Native reactions to Redskins poll

As you might imagine, the Native responses to the Washington Post's Redskins poll were more vociferous than the non-Native responses:

After Damaging Washington Post ‘Redskins’ Poll, Change The Mascot Movement Moves On

Why Is This Still A Thing?: The Washington Post Releases New R*dskins Poll

NAJA and UNITY respond to recent Washington NFL team name poll

For Native American activists, a new Post poll on Redskins name won’t end their fight

Haskell faculty, students call Washington Redskins poll results ‘crazy’

Native Americans are crying foul at this poll saying native people don’t find the name ‘Redskins’ offensive

Blackhorse to Grads: ‘We’re Not Going to Take It Any More’

Skins Poll: Tribes Have Spoken, Which Is All That Matters

Blackhorse: A Single Poll Will Not Shut Us Up

For more on the Washington Redskins, see Initial Reactions to Redskins Poll and Washington Post Defends Redskins Poll.

Non-Native reactions to Redskins poll

A few days after the Washington Post published its Redskins poll, some non-Native reactions:

Why Dan Snyder Is Still Wrong About the Redskins’ Name

Opinion: ‘Redskins’ poll is really about a new NFL stadium

The majority that isn’t moral
A new poll of Native Americans doesn’t justify the name of Washington’s NFL team

On the Washington Post Redskins Poll

For more on the Washington Redskins, see Initial Reactions to Redskins Poll and Washington Post Defends Redskins Poll.

Initial reactions to Redskins poll

Some initial reactions to the Washington Post's Redskins poll claiming nine of 10 Natives don't mind the racial slur. First, official responses from the contending parties:

“Change the Mascot” campaign calls poll results “hardly surprising”

Dan Snyder “gratified” by Native American support for “Redskins”

NFL’s reluctance to wade into Redskins name debate bolstered by poll’s findings

Another bogus poll?

Next, some rapid-response think pieces--especially on the poll's dubious relevance:

WaPo’s new Redsk*ns survey: Faulty data and missing the point

Washington Post poll doesn't change fact that 'Redskins' is still offensive

In complex Redskins name debate, poll should give both sides pause

For more on the Washington Redskins, see Redskins in Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and Slants vs. Redskins.

Washington Post defends Redskins poll

After taking several hits from critics, the Washington Post tried to explain its poll's questionable methodology:

How The Washington Post conducted the survey on the Redskins’ name

In their words: 12 Native Americans talk about the furor over the Redskins name

Redskins in Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt

After its dubious Native plotline of Season 1, The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt returned with another Native plotline in Season 2:

Kimmy Schmidt Asks: How Are the 'Redskins' Still a Thing?

‘Kimmy Schmidt’ Reality Check: Did First Redskins Coach Really Fake Being an American Indian?

Naturally, the show's people defend it:

‘Kimmy Schmidt’ EP Defends Native American Jokes: ‘Intention Is Not to Offend’

Cherokee Actress Sheri Foster on Her ‘Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt’ Storyline

But an Asian-themed episode suggests Kimmy Schmidt still has problems with race:

Why does Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt keep choosing race as a hill to die on?

For more on The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, see Racial Stereotypes in Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and Jane Krakowski in The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt.

Tulare Redskins "keep memory alive"?!

With California banning the "Redskins" nickname in schools, mascot lovers are crying all over the state. Here's a prime example:

Departure from 'Redskins' stirs up 100 years of emotions

By Luis Hernandez and Calley Cedelof“We’ve been fighting this ‘Redskin’ deal for years,” he said. “It has been a nationwide battle.”

The California law reflects the “Not Your Mascot” movement, which calls for banning all Native American names for schools and professional teams.

Celaya said he is displeased with the way in which rival schools have treated the mascot. He said he still remembers chants from opposing teams at games when he attended the school.

“Teams chant ‘burn the Redskin,’ ‘kill the Redskin’. It is uncomfortable to be a Native American sitting in the crowd and hearing that,” he added.Comment:  Then there's this:A member of the California Indian Basketweavers Association, Malone said she doesn’t mind professional sports franchises and public schools use of Native American names.

“To me, it helps keep the memory alive,” she said. “If they don’t mention the names, they are going to forget them.”I'll never understand idiocy like this--especially from an Indian.

This led to a brief discussion on Facebook:Uncle Tom assimilated idiot.Something like that. Why does a living Indian need a mascot to keep the memory alive? She is the keeper of the memory--her, her family, and her tribe. And everyone like her. Not some cardboard cutout from a comic book.

It would be like my saying, "We need to memorialize the town of Schmidt in Germany. Otherwise, people will forget Rob Schmidt ever existed."

Hello? I'm creating my own legacy by writing, posting, and so forth. I don't need someone else in a far-off place to do it for me.

The whole idea is ridiculous.

Rob's rant takes off

What, you think Redskins, Warriors, Braves, and Chiefs are your names? Instead of the actual words you use for yourself, perhaps in your own language? The only choice for naming yourself is the white man's stereotypical labels?

Indians are part of literally millions of place names, history books, monuments, museums, movies, TV shows, comic books, paintings, coins, stamps, etc. Not to mention millions of businesses and products with Indian names and logos. Jeep Cherokees, Indian Motorcycles, Apache helicopters, Tomahawk missiles, and on and on.

And those are just the references. We also have 567 federally recognized tribes with their own cultures, ceremonies, powwows, casinos, etc. And many more of all these things in Canada and Central and South America. Throughout the Americas, the Native population is growing; Natives are reinvigorating their cultures, gaining political power, and so forth.

But somehow Native people are teetering on the edge of extinction--of being wiped permanently from our collective memory? And saving them is up to the Tulare Redskins, represented by a stereotypical Plains chief in central California? Either we save the racist mascot or the race dies forever?

Asinine. Stupid beyond belief. It's like a kindergartner's understanding of reality. "If I close my eyes and can't see the mascot anymore, all the Indians will vanish from reality."

Elders cling to mascots?I've heard similar things around mascots in the Wisconsin Dells, and what it boils down to is that for a lot of the older generation, the mascot was the only public representation of Natives out there. I think there's a fear that once the mascot goes, there will be nothing, and for many folks, "the Indian" or whatever mascot was the one place where you could express actual Native pride--the one time the school/district/town acknowledged there were actual Indians. I think it's vital to show folks that the mascot is being replaced by better representation--a gain, not a loss.

(Yes, clearly a *huge* part of this is a lack of conscious awareness of the psychological consequences of mascots, but I do think that's where it comes from. It's part of the undervaluing of Native self-image that mascots produce.)I'm sure that's a big part of it. But it's silly. Worse, it's ignorant--and horribly so. It's buying into the white man's assertion that Indians are dead and gone, or nearly so. All we can do is remember them as we kill off the last ones, sell their land, and take their resources.

Get a clue, lady. Read Indian Country Today, Indianz.com, and Pechanga.net with their hundreds of Native stories every day. Join Facebook and Twitter and see thousands of Native activists working to preserve and share their cultures and worldviews. Join #IdleNoMore, #MMIW, #NoKXL, #NotYourMascot, or any other movement so powerful it's known by a hashtag.

The Tulare Redskins aren't your legacy. The entire hemisphere of Native history and culture beyond the Tulare Redskins are your legacy. Embrace your real legacy, not the white man's fiction of a legacy.

For more on the subject, see Tulare Union's Stereotypical Redskins Mascot.

Slants vs. Redskins

A court recently ruled that the government couldn't deny a trademark to The Slants, an Asian band. As many have noted, this ruling has obvious consequences for the Washington Redskins' trademark appeal.

The Slants’ Simon Tam: ‘Courts Hijacked My Case’

By Jacqueline Keeler“Major labels will not work with an artist if you can’t protect your creative works and licensing,” said the self-described “racial and social justice” advocate. “We got a rejection letter from USPTO because our name was disparaging to people of Asian descent.”And:Tam and his attorney addressed the USPTO’s logic based on the argument that the band’s use of the term “slants” amounted to re-appropriation of an offensive term by the Asian American community. However, despite this the USPTO rejected it again.And:However, when they took the case to the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals, Tam said, “The judge [Kimberly Moore] said we don’t want to talk about those arguments but about free speech.” ... “And so, at that point our case got hijacked to become this case about free speech,” Tam claimed.Finally:This time The Slants won. “It's no secret,” Tam noted, “that the lead judge in these hearings both in the panel hearing which restricted our arguments as well as the one who wrote the opinions, Judge Kimberly Moore, is a huge Redskins fan.Comment:  Tam's "reappropriation" argument is a little disingenuous. He could've guessed that others would use a variation of his argument. For instance, Dan Snyder could say, "Even if it's a slur, we've made it into something honorable."

Expecting the courts to say only an ethnic group can "reappropriate" a word is naive. It would be flat-out racist to rule that a Native team could trademark "Redskins" but the Washington team can't. Under the law, it has to be both or neither.

Fighting for "Slants" is basically fighting for all slurs to be trademarked and used without restrictions. Even banning all slurs is questionable, as the recent court ruling shows. The courts certainly will not pick and choose between "good" and bad slurs.

And the case "hijacking" aspect, while not necessarily predictable, does happen sometimes. Again, fighting for "Slants" opened the courts to rule however they wanted. They could easily ignore the "minority can reappropriate its own slur" argument and declare it a free-speech issue. I.e., the government can't restrict slurs, period.

Not over yet

With the Slants decision, it's beginning to look as if the Redskins will win their trademark appeal. Most commentators seem to think so, anyway. But the following analysis says the battle isn't over yet.

Washington Redskins Haven’t Won Yet: Why Constitutionality of Section 2(a) is Not Yet Final

By Susan Neuberger Weller and Serge SubachWhat do Washington D.C.’s NFL team, the Redskins, and Mr. Tam’s rock band, The Slants, have in common? Both have enjoyed unexpected victories recently and both have been called “disparaging” by the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). However, while the Washington Redskins have been winning on the football field, many legal and business news websites have also been counting Mr. Tam’s recent success at the Federal Circuit as a major win for the football team. In reality, that issue is far from settled.For more on the Washington Redskins, see "Tolteca Aztec Indian" Supports Redskins and More Boycotts of the Washington Redskins.

"Tolteca Aztec Indian" supports Redskins

This "Native American" suggested we should take his support for the Washington Redskins seriously.

Column: Vietnam veteran, Native American voices support for the Washington Redskins



Why should we? Because:My son, Senior Airman Daniel P. Cortez II, stationed at Hill Air Force Base, Utah and I are proud American veterans and humble descendants of the Tolteca Aztec Indian tribe. We ARE Redskins.A Facebook response:Uh-huh. And no doubt, as closely identified with their 'Tolteca Aztec Indian Tribe' as these two clowns are, they've made repeated visits to their Native community as they fiercely cling to their heritage. (Question: What self-respecting Native refers to their Nation as an 'Indian Tribe'?)Alas, there's no such thing as the "Tolteca Aztec Indian tribe." The Toltecs and Aztecs were different cultures separated by hundreds of years. They were akin to empires or confederations containing many tribes.

What I think he's trying to say is, "I'm a Mexican American, but that doesn't give me any credibility on Native issues, so I'll make something up."

For more on the Redskins, see Davies: Mascot Foes Aren't Reasoning and More Boycotts of the Washington Redskins.

Davies: Mascot foes aren't reasoning

Columnist James Giago Davies previously criticized anti-racism activists with the extremely weak "don't they have anything better to do?" argument. Now he's back with a column on mascots--this time intended to prove he's superior to both sides.

Why the Redskins controversy won’t die
Back in the news cycle yet again

By James Giago Davies

True, he takes on the Redskins this time--perhaps because people excoriated him for supporting racism the last time. Redskin supporters argue thatsports teams intend to honor Indians by naming sports teams after them, but that is not reasoning that is rationalizing. They want to keep the name of the team as is, for reasons of tradition, a tradition established at a time when you could use openly racist epithets and it was socially acceptable. Calling the team the Redskins worked at the time because Redskins conjured up images of fierce warriors, but the intent was never to honor Indians.

Were that the intent, if Indians really were something so honored and respected you would name a team after them solely for that reason, then present day Indian objections to having a team named Redskins would be just as honored and respected, and the name change to something less offensive to aboriginal Americans would have happened a half century ago, when the first serious objections to the team name made the national media.But he also wants us to know that anti-mascot activists who have said the same thing are still somehow wrong. According to him, activists argue thatnaming a sports team after Indians for any reason is demeaning to Indians, and is solely intended to mock and marginalize, but that is not reasoning, it is rationalizing.

If the sole intent were to demean Indians, then why aren’t teams named the Chinks or the Niggers, why just the Redskins? They are equally demeaning racial epithets, aren’t they? We don’t call teams the Washington Weaklings or the Capitol Cowards. Teams are named after positive symbols, not negative ones.
Rob's reply

This is a straw-man argument that falsely characterizes what activists think and say. We've never said the team chose or intended the name to mock and marginalize Indians.

The word "solely" is especially false, if that's possible. No one has said that everyone from George P. Marshall to Dan Snyder had and has a monomaniacal desire to demean Indians. We understand that they believe(d) their fantasy about "honoring" Indians.

In contrast to your straw-man argument, here's what activists actually say. One, the name is a dictionary-defined racial slur. Two, it promotes the stereotypical notion of Indians as primitive people of the past. We're not addressing the name's intent, we're addressing its effect.

To reiterate our argument, the name has the effect of marginalizing Indians regardless of the intent of owners and fans. People cannot see Indians as full-fledged members of modern society when they believe them to be savages in feathers and leathers. One view negates the other.

Too bad the activist side of your argument--i.e., half your column--is wrong. Try again, and better luck next time. Perhaps read some of Tim Giago's columns to understand why the R-word is harmful to Indians.

For more on the Washington Redskins, see More Boycotts of the Washington Redskins and Redskins Mascot = Confederate Flag.

More boycotts of the Washington Redskins

Tribe boycotts FedEx over ‘Redskins’ support

Southeast Alaska tribal group targets FedEx in Washington Redskins boycott

Alaska's largest tribe vows FedEx boycott until Redskins sponsorship revoked

Other Native groups join FedEx boycott

And:

United Church of Christ calls for Washington Redskins to change name

Redskins mascot = Confederate flag

As the Confederate flag came down, people wondered about the Redskins nickname and logo. Many made the obvious connection between one racist symbol and another. For instance:



The Confederate Flag, the Washington Football Team, and the Owners Who Love Them

If the Confederate flag is seen as poisonous, then products bearing the Washington football team name should be regarded in similar fashion.

By Dave ZirinIt may be literally the least they could do, but it’s a victory for human decency that the Confederate flag will no longer be available at Walmart, Amazon, Sears, and eBay. Even though it is heartbreaking that it took the murder of nine people to get ghouls like Nikki Haley and Lindsay Graham as well as their corporate masters to see it as a public-relations liability, it also raises a question. If the Confederate flag is too toxic to sell, then how can Amazon and Walmart continue to peddle the merchandise of a Washington football team that bears the name of a racial slur? How can they stock the blood-red profile of a Native American chieftain’s head adorned with feathers and a brand—no matter what revisionists argue—that celebrates their violent death?The Racial Wallpaper of Slavery and Genocide

By Tara HouskaIt is monumental to see people recognizing and tearing down racial wallpaper; to witness progress in some of our most divided regions. Here in Washington, D.C., however, racial wallpaper is not even recognized as such.

Every day, I walk down the streets of our Nation’s capitol, through the halls of Congress, past statues of celebrated American leaders. And every day, I am subjected to pinpricks of racism directed at Native Americans.

Jerseys, hats, bags, umbrellas, bumper stickers, miniature flags, giant banners, even paper towels–all proudly displaying a caricature of a Native American with a dictionary-defined racial slur as its moniker.Native Americans Look At Confederate Flag Controversy And Ask: What About 'Redskins' And Other Racist Symbols?

By Ismat Sarah Mangla“Our country is having a national debate over symbols, and we should take an honest look at those symbols that don’t promote inclusivity but rather promote bigotry,” said Joel Barkin, vice president of the Oneida Indian Nation and spokesperson for Change the Mascot, a national campaign for ending the use of the word “redskins” as the mascot and name of the NFL team in the nation's capital.

Just as defenders of the Confederate flag have argued that it represents pride in Southern culture and history rather than racism, supporters of team names like the "Redskins" have insisted that they actually honor Native Americans. But activists say parallels between the two controversies are worth noting. Even if the intention behind the usage of such symbols isn't to harm, Americans should recognize that minority groups are harmed by them nonetheless--and eliminate them as a result.

“Proud tradition does not negate the racism of a flag associated with the enslavement of a people, nor does it negate the racism of a moniker that dehumanizes and slurs a people who underwent attempted eradication,” wrote Tara Houska, tribal rights attorney in Washington, in the Indian Country Today Media Network. “Despite empirical studies demonstrating psychological harm, numerous tribal resolutions, lawsuits, and protests spanning decades, the r-word still remains widely accepted.”Are they defending the Redskins name or the Confederate flag?

By Washington PostWhich brings us, perhaps inevitably, to the closest thing the world of sports has to the Confederate flag: The logo and nickname of the Washington Football Team.

Many will reject this comparison for obvious reasons, pointing out that a scientific poll has shown Native American support for the Redskins name, that football should not be compared with politics, and that it’s entirely unfair to link the name of a sports team with such a weighty symbol as the Confederate battle flag.

Still, it’s hard to deny that defenders of both the team name and the flag have sometimes used very similar language to state their cases. This quiz asks if you can tell the difference.

1) “It is a symbol of everything we stand for: strength, courage, pride, and respect.”

Redskins
Confederate flag

10) "We are not racists. We despise racism and bigotry. And we think the people who are creating this ‘cultural cleansing’ are the real bigots in this story."

Redskins
Confederate flag

12) "Most--by overwhelming majorities--find [it] to be rooted in pride for our shared heritage and values."

Redskins
Confederate flag

14) "Heritage, Honor, Pride, Not Racist."

Redskins
Confederate flag

More on the subject

A couple of weeks later, pundits were still making the connection:

What the Nazis, the Confederates and the Redskins All Have in Common: Symbols That Deserve Burial

By Steve Benson"No business wants to look old or dated or be seen as being behind the times. But on this issue, that's exactly where we find Snyder and his team, stuck with a bad 20th-century name in an attentive 21st-century world."

Snyder will eventually cave and go back to his cave.

The Nazi swastika, the Confederate flag, the Redskins logo--all rancid relics of bygone days. One by one, they're marching to the beat of their own funeral dirges, trudging toward a well-deserved and long-overdue final resting place atop the ash heap of history.

And not a moment too soon.As Confederate flags fall, ‘Redskins’ defenders buck tide of progress

By Donn EsmondeThe nickname undoubtedly represented strength and pride to generations of Lancaster students. Unfortunately, few pondered the term’s deeper meaning. Or placed it in the context of the grim history of Native American annihilation–or, later, the “assimilation” on reservations and in white-run boarding schools, where native culture, language, customs and pride were forcibly extracted from a people.

“You’re appropriating an image or a nickname from someone else’s culture for your own use, without understanding what it truly means,” said John Kane, a local Native American activist and radio talk show host. “While it may represent pride to those people, to us it conveys dominance over a race, a superiority. It’s not a happy connotation.”And:It’s not political correctness. It’s society pulling off its racial/ethnic blinders. Into this headwind of cultural common sense, the pro-“Redskins” crowd marches on.

Whether it’s the nickname, or the “Stars and Bars” flag, there’s a deeper truth that can’t be ignored. Trying to turn back the clock merely leaves you stuck in the past.Comment:  In this context, "mascot" includes the Redskins name, logo, and the associated beliefs and actions of team officials and fans. It's a concept, a package of ideas, not a physical presence.

The team doesn't have a physical mascot who appears at games and so forth. Not since Chief Zee the unofficial mascot retired, anyway.

For more on the Confederate flag, see Confederate Flag vs. Other Flags and The Confederate Flag Must Go.

"Redskins" bad but helicopters okay?

On Facebook I shared a posting about the Washington Redskins and the US military. Although no longer available, it said something like:

Why do Natives protest the Redskins name rather than the US military for naming items--Tomahawk missiles; Apache, Lakota, and Blackhawk helicopters; codename Geronimo--after them?

This led to a discussion of the subject:The military industrial complex is run by the same people that support the foul R-word, the same people that exploit others for their own wealth generation!

This is Apple/Oranges. The r-word is racist and it invokes racist behaviour.

Hold it, everyone. Here’s a white guy who offers an explanation about why we should feel honored by these names for military equipment. *Phew.* I feel much better after having him whitesplain it to me.

Everyone Relax—The Army’s Native American Helicopter Names Are Not RacistLet the debate begin

Curiously, someone else posted the same article but put a different spin on it:You know a Native career soldier I know wrote this and posted this (not my position as I'm not a pro military type but wanted to share a perspective):

"No where is there a finer example of honoring a legacy than the moniker attached to the US Army's rotary wing fleet. Not only does the Army ask if the names can be used but they respectively utilize the proper names. They do not use slang or stereotypes. The first time I laid eyes on these aircraft I was instilled with pride and a sense of belonging. I thought to myself 'These guys get it. They respect me and my people's contribution to this enterprise.' I am honored by the lineage of these nomenclatures and honored to have been a small part of this warrior tradition. The US Army has had an intimate experience (for better or worse) with the history of my people and it is my pleasure to reciprocate the gesture. Sappers forward!"My response: "Warrior tradition" = one-dimensional stereotype.

I "like" how this article basically confirms my point. Namely, that helicopters were named for a one-dimensional view of Natives:According to Bob Mitchell, the museum curator, Howze “envisioned the helicopter as a fast, mobile, stealthy machine on the field of battle using terrain and vegetation to an advantage similar to the Warrior Tribes.”"Warrior tribes" is redundant here since the Army seems to think all Indians are warriors.

Yet the same person continued to challenge me:It is undoubtedly something that is very important in Indian Country as they bring it up quite a lot. Hard for me to grasp due to oppressive nature of use of US Military abroad but it is what it is. 3 times the average rate of service.Yes, and many Indians take pride in being called "Redskins," too. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Many Indians also challenge the one-dimensional warrior image and call for a fuller understanding of Native cultures. I'm with them.Yes the R word is an offensive term whereas using tribal names is not. Also they choose to use correct names like Lakota for example not Sioux.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with any of this but know the thoughts of many folks in Indian Country over this and sharing that perspective.Okay. I'm saying I disagree with it because it's stereotypical. I also disagree with the stereotypical choices made by filmmakers such as Johnny Depp and Adam Sandler.

Only names of tribes?The image you shared for one shows proper names from Indian Country being held in an equivalent manner to a racist term which is obviously not really comparable. Yes there is another debate good or bad to have about the context of the use of the other names. But if a helicopter was called Nigeria would that be as offensive as the N word?"Tomahawk" is a stereotypical weapon. "Blackhawk" and "Geronimo" are personal names. So this posting isn't just about using the names of tribes.

I think we can all agree that "Redskins" is the worst offense in this category, although I'd say calling a terrorist "Geronimo" is comparable. So? We can and do address lesser offenses all the time here.

If you really want to honor the widespread tendency of Natives to serve in the military, let's name helicopters after the Hopi, Creek, Tlingit, San Manuel, and Penobscot tribes. Why not, since their members have served at the same rates as every other tribe's?

Oh, but those tribes aren't known as fierce, deadly warriors. They aren't stereotypical enough. We want our hardware named only for ruthless killer Indians. Because we want to be as savage as they were.

In short, if this nomenclature is some sort of pan-Indian tribute, choose from the names of the 566 recognized tribes at random. By choosing only the tribes known for their savagery, the military is proving my point.Tomahawk is a form of battle axe and indeed there is another missile type called the Battleaxe missile. I would never imagine Kiowa and Blackhawk as being stereotypically savage and the others historically embodied strength. Apart from anything they are great sounding names. But yes as I said a lot of room for debate over the use of these names but the comparison in the image you shared to me seems rather manipulative.The Plains tribes in general, including the Kiowa, represent the stereotypical savage to most Americans.

The Comanche and Iroquois helicopters further demonstrate that the Army is honoring tribes known for aggression or violence, not just "strength" or "courage."

Strength, in particular, has nothing to do with fighting ability. Buddha, Jesus, and Martin Luther King were strong. Mothers who raise children in the face of adversity are strong. Let's name helicopters after them if we want to honor strength.

Other views

A few others chimed in:Gag. These are the same excuses used to justify the usage of Indians, and Redskins. Not okay for cars or helicopters or missiles or team names. #PeopleNotMascots

I completely agree, let them name some other people helicopters, missiles...etc.
We are not decals, toys and icons.
We are people and it is about time we are treated as such!For more on the subject, see Indians in the Military.

Below:  Six copters named after tribes and one named after a snake.

What "go back to the reservation" means

At the racist EMU party, frat boys in redface told an Indian to go back to the reservation. The "go back" sentiment often crops up when Indians dare to challenge white people.

Here's another example:

Lancaster School Board Candidate Agrees Indians Should 'Go Back to the Reservation'

By Simon Moya-SmithOn March 16, the Lancaster School Board held a special meeting where it announced the immediate retirement of the school’s mascot. The high school there has been mired in controversy every since two opposing schools refused to play Lancaster’s lacrosse team on account of its logo and moniker.

School board candidate Kelly Hughes Depczynski responded to a Facebook rant on March 9 where the writer, going only by the name of Lin, said Native American students who find the name offensive should, instead, get their education on the reservation rather than Lancaster.

“If this American Indian at Lancaster and his family are so ‘offended’ … maybe the school board can gently refer him to go back to the reservation for his education,” Lin wrote.

Lin also argued that Native Americans in Lancaster, New York who are offended by the school’s mascot shouldn’t have moved there to begin with.

“Maybe if ‘Redskins’ is too offensive they shouldn’t have moved to that district,” Lin wrote.The contempt for real-life Indians is obvious. But writer Ramone Romero delves into what white folks mean when they say "Go back to the reservation."

What Does it Mean to Say to an Indian, “Go back to the reservation”?

By Ramone RomeroWhen Phillips replied that this was not honoring Natives—that it was racist instead—they started telling him to, “Go back to the reservation, you F-ing Indian, get the F out of here!”

Okay, obviously their “honoring” of Natives had absolutely nothing to do with honoring Natives. This is characteristic of sports teams using Native American names and mascots. It’s about sports and sounding like fighters, sounding strong and savage; it has nothing to do with honoring real living Natives. And this isn’t the first time that Natives have been told to “Go back to the Reservation!” when they protested Native mascotry.

But think about two things here.

One:

Have you ever thought about what it means to tell an Indian to “Go back to the reservation”?

Of course it is completely racist. Thinking that you have the authority to tell an Indian to “Go back to the reservation” shows that you feel they are racially inferior and you are racially superior (otherwise you would have no authority to tell them where to go). But it’s much more than racist.

All of North America is their land. Never mind that most Natives actually don’t live on reservations, ask yourself: Why did Native people lose their homeland when they used to live free on the whole continent? What happened? Which side broke treaty after treaty (and is still breaking treaties now–just the other day the state of Michigan transferred 8,000 acres of treaty-protected land to a mining company)? Which side took away children and sent them to boarding schools where they weren’t allowed to speak their languages, got beaten if they did, and got abused in countless other ways? Which side didn’t have religious freedom until 1979? Which side had generations of children stolen and “adopted” to families outside of their community?

What does it mean to say to an Indian, “Go back to the reservation”?

It means, “Stay oppressed.” “Stay beaten down.” “We are better than you.” “You don’t belong in your homeland.” “You have to obey and go away because you’re inferior.” “You don’t matter.” “You’re nothing.” “Go back to your confinement.”

Saying “Go back to the reservation” to a Native American is nothing less than agreeing with the genocide America committed against them, and doing your part to continue it.

Native stereotypes mirror black stereotypes

Joe the African American and Waya the Cherokee discuss mascots:

Extremely Awkward Conversation With a Native American at Redskins Game

By Dolph L. HatfieldJoe looked rather perplexed and responded, “Listen man, Redskins has been used as a term of honor and pride of Native Americans for 80 years and wearing an Indian headdress has been acceptable for as long as I can remember.” Waya said “Black faced minstrel shows and painted black faces began in the 1840s and continued in this country until the 1960s.”

Waya continued, “People are constantly telling me that the ‘R’ word means honor, but they have no idea how it really feels to an American Indian who associates the term with its history of being derogatory. Indeed, its history is deeply rooted in hatred; it’s even defined in the dictionary as a racial slur to American Indians.” Waya paused then continued. Waya proceeded. “Don’t you think that the affected party is the one who really decides what is racist and what isn’t?” Joe interrupted and, in a more consoling tone, said “Waya, I’d like to hear more of what you are talking about. The crowd is beginning to come in. Let’s slip out where there is less noise and I want to hear more. But PLEASE WIPE THAT CHARCOAL OFF YOUR FACE!” Waya took a towel from his coat and began to wipe his face. Joe, to the amazement of everyone sitting around him, removed his headdress. The two gentlemen began walking towards an exit, while Waya continued wiping the blackness from his face.

The two gentlemen found a quiet place somewhat away from the incoming crowd. Joe said “Go on Waya, you’ve got the floor and this better be good for me to miss part of my game.”

Waya continued “Joe, what you guys experienced is what we are going through now. If I’m not mistaken, in the early civil rights movement, the major emphasis of Black America was confronting many hardships like voting, education and unemployment inequalities, having to ride at the back of buses, separate eating, restroom and theater facilities, that were common place in the South. When the 1964 Civil Rights Act began taking affect and the unconscionable ways of treating African Americans were changing, your leaders turned their attention to addressing issues, such as stereotyping. Just think of the names and caricatures like the ‘N’ word, ‘boy’, ‘spade’, ‘jig’, ‘Sambo’, ‘Aunt Jemima’, ‘Jim Crow’, ‘Sapphire’ and ‘the Mammy’, and public spectacles, such as, painted black faces and black faced minstrel shows that your people said were demeaning. Many whites claimed that this was the way of life in America and it had been that way for years, many said they were only having some good, clean fun, meant no harm and there was no racism intended. But fortunately for blacks, much of white society realized the injustices of how Black America had been treated and they accepted that these acts that you,“ Waya pointed gently at Joe and continued “the affected party, said were stereotyping, and change occurred.” The two men looked at each other and Joe rubbed his head. “Waya, I have to agree with a lot you have said, please go on.”

“Thanks, Joe!” and Waya continued, “These changes did not come overnight and typecasting of blacks had been a way of life in America for many, many years. To my knowledge, there were no polls taken to see what percentage of blacks, or for that matter, other Americans, were opposed to these uses of derogatory words or stereotyping in general. But, Joe, there were many polls that have been conducted to see how many American Indians or Washington team fans think the ‘R’ word is racist.”

Waya realized that Joe was beginning to see his point and proceeded “I have often wondered if a poll had been taken among blacks, primarily living in the Deep South in the mid to late 1960’s, whether they cared that much about typecasting or the many other issues that Black America was facing. Recall that virtually all of the blacks in the South depended on whites for their jobs and livelihood. I would guess that the vast majority would have said these issues are not that important--wouldn’t they more likely have said that our jobs and livelihood depend on whites and we have to survive!”

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.

"You damn redskin!"

'You Damn Redskin!' Surviving a Racist Attack

By Dennis G. ChappabittyDuring the usual jabbering I’d said I was a Comanche Indian headed back to my final year of college. As we drove, the driver said they’d been drinking beer and needed to pull over. We pulled off near an old deserted town called Silver City, north of Drumright, Oklahoma. After driving far down the road, I asked, “Why not stop here and pee?” They said, “No, we’re going further down.”

My Indian gut told me something was not right. The car stopped and the young men all got out while I stayed in the middle of the back seat. After they took care of their business, one of them said, “Hey, why don’t you get out?” I said, “No, I don’t have to.” Then one of them said in a loud, angry tone, “You will get out, now!” With no choice, I slowly got out of the car while they all stood on the right side of the road all looking at me with squinting hateful eyes and clinched fists.

I sensed movement to the right and behind me. I quickly turned and ducked as one of them swung a bottle of beer toward the back of my skull. When I ducked, he hit the car door and the bottle shattered. The battle for my survival was on.

I took several punches to my body as they all closed in shouting “You damn redskin, we’re going to kill you!” I fought back with full force and we all fell down in the roadside ditch full of tall weeds. While down, the kicking and punching continued over and over as I moved away from the car and farther down the ditch.Wichita North Redskins

"Remarks by Clem Ironwing, Sioux, during a public Mascot/Identity Committee hearing."

By Matthew RichterThe following remarks were made by Clem Ironwing, Sioux, November 11, 1996, during a public hearing called by the Mascot/Identity Committee. Denied a seat on the Committee, Mr. Ironwing, an elder, was given three minutes standing alone on the school stage in front of three television stations, local radio stations and the Wichita Eagle newspaper in front of an audience of 250 to explain why it is not right for the school to continue using this mascot. His remarks follow:

"The word Redskin was taught to me at a very young age, and this is the meaning it has for me.

"I am a Native American. I grew up on an Indian reservation. As a child, the United States Government and the Catholic Church came into our homes, took us away from our families, and forced us into Catholic boarding schools. There was no choice to be had in this matter, you had to go. The Catholic Church with the blessings of the United States Government took it upon themselves to determine that we were savages, and needed to be transformed to fit into their society.

"When my hair was cut short by the priests, I was called a 'redskin' and a savage. When I spoke my native tongue, I was beaten and called 'redskin.' When I tried to follow the spiritual path of my people, I was again beaten and called a 'redskin.' I was told by them to turn my back on the ways of my people, or I would forever be nothing but a dirty 'redskin.'

"The only way 'redskin' was ever used towards my people and myself was in a derogatory manner. It was never, ever, used in a show of respect or kindness. It was only used to let you know that you were dirty and no good, and to this day still is."

How to debate mascot supporters

In honor of Super Bowl Sunday, two excellent postings on racist Indian mascots:

The NFL 'Playbook' for Defending Racism Against American Indians

By Michael FriedmanThe Fritz Pollard Alliance, a civil rights group dedicated to promoting diversity and equality in the National Football League (NFL), has joined the growing chorus of protests against the Washington football team's ongoing use of a dictionary defined racial slur as its name and stereotypical caricature as its logo. The Alliance recently released a statement that described a meeting they held with the Washington team to discuss changing the team's name and logo in which the Alliance was "shouted down" by Washington team representatives. The Washington team's inappropriate response is unfortunately consistent with the "playbook" that the Washington team and NFL continues to use to defend the offensive and harmful team name and logo of the Washington team. This "playbook" appears to be as follows:

1. Reframe a dictionary- and government-defined racial slur as a term of "honor."

2. Disregard protests of Native Americans and civil rights leaders.

3. Ignore science showing harmful effects of racism against American Indians.

4. "Don't we have more important things to worry about?" Defenders of the Washington team name often dismiss opposition to the team name as an example of political correctness gone awry. Further, those supporting the team often presents a false dichotomy whereby American Indians should be forced to tolerate racial slurs because they suffer from other "more pressing" issues such as poverty. In response to a letter from American Indian U.S. Congressman Tom Cole urging the NFL to support a name change for the Washington team, team representative Tony Wyllie responded by saying, "Don't they have more important issues to worry about?"

Not only do these statements contradict the social science demonstrating the harmful effects of racism, but they also contradict how the NFL handles issues of racism among other groups. Keep in mind that the NFL can act decisively against bullying and racism without needing to consult polls. Imagine the appropriate public outrage if the NFL decided not to sanction Rich Incognito for his use of racial slurs against Jonathan Martin because the African American population has "more important things to worry about."A complementary article offers similar arguments along with some great quotes:

How to Argue Against Racist Mascots

By Taté WalkerMascots seem to be the only Natives that America cares about. Seriously, if sports fans honored Native people like they honor our images and appropriate our culture, we’d be set.

Mascots are entertainment. They’re meant to symbolize a sports team, not 566-plus sovereign nations, their histories and contemporary issues.

Redface, war chants, war paint, costumes… These reduce Natives to violent, aggressive, testosterone-fueled savages of the past that can be mocked, ridiculed, and violated by fans of opposing teams.

It makes sense that the images chosen for school and sports mascots during this time depicted noble, stoic savages of the past. The real “tradition” mascots honor and uphold is the idea of a passive, silent, defeated, and nonexistent Indian.

Lot’s of bad ideas–slavery, the Holocaust, the Bush Administration–were supported by the masses. Doesn’t make them okay.

The Civil Rights Act, voting rights for women… these things would have never been approved if popular (read: privileged) opinion were the deciding factor.

When you’ve got generations of Native people being exposed to Indian mascots, it’s a no-brainer some of that psychological damage will take on a Stockholm or Uncle Tomahawk effect.

I know you’ve been primed to see Natives as simple and one-dimensional, but we’re human beings capable of taking an active interest in many subjects.

More importantly, we’ve realized over time that Indian mascots exacerbate the issues Native people face in their communities, because dehumanization leads to negative thoughts and feelings.

A lot of those feelings are tied directly to the relationship the rest of America has with its sovereign tribal neighbors: The stereotypes that make up the heart of Indian mascots render real Natives—and our real issues—as immaterial.

Please, tell me more about how I should feel. Those who have privilege do not get to decide what should or should not offend Native people.

Beyond this, the word “offensive” is the worst kind of double-speak shading the reality of what Indian mascots are: Racist. This isn’t about being offended. This is about racism and ending racism in sports.

Mascots dehumanize. They place Native people into an entertainment category no other ethnic or political entity today must endure.

83% wouldn't call Indians "Redskins"

Poll: 83% would not call Native American a 'redskin'

By Erik BradyWould you call a Native American a "redskin" to his or her face?

According to a survey that asked this question, 83% of Americans said no, they would not, while 9% said they would and 8% declined comment.

Most of those surveyed knew about the controversy over the Washington NFL club's team name: 93% of NFL fans and 85% of all Americans, according to the survey for the National Congress of American Indians and goodness Mfg., a creative agency based in Los Angeles.

The survey results are based on 1,020 interviews conducted online Aug. 28-31 among a demographically representative sample by Online Caravan, an omnibus service of ORC International.83 Percent Of Americans Wouldn’t Say ‘Redskin’ To A Native American’s Face

By Travis WaldronThe poll found a generational divide when it comes to opposition of the name: half of those surveyed between the ages of 18 and 34 saw the name as offensive, compared to just 34 percent of those over 35. And almost twice as many of those between 18 and 34 were aware of the name’s status as a dictionary-defined slur than those of older ages.

There is, however, a divide also between finding the name offensive and thinking it should be changed. While 83 percent said they’d never use the word to a Native American’s face and 39 percent overall said it was offensive to Native Americans, just 25 percent said the name should change.

As Native Americans continue to fight the name, though, that may change. The poll showed that most respondents were aware of the battle over the name, and the 25 percent overall opposition is higher than in some older polls conducted around the issue. 35 percent of the 18-to-34 age group said it should be changed, and the poll also found that 13 percent of respondents changed their opinion of whether the team should keep it once they learned it was defined as a slur.

“Our study proves how important context is to behavior. On one hand, group mentality makes people think using the r-word is okay. But on the other hand, when a person comes face to face with a Native American, it’s not,” said D’nae Kingsley, the head of integrated strategy at goodness Mfg. “This dichotomy can be explained by several factors including fan blindness and lack of awareness of the definition of the r-word.”

What if the team name was...?

Comment:  The typical Redskins defender says the team name has a different context from the racial slur. This graphic puts the lie to that argument.

Would we accept the other racial slurs if they had an 80-year history and the team didn't "intend" them to be offensive. If the team claimed the same "different context" to excuse the blatant racism? No.

So why should we accept it in the case of the Redskins? That team name is exactly the same as these team names are. Either they're all acceptable or none of them are.