Simon Bruty/Sports Illustrated/The MMQB
Simon Bruty/Sports Illustrated/The MMQB

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 Vrentas
· More from Jenny·

With special reporting by Emily Kaplan

SAN CARLOS, Ariz. — The dusty roads behind the San Carlos Apache tribal headquarters lead to a place where the debate surrounding the NFL team in the nation’s capital does not feel 2,000 miles away. This reservation, a 1.8 million-acre trust of land two hours east of Phoenix, has an air of isolation. Cell phone service is spotty, and many businesses don’t have the technology to swipe credit cards. The dwellings of the 10,000 plus residents are scattered across the semi-arid terrain.

But the issue of the Washington NFL team’s name—the Redskins—drives the work of one artist on a daily basis. Propped up outside the white trailer that serves as his studio are paintings of Apache men and women on mixed media such as skateboards and household doors. Douglas Miles’ work portrays his subjects in traditional dress of cloth headbands and high-topped moccasins; wielding revolvers in a modern twist on their warrior ancestors; celebrating the tribe’s matrilineal heritage.

About a year and a half ago, Miles, who has lived on the reservation for nearly three decades, started an art campaign called “What Tribe,” with the intent of dismantling racial stereotypes such as the ones he sees in that team name and logo. Instead of a protest or a picket sign, he decided to weigh in by presenting his culture in a way many Native Americans feel is not recognized by the larger American populace. “We’re either seen as this extreme noble savage,” Miles says, “or this extreme poverty case that needs help.”

Indeed, these are the two visages often evoked and juxtaposed in discussions about the Washington team name. The push for a change in the name is pitted against Native Americans’ less-abstract needs—job creation, health care, land rights. But in many Native American communities, and to many Native American leaders, the mascot issue is about more than a football team.

Artist Douglas Miles on the San Carlos Apache reservation in Arizona. (Jenny Vrentas)
Artist Douglas Miles on the San Carlos Apache reservation in Arizona. (Jenny Vrentas)

That’s what we saw and heard during the past month, when The MMQB visited three Native American communities—the San Carlos Apache Reservation, Onondaga Nation in upstate New York and the Seminole Tribe’s Big Cypress Indian Reservation in South Florida—and spoke to dozens of other Native Americans living across the U.S. We spoke to leaders and to everyday people in the community like Miles, whom we met at the local café in San Carlos where his daughter works.

The recent groundswell around the team name produced some movement earlier this month, when the franchise announced the launch of the Original Americans Foundation, which pledges to work with tribal communities to provide resources and opportunities. Team owner Daniel Snyder and his staff visited 26 Native American communities to gather information and assess needs, and their initiative has already had a positive and tangible impact—one project has been to distribute more than 3,000 coats to tribes in the Great Plains this winter.

But the issue of the name remains. There is a loud call from many Native Americans, one that did not ask for money or assistance from the team. It asked for a name change. In a four-page letter outlining the new foundation’s goals, Snyder did not directly address this call, but wrote, “It’s plain to see [Native Americans] need action, not words.”

“I would say we do need action,” says Jacqueline Pata, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). “And one of those actions is treating Indian country respectfully. One of those actions, Dan Snyder, is changing the name. Respect Indian country, do what is right, and don’t cloak it with something else.”

At 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?

1 2 3 4 5 6NEXT VIEW AS A SINGLE PAGE
405 comments
MichaelTailour
MichaelTailour

I wonder how many Americans know that almost all Indian cultures of the Americas were slave societies??? Not a matter of debate, it is a historical fact. Hell, quite a few of them were into human sacrifice also.  And how did Indians settle these lands prior to European settlement.  The same freaking way Europeans did; they killed or decimated every weaker tribe or group in their way.  As another matter of fact, the Oklahoma Territories sided with the South during the Civil War because those 'poor' Indians were using slave labor to make huge, huge profits.  How can Indians talk about inequality when even today, black members of the Cherokee and Creek nations are suing in court to get full recognition as members of those same tribes???  Why doesn't Eric Holder or Obama take care of that problem (rhetorical question: we already know that Chief Race-baiters 1 & 2 don't care about their own hypocrisy)???  So take all your touchy-feely nonsense, your irrational race-baiting, your freaking ignorance, and do the tomahawk chop with me right into the abyss.

JoeWade
JoeWade

Bunch of chicken chits, too weak to address the hard issues eh?

Amazing how much attention the media gives towards a sports icon and racism, while saying nothing about the racist acts of AIM's murder and hiding away of Perry Ray Robinson Jr. who marched with MLK, 40yrs and his family continues to call for the return of his body and yet NDN country and the media turn a deaf ear and close thier eyes while they yell racism about a team name.

Sickening! , Even the likes of Angela Davis and support groups will not raise their voice for such racism towards others from within .... GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT PEOPLE.

"“I was floored,” Oswald says. “Banks is not only aware of Robinson’s killing, but where he was buried, and he acknowledges his own role in where to bury the body.” It also lent credibility to the theory that AIM’s leadership wasn’t averse to frontier justice." - NY Times Article April 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/magazine/who-killed-anna-mae.html

LarryTRobertson
LarryTRobertson

Can we see if there is a tribe that would adopt the Washington football team? No one complains about the Seminoles, do they? I can see that "Redskins" is offensive, there is really no other way to see it. But using, by the tribes approval, a tribal name brings respect, dignity and a sense of history and cultural education. People I think would want to learn about the tribe, its history, what its beliefs are. I think the Washington fans was truly embrace the change and the authentic feel of who they are, not a stereotype but part of a real living breathing people, a family, which is what all Washington Redskins fans think they are. Just a long shot chance at solving a very real and problematic situation.

RonAhmay
RonAhmay

Like Goddard, Shoemaker said that by the end of the 18th century, Native Americans were using "red" to describe themselves and to assert their pride of being North America's original inhabitants.

tony20009
tony20009

I think it's high time folks get over the mere word and focus on whether the team's owners and senior managers have actual racist leanings and have actually acted in a manner -- other than owning/running a team that had a name given it some 60 odd years ago -- that shows them to be racist or racist-leaning.  It's not the word itself that's necessarily offensive, but rather the thoughts and feelings of the folks who use it.  It's time as a nation that we start focusing on substance more than form.

cgwhitney
cgwhitney

I am one quarter native american and I find this entire discussion repulsive. There is absolutely nothing offensive about "Redskins". It is absolutely the opposite. It is honorable. How far is this going to go?! How about going after the Aniak, AK High school moniker of "Half Breeds"?! ...or the Spokane Indians (farm team of the Texas Rangers). Isn't "Indians" politically incorrect these days as well? Get a job, or at least another hobby for crying out loud! Harry Reid, get back to work and focus on something with substance for crying out loud! ...or better yet, retire.

eick74
eick74

In the article they point to the Annenberg 2004 poll that said 90% of Native Americans did not have a problem with the name and asked can that opinion still apply today. They also said they could not find the "overwhelming majority" that Snyder and Goddell said support the name. They obviously talked to many Native Americans but all they can say is that there is not a consensus. Makes me wonder what SI considers to be a overwhelming majority and what percentage of those that SI talked to do not have a problem with the name.


The fact that they did not include any numbers of that kind lead me to believe that the percentage is far too close to the Annenberg 2004 number that SI would like to admit.

pjohn7759
pjohn7759

I am Lipan Apache and I say leave the Washington Redskins name alone! Enough has been done and taken from Native Americans already seems like this issue now just wants to diminish our existence. Native Americans have different tribes like Lipan,Apache,Lakota,Navajo and Washington has there Redskins. Why after so many years does this become an issue. Everyone has his or her own opinion but one individual does not speak for us all.

BrutusTheBuckeye
BrutusTheBuckeye

Lets get real here... you can't get consensus among Native Americans so now you write an entire article trying to say you don't need a majority to be offended just a couple Native Americans.  This is a slippery slope of thinking for our country but a common thing for liberal Democrat white people looking to make themselves feel better about history.  This isn't the n-word or any other negative racial stereotype and it is what Native Americans came up with themselves.  The media has an agenda here and it is no coincidence that ESPN has come out with a coordinated effort where they claim they are open to debate yet 100% of their on-air personalities are against the Redskins.  83% of the country has no problem with it in the most recent poll of the country and there is a reason this author chose not to pay for a poll of Native Americans who use Redskins for their own youth team nicknames.  This is very similar to the gun debate where you have a minority of rich white people who think they get to make the rules for all the rest of us peasants.  Sorry, we still live in America and until the free markets demand that Snyder change his name then he should be left alone to run his business. 

chazatlas
chazatlas

NOBODY uses Redskin as a slur or derogatory term.  Native American Indians refer to themselves with pride as belonging to the "Red Nation."  There is the Red Nation Film Festival, dozens of community groups, etc.  Well, when they say the belong to the Red Nation, what "Red" are they talking about?  Red for the blood their people spilled when being massacred?  No, they are talking about their red skin.

chazatlas
chazatlas

The Atlanta Braves stopped using their "Screaming Indian" logo back in 1989.  You now have a generation of younger baseball fans and players that don't even realize the team is named after and in honor of, Native American Indians.  I randomly asked several young people in their teens & twenties if they knew what the ATL Braves were named after.  Most thought the name simply stood for being brave or courageous.  The only a couple of them knew it stood for Native American Indian Braves.  How did they know?  They grew up in households that had team memorabilia with the old Indian logo.  These handful of NAI's need to be careful what they ask for before their people truly get lost in obscurity. 

mrmach1
mrmach1

Teams are named in HONOR of something.......someone or some thing they hold in HIGH REGARD......Teams are not named after someone or something that is hated or despised.........Common sense anyone ?

JimPrato
JimPrato

"Washington Redskins " =  Hurtful and insensitive name

" United Negro College Fund " = Non Offensive ?????????

How about changing the name to the  Washington Negros then ? I mean since the word " Negro " is accepted.

This world just blows my mind.

JimSmith4
JimSmith4

A seven-month study was conducted by Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard. In the study, which is available online, Goddard concluded the origin of the word was "benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians and whites."


http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf


Native Americans described themselves as Red or the Red People.  “Homa” means Red People in Choctaw.  “Oklahoma” means land of the Red People in Choctaw and that word did not exist until the territory was named by a Choctaw Indian asked by the Government to do so:


http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~okcoal/place/choctaw1.htm


The current logo was designed in 1971 by Native American leaders, including Walter "Blackie" Wetzel, a former president of the National Congress of American Indians.  He brought in other leaders from Indian Tribes to help with its creation.  When it was done they said it was “perfect”. 


http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2014/02/16/don-wetzel-dont-call-redskins-logo-offensive/5528647/


Interestingly, the same National Congress of American Indians is now blaming the Washington Redskins for having a racial slur as a team name.  What has changed?  Could it be that the race baiting by other groups out there like the NAACP promising payouts of some kind in the end has mucked the waters? 



I'll tell you what is really arrogant and racist.  To take the meaning of a word from its original intention that was created by a culture and used by that culture as a proud honorable way to describe themselves and make it a racial slur against that culture.  


Who do these predominantly white liberal politicians and individuals think they are to decide such a thing?  And look how they have mucked the waters and turned the various Native American tribes against each other on this issue with their thought and PC police.  


They are a disgrace to America.  They are still lying to the Native Americans and using them as political footballs to the point where they now want to take away the name that they used to describe themselves and then convince them it is a good thing because it was a "racial slur" after all.  Absolutely despicable Harry Reid and Co.!  


All of this in an effort to distract, redirect, and continue to polarize Americans from focusing on the complete failures by these politicians on the real issues facing Americans of all color, race, and religion.

DannyRT
DannyRT

I'm a proud member of the Cherokee tribe and honestly I don't care about the name Redskins. I think a majority of American Indians don't have a problem with it. In my entire life I have never been called redskin as a slur. I am by no means saying there are those who haven't, I'm saying for my gen and the ones after the term to us has always been associated with a football team not racism. That term used to be know a has a hateful term in the past, but now a days not so much. Lets leave those days in the past and move on and not let a stupid name take power over us. I think they need a nation wide vote held by the tribes if the majority says change it then change it. If they majority says leave it be then leave it be. Again I still don't have a problem with the name. Hate the team being a Dallas Cowboys fan, but the name and logo, which I find tasteful some think it's also racist which is odd seeing as Indians designed it, does not bother me. If they want to change something offensive in sports I'm sure most would agree the need to change that damn Cleveland Indians logo. I Don't mind there name but there logo has got to go.


RosNAnte
RosNAnte

My father, who passed, was a Choctaw. His grandfather was on the Trail of Tears, and his grandmother was an orphan from it. His parents met at an Indian boarding school and he struggled in American society when he left his hometown.  He experienced many of the social problems and diseases of his people.  When people asked him if he was an Indian because of how he looked he would say "yes, a feather, not a dot", just to be sure.  So he had a sense of humor.  He told me that in his gut he was personally offended by the "Redkins" team name because he remembered stories about how the term was used in a derogatory way and so his grandparents and parents changed their names and clothes and tried to change their lifestyles to pretend they weren't Indian because they were ashamed.  Local church folk back then called them "heathen Redskins" who didn't have a place in heaven because they told him Indians weren't really human.  He didn't have a sense of belonging anywhere.  A generation down, the name doesn't affect me personally and few people even know I'm Indian and I don't have any strong feelings about my heritage - I'm fully assimilated and fine with my life and love my country and this planet.  I know a lot of Native Americans and other races don't care about the name, or they even like it, and that's okay - nothing against them.  But my father cared, and that is good enough for me.  In his memory and honor, I'm against the name.  

GregGustav
GregGustav

This is not a complicated issue. 

It's offensive otherwise there would be no story here. 


aschifter
aschifter

It seems to me that the offensive ones are those who are not Original Americans telling Original Americans what they should or should not feel about the name.  The obfuscated history of the name leads everyone to second guessing the intention of the name.  But the intention of the name should not be the focus.  If "Jet" became a racial slur than those people called "Jets" should be listened too about their feelings and not be preached history lessons either way. These NFL names, that bring millions of people together of all races and backgrounds together, stand not as a barrier but a bridge.  Nelson Mandela recognized this power when he maintained the Springbok.  And if it is the collective choice of Original Peoples from the DC area, who the Redskins represent, to change the name, that objection should be listened to.  But so far Original Americans have not.  What they have said is "recognize us" and this discussion has done everything but that.  It has denigrated these people by ignoring what they really want and need.  And as a further insult it has told them how they should feel about something that has little importance to them.  

citizenpained
citizenpained

Most commenters who think NO ONE is denigrated by the name Redskins don't seem to have a problem denigrating anyone who disagrees. "We're not calling THEM names, we're calling YOU names!" . . . that says it all, don't you think?


I wonder if they (excluding most Baptists) would have a problem if people donned surplices and miters and drank beer out of chalices while attending a game by a team called the "Bishops". 

RalphTheGardener
RalphTheGardener

Snyder is a petulant little Jewish man who is obviously unable to grasp the incredibly obvious. What was meant as a compliment, back-handed as it may have been, in the 1930's has simply out-lived its usefulness. Does he need to have the Supreme Court force him to drop the term "Redskin"? It is not as if it is a particularly "good" moniker. It is stale and out-dated and frankly offensive to some people. Not to mention the money and good will to be harvested from a change-the-name contest, new colors and all new merchandise. The team itself is in the toilet and likely to go down the drain the way the inmates are running the asylum these days. While I may not like Mike Shanahan I am certain he is a much better football coach than Snyder and his sidekick Booby Griffon. The poor puppet they brought in (Baby Gruden) is certainly in for a drubbing. Amid all that jazz a name change is nothing.

Al Albert
Al Albert

As usual what we have here is a noisy minority of arrogant liberals trying to convince others that they should be offended. Never mind that the majority of Americans want the name to stay, by god liberals know best, and damnit they say you should be offended.

RandallAllen
RandallAllen

An obviously biased article.  No one asked my Cherokee wife, who is quite happy with the name of the Washington NFL team.  In fact, she believes the push for the name change is just one more effort to silence and eradicate the voice of the Native American in this nation. Native tribes should have bigger fish to fry--unemployment, alcoholism, diabetes, true discrimination--than the issue of a team name. This is a media-driven issue--especially from Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk--and the media won't be satisfied until the name of the Washington NFL team is changed.

B.T.
B.T.

I doubt finances are behind the Redskins wanting to keep the name. It's probably more the team's tradition, though limited as that might sound against that of actual Native Americans. It would likely be more lucrative to change the name, especially in terms of merchandizing...although it is always risky to change a brand.

nice9dream2
nice9dream2

Change the name to the cotton pickers and put a boll weevil on the helmet.  People that care about this need to get a grip on reality.  May I please move to some German or Dutch reserved land?  GET OVER IT ALREADY.

dhatescheez
dhatescheez

did anyone catch the irony of the author typing out "redskin," while following it up with "n-word?" I guess there are different levels of racism?? how can one write such an article, while at the same time indulging in the same behavior with the same mentality???

TheOfficer
TheOfficer

Here's my humble opinion, and this is coming from a diehard Washington Redskins fan.  As we evolve over time, things that were once acceptable before may not be acceptable now.  As early as the 1960's it was an acceptable thing to refer to Afro-Americans, Blacks or what ever the politically correct term is today as...The infamous "N" word, it was in common usage and an accepted practice, that was then, this is now. If you make that reference depending on who hears it...chances are you just bought yourself a lot of problems.  In the beginning the term "Redskins" was used to describe an Indian tribe from The Netherlands...[I believe.]...that used a red dye on their skin...it wasn't until later that the term "Redskins" took on a negative connotation used to refer to All Native American Tribes.  I believe because "Redskins" isn't the name of a specific Native American tribe and there are Native American Tribes that feel that "Redskins" is a racial slur...Maybe the time has come for Washington to consider changing the team's name...   

eleibow22
eleibow22

This is a very complicated issue, apparently different tribes have different opinions of the name.  The problem is with the raising of the issue, if it wasn't a racial slur to be used non-natives, it is now.  Syracuse and St. Johns changed their names but others native HS what to keep it and wear it with pride.  I think in the end Washington needs to change their name because there's enough Natives who think it is a slur and the now awareness of the subject.  

LarryTRobertson
LarryTRobertson

Excuse my grammar snafu, I did not spell check before I posted, Lol!

LarryTRobertson
LarryTRobertson

@RonAhmay it's amusing that at the end of the century a lot of minorities were trying to define or redefine themselves. In a search for identity a people will move through stages, as their view of themselves and their place and position in the world changes. It is now the 21st century and maybe that sentiment is not the same. Just a thought.

LarryTRobertson
LarryTRobertson

@tony20009 I could almost agree with you but racism is not that easy to define or outlaw, or morally destroy. If it is high time we as people get over something it is the idea that words don't hurt, they don't  help to define and shape our world view, and they don't cause us to be callous of other people's feelings because it seems okay and what's the big deal anyway. Hey just another person's view on your view. Be Blessed and have a nice day


LarryTRobertson
LarryTRobertson

@JimPrato Dude for real, you just had to bring  that into the discussion? And you wonder why people still see racism as an issue in America. That you thought that was appropriate, insightful and intelligent way to discuss this blows MY mind. But okay our Soldiers  of all races, colors, creeds and religions have fought and are still fighting wars for your right to say whatever is on your mind. I just hope you show a little more sensitivity and restraint in the future. Just because you have the right to say something does not mean it is the right thing to say. Have a wonderful day and God bless you!

cgwhitney
cgwhitney

@JimSmith4 I am one quarter native american and I find this entire discussion repulsive. There is absolutely nothing offensive about "Redskins". It is absolutely the opposite. It is honorable. How far is this going to go?! How about going after the Aniak, AK High school moniker of "Half Breeds"?! ...or the Spokane Indians (farm team of the Texas Rangers). Isn't "Indians" politically incorrect these days as well? Get a job, or at least another hobby for crying out loud! Harry Reid, get back to work and focus on something with substance for crying out loud! ...or better yet, retire.

mrmach1
mrmach1

I appreciate your comment and understand.

Ask yourself this question...If I had just organized a football team and the time had came to make a choice on how we will identify my team.

Would you naturally be inclined to permanently identify Your team in celebration of something you Admire ?

Or would you want to choose a permanent name for your team after something hate or despise ?

I dont believe anyone takes the second aprroach !

BrutusTheBuckeye
BrutusTheBuckeye

@GregGustav apparently you didn't read the article... if it wasn't complicated he wouldn't have written 5 pages about just how complicated this issue is.  Though I would argue for free markets, if people stopped going to games and buying the merchandise, Snyder would change the name tomorrow, however as the article stated Native Americans themselves go to the games, buy the merchandise and even name their youth teams Redskins so maybe this issue isn't quite so cut and dry.

mrmach1
mrmach1

@GregGustav

Do you believe that any and all gripes and complaints are legitimate ???? Your line of thought is ....People are offended or they wouldnt say they were offended.

Does that make it legitimate ?

armagecko
armagecko

@RalphTheGardener Go back to gardening, Ralphie. You're criticizing a team for it's unintentional insult while you flagrantly insult the owner by calling him a "petulant little Jewish man." The obvious thing here is that this is a non-story promoted by the sensationalist media: the people who are most "offended" by the team's name are those who are least impacted by that name. The one who is "obviously unable to grasp the incredibly obvious" is you. 

BarryDay
BarryDay

@Al Albert It's not liberals who are offended, it's most Native American tribes who find it offensive. The problem is, NAs don't typically speak up. They learned their lessons about making white people angry.


It's just that liberals have started acting as a voice for the Natives. Now that they see white people sticking up for them, they are beginning to voice their displeasure with the name.

alcibiades5410
alcibiades5410

@Al Albert  Yeah, and I'm sure the majority of Southerners who were permitted to vote in the 1960's would have loved for segregation to continue. The majority doesn't get to decide minority rights. I believe the common comparison is "3 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner." 

RalphTheGardener
RalphTheGardener

@Al Albert  I would guess that the majority of Americans could care less about the name of a football team. It's not that big of a deal.

GregGustav
GregGustav

@RandallAllen The media is not driving this story. If people did not care then there would be no story.

TWGirl
TWGirl

@RandallAllen  i am full blood native american tewa and navajo, i live in california and i never thought i would be so offended by redskin fans putting face paints and head dresses on, i put face paint for dances and head dresses are sacred and to see someone mocking my culture is inexcusable. so your 1/16th blood wife and i have two diffrent views on the situation. and its impossible for your wife to be more then 1/16 in cherokee nation, the blood line is almost depleted and will soon not even be considered a nation anymore.

BrutusTheBuckeye
BrutusTheBuckeye

@B.T. the Redskins are a national treasure much like the Cowboys or 49ers, changing the name for political correctness would be the last straw.  I am sure PETA would be next in line to ban the use of animal mascots.

BrutusTheBuckeye
BrutusTheBuckeye

@BarryDay @Al Albert BS... the movement to change college mascots came from politically correct liberals and when they tried it with Florida State, the Seminole tribe stood up and let them know.

BrutusTheBuckeye
BrutusTheBuckeye

@GregGustav @RandallAllen when the latest poll says that 83% of the Americans think they should keep the name... that is a super majority that is rare in our highly politically divided country.  Most polls of Native Americans themselves are highly in favor of keeping the name.

armagecko
armagecko

@TWGirl Oh, so now you're more native than she is, so your opinion is worth more I guess? So, we're back to the Aryan certificate? Some kind of blood pedigree for humanity? How can people that espouse this kind of bigoted philosophy expect to be heard on this issue? The irony is fabulous. You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm offended that you consider yourself a rational human being. 

BarryDay
BarryDay

@armagecko @TWGirl I love how many people love to talk about how they're "Cherokee," as that seems to be the tribe pure-blooded white people say they're from when they want to make up a lie.


Here's the deal, armagecko: does your wife possess a tribal card? If not, then she is not a real Indian. Plain and simple.


Every NA I have ever met, who is a recognized member of a tribe, has told me the term is offensive. The only "Native Americans" who are not offended by the term are always self-identified, and not officially recognized.

Newsletter