From: williamf@umbc4.umbc.edu (TheBigBopper)
Subject: Re: Isn't it time to change the name 'Redskins'?
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:12:59 GMT

In article <24939@oasys.dt.navy.mil> swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) writes:
>>  Nowadays I try to never use the word 'Redskins' when referring to the
>>  Washington football team.  While I am a fan of the team I truly believe
>>  that the name is derogatory and unfairly trivializes a group of fellow
>>  American citizens........
>
>Perhaps you could explain how Washington's using "Redskins" is different
>from Dallas' using "Cowboys," San Francisco's "49ers," New England's
>"Patriots," etc.
>
  None of the names you cite refer to contemporary fellow american citizens.
  None of the names you cite are associated in movie and print as enemies
  or people to be killed on sight.  Washington was owned by George Preston 
  Marshall who was an unrepentent racist committed to keeping Washington a
  racially pure team long beyond the time other football teams integrated.  He
  didn't choose the name as a tribute to the native American:  IMO he chose it
  as a joke something reflecting the mores of the day.  Chosen nicknames are
  usually safe names that don't offend anyone and, if possible, celebrate 
  something.  In that light "Cowboys" (always depicted as brave and heroic and
  historically not always true), "49ers" (pioneers and western heroes, again
  historically a bit suspect), and "Patriots" (no need to comment) fit the bill
  The name "Redskins" historically was a derogatory name representing the proof
  bounty hunters brought in.  Marshall didn't choose the name as a tribute:  it
  was a joke...something to set the team aside, to appeal to the largely 
  Southern market and mark them as rebels and outlaws.  
  How many western movies from that era that you have seen where "Redskins"
  were depicted as anything but evil? 

>Also, are we belittling animals (i.e., Eagles, Dolphins, Bengels, Cardinals, 
>Rams, etc.) when we name our teams after them?  If so, then we perhaps 
>better stop using the animals as our mascots?

  I wouldn't belittle an issue of yours in this form.  Comparing human beings
  to non-human animals is silly, IMO.

>I still can't understand why the Native Americans are upset about this.  
>In my opinion, the use of "Redskins" by the Washington team is giving 
>them good publicity, and I am proud to call my team the Redskins.
>
  Well, I don't know how to respond to this other than to say I don't think
  native americans want to be viewed like circus animals.  They're looking 
  for their place in the American pantheon like every other etnic group in
  America.  The Washington Niggers, Washington Southern Cracker, Washington
  Honkies or the Washington Jews wouldn't cut it in todays America.  Why 
  should the 'Redskins' be viewed any differently.  Political correctness
  is seen as a divisive term today but it is entirely appropriate to say 
  that it is politically incorrect and improper to dress up and paint your face
  on gameday to mimic a group.  We used to do this, remember?  It was called 
  Blackface and you might start a local war if you tried to resurrect this 
  today. 
      -William