] nations that have done well financially and have casinos. The other myth is that we no longer exist. And if we do exist, it is easy to ignore our plight. Implicit bias carries all the stereotypes and subconsciously influences one’s actions. I often see/feel that bias even when it is unintended or sublimely disguised.”The invisibility problem is closely related to the issue of stereotypes. How? As many have said, people expect Indians to look like savages--dressed in leathers and feathers, living in teepees, etc. When they don't see any stereotypical savages, they assume Indians are dead and gone. They overlook the modern-day Indians all around them--thus rendering them invisible.

Going back to Ecoffey and Davies...if my formulation doesn't explain the lack of laws, services, and jobs, what does?

A paucity of media coverage? Who's been running newspapers such as the Lakota Times, Indian Country Today, and Native Sun News for the past few decades? Not me. If the operators are incompetent as journalists, how is that anyone else's problem?

Again, are Ecoffey and Davies seriously arguing that two weeks of Adam Sandler coverage is responsible for a century of the "Indian plight"? What, was the NY Times about to print a killer expose of the problems? And it got bumped because of Sandler?

How stupid can you get? Like other pop controversies, the Sandler coverage only increases awareness of Indians. Therefore, it's good, not bad.

Duhhh.

For more on the invisibility of Indians, see America Constructed to Erase Indians and Tarantino: "Indians Have More or Less Disappeared."

Redskins OAF divides and conquers

Speaking of Phil Gover, as I did in yesterday's Redskins posting, he wrote a fine op/ed about the corrupting influence of Redskins OAF:

Daniel Snyder's ‘Gifts’ to Natives Undermine and Corrupt

By Phil GoverThis is exactly why Snyder’s foundation exists.

It exists to zoom-in and highlight the divisions within our communities and to remove the joy from the small things that bring us together. It does its work by forcing people to make a choice between their dignity and temporary relief from the trappings of poverty. In doing so it preys upon people’s biggest weaknesses and worst fears, turns communities against each other, and even turns cousin against cousin.

I’m struck by the layered cynicism of Snyder’s philanthropic enterprise. The first layer is an assumption about non-Native people–that by creating a foundation in the midst of crisis one can hand-wave the negative press away. That argument goes like this: “The Redskins couldn’t possibly be a racist name–look at all the good work they do in Indian country.” This is probably enough to boost the confidence of some name supporters whose resolve is flagging. No need to examine exactly what the foundation does–its existence is proof enough. This is philanthropy as a public relations response to crisis management, which is another way of saying it’s not philanthropy at all. I work in the non-profit world, and have met with donors big and small and the literal heart of a philanthropist is a love of humanity and the desire to grow people. Philanthropy in Indian country is real and it isn’t found in the heart of a man who finds “pride, courage and intelligence” in the social equivalent of a fraternity blackface party.

The second layer of cynicism concerns all of our communities. Snyder started his enterprise by submitting a survey across Indian country asking what tribes needed. It’s clear now that Snyder was talking about things. He didn’t ask for it, but here is my answer to that survey question: We need better schools and better school leaders. We need more Native men and women with college and professional degrees. We need counselors to help our children understand why suicide isn’t an answer. We need police to stop murdering our men in the street. We need to end the food deserts that make poor health a destiny. We need shelter and protection for our battered women and education for our men who learned that beating someone is the way to get them to love you. We need our Native children everywhere to be affirmed and celebrated not mocked and stung by a silent, invisible racism. We need non-Native people to care about the disasters happening all around them.

Snyder’s foundation only offers things. And long after that sponsored rodeo is over, that playground falls into disrepair or those passenger vans break down, the truth is that you’ll still be poor, and Snyder will have gotten what he wanted: the veneer of support from some in Indian country, the satisfaction of distracting his own supporters, the opportunity to move on with his life and give his fans the blessing to do this.Comment:  For more on Redskins OAF, see Navajo President Sits with Snyder and Redskins OAF Seeks Zuni Art.

Paiute leader impeached over Redskins OAF

Redskins OAF, the Redskins charitable foundation, is back in the news. As usual, not in a good way:

Utah Paiute tribal leader accused of taking bribes from Washington Redskins, facing impeachment

By Ashton EdwardsA Utah Paiute tribal leader accused of taking bribes from the Washington Redskins and is now facing impeachment.

According to official documents, Gari Pikyavit Lafferty, the tribe’s highest-ranking elected official, is accused of accepting gifts from Dan Snyder’s team and the Original Americans Foundation (OAF), a non-profit formed by Snyder for his outreach efforts with Native American tribes.

The documents state Lafferty allegedly accepted a Robert Griffin III-signed football and allowed the team to pay for her trip to Washington to see the Sept. 25, 2014 game against the Giants without telling tribal leaders.Paiute Tribal Leader Faces Impeachment For Taking Redskins Gifts

By Dave McKennaThe gifts, the council wrote, "could be considered bribery."

After the trip, Lafferty supported a deal with OAF to provide at least two vans to the tribe, as the debate over whether to cooperate with Snyder's foundation raged throughout Indian Country.

The Paiute tribe is small—in an interview last fall, Lafferty estimated there were "around 900-plus members" divided up in five sub-tribes, called "bands"—and located in remote areas of Utah. But the tribe looms large in Snyder's life in recent years. Among its members is Phillip Gover, one of the five plaintiffs in Blackhorse v. Pro Football Inc., the lawsuit seeking to have Snyder's "Redskins" trademarks canceled by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (Pro Football Inc. is the corporate name of the Washington Redskins.)

A day later, Lafferty was impeached:

Utah Tribe Impeaches Chairwoman For Taking Redskins Bribe

By Dave McKennaThe full statement:

The Tribal Council of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah has unanimously voted to remove Gari Pikyavit Lafferty as chairwoman, because of actions that include taking personal gifts for herself and her family without council approval, and failing to act upon council direction.

“The role of a tribal official is to act to make the tribe better, but the actions of Gari Lafferty since she took office have served neither the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah nor its elected council,” said Vice Chairwoman Jeanine Borchardt. “Gari Lafferty’s actions served only her self-interest. We are deeply saddened in taking this action.”Comment:  For more on Redskins OAF, see Navajo President Sits with Snyder and Redskins OAF Seeks Zuni Art.

Tribe rejects Redskins OAF "bribe"

Quechan Skate Park Project Turns Down 'Bribe Money' From RedskinsThe Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation (OAF) paid a visit to the Fort Yuma Quechan Tribe in Winterhaven, CA, and the reports relayed to ICTMN describe a meeting that was both bizarre and insulting.

The Quechan have been planning a skate park for some time; designs are posted to Facebook and some fund-raising activities have been held. An OAF delegation, led by Executive Director Gary Edwards, had come to town to offer funding to complete the project.

"We respectfully listened to their presentation," said Kenrick Escalanti, President of Kwatsan Media Inc. "But when Gary Edwards referred to himself as a 'redskin' in front of our Nation’s officials, I knew that their visit had ulterior motives."

The OAF crew presented renderings of the park using a color scheme of burgundy and gold--the Washington Redskins' team colors.

The OAF essentially offered the Quechan a blank check, proposing to fully fund the skate park. Additionally, the organization would give every Quechan child an iPad for the purpose of learning their Native language. Edwards told those present that accepting the money and gifts would not be portrayed as an endorsement of the name. "You don't even need to say we gave you anything," he said. The OAF added that it has 147 projects in the works, with cooperation of over 40 tribes.

The Quechan didn't like the sound of any of it.

"We say no," Escalanti says. "There are no questions about this. We will not align ourselves with an organization to simply become a statistic in their fight for name acceptance in Native communities. We’re stronger than that and we know bribe money when we see it."American Indians Refuse Original Americans Foundation Money for Skate ParkIn the meeting, OAF representatives OAF Executive Director Gary Edwards and OAF Director Karl Schreiber claimed they have 147 projects lined up across the country and 40+ in partnership with tribes. He listed amongst OAF supporters the Navajo Nation President Ben Shelly and claimed they had a number of projects being funded there. This despite of a Navajo Nation Council bill adopted on April 10, 2014 opposing the use of the name Redsk*ns. They also referenced the tractor they helped purchase that was mocked on the TV show The Colbert Report by host Stephen Colbert.

They denied that any of these tribes were required to support the name, a dictionary-defined slur that newspapers like The Oregonian (since 1992) and most recently, The Seattle Times refuse to print instead using the descriptor the “Washington DC team.” Also, on June 14, 2014 the United Churches of Christ, Central Atlantic Conference passed a resolution calling for a boycott of the Washington Redsk*ns by their 40,000 members.

Mr. Edwards, who claims Cherokee heritage repeatedly referred to himself proudly as a Redsk*n and claimed that, “The opposition is creating the old assimilation policy now being enacted today.” Escalanti said that Edwards appeared to believe that opposition to the slur is purely from White Liberals, despite the persistent opposition of organizations like the National Congress of American Indians which represents the majority of tribal members in the United States and first issued a resolution opposing the name in 1969. And the Native plaintiffs that filed the successful Trademark including lead plaintiff Amanda Blackhorse (Navajo). This trademark case was organized by Suzan Shown Harjo (Muskogee Creek) long-time advocate for changing the name who filed the first trademark case in 1992.

Edwards final thoughts at the meeting on the threat of white people to the Redsk*ns moniker, “we [Native Americans] need to get stronger because if we don’t THEY will annihilate us! That is my sincere heartfelt belief.” He appears to feel that only by being a mascot for a $1.8 billion team can Native Americans continue to exist in this country.

Indian tribe rejects Snyder's offer to fund a skate park

By Erik BradyKenrick Escalanti's description of the two meetings, which together lasted nearly an hour, open a window on the nonprofit announced by Snyder in March to help Native American causes. Foundation reps told the tribe that they have 147 projects lined up involving about 40 tribes across the country. Escalanti said the reps added that about 100 tribes, including his, have participated in a survey concerning their needs.

Escalanti said no dollar amount was mentioned, but he said the budget for the planned Quechan Memorial Skatepark is $250,000 and "they offered to build it, like a blank check." Kwatsan Media Inc., a nonprofit that runs a radio station, is accepting donations for the skate park, which will be dedicated to suicide prevention in Native youth.

"When we told them the skate park would be dedicated to fallen Native youth, you could see their eyes open up big, like they could smell good PR," Kenrick Escalanti said. "And that really irritated me."

The first meeting with tribal leaders, including three council members, lasted about 20 minutes and the second with Kwatsan Media about 30 minutes, according to Escalanti, who attended both.

One council member asked foundation reps why the team cares about Native American causes now, Escalanti said. "Edwards said they always cared and this is not an issue of the (team) name," Escalanti said. "He said the reason it comes up now is the team and the NFL have a diversity policy and they are trying to live by that."Arizona Native American Tribe Rejects Dan Snyder's Offer to Build Skate Park

Comment:  They've always cared, but they've never done anything about it until now? Okay, sure. Can you say "hypocritical"?

Just say no

Adrienne Keene gives us some background on and analysis of the story:

Kwatsan Tribe refuses Dan Snyder’s “Blood Money”In the Wednesday meeting, the Executive Director of OAF, Cherokee (WHY do they ALWAYS gotta be my tribe?!?!) Gary Edwards basically offered Kwatsan Media Inc. (Kenrick’s organization) a blank check, saying that they could fund the park, and had partnerships with developers who could build it as well. They brought in one such developer, who showed Kenrick digital renderings of parks, all done up in signature burgundy and gold. While they insisted that they didn’t want anything in return from the community, that OAF didn’t even have to be affiliated, they constantly brought up the fact that they have “147 projects” occurring in “over 40 tribes” throughout Indian Country, and mentioned, again, that damn backhoe that they helped buy for Omaha. Clearly, they do want the recognition.

Additionally, Mr. Edwards is super confused about who is “the opposition” to the name. He seems to think it’s only white people, and that “we” as Natives are all like him, “proud” to be a “Reds***” (which he called himself repeatedly). He told Kenrick, “The opposition is creating the old assimilation policy now being enacted today,” and even made a reference to The Lone Ranger (definitely the epitome of Native knowledge, right?), “In trying to annihilate our image its like that new Lone Ranger movie with the White Man point a gun at the Indian saying It won’t be long until its forgotten your kind ever existed on this continent.”

Right, dude, “the opposition” is trying to “annihilate our image”? What about the hundreds of Native peoples passing resolutions against the name? or the fact that Suzan Harjo (a Native woman) has been fighting your trademark since 1969? Or the fact that I have a running list of over 4000 Native peoples against the name? “Our image” if you’re speaking for the white, outsider-created image of American Indians. That is what we’re seeking to destroy.

But let’s go back to the money, and let’s think about the choice here–a choice that Native peoples in this country have had to make over, and over, and over throughout our history. We have deep and pressing needs in our communities. We have tribal members freezing to death, we have students unable to learn because their schools are falling apart at the seams, we have suicide rates 3.5 times higher than national averages. Because of centuries of colonialism, our communities have limited options. We are bridled by geographic location, federal red tape and bureaucracy, poverty, and any other number of factors. Then, outsiders come in. They offer us cash, in exchange for natural resources, for land, for mining rights, for oil–and our leaders and communities are faced with a lesser-of-two-evils choice.

Do we take the money even if it is tied to politics and choices that may negatively affect our people further down the road? Of course we would like to think “no”–but it’s not that easy. And it’s a choice we shouldn’t have to make.

In Kwatsan’s case, this skate park isn’t just about having a place for kids to skateboard. It’s tied into suicide prevention and awareness, creating a space for the community to reflect and talk about the issue as well. So here’s a billionaire (Edwards mentioned in the meeting that Snyder is a “billionaire over again”) offering to build the park now, creating that space immediately, saying they don’t need their named tied to it or even to be mentioned.

But Kenrick said no. They escorted the OAF team off the reservation quickly, not letting them hang around, not welcoming them, not letting them feel they were doing something “good” for the Indians. That act is one that needs to be applauded.

Snyder: Redskins "not an issue"

Notah Begay: Snyder's Redskins foundation a 'gimmick'

By Erik BradyBegay, whose Notah Begay III Foundation will receive a national award Wednesday, spoke to USA TODAY Sports before Snyder spoke. Begay called Snyder's foundation "a gimmick ... to try to offset some of the public disdain for the name of his football team. The Washington football team's front office has tried to make the issue about them and it's really not about them. It's about, unfortunately, the NFL and its owners and its corporate partners condoning use of that word.

"I don't think if a similar racially offensive word was used for the Hispanic, African American or Jewish communities that it would be tolerated. But because the American Indian people historically have not had much political leverage, or because we don't represent a great amount of buying power from a retail standpoint, we don't get the same level of treatment that everyone else in this country gets."

The NB3 Foundation withdrew support from a charity golf tournament in Arizona this month when it learned the OAF was title sponsor. Begay, who is Navajo, Isleta Pueblo and San Felipe Pueblo, is on the golf broadcast teams for NBC and the Golf Channel. Begay's foundation won the Steve Patterson Award for Excellence in Sports Philanthropy in 2012 (named for the late UCLA basketball star Steve Patterson, who also played in the NBA.) Today Begay's foundation and the Philadelphia Eagles Youth Partnership will each receive $10,000 as winners of the Legacy Award that goes to Patterson Award winners that best used the award as a platform for growth.Snyder defends "Redskins"

Meanwhile, Snyder finally spoke out:

Redskins’ Snyder says team name is ‘not an issue’

By Joseph WhiteWashington Redskins owner Dan Snyder said Tuesday it’s time for people to “focus on reality” concerning Native American matters instead of criticizing the team’s nickname.

“We understand the issues out there, and we’re not an issue,” Snyder said. “The real issues are real-life issues, real-life needs, and I think it’s time that people focus on reality.”

Challenged by those who consider the name “Redskins” offensive, Snyder and his staff recently traveled to Native American reservations and last month established a foundation to assist American Indian tribes. He had declined requests to answer questions about the foundation until Tuesday.A few tweets in response:

BlueCornComics ‏@bluecorncomics Apr 23
Snyder: "We understand the issues." White man knows best whether #Redskins is a legitimate Native issue. #whitesavior http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/redskins/2014/04/22/daniel-snyder-team-name-controversy-foundation-notah-begay/8014797/

Adrienne K. @NativeApprops Apr 24
Gyasi bringing up that it is the "height of arrogance" for a white man to determine what the problems are in Indian Country. (I agree)

Adrienne K. @NativeApprops Apr 24
I'd argue that 26 reservations (out of 567+ tribes) actually is a "drive by" and not a "significant effort" @OTLonESPN

More responses to Snyder

To Redskins owner Danny Boy Snyder: Your racist nickname IS an issue

By David RamseyDanny Boy Snyder is such a riot. He’s a rich guy who believes he can dictate reality. He announced yesterday that his team’s nickname–the Redskins–is “not an issue.”

Only the nickname is an issue. And will remain an issue. A contentious, lingering issue that will follow Danny Boy around for as long as he refuses to drop a racist moniker.

Snyder pretends Native American support is unanimous. It’s not. I am on record as opposing the Redskins moniker, but I’ve never pretended all Native Americans agree with me. Several polls claim the majority of Native Americans support the nickname, but we’re still waiting for a comprehensive poll that will clarify the issue.

Danny Boy should listen to Michele Companion, a member of the Mohawk Nation and our local Native American community. She does not feel honored by the Redskins moniker.

“I find the Redskins nickname degrading. I find all the nicknames racist, hurtful, offensive. . The fact that we’re still treated like cartoon characters is not a small issue. It’s a reflection of how so many people in society actually see us.”Olbermann's Three Worst People: Dan Snyder, Dan Snyder and Dan SnyderKeith Olbermann doesn't pull his punches, and he's not to everyone's taste. But for his fans, one of the most beloved bits he does is always his countdown of the three most unpleasant--in his extremely opinionated opinion--people in the news on a given day. Called "Worst Person in the World," it's a tradition he's carried over from his news/politics show that ran on MSNBC from 2003 to 2012 to his current gig as a long-form sports pundit on ESPN2. (Techincally it is now called "Worst Person in the Sports World").

"Worst Person" is always three different people, with just one exception we're aware of (and we do not claim to have seen every show Olbermann has ever done)--in November 2005, he gave Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly all three (Worse, Worser and Worst) un-coveted honors.

Make that two exceptions. Last night, Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder hit the Worst Person trifecta.

Natives criticize Redskins golf tournament

Supporting Derogatory Depictions Not an Option for NIGA

By Ernest L. Stevens, Jr.The National Indian Gaming Association has a long-standing history of opposition to ethnically damaging mascots. We have signed on in partnership with tribes, organizations and associations who represent the interests of Indian people who are and will always be against stereotypical sports imagery. Further, we have partnered with national Civil Rights organizations who have joined Indian country in opposing culturally harmful caricatures.

Our mission is to uphold sovereignty and increase the self-reliance of our Native people. We are an organization of 184 member tribes entrusted to ensure there is a strong tribal presence here in Washington, D. C. to protect the Indian Gaming Industry. We have a strong commitment to our tribes and will continue to do so.

This issue provides us with another opportunity to help educate America so that we can grow out of the negative stereotypes of the past. Being separate, diverse groups of people with beautiful cultural traditions and beliefs makes us unique and distinct from one another, in a very positive sense. It adds to the fabric of the creation, allowing honor and respect for all things. This is the kind of harmony and appreciation we need to strive for every day.

To ensure the integrity of our 30-year-old association and our tribal nations, we have pulled our sponsorship from this golf tournament, which has just recently announced a partnership with the newly created Washington football team's Original Americans Foundation. When we agreed to be a sponsor to benefit Native American College Scholarships and Youth there was no mention of the involvement of the Washington football team.In Redskins Golf Tournament, It Was the Navajo Who Got Played

By Jacqueline Keeler"I think it is unfortunate the Navajo Nation administration of Ben Shelly is so out of step with the Navajo people, particularly, the young people, regarding this issue. Obviously, offensive cultural appropriation done by non-Native fans of Native Mascots does not generally include Navajo culture. We do not see them performing Sand Paintings at half-time or dressed like Yeii, but we should understand that most Americans are unable to differentiate between tribes enough to understand that and that Navajo children, two-thirds of whom live off the reservation are subjected to these ignorant ideas about who they are as Native Americans.

"I am also alarmed at the underhanded way this event was handled. The other funders were unaware of the Washington Redsk*ns OAF involvement until the day before and Ben Shelley has repeatedly refused to comment on his meeting with Snyder. It feels like the Navajo people have been hoodwinked into supporting racism and have dragged other national American Indian organizations through the mud in the process. This fundraising to cover the use of a racist slur by a billionaire takes away from the fundraising efforts of legitimate American Indian foundations and takes needed money away from them. It is a travesty."Background

More on how the controversy unfolded:

Snyder's Redsk*ns Hush Money and KTNN's Questionable Behavior

By Nicholet DeschineSometimes you don’t realize the magnitude of an issue until it hits close to home. On Tuesday, April 8, 2014, I opened an email and to my disbelief I saw a flyer for the Washington Redsk*ns First Annual KTNN Celebrity Golf Tournament. The event was scheduled for April 12, 2014 at the Whirlwind Golf Club at the Wild Horse Pass Resort on the Gila River Indian Community. My hometown radio station’s fundraiser was being sponsored by Daniel Snyder’s Washington Redsk*ns Original Americans Foundation (OAF), an organization that believes it can meet the needs of Indian Country while mocking our identity and intelligence by using a racist team name to raise funds for our students.

Why would KTNN, “The Voice of the Navajo Nation,” accept a sponsorship from a controversial foundation whose name is a racial slur? Why is KTNN not following FCC broadcasting rules on the use of racial epithets? Why is the Navajo Nation Office of the President and Vice President co-sponsoring an event with the Redsk*ns, even after legislation was introduced in the Navajo Nation Council opposing the NFL team’s moniker? How long has the sponsorship deal between KTNN, the Navajo Nation Office of the President and Vice President, and the Redskins been in place? How aware were other donors of the fundraiser’s affiliation with the Redsk*ns foundation?

Adding to my disbelief was seeing known anti-Redsk*ns organizations co-sponsoring the event. The Washington Redsk*ns golf tournament was a fundraiser to benefit Native American college scholarships and was co-sponsored by Navajo Engineering Construction Authority, Navajo Nation Gaming Enterprise, Navajo Nation Office of President and Vice President, National Indian Gaming Association, and Dixon Golf. Many other organizations such as the Phoenix Suns, Phoenix Mercury, Diamondbacks, Arizona State University, and the Notah Begay III Foundation also donated silent auction items. An even more surprising co-sponsor of the event was the Navajo Nation’s Office of the President and Vice President. Shocking because the Navajo Nation Council was considering legislation opposing the Redsk*ns name, this was introduced on March 14, 2014 by Council Delegate Joshua Lavar Butler.

From a quick Internet search, I learned that although KTNN created a Facebook event on March 13 and marketed the event on March 21, they failed to mention the event’s title sponsor. In fact, the only mention of the OAF was on the event webpage and the flyer. Curious as to how aware sponsors and donors (especially those organizations who are anti-Redsk*ns) were made of the OAF’s involvement, I began notifying organizations. By Friday April 11, two donors, the National Indian Gaming Association and the Notah Begay III Foundation, withdrew their sponsorship of the event because of ties to the Redsk*ns name. Both organizations said they were unaware of the Redsk*ns’ involvement and would never have donated had they known. Likewise, on Saturday, April 12, the Navajo Nation Gaming Enterprise issued a statement indicating they would have declined sponsorship had they known of the Redsk*ns involvement, “We deeply regret not being told of the Washington Redsk*ns involvement in advance of today’s tournament.”

The actions of these three organizations could mean a few things: 1) The Washington Redsk*ns were a last-minute sponsor to strategically place themselves on the same event as Indian organizations who oppose the NFL team’s moniker, and/or 2) KTNN, aware of the Washington Redsk*ns sponsorship, lacked insight on the controversy and didn’t care to inform other donors. The event flyer I received was dated April 3, 2014 proving that, at minimum, KTNN had at least one week to notify other donors (this assumes the title sponsorship was accepted at a last moment which casts further unfavorable light on the Redskin’s attempt to purposefully taint the event). The actions and lack of action from KTNN’s leadership raises concern about the organization’s leadership, ability to recognize potential controversy, and their ability to actively communicate with their sponsors and, more importantly, with the public.Meanwhile, President Shelley doesn't like people showing him up:

Navajo Navajo President slams the National Indian Gaming Association

For more on the controversy, see Sponsors Quit Redskins Golf Tournament and Navajo Nation Condemns "Redskins" Name.

Sporsors quit Redskins golf tournament

Redskins foundation golf event loses sponsor in protest

By Brent SchrotenboerA major Native American organization has canceled its sponsorship of a charity golf tournament in Arizona on Saturday because it doesn't want to be associated with the event's title sponsor—the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation.

The National Indian Gaming Association, a nonprofit that includes 184 Indian nations as members, made the decision to pull its sponsorship Friday after learning that the Redskins foundation was involved in the same event. Ernest Stevens, chairman of the National Indian Gaming Association, said his organization finds the NFL team's name to be offensive and is skeptical about the motives of the foundation recently started by Redskins owner Daniel Snyder.

"It's a blatant attempt to try to buy out the issue," Stevens told USA TODAY Sports.

The celebrity golf tournament in Chandler, Ariz., is to benefit Native American college students. Likewise, the stated mission of Snyder's foundation is to improve the lives of Native Americans. But some questioned whether Snyder started the foundation as a way to deflect criticism over his team's name.More developments came the following day:

Washington Redskins foundation loses another event sponsor

By Erik BradyThe Notah Begay III Foundation pulled its support from this weekend's Arizona golf tournament to benefit scholarships for Native American students when it learned the title sponsor was the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation.

"I find it underhanded and despicable that the Washington football team would co-opt this event," Crystal Echo Hawk, NB3 foundation executive director, told USA TODAY Sports on Sunday. "As soon as we found out about their involvement we withdrew our support."

Begay, a four-time PGA Tour winner and an analyst with the Golf Channel, is Navajo, Isleta Pueblo and San Felipe Pueblo. He is a longtime critic of the Washington team name, which he called "a very clear example of institutionalized degradation" on ESPN last year.

Echo Hawk, who is Pawnee, said the NB3 Foundation was asked in February to donate silent auction items for a golf tournament to be held in Chandler, Ariz., this month; the foundation donated golf apparel.

When she found out Friday that Saturday's event was sponsored by the NFL team's foundation, she called the radio station that asked for the donation. Echo Hawk spoke to Tony Little, general manager of Arizona radio station KTNN, and demanded that NB3's name be removed from the event officially called the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation (OAF) 1st Annual KTNN Celebrity Golf Tournament.

"The NB3 Foundation does not support the Redskins or its organization OAF," NB3 said in a statement. "We are adamantly opposed to the team's continued use of this derogatory name."Redskins Sponsorship Taints Navajo Golf Event, Other Sponsors Outraged

By Gale Courey ToensingThe National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA), the Notah Begay III Foundation (NB3), and the Navajo Nation Gaming Enterprise (NNGE) said they were approached by KTNN months ago to donate to the tournament to raise scholarship funds for Native college students, but they were not told of the Redskins OAF involvement and would not have participated if they had known about it.

The OAF’s involvement was discovered Friday on a flyer on KTNN’s website showing the OAF as the event’s primary sponsor and featuring NIGA, NB3 Foundation and the NNGE as other sponsors. NIGA and the NB3 Foundation immediately withdrew their participation and demanded that their names be removed from the publicity materials. The NB3 Foundation is a charitable organization that funds programs aimed at improving Native American health. NIGA is a non-profit organization that represents 184 tribal nations and advocates for Indian gaming in Washington and elsewhere, but it also provides scholarships for Native students through its own of Sovereignty Foundation and through donations to events like the golf tournament.

The event page on KTNN's website has been edited to reflect the lost sponsors.

“The Washington Redskins have found themselves an Indian,” NIGA Chairman Ernie Stevens Jr. said, referring to OAF Executive director Gary L. Edwards (Cherokee), “and through this Indian they’re going to try to buy off Indian country and attempt to convince Indian country that something so racist and so horrible [as the Redskins name] is okay and good. Indian country is not for sale and all the scholarships in the world are not going to buy an allegiance to racism.”And:By late Friday, KTNN’s Facebook page was smoldering with comments from Navajo citizens objecting to the KTNN-OAF partnership.

“This is wrong. I urge a reversal of this decision. Give the money back. Accepting this disgusting symbolism dishonors all of our Native people who died as the hands of those who used the symbol and pursued policies and practices of extermination! Shame on KTNN!” Shabah Nez wrote.

“Boycott KTNN!” Winona Dawn wrote.

Comments soon began to disappear from the page, as Nicholet Deschine noted. “Two sponsors have already withdrawn support from this event when KTNN only had to decline one sponsor, the Redsk*ns. The act of adding the Redsk*ns on as a sponsor at the last moment (or hiding the info from other sponsors), the withdrawal of sponsors who do not want involvement with the Redsk*ns, KTNN deleting comments on the FB page, RAISES concern on the intent of KTNN and the Redsk*ns to USE the guise of raising scholarship funds to further the Redsk*ns own agenda.”Comment:  Wow. If we can believe the reports, some major-league deception took place.

So the Redskins foundation (OAF) was the title sponsor? With a bold headline and an entire panel on the flyer? And presumably a large amount of signage at the event itself?

And no one thought to mention that to the other participants? Despite Indian country's well-known sensitivity, to put it mildly, to the ethnic slur? No one thought to ask if they were cool with supporting the Washington Redskins First Annual Golf Tournament?!

Sounds like KTNN, the Navajo president's office, or whoever arranged this event got the scorn they deserved. Talk about a PR nightmare. The organizers sabotaged the event's credibility, if not the event itself, by lying about its provenance.

Help Indians? Change "Redskins" name

More Native opinions on Dan Snyder's Redskins foundation:

The Battle of Washington

Daniel Snyder says it honors the heritage of Native Americans; critics consider it nothing less than a racist slur. We set out to gauge the real sentiment regarding the name ‘Redskins’ among Native American leaders and in grass-roots tribal communities around the country. The short answer: It’s complicated

By Jenny VrentasAt least a dozen members of Congress want the name changed, as do some civil rights groups and vocal members of the national media. The people at the heart of the debate, though, are those at the grass-roots level among the more than 500 recognized tribes in the U.S. The MMQB took the temperature of Native Americans from coast to coast—representing 18 tribes in 10 states—and found a complicated and nuanced issue. What we did not find: the “overwhelming majority” that Snyder and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell have claimed support the name “Redskins.”

We found opponents of the name in 18 tribes: veterans of the U.S. military, lawyers, college students, cultural center employees, school volunteers and restaurant servers. Their viewpoints align with official statements from dozens of tribes or inter-tribal councils and from the NCAI, which represents more than 250 tribal governments at the Embassy of Tribal Nations. Many of these people wondered how, or if, their voices are being counted.

By no means is there a consensus. We met a man in San Carlos who grew up rooting for Joe Theismann. Others pointed out how the Florida State Seminoles and Central Michigan Chippewas use Native American mascots with the approval and input of the tribes. Some whom we spoke to on the San Carlos and Big Cypress reservations said they had no opinion, and members of about a dozen other tribes or communities we reached out to did not respond or declined to be interviewed.

But team officials and the NFL paint a nearly uniform picture of support for the name, typically citing the results of a 2004 survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, that 90 percent of the 768 self-identified Native Americans polled said the team name “Redskins” did not bother them. (The question: “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?”). That survey is 10 years old. Can the same opinion be applied today?Vrentas's conclusion:This name-change debate is a bit like the old paradox of physics: What happens when an immovable object meets an unstoppable force? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, weighed in boldly last week, telling the Washington Post he thinks the name will be changed within three years.

Snyder has already given his response to the growing pressure for a name change, and that response was last week’s announcement. To many, it’s an answer to a different question. “A paltry attempt to buy your way out of an ugly situation,” says Smith, the former Cherokee leader. “It suggests to me it may take another generation for them to come to their senses. It tells me it’s going to take more time.”

Maybe not. By now, opponents of the name are not expecting the change to be initiated by Snyder and the team, but rather through external pressures—the trademark case, legislation or public resistance. In the meantime, the calls are getting louder. “He’s clearly made sure that we all understand he’s grounded in his decision,” Pata says of Snyder. “But it doesn’t change [our optimism] at all. I think a change will be made in the near future. There is not even a doubt in my mind. I just do not think this can continue to be tolerated. This is not America, and it defies not just the first Americans, but who we are as American people, to be disrespectful to other people.”

Perhaps the most relevant question is not if there is a consensus among the country’s more than 5 million Native Americans—the answer is no—but rather, should a name change depend on one?The Price of a Slur

By David TreuerThe unstated mission of the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation is clear: In the face of growing criticism over the team’s toxic name and mascot imagery, the aim is to buy enough good will so the name doesn’t seem so bad, and if some American Indians—in the racial logic of so-called post-racial America, “some” can stand in for “all”—accept Mr. Snyder’s charity, then protest will look like hypocrisy.

In his news release and public statements, Mr. Snyder refers to “our shared Washington Redskins” heritage. To be clear: There is no “our” that includes Mr. Snyder. And there is no “Redskins” that includes us. There has been a sustained effort for decades by activists to change the name of this team and others. Members of my tribe, the Ojibwe, have been a big part of such efforts.And:Mr. Snyder has been quick to point out that he has the support of a handful of those he calls “tribal leaders,” such as the Lower Brule Sioux tribe vice chairman, Boyd Gourneau, and the Pueblo of Zuni governor, Arlen Quetawki, both quoted in the news release.

“Tribal officials” might be a better term here than “tribal leaders” because although they are elected, it is in no way clear that they actually represent the sentiments of their constituents any more than John Boehner represents the sentiments of most Americans. These officials’ public-relations-ready comments—“I appreciate your sincerity” and “the entire tribe is so appreciative”—are the diplomatic words of dignitaries, nothing more. It would be a mistake to assume that those words imply democratic consent.The first project for Snyder’s foundation: Changing a name

By Brian CladoosbyThe invisibility of Native peoples and lack of positive images of Native cultures may not register as a problem for many Americans, but it poses a significant challenge for Native youth who want to maintain a foundation in their culture and language. The Washington team’s brand—a name derived from historical terms for hunting native peoples—is a central component to this challenge.

It seems quite clear that Snyder’s foundation will do little to address the problems that the R-word brand compounds daily: racial inequality and a lack of understanding of the place of native people in our society, especially youth.

These youth are an especially vulnerable population. Many are at a disadvantage because their communities lack basic infrastructure; before dealing with the challenges of career development and higher education, they must overcome life without phone service, Internet access or even running water. The rate of suicide among Native youth is the highest among all American young people. Studies show the use of American Indian-based names, mascots and logos in sports has a negative psychological effect on Native peoples and positive psychological consequences for European Americans.

Snyder has stated that his foundation will address issues facing Native youth, so we call on this new multimillion-dollar organization to advocate for a simple solution to address what many of the nation’s leading Native youth advocacy organizations have called for: the end of derogatory mascot imagery in our communities, media and culture. From that point forward, the organization will be able to spend its money even more effectively to address other institutional sources of racism and violence.

If the foundation does not address this issue, it will be clear that its works are window dressing to cover the team’s decades of racism against African Americans and Native Americans alike.Racist mascots, or standing up for what's right

By Clara CaufieldI say the Redskins foundation was created to divert attention from the mascot issue and to rebut controversy. I mentioned this to the Redskins representatives (who declined to talk about it) and to tribal council members, including my brother Oly McMakin. “Do you think this will make us, the 'Fighting Cheyenne' look like sell-out wimps?” he asked.

“Possibly, but, the council must decide since you are on the twin horns of a dilemma. You are charged to meet the needs of our people, including children and elders who need coats, shoes, food, etc. But, you must also consider principle. Not all Cheyenne, like you, count on a regular paycheck," I responded.

As the publisher of a very small reservation newspaper, I thought I should not offend the tribe--a major economic player in this desolate economy. But, after reading other opinions, news articles and consulting with Dr. Richard Littlebear, my key advisor who usually sees things more clearly, I must state my views.

The Original Americans Foundation is a slick PR move to gain support from poor Native Americans to keep the Redskins mascot, cheaper than changing the “brand name” and commerce associated with the current mascot and logo. Most likely, the Redskins owner calls upon many corporate sponsors (the representatives mentioned Walmart and Sears) to get free tax write-offs.

Do we think the money comes from the hip pocket of the Redskins owner or is jerked from the tights of Redskins players? If so, we are foolish.

#CancelColbert stymied "Redskins" protest?

Snyder Wins: How 'CancelColbert' Drowned Out the Native VoiceTwitter activist Suey Park, who became known for her hashtag #NotYourAsianSidekick and helped Native Tweeters publicize tags including #NotYourTonto and #NotYourMascot, reacted to the Tweet swiftly, calling for Colbert's firing with the #CancelColbert hashtag, which became a ubiquitous news story. Meanwhile, Stephen Colbert could only watch it unfold: he'd already taped his Thursday episode and his show does not air on Fridays, so he would not be able to address the controversy on his show until Monday.

This he did, last night, in a long segment, punctuated by sips of a Bud Light Lime, that began with the context of the joke--Dan Snyder and the Redskins, remember--and ran through many of the details above. (You can watch the whole thing at Comedy Central's website.) He also called for the attacks on Park, which had become quite vicious, to stop. In his closing words, he said that he would be donating the money raised by his offensive faux charity to the offensive real-life charity that inspired the joke that caused the kerfluffle: The Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation.

"...which Twitter seems to be fine with," he said, "because I haven't seen shit about that."

And that's the bottom line for the Native activists on Twitter who saw a real opportunity to open some eyes when Snyder announced his bizarrely named charity: The momentum building for their campaign--#Not4Sale--was stymied by #CancelColbert. In an interview with The New Yorker that only briefly mentioned Dan Snyder and his foundation, Suey Park admitted she likes Colbert Report and didn't actually want to see it canceled. Yet a single Tweet connected to a satirist--whose well-known shtick is to parody arrogant conservatives--made more waves than a campaign against a racist team name that has been with us for decades.

As Jackie Keeler of Eradicating Offensive Native Mascotry tweeted from her @jfkeeler feed: "Issue is not critique of skit but disproportional outrage vis a vis Actual racist foundation--Snyder wins."

#CancelColbert Collateral Damage to EONM (Eradicating Offensive NativeMascotry)

By Jennie StockleThe reason this plays in what happened in the aftermath of #CancelColbert is that it was those same people, and I believe Suey Park herself either believing them or encouraging them, that would come back at us with a catastrophic effect to Native Americans.

During #CancelColbert several EONM members/supporters noticed several of us tweeting under the hashtag. So they jumped in thinking this was about Native Mascotry. I myself thought that Colbert had actually done something to support Dan Snyder. I hadn't seen the skit. I stopped early on believing that I needed to get back to addressing the very real problems with Snyder's organization. Also, after I watched the skit and became aware that many, many Native Americans were feeling betrayed. After those events, EONM released two brief tweets stating that we would be supportive, but keeping our focus on #Not4Sale.

"Why is she sidelining what happened to us? Did she know about #Not4Sale? Is she dumb? I thought she was a friend, but this isn't supportive? Does she work for Snyder now? This is childish, if twitter users want to address satirical organization over a real racist organization what has the world come to." are just some of the things I heard and got direct messaged about. This was followed by so many stunned that Suey Park was on Native Trailblazers instead of not one of all the Native Americans angered by "OAF"! Jaw-dropping was a pretty common theme. Was that how far Native Rights activists had been eclipsed, that they weren't even on a Native show?

A tweet Jackie Keeler had made was featured in a Wall Street Journal article by Jeff Yang. It was not making light of Suey Park's actions. Her tweet was only expressing the disparity and proportionality of the response to #CancelColbert vs "OAF" and other Native American rights hashtags. Suey Park attacked the criticism a fair and balanced take on what happened. She called for Jeff Yang to be fired.#CancelColbert accomplished nothing: Why social change movements must be inclusive

A draining debate has left the fight for awareness and understanding in a worse place. So where do we go from here?

By Anoosh JorjorianPeople of good conscience can disagree about how we get there and what are the right tools. I don’t know a sure path from my past to a future free of anti-Asian prejudice. But at this moment, I can say that the weekend of #CancelColbert did not bring us closer to that future.

By Monday morning, I was left wondering, what have we accomplished? How much coal have we burned by keeping our modems alight and charging the batteries on our laptops and smartphones? At this cost, how many minds have we changed, and how many alliances have we forged to make a better future?

Here’s what I “saw” over social media: A lot of people expend a lot of energy, emotion and time because of a single comedy sketch (one that, for the record, did not offend me personally). I saw long-standing members of Asian American communities who have been working for decades toward that future get blisteringly insulted and attacked. I saw Native Americans wondering how Colbert’s valid point about Dan Snyder doubling down on the 80-year-old football team’s name in service of some cheap P.R. got buried in an avalanche of outraged pro- and anti-AAPI tweets. I saw, predictable as a turning tide, an outpouring of white anger, defensiveness and ridicule. I saw racial epithets explode and hurl around like corn kernels in an air popper.

And I have a bitter, bitter taste in my mouth. Colbert’s satirical Ching-Chong Ding-Dong joke references familiar ground, the kind of belittling and insults that Asian Americans are accustomed to hearing from white folks. But an internecine fight of this scale cuts deep, and the wound to Asian American communities will take far longer to heal than it took Park to initiate it. (The first efforts toward healing have centered around the #BuildDontBurn hashtag.)

Jeff Yang wrote a smart, thoughtful article on the limits of Hashtag Activism. For this, Suey Park tweeted that he was less of a friend to her than Fox commentator Michelle Malkin, notorious conservative and defender of the Japanese internment. Park has certainly borne the brunt of the storm generated by her campaign, however. The crest of the Twitter backlash featured the now-routine gendered discipline: death and rape threats.I'm Not Your Disappearing Indian

By Jacqueline Keeler[L]ast Thursday, it happened again, this time it was the folks on social media trending #CancelColbert and completely forgetting about Dan Snyder and the real foundation to promote the racial slur Redsk*ns. Once again, ostensibly about us, but of the issue garnered no real attention until it fell in someone else’s hands and then they, once again, forgot about us.

No, it wasn’t Stephen Colbert who forgot about us, nor was is "Stephen Colbert," a character played by comedian Stephen Colbert, to satirize the extreme insensitivity of Republican conservatism. His show, The Colbert Report did a whole skit skewering Dan Snyder, billionaire owner of the Washington Redsk*ns, and Snyder's new Original Americans Foundation (OAF), exposing it--through satire--as a blatant attempt to use charity to provide cover for his NFL team’s racist name. It was the hashtaggers, PoC (People of Color) and progressives, our own allies on Twitter who trended the hashtag #CancelColbert in response to the fictional foundation’s name featured in the skit. And yet, Dan Snyder’s real foundation promoting an ethnic slur against us, a foundation that actually exists, failed to garner even a tiny fraction of outrage by the same group. In fact, in her Time Magazine article that followed the enormous success of #CancelColbert, hashtag originator Suey Park failed to mention Snyder’s foundation at all. She certainly did not mention the Native hashtag protesting it #Not4Sale, despite it being covered by Mike Wise at the Washington Post and Al Jazeera America’s The Stream just days before. Only one reporter, Jeff Yang of the Wall Street Journal included any mention of Native responses to it.

Could you imagine national coverage of #CancelColbert or the previous trending hashtag promoted by the Asian American community #‎NotYourAsianSidekick without interviewing any Asian Americans? Or without any mention of the creators of the hashtag like Suey Park?

Obviously, #CancelColbert did not lead to the canceling of The Colbert Report, and in a New Yorker interview Ms. Park claimed she never intended for the show to be cancelled; furthermore, she had never even viewed the actual skit, and had reacted to a tweet (since deleted) without understanding the original joke to which it referred. What’s most frustrating to me is that a deleted tweet garnered more outrage than the actual existence of a foundation to promote a slur against Native Americans. A foundation announced just days after the U.S. Patent Office, reasoning that the word is a racist epithet, refused to grant a trademark to "Washington Redsk*ns Potatoes"! A potato has more rights than Native people do! (And yes, there is a Native hashtag for it--#NotYourPotato--and no, our allies on Twitter have not trended it.)

How #NotYourMascot Passed Me By, and How I was Wrong For Letting It

By ReappropriateAs an Asian American, and as a person who is dedicated to anti-racist activism, I am always at danger of focusing too much onto my own work; it is my duty to remember that I share a mutual goal with other people of colour in wanting to see an end to racism and racial discrimination in our world. And while our specific foci, angles and tactics might differ (as well it should), it is essential that we push back against our own tendencies to become too specialized, too factionalized and too isolated from one another. Instead we must reach out to one another, work together, form alliances and recognize our common goals. We must allow our individual efforts to integrate with one another rather than to interfere with one another; only by doing so can we hope to achieve a critical mass of anti-racist work that can challenge institutionalized racism and white supremacy.

That it took me this long to say something about #NotYourMascot is my fault, and for that I apologize.

#NotYourMascot is a common sense fight, one that by itself deserved primacy over the last two weeks; one that did not deserve to be distracted from. #NotYourMascot is a fight for anyone who wants to see the world less racist, a world where we don’t treat people of colour like mascots, where we respect Native people in particular and all people of colour, in general.

In short, #NotYourMascot is not just “a Native issue” and doesn’t deserve to be treated like one; #NotYourMascot is an issue that deserves full and vocal support from all of us—particularly every person of colour, as well as anyone else who has dedicated ourselves to challenging racism as it manifests around us.The Real Reason Why Stephen Colbert’s Brand of Racism Should Be Making You Angry #CancelRedskinsThe Stephen Colbert character, in his usual style, has taken the offenses done by others and made them that much more offensive. The show dismantled the offense moniker of Daniel Snyder’s foundation, and rebuilt it with a more visible ethnic group as its target. The result—outrage. At the end of the skit, Stephen Colbert, as a kind of nod to the offensive nature of the skit, makes a request of his audience. “I owe all this sensitivity to Redskin’s owner, Daniel Snyder. So Asians, send your thank you letters to him, not me.”

If you are angry, welcome to the club. Be angry at Stephen Colbert and his show, a show that mirrors and perpetuates the prevalence of racism, classism, and oppression in order to get a laugh. But be more angry at the reality that the Colbert Report mocks. Be angry at Daniel Snyder, the owner of that offensively named Washington team. Be angry that corporate interests (and there are many) continue to make money on histories of genocide and oppression.I think the final sentiment is one we can all agree on.

My take on #CancelColbert

A lot of people didn't come off well in this conflict. Colbert, for his ill-considered "ching-chong" joke. Suey Park and other activists, for hijacking the debate without addressing the offensive "Redskins." The media, for focusing too much on #CancelColbert and not enough on the underlying cause. Anyone, including liberals, who threatened Park for daring to challenge Colbert and the white status quo.

Nevertheless, I'm not as bothered by the #CancelColbert flap as some Native activists are. Some reasons:

1) From my vantage point as a media observer, I didn't get the sense that the #Not4Sale protest was taking off the way previous Twitter protests had.

2) Even if the #Not4Sale protest did take off, it didn't seem that effective to me. #Not4Sale was too generic; it could've been about almost any cause. Without an explanation, most people wouldn't get the connection between brown-skinned people with dollars on their mouths and the Redskins foundation (OAF).

3) It's not clear to me that the Native activists lost out on anything. Without an event like the Super Bowl or the Oscars to tweet about, the protest was always going to be relatively small. We're talking about a small "Redskins" protest on its own vs. a big #CancelColbert protest with a small "Redskins" protest included. Either way, the "Redskins" portion is small.

In other words...yes, the #CancelColbert coverage may have decreased the coverage the Redskins protest got. But it may have increased the coverage too. There's no way to know.

4) Reappropriate addressed the issue of "intersectionality" above. It's the idea that prejudice against one group affects and should concern everyone. It's something we all need to remember. Yes, Suey Park's #CancelColbert protest derailed Colbert's critique of the Redskins--but her argument about the liberal tolerance of racism has merit.

More to the point, it's relevant to mascot protests. Names and mascots such as "Redskins" don't persist because a small number of conservative racists keep them alive. They persist because many Americans, including liberals, have a broad tolerance for prejudice against minorities, women, and gays. We see this constantly in debates about welfare, immigration, law enforcement, income inequality, and so forth and so on.

Even the tolerance of minor things such as "jokes"--aka microaggressions--is widespread. And that's a problem. Colbert or hipsters or anyone can put on a headdress and say they're being "ironic," and people will give them a pass.

The #CancelColbert protest tried to expose this problem. It tried to show that minorities aren't going to roll over for conservative or liberal white privilege anymore. Until people get that people like Dan Snyder and Stephen Colbert shouldn't be the arbiters of what's offensive, I doubt anything will change.

5) As some people noted, a Twitter campaign is a tactic, not a goal. It helps to raise awareness of an issue, but it rarely causes change by itself. That's especially true when dealing with a major corporation like Disney (#NotYourTonto) or the Washington Redskins.

The best outcome of #Not4Sale would've been an increased awareness of Snyder's PR ploy in creating the Redskins foundation. But the foundation is only a small part of the Redskins brand. In the unlikely event that activists shamed Snyder into ending the foundation, it would've had no effect on the brand overall. Snyder still would've been committed to keeping the name and logo forever.

I'm sure "Redskins" will go away someday, but not because people have criticized the foundation. So nothing was "lost" except a minor opportunity to mock Snyder's tactics. With or without Colbert's input and the #Not4Sale hashtag, the protests will continue until the name is gone.

For more on the subject, see Debating #CancelColbert and Suey Park's Activism.

Redskinz.com

Indianz.com presents Redskinz.com:

Redskinz Day April 1, 2014I love Indian Country so much, I bought it! -- Dan SnyderJust me, chillin' with some of my Redskinz. I forget their names but they are all wearing my gear so obviously we are friends. PS: I'm the white guy!

LATEST BRIBES GIFTS

Backhoe -- Navahoe Nation, Windoe Rock, Arizoena
Winter Coats -- For My Lil Redskinz in South Dakota, Just in Time for Summer!
Winter Blankets -- Not infected with smallpox, I promise

Snyder's money-based morality

Some thoughts on the morality of Dan Snyder's Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation (OAF).

Dan Snyder can't buy his way out of bigotryNow here's Dan Snyder to take "conscience laundering" to a new ridiculous height.

Even if Snyder gave up every dollar in his bank account and moved to the reservation, the name of the Washington team would still be a bigoted--and completely unnecessary--slur against Native Americans. We already have a ridiculous wealth gap in this country--are we really going to let our billionaires now buy the privilege to be racially offensive if they want to be? I hope not.Yes, Dan Snyder’s Latest Maneuver Is a Shameless PR Stunt. But Why Not Let Him Give Away Some Money?

By Mike MaddenLet's stipulate a few things. One, Dan Snyder is not Washington City Paper's favorite billionaire. Two, his team's name is racist and needs to be changed. Three, it's entirely possible this obvious PR ploy will turn out to be complete bullshit; the letter from Snyder (printed below) doesn't specify how much money he's putting into the effort, nor does it even say whether the Original Americans Foundation will be an actual nonprofit venture. Four, it's probably Lanny Davis' idea. Five, this is some condescending nonsense that only underscores how obnoxious Snyder's position is:

For too long, the struggles of Native Americans have been ignored, unnoticed and unresolved. As a team, we have honored them through our words and on the field, but now we will honor them through our actions. We commit to the tribes that we stand together with you, to help you build a brighter future for your communities.

The new foundation, Snyder claims, is working on "over forty" projects besides the handful it's already finished, like giving coats and shoes to some tribes or helping the Omaha Tribe in Nebraska buy a backhoe. Could the Pigskins, or Snyder personally, have easily donated the full cost of a backhoe many times over without noticing it? Yes. Is the whole effort a transparent ploy to defend against criticism of the name? Certainly. But why shouldn't Snyder give some money to people while he's being obstinate? Ultimately, even if Snyder's foundation buys him some more time using the racist name before he finally realizes he could cash in on sales of merchandise with a new brand, at least 3,000 people had winter coats this year that he paid for.Dan Snyder Thinks You're Stupid

By Tomas RiosA rising tide of decency has placed Snyder in the unfamiliar position of public accountability because--and prepare yourself for the shock of the following statement--it turns out that super-rich racist white guys can never admit to being wrong about anything ever forever. In Snyder's case, it's his quixotic quest to prove that it's OK to own a football team named the Redskins, which, according to his letter, is a totally cool slur to use around Native Americans:

"I've been encouraged by the thousands of fans across the country who support keeping the Redskins tradition alive. Most--by overwhelming majorities--find our name to be rooted in pride for our shared heritage and values."

Yes, the super-rich racist white guy has decided for us that "redskin" is a perfectly acceptable slur that Native Americans love. If the prior choice of words seems offensive, consider which words are causing you offense. Anyway, this is all quite the trick to pull off, so Snyder's belief in your stupidity has compelled him to hit you with some grade-school misdirection. Armed with his self-aggrandizing conclusion after touring 26 tribal reservations covering 20 states, Snyder would also like to draw our attention to the outcome of the United States' centuries-long campaign of genocide and dehumanization against Native Americans.

As if to demonstrate how detached he is from any sense of irony, Snyder rattles off the same statistics that Native American advocates have long cited to demonstrate how casual use of the redskin slur reflects the entrenched marginalization of Native Americans. Predictably, it took Snyder--a dim simulacrum of a thinking, feeling human--the experience of seeing it for himself to feign the concern that he has happily ignored.Hush Money and Ransom: An Open Letter to Dan Snyder, the Idiot

By Gyasi RossYou generally don't want to have press releases and web pages dedicated to hush money…that's just dumb. Announcing that you're starting this foundation dedicated to Native people simply brings attention that you're PLAINLY trying to buy us off. It COULDA maybe worked if you had simply started doing some work within our communities on the low and tried to build some credibility. But to announce it beforehand with no coalitions being built? Now, just like any other ethnic group, we're pretty sharp even if not every one of our members is brilliant. But…c'mon Dan, we're smarter than this and smarter than you—we're not falling for the banana in the tailpipe. Dummy.And:Finally, your actions are just overall transparent—you reek of a privileged white man who has enough money to cover his tracks. I'm not going to say that you've committed actual crimes and got out of them because of your money but…it wouldn't surprise me. You're USED to being able to pick on Natives, or women or Black folks or Homosexuals. You're USED to getting away with it after you pick on us and do repugnant isht. We see that. We smell it on you every single time you talk. Dummy.Hansen: Odd gift links Omaha Tribe to owner who won't give up 'Redskins'

By Matthew HansenWhich makes the recent gift that the Omaha Tribe received half uplifting and half heartbreaking.

It’s uplifting because the tribe received a new backhoe, one that will make it easier to repair water main breaks.

And it’s heartbreaking because that gift comes from a new foundation run by Daniel Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins — the same man who steadfastly refuses to change a mascot name that some Native Americans compare to the N-word.

“He’s like the bully who beats you up and then offers you a Band-Aid afterward,” says Edouardo Zendejas, the director of UNO’s Native American Studies program and a member of the Omaha Tribe who once served as the tribe’s general counsel. “So the bully can say, ‘Look everyone! I’m helping!’ ”Comment:  My tweets on the subject

BlueCornComics ‏@bluecorncomics Mar 24
Coats, shoes, and backhoe? What's that...$20K? Let us know when you reach $20 billion and we'll take you seriously.

Bluecorncomics ‏@bluecorncomics Mar 25
Snyder plans another 40 projects at what, $10K a pop? For 566 tribes and 5.2 million people, that's a PR budget, not a serious charity.

BlueCornComics ‏@bluecorncomics Mar 28
There's no truth to the rumor that Snyder will list OAF expenses on his 2014 taxes as a #Redskins "franchise and trademark protection fee."

BlueCornComics ‏@bluecorncomics Apr 03
Just listened to the short video of Gary Edwards, #Redskins OAF. Note he says the primary mission is to raise "awareness," NOT to spend $$$.

BlueCornComics ‏@bluecorncomics Mar 27
Dan Snyder = #Redskins OAF. That is all.

Redskins foundation CEO wasted funds

Cherokee man serves as CEO of 'Original Americans Foundation'Gary L. Edwards, a member of the Cherokee Nation, is serving as the chief executive officer of the new "Original Americans Foundation" started by the owner of the Washington professional football team.

Edwards is well known in Indian Country for his law enforcement background. He recently retired from the U.S. Secret Service and serves as CEO of the National Native American Law Enforcement Association.

Edwards told The Washington Post that he has "no problem" with the team's racist mascot. He also said anyone who question the sincerity of owner Dan "Snyder is "uninformed."

"All you have to do is go back and look at the NFL and you’ve got to look at their diversity policy where it talks about respect, where it talks about inclusion, where it talks about opportunities for all people in America, to all races in America, and probably one of the ones that have been left out the most is Indian Country, and Dan, through this awareness of the surveys and the things going on, he realized, ‘Hey, we can do more,'" Edwards told the paper.Redskins foundation head drew criticism in I.G. report

By Brent SchrotenboerThe head of the Washington NFL team's new foundation for Native Americans also oversees an association that a 2012 government report said provided "no benefit" in exchange for almost $1 million in federal funds intended to help Native Americans.

Gary Edwards, a Cherokee and retired member of the U.S. Secret Service, was hired to run the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation, a charity created by team owner Daniel Snyder. The charity aims to assist Native Americans as Snyder continues to rebut criticism that his team's nickname is offensive.

"Even though I am a Vikings fan, I hope Dan Snyder does more background research on his team's potential draft picks than it appears he did on his foundation's CEO," U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), a co-chair of the Congressional Native American Caucus, told USA TODAY Sports.

Edwards is CEO of the National Native American Law Enforcement Association (NNALEA), a nonprofit whose contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs was scrutinized in a report by the federal Office of Inspector General. The May 2012 report said that the NNALEA took advantage of the government in a contract that called for the NNALEA to help recruit "critically needed" law enforcement officers to work in Indian Country.

The government "received no benefit when they awarded a recruitment services contract to NNALEA, thus wasting almost $1 million," the report states.

The report says the NNALEA provided the government with 748 applications, "none of which were of use to" the Office of Justice Services, the report states.CEO of new Washington Redskins foundation connected to ‘defective’ federal contract

By Theresa Vargas and Tom JackmanThe investigation, outlined in a 2012 inspector general’s report, found that of the 748 applications the organization supplied, none were usable. One applicant was 80 years old. Several were not U.S. citizens. Of the 514 applications reviewed by the inspector general’s office, only 22 were of Indian descent. The inspector general’s office advised that the contract be terminated immediately, and it was. But then the bureau paid Edwards’s group an additional $600,000 as “settlement costs,” meaning it received almost the entire $1 million of the contract.

This week, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder introduced Edwards—first in a letter to fans and then at a meeting with fellow National Football League team owners—as the head of the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation. The foundation, according to Snyder’s letter, “will address the urgent challenges plaguing Indian country based on what tribal leaders tell us they need most.” Already, it has donated 3,000 coats to Native Americans and helped purchased a backhoe for a tribe.

On Tuesday, team General Manager Bruce Allen praised Edwards, a Cherokee and retired deputy assistant director of the U.S. Secret Service, on a Redskins.com video broadcast, saying, “I think we have the right leader in Gary Edwards.”

Edwards did not respond to attempts to reach him Thursday, but in a statement released through the team, he said his organization “believes it met and exceeded all of its obligations under the contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Office of Justice Services, and subsequently was paid after the contract was completed.”Botched Job Taints Resume of Dan Snyder's New Native Friend

By Gale Courey ToensingAn interesting choice, observed Carly Hare, Pawnee/Yankton and the executive director of Native Americans in Philanthropy. “There are a number of amazing Native foundation leaders who could have been a strong advisory resource.”

Hare, like so many other Native Americans, was not thrilled at the announcement of Snyder’s OAF. She wrote, “I woke up to Dan Snyder's letter on my phone and the message: ‘Poverty Porn meets White Privilege in taking Cultural Appropriations to a whole 'nother level. Mind blowing... full inception.’”

The OIG’s investigation of Edwards’ contract with the BIA was aimed at finding out if the BIA’s Office of Justice Services (OJS) received the intended benefits by awarding a $1 million contract to NNALEA to provide 500 qualified Native American law enforcement applicants to serve in law enforcement positions on reservations. Qualified applicants had to meet legislative requirements, regulations and guidelines for employment of federal law enforcement officers, such as Indian preference, citizenship, age parameters and education.

The OIG’s May 9, 2012, investigation report came down hard on both the BIA and NNALEA. “We found that the OJS received no benefit when they awarded a recruitment services contract to NNALEA, thus wasting almost $1 million.”BIA acknowledges 'failed' contract with head of team's foundationThe Bureau of Indian Affairs said it has implemented new procedures in response to a "failed" contract with the leader of the controversial Original Americans Foundation.

“After the current Office of Justice Services (OJS) management became aware of the previous Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) Law Enforcement Recruitment Services Contract with the National Native American Law Enforcement Association (NNALEA), the issues that surrounded the failed contract award highlighted the need to improve the administrative guidance and support available to OJS management and field staff," the BIA said in a statement. "OJS has implemented several measures to ensure OJS staff have the appropriate guidance when developing future contracts and are adhering to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)."Comment:  I just listened to the short video of Gary Edwards, #Redskins OAF. Note that he says the foundation's primary mission is to raise "awareness," not to spend money. I think it's safe to assume OAF won't have a significant impact on Indian country.

For more on OAF, see Deconstructing Snyder's OAF Letter and Indian Country Scorns Redskins Foundation.

Colbert criticized for "ching-chong" joke

People Want 'The Colbert Report' Canceled Over Asian Joke

By Catherine ThompsonTwitter users aimed to get the hashtag #CancelColbert trending on Thursday night after the official Twitter account for "The Colbert Report" posted a joke about Asian stereotypes out of context.

The now-deleted tweet read "I am willing to show #Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever."

That was a quote taken directly from a segment on Wednesday's show that lampooned Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder, who announced he created the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation to aid Native American tribes while ignoring calls to change the football team's much-maligned name.

For context, here's how the "Ching-Chong Ding-Dong" reference came up in Wednesday's segment:Folks, this move by Dan Snyder inspires me, because my show has frequently come under attack for having a so-called offensive mascot. My beloved character Ching-Chong Ding-Dong…the point is, offensive or not—not—Ching-Chong is part of the unique heritage of the Colbert Nation that cannot change. But I’m willing to show the Asian community that I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitive to Orientals or Whatever.

Stephen Colbert Accused of Racism With #CancelColbert Campaign

By Alex StedmanThe joke was taken from a bit on Wednesday night’s “The Colbert Report,” parodying Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder and his launch of the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation in light of controversy over the team name. Taken out of context, however, many Twitter users saw the joke as racist, and launched a #CancelColbert campaign that quickly became a trending topic.And:“The Colbert Report” Twitter clarified that the account is not run by Colbert himself.

For the record @ColbertReport is not controlled by Stephen Colbert or his show. He is @StephenAtHome Sorry for the confusion #CancelColbert—
The Colbert Report (@ColbertReport) March 28, 2014

This is a Comedy Central account, with no oversight from Stephen/show. Here is quoted line in context on.cc.com/1dyeQri #cancelcolbert—
The Colbert Report (@ColbertReport) March 28, 2014TV’s Colbert Report in slur stir over tweet

By Soraya Nadia McDonaldSnyder was pilloried by the online Native American community Monday night after releasing a four-page letter saying that he would be creating the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation. Many were outraged by what they felt was an ersatz show of support from the man who refuses to change the team’s name, which many consider a slur.

But things didn’t go much better for Colbert, who became the target of a #CancelColbert Twitter hashtag started by those who found the tweet offensive. Suey Park, the hashtag activist responsible for #NotYourAsianSidekick, said she would continue calling for Colbert’s job until he issued an apology.

Some felt #CancelColbert was derailing and distracting from the original issue, Snyder, the team name he won’t change, and #NotYourMascot.This Washington Post article, above, was noteworthy for using one of my tweets:

"The super-rich racist white guy has decided for us that 'redskin' is a perfectly acceptable slur that NAs love." http://t.co/pNPGFZNVEt

— BlueCornComics (@bluecorncomics) March 27, 2014

True, I was merely quoting the article I tweeted. And the quote is something many people have said in various ways. But I guess it was the perfect choice of quote as far as the Post was concerned.

Reid: Redskins will change name

Reid: Washington Redskins Owner Getting Tax Break From Aid To Native Americans

By Igor Bobic“Dan Snyder, he’s got a great new deal,” Reid told the Washington Post in an interview published Thursday. “He’s going to throw a few blankets to the Indians and get a tax deduction for it. I can’t imagine why the man doesn’t realize that the name is going to change. It’s only a question of when it’s going to change. That’s the only question.”

Reid added that Snyder was on the wrong side of history, and that the name, which many believe to be a racial slur, will be changed "within the next three years."Harry Reid: Redskins name will be changed within 3 years

By Ryan Wilson“I think the name will be changed within the next three years,” he said. “You know, I may slip a year or two, but I think it's just a question of time. Because Native Americans are organized. We have Native Americans who now are not all poor. We've got these Indian gaming establishments who have money, who are gonna help with this. And Dan Snyder's not the only person in the world with money. ...

“Snyder has to realize, he is on the losing side of history,” Reid continued. “And the sooner he does it, the better off we are. The Wizards, you know, they were the Washington Bullets. With all the killing that took place, the murders in Washington, Abe Pollin--a very nice man--decided 'I don't need any of this.' So they changed it to the Washington Wizards. We're all used to the Washington Wizards. And I don't know what [the Redskins will] change the name to, but we'll get used to it really quick.”

Deconstructing Snyder's OAF letter

Critics had many things to say about Dan Snyder's letter announcing the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation (OAF). Few of them were complimentary.

Baffoe: Daniel Snyder Wrote Another Awful Letter

By Tim BaffoeIt’s pretty amazing that Daniel Snyder made his fortune in marketing, for he’s the public relations equivalent of butt cancer. In his desperate quest to have racism condoned, the owner of the Washington NFL team is back at the letter-writing thing again, explaining how he should be allowed to exploit Native Americans via mascoting them.And:Snyder garners support from passive and active racists alike who love to point out that some Indians aren’t offended by the Washington team name while failing to consider that something is wrong when a word offends any amount of people at all. Insensitivity doesn’t need a quota.

But there’s no time to consider that because Snyder quickly moves on to rounding up the “Aren’t there more important issues we should be dealing with?” crowd and points out how there are important issues facing Native American communities that are bigger than a football team name. Because sound logic dictates that we should ignore less significant issues that can easily be resolved in favor of the big ones that will take a whole lot of time and money to fix.

Snyder, of course, happens to have a bunch of money that he uses for things like resisting a call for changing a team name that many consider a slur. So at the end of page two of his love letter to himself he says that he is creating the Washington (holy crap, he actually put the offensive word in the charity’s name) Original Americans Foundation. Fitting that something named so astoundingly poorly has the acronym OAF.

The rest of the letter gives examples of what a great thing this great man is doing for these great people whose plight this great man is using to sugarcoat his vice grip on a great harmful team name and about the heritage and tradition of the team whose heritage and tradition is actually greatly awful. The letter is the quid pro quo of a bad guy who also sprinkles in some bold and italicized font to let you know he means business about this charity, which he’s using as a shield for his own bratty refusal to be a decent human being because it would mean admitting he is wrong about something, and megalomaniacs don’t do that. Then he signs it “Dan” because he’s your buddy and not the guy everyone in the organization has to call “Mr. Snyder.”A simple case for the NFL's Washington Redskins to change their racist name

By Robert Harding"If his team nickname really isn't an offensive, racist term. If as he claims, it's a point of pride among Native American tribes, how come not once in this letter does Dan Snyder actually refer to actual Native Americans as 'redskins?'"

That's a great question for defenders of the Washington team name. If it's not an offensive term, why isn't it widely used today? Why do we say and write "Indian" or "Native American" when we could use "redskin?" If it's not derogatory, as Snyder and backers suggest, why not use it?Snyder adds insult to injury with new Indian foundation

By John SmallwoodThe name of this foundation is the equivalent of Snyder naming a group the "Washington Darkies African Americans Foundation" or "Washington Yellow Men Asian Americans Foundation" or "Washington Crackers Caucasian Americans Foundation."

I have to believe Snyder was aware enough to know the outrage that giving his foundation such a same would create. He could have named it the "Daniel Snyder Original Americans Foundation."And:He goes on to restate the argument that the team name, in terms of the NFL, is a representation of honor, pride and spirit. Snyder supports his argument by using a quote from Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians chairwoman Mary L. Resvaloso: "There are Native Americans everywhere that 100% support the name."

And? So what?

It's never hard to find others to agree with your view, no matter what it may be.

There are African-Americans everywhere who 100 percent support using the "N-word" as a term of endearment among one another. That does not change the fact that, at its core, the "N-word" is still a disgusting racial slur.About That Open Letter Dan Snyder Just Sent to ‘Redskins Nation’

By Dave ZirinI wrote then—and believe even more firmly now—that our team name captures the best of who we are and who we can be, by staying true to our history and honoring the deep and enduring values our name represents.

To be “true” to your “history,” you would need to make your coach wear feathers in his hair, lie about him being Native American and then trade away all of your black players. The “values” the name represents can be summed up in a story I heard from a young woman named Mary from the Omaha Nation who spoke about how it would be shouted when bullies would hurt her at school. Her narrative and the narratives of others actually damaged by this name never enter Snyder's consciousness.

In that letter, I committed myself to listening and learning from all voices with a perspective about our Washington Redskins name.

This is a lie. Daniel Snyder has actually refused to meet with the Oneida Nation, the Choctaw Nation, the Red Cloud Nation, the Seminole Nation and every tribal council that has voted to call upon Snyder to change the name.Dan Snyder's "Original Americans" Foundation, or, WTF Dan Snyder?

By Debbie ReeseSo what did billionaire Dan Snyder do about all the poverty he saw? He helped buy a backhoe.

WTF, Dan Snyder?

With his millions, he could have bought the whole thing, right? What else did he do? He distributed over 3000 "cold weather coats" to several Plains tribes. I wonder if those jackets have his team's name on them?

Snyder says that he "took a survey of tribes across 100 reservations" so that he could have "an accurate assessment of the most pressing needs in each community" and came up with over forty projects his foundation is going to work on. In his letter, he quotes several Native people. None of them, however, endorse the name. Some say they're grateful for his help.

Why would they need his help in the first place?

Maybe because Congress hasn't acted on its treaty obligations. Snyder could do more for all sovereign nations if he'd put pressure on Congress to fulfill treaty obligations. He is a billionaire, after all. He could do a lot more, couldn't he?

Instead, he has chosen a shameful path. Visiting Native people, "quietly and respectfully" and then shamelessly using them for his own ends. Disgusting.Dan Snyder Acknowledges Existence of People He Prefers to Slur

By Marc TracyIn the October letter, the feelings of Native Americans are literally an afterthought. To wit: “We cannot ignore our 81 year history, or the strong feelings of most of our fans as well as Native Americans throughout the country.” In that letter, actually existing Native Americans might as well not actually exist.

However, Monday’s letter is entirely about real Native Americans (excuse me, Original Americans). We hear from them. We learn about them. We are no longer celebrating the “values and heritage” of the team. Rather, we are celebrating Native Americans themselves.

Why the change of heart? It could be pure gamesmanship. After all, since Snyder’s last letter was published, the Washington football team went 2-10. More likely, Snyder and his advisors decided that the best strategy is to change the conversation.

However much Snyder is paying for his advice, though, it’s too much. This change of the conversation has come at irreparable cost to Snyder’s cause of keeping the team’s name. Native Americans are no longer abstractions. Snyder has acknowledged their existence—has, in fact, flung their continued existence in our faces. How can he possibly keep the name now? After all, the corollary to the fact that Native Americans need our help isn’t that they should no longer be demeaned by this name. The corollary to the fact that Native Americans need our help is that they also should no longer be demeaned by this name.Comment:  A few tweets on the subject:

BlueCornComics ‏@bluecorncomics Mar 24
@NativeApprops @jfkeeler I'm surprised he didn't call it the Redskins Helping Redskins Foundation. Since the name is so honorable and all.

ICTMN Arts ‏@ICTMN_Arts Mar 24
I think @bluecorncomics nailed it: If the name is OK, they why not call this foundation "@Redskins Helping Redskins"? (And goodnight.)

BlueCornComics ‏@bluecorncomics Mar 27
How funny would it be if a federal agency rejected the name "Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation" because it's a racial slur?

BlueCornComics ‏@bluecorncomics Apr 1
First Indian who received beads from Columbus before being shipped back to Spain in chains: "He's honoring us!" #Redskins #NotYourMascot