Washington Redskins Mascot

WASHINGTON REDSKINS The autochthonic American Mascot Contr everyplacesy By Anna Yang show m of Redskin The origin of the word violentskin is debated. According to theOxford English Dictionary(OED), the enclosure vehementskin came from the cherry-redskin colorof some indigenous Americans, as in the termsred Indianandred man. The OED cites instances of its usage in English dating back to the 17th century and cites a use ofredin reference to skin color from 1587. Multiple theories fight for prominence as to the true historic origin of the word.One theory, mentioned above, is that the term was meant as merely a physical indicator, similar to the words whitened and ignominious for Caucasians and Africans, respectively. A nonher theory holds that it was first used by Native Americans during the 1800s as a representation of distinguishing themselves from the ever-growing white population. An often mentioned third but non proven origin involves the bloody skins (red-skins) of Nat ive lot as prizes, in which they would be scalped after battle and their skins bought and sold in local towns.To date, on that point is no historical documentation or evidence to support this theory. Yet another theory is that the term Red Indian originated to describe theBeothuk peopleof Newfoundland who painted their bodies withred ochre, and was then generalized to North American indigenous people in general. However, Smithsonian linguist Ives Goddard says the evidence to support such a claim is unfounded and further claims the term was first used in the 1800s. upper-case letter Football Team The Truth The Washington Redskins were originally cognize as the Newark Tornadoes and then the Boston Braves.Most accounts can agree that team owner George Preston Marshall channelised the franchise sur shout from the Boston Braves to the Boston Redskins in 1933 to recognize then coach, William lonely(prenominal) Star Dietz. Dietz, who claimed half-German, half-Sioux background, embra ced what he perceived to be a Native American hereditary pattern. Marshall was a fan of his coach, Dietz, who was by most accounts a whizz in his day. However, one could surely debate if Marshall naming the team Redskins in recognition of Dietzs claimed heritage was truly an honor or not.Marshall himself had issues with race as the Redskins were the last NFL team to integrate in 1962. So, the age-old defense of the use of Redskins, heedless of the meaning behind it, goes that since the team was raised in honor of alone(predicate) Star Dietz, and if he, being part Indian, didnt mind, then everything is okay. But theres the catch Lone Star was raised as a white man who didnt even become sensible with his purported heritage until the latter part of his teenage years, upon hearing an argument between his adopted parents.In 2004, Linda Waggoner, a professor in American Multicultural Studies and Philosophy, wrote a 5-part series, Reclaiming James One Star, forIndian Country Todaywhi ch investigated the asperity of Dietzs claimed Native American ancestry, bringing into light multiple false accounts from his early youth. The ultimate shutting is that one can neither concretely confirm nor disprove that Dietz was any part Indian.But, Dietz embraced the Native American culture to the extent of dressing in full Indian regalia, including on the sidelines of some games, enrolling in Indian schools, taking a Native American wife, and becoming a well-known artist depicting spirit on the plains. Regardless, it seems silly that the use of Redskins hinges on whether one man may or may not conduct been a Native American in any way, shape, or form. Although Dietzs true heritage has been questioned by some scholars, the Washington Redskins name and logo, which is a picture of an Indian, was officially registered in 1967.The Controversy In recent years, the name has become controversial, with some Native American groups and their supporters arguing that since they view the word red man as an offensive racial slur that it is inappropriate for a NFL team to continue to use it, regardless of whether any offense is intended. Clarence Page of the Orlando Sentinel wrote in 1992 The Washington Redskins are the only big time professional sports team whose name is an unequi verbal racial slur. After all, how would we react if the team was named the Washington Negroes?Or the Washington Jews? It is more than just a racial reference, it is a racial epithet. Many others believe that the name is a positive reference to the culture of Native Americans. Many Redskins fans say that it is a reference to the specialism and courage of Native Americans. Some individuals who support the use of Native American mascots state that they are meant to be humble, and to pay homage to Native American people. Many have made the argument that Native American mascots focus on bravery, courage and fighting skills rather than anything derogatory.Karl Swanson, vice-president of the Washington Redskins professional football team, declared in the magazineSports Illustratedthat his teams name symbolizes courage, dignity, and leadership, and that the Redskins symbolize the greatness and strength of a grand people. Steven Denson, director of diversity forsoutherly Methodist Universityand member of theChickasawnation, while not issuing a blanket endorsement, has nevertheless stated that there are acceptable ways to use Native American mascots if it is done in a respectful and tasteful manner.He states, I believe it is acceptable if used in a way that fosters understanding and increase positive awareness of the Native-American culture. And it must also be done with the support of the Native-American community. There is a way to achieve a partnership that works together to achieve mutually beneficial goals. Despite vocal and legal action from Native American groups and scholars, the majority of people beholded on the subject do not find the name offensive. Followin g the 1992 Super Bowl protests, the Washington Post posted a survey in which 89 percent of those surveyed said that the name should stay. In a study performed by the national Annenberg Survey, Native Americans from the 48 continental U. S. states were asked The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or does it not bother you? In response, ninety percent replied that the name is acceptable, while nine percent said that it was offensive, and one percent would not answer. Protests Soon after the name change, Native Americans started to write letters to owner Jack Kent Cooke, encouraging him to change the name.Others boycotted Redskins products and protested. At one protest, Native Americans handed the fans redskin potatoes as they entered a Redskins game, suggesting that if the team will not change their name altogether, then they should at least change their mascot to the potato. Many of th ese events were led bySuzan Shown Harjoof the field of study Congress of American Indians (NCAI). Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke responded to these pleas in an interview stating Theres not a single, solitary jot, tittle, whit chance in the world that the Redskins will adopt a new nickname. There was a large protest at the 1992 Super Bowl between the Redskins and the overawe Bills. Since the game was held in Minnesota, the areas large Native American Population was able to voice their anger over the name. The American Indian Movements (AIM) Vernon Bellecourt was one of the main organizers and voices of the event. Before and during the game, approximately 2,000 Chippewa, Sioux, Winnebago, and Choctaw, and other Native Americans and members of the local population protested. Some of the signs they carried read We are not Mascots, Promote Sports not Racism, and turn over Redskin Racism. Legal ActionIn 1992, Susan Shown Harjo, President of the Morning Star Institute, joined forces wit h other prominent Native Americans as well as Dorsey Whitney law firm of Minneapolis and petitioned the U. S. Patent and Trademark office. They based their lawsuit on the idea that Federal Trademark law states that certain trademarks are not legal if they are disparaging, scandalous, despiteuous, or disreputable. The legal battle went on for seven years and in 1999, the judges canceled the federal trademarks of the Redskin name on the grounds that the subject marks may disparage Native Americans and may bring them into contempt or disrepute. Upon the news that the Redskins had been sold, the owners appealed the decision to a district court in the District of Columbia in Pro-Football, Inc. vs. Harjo. The court reversed the decision on the grounds of insufficient evidence of disparagement. Subsequent appeals have been spurned on the basis of laches, which means that the Native Americans had pursued their rights in an untimely and delayed manner. If Harjo had won the case, the Wash ington Redskins would be able to keep the name and many of its federally trademarked rights, but they may have still lost out on millions of dollars worth of merchandise sales.