re: What Should Snyder Rename Redskins to Insult Washington, DC?

quote:

---

That's the thing...they didn't. White-guilt liberals did.

---

1. The original lawsuit to cancel the Redskins' trademark over twenty years ago was brought by seven Native Americans. The case brief (Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo), bears the name of plaintiff Suzan Harjo, who is full-blooded Native American and grew up on an allotment near Beggs, OK.

2. The Redskins have been protested against by members of the National Council of American Indians and the American Indian Movement, which are organizations with Native membership and leadership.

quote:

---

Redskin is not a racial slur, it's a term of endearment, and was meant as such at the time the name was coined as well as throughout the entire history of the word. "Redskin" is not the same as the n word, or any number of racial slurs that I could type here to get banned because it was never used as a put down. It was a source of cultural pride.

---

3. Aren't Native Americans the proper people to decide what is and is not insulting to them? Over 20 tribal organizations and governments have passed resolutions asking that the team name has been changed. You're also probably already familiar with the ads paid for and run by tribal organizations during the NBA finals. Heck, Andy Rooney discovered how offensive the term was to Native Americans back in 1992. LINK

4. Regardless of a term's origins, its the contemporary meaning that's most important. "Negro" was a respectful term sixty years ago, but today you can't use it without sounding patronizing. Regardless of whether or not Redskins began as an offensive term, it is clearly not a source of cultural pride today.

5. If Redskins isn't an offensive term, then why doesn't Daniel Snyder or anyone on his staff use it to refer to Native Americans?