May

28

Calling Out Names

Posted by CJ under Off The Field News, Off the Cuff, Washington Redskins 

redskins-helmet
In the wake of the recent appeals court ruling allowing the Washington Redskins to keep their name and trademark several questions have been asked in regard to whether or not the team should change their name. If the moniker Redskins was meant to be slanderous and demeaning from the starting point of the team, then yes, a change would be necessary. But where did the name originate?

Before Daniel Snyder purchased the team from the Cooke estate, a co-founder and eventual majority owner of the football team was a man named George Preston Marshall. Marshall and three other associates were granted an NFL franchise for Boston in 1932. The team was initially known as the Boston Braves due to the team playing at Braves Field, home of Boston’s National League baseball team, and so they took on the same name, the ‘Boston Braves’.

The following year (1933) led by head coach Lone Star Dietz, a self proclaimed Native American, the team moved to Fenway Park. With the switch in venues came a switch in team name. Marshall chose the name Redskins in honor of Coach Dietz, who claimed to be part Sioux. Some researchers question Dietz’s heritage as to whether he was truly Sioux Native American. Dietz was raised by two White parents but believed he had Sioux blood.

Along with prospect that the nickname for our beloved team that hails from the nations capital, and Boston, is based on a lie, the original owner was known for his bigotry. While the rest of the league began signing African-Americans in 1946, Marshall held out until 1962 before signing the first African-American player to the franchise. And the basis for his signing of the African American player, Bobby Mitchell, was that unless he signed a black player, he would be denied use of the new 54,000-seat D.C. Stadium (later renamed RFK) that the government had paid for.

From the surface, the team name ‘Redskin’ seems harmless. But with further delving there is a strong possibility the team name could have been founded on something cruel and racist.


Updates, Fresh From the Oven, Straight to Your Inbox

Comments

5 Responses to “Calling Out Names”

  1. Noah on May 28th, 2009 11:00 pm

    Why is it that I am the only one that seems to realize that a racist wouldnt name his team after someone he was racist against, even if it was a slur. He would want them to have anything to do with it.

    And though he was racist against blacks, that also doesnt mean he was racist against Native Americans or Asians, or Hispanic.

    The fact of the matter is, the majority of Native Americans according to polls that have been performed indicate that they do not find the name offensive. In fact many like the name.

  2. Eric on May 29th, 2009 1:48 am

    Dietz wasn’t even Native American. Even if he was why call the team “Redskin” which is derogatory.

    On the flip side, the People filing the complaint did have over 50 years to decide the team name was offensive.

  3. MarkV on May 29th, 2009 3:51 am

    I agree with Noah. None of us would call our team the ‘Jew Haters’. And if we did, no one would rally around us, buy our merchandise, or come to our games. The whole ‘I named my team after hatred of a group’ thing is intellectually insulting — no matter his personal preferences. Chicago did not name their team the ‘Bears’ to signify themselves as a bunch of pansies. Denver could have easily called themselves the Horses, but ‘Broncos’ are a much more powerful signification of a horse. Some team names were significant to the areas of origin and others were to signify toughness. Native Americans were not known as the ‘American Frontier Flower Children’ of their era. They were fierce and formidable warriors, who without technology, were equal on some fields to their European counterparts. If the Cleveland Cavaliers where renamed to be the ‘LeBrons,’ should he take that as an insult or compliment? If the owner did it because he hated LeBron, would that matter? Wouldn’t we all still see that as a huge compliment? The reality is that people in the 30s just were not as overtly sensitive as people are today. I guess it makes for good blog material, but in reality it is intellectually dishonest. It is also decades after Marshall’s death so it is extremely unfair to smear someone posthumously who cannot defend themselves.

  4. Eric on May 29th, 2009 3:58 pm

    MarkV. I hear you loud and clear. But why not name the team ‘Warriors’ or ‘tomahawks’ rather then a direct reference to one’s skin color? If the Cavaliers were renamed the Lebron’s in the midst of a losing season that would be a bit insulting, especially if Lebrons real name was Ezekiel.

    “The reality is that people in the 30s just were not as overtly sensitive as people are today.”

    They were also overtly sexists and racists as well. Women were barely allowed to vote (1920 was the year)and Jim Crow laws were predominant. I suggest reading up on George Preston Marshall a little bit more before saying it is “intellectually dishonest” to accuse him of such an act

  5. MarkV on May 29th, 2009 11:57 pm

    Eric, Native Americans were referred to as Warriors, Redskins, Braves, and Indians. Native Americans is a 1960s term. So naming them after a popular reference of what they were called at the time of their formation is not racist. Your assumption that the title was insulting back then has no historically factual basis. We also do not know Marshall’s mindset to know or say why he named the team ‘Redskins.’ Maybe he liked potatoes but he thought it would be stupid with his team running around with symbols of potatoes.

    The reality is that we do not know, and admitting that along with the other possibilities is being honest. The fact that those were popular names for Native Americans at the time and that he picked one of those contemporary names does not make him or his motives racist. When there are two ways to take a topic and you only pick the worst possible scenario — That is ‘intellectual dishonesty.’ No one needs to read a book on anyone to understand that in a logical argument where there are two possibilities and you chose the worst, that it is unfair and dishonest. So just because someone was a bigot means that everything this person did in his life was done with malice? Of course not, but that is what you are doing. He had views on one thing therefore he did something else with the same exact reasons, that is another example of ‘intellectual dishonesty.’

    In ANY discussion, if you take any one fact and smear it across any spectrum without pretense, it is dishonest. Using facts to support your smear is ‘intellectual dishonesty.’

    Then by your example of him growing up in a time of sexist and racists, I guess everyone was. Even Branch Rickey. Or is everything that Rickey did perfect because he did one famous thing right? Rubbish!

Leave a Reply