Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: dcsportsbog and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

School Drops Redskins Name

What do burgundy-and-gold fans now have in common with the citizens of Colusa, Calif.? A conviction that the forces of political correctness have attacked them out of spite and a misguided sense of victimhood.

After what's described as a "contentious 3-2 vote," the Colusa Unified School District (about an hour north of Sacramento) will be dropping the name "Redskins" from Colusa High's sports teams. No replacement name has been announced.

Wintun and Maidu tribes members said the term conjured up a "legacy of racism, oppression and genocide," according to the Marysville Appeal-Democrat, while supporters of the name said this was a blast of unreasoned political correctness that would do nothing but waste money and hurt "the kids." Many students were in that camp; "We will always be Redskins, even if it's not politically correct," one told the paper. Here's a comment posted under that story:

What is happening to this country? We could take any word in the english language and someone would be offended. What is offensive is the people in power keep bending and changing every word used. Maybe soon we will speak in numbers so not to offend anyone. But then there would be those numbers we would have to drop because someones cat died on that day and that would be offensive.

The nickname had been around for more than 80 years, and the school board discussed retiring it in 2002. The arrowhead and headdress symbols will all be replaced, at an estimated cost of $60,000, according to the paper.

Dare I venture a brief comment? There are, indeed, words that do not offend anyone. "The," for example. Or "breadstick." Also: "Lions," "Bears," "Seahawks," "Panthers" and "Dolphins." Tradition is a wonderful thing. But if things continue on their path, there will come a day when a majority of sports fans feel a bit uneasy about, say, a 19-year-old white kid whooping while wearing a headdress and war paint. Not mortally offended, mind you, but uncomfortable.

Maybe it'll take 25 years, or maybe it'll take 200 years, or maybe NFL football will have been replaced by virtual eyelid pong as America's pastime before a majority of sports team folks feel that discomfort. But in the same way that the Colusa school board didn't vote on this proposal six years ago before passing it this spring, things will gradually continue on their course until one day, the names will all be gone and this will no longer be an issue. That's just my guess.

"It never was the original intent to have the mascot be offensive," one Colusa school board member said. "Now, with time, that is becoming the case, so it was time to change it."

Mike Wise's columns on the issue: Part I and Part II
Redskins Retirement Sinking In

Colusa drops Redskins

Colusa retires mascot (video)

By Dan Steinberg  |  April 10, 2008; 3:37 PM ET
Categories:  Redskins  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Mike Green's Haircut: The Video
Next: Caron's Birthday Party: The Video


Supporters of the name know exactly how the Washington Redskins work, "do nothing but waste money and hurt "the kids."

Posted by: qualude conduct | April 10, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Anything to re-use a picture of a hot lady. I see how you operate Dan... and I approve.

Posted by: Kev | April 10, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Well, Mr. Steinberg, I can't really make out a real opinion from this blog entry. However, your general resignation to the discomfort, and eventual abolition of the 'Redskins' name, lead me to believe that you agree with the sentiments, at least in part.

Ok, so perhaps the word 'Redskin' is offensive to some native-Americans. But to be sure, we refer to our own skin color as being white, black, brown, olive, and so on. Such a descriptive characterization of a race may be offensive if linked inexorably to atrocities of the past. But the name alone does no such thing. It would be along the same lines to insist that the Boston Celtics renounce their name because it could remind Irish-Americans of their ancestors' less than warm welcome to America. A name, in and of itself (with the exception of some extreme epithets), does not conjure up feelings that they are claimed to do. And besides the subject at hand, the tendency of political correctness is a kind of social tyranny that only damages language, and the honest and open discussion that freedom of speech is supposed to foster.

Posted by: Michael McCloskey | April 10, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I'm uncomfortable already.

It's a bad name.

I'm part Algonquin and part Abernacki.

But I'm not sure that's why uncomfortable.

I think it's cause I'm human . . . .

I'm a fan and I'm not the protesting type. But it should change. I personally would be willing to run a sportsbog contest for a new name, LOL!! 'Cept who can afford to give out those tickets as prizes?!

Posted by: Nancy | April 10, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"the tendency of political correctness is a kind of social tyranny that only damages language, and the honest and open discussion that freedom of speech is supposed to foster"

Sweetie, no one is saying you don't have freedom of speech. People are asking if you want to be rude about it. The only one who is parading around victimhood are people who (falsely, in my view) claim to be oppressed by these discussions.

Like, I think it was a good thing to get rid of the name "the bullets." Too many kids getting killed by them -- it hurt others. Even if I liked the name, it's not like "hurting me" to give it up to make a fellow member of the society feel better. Like, that's what part of good manners are: worrying not just about why one wants, but worrying about others feelings.

Who knows, this niceness thing could catch on!

Posted by: Nancy | April 10, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

(Yawn). The Washington Redskins aren't changing their name. Nor should they. Political correctness is going to be the death of this country yet.

Posted by: Joe | April 10, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

My father still says the internet is a "fad."

There's some wisdom in the Darwinian nature of this human world.

Posted by: Nancy | April 10, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Maybe if the Indians weren't so horribly war like and adamant about scalping innocent Christians the name never would have been used in the first place. So really it is has been their fault all along. Oh well at least they have their casinos and fire water...

Posted by: Scalp 'em, swamp 'em -- We will take 'em big score | April 10, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

And for the record -- again, 'cause someone will say otherwise -- I'm not tearing my hair out on this one.

I'm a patient person, and since lots of native Americans were killed, there are fewer around to say "Ouch, that hurts, could you cut it out?"

It's not like I'm agitating for the name change.

I just know it will happen.

And wow, thanks for the Mike Wise links. Didn't notice he wrote that. (You know, when he gets really exicted about something, he writes well. lol. hope that sounded just the sneaky way I meant it!)

I love the very delicate approach Agent Stein has taken on this. He's just fairly certain that it will happen. You kinda have to be delicate, because in the name of alleged free speech and political correctness oppression, even pointing out this is a pretty bad team name leads to all these emotional yelps.

Ya gotta give people room to change. Many may not know what the word "redskin" means, in fact -- where the word comes from. Time, time. And Darwin, Darwin.

Posted by: Nancy | April 10, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Mike Wise has been in DC, what, three years, and he's telling people what the name of the football team should be? What a horse's behind. Tell you what Steinberg, how about you and Wise hold your breath until the Redskins change their name?

Posted by: Jim | April 10, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

If the name/title/label "Redskin" is per se offensive, then the potato industry has an awful lot to answer for, don't you think?

Posted by: NTPNate | April 10, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Very good. See, this is evolution in progress right before us. Mike Wise is wrong because -- he's new to DC? Mike Wise is "telliing people what the name . . . should be" (as opposed to what it shouldn't be). Followed by a very angry suggestion that people should suffocate themselves.

See, if Darwin is right, persons such as Mike Wise should generally, all else being equal, be favored in the evolutionary process. For rather obvious reasons.

What I liked best about Jim's post was how it reveals a very careful, point-by-point examination of Michael Wise's discussion in a neutral and civilised tone.

Posted by: Nancy | April 10, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

"If the name/title/label "Redskin" is per se offensive, then the potato industry has an awful lot to answer for, don't you think?

Posted by: NTPNate | April 10, 2008 5:28 PM"

Friendly question to NTPNate to be read in, hopefully, a neutral and calm tone: Would you be as comfortable writing that the crayon industry has a lot to answer for use of the word "colored"?

Posted by: Nancy | April 10, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

You are going to quote and suck off Mike Wise? He does not even know how to use a leash.

Posted by: T-Bone | April 10, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Nancy, stick it where the sun don't shine, sweetie. I've had it with the p.c. police. And that includes you.

Posted by: Jim | April 10, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

I love this. Left wing kooks tell us to change the name of the Redskins when American Indians don't even care themselves as consistently shown by various polls including in Sports Illustrated. But the political correctness crowd such as this Nancy nitwit and Mike Wise know best, right? BS.

Posted by: Alex | April 10, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm just glad no one is looking to rename the team the D.C. Darkies.

All of you who look the other way on the offensiveness of that name are just consigned to ignorance, and that's okay if you are. But you shouldn't demand others should do the same.

Posted by: | April 10, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

I think it's interesting that people assume that I am "left wing." I think, amoung people of substance, there's an assumption that being kind to others is a bipartisan thing. Not all Republicans think this is a great name . . . . Hint, hint.

Now, as to Jim's latest post, yet again this is a neutral, unemotional, logical and ultimately compelling analysis, I think we can all agree. Really nothing to add to the sort of insightful defense he gives of what might otherwise be viewed as a downright rude name.

Just some gentle sarcasm, 'cause you got to give people room to change. I shant shout back. I just really agree that some time in the future, people of substance will win out on this one. It's not a PC thing. It's a Darwinian thing. ;)

Posted by: Nancy | April 10, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Wait. There's a football team called Redskins? Really? Do they play the Crackers?

Posted by: Bob | April 11, 2008 6:33 AM | Report abuse

You know what offends me? The Wizards. Go back to the Bullets already.

Posted by: murf | April 11, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

See, murf, I like "bullets" better than "wizards." I *really* do. Really. But I'm not offended that it's wizards, 'cause I know "bullets" bugged a bunch of people for good reason. People who didn't want little kids growing up to think of the "bullets" as cools. I always thought the argument was a bit of a stretch, but since people were sincerely and honestly concerned, y'know, it's not the end of the world for me to get used to a new name. That's the way I thought about it.

I sometimes wish there was a better new name. I remember the top 3 choices they had us vote for -- I didn't really like any of them! Of the 3, Wizards is the best, for sure.

Posted by: Nancy | April 11, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse


Native Americans are overwhelmingly (90%) unoffended by the Redskins name. Who are you to tell them they should be?

Posted by: Skin Patrol | April 11, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Who is offended? Not Native Americans, per a 2004 study from the Annenburg Public Policy Center, which happens to coincide with results from a 2002 Sports Illustrated report:

1. Only 9 percent of NATIVE AMERICANS found the use of the Redskins offensive.
2. This isn't the result of apathy... only 1% had no answer, the other 90% said calling D.C.'s team the Washington Redskins does not bother them.
3. Study included Native Americans nationally (except from Alaska and Hawaii)

Issues with the first Mike Wise column:

First, why should Mike Wise (or anyone for that matter) be speaking on behalf of the vast, vast majority of Native Americans? Second, per that article:

"I recently asked some of the Redskin players how they felt about the name. "It's hard for me to understand because our people weren't treated like that," said Joe Salave'a, whose ethnicity is Samoan. "But if that's how [American Indians] feel, it's something that needs to be dealt with.""

The problem is that this sentiment is probably factually incorrect, and certainly unsupported by the available empirical evidence. On the contrary, the "Redskins" name ISN'T something that offends American Indians, excluding what is apparently an extremely vocal tiny minority.

This is crazy. For a word to be offensive it should be AT A MINIMUM offensive to the people who are alleged to be offended by it. And if those people aren't offended by it, there isn't any reason why the rest of us, members of the non-offended class, should dictate to Native Americans what they should or shouldn't find offensive. There is something culturally disturbing about the paternalism and placation of Native American interests by non-Native Americans manifested in our attempts to help them of the social ills of meanie-face-boo-hoo sports names while the Native American population -- 46% living on reservations, the ultimate form of state paternalism -- faces the very real and unimagined social ills of "high alcoholism rates, poor health, inadequate and unsanitary housing, high unemployment, and a general state of hopelessness (U.S. Department of Education, 1987). There is a trend of younger people becoming disabled by car crashes, violent injuries, and family violence caused by alcoholism (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1989). Also, there is an increase in disabilities in the population over the age of 65. Historically, few Native Americans live into their sixties. Consequently, few services have developed to meet the specific needs of the elderly population."

But really what Native Americans need is freedom from oppressive sports insignias. They just don't know it, yet. Keep fighting the good fight!

Posted by: Skin Patrol | April 11, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

they dropped it....good for them, its cali and thats what they do. i was a blue devil in HS, figure that correctness out. i vote for the Crazed Squirrels for a new moniker and hope PETA, zoos and the squirrels don't protest

Posted by: devans | April 11, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

First of all, I think Devan's post is hilariously funny.

Skin Patrol, you make the best argument in this post against renaming -- that no one is offended.

You ask who am I to say otherwise? As mentioned earlier, I'm substantial part native American.

I'd push you a little on the logic that if only 10 percent of an entire race of people are offended, then there's no offense. I'd even gently suggest that someone who is not native American, but who is aware of the history of the name, may be offended.

I think in time it will happen. It's certainly not the top of the list of native American concerns.

"There is something culturally disturbing about the paternalism and placation of Native American interests by non-Native Americans ...." You know, that could be a danger if this weren't a sports thing. But Mike Wise writes a sports column. So, like, why shouldn't he write on this issue. He's not purporting to prioritize Native American needs.

There are some things in your description that I'd take exception to. You say "46% living on reservations, the ultimate form of state paternalism." Couple of things. First, many Indians chose to live there and the reservations are not run by the US. Figuring you do know that, may I point out that something you must also know isn't sufficiently emphasized: perhaps some of the problems - unemployement, alcoholism, etc. -- are just as easily associated with the fact that Indians were taken off of much larger, richer plots of land and given some of the worst land, reservations, without sufficient native resources to sustain their way of life. Perhaps, historically, this has a little to do with problems on the reservation too . . . .

All in all, your more-thoughtful-than-most post just leads me to conclude that the change in name won't come soon. But I think it will.

Hard to analogize this to PETA protests really. I think there are many people of substance that aren't far left that support a name change, and we're talking people, not animals, of course. So I think that analogy is a stretch.

Anyway, thanks for your post.

Posted by: Nancy | April 12, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Sure, why not? Let's change all the names. It will give the owners an opportunity to make even more money by changing the colors at the same time, necessitating sales of new fan paraphenalia.

Wizards? The only place you find Wizards in real life these days is in the KKK. Maybe Bullets wasn't such a bad name after all. (We really liked the naming contest, but you knew it was fixed when "Sea Dogs" didn't win.)

Redskins? Either change the name or change the mascot to a small red potato. Makes no difference to us. "We can fry 'em, we can mash 'em, Redskins!" We've actually had the renaming discussion on LaCanfora's blog about 4 times, but we never reach a consensus. (sfskin's "Red Lancers" almost won out, but was defeated at the last moment.)

In case you can't tell, we are tired of the subject, and have been for some time. Changing the names would be good - we would be done with the issue for another 100 years. Dan Snyder will have another $10.0 million profit to play with. The Wizards can hire another assistant coach. Maybe the Capitals and Nationals and D.C. United can change their names to something controversial in the future, so they can reap the benefits as well.

Posted by: The.Crickets | April 13, 2008 7:02 AM | Report abuse

"You ask who am I to say otherwise? As mentioned earlier, I'm substantial part native American."

I guess my response to that is apparently you don't represent a substantial portion of Native American sentiment on the matter; data suggests you are an extreme minority within the allegedly offended minority. At a minimum, for language to be deemed offensive I think it should at least be offensive to some amount more than 10% of the people who are supposed to be offended.

I don't say that to argue you have no right to be offended, or that you shouldn't. I say that so that people like me -- not Native American -- aren't deciding on behalf of people like you -- Native American -- what is or is not offensive language. Furthermore, there needs to be some reasonable threshhold whereas a small enough minority of people who are offended can't declare language or expression offensive merely by declaring it. Without such a threshhold, we're talking about instances where 1% of a group can decide for the other 99% (perhaps unoffended) on what is appropriate expression.

Maybe we have a disagreement about what that thresshold is; I happen to think it's some amount more than 1/10th.

"I'd even gently suggest that someone who is not native American, but who is aware of the history of the name, may be offended."

I'd ask why? To offend, language needs to be directed at someone or something, and if you aren't a member of the class of people the language is directed towards, how could it possibly offend you? Even if I granted your point, wouldn't/shouldn't the apparent overwhelming apathy of Native Americans towards the name "Redskins" be instructive to the rest of us? Or should I -- not Native American whatsoever -- be dictating to them how they feel? Who is in a better position to analyze the social and cultural impact of a word between me and any particular Native American person? Do I understand the unique trials and tribulations of the Native American community moreso than actual Native Americans? If the answer is no, then I probably shouldn't be making decisions on their behalf in re: appropriate experssion.

"Couple of things. First, many Indians chose to live there and the reservations are not run by the US. Figuring you do know that, may I point out that something you must also know isn't sufficiently emphasized: perhaps some of the problems - unemployement, alcoholism, etc. -- are just as easily associated with the fact that Indians were taken off of much larger, richer plots of land and given some of the worst land, reservations, without sufficient native resources to sustain their way of life. Perhaps, historically, this has a little to do with problems on the reservation too . . . "

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT. My concern was that resources devoted towards convincing Native Americans of a problem they don't even think exists is the wrong form of help for a group that historically has suffered very, very real social dilemnas that need fixing. My general point was that if you're going to be paternalistic towards a group you should do so in a manner that actually helps them, rather than in a manner that makes you feel less uncomfortable about the horrible treatment you afforded them in the past. That is why I think the movement towards moving from names such as "Redskins" is overwhelmingly motivated by people who are, like me, not Native American. If this group is in need of help, and I think we'd both agree that Native Americans were historically wronged and as a result suffer in the 21st century, efforts should be directed at helping them with problems THEY identify, rather than assigning what the rest of us think they REALLY need help for (or from in the instant case).

Are offensive sports names a problem in the Native American community? As a matter of fact, no, not per actual Native Americans. Is alcoholism, poverty, illiteracy, or some other social ill? I don't have the data in front of me, but if it is, that's where efforts should be devoted.

Posted by: Skin Patrol | April 14, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Skin Patrol, how would you feel about a team name "The Washington Darkies," if polling showed 30% of African Americans objected to it?

Posted by: Bret | April 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse


Well 30% is more than 10%, yea? So wouldn't it stand to reason that I'd feel a bit differently about it?

I know why you ask the question, it's easy to name what many of us (and I do) take to be a clearly offensive name, that would obviously offend the people in question and then insert an insane % to further the point. Whether you're willing to admit it or not, we both know that some amount more than 30% of black people would be offended by a team called the Washington Darkies.

But it isn't clearly the case that 30% of Native Americans are offended by the term Redskins. In fact the available evidence suggests that 30% of Native Americans are NOT offended by the language.

The point that needs getting across is that the way the rest of us think of "Redskins" as offensive isn't the manner in which NATIVE AMERICANS view the word as used by sports teams. The same is probably not true of the word "Darkies". But, if it were true that some amount less than 10% of black people were unoffended by a team name with "Darkies" in it, who am I to tell them they're wrong, that they should be offended?

Again, the minimum threshold in my mind for what constitutes offensive expression is that it ACTUALLY OFFENDS SOMEONE and further that the person offended IS ACTUALLY SOMEONE THE LANGUAGE IS DIRECTED AT. This is hardly a controversial position. If people with purple skin used the word "widget" to pejoratively refer to people with green skin, and no green skin people were offended by the word, it would hardly make sense for purple people to have "widget" banned because it offended them.

The question becomes: In virtue of what, exactly, do Bret or Nancy posting at WaPo have the right to dictate to Native Americans what should or shouldn't offend them... as Native Americans? No one has yet suggested that my data is incorrect, so I'm assuming you are all willing to grant that 9 out of 10 Native Americans really could care less that Washington has an NFL team called the Redskins. So are 9 out of 10 Native Americans just wrong, Bret? Or are you?

If I were 9 out of 10 Native Americans, I'd be more offended that someone else feels entitled to speak on my behalf regarding the offensive nature of the word Redskin.

Posted by: Skin Patrol | April 14, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

*"But, if it were true that some amount less than 10% of black people were unoffended by a team name with "Darkies" in it, who am I to tell them they're wrong, that they should be offended?"

This reads incorrectly. What I was trying to say is that if 90% of black people were unoffended by the word "Darkie" then who am I to say they should be offended? (I'm not black)

Posted by: Skin Patrol | April 14, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Nancy, "sweetie," thank you for your relentless, and mostly futile efforts to perpetuate faulty logic. I would just caution you to read and understand the entirety of any given statement before you go responding to it. You implied that I thought that my "freedom of speech" was being denied, and that I parade around under a banner of "victimhood," as a result of this "oppression." Sweetie... have you ever heard of a straw-man argument?

I claim no such victimhood, I am not oppressed, and I made no assertion that freedom of speech is being denied as a result of political correctness. I was making a much broader statement about the tendency of political correctness to pervade society, intimidating members of the public who feel differently. John Stuart Mill, in his book _On Liberty_, wrote about such dangers and (rightly so) classified de facto restrictions on speech as a type of tyranny -- here coming from society at-large, as opposed to an authority. What I wrote about political correctness in general is not meant to say that arguing for a change in the Redskins' name is akin to tyranny, just that the larger movement behind it is a problem.

Again, just so we can clear things up, I'm no victim, and I harbor a general disdain for those who fashion themselves as such. Thanks, sweetie.

Posted by: Michael | April 14, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

First of all, let me state that I am a Colusa High Alumna. I live here; I work at CHS and have indigenous blood circulating in me.

To start, I think it's disgusting how in the face of budget cuts in education, over crowded classrooms, good teachers being let go and out-dated classrooms; but at the cost of $60,000 they are entertaining the idea of changing our school representative, our Big Red.....sickening I think...instead they should be worried about doing what they can to ensure that their children get a good quality education so that they in turn can do right by their people.

I believe that if it is THAT offensive now, it should have been 10, 20, 30, 40.....years ago, and not now that big money backs this issue...So....I ask again why wasn't "REDSKINS" offensive enough 10, 20, 30, 40.....years ago?

OH!!! Wait...NOW Colusa Indian Bingo---Ooh, oops--I mean, Colusa Casino Resort--what it's now called---has enough money to speak out against it ....hmmmmm....

So does that now mean that since they got what they wanted, their financial support will gradually come to an end---like it has in ALL the other events it has sponsored throughout the county???

Example: the county fair USED to be a 5-day event---now it's a 4-day event and there is talk about pulling the 4-H animal events (getting rid of yet another tradition)... so now that the Bingo/Casino has gotten that it could from it, it's time to move on and end another tradition....

NEVER has Big Red been portrayed in a negative, offensive, vulgar or degrading way...He has always stood strong, courageous, and proud....

The integrity of their motives has to be questioned---is it really because of cultural reasons or political/money reasons....

Like other ethnic groups have in the past, they need to take ownership of the term and make theirs---something to be proud of--just like African-Americans---they took the term "Black" and made it theirs---the Mexican-Americans took the term "Chicano" and made it theirs, I very proudly express it when I can.....ok, not all may like it but it's theirs and it is no longer that offensive word originally used to oppress a people.....AND these groups did it without throwing money around to get the job done.....they achieved it by uniting......

I just think that their integrity/dignity should have been in tact LONG before they came into their bingo money---which now is being thrown around the county to get what they want---so is that the lesson here---money talks and integrity/dignity mean nothing--even to a nation???

I do not want this lesson learned by my daughter....All I know is that when she gets to Colusa High School she WILL BE A REDSKIN---she will wear all my tee/sweatshirts, my class ring, any and all my REDSKINS stuff...& do so proudly...

Yesterday, today and tomorrow.....
Colusa Redskins, always..........

Posted by: PinkXocolate | April 15, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

What I hate the most about our high school name changing is that the people opposing our name have the balls to challenge a small high school but they dont have enough to challenge major sport teams.

Posted by: No one important | April 18, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

It is wrong to use a race of people as a mascot. I'm a life-long, die-hard Skins fan and I don't care for the name or that of the Cleveland Indians.

Doing the right thing is not an issue of polls or percentages. 90% of Native peoples may be fine with the name "Redskins" because there a whole host of more important issues facing that community.

It is an excellent idea to name a team after a group of hard-core warriors or people you admire: Vikings, Cowboys, Saints, Padres and, yes, Braves.

The Skins logo is pretty fierce and doesn't at all mock the warrior it depicts (unlike the sambo-like Cleveland Indian's mascot). The Skins should change their name back to Braves or some such.

The Lakota (aka Sioux) word for "warriors" is "zuyapi". A warrior is a "zuya". We fans should just call our beloved team the Zuyapi to focus on the group of elite Dallas-smashing warriors, not on some generic term referring to Native peoples.

"Hail the Zuyapi! Hail to Victory"

Posted by: John | April 22, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for your comments--however the Braves would not work nor would the Warriors because our primary school is the Burchfield Braves and our middle school is the Egling Warriors. Once this change happens(it has been decided that it will), the primary and middle schools would also change.....hmmmmmm wonder what the cost is for that change at either school?????

The thing about is that "they" won't accept any Native American or related representative, I won't call it a mascot unless it is an animal--because mascot in spanish is a pet, and our Big Red is NOT a pet.....

As far as picking a specific tribe from this area, well, which one?? The Nations have become so mixed with one band joining other bands and such......

I just think it is sickening that NOW with $money$ it has become so offensive--so how much money does it take for a word to finally become offensive to any group of people???

If they as a Nation are a proud nation and think that the "Redskins" term is used to slam them, they should have thought this 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, etc.... years ago, YES when they didn't have the Bingo, I mean, Casino money to speak for them. At least then it really would have meant something..

Just my always....
Colusa Redskins...siempre.....

Posted by: PinkXocolate | April 23, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company